Yamnayans in North Russia

Is it possible that Indo-European as a branch of Uralo-Altaic was transformed under the influence of a Caucasian substratum regarding sredni stog?

Gimbutas (1985: 191) has suggested that the Srednij Stog II culture in the DnieperDonets region which she identifies as her Kurgan I and II cultures (ca. 4500–3500BCE) was not the result of local evolution in that region but had its source in an
intrusion from an earlier culture farther east with connections to the earliest Neoli-
thic in the Middle Urals and Soviet Central Asia. The archaeological record of the regions still farther east before that time is unfortunately still largely blank.:Edwin G. PulleyblankUniversity of British [email protected] PEOPLES OF THE STEPPE FRONTIER IN EARLYCHINESE SOURCES*

...the linguistic evidence from our family does not lead us beyond Gimbutas’ secondary homeland and that the Khvalynsk culture on the middle Volga and the Maykop culture in the northern Caucasus cannot be identified with the Indo-Europeans. Any proposal which goes beyond the Sredny Stog culture must start from the possible affinities of Indo-European with other language families. It is usually recognized that the best candidate in this respect is the Uralic language family, while further connections with the Altaic languages and perhaps even Dravidian are possible... What we do have to take into account is the typological similarity of Proto-Indo-European to the North-West Caucasian (i.e. Adyg) languages. If this similarity can be attributed to areal factors, we may think of Indo-European as a branch of Uralo-Altaic which was transformed under the influence of a Caucasian substratum. It now appears that this view is actually supported by the archaeological evidence. If it is correct, we may locate the earliest (Uralo-Altaic) ancestors of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European north of the Caspian Sea in the seventh millennium. [F.Kortlandt, Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 18, 1990, p.131]
There is now a consensus of linguists and mythologists that the Indo-European linguistic family is closest to the Finno-Ugric. The Indo-Uralic hypothesis, whereby the Indo-European family is classed with the Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic, and others, is particularly strong (Anttila 1972). [M.Gimbutas, Current Anthropology, Volume 27, Issue 4 (Aug. - Oct., 1986), p. 306]
 
I have not explained it well. The EHG admixture in Satsurblia would not be a true EHG but original part of the Caucasians, to give an example it would be to find out in Europeans an African admixture of 25% if we take Mulattos as source pop.

You was clear and I'm clear too: IF I RELY ON GENETIKER the results are still the same ones: your "Satsurbian EHG" cannot go over 3%! (maths!) - but it depends on the confidence we can have in Genetiker for that, what is another question (I compare Genetiker results with Genetiker results to try to find something out, but not with other results)
 
Well, in Genetiker I see 15-20% of EHG component in Satsurblia or "Georgia_MHG", and some 10% in "Georgia_PHG". Also I saw similar levels in a paper.
 
Well, in Genetiker I see 15-20% of EHG component in Satsurblia or "Georgia_MHG", and some 10% in "Georgia_PHG". Also I saw similar levels in a paper.

No comment - it's only arithmetics...
 
I put it on the table: if a genuine CHG was 80% not shared CHG not EHGlike + 20% EHG(like) (from common ancestor, not from Steppes EHG), in solid admixtures runs it could roughly keep the same internal percentages, OK?
the only question is: did GENETIKER identify well the GENUINE not shared not EHGlike ancestral CHG? if he did it correctly and found about 15% we HAVE TO ADD 20% of 15% which is 3%... arithmetics again - sure these %s can vary a bit in transmission but here is the principle - otherwise, you and others could doubt about the ability of GENETIKER to identify genuine non EHGlike CHG, and criticize his criteria - I confess I have not the knowledge to do it.
 
I put it on the table: if a genuine CHG was 80% not shared CHG not EHGlike + 20% EHG(like) (from common ancestor, not from Steppes EHG), in solid admixtures runs it could roughly keep the same internal percentages, OK?
the only question is: did GENETIKER identify well the GENUINE not shared not EHGlike ancestral CHG? if he did it correctly and found about 15% we HAVE TO ADD 20% of 15% which is 3%... arithmetics again - sure these %s can vary a bit in transmission but here is the principle - otherwise, you and others could doubt about the ability of GENETIKER to identify genuine non EHGlike CHG, and criticize his criteria - I confess I have not the knowledge to do it.
In Harappa run they show ancient connection through Baloch, and recent (though might be ancient too) through NE Euro. Together about 20% similarities. 15% ancient and 5% recent or ancient.
These admixtures were already present in Kostenki14 guy about 37 kya. If there was recent genetic exchange between EHG and CHG it would be by EHG going through Caucasus to CHG side, but not in reverse. If CHG went to EHG we would have seen some percentage of Caucasian admixture in EHG. There is none.

Connection of EHG to CHG
M218547EHGM677694CHGF999936
Samara HGSatsurblia CHG11KYAKostenki37kya
Run time5.57Run time9.39Run time18.02
S-Indian-S-Indian-S-Indian13.18
Baloch14.33Baloch40.65Baloch12.49
Caucasian-Caucasian50.76Caucasian-
NE-Euro75.62NE-Euro5.7NE-Euro29.02
SE-Asian-SE-Asian-SE-Asian4.28
Siberian-Siberian-Siberian1.75
NE-Asian-NE-Asian-NE-Asian-
Papuan-Papuan0.88Papuan5.16
American9.62American-American3.32
Beringian0.15Beringian-Beringian1.43
Mediterranean-Mediterranean-Mediterranean18.76
SW-Asian-SW-Asian-SW-Asian5.89
San-San0.15San1.24
E-African-E-African-E-African1.82
Pygmy-Pygmy-Pygmy0.92
W-African0.2W-African1.84W-African0.73
 
Last edited:
Does MA-1 show any Baloch through Harappa?

This place has become so predictable whenever IE comes into question.

Some are trying to cram as much "Teal" into the steppe as possible to fit their own agendas while the other side stands guard. Lol

There's no doubting that there was a very old circum-Caspian interaction zone, but if there was some sort of expansion of "Teals" onto the steppe it would be glaringly obvious just as Anatolian farmer expansions are in the Balkans/Western Steppe->Europe.

I think Baloch is some very old Caucasoid signal.
 
Last edited:
Kurds and Iranians are trying to cram as much "Teal" into the steppe as possible to fit their own agendas while the other side stands guard. Lol

The all-powerful Kurdish-Iranian lobby truly controls the discourse on this forum (and probably in academia as a whole).
 
Does MA-1 show any Baloch through Harappa?
Mal'ta
Population
S-Indian10.13
Baloch24.09
Caucasian-
NE-Euro40.14
SE-Asian-
Siberian-
NE-Asian-
Papuan0.7
American17.71
Beringian6.74
Mediterranean-
SW-Asian-
San0.3
E-African-
Pygmy0.19
W-African-


This place has become so predictable whenever IE comes into question.

Kurds and Iranians are trying to cram as much "Teal" into the steppe as possible to fit their own agendas while the other side stands guard. Lol

There's no doubting that there was a very old circum-Caspian interaction zone, but if there was some sort of expansion of "Teals" onto the steppe it would be glaringly obvious just as Anatolian farmer expansions are in the Balkans/Western Steppe->Europe.

I think Baloch is some very old Caucasoid signal.

Pre YamnayaGoergiaYamnayaYamnaya
M218547EHGM677694CHGM828815 Rise522M766878I0441
Samara HGSatsurblia CHG11KYAUlan iV, Yamnaya 4.5 kyaPoltavka Yamnaya2.7 kya
Run time5.57Run time9.39Run time 10.89Run time 10.78
S-Indian-S-Indian-S-Indian -S-Indian-
Baloch14.33Baloch40.65Baloch 33.24Baloch30.06
Caucasian- Caucasian50.76Caucasian 6.58Caucasian7.57
NE-Euro75.62NE-Euro5.7NE-Euro 56.02NE-Euro59.14
SE-Asian-SE-Asian-SE-Asian -SE-Asian-
Siberian-Siberian-Siberian -Siberian0.99
NE-Asian-NE-Asian-NE-Asian -NE-Asian-
Papuan-Papuan0.88Papuan -Papuan-
American9.62American-American 2.46American2.21
Beringian0.15Beringian-Beringian 0.75Beringian-
Mediterranean-Mediterranean-Mediterranean -Mediterranean-
SW-Asian-SW-Asian-SW-Asian -SW-Asian-
San-San0.15San -San-
E-African-E-African-E-African -E-African-
Pygmy-Pygmy-Pygmy -Pygmy-
W-African0.2W-African1.84W-African 0.95W-African-

Trick is Caucasian admixture here, and also Baloch. Caucasian was missing in Pontic Steppe before, so showing in Yamnayans it is unequivocal sign of contact with Transcaucasian population. CHG and Iranian Neolithic Farmer who had lots of both, Caucasian and Baloch. Baloch in Yamnaya goes up too, practicaly doubles. Yamnaya has 7% more Caucasian and 16% more Baloch than pre Yamnaya population EHG. That's roughly a quarter of Iranian Farmer genome. Rise of caucasian to baloch in ratio of 7 to 16 percent is almost exactly the ratio of Iranian farmer's both admixtures .
M967114 I1290
Iranian Neolithic 10 kya
Run time 7.91
S-Indian 6.13
Baloch 62.71
Caucasian 24.97
NE-Euro -
SE-Asian -
Siberian -
NE-Asian -
Papuan 0.35
American -
Beringian -
Mediterranean -
SW-Asian 3.88
San 0.18
E-African -
Pygmy -
W-African 1.78

By my calculations EHG of Ukraine mixed with farmer migrants from Neolith Iran in ration 3 to 1 respectively producing population and culture of Yamnaya. Well at least central Yamnaya from where we have genomes. North Yamnaya and West Yamnaya probably were somewhat different.

PS. Caucasian admixture didn't exist in Kostenki or Mal'ta boy before. Caucasian is not an ancient admixture of the region. It is either a new admixture which was "created" in Caucasia or it came from far away place.
 
The all-powerful Kurdish-Iranian lobby truly controls the discourse on this forum (and probably in academia as a whole).

Yeah, I shouldn't have been that specific. I'll edit. I had two screaming kids when I posted. Not fair.

It's more than this though. I noticed some funny patterns in Maciamo's (spelling?) thread about megaliths and farmers too.

I'm saying none of us are innocent and some people are very obvious about it.
 
Mal'ta
Population
S-Indian10.13
Baloch24.09
Caucasian-
NE-Euro40.14
SE-Asian-
Siberian-
NE-Asian-
Papuan0.7
American17.71
Beringian6.74
Mediterranean-
SW-Asian-
San0.3
E-African-
Pygmy0.19
W-African-




Pre YamnayaGoergiaYamnayaYamnaya
M218547EHGM677694CHGM828815 Rise522M766878I0441
Samara HGSatsurblia CHG11KYAUlan iV, Yamnaya 4.5 kyaPoltavka Yamnaya2.7 kya
Run time5.57Run time9.39Run time 10.89Run time 10.78
S-Indian-S-Indian-S-Indian -S-Indian-
Baloch14.33Baloch40.65Baloch 33.24Baloch30.06
Caucasian- Caucasian50.76Caucasian 6.58Caucasian7.57
NE-Euro75.62NE-Euro5.7NE-Euro 56.02NE-Euro59.14
SE-Asian-SE-Asian-SE-Asian -SE-Asian-
Siberian-Siberian-Siberian -Siberian0.99
NE-Asian-NE-Asian-NE-Asian -NE-Asian-
Papuan-Papuan0.88Papuan -Papuan-
American9.62American-American 2.46American2.21
Beringian0.15Beringian-Beringian 0.75Beringian-
Mediterranean-Mediterranean-Mediterranean -Mediterranean-
SW-Asian-SW-Asian-SW-Asian -SW-Asian-
San-San0.15San -San-
E-African-E-African-E-African -E-African-
Pygmy-Pygmy-Pygmy -Pygmy-
W-African0.2W-African1.84W-African 0.95W-African-

Trick is Caucasian admixture here, and also Baloch. Caucasian was missing in Pontic Steppe before, so showing in Yamnayans it is unequivocal sign of contact with Transcaucasian population. CHG and Iranian Neolithic Farmer who had lots of both, Caucasian and Baloch. Baloch in Yamnaya goes up too, practicaly doubles. Yamnaya has 7% more Caucasian and 16% more Baloch than pre Yamnaya population EHG. That's roughly a quarter of Iranian Farmer genome. Rise of caucasian to baloch in ratio of 7 to 16 percent is almost exactly the ratio of Iranian farmer's both admixtures .
M967114 I1290
Iranian Neolithic 10 kya
Run time 7.91
S-Indian 6.13
Baloch 62.71
Caucasian 24.97
NE-Euro -
SE-Asian -
Siberian -
NE-Asian -
Papuan 0.35
American -
Beringian -
Mediterranean -
SW-Asian 3.88
San 0.18
E-African -
Pygmy -
W-African 1.78

By my calculations EHG of Ukraine mixed with farmer migrants from Neolith Iran in ration 3 to 1 respectively producing population and culture of Yamnaya. Well at least central Yamnaya from where we have genomes. North Yamnaya and West Yamnaya probably were somewhat different.

PS. Caucasian admixture didn't exist in Kostenki or Mal'ta boy before. Caucasian is not an ancient admixture of the region. It is either a new admixture which was "created" in Caucasia or it came from far away place.

Yes, this is what I was driving at, as if your first post wasn't clear enough.

The presence of Baloch on the steppe predates most of the stuff that's hotly debated on here.
 
Some Iranians or Kurds could be a bit biased, but I think others are the same too - I'm not sure at all they control the forum here - I find beter to respect others opinions even if I can be in disaccord - concerning comparisons between ancient and current pops, I remember some posts about calculators possible errors in pooling ancient DNA - so yes, the problem is the reliability of some admixtures runs concerning past with modern labellings - I'm tempted to think that CHL and EBA pops of steppes shew between 60/40 to 80/20 of "northernEHG"+something more Siberian/Amerindian as opposed to CHG/"southernEHG", by simplification - we know these different cultures were not homogenous, even the settlements grouped under the same name - I don't speak here of the later LBA pops were a West-Eurasian input seems out of contestation -
 
I put it on the table: if a genuine CHG was 80% not shared CHG not EHGlike + 20% EHG(like) (from common ancestor, not from Steppes EHG), in solid admixtures runs it could roughly keep the same internal percentages, OK?

No. We rely on two samples, there are other possibilities. And such would be the case for the "easy" HG spread from the Caucasian refugium, because if the spread would be by developed farmers/herders their own admixture would be even more complex.

the only question is: did GENETIKER identify well the GENUINE not shared not EHGlike ancestral CHG? if he did it correctly and found about 15% we HAVE TO ADD 20% of 15% which is 3%... arithmetics again - sure these %s can vary a bit in transmission but here is the principle - otherwise, you and others could doubt about the ability of GENETIKER to identify genuine non EHGlike CHG, and criticize his criteria - I confess I have not the knowledge to do it.

You was speaking then about admixture in Yamnayans so. But then I need to explain again. The Yamnyan EHG admixture... would have already a Caucasian admixture (from CHG or from farmers/herders spreading about 6000 BC). So, we can even do more fukkingly complicated admixtures: deliver to Russia CHG after the climatology would be milder around 11000 BC, then add up farmers/herders from the Caucasus around 6000 BC, and then add upp "Maykopers" from the Caucasus around 3500 BC. Run whichever admixture program you like and wait til the computer explotes or give you a black scren.
;)
 
No. We rely on two samples, there are other possibilities. And such would be the case for the "easy" HG spread from the Caucasian refugium, because if the spread would be by developed farmers/herders their own admixture would be even more complex.



You was speaking then about admixture in Yamnayans so. But then I need to explain again. The Yamnyan EHG admixture... would have already a Caucasian admixture (from CHG or from farmers/herders spreading about 6000 BC). So, we can even do more fukkingly complicated admixtures: deliver to Russia CHG after the climatology would be milder around 11000 BC, then add up farmers/herders from the Caucasus around 6000 BC, and then add upp "Maykopers" from the Caucasus around 3500 BC. Run whichever admixture program you like and wait til the computer explotes or give you a black scren.
;)

??? Hard work for me to understand your reasoning: have we not at least some works about pre-Yamna (Samara) and Satsurbia and Kotias?: had these pops a 60 or 80% of overlap between them??? I'm not sure whatever the confidence we can have even in scientists works about admixture - so we have kind of EHG and CHG auDNA, and the "common" EHGlike part doesn't go over the 20% of the Caucasus people, or I missed something. I'll take some hollidays about this precise stuff, I'm growing old and fragile (LOL) - wait en see the next contradictions on the matter -
 

This thread has been viewed 19039 times.

Back
Top