Corded Ware Culture admixture against Yamnayans

[bicicleur 2]

After the Neolithic there seems to be a flow from Anatolia and Caucasus or a region close to it to Iran, not from the steppes.

Population

Loschbour:Loschbour

Barcin_Neolithic:I0707

Esperstedt_MN:I0172

Karelia_HG

Kotias:KK1

Nganasan

Mozabite

Iran_Neolithic:I1290

Israel_Natufian:I0861

Paniya

Dai

Distance

Iran_Neolithic:WC1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	97,3	2	0	0,7	0,005367
Iran_Neolithic:I1945	0	0	0	2,8	0	0	0	92,1	0	5,1	0	0,011044
Iran_Neolithic:I1290	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	100	0	0	0	0
Iran_Late_Neolithic:I1671	0	0,9	0	0	15,3	0	0	75,8	7,1	0,9	0	0,005985
Iran_Hotu:I1293	0	0	0	13,4	0	0	0	84,1	0	2,5	0	0,011722
Iran_Chalcolithic:I1674	0	12,7	0	0	27,2	0	0	39,9	20,2	0	0	0,006394
Iran_Chalcolithic:I1670	0	16,2	0	0	28,1	1,3	0	39,4	15	0	0	0,006489
Iran_Chalcolithic:I1665	0	0,6	0	0	43,2	0	0	24,9	31,3	0	0	0,009529
Iran_Chalcolithic:I1662	0	19,3	0	0	19,3	0	0	49	12,4	0	0	0,007656
Iran_Chalcolithic:I1661	0	24,7	0	0	16,1	0	0	56,7	2,5	0	0	0,006435

So, if the IE languages weren't already there in the Neolithic*, they could have been brought there by a group of people who had Barcin, Kotias admixture. Even Natufian increases.

*Most would say they weren't but I am mentioning it in order to be 100% clear.

wait a minute, no KK1 in Iran Neolithic? Is that correct, am I missing something?

 

[LeBrok]

I'm not sure where Mediterranean / Atlantic_Med in the Steppes is from, but it is still possible that Mediterranean / Atlantic_Med in the Steppes arrived at the same time when it arrive in the Baltic region. Mediterranean / Atlantic_Med auDNA is not really that old in the Balitc region.

Main source of Med were EEF.

Motala 12			NE7 Hungary			Nordic LN, Rise 71	M671253
Population			Population			Population
S-Indian	-		S-Indian	-		S-Indian	-
Baloch	-		Baloch	-		Baloch	9.29
Caucasian	-		Caucasian	19.04		Caucasian	10.55
NE-Euro	90.24		NE-Euro	16.69		NE-Euro	51.89
SE-Asian	-		SE-Asian	-		SE-Asian	-
Siberian	0.07		Siberian	-		Siberian	-
NE-Asian	-		NE-Asian	-		NE-Asian	-
Papuan	0.57		Papuan	-		Papuan	-
American	1.58		American	-		American	-
Beringian	0.68		Beringian	-		Beringian	-
Mediterranean	6.83		Mediterranean	56.18		Mediterranean	27.34
SW-Asian	-		SW-Asian	7.96		SW-Asian	-
San	-		San	-		San	0.22
E-African	-		E-African	-		E-African	-
Pygmy	-		Pygmy	-		Pygmy	-
W-African	-		W-African	0.11		W-African	0.7

But I don't think that there was a migration from NorthEastern Europe into Central Asia, since there are no 'European' Y-DNA haplogroups in Central Asia. There is no I1, I2a, R1a-Z282 etc. in Central Asia. Mediterranean / Atlantic_Med in the Steppes has to be from a different source. Maybe a second invasion (wave) of LATE Yamnaya folks into Central Asia thousand years later???

No Y from Estonia Corded yet, and not many from Sintashta and Andronovo, nothing from NW Yanaya either. We have to wait.

There was actually a miration from Central Asia into the Baltics, since they found some ancient Y-DNA hg. J1 in Karelia...

Sure 3000 years before Yamnaya, and still they didn't bring much of Caucasian admixture, nore they were the source of Med. It has nothing to do with Yamnaya, Estonia, Sintashta and Andronovo. So far we see a strong genetic link of these cultures.

 

[holderlin]

CHG, Satsurblia georgia 13kya			Samara HG			Poltavka, mid Yamnaya			Iranian Neolithic 10,000 years
Population			Population			Population			Population
S-Indian	0.62		S-Indian	-		S-Indian	-		S-Indian	6.13
Baloch	36.63		Baloch	14.33		Baloch	30.06		Baloch	62.71
Caucasian	54.15		Caucasian	-		Caucasian	7.57		Caucasian	24.97
NE-Euro	3.84		NE-Euro	75.62		NE-Euro	59.14		NE-Euro	-
SE-Asian	0.59		SE-Asian	-		SE-Asian	-		SE-Asian	-
Siberian	0.77		Siberian	-		Siberian	0.99		Siberian	-
NE-Asian	-		NE-Asian	-		NE-Asian	-		NE-Asian	-
Papuan	0.15		Papuan	-		Papuan	-		Papuan	0.35
American	-		American	9.62		American	2.21		American	-
Beringian	-		Beringian	0.15		Beringian	-		Beringian	-
Mediterranean	-		Mediterranean	-		Mediterranean	-		Mediterranean	-
SW-Asian	-		SW-Asian	-		SW-Asian	-		SW-Asian	3.88
San	-		San	-		San	-		San	0.18
E-African	-		E-African	-		E-African	-		E-African	-
Pygmy	0.25		Pygmy	-		Pygmy	-		Pygmy	-
W-African	3.01		W-African	0.2		W-African	-		W-African	1.78

Why there is so little Caucasian admixture in Yamnaya, if half of CHG genome should be in it? By Harappa admixtures Yamnaya could be modeled as 75% Samara HG - 25% Iranian Neolithic.

Yeah this is about what I see in most data sets. I sort of average it in my head to about 1/3 "Teal".

 

[holderlin]

A more reasonable conclusion would be that Lithuanian resembles more closely the Balto-Slavic root than do the Slavic languages.



Lithuanian 'arklys' ('horse') doesn't derive from PIE '*hek'wos'. There's Lithuanian 'ašva ' ('mare'), but it's not exactly the same.



[/COLOR]In many ways Lithuanian isn't very conservative at all, however. Just look at the gender system & the verbal morphology and compare it with ancient Greek or Sanskrit.

In many ways Sanskrit isn't conservative either. Vowel collapses for example, and I know Sanskrit is super conservative, but it's more impressive to me that Lithuanian comes very close if not matching its archaisms.

OK, maybe I was thinking of "wolf" where it's essentially the same word in Lithuanian.

 

[MOESAN]

Baloch is very ancient admixture and is not indicator of Steppe and Iran mixing in pre Neolithic times. Baloch is Central Asian paleolithic/Ice Age admixture. Baloch is present in Kostenki and Mal'ta, but not Caucasus. Samara has 0 Caucasian but is rich in Baloch. It is impossible for Iranian Neolithic or CHG to come to Steppe and leave no Caucasian but only Baloch. However, later Afansievo should have Baloch and Caucasian from Iranian Neolithic.

I agree. These diverse components ('teal', 'baloch', 'gedrosia' are uneasy to hand because they contain very old common auDNA of Central Asia
we said that already very long ago

 

[MOESAN]

pre-Yamnayan PIE going west? which aracheological culture support it? as far as I know there is none.

For the linguistic side, in the CW area developed Germanic and Balto-Slavic, and such branches are first degree sisters.

I'm late (no time)
We have to take all these families trees with caution: languages are strange things and they show discrepancies between ancient grammar and new grammar, with not always evident links between phonetic and grammar, between grammar, lexicon and phonetic; some hints of proximity are based upon old "genealogic" ties, others upon new geographic contacts (mix of the "tree" and the "wave" systems). Old proximities can be puzzled by language shifts and adoption by very different submitted ethnies. It's a long time all these family trees would be exactly the same if the question was so simple. When I find a man too sure of himself I fear.
I don't know what Holderlin is trying to prove - I dont think Ind-Ir languages are directly issued from a proto-Baltic or a proto-Slavo-Batlic family, but I don't discard a possible link or contact zone between the proto-stages of all these languages during satem gestation - the links between Greek and I-I could be very ancient but after these groups separated for a long time I think -here I'm a bit short. Concerning CWC, I'm almost sure they were a proto-satem speakers group (substratum in Saami lang through where? Southeast Baltic or Norway?). I think Germanic was launched by dominantly Y-R1b-U106 groups, surely with some contacts with some Y-R1a and continental Y-I1, and after CWC times.

 

[MOESAN]

I've studied the K = 14 too, and I find it very interesting.

You'll find the Yamna, Afanasievo and Poltavka are all similar :
lots of EHG with an important share of CHG and no EEF, their identified Y-DNA is R1b-P297

Poltavka outlier, Potapovka, CW, Sintashta, Srubna & Andronovo are different :
lots of EHG too, but CHG is reduced and they have EEF, their identified Y-DNA is R1a-M417
they took over from the R1b-P297

Thse cultures are recent compared to Yamnaya and even GAC or CWC - someones pretend the development of metallurgy in Pit Grave culture knew an East-West direction? I've not the details so I 'm withut opinion. But concerning the above cultures, auDNA confirmes craniology: evident ties with Northeast and Central Europe so West-East demic input, spite Sintashta would show Southeast Caspian cultural influences (buildings among them).
Steppes saw exchanges at high scale, maybe when first colonizers of the Steppes met and took advantage of the Tripolye and akin evolved cultures?

 

[Dagne]

In many ways Lithuanian isn't very conservative at all, however. Just look at the gender system & the verbal morphology and compare it with ancient Greek or Sanskrit.

Lithuanian is a conservative language compared to other modern languages. At a time when Ancient Greek or Sanskrit were spoken Lithuanian probably was not even a well formed protolanguage and would have looked much more similar to IE roots

 

[Alan]

CHG, Satsurblia georgia 13kya			Samara HG			Poltavka, mid Yamnaya			Iranian Neolithic 10,000 years
Population			Population			Population			Population
S-Indian	0.62		S-Indian	-		S-Indian	-		S-Indian	6.13
Baloch	36.63		Baloch	14.33		Baloch	30.06		Baloch	62.71
Caucasian	54.15		Caucasian	-		Caucasian	7.57		Caucasian	24.97
NE-Euro	3.84		NE-Euro	75.62		NE-Euro	59.14		NE-Euro	-
SE-Asian	0.59		SE-Asian	-		SE-Asian	-		SE-Asian	-
Siberian	0.77		Siberian	-		Siberian	0.99		Siberian	-
NE-Asian	-		NE-Asian	-		NE-Asian	-		NE-Asian	-
Papuan	0.15		Papuan	-		Papuan	-		Papuan	0.35
American	-		American	9.62		American	2.21		American	-
Beringian	-		Beringian	0.15		Beringian	-		Beringian	-
Mediterranean	-		Mediterranean	-		Mediterranean	-		Mediterranean	-
SW-Asian	-		SW-Asian	-		SW-Asian	-		SW-Asian	3.88
San	-		San	-		San	-		San	0.18
E-African	-		E-African	-		E-African	-		E-African	-
Pygmy	0.25		Pygmy	-		Pygmy	-		Pygmy	-
W-African	3.01		W-African	0.2		W-African	-		W-African	1.78

Why there is so little Caucasian admixture in Yamnaya, if half of CHG genome should be in it? By Harappa admixtures Yamnaya could be modeled as 75% Samara HG - 25% Iranian Neolithic.

The reason for that is because CHG-Iran_Neo and Samara HG do have shared ancestry and if you don't use the supervised mode for your calculator, depending on which population we use first and which we add. The calculator might take this shared ancestry actually as Samara HG instead of CHG or Iran_Neo. There are reasonable arguments from the papers that Samara HG itself could have been already Iran_Neo or CHG admixed. Indeed some samples did show more of this admixture than others.There also seems to be Zarzian and Leyla Tepe culture influence on the Steppe cultures already by Neolithic if not even earlier.

CHG itself is little more ANE and WHG shifted than Iran_Neo, the reason why it shows always some more "EHG" like admixture and in this case East European.

It is archeologically seen also unlikely to assume that a purely Iran_Neo pop crossed into the Steppes without having changed itself slightly on the way up there already. archeoligically the influence makes sense in the way of Iran_CHL => CHL_Caucasus=> Bronze Age Steppes.

This is why the studies gave a ~32% Iran_CHL+~15% CHG like + 53% Samara HG like as a good model, because these Iranian_Plateau herders obviously catched up some additional admxiture on the Caucasus before they mixed with the Samara H&Gs like population, if they atually took this route and not the South_Central Asian way where I expect that we will find a Iran_Neo+EHG like people by Neolithic already.

 

[holderlin]

Lithuanian is a conservative language compared to other modern languages. At a time when Ancient Greek or Sanskrit were spoken Lithuanian probably was not even a well formed protolanguage and would have looked much more similar to IE roots

For modern languages? It would be the most conservative I'm pretty sure. It sort of is apples and oranges comparing ancient attestations with modern.

That's what makes it so impressive and as you say at the time when Sanskrit was spoken whatever form of Baltic that was spoken at the time MUST have been very close to PIE if not indistinguishable.

 

[LeBrok]

The reason for that is because CHG-Iran_Neo and Samara HG do have shared ancestry and if you don't use the supervised mode for your calculator, depending on which population we use first and which we add. The calculator might take this shared ancestry actually as Samara HG instead of CHG or Iran_Neo. There are reasonable arguments from the papers that Samara HG itself could have been already Iran_Neo or CHG admixed. Indeed some samples did show more of this admixture than others.There also seems to be Zarzian and Leyla Tepe culture influence on the Steppe cultures already by Neolithic if not even earlier.

CHG itself is little more ANE and WHG shifted than Iran_Neo, the reason why it shows always some more "EHG" like admixture and in this case East European.

It is archeologically seen also unlikely to assume that a purely Iran_Neo pop crossed into the Steppes without having changed itself slightly on the way up there already. archeoligically the influence makes sense in the way of Iran_CHL => CHL_Caucasus=> Bronze Age Steppes.

This is why the studies gave a ~32% Iran_CHL+~15% CHG like + 53% Samara HG like as a good model, because these Iranian_Plateau herders obviously catched up some additional admxiture on the Caucasus before they mixed with the Samara H&Gs like population, if they even took this route and not the South_Central Asian way were I expect that we will find a Iran_Neo+EHG like people by Neolithic already.

I know what you are saying, they all have ancestral components and might have mixed along the way somewhat too. I believe it is very hard for programmers to really separate mixtures. However, in my observations, I used changes in proportions of admixtures to figure out population movements rather than comparing admixtures alone. Also only dominant admixtures were used to make sure they don't dissipate on their way into a noise.
I do believe Iran-Neo picked up some CHG on their way to the steppe, but it couldn't have been more than 25%. Otherwise we would see proportion of Caucasian to Baloch skewed towards Caucasian.
On PCA charts, the distance and direction Yamnaya went from EHG position towards Iranian Neo/CHG, points to 25-30% admixture, not more.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2016/06/a-moment-of-clarity.html


What you actually saying is very visible in Global 10 K11 ran. They use source population of 100% CHG and 100% Iranian Neolithic. This guys are very related and have probably 90% same genome. In Iranian Neolithic there is 90% of CHG and vice versa, and yet they managed to created 100% source in both. That's quite a paradox.
I'm guessing that they created CHG source population from 100% CHG, and used 10% distinct genome part of Iran Neo to make 100% Iran Neo. Right? I might be wrong.
Anyway, at 10% of total genome it is easy to lose, Iran Neo when it travels to Yamnaya and mixes with locals, getting divided by half and half till it vanishes. Also ancient genomes are not very complete to start with and can easily miss such small parts, which is not helping when dealing with 10% small Iran Neo DNA. In case of K11 Yamnaya is based on almost 50/50 Karelia EHG/Kotias CHG. All hunter gatherers. Anyway, instead of seeing mostly Iranian Neo, which we should to my understanding, we see almost only CHG. Not realising that this CHG is the CHG part in Iranian Neolithic Genome.
Well, maybe I'm wrong, but I think this is what happened here.
Another thing increasing CHG admixture in Yamnaya is that EHG part is based on Karelia and not on Samara. I'm sure Samara being closer had more ancient similarities to CHG than Karelia guy. So a part of Samara EHG is associated with CHG instead of with EHG, making neolithic impact of south caucasus on Yamnaya exaggerated.

Unfortunately I can't confirm it by Gedmatch as the only Karelia sample, which used to be available, can't be found in the system anymore.

 

[holderlin]

The reason for that is because CHG-Iran_Neo and Samara HG do have shared ancestry and if you don't use the supervised mode for your calculator, depending on which population we use first and which we add. The calculator might take this shared ancestry actually as Samara HG instead of CHG or Iran_Neo. There are reasonable arguments from the papers that Samara HG itself could have been already Iran_Neo or CHG admixed. Indeed some samples did show more of this admixture than others.There also seems to be Zarzian and Leyla Tepe culture influence on the Steppe cultures already by Neolithic if not even earlier.

CHG itself is little more ANE and WHG shifted than Iran_Neo, the reason why it shows always some more "EHG" like admixture and in this case East European.

It is archeologically seen also unlikely to assume that a purely Iran_Neo pop crossed into the Steppes without having changed itself slightly on the way up there already. archeoligically the influence makes sense in the way of Iran_CHL => CHL_Caucasus=> Bronze Age Steppes.

This is why the studies gave a ~32% Iran_CHL+~15% CHG like + 53% Samara HG like as a good model, because these Iranian_Plateau herders obviously catched up some additional admxiture on the Caucasus before they mixed with the Samara H&Gs like population, if they even took this route and not the South_Central Asian way were I expect that we will find a Iran_Neo+EHG like people by Neolithic already.

I don't know if I agree with all of this but it does seem like there's some really old South Asian(?) shared ancestor to both MA-1 and CHG, or something like that, leading to conflicting data. You see Baloch in Paleolithic Europe samples too. Could this be some of the first Caucasoids coming from South Asia? Kostenki has Baloch and his Y-HG is Coastal out of Africa. And of course you see Karelia in Hotu.

 

[MOESAN]

@Lebrok
I agree for the most. CHG and Iran Neol are not exactly the same but cover a huge common ancestry - always the same problem when trying to put dates on admixtures events when they are not separated by numerous thousends of years. The all directions exchanges of pops around Caspian and Black Sea over time since Neolithic and even earlier times prevent us to be too affirmative concerning proto-historic moves of pops (who gives who takes?) and their cultural assignation, when only admixtures methods are used without IBD.

 

[MOESAN]

I don't know if I agree with all of this but it does seem like there's some really old South Asian(?) shared ancestor to both MA-1 and CHG, or something like that, leading to conflicting data. You see Baloch in Paleolithic Europe samples too. Could this be some of the first Caucasoids coming from South Asia? Kostenki has Baloch and his Y-HG is Coastal out of Africa. And of course you see Karelia in Hotu.

The more you go back in past the more you find admixtures of "modern" pops! very funny indeed! the modern geographic assignations of admixture components can mislead some of us. BTW I'm amazed when I see comparisons mixing IranCHL with CHGlike (miracle of imprecision) and Samara HGlike, because I think CHG (already close to IranNeol) was present at some level inSamaraHG and IranCHL: I've the feeling we mix carots and turlips and potatoes in savant mathematics. It recalls me some admixtures runs with (I exagerate to be more pedagogic) "French S-West Bordeaux"+"all Asia" + " 157 BC Samaritans ", I think you see what I mean.
That said, I found Alan's arguments are not without foundation. One of my options for PIE people is an East Caspian one rather than South or North Caucasus, at first time.

 

[Angela]

The reason for that is because CHG-Iran_Neo and Samara HG do have shared ancestry and if you don't use the supervised mode for your calculator, depending on which population we use first and which we add. The calculator might take this shared ancestry actually as Samara HG instead of CHG or Iran_Neo. There are reasonable arguments from the papers that Samara HG itself could have been already Iran_Neo or CHG admixed. Indeed some samples did show more of this admixture than others.There also seems to be Zarzian and Leyla Tepe culture influence on the Steppe cultures already by Neolithic if not even earlier.

CHG itself is little more ANE and WHG shifted than Iran_Neo, the reason why it shows always some more "EHG" like admixture and in this case East European.

It is archeologically seen also unlikely to assume that a purely Iran_Neo pop crossed into the Steppes without having changed itself slightly on the way up there already. archeoligically the influence makes sense in the way of Iran_CHL => CHL_Caucasus=> Bronze Age Steppes.

This is why the studies gave a ~32% Iran_CHL+~15% CHG like + 53% Samara HG like as a good model, because these Iranian_Plateau herders obviously catched up some additional admxiture on the Caucasus before they mixed with the Samara H&Gs like population, if they even took this route and not the South_Central Asian way were I expect that we will find a Iran_Neo+EHG like people by Neolithic already.

This is what it seems like to me as well for now. Hopefully, more genomes from the Caucasus and adjacent areas from the appropriate times will clear it up more.

 

[Sile]

The more you go back in past the more you find admixtures of "modern" pops! very funny indeed! the modern geographic assignations of admixture components can mislead some of us. BTW I'm amazed when I see comparisons mixing IranCHL with CHGlike (miracle of imprecision) and Samara HGlike, because I think CHG (already close to IranNeol) was present at some level inSamaraHG and IranCHL: I've the feeling we mix carots and turlips and potatoes in savant mathematics. It recalls me some admixtures runs with (I exagerate to be more pedagogic) "French S-West Bordeaux"+"all Asia" + " 157 BC Samaritans ", I think you see what I mean.
That said, I found Alan's arguments are not without foundation. One of my options for PIE people is an East Caspian one rather than South or North Caucasus, at first time.

Is it part of this complex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria-Margiana_Archaeological_Complex

 

[LeBrok]

The more you go back in past the more you find admixtures of "modern" pops! very funny indeed! the modern geographic assignations of admixture components can mislead some of us. BTW I'm amazed when I see comparisons mixing IranCHL with CHGlike (miracle of imprecision) and Samara HGlike, because I think CHG (already close to IranNeol) was present at some level inSamaraHG and IranCHL: I've the feeling we mix carots and turlips and potatoes in savant mathematics. It recalls me some admixtures runs with (I exagerate to be more pedagogic) "French S-West Bordeaux"+"all Asia" + " 157 BC Samaritans ", I think you see what I mean.
That said, I found Alan's arguments are not without foundation. One of my options for PIE people is an East Caspian one rather than South or North Caucasus, at first time.

I wonder what we are going to find in BMAC area. It used to be strong Neolithic Farmer Culture for some time, then they got mixed with Steppe IE of Andronovo, just before South expansion of IEs. I'm expecting to see some interesting stuff. Possibly some eastern branches of R1b mixed into BMAC farmer culture?

 

[MarkoZ]

*My previous post should've actually been something like 'compare the gender system to the Anatolian branch and the verbal morphology to Greek or Sanskrit". Not sure what I was thinking here.

In many ways Sanskrit isn't conservative either. Vowel collapses for example, and I know Sanskrit is super conservative, but it's more impressive to me that Lithuanian comes very close if not matching its archaisms.

OK, maybe I was thinking of "wolf" where it's essentially the same word in Lithuanian.

Sanskrit is not PIE, that's a given. One of the changes observed from the original [a/e/o] to [a].

When you say Lithuanian 'matches its archaisms' (in reference to Sanskrit), it would be helpful if stated how you came to this conclusion, since the consensus is that Lithuanian is very much a modern language and not some kind of linguistic fossil.

Lithuanian is a conservative language compared to other modern languages. At a time when Ancient Greek or Sanskrit were spoken Lithuanian probably was not even a well formed protolanguage and would have looked much more similar to IE roots

I don't think the conservativeness of modern languages relative to PIE can be quantified in any meaningful way - the timeframe between the split of the root language and today is simply too large to permit such comparisons. A more salient method would be a comparison with reconstructed Balto-Slavic, which most models show as branching off rather late.

 

[MOESAN]

Why would Iran farmers go to steppe by crossing mountains and not just go up via eastern caspian? Dont think steppe 4000bc had much Iran neolithic. but ok.

From what I red (little?) the North Pontic Neolithic was rather a mixed culture were ancient HG habits were not overwhelmed by new agricultural modes. And compared to western Catacombs, the Yamnaya people were very less "farmerlike" in their economic ways. Could all that confirm a rather weak agricultural aspect of the South to North Caucasus colonisation (what demic input?), even before the metals ages? And Maykop seems to me more a "parasite" warlike spotty settled society that a slow continual colonisation (and I recall their craniometric means closer to SE Caspian people of the time than to Caucasus people with something from farther in them, spite this is not a proof, because they could have passed through South Caucasus by South Caspian even if it was not so easy); but I'm not archeologist and I could put someones to smile. Just to say that the most deeply farmerlike influences could have been more the result of a western proto-Tripolye and full Tripolye input (what dates?) than a S-Caucasus one, the last inputs being about Late Chalco and after (+Balkan cattle in Steppes). We know some of the later Steppes cultures show a Central-East European demic input, and it could confirm affirmations of scholars about part of the post-Tripolye pops going eastwards and taking on more nomadic ways of life (surely more in an osmosis pattern than in a conquest one), being responsible of EEF among CWC (soon enough) and others, later in Russia steppes. But for Catacombs, Grigoryev spoke of a clear I-I linguistic input so maybe more an eastern Caspian input, than a South Caucasus one. We know agriculture in SE Caspian was very evolved around the 2000BC but surely it began earlier. (I want not link recent BMAC culture to this possible more ancient input (before 3000 BC), nor I link by force BMAC to PIE pops, to date, even if possible).
*BMAC could have been linked to Hurro-Urartian language speakers and not I-E ones and Harappa to a language close to Dravidian or Elamitic?
I would be glad to have ancient auDNA of two Catacombs groups (Western and Eastern, not exactly the same); we have only mtDNA rather steppelike, but I don't know which Catacomb group has been studied for it, helas.

 

[Goga]

It seems that BMAC is older than we thought. BMAC is at least from 3700 BC. And it is from Iran and therefore of the 'Iranian' origin and NOT Hurro-Urartian.

3700 BC is after the same time when Leyla-Tepe folks migrated into the Maykop Horizon and Mesopotamia. So, Leyla-Tepe people migrated in different directions. BMAC was contemporary to Maykop.


Leyla-Tepe : 4350 BC

The Uruk period (Mesopotamia) : 4000 BC
Maykop : 3700 BC
BMAC : 3700 BC

" Archaeologists discover traces of BMAC in northeastern Iran

"Storage spaces dating back to 3700 BC have been discovered at the site. Large pots which were used for storing grains and other agricultural products have been dug out in the spaces," he added.
"We have found seeds of grain, barley and grapes. The grapes were likely used for production of vinegar or a special drink," he stated.

Vahdati said, "Chalo reveals details of the BMAC in Iran. Maybe it is better to call it the Greater Khorasan culture, because parts of Merv, Samarkand, and Bukhara were under the influence of Greater Khorasan." "

http://www.payvand.com/news/13/nov/1138.html