Eneolithic aDNA from Lake Baikal Siberia

[Angela]

Please open Google Maps and check where are Mentese and Barcin located.

These are two places in westernmost Turkey, almost at the gates of Europe.

I consider I2c and C1a2 in that area as the result of gene flow from Europe.

This gene flow is confirmed in autosomal DNA, which shows 10-15% WHG.

==============================

As for C1a2 - it was probably Southern European (from Iberia to the Balkans).



Which sample was C1b ???



IMHO there is not enough evidence that people in those regions were similar to each other to count them as one.

A few samples of I2c and C1a2 in Anatolia only prove that there was some limited gene flow, but nothing more.

We actually have not enough samples from Southeastern Europe. That single R1b from Villabruna was buried in Northern Italy, so it doesn't count as Southeastern Europe (even if his lineage originated from that region, as David Reich speculated).

You have no way of knowing how far down into Anatolia and the Levant ydna haplogroup I2c penetrated. The autosomal data would indicate that it probably went further south than far northwestern Anatolia.

You have no way of knowing where the refuge for WHG was located, or whether, as the Reich Lab paper indicated was a possibility, whether the refuge was in the Near East.

Ditto for C1a2.

In post after post you are presenting speculations, and not particularly well supported speculations, as fact.

It's not at all persuasive. The only thing that is extremely clear is that you are not objectively trying to analyze the data. Instead, every fact is interpreted always and solely to support a very clear agenda.

Movement of technology for you always means gene flow unless that gene flow comes from south of the Caucasus.

What you have not addressed is why we find these R clades all the way in Siberia a long time indeed before, according to your hypothesis, they should have arrived there from their homeland in eastern Europe.

Bicicleur: around LGM Caspian Sea expanded upto Khvalynsk area, Aral Sea flooded into Caspian Sea and Caspian Sea via Manych depression into Black Sea, maybe around time of Seraglazovo
flooding of Black Sea from Mediterranean probably was 10 ka or earlier

maybe R1a1a was born in Seraglazovo and from there expanded to EHG and to EN Bajkal, this was not IE

Certainly makes more sense than that R formed in the far northeast and then went straight to Eastern Europe where all subsequent development took place always and only in eastern Europe.

I suggested this long ago, but as always the "usual suspects" shot it down.

 

[berun]

@Tomenable

It's a surprise to me the labeling of R1b as EHG when such haplo was found in Villabruna and considered as "Levantine", as must be the Chadian V88 clade. Now we know about "Armenian" R1b before Indoeuropeans in the Caucasus, and we know that Yamnayans and co. received a good genetic influx from the south... so that all evidence is delivering R1b around the Euphrates. Moreover EHG in east Europe usualy are in the R1a side, leaving not so much space for his bro.

 

[Tomenable]

Angela,

You have no way of knowing how far down into Anatolia and the Levant ydna haplogroup I2c penetrated. The autosomal data would indicate that it probably went further south than far northwestern Anatolia.

Here is a map of modern distribution of I2c - as you can see, it is still a mostly European lineage:

http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p546/meon_/1.jpg

Ditto for C1a2.

This haplogroup is so rare today that accusing me that I want to "steal it for hunters" because I don't want to acknowledge that large part of European ancestry is from "farmers" is just silly. Angela, who even cares about C1a2 ???

It is probably less than 0,1% of modern Europeans. I already explained my reasoning - if something was in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe (and C1a2 was), then I counted it as native European hunters. My criteria are coherent.

This is why I did not count T1a as European - even though it was found only in Europe, but in a Neolithic context. So I classified I2c and C1a2 as European and T1a as Near Eastern. I actually could classify T1a as European as well.

 

[Tomenable]

Berun,

considered as "Levantine", as must be the Chadian V88 clade.

V88 was found in Neolithic Iberia and modern Sardinians also have some of its more basal subclades:

So it is possible that V88 expanded to Africa from Southern Europe. Not necessarily from the Levant:

Now we know about "Armenian" R1b before Indoeuropeans in the Caucasus

You mean the Kura-Araxes sample? Well, Kura-Araxes culture is sometimes considered as IE-speaking.

However, that samples was not M269+ but another subclade, which is rare today.

and we know that Yamnayans and co. received a good genetic influx from the south...

When you say that it was "from the south" you might be falling into a trap of "farming out of Sardinia" fallacy.

Just because some autosomal signature looks "southern" today, doesn't mean that it was the case 6000 years ago.

By the way - no matter from which direction was that gene flow, there is no proof that R1b was part of it.

There was enough of R1b in Russia already long before Yamnaya culture emerged. Samara HG, Khvalynsk, etc.

Moreover EHG in east Europe usualy are in the R1a side

Hah! "Usually" ?! There is currently a 3:2 ratio. Three samples with R1a and two samples with R1b:

https://s22.postimg.io/baarhhftt/EHG_samples.png

 

[holderlin]

The Epigravettian is a partial continuance of the Central European Gravettian. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Villabruna is much closer to the hunter gatherers of Western Europe. In fact, it is the later Western Hunter Gatherers that show closer affinity to the hunter-gatherers of Eastern Europe and ultimately something related to the Afontova Gora specimen relative to the Epigravettians. This is even more evident in the Scandinavian hunter gatherers, who represent the next gradation with yet more eastern affinity. The hunter gatherers from the Oleni Ostrov cemetery are the most eastern transitional population within the geographic boundaries of Europe, as is expected from their location. It's only a matter of finding the right ancestral populations, although somewhere in the middle of the Villabruna-Afontova pole appears to be accurate enough.

Of course populations sharing common ancestors with EHG that are closer in time and space to EHG will look more like the EHG that we see 8000 years ago. EHG is descended mostly from populations like Villabruna. The small minority of EHG ancestry is AG like, MA-1 like, or whatever else.

I'm not sure what your point is with regards to the Mal'ta-Buret burial. Clearly, a single R* in the Siberian fridge is hardly informative. This environment favours preservation too well, so all kinds of odd things pile up there. You wouldn't argue that K2* is Siberian because of Ust'-Ishim, would you?

This comparison is bad. Ust-Ishim's population doesn't appear to have any significant descendants.

When the single R* is taken among all of the other ancient data in Europe/steppe along with modern descendant populations in Europe and Pre-columbian America it becomes very informative.

Yeah, the steppe preserving stuff too well is really screwing up the data

 

[Tomenable]

Genetic talks on Eupedia always deteriorate into "hunters vs. farmers" battle!

But Angela, this battle is always lost for you, "pro-farmers". Do you know why?

Because everyone was a hunter before farming, at some point in the past!

So we win. Hunters of the world should unite. We were all hunters anyway.

 

[holderlin]

the definite chronology of the Kurgans is Leyla-Tepe -> Maykop -> Yamnaya. Whether this tells us anything about the languages of said cultures I don't know.

Why do people keep saying this? It's completely untrue. I'm so tired of seeing this on here.

 

[Tomenable]

Here is a good lecture by Mallory, in which he debunks the "Southern" Hypothesis of PIE origins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HCs6PVnzI

 

[Fire Haired14]

@holderlin,

MA1-like(more than like. Almost exact) ancestry is not a small minority in EHG, it is about as big as Villabruna-like.

 

[holderlin]

@holderlin,

MA1-like(more than like. Almost exact) ancestry is not a small minority in EHG, it is about as big as Villabruna-like.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure EHG is more closely related to WHG than to MA-1. Maybe it's not by much?

 

[berun]

@Tomenable
The V88 clade appears in Africa around 5000 BC if the TMRCA of the local subclades are taken into account, and such date is too recent as to expect an European migration, being the easy route the Levantine, but here it's not a matter of routes, it is a matter of geography as the Sardinian V88, the Cardial Pyrinean V88 and the Chadian V88 all were coming from Euphrates, and that is not Eastern Europe.

You mean the Kura-Araxes sample? Well, Kura-Araxes culture is sometimes considered as IE-speaking.

Sorry but it's not serious, or you are a "Yamnayist" or you are a "Renfewist" but both thinks are not compatible... even so such R1b, speaking IE or not, was there in the Copper Age and there are not known migrations in the area (other than the Uruk?), so it's to expect that also such R1b would be from an ancient HG pop, and it was not in Eastern Europe.

Just because some autosomal signature looks "southern" today, doesn't mean that it was the case 6000 years ago.

It's southern because it's southern: Eastern HG had not the Caucasian / Iranian signature till farming and herding, and such techniques were coming from the south, as the kurgans of Leylatepe or Maykop.

By the way - no matter from which direction was that gene flow, there is no proof that R1b was part of it.

No proof? The Armenian R1b poped up in Yamnayans... there was not Caucasian autosomals when the region was HG... which direction it took so? Sorry but Occam's Razor is quite heavy to don't cut it.

You show two R1b in the steppes in the Copper Age, but you are aware that the Copper Age is not the Mesolithic or the Paleolithic? By the way you forget to add R1a from Anashkino (Psov oblast) and two other R1a from Lokomotiv (near Lake Baikal), even if this is not Europe it points that Russia was not home for R1b in the Mesolithic.

 

[Angela]

Genetic talks on Eupedia always deteriorate into "hunters vs. farmers" battle!

But Angela, this battle is always lost for you, "pro-farmers". Do you know why?

Because everyone was a hunter before farming, at some point in the past!

So we win. Hunters of the world should unite. We were all hunters anyway.

Indeed, all of our ancestors were once hunters. If you're anyone except a Pygmy or a native from the Amazon rain forest or a few other such primitive groups, your ancestors have been farmers for at least 5000 years. Time to lose your nostalgia for living in a cave or a yurt, eating half raw meat, and scratching yourself under your furs, especially as every single one of the attributes of modern civilization which I'm sure you cherish, including your computer, your tv, your phone and whatever device you use for your music would have been impossible without that transition.

None of that should have anything to do with how you analyze scientific material. You should do that as divorced from your own prejudices and biases as possible.

Also, one of the things that happens with age is that you learn not to project your own prejudices and idiosyncrasies onto others. Hopefully, you'll gain that insight as well.

As to your post upthread about I2c, really, you're going to post a map of modern distribution? Not good enough, I'm afraid.

 

[Fluffy]

Indeed, all of our ancestors were once hunters. If you're anyone except a Pygmy or a native from the Amazon rain forest or a few other such primitive groups, your ancestors have been farmers for at least 5000 years. Time to lose your nostalgia for living in a cave or a yurt, eating half raw meat, and scratching yourself under your furs, especially as every single one of the attributes of modern civilization which I'm sure you cherish, including your computer, your tv, your phone and whatever device you use for your music would have been impossible without that transition.

None of that should have anything to do with how you analyze scientific material. You should do that as divorced from your own prejudices and biases as possible.

Also, one of the things that happens with age is that you learn not to project your own prejudices and idiosyncrasies onto others. Hopefully, you'll gain that insight as well.

As to your post upthread about I2c, really, you're going to post a map of modern distribution? Not good enough, I'm afraid.

Good post! What's with this anti farmer stuff anyway.

 

[MarkoZ]

Of course populations sharing common ancestors with EHG that are closer in time and space to EHG will look more like the EHG that we see 8000 years ago. EHG is descended mostly from populations like Villabruna. The small minority of EHG ancestry is AG like, MA-1 like, or whatever else.

Wrong, the hunters from Karelia ar roughly halfway between Villabrunna and AG3 - you could almost call them a hybrid population.

This comparison is bad. Ust-Ishim's population doesn't appear to have any significant descendants.

When the single R* is taken among all of the other ancient data in Europe/steppe along with modern descendant populations in Europe and Pre-columbian America it becomes very informative.

Yeah, the steppe preserving stuff too well is really screwing up the data

Mal'ta Buret is a dead end as well. Moreover, the isotope analyses of Richards et al showed that almost 20% of the boy's diet consisted of marine animals. This hardly sounds like a highly mobile population.

Why do people keep saying this? It's completely untrue. I'm so tired of seeing this on here.

This is pretty straightfoward - the Soyugbulag Kurgans are definiely the first distinct burial mounds of this type. If you are aware of even older Kurgans, please provide your evidence.

 

[Angela]

It all stems from the fact that a lot of the anthrofora people expected to find, and in fact had long insisted, that the hunter gatherers would turn out to look like albinos, and the farmers from the Middle East would be much "swarthier". So, the goal was to be as hunter-gatherer as possible. I suppose they also think they're more "indigenous" to Europe.

I'm afraid some people haven't quite absorbed the fact that the WHG were darker than the farmers. The few EHG samples are pretty light, of course, but I increasingly think they got that trait from people coming from the Caucasus, or at any rate the selective sweep for those snps was very late. The latest shock has been that the WHG might have had their refuge either in the Near East or somewhere in Greece, perhaps spilling over into part of Anatolia. (as per the Reich Lab paper and subsequent comments by Reich himself)

Anyway, it's all very silly, but there you have it. That's how some people approach population genetics.

Oh, I think it may have something to do with the male/female ratio of amateurs interested in this topic. I can't imagine a woman romanticizing a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Yeah, right, moving constantly with an infant at your breast and a couple of older ones pulling at your clothes as you walk endlessly, having to rebuild the shelter constantly while the men trade hunting stories, foraging for miles again hampered by young children, nursing until they're freaking three years old to cut down on how many you have because otherwise they'll starve...

Not that living in the early Neolithic was any picnic, or anytime other than the present, but everything is relative. The book I posted upthread talks about survival of children in these societies. Not for me, thank-you. These communities were always on the verge of extinction.

 

[johen]

This is pretty straightfoward - the Soyugbulag Kurgans are definiely the first distinct burial mounds of this type. If you are aware of even older Kurgans, please provide your evidence.

I have one question.
Do you know why or how the kurgan was in there?
As far as I know, the kurgan was just like pit house in siberia. So it is normal that the kurgan appeared, being developed in the steppe, but in south Caucasus?

Arkaim in Sintashta culture pit houses, which are just kurgan, if gate is closed.

 

[Tomenable]

Well, a good big chunk of that EHG and SHG is actually WHG, isn't it?

No they aren't. They were related groups with common ancestry.

But we could as well claim that everyone in West Eurasia is Kostenki14.

Because "Kostenki-like" groups were ancestral to all Western Eurasians:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6213/1113.full?keytype=ref&siteid=sci&ijkey=ffYwENZRGSBmI

We can see this here, where Kostenki14 has a bit of each component:

Blue (ancestral to WHG), grey (ancestral to EHG) and orange (to ENF).

 

[Angela]

That paper is specifically about European hunter-gatherers. Don't pretend that you don't know it.

It is not about any types of hunter-gatherers living anywhere in the world.

Why are you so stubborn to prove that everything in Europe came from the Middle East?

Don't you identify as a European? Italians also have some WHG and EHG. Embrace your HG part too.

All Europeans are a mix of the same ancestral populations, only in different proportions.

That's why in PCA all Europeans cluster together and are away from North Africans or Middle Easterners.

Italians are also genetically closer to other Europeans than they are to present-day MENA populations.



During some period of time, progress in the Middle East indeed tended to be faster.

However, progress did not start only with farming. It had started already in the Upper Paleolithic period.

And progress had been faster among northern hunters than among southern hunters:

https://unsafeharbour.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/the-origins-of-inequality/

Quote:

"(...) We all know that the early development in agriculture and civilization began in Eurasia - but it goes back much earlier than that. At a somewhat atemporal level, toolkits of hunter-gatherers have been shown to increase in size and complexity with latitude [larger and more complex toolkits in northern latitudes] (Oswalt, 1976) - the driving cause seeming to be the risk of resource failure (Collard et al., 2005). Developments necessary for cold, risk of resource failure… whatever the cause, Foley (1987) writes: 'although there is a general and global technological development during the Pleistocene, it is in high latitudes that it is most marked; in parts of the tropics the artefacts remained simple.' (...)"

You really don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with my ethnicity, and it should have nothing to do with yours. It should be based on facts, evidence, evaluated as honestly as possible. I've been studying world history, and pre-history, since before you were born, no doubt, and genetics for ten years, and that's what informs my opinions.

With the Holocene, there were numerous developments in many fields, including microliths, and they took place in the Near East. Farming developed there, and herding, and metallurgy, and cities, and literacy, all of the hallmarks of civilization. I learned all those things in American universities from professors who were almost all "generic" American. I actually don't remember a single professor who had an Italian last name. Those are just facts. It's too bad if that conflicts with some idiotic racist notion of yours that the EHG are the supermen of human civilization because that group forms the largest portion of your own ancestry. OUR WHG ancestors, and OUR EHG ancestors were totally removed from all of that. Later on, the centers of civilization moved elsewhere. Those are the breaks. Groups are on top and then on bottom and who knows what will happen in the future.

I find virtually everything you post lately totally biased, poorly reasoned, and often deliberately designed to mislead. Not to mention that you have an appalling lack of knowledge of ancient history. Your latest post is no exception.

You think that people should or even do apportion their ancient ancestry in their minds, pick the ancient ancestral group that is present at a higher percentage, and then interpret all of genetics and world history so as to make that particular ancient ancestry "look" better?

Really, Tomenable? I find it hard to credit that you really think this way, and even harder to fathom how you could have arrived at such a point.

What I do know is that other than pointing out the blatant mistakes in your posts I'm not interested in debating someone with this mind set. It's a waste of time, because you have no interest in figuring out the truth. You just want to promote your noxious agenda.

Fair warning, I'm not having this Board go on a watchlist. You continue to post things taken from some white racist, eastern European playbook and there will be consequences.

 

[Angela]

That paper is specifically about European hunter-gatherers. Don't pretend that you don't know it.

It is not about any types of hunter-gatherers living anywhere in the world.

Why are you so stubborn to prove that everything in Europe came from the Middle East?

Don't you identify as a European? Italians also have some WHG and EHG. Embrace your HG part too.

All Europeans are a mix of the same ancestral populations, only in different proportions.

That's why in PCA all Europeans cluster together and are away from North Africans or Middle Easterners.

Italians are also genetically closer to other Europeans than they are to present-day MENA populations.



During some period of time, progress in the Middle East indeed tended to be faster.

However, progress did not start only with farming. It had started already in the Upper Paleolithic period.

And progress had been faster among northern hunters than among southern hunters:

https://unsafeharbour.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/the-origins-of-inequality/

Quote:

"(...) We all know that the early development in agriculture and civilization began in Eurasia - but it goes back much earlier than that. At a somewhat atemporal level, toolkits of hunter-gatherers have been shown to increase in size and complexity with latitude [larger and more complex toolkits in northern latitudes] (Oswalt, 1976) - the driving cause seeming to be the risk of resource failure (Collard et al., 2005). Developments necessary for cold, risk of resource failure… whatever the cause, Foley (1987) writes: 'although there is a general and global technological development during the Pleistocene, it is in high latitudes that it is most marked; in parts of the tropics the artefacts remained simple.' (...)"

You really don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with my ethnicity, and it should have nothing to do with yours. It should be based on facts, evidence, evaluated as honestly as possible. I've been studying world history, and pre-history, since before you were born, no doubt, and genetics for ten years, and that's what informs my opinions.

With the Holocene, there were numerous developments in many fields, including microliths, and they took place in the Near East. Farming developed there, and herding, and metallurgy, and cities, and literacy, all of the hallmarks of civilization. I learned all those things in American universities from professors who were almost all "generic" American. I actually don't remember a single professor who had an Italian last name. Certainly none of them were Middle Eastern. Those are just facts. It doesn't diminish Europeans to acknowledge it. It makes Europeans look ridiculous when they pretend it isn't so. It's just too bad if that conflicts with some idiotic racist notion of yours that the EHG are the supermen of human civilization because that group forms the largest portion of your own ancestry. OUR WHG ancestors, and OUR EHG ancestors had nothing to do with those achievements. Later on, the centers of civilization moved elsewhere. Those are the breaks. Groups are on top and then on bottom and who knows what will happen in the future. We may wind up becoming the serfs of Chinese companies, dying our hair black, and getting eye surgery.

I find virtually everything you post lately totally biased, poorly reasoned, and often deliberately designed to mislead. Not to mention that you have an appalling lack of knowledge of ancient history. Your latest post is no exception.

You think that people should or even do apportion their ancient ancestry in their minds, pick the ancient ancestral group that is present at a higher percentage, and then interpret all of genetics and world history so as to make that particular ancient ancestry "look" better?

Really, Tomenable? I find it hard to credit that you really think this way, and even harder to fathom how you could have arrived at such a point.

What I do know is that other than pointing out the blatant mistakes in your posts I'm not interested in debating someone with this mind set. It's a waste of time, because you have no interest in figuring out the truth. You just want to promote your noxious agenda.

Fair warning, I'm not having this Board go on a watchlist. You continue to post things taken from some white racist, eastern European playbook and there will be consequences.

 

[holderlin]

Wrong, the hunters from Karelia ar roughly halfway between Villabrunna and AG3 - you could almost call them a hybrid population.

AG3 already has WHG admixture. I'm talking about MA-1, and I know I'm right about EHG being closer to WHG than to MA-1

This is pretty straightfoward - the Soyugbulag Kurgans are definiely the first distinct burial mounds of this type. If you are aware of even older Kurgans, please provide your evidence.

I've posted countless times about the archaeological continuity on the steppe from Samara/Dnieper Donets -> Khvalynsk/Sredny Stog-> Yamnaya. I don't really feel like doing it again tonight.

The reaches being made with burial practices are absurd. Lets say that the steppe was completely overtaken by these so-called Uruk expansionists. Why then do these cultures all of a sudden look like the same steppe cultures that had been there thousands of years prior?

**EDIT** and of course everyone ignores the glaring piece of evidence that is the use of ochre