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

[MarkoZ]

I wrote Proto-Caucasoid (= ancestral to Caucasoids), not Caucasoid.

Well, that's not what the 'proto-' affix usually indicates. If K14 showed no independent morphometrical development towards the Caucasoid type, he wasn't a Proto-Caucasoid. These labels become meaningless if we don't examine every single specimen individually.

No I didn't. Crown Eurasians = all of Eurasians except for Basal Eurasians.

Google returns a blog and a few forum entries for 'Crown Eurasians'.

But then I was talking about a K14-like population ("K14 minus Basal" folks), not specifically about K14.

No you weren't. You said K14 belonged to a population that was ancestral to most Eurasians.

If that is where his "Basal" came from, then yes.

Had Basal Eurasians expanded from Arabia, along the coast through India, all the way to South-East Asia?

There is a hypothesis about "Southern Migration" and "Northern Migration" routes into Eurasia after the OoA.

Maybe descendants of Basal Eurasians migrated along the southern route, and of Crown Eurasians to the north.

No, it's precisely the opposite. Both C and F radiated out of South-East Asia after CF migrated out of Africa. Most Eurasians derive their ancestry from this migration. Tellingly, K14's C-M130 still exists in significant frequencies in Australia and India. He must have picked up his Basal Eurasian component further west or north.

 

[Olympus Mons]

Olympos

Good news for You. Aknashen (Shulaveri) site got finances and aDNA from there will not be late.

There are typos in that article. Millenium instead of century.
http://news.am/eng/news/351593.html

@all

Kura araxes (EBA) is very different from Armenia Chl. It is anti EHG. It is mostly ENF/CHG/IranChl.

Hi Arame... the article does not say they have extracted samples. But I believe you.
Just look at that architechture. Fully Shulaveri.
You Probably already know that i truly believe it was them the original bearers of M269. And some will have L23, others not. Aknashen were the first to be abandoned. so around 5400 bc) and either moved north to joint the rest of shulaveri or way already. lets see.
After 4900 bc (Why does Johannes Krause from Max planck wrote 4900 bc, why indeed) They made Svobodnoe, Mesokho, Khavlinski (a large percentage), Yamanya (a fairly good percentage). West they show up as Kumtepe6. south, ok my god, South.... that is where the juice stuff is.



Kura araxes is naturally after the "explosion" that "KIcked" the shulaveri. That "explosion" came from the east, from Iran I now believe. so 1000 years (Kura araxes) after that invasion people are very admixed. Probably, Probably even to Maykop. No wonder Maykop had an "indian" Mtdna (M) and guys found in PRE-Kura araxes also had "indian" Ydna (L1a) . Kura araxes had loads od admix of diferent people.

 

[Angela]

From Hofmanova:

"Finally, f 4-statistics of the form f4(Aegean, Kumtepe, CHG, 6=Khomani) showed that CHG populations shared unique drift with Kumtepe6 when compared to both Greek and Anatolian Aegeans (Table S25). Though little is known about hunter-gatherers in Anatolia, this suggests that towards the end of, or directly following, the Neolithic expansion there was gene flow from the Caucasus and neighboring regions to Anatolia. If there was continued gene flow across the Aegean at this time between Greece and Anatolia, this would also be compatible with the f 3 outgroup results which show the later Greek samples to be closer to CHG than the Rev5 and two early Neolithic Anatolian samples."

The title of the graphic you posted, a title you conveniently neglected to post:

"Figure S15: Supervised run of ADMIXTURE. The clusters to be supervised were chosen to best fit the presumed ancestral populations (for WHG Motala, for CHG KK1 and SATP and for farmers Bar8 and Bar31). 73."

Yellow represents CHG based on Paleolithic and Mesolithic samples, not Yamnaya.

You totally misrepresented the meaning of that graphic.

When it was pointed out, it suddenly became an unreliable paper. If it was so unreliable why did you use it?

As for its unreliability, imo, the results were sloppily and confusingly presented, but there was certainly some good analysis in there. Eurogenes went *** **** because the circles for the Ashkenazim were placed over Poland. God forbid anyone think they represented Polish genetics.

The Hofmanova paper is discussed here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Greek-Anatolian-Neolithic?highlight=Hofmanova

As for David Anthony's work, I'm a great admirer of a lot of it, but the "Anatolian" languages portion is one of the weakest parts because he just dumps the supposed "Anatolian" speakers in the Balkans and doesn't trace them to Anatolia. So, perhaps they either originated in Anatolia or moved south through the Caucasus to Anatolia. I don't know, and neither do I care how it turns out. We need more ancient dna.

@Arame,

I can't make heads or tails of that graphic purporting to show EHG in Kumtepe. If you wish, present a clearer image and explain your point.

 

[Alan]

I don't know if confusing or adjusting the real geographic terms to fit their own believes/models. Aegean and Marmara are Anatolia and not "Southeast and East Anatolia". Those regions are Mesopotamia and Transcaucasus.

This is the traditional definition of Anatolia, based on the original name givers the Greeks.

Southeast "Anatolia" in reality doesn't exist and the only reason the term Anatolia was given to that region is because of the modern state Turkey.

The Ivanov model is the West Asian Highland hypothesis.

 

[Angela]

Iain Matthiesen of the Reich Lab will be presenting his paper on Balkan farmers tomorrow, so we should know more about their make-up very soon.

I think this is the abstract of the paper:

"The area of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans has always been
a crossroads between Europe and Asia: a conduit for people, culture and
language. Beginning around 6,500 BCE, the Balkans was the first place in
Europe to become transformed by farming, brought by a new wave of migrants
from Anatolia. From this staging point, farming and people spread to all corners
of Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between farmers and
indigenous European hunter-gatherers in the first place that they encountered
each other remains poorly understood because of the near complete absence
of genetic data from prehistoric specimens from this region. We generated
new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans
and adjacent regions dating as far back as 6,400 BCE. We document how
the dynamics of admixture between the regions first farmers and its indigenous
hunter-gatherers was complex, with evidence of local admixture from
hunter-gatherers related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe."


That seems to indicate to me that they indeed have WHG. Or was it SHG? We'll know very soon. Also, was it all absorbed locally, or, as Bicicleur suggested, is it back migration from LBK type people and people from the Carpathians? What will be more interesting is if they captured when and how much EHG made its way into the Balkans, and into which specific cultures.

 

[Tomenable]

Iain Matthiesen of the Reich Lab will be presenting his paper on Balkan farmers tomorrow, so we should know more about their make-up very soon.

I think this is the abstract of the paper:

"The area of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans has always been
a crossroads between Europe and Asia: a conduit for people, culture and
language. Beginning around 6,500 BCE, the Balkans was the first place in
Europe to become transformed by farming, brought by a new wave of migrants
from Anatolia. From this staging point, farming and people spread to all corners
of Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between farmers and
indigenous European hunter-gatherers in the first place that they encountered
each other remains poorly understood because of the near complete absence
of genetic data from prehistoric specimens from this region. We generated
new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans
and adjacent regions dating as far back as 6,400 BCE. We document how
the dynamics of admixture between the regions first farmers and its indigenous
hunter-gatherers was complex, with evidence of local admixture from
hunter-gatherers related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe."

That seems to indicate to me that they indeed have WHG. However, was it all absorbed locally, or, as Bicicleur suggested, is it back migration from LBK type people and people from the Carpathians? What will be more interesting is if they captured when and how much EHG made its way into the Balkans, and into which specific cultures.

Hmm, so maybe my old idea (I've already given up on it) that the original homeland of R1b-M269/L23 was in the Balkans, will turn out to be true. If they had admixture from both WHG and EHG, then it is possible that they also had some R1.

Kumtepe4 is a BA sample. And it has EHG.
Here a better K5 from Hoffmanova.
It has some 20-30% of EHG (not Yamna).

20-30% EHG combined with 20-30% CHG = 40-60% Yamna.

Which is in agreement with EurasiaK14 result (>50% Yamna).

 

[Angela]

Hmm, so maybe my old idea (I've already given up on it) that the original homeland of R1b-M269/L23 was in the Balkans, will turn out to be true. If they had admixture from both WHG and EHG, then it is possible that they also had some R1.



20-30% EHG combined with 20-30% CHG = 40-60% Yamna.

Which is in agreement with EurasiaK14 result (>50% Yamna).

I repeat: show a legible graphic with 20-30% EHG in the Kumtepe samples. I'm tired of claims being made which on more investigation are either incorrect or deliberately misleading.

See post #83

 

[Tomenable]

See what Arame wrote.

==========

Edit:

OK I'll read post #83.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Angela,

EEF is the Stuttgart genome, right?
does it mean EEF has allready some WHG admixture, compared to the Central Anatolian farmers? And maybe also compared to the NW Anatolian farmers?

 

[Angela]

Angela,

EEF is the Stuttgart genome, right?
does it mean EEF has allready some WHG admixture, compared to the Central Anatolian farmers? And maybe also compared to the NW Anatolian farmers?

Yes, to the best of my recollection, Stuttgart or LBK is where they found the additional single digit amount of WHG picked up locally, i.e. not the WHG like alleles they already possessed when they were in Anatolia.

I think I also recall that the Hungarian farmer genomes had less, but someone should check me on that.

 

[Angela]

Sorry, guys, that Hofmanova graphic was starting to confuse me. What it shows (if we take the labeling as correct) is the presence of CHG yellow in the Neolithic from very early on, since yellow is the color for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic CHG. The orange Motala element which is WHG with some EHG is in some of the Hungarian Neolithic samples, but not in LBK. It's also not in the Anatolian samples, including Kumtepe.

That may or may not tie in with the Matthiesen paper which is upcoming, where he mentions eastern hunter-gatherers.

However, looking at those yellow percentages they seem close to what normally are called the percentages for WHG in the early farmers.

So, it's all very confusing. I hope Hofmanova and Hellenthal didn't get the colors confused. Maybe Matthiesen will clarify things.

 

[LeBrok]

Iain Matthiesen of the Reich Lab will be presenting his paper on Balkan farmers tomorrow, so we should know more about their make-up very soon.

I think this is the abstract of the paper:

"The area of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans has always been
a crossroads between Europe and Asia: a conduit for people, culture and
language. Beginning around 6,500 BCE, the Balkans was the first place in
Europe to become transformed by farming, brought by a new wave of migrants
from Anatolia. From this staging point, farming and people spread to all corners
of Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between farmers and
indigenous European hunter-gatherers in the first place that they encountered
each other remains poorly understood because of the near complete absence
of genetic data from prehistoric specimens from this region. We generated
new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans
and adjacent regions dating as far back as 6,400 BCE. We document how
the dynamics of admixture between the regions first farmers and its indigenous
hunter-gatherers was complex, with evidence of local admixture from
hunter-gatherers related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe."

Awesome. Can't wait.

 

[MOESAN]

Interesting. Never heard of pre-Yamnaya migration from the Steppes into the Balkans. If that was the case, then those folks were NOT Indo-European speakers at all, since Indo-European language was brought into Europe by Yamnaya Horizon folks. And those folks were linguistically, culturally & geneticcally influenced by the Maykop Culture, between 6000-5000 ybp (4000-3000 BC).

The scientists do agree with each other that before Yamnaya Culture, people in the Steppes spoke a different non-IE Steppes language. It was Yamnaya that was the FIRST proto-Indo-European language of the Steppes.



PS. 'Kumtepe' is not Anatolia at all, but it is actually part of the ancient Greece/ Balkans, 'Marmara'. Has nothing to do with the 'Eastern' Anatolia. That 'Kumtepe' person is a Pontic Greek/Balkanic. Has nothing to do with the Maykop that Indo-Europized the Yamnaya Culture and the 'Eastern' Anatolian (Armenian) R1b-something.

Some other scientists think, as Gimbutas, that the first moves from the Kurgans Steppes began around 4500/4300 BC by infiltrations into S-E and Danubian Europe, firstable along the Western Black Sea shores before reaching Danube, and later reaching Macedoine and Hungary; these incursions, seemingly proved by physical anthropology and archeology and economy, would not have left lasting linguistic input, nevertheless. around 3500/3300 BC there would have been a second wave, not from the center of Kurgans but from recently "kurganized" pops (mixed) of N-W the Black Sea. I cannot confirm or infirm it, but it's to temper the affirmations.
I'm personally sure that more than a move took place in Steppes and towards different directions with changes in the centers of gravity and crossings with peripheric pops, even during the creation phasis.
&: It's very possible that South Caucasus groups took the leadership at some stage of History but it does not resolve in itself the question of the language -
the pre-Kurgan period in the Steppes (Neolithic) saw diverse influences on them: from Tripolye ("Old Europe"), Transcaucasus (for Ukraina) and East Caspian on Volga/Samara - complicated!
here we are dealing with one supposed egg and more than a hone!
for auDNA, yes Yamanya people were roughly 50% EHG 50% CHG; was this CHG part completely "ancestral" there (HGs + some Neolithics) or dominantly recently "I-E-Maykop-transcaucasian-bronze", or ...?
A lot (not all) on fora interprets data for its chapel, putting labels upon vague auDNA groupings.

 

[Goga]

Some other scientists think, as Gimbutas, that the first moves from the Kurgans Steppes began around 4500/4300 BC by infiltrations into S-E and Danubian Europe, firstable along the Western Black Sea shores before reaching Danube, and later reaching Macedoine and Hungary; these incursions, seemingly proved by physical anthropology and archeology and economy, would not have left lasting linguistic input, nevertheless. around 3500/3300 BC there would have been a second wave, not from the center of Kurgans but from recently "kurganized" pops (mixed) of N-W the Black Sea. I cannot confirm or infirm it, but it's to temper the affirmations.
I'm personally sure that more than a move took place in Steppes and towards different directions with changes in the centers of gravity and crossings with peripheric pops, even during the creation phasis.
&: It's very possible that South Caucasus groups took the leadership at some stage of History but it does not resolve in itself the question of the language -
the pre-Kurgan period in the Steppes (Neolithic) saw diverse influences on them: from Tripolye ("Old Europe"), Transcaucasus (for Ukraina) and East Caspian on Volga/Samara - complicated!
here we are dealing with one supposed egg and more than a hone!
for auDNA, yes Yamanya people were roughly 50% EHG 50% CHG; was this CHG part completely "ancestral" there (HGs + some Neolithics) or dominantly recently "I-E-Maykop-transcaucasian-bronze", or ...?
A lot (not all) on fora interprets data for its chapel, putting labels upon vague auDNA groupings.

Don't think so. Danube would be full of WHG/SHG mixed with the Neolithic Anatolians (farmers) and not CHG. But the point is that there is not so much of WHG in the Indo-European areas of the Western Asia/Iranian Plateau. Some of it is from the recent era mostly brought with the Greeks

So, I'm absolutely sure that CHG was not ancestral to Danube. Maybe there was some in Danube, but Danube was mostly SHG/WHG & Neolithic Anatolian farmers.


Neolithic Anatolian farmers were very different from CHG/Iranian Plateau Neolithic people.


Since DNA studies became popular it was one the first discoveries that there is no WHG/SHG around the Iranian Plateau. And that's why one of the first conclusions was that WHG/SHG were not part of the ancient PIE. There is a lot of hg. I2 in Danube, so there would be also a lot WHG/SHG auDNA in the ancient times. If there was an ancient migration (5000 years ago) from Danube into Zagros Mountains or other western parts of the Iranian Plateau, there would be also ancient WHG auDNA in that part of the world. But ancient DNA samples from Zagros/Iranian Plateau don't show any traces from Danube/WHG/SHG. So we can conclude that there was NO migration from Danube into Northern West Asia 5000 years ago.

 

[MarkoZ]

In Gimbutas thought Bulgarian Ezero culture is credited with bringing IE to Anatolia. Said culture actually is contemporaneous with the appearance of typically North-Pontic materials in the lowlands of the eastern Balkans. Later, elements of the Ezero culture appear in the first archaelogical layer of Troy. The problem with this however is that the supposed migrants from Balkans must have been farmers because they brought with themselves the communal 'Tell' mounds and a Neolithic material culture. Unless the steppe herders readily assimilated into the farmer cultures, it is difficult to believe that they spread an Indo-European language into the Troad. This becomes even more apparent if we take into account that it was the early farmer cultures that heavily influenced the Northern Pontic. Even the characteristic stone stelae first appear in the Romanian Neolithic, in one of the predecessor cultures of Varna, erroneously interpreted by Gimbutas as an early 'Kurgan' presence in the Balkans.

 

[Alan]

In Gimbutas thought Bulgarian Ezero culture is credited with bringing IE to Anatolia. Said culture actually is contemporaneous with the appearance of typically North-Pontic materials in the lowlands of the eastern Balkans. Later, elements of the Ezero culture appear in the first archaelogical layer of Troy. The problem with this however is that the supposed migrants from Balkans must have been farmers because they brought with themselves the communal 'Tell' mounds and a Neolithic material culture. Unless the steppe herders readily assimilated into the farmer cultures, it is difficult to believe that they spread an Indo-European language into the Troad. This becomes even more apparent if we take into account that it was the early farmer cultures that heavily influenced the Northern Pontic. Even the characteristic stone stelae first appear in the Romanian Neolithic, in one of the predecessor cultures of Varna, erroneously interpreted by Gimbutas as an early 'Kurgan' presence in the Balkans.

Stone stelea are found throughout the Middle East as far as Arabia!! some of the oldest are in Kurdistan near my home region. So as long as scientist don't show me any signs of Indo European Bronze Age in Saudi Arabia, I doubt Stelae alone can be used as sign for it. Looks more like a general Neolithic thing.

Anthropomorphic stelae of the Near East

Bronze Age anthropomorphic funerary stelae have been found in Saudi Arabia. There are similarities to the Kurgan type in the handling of the slab-like body with incised detail, though the treatment of the head is rather more realistic.^[12]
The anthropomorphic stelae so far found in Anatolia appear to post-date those of the Kemi Oba culture on the steppe and are presumed to derive from steppe types. A fragment of one was found in the earliest layer of deposition at Troy, known as Troy I.^[13]
Thirteen stone stelae, of a type similar to those of the Eurasian steppes, were found in 1998 in their original location at the centre of Hakkâri, a city in the south eastern corner of Turkey, and are now on display in the Van Museum. The stelae were carved on upright flagstone-like slabs measuring between 0.7 m to 3.10 m in height. The stones contain only one cut surface, upon which human figures have been chiseled. The theme of each stele reveals the fore view of an upper human body. Eleven of the stelae depict naked warriors with daggers, spears, and axes-masculine symbols of war. They always hold a drinking vessel made of skin in both hands. Two stelae contain female figures without arms. The earliest of these stelae are in the style of bas relief while the latest ones are in a linear style. They date from the 15th to the 11th century BC and may represent the rulers of the kingdom of Hubushkia, perhaps derived from a Eurasian steppe culture that had infiltrated into the Near East.^[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_stelae


Imo the Hetittes came from the East or Northeast not the West.

 

[Angela]

In Gimbutas thought Bulgarian Ezero culture is credited with bringing IE to Anatolia. Said culture actually is contemporaneous with the appearance of typically North-Pontic materials in the lowlands of the eastern Balkans. Later, elements of the Ezero culture appear in the first archaelogical layer of Troy. The problem with this however is that the supposed migrants from Balkans must have been farmers because they brought with themselves the communal 'Tell' mounds and a Neolithic material culture. Unless the steppe herders readily assimilated into the farmer cultures, it is difficult to believe that they spread an Indo-European language into the Troad. This becomes even more apparent if we take into account that it was the early farmer cultures that heavily influenced the Northern Pontic. Even the characteristic stone stelae first appear in the Romanian Neolithic, in one of the predecessor cultures of Varna, erroneously interpreted by Gimbutas as an early 'Kurgan' presence in the Balkans.

That's always been the question about this culture, yes? Did it spread from northwest Anatolia into the Balkans or the reverse. Another problem with the Gimbutas version, where they are steppe admixed people who bring the "Anatolian" languages into Anatolia and whose cultural influence can be found in Troy Level 1, is that the people of Kumtepe 6, which is a neighboring site whose population is thought to have fed into Troy. is that despite Tomenable's proposals there is no evidence of EHG in them.

Even Eurogenes, who claims to find steppe influence in virtually everyone, has supposedly just stated that they are probably a mix of Anatolia Neolithic, Levant Neolithic, and CHG from the Caucasus.

Of course, there's a lot of population structure in Anatolia, and the Balkans, so that isn't to say that some other group won't be found who brought these languages to Anatolia by moving through the Balkans.

 

[Olympus Mons]

...
Even Eurogenes, who claims to find steppe influence in virtually everyone, has supposedly just stated that they are probably a mix of Anatolia Neolithic, Levant Neolithic, and CHG from the Caucasus.
.

I think he was talking about Kum6 that actually is quite diferent culture from Kum4. Actually there is almost 1000 years of absence of people there from one to the other.

Altought actually he does see Steppe in almost every relevant event... even those that occured millenia before and 1000 miles away.

 

[MOESAN]

Don't think so. Danube would be full of WHG/SHG mixed with the Neolithic Anatolians (farmers) and not CHG. But the point is that there is not so much of WHG in the Indo-European areas of the Western Asia/Iranian Plateau. Some of it is from the recent era mostly brought with the Greeks

So, I'm absolutely sure that CHG was not ancestral to Danube. Maybe there was some in Danube, but Danube was mostly SHG/WHG & Neolithic Anatolian farmers.


Neolithic Anatolian farmers were very different from CHG/Iranian Plateau Neolithic people.


Since DNA studies became popular it was one the first discoveries that there is no WHG/SHG around the Iranian Plateau. And that's why one of the first conclusions was that WHG/SHG were not part of the ancient PIE. There is a lot of hg. I2 in Danube, so there would be also a lot WHG/SHG auDNA in the ancient times. If there was an ancient migration (5000 years ago) from Danube into Zagros Mountains or other western parts of the Iranian Plateau, there would be also ancient WHG auDNA in that part of the world. But ancient DNA samples from Zagros/Iranian Plateau don't show any traces from Danube/WHG/SHG. So we can conclude that there was NO migration from Danube into Northern West Asia 5000 years ago.

Sorry Goga but I don't see how you understood my unconclusive post; my aim was to say I-E first incursions in Europe (from East to West!) were supposed to have begun earlier than the middle period of Yamnaya; I never said CHG was settled in Danube region as a majority since 4500 BC: I spoke of "Steppes tribes" whatever their auDNA components and the %s of CHG among them; BTW the HGs (SHG or WHG or?) in Danube regions during MN were a weak component of the pop as a whole, in Tripolye surroundings it's uneasy to know (plains?mountains? the samples are scarce but the bulk of the pop was anatolian-danubian) - where did you see I said a huge pop of WHG/SHG from Danube had colonized Transcaucasus or Zagros at those times? When I spoke of moves on every direction, I spoke of Pontic Steppes; but the same occurrred South the BlackSea and South the Caucasus, but not at the same time.
Just trying to be clear

 

[MOESAN]

Interesting. Never heard of pre-Yamnaya migration from the Steppes into the Balkans. If that was the case, then those folks were NOT Indo-European speakers at all, since Indo-European language was brought into Europe by Yamnaya Horizon folks. And those folks were linguistically, culturally & geneticcally influenced by the Maykop Culture, between 6000-5000 ybp (4000-3000 BC).

The scientists do agree with each other that before Yamnaya Culture, people in the Steppes spoke a different non-IE Steppes language. It was Yamnaya that was the FIRST proto-Indo-European language of the Steppes.

Concerning languages, scientists are scientists when they speak about attested structure, grammar, phonetics, evolution but they stay almost ordinal human beings when they speak about glottochronology or first apparition in a precise place of a language without any written source;
300/200 years is a little enough spanning; and we don't know if the cultural input of Maykop and other cultural and unresolved demic input from Transcaucasus are the source of the I-Ean language birth.