The big bubble: Indoeuropean Yamnayans

[MOESAN]

Concerning pops, I argued concerning sedentary pops of S-E Europe compared to Yamnaya steppic pops (already herders) - I did not compare Steppic HGs to subsequent pops newly arrived into their homelands. Sure, there have been big changes since the HGs world: farmers come from South (which South?: surely Balkans as well as South Caucasus, even if I suppose Balkans weighted more at the first step). An-AuDNA and mtDNA for Yamnaya Samara show an (or several) imput(s) from more Southern pops into the Steppes, uneasy to date (Neolithic + Bronze, perhaps at Copper) and it's difficult to distinguish between old and new. So, yes, surely a demographic increase before Yamnaya.
I agree Catacombs which were more sedentary could have had a more important imput concerning language but even the Catacombs complex is under debates: metrics found two partly different pops of catacombs (I've not the detail helas) as there were two partly different kinds of Pit Graves people (Kalmykia vs others). Catacombs seems being under influence of Iran cultures according to Grigoryev but, spite its status of less mobile people, it shows (in some places at least) having an mtDNA more Steppic less Southern. So we have metallurgy beginning among Yamnaya rather by East towards West, and Catacombs whose females seem showing an East to West travel too... puzzling. And to complicate things, Maykop seems more an exception than a typical local pop, even compared to West Caucasus. ? A "syndicat" of rich traders-warriors of diverse origin sharing their skills and living at the depends of a less evolved local pop? In older compilations I red Maykop culture was not producing so much metal locally and their barbaric richness was closer to spoils or "muscled trade" than something else.

 

[MOESAN]

More data pointing "Carpato-Caucasian" relations:

"SHEPSI, THE OLDEST DOLMEN WITH PORT-HOLE SLAB IN THE WESTERN CAUCASUS"



actual DNA evidence and dating is pointing just the opposite.

"Long Report Excavations of Soyugbulaq Kurgans"



BETWEEN WEST AND EAST PEOPLE OF THE GLOBULAR AMPHORA CULTURE IN EASTERN EUROPE: 2950-2350 BC









"Bioarchaeological Analysis Mutual Relations of Populations
Armenian Highlands and Eurasia Using Craniological and Dental
Nonmetric Traits"

So the supposed TRBK or GAC culture origin for these kinds of "megalithic" structure is discarded by dates?

Concerning non-metric surveys based on discret characters, they give poor results and i don't rely too much on them: too rare specific cases (almost familial) I suppose, compared to classical metric craniology. They need bigger samples if I rely on a classical anthropologist. It's true even metrics need finer analysis very often rather than their measures means and PCA's without speaking of their dendograms. What doesn't exclude some links, but in which proportion?

 

[MOESAN]

Markoz wrote or cited:
But the focus should probably shift away from the austere and egalitarian Yamnaya culture to the much more remarkable Maykop and Catacomb cultures, the latter of which evinces the high degree of stratification that would have been required to effect the language changes that eventually lead to the emergence of the European linguistic landscape by elite domination.

Moesan: Markoz, could you develop, because I'm not very sure I understand well. A lack of elite domination could prevent a language to impose itself? Whatever the number? Thanks beforehand.

 

[berun]

Some evidences are contradicted by facts: Steppes delivered a number of tribes and their numbers were not of the smallest, seemingly: Sarmatians, Scythians, Huns, Mongols, Turcs/Tatars, Hungarians: apparently, for regions unable to provide support for life, these Steppes and their nomadic or partly nomadic way of life doesn't seem having prevented human reproduction.

MOESAN, As far as I remember, Scythians and Sarmatians weren't catching much lands out of the steppes, Greeks only refer some area in NE Anatolia and the elusive Amazons reigned over West Anatolia cities, for the other purposes they worked as mercenaries for the Byzantines. There were also the Cimmerians, but as they disappear quickly from history their number would be not so big. For Mongols they profited their military advantage (mounted archery) that gave them "free visas" to all states, but thereafter they disappear in Iran, India or China after few generations. Huns... much militar success but they disappeared so quick after being defeated. For the Hungarians the debate is not profitable here as Hungary was much like an steppe, so population would be not denser in the Middle Ages. The best case are the Turks, because they expanded over other steppe lands (Central Asia), but also they were sucessful in taking Bulgaria (but even they were not able to stablish their own language), the other areas of success are Turkey and Azerbadjan, but even if such areas provide steppe-like environements, their success was done by elite-dominance over a miriad of local languages... and in fact the success would be more by being a kind of lingua franca than by their original numbers.

 

[MOESAN]

IMO Corded Ware was probably not derived directly from Yamnaya, but rather they are both of them were descended from a common earlier ancestral population, which is why they shared in 75% similar autosomal DNA. Here is the chronological sequence of major cultural horizons in the Steppe:

- Khvalynsk (ca. 5200-4200 BC)
- Sredni Stog (ca. 4200-3300 BC)
- Yamnaya A (ca. 3300-2900 BC)
- Yamnaya B (ca. 2900-2600 BC)

Corded Ware culture appeared at least around 3200 BC (the oldest branch of CW was probably the Middle Dnieper culture) so it is almost as old as Yamnaya and therefore it is probably descended from Late Sredni Stog (as is Yamnaya - but from another part of Sredni Stog horizon), not directly from Yamnaya. Also the Anatolian branch of Indo-European languages is not descended from Yamnaya, because Proto-Anatolian is associated with Cernavodă culture, which emerged around 4000 BC - so it had to be descended from Sredni Stog (as Yamnaya had not yet existed). Therefore Yamnaya cannot be considered a PIE culture because PIE languages started to differentiate long before Yamnaya emerged (with Proto-Anatolian speakers splitting away from the rest of PIE-speakers first, around 4000 BC). Yamnaya could be IE-speakers, but not PIE - rather just one of several IE branches existing at that time.

I agree, it seems first introgression of Steppic people in S-E Europe begun around the 4200 BC, before Yamnaya was well developped.

 

[MOESAN]

Globular Amphora Culture ca. 3400–2800 BC looks very much Indo-European. Their culture corresponds to the IE vocabulary which Robert Beekes has reconstructed in his book "Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An introduction". Such words include many agricultural words and in particular words for cow, ox, bull, yoke and a verb for pulling a wagon.

Kuznetsov and Khokhlov write in "ETHNOCULTURAL RELATIONS OF THE STEPPE HABITANTS OF EASTERN EUROPE IN THE EARLY BRONZE AGE" that "The initial period of the Bronze Age is represented by Yamna cultural and historic community. Comparison of radiocarbon dates of the two main areas of this community, the western (territory of Ukraine) and the eastern (the Volga River and Ural regions), confirms the hypothesis about the eastern origin of Yamna culture. The western area of Yamna cultural and historic community covers the period from 3000 to 2300 BC, while the eastern one covers the period from 3500 to 2900 BC. The eastern origin and the further expansion to the west of the bearers of Yamnaya culture is also confirmed by the data on funeral customs and inventory."
Yamnaya Samara yDNA is mainly R1b-Z2103 and one R1b-L23. R1b-Z2103 is not typical for IE speakers but is distributed mostly in modern Turkic speakers and Caucasians.

View attachment 7911

Globular Amphora Culture starts in Kujawy Region Poland 3400 BC (with only a difference of 100 years to Yamnaya samara), and c. 2900 BC it transforms into Corded Ware "in a number of "centers" which subsequently formed their own local networks" (Wikipedia.) It is not possible that Yamnaya people turned into Globular Amphora people as they are contemporaneous and the distance between them is 2650 km.

Tomenable, what is your linguistic evidence for Khvalynsk Culture to be IE?

If Globular amphorae is the western branch of IE, what branch was spoken in Yamnaya Samara? The earliest split is between Hittite, Tocharian and the rest, but the Hittite kingdom was not close to Samara. As for Tocharian which was spoken in Northwest China, Tocharian inscriptions date only to 600-800 AD. Moreover, we know that Bronze Age yDNA in Xiaohe, Xinjiang is R1a1 and not the Yamnaya y line.

The highest proportion of Yamnaya ancestry is found in Uralic speaking Udmurts and Mordovians, Turkic-speaking Bashkirs and Tatars and IE-speaking Russians and Lithuanians. Therefore, one cannot claim that Yamnaya ancestry must be of IE origin.

[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]ME :If I would follow some reasonings Yamnaya cannot be I-E because itsDNA also today among Turkic and Uralic speaking people, cannot beTurkic because its DNA is also in today I-Ean and Uralic speakingpeople, and cannot be Uralic, because it' s also in today I-Ean andTurkic speaking people ??? It's a bit simplistic to take currentlinguistic status of these people situated in the possiblecenter of I-Eans at these times as proof fot their cultural origin.Human pops don't change easily their language but some groups canchange by time when they are surrounded by huge vagues of newsettlers I think, without speaking of other possible causes. Thelanguage shift question would deserve a special thread maybe.
I think the question is still open.
&: concerning Tokharian speakers we don't know to date when they arrived in the places where was found their language and if I don't mistake we have not their DNA?[/FONT]

 

[berun]

Eurogenes delivers some abstracts from a conference, there is an interesting one:

Y-chromosomal markers exhibit the highest interpopulation diversity in the genome and thus form one of the most informative tools for tracing population history. However, their information value depends on discovering SNPs which subdivide haplogroups with broad geographic distribution into branches revealing fine population structure. Progress in such discoveries has recently moved from a slow linear phase to a rapid exponential phase due to NGS.
We applied this approach to the Y-chromosomal pool of North Eurasian populations and concentrated on haplogroups C, G1, G2, N1b, N1c, and R1b. We sequenced 181 Y-chromosomes (capturing 11 Mb from each sample), developed the NGSConv software for calling Y-chromosomal SNPs, and identified roughly 2,500 SNPs, most of which were new. Then we constructed phylogenetic trees and dated dozens of their branches using our estimates of the mutation rate. The last – but not the least – step included screening branch-defining SNPs in the entire Biobank of indigenous North Eurasian populations (led by prof. Elena Balanovska), which includes 26,000 samples from 260 populations. This screening resulted in frequency distribution maps of 29 branches of haplogroups R1b and C, thus increasing the phylogenetic resolution by an order of magnitude compared to the two initial haplogroups.
For haplogroup R1b, we identified a previously unstudied “eastern” branch, R1b-GG400, found in East Europeans and West Asians and forming a brother clade to the “western” branch R1b-L51 found in West Europeans. The ancient samples from the Yamnaya archaeological culture are located on this eastern branch, showing that the paternal descendants of the Yamnaya population – in contrast to the published autosomal findings - still live in the Pontic steppe and were not an important source of paternal lineages in present-day West Europeans.
For haplogroup C-M217 - the predominant paternal component in Central Asians - we found signals of simultaneous expansion in two independent branches. Both expansion times and gene geographic maps of the expanded lineages indicated the emergence of the Mongol Empire as the likely trigger.
We conclude that simply discovering new SNP is not enough, but in combination with screening for the branch-defining SNPs in large biobanks of indigenous populations, it allows comprehensive reconstruction of male population history.

I understand that after living all our lives under the Steppe or Gimbutas' theory we have it as a fact, but as provided in this post, there are not archaeological evidences about Yamnayans going to Central Europe or even that they spread further, so it's a matter of faith to believe in Yamnayans.

Now also it is a matter of faith to suppose that the Indoeuropean ancestry came from this culture, as their Y-DNA was the "Kura-Araxes R1b" and now it's evident that everything remained there alike, so it's a matter of faith to think that the Western Yamnayans were the responsible of the spread of R1b-L51 in Western Europe and that it was done with even a more little bunch of herders.

Science does not work with faith or argumenti ad ignorantiam... except with this Yamnayan tale.

 

[berun]

More about genetics, in this case about F38, the guy of Tepe Hasanlu (Iranian Azerbadjan), the lad that was R1b1a2a2 (Z2013) and dwelt by 900 BC:

It was shown above that this sample shares high amount of ancestry with Neolithic Iranians (Fig. S17-S21) but also has some specific patterns of ancestry shared with Kumtepe6 and Greek Final Neolithic and less of CHG-like and Mota-like influence (Table S15.4- S15.6). In order to investigate if we could pinpoint a source of this gene flow with F38, we tested D(Early_farmer1, F38, Early_farmer2, ǂKhomani) and we found the most significant negative results for combinations involving Samarian and Yamnaya population as Early_farmer1 and Aegean and European Early farmer populations as Early_farmer2 (Table S18.3 as an example for Anatolian Neolithic as Early_farmer2). We therefore suggest that the source of the non-local gene flow in F38 is more likely to be related to the Anatolians than the
“Samarian” (Yamnaya-like) populations. (see Table S18.5 for exceptions of this pattern detected via further D-statistic. A systematic exception was only ound for the Steppe Sintashta population that still shares less drift F38 than more westward populations, see Table 18.6).This result is relevant for the spread of Indo-European languages as we fail to prove a direct link between Yamnaya-like populations (a potential source) and the Iran area before the Iron age, whereas a link to Anatolian population seem to be stronger

at least Broushaki et al. treat the results as it are and don't try to cheat the people, the F38 had the "Armenian R1b", without having a Yamnayan ancestry; to this guy it's possible to add up the R1b found in a Kura-Araxes sample as to check the origin of such clade (which would be the responsable to carry to Yamnayans their CHG / Iranian ancestry), so that Yamnayans were a dead end for R1b. Of course western Yamnayans must be L51 as to try to keep the faith in Gimbutas, but for that it would be necessary to accept that the steppes were a meeting point for all R1b... and that they were assigning portions of steppes to each clade. The biggest bullshit that I have smelt.

 

[berun]

Tripolye clients of the Usatovo chiefs could have been the agents through which the Usatovo language spread northward into central Europe. After a few generations of clientage, the people of the upper Dniester might have wanted to acquire their own clients.

If I had to hazard a guess I would say that this was how the Proto–Indo–European dialects that would ultimately form the root of Pre–Germanic first became established in central Europe: they spread up the Dniester from the Usatovo culture through a nested series of patrons and clients, and eventually were spoken in some of the late TRB communities between the Dniester and the Vistula. These late TRB communities later evolved into early Corded Ware communities, and it was the Corded Ware horizon (see below) that provided the medium through which the Pre–Germanic dialects spread over a wider area.

well, I have now a better picture of the IE spread in Central Europe: the Usatovo caciques were getting clientele in such area (even if they were not leaving any archaeological evidence of that), and now, after reading that Central Europeans have an unusual X Chromosome made by 10-15 local women for each Yamnayan herder, the evidence points out that:

- the Usatovo caciques were visiting the area many and many times
- without their wifes (left in the steppes keeping the cows and caring the kids)
- the clientelage relation included a kind of universal droit du seigneur to sleep with all the local women
- as de facto few local men were able to have offspring, such success for the Yamnayans must be favoured by their strong appearance, by driving bright Lamborghini bronze chariots, and by the effect of leaving their long hair weaving free in the wind... unresistible combo when the husbands of the local women were ploughing the land inmersed in dirty mud

 

[Milan]

- the clientelage relation included a kind of universal droit du seigneur to sleep with all the local women
- as de facto few local men were able to have offspring, such success for the Yamnayans must be favoured by their strong appearance, by driving bright Lamborghini bronze chariots, and by the effect of leaving their long hair weaving free in the wind... unresistible combo when the husbands of the local women were ploughing the land inmersed in dirty mud

I agree with this,women's were attracted to good vehicles and luxuries ever since ancient times.
By contrast to hard working farmers. :bored:

 

[Angela]

If we're going to understand this change in Europe we have to keep the chronology and differences in cultures clear.

The earliest chariots are found all the way in Central Asia in Sintashta around 2000 BC.

Usatovo is much earlier and would not have had any chariots or very many shiny anythings.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coțofeni_culture

Most of the steppe people moving into Europe in the early days would have been walking alongside their oxen driven carts. I don't see how that's any more attractive in and of itself than a nice snug house in a village of "Old Europe". Of course, if the villagers were starving because of a change in the climate things might well change.

 

[Alan]

By the way as far as I know Chariots are not even a PIE invention but thought to have been made during Sintashta period. Therefore I kinda don't see how Chariots can be seen as signal for Indo Europeans.

 

[bicicleur 2]

By the way as far as I know Chariots are not even a PIE invention but thought to have been made during Sintashta period. Therefore I kinda don't see how Chariots can be seen as signal for Indo Europeans.

and what makes you think Shintasta wasn't IE ?

 

[bicicleur 2]

If we're going to understand this change in Europe we have to keep the chronology and differences in cultures clear.

The earliest chariots are found all the way in Central Asia in Sintashta around 2000 BC.

Usatovo is much earlier and would not have had any chariots or very many shiny anythings.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coțofeni_culture

Most of the steppe people moving into Europe in the early days would have been walking alongside their oxen driven carts. I don't see how that's any more attractive in and of itself than a nice snug house in a village of "Old Europe". Of course, if the villagers were starving because of a change in the climate things might well change.

according to David Anthony there was a client-host relation between Usatovo and Tripolye
and they were trading luxury goods, over land to the Volga area, and with longboats upto the Aegean and the Danube
even some Egyptian glass beads would have been found
they also grew sheep for wool, the wool being processed into textiles by the Tripolye farmers

it might have impressed some Tripolye women

5 ka Troj was founded
maybe they took a toll on the trade between Usatovo and the Aegean

if there was any expansion of Usatovo + Tripolye into Europe, I'd rather expect it to be Globular Amphora and not CW

 

[Goga]

By the way as far as I know Chariots are not even a PIE invention but thought to have been made during Sintashta period. Therefore I kinda don't see how Chariots can be seen as signal for Indo Europeans.

Yeah, I don't think that was Sintashta IE either, maybe max Eastern Indo-Iranized (by that time Eastern Iranian already existed), but there is no evidence at all that Sintashta INVENTED war chariots. I do not believe in it. Sure, somehow they found some ancient chariots. But it can be simple luck that those chariots were preserved in Central Asia, simply because in that area don't live many people. But where is the evidence that those folks invented the chariots? There is NO evidence at all. They simply could copy those techniques from someone else. As far as I know they used (copied) metallurgy techniques from BMAC.

 

[Angela]

Just stop with this incessant ultra-nationalism. You're as bad as eurogenes. It brings even your good points into disrepute. The evidence is what it is whether you want to believe it or not. Stop spinning.

 

[Goga]

Just stop with this incessant ultra-nationalism. You're as bad as eurogenes. It brings even your good points into disrepute. The evidence is what it is whether you want to believe it or not. Stop spinning.

Huh? Honestly, I'm just making a valid point. Do you have any evidence that Sintashta folks INVENTED chariots?? Sure, maybe they found some of the oldest one in that area, but that can be hardly a valid evidence that they INVENTED it. Just think about it. There is nothing ULTRA-nationalistic about it.

Maybe they can find some of the oldest ships in America or Australia, but that doesn't be that native/aboriginal people of America or Australia invented ships..


Some arguments are not reasonable and valid at all. Science is all about supporting your claims (arguments) by different valid facts..


Or maybe some think that people are stupid and can think by themselves and make their own mind by being critical???

 

[Coriolan]

Huh? Honestly, I'm just making a valid point. Do you have any evidence that Sintashta folks INVENTED chariots?? Sure, maybe they found some of the oldest one in that area, but that can be hardly a valid evidence that they INVENTED it. Just think about it. There is nothing ULTRA-nationalistic about it.

Maybe they can find some of the oldest ships in America or Australia, but that doesn't be that native/aboriginal people of America or Australia invented ships..


Some arguments are not reasonable and valid at all. Science is all about supporting your claims (arguments) by different valid facts..


Or maybe some think that people are stupid and can think by themselves and make their own mind by being critical???

This is different from ships. Just look at the map of where the oldest chariots were found. The dates radiate clearly from Russia above the Sea of Aral.

If there's is a clear gradient in dates then it's enough to assume that the point of origin is where it was invented. If there were 4000 years old chariots in Russia, Iran, Greece and Germany and none older than that, it would be impossible to tell where they originated. There would be a missing link even older. But for chariots the gradient is infallible.

 

[Goga]

This is different from ships. Just look at the map of where the oldest chariots were found. The dates radiate clearly from Russia above the Sea of Aral.

If there's is a clear gradient in dates then it's enough to assume that the point of origin is where it was invented. If there were 4000 years old chariots in Russia, Iran, Greece and Germany and none older than that, it would be impossible to tell where they originated. There would be a missing link even older. But for chariots the gradient is infallible.

No, this map is misleading. They didn't found any ancient full developed spoke wheeled 'war' chariots of that age or 1 or 2 centuries younger at all in the surroundings at all. I'm honestly sure it was just a simple luck that those chariots in Central Asia were preserved. But that's mostly due to climate and sparse population.We have only some painting and writing about it, but not really real 'war' chariots. The Hittites wrote about them, the Sumerians + some Iranian Plateau made painting of them. But the real 'tangible' evidence has only been found in Central Asia, but that doesn't mean that they invented it. I truly believe it was luck that those war chariots were preserved. And I don't think that war chariots entered Europe around 1600 BC. It doesn't make any sense if was chariots were already know in the Steppes. It doesn't take 400 years to import an copy a technology from a different place.If war chariots (with spoke wheels) were know in Central Asia by the year 2000 then they were also know outside the Central Asia by the same time.

This map is drawn by someone of our era. It hardly based on facts and doesn't represents that time.


+ second stage proto-IE (of Yamnaya) and even proto-Indo-Iranians (of the Iranian-Plateau) already existed long time before 2000BC. So, there is no evidence at all that spoke-wheeled war Chariots were invented in Central Asia. The only way to prove it, is only to prove that spoke wheeled wagons didn't exist around the Yamnaya Horizon or the Iranian Plateau at that time around 2000 BC.
How sure are you that war chariots didn't exist in Yamnaya Horizon prior to or by 2000BC ???

 

[bicicleur 2]

Keep on going, Goga, don't give up.