Ancient genomes from Caucasus inc. Maykop

CrazyDonkey said:
Mycenaeans and Hittites arrive on the scene at about the same time (1700-1600 BCE), and their empires also collapse about the same time (1300-1200 BCE). (The Hyksos, a Semitic people, also invaded the Nile Delta around 1650 BCE.) The first was attacked and destroyed by the Dorians and the second by the Phrygians and the "Ahhiyawa" (Achaeans?), part of the overall movement of peoples called "the Sea Peoples". Both periods are denoted by mass migrations, warfare, raiding/piracy, droughts/climate change, famine, plague(?), etc.

Historically the steppes have served as a migration engine. Any drought, I assume, would hit the drier eastern steppes first, impelling people and their herds westward in search of water and greener grass. Wet cycles would cause populations (people and herds) to expand, with thus severe dry cycles putting everybody in motion, like balls on a billiard table. Agricultural civilizations, which used irrigation, dams, dikes, and canals to move water from rivers to fields were better able to withstand drought cycles in place, unless attacked by "barbarians" (in search of surplus grain) and brought down.
Click to expand...
No, no please let us be more precise to avoid confusion. The Mycenaeans enter on the scene in the 15th century bc with their attack on Crete, the Hittites at least 2 centuries earlier. They do not collapse in 1300-1200 bc, that century saw the construction of some of the most iconic monuments of both civilizations such as the Tomb of Agamemnon, the Lions' gate and Tyrins' gallery in Mycenaean Greece and the cyclopean galleries at Hattusash along with many iconic stone reliefs. The Mycenaeans fell slightly before the Hittites around the end of that century, and the theory of a "Dorian invasion" is pretty outdated, there is no evidence for an external invasion, and both Mycenaeans and Dorians were Greek speakers. The Hittites fell around 1180 bc, a few decades after the Mycenaeans, and it was not because of the Ahhyawa, who were likely the Mycenaeans by the way, but likely because of the civil war that had been going on for 70 years along with a massive drought that had hit all the Mediterranean, the Kaska invaders in the North might have also played a part, but the last enemies that the Hittites faced were an unnamed force coming from Alashiya (Cyprus) and the Lukka (Lycians), the Lycians had been known for several centuries by the Hittites. Since you named the Ahhyawa, they were mentioned by the Hittite texts since the early 14th century bc, they were at one point ruled by a king and had Greek names, they also were located West of Western Anatolia, likely somewhere in Greece, there is no doubt anymore that they were Mycenaean Greeks, Achaeans, and while they sometimes supported the West Anatolian kings against the Hittites they were never mentioned as a major threat by the Hittites. As for the Phrygians, they are not mentioned even once by the Hittites and likely migrated to central Anatolia sometime after the collapse of the Hittite empire, not before.
 
Because there is no literary/historical reference to the Mycenaeans prior to their invasion of Crete does not mean there isn't archaeological evidence for their presence in Greece long before that, dating back to the shaft graves at Mycenae (late 17th century?).
 
As to the Catacomb culture link:

At the beginning of the 20th century V. A. Gorodtsov proposed a culture proposed a cultural-chronological scheme for the Early Bronze Age in the East European steppes with three succeeding periods. Based on observations of burial constructions and their positions in the burial mound, Gorodtsov placed the Catacomb culture, which is characterized by graves with catacomb constructions, between the Yamnaya and Sryubnaya cultures. Today, however, radiocarbon dates have revealed that the late Yamnaya and the Early Catacomb cultures coexisted for some time. The overlap of several hundred years with the preceding Yamnaya culture pushed the beginning of the Catacomb culture several hundred years earlier than originally suggested by Gorodtsov.
Click to expand...

-- Claudia Gerling, Prehistoric Mobility and Diet in the West Eurasian Steppes 3500 to 300 BC (2015)

https://books.google.com/books?id=M...posed a cultural-chronological scheme&f=false
 
CrazyDonkey said:
As to the Catacomb culture link:



-- Claudia Gerling, Prehistoric Mobility and Diet in the West Eurasian Steppes 3500 to 300 BC (2015)

https://books.google.com/books?id=M...posed a cultural-chronological scheme&f=false
Click to expand...

Thanks, I didn't know that. But how could that supposed Catacomb migration that would've given birth to Greek and Armenian have preceded the Yamnaya migrations? The same source you linked states this right after your quote (and it reinforces that Catacomb coexisted with the late phase of Yamnaya and seems to have sprung continously, without ruptures, from Yamnaya, not that it precedes it), referring to dates that are certainly centuries later than the appearance of Yamnaya and also later than the usually accepted estimates (around or before 3000 BC) for the initial divergence of such probably Yamnaya-related branches from PIE, as Celtic, Italic, Germanic and Tocharian. In my opinion, the Catacomb culture (and its possible IE proto-languages, like Greek and Armenian) was an organic and in situ continuation of the Yamnaya, with some novelties and innovations that spread from the southeast (near the sea of Azov).

"The beginning of the Catacomb culture in the area between the river Don and the northern Caucasus Mountains can be absolutely dated to the early 3rd millennium BC, more precisely to 2800/2700 cal BC, and comes to an end around 2000 cal BC (Table 2.2). Similar dates are given for the North Pontic region, where the Early Catacomb culture is thought to have emerged about 2800/2700 to 2500 BC, coexisting with the Yamnaya culture and followed by the developed phase of the Catacomb culture that lasted until 2000/1900 BC."
Click to expand...

There is no doubt in recent research about a continuous development from the Yamnaya to the Catacomb culture and a coexistence of Yamnaya and Early Catacomb culture for several hundred years. [...] Other scholars believe the Catacomb culture originated from intense interactions between the Yamnaya and contemporaneous cultural groups in the Caucasus. Bratchenko (2001), for example, regards the Catacomb culture as a product of interactions between the Precaucasus region and the steppe cultures.
Click to expand...
 
Regardless, the Catacomb culture could have been a parallel development or a product of an interaction with the Yamnayas. The hypothesis is that the speakers of the language (proto-Balkan?) that became Greek, Phrygian, and Armenian was an offshoot of the "western" Catacomb culture, splitting off from PIE before the later Yamnaya migrations. After a period in the Balkans, they split off from each other, with Greek speakers migrating into Greece and Armenian and Phrygian speakers migrating into Anatolia. The language of the Linear B script is Greek, not proto-Greek.
 
Catacombs: some possible clues: the earlier ones show metrically more ressemblances with Western,Northern and Central Europe people of the LN than Yamnaya (so among diverse inputs, rather an EEF input than a strong CHG or "iranian" input; and they seem having been more depending on agriculture than were Yamnaya people (picked in some readings)... all the way an imput of non typically steppic pops, rather from a post-Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, in Western Ukraina, or maybe people of Eastern Balkans or Eastern Carpathians - why not a mix of Old Europe and early Steppics occurred there with a kind of return to the Steppes? here we need the competences of archeologists - it seems the Late Catacombs show more Steppic or at least "eastern" elements, principally through females? New osmosis after this return?
 
MOESAN said:
Catacombs: some possible clues: the earlier ones show metrically more ressemblances with Western,Northern and Central Europe people of the LN than Yamnaya (so among diverse inputs, rather an EEF input than a strong CHG or "iranian" input; and they seem having been more depending on agriculture than were Yamnaya people (picked in some readings)... all the way an imput of non typically steppic pops, rather from a post-Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, in Western Ukraina, or maybe people of Eastern Balkans or Eastern Carpathians - why not a mix of Old Europe and early Steppics occurred there with a kind of return to the Steppes? here we need the competences of archeologists - it seems the Late Catacombs show more Steppic or at least "eastern" elements, principally through females? New osmosis after this return?
Click to expand...

Moesan,
Because its not a mix of early steppist with anything.
What you say makes lots of sense but it does not need steppe for any purpose.
In reality is a mix of old europe with 5000 bc newly arrival to balkans coming from south caucasus as we already know was a movement of CHG loaded people into west.
Boian, gulmenita, etc was rabidly mixing with old europe and is best seen in what is known as pre-cucuteni.
This mix moved to east into steppe as well as steppe moved into west. People really moved around. All not just steppe.
 
I cited some nude facts, and after that, an hypothesis (among other possibilities I did not propose then). I have no certainty or agenda as you surely know.
By the way, it seems the CHG input was rather weak among Trypillia people; I have an admixture table where i'm not sure of the value of the orange colour : 'steppe' or 'CHG'. On another side, I looked on CH and BA in Iberia, and it seems the HG element were very more EHG than WHG compared to precedent periods in Iberia...
 
MOESAN said:
I cited some nude facts, and after that, an hypothesis (among other possibilities I did not propose then). I have no certainty or agenda as you surely know.
By the way, it seems the CHG input was rather weak among Trypillia people; I have an admixture table where i'm not sure of the value of the orange colour : 'steppe' or 'CHG'. On another side, I looked on CH and BA in Iberia, and it seems the HG element were very more EHG than WHG compared to precedent periods in Iberia...
Click to expand...

Yes. and all caveats need to be in place. 4000bc was a time when new groups were starting to form.
Trypillia might not be as close to Cucuteni as one expects and even less to pre-cucuteni.
archaeologically one has Hamangia (what was their admix?) mixing with Boian (what was their admix?) and Gulmenita ((what was their admix?)) and rapidly going to encounter "old Europe" remains of starcevo-Cris.
Nobody expects this large amount of people to immediately inter breed and become homogenous, do we?
At this point (4000bc-3500bc) I would imagine that even ingroup, same culture, several differences in admix should really be apparent dependent on the site one gets the samples.
 
Ah, the justifiably banned Tomenable strikes again. Now it's a paper from the Reich group that gets a downvote in an attempt to get back at me.

I don't care, Tomenable. You're wasting your time. :)
 
Olympus Mons said:
Amazing how they are evading altogether Shulaveri Shomu both in time and geography. I am expectant! they have something!
Click to expand...

I still look at these posts like

FOI8ERv.gif
 
...
Humm.
 
Trojet tested the BAM file for: KDC001.A0101 Kudachurt 3823.5 MBA North Caucasus X2i J2b
and he is


J2b-L283+ Z590+ Z627- (or J2b-L283*)



So now we have a confirmed J2b2-L283 in the North Caucasus dated at 1971-1777 calBCE
 
Just saw on Eurogenes after the Wang datas were out, that apparently, rumors are saying that 2 individuals from Eneolithic Steppe ( PG2001 and PG2004 ) were found by some to have been R1b-V1636, while the R1b-M415 individual from Kura-Araxes ( 2000 years later ) was also refound to be R1b-V1636. If this turns to be confirmed, it's another big fail for any kind of " R1b coming from Middle-East " and i know someone who will be very dissapointed. Did they somehow found a potential Hittite trace?
 
bicicleur said:
Isn't V1636 the Bootai clade?
Click to expand...

You mean Botai? No, Botai was R1b-M73 ( R1b1a1a1 ) so downstream to P297. As for V1636, i'm not really sure were it is in the Phylogenetic Tree of R1b, i think it's a brother of P297, something like R1b-L388 (xR1b1a1a ).
 
halfalp said:
Just saw on Eurogenes after the Wang datas were out, that apparently, rumors are saying that 2 individuals from Eneolithic Steppe ( PG2001 and PG2004 ) were found by some to have been R1b-V1636, while the R1b-M415 individual from Kura-Araxes ( 2000 years later ) was also refound to be R1b-V1636. If this turns to be confirmed, it's another big fail for any kind of " R1b coming from Middle-East " and i know someone who will be very dissapointed. Did they somehow found a potential Hittite trace?
Click to expand...

IIRC the Kura Araxes guy is the one with zero EHG admixture out of the Armenian metal age samples.
 
markod said:
IIRC the Kura Araxes guy is the one with zero EHG admixture out of the Armenian metal age samples.
Click to expand...

PG2001 and PG2004 are dated 6000 BCE so almost 2000 ( 1500 to be fair ) years before the Kura-Araxes sample. We keep thinking that Anatolian Languages must have came from the Steppe in the Yamnaya times, but what if there was a pre-migration? Roughly 4000BC a change into male lineages in south caucasus with steppe ones, without clear cultural change, but with a linguistic change? Also even if i'm not very found of, shouldn't this hypothesis somewhow be confirmed by glottochronology? It still have to be confirmed that those calls are right, but let's think a minute, what are the odds that P297 was in the Baltic while his closer sibling would be from Armenia? Also i know i keep this argument ever and ever, but nobody is questioning that the Popovo J1 individual with 100% EHG zero CHG came ultimately from South Caucasus.
 
markod said:
IIRC the Kura Araxes guy is the one with zero EHG admixture out of the Armenian metal age samples.
Click to expand...

Also interesting enough that both the R1b from Kura-Araxes and the one from Hajji Firuz seems to not shows any EHG, while they were found with non-R1b individuals clearly showing Steppe ancestry, what can we conclude of this? That neighboring ancestry should tell us on the origin of those individuals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 240193 times.

Back
Top