Ancient genomes from Caucasus inc. Maykop

And Olympus Mons, can you please stop negative writing all my posts because you dont like me >:D.

What is negative writing?
 
I would change "dominance" by "abundance" is not equivalent.

Don't hold to strickly to that. If today I would have written it very differently. ;)
 
At the end of the day you are still wrong. If Yamnaya and R1b ( wich is so much a ridiculous statement because M269 is not R1b it's M269 ) came genetically from Shulaveri-Shomu, they would not be 60% EHG but more likely 80% CHG. And what do you mean by " homeland of all western europeans " wtf is that kind of statement. I hope they give you your freaking R1b-M269 in Shulaveri just so you can do something else of your life and not being obsessed by genetic anymore.

Kid, grow up.
 
Then tell me: Why, apart from genetics, would that culture be a candidate for being an early PIE culture?



But early PIE and late PIE don't show different substrates. The scenario you propose would even make that more remarkable than if Shulaveri was PIE entirely.



Good, let us go by that road: Why, apart from genetics, would that geographical location be a candidate for early PIE?


Apart from Genetics.
(note: you do realize that for all the 3 main labs to have changed their mind and making a bullseye in the Shulaveri land it’s because they know what as not been published, right?)
First, I need to write an entry on Kickedoutdogs (https://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo.pt/) about *****ed pearl culture!

Ok, apart from genetics. --- “would that culture be a candidate for being an early PIE culture”


  1. about the *****ed pearl culture (it masks Pri.c.ked). Some know it by svobodnoe settlement is actually the shulaveri arriving to north Caucasus. Only when I read the google translation from russian of the wiki *****ed pearl culture did I get it so clearly: Shulaveri, agriculture, pastoral, shulaleri spoons, antler, carnelian beads, etc--- and copper! – so, 4800bc. The story of early *****ed pearl as shulaveri moving to kuban river, then overrun by incoming later bla bla,etc that led to Maykop...

So, in a nutshell. Shulaveri had all the baggage of agriculture, all the baggage of pastoral, all the topominia baggage, metal baggage, horse baggage…. You name it. and, why not, the perfect place to be the start of the most common tale of the PIE, the hero that killed the snake/Dragon, because they were gone the moment Ubaid, snake people, arrived to their land.

In time for be the ignite of PIE dispersal I don’t really know of any local culture with the number, the amount of settlement and population density to be source of a language and most important they were the ones gone the moment agriculture arrived to Steppe, etc... this could go on, and on and on.
 
Gentlemen, dial it back on the language and the negative aspersions please.
 
"At the community level, bioarchaeological investigations seriously challenge the hypothesis of large-scale mobility both in piedmont and in steppe environments.
"Burials and the transportation involved need not necessarily imply mobile individuals or mobile communities. While the usefulness of wheeled transport for pastoral communities living in steppe environments is indisputable, this need not entail large-scale mobility or long-distance migrations."
Then, how to explain yamna migration to altai?

As far as I know, wagon was not found in afanasievo of which kurgan is not earthen mounds. They have Q1a.
Interersting thing is the oldest wagon was found in the kurgan of Q1a2 in Maykop steppe where they reused Maykop mound. why?

During the 3rd millennium, Yamnaya groups used the Maykop mound and added several graves in central positions and on the periphery as well as at least one new mound-shell. The last interments (graves 1, 2, 7,8 and wagon grave 9) belong to the late Bronze Age Catacomb period. Empty grave 10 can only roughly be dated to the Middle Bronze Age. Mound 6 in Sharakhalsun revealed four complexes with remains of wooden wagons belonging to different cultural formations. It is one of few places with a concentration of wagon burials among the hundreds of excavated mounds in the vicinity and yielded the oldest dated wooden wagon so far in grave 18. This individual probably was one of the first that adopted this new technology in the North Caucasian and Caspian steppe41. The complexes of Sharakhalsun are part of a larger bioarchaeological study and are scheduled for full publication in 2019. Five individuals produced genome-wide data

"Only in the following late 3rd and early 2nd millennia BC in the South Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia and Mesopotamia did wagon burials become formalised status markers for elite burials (Sagona 2013)."

Looks like that thing happened by Invader, which resulted in 55.6% Assyrian L23 as mentioned before. I think the L23 came with their armenoid nose or convex nose style. As far as I know, ancient med people didnot have that type of noses, who lived in caucasus area until neolithic.


And I always think that sintashta chariot also seemed to be just a symbol of elite group, not for transportation or war. Until now, I never heard that there was petrograph of chariots regarding sintashta. However, tons of chariot petroglyphs in Andronovo age were found in altai, tuva, mongolia, east karzakstan, kirgistan, and even Tibet. Looks like in inner asia mountain corridor.

However, by 2400 BC changes are consistently visible, starting with settlement patterns; the abandonment of the former Kura-Araxes villages and a shift toward less permanent occupations and higher mobility coupled with the construction of monumental funerary tumuli (Edens, 1995). These earthen kurgans—with their preserved wooden-log funerary chambers containing wheeled wagons (Djaparidze, 2003; Makharadze and Murvanidze, 2014; Lyonnet, 2014) and rich funerary inventories composed of skillfully crafted golden and silver artifacts, arsenical copper, and tin-bronze objects (Chernykh, 1992; Carminati, 2014)—are paradigmatic of the radical changes in the region.
 
Kid, grow up.
Classic solitude that brings narcissism and egocentrism. I'm probably older than you and you are probably 24-25 but you always thought you were more intelligent than other people, then you condescendently called others kiddos.
 
That's what I said at the beginning but someone tried to tell me Hittites were J2a and Maykop J1. So Maykop was J2a, G2 L and what about Hittites? Weren't say J2 and G2 too? Still even if they were J1 my argument still stays.

I explained myself in the posts above. I believe Caucasian languages (at least Kartvelian) is linked to ANF ancestry and therefore G2. The reason for this is simple. Kartvelian shows linguistic structures also found in Basque but lacking in other (ergativity) and Kartvelians are dominated by G2 Haplogroup too.

There are studies which support that Georgian is neither an ergative, nor a 'split-ergative' language either and that it is 'more accurately analyzed as a language having a split between the nominative and the active alignment according to the case and agreement marking, rather than as ergative or “split-ergative”'
 
So what if i have 34 posts. I try to keep it down on purpose.

Yes he is a long time amateur, i'm an archaeologist.

True. And I know exactly what that makes me. But you know what? I also do know archaeologists that don't make such a point about that but basically like amateurs. We share a passion, you know.

You know, those guys with the trowels who are writing the papers which the amateurs discuss. What counts more in your eyes?
In 3-4 years you are going to quote my papers on this forum and you are going to see my name on a lot of these archaeogenetic collaborations.
By that time you and epoch will still be on eurogenes and AG trying to push forward your disinformation.

And the name on those papers will be what? Because I'd like to come back to that. And if you turned out to be right, I wholeheartedly will acknowledge that.

You don't know what you are talking about. He doesn't know anything. He hasn't read one single book on archaeological theory in his whole life. I can see that in every post he makes.

You take the AG beef we had here. So be it.

You see, I'd love to tap into your knowledge exactly for that. What you, however, mentioned is that all archeology is political based on the sociological theory of Social Constructivisme and I tend to consider that just as much bias. For if you feel an obligation to "prove Nazi's wrong" and you think that the origin of PIE is a crucial part therein since all archaeology is political, something that seems to be hinted by you, then you may think you have neutralized political bias, but in effect you actually have introduced political bias.

A political bias that may blind people to the point that they seem to forget that an Ukrainian Urheimat is proving Nazi's wrong.

All he does is bring forward conspiracy theories which contradict what all the great institutes like Max planck, Copenhagen geogenetics and Harvard Labs. are saying.

What conspiracy theories, exactly?

Mind you, I asked a question. You see, as I am an amateur I was curious why I haven't read about the possible big time migrations from Iran, or the Caucasus into the steppe to form Yamnaya before the whole genetics stuff came about.
 
And the Turkic speaking groups are the best example of why even the most admixed groups still show signs of their ancestors in their DNA. You are making the mistake that you equate Turkic with East Eurasian DNA. But even the most pure Turkic speaking groups are at least 25% West Eurasian. Take in mind the distance between the first Turkic speaking groups and Anatolian Turks. And that the Anatolian Turks are from the Oghuz branch which evolved somewhere around modern day Turkmenistan. So the source for the Anatolian Turks are actually Turkmenistanis and not Kyrgyz. Even if you take Kyrgyz you still get something around 10% Turkic admixture. But if you take Turkmenistanis the admixture rises up to 20-30%.

"proto Steppe Hittites" completely ignoring their own females and going all out on "local" Hattian wifes is a possibility, but does that sound plausible. Not for me.

If that's what happened than for real they must have hated their own females or those girls must have been really really not good looking.

I'm making no such mistakes. The Turks are actually the perfect example for a comparison, because they were also probably a people with two main and very distinct streams of ancestry. To assess the "real" demographic impact of Turks in a population after some of their many migration waves along ~1000 years, you'd have first to consider not Proto-Turks from the Altai, but the specific (and much more admixed) Turkic source where the migrants came from, and you'd have to consider the East Asian ancestry just a "proxy" for the presence of Proto-Turkic descent, but not as the entire percentage of the Turkic impact in the local gene pool. Depending on the Turkic population (for example, whether it is Gagauz, Chuvash, Anatolian Turkish etc.), a ~5% East Asian signal can mean an "effective" Turkic presence of 8%, 10%, 20%, 30%. It varies widely. That's exactly like in the case of Indo-Europeans.

The logic of what you say about the Turkish people is exactly the same I'm applying, hypothetically, to the Hittite population, with the caveat, of course that the EHG component was already very reduced (~40-50% at most) even in the earliest Proto-Indo-European population in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Eneolithic Steppe circa 4300 BC), let alone after thousands of years mating with people with little or no EHG.

Many Turkic people today descend from medieval Turks in significant (not major) percentages, enough to engender a linguistic shift, but the East Asian/Northeast Siberian component in them is negligible. Why? Because they do not descend from people who came straight from Northeast Asia, but from previously assimilated Turkic populations increasingly mixed with West Eurasians. Similarly, it's not just possible, but very probable that, if the Anatolians really left their homeland very early (before 4000 BC), by 1700-1600 BC they would've been completely changed, especially if the migration was male-biased and their destination was (as in fact it was) already very populous.

Again, it seems to me you still didn't get my point on the maths. We're talking about averages here. If EHG was diluted until it became on average just 1% of the Central Anatolian gene pool, then, well, you may find some people with 10% or 20%, but the vast majority will have virtually 0%. It doesn't matter how many females were Hattian or Anatolian IE, what matters is that, on average, they were probably in the minority especially if the Proto-Anatolian movements were very male-biased as it also happened elsewhere during the BA IE expansions. Of course, people do not mate exclusively outside their own group, but, yes, exogamy was pretty common back then (actually that, according to Mt-DNA distributions, seems the main reason for the high CHG in the steppes, for example), and we have so few samples that we unquestionably have to think of how the "average" person of a given region was, because the probability to find people from the tiny minority is of course very small when you have analyzed the DNA of only 2, 3 or 5 individuals in a place where hundreds of thousands must've lived.
 
Last edited:
I'm making no such mistakes. The Turks are actually the perfect example for a comparison, because they were also probably a people with two main and very distinct streams of ancestry. To assess the "real" demographic impact of Turks in a population after some of their many migration waves along ~1000 years, you'd have first to consider not Proto-Turks from the Altai, but the specific (and much more admixed) Turkic source where the migrants came from, and you'd have to consider the East Asian ancestry just a "proxy" for the presence of Proto-Turkic descent, but not as the entire percentage of the Turkic impact in the local gene pool. That's exactly like in the case of Indo-Europeans. The logic of what you say about the Turkish people is exactly the same I'm applying, hypothetically, to the Hittite population, with the caveat, of course that the EHG component was already very reduced (~40-50% at most) even in the earliest Proto-Indo-European population in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Eneolithic Steppe circa 4300 BC), let alone after thousands of years mating with people with little or no EHG.
Many Turkic people today descend from medieval Turks in significant (not major) percentages, enough to engender a linguistic shift, but the East Asian/Northeast Siberian component in them is negligible. Why? Because they do not descend from people who came straight from Northeast Asia, but from previously assimilated Turkic populations increasingly mixed with West Eurasians. Similarly, it's not just possible, but very probable that, if the Anatolians really left their homeland very early (before 4000 BC), by 1700-1600 BC they would've been completely changed, especially if the migration was male-biased and their destination was (as in fact it was) already very populous.
Again, it seems to me you still didn't get my point on the maths. We're talking about averages here. If EHG was diluted until it became on average just 1% of the Central Anatolian gene pool, then, well, you may find some people with 10% or 20%, but the vast majority will have virtually 0%. It doesn't matter how many females were Hattian or Anatolian IE, what matters is that, on average, they were probably in the minority especially if the Proto-Anatolian movements were very male-biased as it also happened elsewhere during the BA IE expansions. Of course, people do not mate exclusively outside their own group, but, yes, exogamy was pretty common back then (actually that, according to Mt-DNA distributions, seems the main reason for the high CHG in the steppes, for example), and we have so few samples that we unquestionably have to think of how the "average" person of a given region was, because the probability to find people from the tiny minority is of course very small when you have analyzed the DNA of only 2, 3 or 5 individuals in a place where hundreds of thousands must've lived.
Can you link any turkic migrations into Anatolia prior to the roman period.
I see nothing until either they came with the mongols or circa 11th century AD.................basically as far as I know there was no Turkic people in ancient anatolia
 
quoting "The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World"

The rather limited vocabulary pertaining to metallurgy in Proto-Indo-
European is listed in Table 15.2.
The basic word for ‘metal’ in Proto-Indo-European is *haey-es- (e.g. Lat aes
‘copper, bronze’, NE ore, Av ayah- ‘metal (probably bronze)’, Skt a´yas- [earlier]
‘copper’, [later] ‘iron’) and it is generally presumed to mean ‘copper’ or the
copper-tin alloy of ‘bronze’ although it has come to mean ‘iron’ in some of the
Indo-European languages, e.g. Indo-Iranian; however, there is clear evidence
that it earlier meant ‘copper’ or ‘bronze’. In the Germanic languages it tends to
mean ‘ore’ and it is possible it simply meant ‘metal’ rather than a speciWc type
of metal. The second term, *h1roudho´s, is widely enough attested (e.g. ON rauði
‘red iron ore’, OCS ruda ‘ore; metal’, NPers ro¯d ‘copper’, Skt loha´ - ‘copper’) but
it is such a banal derivative of *h1reudh- ‘red’, i.e. the ‘red metal’ or ‘copper’,
that it probably represents independent developments in diVerent Indo-
European groups.
There are two potential words for ‘gold’. The more reliably attested is
*haeusom  *haweseha- (e.g. Lat aurum, OPrus ausis, Toch B yasa, all ‘gold’),
a noun ultimately derived from the root *haewes- ‘shine’ which also underlies
the word for ‘dawn’, *hae´uso¯s (see Section 18.6). It has been plausibly suggested
that an Indo-European form similar to the one ancestral to Tocharian has been
widely borrowed into the Uralic languages, e.g. Proto-Balto-Finnic-Lapp-
Mordvin *was´ke ‘copper, brass’, Proto-Ugric *was´ ‘metal, iron’, Proto-
Samoyed *wesa¨ ‘metal, iron’. The second word, ?*gˆhel-, is a colour word
‘yellow’ which is often used to supply a word for ‘gold’, and although the same root is shared across Germanic-Baltic-Slavic, and Indo-Iranian, the
diVering ablaut grades and suYxes suggest post-Proto-Indo-European formation
(e.g. NE gold, Latv ze`lts, Rus zo´loto, Av zaranyam, Skt hı´ran
_
yam, all
‘gold’). In addition to the ‘red metal’ (copper) and the ‘yellow metal’ (gold)
we have the ‘white metal’ (silver), *h2ergˆ-n8t-om  *h2regˆ-n8t-om (e.g. OIr argat,
Lat argentum, Arm arcat‘, Av @r@zat@m, Skt rajata´m, Toch B n˜kante [with *r
. . . n assimilated to *n . . . n], all ‘silver’). Formed like our Wrst word for ‘gold’,
this suggests the use of an adjective (perhaps *h2e´rgˆ-n8t, genitive *h2r 8gˆ-n8t-o´s,
which was subsequently made thematic) before some noun such as *haey-es-,
i.e. ‘silver-metal’.
The North-West region provides evidence of an early Wanderwort in
*silVbVr- ‘silver’ which occurs in Ibero-Celtic (alone of the Celtic languages)
s´ilaPur, Germanic (e.g. NE silver), Baltic (e.g. Lith sida˜bras), and Slavic (e.g.
Rus serebro´) and its doubtful vowels and various outcomes of the consonants
suggest that it has been borrowed from some non-Indo-European source.

They say nothing about Anatolian languages, but Yamnayans had copper tools and weapons, so Anatolians were steppe blondish guys 2 meters tall that didn't need any metal to cut trees or kill enemies, just an slap was enough. Now seriously, or Anatolians were roaming deep into the forests, or the Caucasian homeland takes more points... but then departing before knowing metals. Even the few metal names seem related to IE adjectives. Just a mess as usual with this case.
 
And now with the Maykop paper they can check how their IE CHG were not colonizing the steppes in the right timeframe for common IE (common words for metals per example......)

Nice observation. I'd like to know what words for metals and other technology Anatolian IE shares with the rest of the IE family. We already know Maykop was not the source of that CHG, and other Chalcolithic/Bronze Age samples from the region nearby don't look like the source either, so if PIE came from outside the steppes then it was still a Neolithic or at best an Early Copper Age language and couldn't have start to split and colonize other regions before the Bronze Age (or if Anatolian IE doesn't share typical Bronze Age terms with the rest, maybe in the Late Copper Age).

As for Indic, yes, it's complete nonsense to imagine that it would've been an early arrival in South Asia spread by CHG people, thus assuming a simply impossible situation where Indo-Aryan would've "coincidentally" evolved for many centuries or even milennia in the very same way of other IE dialects very far away from South Asia, in Northeastern Europe/Northwest Asia.
 
Can you link any turkic migrations into Anatolia prior to the roman period.
I see nothing until either they came with the mongols or circa 11th century AD.................basically as far as I know there was no Turkic people in ancient anatolia

You're totally misunderstanding my post. That's not what we are discussing here at all. We're comparing the fact the probable demographic and genetic dynamics of the CA/BA Indo-European migrations with the fact that medieval Turkic immigrations happened in multiple waves and with a lot of dilution of their original autosomal makeup to the point that some of the Turkified populations received Turkic immigration, but have very little Northeast Asian/East Asian admixture. The Turkic immigrations didn't involve Proto-Turks, but a lot of Turkic and Turkified "daughter" populations.

By comparing with historically attested steppe immigrations from relatively recent and literate times, we're trying to address how the immigrations of IE tribes could've impacted the local populations of their new homelands in very different ways and proportions (including a lot of dilution of their original "genetic signal", be it EHG in the case of steppe IEs, or East Asian-related in the case of Turks), especially if we take into account the very high likelihood that they didn't leap from one place to another one far away from their original lands, rather they probably expanded slowly and unsystematically, upon several generations until they finally reached their final destination.
 
Nice observation. I'd like to know what words for metals and other technology Anatolian IE shares with the rest of the IE family. We already know Maykop was not the source of that CHG, and other Chalcolithic/Bronze Age samples from the region nearby don't look like the source either, so if PIE came from outside the steppes then it was still a Neolithic or at best an Early Copper Age language and couldn't have start to split and colonize other regions before the Bronze Age (or if Anatolian IE doesn't share typical Bronze Age terms with the rest, maybe in the Late Copper Age).

As for Indic, yes, it's complete nonsense to imagine that it would've been an early arrival in South Asia spread by CHG people, thus assuming a simply impossible situation where Indo-Aryan would've "coincidentally" evolved for many centuries or even milennia in the very same way of other IE dialects very far away from South Asia, in Northeastern Europe/Northwest Asia.
Yesterday i looked for words for metals among IE and it seems that it was spoken in copper age;

Many are taken from wiktionary including opinions of authors,with some words added from me;

Proto-Slavic "želězo"(iron) Cognate with Lithuanian geležìs, Latvian dzèlzs and Old Prussian gelso.Has been connected with Ancient Greek χαλκός (khalkós, “ore, copper, bronze”), but the connection cannot be established in terms of regular phonetic correspondences. However, both could be independent loanwords from a common eastern source, whence also possibly Hittite [script needed] ((ḫ)apalki, “iron”).

Latin "aenus" is the only word in Proto-Indo-European that unequivocally refers to a metal,this word refers to copper (and bronze), and the Proto-Indo-European word refers with absolute certainty to one of these metals, or both. There is no word for iron and the words for gold and silver seem to mean ”that which shines”, or ”the golden” and ”the silvery”, respectively.This shows that the Indo-European language was spoken during a time when copper was used.

Slavic -"med"(copper),most likely connected with Germanic-"smith"(craftsman) from IE
*(s)mēy(H)- (“to cut, hew”). Ancient Greek-σμίλη "smī́lē"(tool for cutting,carving),Celtic-mēnis (ore,metal,mine).

Persian- "mes"(copper) in my opinion is also connected to above.

Itself the word "metal" come from Greek but seem connected to me.


I think that Proto-IE started expanding in early copper age (Chalcolithic,Eneolithic)


 
Proto-Slavic "želězo"(iron) Cognate with Lithuanian geležìs, Latvian dzèlzs and Old Prussian gelso.Has been connected with Ancient Greek χαλκός (khalkós, “ore, copper, bronze”), but the connection cannot be established in terms of regular phonetic correspondences. However, both could be independent loanwords from a common eastern source, whence also possibly Hittite [script needed] ((ḫ)apalki, “iron”).

I have thought about that, the Greek word at least, that it might have something to do with Colchians.

compare kolkhós, 'a Colchian', khalkos 'copper, copper alloyed with tin, bronze'

First of all, a parallel exists, the word copper comes from late Latin cuprum, which in turn ultimately from Kúpros, Cyprus

Then, there is this map > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Diffusion_métallurgie.png
------------
Words that derive from *h₂erǵ- which means 'silver' exists in many branches, though. I am not sure how that is interpreted if we assume the languages expanded during the Bronze Age or earlier. That being said the original meaning of the root in PIE should have been related to the meaning white and although cognates seem to have existed in Tocharian and Hittite they don't have anything to do with metals.
 
Honestly, after going through the data again, and reading this thread, it looks to me that we mostly likely have Caucasian speakers in the Caucuses, and Indo-European speakers to the North. Just as the archaeologists have been saying all along.

Y lines match up, autosomal matches up, we're as certain as we'll ever be that every other IE language came from the steppe. There's only Anatolian, and this one R1b-Z2103 guy that everyone is freaking out about. And that sample still hasn't been hit with a mass spec.
 
you forget that the guy is half ANF half CHG...
 
I have thought about that, the Greek word at least, that it might have something to do with Colchians.

compare kolkhós, 'a Colchian', khalkos 'copper, copper alloyed with tin, bronze'

First of all, a parallel exists, the word copper comes from late Latin cuprum, which in turn ultimately from Kúpros, Cyprus

Then, there is this map > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Diffusion_métallurgie.png
------------
Words that derive from *h₂erǵ- which means 'silver' exists in many branches, though. I am not sure how that is interpreted if we assume the languages expanded during the Bronze Age or earlier. That being said the original meaning of the root in PIE should have been related to the meaning white and although cognates seem to have existed in Tocharian and Hittite they don't have anything to do with metals.

That's all good but it seems that words for copper exists in PIE and later bronze,that was the point.The word "copper" however is not shared by IE speakers,Latin is "aenus" for copper and bronze.
 

This thread has been viewed 239395 times.

Back
Top