Metrics taxinomic anthropology and DNA - Steppes and I-E? use?

[MOESAN]

first answer
@Johen
I don?t know what you call ?Modern Europeans? - modern, OK ; ?Europeans?: western and central ones ?
- This study is a metric one, so, cumulative measures on an axis and on another, without individual research of typology or shapes ? the result is that the author found some relative homogeneity within and and between Steppes tribes of North Central Asia as opposed to relative different homogeneity within and between BMAC pops of the pre- and early metals ages ; the results are that she shows a change between 2000 and 1500 BCE in the BMAC region in the pop, distinguishable thanks to the neat enough mean differecnes between previous Steppes and BMAC pops ; change we may put on the account of a steppic tribes introgression into South, even if not overwhelming but rather moderate and maybe progressive -
- this could be put in relation with auDNA modifications in the same period -
- this kind of metric survey cannot witness for phenotypical types because it speaks of global population and not of supposed earlier elements taking part in the population genesis ; it compares only means, for the most ? so, taking as basis two pops, it speaks only of two pops -
- this notion of pops is arbitrary as well as the notion of type, but s based on chronologic and geographical criteria ;
- if your tracking modern ?Europeans? origins here, it depends on the depth of your exigences : phenotypical types or basic autosomals groups as defined by mainstream studies? Phenotypically, Europeans, as they are at the autosomal level, are a mix of several groups or groupings ? roughly said, they share almost the same basis but in different proportions -
- they cannot be reduced to one of the two groups of pops present in this study ; autosomatically they share in diverse proportions ?steppe? and ?EEF? (very close to anatolian ?ANF? ? first mediters ?) + some elements of ?WHG? ? but ?steppe? is a compound of ?CHG? + ?EHG? ? cousins ? of ?WHG? and ?CHG? is ? cousin ? to the basis of the BMAC pop as a whole, as I know you know - ancient pops speaking it seems according to scholars that today Europeans are principally the result of a cumul of waves like this : ?WHG? (rather limited in number), EEF farmers (numerous enough) and Steppes herders (numerous enough too), % depending on places, + some Anatolians carrying ?ANF and CHG? - spite formed of ?CHG?like (much) and ?ANF?like (litttle) people, historically speaking we cannot say our ? Europeans ? have BMAC distinguishable input ? it?s a question of historical common sense, spite we can say we share some % of common ancestors more remotely in time -
- on the typologic side, visible phenotypical traits evolving sometimes faster than global auDNA, Europeans of today are very more diverse in their crossings and cannot be reduced to two or even three groups ? BTW this study conclusion does not go into individual details but concerning within homogeneity of both groups, we can be sure that Steppes tribes were rather similar but far to be identical in space and time ? by instance some metric traits are close between WSHG (?proto-uralic?) and ?proto-europoids? spite shapes were different in details, and the input of southern pops were visible too in diverse proportions among Steppes tribes -
To do short, Europeans have little in common with ancient BMAC people, and uniquely by older ancestots, and are also not so close to the Steppes mean, except in Northern Europe -
- at the phenotypical level, this study fails (by definition ; as its aim seems being elsewhere) to show the proximity of some steppic pops with Northwestern and Central Euroepean Chalco?EBA pops, proximity not discarded by autosomals studies -

 

[MOESAN]

JOhen , I think I red to quickly your post which deserves more precise answers (whatever their value) concerning differences between some sites taken as a whole as 'steppic'; Okunevo,by instance, is culturally "steppic european",but phenotypcially and autosomally proto-uralic, descendant ofr the most of WSHG's.
I 'll try to post something readable -
@Northerner: I think in your post which is a bit off topic bit I' ll try to answer it too -
I go to bed - Mont a ran d' am' gwele - I ga aan bed? Ik ga te slapen? (not sure!)

 

[MOESAN]

@Northerner
fuzzy question relatively far from the phenotypical aspect:
- concerning Yamna autosomal it could depend on studies ; but I think it is not true today Irish or Scottish and even Icelandic people have the maximum of Yamna auDNA in Europe ; it would be rather Northeastern Europe (S-E Baltic) and some Russian pops which have it -
- as said above, BBC had rather less Yamna auDNA than had CWC, as a mean ; and we have to keep in mind BBC were more heterogenous than CWC for auDNA at the individual level, even the ones of the same region as in Germany ; on PCA?s it?s very clear; concerning BB?s of Ireland and Britain they were more Northwest oriented perhaps ?
- concerning Y-haplo?s I don?t know what have Maciamo at hand today, but the few haplo?s I saw some months ago in Anthrogenica concerning Unetice were all of them Y-I something?
- for physical aspect (old anthropo and non-metrics) it seems Unetice pop means were closer to CWC than to BBC -
- but we speak of means here, I don?t know if the Y-I bearers of Unetice were representative of an average pop or of a specific minority, because Unetice at first seems having been a multi-ethnic aggregate (local sinc as well as exporter) -
- concerning Y-R1b-U106 ? & sons ? I don?t know, I only suppose this lineage wintered sometime South the Baltic sea, and, maybe still, could have been an important clan in the ? rich tumuli ? culture of East Germany in debt to Unetice for culture ? you know more than me concerning this North-Western culture illustrated by the two maps, but yes, I would have become a stronghold of Y-R1b-U106 at some stage ? BB?s stationed there some span of time, but they did not become the heavier demic element there (they were R-P312 rather, and the strongest regions for these lineages are rather in the Southern Netherlands and southwesternmost region, and I think the most of the P312 ought more to Celts than to first BBC?s, spite it does not exclude the BB?s part) ? I think megalithics influenced FBC/TRBK in the Northern Netherlands left some demic input too and some Y-I2a2 -
-for Y-I1 I think it was already rovering from southern shores of the North Sea to the East Baltic southern ones, but I have no ready-to-use explanation for their demographic explosion ; maybe it took place in South Scandinavia with help of agriculture but the explosion could rather be due to the contacts with more than an IE tribe there with skills in metallurgy and after the mix R1a-R1b-I1 took more strength yet and expanded towards every direction? Maciamo thinks the boom could

have begun earlier after contacts with central Europe LBK people ; I don?t know, but the msot of the Y-lineages found around at LN are first Y-I2a2 then Y-I2a1, not too much Y-I1, so ?...
- but Y-I1 seems a strange exception to the expansion of LN-BA tribes under an Y-haplo monopole-like model ; maybe this model was already living it?s last years ? I don?t know ; or before later integration these post-Neolthic ? autochtonous ? lineages were tolered at the mergins, bearing posterity without the honours of first rank elites ?
- I ?m tempted to separate Y-R1b-P312 from Y-R1a concerning the Isles bit I confes I?m short concerning the very subclades of Y-R1a present there ; I have only a general picture and what it tells me is that the most of Y-R1a there is from Vikings, more than from continental Germanics and of course more than from Celts ? R1a→Z283→L664 in Britain seems (according to fora) to be of Viking origin but at these caldes were among CWC in N-E Germany too : no opposition because it?s the CWC R1a lineages which passed to Scandinavia, some of them already before numerous R1b-U106 and Y-I1 ? without to be too affirmative, to date I don?t link any Y-R1a to BB?s or Celts, not at a noticeable level (but some Round Barrows BBs of S-W England seemed to show some not too mixed CWC demic input, and some auDNA runs would show some links between today Ireland and CWC DNA : I stay puzzled here (?) -
- today a lot of Y-I2a2 are linked to Germanics, but before the recent enough fusion of diverse elements in Germanics, these people could have been extensions of ONE Unetice element in search of metals ores, in Harz region by instance ? Or at the contrary they were in Unetice an input of marginal elements integrated in CWC ? - we need more Y-haplo?s in Unetice and Y-I2a2 samples dating of before Lusacian/Untrut culture in this hotspot of Harz? - and what links with ? British ? megalithic Y-I2a2 surely involved in TRBK ? Here again, I lack samples (TRBK) and subclades (Isles) -
- to make a very evasive conclusion I would say that it?s hard to weight the real demic input of Unetice, aside its cultural input ? I think it is not the very population of Unetice which peopled N-W Germany/the Netherlands and mixed with MLN (so partly Mesolithic) people there ? it?s rather western CWC and Rich Tumuli people who made the most of the work ? and I forget the IA people coming from somewhere around Hallstatt who reached Denmark (IA Celts? akin to Teutons and Cimbers ?) - only personal thought ? the auDNA admixture in Unetice was close to the near places around : it was a beginning of homogeneization of diverse pops there ? but the Yamna input stayed strong enough there where it became weaker among the homogeneization of Celts in post-BB lands -

 

[johen]

However, we must particularly emphasize that at Gonur (i.e., in Southern Turkmenistan) manifestations of minimal impurities in anthropological components, which could be linked to pastoral surroundings, were not seen prior to the middle of the 2nd millennium BC.Another important point to bear in mind is that in the southern regions of Central Asia there were no Bronze Age sites (or earlier ones), where the presence of the so-called Protoeuropean anthropological type (a massive variant with a large sized head, low and wide face, rectangular orbits, and with a flattening of the upper part of the face) was fixed.

Archaeology proves that Andronovo proper on 1,800bc, had the large head. So this one is not an Alakul, but Fedorovo.

(Off topic, they went from altai to IAMC. Rob thought that afanasievo would have R1a, but I bet on okunevo, which had third eye culture like India, fire worship, votan concept(odin, wotan, indra w/ thunderbolt), their petroglyphs near swat valley, R1a-z93 scythian culture in their orgin, chariot incubated, and their astronomy to be continued in andronovo)

Chetan said... Some early Andronovo groups appeared in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan by 1700 BCE(?). https://books.google.co.in/books?id...ved=0ahUKEwizvtTvjNraAhUHRY8KHRY8B2AQ6AEIcjAN We can know infer that these groups took the IAMC path from the Siberia/Altai region. The origin of both branches of Indo-Aryans would be from these groups.

Atriðr said... @Chetan We can know infer that these groups took the IAMC path from the Siberia/Altai region. The origin of both branches of Indo-Aryans would be from these groups. This has been, and is still my position (with reservations)... @Rob That would require travelling via Afansievo culture Perhaps some Afansievo were R1a? ...which would require to find R1a. Without R1a, then yeah, falls apart.

Actually I want to know what type of skull the Ferghana Valley is. I think this one also seems to be just a typical large pamir-Ferghana skull or andronovo proper, or sintashta ancestor.

Davidski said...@Atriðr

Perhaps some Afansievo were R1a?...which would require to find R1a. Without R1a, then yeah, falls apart.

It doesn't fall apart because the Kashkarchi_BA samples from the Ferghana Valley are identical to Sintashta and belong to R1a-Z645.

 

[MOESAN]

Northerner
Excuse me for Y-I2a2 in Untrut Harz: it was a specific lineages rather linked to more southern Celtic regions, and so the presence there of it's upstream SNP bearers at LN/EBA is very undertain - I knew it, but the age!
I 'll try to gather mor about the clades of I2a2 in Western and Central-East Europe - Perhaps have you them already?
goeden avond

 

[MOESAN]

Actually I am not focusing just on skull shape or metrics/non-metrics, sorry.
My main point is that answer to ancient thing is from genetics, archaeology(silent language) and anthropology also. Each part gives us only 33%.

With anthro data after LGM, genetically after neolithization, UP people disappeared in Europe. According to Dr. Brace, bronze Kurgan people in Crimea became gracile mediterranean type already.
However, UP people in central Asia, especially ANE descendants survived by segregation even in 700bc like chandman people in Mongol. And East scythian in altai, later east Hun also has kept this UP type.
Important thing is this UP people and mediterranean type started to mix since bronze age.
For example, see sintashta case. Their genetics admixture clusters with modern east european. However, Russian anthropologist say their skulls are broadly UP type.
2017 great genetics paper made “ dilute thory.” Looks like very scientific and very mathematic. Problem is anthropologically this thing would not happen.
Upenn scholar I. M said in his paper that EHG was diluted by med people to Yamna. Yamna was done to sintashta and andronovo.
As I already quoted 2013 anthro paper, sintashta group is similar to afanasievo(yamna) group, and andronovo source group is more primitive than those two groups, being more close to UP type.
In other words, yamna seems to be not their ancestor anthropolically. Achaeologcally sintashta and andronovo people seems not to originate in west also.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...th-Asian-DNA-Paper/page17?p=538354#post538354 (post 45)

Moreover, sintashta horse is genetically arctic horse like east scythian horse.

I think all three factors of genetics, anthroplogy, and archaeology is inevitable even in genetics paper.

I had not redt correctly this post and it deserves some remarks:
- the Steppes cultures (here I 'm sure you know) appear more and more as a long time exchanges zone on every direction, and scholars are in disaccord about some affiliations; this large cultural horizon, long during, saw cultures which someones put in the same bag when in fact they were neighbouring cultures interacting one with another, and one taking the place of the other here and there, not without borrow something to this other -
- robust and gracile concepts are mistaking when they are integrated into metrics studies without some individual level examens - in fact scientists are not so naive, but as a whole their abstracts and even sometimes their complete papers are very misleading -
- almost NO PGC pop could be seen at as a "gracile" pop: they were a crossing begun early enough AND FOR A PART BEFORE BRONZE, but the result was rather on a "robust" and high statured type; surely the southern element in them was rather a robust enough type close to the so called 'eurafrican' or to kind of 'indo-afghan' type without too much of the smaller near-eastern variant of mediter' ; in short, the weight of HG's (rather EHG) was stronger in the admixture on the phenotypical side (it could be due to selection of some traits because autosomal DNA seems more balanced -
Crimea Kurgans would be an exception. (not aware of but my confidence in BRACE is limited, based on other papers) -
- apparently more gracile and more robust (to speak with this awful simplification) inputs are seen according to places BUT ALSO TIMES, with not chronological tendancies; some so called "gracile" types have be seen in Southwest Siberia and Steppes places before return of more "robust" types in the same places before again some new inputs of "graciles" ones! Not a simplistic model! the question could be here: where were coming the diverse "graciles" and "robusts" FROM? Here we need serious physical anthropology, an-DNA and archeology (without linguistic helas) - the only constant is that a 'proto-europoid' type was all the time the link (french "fond de sauce") between all these Steppic pops, and surely at a lower level, some west-asian not too gracile 'east-mediter' type - this constancy of the 'proto-europoid' type inherited from local HG's is not too informative by the way -
- UP is not a phenotypical (or whatever) label - there have been UP's of every sort - I don't think first eastern Huns were "UP" in any way and 'proto-europoid' and 'proto-uralic' types (bad namings BTW) where not the same and were no more "UP" neither; thet were just pops stayed phenotypically closer to their ancestors, for diverse reasons -
- as we cannot put all the "robust archaic" types in the same bag, we cannot do it to all the "gracile modern" types; UP pops did not disappear, they left us genes in different ways, only some traits disappeared in different ways when some other remained, according to drift and selection or lifestyle so according to places too - it's ridiculous to say UP heritage disappeared completely in Western Europe since the Neolithic, it's nonsense, event phenotypically speaking -
- I don't know if Yamna is ancestor to Andronovo; not directly, either genetically or culturally - we can just say they share a lot of common ancestors, either before or after the Yamna existed, and common cultural features through a more or less short chain - but yes, metrically they share a common layer as I said above, but in the most of Andronovo sites people had a taste of 'proto-uralic' type common among 'WSHG's Yamna people did not have, and the southern element "infusion" in them was weaker too, withtout speak of surely a bit more true 'east-asian' dosis -
Konitsev wrote it was not the very Yamna which was the closer to Afanasyavo people but other pops like Catacombs and Srubna/TGC - but this is only physical proximity, with time spans so long is only the proof of a shared layer of ancestors between close pops -
only steep differences between means of pops - occurred in a short space of time - can be useful to prove an upheaval or at least an heavy change -

 

[MOESAN]

Johen cited:
Interestingly, in western Truvinian sample, the frequency of haplogroup R1a1a was considerably
lower than in the central sample. Based on the closeness of the Altai, which is populated by the representatives of a more Caucasoid SouthSiberian racial
type, it would be reasonable to expect the west-east decrease of the R1a1a frequency on the territory of Tuva. However, this was not observed, and the change of the haplogroup frequency was rather the opposite, as the eastern samples demonstrated maximum frequency of this haplogroup. At the first glance, the result obtained is paradoxical. Specifically, in terms of anthropology, the most Caucasoid population of the western parts of Tuva displays the minimum of haplogroup R1a1a, while in the most Mongoloid population of Todja, the maximum of this haplogroup is observed.

exterpt from V.N.Kharkov 's paper:
[... Abstract?The genepool structure of Tuvinians was examined in terms of the composition and frequency of Ychromosome haplogroups in five geographically distanct populations. In the Tuvinian gene pool, a total of 22 haplogroups were identified with six of these, which were the most frequent (C3c, C3*, N1b, N1c1, Q1a3, and R1a1a). It was demonstrated that eastern regions of Tuva were most different from the other regions in haplotype frequencies. The evaluation of genetic diversity based on the frequencies of biallelic haplogroups and YSTR haplotypes revealed very high diversity values for all samples. In general, the genetic diversity values identified in Tuvinians were the highest for the indigenous ethnic groups of Siberia. The evaluation of the genetic differentiation of the samples examined using the analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) showed that the gene pool of Tuvinians was relatively poorly differentiated with respect to haplogroup frequencies. Phylogenetic analysis within haplogroup N1b revealed strong founder effect, i.e., reduced diversity and star like phylogeny of the median network of haplotypes, which formed a separate subcluster exclusive to Tuvin ians. It was demonstrated that, in Tuvinians, haplogroup N1c1 was the most heterogeneous in haplotype pro file and consisted of three different haplotype clusters, demonstrating considerable differences of western population from the rest of the Tuva populations. Phylogenetic analysis of haplogroups revealed common components for Tuvinians, Khakasses, Altaians, and Mongols.
...
The penetration of Central Asian Mon goloid component to the territory of South Siberia can be dated back to the 7th?6th age BP. The emergence of forest, taiga Mongoloid component is also attrib uted to about this time [1, 4]. In the course of time, gradual increase of the Mongoloid component, from the prevalence of Caucasoid component in Scythian time to the formation of modern Central Asian
anthropological type of Tuvinians in 13th?14th cen tury AD was observed ...
...
The proportion of haplogroup R1a1a in the total gene pool of Tuvinians is somewhat lower (12%). This lineage is characterized by high frequencies in the populations of South Siberia. Furthermore, R1a1a dominates in Altaians, constituting 60% [10]. In Kha kasses, this haplogroup is the second most frequent...
...
At the first glance, the result obtained is paradoxical. Specifically, in terms of anthropology, the most Caucasoid population of the western parts of Tuva displays the minimum of haplo group R1a1a, while in the most Mongoloid population of Todja, the maximum of this haplogroup is observed. In Tuvinians, single samples of the other seven west Eurasian (Caucasoid) haplogroups were observed (E, I1, I2a1, J*, J2*, J2a1b1, and R1b*). Thus, in Tuvin ians, the Caucasoid component is rather diverse, and probably has east European, as well as Central Asian origin. The five geographical groups of Tuivinians demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the summarized frequencies of west Eurasian haplo groups, which can be associated with the antiquity of the distribution of the Caucasoid population over the territory of formation of the Tuvinian gene pool. ..."]
I say:
this study concerns current pops, not pops of the past - and it tells us that spite this today apparent discrepancy of Y-R1a more present in Central and East Tuva than in West Tuva, it remains that the more western Altay region shows today more of Y-R1a (sometimes 60%) than any part of Tuva; History runs since the Scythian times and we have to keep in mind that European and 'europoid' people of other regions came since MLBA in the region and were not all of them Y-R1a; + some sets of clans practizing exogamy since a long time have completely put things upside down concerning the relation Y-haplo-global auDNA; concerning Pazyryk I think I remember they had few haplo's of this IA period and we cannot infer too much on so small data; and surely not try to compare it to modern pops richer data -
Since I'm crawling across fora of blogs I see a lot of people making conclusions about very very small samples: it's not rigorous at least at the uniparental markers level; and even at the autosomal level I think we have to know if the some of seldom samples we have are taken in an homogenous pop; I think sometimes it is not the case at all (see "outsiders") -

 

[MOESAN]

a

[ ...Hello. Today, the XIV Samara Archeological Conference was held. The following reports were heard. Khokhlov AA Preliminary results of anthropological and genetic studies of materials of the Volga-Ural region of the Neolithic-Early Bronze Age by an international group of scientists. In his report, AA Khokhlov. introduced into scientific circulation until the unpublished data of the new Eneolithic burial ground Ekatirinovsky cape, which combines both the Mariupol and Khvalyn features, and refers to the fourth quarter of the V millennium BC. All samples analyzed had a uraloid anthropological type, the chromosome of all the samples belonged to the haplogroup R1b1a2 (R-P 312 / S 116), and the haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2. Mito to haplogroups U2, U4, U5. In the Khvalyn burial grounds (1 half of the 4th millennium BC), the anthropological material differs in a greater variety. In addition to the uraloid substratum, European broad-leaved and southern-European variants are recorded. To the game haplogroup R1a1, O1a1, I2a2 are added to mito T2a1b, H2a1."...]
​

report made by Eurogenes (thanks): if true, very exciting!
it recall me of the broader crania broader faces and shallower upperface vertical profile of Ukraina and northern surroudings at Neolithic, with nose a bit flatter, showing some proximity too to Kalmykia Pit Graves, except these last ones had more protusing noses (a leg from 'western-asian' ?) according to Karnitzky

 

[MOESAN]

Caution concerning the labelling of Y-R1b-L51, according to some bloggers*

 

[MOESAN]

*:someones seems naive enough in their critics of anthropology - lack of interest, surely enough -

 

[MOESAN]

BTW Karnitzky (?Karnitski?) said the Eneolithic people of Ukraina (and in some way Baltic region) could not be pure descendants of the preceding regional HG's; there would have been replacement, total or in a big part according to him -
could this mark the increase in GENETIKER's middle blue (ANE-like EHG) against dark blue (WHG) in these places at LN? (apparingly found too by scholars) -

 

[MOESAN]

Metric an non-metric (skulls/teeth) about Harappa and surroundings
according to Hemphill - the result would be :
- exogamy (more or less local) during the Harappa phase as illustrated by the differences of affinities within places according to gener with kind of cross-affinities between places opposing persons of opposite sexes -
- spite of this, allover rough unity of Northern Pakistan sites opposed to Southern Pakistan one(s) -
- a very brutal change in Mehrgarh (Bolan Pass, N-Pakistan) between Neolithic and Chalcolithic divergence incompassing divergences of all others sites of all periods ; (the Harappa period seems midway between the Mehrgarh Chalco and later Timargarha close to Afghanistan frontier, East of Kaboul) -
- Hemphill thinks two periods of dychotomy : one between 6000-4500 BCE and the other between 800-200 BCE -
- less precise but more extended comparisons between ancient pops encompassing an area comprised between Egypt and Thibet/Nepal group pops as follows : Thibet, Nepal, Veddahs > <
N-Pakistan sites, Tepe Hissar 2 & 3, ?atal H?y?k > < Egypt sites, Tell al Judiadah + Mohendjo Daro in S-Pakistan -
- if I understood well, the Anatolian-S-Caucasian Iranian input would date and be responsible (according to Hemphill) of the first dychotomy and seems to coincid with the Dravidic languages (perhaps remotely akin to Elamitic) ? the second great change could be put on the account of Sakas of something like this, what could imply a late intrusion there of I-I I-Eans -
the study goes more into details for some aspect according to every approach (craniometrics, cranio-nonmetrics, dendo-nonmetrics) and this digest of mine is very rough -
All the way, the southern pops of Pakistan stayed very closer to northwestern pops of India, what is not surprising -
Now we have to compare to the an-auDNA dates for some turn-over there -

 

[MOESAN]

return to Steppes basis for a while:
Try to put some order in the metrics (and non-metric) data about Steppes, BMAC and cultures supposed to be involved in the I-E process : it?s a pity the dates are not more precise !
Don?t forget these pops were admixed and not always of only ?caucasians? types -
- Khvalynsk (5000/4500 BCE, Volga) : no precise description ? 2 studies, I?m hoping in two different sites or of two different periods : the Khvalynsk I is close to southern pops, a bit closer in Kazarnitsky to Shengavit than to Maykop pop ? the Khvalynsk II farther, closer to HG?s pops of Ukraina, themselves very distinct from the core of Neolithic pop of Ukraina ? Kozintsev thinks the Khvalynsk sites as a whle show metrical affinities with almost all Steppes pops of this span of time (4500/1000 BC) ;
- Sredny Stog (4500/3500, Ukraine) : very close to Khvalynsk-I so of southern pops in PC of Kazarnitsky ; spite of this he says they were dominantly of ?proto-europoid? type - Kozintsev thinks its pop is very isolated, the closest ties would be with early Catacombs of the Don and Afanasyevo of Altay, which according to him show ties with Catacombs (the last ones, Dniepr ?) but few if any with Pit Grave, what is in contradiction with Kazarnitsky PCA?s which put Pit Grave (early?) Ukraine not too far spite farther from southern pops ; ? the fact Sredny Stog is isolated for Kozintsev could be the result of a too admixed pop presenting loose ties with a lot of diverse pops and no tight one with any of them ?? - but Mallory saw ties with Balkans ?mediters? of the time! ;
"The third section of the book surveys the anthropological literature concerning the Sredny Stog and Novodanylovka cultures. For the twenty Sredny Stog burials from Igren, we find the somewhat unusual situation of women outliving males on an average of 7.8 years (males - 35.8 years, females - 43.6); only one individual lived passed 55 years. In terms of the craniological analysis of physical characteristics the Sredny Stog females tend to exhibit a homogeneous Proto-Europoid type that is most similar to the earlier inhabitants of the region. The series of male crania, however, tend to vary more and indicate both more robust Proto-Europoid and more gracile southern European (or Mediterranean) components. The analysis of six Novodanilovka skulls from three sites suggests again the presence of both Proto-Europoid and Mediterranean types. The cranial evidence as a whole suggests a mingling of local Proto-Europoids (seen especially in the east) with more gracial south-east European types in the west, a attern that might be explained by the flow of populations from the Balkan Neolithic (Tripolje) into the western Ukraine." interest seems the observation reported by Eurogenes Blog saying : ?It is interesting, that the massive Protoeuropoid type was typical for the oldest and the most eastern monuments of Sredniy Stog, while mesomorphic Mediterranean type was typical for the Igren cemetery, which was one of the youngest monuments related to the second and third periods of the Sredniy Stog culture and synchronous to the Tripolye B I and B I-II. These data testify the assumption about the existence of mixed Tripolye-Sredniy Stog marriages, because Tripolye population represented the Mediterranean anthropological type according to the not numerous Tripolye burials (Потехина 1999, c.154). ? ; this could temperate the opinions we have about ancient cultures and the links between demic and cultural in some cases -
- Pit Graves (3500/2300 ? Samara-Orenburg-Volgograd-Saratov/Volga-Samara/-Zaporodzhe-Ingulets /Ukraine/) for Kazarnitsky are less closer to Armenia or Maykop, halfway between both and Pit Graves of Kalmykia, North Caucasus, Northwest Caspian ; these last ones are less dolichocrane, more meso, more broader faced, with a flatter upper face spite with a protuding nose ; in some way they owe to robust Neolithic new pops of Ukraina (not EEF issued, and I supposed heavy for ANE auDNA) but show also some light ties with the WS-HG issued pop of Krasnoyarsk region neolithic ; Kozintsev does not insist on Pit Graves but it seems implying the earlier groups were more ? europeanlike ? than the later ones ? his only strong affirmation is they are not the principal provider of DNA for Afanasyevo diverse groups -
- Afanasyevo (3300/2400 BCA South Siberia Upper Ob Yenissey/Altay/Tuva) : not too diverse at first sight ; Kozintsev says they have no tie with Pit Graves but in its distances scores, he shows some Pit Graves sites, spite the more and closer ties are for the most with Srubna/Timber Graves or Catacombs of every sorts ; in some Altay sites, some far links with Europe -
Kiryushin & Sodolovnikov think Afanasyevo groups lack the ?mongoloid? component, the same concerning Sintashta, Potapovka, Tazabagyad and West Alakul groups -
- Okunevo (2000/ ???? BCA South Siberia/Altay, & cultural links with Afanasyevo and Andronovo) : in most of sites, physically, almost no ?caucasian/europoid? link according to Kozintsev who considers a ?proto-uralic? type not reductible to a simple crossing between ?europoids? or ?caucasoids? and ?east-asians? or ?mongoloid? - but its Okunevo of Tuva show numerous ties with Central and Eastern Europeans (early Catacombs, Srubna, Pit Graves) and TRBK people ; at the same time no close direct link with Afanasyevo people (surprising!) - Kiryushin speaks of ?mediter? types without any more detail -
- (Y)Elunino (2300/1700 BCE Ob-Irtych of Altay foothills, supposed at the basis of Seyma-Turbino?) (some artefacts common with Maykop ?) : in general, Kozintsev does not see any close pop (maybe because of the Asian input), the least far are Okunevo of Tuva, then Djarat, Shengavit, Kura-Araxes of Armenia and Kura-Araxes of Georgia, farther : Gulugou (Xing-Zhian, Tokharians ?) ; for the Tuva site Kozintsev sees clear links firstable with 2 sites of Kura-Araxes and then with West Europe, Poland ? Kiryushin speaks again of ?mediters? with a light ?mongoloid? input, for the most females mediated ; for the Krotovo site of Samus same ?mediter? but with a narrower frontal -
- Andronovo (2000/900 BCA vaste area from West Kazakhstan to Soberia and Altay) : 2 supposed linked cultures : Alakul and later Fedorovo ? some debate about cultural filiation : some kind of overspanning in time and space and cultural aspects with Okunevo culture -
- Alakul Oural : non-metric dentals : rather local people ?
- Alakul East : non-metric dentals : strong enough input of ?east-asian? traits without precision (WS-HG or marked ?mongoloid??) - Kozintsev for Yarmak-IV sees links with Pit Graves Kalmykia ? Kiryushin sees ?proto-europoid? plus moderate input of ?mongoloid? , Alakul of Yermak
- Alakul West : non-metric dentals : ties with more than an European pop but without reduction of teeth ; no noticeable ?mongoloid? input ? Kozintsev sees ties with early Pit Graves and early Catacombs and then with Srubna ? Ginzburg : ties with Srubna of Volga and with Amour Darya and Syr Darya pops spite few cultural ties with these two last ones ? Kiryushin confirms lack of ?mongoloid? and speaks of ?mediter? types -
- Fedorovo East Kazakhstan : Kozintsev sees ties with Pit Graves, Poltavka, Afanasyevo Seldyar (Altay), Catacombs Kalmykia + 1 group in Turkmenistan east the Caspian ! Fedorovo East Kazakhstan has No link with Alakul and Yelunino!
- Fedorovo Upper Ob, Yenisei, Rudny Altay : DE WELED KET SKLAER
Kuryashin : little ?mongoloid?, rather ?proto-europoid? but in the Samus-Seyma period people evocating Armenia, Ranniy Tulkhar (Tadjikistan) and East Srubna (Volga-Samara) ?
& : other authors confirm general heterogeneity of Fedorova, based upon ?proto-europoid? and ?gracile? types plus some natives (SW-HG?s of ?proto-uralic? type) as in Preobrazhenka-III Baraba (Forest Steppes) or Firsovo-XIV on Upper Ob ? in earlier Chekanovsky Log-X the ?mediters? were before the later Chekanovsky Log-II ?proto-europoids !
Kuryiashin says in short : the so called ?mongoloid? element is not dominant, and sometimes absent from certain sites, it appears as a whole more among females than among males + in several Andronovo-Federovka sites, his ?mediters? appeared in the most ancient period, his ?proto-europoid? in the most recent ones ; in fact I suppose there were always a mix, but the ratio of both ?europoid? components variated respectively one to another -

 

[MOESAN]

It could be interesting to compare every site and according to periods (we see this problem of dates as reported in more than a forum or blog site!); more than a time in North-Central Asia (until Ob Irtysh, Tuva and Altai) as well as in Eastern Europe it seems to me the first layers contained more of the ?gracile? elements (?mediter? OR NOT) and the most recent layers or the newest sites contained more of the ?proto-euro?, sometimes with a taste of so called ?mongoloid?, maybe rather so called ?proto-uralic? - it?s seems correct for the diverse Catacombs sites, diverse Pit Graves sites and Andronovo sites too whatever the assignation of these ?gracile? types (someones ?gracile? types were already signaled around Ladoga Lake North-West Russia 12000 years ago (at least one labelled dolicho ?gracile nordic?, along with a so called ?robust nordic? (!)? -
However the Sredny Stog case, whatever the degree of supposed relative dominance of robust ?proto-europoids? on ?gracile types?, is interesting in that it shows in Southern Ukraine in vicinity of ancient Tripolye strongholds an intrusion of ?gracile males? after we saw intrusion or ? co-optation ? of robust females already in previous times into this very Tripolye - BTW metrics help us here to confirm the statut of these gener unbalanced matings in absence of comparisons total auDNA/X-DNA; and these ?gracile? males would be arrived in the later phases of Sredny Stog ? Mallory thought the ?graciles? were ?mediters? of Balkans (so EEF ANF derived) common in Tripolye too where the males were dominantly Y-G2a Neolithic colonisers descendants ? and the importance of diverse ?graciles? in East Russia Steppes and South-West Siberia at the first stages of some cultures could push us to think the launching of evolved culture innovations there could be the result of impulse of rather ? old ? cultures, Transcarpathian as well as Transcaucasian or even South-West Central Asia ; it deserves some deeper analysis for sure (with precise dates when possible) ? concerning Sredny Stog, the question of the ? foreign ? males leadership strictly tied to Tripolye is not assured for these men there were rather Y-R1b + some Y-I2a2 ! As we see at high date introgressions of robust ?protoeuropoids? in Hungary before their assimilation, we can hazard possible returns of mixed people partly ?gracile? rather than pure ?gracile? ones into Ukraine ? it remains Khvalynsk-I and Sredny Stog (helas without precision of period ofr this last in metrics surveys I red) are closer to southerners than are the later Pit Graves of Russia, these last ones closer than the formers to Ukrainian Neolithic people ? concerning the possible influence of Khvalynsk on Sredny Stog, the opposition of the ?gracile? intruders dates (early in Khvalynsk, late and occidental in Sredny Stog) does not prevent this supposed influence because Khvvalynsk first dates are older then the SSC ones ; BTW it is not sure at all the origin of the ?graciles? were the same one - so in this scenario, firstable a ?gracile? (Caucasus ?) element in early Khvalynsk, then retourn of ?robust proto-Euros?, influence of these last ones upon early Sredny Stogbefore new increase of ?graciles? (Tripolye influenced this time?) ???

 

[MOESAN]

What is the relevance of these observations compared to auDNA studies (with similar autosomal tools but not identical in labellings) ? -
- PCA?s : Afanasyevo and Yamna are close within them, Sitashta and Andronovo mean are close within them, but the last two are among today Slavic pops of Central-Eastern Europe and not among more eastern Steppic old pops ? seems a confirmation of Konintsev intuition too and goes well along admixture -


- admixture : in Allentoft or Haak Yamna Kurgan people (Samara) are for the most a fifty-fifty mix of European HG-like and CHG-like people + some extra ?east-asian? of some sort ; very close to Afanasyevo admixture) but their Andronovo (which one?) and Sintashta show more HG-like, less CHG-like, even less ?east-asian? but some EEF-like and even something maybe SSA-like in Sintashta (noise ???) ; as a whole seems confirming the Konintsev metrics based hypothesis : different kind of ?gracile? ! -

 

[MOESAN]

Here under, to be analysed later through the metrics or taxinomic lence, an abstract translated by Bernard S?cher (thanks to him):

Les plus anciennes preuves de le domestication de chevaux viennent de la culture du Bota? situ?e dans les steppes du nord du Kazakhstan entre 3500 et 3000 av. JC. Cependant, si les individus des cultures Yamnaya et Afanasievo sont issus d'un m?lange g?n?tique entre chasseurs-cueilleurs de l'Est et chasseurs-cueilleurs du Caucase, les individus de la culture de Bota? ne poss?dent pas d'ascendance issue du Caucase. A l'inverse les individus de la culture du Bota? poss?de de l'ascendance chasseurs-cueilleurs Est Asiatiques (AEA) contrairement aux Yamnaya. La figure ci-dessus montre en r?alit? que les populations de ces deux cultures ont diverg? il y a environ 15.000 ans. Ce r?sultat se voit ?galement dans les haplogroupes du chromosome Y puisque les Yamnaya sont de l'haplogroupe R1b-Z2103 alors que les Bota? sont de l'haplogroupe N ou R1b-M73.

Les deux femmes des sites de Sholpan et Gregorievka enterr?es suivant un rite proche de celui de la culture de Afanasievo ont un g?nome sp?cifique ? l'Asie Centrale tr?s proche de celui des individus de la culture de Okunevo, et donc diff?rent du g?nome des individus Afanasievo. Les auteurs ont cependant identifi? un flux de g?nes de l'ordre de 10 ? 20% issu de la culture Afanasievo vers les individus de la culture de Okunevo, coh?rent avec les preuves arch?ologiques. Ce signal ne se voit pas sur les chromosomes X indiquant ainsi un flux de g?nes essentiellement masculin. Ce dernier r?sultat est ? rapprocher avec les haplogroupes du chromosome Y qui montrent qu'un homme sur dix de la culture d'Okunevo, est de l'haplogroupe R1b-Z2103. Ce flux de g?nes Yamnaya ou Afanasievo n'est pas observ? dans les populations du lac Ba?kal.

La pr?sence d'ascendance Ouest Eurasienne chez les populations d'Asie du Sud sugg?re une migration issue des steppes dans la r?gion. Cependant l'arch?ologie ne permet pas de montrer une influence issue de la culture Yamnaya en Asie du Sud. De plus les reconstructions linguistiques indiquent plut?t une influence issue de la fin de l'?ge du Bronze entre 2300 et 1200 av. JC. Les individus des cultures Yamnaya et Afanasievo du d?but de l'?ge du Bronze et ceux des cultures Shintashta et Andronovo de la fin de l'?ge du Bronze poss?dent de l'ascendance des chasseurs-cueilleurs de l'Est (EHG) et du Caucase (CHG). Cependant, seuls ces derniers individus poss?dent de l'ascendance issue des fermiers N?olithiques d'Europe, acquise ? la formation de la culture Cord?e. Le g?nome de quatre individus de la culture de Namazga au sud du Turkm?nistan dat?s autour de 3300 av. JC, se situe dans la PCA dans une position interm?diaire entre les fermiers du N?olithique d'Iran et les groupes des steppes de l'Ouest (voir la figure B de la PCA au-dessus). Ces individus poss?dent donc plus d'ascendance EHG (21%) que les fermiers Iraniens, mais pas plus d'ascendance CHG. Ainsi l'ascendance EHG chez ces quatre individus de la culture de Namazga est arriv?e probablement avant la formation de la culture de Yamanaya. A l'inverse l'individu du Turkm?nistan dat? de l'?ge du Fer poss?de plus d'ascendance EHG et CHG que les fermiers Iraniens indiquant que le flux de g?nes vient probablement des individus de l'?ge du Bronze des steppes. Comme de plus il poss?de de l'ascendance issue des fermiers N?olithiques d'Europe, ce flux de g?nes vient probablement des cultures de la fin de l'?ge du Bronze (Sintashta et Andronovo).

 

[MOESAN]

I underline:
A l'inverse l'individu du Turkm?nistan dat? de l'?ge du Fer poss?de plus d'ascendance EHG et CHG que les fermiers Iraniens indiquant que le flux de g?nes vient probablement des individus de l'?ge du Bronze des steppes. Comme de plus il poss?de de l'ascendance issue des fermiers N?olithiques d'Europe, ce flux de g?nes vient probablement des cultures de la fin de l'?ge du Bronze (Sintashta et Andronovo).

 

[MOESAN]

the last papers about Botai, Scythians and in general about the whole central Asia (and even farther East) show all the input of some ancient enough pop of South Siberia/Northeast Kazakhstan which more or less slowly intruded in more southern or western lands - the modification in Central and eastern Ukraina at Neolithic (a false or only partly Neolithic in fact) of the phenotypes compared to Eastern old HG's (neolithic people broader skulls and faces, flatter upperface ...) as noticed by Karnitzsky seems a prelude of the better received an/auDNA studies; here again external modifications of morphology in a not too long time is the signal of new people, new genes - the differences between typical Russian Yamna people and the Kalmykia/Astrakhan Yamna went towards the same direction, spite less accentued and with more protuding noses, this lat detail surely a gift of eastern 'mediters' (the so called 'indo-iranian-afghan' or 'west-asian' mouvance);
I wait for developments of the paper which according to Eurogenes speaks of a Steppes introgression into South Caucasus;
what is troubling is that Egyptians during the wars against the Sea People often described Hittits (of "race" or of obediance) as round, rather thick faced and skulled, with heavy traits, what does not seem the traits of the elites who imagined a skull deformation tending to accentuate dolichocephaly; could this, if accurate, depict some foreign elements picked in northern Caucasus and West Caspian places and incorporated into Hittits armies??? Only speculation, but meso-sub-brachy- and brachycephaly appeared South the Caucasus and farther South little time before the 2000 BCE, according to old works - its remarkable that the today Georgians show very often heavy traits which are no typical of 'indo-afghan' types and of 'levant' or ancient 'danubian-anatolian mediter' types -

 

[MOESAN]

It's a bit out of the present topic but not completely: my opinion concerning the metrics study of Wilshaw about Natufians is that there is no neat continuity already betwenn Old Levant and Natufians and that, neolithicization and gracilization put apart, there is no total continuity between Natufians and Recent Levant pops: and I find the evolution in principal traits evocates for the most a 'west-asian' or old 'indo-afghan' trend into southern Near-Eastern: here again metrics are not completely debunked by recent an/auDNA studies! (neol iran admixture or chalco-iran reaching Levant, with the symetric reaction (or supposed conseuqnece) -

 

[MOESAN]

[... I wait for developments of the paper which according to Eurogenes speaks of a Steppes introgression into South Caucasus; ...]
-

in this post #38 I made a mistake; the paper speaks of NORTH Caucasus, not SOUTH - Sorry. What doesn' t suppress the question of supposed Hittits descriptions.