Migration from the Steppe to Anatolia was 6000-5000 ybp (4000-3000 BC)

[Olympus Mons]

No way, because... ???

We have new, milk-drinking settlers in Kumtepe circa 3700 BC (based on archaeology).

If not the Steppe, then please propose some alternative place of their ultimate origin.

Tomenable....you do notice the madness of talking about a population that lived 5,000 years before as showing(or not showing) Yamnaya ancestry... right?

Secondly, if there is something we learned in 2016 is that diferent people living 300km from eachother (caucasus/iran) were as genetic diferentiated as a german and a chinese today. Also that a region as anatolia that above all others everybody thought was homogenous was after all very genetic heterogenous.

So, statistics is great. really great...but lets not torture it that much!

 

[Olympus Mons]

It has been said that before the gene flow from Iran & Kurdistan native people of Armenia were as 'white' as Celts. Later Iranians (Aryans, Kurds/Persians) dominated Armenians and Armenians became darker in skin tone

GOGA, are you talking about "my" Shulaveri shomu?

Anyways, 5000bc saw in south caucasus the earliest big human dispersal that I know of. people moving from either North Iran or south Kurdinstan moved and made havoc. Until we have Dna from whoever lived between 8000bc and 5000bc in the overall region, we are missing a big chunk.

Thirdly...does anyone know why johannes Krause wrote on the slide 4900bc as the movement of peopel from south caucasus to the steppe (why not a round number like 5000)? --Anyone who know me knows how important I claim 4900bc was in south caucasus. Mentesh Tepe fell....

 

[Olympus Mons]

And still johannes Krause. The guy has hundreds upon hundreds of adna samples that they might have sequence at Max Planck but not published yet. he made a slide like that one changing is view in less than a year... does that not tell you that he knows what we dont know?

 

[bicicleur 2]

Here are some aDNA samples from Asia Minor on Gedmach:

Age in years	Period/culture	Gedmatch kit	Sample ID
~8635	Neolithic	Z145547	Tep002
~8350	Neolithic	M411713	I1583
~8350	Neolithic	M754279	I0746
~8350	Neolithic	M936428	I0709
~8350	Neolithic	M897077	I0707
~5826	Copper Age	M091434	I1584
~5150	Early Bronze	M300627	Kum4

I've tested those ancient Anatolian samples with this calculator:

GedrosiaDNA - Eurasia K14 Neolithic:

https://s17.postimg.org/vsy61q40f/Steppe_Migration_Anatolia.png

Kum4 = Kumtepe B period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumtepe

It seems to confirm the hypothesis of David Anthony for the Anatolian branch as a consaquence of IE intrusion from the steppe into the Balkans 4200 - 4000 BC.
So the 3700 BC new settlers in Kumtepe would be Anatolian IE. Troy would also be founded by yhem. It makes sense.

 

[Olympus Mons]

It seems to confirm the hypothesis of David Anthony for the Anatolian branch as a consaquence of IE intrusion from the steppe into the Balkans 4200 - 4000 BC.
So the 3700 BC new settlers in Kumtepe would be Anatolian IE. Troy would also be founded by yhem. It makes sense.

What is that Joahanne krause knows that we dont?
Is it fair to say that if a guy living in the midst of large hundreds of samples not yet published draws the slide he did... lets take it seriously? picking from that what can be infered? - Not this narrative here put forward right?

 

[Olympus Mons]

Tomenable
... And most important. ..... who is the hottie you are using as avatar?!?!

 

[Alan]

And to come back to the question, even if this was really "Steppe" admixture in Anatolia 5- 6000 BC it certanly wasn't Indo European yet and would make the Steppe theory even more dubious because that would mean since the supposed Indo European migration the "Steppe admixture" never rised from Late Neolithic times.

But as I wrote already this all seems to be Iran_Neo ancestry because even Iran_Neo_Meso_CHl samples showed some EHG like ancestry. It seems to be very ancient shared ancestry.

I can't believe how some people jump on this wrong horse while we have clearly the studies saying that using the Steppes as source for Anatolian_CHL samples we get a negative result the same with Armenian EBA. All it looks like this both regions are a merge of Iran_Neo, CHG and Anatolian_Neo.

 

[Alan]

The reason why you didn't post any of the Iran_Neo samples was because you know exactly what this would mean for your theory and you are trying too hard to deceive the people. That is not the fine English way.

Here is an Iran_Neo samples used with K14 Neolithic.

Population

N_Amerindian	-
Afansievo_Yamnaya	24.30
Kalash	14.55
Siberian	-
S_Amerindian	-
Sub_Saharan	0.23
SE_Asian	-
E_African	-
SW_Asian	25.53
Neolithic_Balkan_Farmers	16.88
SHG_WHG	-
Early_European_Farmers	-
S_Indian	18.51
Papuan	-

This calculator doesn't have an Iran_Neo or CHG component simple as that. Therefore the Iran_Neo component get split up in other "likely categories".

And Yamnaya is just possible shared ancestry.

In fact from Iran_Neo to Armenian EBA and Anatolia_CHL the "Steppe" admixture shrinks rather than rises. This is why Armenian EBA samples are basically a mixture of Iran_CHL and Anatolian_Chl. And Anatolian_CHL itself is Anatolian_Neo with Iran_Neo admixture. No Steppes or anything akine there.

 

[Angela]

It seems to confirm the hypothesis of David Anthony for the Anatolian branch as a consaquence of IE intrusion from the steppe into the Balkans 4200 - 4000 BC.
So the 3700 BC new settlers in Kumtepe would be Anatolian IE. Troy would also be founded by yhem. It makes sense.

If the new settlers in Kumtepe were Anatolian IE, then this proves the exact opposite of David Anthony's claim. There is no WHG or SHG in those people. That would show up in people who went from the Ukraine down through the Balkans into Anatolia.

What it may explain is part of the additional CHG like/Iranian Neolithic like affinity in southeastern Europe which would have flowed from later movements from Anatolia into those areas. The affinity to Kumtepe has already been shown in a number of analyses.

What this entire thread shows is a total misunderstanding of how to use or not use admixture calculators. There's a whole thread on that subject. I suggest it be read again.

You can't apply a "component" like Afanasievo or Yamnaya to samples a thousand or more years older. All that percentage in Kumtepe shows, as has been pointed out, is affinity to Caucasus/Iranian dna.

 

[Tomenable]

Satsurblia CHG (Gedmatch kit M677694):

1) In Eurasia K14:

Population
N_Amerindian	-
Afansievo_Yamnaya	32.79
Kalash	14.25
Siberian	-
S_Amerindian	-
Sub_Saharan	-
SE_Asian	-
E_African	-
SW_Asian	24.67
Neolithic_Balkan_Farmers	11.47
SHG_WHG	-
Early_European_Farmers	6.74
S_Indian	10.07
Papuan	-

2) In Dodecad K12b:

Population
Gedrosia	39.88
Siberian	-
Northwest_African	-
Southeast_Asian	-
Atlantic_Med	-
North_European	9.84
South_Asian	0.54
East_African	-
Southwest_Asian	-
East_Asian	-
Caucasus	47.91
Sub_Saharan	1.83

Kotias CHG (Gedmatch kit M551062):

1) In Eurasia K14:

Population
N_Amerindian	-
Afansievo_Yamnaya	23.87
Kalash	19.06
Siberian	1.20
S_Amerindian	-
Sub_Saharan	2.41
SE_Asian	-
E_African	0.63
SW_Asian	22.69
Neolithic_Balkan_Farmers	-
SHG_WHG	-
Early_European_Farmers	18.85
S_Indian	11.28
Papuan	-

2) In Dodecad K12b:

Population
Gedrosia	34.94
Siberian	0.98
Northwest_African	-
Southeast_Asian	-
Atlantic_Med	-
North_European	9.76
South_Asian	1.17
East_African	-
Southwest_Asian	-
East_Asian	-
Caucasus	47.18
Sub_Saharan	5.95

Iran Neolithic (Gedmatch kit M967114):

1) In Eurasia K14:

Alan posted above.

2) In Dodecad K12b:

Population
Gedrosia	67.02
Siberian	-
Northwest_African	-
Southeast_Asian	-
Atlantic_Med	-
North_European	-
South_Asian	6.25
East_African	-
Southwest_Asian	5.28
East_Asian	-
Caucasus	19.91
Sub_Saharan	1.55

Iran Late Neolithic (Gedmatch kit M937770):

1) In Eurasia K14:

Alan posted above.

2) In Dodecad K12b:

Population
Gedrosia	61.56
Siberian	-
Northwest_African	-
Southeast_Asian	-
Atlantic_Med	-
North_European	-
South_Asian	0.81
East_African	-
Southwest_Asian	7.76
East_Asian	-
Caucasus	29.87
Sub_Saharan	-

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

As you can see CHG scores not only more Yamnaya than IranNeo, but it also scores North European.

IranNeo scores no North Europe at all in DodecadK12b, so it did not contribute to modern Europeans.

What it means is that "CHG-like" admixture in Yamnaya was not from IranNeo, but rather from CHG.

Exactly as Davidski wrote on his blog some time ago.

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

Let's also check Kumtepe 4 and Areni-1 in Dodecad K12b (to show that they score a lot of NorthEuro):

Kumtepe 4 (Gedmatch kit M300627):

Population
Gedrosia	24.53
Siberian	-
Northwest_African	-
Southeast_Asian	3.17
Atlantic_Med	15.00
North_European	28.36
South_Asian	-
East_African	-
Southwest_Asian	1.52
East_Asian	-
Caucasus	27.42
Sub_Saharan	-

I1631 from Areni-1 (Gedmatch kit M926386):

Population
Gedrosia	15.34
Siberian	-
Northwest_African	-
Southeast_Asian	-
Atlantic_Med	13.17
North_European	22.21
South_Asian	0.36
East_African	-
Southwest_Asian	8.63
East_Asian	-
Caucasus	40.29
Sub_Saharan	-

Today such amounts of "North Euro" admixture are found only in populations living to the north of Caucasus.

 

[Alan]

Tom don't try to save it by changing the subject. I told you this "Steppe in Armenia EBA etc would simply be Iran_Neo or CHG ancestry. It doesn't matter from where, but the overall ancestry of the samples points more to a two or even three way mix of Anatolian_CHL and Iran_CHL + maybe some CHG. the point here is Iran_CHL has significant CHG admixture in comparison to Iran_Neo.

You were caught by deceiving the people and now try to turn the game around as if we are trying to lie that is seriously a bad characteristic, exactly as Davidski has it.

Just one post earlier you weren't claiming it came from CHG but the Steppes.

 

[Tomenable]

As Bicicleur wrote:

David W. Anthony wrote that Proto-Anatolian speakers came from the Steppe to the Balkans ca. 4200-4000 BC. Those who came to Kumtepe ca. 3700 BC were the same wave of IE migrants who had settled in the Balkans before. This explains why Kum4 had no any SW Asian admixture*, but only Steppe and Neolithic EEF - they mixed with farmers in the Balkans, then moved to Anatolia.

Kumtepe 4 scores 53,15% of Yamnaya-Afanasievo in Eurasia K14 and 28,36% North European in Dodecad K12b.

She was one of Proto-Anatolian speaking migrants who came from the Steppe, across the Balkans, to Kumtepe.

Yamnaya admixture in Areni-1 is harder to explain, but they didn't have as much of it as Kumtepe B.

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

*SW Asian = more or less Levantine.

 

[Tomenable]

three way mix of Anatolian_CHL and Iran_CHL + maybe some CHG

Davidski explained that Yamnaya had no any Iran Neo or Iran CHL admixture.

They only had admixture similar to Mesolithic Kotias and Paleolithic Satsurblia.

 

[Tomenable]

There is no WHG or SHG in those people.

No because they only had EHG, which is included in Yamnaya-Afanasievo / North European.

They didn't have any "extra WHG" beyond the level of WHG-like part of their EHG ancestry.

 

[Angela]

Tomenable
... And most important. ..... who is the hottie you are using as avatar?!?!

She must be his new girlfriend. She's fine, I must say.

 

[Alan]

Thats what Davidski says. What the studies claim is that Armenian_EBA is best fit as a three way mix of Iran_CHL, Anatolian_CHL and CHG. Which fits geographically seen also perfecty.

 

[bicicleur 2]

If the new settlers in Kumtepe were Anatolian IE, then this proves the exact opposite of David Anthony's claim. There is no WHG or SHG in those people. That would show up in people who went from the Ukraine down through the Balkans into Anatolia.

What it may explain is part of the additional CHG like/Iranian Neolithic like affinity in southeastern Europe which would have flowed from later movements from Anatolia into those areas. The affinity to Kumtepe has already been shown in a number of analyses.

What this entire thread shows is a total misunderstanding of how to use or not use admixture calculators. There's a whole thread on that subject. I suggest it be read again.

You can't apply a "component" like Afanasievo or Yamnaya to samples a thousand or more years older. All that percentage in Kumtepe shows, as has been pointed out, is affinity to Caucasus/Iranian dna.

how much SHG/WHG was there in old Europe? do you know?
the Barcin had only 1.5 % in average
Barcin arrival was allready 3700 BC, these people didn't stay in the Balkans very long

more than 50 % Yamna/Afanasievo, these Kumtepe arrivals and Yamna may have a common ancestor
CHG doesn't have 50 % Yamna/Afanasievo, does it ?

 

[Tomenable]

You can't apply a "component" like Afanasievo or Yamnaya to samples a thousand or more years older.

Kumtepe 4 is not at all older than Proto-Indo-Europeans, it is dated to 3150 BC.

People who were 100% "Afanasievo-Yamnaya" already existed on the Steppe in 4500-4000 BC.

Proto-Anatolians came to the Balkans from the Steppe already in 4200-4000 BC.

 

[Angela]

No because they only had EHG, which is included in Yamnaya-Afanasievo / North European.

They didn't have any "extra WHG" beyond the level of WHG-like part of their EHG ancestry.

I guess you didn't read my post carefully. It's highly unlikely a group from the Ukraine, which furthermore moved through the Balkans to Anatolia, didn't pick up any additional WHG, and wouldn't show SHG, which is EHG admixed.

As always, your analyses are not objective.You also can't claim you have proved there was movement from the Balkans to Anatolia by using a calculator based on modern populations. "North European" is a modern composite which contains a lot of EHG/ANE, and WHG. So does Kumteppe.

Am I saying that it couldn't have happened that way? No, I'm not. I'm saying that you can't prove it this way.

As for the Armenian samples, I don't know. It's more ambiguous in my mind. Was there periodic gene flow back and forth across the Caucasus and these are hints about it, or are we just talking about EHG or Caucasus, for example, that had straddled the Caucasus for a long time?

@Tomenable,
Don't be cute; you know I was talking about finding Yamnaya in Satsurblia

 

[Angela]

how much SHG/WHG was there in old Europe? do you know?
the Barcin had only 1.5 % in average
Barcin arrival was allready 3700 BC, these people didn't stay in the Balkans very long

more than 50 % Yamna/Afanasievo, these Kumtepe arrivals and Yamna may have a common ancestor
CHG doesn't have 50 % Yamna/Afanasievo, does it ?

We know that the farmers in Europe picked up an additional 8-10% WHG almost immediately. This would have been long after that, when MN farmers show an additional 10 to 15% on top of that. I'm sure Tomenable could provide the figures if he were being honest.

No, we don't have samples from the Balkans for that period that have been analyzed in this way, so it's possible they didn't have anything additional. That's why I said that it's possible that the Anatolian languages moved to Anatolia in this way.

Another thing to consider is the archaeology, however. We've discussed this on this board before. There is no archaeological trail down through the Balkans to Anatolia to support Anthony's hypothesis. I combed his book to see if he outlines it and he doesn't. At the time I raised it no one could point to anything. If someone can provide it that would change matters.

Ed. What date are the Sopot samples? We've got "E" and "J2" there, and it's later. They're pretty far north and west, but have they been analyzed? Don't we also have one Tripolye sample? Why hasn't someone gotten those genomes?