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

No it wouldn't be more useful because Levant Neo itself is still 40% WHG like. So it's not like Levant farmers were Basal Eurasian proto farmers and mixed with Anatolian HG. In fact Basal Eurasian came to Levant and Anatolia either from the south coast of Iran, Persian Gulf or Arabia. Those HG mixed with the Anatolian and Levant HG and created the new Farmers. The only difference from Anatolian farmers to Levant farmers is the propotion of Basal Eurasian vs WHG like admixture. You can split the component always further back, the only question is at which point does it still matter?

breaking DNA in components is the rule in some way, OK. But if serious surveys don't take the same criteria when speaking of the same pops because they don't take the same screen "resolution", a lot of our discussions are weakly based. It was just my remark.
I repeat we cannot put Lazaridis and Allentoft shoulder to shoulder, by example.
 
Thanks, Angela; I had only some short insights picked on fora. Concerning Yamna it doesn't seem changing the two "components" in cause from Allentoft; but I 've to read it completely.
This is the supplementary data, which is really the guts of the paper. Just click on supplementary information
 
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.

Yes, you're absolutely right. The Middle East has the most elaborate anthropomorphic stelae - contemporaneous stelae found in Europe look primitive in comparison. I mentioned the Romanian stelae because those found in the Northern Pontic look like they had been derived from those found in the Balkans. The concept itself likely spread with the farmers in the Neolithic.


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

I presently favor a south-eastern origin for the Anatolian branch as a whole. The first evidence of the Anatolian languages appears in a Luwian seal found at Tarsus. There are also the shared innovations between Anatolian and Hurrian to the exclusion of Uratrian. An Indo-European migration from Iraq along the Euphrates as imagined by Gordon Whittaker would fit what little evidence we have quite well I think.
 
As to 'EHG', I think the misunderstanding comes from the presupposition that the hunters from Oleni Ostrov constitute an isolated population. To illustrate this, take a look at what happens in Lazaridis' analysis:

Capture.jpg

Source: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311 (fig. 4)

The 11,000-12,000 years old Hotu III individual from Northern Iran already carries a significant portion of the ancestral component commonly associated with the hunters from North-Western Russia. This affinity is unlikely to be the result of an earlier migration to the south since the Hotu cave remains predate Oleni Ostrov by thousands of years.

On the contrary, there is a very high probability that the common source of this affinity is the Paleolithic Zarzian complex centered in the Middle East, responsible for introducing the bow and the domesticated dog from Africa to Eurasia. This is exactly what Semenov & Bulat predicted earlier this year, citing Underhill (2014) on the phylogenetic & geographic structure of Y-DNA R1a. In sum:

In [36] we discussed two possibilities. The first is that Y-DNA R1a1 could be ultimately aZarzian marker which denotes the representatives of mesolithic cultures who came to Karelia fromthe South-East from the Caspian seashores (possibly via the Black sea region). The second is thatR1a1 could come from the East or Central Asia in paleolithic time. The newest archaeologicalfindings allow us to support the Zarzian point of view.

On the far-flung archaeological affinities of Oleni Ostrov:

In addition to the local component the cultural influences on Yuzhniy Oleni Ostrov, theinfluences of most far-off regions have been mentioned in different works. For example, one articlehighlights the unexpected similarities of Yuzhniy Oleni Ostrov inhabitants and the representativesof culture Çatalhöyük [19, p. 92]: «However, the distribution observed on the charts provokes anumber of questions because of the convergence of typological characteristics of the groupsdiametrically opposed geographically and for which the likelihood of direct biological kinshipand mutual contacts excluded. The most vivid illustration of this is the convergence ofcharacteristics a series of Mesolithic Oleni Ostrov burial ground with sample from Çatalhöyük bythe values of the second factor …». But the finding of the Y-DNA haplogroup J, which is associatedwith significantly more southern regions, only confirms ties of Yuzhniy Oleni Ostrov with theSouthern cultures.

Source: http://ejournal8.com/journals_n/1461227205.pdf

They speculate that a group of Zarzian migrants managed to impose themselves on the North-Eastern European Swiderian cultures, resulting in both the Oleni Ostrov culture and what they call the 'Elshanskaya' complex (which includes Samara).

I guess all we can tentatively conclude is that there was an as yet unidentified population from Iran or thereabouts, which influenced large parts of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, likely due to innovations adopted from Africa. Of course, this means that we should be cautious about interpreting affinity to the Eastern Hunter Gatherers as North-Eastern European ancestry.
 
Last edited:
As to 'EHG', I think the misunderstanding comes from the presupposition that the hunters from Oleni Ostrov constitute an isolated population. To illustrate this, take a look at what happens in Lazaridis' analysis:

View attachment 8132

Source: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311 (fig. 4)

The 11,000-12,000 years old Hotu III individual from Northern Iran already carries a significant portion of the ancestral component commonly associated with the hunters from North-Western Russia. This affinity is unlikely to be the result of an earlier migration to the south since the Hotu cave remains predate Oleni Ostrov by thousands of years.

On the contrary, there is a very high probability that the common source of this affinity is the Paleolithic Zarzian complex centered in the Middle East, responsible for introducing the bow and the domesticated dog from Africa to Eurasia. This is exactly what Semenov & Bulat predicted earlier this year, citing Underhill (2014) on the phylogenetic & geographic structure of Y-DNA R1a. In sum:



On the far-flung archaeological affinities of Oleni Ostrov:



Source: http://ejournal8.com/journals_n/1461227205.pdf

They speculate that a group of Zarzian migrants managed to impose itself on the North-Eastern European Swiderian cultures, resulting in both the Oleni Ostrov culture and what they call the 'Elshanskaya' complex (which includes Samara).

I guess all we can tentatively conclude is that there was an as yet unidentified population from Iran or thereabouts, which influenced large parts of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, likely due to innovations adopted from Africa. Of course, this means that we should be cautious about interpreting affinity to the Eastern Hunter Gatherers as North-Eastern European ancestry.

IMO it is not advantageous to try and model populations by means of EHG ancestry, because EHG expanded into eastern Europe during paleo - or early mesolithic times but they didn't expand much further afterwards.
I don't think Yamnaya is a consequence of EHG expansion, but maybe there is a component in Yamnaya which is also ancestral to EHG.
It is also possible that both EHG and Yamnaya have some common CHG ancestry.

Maybe a specific part of the EHG population contributed to the CW and Sintashta ancestry though.
 
Armenia Chalcolithic can be modeled as having a percentage of Samara Eneolithic, which is pretty specific. Perhaps it was female mediated, a mirror of what could have been happening north of the Caucasus. Then it doesn't show up in Armenia EBA. It shows up again in the MB. If that's wrong someone correct the record.

Is there modeling showing the same thing for Kum4? If not, then on what is all this speculation based? That, if only the sample were better, it would? That's a belief, a hunch, which may or may not be right, but it's not evidence.

If the modeling was done, it would be helpful if someone could reproduce it here.
 
IMO it is not advantageous to try and model populations by means of EHG ancestry, because EHG expanded into eastern Europe during paleo - or early mesolithic times but they didn't expand much further afterwards.
I don't think Yamnaya is a consequence of EHG expansion, but maybe there is a component in Yamnaya which is also ancestral to EHG.
It is also possible that both EHG and Yamnaya have some common CHG ancestry.

Maybe a specific part of the EHG population contributed to the CW and Sintashta ancestry though.

Fair enough, I mostly agree. But there are a lot of circular arguments about the EHG component floating around. Hence people obsessively looking for EHG 'ancestry', because they thought it was an reliable indicator of Indo-European languages.

Btw, even Konzintsev, formerly one of the foremost advocates of the "Indo-European = European, blond, blue eyes" hypothesis in Russia, just published an article in which he says that PIE is basically Near Eastern: https://kunstkamera.academia.edu/AlexanderKozintsev

Progress has been made.
 
He's placing the origin of Proto-Indo-European in the Near East, thus making Hittite and the "Anatolian" languages "autochthonous". However, after that it appears to be the standard spread from the steppe.

Krause seems to agree as to the origin, and the spread of the European IE languages from the steppe so far as I can tell, but it's unclear to me what he and Haak mean as to Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan. Until we do know it isn't helpful for people to be setting up straw man arguments all over the place.

"The earliest stage of Indo-European history:Evidence of linguistics, paleogenetics, and archaeology
Two scenarios explaining the early separation of the Anatolian branch of Indo-European (IE) language family (5th
millennium BC, according to S.A. Starostin) are examined. The Balkan scenario is used by advocates of the steppe and Central European theories of IE homeland. The former theory is supported and the latter refuted by genetic data. The steppe theory identifies ancestral Anatolians with Suvorovo people, who migrated from the northwestern Black Sea area to the Balkans. But judging by archaeological indicators (shell-tempered pottery of Cucuteni C type, cord decoration,zoomorphous scepters, elements of the steppe burial rite), IE groups moved toward the Balkans gradually and enteredAnatolia no earlier than 3000 BC, when people of southeastern Europe used wheeled transport. The Hittite language, on theother hand, lacked two words denoting the wheel (or wagon) in other IE languages, implying that Anatolians had beenisolated from other Indo-Europeans since the 5th millennium BC. The Balkan scenario, which excludes a single rapid migration, does not account for that. Therefore, an alternative must be considered—the Caucasian scenario, assuming anearly presence of proto-Indo-Europeans in the Near East. This scenario can explain the long isolation of Anatolians. Apparently, a Near Eastern IE group migrated to northeastern Caucasus in the 5th millennium BC. Its presence there is documented by high-quality Near Eastern type ware in the lower strata of the pre-Maikop fortress Meshoko. Later, the southern tradition was displaced by two others. One was marked by pottery decorated with punched nodes and possibly manufactured by speakers of a North Caucasian language. The other was a steppe tradition, probably associated with Skely aculture (akin to Suvorovo) and evidenced by ceramic forms and shell temper resembling Cucuteni C at Svobodnoe andMeshoko, cruciform mace-heads at Meshoko, and fragment of zoomorphous scepter at Yasenovaya Polyana. Being the most active part of the steppe population, the Skelya people may have adopted an IE language from the Near Eastern immigrants. This steppe IE dialect gave rise to all IE languages except the Anatolian branch, which, under this scenario, was autochthonous in the Near East. The hypothesis is upheld by a Caucasian autosomal component in the gene pool of theKhvalynsk and Yamnaya people. Southerly migrations of filial IE groups ancestral to Greeks, Armenians, etc., along theBalkan route occurred after the emergence of the steppe IE language."

If there is no evidence of the "Yamnaya y lineages" south of the Caucasus at the appropriate time then are we supposed to believe the language was transferred by the women?
 
As to 'EHG', I think the misunderstanding comes from the presupposition that the hunters from Oleni Ostrov constitute an isolated population. To illustrate this, take a look at what happens in Lazaridis' analysis:

View attachment 8132

Source: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311 (fig. 4)

The 11,000-12,000 years old Hotu III individual from Northern Iran already carries a significant portion of the ancestral component commonly associated with the hunters from North-Western Russia. This affinity is unlikely to be the result of an earlier migration to the south since the Hotu cave remains predate Oleni Ostrov by thousands of years.

On the contrary, there is a very high probability that the common source of this affinity is the Paleolithic Zarzian complex centered in the Middle East, responsible for introducing the bow and the domesticated dog from Africa to Eurasia. This is exactly what Semenov & Bulat predicted earlier this year, citing Underhill (2014) on the phylogenetic & geographic structure of Y-DNA R1a. In sum:



On the far-flung archaeological affinities of Oleni Ostrov:



Source: http://ejournal8.com/journals_n/1461227205.pdf

They speculate that a group of Zarzian migrants managed to impose themselves on the North-Eastern European Swiderian cultures, resulting in both the Oleni Ostrov culture and what they call the 'Elshanskaya' complex (which includes Samara).

I guess all we can tentatively conclude is that there was an as yet unidentified population from Iran or thereabouts, which influenced large parts of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, likely due to innovations adopted from Africa. Of course, this means that we should be cautious about interpreting affinity to the Eastern Hunter Gatherers as North-Eastern European ancestry.
Thank you very much. This is another academic paper which supports the Iranian origin of R1a1! I'm also going to save this paper in my library.
 
Btw, even Konzintsev, formerly one of the foremost advocates of the "Indo-European = European, blond, blue eyes" hypothesis in Russia, just published an article in which he says that PIE is basically Near Eastern: https://kunstkamera.academia.edu/AlexanderKozintsev

Progress has been made.
No matter how much people try to find some excuses and how much they live in their own alternative dream world. NOBODY can change the reality. It is what it is. Science and DNA don't lie. In the past sick twisted degenarated people with inferiority complex & hidden agenda could foul other by trying to change history. But today we live in the 21st century. Scientists can trace migrations and therefore look into the past and dig into history. GENETICA changed everything. Nowadays it has become more difficult to spread lies and propaganda. REAL history can't be changed and more and more people are starting to accept this reality.
 
do you have a link to this quote of Krause ?

he says this is the weak point of the Balkan theory
The Balkan scenario, which excludes a single rapid migration, does not account for that.
But if a group of simple cattle herders split from the IE in the Balkans, would that have been detectable in specific pottery, scepters or burials?

Does he say the Maikop people were North Caucasian, not Near Eastern?
Would the Skelya adopt the language but not the traditions nor the artefacts of the pre-Maikop Meshoko?
What link can be made between these pre-Maikop Meshoko and Hittites/Luwians?

A lot remains to be explained.

What I've always wondered about the Balkan theory is why Maikop didn't have a bigger impact on the steppe people.

This is Maikop/Novosobnaya

Maikop and NovosvobodnayaRussiaKlady
3600-3000 BC

U8, T2 and N1Nedoluzhko 2015
NovosvobodnayaRussiaKlady
3500 BC

V7Nedoluzhko 2014



This is Khvalynsk

Samara EneolithicRussiaKhvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122/SVP 35]M4700-4000 BCR1b1M415H2a1Mathieson 2015
Samara EneolithicRussiaKhvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0433/SVP 46]M4700-4000 BCR1a1M459U5a1iMathieson 2015
Samara EneolithicRussiaKhvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0434/SVP 47]M4700-4000 BCQ1aF2676U4a2 or U4dMathieson 2015
I'm curious about the autosomal component.

Autosomal CHG may have entered the steppe way before the 5th mill BC, as evidenced by the presence of J in Karelia.
 
No matter how much people try to find some excuses and how much they live in their own alternative dream world. NOBODY can change the reality. It is what it is. Science and DNA don't lie. In the past sick twisted degenarated people with inferiority complex & hidden agenda could foul other by trying to change history. But today we live in the 21st century. Scientists can trace migrations and therefore look into the past and dig into history. GENETICA changed everything. Nowadays it has become more difficult to spread lies and propaganda. REAL history can't be changed and more and more people are starting to accept this reality.

This is true. I wish people would stop pushing their personal agendas and let the science talk.
 
Does he say the Maikop people were North Caucasian, not Near Eastern?
Maykop = North Caucasus.

But North Caucasians are actually Near Eastern (Iranian Plateau) in origin with some extra EHG ancestry from the Steppes. Didn't you hear about the Uruk migration from Irani into the Caucasus? If you compare Iranian Leyla-Tepe (original Uruk?) with Maykop culture you will find huge similarities. Maykop was basically Middle Eastern / NorthWest ASIAN in nature. The thing is that Maykop was a little bit shifted toward the Steppes, because of some EHG geneflow from the neighboring Steppes


CHG admixture is a West ASIAN admixture.

Yamnaya was Indo-Europized by R1b West Asians from the Armenian/Iranian Plateau. Second stage PIE Yamnaya folks were actually for a HUGE part West Asian in their DNA.
 
If there is no evidence of the "Yamnaya y lineages" south of the Caucasus at the appropriate time then are we supposed to believe the language was transferred by the women?
Right, still no common R1b-mutation less than 5600 years old between aDNA from Caucasus and Western Europe, meaning that the common ancestors between the Steppe and Western populations, if they existed, were around or older than 6000 years, this destroys the 4000 years old Steppe massive migration westward by male at least.
And the horse ? the wheel? etc the Bronze age riders who shaped the modern world were also women?

Nevertheless, I note that even if we don't have at all any R1b-L51 in the aDNA of Steppe population but only in the Western , we still have an Mt-DNA mutation (mutation I3a) present both in UNETICE Western aDNA (I0117, I0114,,BZH18) and Yamnaya Culture (I0440) , then these individual must have a common female ancestors. I think may be the male IE L51 who lived 4000 years ago were killed or fled Westward and the Steppe invaders kept the women. The male lines were completly replaced but not the female lines, this could fit the data.
 
Right, still no common R1b-mutation less than 5600 years old between aDNA from Caucasus and Western Europe, meaning that the common ancestors between the Steppe and Western populations, if they existed, were around or older than 6000 years, this destroys the 4000 years old Steppe massive migration westward by male at least.
And the horse ? the wheel? etc the Bronze age riders who shaped the modern world were also women?

Nevertheless, I note that even if we don't have at all any R1b-L51 in the aDNA of Steppe population but only in the Western , we still have an Mt-DNA mutation (mutation I3a) present both in UNETICE Western aDNA (I0117, I0114,,BZH18) and Yamnaya Culture (I0440) , then these individual must have a common female ancestors. I think may be the male IE L51 who lived 4000 years ago were killed or fled Westward and the Steppe invaders kept the women. The male lines were completly replaced but not the female lines, this could fit the data.

Yamna was R1b.
By Sintashta R1b was replaced by R1a on the steppe. Prior to that R1a herders were probably Indo-Europeanized in the forest-steppe zone.
R1a was replaced by Hunnic and Turkic tribes on the steppe.

The most likely origin for R1b-L51 is the steppe.

It is the normal process. The males are ousted, enslaved or killed. The enslaved finally get killed too.
Only a few women slaves are worth keeping and breeding with.
 
Yamna was R1b.
By Sintashta R1b was replaced by R1a on the steppe. Prior to that R1a herders were probably Indo-Europeanized in the forest-steppe zone.
R1a was replaced by Hunnic and Turkic tribes on the steppe.

The most likely origin for R1b-L51 is the steppe.

It is the normal process. The males are ousted, enslaved or killed. The enslaved finally get killed too.
Only a few women slaves are worth keeping and breeding with.

For a while we have aDNA only from eastern part of Yamnaya culture. I guess folks from western part of Yamnaya culture were predominntly bearers of R1a haplos.
 
For a while we have aDNA only from eastern part of Yamnaya culture. I guess folks from western part of Yamnaya culture were predominntly bearers of R1a haplos.

It sounds counter-intuitive. Wouldn't we expect R1b to predominate in the westernmost steppe, where they left for Western Europe? Perhaps R1a was rare until the Corded Ware migrations.
 
It sounds counter-intuitive. Wouldn't we expect R1b to predominate in the westernmost steppe, where they left for Western Europe? Perhaps R1a was rare until the Corded Ware migrations.

Nope. It would be more reasonable to expect R1a folks in western part of Yamnaya since we have a lot of R1a in CWC. R1b folks did not migrate to Central and Western Europe from Pontic steppe but R1a surely did.
 
It sounds counter-intuitive. Wouldn't we expect R1b to predominate in the westernmost steppe, where they left for Western Europe? Perhaps R1a was rare until the Corded Ware migrations.

R1b is not found in perceptible percentages there nowadays and no ancient samples from there are provided. It's a matter of faith so. Moreover when reliying in archaeology there are no Yamnayan migration registered to CW and such phantom migration would provide there R1a. You may now perceive the flawness of the steppe theory.
 

This thread has been viewed 60008 times.

Back
Top