PDA

View Full Version : New conference on Bronze Age mobility in Europe



Pages : [1] 2

Angela
01-12-18, 04:12
Very interesting. One abstract stopped me in my tracks.

See:​
https://www.orea.oeaw.ac.at/veranstaltungen/event-detail/article/genes-isotopes-and-artefacts/

"The aim of the conference is to identify the different scales, patterns and societal impacts of mobility throughout Europe. This international event will bring together leading scholars from all parts of the continent and research fields tackling similar problems with different methods rooted in the humanities and natural sciences. As an inter-disciplinary forum, this event will provide room for networking and discussions to lay the theoretical and methodological foundations for future scientific advancement.

Participants include Morten Erik Allentoft, Andrea Cardarelli, Claudio Cavazzuti, Edward Caswell, Peter Clark, Karin Margarita Frei, Catherine Frieman, Mario Gavranović, Jelena Grujić, Wolfgang Haak, Johannes Krause, Anthony Harding, Barbara Horejs, Reinhard Jung, Viktória Kiss, Corina Knipper, John Koch, Kristian Kristiansen, Gabriella Kulcsár, Anne Lehoërff, Andrew Millard, Barry Molloy, Janet Montgomery, Ron Pinhasi, Miljana Radivojević, Katharina Rebay-Salisbury, David Reich, Martin Sikora, Philipp Stockhammer, Benjamin Roberts, Natalia Shishlina, Robin Skeates and Marc Vander Linden."

"Steppe and Iranian ancestry among Bronze Age Central and Western Mediterranean populations

Ron Pinhasi, Daniel Fernandes, David Reich

Steppe-related ancestry is known to have reached central Europe ca. 3000 BCE, while Iran-related ancestry reached Greece by 1500 BCE. However, the time course and extent of their spread into the central/western Mediterranean remains a mystery. We analysed 48 Neolithic and Bronze Age individuals from Sicily, Sardinia and the Balearic Islands aiming to investigate when and how continental European and Aegean influences affected these insular populations. Results show that the first Balearic settlers had substantial Steppe-related ancestry which was subsequently diluted by increasing proportions of farmer-related ancestry. In Sardinia, we identified the appearance of Iran-related ancestry from the Aegean as early as the Middle Bronze Age, with no genetic influences seen from populations carrying Steppe-related ancestry despite cultural or commercial exchanges with Bell Beaker populations. In SICILY, DURING THE BRONZE AGE AND POSSIBLY EARLIER, we found evidence for admixture with groups carrying both these ancestries. These results suggest that Steppe-related migrants had a crucial role in the settlement of the Balearic Islands and their ancestry reached as far south as Sicily, and that the population movements that brought Iran-related ancestry to the Aegean also impacted the Western Mediterranean around the same time the first civilizations started to develop."

I have lots and lots of questions. Can't wait to read this one when it comes out. More tomorrow.

Ygorcs
01-12-18, 09:10
Wow, this paper, at least from the conclusions in the abstract, looks really mindblowing. Pthe demographic and genetic history of each region of Europe was clearly much more complicated and nuanced than was thought even as recently as 2016. And steppe-like people really spread in an explosive and extremely mobile way after roughly the start of the Yamnaya (just figure that by the mid Bronze Age reasonably high ammounts of steppe ancestry were found from Iberia to Mongolia!).

But I wonder: when they say the first Balearic settlers were heavily steppe-related what time span are they really talking about? Even before the Early Bronze Age or, even more unbelievably, before the Chalcolithic?

EDIT: Oh I see, these earliest confirmed settlers probably date from the 3rd millennium BC and perhaps as late as circa 2000 BC. So roughly Bell Beaker times.

halfalp
01-12-18, 10:48
So there was an Anatolian migration after the " Yamnaya Package " into mainland Europe, wich i always say. But i'm a little bit confused on many points. How Iran_Neo pass through Anatolian_Neo for it to not be that important in this paper and the genetic makeup of BA Greece? I feel like they want to tell us that Steppe Ancestry brought something like Paleohispanic language or a " Vasconic " group, while Iran_Neo brought IE languages. We can see that their Greece Iran_Neo ancestry is dated for 1500 so Mycenaean, wich is the dream of Lazaridis. Hope they gonna clarify their idea of what they try to say for not being confused. Because you know that even if the paper is absolutely not about IE languages, it is totally about it in every interested person mind, them included.

markod
01-12-18, 11:02
Wow, this paper, at least from the conclusions in the abstract, looks really mindblowing. Pthe demographic and genetic history of each region of Europe was clearly much more complicated and nuanced than was thought even as recently as 2016. And steppe-like people really spread in an explosive and extremely mobile way after roughly the start of the Yamnaya (just figure that by the mid Bronze Age reasonably high ammounts of steppe ancestry were found from Iberia to Mongolia!).

But I wonder: when they say the first Balearic settlers were heavily steppe-related what time span are they really talking about? Even before the Early Bronze Age or, even more unbelievably, before the Chalcolithic?

EDIT: Oh I see, these earliest confirmed settlers probably date from the 3rd millennium BC and perhaps as late as circa 2000 BC. So roughly Bell Beaker times.

I think in the case of the Balearic isles they're probably talking about Bell Beaker samples or closely related groups. Sicily & Sardinia are going to be interesting because there the population history seems to be more complex.

berun
01-12-18, 11:07
@Ygorcs, yes, for the Balearics the first dates are by about 2300 BC, BB artifacts are found in the islands. To provide "steppe" ancestry it must depart from south France as the Catalan BB were devoid of it.

By the way I'm happy to see a paper not lumping Iranian Neo with steppe ancestry.

bicicleur
01-12-18, 12:05
iran related, is it iran-neo?
1500 BC? aren't Myceneans a few centuries older?

halfalp
01-12-18, 12:52
iran related, is it iran-neo?
1500 BC? aren't Myceneans a few centuries older?

You are right, i missread. It could be Iran anything, more likely Iran_Chl?

Angela
01-12-18, 15:25
Wow, this paper, at least from the conclusions in the abstract, looks really mindblowing. Pthe demographic and genetic history of each region of Europe was clearly much more complicated and nuanced than was thought even as recently as 2016. And steppe-like people really spread in an explosive and extremely mobile way after roughly the start of the Yamnaya (just figure that by the mid Bronze Age reasonably high ammounts of steppe ancestry were found from Iberia to Mongolia!).

But I wonder: when they say the first Balearic settlers were heavily steppe-related what time span are they really talking about? Even before the Early Bronze Age or, even more unbelievably, before the Chalcolithic?

EDIT: Oh I see, these earliest confirmed settlers probably date from the 3rd millennium BC and perhaps as late as circa 2000 BC. So roughly Bell Beaker times.

Lots and lots of questions, right?

I'm particularly intrigued by the following: " In Sicily, during the Bronze Age and possibly EARLIER, we found evidence for admixture with groups carrying both these ancestries."

Both ancestries were present possibly earlier? Just the Iran related ancestry? One from the north, one from the southeast?

All very exciting.

davef
01-12-18, 15:32
Lots and lots of questions, right?

I'm particularly intrigued by the following: " In Sicily, during the Bronze Age and possibly EARLIER, we found evidence for admixture with groups carrying both these ancestries."

Both ancestries were present possibly earlier? Just the Iran related ancestry? One from the north, one from the southeast?

All very exciting.
I'm dying to know this as well. I had to read a lot of that abstract multiple times to ensure I wasn't misreading things.

So I guess that's where steppe and Iran Neolithic ancestry in Sicily is from

Angela
01-12-18, 17:10
Two papers on Bronze Age Northern Italy also presented at this conference.

"Andrea Cardarelli*, Alberta Arena**Università degli studi di Roma, “La Sapienza”

From colonization to diaspora. Models of human mobility in the Terramare Culture between Europeand the Mediterranean

The Terramare represent one of the most renowned archaeological cultures in European Bronze Age, at leastsince the late 19th century.After a long period of decline that characterized most of the 20th century, the archaeological research hastaken new impulse and has constantly grown during the last three decades, largely confirming the intuitionsof the 19th century scholars.The Terramare are situated in the central Po River valley and date between the mid-17th and the first half ofthe 12th century BC (Middle Bronze Age and Recent Bronze Age). These villages were equipped with artificialfortifications and could reach 20 hectares in size.With the beginning of the historical cycle of the Terramare culture, this territory appears densely populatedreaching, and perhaps exceeding, 200,000 inhabitants, during the apogee.During these five centuries, the landscape drastically changed and became intensively anthropized, withhundreds of villages, cultivated and irrigated fields, roads and other kind of infrastructures.The intense demographic growth recorded for the early phases of the Terramare cycle does not seemto be explained only by an internal increase, but rather as the result of diverse forms of human mobility.After a long period of great economic and social success, the Terramare culture entered a deep crisis that ledto its collapse, a very complex phenomenon still not fully understood. Certainly, among the motivations thatcontributed to the disappearance of the Terramare, there were critical environmental and ecological conditions,but also the rigidity of the economic and socio-political model.Plausibly, the disappearance of the Terramare is correlated with the deep socio-economic transformationsthat occurred in continental Italy in the last centuries of the second millennium BC. The archaeological evidence suggests that more or less large groups of refugees from the collapsing Terramare moved also southwardsthroughout the Italian peninsula.The paper will focus on the possible role of the mobility in the rise and collapse of the Terramare, in thewider context of the Bronze Age Europe and Mediterranean."

Two migrations? One contributing to the rise and one to the fall of the Terramare?

Another one:

"Claudio Cavazzuti1,2, Robin Skeates1, Andrew Millard11Durham University, Department of Archaeology2Istituto Centrale per la Demnoetnoantropologia, Roma"

"Mobility of people in Northern Italy Bronze Age communities investigated through isotope analyses"

"How did people move across the landscape during the Bronze Age in Northern Italy? To what extent weredifferent categories of people mobile? How did mobility patterns change during the second millennium? Canwe observe differences between small villages and large centres?

The Ex-SPACE project (Exploring Social Permeability in Ancient Communities of Europe) has addressedthese questions, applying strontium, oxygen and carbon isotope analyses to a sample of 160 individuals (and40 baseline samples) from four cemeteries situated in the Po plain. The sites, which represent various culturalcontexts and chronological phases of the Bronze Age, were selected in order to understand how mobilitychanged in relation to the socio-political development from the small kinship-based communities of the Early Bronze Age to the Terramare system of the Middle and Late Bronze Age, and finally, to the complex societiesof the Final Bronze Age.The sampling strategy was conceived so as to explore mobility patterns among different categories ofindividuals, differentiated by sex, age, burial chronology/topography and grave goods.

We found that, regardless of long-term trends, the central place of a polity played a crucial role in determiningthe characteristics of mobility and the permeability to non-local components. Moreover, as also highlighted byother studies in Europe (notably Knipper et al.’s 2017 study on Bell Beaker and EBA in Bavaria), the movementof female individuals appears to have been of primary importance in defining a system of alliances, powerrelations and trade networks.A further element of interest is the relation between mobility and social inequalities. At Frattesina -theimportant port of trade which emerged as the Terramare system declined, commoners appear almostcompletely indigenous, while elites moved extensively across the hinterland, plausibly as part of the processof establishing and reinforcing power relations. Among them we distinguished a warrior chief, who was anoutsider and may have contributed to the overcome of the traditional isonomy of the Terramare and to theinstitution of a more hierarchical structure of society."

I don't understand what they mean by the importance of "Polity". We'll have to wait and see.

Could this movement of Terramare people "south" explain the arrival of "steppe" ancestry in Sicily?

Cato
01-12-18, 17:15
First settlers in the Balearic were Bell Beaker that's why they had high steppe..

The other study said that steppe in Ancient Sardinia was almost completely absent, not totally absent...strange considering that Bell Beaker there were of the same physical type of those in Continental Europe

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Angela
01-12-18, 17:46
In addition to these Bronze Age papers on Northern Italy and the OP one, there are lots of others on the Northern Bronze Age etc., and another one on the Caucasus. They're not revealing very much in the abstract. Hope we get it soon.

"Svend Hansen1, Sabine Reinhold1, Wolfgang Haak2, Chuan-Chao Wang21Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Eurasien Abteilung2Max Planck Institut für Menschheitsgeschichte, Department of Archaeogenetics"

"At the interface of culture and biology – First results from a paleogenetic transect through BronzeAge populations of the Caucasus"

"The Caucasus is one of the most important geographical joints in Western Eurasia. Linking Europe, Western Asiaand the Eurasian steppe zone, this region today is one of the genetically and linguistically most diverse spotsof Eurasia. It is easy to imagine that repeated population influx and drain, but similarly compartmentalisationin the remote mountain valley is behind this modern situation.Eneolithic and Bronze Age populations play an important role in this scenario, as they represent thefirst epochs of formations, which can be regarded either as associated ‘cultures’ and/or coherent biologicalpopulations. A first study on the paleogenetic background of 50 individuals from the 5th to the 2nd millenniumBC, which represent all cultural formations of Bronze Age Caucasia, give a first insight into highly complexscenarios of interaction. The paleogenetic perspective could proof the presence of populations with differentgenetic-make ups and different biological vectors of formation among these individuals. Affiliation bymaterial cultural and other archaeological attributes, however, revealed epochs of interaction, where culturaland biological borders were crossed, and those, where no population exchange seemed to have happenedamong the neighbouring inhabitants of one area. This region thus allows to study in detail the mixing andinterdigitation of people, their materiality and cultural systems and challenge many of the too simple modelsdeveloped for another interface of the Eurasian steppe zone those directed towards Europe."

Pax Augusta
01-12-18, 17:49
Two papers on Bronze Age Northern Italy also presented at this conference.

"Andrea Cardarelli*, Alberta Arena**Università degli studi di Roma, “La Sapienza”

(...)

Two migrations? One contributing to the rise and one to the fall of the Terramare?


Andrea Cardarelli is an archeologist who teaches at La Sapienza. His past papers are usually very much based on trying to give credence to ancient Greek sources, rather than based on objective archaeological data. Let's see if now he has really found archaeological evidence on what he is trying to prove.

Cato
01-12-18, 18:00
Terramare influences in Sicily only touched the eastern part and the Aeolian Islands (Ausonio I and II)

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Johane Derite
01-12-18, 18:44
So there was an Anatolian migration after the " Yamnaya Package " into mainland Europe, wich i always say. But i'm a little bit confused on many points. How Iran_Neo pass through Anatolian_Neo for it to not be that important in this paper and the genetic makeup of BA Greece? I feel like they want to tell us that Steppe Ancestry brought something like Paleohispanic language or a " Vasconic " group, while Iran_Neo brought IE languages. We can see that their Greece Iran_Neo ancestry is dated for 1500 so Mycenaean, wich is the dream of Lazaridis. Hope they gonna clarify their idea of what they try to say for not being confused. Because you know that even if the paper is absolutely not about IE languages, it is totally about it in every interested person mind, them included.

This made me curious and I would love for you to explain what makes you think this, also what you mean by the dream of Lazaridis?

halfalp
01-12-18, 19:07
This made me curious and I would love for you to explain what makes you think this, also what you mean by the dream of Lazaridis?

I think it's easy to explain a " big " story with " few " samples. And obviously 3000BC Bell Beaker doesn't equal 1500BC Mycenaean Greece in terms of IE studies, because we dont know the hell what BB people spoked, but we know what Mycenaean people spoked. So it's easy to deduce their idea " if we see an imput of Iran Related ancestry in Mycenaean Greece, wich is the first Greek speaker, so IE languages in Greece came with Iran related ancestry and not with Steppe related ancestry. "
I think it's the same story as the " CHG " in Yamnaya that Reich is pushing for being an " Iran_Neolithic " ancestry. As for Lazaridis, i just follow his Twitter for years now, and i read things, and the conclusion is: He loves Greece, like he really loves Greece. And anything coming from Greece can be see maybe not personal, but important for him. I'm going way further with that " IE conclusion " in this paper, because i know it's a general big deal. Once Bronze Age Europe is involve, everything is about IE languages, and i'm cautious in the way few samples are used to wright a story that might come later. But to be fair, an Anatolian ( where else? the sea? ) migration in mainland Europe after the Bell Beaker ( i roughly told to myself from 2200 to 1200 before Jesus Christ ), was always one of my expectation.

Fatherland
01-12-18, 19:31
I think it's easy to explain a " big " story with " few " samples. And obviously 3000BC Bell Beaker doesn't equal 1500BC Mycenaean Greece in terms of IE studies, because we dont know the hell what BB people spoked, but we know what Mycenaean people spoked. So it's easy to deduce their idea " if we see an imput of Iran Related ancestry in Mycenaean Greece, wich is the first Greek speaker, so IE languages in Greece came with Iran related ancestry and not with Steppe related ancestry. "
I think it's the same story as the " CHG " in Yamnaya that Reich is pushing for being an " Iran_Neolithic " ancestry. As for Lazaridis, i just follow his Twitter for years now, and i read things, and the conclusion is: He loves Greece, like he really loves Greece. And anything coming from Greece can be see maybe not personal, but important for him. I'm going way further with that " IE conclusion " in this paper, because i know it's a general big deal. Once Bronze Age Europe is involve, everything is about IE languages, and i'm cautious in the way few samples are used to wright a story that might come later. But to be fair, an Anatolian ( where else? the sea? ) migration in mainland Europe after the Bell Beaker ( i roughly told to myself from 2200 to 1200 before Jesus Christ ), was always one of my expectation.
This is why there can never be a purely objective geneticist.

Cato
01-12-18, 19:47
As far as i know there arent archaeological traces of Anatolians moving into Europe in the bronze age, at least in Western Europe....

Utilizzando Tapatalk

ToBeOrNotToBe
01-12-18, 19:58
Who am I kidding I'm not quitting this forum after seeing this post - wow is all I have to say.

Perhaps, this is actually legitimate evidence for my theories of (pre-)L51 ancestors of the Beaker metallurgical elite coming over from West Asia to Spain via the Mediterranean before spreading to the Rhineland.

I can't believe it - Steppe pre-Bronze Age changes everything. If this turns out to be Chalcolithic (pre-)L51, I think it's safe to say they didn't come from the Steppe, but rather following the previous Megalithic sea route.

Down with Yamnaya, and long live the Southern Caucasus, homeland of L23!

And also, screw Davidski - that guy hates West Asians.

ToBeOrNotToBe
01-12-18, 20:05
This is why there can never be a purely objective geneticist.

The community is extremely inbred to be honest, don't you think it's odd that all of these guys hold the exact same basic viewpoint despite the lack of current evidence? It reminds of the narrow-mindedness of far-left and far-right circles, or at least it does to me - there really is basically no diversity of opinion, unlike these forums.

Also, I have seen Lazaridis's Twitter, and it amazes me how someone that seemingly stupid can get as far as he has. Maybe it's a language barrier thing though, who knows.

ToBeOrNotToBe
01-12-18, 20:08
In addition to these Bronze Age papers on Northern Italy and the OP one, there are lots of others on the Northern Bronze Age etc., and another one on the Caucasus. They're not revealing very much in the abstract. Hope we get it soon.

"Svend Hansen1, Sabine Reinhold1, Wolfgang Haak2, Chuan-Chao Wang21Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Eurasien Abteilung2Max Planck Institut für Menschheitsgeschichte, Department of Archaeogenetics"

"At the interface of culture and biology – First results from a paleogenetic transect through BronzeAge populations of the Caucasus"

"The Caucasus is one of the most important geographical joints in Western Eurasia. Linking Europe, Western Asiaand the Eurasian steppe zone, this region today is one of the genetically and linguistically most diverse spotsof Eurasia. It is easy to imagine that repeated population influx and drain, but similarly compartmentalisationin the remote mountain valley is behind this modern situation.Eneolithic and Bronze Age populations play an important role in this scenario, as they represent thefirst epochs of formations, which can be regarded either as associated ‘cultures’ and/or coherent biologicalpopulations. A first study on the paleogenetic background of 50 individuals from the 5th to the 2nd millenniumBC, which represent all cultural formations of Bronze Age Caucasia, give a first insight into highly complexscenarios of interaction. The paleogenetic perspective could proof the presence of populations with differentgenetic-make ups and different biological vectors of formation among these individuals. Affiliation bymaterial cultural and other archaeological attributes, however, revealed epochs of interaction, where culturaland biological borders were crossed, and those, where no population exchange seemed to have happenedamong the neighbouring inhabitants of one area. This region thus allows to study in detail the mixing andinterdigitation of people, their materiality and cultural systems and challenge many of the too simple modelsdeveloped for another interface of the Eurasian steppe zone those directed towards Europe."


AAAAAAAAAAAA IT'S COMING! IT'S SO OBVIOUS... CAUCASIAN R1B-L23!!!

I can't wait to see Davidski's metaphorical face when they publish R1b-L23 samples from the Caucasus (but I CAN definitely wait to see Olympus Mons misinterpret it lol)

I'm so excited, these results better come out before Christmas.

Fatherland
01-12-18, 20:12
The community is extremely inbred to be honest, don't you think it's odd that all of these guys hold the exact same basic viewpoint despite the lack of current evidence? It reminds of the narrow-mindedness of far-left and far-right circles, or at least it does to me - there really is basically no diversity of opinion, unlike these forums.
Spot on man!

Ygorcs
01-12-18, 20:13
So there was an Anatolian migration after the " Yamnaya Package " into mainland Europe, wich i always say. But i'm a little bit confused on many points. How Iran_Neo pass through Anatolian_Neo for it to not be that important in this paper and the genetic makeup of BA Greece? I feel like they want to tell us that Steppe Ancestry brought something like Paleohispanic language or a " Vasconic " group, while Iran_Neo brought IE languages. We can see that their Greece Iran_Neo ancestry is dated for 1500 so Mycenaean, wich is the dream of Lazaridis. Hope they gonna clarify their idea of what they try to say for not being confused. Because you know that even if the paper is absolutely not about IE languages, it is totally about it in every interested person mind, them included.

I do not think they implied in the abstract that the Iranian farmer ancestry arrived alone, in unadmixed form (I wonder if they really did differentiate it clearly from CHG ancestry, this variation and uncertainty between a CHG and an Iranian source is unsettling for me). These "Iranians" were actually probably Anatolian populations of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age people in my opinion, already an intensive mix of Anatolian-Neo with Iranian-Neo (and CHG too maybe). But if they migrated to a place already very rich in Anatolian-Neo ancestry then the real novelty would be Iranian-Neo alone and they would not have changed the Anatolian farmer-like percentages much.

As for Vasconic, I see no reason to not believe, considering how little steppe ancestry they have, that maybe the EEF were not always the defeated and assimilated ones. It would be really strange in my opinion that ansolutely all the languages of Europe of the Iron Age had come from the east, either the steppes or West Asia. EEF ancestry still remained in very high amounts in much of the continent, and I find it hard to believe they just never managed to win this cultural dispute.

ToBeOrNotToBe
01-12-18, 20:13
If what I've been going on about for so long turns out to be the case, you all owe me $5 and Davidski owes me $50 :P

ToBeOrNotToBe
01-12-18, 20:16
Actually just out of pure excitement, if they find either South Caucasian L23 older than Yamnaya or Western European L51 older than Yamnaya, I'll give the first person to quote this $10 via PayPal.

This is so ridiculously pointless, but god I would literally feel so vindicated.

Ygorcs
01-12-18, 20:17
Lots and lots of questions, right?

I'm particularly intrigued by the following: " In Sicily, during the Bronze Age and possibly EARLIER, we found evidence for admixture with groups carrying both these ancestries."

Both ancestries were present possibly earlier? Just the Iran related ancestry? One from the north, one from the southeast?

All very exciting.

Yes, indeed. If they are talking about steppe ancestry in Sicily too, I would place my bets on the first forays of clearly steppic cultural impact (and military one, too, given the many signs of conflict) associated with the Novodanilovka-Suvorovo spread of hierarchical pastoralists to the Balkans, leading to Cernavoda and other cultures that already had steppe-like features as early as the Chalcolithic,centuries before Yamnaya. Vinca also had some small percentage of steppe-like ancestry in the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic. Did the Balkanic peoples maybe participate in the navigations and sea migrations at that time? I do not know... There is a lot of food for thought. I hope they release it soon.

ToBeOrNotToBe
01-12-18, 20:19
Yes, indeed. If they are talking about steppe ancestry in Sicily too, I would place my bets on the first forays of clearly steppic cultural impact (and military one, too, given the many signs of conflict) associated with the Novodanilovka-Suvorovo spread of hierarchical pastoralists to the Balkans, leading to Cernavoda and other cultures that already had steppe-like features as early as the Chalcolithic,centuries before Yamnaya. Vinca also had some small percentage of steppe-like ancestry in the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic. Did the Balkanic peoples maybe participate in the navigations and sea migrations at that time? I do not know... There is a lot of food for thought. I hope they release it soon.

Vinca had Steppe? It just keeps getting better.

Balkan M269 -> West Asian L23 -> Western European L51 with the spread of copper smelting technology, I just love it.

I'm getting too Olympus Mons-like, my bad guys.

Angela
01-12-18, 20:43
I don't understand the incredulity. We've had paper after paper showing the progressive spread of Iran Neo/CHG like ancestry from south and west into the rest of the Near East. It began early but then became a flood. At some point in the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age it spilled into the Aegean, and from there into at least Greece (and the Balkans), and, apparently, Sicily (and southern Italy?).

Obviously, it was over time admixed with Anatolian Neo. We've always been able to "see" it in the mix, nonetheless. Why would that change now?

It's always been clear it happened. No one has doubted it. The only issue was when. Well, now we know.

Well, we sort of know, given how the abstract is worded. It was at least the early Bronze Age.

I also think it's pretty clear that all the obfuscation of Davidski and his fellow travelers notwithstanding, CHG is just Iran Neo with a little bit of EHG (and maybe a bit of Anatolian Neo). Just take a look at the Fennoscandian paper.

As to Professor Lazaridis, if any of you would care to share any instance of deliberate distortion of fact or mathematics in his work, or that of Patterson, or any of the other academics involved in the Mycenaean paper which so seems to stick in the craw of some of you, please do. Otherwise, desist in the character and professional assassination.

Ailchu
01-12-18, 21:08
didn't ötzi already have an increased amount of west asian ancestry?

Angela
01-12-18, 21:41
didn't ötzi already have an increased amount of west asian ancestry?

Indeed, although it was a very small amount, and we know much more now about what those ADMIXTURE results based on modern components mean and what they don't mean. Still, looking at it, I started thinking something different started arriving quite early in Italy when I saw the results of the genetic analysis.

https://i.imgur.com/92HsZoU.png

bicicleur
01-12-18, 21:56
it would be nice to find out whether El Argar had Iran ancestry, but we won't, they are talking only 1500 BC

bicicleur
01-12-18, 21:58
I don't understand the incredulity. We've had paper after paper showing the progressive spread of Iran Neo/CHG like ancestry from south and west into the rest of the Near East. It began early but then became a flood. At some point in the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age it spilled into the Aegean, and from there into at least Greece (and the Balkans), and, apparently, Sicily (and southern Italy?).
Obviously, it was over time admixed with Anatolian Neo. We've always been able to "see" it in the mix, nonetheless. Why would that change now?
It's always been clear it happened. No one has doubted it. The only issue was when. Well, now we know.
Well, we sort of know, given how the abstract is worded. It was at least the early Bronze Age.
I also think it's pretty clear that all the obfuscation of Davidski and his fellow travelers notwithstanding, CHG is just Iran Neo with a little bit of EHG (and maybe a bit of Anatolian Neo). Just take a look at the Fennoscandian paper.
As to Professor Lazaridis, if any of you would care to share any instance of deliberate distortion of fact or mathematics in his work, or that of Patterson, or any of the other academics involved in the Mycenaean paper which so seems to stick in the craw of some of you, please do. Otherwise, desist in the character and professional assassination.
for CHG and Iran_neo, check Laziridis 2018, the Dzudzuana paper
the Laziridis 2016 square is outdated

Angela
01-12-18, 22:00
for CHG and Iran_neo, check Laziridis 2018, the Dzudzuana paper
Laziridis 2016 is outdated

The people I was addressing don't read papers. What sticks in their craw is what they "think" the Mycenaean paper implies.

bicicleur
01-12-18, 22:04
The people I was addressing don't read papers. What sticks in their craw is what they "think" the Mycenaean paper implies.
in my view, the Iran ancestry moved on further west through the Mediterranean, but not through Central Europe
and steppe arrived in Iberia from the north
I hope these upcoming papers will bring some clarity

ToBeOrNotToBe
01-12-18, 22:23
in my view, the Iran ancestry moved on further west through the Mediterranean, but not through Central Europe
and steppe arrived in Iberia from the north
I hope these upcoming papers will bring some clarity

I reckon that's going to be the conclusion from the conference, but I'd disagree with it. By how they phrased it, it seems like they see this Chalcolithic Sicilian Steppe as being from the North, when it just is much more likely to have come from a source that spread across the Mediterranean.

Angela
01-12-18, 22:31
in my view, the Iran ancestry moved on further west through the Mediterranean, but not through Central Europe
and steppe arrived in Iberia from the north
I hope these upcoming papers will bring some clarity

I think that's right, but of what was "steppe" composed?

Johane Derite
01-12-18, 23:10
Correct me if i'm wrong but linguistically the Greco-Armenian hypothesis fits quite strongly the ˜1500BC entry of Iran Neo/CHG does it not?

halfalp
02-12-18, 00:16
I do not think they implied in the abstract that the Iranian farmer ancestry arrived alone, in unadmixed form (I wonder if they really did differentiate it clearly from CHG ancestry, this variation and uncertainty between a CHG and an Iranian source is unsettling for me). These "Iranians" were actually probably Anatolian populations of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age people in my opinion, already an intensive mix of Anatolian-Neo with Iranian-Neo (and CHG too maybe). But if they migrated to a place already very rich in Anatolian-Neo ancestry then the real novelty would be Iranian-Neo alone and they would not have changed the Anatolian farmer-like percentages much.

As for Vasconic, I see no reason to not believe, considering how little steppe ancestry they have, that maybe the EEF were not always the defeated and assimilated ones. It would be really strange in my opinion that ansolutely all the languages of Europe of the Iron Age had come from the east, either the steppes or West Asia. EEF ancestry still remained in very high amounts in much of the continent, and I find it hard to believe they just never managed to win this cultural dispute.

My big problem is just about vulgarisation and clearing. When they say " 1500BC we see Iran related ancestry, it doesn't make sense for me. Like you said, where is the Anatolian ancestry in all this? why would Iranian ancestry be predominant in a contexte where Anatolian ancestry should be? Why would those new people in Greece being more Iranian than Anatolian? As for Vasconic, i dont really care, it just feels they want to put " everything Iran ancestry " as IE. We probably gonna see in later studies the same argument " Iran = PIE " while " Steppe = whatever you want it to be ". I'm just being cautious, no controversy over here.

Lenab
02-12-18, 00:59
Correct me if i'm wrong but linguistically the Greco-Armenian hypothesis fits quite strongly the ˜1500BC entry of Iran Neo/CHG does it not?
Why would you assume that's just based on languages?

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2017/08/minoans-and-mycenaeans.html

Ancestrally. both Mycenaeans and Minoans were basically Mediterranean, well outside the variation of most Europeans and Near Easterners and >75% from early European-Anatolian farmers.

Lenab
02-12-18, 01:02
.....................

Saetrus
02-12-18, 03:17
while Iran-related ancestry reached Greece by 1500 BCE.

Did it jump Greece to reach Italy? Samples from 2500BC-1900BC:

Sicilian Bell Beaker
European_Early_Farmers 49.61
Caucasian 41.06
South_Central_Asian 5.16


North Italian Bell Beaker I1979
Anatolia_BA 39.8
Barcin_N 32.6
Beaker_Central_Europe 16.8
WHG 10.8

Ygorcs
02-12-18, 03:18
Correct me if i'm wrong but linguistically the Greco-Armenian hypothesis fits quite strongly the ˜1500BC entry of Iran Neo/CHG does it not?

Linguistically I do not think it does. Grarco-Armenian, if such an intermediary language ever existed maybe together with Phrygian, should predate 1500 BC by much, as in 1500 BC Greek already existed in recognizable form and Mycenaean Greek culture was already established in Greece.

But maybe the whole story of conflicts with Troy in Anatolia tells us more than we had thought about increasing pressure from Anatolians of the Bronze Age, who were really rich in Iranian ancestry by then. And maybe Mycenaeans and their ancestors had already acquired some of that ancestry too in their previous homelands in southeastern Europe or Anatolia, spreading it to other parts of the Mediterranean. And there is also the case of the Etruscans and their mythological West Asian origin, though I do not think clear links with Asia Minor and cultural rupture were found in Italy (or am I wrong?).

Ygorcs
02-12-18, 03:23
Did it jump Greece to reach Italy? Samples from 2500BC-1900BC:

Sicilian Bell Beaker
European_Early_Farmers 49.61
Caucasian 41.06
South_Central_Asian 5.16


North Italian Bell Beaker I1979
Anatolia_BA 39.8
Barcin_N 32.6
Beaker_Central_Europe 16.8
WHG 10.8

Did you use the right, sufficiently varied and contextually adequate proxy samples to calculate that? I do not think it is useful to make such analyses without considering that. For example, mixing Neolithic, Mesolithic and Bronze Age genetic structures, with lots of overlap, and using distant proxies instead of more proximate and thus more plausible ones. Also, were the fits really good for these results? Without the right populations to compare, the algorithm may assign parts of the autosomal DNA to the nearest similar population instead of the actual source of that ancestry.

Ygorcs
02-12-18, 03:31
Vinca had Steppe? It just keeps getting better.

Balkan M269 -> West Asian L23 -> Western European L51 with the spread of copper smelting technology, I just love it.

I'm getting too Olympus Mons-like, my bad guys.

Yes, but only in some individuals and in small proportions AFAIK. And of course the vast majority of their genetic structure was EEF. And even more evidently their autosomal ancestry would be heavily diluted, with barely any steppe ancestry left, by the time they would have sailed from a new home in West Asia after M269 had become L23 and L23 turned into L51. I really doubt this hypothetical Asian L51 would not bring much more Iranian and Levantine admixtures than steppe (rich in EHG) to Western Europe. They would be nothing like the steppe genetic structure, not even like the EEF Vinca one.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 03:42
Yes, but only in some individuals and in small proportions AFAIK. And of course the vast majority of their genetic structure was EEF. And even more evidently their autosomal ancestry would be heavily diluted, with barely any steppe ancestry left, by the time they would have sailed from a new home in West Asia after M269 had become L23 and L23 turned into L51. I really doubt this hypothetical Asian L51 would not bring much more Iranian and Levantine admixtures than steppe (rich in EHG) to Western Europe. They would be nothing like the steppe genetic structure, not even like the EEF Vinca one.

Well I think the L51 mutation was originally West European but I get your point, I do think it ultimately came from West Asia. In this theory, what would become L51 would split off around the modern-day Turkey-Syria region, then following the path of the previous Megalithic people across the Mediterranean, and introducing copper smelting technology and hierarchical systems (epitomised by Los Millares). So, the Asian ancestry you would expect to see among early carriers of L51 would be more Anatolian Chalcolithic (Cypriot-like if I'm not mistaken) than anything else - you wouldn't expect especially large amounts of Iranian or Levantine ancestry. Probably not by coincidence, the Beaker folk were Dinaric, which is a very modern phenotype that traces its origin likely back to the same Syro-Anatolian region.

As for the Steppe genetic signature being different to the Vinca one - if I'm honest, I have no idea about this, as I just take Steppe to mean Steppe, though I understand it is a hybrid population reference and not "pure". All I know is, the Balkans had a very large presence of R1b just before the Neolithic incursions of farmers from Anatolia (so far though, only the presence of V88 has been shown, but the rest can be inferred), the Vinca culture had the swastika and copper smelting technology (both of which it later spread to West Asia, amongst other things like unmistakably distinctive figurines and perhaps proto-writing (although I doubt proto-writing and the figurines have anything to do with these R1b guys, but rather the farmer population that made up the bulk of this theoretical population migration)), the more "archaic" branches of R1b-M269 are Balkan, the Areni-1 Armenian Chalcolithic samples (with red hair, blue eyes and pale skin - surely a sign of links with R1b folk despite being of typical Caucaso-Zagrosian Y DNA) showed unmistakeable European Hunter-Gatherer ancestry etc. - I've said it more to you than any other person so you get the idea of why I believe in a Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic migration from the Balkans to West Asia.

If Iron Gates is used as a proxy for what these original Balkan M269 folk would have been like, then there would be a relatively high WHG:EHG ratio amongst the obviously much later Beaker folk - higher than can be explained easily by a simple mixing of Bronze Age Steppe with European Neolithic types. I think this is the case, which is nice, but don't quote me on that.

Angela
02-12-18, 03:57
Until we have the paper, instead of using amateur produced models of perhaps questionable accuracy I think we'd be better served to wait for the genetic analysis of the actual ancient dna, and in the meantime to review the Sicilian Bronze Age.

See:
https://www.ancient.eu/article/1190/bronze-age-sicily/

This is just a starting point. There are more recent papers, and, of course, the upcoming paper will hopefully address all of this.

"The three main phases of the period take their name from the most important centres at the time in question: Castelluccio (Early Bronze (https://www.ancient.eu/bronze/) Age), Thapsos (Middle Bronze Age) and Pantalica (Late Bronze Age). There was a marked increase in cultural and commercial trade (https://www.ancient.eu/trade/) between regions near and far, particularly with Cornwall, across the Atlantic coasts of France, Spain, Sardinia, the Tyrrhenian coast to the Strait of Messina, and from here to the Aegean (https://www.ancient.eu/aegean/)-Anatolian area."

"In Sicily the oldest phases of prehistory were overcome at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, when it received a new cultural wave, probably from the Middle East, today labelled with the name of the Castelluccio culture, from the homonymous prehistoric site near the city (https://www.ancient.eu/city/) of Noto. This cultural facies (segmentation), rather unusual compared to those of the Copper (https://www.ancient.eu/copper/) Age, is verified in the south-east and south of the island, up to the provinces of Agrigento (https://www.ancient.eu/agrigento/) and Caltanissetta (in the west and in the middle of the island), and constitutes the “starting line” of the Sicilian bronze age. It is certainly dated to 2169±120 BCE (calibrated value) thanks to radiometric dating performed on 18 coal samples which proved to be the oldest of this culture and which were found at the archaeological site of "Muculufa", a few kilometres north-east of Licata town."

"At this early stage of the Bronze Age, Sicily was divided into four macro-regions, each one of them with their own culture: northern Sicily with the Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga culture, the western one, with the Naro/Partanna culture, the south-east with the Castelluccio culture and the Capo Graziano culture of the Aeolian Islands. Of these, that of Castelluccio seems to be the most homogeneous culture in this period, perhaps because it spread over a larger area and, consequently, it is much better known today.The prehistoric settlement of Castelluccio was built on a rather isolated but defensible rocky spur. The archaeologist Paolo Orsi, who identified it between the late-19th and early-20th century CE, found large quantities of ceramic fragments among the refuse and explored the artificial cave tombs. These tombs are oven-shaped and dug into the rocks. There are small oval-shaped rooms with a diameter of between 1.5-2.0 metres, sometimes preceded by an ante-cella and still containing grave (https://www.ancient.eu/Grave/) goods. The Castelluccian villages, sometimes fortified, showed a rather interesting agricultural and pastoral reality. Their ceramics have been classified as "matt-painted ware" and have close ties with an Anatolian culture of the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, so-called "Cappadocia"."

"In some of these graves carved globule bones have been found that are reminiscent of examples elsewhere (southeastern Italy (https://www.ancient.eu/italy/), Malta, southern Greece (https://www.ancient.eu/greece/) and Troy (https://www.ancient.eu/troy/) II and III). "

Interesting that...Were the Mycenaeans and Trojans cousins of a sort? Were they all cousins?

Anyway, it seems to me that it will be well nigh impossible to detail all the movements back and forth between all these regions. On the face of it there was migration from the Aegean/Anatolian to both Italy and Greece (as we can tell not only from the Mycenaean genomes but from the modern levels of "Caucasian" in Greeks). There was also migration from the area of Greece to Italy. Later on, there seems to be migration from Italy to Greece.

"
MIDDLE BRONZE AGEFrom the end of 1500 to c. 1200 BCE in Sicily, important coastal settlements developed and the island began to acquire strategic-commercial importance thanks to the intense exchanges with Mycenaean Greece. The find of a large number of Aegean vases in the Sicilian tombs of this period proves a phenomenon that caused the birth of real emporia in which the transmarine trades were practised, as had happened in the Aeolian islands. This was just the age that the Milazzese culture flourished in the Aeolian Islands. In Sicily, for its part, a culture closely related to the Aeolian arose, called Thapsos."

"
MIDDLE BRONZE AGEFrom the end of 1500 to c. 1200 BCE in Sicily, important coastal settlements developed and the island began to acquire strategic-commercial importance thanks to the intense exchanges with Mycenaean Greece. The find of a large number of Aegean vases in the Sicilian tombs of this period proves a phenomenon that caused the birth of real emporia in which the transmarine trades were practised, as had happened in the Aeolian islands. This was just the age that the Milazzese culture flourished in the Aeolian Islands. In Sicily, for its part, a culture closely related to the Aeolian arose, called Thapsos."

"
LATE BRONZE AGEIn the 13th century BCE everything suddenly changed. This period would seem to have been ruled by fear: the ancient coastal settlements were moved to higher sites, difficult to access but easily defendable, such as Pantalica, Montagna di Caltagirone, Dessueri, Sabucina and, later, Cassibile (all areas between south-eastern and central Sicily). While in the Aeolian Islands the Ausoni flourished, a civilization which came from the Italian peninsula, in Sicily a civilization strongly influenced by the Mycenaean one still persisted."

As I said, there is a movement from Italy to Greece at that time. If some of the Sea Peoples were also from the Italian peninsula or even Sicily that would be another movement.

We'll see if the following is still correct:

"The historical sources (Hellanicus of Mytilene, Fylistus of Syracuse) assert this was the Sicels' time for Sicily, who also came from the Italian peninsula between the 13th and 12th century BCE. However, the archaeological layers following the Thapsos age do not confirm the presence of an Italic civilization. On the contrary, dating to this period is a monumental building made up of several rectangular rooms, the so-called Anaktoron or prince' palace (https://www.ancient.eu/palace/). Built with megalithic (https://www.ancient.eu/megalithic/) techniques using gigantic stone blocks, it is a smaller imitation of the Mycenaean palaces. It also lacks the cremation of the deceased, which, in contrast, was widespread in the Italian peninsula of that era. The ritual will remain unknown in Sicily for a few more centuries yet. The Sicels, therefore, landed a few centuries later in eastern Sicily and drove away the Sicanians to the western part of the island, the dominant population who had lived on most of the island since time immemorial."

You can read about the rest of the Bronze Age in the article, which was then followed by the Iron Age and more settlement from Greece.

I'll be very interested to see if the steppe arrived only with some Bell Beaker or in other movements.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 04:21
If Steppe ancestry predates Bronze smelting technology in Sicily, to me, that is as sure a sign as any that it isn't from Yamnaya. They wouldn't have migrated to Sicily and not brought with them Bronze tools given how useful they are for things like combat - it would be like European colonists leaving their guns back home.

And if that is the case, then this Mediterranean route for Copper Age L51 looks a whole lot more likely to me.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 04:29
God I seriously cannot wait for the West Med Steppe and Copper-Bronze Age Caucasus papers - if they cover enough of a time span and a wide enough area each, it should give more answers than questions.

Ygorcs
02-12-18, 07:43
Well I think the L51 mutation was originally West European but I get your point, I do think it ultimately came from West Asia. In this theory, what would become L51 would split off around the modern-day Turkey-Syria region, then following the path of the previous Megalithic people across the Mediterranean, and introducing copper smelting technology and hierarchical systems (epitomised by Los Millares). So, the Asian ancestry you would expect to see among early carriers of L51 would be more Anatolian Chalcolithic (Cypriot-like if I'm not mistaken) than anything else - you wouldn't expect especially large amounts of Iranian or Levantine ancestry. Probably not by coincidence, the Beaker folk were Dinaric, which is a very modern phenotype that traces its origin likely back to the same Syro-Anatolian region.

As for the Steppe genetic signature being different to the Vinca one - if I'm honest, I have no idea about this, as I just take Steppe to mean Steppe, though I understand it is a hybrid population reference and not "pure". All I know is, the Balkans had a very large presence of R1b just before the Neolithic incursions of farmers from Anatolia (so far though, only the presence of V88 has been shown, but the rest can be inferred), the Vinca culture had the swastika and copper smelting technology (both of which it later spread to West Asia, amongst other things like unmistakably distinctive figurines and perhaps proto-writing (although I doubt proto-writing and the figurines have anything to do with these R1b guys, but rather the farmer population that made up the bulk of this theoretical population migration)), the more "archaic" branches of R1b-M269 are Balkan, the Areni-1 Armenian Chalcolithic samples (with red hair, blue eyes and pale skin - surely a sign of links with R1b folk despite being of typical Caucaso-Zagrosian Y DNA) showed unmistakeable European Hunter-Gatherer ancestry etc. - I've said it more to you than any other person so you get the idea of why I believe in a Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic migration from the Balkans to West Asia.

If Iron Gates is used as a proxy for what these original Balkan M269 folk would have been like, then there would be a relatively high WHG:EHG ratio amongst the obviously much later Beaker folk - higher than can be explained easily by a simple mixing of Bronze Age Steppe with European Neolithic types. I think this is the case, which is nice, but don't quote me on that.

Your hypothesis looks plausible, it has verosimilitude at least (which is already much better than some things I read here and elsewhere among amateur fans of population genetics, lol), but let me just point out two things: 1) if those pre-L51 people were really mostly Anatolian Chalcolithic then, well, they definitely should have brought some good chunks of Iranian and Levantine Neolithic ancestry, because Chalcolithic Anatolia was already much more mixed IIRC; 2) Sorry you misunderstood what I said, I did not mean to imply the genetic signature of the Steppe was different from the Vinca steppe-like ancestry, what I was trying to say was that the L23 West Asians would certainly be totally different from the mainly EEF plus small amounts of Steppe EBA-like that the Vinca people had (anyway I think the Vinca would be too late to be a proxy for your hypothetical M269 Balkanic population, since you assume that by the Chalcolithic the L23 would already be starting its expansion to Europe).

Ygorcs
02-12-18, 07:50
If Steppe ancestry predates Bronze smelting technology in Sicily, to me, that is as sure a sign as any that it isn't from Yamnaya. They wouldn't have migrated to Sicily and not brought with them Bronze tools given how useful they are for things like combat - it would be like European colonists leaving their guns back home.

And if that is the case, then this Mediterranean route for Copper Age L51 looks a whole lot more likely to me.

The steppe people's expansion did not start with Yamnaya though. Novodanilovka-Suvorovo people (possibly with some assimilated Sredy Stog and Khvalynsk) had already expanded to and caused havoc in the Balkans before 4000 BC, in early Chalcolithic times. Anatolian IE also seems to have split and become reasonably isolated from later innovations in the IE linguistic area since the Chalcolithic also around 4000 BC. And steppe people spread to Northern Europe to form CWC and to Central Siberia to form Afanasievo also virtually lacking bronze weapons IIRC. I think we should not assume that appearance of Western Steppe ancestry is necessarily from the Yamnaya horizon's spread. It was more like wave after wave involving different cultural stages on the steppe.

Olympus Mons
02-12-18, 10:08
Actually just out of pure excitement, if they find either South Caucasian L23 older than Yamnaya or Western European L51 older than Yamnaya, I'll give the first person to quote this $10 via PayPal.

This is so ridiculously pointless, but god I would literally feel so vindicated.
Yes. And like I have been saying for years now, once L23 is found in shulaveri South Caucasus, EVERYBODY knew all along that it was the case. You included.
It's the plague of the hindsight.

Where are your comments about it before end 2016? Before johannes Krause Russian presentation that made heads turn.... My direction. Lol

markod
02-12-18, 10:18
Yes. And like I have been saying for years now, once L23 is found in shulaveri South Caucasus, EVERYBODY knew all along that it was the case. You included.
It's the plague of the hindsight.

Where are your comments about it before end 2016? Before johannes Krause Russian presentation that made heads turn.... My direction. Lol

I mean none of the abstracts said anything about haplogroups - how are you so sure?

halfalp
02-12-18, 10:43
The big odds about Shulaveri Shomu is that they had J2a1 or L1a1 as paternal parental marker. I also bet that an increase of Iran ancestry in Mediterranean or Southeast Europe gonna be linked with J2a1. My questions are focused on J2b history and the potential implications into the ancestry of Late Yamnaya -> Early Bell Beaker / Vucedol. Did J2b existed in the Steppe earlier and participate into the southern ancestry or did it independantly came from a southern road at the same time of the Yamnaya expansion and gived ancestry in the Balkans.

Johane Derite
02-12-18, 11:00
Linguistically I do not think it does. Grarco-Armenian, if such an intermediary language ever existed maybe together with Phrygian, should predate 1500 BC by much, as in 1500 BC Greek already existed in recognizable form and Mycenaean Greek culture was already established in Greece.



Yes that was my point. The hypothetical Proto-Graeco-Armenian stage dates to the 3rd millennium BC and would be placed somewhere around Armenia. Placing the proto mycanean speakers in a place where they would have ampl Iran_neo/chg but possibly also EHG from contact with caucauses. But you are right the paper says that the Iran_neo
has reached Europe BY 1500BC.

But ill be honest i never quite understood the supposed northern route of greeks entry into southern europe.

bicicleur
02-12-18, 11:35
I think that's right, but of what was "steppe" composed?

it is male-centered Yamna watered down with MN Euro, because most of the women they took were local
the same goes for the Iran expansion, it was centered around Y-DNA J and by the time it reached the Aegean it was already heavy in EEF (it is hard to tell whether the EEF is Anatolian or local Aegean)

markod
02-12-18, 11:41
I would also bet that in the Balkans the confluence of Iran_Neo and EHG/WHG ancestries led to the formation of small ghost-Yamnaya components everywhere. I think it would be exceedingly difficult to tell those apart from direct steppe ancestry with f3, f4 & D-statistics.

halfalp
02-12-18, 11:43
Btw, what is Iranian related? Is it not some kind of bias? How do you make a Greek sample shifted towards more Iran_Chl than to CHG? Are they trying to label CHG, Iran_Neolithic, Iran_Chl and Anatolian + Iran all Iran related? Peloponnese Neolithic was shifted towards CHG more than WHG too, is it also " Iran related "? Is this the new Eden? What can really distinguish Iran_Neo and Iran_Chl from CHG? on what ancestry shifted towards, make it more likely to be Hotu Cave related than Kotias related?

bicicleur
02-12-18, 11:51
[SIZE=3][FONT=arial]"The three main phases of the period take their name from the most important centres at the time in question: Castelluccio (Early Bronze (https://www.ancient.eu/bronze/) Age), Thapsos (Middle Bronze Age) and Pantalica (Late Bronze Age). There was a marked increase in cultural and commercial trade (https://www.ancient.eu/trade/) between regions near and far, particularly with Cornwall, across the Atlantic coasts of France, Spain, Sardinia, the Tyrrhenian coast to the Strait of Messina, and from here to the Aegean (https://www.ancient.eu/aegean/)-Anatolian area."

I think this is a bold statement.
Is there proof Sicily or the eastern Mediterranean was using ores from Cornwall?
Was there regular trade along the Atlantic and Meditterranean coasts all the way between Cornwall and Sicily? And if so, how many middle men were involved?

It looks like Cornwall was the most important European source for tin ores and it must have been traded all around Europe.
But probably there were a few local sources which got depleted early and there was tin from Central Asia reaching the Eastern Mediterranean.
And later, Iberian tin ores were mined.

markod
02-12-18, 11:55
Btw, what is Iranian related? Is it not some kind of bias? How do you make a Greek sample shifted towards more Iran_Chl than to CHG? Are they trying to label CHG, Iran_Neolithic, Iran_Chl and Anatolian + Iran all Iran related? Peloponnese Neolithic was shifted towards CHG more than WHG too, is it also " Iran related "? Is this the new Eden? What can really distinguish Iran_Neo and Iran_Chl from CHG? on what ancestry shifted towards, make it more likely to be Hotu Cave related than Kotias related?

Generally what seems to define Neolithic Iranians is both the comparatively strong Basal Eurasian shift and a significant East Eurasian shift. That's why it's always so far away from other Eurasians in PCA plots. It's a very strange population, and causes all kinds of weirdness in models like Andaman Islanders modelled as 30% Neolithic Iranian in the Central Asian paper.

Neolithic Iranians become Kotias-like with additional WHG/EHG.

halfalp
02-12-18, 12:09
Generally what seems to define Neolithic Iranians is both the comparatively strong Basal Eurasian shift and a significant East Eurasian shift. That's why it's always so far away from other Eurasians in PCA plots. It's a very strange population, and causes all kinds of weirdness in models like Andaman Islanders modelled as 30% Neolithic Iranian in the Central Asian paper.

Neolithic Iranians become Kotias-like with additional WHG/EHG.

I understand that for the Source Samples, but how do you make a Mycenaean Greek sample being " Iranian related "? Is it more Basal Eurasian shifted or less WHG/EHG? It have to be CHG no? So there is a Kotias-like CHG wich have WHG/EHG and an Iranian-like CHG wich have more Basal Eurasian? Also, how is Basal Eurasian Iranian related itself? It's way older than Hotu. If we put away Iran, what is the main ancestry of that Mycenaean sample?

Milan.M
02-12-18, 13:13
Yes that was my point. The hypothetical Proto-Graeco-Armenian stage dates to the 3rd millennium BC and would be placed somewhere around Armenia. Placing the proto mycanean speakers in a place where they would have ampl Iran_neo/chg but possibly also EHG from contact with caucauses. But you are right the paper says that the Iran_neo
has reached Europe BY 1500BC.

But ill be honest i never quite understood the supposed northern route of greeks entry into southern europe.

I have been saying this for years even without genetic evidence that Greek arrived from near Armenian teritory through Anatolia,even thought all were denying this.
I am on same opinion even for Albanian now,the southern route Iran_Neo took to Italy maybe the sister language like Messapic.

Pygmalion
02-12-18, 13:15
I honestly did not expect Nuragic Sardinians to have any Iran Neolithic like ancestry. I knew of the exchange between Sardinia and the Eastern Mediterranean, and that Sardinia and Cyprus shared similar metallurgic tools, but that was during the late bronze age, not the middle bronze age, strange.

Cato
02-12-18, 13:54
Iran Neo could have reached Sicily and Sardinia and even other parts of Italy and the West Med in the Chalcolithic, in the middle bronze age there arent archaeological evidences for that indeed

Utilizzando Tapatalk

berun
02-12-18, 13:55
I would also bet that in the Balkans the confluence of Iran_Neo and EHG/WHG ancestries led to the formation of small ghost-Yamnaya components everywhere. I think it would be exceedingly difficult to tell those apart from direct steppe ancestry with f3, f4 & D-statistics.

yup...! more ghosts

Olympus Mons
02-12-18, 14:05
yup...! more ghosts

Yes!!!! We have a 7000bc ehg in Romania. So I have been asking all over what happens when South Caucasus meets that EHG? would it not create a fake yamnaya? Even wrote a post about it... Asked around but got nowhere. Nobody seemed to be able or willing to answer.

berun
02-12-18, 14:09
Until we have the paper, instead of using amateur produced models of perhaps questionable accuracy I think we'd be better served to wait for the genetic analysis of the actual ancient dna, and in the meantime to review the Sicilian Bronze Age.

See:
https://www.ancient.eu/article/1190/bronze-age-sicily/

This is just a starting point. There are more recent papers, and, of course, the upcoming paper will hopefully address all of this.

"The three main phases of the period take their name from the most important centres at the time in question: Castelluccio (Early Bronze (https://www.ancient.eu/bronze/) Age), Thapsos (Middle Bronze Age) and Pantalica (Late Bronze Age). There was a marked increase in cultural and commercial trade (https://www.ancient.eu/trade/) between regions near and far, particularly with Cornwall, across the Atlantic coasts of France, Spain, Sardinia, the Tyrrhenian coast to the Strait of Messina, and from here to the Aegean (https://www.ancient.eu/aegean/)-Anatolian area."

"In Sicily the oldest phases of prehistory were overcome at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, when it received a new cultural wave, probably from the Middle East, today labelled with the name of the Castelluccio culture, from the homonymous prehistoric site near the city (https://www.ancient.eu/city/) of Noto. This cultural facies (segmentation), rather unusual compared to those of the Copper (https://www.ancient.eu/copper/) Age, is verified in the south-east and south of the island, up to the provinces of Agrigento (https://www.ancient.eu/agrigento/) and Caltanissetta (in the west and in the middle of the island), and constitutes the “starting line” of the Sicilian bronze age. It is certainly dated to 2169±120 BCE (calibrated value) thanks to radiometric dating performed on 18 coal samples which proved to be the oldest of this culture and which were found at the archaeological site of "Muculufa", a few kilometres north-east of Licata town."

"At this early stage of the Bronze Age, Sicily was divided into four macro-regions, each one of them with their own culture: northern Sicily with the Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga culture, the western one, with the Naro/Partanna culture, the south-east with the Castelluccio culture and the Capo Graziano culture of the Aeolian Islands. Of these, that of Castelluccio seems to be the most homogeneous culture in this period, perhaps because it spread over a larger area and, consequently, it is much better known today.The prehistoric settlement of Castelluccio was built on a rather isolated but defensible rocky spur. The archaeologist Paolo Orsi, who identified it between the late-19th and early-20th century CE, found large quantities of ceramic fragments among the refuse and explored the artificial cave tombs. These tombs are oven-shaped and dug into the rocks. There are small oval-shaped rooms with a diameter of between 1.5-2.0 metres, sometimes preceded by an ante-cella and still containing grave (https://www.ancient.eu/Grave/) goods. The Castelluccian villages, sometimes fortified, showed a rather interesting agricultural and pastoral reality. Their ceramics have been classified as "matt-painted ware" and have close ties with an Anatolian culture of the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, so-called "Cappadocia"."

"In some of these graves carved globule bones have been found that are reminiscent of examples elsewhere (southeastern Italy (https://www.ancient.eu/italy/), Malta, southern Greece (https://www.ancient.eu/greece/) and Troy (https://www.ancient.eu/troy/) II and III). "

Interesting that...Were the Mycenaeans and Trojans cousins of a sort? Were they all cousins?

Anyway, it seems to me that it will be well nigh impossible to detail all the movements back and forth between all these regions. On the face of it there was migration from the Aegean/Anatolian to both Italy and Greece (as we can tell not only from the Mycenaean genomes but from the modern levels of "Caucasian" in Greeks). There was also migration from the area of Greece to Italy. Later on, there seems to be migration from Italy to Greece.

"
MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

From the end of 1500 to c. 1200 BCE in Sicily, important coastal settlements developed and the island began to acquire strategic-commercial importance thanks to the intense exchanges with Mycenaean Greece. The find of a large number of Aegean vases in the Sicilian tombs of this period proves a phenomenon that caused the birth of real emporia in which the transmarine trades were practised, as had happened in the Aeolian islands. This was just the age that the Milazzese culture flourished in the Aeolian Islands. In Sicily, for its part, a culture closely related to the Aeolian arose, called Thapsos."

"
MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

From the end of 1500 to c. 1200 BCE in Sicily, important coastal settlements developed and the island began to acquire strategic-commercial importance thanks to the intense exchanges with Mycenaean Greece. The find of a large number of Aegean vases in the Sicilian tombs of this period proves a phenomenon that caused the birth of real emporia in which the transmarine trades were practised, as had happened in the Aeolian islands. This was just the age that the Milazzese culture flourished in the Aeolian Islands. In Sicily, for its part, a culture closely related to the Aeolian arose, called Thapsos."

"
LATE BRONZE AGE

In the 13th century BCE everything suddenly changed. This period would seem to have been ruled by fear: the ancient coastal settlements were moved to higher sites, difficult to access but easily defendable, such as Pantalica, Montagna di Caltagirone, Dessueri, Sabucina and, later, Cassibile (all areas between south-eastern and central Sicily). While in the Aeolian Islands the Ausoni flourished, a civilization which came from the Italian peninsula, in Sicily a civilization strongly influenced by the Mycenaean one still persisted."

As I said, there is a movement from Italy to Greece at that time. If some of the Sea Peoples were also from the Italian peninsula or even Sicily that would be another movement.

We'll see if the following is still correct:

"The historical sources (Hellanicus of Mytilene, Fylistus of Syracuse) assert this was the Sicels' time for Sicily, who also came from the Italian peninsula between the 13th and 12th century BCE. However, the archaeological layers following the Thapsos age do not confirm the presence of an Italic civilization. On the contrary, dating to this period is a monumental building made up of several rectangular rooms, the so-called Anaktoron or prince' palace (https://www.ancient.eu/palace/). Built with megalithic (https://www.ancient.eu/megalithic/) techniques using gigantic stone blocks, it is a smaller imitation of the Mycenaean palaces. It also lacks the cremation of the deceased, which, in contrast, was widespread in the Italian peninsula of that era. The ritual will remain unknown in Sicily for a few more centuries yet. The Sicels, therefore, landed a few centuries later in eastern Sicily and drove away the Sicanians to the western part of the island, the dominant population who had lived on most of the island since time immemorial."

You can read about the rest of the Bronze Age in the article, which was then followed by the Iron Age and more settlement from Greece.

I'll be very interested to see if the steppe arrived only with some Bell Beaker or in other movements.



good site Angela.


The Castelluccian villages, sometimes fortified, showed a rather interesting agricultural and pastoral reality. Their ceramics have been classified as "matt-painted ware" and have close ties with an Anatolian culture of the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, so-called "Cappadocia". The wares show a variety of pottery (https://www.ancient.eu/pottery/) shapes and geometric designs, the latter consisting of brown or black bands crossed on a yellow or red background.

these colours remind me the Kura-Araxes ones? By the way the date of apparition of the Castelluccio Culture and El Argar are almost the same, quite interesting... if such cultural ties involved migratory movements it would explain the Iran_Neo found for such epoch. About the presence of the "steppe" autosomes it could be linked with the BB and the dolmens of the island, so that such BB carrying steppe would come like those of Balears from South France.

BUT, if they have not found steppe in BA Sardinia but have found there Iran_Neo... it's a big problem as such island must have received the same kind of BB migration that Balears and Sicily; I'm quite scared that it is by the almost lack of WHG admixture in the local EEF (such island had no important Mesolithic population and Cardial migrants didn't had the opportunity to mix with local foragers). Maybe there was a BB strand high in CHG that after mixing with local EEF provided a new ghost steppe signal (taking part of the WHG share in EEF as EHG-like).

Cato
02-12-18, 14:23
Maybe the Sardinian samples are from the interior where there was little or zero BB settlements (?) no mines and no plains there only mountains

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Pygmalion
02-12-18, 14:44
Maybe the Sardinian samples are from the interior where there was little or zero BB settlements (?) no mines and no plains there only mountains

Utilizzando Tapatalk

You're right about the fact that the bell beaker material culture seems not to have reached the central-eastern part of the island, but not because it lacked metal deposits. In the interior there are a lot of silver deposits, the name Gennargentu, which designates the vast mountain area in the central-eastern of the island, means "gate of silver". There was an important metallurgical workshop and sanctuary in that region during the late bronze age: S'Arcu E Is Forros, along with some other ones around it such as Sa Sedda E Sos Carros and Sa Carcaredda.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 14:50
Your hypothesis looks plausible, it has verosimilitude at least (which is already much better than some things I read here and elsewhere among amateur fans of population genetics, lol), but let me just point out two things: 1) if those pre-L51 people were really mostly Anatolian Chalcolithic then, well, they definitely should have brought some good chunks of Iranian and Levantine Neolithic ancestry, because Chalcolithic Anatolia was already much more mixed IIRC; 2) Sorry you misunderstood what I said, I did not mean to imply the genetic signature of the Steppe was different from the Vinca steppe-like ancestry, what I was trying to say was that the L23 West Asians would certainly be totally different from the mainly EEF plus small amounts of Steppe EBA-like that the Vinca people had (anyway I think the Vinca would be too late to be a proxy for your hypothetical M269 Balkanic population, since you assume that by the Chalcolithic the L23 would already be starting its expansion to Europe).

Wow, this is a bit weird of a thing to say, but verisimilitude is actually such a useful word to know, glad I know it now lol

I don't think they were mostly Anatolian Chalcolithic, I think they would have been a hybrid of something Iron Gates-like and something Anatolian Chalcolithic-like, before further blending with the EEFs they would have come across further West across the Mediterranean (none of these blends are necessarily 50/50 by the way). If I'm not mistaken, the right proportions of that blend would produce something Beaker-like - but the thing I don't like about autosomal genetics being so over-utilised is that so many blends can create the same rough thing, because after the migrations of people intensified from the Late Neolithic onwards everyone became so mixed up (at least relative to these "purer" populations like WHG etc.) - as one example, it seems like most in academia see Corded Ware as descended from Yamnaya, but there's so many lines of evidence to show that that isn't the case. Just because they are both approximately EHG-CHG hybrids, doesn't necessarily mean one is an extension of the other, as these ancestral profiles could have been (and I think definitely were) achieved in parallel. That's the main reason I really like looking at Y DNA for tracing male-dominant migrations, because the precision leaves no room for ambiguity, but anyway.

And I don't see early Vinca as too late: it's from the 6th millennium BC and has the earliest known example of copper smelting. With a migration of some of these metallurgical folk from early/middle Vinca to West Asia (perhaps in the search for new finds of metal like has been speculated with the metallurgical Beaker folk, who knows - this also works with the idea that they would be nomadic pastoralists, whose presence was known at least from Ubaid), Vinca wouldn't just collapse or become significantly less advanced or anything like that - you wouldn't expect to see much of a change at all, as the Vinca people proper (the mainly EEF farmer population) were advanced in their own right (as I said, I think the proto-writing, despite swastikas in the Danube script, surely has to be attributed to them, as to put it bluntly R1b-M269+ folk and literacy didn't get on very well until even well after the Iron Age in some cases).

This puts a migration of M269-carriers out of the Balkans to West Asia sometime during the 6th millennium BC if I had to guess, which leaves 1-2 thousand years of development until the L23 mutation comes along, which could be why the variance of M269 is by far highest in Turkey and Northern Syria (despite it not being the homeland of M269, it seems the much much earlier M269 in Eastern Europe was really unsuccessful).

halfalp
02-12-18, 15:01
Wow, this is a bit weird of a thing to say, but verisimilitude is actually such a useful word to know, glad I know it now lol

I don't think they were mostly Anatolian Chalcolithic, I think they would have been a hybrid of something Iron Gates-like and something Anatolian Chalcolithic-like, before further blending with the EEFs they would have come across further West across the Mediterranean (none of these blends are necessarily 50/50 by the way). If I'm not mistaken, the right proportions of that blend would produce something Beaker-like - but the thing I don't like about autosomal genetics being so over-utilised is that so many blends can create the same rough thing, because after the migrations of people intensified from the Late Neolithic onwards everyone became so mixed up (at least relative to these "purer" populations like WHG etc.) - as one example, it seems like most in academia see Corded Ware as descended from Yamnaya, but there's so many lines of evidence to show that that isn't the case. Just because they are both approximately EHG-CHG hybrids, doesn't necessarily mean one is an extension of the other, as these ancestral profiles could have been (and I think definitely were) achieved in parallel. That's the main reason I really like looking at Y DNA for tracing male-dominant migrations, because the precision leaves no room for ambiguity, but anyway.

And I don't see early Vinca as too late: it's from the 6th millennium BC and has the earliest known example of copper smelting. With a migration of some of these metallurgical folk from early/middle Vinca to West Asia (perhaps in the search for new finds of metal like has been speculated with the metallurgical Beaker folk, who knows - this also works with the idea that they would be nomadic pastoralists, whose presence was known at least from Ubaid), Vinca wouldn't just collapse or become significantly less advanced or anything like that - you wouldn't expect to see much of a change at all, as the Vinca people proper (the mainly EEF farmer population) were advanced in their own right (as I said, I think the proto-writing, despite swastikas in the Danube script, surely has to be attributed to them, as to put it bluntly R1b-M269+ folk and literacy didn't get on very well until even well after the Iron Age in some cases).

This puts a migration out of the Balkans to West Asia of these metallurgical folk somewhere around perhaps the year 5,000 BC if I had to guess, which leaves 1,000 years until the L23 mutation comes along.

The thing is, we dont really know if Yamnaya, Bell Beaker, Unetice, Vucedol were Metallurgists at all. Much of the metal artifacts from those cultures were weapons and jewelry wich is clearly about social status and they were found in Hoards. Hoards is much more a characteristic of Thiefs, War treasurs and maybe Trading. There is more chance than IE people were something like Pastoralists past-time Warriors and/or past-time Mercenaries who accumulate a lot of wealth by trades and payments from local populations with strong metallurgical culture.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 15:05
The thing is, we dont really know if Yamnaya, Bell Beaker, Unetice, Vucedol were Metallurgists at all. Much of the metal artifacts from those cultures were weapons and jewelry wich is clearly about social status and they were found in Hoards. Hoards is much more a characteristic of Thiefs, War treasurs and maybe Trading. There is more chance than IE people were something like Pastoralists past-time Warriors and/or past-time Mercenaries who accumulate a lot of wealth by trades and payments from local populations with strong metallurgical culture.

Well looking at Yamnaya and Bell Beaker, we know that they would have been skilled metallurgists. One of the main reasons Yamnaya completely dominated the densely-populated Balkans is because of their bronze weapons - the advantage of having bronze weaponry really cannot be overstated, it is almost like comparing a semi-automatic rifle to a musket. And Bell Beaker seems to have picked up Bronze smelting technology from contacts with Hungarian Yamnaya, but they too were clearly metallurgists even before this. I don't think anyone really doubts that perhaps the main (but if not, one of the main) factor for the successful spread of Yamnaya and the Bell Beaker culture was due to metallurgy.

Pygmalion
02-12-18, 15:13
Well looking at Yamnaya and Bell Beaker, we know that they would have been skilled metallurgists. One of the main reasons Yamnaya completely dominated the densely-populated Balkans is because of their bronze weapons - the advantage of having bronze weaponry really cannot be overstated, it is almost like comparing a semi-automatic rifle to a musket. And Bell Beaker seems to have picked up Bronze smelting technology from contacts with Hungarian Yamnaya, but they too were clearly metallurgists even before this. I don't think anyone really doubts that perhaps the main (but if not, one of the main) factor for the successful spread of Yamnaya and the Bell Beaker culture was due to metallurgy.

What? Yamnaya had bronze weapons? What are you talking about?

Cato
02-12-18, 15:15
They had copper not bronze

Utilizzando Tapatalk

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 15:16
What? Yamnaya had bronze weapons? What are you talking about?

They did, I swear. Let me double check though.

Angela
02-12-18, 15:16
Maybe the Sardinian samples are from the interior where there was little or zero BB settlements (?) no mines and no plains there only mountains

Utilizzando Tapatalk

We already know from all the recent papers on Sardinia that the samples so close to EEF and even MN Europe from Sardinia were taken by Cavalli Sforza from the remote and isolated Barbagia. At the same time we know from those same papers that the remainder of the Sardinian population is not hugely different from those samples. The influence from this early movement of Iran Neo like ancestry into Sardinia, as well as whatever genetic material may have been contributed by Bell Beakers or later on by some Phoenicians and by migration from the mainland was not enough to move them all that far from the relict population.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 15:17
What? Yamnaya had bronze weapons? What are you talking about?


They had copper not bronze

Just checked (really quick to google): they had Bronze weapons.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 15:20
What? Yamnaya had bronze weapons? What are you talking about?

Clearly, you shouldn't be so sure of yourself:

"We may imagine the domestication of the horse was the final ingredient in a package of innovations that enabled the creation of something the world had never seen before: highly mobile, mounted warriors on horseback, shielded in bronze armor and wielding terrifying new weapons of bronze, with logistical support provided by wheeled wagons."

halfalp
02-12-18, 15:26
Well looking at Yamnaya and Bell Beaker, we know that they would have been skilled metallurgists. One of the main reasons Yamnaya completely dominated the densely-populated Balkans is because of their bronze weapons - the advantage of having bronze weaponry really cannot be overstated, it is almost like comparing a semi-automatic rifle to a musket. And Bell Beaker seems to have picked up Bronze smelting technology from contacts with Hungarian Yamnaya, but they too were clearly metallurgists even before this. I don't think anyone really doubts that perhaps the main (but if not, one of the main) factor for the successful spread of Yamnaya and the Bell Beaker culture was due to metallurgy.

We dont know if they really smelt and create their weapon themselves tho. It's a suposition looking for exemple Sintashta clearly had Smelting place and were really close to the South Urals were the minerals were. But what about Yamnaya, is there clear sign of Metallurgy? Where were the center of those smelting? Most of their weapons could have come from other cultures like Maikop and when Maikop decade, they needed to migrate to found their components until likely develop their own Metallurgy.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 15:30
We dont know if they really smelt and create their weapon themselves tho. It's a suposition looking for exemple Sintashta clearly had Smelting place and were really close to the South Urals were the minerals were. But what about Yamnaya, is there clear sign of Metallurgy? Where were the center of those smelting? Most of their weapons could have come from other cultures like Maikop and when Maikop decade, they needed to migrate to found their components until likely develop their own Metallurgy.

That's dumb and goes against Occam's razor - they clearly knew how to make the tools themselves. Humour me though, if Maykop somehow was the factory producing bronze weapons and bronze armour for Yamnaya, what did Yamnaya give to Maykop in exchange? Horses? How is it so hard to accept Yamnaya had bronze smelting technology and used it for tools, literally nobody doubts it - that doesn't mean bronze metallurgy began in the Steppes though.

Johane Derite
02-12-18, 15:30
I have been saying this for years even without genetic evidence that Greek arrived from near Armenian teritory through Anatolia,even thought all were denying this.
I am on same opinion even for Albanian now,the southern route Iran_Neo took to Italy maybe the sister language like Messapic.
Let's see what other hypothesis we can make further.

Hmm. Just a couple of days ago you were saying Albanian comes from the Carpathians. Vladimir Orel, who is a proponent of this theory finds almost no Armenian isoglosses with Albanian (only 4). This would make what you are saying a bit difficult.

Genetically speaking, the ancient balkan J2b2-L283 being steppe enriched makes it difficult. Likewise the relative lack of EV13 in Armenia and it more likely being Balkanic is also difficult. R1b-Z2013 also found in croatia is dated 2700BC, which would be quite an ancient entry if you are arguing that albanian was from anatolia.

There are things which could be relevant here if bell beakers, etc are being discussed. Albanians are the dinaric population par excellence (bell beakers were dinaric).

In the balkans, Albanians have the highest R1b-Pf7562 (very rare), R1b-m269(xl51), and among the highest Z2103 also. The distributions because of the diversity cannot reasonably be argued to be inflated by sample size or founder effects.

Neither do these distribution support ottoman related late entry as the distribution of these groups would be higher in Turkey, and ancient Z2103 has been found in Croatia dated 2700BC.

The lack of these specific Albanian R1b clades in south slavs also testifies to their presence since at least deep antiquity, or at the very confirmed least: pre slav migrations.

Kosovo Albanians also seem to have the highest concentration of these R1b clades (oldest copper axe in europe found in Prokuplje near Kosovo border in a Vinca site)


All these things are some issues with Albanian being part of a Albano-Greco-Armenian language group entering with Iran_Neo/CHG through anatolia.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZWDz_DTQs84/WJGJ_wOOgYI/AAAAAAAAELc/uDiZjcV1kMkAG6o3OWMfFDHBt4VYFGNHACLcB/s1600/tree.JPG

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g0bw35BUsac/Wr-3lEPrhaI/AAAAAAAAEww/KZy6UwLIPj4TdzrBU-5hjAXZU3oCsP6NQCLcBGAs/s1600/R1b-PF7562.JPG

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K-7fNZ3iGEY/Wr9zOpUYAJI/AAAAAAAAEwU/IIwD_YeFPq04XltJsp-wqd8YvKnLYf5mwCLcBGAs/s1600/R1b-Z2103.JPG

source: http://r1b-pf7562.blogspot.com/



Btw can somebody explain to me why this region in Russia is also showing up as having high percentages also with J2b as well as the R1b -Z2103 and Pf7562?

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J2b.gif

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 15:35
Hmm. Just a couple of days ago you were saying Albanian comes from the Carpathians. Vladimir Orel, who is a proponent of this theory finds almost no Armenian isoglosses with Albanian (only 4). This would make what you are saying a bit difficult.

Genetically speaking, the ancient balkan J2b2-L283 being steppe enriched makes it difficult. Likewise the relative lack of EV13 in Armenia and it more likely being Balkanic is also difficult. R1b-Z2013 also found in croatia is dated 2700BC, which would be quite an ancient entry if you are arguing that albanian was from anatolia.

There are things which could be relevant here if bell beakers, etc are being discussed. Albanians are the dinaric population par excellence (bell beakers were dinaric).

In the balkans, Albanians have the highest R1b-Pf7562 (very rare), R1b-m269(xl51), and among the highest Z2103 also. The distributions because of the diversity cannot reasonably be argued to be inflated by sample size or founder effects.

Neither do these distribution support ottoman related late entry as the distribution of these groups would be higher in Turkey, and ancient Z2103 has been found in Croatia dated 2700BC.

The lack of these specific Albanian R1b clades in south slavs also testifies to their presence since at least deep antiquity, or at the very confirmed least: pre slav migrations.

Kosovo Albanians also seem to have the highest concentration of these R1b clades (oldest copper axe in europe found in Prokuplje near Kosovo border in a Vinca site)


All these things are some issues with Albanian being part of a Albano-Greco-Armenian language group entering with Iran_Neo/CHG through anatolia.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZWDz_DTQs84/WJGJ_wOOgYI/AAAAAAAAELc/uDiZjcV1kMkAG6o3OWMfFDHBt4VYFGNHACLcB/s1600/tree.JPG

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g0bw35BUsac/Wr-3lEPrhaI/AAAAAAAAEww/KZy6UwLIPj4TdzrBU-5hjAXZU3oCsP6NQCLcBGAs/s1600/R1b-PF7562.JPG

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K-7fNZ3iGEY/Wr9zOpUYAJI/AAAAAAAAEwU/IIwD_YeFPq04XltJsp-wqd8YvKnLYf5mwCLcBGAs/s1600/R1b-Z2103.JPG

source: http://r1b-pf7562.blogspot.com/



Btw can somebody explain to me why this region in Russia is also showing up as having high percentages also with J2b?

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J2b.gif

I think that's the Bashkirs, they also have a lot of Z2103. This is evidence of sorts for a migration of men from the Caucasus to the Steppe, some of which carried Y DNA J2b (and the rest Z2103). The reason for Balkan Y DNA J2b is then likely the same as the reason they have Y DNA Z2103 - from the Yamnaya expansion, but I'd have to look more into the phylogeny and I can't be bothered.

halfalp
02-12-18, 15:35
That's dumb and goes against Occam's razor - they clearly knew how to make the tools themselves. Humour me though, if Maykop somehow was the factory producing bronze weapons and bronze armour for Yamnaya, what did Yamnaya give to Maykop in exchange? Horses? How is it so hard to accept Yamnaya had bronze smelting technology and used it for tools, literally nobody doubts it - that doesn't mean bronze metallurgy began in the Steppes though.

Dont understand the Occam Razor reference here. The most simplier hypothesis for Metallurgy is likely a place were Metals are found, wich is not the case for the East European Plain. Vinca -> Cucuteni in the West and South Caucasus -> Maikop in the South are clear facts of Metallurgical places. For a long time, Maikop was believed to be at the origin of Yamnaya because the Metallurgy is almost the same, now we know they had nothing in common genetically. What's your conclusion for both culture having the same Weapons? Found me an article of a Yamnaya site being a smelting center. It's like saying most of AK-47 are in Africa, so Africa are making AK-47.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 15:38
Dont understand the Occam Razor reference here. The most simplier hypothesis for Metallurgy is likely a place were Metals are found, wich is not the case for the East European Plain. Vinca -> Cucuteni in the West and South Caucasus -> Maikop in the South are clear facts of Metallurgical places. For a long time, Maikop was believed to be at the origin of Yamnaya because the Metallurgy is almost the same, now we know they had nothing in common genetically. What's your conclusion for both culture having the same Weapons? Found me an article of a Yamnaya site being a smelting center. It's like saying most of AK-47 are in Africa, so Africa are making AK-47.

The point about the Steppe being basically flat and useless for metals is true, all I'm saying is that it seems unlikely to assume Yamnaya was unable to smelt bronze themselves and relied solely on importing it. I haven't looked into it, but I'm sure there are finds of bronze smelting within Yamnaya territory. I'll check though.

Johane Derite
02-12-18, 15:42
I think that's the Bashkirs, they also have a lot of Z2103. This is evidence of sorts for a migration of men from the Caucasus to the Steppe, some of which carried Y DNA J2b (and the rest Z2103). The reason for Balkan Y DNA J2b is then likely the same as the reason they have Y DNA Z2103 - from the Yamnaya expansion, but I'd have to look more into the phylogeny and I can't be bothered.

For J2b2-L283 I think that its fairly certain it was from the north based on his admixture:

"The oldest J2b2-L283 sample recovered among ancient DNA samples is a Late Bronze Age (1700-1500 BCE) individual from southern Croatia (Mathieson et al. 2017 (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135616)). His genome possessed about 30% of Steppe admixture and 15% of Eastern Hunter-Gatherer, which suggest a recent arrival from the Steppe. He was accompanied by a woman with similar admixtures, and both possessed typical Pontic-Caspian Steppe mtDNA (I1a1 (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I_mtDNA.shtml) and W3a (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_W_mtDNA.shtml))."


Does anyone here know how much steppe the 2700BC Croatian Z2103 (that was also found in the same Mathieson paper) had?

halfalp
02-12-18, 15:47
The point about the Steppe being basically flat and useless for metals is true, all I'm saying is that it seems unlikely to assume Yamnaya was unable to smelt bronze themselves and relied solely on importing it. I haven't looked into it, but I'm sure there are finds of bronze smelting within Yamnaya territory. I'll check though.

I dont say they were unable, we have a later proof as Sintashta that tey could control they whole production line. I just say in the transition of Neolithic-Eneolithic, Metallurgical centers were more likely from the Balkans and the Caucasus. Khvalynsk already were using Metals but Copper can be modeled with a simple rock, so it's not a huge proof of smelting site. We know from craniometry that Cucuteni for exemple, was Early almost 100% Mediterranean, so Neolithic. But Late saw an introgression of Steppic people, likely in the Eneolithic and showing some demic and cultural influences. So overall, we dont know if Yamnaya and laters were Metallurgists, we know they knew it and used it. The collapse of Cucuteni and Maikop could have induce a migration process to found the needed goods in more western and southern territories.

Pygmalion
02-12-18, 15:52
Clearly, you shouldn't be so sure of yourself:

"We may imagine the domestication of the horse was the final ingredient in a package of innovations that enabled the creation of something the world had never seen before: highly mobile, mounted warriors on horseback, shielded in bronze armor and wielding terrifying new weapons of bronze, with logistical support provided by wheeled wagons."



No, they lacked bronze weapons, along with alone bronze armors of course. You should provide evidence instead of disliking posts.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 15:59
I dont say they were unable, we have a later proof as Sintashta that tey could control they whole production line. I just say in the transition of Neolithic-Eneolithic, Metallurgical centers were more likely from the Balkans and the Caucasus. Khvalynsk already were using Metals but Copper can be modeled with a simple rock, so it's not a huge proof of smelting site. We know from craniometry that Cucuteni for exemple, was Early almost 100% Mediterranean, so Neolithic. But Late saw an introgression of Steppic people, likely in the Eneolithic and showing some demic and cultural influences. So overall, we dont know if Yamnaya and laters were Metallurgists, we know they knew it and used it. The collapse of Cucuteni and Maikop could have induce a migration process to found the needed goods in more western and southern territories.

It's surprisingly hard to find anything about this online (maps of copper and tin mines in Yamnaya), but I did find as you say maps of Sintashta copper mines in what was previously Yamnaya territory - besides, Yamnaya had control of some of the Northern Caucasus too. I suppose I have overlooked your possibility of the Yamnaya migration being caused by a sudden lack of supply of bronze that they outsourced, but I think it's more likely instead that bronze weaponry just allowed them to expand due to the technological advantage. That's in contrast to the early Beaker folk, who I think were actually wandering about for metal sources.

halfalp
02-12-18, 16:08
It's surprisingly hard to find anything about this online (maps of copper and tin mines in Yamnaya), but I did find as you say maps of Sintashta copper mines in what was previously Yamnaya territory - besides, Yamnaya had control of some of the Northern Caucasus too. I suppose I have overlooked your possibility of the Yamnaya migration being caused by a sudden lack of supply of bronze that they outsourced, but I think it's more likely instead that bronze weaponry just allowed them to expand due to the technological advantage.

You need to keep in mind that in Europe, the first time of Chalcolithic, only maybe 10% of weapons were made of Copper, Stone Axes ( for Yamnaya and Chalcolithic Europe ) and Stone Maces ( for Yamnaya ) were still the norm for a long time. CWC have predominentaly Stone weapons, while Unetice made very great use of Copper.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 16:08
No, they lacked bronze weapons, along with alone bronze armors of course. You should provide evidence instead of disliking posts.

Here's one source I found for Yamnaya having bronze weaponry in two seconds: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40377357?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Or you could just google it and find a million other sources in two seconds too. Not hard.

Angela
02-12-18, 16:10
good site Angela.



these colours remind me the Kura-Araxes ones? By the way the date of apparition of the Castelluccio Culture and El Argar are almost the same, quite interesting... if such cultural ties involved migratory movements it would explain the Iran_Neo found for such epoch. About the presence of the "steppe" autosomes it could be linked with the BB and the dolmens of the island, so that such BB carrying steppe would come like those of Balears from South France.

BUT, if they have not found steppe in BA Sardinia but have found there Iran_Neo... it's a big problem as such island must have received the same kind of BB migration that Balears and Sicily; I'm quite scared that it is by the almost lack of WHG admixture in the local EEF (such island had no important Mesolithic population and Cardial migrants didn't had the opportunity to mix with local foragers). Maybe there was a BB strand high in CHG that after mixing with local EEF provided a new ghost steppe signal (taking part of the WHG share in EEF as EHG-like).

I noticed the similar dates too. Very interesting. I hope the Reich group wait to publish their paper on Iberian dna until they have tested samples from El Argar proper.

Berun, the closest ancient populations to the samples taken from the Sardinian Barbagia are the Middle Neolithic Europeans. That's because of the substantial amount of WHG in both samples.

You can see it here:
https://i.imgur.com/z9gCOTr.png

Now, if the comparisons done in various papers use a "Sardinian" component, then the WHG is "hidden" in there. It's like when certain posters look at Admixture results for Tuscans and say they have no WHG. That's incorrect. They have it, but it's "hidden" in the MN like material. See what I mean?

You'll notice that there is no "West Asian" or "Iran Neo" or whatever we want to call it in this analysis. However, that's of those isolated samples. There is a bit in the other, more populous parts of the island, just as they have some "steppe".

However, when Chiang et al looked at the whole genomes, there's not much difference between the various parts of the island. For example, if the Bell Beakers and the Phoenicians didn't move large populations onto the island, you may find some of their ancient samples, but the overall genetic effect is going to be minor.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/12/07/092148.full.pdf

"As an alternative visualization of pan-Mediterranean population structure, an analysisusing the ADMIXTURE software inferred four ancestral components, with one componentassociated primarily with Sardinians and Southern Europeans (“red”), and remainingcomponents corresponding to North African (“blue”), Middle East and Caucasus (“purple”), andNorthern Europeans (“green”) (Figure 4C; see Figure S3 for results at other values of K). TheArzana individuals contained 100% of this red component and Sardinians from Cagliaricontained 93% of this red component."

"Surprisingly though, whenexamining allele sharing within Sardinia, we found that both ancient Neolithic farmer ancestryand pre-Neolithic ancestry are enriched in the Gennargentu-region. First, we find that shareddrift with Neolithic farmers and with pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherers is significantly correlated withthe proportion of “Gennargentu-region” ancestral component estimated from ADMIXTUREanalysis, while shared drift with Steppe pastoralists has a weak negative correlation withGennargentu-region ancestry (Figure 6B). Second, using supervised estimation of ancestryproportion based on aDNA (Haak et al. 2015), we estimate higher levels of Neolithic and preNeolithicancestries in the Gennargentu region and higher levels of Steppe Pastoralist ancestryoutside the region (Figure S10)."

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 16:11
You need to keep in mind that in Europe, the first time of Chalcolithic, only maybe 10% of weapons were made of Copper, Stone Axes ( for Yamnaya and Chalcolithic Europe ) and Stone Maces ( for Yamnaya ) were still the norm for a long time. CWC have predominentaly Stone weapons, while Unetice made very great use of Copper.

Yeah, what's interesting about CWC is they made their stone weaponry to mimic copper weaponry, which suggests they lacked either copper smelting skills or copper itself.

If Yamnaya and Maykop were part of the same cultural horizon, I could believe a lot of Yamnaya's bronze tools came from Maykop - just as certain nations today would have some regions with lots of mines supplying others without. But the idea that Yamnaya and Maykop are as you say separate entities and that Maykop basically built most of Yamnaya's bronze weaponry for them doesn't make much sense in the context of bilateral trade. I definitely overlooked that possibility though, so fair enough.

Regardless, Yamnaya definitely had bronze tools, and it's super unlikely they didn't know how to create it.

Pygmalion
02-12-18, 16:18
Here's one source I found for Yamnaya having bronze weaponry in two seconds: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40377357?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Or you could just google it and find a million other sources in two seconds too. Not hard.

That's an incredibly vague source. Point me to one of your many sources mentioning a specific bronze (not copper) weapon. And please provide a source that mentions the presence of bronze armors in the Yamnaya culture, that's be grand.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 16:56
That's an incredibly vague source. Point me to one of your many sources mentioning a specific bronze (not copper) weapon. And please provide a source that mentions the presence of bronze armors in the Yamnaya culture, that's be grand.

The bronze armour thing may be incorrect, I got that from a popular-archaeology article (https://popular-archaeology.com/article/the-battle-axe-culture/) (which is usually correct and here written up by an affiliate professor, so I trusted it even if it may be wrong). As for bronze weapons existing in Yamnaya, basically everyone seems to refer to it (Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamnaya_culture) for one, and Eske Willerslev (https://whyfiles.org/2015/eurasias-genetic-landscape-unraveled/index.html) too), but I cannot for the life of me find a direct source - so these many sources aren't that great (though the chance that they are all wrong is unlikely). I'll look a bit harder for a few minutes though.

I do have Anthony (https://i.imgur.com/tZxGjJZ.png) though, with reference to Usatovo and Yamnaya, and also this book (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hefUAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA902&lpg=PA902&dq=arsenical+bronze+yamnaya&source=bl&ots=gcOogBOzih&sig=vacZNWhV6KN9fLrVNAGbuoChuHc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwic3IC2y4HfAhVCtHEKHb7FDU8Q6AEwD3oECAcQA Q#v=onepage&q=arsenical%20bronze%20yamnaya&f=false) and this book (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fEK-BkqXfJAC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=The+first+arsenical+bronzes+appear+in+the+Yamna ya+context,+although+most&source=bl&ots=uhX2Pawb6A&sig=6BPTyi8_IyPYetZTVYFFFEm9KRI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi2tP2OzIHfAhUJNOwKHRtXCfw4ChDoATACegQIC BAB#v=onepage&q=arsenic&f=false), which refers to arsenical bronze specifically (though I don't know if you can see it in the preview).

That should be enough evidence of bronze weaponry in Yamnaya, which shouldn't really be needed considering it is seen as a Bronze Age culture... though I'm not saying bronze was used more than copper.

halfalp
02-12-18, 17:20
Yeah, what's interesting about CWC is they made their stone weaponry to mimic copper weaponry, which suggests they lacked either copper smelting skills or copper itself.

If Yamnaya and Maykop were part of the same cultural horizon, I could believe a lot of Yamnaya's bronze tools came from Maykop - just as certain nations today would have some regions with lots of mines supplying others without. But the idea that Yamnaya and Maykop are as you say separate entities and that Maykop basically built most of Yamnaya's bronze weaponry for them doesn't make much sense in the context of bilateral trade. I definitely overlooked that possibility though, so fair enough.

Regardless, Yamnaya definitely had bronze tools, and it's super unlikely they didn't know how to create it.

My bet is, if Yamnaya smelt some of their weapons themselves, it would have been in the same area as cultures like Cucuteni and Maikop, and not in the middle of the steppe with wild horses. Also i talked about Unetice, but Unetice was a very multicultural package as Tomenable said few years ago.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32687-Unetice-culture-was-clearly-multi-ethnic

Also, interesting that North Caucasus, Dolmen LBA, Eastern Yamnaya and ultimately Afanasievo through Okunevo samples had mtdna in common such as H6a1 and H13a1a. I know it doesn't tell much about cultural package, but it's still a maternal link between North and South that could motivated trade and relationship.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 17:30
My bet is, if Yamnaya smelt some of their weapons themselves, it would have been in the same area as cultures like Cucuteni and Maikop, and not in the middle of the steppe with wild horses. Also i talked about Unetice, but Unetice was a very multicultural package as Tomenable said few years ago.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32687-Unetice-culture-was-clearly-multi-ethnic

Also, interesting that North Caucasus, Dolmen LBA, Eastern Yamnaya and ultimately Afanasievo through Okunevo samples had mtdna in common such as H6a1 and H13a1a. I know it doesn't tell much about cultural package, but it's still a maternal link between North and South that could motivated trade and relationship.

I guess I agree most Yamnaya smelting would take place in those regions, yeah. The more I think about it, when considering the motives for expansion (given the Steppe is basically a paradise for pastoralists), the quest for metals does make sense. I always linked migrations in the search of metals to the Bell Beaker folk, but I just assumed Yamnaya was inherently warlike and just picked up the bronze and copper weaponry (and horses of course) to conquer for the sake of some kind of adventurous spirit - that is clearly naïve though, but it does match nicely with things like the Afanasievo culture, which was clearly just expansion for the sake of expansion.

I disagree that Yamnaya was somehow just buying weapons from the Caucasus and were oblivious to the technology behind creating bronze alloys though, and I've always said Yamnaya's metallurgical influences came from the South. But yeah, point taken about how by far the main centres of metallurgy near Yamnaya are in the Caucasus and in the Balkans.

berun
02-12-18, 17:30
The oldest J2b2-L283 sample recovered among ancient DNA samples is a Late Bronze Age (1700-1500 BCE) individual from southern Croatia (Mathieson et al. 2017). His genome possessed about 30% of Steppe admixture and 15% of Eastern Hunter-Gatherer, which suggest a recent arrival from the Steppe. He was accompanied by a woman with similar admixtures, and both possessed typical Pontic-Caspian Steppe mtDNA (I1a1 and W3a)."

this is absurd, from which room of the hell yamnayans might take extra EHG share in the way to the Balkans?? It's not from steppe but Kievan Rus area, which could have extra EHG

berun
02-12-18, 17:33
Also having Albania such richness of old R1b clades is favouring to take R1b as herders, Albania is hilly and rains only allow wheat/barley agriculture near the coast, so a good country to keep a majority of herders over farmers and to know how were the Neolithic waves after landing in Europe.

berun
02-12-18, 17:36
@Angela, I must check the Sardinian samples to who were compared.

@all, bronze (copper and tin) in Yamnaya was not but arsenical copper.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 17:41
@Angela, I must check the Sardinian samples to who were compared.

@all, bronze (copper and tin) in Yamnaya was not but arsenical copper.

Didn't know that Yamnaya bronze used arsenic and not tin to alloy with the copper, thanks.

Milan.M
02-12-18, 17:42
Hmm. Just a couple of days ago you were saying Albanian comes from the Carpathians. Vladimir Orel, who is a proponent of this theory finds almost no Armenian isoglosses with Albanian (only 4). This would make what you are saying a bit difficult.

Genetically speaking, the ancient balkan J2b2-L283 being steppe enriched makes it difficult. Likewise the relative lack of EV13 in Armenia and it more likely being Balkanic is also difficult. R1b-Z2013 also found in croatia is dated 2700BC, which would be quite an ancient entry if you are arguing that albanian was from anatolia.

There are things which could be relevant here if bell beakers, etc are being discussed. Albanians are the dinaric population par excellence (bell beakers were dinaric).

In the balkans, Albanians have the highest R1b-Pf7562 (very rare), R1b-m269(xl51), and among the highest Z2103 also. The distributions because of the diversity cannot reasonably be argued to be inflated by sample size or founder effects.

Neither do these distribution support ottoman related late entry as the distribution of these groups would be higher in Turkey, and ancient Z2103 has been found in Croatia dated 2700BC.

The lack of these specific Albanian R1b clades in south slavs also testifies to their presence since at least deep antiquity, or at the very confirmed least: pre slav migrations.

Kosovo Albanians also seem to have the highest concentration of these R1b clades (oldest copper axe in europe found in Prokuplje near Kosovo border in a Vinca site)


All these things are some issues with Albanian being part of a Albano-Greco-Armenian language group entering with Iran_Neo/CHG through anatolia.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZWDz_DTQs84/WJGJ_wOOgYI/AAAAAAAAELc/uDiZjcV1kMkAG6o3OWMfFDHBt4VYFGNHACLcB/s1600/tree.JPG

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g0bw35BUsac/Wr-3lEPrhaI/AAAAAAAAEww/KZy6UwLIPj4TdzrBU-5hjAXZU3oCsP6NQCLcBGAs/s1600/R1b-PF7562.JPG

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K-7fNZ3iGEY/Wr9zOpUYAJI/AAAAAAAAEwU/IIwD_YeFPq04XltJsp-wqd8YvKnLYf5mwCLcBGAs/s1600/R1b-Z2103.JPG

source: http://r1b-pf7562.blogspot.com/



Btw can somebody explain to me why this region in Russia is also showing up as having high percentages also with J2b as well as the R1b -Z2103 and Pf7562?

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J2b.gif
Doesn't need to be related to Armenian to come from that area,there was many other Anatolian languages,Iranic languages for example.
Albanian at least to me seem connected to Germanic and Balto-Slavic the most,but this could be later influence maybe?
Also i was discussing other possibilities not only the Carpathian which i said need to be proven,even if it was "Dacian" or "Illyrian" related really could have come from there.

E-V13 was not probably in the Indo-European migration.
J2b2-L283 is probably Indo-European but we are yet to see from where it came from.
For the R1b-Z103 we don't know if Albanians descent exactly from this sample,there is many haplotypes under R1b-Z103.
I am not excluding more "ancient" entry,but R1b-Z103 being eastern related i think Albanian took same route as the Greek for which i think came from there.

After all for right now i think that two "groups" carried IE,steppe groups and the Iran_Neo,ultimate PIE homeland-Armenia,Iran,Kurdistan maybe parts of eastern Anatolia,that area somewhere.

halfalp
02-12-18, 17:50
Didn't know that Yamnaya bronze used arsenic and not tin to alloy with the copper, thanks.

Arsenical Bronze was the norm everywhere before Proper Bronze. Unetice used to trade as far as Wssex Culture, probably for the Cornwall Tin.

halfalp
02-12-18, 17:55
I guess I agree most Yamnaya smelting would take place in those regions, yeah. The more I think about it, when considering the motives for expansion (given the Steppe is basically a paradise for pastoralists), the quest for metals does make sense. I always linked migrations in the search of metals to the Bell Beaker folk, but I just assumed Yamnaya was inherently warlike and just picked up the bronze and copper weaponry (and horses of course) to conquer for the sake of some kind of adventurous spirit - that is clearly naïve though, but it does match nicely with things like the Afanasievo culture, which was clearly just expansion for the sake of expansion.

I disagree that Yamnaya was somehow just buying weapons from the Caucasus and were oblivious to the technology behind creating bronze alloys though, and I've always said Yamnaya's metallurgical influences came from the South. But yeah, point taken about how by far the main centres of metallurgy near Yamnaya are in the Caucasus and in the Balkans.

I guess at the beginning, Yamnaya even before Repin, Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog were inherently warlike in their own society like europe feodalism. When some internal pressure would happen, some people would have been banned from the society and must have found a place elswhere, over the time, they became to happened in other " civilisations " like Old Europe and Caucasus, over time they take the power.

Lenab
02-12-18, 18:06
Doesn't need to be related to Armenian to come from that area,there was many other Anatolian languages,Iranic languages for example.
Albanian at least to me seem connected to Germanic and Balto-Slavic the most,but this could be later influence maybe?
Also i was discussing other possibilities not only the Carpathian which i said need to be proven,even if it was "Dacian" or "Illyrian" related really could have come from there.

E-V13 was not probably in the Indo-European migration.
J2b2-L283 is probably Indo-European but we are yet to see from where it came from.
For the R1b-Z103 we don't know if Albanians descent exactly from this sample,there is many haplotypes under R1b-Z103.
I am not excluding more "ancient" entry,but R1b-Z103 being eastern related i think Albanian took same route as the Greek for which i think came from there.

After all for right now i think that two "groups" carried IE,steppe groups and the Iran_Neo,ultimate PIE homeland-Armenia,Iran,Kurdistan maybe parts of eastern Anatolia,that area somewhere.
Yes it is mostly Armenian, the first discovered branch of Armenian including their original language was a Hittite language and most scholars and historians support the fact that they are close genetic descendants when you think of typical PIEs you think of Armenian / Hittites. You can argue that Greeks Cypriots indigenous people of the Levant would have close similarities.

Hittites in their description, were also physically indistinguishable from Pontian Greeks that is the Greeks who inhabit Pontus. This proves that both the ( original Armenians ) and Pontian Greeks have a racial and a historical connection and both those ethnicities are indigenous.

Lenab
02-12-18, 18:07
Iran Neo is just a fancy way of saying Pontian Caspian Steppes

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 18:18
I guess at the beginning, Yamnaya even before Repin, Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog were inherently warlike in their own society like europe feodalism. When some internal pressure would happen, some people would have been banned from the society and must have found a place elswhere, over the time, they became to happened in other " civilisations " like Old Europe and Caucasus, over time they take the power.

No of course Yamnaya was warlike, but I just mean it was naïve to think that they would invade various places just for the sake of expanding into others' territory (when why would you need more than the Steppe, it's huge). The expansion for metals makes sense.

Also just something somewhat irrelevant, and I think people have speculated on this before (but in a different way) - I think the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic (so well before Yamnaya) statue menhirs in Western Europe are yet another sign of these R1b-L51 people. Now, there are very similar erections (sorry) in the Steppe at the time of Yamnaya, which might lead to believing that the erectors of these statues migrated across Europe from there, but they surely would have been Y DNA Z2103 given both ends of the Yamnaya spectrum are Z2103 (from the Danube to the Ural rivers), which leaves no room for L51. Sporadically, these stelae have been found in the Near East, which could have been where the common ancestor of L51 and Z2103 lived - in some places, it could be possible to link it to incursions from the Steppe (such as western Anatolia), however in others that is basically impossible, such as the finds in Northern Saudi Arabia dating to the early 4th millennium BC, which shows that, unless this was a miraculous independent invention, its origin was probably in West Asia. Virtually all of these stelae depict the men as warriors with authority, and the women are differentiated through showing off their breasts.

It's also worth mentioning that most of the Steppe stelae are around the Ukraine, of the Kemi Oba culture, which according to Russian Wikipedia (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D0%25 9A%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BC%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BD%25D0%25 BD%25D0%25B0%25D1%258F_%25D0%25B1%25D0%25B0%25D0%2 5B1%25D0%25B0) "may have something to do with the Caucasus", which further cements this West Asian origin theory (on top of this clearly non-Steppe related Northern Saudi stelae of the same style).

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStatue-menhir

halfalp
02-12-18, 18:34
No of course Yamnaya was warlike, but I just mean it was naïve to think that they would invade various places just for the sake of expanding into others' territory (when why would you need more than the Steppe, it's huge). The expansion for metals makes sense.

Also just something somewhat irrelevant, and I think people have speculated on this before (but in a different way) - I think the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic (so well before Yamnaya) statue menhirs in Western Europe are yet another sign of these R1b-L51 people. Now, there are very similar erections (sorry) in the Steppe at the time of Yamnaya, which might lead to believing that the erectors of these statues migrated across Europe from there, but they surely would have been Y DNA Z2103 given both ends of the Yamnaya spectrum are Z2103 (from the Danube to the Ural rivers), which leaves no room for L51. Sporadically, these stelae have been found in the Near East, which could have been where the common ancestor of L51 and Z2103 lived - in some places, it could be possible to link it to incursions from the Steppe (such as western Anatolia), however in others that is basically impossible, such as the finds in Northern Saudi Arabia dating to the early 4th millennium BC, which shows that, unless this was a miraculous independent invention, its origin was probably in West Asia. Virtually all of these stelae depict the men as warriors with authority, and the women are differentiated through showing off their breasts.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStatue-menhir

I dont believe the saudi arabian stelae are really from 4000BC, but who knows. The south caucasus one are from 2000BC while some stelae in the pontic steppe are from Sredny Stog. It's unlikely that there was a jump from Saudi Arabia to the Pontic Steppe with the one in between being younger than the two extremities. L51 for my point of view is a little problem in the equation, Yamnaya is just one side of the whole story, it's not the Eden Garden. As for being from the steppe, instead some tested samples labeled Z2103 were in fact L51 because low snps or what not, i think we want never found them there. The answer for L51 is linked either with the Danube ( most likely ) or either with an obscure semi-maritime road.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 18:35
God there are just so many lines of evidence I keep finding for a West Asian origin of L23, followed by a Chalcolithic migration of pre-L51 to Western Europe and (later during the Bronze Age) Z2103 to the Steppe - I hope this isn't some ridiculous confirmation bias at play, at least it doesn't seem like it.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 18:37
I dont believe the saudi arabian stelae are really from 4000BC, but who knows. The south caucasus one are from 2000BC while some stelae in the pontic steppe are from Sredny Stog. It's unlikely that there was a jump from Saudi Arabia to the Pontic Steppe with the one in between being younger than the two extremities. L51 for my point of view is a little problem in the equation, Yamnaya is just one side of the whole story, it's not the Eden Garden. As for being from the steppe, instead some tested samples labeled Z2103 were in fact L51 because low snps or what not, i think we want never found them there. The answer for L51 is linked either with the Danube ( most likely ) or either with an obscure semi-maritime road.

It's from between 4000 and 3000 BC without any doubt (so not from the Steppe, yet the similarities suggest a common origin), and I updated that post by the way, with the Caucasus-to-Steppe link via Kemi Oba. It reminds of the Ozera outlier actually...

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 18:39
I dont believe the saudi arabian stelae are really from 4000BC, but who knows. The south caucasus one are from 2000BC while some stelae in the pontic steppe are from Sredny Stog. It's unlikely that there was a jump from Saudi Arabia to the Pontic Steppe with the one in between being younger than the two extremities. L51 for my point of view is a little problem in the equation, Yamnaya is just one side of the whole story, it's not the Eden Garden. As for being from the steppe, instead some tested samples labeled Z2103 were in fact L51 because low snps or what not, i think we want never found them there. The answer for L51 is linked either with the Danube ( most likely ) or either with an obscure semi-maritime road.

I don't know what that's referring to, but if it was actually found to be probably pre-L51 everyone would have gone nuts by now. When do these samples date to? If Yamnaya, I very much doubt that it is legit. Danubian Yamnaya was clearly Z2103, the only hope for L51 from the Steppe is a pre-Yamnaya migration.

Angela
02-12-18, 18:43
Any discussion of metallurgy in terms of Yamnaya or more generally the steppes is very time dependent.

In the earliest period they imported copper objects, usually from the west.

As time went on they made copper artifacts of their own, using copper from the west, but they were simplistic and inferior.

As yet more time passed the steppe peoples did adopt bronze metallurgy. That seems to be after the time of the earliest Corded Ware movements, because they had only copper in the beginning.

Let's not try to re-invent the wheel, people. This is all well-known.

https://i.imgur.com/y2BcJBz.png

We discussed it here at great length back in 2014.

Steppe people became good metallurgists, i.e. Srubnaya and Sintashta, for example.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30625-David-Anthony-on-Metallurgy

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 18:45
Any discussion of metallurgy in terms of Yamnaya or more generally the steppes is very time dependent.

In the earliest period they imported copper objects, usually from the west.

As time went on they made copper artifacts of their own, using copper from the west, but they were simplistic and inferior.

As yet more time passed the steppe peoples did adopt bronze metallurgy. That seems to be after the time of the earliest Corded Ware movements, because they had only copper in the beginning.

Let's not try to re-invent the wheel, people. This is all well-known.

https://i.imgur.com/y2BcJBz.png

We discussed it here at great length back in 2014.

Steppe people became good metallurgists, i.e. Srubnaya and Sintashta, for example.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30625-David-Anthony-on-Metallurgy

Corded Ware may not (I think likely not) have been derived from Yamnaya, but instead displaced by Yamnaya - but Yamnaya did have bronze metallurgy at the earliest stages, but initially very limited. It does seem to be mostly of North Caucasian origin.

Angela
02-12-18, 18:58
As to whether the Greek speakers entered "Greece" from Anatolia or the northern Balkans, the academics left it open. We'll see what more ancient dna shows.

People seem to have forgotten the specifics of the Mycenaean paper. Almost 75% of their ancestry was Neolithic farmer like. Approximately 10% was steppe, and the rest was "Iran Neo" like.

""The successful models agree that Mycenaeans have most of their ancestry from the Neolithicsubstratum (~74-79%), with the remainder from both the Eastern European/Siberian set ofpopulations (~5-16%), and the Iran/Caucasus populations (~9-18%). These results do not, of coursedetermine whether the non-Anatolian Neolithic-related admixture in Mycenaeans was introduced by asingle population that was itself a mix of the Eastern European/Siberian and Iran/Caucasus sources, orby separate admixtures that reached the Aegean presumably from the north and east. They do,however, show that admixture from only a single of those sources is insufficient to properly model theancestry of Mycenaeans (as the failure of any 2-source model in Table S2.1 indicates)."

"We were concerned that the admixture from these three sources could be driven by heterogeneitywithin the Mycenaean population itself. Mycenaeans do appear to form a tight cluster in PCA (Fig.1b) and to have similar admixture proportions in ADMIXTURE analysis."

"More formally, we tested all (42) = 6 pairs of Mycenaean individuals in our dataset as a Left list,using the All as the Right list. All 6 pairs were consistent with forming a clade with respect to the Allset to the limits of our resolution (p-value for rank=0 ≥0.08)."

So, we're talking about, say, 10% "steppe" admixture. "

"It seems to me that perhaps more J2 came to Crete and mainland Greece before the Bronze Age proper for the CHG/Iran type ancestry to be so low. That, or like Bronze Age migrations in Europe, they were more male dominated, because the Minoans seem to be largely Neolithic Anatolians, which is what I always suspected and proposed.

Of course, they always think of everything, so they thought of this too.:)

". However, all the Bronze Age populations also have ancestry related to the Caucasusor Iran, consistent with their shift in PCA (Fig. 1b). This shift began in Anatolia no later than theChalcolithic (3943-3708 calBCE)16 and was not evident in Greece by the time of the Final Neolithic(4,230–3,995 calBCE) individual from Kleitos14 that resembled (like all other Greek Neolithicindividuals) Anatolian farmers (Fig. 1b). The newly reported Neolithic individual from Diros Cave inthe Peloponnese (where most of the Mycenaean samples are from) did not have this ancestry as late as5479-5338 calBCE (Extended Data Table 1). (Future studies may show when the transformationoccurred in Greece, but by the time of the Minoan and Mycenaean samples, both populations tracedsome ancestry to this eastern source, as did the southwestern Anatolians from Harmanören Göndürle.

"Bronze Age AnatoliaThe population from Bronze Age southwestern Anatolia does not form a clade with any single (N=1)population of the All set (p-value for rank=0 < 1e-25). It cannot be modelled as any 2-way mixture(Table S2.8), with the best ones involving a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and either Iran Neolithicor Caucasus hunter-gatherers. This population can be modelled as a 3-way mixture (Table S2.9) of~62% Neolithic Anatolian, ~32% Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG), and ~6% Levantine Neolithicancestry. This extra Levantine Neolithic ancestry parallels the PCA (Fig. 1b) that shows that theBronze Age Anatolian sample is to the “east” (towards the Levant) relative to the Minoans andMycenaeans.""
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans?highlight=Mycenaeans


If there was no "steppe" in Anatolia, and that's what the current samples show, that seems to be a problem for the Anatolia entry hypothesis.

halfalp
02-12-18, 19:06
I don't know what that's referring to, but if it was actually found to be probably pre-L51 everyone would have gone nuts by now. When do these samples date to? If Yamnaya, I very much doubt that it is legit. Danubian Yamnaya was clearly Z2103, the only hope for L51 from the Steppe is a pre-Yamnaya migration.

I'm talking about the Danubian Road into Western Europe, not Danubian Yamnaya, wich is more Tisza Yamnaya.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 19:10
I'm talking about the Danubian Road into Western Europe, not Danubian Yamnaya, wich is more Tisza Yamnaya.

Sure, but it definitely wouldn't have been that different. That either implies L23 split up just before the Tisza, or for whatever reason L51 decided to stay on the Danube and Z2103 would go down the Tisza - but the common origin of this migration, Yamnaya, was Z2103 anyway. So it's not possible, or rather super unlikely to the point where it's not a reasonable possibility.

I am open to a Steppe origin of L51 despite not believing in it, but it would basically have to be pre-Yamnaya.

halfalp
02-12-18, 19:24
Sure, but it definitely wouldn't have been that different. That either implies L23 split up just before the Tisza, or for whatever reason L51 decided to stay on the Danube and Z2103 would go down the Tisza - but the common origin of this migration, Yamnaya, was Z2103 anyway. So it's not possible, or rather super unlikely to the point where it's not a reasonable possibility.

I am open to a Steppe origin of L51 despite not believing in it, but it would basically have to be pre-Yamnaya.

I didn't imply this. When Yamnaya expand into the Danubian, they created multitude of spots. On the Tisza, Vucedol, Bubanj, Otomani, Moravian BB, Bohemian BB, Danubian BB, Alsacian BB. R1b-L51 probably expanded from one of those center, they probably had R1b-Z2103 too. Eastern Bell Beaker are on the L-51 cline wich obviously mean they expanded for somewhere close and followed the Danube and the Rhine into Western Europe.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 19:30
I didn't imply this. When Yamnaya expand into the Danubian, they created multitude of spots. On the Tisza, Vucedol, Bubanj, Otomani, Moravian BB, Bohemian BB, Danubian BB, Alsacian BB. R1b-L51 probably expanded from one of those center, they probably had R1b-Z2103 too. Eastern Bell Beaker are on the L-51 cline wich obviously mean they expanded for somewhere close and followed the Danube and the Rhine into Western Europe.

So you mean originally Yamnaya expanding up the lower Danube nearer the Black Sea was a mixture of Z2103 and L51, and a founder effect led to L51's dominance in the branch that continued to Central Europe? Sorry if I'm not understanding, but if that's the case then we would expect to see some L51 in Yamnaya and elsewhere in the Yamnaya horizon, but we haven't. We would also still expect to see small but still noticeable levels of Z2103 in Western Europe, yet it is basically non-existent.

The point is, L51 definitely predates Yamnaya, but it's nowhere to be seen until the Beaker expansions across Europe, which I will just point out was archaologically definitely West to East.

halfalp
02-12-18, 19:39
So you mean originally Yamnaya expanding up the lower Danube nearer the Black Sea was a mixture of Z2103 and L51, and a founder effect led to L51's dominance in the branch that continued to Central Europe? Sorry if I'm not understanding, but if that's the case then we would expect to see some L51 in Yamnaya and elsewhere in the Yamnaya horizon, but we haven't. We would also still expect to see small but still noticeable levels of Z2103 in Western Europe, yet it is basically non-existent.

The point is, L51 definitely predates Yamnaya, but it's nowhere to be seen until the Beaker expansions across Europe, which I will just point out was archaologically definitely West to East.


Why should we seen it in Yamnaya samples if it was not a main haplogroup? We have 100 samples on 1'000'000 km2. It's like in the 3000's researchers would have 100 samples of 2000's Stockholm, all local and their conclusion would be : yes there was no Africans in 2000's Stockholm. We dont know the exact ratio of each clade in the Pontic Steppe. L-51 is like M-269. We didn't found any M-269 in the Steppe yet, but they probably were there. They probably were V-88 too and L-51, but L-23 and Z-2103 were overdominant, until L-51 had a open door over Western Europe.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-12-18, 19:40
Why should we seen it in Yamnaya samples if it was not a main haplogroup? We have 100 samples on 1'000'000 km2. It's like in the 3000's researchers would have 100 samples of 2000's Stockholm, all local and their conclusion would be : yes there was no Africans in 2000's Stockholm. We dont know the exact ratio of each clade in the Pontic Steppe. L-51 is like M-269. We didn't found any M-269 in the Steppe yet, but they probably were there. They probably were V-88 too and L-51, but L-23 and Z-2103 were overdominant, until L-51 had a open door over Western Europe.

Well, let's just wait and see

Cpluskx
02-12-18, 20:26
I think it's more likely that Greek speakers came from Balkans. On the other hand, it's very unlikely that they also came to Anatolia from Balkans because there is no steppe ancestry and no anthropological change until 2000 BC there with Indo European names in North Syria from 2500 BC.

Tutkun Arnaut
02-12-18, 20:31
I think it's more likely that Greek speakers came from Balkans. On the other hand, it's very unlikely that they also came to Anatolia from Balkans because there is no steppe ancestry and no anthropological change until 2000 BC there with Indo European names in North Syria from 2500 BC.



Greek and Armenian were once the same language. If Greek speakers came from Balkans where did Armenians came from? Clearly Greek speakers and Armenian were Anatolian populations

markod
02-12-18, 20:32
I think it's more likely that Greek speakers came from Balkans. On the other hand, it's very unlikely that they also came to Anatolia from Balkans because there is no steppe ancestry and no anthropological change until 2000 BC there with Indo European names in North Syria from 2500 BC.

My guess is that even if they came from Anatolia, they would have come via the steppe regions of Bulgaria to mainland Greece and the Peloponnese. Drews in his new book sees Greco-Armenian develop in the Trialeti culture, and that's the general route he outlines.

Milan.M
02-12-18, 20:36
If there was no "steppe" in Anatolia, and that's what the current samples show, that seems to be a problem for the Anatolia entry hypothesis.
And how we can know who brought the language if there was both steppe and Iran_Neo let's say in similar percentage?

Lenab
02-12-18, 20:46
Greek and Armenian were once the same language. If Greek speakers came from Balkans where did Armenians came from? Clearly Greek speakers and Armenian were Anatolian populations
They're from Anatolia the Pontian part which is West or West East

Lenab
02-12-18, 20:50
I think it's more likely that Greek speakers came from Balkans. On the other hand, it's very unlikely that they also came to Anatolia from Balkans because there is no steppe ancestry and no anthropological change until 2000 BC there with Indo European names in North Syria from 2500 BC.
The Near Eastern genetics came from Anatolia into the Levant it wasn't indiginous it's indiginous to Anatolia that kind of farming migration came later.

That's why it's sloppy to call the Near East the Levant, the Levant is just something the French coined when they colonised it it was always known as Greater Syria too and rightly so because after they came from Anatolia those farmers then moved onto North Syria and not much else of the Levant.

The recording of the farmers in Jordan and West Bank of Palestine for example are minimal it was mostly done in North Syria because only then after Anatolia.

halfalp
02-12-18, 21:10
Armenians came as Phrygians. Why not?

Lenab
02-12-18, 21:15
Armenians came as Phrygians. Why not?
That's only part of their ancestry and genetics

Ygorcs
03-12-18, 00:16
Yes!!!! We have a 7000bc ehg in Romania. So I have been asking all over what happens when South Caucasus meets that EHG? would it not create a fake yamnaya? Even wrote a post about it... Asked around but got nowhere. Nobody seemed to be able or willing to answer.

That is exactly the reason why many models using many reasonably proximate and plausible populations as hypothetical sources of ancestry must be tested, not trying to use the ones that the author previously wants to find. The closest fits will be the model nearer to the actual truth, though probably in a kind of simplified way, but the essence will be there. I think a good analysis could make sure that a model with separate EHG and Iran-Neo do not get conflated with Yamnaya/Steppe. Can we just assume EHG in BA steppe was still exactly identical to EHG in mesolithic Karelia or Romania?

There was certainly substructure within these broad labels like EHG and Iran-Neo, so using several proxy populations, especially contemporary genetic structures (honestly I do not think a 7000 BC EHG has a lot to say to us about demographic events in Europe in 3000 BC), instead of just a few samples, because that paucity may cause the algorithms to assign ancestry to the closest but still different source. I actually think that is what must be happening with their suspiciously too high Yamnaya-like admixture in modern Northeast Europeans like the Saami and even in ancient samples if the region, with the extra EHG that existed before totally disappearing. As Angela implied if I understood her correctly, I think that somehow the model ended up "splitting" EHG and attributing part of it to WHG, another part to Nganasan and another to Iran-Neo within Yamnaya.

markod
03-12-18, 01:20
I think a good analysis could make sure that a model with separate EHG and Iran-Neo do not get conflated with Yamnaya/Steppe.



I really doubt it. Even seemingly cohesive populations are too internally diverse to allow for that kind of accuracy.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 01:47
I really doubt it. Even seemingly cohesive populations are too internally diverse to allow for that kind of accuracy.

I agree, I think you would need an insane amount of samples to get the specific fingerprint of the genetic signature of hybrid populations separate from the sum of their components, and it may actually be straight up impossible even in ideal circumstances if population growth was low from the point of hybridisation up until the sample date of this hybrid. I definitely agree with Olympus Mons about the idea that EHG present in Balkan HGs, added to some CHG picked up in West Asia, could emulate Steppe (and I'm taking credit for once for coming up with that idea! :P).

Also, to Ygorcs, about the point I raised but didn't know the answer to - I've checked, and I'm right that it is the case that Beaker folk have a high WHG:EHG ratio, which indeed cannot easily be explained by Steppe + European Neolithic (given the WHG:ANF ratio, it can't be the case that the higher WHG than EHG was picked up from European Neolithic types, as then you'd have considerably more ANF ancestry). A source of EHG ancestry in the Balkans (from a population with a high WHG:EHG ratio), similar to Iron Gates, makes far more sense than the Steppe itself.

Daniel D
03-12-18, 01:52
I wonder whether the Greek myth about Prometheus being chained to Mt. Elbrus in the Caucasus as a punishment for bringing the secret of fire to humanity is an echo of the memory of the ancestors of the ancient Greeks learning bronze metallurgy from the Caucasus civilizations.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 02:00
I wonder whether the Greek myth about Prometheus being chained to Mt. Elbrus in the Caucasus as a punishment for bringing the secret of fire to humanity is an echo of the memory of the Greek ancestors learning bronze metallurgy from the Caucasus civilizations.

That is clearly pushing it very far - I'm not against looking to mythology to learn about history (the Bible for example is surprisingly useful), but come on that is very fanciful. Hephaestus, maybe, is better to look into, as he is specifically the god of metallurgy and making things like weapons (fire is more generic surely).

It seems, through comparative mythology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephaestus#Comparative_mythology), that there is a common origin of this archetypal god in West Asia, as it is present in roughly the same form in Nordic mythology and in various West Asian mythologies (even in Egyptian mythology) - it's obviously more likely that the Norse god was influenced via West Asian influences in Yamnaya than Egypt via the Steppe.

Interestingly enough, the Ossetian god of metallurgy is Kurdalægon - which comes from Kurd and Alæ (meaning blacksmith and Aryan respectively - so an Aryan blacksmith). So, maybe the Kurds (perhaps even before their modern Iranian identity) are named as such because of their reputation as metallurgists?

Lenab
03-12-18, 02:00
I wonder whether the Greek myth about Prometheus being chained to Mt. Elbrus in the Caucasus as a punishment for bringing the secret of fire to humanity is an echo of the memory of the Greek ancestors learning bronze metallurgy from the Caucasus civilizations.
I suggest you read the link I provided

Daniel D
03-12-18, 02:11
That is clearly pushing it very far - I'm not against looking to mythology to learn about history (the Bible for example is surprisingly useful), but come on that is very fanciful. Hephaestus, maybe, is better to look into, as he is specifically the god of metallurgy and making things like weapons (fire is more generic surely).

I agree to an extent, but it is an odd coincidence that Greek mythology held Prometheus to have been chained in the Caucasus mountains as opposed to other locations. Perhaps so much time had passed that the Greeks no longer remembered which important innovation their remote ancestors received from the Caucasus, but they nevertheless remembered it was something important, which eventually became fire in the stories. After all, classical Greece civilization was more than 1500 years after the hypothetical transmittal of the knowledge.

I'm not saying there's necessarily a link, but it was something that I've thought about ever since I first heard about the possibility of the interrelationship between PIE and Maikop. Do any other Indo-European groups place a significant mythological knowledge giver in the Caucasus?

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 02:14
I agree to an extent, but it is an odd coincidence that Greek mythology held Prometheus to have been chained in the Caucasus mountains as opposed to other locations. Perhaps so much time had passed that the Greeks no longer remembered which important innovation their remote ancestors received from the Caucasus, but they nevertheless remembered it was something important, which eventually became fire in the stories. After all, classical Greece civilization was more than 1500 years after the hypothetical transmittal of the knowledge.

I'm not saying there's necessarily a link, but it was something that I've thought about ever since I first heard about the possibility of the interrelationship between PIE and Maikop. Do any other Indo-European groups place a significant knowledge giver in the Caucuses?

I mean, I agree with what you're pointing to in a roundabout way, but it's too fanciful. If he specifically brought metallurgy to the Greeks, then I'd count it as one line of evidence, but fire is more primal and basic.

Daniel D
03-12-18, 02:26
I mean, I agree with what you're pointing to in a roundabout way, but it's too fanciful. If he specifically brought metallurgy to the Greeks, then I'd count it as one line of evidence, but fire is more primal and basic.

I agree that the argument for a connection would be stronger if it were specifically about Hephaestus and metallurgy rather than Prometheus and fire. According to the Wikipedia page to which you linked, however, some versions of the Prometheus myth have him stealing fire from Hephaestus' forge, so there is some (attenuated) connection to Hephaestus' forge in the Prometheus myth.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 02:31
I agree that the argument for a connection would be stronger if it were specifically about Hephaestus and metallurgy rather than Prometheus and fire. According to the Wikipedia page to which you linked, however, some versions of the Prometheus myth have him stealing fire from Hephaestus' forge, so there is some (attenuated) connection to Hephaestus' forge in the Prometheus myth.

I suppose, but it's still too weak to be considered a good line of evidence. The story of the Argonauts might be interesting as well (given they sailed to the Caucasus for the golden fleece), but again its questionable at best to be used as evidence of anything.

A. Papadimitriou
03-12-18, 04:09
What they call 'Iran-related' is probably CHG and they are talking about predominately EEF groups with CHG admixture similar to the 'Minoans'
and what they call 'Steppe-related' is just 'Steppe-like' and partially so.

They could have used labels like 'Aegean-related' and 'Central-Europe-related'. They would have been less wrong.

Ygorcs
03-12-18, 05:18
Yes that was my point. The hypothetical Proto-Graeco-Armenian stage dates to the 3rd millennium BC and would be placed somewhere around Armenia. Placing the proto mycanean speakers in a place where they would have ampl Iran_neo/chg but possibly also EHG from contact with caucauses. But you are right the paper says that the Iran_neo
has reached Europe BY 1500BC.
But ill be honest i never quite understood the supposed northern route of greeks entry into southern europe.

Didn't the Caucasus paper fail to find any EHG in Maykop, which is North Caucasus? If Maykop lacked it then I doubt the region of Armenia in South Caucasus would have non-negligible EHG. Unless, I think, if the steppe people had really roamed through and settled in the Caucasus after the Bronze Age, possibly even the Proto-Graeco-Armenians themselves. I know CHG had a small amount of EHG-related ancestry, but I assume the authors would be able to notice that a CHG source fits their genetic makeup better than a pure EHG one.

Ygorcs
03-12-18, 05:30
Also, to Ygorcs, about the point I raised but didn't know the answer to - I've checked, and I'm right that it is the case that Beaker folk have a high WHG:EHG ratio, which indeed cannot easily be explained by Steppe + European Neolithic (given the WHG:ANF ratio, it can't be the case that the higher WHG than EHG was picked up from European Neolithic types, as then you'd have considerably more ANF ancestry). A source of EHG ancestry in the Balkans (from a population with a high WHG:EHG ratio), similar to Iron Gates, makes far more sense than the Steppe itself.

I did not know that thing about the WHG to EHG ratio in BB samples. Really a very intriguing finding, and one which at the very least suggests the true genetic formation of that population was more complex, multilayered. Just so you do not forget it I will add: your hypothesis to explain how that outcome would have happened has verosimilitude. Lol

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 05:34
Didn't the Caucasus paper fail to find any EHG in Maykop, which is North Caucasus? If Maykop lacked it then I doubt the region of Armenia in South Caucasus would have non-negligible EHG. Unless, I think, if the steppe people had really roamed through and settled in the Caucasus after the Bronze Age, possibly even the Proto-Graeco-Armenians themselves. I know CHG had a small amount of EHG-related ancestry, but I assume the authors would be able to notice that a CHG source fits their genetic makeup better than a pure EHG one.

Armenian Chalcolithic (Areni-1), predating those Maykop samples, had a very decent amount of EHG (and as mentioned, one of them was a blue-eyed, pale redhead). The upcoming Caucasus paper basically says that different pockets of the Caucasus had very different ancestry despite being part of the same cultural horizon (much like the Caucasus's terrain holding a million ethnic groups today), which probably explains why those Maykop samples were only appreciably CHG.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 05:36
I did not know that thing about the WHG to EHG ratio in BB samples. Really a very intriguing finding, and one which at the very least suggests the true genetic formation of that population was more complex, multilayered. Just so you do not forget it I will add: your hypothesis to explain how that outcome would have happened has verosimilitude. Lol

Lol, great word. This is probably also related to why the Basques have such high WHG.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 06:08
I checked on MDLP K11 by the way, the only four populations that came up with any significance were WHG, EHG, Iran-Mesolithic and Neolithic (which makes sense - I'm assuming Neolithic is something like ANF, but it doesn't really matter).

Here's the two Bell Beaker samples I have on GEDmatch from Germany, both well East of the Rhine (so, if anything, their Eastern ancestry would be enhanced from mixing with Corded Ware):

https://i.ibb.co/JxMT65z/Screenshot-2018-12-03-at-05-02-25.png

https://i.ibb.co/10JxVdd/Screenshot-2018-12-03-at-05-02-36.png

Ygorcs
03-12-18, 07:25
Clearly, you shouldn't be so sure of yourself:

"We may imagine the domestication of the horse was the final ingredient in a package of innovations that enabled the creation of something the world had never seen before: highly mobile, mounted warriors on horseback, shielded in bronze armor and wielding terrifying new weapons of bronze, with logistical support provided by wheeled wagons."



Whose is this excerpt? I mean, horse-riding warfare only has strong evidences from the mid-late Bronze Age onwards and was probably a decisive factor for the Indo-Iranian expansion, but as far as I know there is no reliable evidence that people of the late Chalcolithic and early BA like the Yamnaya were mounted warriors. They had domesticated the horse, but all that can be said with certainty is that they used them as an animal of traction complementing wheeled wagons (and possibly later war chariots), besides other uses like milk and meat. The early Bronze Age was the time of wagons and chariots, not exactly the archetypical Scythian and later Turkic or Mongol cavalry warfare.

berun
03-12-18, 07:43
By the way if Casteluccio in Sicily and El Argar in Spain pop up suddenly around 2200 BC and show Aegean motives... such date is near to what I have in mind about proto-Greeks entering Greece... and moreover by 2300-2200 BB were pushing peoples in Central Europe also.

And not too late from that we see new WHG+EEF in the steppe delivering there Sintashta and Andronovo with their Indo-Iranic languages.

Ygorcs
03-12-18, 08:02
I don't know what that's referring to, but if it was actually found to be probably pre-L51 everyone would have gone nuts by now. When do these samples date to? If Yamnaya, I very much doubt that it is legit. Danubian Yamnaya was clearly Z2103, the only hope for L51 from the Steppe is a pre-Yamnaya migration.

I still think that, apart from the lower Danube area, the last phases of Cucuteni-Tripolye should also be considered, as it was clearly, in archaeological terms, a culture under heavy steppe influence, reasonable continuity, but also marked changes in a direction suggesting more gradual homogeneization with the steppe neighbors (and all of that righ after a seemingly steppe culture expansion. The L51 may have been an earlier less succesful branch of L23 in Europe that was present in the Carpathians and its slopes, not in the steppes, and it was IEized before exploding in frequency.

Ygorcs
03-12-18, 08:09
By the way if Casteluccio in Sicily and El Argar in Spain pop up suddenly around 2200 BC and show Aegean motives... such date is near to what I have in mind about proto-Greeks entering Greece... and moreover by 2300-2200 (tel:2300-2200) BB were pushing peoples in Central Europe also.

And not too late from that we see new WHG+EEF in the steppe delivering there Sintashta and Andronovo with their Indo-Iranic languages.

All of that, which would clearly have been a maritime-based military and trade enterprise (therefore probably strongly male biased), would have spread no uniform successful haplogroup or haplogroups even if they had been part of one and the same expansion wave? R1b-Z2103 and J2a in Greece, but mainly L51 in BB, but mainly R1a-Z93 (downstream of typical M417 of CWC)? Would those men have simply absorbed males and given them good opportunities to have success and spread their lineage?

Johane Derite
03-12-18, 09:34
Didn't the Caucasus paper fail to find any EHG in Maykop, which is North Caucasus? If Maykop lacked it then I doubt the region of Armenia in South Caucasus would have non-negligible EHG. Unless, I think, if the steppe people had really roamed through and settled in the Caucasus after the Bronze Age, possibly even the Proto-Graeco-Armenians themselves. I know CHG had a small amount of EHG-related ancestry, but I assume the authors would be able to notice that a CHG source fits their genetic makeup better than a pure EHG one.

Yeah this is a good point which Angela also said. Is the scenario that Markod mentioned a feasible way for such a population to pick up EHG?:

"My guess is that even if they came from Anatolia, they would have come via the steppe regions of Bulgaria to mainland Greece and the Peloponnese. Drews in his new book sees Greco-Armenian develop in the Trialeti culture, and that's the general route he outlines."

bicicleur
03-12-18, 09:39
". However, all the Bronze Age populations also have ancestry related to the Caucasusor Iran, consistent with their shift in PCA (Fig. 1b). This shift began in Anatolia no later than theChalcolithic (3943-3708 calBCE)16 and was not evident in Greece by the time of the Final Neolithic(4,230–3,995 calBCE) individual from Kleitos14 that resembled (like all other Greek Neolithicindividuals) Anatolian farmers (Fig. 1b). The newly reported Neolithic individual from Diros Cave inthe Peloponnese (where most of the Mycenaean samples are from) did not have this ancestry as late as5479-5338 calBCE (Extended Data Table 1). (Future studies may show when the transformationoccurred in Greece, but by the time of the Minoan and Mycenaean samples, both populations tracedsome ancestry to this eastern source, as did the southwestern Anatolians from Harmanören Göndürle.



I was not aware that the Diros Cave didn't have Iran ancestry.
The expansion of EEF from Central Anatolia to the Bosporus and Europe started only ca 8.5 ka, while first farmers arrived in Crete and Greece already ca 9 ka.
These farmers were semi-nomadic herders and the first to have ceramics (which Central Anatolia had only 8.5 ka) and probably made dairy products.
They came from SE Anatolia and the northern Zagros. They settled in western Anatolia and crossed the Aegean.
I would suspect their DNA was a mixture of Levantine and Iranian, but they must have been whiped out by incoming EEF from Bulgaria and the Carpathian Basin.

halfalp
03-12-18, 09:41
I mean... we have samples from Bronze Age Southeast Europe and Anatolia, wich none of them are R1b. So if the El Argar R1b was a maritime migration ( ultimately from Black Sea? ) why wouldn't Anatolians IE came by the Sea to Anatolia too?

berun
03-12-18, 10:22
that's not the picture in mind, BB would push CWC towards south (Greek) and east (Indo-iranian), pushing at the same time Pelasgians westwards as east and south were occupied already by advanced civilizations.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 16:51
Whose is this excerpt? I mean, horse-riding warfare only has strong evidences from the mid-late Bronze Age onwards and was probably a decisive factor for the Indo-Iranian expansion, but as far as I know there is no reliable evidence that people of the late Chalcolithic and early BA like the Yamnaya were mounted warriors. They had domesticated the horse, but all that can be said with certainty is that they used them as an animal of traction complementing wheeled wagons (and possibly later war chariots), besides other uses like milk and meat. The early Bronze Age was the time of wagons and chariots, not exactly the archetypical Scythian and later Turkic or Mongol cavalry warfare.

I linked the source in a following post - it seems like it's wrong, but it was written by an affiliate professor so I just assumed it was correct. Yamnaya definitely had bronze weaponry though, which is the main point.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 17:05
I still think that, apart from the lower Danube area, the last phases of Cucuteni-Tripolye should also be considered, as it was clearly, in archaeological terms, a culture under heavy steppe influence, reasonable continuity, but also marked changes in a direction suggesting more gradual homogeneization with the steppe neighbors (and all of that righ after a seemingly steppe culture expansion. The L51 may have been an earlier less succesful branch of L23 in Europe that was present in the Carpathians and its slopes, not in the steppes, and it was IEized before exploding in frequency.

Could be I suppose, but we'll have to see. Given the phylogeny of L51 (and I know some disagree with this), it would have mutated somewhere in the West Mediterranean around 4000 BC, which would necessarily mean a somewhat early migration from Cucuteni to the West. Also, it doesn't account for the signs of R1b-L23 in the Chalcolithic Middle East (swastikas, phylogeny, red hair and European HG ancestry in Armenia ChL etc.), as this hypothesis would presumably put the L23 mutation in roughly modern Ukraine, with L51 going West and Z2103 to the Steppe. Also, it can't really explain why there is so much Z2103 in Eastern West Asia and why the phylogeny of Z2103 points to a Caucasian origin, amongst other things - but this all does seem much simpler than the idea I've been promoting, which is obviously a good thing.

It's definitely a better hypothesis than Yamnaya whatever the case.

Angela
03-12-18, 17:38
That is exactly the reason why many models using many reasonably proximate and plausible populations as hypothetical sources of ancestry must be tested, not trying to use the ones that the author previously wants to find. The closest fits will be the model nearer to the actual truth, though probably in a kind of simplified way, but the essence will be there. I think a good analysis could make sure that a model with separate EHG and Iran-Neo do not get conflated with Yamnaya/Steppe. Can we just assume EHG in BA steppe was still exactly identical to EHG in mesolithic Karelia or Romania?

There was certainly substructure within these broad labels like EHG and Iran-Neo, so using several proxy populations, especially contemporary genetic structures (honestly I do not think a 7000 BC EHG has a lot to say to us about demographic events in Europe in 3000 BC), instead of just a few samples, because that paucity may cause the algorithms to assign ancestry to the closest but still different source. I actually think that is what must be happening with their suspiciously too high Yamnaya-like admixture in modern Northeast Europeans like the Saami and even in ancient samples if the region, with the extra EHG that existed before totally disappearing. As Angela implied if I understood her correctly, I think that somehow the model ended up "splitting" EHG and attributing part of it to WHG, another part to Nganasan and another to Iran-Neo within Yamnaya.

From what I can see many of the amateurs use "only" the populations they hope to find, and usually because it would further their agenda. They're also adept at pretending they never said what they clearly did say. Their minions will echo that and the ignorant won't be any the wiser. Goodness, they're even adopting the snowflake mentality of the far left "progressive" loonies. Well, Sikeliot was always comfortable in that mode, but now even Davidski complains he's been bullied on line. Boo hoo. :) I haven't seen it but if he has, perhaps it's a little pay back for years of attacking Jews and Southern Italians on multiple racist websites. Things have come to a pretty pass if racists now claim victimization for their beliefs.

Ah, well. On to more important matters. Yes, that is what I rather inartfully said. To make it a little clearer:

https://i.imgur.com/DdLxLm8.png

These academics see the ancient European hunter-gatherers as essentially the same, except for accretions of a few minor components. The majority of their bars is "blue". WHG and SHG are essentially the same except for a smidgen of LBK. I'd have to go back and check the sample they used, because WHG was in Europe long before the EEF arrived, unless the algorithm is dumping something that resembles an element that it shares with the EEF into the closest reference sample, which is LBK. EHG has a bit more "additional" ancestry: something ANE heavy, and something Caucasus like. Fwiw, that makes some sense to me.

In other runs, that yellow, green, purple and orange gets dumped into more proximate references, leaving a blue they name "WHG".

Confusing, I agree.

I really do think the Reich Lab handles the statistics and therefore the analysis in a much clearer way.

Olympus Mons
03-12-18, 17:38
Could be I suppose, but we'll have to see. Given the phylogeny of L51 (and I know some disagree with this), it would have mutated somewhere in the West Mediterranean around 4000 BC, which would necessarily mean a somewhat early migration from Cucuteni to the West. Also, it doesn't account for the signs of R1b-L23 in the Chalcolithic Middle East (swastikas, phylogeny, red hair and European HG ancestry in Armenia ChL etc.), as this hypothesis would presumably put the L23 mutation in roughly modern Ukraine, with L51 going West and Z2103 to the Steppe. Also, it can't really explain why there is so much Z2103 in Eastern West Asia and why the phylogeny of Z2103 points to a Caucasian origin, amongst other things - but this all does seem much simpler than the idea I've been promoting, which is obviously a good thing.

It's definitely a better hypothesis than Yamnaya whatever the case.

What are you saying?
a. Would you be ok with L23 being born in South Caucasus by 5500BC (or if makes you feel better in Mugan plains or ararat plains or even Northern Iran near Urmia Lake). -- Yes or no?
b. Would it be ok if L51 could very well be born in bulgaria Boian culture (4500BC) or Romania gulmenita 4200BC) or in Northern Romania/Moldova pre-Cucuteni by the same dates. -- Yes or no?

Angela
03-12-18, 17:44
By the way if Casteluccio in Sicily and El Argar in Spain pop up suddenly around 2200 BC and show Aegean motives... such date is near to what I have in mind about proto-Greeks entering Greece... and moreover by 2300-2200 BB were pushing peoples in Central Europe also.

And not too late from that we see new WHG+EEF in the steppe delivering there Sintashta and Andronovo with their Indo-Iranic languages.

Those are good points. What the abstract says is that it was in Greece BY 1500 BC. They may have older samples in the "store", but they'll be in a later paper. Since it would appear it delivered a lot of J2a to Greece, I would imagine that was the dominant lineage going west, perhaps accompanied by E-V13?

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 17:47
What are you saying?
a. Would you be ok with L23 being born in South Caucasus by 5500BC (or if makes you feel better in Mugan plains or ararat plains or even Northern Iran near Urmia Lake). -- Yes or no?
b. Would it be ok if L51 could very well be born in bulgaria Boian culture (4500BC) or Romania gulmenita 4200BC) or in Northern Romania/Moldova pre-Cucuteni by the same dates. -- Yes or no?


I was just going over his theory, that's all. You know I believe in a West Asian origin of L23 and a West European origin of L51.

Olympus Mons
03-12-18, 17:53
I was just going over his theory, that's all. You know I believe in a West Asian origin of L23 and a West European origin of L51.
What dates would you see L51 being born?
Just to be clear. I see Z2103 being born at the land of L23 (south caucasus) but L51 as younger brother being born after the diaspora, in South Balkans ( If I am completely wrong about the northern africa route.... which is a strong possibility).


From Shulaveri Shomu to Bell Beakers
(https://shulaveri2bellbeaker.blogs.sapo.pt/)

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 18:04
What dates would you see L51 being born?
Just to be clear. I see Z2103 being born at the land of L23 (south caucasus) but L51 as younger brother being born after the diaspora, in South Balkans ( If I am completely wrong about the northern africa route.... which is a strong possibility).


From Shulaveri Shomu to Bell Beakers
(https://shulaveri2bellbeaker.blogs.sapo.pt/)

I've posted before: L23 in West Asia, L51 in West Europe and Z2103 in West Asia. I just use their dates on YFull.

L51 and Z2103 can only be assumed to be the same age, by the way.

Angela
03-12-18, 18:04
Yeah this is a good point which Angela also said. Is the scenario that Markod mentioned a feasible way for such a population to pick up EHG?:

"My guess is that even if they came from Anatolia, they would have come via the steppe regions of Bulgaria to mainland Greece and the Peloponnese. Drews in his new book sees Greco-Armenian develop in the Trialeti culture, and that's the general route he outlines."

I think we have to keep in mind that the academics seem to be seeing two migration waves hitting south east and south central Europe in the same general era, i.e. perhaps late Neolithic to Chalcolithic to early Bronze Age. One is "Iran dna" heavy without EHG, and one is steppe, which would include EHG. The first one deposited at least J2a from what we know from the Mycenaeans. We would expect some form of R1b or R1a from the steppe one, most probably R1b in my opinion, no matter what Davidski might think, but the ancient dna will tell us.

We know the direction of flow of the "Iran" like dna. The remaining question is the route of the steppe ancestry. If it came down from the steppe via the Balkans, it fits. It also explains the steppe levels in the Bronze Age Balkans. To support that it came from Anatolia we would have to find EHG at that time in Anatolia, whether or not the route was directly from Anatolia or it followed the Drews scenario.Otherwise, if the EHG was picked up only in the Balkans, what we would be seeing in Greece would only be a sort of "pseudo" steppe.

Angela
03-12-18, 18:09
I was not aware that the Diros Cave didn't have Iran ancestry.
The expansion of EEF from Central Anatolia to the Bosporus and Europe started only ca 8.5 ka, while first farmers arrived in Crete and Greece already ca 9 ka.
These farmers were semi-nomadic herders and the first to have ceramics (which Central Anatolia had only 8.5 ka) and probably made dairy products.
They came from SE Anatolia and the northern Zagros. They settled in western Anatolia and crossed the Aegean.
I would suspect their DNA was a mixture of Levantine and Iranian, but they must have been whiped out by incoming EEF from Bulgaria and the Carpathian Basin.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. Time will tell.

A. Papadimitriou
03-12-18, 18:45
What they call 'Iran-related' is probably CHG and they are talking about predominately EEF groups with CHG admixture similar to the 'Minoans'
and what they call 'Steppe-related' is just 'Steppe-like' and partially so.

They could have used labels like 'Aegean-related' and 'Central-Europe-related'. They would have been less wrong.

I don't know who downvoted me but they are wrong.

By the way, the Dzudzuana paper showed that ANE-like ('Siberian HG and Eastern non-African') populations had affected Caucasus and Iran more than 10000 years ago.

The difference is there seems to be a minor Onge affinity in Iran N and a Tianyuan affinity in CHG.

But there is no reason to call CHG 'Iran related', if it came to existence as a result of the admixture of a 'Basal' group with an ANE-rich one inside the Caucasus.

*Anatolian Neolithic like groups existed in 'Near East' ca 26ky ago they say

They write:
"Finally, we can model CHG and samples from Neolithic Iran (Iran_N) as deriving their ancestry largely (~58-64% using qpAdm and ~45-62% using qpGraph) from a Dzudzuana-like population, but with ancestry from both ‘Deep’ and ANE sources, thus proving that ANE ancestry had reached Western Eurasia long before the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe migrations that carried further westward into mainland Europe."

markod
03-12-18, 18:51
I don't know who downvoted me but they are wrong.

By the way, the Dzudzuana paper showed that ANE-like ('Siberian HG and Eastern non-African') populations had affected Caucasus and Iran more than 10000 years ago.

The difference is there seems to be a minor Onge affinity in Iran N and a Tianyuan affinity in CHG.

But there is no reason to call CHG 'Iran related', if it came to existence as a result of the admixture of a 'Basal' group with an ANE-rich one inside the Caucasus.

*Anatolian Neolithic like groups existed in 'Near East' ca 26ky ago they say

They write:
"Finally, we can model CHG and samples from Neolithic Iran (Iran_N) as deriving their ancestry largely (~58-64% using qpAdm and ~45-62% using qpGraph) from a Dzudzuana-like population, but with ancestry from both ‘Deep’ and ANE sources, thus proving that ANE ancestry had reached Western Eurasia long before the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe migrations that carried further westward into mainland Europe."

Iran_Neo seems to have a stronger eastern affinity (ENA) than CHG, EHG and even ANE itself. I would bet that the Caucasian and Siberian populations had no part in its formation. The Fst-distances:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5-URy6M5-Nk/V28Tv8HAgrI/AAAAAAAADXo/MBtLyUj5f3QUaPwq66RJz9tLlCJMKaDwACLcB/s1600/genetic-distances.png

Angela
03-12-18, 19:55
Iran_Neo seems to have a stronger eastern affinity (ENA) than CHG, EHG and even ANE itself. I would bet that the Caucasian and Siberian populations had no part in its formation. The Fst-distances:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5-URy6M5-Nk/V28Tv8HAgrI/AAAAAAAADXo/MBtLyUj5f3QUaPwq66RJz9tLlCJMKaDwACLcB/s1600/genetic-distances.png

I agree. CHG is essentially Iran Neo with some Anatolian Neolithic and a bit of EHG.

It's just too bad that their preferred narrative doesn't fit the facts in this particular case.

It is irrelevant that the "dated" Iran Neo sample is younger than the "dated CHG sample.

Davidski's last ditch efforts to save his thousands and thousands of incorrect threads and posts are not going to be successful.

BOTH Iran Neo and CHG contain "Basal Eurasian". That component DID NOT move from north to south.

I just love how they project their own constant interpretation of the data in light of their own preferences for a "Northern or Eastern European" centered narrative onto Southern Europeans who, according to them, push for a "southern" origin of PIE. The only reason I can imagine for "pushing" for a connection to the IE people would be if you valued that connection. This Southern European doesn't give a damn about being descended from IE speaking people, and I could care less where and how the admixture happened. I'm an agnostic. I don't even see how it matters whether or not the first place where PIE was spoken was north of the Caucasus or south of it.So what if it started out south of the Caucasus. How does that change the fact that a different people from "north" of the Caucasus with 60% EHG started the spread to far flung corners of Eurasia? Why does a portion, and a minor portion, of the story coming from south of the Caucasus trigger them in this way?

I just happen to have spent my life having to support my conclusions with a chain of evidence (facts) connected by reason. I wasn't about to change my mode of operation when it came to population genetics. I also pride myself on my integrity and honesty. The kind of shenanigans which go on in this hobby are disgusting, imo, and I would never engage in that kind of shady behavior. I'll gladly compare my analyses through time with theirs. It's crystal clear who was playing fast and loose with the facts, and who was more often flat out WRONG. The mistakes in those threads and sites would, as I once said, fill the phonebook of a significant city.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 20:22
I agree. CHG is essentially Iran Neo with some Anatolian Neolithic a bit of EHG.

It's just too bad that their preferred narrative doesn't fit the facts in this particular case.

It is irrelevant that the "dated" Iran Neo sample is younger than the "dated CHG sample.

Davidski's last ditch efforts to save his thousands and thousands of incorrect threads and posts are not going to be successful.

BOTH Iran Neo and CHG are "Basal Eurasian" heavy. That component DID NOT move from north to south.

I just love how they project their own constant interpretation of the data in light of their own preferences for a "European" centered narrative onto Southern Europeans. This Southern European doesn't give a damn about being descended from IE speaking people, and I could care less where and how the admixture happened. I just have spent my life having to support my conclusions with a chain of evidence (facts) connected by reason. I wasn't about to change my mode of operation when it came to population genetics. I'll gladly compare my analyses through time with theirs. It's crystal clear who was playing fast and loose with the facts, and who was more often flat out WRONG. The mistakes in those threads and sites would, as I once said, fill the phonebook of a significant city.

Yeah, he actually seems scared about this upcoming conference! Reich was right, the homeland of PIE is in West Asia - and even though these people wouldn't have looked like e.g. Armenians, it drives Davidski mad. Hopefully the story of L51 becomes clearer within the next year, I don't know why this process takes so long.

I do just want to clarify though, when I say PIE, I'm usually referring to the homeland of R1b L23 - because the homeland of PIE speech itself can only really be implied. It could easily be the case that the native Steppe folk spoke PIE, and that the minority founders of Yamnaya coming from the Caucasus simply adopted the speech of the locals.

markod
03-12-18, 20:27
[QUOTE=ToBeOrNotToBe;560165]Reich was right, the homeland of PIE is in West Asia - and even though these people wouldn't have looked like e.g. Armenians, it drives Davidski mad. /QUOTE]

If we consider Yamnaya LPIE, the earliest IEs were likely darker pigmented than present day Armenians.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 20:29
[QUOTE=ToBeOrNotToBe;560165]Reich was right, the homeland of PIE is in West Asia - and even though these people wouldn't have looked like e.g. Armenians, it drives Davidski mad. /QUOTE]

If we consider Yamnaya LPIE, the earliest IEs were likely darker pigmented than present day Armenians.

I know that's what the data currently says, but it just doesn't sit right. Armenia Chalcolithic was pale (and blue-eyed and one was red-headed), it seems weird that Yamnaya would be a lot darker - especially when groups that we know came from Yamnaya were light-skinned.

I presume there's an issue with detecting pigmentation from aDNA, because of the ridiculous lack of red hair. If the Bell Beakers are the main ancestors of people from the British Isles, why are none of those samples red-haired?

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 20:46
New video (first four minutes are spent sucking Reich off, just skip it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=990052wQywM

Two seconds in, and political motivations are already making a comeback :P Davidski will call conspiracy for sure, can't wait

markod
03-12-18, 20:53
[QUOTE=markod;560167]

I know that's what the data currently says, but it just doesn't sit right. Armenia Chalcolithic was pale (and blue-eyed and one was red-headed), it seems weird that Yamnaya would be a lot darker - especially when groups that we know came from Yamnaya were light-skinned.

I presume there's an issue with detecting pigmentation from aDNA, because of the ridiculous lack of red hair. If the Bell Beakers are the main ancestors of people from the British Isles, why are none of those samples red-haired?

If GAC is any indication, many farmer groups in northern Europe might have been super-depigmented already - I'm particularly thinking about the nordic megalithic cultures. I suppose that's where the coloring of Europeans could have come from.

A while ago I'd looked up pictures of ordinary Russians from Kargopol who seem to be the subpopulation with the absolute peak of Yamnaya ancestry and they weren't very light as far as I could tell. Closer to Ukrainians or Romanians than to Swedes.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 20:55
[QUOTE=ToBeOrNotToBe;560168]

If GAC is any indication, many farmer groups in northern Europe might have been super-depigmented already - I'm particularly thinking about the nordic megalithic cultures. I suppose that's where the coloring of Europeans could have come from.

A while ago I'd looked up pictures of ordinary Russians from Kargopol who seem to be the subpopulation with the absolute peak of Yamnaya ancestry and they weren't very light as far as I could tell. Closer to Ukrainians or Romanians than to Swedes.

I'm not saying Yamnaya were blonde supermen, but as dark as Armenians seems super doubtful to me, given groups like the Tocharians we know for sure were light-skinned and often red-haired.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 21:03
Definitely the take-away screenshot so far from this Reich talk:

https://i.imgur.com/lipSQ1b.png

Skip to just after 30 minutes if you don't want to hear about things like Neanderthals.

A. Papadimitriou
03-12-18, 21:04
Iran_Neo seems to have a stronger eastern affinity (ENA) than CHG, EHG and even ANE itself. I would bet that the Caucasian and Siberian populations had no part in its formation. The Fst-distances:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5-URy6M5-Nk/V28Tv8HAgrI/AAAAAAAADXo/MBtLyUj5f3QUaPwq66RJz9tLlCJMKaDwACLcB/s1600/genetic-distances.png

Do you want to explain what do you mean exactly? Do you agree with how Angela interpreted your post?

Personally, I am considering the possibility that distinct ANE-rich (what they label 'Siberian and Eastern non-African') groups had influenced Iran and the Caucasus (a northern route and a southern one).

What does more Eastern affinity really means? Maybe just bigger impact?

-- I'm not interested in Yamnaya btw.

Using the label 'Iran-related' is motivated by an agenda they have. Why not 'Georgia-related' or 'Azerbajan-related' and whatnot.

markod
03-12-18, 21:15
Do you want to explain what do you mean exactly? Do you agree with how Angela interpreted your post?

Personally, I am considering the possibility that distinct ANE-rich (what they label 'Siberian and Eastern non-African') groups had influenced Iran and the Caucasus (a northern route and a southern one).

What does more Eastern affinity really means? Maybe just bigger impact?

-- I'm not interested in Yamnaya btw.

Using the label 'Iran-related' is motivated by an agenda they have. Why not 'Georgia-related' or 'Azerbajan-related' and whatnot.

Yes, the evidence is in agreement with Angelas interpretation. Take a look at modern Basal affinities:

https://i.imgur.com/F5LrxwB.png

This type of ancestry seems to have arrived in Iran via the Persian Gulf. Combined with Villabruna and ENA from the East it gives rise to Iran_Neo. Ancestral Iran_Neo migrated up the Zagros range into the Caucasus and mixed with some type of EHG & ENF to form CHG.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 21:16
Reich's talk was just a recap, nothing new even hinted about. They still also think that Bell Beaker = Steppe + European Neolithic...

A. Papadimitriou
03-12-18, 21:24
Yes, the evidence is in agreement with Angelas interpretation. Take a look at modern Basal affinities:

https://i.imgur.com/F5LrxwB.png

This type of ancestry seems to have arrived in Iran via the Persian Gulf. Combined with Villabruna and ENA from the East it gives rise to Iran_Neo. Ancestral Iran_Neo migrated up the Zagros range into the Caucasus and mixed with some type of EHG & ENF to form CHG.

The evidence are the modern affinities?

markod
03-12-18, 21:34
The evidence are the modern affinities?

Well the BE enrichment in present day Iran probably isn't a result of recent Moroccan Berber immigration, considering the absolute peak of BE in ancient samples is found in Mesolithic HotuIII.

Angela
03-12-18, 21:38
Yes, the evidence is in agreement with Angelas interpretation. Take a look at modern Basal affinities:

https://i.imgur.com/F5LrxwB.png

This type of ancestry seems to have arrived in Iran via the Persian Gulf. Combined with Villabruna and ENA from the East it gives rise to Iran_Neo. Ancestral Iran_Neo migrated up the Zagros range into the Caucasus and mixed with some type of EHG & ENF to form CHG.

This is all documented in the various papers from the Reich Lab as well. Now, when that movement across the Caucasus to the steppe happened, and what yDna they carried and what language they spoke are still all open questions imo. Too many issues remain for me for any absolute certainty.

I have no idea why anyone would want to call it anything but Iran related since that was the launching point into the Caucasus (and then beyond) of the component which eventually mixed with EHG to create the Indo-Europeans of the steppe.

A. Papadimitriou
03-12-18, 21:49
Well the BE enrichment in present day Iran probably isn't a result of recent Moroccan Berber immigration, considering the absolute peak of BE in ancient samples is found in Mesolithic HotuIII.
I don't understand your thought process. What proves that CHG derives from Iran_N? Both partly descend from Dzudzuana like populations (Villabruna+'Basal') with extra 'Deep' ancestry and 'Siberian HG and Eastern non-African' ancestry too (modeled as AG3+Onge for Iran_N, AG3+Tianyuan for CHG)

Either way, I don't really care. There is an agenda behind the label 'Iran-related'. No one uses labels like Ukraine-related for example. We should use then 'Italy-related' for Villabruna, 'Turkey-related' for Anatolian_N etc.

markod
03-12-18, 21:58
I don't understand your thought process. What proves that CHG derives from Iran_N? Both partly descend from Dzudzuana like populations (Villabruna+'Basal') with extra 'Deep' ancestry and 'Siberian HG and Eastern non-African' ancestry too (modeled as AG3+Onge for Iran_N, AG3+Tianyuan for CHG)

Either way, I don't really care. There is an agenda behind the label 'Iran-related'. No one uses labels like Ukraine-related for example. We should use then 'Italy-related' for Villabruna, 'Turkey-related' for Anatolian_N etc.

I mean for ENA ancestry to get to Georgia it has to move through Iran. Consistent with this ENA affinity is higher in Iran_Neo than in CHG.

Angela
03-12-18, 22:20
For crying out loud, are we supposed to call it that geographic formation called a plateau now located in the country now known as Iran so as not to trigger people who can't stand the idea that a component present in the steppe and in a lot of Europeans started out south of the Caucasus?

Get a grip, people.

Ygorcs
03-12-18, 22:52
Yeah this is a good point which Angela also said. Is the scenario that Markod mentioned a feasible way for such a population to pick up EHG?:
"My guess is that even if they came from Anatolia, they would have come via the steppe regions of Bulgaria to mainland Greece and the Peloponnese. Drews in his new book sees Greco-Armenian develop in the Trialeti culture, and that's the general route he outlines."

I think that is possible, it makes sense at least. On the other hand, Greek and Armenian have lots of linguistic affinities to Indo-Iranian and probably also had affinities with Daco-Thracian (though we will ne er know for sure to which extent). So if Indo-Iranian is really associated with the mainly Z93 cultures of the northern steppe, Sintashta and Andronovo, and also maybe Srubnaya, it would be hard in my opinion to sustain that Graeco-Armenian represent a branch of an "originally Iran-Neo Transcaucasian PIE", separate from the branch that would have migrated north into the Pontic-Caspian steppe (that would certainly have happened during the Cha,colithic at the latest, since Steppe Eneolithic already had a lot of CHG/Iranian-related ancestry). I mean, otherwise we would have to presume that Greek, Armenian and the steppe branches like Indo-Iranian preserved their closer than average affinities for some 2,000 years. So, in my opinion the ultimate homeland of Graeco-Armenian was probably not that far from the homeland of Indo-Iranian and Daco-Thracian. They were probably late migrants from the same sociocultural region (not necessarily neighbors, far less the very same tribes, of course).

Ygorcs
03-12-18, 22:58
I don't understand your thought process. What proves that CHG derives from Iran_N? Both partly descend from Dzudzuana like populations (Villabruna+'Basal') with extra 'Deep' ancestry and 'Siberian HG and Eastern non-African' ancestry too (modeled as AG3+Onge for Iran_N, AG3+Tianyuan for CHG)

Either way, I don't really care. There is an agenda behind the label 'Iran-related'. No one uses labels like Ukraine-related for example. We should use then 'Italy-related' for Villabruna, 'Turkey-related' for Anatolian_N etc.

Well, isn't it just as likely that CHG and Iran-Neo are just two extremities in a cline that formed a specific "Eastern West Asian" cluster of populations that simply had a similar genetic history in previous millennia since the LGM or even earlier? I also happen to find it really suspicious that Iran-Neo is actually representative of the genetic structure of the entire Iranian Plateau. There must have been other "Iranian-like" populations but with relatively different percentages of admixtures and of additional foreign influences. CHG may have been one of many "Iranian-like" populations, one with stronger EHG and Anatolian-like influences.

Ygorcs
03-12-18, 23:11
I checked on MDLP K11 by the way, the only four populations that came up with any significance were WHG, EHG, Iran-Mesolithic and Neolithic (which makes sense - I'm assuming Neolithic is something like ANF, but it doesn't really matter).

Here's the two Bell Beaker samples I have on GEDmatch from Germany, both well East of the Rhine (so, if anything, their Eastern ancestry would be enhanced from mixing with Corded Ware):

https://i.ibb.co/JxMT65z/Screenshot-2018-12-03-at-05-02-25.png

https://i.ibb.co/10JxVdd/Screenshot-2018-12-03-at-05-02-36.png

I find this kind of analgsis pretty cpnfusing, not even mentioning this weird label "Neolithic" (Neolithic what? Anatolia? Europe? Levant?). Also confusing is the blending of Neolithic with Mesolithic and even Paleolithic admixtures. I think only a much more chronologically and geographically proximate set of proxy populations could be at least a bit clarifying. Iran-Neolithic was not the same as Iran-Mesolithic, BA steppe was not the same as EHG. I somehow guess that the pretty inflated WHG would be less prevalent using Chalcolithic populations of Europe and West Asia. Some ancestry, especially if it came from Anatolia, Caucasua and the Levant, may be assigned to the closest hunter-gatherer West Eurasian population, and the least admixed seems to be WHG. Maybe I am just rambling, but what I wanted to say is just that this model does not seem to be very useful for me. Also did you check if it has a really good fit? Not all such analyses are anywhere close to the truth. The algorithms just try to make their best considering the comparative sources it was given.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-12-18, 23:31
I find this kind of analgsis pretty cpnfusing, not even mentioning this weird label "Neolithic" (Neolithic what? Anatolia? Europe? Levant?). Also confusing is the blending of Neolithic with Mesolithic and even Paleolithic admixtures. I think only a much more chronologically and geographically proximate set of proxy populations could be at least a bit clarifying. Iran-Neolithic was not the same as Iran-Mesolithic, BA steppe was not the same as EHG. I somehow guess that the pretty inflated WHG would be less prevalent using Chalcolithic populations of Europe and West Asia. Some ancestry, especially if it came from Anatolia, Caucasua and the Levant, may be assigned to the closest hunter-gatherer West Eurasian population, and the least admixed seems to be WHG. Maybe I am just rambling, but what I wanted to say is just that this model does not seem to be very useful for me. Also did you check if it has a really good fit? Not all such analyses are anywhere close to the truth. The algorithms just try to make their best considering the comparative sources it was given.

I saw elsewhere the Bell Beakers were WHG heavy, and I just tried to confirm that with this admittedly super primitive testing. I'll see if this is backed up by all of the calculators or not.

Ygorcs
03-12-18, 23:49
I think we have to keep in mind that the academics seem to be seeing two migration waves hitting south east and south central Europe in the same general era, i.e. perhaps late Neolithic to Chalcolithic to early Bronze Age. One is "Iran dna" heavy without EHG, and one is steppe, which would include EHG. The first one deposited at least J2a from what we know from the Mycenaeans. We would expect some form of R1b or R1a from the steppe one, most probably R1b in my opinion, no matter what Davidski might think, but the ancient dna will tell us.

We know the direction of flow of the "Iran" like dna. The remaining question is the route of the steppe ancestry. If it came down from the steppe via the Balkans, it fits. It also explains the steppe levels in the Bronze Age Balkans. To support that it came from Anatolia we would have to find EHG at that time in Anatolia, whether or not the route was directly from Anatolia or it followed the Drews scenario.Otherwise, if the EHG was picked up only in the Balkans, what we would be seeing in Greece would only be a sort of "pseudo" steppe.

If Proto-Greek/Early Greek IE expansion was a part of the spread of Iran_Neo ancestry in the Meditteranean area, considering that many linguists have often considered that Greek shares innovations with Armenian and Indo-Iranian and looks like a "late departure" from the IE homeland, I would favor a scenario where Iran_Neo probably diluted with ANF or EEF-like admixture picked up throughout the South Caucasus, Anatolia and Southeastern Europe, and later it met a EEF+Yamnaya-related population in the eastern Balkans (more or less like that early BA J2b2 sample with 30% steppe Johanne Derite mentioned earlier in this thread).

Such a demographic formation, with Iran-Neo absorbing the local IE language and adding their own contributions as a superstrate (much like English eventually prevailed over its Norman French conquerors), would explain the "weird" situation of Mycenaeans having only little steppe ancestry, carrying Iran_Neo ancestry too, having a big majority of EEF (two EEF-enriched peoples coming together), and speaking a IE language that is no "archaic relic" very unrelated to arguably "northern" languages like Indo-Iranian and even Balto-Slavic, so probably not a branch that had split from its northern sisters too many centuries before their Aegean expansion. If ancient Greeks had not only J2a, but also some of that Z2103, J2b and Z93 we see there nowadays that would also fit this hypothesis (well, speculation in fat) of mine well, too.

Mycenaeans were just the brothers of Minoans that, unlike them, mixed with more northerly peoples of partial steppe origin and shifted their language, maybe because they expanded through a different route and under other circumstances (like some Vikings shifted to Romance or even Celtic, while others maintained their Norse language and culture).

ToBeOrNotToBe
04-12-18, 00:05
I find this kind of analgsis pretty cpnfusing, not even mentioning this weird label "Neolithic" (Neolithic what? Anatolia? Europe? Levant?). Also confusing is the blending of Neolithic with Mesolithic and even Paleolithic admixtures. I think only a much more chronologically and geographically proximate set of proxy populations could be at least a bit clarifying. Iran-Neolithic was not the same as Iran-Mesolithic, BA steppe was not the same as EHG. I somehow guess that the pretty inflated WHG would be less prevalent using Chalcolithic populations of Europe and West Asia. Some ancestry, especially if it came from Anatolia, Caucasua and the Levant, may be assigned to the closest hunter-gatherer West Eurasian population, and the least admixed seems to be WHG. Maybe I am just rambling, but what I wanted to say is just that this model does not seem to be very useful for me. Also did you check if it has a really good fit? Not all such analyses are anywhere close to the truth. The algorithms just try to make their best considering the comparative sources it was given.

Here's the MDLP K11 fitting for the sample (the second one - most other Beaker samples seem to have more EHG) that seems to have potentially less Corded ancestry - interestingly, it essentially perfectly fits with my theory (besides the fact that this calculator doesn't have Iron Gates), but maybe that's an actual coincidence:

Kit Num: T644357
Threshold of components set to 1.000
Threshold of method set to 0.25%
Personal data has been read. 20 approximations mode.
Gedmatch.Com

MDLP K11 Modern 4-Ancestors Oracle

This program is based on 4-Ancestors Oracle Version 0.96 by Alexandr Burnashev.
Questions about results should be sent to him at: [email protected]
Original concept proposed by Sergey Kozlov.
Many thanks to Alexandr for helping us get this web version developed.

MDLP K11 2xOracle and OracleX4

Admix Results (sorted):



#
Population
Percent


1
WHG
48.31


2
Neolithic
25.16


3
EHG
15.02


4
Iran-Mesolithic
10.58




Finished reading population data. 161 populations found.
11 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Nordic_LBA @ 10.658375
2 Nordic_IA @ 11.699083
3 Nordic_BA @ 14.643268
4 Unetice_EBA @ 15.031625
5 British_IronAge @ 15.061828
6 British_AngloSaxon @ 15.223454
7 Nordic_LN @ 15.403898
8 Unetice_MBA @ 15.907064
9 Nordic_BA @ 16.450525
10 Corded_Ware_Proto_Unetice_Poland @ 16.527868
11 Bell_Beaker_Czech @ 17.542713
12 Corded_Ware_Estonia @ 17.548342
13 Nordic_MN_B @ 17.656504
14 Sintashta_MBA @ 17.984547
15 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN @ 18.033144
16 Bell_Beaker_Germany @ 18.537273
17 Halberstadt_LBA @ 18.704523
18 British_Celtic @ 18.832851
19 Alberstedt_LN @ 19.248013
20 Nordic_BattleAxe @ 19.972923

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Anatolia_Chalcolithic +50% Motala_HG @ 8.273349


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Bockstein_Mesolithic +25% Kotias_CHG +25% Spain_EN @ 1.147321


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Bockstein_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + Luxembourg_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 0.499392
2 BerryAuBac_Mesolithic + Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
3 Bichon_Azillian + Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
4 Continenza_Paleolithic + Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
5 Hungary_HG + Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
6 Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LaBrana_Mesolithic + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
7 Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Swedish_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
8 Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Swedish_Motala_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
9 Iberia_Chalcolithic + Iberia_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 0.854850
10 Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Motala_HG @ 0.873600
11 Kotias_CHG + Luxembourg_Mesolithic + Rochedane_Epipaleolithic + Spain_EN @ 0.901911
12 Iboussieres39 + Kotias_CHG + Luxembourg_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 1.035136
13 Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Villabruna_Epigravettian @ 1.111671
14 Chaudardes1_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + Luxembourg_Mesolithic + Starcevo_EN @ 1.119851
15 Baalberge_MN + BerryAuBac_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 1.135796
16 Baalberge_MN + Bichon_Azillian + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 1.135796
17 Baalberge_MN + Continenza_Paleolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 1.135796
18 Baalberge_MN + Kotias_CHG + LaBrana_Mesolithic + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 1.135796
19 Baalberge_MN + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Swedish_Mesolithic @ 1.135796
20 Baalberge_MN + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Swedish_Motala_Mesolithic @ 1.135796

Done.

Elapsed time 0.4864 seconds.

ToBeOrNotToBe
04-12-18, 00:12
Actually, it probably is a coincidence to be honest.

halfalp
04-12-18, 03:25
I mean for ENA ancestry to get to Georgia it has to move through Iran. Consistent with this ENA affinity is higher in Iran_Neo than in CHG.

For going from Anatolia to Georgia you need to pass from Iran?

markod
04-12-18, 05:51
For going from Anatolia to Georgia you need to pass from Iran?


No East Eurasian ancestry in Anatolia :wink: Surely whatever makes Iran_Neo closer to Han than other West Eurasian samples came from the East.

That's why I don't get why people would object to the Iranian label: it's merely the place where those diverse ancestries converged, Iran_Neo didn't spring from the ground. Nowadays isolated groups like the Kalash or the Baloch seem to be closer to Iran_Neo than modern Iranians.

halfalp
04-12-18, 10:38
No East Eurasian ancestry in Anatolia :wink: Surely whatever makes Iran_Neo closer to Han than other West Eurasian samples came from the East.

That's why I don't get why people would object to the Iranian label: it's merely the place where those diverse ancestries converged, Iran_Neo didn't spring from the ground. Nowadays isolated groups like the Kalash or the Baloch seem to be closer to Iran_Neo than modern Iranians.

I fought ENA was Early Neolithic Anatolian. Never mind.

Cpluskx
04-12-18, 11:51
Btw Reich here calls them Iran farmers not Iranian-related :))
https://ibb.co/56g07jj (https://ibb.co/56g07jj)

bicicleur
04-12-18, 12:13
Btw Reich here calls them Iran farmers not Iranian-related :))
https://ibb.co/56g07jj (https://ibb.co/56g07jj)
the screenshot says Iran farmers, so it is not CHG
there is very often confusion between both
Iran farmers are actually Zagros Mts herders 9 - 10 ka

berun
04-12-18, 18:09
@Angela, I have not found the graph about ancient Sardinians being more attached to early farmers with WHG ancestry, instead what I have found is a recent 3 way admixture graph for modern Sardinians, being some 90% EEF, 5% steppe and 5% WHG... I guess that again there is lumping, in this case with the newly found Aegean ancestry of BA Sardinians which was mainly EEF plus CHG.

Angela
04-12-18, 19:25
@Angela, I have not found the graph about ancient Sardinians being more attached to early farmers with WHG ancestry, instead what I have found is a recent 3 way admixture graph for modern Sardinians, being some 90% EEF, 5% steppe and 5% WHG... I guess that again there is lumping, in this case with the newly found Aegean ancestry of BA Sardinians which was mainly EEF plus CHG.

This is what I meant, Berun. Bear in mind that the Sardinian samples used in almost every genetic analysis are the HGDP ones from the isolated mountain plateau, not the western coastal cities with a bit of "other" ancestry. Some early PCAs were able to pick it up, even using only two dimensions. You can see that they are shifted left or west in the direction of WHG. They also overlap with the northern farmers, who were about 20% WHG.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fc2W-6tR-HA/Urigqts3hwI/AAAAAAAAJbg/hqZiV1TOGgc/s1600/europe.png

You can also see it in ADMIXTURE when they drill down into the different areas of Sardinia. This is from Chiang e al using whole genomes, which is going to be more accurate. As you get away from that highland plateau, the "Yamnaya" increases.

https://i.imgur.com/MEMu4Lv.png

Top half are the most isolated communities. In the coastal communities you're going to have the migration from the mainland, i.e. U-152. It would have been nice if they'd used more references, but this is at least more accurate than what we had before. Doubtless, some of the more minority ancestry, i.e. Punic, extra "Iran Neo" is going to get dumped into the closest of the three reference samples, or split up amongst them, but I doubt there was much of it.

Ed. Sorry, this is from Chiang et al Supplementary material.

berun
04-12-18, 20:25
In the PCA Sardinians overlap with EEF, which had around 5% WHG as maximum, it is in Middle Neolithic and Chalco that WHG increases as Megalithic societies start to expand.
And yes, the autosomal graph will dump this newly found Aegean migration, BB would be dumped into EEF as they didn't came with steppe, Phoenicians and their cheap working force (Lybians) who knows how to recognize them, even so, Y chromos in Sardinia are weird.

Nuoro is also in this kind of mountain island inside Sardinia.

Cato
04-12-18, 20:31
Another upcoming paper says that there is some steppe in ancient Sardinia..so probably it is a problem of location of the samples..if they are from the interior they could be 0% steppe as some modern Sardinian population if they are from the western coast with the plains and the mines i expect some steppe as in modern Sardinians..i doubt that the 5-10% steppe is all Roman (there was only one roman colony in Porto Torres). Medieval colonists were also restricted in the main cities

Utilizzando Tapatalk

ToBeOrNotToBe
04-12-18, 20:45
Another upcoming paper says that there is some steppe in ancient Sardinia..so probably it is a problem of location of the samples..if they are from the interior they could be 0% steppe as some modern Sardinian population if they are from the western coast with the plains and the mines i expect some steppe as in modern Sardinians..i doubt that the 5-10% steppe is all Roman (there was only one roman colony in Porto Torres). Medieval colonists were also restricted in the main cities

Utilizzando Tapatalk

What timeframe is ancient? Do you have a link to that abstract? I presume it isn't Reich as that said only Iran ancestry was new.

Angela
04-12-18, 20:54
In the PCA Sardinians overlap with EEF, which had around 5% WHG as maximum, it is in Middle Neolithic and Chalco that WHG increases as Megalithic societies start to expand.
And yes, the autosomal graph will dump this newly found Aegean migration, BB would be dumped into EEF as they didn't came with steppe, Phoenicians and their cheap working force (Lybians) who knows how to recognize them, even so, Y chromos in Sardinia are weird.

Nuoro is also in this kind of mountain island inside Sardinia.

Take a look at the PCA again. Sardinians overlap only with the Skoglund farmer sample. That's from far northern Europe and has 20% WHG. The Sardinian samples are shifted away from Stuttgart, which is the LBK sample and only had about 5% WHG. The shift is in the direction of the hunter-gatherers.

The ydna makes sense in that context. The I2a lineages are from the later more admixed farmers, and the U-152 from late arriving mainlanders.

They've actually done a good job with the Sardinians.

Ygorcs
04-12-18, 21:34
In the PCA Sardinians overlap with EEF, which had around 5% WHG as maximum, it is in Middle Neolithic and Chalco that WHG increases as Megalithic societies start to expand.
And yes, the autosomal graph will dump this newly found Aegean migration, BB would be dumped into EEF as they didn't came with steppe, Phoenicians and their cheap working force (Lybians) who knows how to recognize them, even so, Y chromos in Sardinia are weird.

Nuoro is also in this kind of mountain island inside Sardinia.

I doubt "urban" immigrations like those of Phoenicians and their Libyan associates left much or even any non-negligible impact in most places, including Sardinia, except where they really colonized the lands extensively. Cities were demographic sinks in antiquity, they usually tended to decrease and not increase their genetic impact over time, and that must have been especially true in the case of port cities, even more exposed to epidemics. And slaves, especially slaves in urban areas, must have left even less genetic contribution on the long term.

ToBeOrNotToBe
04-12-18, 21:44
I doubt "urban" immigrations like those of Phoenicians and their Libyan associates left much or even any non-negligible impact in most places, including Sardinia, except where they really colonized the lands extensively. Cities were demographic sinks in antiquity, they usually tended to decrease and not increase their genetic impact over time, and that must have been especially true in the case of port cities, even more exposed to epidemics. And slaves, especially slaves in urban areas, must have left even less genetic contribution on the long term.

True, but that isn't always the case - with urban immigration during the Roman period, mass (mainly Syrian and Jewish) immigration into Southern Italy left a huge presence that is clearly seen today in both modern phenotype and autosomal genetic admixture. I would have thought Sicily would have a lot of Greek and Phoenician ancestry too, but I agree that the impact of Mediterranean colonists tends to be overstated.

Angela
04-12-18, 22:52
^^Fascinating. Please provide evidence (with actual numbers) to support your case why they would have gone only to southern Italy/Sicily, and why, moreover, they would have outnumbered all the Gauls and Germanics and Britons and Pannonians who were enslaved. You know, bills of lading, anecdotes about how they sent certain ethnicities only to certain areas. Goodness, nice big, brawny men were perfect for the latifundia. Seriously, I really would be interested to see something like that. If it's not available I suggest we wait for the ancient dna which should be out shortly.

Also, add classical history to the subjects in which you need to do a lot of reading. Southern Italy was as much an area of Greek migration as Sicily. Please refer to the posts upthread and the following map for the Iron Age before you take your deep dive into the books.

I really don't know where all this genetic material could have gone given the mainland Greeks and the Southern Italians/Sicilians only differ in about what, ten percen of their genome?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Magna_Graecia_ancient_colonies_and_dialects-en.svg/1200px-Magna_Graecia_ancient_colonies_and_dialects-en.svg.png

Trying to get under my skin, TBONTB? First I would have to care, and second it would have to be worthwhile data. Again, wrong on both counts.

Angela
04-12-18, 23:14
This is what I meant, Berun. Bear in mind that the Sardinian samples used in almost every genetic analysis are the HGDP ones from the isolated mountain plateau, not the western coastal cities with a bit of "other" ancestry. Some early PCAs were able to pick it up, even using only two dimensions. You can see that they are shifted left or west in the direction of WHG. They also overlap with the northern farmers, who were about 20% WHG.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fc2W-6tR-HA/Urigqts3hwI/AAAAAAAAJbg/hqZiV1TOGgc/s1600/europe.png

You can also see it in ADMIXTURE when they drill down into the different areas of Sardinia. This is from Chiang e al using whole genomes, which is going to be more accurate. As you get away from that highland plateau, the "Yamnaya" increases.

https://i.imgur.com/MEMu4Lv.png

Top half are the most isolated communities. In the coastal communities you're going to have the migration from the mainland, i.e. U-152. It would have been nice if they'd used more references, but this is at least more accurate than what we had before. Doubtless, some of the more minority ancestry, i.e. Punic, extra "Iran Neo" is going to get dumped into the closest of the three reference samples, or split up amongst them, but I doubt there was much of it.

Ed. Sorry, this is from Chiang et al Supplementary material.

Sorry again. I forget that not everyone is familiar with the different areas of Sardinia. You can locate the last six towns on the map, the ones with increased Yamnaya and decreased WHG. They're all the areas of the plain or the coast. The others are in or near the Ogliastra and the Barbagia.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Br-yy8IgoT0/Tj1x7nCSeLI/AAAAAAAABPU/JMHWTkJtkfc/s1600/Sardinia_Map.jpg

Pygmalion
05-12-18, 01:09
I doubt "urban" immigrations like those of Phoenicians and their Libyan associates left much or even any non-negligible impact in most places, including Sardinia, except where they really colonized the lands extensively. Cities were demographic sinks in antiquity, they usually tended to decrease and not increase their genetic impact over time, and that must have been especially true in the case of port cities, even more exposed to epidemics. And slaves, especially slaves in urban areas, must have left even less genetic contribution on the long term.

There were two main waves of levantine settlement in Sardinia. One which occurred in the 8th century bc when the Phoenicians from Tyre needed to set some permanent emporiums in the island since they began visiting it with intense frequency, and this first wave is usually considered to be a peaceful commercial migration according to current archaeologists. Archaeologically these emporiums yielded not only phoenician pottery but also large amounts of nuragic pottery and hybrid nuragic-phoenician pottery since their very foundation, which confirms mixed marriage and the presence of nuragic sardinian communities within those centers. And in most cases these cities were built inside local nuragic settlements such as that recently discovered at Nora (which as the name suggests was pre-phoenician) or that of Sulky. During this time large quantities of nuragic and hybrid nuragic-levantine pottery appears in phoenician settlements in North Africa, Sicily and Iberia, and nuragic pottery and artifact continued to be exported and sometime locally made in Tyrrhenian Italy and beyond. This fruitful collaboration between the Nuragics and the Phoenicians continued in the 7th century bc when some new settlements with mixed nuragic-phoenician planimetry and pottery were constructed, such as the recently excavated one at Nuraghe Sirai, which was founded over a previous nuragic settlement: https://www.academia.edu/31629324/L_et%C3%A0_del_Ferro_del_Nuraghe_Sirai_Layers_1_20 16_

The second wave which occurred in the late 6th century bc would be that of the Carthaginians, which is considered to be a violent one by archaeologists, as both the destruction layers in the sardinian cities and the written sources suggest. During this time sardinian exports decreases drastically and the nuragic culture ceased to exist as a separate material culture. However a recent study on a 3rd century bc malaria ridden corpse from the punic necropolis of Caralis has shown that both his Y DNA (I2a1a1) and MTDNA were pre-phoenician/nuragic, and that thus at least by that time locals were part of the aristocracy of some of those punic or punic-conquered cities.

Ygorcs
05-12-18, 05:18
True, but that isn't always the case - with urban immigration during the Roman period, mass (mainly Syrian and Jewish) immigration into Southern Italy left a huge presence that is clearly seen today in both modern phenotype and autosomal genetic admixture. I would have thought Sicily would have a lot of Greek and Phoenician ancestry too, but I agree that the impact of Mediterranean colonists tends to be overstated.

I am quite sure that impact is widely overestimated by some people. Sicilians and especially South Italians should have much more Levant_Neo and Iran_Neo and correspondingly less EEF and even less steppe ancestry than they do have. They should also have closer affinities to modern East Mediterranean people, and they do not, they cluster together with other Europeans and in most PCAs they are only slightly shifted to Near Eastern and North African populations, IIRC they are actually in some of the PCAs less close to West Asian samples than the Greek (mainly islanders). Besides, some of the main actual presence of apparently non-European origin includes E-M81, which probably has more to do with Berber and Arabized North African expansions in the Middle Ages, where some people did migrate, but as elite and also often as settlers in newly gained lands.

But I doubt most of that contribution came from Near Eastern slaves and even from urban poor migrants from the Near East. Any population growth was a huge feat in the ancient world, and most poor people in especially disease-prone areas like cities barely managed to leave any offspring in the long term. I have a real-life example from comparably much more developed times: Brazil from the mid 16th century to very recent years. Well, then, Brazil received some 5 million African slaves from 1530 to 1850, and it received roughly 6.5 million Eurasian, most of them after 1860, so with much less time to grow their numbers. But if you look at Brazil's African autosomal impact it is just around 20-25%. In Y-DNA lineages it is less than 10%, actually more like 5-7% only. Now project a similar situation back into Antiquity, only much worse than the modern and contemporary era. Of course not all Syrians and Jews migrated as slaves or very poor workers, but most of them were not exactly middle class far less elite.

Cato
05-12-18, 13:33
What timeframe is ancient? Do you have a link to that abstract? I presume it isn't Reich as that said only Iran ancestry was new.i've found the full abstract


The sequencing of ancient DNA (aDNA) has provided new understanding into human movement and demography for many regions around the globe. For mainland Europe, ancient DNA studies have revealed a dynamic history, with major inferred population influxes due to Neolithic and Bronze Age expansions. The population of the Mediterranean island of Sardinia has been notable in these studies–typically aDNA samples of the early Neolithic on mainland Europe cluster with modern Sardinian samples. The standing model is that Sardinia had a high influx of Neolithic ancestry followed by relative isolation from the mainland and subsequent Bronze Age expansions. To gain further insight, we analyze genome-wide capture data (~1.2 millions SNPs) of 26 ancient Sardinians spanning the Neolithic, Copper Age, and Bronze Age, including individuals from Sardinia's Nuragic culture. Merging this novel data with 998 previously studied aDNA samples from across Europe and throughout the last ten millennia, we are able to place the ancient Sardinian samples into the broader context of the peopling of Europe. We confirm that ancient Sardinian samples show a strong affinity to early Neolithic samples and a near complete absence of the “Steppe” ancestry associated with Bronze Age expansions on the mainland. Interestingly, we also detect elevated affinities with pre-Neolithic peoples of Europe. Moreover, we studied genetic change through time within Sardinia. To this end, we analyzed whole-genome sequence data from approximately 1,500 modern Sardinian individuals, densely sampled across much of the island. Using our ancient samples enables us to detect significant signs of recent admixture, in particular with a strong influence from the Mediterranean region. We also find that populations from the more isolated mountainous provinces of Sardinia are less admixed and have experienced high levels of genetic drift. Overall, our analysis allows us to shed new light on the intriguing history of the peopling of Sardinia"

So western and north-eastern Sardinians have significant post nuragic admixture, interesting....i guess that steppe level in nuragic was 0-4% like today Ogliastran plus extra WHG and the usual EEF

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Jovialis
05-12-18, 17:33
I find this kind of analgsis pretty cpnfusing, not even mentioning this weird label "Neolithic" (Neolithic what? Anatolia? Europe? Levant?). Also confusing is the blending of Neolithic with Mesolithic and even Paleolithic admixtures. I think only a much more chronologically and geographically proximate set of proxy populations could be at least a bit clarifying. Iran-Neolithic was not the same as Iran-Mesolithic, BA steppe was not the same as EHG. I somehow guess that the pretty inflated WHG would be less prevalent using Chalcolithic populations of Europe and West Asia. Some ancestry, especially if it came from Anatolia, Caucasua and the Levant, may be assigned to the closest hunter-gatherer West Eurasian population, and the least admixed seems to be WHG. Maybe I am just rambling, but what I wanted to say is just that this model does not seem to be very useful for me. Also did you check if it has a really good fit? Not all such analyses are anywhere close to the truth. The algorithms just try to make their best considering the comparative sources it was given.

I took a look at the spread sheet for this calculator, and the modeling makes even less sense to me, when it analyzes actual ancient samples. I don't think this calculator is useful either.

berun
05-12-18, 19:23
I doubt "urban" immigrations like those of Phoenicians and their Libyan associates left much or even any non-negligible impact in most places, including Sardinia, except where they really colonized the lands extensively. Cities were demographic sinks in antiquity, they usually tended to decrease and not increase their genetic impact over time, and that must have been especially true in the case of port cities, even more exposed to epidemics. And slaves, especially slaves in urban areas, must have left even less genetic contribution on the long term.

If you check up its history when Romans get the island the locals uprise against the new rulers and land holders carry Lybian names.

Cato
05-12-18, 19:28
At this point i think that Romans/Italics had a bigger genetic impact in Sardinia than Phoenicians/Punics considering the Y DNA and mtDNA and autosomal data...

Western Sardinians have more Yamnaya than original Ogliastra (and less WHG)..Yamnaya can only come from Europe.

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Angela
05-12-18, 19:59
At this point i think that Romans/Italics had a bigger genetic impact in Sardinia than Phoenicians/Punics considering the Y DNA and mtDNA and autosomal data...

Western Sardinians have more Yamnaya than original Ogliastra (and less WHG)..Yamnaya can only come from Europe.

Utilizzando Tapatalk

I agree. "Punic" y dna in Sardinia is very much a minority and the autosomal likewise. When you don't have mass migrations, it's difficult to change the genetic pattern.

As for the people of the Ogliastra and Barbagia, they remind me of those Andaman islanders who just killed that missionary. Strangers who dared to enter that isolated plateau just disappeared. Even the Romans with all their might left it strictly alone.

Cato
05-12-18, 20:28
I was checking the 3 components graph by Chiang (latest version)...the data for Ogliastra are curious, for example Ilbono and Lanusei have 7% and 5% steppe while Gairo, a near village, 0%. I've read other studies and apparently people from that area rarely mix with each other, very high endogamy

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Saetrus
05-12-18, 21:24
I was checking the 3 components graph by Chiang (latest version)...the data for Ogliastra are curious, for example Ilbono and Lanusei have 7% and 5% steppe while Gairo, a near village, 0%. I've read other studies and apparently people from that area rarely mix with each other, very high endogamy

Sardinians only show "Steppe" when you're forcing Sardinians to pick from LBK EN, Loschbour and Yamnaya as if they were the only components that existed, in unsupervised mode ADMIXTURE shows no Steppe in Sardinians only the Iran-related ancestry.


We could alternatively set your grandmother as a component and force all European populations to be modeled as partially your grandmother and Italians would be a high % your grandmother while Estonians only a tiny % but that doesn't mean all Europeans actually descend from your grandmother.

Ailchu
05-12-18, 21:46
theoretically every form of migration, how small it may be, changes the genetic pattern of a population. it can be a little amount of people every few years and they can change the gene-pool a lot just takes a bit longer. but i wonder what kind of role drift plays here. if admixtures are small isn't it easier for them to get lost over time?


https://i.imgur.com/MEMu4Lv.png
it's kind of strange that Loschbour decreases with increasing yamna but the EEF stays the same or inreases. this would mean that the imigrants were higher in EEF as the sardinians but had only yamna instead of additional whg.

Angela
05-12-18, 22:00
Sardinians only show "Steppe" when you're forcing Sardinians to pick from LBK EN, Loschbour and Yamnaya as if they were the only components that existed, in unsupervised mode ADMIXTURE shows no Steppe in Sardinians only the Iran-related ancestry.


We could alternatively set your grandmother as a component and force all European populations to be modeled as partially your grandmother and Italians would be a high % your grandmother while Estonians only a tiny % but that doesn't mean all Europeans actually descend from your grandmother.

Whose unsupervised admixture runs? I really wish when posting you would cite the source of your information. It's one thing if it's from an academic paper. It's another if it's some unknown amateur. Also, what populations were used, what was the "goodness" of fit.

Then, it depends on the samples we're discussing. If you look upthread you'll see that in the big cities steppe can reach 10%. In some places in the Ogliastra and Barbagia it's zero or two-three percent. In addition, unless "your" runs were done on whole genomes, as Chiang's were, "yours" are not going to be as accurate.

Geographical distributions of modern yDna can be misleading in terms of time of arrival, direction of flow etc. but you can't totally discard it either. There's about 20% of R1b in Sardinia, the majority of it U-152. It's just outright silly to say there's no steppe at all in Sardinians.

Saetrus
05-12-18, 22:25
Whose unsupervised admixture runs?

The very study same Chiang study.
https://i.imgur.com/ec37jXo.jpg
Zero of the eastern European purple component in all Sardinian samples.

Angela
06-12-18, 01:22
The very study same Chiang study.
https://i.imgur.com/ec37jXo.jpg
Zero of the eastern European purple component in all Sardinian samples.

Saetrus, think about it. Do you think Chiang would contradict themselves this way?

Please read the key for the graphic and the text of the paper. The blue is "European" according to the key. What does that mean? They don't say, and I'm not precisely sure. The green, according to them, is found in not only the Caucasus, but the Middle East, North Africa, and "Southern Europe". I doubt that represents Iran Neo, unless you think that southern Iberia is 25% Iran Neo? They don't explain the significance of the purple, but while it may be eastern European that doesn't equate to steppe, unless you think the 40% and up of Neolithic ancestry in eastern Europe doesn't count? You can't give your own name to components.

Plus, right after the graph they continue to say that there is some steppe ancestry on Sardinia.

Is there a lot? No, which means the U-152 was almost certainly another male mediated migration. In addition, it obviously drifted to its current numbers.

The author has made the 2018 paper on the Sardinians available.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0215-8.epdf?author_access_token=m5JXNcoqqnFVpZn9Qv40VtR gN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NAgrDcTnHLukkHqktqMDwvotOoRVheU jl48G9WLksFJDVbYFz63NoP6UrzkUGAzsGNsTWDsHwCVhA9SIV 60FGYsxedL6SaA0LXgE7RJ0fP5A%3D%3D

Cato
06-12-18, 12:11
I was checking the 3 components graph by Chiang (latest version)...the data for Ogliastra are curious, for example Ilbono and Lanusei have 7% and 5% steppe while Gairo, a near village, 0%. I've read other studies and apparently people from that area rarely mix with each other, very high endogamy

Utilizzando Tapatalkthe study

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004654

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Cato
06-12-18, 17:13
https://i.imgur.com/MEMu4Lv.png
it's kind of strange that Loschbour decreases with increasing yamna but the EEF stays the same or inreases. this would mean that the imigrants were higher in EEF as the sardinians but had only yamna instead of additional whg.

Central Italians? Tuscans are EEF+Yamnaya in the Haak 2015 paper as the Spanish while Bergamo have some extra WHG

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Ailchu
06-12-18, 18:46
Central Italians? Tuscans are EEF+Yamnaya in the Haak 2015 paper as the Spanish while Bergamo have some extra WHG

Utilizzando Tapatalk

but noone has as high EEF values as the sardinians in that study. so an increase of yamna should decrease EEF. but maybe it's just drift, some of the steppe could have been lost over time in favor of EEF, and sample bias that make it look like EEF did not change. or sardinians were just not homogenous even before new imigration.

Pygmalion
06-12-18, 20:16
If you check up its history when Romans get the island the locals uprise against the new rulers and land holders carry Lybian names.

Ogliastrini carry italian names today and they're certainly not the same as mainland Italians. Of course the people living in coastal towns like Hamsicora / Hampsichora would have absorbed punic culture after almost 300 years of punic domination, Hamsichora's son Iostus doesn't even have a punic name though. And even the name Amsichora itself being berber is debetable, scholars have compared it to a berber women who appers in one of Plautus' comedies (180 bc) and is called Ampsigurra, I could make the same argument for Amsicora and Anassagora having the same root and that's a greek name. None of the sources mention him having berber ancestry, he's always defined dux sardorum.

A. Papadimitriou
06-12-18, 21:25
If you check up its history when Romans get the island the locals uprise against the new rulers and land holders carry Lybian names.

Can you post the source for that claim?

Pygmalion
07-12-18, 15:35
Can you post the source for that claim?

He's referring to Hamsicora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampsicora

His name has been compared to Amsigurra, a berber woman in one of Plauto's commedies, and to a lake in North Africa. But usually the same scholars who make this comparison tend to emphasize Sardinians' North african ancestry excessively and unscientifically, going as far as saying that Sardinia was populated since prehistory from North Africa, or even taking Cicero's slanderous speech as a historical source, because in that speech he says that Sardinians were born out of the union of Phoenicians and Africans. Eitherway anyone who's familar with academical literature about ancient Sardinian knows that it's a common trend, especially among italian and sardinian scholars, to claim that Sardinians have North african origins.

Angela
07-12-18, 18:07
He's referring to Hamsicora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampsicora

His name has been compared to Amsigurra, a berber woman in one of Plauto's commedies, and to a lake in North Africa. But usually the same scholars who make this comparison tend to emphasize Sardinians' North african ancestry excessively and unscientifically, going as far as saying that Sardinia was populated since prehistory from North Africa, or even taking Cicero's slanderous speech as a historical source, because in that speech he says that Sardinians were born out of the union of Phoenicians and Africans. Eitherway anyone who's familar with academical literature about ancient Sardinian knows that it's a common trend, especially among italian and sardinian scholars, to claim that Sardinians have North african origins.

Guess it's time they read some genetics papers then, yes?

Aaron1981
07-12-18, 18:37
Could the Terramare cultures be a forebear of the Latin people? If the link to central Europe is evident, look for downstream branches such as DF27+ and U152+ which are both quite common in Italy today.

I don't think the presence of Iran_Neo in Sardinia would indicate IE lanaguage but rather influence from the eastern Aegean. Last I checked, they didn't speak an IE language. Anyhow, I wouldn't put too much emphasis in the exact dates, but the Iran_Neo could be Phoenician related ancestry from the Mid East. No doubt these guys would have carried Iran_Neo.

Cato
07-12-18, 18:45
Terramare=Latins is the old thesis of Pigorini..maybe he was right after all..

Iran_Neo in Western Mediterranean could be Copper Age IMO. Material culture in Sardinia during early mid Bronze Age is Northern Italian like (Polada-Asciano) while chalcolitic Monte Claro culture show eastern traits (oven tombs, leaf shaped daggers)

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Angela
07-12-18, 18:55
If memory serves, not much DF27 in Italy at all, other than a bit in Liguria and adjacent areas. Of course, it might have been wiped out.

Thanks for the advice, but everyone knows to look for clades of U-152.

As for Iran Neo, if you're thinking of Saetrus' use of an admixture chart from Chiang et al, it is not labeled Iran Neo. (See discussion upthread) Amateur made "models" from the internet don't count.

Even if it were Iran Neo, the amount in any Sardinians, including the most admixed ones of places like Cagliari, is tiny.

So, as I've opined before, it doesn't seem as if the Phoenicians in Sardinia left a big impact, which anyone who has made a study of their colonization patterns would have known. They were more like the British East India Company than the British migration to the U.S.

Spain may have been different. We'll have to wait and see.

@Cato,
Yes, part of the increase in this component may be because of movement from the east in the late Neolithic/Chalcolithic and may have little to do with the Phoenicians. I still think the J in Spain may be because of that, not necessarily the Phoenicians and Carthaginians.

Aaron1981
08-12-18, 04:17
No doubt that U152 is the elephant in the room, but for some reason P312(xU152, L21) doesn't get a lot of mention but it's at non negligible frequencies throughout Italy.
ie:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03014460.2017.1409801

There is no doubt though that Iran_Neo came from the eastern Mediterranean, because it's at this time (BA) that this component spreads to the Levant.

berun
08-12-18, 09:32
He's referring to Hamsicora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampsicora

His name has been compared to Amsigurra, a berber woman in one of Plauto's commedies, and to a lake in North Africa. But usually the same scholars who make this comparison tend to emphasize Sardinians' North african ancestry excessively and unscientifically, going as far as saying that Sardinia was populated since prehistory from North Africa, or even taking Cicero's slanderous speech as a historical source, because in that speech he says that Sardinians were born out of the union of Phoenicians and Africans. Eitherway anyone who's familar with academical literature about ancient Sardinian knows that it's a common trend, especially among italian and sardinian scholars, to claim that Sardinians have North african origins.

This case is reinforced with names like those of Qdabinel, Iamucaris, Hannibal, Osurbal, etc.

Pygmalion
08-12-18, 15:35
This case is reinforced with names like those of Qdabinel, Iamucaris, Hannibal, Osurbal, etc.

But those are mostly names coming epigraphs belonging to the citizens of the coastal towns of the South West, which had been under Phoenician and later Punic influence for several centuries, so it doesn't have much to do with the sardinian rebels, of whom we know only two names: Ampsichora whose berber origin of the name is disputable, and his son Hostus/Iostus whose name seems indigenous, both of them came from Cornus in the North West. We only know the names of the inhabitants of the interior such as the Iliensi and Balari thanks to some epigraphs dating to the roman period, and most of their names seem of local origin: Ithoccor/Orzocco, Torbenus, Silesius, Nispella etc. They're all which are only found in Sardinia, and the Giudici and previous Archons/Protospatharoi of the middle ages will very often use those names.

Angela
08-12-18, 19:51
Pygmalion*, with all due respect, I think Berun is leading you down a rabbit hole. :)

Of course names are not necessarily reliable indicators of ethnicity. Natives are often renamed by conquerors, or they're adopted by the lower classes after a certain period of time. In the Middle Ages do you know how many people in Italy were named Matilde and Otto and Erminia and on and on? Would anyone seriously suggest they were all or even partly Gothic, or Langobard, or Frank in actuality? Was the German war leader Arminius Roman because he bore a Roman name? How about all those Balkanite boys who wound up in the Ottoman forces, like Barbarossa? Anyone think this half Albanian, half Greek with a formal Turkish name was Italian? :)

People who emphasize "names" as proof of substantial admixture usually have some ax to grind, and from what I have seen it's usually for the purpose of t-rolling Italians about all their "Levantine" ancestry, as if that's something of which to be ashamed. Of course, not accusing Berun of that at all. It was merely an observation. To digress, I do find it ironic that t-rolls of the first order like Sikeliot (and all his socks) at anthrogenica express shock that some Europeans (not I clearly) might have a problem with having Levantine ancestry when as Portuguese Princess he spent years vehemently arguing that his mother's people, Spaniards, had none of that tainted ancestry while his detested Sicilian father's people were riddled with it.

Ah well, sorry, back to the point at hand.

We have luckily passed beyond the point where we look for answers to names and the contradictory transcribed legends put down by ancient writers. We now have genetics, and the genetics seem to be telling us certain things although it will be a while before we have clarity.

It seems that some time from the late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age, another, slightly different migration came from Anatolia/the Aegean and spread west. I say late Neolithic/Chalcolithic partly from the archaeology, of Sardinia for example, and partly from the Admixture runs based on modern populations so beloved by people. Otzi lived in the Chalcolithic, and yet according to those measures he was about 22% "Caucasus" like. Now, that doesn't mean CHG like, but it does mean a farmer mix with high Iran Neo. Of course, he also had the "dreaded" Southwest Asian, as did the Gok farmers for that matter. :)

https://i.imgur.com/b0Wy9EJ.png

In the Iron Age you have the movement of the Greeks and the Phoenicians west. We know that the Greeks created actual colonies and I don't doubt their genetic impact.

The Phoenicians are a bit different, and their impact, depending on the place, might be much smaller. From the Ibiza paper we see that it was a male migration. That makes sense, because as I've said before, the Phoenicians were more like the East India company than like the Greek colonization.

"The Phoenicians were not an agricultural people, because most of the land was not arable; therefore, they focused on commerce and trading instead. They did, however, raise sheep and sold them and their wool."
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Phoenician_Civilization

The farms they set up were probably like the farms the Dutch East India company established at Cape Town: meant to supply their own people, the passing ships of their fleet, and for sale. Their mating patterns appear to have been the same as well.

So, was there a genetic "presence" on Ibiza of the Phoenicians? Yes, from that genome, incomplete as it is, it seems there was. It seems to be male mediated, with all "native" female input. Also, for our reading comprehension challenged "friends" at anthrogenica, it is essentially no longer present in the people of Ibiza. Everything depends on the size of the "other" lineages present before, during or after the time of an ancient sample, which I thought was obvious.

Now let's turn to Sardinia. What do all the newest papers tell us? They tell us that the Phoenicians were present in the southwest of the island for quite some time. What do we know from the genetics? We know that the percentage of Iran Neo on the island is exceedingly small, even in the southwest. I would again suggest our "friends" at anthrogenica read some PAPERS, like Chiang et al, which looks not only at the HGDP like people of the Gennargentu, but at the coastal cities. Unless, of course, they think these academics are also Nordicist Italians who have distorted the data?

As for the yDna, there's about 9% of the perhaps relevant "J" lineages, but the J2 at least could have come during the Bronze Age, not necessarily with the Phoenicians.

From Alessio Boatini:

J1-0
J1e-2.4
J2a-6.1
J2a2-1.2

Likewise, what looks like the Near Eastern and North African versions of E are present, for a total of about 7%.

E1b1b1b-1.2
E1b1b1c-6.1
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065441#s6

So, why is there, according to Chiang's analysis of even southwestern coastal Sardinians, so little "Iran Neo" like ancestry, or Near Eastern heavy, North Africa heavy ancestry, which is what he's really measuring? I suppose for the same reason that 18% R1b results in so little steppe: not very numerous male mediated migration overwhelmed by "local" dna.

I don't see anything either very difficult or very ambiguous about this.

*Correction from Cato.

Cato
08-12-18, 19:57
Cato, with all due respect, I think Berun is leading you down a rabbit hole. :)

Of course names are not necessarily reliable indicators of ethnicity. Natives are often renamed by conquerors, or they're adopted by the lower classes after a certain period of time. In the Middle Ages do you know how many people in Italy were named Matilde and Otto and Erminia and on and on? Would anyone seriously suggest they were all or even partly Gothic, or Langobard, or Frank in actuality? Was the German war leader Arminius Roman because he bore a Roman name? How about all those Balkanite boys who wound up in the Ottoman forces, like Barbarossa? Anyone think this half Albanian, half Greek with a formal Turkish name was Italian? :)

People who emphasize "names" as proof of substantial admixture usually have some ax to grind, and from what I have seen it's usually for the purpose of t-rolling Italians about all their "Levantine" ancestry, as if that's something of which to be ashamed. Of course, not accusing Berun of that at all. It was merely an observation. To digress, I do find it ironic that t-rolls of the first order like Sikeliot (and all his socks) at anthrogenica express shock that some Europeans (not I clearly) might have a problem with having Levantine ancestry when as Portuguese Princess he spent years vehemently arguing that his mother's people, Spaniards, had none of that tainted ancestry while his detested Sicilian father's people were riddled with it.

Ah well, sorry, back to the point at hand.

We have luckily passed beyond the point where we look for answers to names and the contradictory transcribed legends put down by ancient writers. We now have genetics, and the genetics seem to be telling us certain things although it will be a while before we have clarity.

It seems that some time from the late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age, another, slightly different migration came from Anatolia/the Aegean and spread west. I say late Neolithic/Chalcolithic partly from the archaeology, of Sardinia for example, and partly from the Admixture runs based on modern populations so beloved by people. Otzi lived in the Chalcolithic, and yet according to those measures he was about 22% "Caucasus" like. Now, that doesn't mean CHG like, but it does mean a farmer mix with high Iran Neo. Of course, he also had the "dreaded" Southwest Asian, as did the Gok farmers for that matter. :)

In the Iron Age you have the movement of the Greeks and the Phoenicians west. We know that the Greeks created actual colonies and I don't doubt their genetic impact.

The Phoenicians are a bit different, and their impact, depending on the place, might be much smaller. From the Ibiza paper we see that it was a male migration. That makes sense, because as I've said before, the Phoenicians were more like the East India company than like the Greek colonization.

"The Phoenicians were not an agricultural people, because most of the land was not arable; therefore, they focused on commerce and trading instead. They did, however, raise sheep and sold them and their wool."

The farms they set up were probably like the farms the Dutch East India company established at Cape Town: meant to supply their own people, the passing ships of their fleet, and for sale. Their mating patterns appear to have been the same as well.

So, was there a genetic "presence" on Ibiza of the Phoenicians? Yes, from that genome, incomplete as it is, it seems there was. It seems to be male mediated, with all "native" female input. Also, for our reading comprehension challenged "friends" at anthrogenica, it is essentially no longer present in the people of Ibiza. Everything depends on the size of the "other" lineages present before, during or after the time of an ancient sample, which I thought was obvious.

Now let's turn to Sardinia. What do all the newest papers tell us? They tell us that the Phoenicians were present in the southwest of the island for quite some time. What do we know from the genetics? We know that the percentage of Iran Neo on the island is exceedingly small, even in the southwest. I would again suggest our "friends" at anthrogenica read some PAPERS, like Chiang et al, which looks not only at the HGDP like people of the Gennargentu, but at the coastal cities. Unless, of course, they think these academics are also Nordicist Italians who have distorted the data?

As for the yDna, there's about 9% of the perhaps relevant "J" lineages, but the J2 at least could have come during the Bronze Age, not necessarily with the Phoenicians.

From Alessio Boatini:

J1-0
J1e-2.4
J2a-6.1
J2a2-1.2

Likewise, what looks like the Near Eastern and North African versions of E are present, for a total of about 7%.

E1b1b1b-1.2
E1b1b1c-6.1

So, why is there, according to Chiang's analysis of even southwestern coastal Sardinians, so little "Iran Neo" like ancestry, or Near Eastern heavy, North Africa heavy ancestry, which is what he's really measuring? I suppose for the same reason that 18% R1b results in so little steppe: not very numerous male mediated migration overwhelmed by "local" dna.

I don't see anything either very difficult or very ambiguous about this.did you mean Pygmalion? I'm not familiar with Punic names

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Angela
08-12-18, 20:09
did you mean Pygmalion? I'm not familiar with Punic names

Utilizzando Tapatalk

So sorry, Cato. It was indeed Pygmalion. I'll correct my post.

Angela
08-12-18, 20:22
Pygmalion*, with all due respect, I think Berun is leading you down a rabbit hole. :)

Of course names are not necessarily reliable indicators of ethnicity. Natives are often renamed by conquerors, or they're adopted by the lower classes after a certain period of time. In the Middle Ages do you know how many people in Italy were named Matilde and Otto and Erminia and on and on? Would anyone seriously suggest they were all or even partly Gothic, or Langobard, or Frank in actuality? Was the German war leader Arminius Roman because he bore a Roman name? How about all those Balkanite boys who wound up in the Ottoman forces, like Barbarossa? Anyone think this half Albanian, half Greek with a formal Turkish name was Italian? :)

People who emphasize "names" as proof of substantial admixture usually have some ax to grind, and from what I have seen it's usually for the purpose of t-rolling Italians about all their "Levantine" ancestry, as if that's something of which to be ashamed. Of course, not accusing Berun of that at all. It was merely an observation. To digress, I do find it ironic that t-rolls of the first order like Sikeliot (and all his socks) at anthrogenica express shock that some Europeans (not I clearly) might have a problem with having Levantine ancestry when as Portuguese Princess he spent years vehemently arguing that his mother's people, Spaniards, had none of that tainted ancestry while his detested Sicilian father's people were riddled with it.

Ah well, sorry, back to the point at hand.

We have luckily passed beyond the point where we look for answers to names and the contradictory transcribed legends put down by ancient writers. We now have genetics, and the genetics seem to be telling us certain things although it will be a while before we have clarity.

It seems that some time from the late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age, another, slightly different migration came from Anatolia/the Aegean and spread west. I say late Neolithic/Chalcolithic partly from the archaeology, of Sardinia for example, and partly from the Admixture runs based on modern populations so beloved by people. Otzi lived in the Chalcolithic, and yet according to those measures he was about 22% "Caucasus" like. Now, that doesn't mean CHG like, but it does mean a farmer mix with high Iran Neo. Of course, he also had the "dreaded" Southwest Asian, as did the Gok farmers for that matter. :)

https://i.imgur.com/b0Wy9EJ.png

In the Iron Age you have the movement of the Greeks and the Phoenicians west. We know that the Greeks created actual colonies and I don't doubt their genetic impact.

The Phoenicians are a bit different, and their impact, depending on the place, might be much smaller. From the Ibiza paper we see that it was a male migration. That makes sense, because as I've said before, the Phoenicians were more like the East India company than like the Greek colonization.

"The Phoenicians were not an agricultural people, because most of the land was not arable; therefore, they focused on commerce and trading instead. They did, however, raise sheep and sold them and their wool."
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Phoenician_Civilization

The farms they set up were probably like the farms the Dutch East India company established at Cape Town: meant to supply their own people, the passing ships of their fleet, and for sale. Their mating patterns appear to have been the same as well.

So, was there a genetic "presence" on Ibiza of the Phoenicians? Yes, from that genome, incomplete as it is, it seems there was. It seems to be male mediated, with all "native" female input. Also, for our reading comprehension challenged "friends" at anthrogenica, it is essentially no longer present in the people of Ibiza. Everything depends on the size of the "other" lineages present before, during or after the time of an ancient sample, which I thought was obvious.

Now let's turn to Sardinia. What do all the newest papers tell us? They tell us that the Phoenicians were present in the southwest of the island for quite some time. What do we know from the genetics? We know that the percentage of Iran Neo on the island is exceedingly small, even in the southwest. I would again suggest our "friends" at anthrogenica read some PAPERS, like Chiang et al, which looks not only at the HGDP like people of the Gennargentu, but at the coastal cities. Unless, of course, they think these academics are also Nordicist Italians who have distorted the data?

As for the yDna, there's about 9% of the perhaps relevant "J" lineages, but the J2 at least could have come during the Bronze Age, not necessarily with the Phoenicians.

From Alessio Boatini:

J1-0
J1e-2.4
J2a-6.1
J2a2-1.2

Likewise, what looks like the Near Eastern and North African versions of E are present, for a total of about 7%.

E1b1b1b-1.2
E1b1b1c-6.1
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065441#s6

So, why is there, according to Chiang's analysis of even southwestern coastal Sardinians, so little "Iran Neo" like ancestry, or Near Eastern heavy, North Africa heavy ancestry, which is what he's really measuring? I suppose for the same reason that 18% R1b results in so little steppe: not very numerous male mediated migration overwhelmed by "local" dna.

I don't see anything either very difficult or very ambiguous about this.

*Correction from Cato.

I forgot something rather important. Some of the "E" as well as the trace SSA in the non-Gennargentu Sicilians may actually be from a later period, when the Carthaginians took over the island, treating it, it seems, as a granary for Carthage. It's unknown how many of them actually settled there, and how much of an impact they had eventually. Another reason for the little autosomal influence left may be because they did, in fact, rebel against Rome, were soundly defeated, and either killed or enslaved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sardinia#Phoenician_settlement

berun
08-12-18, 21:32
Well, sometimes, names are simply related to its ethnicity, it was so before Romans. By the way the Roman geographers assigned the mountain ranges to native tribes were the plains and coasts, the best lands, for Carthaginians, even putting the frontier between these peoples in a river splitting the island by halves. There are bilingual inscriptions Latin Punic, and Punic names, there is no doubt about Punic colonization, only its extent.

If nowadays such admixture and Y DNA is not so prevailing maybe its due by historical facts which favoured mountain herders over plain farmers (Roman conquest, Vandals, Byzantines, bad crops, aridity, etc.). Just we need more samples to track down all it.

Cato
08-12-18, 21:35
In the South west Sardinia Y dna is:

I2a1 40%
R1b 25%
G2a 13%
E1b1 4%
J2a1 6%
J2b 4%
I2a 4%
I2b1 4%

http://www.didac.ehu.es/antropo/29/29-1/Calo.htm

It's the area with higher level of Yamnaya ~10% (Chiang latest paper)

mtDNA

H 40%
J 20%
U 12%
HV 10%
T 10%
RO 2%
I 2%
K 2%
X 2%

Utilizzando Tapatalk

berun
08-12-18, 22:20
Please don't be caught in the own traps that genetists are falling down, such steppe admixture is the lumping of the CHG share of Aegeans and Phoenicians. Please find first EHG and then be talk back.

Cato
08-12-18, 22:54
it's not hard to believe that steppe in those sardinians is real, considering 25% R1b...mostly U152 i suppose

Utilizzando Tapatalk

halfalp
08-12-18, 23:18
How exactly should Steppe be false? If they found Steppe, they found EHG. You dont need pure EHG. If we need to imagine Steppe in Sardinians is " shared ancestry " with CHG, we can at the same time reevaluate most of ancestral DNA.

Pygmalion
08-12-18, 23:33
*Angela I remember reading in a previous paper that apparently there might have also been a movement in the opposite direction, since scientists might have found some european mtDNA in phoenician graves from Lebanon, but maybe I remember wrong.

I think that the possibility of an opposite gene flow shouldn't be discarded, I've recently found out about this in an article which mentioned the presence of foreigners in Carthage

"Some female names are composed of a theophoric element and a root, for example "MTNB'L": the root
being MTN which means "DON".
In addition to theophoric names, hypocoristics are widespread in Carthage.
The names to designate ethnic groups are rarely found. The most used are "MSRT", the Egyptian, and "SRDNT". the Sardinian.
From the work of A. Ferjaoui (40)"

Pygmalion
08-12-18, 23:49
Well, sometimes, names are simply related to its ethnicity, it was so before Romans. By the way the Roman geographers assigned the mountain ranges to native tribes were the plains and coasts, the best lands, for Carthaginians, even putting the frontier between these peoples in a river splitting the island by halves. There are bilingual inscriptions Latin Punic, and Punic names, there is no doubt about Punic colonization, only its extent.

If nowadays such admixture and Y DNA is not so prevailing maybe its due by historical facts which favoured mountain herders over plain farmers (Roman conquest, Vandals, Byzantines, bad crops, aridity, etc.). Just we need more samples to track down all it.

I don't think anyone here doubts that the Carthaginians conquered Sardinia, I only doubt that they left much of a genetic impact because that's what the genetic evidence suggests.


By the way the Roman geographers assigned the mountain ranges to native tribes were the plains and coasts, the best lands, for Carthaginians, even putting the frontier between these peoples in a river splitting the island by halves.

That's Pausanias referring to the mythical past of Sardinia. He said that the North of the Tyrsus river lived the Libyans and the natives, and South of the Tyrsus lived the Trojans and Greeks, and that they avoided fighting because they were equal in number, of course this can't be taken as a historical account.

berun
09-12-18, 09:02
But those are mostly names coming epigraphs belonging to the citizens of the coastal towns of the South West, which had been under Phoenician and later Punic influence for several centuries, so it doesn't have much to do with the sardinian rebels, of whom we know only two names: Ampsichora whose berber origin of the name is disputable, and his son Hostus/Iostus whose name seems indigenous, both of them came from Cornus in the North West. We only know the names of the inhabitants of the interior such as the Iliensi and Balari thanks to some epigraphs dating to the roman period, and most of their names seem of local origin: Ithoccor/Orzocco, Torbenus, Silesius, Nispella etc. They're all which are only found in Sardinia, and the Giudici and previous Archons/Protospatharoi of the middle ages will very often use those names.

You are tricky, the names (just 4 examples!) were found in the core of Sardinia (Aidomaggiore, Samugheo, Ula) except Posada which is in the east coast.

berun
09-12-18, 09:05
it's not hard to believe that steppe in those sardinians is real, considering 25% R1b...mostly U152 i suppose

Utilizzando Tapatalk

you can't link R1b with steppe as one-eyed genetists do, we have R1b in Kura Araxes, Ganj Dareh, etc. without steppe.

berun
09-12-18, 09:10
How exactly should Steppe be false? If they found Steppe, they found EHG. You dont need pure EHG. If we need to imagine Steppe in Sardinians is " shared ancestry " with CHG, we can at the same time reevaluate most of ancestral DNA.

If a supervised admixture work with whites, mulattos and native Americans, the Camerunese are coming then from America. Admixture programs do that , I posted once a paper about it.

berun
09-12-18, 09:18
I don't think anyone here doubts that the Carthaginians conquered Sardinia, I only doubt that they left much of a genetic impact because that's what the genetic evidence suggests.

you can read per example Mastino, Attilio a cura di (1985) L'Africa romana: atti del 2. Convegno di
studio, 14-16 dicembre 1984, Sassari (Italia). Sassari, Edizioni Gallizzi. 286
p., [16] c. di tav.: ill. (Pubblicazioni del Dipartimento di Storia
dell'Università di Sassari, 5).
http://eprints.uniss.it/3177/


That's Pausanias referring to the mythical past of Sardinia. He said that the North of the Tyrsus river lived the Libyans and the natives, and South of the Tyrsus lived the Trojans and Greeks, and that they avoided fighting because they were equal in number, of course this can't be taken as a historical account.

of course Pausanias is writting about legendary migrations that are simply legendary... but you must realize that such legends were set up to explain the actual ethnic composition of the island, can you understand what I mean?


[2] The first sailors to cross to the island are said to have been Libyans. Their leader was Sardus, son of Maceris, the Maceris surnamed Heracles by the Egyptians and Libyans. Maceris himself was celebrated chiefly for his journey to Delphi, but Sardus it was who led the Libyans to Ichnussa, and after him the island was renamed. However, the Libyan army did not expel the aboriginals, who received the invaders as settlers through compulsion rather than in goodwill. Neither the Libyans nor the native population knew how to build cities. They dwelt in scattered groups, where chance found them a home in cabins or caves. ... However, many years afterwards the Libyans crossed again to the island with a stronger army, and began a war against the Greeks. The Greeks were utterly destroyed, or only a few of them survived. The Trojans made their escape to the high parts of the island, and occupied mountains difficult to climb, being precipitous and protected by stakes. Even at the present day they are called Ilians, but in figure, in the fashion of their arms, and in their mode of living generally, they are like the Libyans. Not far distant from Sardinia is an island, called Cyrnus by the Greeks, but Corsica by the Libyans who inhabit it. A large part of the population, oppressed by civil strife, left it and came to Sardinia; there they took up their abode, confining themselves to the highlands. The Sardinians, however, call them by the name of Corsicans, which they brought with them from home.
[9] When the Carthaginians were at the height of their sea power, they overcame all in Sardinia except the Ilians and Corsicans, who were kept from slavery by the strength of the mountains. These Carthaginians, like those who preceded them, founded cities in the island, namely, Caralis and Sulci. Some of the Carthaginian mercenaries, either Libyans or Iberians, quarrelled about the booty, mutinied in a passion, and added to the number of the highland settlers. Their name in the Cyrnian language is Balari, which is the Cyrnian word for fugitives. These are the races that dwell in Sardinia, and such was the method of their settlement.

Pygmalion
09-12-18, 10:58
*Berun Honestly at this point I think you're a t-roll. I have read Attilo Mastino's works, and while the parts about classical archaeology are great his considerations about the prehistory of the island are to be dismissed, since they're not supported either by genetics or archaeology. Mastino is a classicist, prehistory and protohistory are not his field. For what concerns North African influence on the CULTURE of the islanders, no one denies it, what I think everyone in this thread is denying is that the cultural change came with a genetic change.
As for Pausanias, yes of course he was trying to explain the ethnic differences in the island during his time (2nd century AD), but he didn't have the tools of a modern historian, archaeologist, geneticist, or ethnographer so he did it in a completely UNSCIENTIFIC way, you got that? Or maybe should we also believe Diodorus Siculus' account about the Greeks building all the nuraghi and nuragic temples, along with the first cities? Maybe we should believe Strabo's account that the first inhabitants of the islands were Etruscans? Or Solinus and Sallustius who wrote that Nora was founded by Iberians from Tartessos? or that the Iliesi were Trojan refugees? Or Simonide's account about a giant bronze automaton spreading terror on the island? Of course all this is nonsense not supported by modern archaeology in any way, leaving aside that these accounts often contradict eachother.
I also don't get why you cut out the part of Pausanias' account which I wrote above, about the Trojans and Greeks settling the island and living south of the Tyrsus river, was it because it's too ridiculous for even you to believe?

halfalp
09-12-18, 11:04
If a supervised admixture work with whites, mulattos and native Americans, the Camerunese are coming then from America. Admixture programs do that , I posted once a paper about it.

I dont understand the reasoning. Camerunese are mostly Yoruba-like no? So what's the link with the Americas but, African-Americans with Yoruba-like themselves?

Pygmalion
09-12-18, 11:12
You are tricky, the names (just 4 examples!) were found in the core of Sardinia (Aidomaggiore, Samugheo, Ula) except Posada which is in the east coast.
I "am tricky"? You think I have a plot to hide Sardinians' North African and/or Lebanese hidden ancestry? I guess geneticists are tricky too, they must all have a plot to hide Sardinians' North African ancestry. As for those indigenous names, there are more than four examples, and I did clearly write that in the roman period they're mostly found in the internal parts of the island, while during the Middle Ages we found them very easily in all the parts of the islands, and they were often found as dynastic names of the Giudici, including those of the Giudicato of Cagliari.
Anyway you've said that the Sardinians who rebelled had carthaginian names, that's not really true considering the Sardinians who rebelled were 90% of the time Iliensi, Balari or Corsi, all living in the Central and Northen parts of the island.

Cato
09-12-18, 12:46
you can't link R1b with steppe as one-eyed genetists do, we have R1b in Kura Araxes, Ganj Dareh, etc. without steppe.i know, but U152 was born 4000 years ago in steppe admixed populations north of the alps

Utilizzando Tapatalk

halfalp
09-12-18, 12:57
R1b in Kura-Araxes is M415 so he was only tested for SNP's right? He could have been anything below P297? And what about Ganj Dareh? There was never R1b in Ganj Dareh or maybe he thinks Hajji Firuz?

markod
09-12-18, 13:13
R1b in Kura-Araxes is M415 so he was only tested for SNP's right? He could have been anything below P297? And what about Ganj Dareh? There was never R1b in Ganj Dareh or maybe he thinks Hajji Firuz?

I think KA was R1b-V1636. A very unsuccessful branch.

halfalp
09-12-18, 13:55
I think KA was R1b-V1636. A very unsuccessful branch.

Enough successful because R1b-V1636* in modern Turkey is one of the argument of R1b coming from South of the Caucasus / Iran no? I think the user Cplus is claiming being V1636* under his socketpuppet Raspberry.

markod
09-12-18, 14:00
Enough successful because R1b-V1636* in modern Turkey is one of the argument of R1b coming from South of the Caucasus / Iran no? I think the user Cplus is claiming being V1636* under his socketpuppet Raspberry.

I think that argument was originally based on the basal diversity on R1b-M269 found in eastern Turkey and Iran. But ancient DNA points to Europe. I find V1636* irrelevant/uninteresting personally as it looks like little more than some small wayward branch.