Ancient genomes from Caucasus inc. Maykop

[Ygorcs]

Non-ironically you're clearly an intelligent guy - what do you think about L51's origin? Do you really think it waded through the densely populated Balkans as an elite lineage, only to leave no genetic trace? I'll remind you that ALL the Steppe R1b found in the Balkans, all the way up to Vucedol, is Z2103. If it didn't come from the Balkans, how could it have come from the Steppe - and if it didn't come from the Steppe, how could it have come from anywhere else other than the Bell Beaker culture (gaining Steppe admixture from CW women)?

Also, North Atlantid is so painfully obviously Baskid+Corded it irritates me...

Thanks for your words, mate. R1b-L51 is really a big puzzle for me (for everyone who really strives to follow the data, I think). I won't pretend I have any favorite hypothesis that I support more than any other.

In my opinion, since L51 and Z2103 both come from the same upstream ancestor L23, and since they seem to have split so much later than V88, my hunch is that L23 dispersal was not involved in the same demographic process that separated L388 (eventually M269) from V88. I'd say they probably dispersed from the same region. I think that we don't have enough genetic data to affirm or even speculate with better substantiation what exactly happened. If Z2103, already fully diverged, already existed in the steppes around 4000 BC, then that Z2103/L51 two-direction expansion was certainly before that, firmly in the Neolithic. Then, we should find more R1b-L23 (and ideally L51) in Neolithic Europe as early as 4500-3500 BC. Did scientists find R1b-L23 and R1b-L51 in Western Europe that early?

I also think we should then define what kind of autosomal DNA these males also spread to the regions where they migrated (and supposedly spread IE dialects too). If Z2103 is found in the steppes early together with a mainly EHG/CHG mix, then these R1b-L23 (Z2103 & L51) people probably were associated mainly with CHG ancestry. Do we have proofs of a big increase of CHG in the region of Neolithic Western Europe (circa 4500-3500 BC) that would later become the 1st points for the spread of BB, together with R1b-L51? I don't really know, but I haven't read anything about either.

Besides, this kind of hypothesis would probably assume that Italo-Celtic is related to BB and other IE branches are related to the "steppe" Z2103-majority populations. But that isn't really supported by mainstream linguistics, not at all, because we'd have to assume a very early split of PIE and assume that Italo-Celtic diverged earlier than virtually any other group (including even Tocharian), virtually as early as the estimated date of divergence of the Anatolian branch.

And why would BB, gaining its L51 and supposedly a lot of autosomal ancestry directly from the Near East, have spread their genes and IE languages, but some of the main regions (mainly Ireland and Britain) where we know L51, BB and Celtic languages were spoken since early on are exactly the ones that show more steppe-related ancestry in Western/Central Europe? All that expansion, which started from Iberian, would have left a deep genetic impact only when the BB males found CWC women and mated with them? Would the BB expansion have been mostly irrelevant (in terms of genetic impact) in non-Iberian North/West Europe until they founded a "secondary BB expansion" in CWC/steppe-enriched Central European BB? don't know, in my view there are several inconsistencies in that "BB as Indo-European R1b-L51" hypothesis, though I can't really deny that possibility with the information we have now. I think we just don't know enough.

My main point is that if Z2103 and L51 are both really associated with the spread of PIE-derived languages, then PIE is very ancient and its dispersal is a 5th milennium BC Neolithic phenomenon. And I don't think this expansion would have happened without an important change in the autosomal makeup of the regions where BB seems to have really changed things for ever, especially the British Isles. And there we see a lot of increase of the same kind of EHG + CHG combination that, coincidentally or not, was also typically found in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. If IE languages came with a CWC-admixed Iberian BB with R1b-L51 of Near Eastern, mainly CHG origin, then I think the BA/IA Britons and Irish would necessarily have a lot more CHG than EHG, because the steppe ancestry in CWC was already itself a roughly 50%-50% EHG-CHG mix, and scientists would have already noticed that that Central European BB were not "just" steppe-derived locals, but a mix of EEF/CHG Iberians with CWC.

Okay, I'll admit: I just don't know, this is all pretty confusing to me, but I confess I can't see PIE, L51 or the Bronze Age genetic transformations in Western Europe coming from Iberian-derived Bell Beakers.

 

[MOESAN]

I avow I'm still puzzled (old song of mine) here my thoughts, not "points"- I say above all this that we have not so much ancient DNA region by region to make so affirmative statements ; keep in minde the "huge" sample we have todate is ridiculously small for statisticians - concerning L51, it have been found in Central-Eastern pops of today - and in Central Europe or even Poland we find today some rather successive SNPs (L23, L51, L11, P312 + U106, a rather northern one?) even if they are not dense, being in lands where new waves of Y-R1a settled and can have erased some R1b clans (this clannic aspect makes we have to sample more again and again: we have already had surprises with new studies, have we not? - I don't discard some legends and the possibility of a two ways forking of Y-R1b-L51 of Europe, one along Mediterranea shores, another along Danube or even more northern lands (old SNP's in southern sweden of today: proto- BB's from Portugal arrived tardily ? lost tribes? I doubt) - BTW some SNP's we have are from surveys not too recent, and they could give us other stages of SNP with new analysis -
for V88? yes, I ask for more prudence too -
concerning auDNA (ancient one) the increase of more south(west)ern DNA at the BB's period in some places could correspond to a general tendancy to homogeneization with exchanges on every direction in West (Atlantic Bronze, BB's, CWC) and even in Center: one part of the BB's "southern" element is rather from East-Central Europe, not all from Atlantic regions (confirmed by mtDNA); and don't forget the TRBK/FBC input and role for exchanges; nothing simple here -

 

[Ygorcs]

Well V88 split off a long time ago, so that's irrelevant. Iron Gates was V88 though, which complicates things, but it is only logical R1b would have its ultimate homeland somewhere in Balkano-Anatolia.

I was going to say that right now, as I had forgotten before. Thanks. V88 expansion just can't have happened, independently of other R1b subclades, together with the dispersal that separated L51 from Z2103. Chronology and historical context really matters in genetics.

P.S.: Sorry, I didn't ignore your hypothesis, but, you know, the so-called "pet theory" of Berun may be completely different from yours. It seems you're coming from the same premises... but not arriving at the same conclusions at all. LOL! I'd like to compare them, even if just to ultimately criticize them, hahaha, but who knows? Maybe some light turns on in my brain suddenly. :-D

 

[MOESAN]

Southwestern Northwestern Europeans have globally rather less 'westasian' than East or South-east, but when we try to discriinate deeper we see

 

[Angela]

That pretty much sums up the controversy while putting aside the most deranged fringe hypotheses. lol! I think the main issue that troubles me with this "neat" explanation of a Transcaucasian Indo-Hittite PIE > Steppe PIE & Anatolian PIE is that the linguistic evidences (an early, but not that early Anatolian split) and the genetic evidences are not agreeing perfectly with each other, and as far as I can see from this study at least the post-4000 BC Caucasus could not be the source of a PIE-speaking population into the steppes.

They had ANF "proper" ancestry, they had a kind of CHG that is not the supposedly "basal lineage" of CHG present since the Eneolithic Steppe, their Y-DNA makeup was completely different (sorry but, considering virtually all historic/attested background in peoples around the world, the "female transmission" idea doesn't hold).

I also just can't accept the "native people adopted the language of the more advanced people to trade with them", because if that was really likely and usual, and people usually gave up on their native languages even in the absence of any migration, cultural absorption and/or conquest, then I think we should all just give up establishing any connections between linguistics, genetics and archaeology.

Besides, the hypothesis relying on later events, like the growth of EEF-related or even more CHG-related ancestry in the Middle-Late Bronze Age is just too late to explain the dispersal of IE branches and the degree of their linguistic divergence.

Sorry, you have perhaps misunderstood me. I never said nor implied there aren't issues with the homeland in the Caucasus hypothesis.

However, to address some of your points:

Just as there is no specific archaeological context for the movement of this early form of Pre Proto IE from the Balkans to Anatolia, there is none for the movement from the Caucasus, or perhaps better, for the movement of "Caucasus like people" to the steppe carrying this early form of the language. Perhaps in one case we'll eventually find the appropriate culture, which will make things a lot clearer, but we don't have them yet.

In both cases we're probably indeed looking at around 4000 BC or so.

I don't know whether at that point only women moved onto the steppe. The fact that we've as yet found no Caucasus like y dna (according to current thinking) in the steppe at this early period certainly is evidence for that, and, indeed, women are not usually the vehicles for language change.

That is the biggest issue.

However, I think it is still possible that certain R1b groups, wherever R1b first developed, might have moved back and forth across the Caucasus, as Maciamo opined years ago, and some could have picked up a more CHG like autosomal profile before returning north. Jean Manco, although she was a standard issue steppist, did publish her speculations to the effect that the R1b groups might have pastured their herds along the Black Sea and perhaps in the Caucasus during the summer.

I don't understand the issue with EEF. It could have entered the steppe with different people and from a totally different direction. From my perspective all this blather there used to be about the "steppe" people, as if they were some unique, holy group dropped from a spaceship is ridiculous. I think what the evidence tells us is that the steppe was like a giant stew pot where everybody got mixed up. We're talking about EHG, CHG, WHG, and EEF, and then maybe this Siberian Neolithic group. Look at what happened in later periods: it turned majority "East Asian like". Even in the Bronze Age, the "modelers" keep pointing out this and that "outlier", and that's in very small sample sets. Different areas were getting different inputs. That's why it's a mistake imo to "drop" the outliers and create these artificially "cohesive" clusters. If you do that you may forget them. It was a fluid situation from very early on.


Well, I suppose there's one possibility where the language of the women is considered. It just occurred to me that perhaps a Caucasus origin "trade" language could have become the lingua franca on the steppe, spoken by the wives on behalf of their men. French acted as a sort of trade language among the Indian tribes of Canada and the northern U.S. for Indian tribes who didn't understand each other's languages, although in that case it was the French men or Coureurs de bois who usually provided those services.

Anyway, there are problems no matter which alternative you choose.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Thanks for your words, mate. R1b-L51 is really a big puzzle for me (for everyone who really strives to follow the data, I think). I won't pretend I have any favorite hypothesis that I support more than any other.

In my opinion, since L51 and Z2103 both come from the same upstream ancestor L23, and since they seem to have split so much later than V88, my hunch is that L23 dispersal was not involved in the same demographic process that separated L388 (eventually M269) from V88. I'd say they probably dispersed from the same region. I think that we don't have enough genetic data to affirm or even speculate with better substantiation what exactly happened. If Z2103, already fully diverged, already existed in the steppes around 4000 BC, then that Z2103/L51 two-direction expansion was certainly before that, firmly in the Neolithic. Then, we should find more R1b-L23 (and ideally L51) in Neolithic Europe as early as 4500-3500 BC. Did scientists find R1b-L23 and R1b-L51 in Western Europe that early?

I also think we should then define what kind of autosomal DNA these males also spread to the regions where they migrated (and supposedly spread IE dialects too). If Z2103 is found in the steppes early together with a mainly EHG/CHG mix, then these R1b-L23 (Z2103 & L51) people probably were associated mainly with CHG ancestry. Do we have proofs of a big increase of CHG in the region of Neolithic Western Europe (circa 4500-3500 BC) that would later become the 1st points for the spread of BB, together with R1b-L51? I don't really know, but I haven't read anything about either.

Besides, this kind of hypothesis would probably assume that Italo-Celtic is related to BB and other IE branches are related to the "steppe" Z2103-majority populations. But that isn't really supported by mainstream linguistics, not at all, because we'd have to assume a very early split of PIE and assume that Italo-Celtic diverged earlier than virtually any other group (including even Tocharian), virtually as early as the estimated date of divergence of the Anatolian branch.

And why would BB, gaining its L51 and supposedly a lot of autosomal ancestry directly from the Near East, have spread their genes and IE languages, but some of the main regions (mainly Ireland and Britain) where we know L51, BB and Celtic languages were spoken since early on are exactly the ones that show more steppe-related ancestry in Western/Central Europe? All that expansion, which started from Iberian, would have left a deep genetic impact only when the BB males found CWC women and mated with them? Would the BB expansion have been mostly irrelevant (in terms of genetic impact) in non-Iberian North/West Europe until they founded a "secondary BB expansion" in CWC/steppe-enriched Central European BB? don't know, in my view there are several inconsistencies in that "BB as Indo-European R1b-L51" hypothesis, though I can't really deny that possibility with the information we have now. I think we just don't know enough.

My main point is that if Z2103 and L51 are both really associated with the spread of PIE-derived languages, then PIE is very ancient and its dispersal is a 5th milennium BC Neolithic phenomenon. And I don't think this expansion would have happened without an important change in the autosomal makeup of the regions where BB seems to have really changed things for ever, especially the British Isles. And there we see a lot of increase of the same kind of EHG + CHG combination that, coincidentally or not, was also typically found in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. If IE languages came with a CWC-admixed Iberian BB with R1b-L51 of Near Eastern, mainly CHG origin, then I think the BA/IA Britons and Irish would necessarily have a lot more CHG than EHG, because the steppe ancestry in CWC was already itself a roughly 50%-50% EHG-CHG mix, and scientists would have already noticed that that Central European BB were not "just" steppe-derived locals, but a mix of EEF/CHG Iberians with CWC.

Okay, I'll admit: I just don't know, this is all pretty confusing to me, but I confess I can't see PIE, L51 or the Bronze Age genetic transformations in Western Europe coming from Iberian-derived Bell Beakers.

I’m not saying L51 is Indo-European. I’m saying that the Indo-European languages we associate with L51, are actually originally from Corded Ware. The ONLY way L51 could be Indo-European is if it expanded from the Steppe after contact with some other Indo-European group. That is, assuming L23 is pre-Indo-European.

 

[Silesian]

Next question- what type of lumber/wood[tree] was used in the construction of some of the first wagons? Say for example this one depicted in Sumerian art. The axes depicted in the picture below bronze or copper?

Let's speculate the Sumerians had access to oak trees[since oak is a strong wood compared to palm tree] found in select areas in Iraq;and there tools and weapons were made of arsenic bronze. To put them on equal ground as Maykop[early bronze sword] culture in terms of wood and bronze tools/weapons.

Oak trees form the main species of the mountain forests. Quercus brantii (balut) has the widest range, with Q. infectoria commonly admixed, occurring more frequently on the more favorable sites. Q. libani (dindar) is found in the northern mountains above 1,500 meters elevation

http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5346e/x5346e06.htm

Now it would make sense if R1b-Z2103 from Hajji Firuzz-Iran[and descendants] lived anywhere near these useful tools [arsenic bronze]and materials-[wood ]they would incorporate innovations as they travel north into the steppe.

We know that R1b found in Khvalynsk were not shy about burying the dead with metal.

Khvalynsk Eneolithic in the Volga steppes: Saratovo, Russia (n=3)Three individuals described here were among 39 excavated in 1987-88 at the Eneolithiccemetery of Khvalynsk II, Saratov oblast, Russia, on the west bank of the Volga River, 6 kmnorth of the village of Alekseevka. Khvalynsk I and II are two parts of the same cemetery,excavated in 1977-79 (Khvalynsk I) and 1987-88 (Khvalynsk II).23 The two excavationsrevealed 197 graves, about 10x larger than other cemeteries of this period in the Volga-Uralsteppes, dated by radiocarbon to 5200-4000 BCE (95.4% confidence). Bones of domesticatedcattle and sheep-goat, and horses of uncertain status, were included in 28 human graves andin 10 sacrificial deposits. The 367 copper artifacts in the graves, mostly beads and rings, arethe oldest copper objects in the Volga-Ural steppes, and trace elements and manufacturingmethods in a few objects suggest trade with southeastern Europe. Together with high 15N inthe human bones from Khvalynsk, which might have caused a reservoir effect making 14Cdates too old, the circulation of so much copper, which increased in SE Europe after 4700BCE, suggests that a date after 4700 BCE would be reasonable for many graves atKhvalynsk. Copper was found in 13 adult male graves, 8 adult female graves, and 4 sub-adultgraves. The unusually large cemetery at Khvalynsk contained southern Europeoid andnorthern Europeoid cranio-facial types, consistent with the possibility that people from thenorthern and southern steppes mingled and were buried here.Ÿ 10122 / SVP35 (grave 12)Male (confirmed genetically), age 20-30, positioned on his back with raised knees, with 293copper artifacts, mostly beads, amounting to 80% of the copper objects in the combinedcemeteries of Khvalynsk I and II. Probably a high-status individual, his Y-chromosomehaplotype, R1b1, also characterized the high-status individuals buried under kurgans in laterYamnaya graves in this region, so he could be regarded as a founder of an elite group ofpatrilineally related families. His MtDNA haplotype H2a1 is unique in the Samara series

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/10/10/016477.full.pdf

 

[Silesian]

Now it would make sense if R1b-Z2103 from Hajji Firuzz-Iran[and descendants] lived anywhere near these useful tools [arsenic bronze]and materials-[wood ]they would incorporate innovations as they travel north into the steppe.

We know that R1b found in Khvalynsk were not shy about burying the dead with metal.



https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/10/10/016477.full.pdf

In fact we can find another R1b-Z2103+ sample with copper celt. Not as fancy as the bronze found further south among the Sumerians or bronze sword in Maykop, technology that a 6000YBP+/- Iranian farmer sample-R1b-z2103 would have been aware of.

Figure S3.2. Skeleton SVP58 from grave 1 at Kutuluk kurgan cemetery I25,26.Yamnaya in Russia: KutulukKutuluk kurgan cemetery I, located 60 km east of the city of Samara, contained:x SVP58/I0444 (central grave 1, kurgan 4, 3335-2881 calBCE, AA12570)

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

The remains are of male aged 25-35 years (Fig. S3.2), estimated height 176 cm, with no obvious injury or disease, and buried with the largest metal object found in a Yamnaya grave anywhere26. The object was a blunt mace 48 cm long, 767 g in weight, cast/annealed and made of pure copper, like most Yamnaya metal objects.

 

[Silesian]

Not all R1b-Z2103 bought into the ideas of arsenic bronze or copper tools and weapons as can be seen in Lopatino I with a nice early date[grave 1, 3339-2917 calBCE] sample-this R1b-Z2103 individual preferred to be buried [old school]with the old flint projectile technology rather than a fancy bronze or copper dagger/axe/sword found further south in the Maykop and Uruk-Sumerian cultures.

Yamnaya in Russia: Lopatino IA large cemetery of 39 kurgans was located on a low terrace beside the Sok River, Samaraoblast, Russia (N53°38’24”/E50°39’18”). Eight kurgans were excavated in different years byvarious teams. Five were constructed in the Yamnaya period and three were added by theMBA Poltavka culture. We included three individuals from this site:x SVP5/I0357 (kurgan 35, central grave 1, 3090-2910 calBCE, Beta 39248)was from a grave that contained the remains of two Yamnaya individuals, includingan adult woman and a child, an unusual pair, because 75-80% of individuals inYamnaya kurgans in the Samara region were adult males.x SVP38/I0429 (kurgan 31, central grave 1, 3339-2917 calBCE, AA47804)was from a grave of an adult male 35-45 years old, 175 cm tall, supine, with atriangular flint projectile point beside him.x SVP52/I0439 (kurgan 1, central grave 1, 3305-2925 calBCE, Beta 392491)was from an adult male 25-35 years old, 178.5 cm tall.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...13433.full.pdf

 

[halfalp]

Well once again i'm lost... i re-re-read the paper and they say that. " Our fitted model recapitulates the genetic separation between the Caucasus and Steppe groups with the Eneolithic steppe individuals deriving more than 60% of ancestry from EHG and the remainder from a CHG-related basal lineage, whereas the Maykop group received about 86.4% from CHG, 9.6% Anatolian farming related ancestry, and 4% from EHG. " But looking at their graph, the 60% in steppe eneolithic is green, wich is the dominant color in their Iran Neolithic, Iran Hotu etc.

 

[Ailchu]

Well once again i'm lost... i re-re-read the paper and they say that. " Our fitted model recapitulates the genetic separation between the Caucasus and Steppe groups with the Eneolithic steppe individuals deriving more than 60% of ancestry from EHG and the remainder from a CHG-related basal lineage, whereas the Maykop group received about 86.4% from CHG, 9.6% Anatolian farming related ancestry, and 4% from EHG. " But looking at their graph, the 60% in steppe eneolithic is green, wich is the dominant color in their Iran Neolithic, Iran Hotu etc.

the way i would explain their senrence is that when they say EHG they do not mean the blue admixture but the EHG people, which according to this graphic already had CHG like ancestry or whatever this green thing actually is. if we look at the bluue it doesn't seem to be simply EHG. its also ancestry similar to WHG's who are mostly blue. so maybe we could say that EHG's are WHG like people with CHG-like input?

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Well once again i'm lost... i re-re-read the paper and they say that. " Our fitted model recapitulates the genetic separation between the Caucasus and Steppe groups with the Eneolithic steppe individuals deriving more than 60% of ancestry from EHG and the remainder from a CHG-related basal lineage, whereas the Maykop group received about 86.4% from CHG, 9.6% Anatolian farming related ancestry, and 4% from EHG. " But looking at their graph, the 60% in steppe eneolithic is green, wich is the dominant color in their Iran Neolithic, Iran Hotu etc.

Maybe they see EHG as a hybrid population between WHG and CHG, but I thought EHG itself should just be modelled as 100% EHG.

 

[halfalp]

Maybe they see EHG as a hybrid population between WHG and CHG, but I thought EHG itself should just be modelled as 100% EHG.

EHG is probably in eastern europe between 15'000 / 13'000 BC, because after Epoch, in the recent paper on Horse domestication and Botai, they found an 100% EHG individual in ukraine dated 11'000 BC. So if it's their idea that EHG is WHG + CHG and not WHG + ANE, CHG is then something else, something like ANE + WHG + Iran_Paleolithic ( ??? ) ( Basal Eurasian ? ).

 

[johen]

We know that R1b found in Khvalynsk were not shy about burying the dead with metal.

Probably a high-status individual, his Y-chromosomehaplotype, R1b1, also characterized the high-status individuals buried under kurgans in laterYamnaya graves in this region, so he could be regarded as a founder of an elite group ofpatrilineally related families. His MtDNA haplotype H2a1 is unique in the Samara series

Do you know whether Eneolihic steppe R1b1 on this paper was buried in just supine position or with legs flexed?

- looks like R1b-Z2103 from Hajji Firuzz-Iran could not be connected to yamna, b/c the burial types from Khvalynsk R1b to yamna R1b were supine positions with legs flexed as you quoted. This burial type is a unique form in steppe.

Not all R1b-Z2103 bought into the ideas of arsenic bronze or copper tools and weapons as can be seen in Lopatino I with a nice early date[grave 1, 3339-2917 calBCE] sample-this R1b-Z2103 individual preferred to be buried [old school]with the old flint projectile technology rather than a fancy bronze or copper dagger/axe/sword found further south in the Maykop and Uruk-Sumerian cultures.

because 75-80% of individuals in Yamnaya kurgans in the Samara region were adult males.x SVP38/I0429 (kurgan 31, central grave 1, 3339-2917 calBCE, AA47804)was from a grave of an adult male 35-45 years old, 175 cm tall, supine,

with a triangular flint projectile point beside him.x SVP52/I0439 (kurgan 1, central grave 1, 3305-2925 calBCE, Beta 392491)was from an adult male 25-35 years old, 178.5 cm tall.

I think the Z2103 would not be yamna people, but from Khvalynsk people who was buried in supine position. The Khvalynsk is an Uraloid, which means intermediate, I think.

https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/the-unique-elite-khvalynsk-male-from-a-yekaterinovskiy-cape-burial/

So Bolshemysskaya P297 sample in Altai, predating afanasievo, would be connected to steppe sintashta z2103 with dominant west siberia HG, Botai M73, this Khvalynsk one.

I think this dead one might be sintashta z2103 by plague, being different from CWC and yamna burial type.

 

[halfalp]

the way i would explain their senrence is that when they say EHG they do not mean the blue admixture but the EHG people, which according to this graphic already had CHG like ancestry or whatever this green thing actually is. if we look at the bluue it doesn't seem to be simply EHG. its also ancestry similar to WHG's who are mostly blue. so maybe we could say that EHG's are WHG like people with CHG-like input?

We shall wait their explanation.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Well once again i'm lost... i re-re-read the paper and they say that. " Our fitted model recapitulates the genetic separation between the Caucasus and Steppe groups with the Eneolithic steppe individuals deriving more than 60% of ancestry from EHG and the remainder from a CHG-related basal lineage, whereas the Maykop group received about 86.4% from CHG, 9.6% Anatolian farming related ancestry, and 4% from EHG. " But looking at their graph, the 60% in steppe eneolithic is green, wich is the dominant color in their Iran Neolithic, Iran Hotu etc.

the graph is K-admixture, green is not CHG, blue is not EHG and ocre is not EEF, but they are proxys

 

[berun]

I don't know if I understood your point correctly, but... unless the very little % of EEF was sufficient to engender a huge language shift as early as in the entire Eneolithic steppe, I don't think any IE / EEF connection is plausible. The extra EEF growth, which you say is chronologically associated with the eastward expansion of BB (is it really, didn't it begin earlier?), is IMO too late to be a source of the Indo-European expansion, because by the time of the eastward expansion of BB some of IE branches are already supposed to have spread long ago not only in Europe, but also in Asia, even before 3000-3200 BC, especially in the case of Tocharians (and partially also Anatolians, for I find it simply impossible that CHG/Iranian-enriched ANF and EEF would still speak similar languages or even the same language family after some 4000 years since the immigration to Europe. The highest increase of EEF in the steppes is in the Middle-Late BA groups, too late to explain the IE expansion.

If some of those admixtures is mainly associated with the origins of PIE, then it was due to some historic process that certainly happened before 3000 BC and even, quite probably, before 4000 BC - that is the time where we should be trying to find some archaeological/genetic links with the Ciscaucasian lands, especially the steppes (in my opinion, the most likely thing is that PIE - not its ancestors, PIE proper - already appeared in a heavily mixed EHG/CHG populatioin). I think you're right when you say: the CHG admixture was done by Mesolithic people or by pionner southern herders with a strong CHG signal. I'd look especially for Early-Middle Neolithic movements from the Caucasus (that's explaining the genetic part of the formation of Indo-European populations that would later disperse and bring IE languages to other regions. I myself think it is very difficult to establish whether the language that ultimately prevailed was related mainly to EHG or CHG admixture. It's just too much of a non-empirical detail).

Even considering BB the original carriers of IE (6th option), that would justify the spread of Celtic, Italic, Germanic and even
Balto-Slavic, and Balkanic languages (from Hungary), they might be capable to change language to former CWC people but in eastern areas, much less colonized, the autosomal would be more diluted, and even local R1a Y-DNA would be integrated, which ultimately would expand eastwards providing Indo-Iranic and Tocharian by 2000 BC in the steppes... sounds like writting a major heresy, but now, with the data on hand, one can expose even this case.

Your point about Tocharian is based in an assumption not demonstrated: that Afanasievo are linked to Tocharians (different Y-DNA profiles, 3 millenia diffrence and 2000 km distance). Also it's an assumption to link IE to Yamna.

 

[berun]

In what period and historic context would that expansion have occurred and made its genetic impact? What autosomal admixtures do you think were most related to this R1b-Z2103/L51/V88 population and would have increased its presence significantly in the north, south and west alike (CHG, ANF?)?

It would be a Neolithic expansion linked to herders (cows? sheeps?); the area of departure is just in the possible frontier ANF-CHG so it is difficult to say what original autosomal profile they would present; as herders are allways a minority among farmers the final regional admixture would depend greatly on the main admixture profile of each region.

By the way as now genetists are finding EEF in Yamnayans, let's check if they find also some CHG in EEF peoples...

 

[halfalp]

the graph is K-admixture, green is not CHG, blue is not EHG and ocre is not EEF, but they are proxys

What does that mean, concretely ?

 

[Ygorcs]

It would be a Neolithic expansion linked to herders (cows? sheeps?); the area of departure is just in the possible frontier ANF-CHG so it is difficult to say what original autosomal profile they would present; as herders are allways a minority among farmers the final regional admixture would depend greatly on the main admixture profile of each region.

By the way as now genetists are finding EEF in Yamnayans, let's check if they find also some CHG in EEF peoples...

I see, that makes some sense, so we just need the data to either confirm its plausibility or put it aside. I must say that, if those same herders also brought PIE to the steppes, I can only visualize them as a CHG-majority people, because the main "steppe" mix since very early (4300 BC) was only EHG-CHG, there was no ANF in the Eneolithic Steppe, and when the ANF appears it is mainly associated with "western" (European) EEF and not with Near Eastern ANF, with that happening only significantly later (probably too late to account for the departure of Tocharian from an already differentiated Late PIE, and for the wide dialectal differentiation in the steppes that was probably already quite advanced by 3000-2800 BC according to linguists).