PDA

View Full Version : New studies says that Anatolian IEs came from East



tyuiopman
06-02-20, 04:10
Researchers Matilde Serangeli and Thomas Orlander claim that the Proto-Anatolians came from Maykop in their new book Dispersals and Diversifications Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on the Early Stages of Indo European.

However, Hittite scholar Petra Goedegeburre suggests that Kura-Araxes was culturally mixed, and contained a Proto-Anatolian element that spread westward. However, she claims that the Anatolians originally came from the Steppe, but left prior to farming reaching the north Black Sea region.

It seems that the scholars are now leaning toward an eastern/Caucasus origin for the Hittites, etc.

Angela
06-02-20, 06:27
Researchers Matilde Serangeli and Thomas Orlander claim that the Proto-Anatolians came from Maykop in their new book Dispersals and Diversifications Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on the Early Stages of Indo European.

However, Hittite scholar Petra Goedegeburre suggests that Kura-Araxes was culturally mixed, and contained a Proto-Anatolian element that spread westward. However, she claims that the Anatolians originally came from the Steppe, but left prior to farming reaching the north Black Sea region.

It seems that the scholars are now leaning toward an eastern/Caucasus origin for the Hittites, etc.

If, indeed, Anatolian speakers arrived from the Caucasus area rather than arriving from the Balkans, then the eastern Caucasus makes more sense as that's the easiest route south. If they came from the west the easiest route would have been by sea along the coast. There are a few trails through the mountains, but I never thought that was the likeliest means of access. The same applies to Italy. I think any reasonably large migration will skirt the mountains where possible.

I honestly don't know if this question will ever be resolved satisfactorily. I used to think that the genetics analyses would point solidly in one direction, but so far that isn't the case imo.

tyuiopman
06-02-20, 06:43
If, indeed, Anatolian speakers arrived from the Caucasus area rather than arriving from the Balkans, then the eastern Caucasus makes more sense as that's the easiest route south. If they came from the west the easiest route would have been by sea along the coast. There are a few trails through the mountains, but I never thought that was the likeliest means of access. The same applies to Italy. I think any reasonably large migration will skirt the mountains where possible.

I honestly don't know if this question will ever be resolved satisfactorily. I used to think that the genetics analyses would point solidly in one direction, but so far that isn't the case imo.

Well, to my understanding, this new research, which is building off Damgaard's 2018 research, suggests that there was an infusion of Caucasus-linked ancestry into Asia Minor during the Neolithic, so this is part of the reason why they are leaning toward a Proto-Anatolian IE homeland in the Caucasus. In other words, they're saying that this influx of Caucasian-ancestry into the Anatolian heartland was brought by the Proto-Anatolians during the Neolithic.

Your point about the eastern Caucasus is interesting, since people in Daghestan have a high degree of Y-haplogroup R1b (although it could have come from the south possibly). Obviously, this would negate the Maykop theory but it could theoretically work with the Kura-Araxes theory.

I streamed a lecture tonight from the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago regarding this topic (which is what inspired and informed this post). I'll link it when it gets posted to their Youtube account.

Ygorcs
06-02-20, 07:32
I have been quite intrigued recently by the results I tested for the DNA samples from the Caspian part of northern Iran (Tepe Hissar) and, moving westward, from Armenia (Areni), both from the Chaltolichic Period. I consistently got genetic affinities, even if in some individuals very minor ones, with Chalcolithic Pontic-Caspian populations (especially Vonyuchka_Eneolithic) even as I tested several different models with numerous reference populations (including ANE-related and EHG-related early samples to account for some possible pre-Bronze Age or even pre-Neolithic influx of hunter-gatherers). If there is at least some clue to the truth in those modeled results, I think we might be observing a southward movement from the southern portion of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, just north of the Caucasus, as early as the Chalcolithic Era, first spreading to Transcaucasia and the Elburz.

That could explain the virtual lack of steppe ancestry in MLBA Anatolia until no (very few samples have been sequenced until now from that region and time period), because the Hittites, Luwians and other Anatolian IEs would have already arrived with a mostly ANF + CHG + Iran_Neo genetic makeup, further diluting their steppe ancestry (which was probably itself already richer in CHG than the average Yamnaya, CWC or Bell Beaker, if they were indeed similar to the Vonyuchka_Eneolithic samples) as they mixed with Chalcolithic and EBA Anatolians.

torzio
06-02-20, 08:02
Ancients called people of Anatolians, Asians ..............after Asia Minor , older name for Anatolia
Old papers state the same in regards to Daghestan...........because this area has the majority of different haplogroups found anywhere

Yetos
06-02-20, 13:46
I would not be surprised if in the future they say that homeland of all IE languages is Caucasus,

tyuiopman
06-02-20, 15:46
Here's a link to video of last night's lecture, if anybody is interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe4jnBdVxjw

Angela
06-02-20, 16:19
Well, to my understanding, this new research, which is building off Damgaard's 2018 research, suggests that there was an infusion of Caucasus-linked ancestry into Asia Minor during the Neolithic, so this is part of the reason why they are leaning toward a Proto-Anatolian IE homeland in the Caucasus. In other words, they're saying that this influx of Caucasian-ancestry into the Anatolian heartland was brought by the Proto-Anatolians during the Neolithic.

Your point about the eastern Caucasus is interesting, since people in Daghestan have a high degree of Y-haplogroup R1b (although it could have come from the south possibly). Obviously, this would negate the Maykop theory but it could theoretically work with the Kura-Araxes theory.

I streamed a lecture tonight from the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago regarding this topic (which is what inspired and informed this post). I'll link it when it gets posted to their Youtube account.

Thanks. I'm definitely very interested to listen to it.

Angela
06-02-20, 16:34
I have been quite intrigued recently by the results I tested for the DNA samples from the Caspian part of northern Iran (Tepe Hissar) and, moving westward, from Armenia (Areni), both from the Chaltolichic Period. I consistently got genetic affinities, even if in some individuals very minor ones, with Chalcolithic Pontic-Caspian populations (especially Vonyuchka_Eneolithic) even as I tested several different models with numerous reference populations (including ANE-related and EHG-related early samples to account for some possible pre-Bronze Age or even pre-Neolithic influx of hunter-gatherers). If there is at least some clue to the truth in those modeled results, I think we might be observing a southward movement from the southern portion of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, just north of the Caucasus, as early as the Chalcolithic Era, first spreading to Transcaucasia and the Elburz.

That could explain the virtual lack of steppe ancestry in MLBA Anatolia until no (very few samples have been sequenced until now from that region and time period), because the Hittites, Luwians and other Anatolian IEs would have already arrived with a mostly ANF + CHG + Iran_Neo genetic makeup, further diluting their steppe ancestry (which was probably itself already richer in CHG than the average Yamnaya, CWC or Bell Beaker, if they were indeed similar to the Vonyuchka_Eneolithic samples) as they mixed with Chalcolithic and EBA Anatolians.

That makes sense. Of the two possible routes (setting aside for now the hypothesis that Indo-European "arose" in Anatolia or the Caucasus itself) this is more plausible to me than the arrival from the Balkans in terms of the archaeology. I just never saw any evidence in the archaeology for that route. Rather, it seemed like the influence went in the opposite direction.

Given that the lecturer gives a date for the "invention" of the wheel which could have been any time between 4,000 to 3,000 BC, then I suppose that would cover it, given that Hittite doesn't share a common word for the wheel with the other Anatolian languages.

There's also the case of agriculture terminology, however. The lecturer has to thread the needle again because the migration would have to take place before agriculture reached the northern Black Sea.

Yetos
06-02-20, 17:01
Here's a link to video of last night's lecture, if anybody is interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe4jnBdVxjw

that min 1: 03 :15 for me is a deepbreath relief.
and personally I doubt about the big red X after,

blevins13
06-02-20, 21:21
Seems a logical outcome


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

tyuiopman
07-02-20, 02:03
That makes sense. Of the two possible routes (setting aside for now the hypothesis that Indo-European "arose" in Anatolia or the Caucasus itself) this is more plausible to me than the arrival from the Balkans in terms of the archaeology. I just never saw any evidence in the archaeology for that route. Rather, it seemed like the influence went in the opposite direction.

Given that the lecturer gives a date for the "invention" of the wheel which could have been any time between 4,000 to 3,000 BC, then I suppose that would cover it, given that Hittite doesn't share a common word for the wheel with the other Anatolian languages.

There's also the case of agriculture terminology, however. The lecturer has to thread the needle again because the migration would have to take place before agriculture reached the northern Black Sea.

Did the Hittites (or other Anatolian IEs) have a word for "navel"/"hub"/"center"?

bicicleur
07-02-20, 09:14
the Hittites were conquerers, they conquered the land of the Hatti, who were not IE

afaik, the Luwians and other IE appeared later in history, maybe they arrived later

tyuiopman
07-02-20, 20:43
the Hittites were conquerers, they conquered the land of the Hatti, who were not IE
afaik, the Luwians and other IE appeared later in history, maybe they arrived later

That's not what modern Hittiteologists are saying though. See the video link for the Oriental Institute lecture that I posted above.

The Hattic language is not Indo-European but according to the new theories, some ethnic Hittites spoke Hattic.

The new theories state that the Proto-Anatolians came from either the Steppe (by way of Kura-Araxes) or only came from Maykop (possibly no Steppe). There's also Reich's (and Damgaard's) that the Anatolians split off from the Indo-Hittites around northern Iran or Armenia. So if they conquered the Hattians, they did so from a neighboring region to Hatti.

The first two theories date the arrival to 6000-8000 years ago.

It seems, too, that the Luwians's presence in Anatolia is just as old as the Hittites', and probably more widespread even than the Hittites'.

Ygorcs
11-02-20, 01:09
I wonder if all the genetic labs that had been looking for steppe ancestry in the ancient DNA samples from all over Eurasia have "adapted" their genetic models and tried finding a kind of steppe ancestry that is not based on the premise of Yamnaya admixture, using the Eneolithic samples from Vonyuchka and Progress in the southernmost portion of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, right on the piedmont of the North Caucasus. They were clearly "steppic" in genetic makeup (essentially a mix of EHG and CHG), but with far more CHG than the Sredny Stog and the Khvalynsk samples. Modelling in nMonte using the genetic coordinates of Global25, using several reference populations, I have noticed Progress or Vonyuchka are always picked up to form the Yamnaya, the Sredny Stog, the steppe admixture in Bell Beaker and Corded Ware samples and even, yes, in Eneolithic samples from Anatolia (not the EBA and MLBA samples though, two of which only have very negligible proportions of Progress-like admixture), Armenia, North (Caspian) Iran and Turkmenistan - so, basically, Progress/Vonyuchka-like admixture was apparently present in all of northern West Asia by the Copper Age.

I really wished these results were explained by someone more professional than me in population genetics using more advanced tools, but if it does point to something that truly exists then it could well explain how the PIE language spread, including the mysterious Anatolian IEs: PIE would have arisen right to the north of the Caucasus Mountains, in a steppe population enriched in CHG but still heavy in EHG (~45-55%), spreading northward, westward and southward between the Copper Age and the Early Bronze Age, and the Yamnaya would've been just one early IE branch (probably the mother of most known IE languages) among others. The Anatolian IE would've then been the sole known or surviving branch descending from PIE and evolving in West Asia, where it had been present since the Late Chalcolithic.

Ygorcs
11-02-20, 01:54
I wonder if all the genetic labs that had been looking for steppe ancestry in the ancient DNA samples from all over Eurasia have "adapted" their genetic models and tried finding a kind of steppe ancestry that is not based on the premise of Yamnaya admixture, using the Eneolithic samples from Vonyuchka and Progress in the southernmost portion of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, right on the piedmont of the North Caucasus. They were clearly "steppic" in genetic makeup (essentially a mix of EHG and CHG), but with far more CHG than the Sredny Stog and the Khvalynsk samples. Modelling in nMonte using the genetic coordinates of Global25, using several reference populations, I have noticed Progress or Vonyuchka are always picked up to form the Yamnaya, the Sredny Stog, the steppe admixture in Bell Beaker and Corded Ware samples and even, yes, in Eneolithic samples from Anatolia (not the EBA and MLBA samples though, two of which only have very negligible proportions of Progress-like admixture), Armenia, North (Caspian) Iran and Turkmenistan - so, basically, Progress/Vonyuchka-like admixture was apparently present in all of northern West Asia by the Copper Age.

See what I mean with the results of a model of genetic ancestry for several key ancient DNA samples, using 18-19 reference populations from all over Eurasia: https://imgur.com/a/TnFLTTy

tyuiopman
12-02-20, 01:18
I really wished these results were explained by someone more professional than me in population genetics using more advanced tools, but if it does point to something that truly exists then it could well explain how the PIE language spread, including the mysterious Anatolian IEs: PIE would have arisen right to the north of the Caucasus Mountains, in a steppe population enriched in CHG but still heavy in EHG (~45-55%), spreading northward, westward and southward between the Copper Age and the Early Bronze Age, and the Yamnaya would've been just one early IE branch (probably the mother of most known IE languages) among others. The Anatolian IE would've then been the sole known or surviving branch descending from PIE and evolving in West Asia, where it had been present since the Late Chalcolithic.

This seems to be basically what Reich suggests, but he places the original PIE homeland just south of the Caucasus rather than just north of the Caucasus.

halfalp
12-02-20, 09:37
It's maybe nothing but, recent samples from the Caucasus paper showed R1b-V1636 in some samples, one thousand years after, the same R1b clades is found in " Late " Kura-Araxes as R1b-M415. This lineage, V1636 is nowadays almost found in south caucasus and anatolia. There is a possibility of shift in population in Kura-Araxes from Early to Late stadium. They would have conserved the culture, but the population could have experienced a shift. This whole point was already adressed on Eurogenes, and i think it's an interesting one. Not sure if V1636 can be linked with IE languages, but it certainly can be linked with Steppe movements, so let's see in the future.

bicicleur
12-02-20, 17:06
It's maybe nothing but, recent samples from the Caucasus paper showed R1b-V1636 in some samples, one thousand years after, the same R1b clades is found in " Late " Kura-Araxes as R1b-M415. This lineage, V1636 is nowadays almost found in south caucasus and anatolia. There is a possibility of shift in population in Kura-Araxes from Early to Late stadium. They would have conserved the culture, but the population could have experienced a shift. This whole point was already adressed on Eurogenes, and i think it's an interesting one. Not sure if V1636 can be linked with IE languages, but it certainly can be linked with Steppe movements, so let's see in the future.

I think PIE was spoken by HG on both sides of the Caucasus.
As the Wang paper showed, exchange stopped ca 6,7 ka when farmers arrived in the Caucasus, but the was Transcaucasian mtDNA on the steppe and European DNA in Transcaucasia.
But despite the arrival of farmers, the HG language in Transcaucasia must have survived somehow and moved west later.

As for R1b-V1636, it must have crossed the Caucasus north to south at some time.

halfalp
12-02-20, 18:45
I think PIE was spoken by HG on both sides of the Caucasus.
As the Wang paper showed, exchange stopped ca 6,7 ka when farmers arrived in the Caucasus, but the was Transcaucasian mtDNA on the steppe and European DNA in Transcaucasia.
But despite the arrival of farmers, the HG language in Transcaucasia must have survived somehow and moved west later.

As for R1b-V1636, it must have crossed the Caucasus north to south at some time.

Let's wait for the Dzudzuana release, and see how Steppe individuals and Kotias/Satsurblia reacts towards Dzudzuana ancestry.

Ygorcs
12-02-20, 19:39
This seems to be basically what Reich suggests, but he places the original PIE homeland just south of the Caucasus rather than just north of the Caucasus.

What I find implausible about Reich's South Caucasus hypothesis is that PIE clearly spread and diverged at least as late as the Copper Age, but the South Caucasus and even, in fact, the North Caucasus were already packed with ANF and some Iran_Neolithic ancestry by that time, but very little EHG admixture, whereas the PIE expansion seems to be related with a much more Progress or Vonyuchka-like genetic profile, that is, a mix of a "pure" CHG-related people with a lot of EHG-related people (in fact, the steppe admixture in most Europeans have more EHG than the average Yamnaya and Progress/Vonyuchka, suggesting some dilution from mixing with Sredny Stog II and Late Khvalynsk-like groups before spreading to other parts of Europe). Therefore, I still think a steppe origin just north of the Caucasus is more likely.

And the presence of some small percentage of Progress/Vonyuchka-like admixture virtually everywhere in West Asia from Chalcolithic Anatolia to Chalcolithic Turkmenistan is really intriguing for me, though it could be explained by something else, like a higher than average ANE influence in those lands from older times (but it could also mean ancestry from a people with very similar genetic history to those presumably early PIE speakers in the Caucasus piedmont).

bicicleur
12-02-20, 23:33
Let's wait for the Dzudzuana release, and see how Steppe individuals and Kotias/Satsurblia reacts towards Dzudzuana ancestry.

Is there a new release on Dzudzuana?

Laziridis said CHG can be modelled as Dzudzuana + ANE, and EHG as WHG + ANE.
These admixtures obviously happened before the dating of Kotias/Satsurblia.

halfalp
14-02-20, 12:00
Is there a new release on Dzudzuana?

Laziridis said CHG can be modelled as Dzudzuana + ANE, and EHG as WHG + ANE.
These admixtures obviously happened before the dating of Kotias/Satsurblia.

No, nothing about Dzudzuana came. In what they said, CHG is supposed to be dominantly Dzudzuana, little bit of ANE and little bit of Deep Ancestry. But the question is, is CHG in the Steppe really like Kotias or Satsurblia? Is there Deep Ancestry in them? There is clearly an ancestry on the line of Dzudzuana on the Steppe, wich CHG looks as the best proxy here, but it might not be exactly that. Without Dzudzuana, we cannot differentiate different levels of ancestry somehow like CHG but not exactly it. For what i remember in the graphs, there was no Deep Ancestry in Eastern Europe in Neolithic and Mesolithic + Samara, but there was Dzudzuana ancestry. Weirdly that they did not directly compared it with Yamnaya samples, instead of Mesolithic samples that dont really matter for the following history, but let's wait and see.

bicicleur
14-02-20, 13:05
No, nothing about Dzudzuana came. In what they said, CHG is supposed to be dominantly Dzudzuana, little bit of ANE and little bit of Deep Ancestry. But the question is, is CHG in the Steppe really like Kotias or Satsurblia? Is there Deep Ancestry in them? There is clearly an ancestry on the line of Dzudzuana on the Steppe, wich CHG looks as the best proxy here, but it might not be exactly that. Without Dzudzuana, we cannot differentiate different levels of ancestry somehow like CHG but not exactly it. For what i remember in the graphs, there was no Deep Ancestry in Eastern Europe in Neolithic and Mesolithic + Samara, but there was Dzudzuana ancestry. Weirdly that they did not directly compared it with Yamnaya samples, instead of Mesolithic samples that dont really matter for the following history, but let's wait and see.

Laziridis supplements page 32

11800
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=11800

CHG is moddeled as 63 % of something ancestral to Dzudzuana and 37 % of something ancestral to Mal'ta (ANE)

halfalp
14-02-20, 15:06
Laziridis supplements page 32

11800
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=11800

CHG is moddeled as 63 % of something ancestral to Dzudzuana and 37 % of something ancestral to Mal'ta (ANE)

In the extended datas Conservative and Speculative, CHG has at least more than 10% of Deep Ancestry and almost the same % of AG3 so ANE ancestry. So i might guess the 37% are ANE from Dzudzuana + AG3? But then where comes into that picture the Deep Ancestry?

halfalp
14-02-20, 16:23
What I find implausible about Reich's South Caucasus hypothesis is that PIE clearly spread and diverged at least as late as the Copper Age, but the South Caucasus and even, in fact, the North Caucasus were already packed with ANF and some Iran_Neolithic ancestry by that time, but very little EHG admixture, whereas the PIE expansion seems to be related with a much more Progress or Vonyuchka-like genetic profile, that is, a mix of a "pure" CHG-related people with a lot of EHG-related people (in fact, the steppe admixture in most Europeans have more EHG than the average Yamnaya and Progress/Vonyuchka, suggesting some dilution from mixing with Sredny Stog II and Late Khvalynsk-like groups before spreading to other parts of Europe). Therefore, I still think a steppe origin just north of the Caucasus is more likely.

And the presence of some small percentage of Progress/Vonyuchka-like admixture virtually everywhere in West Asia from Chalcolithic Anatolia to Chalcolithic Turkmenistan is really intriguing for me, though it could be explained by something else, like a higher than average ANE influence in those lands from older times (but it could also mean ancestry from a people with very similar genetic history to those presumably early PIE speakers in the Caucasus piedmont).

Interestingly the two male samples of Progress, PG2001 and PG2004 are the one that were found as R1b-V1636, such as the one from Late Kura-Araxes. Coincidence?

bicicleur
14-02-20, 16:37
In the extended datas Conservative and Speculative, CHG has at least more than 10% of Deep Ancestry and almost the same % of AG3 so ANE ancestry. So i might guess the 37% are ANE from Dzudzuana + AG3? But then where comes into that picture the Deep Ancestry?

further in the supplements CHG is also modelled with 3 and 4 ancestors, but Dzudzuana and ANA remain the main components

halfalp
14-02-20, 16:47
further in the supplements CHG is also modelled with 3 and 4 ancestors, but Dzudzuana and ANA remain the main components

What does ANA stands for? Ancient North African?

bicicleur
14-02-20, 16:47
What I find implausible about Reich's South Caucasus hypothesis is that PIE clearly spread and diverged at least as late as the Copper Age, but the South Caucasus and even, in fact, the North Caucasus were already packed with ANF and some Iran_Neolithic ancestry by that time, but very little EHG admixture, whereas the PIE expansion seems to be related with a much more Progress or Vonyuchka-like genetic profile, that is, a mix of a "pure" CHG-related people with a lot of EHG-related people (in fact, the steppe admixture in most Europeans have more EHG than the average Yamnaya and Progress/Vonyuchka, suggesting some dilution from mixing with Sredny Stog II and Late Khvalynsk-like groups before spreading to other parts of Europe). Therefore, I still think a steppe origin just north of the Caucasus is more likely.

And the presence of some small percentage of Progress/Vonyuchka-like admixture virtually everywhere in West Asia from Chalcolithic Anatolia to Chalcolithic Turkmenistan is really intriguing for me, though it could be explained by something else, like a higher than average ANE influence in those lands from older times (but it could also mean ancestry from a people with very similar genetic history to those presumably early PIE speakers in the Caucasus piedmont).

there was already U2,U4 and U5 mtDNA in the Caucasus

11801

and R1b-V1636 was already in Transcaucasia Kura-Araxes

bicicleur
14-02-20, 16:48
What does ANA stands for? Ancient North African?

sorry, typo, it should have been ANE - anciant north eurasian

halfalp
14-02-20, 16:57
sorry, typo, it should have been ANE - anciant north eurasian

Ok but the question now is, what was the Deep Ancestry in Iran_Neo? Clearly, CHG is not Iran_Neo right? And Dzudzuana and therefore ANF didn't have ( or not that much ) Deep Ancestry, so was the CHG in Steppe, CHG, Dzudzuana or Iran_Neo or even Something Else?

bicicleur
14-02-20, 16:58
What I find implausible about Reich's South Caucasus hypothesis is that PIE clearly spread and diverged at least as late as the Copper Age, but the South Caucasus and even, in fact, the North Caucasus were already packed with ANF and some Iran_Neolithic ancestry by that time, but very little EHG admixture, whereas the PIE expansion seems to be related with a much more Progress or Vonyuchka-like genetic profile, that is, a mix of a "pure" CHG-related people with a lot of EHG-related people (in fact, the steppe admixture in most Europeans have more EHG than the average Yamnaya and Progress/Vonyuchka, suggesting some dilution from mixing with Sredny Stog II and Late Khvalynsk-like groups before spreading to other parts of Europe). Therefore, I still think a steppe origin just north of the Caucasus is more likely.

And the presence of some small percentage of Progress/Vonyuchka-like admixture virtually everywhere in West Asia from Chalcolithic Anatolia to Chalcolithic Turkmenistan is really intriguing for me, though it could be explained by something else, like a higher than average ANE influence in those lands from older times (but it could also mean ancestry from a people with very similar genetic history to those presumably early PIE speakers in the Caucasus piedmont).

11802

do we have autosomal in the Caucasus prior to the eneolithic (>6.7 ka)?

I think the Anatolian neolithic arrived not before the eneolithic in the Caucasus.
Deduct the Anatolian neolithic in the Caucasus, and Caucasus and steppe become pretty similar

halfalp
14-02-20, 17:01
there was already U2,U4 and U5 mtDNA in the Caucasus

11801

and R1b-V1636 was already in Transcaucasia Kura-Araxes

The Progress R1b-V1636 individuals are dated 1000 years earlier than the Late Kura-Araxes one. The idea of Anatolian languages coming from Late KA, but originally from Piedmont of North Caucasus can make sense, and also explain the " archaism " of Anatolian Languages with others. But if this is what happened, we could argue that the entire Steppe spoked something related with each other and PIE.

halfalp
16-02-20, 14:13
further in the supplements CHG is also modelled with 3 and 4 ancestors, but Dzudzuana and ANA remain the main components

Still Lazaridis is saying :

" According to this model, a common population contributed ancestry to Gravettians (represented by Vestonice16) and to a “Common West Eurasian” population that contributed all the ancestry of Villabruna and most of the ancestry of Dzudzuana which also had 28.4±4.2% Basal Eurasian ancestry21 " (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full#ref-21)

bicicleur
16-02-20, 15:16
Still Lazaridis is saying :
" According to this model, a common population contributed ancestry to Gravettians (represented by Vestonice16) and to a “Common West Eurasian” population that contributed all the ancestry of Villabruna and most of the ancestry of Dzudzuana which also had 28.4±4.2% Basal Eurasian ancestry21 " (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full#ref-21)
11811
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=11811

yes, dzudzuana is modelled 72 % Common West Eurasian and 28 % Basal Eursian
IMO Common West Eurasian is haplo IJ when it split into I and J (43 ka)
Vestonice is Common West Eurasian admixed with Kostenki-Sungir
Magdalenian (El Miron cluster) is Common West Eurasian admixed with West-European Aurignacian (Goyet 35 ka)
WHG (Villabruna cluster) is Common West Eurasian with some drift

halfalp
16-02-20, 19:36
11811
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=11811

yes, dzudzuana is modelled 72 % Common West Eurasian and 28 % Basal Eursian
IMO Common West Eurasian is haplo IJ when it split into I and J (43 ka)
Vestonice is Common West Eurasian admixed with Kostenki-Sungir
Magdalenian (El Miron cluster) is Common West Eurasian admixed with West-European Aurignacian (Goyet 35 ka)
WHG (Villabruna cluster) is Common West Eurasian with some drift

Is it safe to label an ancestral component to specific haplogroups?

bicicleur
16-02-20, 21:03
Is it safe to label an ancestral component to specific haplogroups?

in this case, I think it is a good bet
43 ka, and I guess in Transcaucasia, arrival of the first humans in what was Neanderthal territory before
isolated from other modern humans
I don't think much admixing happened there and then, but they thrived and expanded, some into Europe (Mezmayskaya 39 ka, also inhabited by Neanderthals before)