Ancient genomes from Caucasus inc. Maykop

I dont feel it's the case, nobody a part amateur interested in those studies are aware of all we are talking here, there is no mass sensitivity applied, there is no need to be neutral.

But a large part of their audience are archaeologist and linguists, who have long standing fierce discussions. As archaeogenetics is delivering data these geneticists may feel it their task to be as neutral as possible. If you'd had a lab specialized in C14 dating you'd also be bloody careful not to present your data with a verdict attached.

I think they know exactly what they are saying, but that's the point what are they saying ? It's an amazing paper, the Caucasus paper, i waited it for so many months, but the semi-conclusion and the fact that this study let more questions than answers about the genetic history of europe is frustrating. Like a lot of people have said, i think they have way more samples and they have constructed a story about PIE before publishing this paper and certainly many other papers. I feel they should give their analysis to how they percieve CHG and genetic interactions, because this study is very different than the previous in their results, i mean CHG in Motala, this is not random, this is not nothing, i believe the result, but i can't believe some guys from south caucasus roaming into scandinavia in mesolithic, so CHG have to have more secrets, what are those secrets ?

I think the Reich lab makes a big mistake in mingling in the Urheimat discussion the way they do. For two reasons, the first being what I said about being neutral. The second is that they don't call it and point to a culture. I think that is because that need for neutrality remains being felt, but it now becomes a constant hinting. This way nobody can counter or take apart their proposal because it's too vague. And yet we are constantly prodded in one direction.
 
Lol their chart shows CHG in Motala, CWC more CHG than EHG please... here we going away of PIE, we are reconstructd the genetic prehistory of europe with CHG in is core.
They possibly got their hands on some samples from the Caucasus that show some of the genes previously thought to be EHG are actually CHG like.
 
@halfalp

ADMIXTURE does not show percentages of real admixture but percentages of how far several samples are from each other in Fst and f3 stats (IIRC). That is a subtle difference which will allow for artifacts. The value of ADMIXTURE is the first raw interpretation of the data. You therefore can state that this or that sample clearly has this or that affinity if it has a clear difference. However, it does show strange artifacts, or describes unadmixted samples as unexpected admixtures, as you noticed.

EDIT: BTW, ADMIXTURE comes in K levels, meaning it forces the data in a limited number of populations, expressed in K=[number]. The runs that are done come with a P value, a statistical value related to the reliability. The way to run it is increasing K with one, run it, and then check the value of P. The best value of P is than taken as the best representation of reality. Very often, though, several adjacent K-level have P values that hardly differ. Still, the best is presented. That gives you an idea on how to interpret its results.
 
seems like these admixture % are varying from study to study. first it was 50-60% EHG in yamnas. now its more like 30%. or the 50-60% were not saying how much was "actual" EHG admixture but how much was contributed by EHG populations including CHG like ancestry already present in these EHG's.
^this
That is the most likely scenario in some samples form the Caucasus they found DNA formerly attributed to younger EHG samples.

CHG admixture in the Steppes must be from several waves. The eariest reaching the region during early Neolithic or maybe Mesolithic. All the way into Chalcolthic/Bronze Age and even Iron Age.
 
^this
That is the most likely scenario in some samples form the Caucasus they found DNA formerly attributed to younger EHG samples.

CHG admixture in the Steppes must be from several waves. The eariest reaching the region during early Neolithic or maybe Mesolithic. All the way into Chalcolthic/Bronze Age and even Iron Age.

Why is that the most likely scenario? And which samples are those? And why wouldn't the added CHG populations pick up their part of the admixture, yet the EHG part would?
 
Please, without rambling, why do you think Shulaveri went to the Balkans?

With a warning. I give you one chance. I have Little time for certain phenotypes:

so, ... which part of Zuzana Hofmanová et al 2016, telling us KUM6 (4600bc) belongs to a new and different anatolian population for having CHG, unlike previous Anatolia populations and EEF and which part of her , Hofmanova, telling us that, confirming Archeology, KUM6 (Kumtepe) shared ancestry with shortly later North Greece samples from late Neolithic, Klei10 , Pal7,and all sharing CHG, did you not get?.
Which part of GM Kılınç - ‎2016, writing about her, again about her CHG, but also the shared ancestry with Remedello culture in North Italy, 1000 year later. Actually, telling us how remarkably close she was to Otzi the Iceman, that is thought to be a Remedello man did you not get?

What is the part about Laziridis 2017 paper about Minoans and Mycenaeans that got you lost?


So, the expansion of EEF/CHG into Balkans in the 5th millennium via North Anatolia is a reality. Boian, Gumelniţa–Karanovo VI, moving north into Varna and Cucuteni-trypolie, moving south into North Greece (yes later Mycenean), moving west until north Italy as Remedello. Like so many, others in other places, give it time and they will mix with other people.
 
But a large part of their audience are archaeologist and linguists, who have long standing fierce discussions. As archaeogenetics is delivering data these geneticists may feel it their task to be as neutral as possible. If you'd had a lab specialized in C14 dating you'd also be bloody careful not to present your data with a verdict attached.



I think the Reich lab makes a big mistake in mingling in the Urheimat discussion the way they do. For two reasons, the first being what I said about being neutral. The second is that they don't call it and point to a culture. I think that is because that need for neutrality remains being felt, but it now becomes a constant hinting. This way nobody can counter or take apart their proposal because it's too vague. And yet we are constantly prodded in one direction.

Epoch, you are not a newbie. So show us where you were in the past voicing such concerns when these labs for over 5 years pretty much voice Steppe as the urheimat of PIE?
 
With a warning. I give you one chance. I have Little time for certain phenotypes:

so, ... which part of Zuzana Hofmanová et al 2016, telling us KUM6 (4600bc) belongs to a new and different anatolian population for having CHG, unlike previous Anatolia populations and EEF and which part of her , Hofmanova, telling us that, confirming Archeology, KUM6 (Kumtepe) shared ancestry with shortly later North Greece samples from late Neolithic, Klei10 , Pal7,and all sharing CHG, did you not get?.
Which part of GM Kılınç - ‎2016, writing about her, again about her CHG, but also the shared ancestry with Remedello culture in North Italy, 1000 year later. Actually, telling us how remarkably close she was to Otzi the Iceman, that is thought to be a Remedello man did you not get?

What is the part about Laziridis 2017 paper about Minoans and Mycenaeans that got you lost?


So, the expansion of EEF/CHG into Balkans in the 5th millennium via North Anatolia is a reality. Boian, Gumelniţa–Karanovo VI, moving north into Varna and Cucuteni-trypolie, moving south into North Greece (yes later Mycenean), moving west until north Italy as Remedello. Like so many, others in other places, give it time and they will mix with other people.

Didn't Varna have Steppe, or am I mistaking it for WHG? Also, what you are describing is basically the Caucasian component on Dodecad K12b, and your story seems to match the distribution.

However, Maciamo seems to link it's spread in Europe to the Western farmers, and the CHG that was observed in the Minoan paper is surely from the Kura-Araxes expansion.

What does this have to do with anything Indo-European?
 
Did you bother to read it? Because this paper doesn't even remotely bury the steppe theory. If anything, it buries the south of the Caucasus theory. Because, if the PIE homeland is there, how did late PIE get in the steppe? Not by males. And that is what this paper's data says.

Did you really didn't understand what this paper is all about?

This paper is about settling the record straight about Maykop origin and their role in the spread of PIE. So, Zero! People that thought that they were R1b/PIE origin can give up (like I always said and fought) and move on. which is good.

Maykop is the extension of the two (now apparently two) components that made the Chalcolithic transcaucasia. The period from 4900bc onwards, as we are learning now should be described as the ultimate move of Ubaid into northern part of transcaucasia and the arrival of a another component that might have come from the Kopet Dag mountains, something linked to Jeitun culture/Keltiminar culture.

So, leave ethnogenesis of you beloved Yamnaya out of these paper. That, happened in 4900bc. Why do you think any sample older than 4500bc was left out?
 
Didn't Varna have Steppe, or am I mistaking it for WHG? Also, what you are describing is basically the Caucasian component on Dodecad K12b, and your story seems to match the distribution.

Varna with steppe? maybe. But I want to know what happen to the Mathieson inconvenient Romania HG individual, 7000bc, that was 80% EHG?
Varna should have elements from that pop, elements from LBK and from what I call sons of Shulaveri (Boian, Gulmenita, etc).

However, Maciamo seems to link it's spread in Europe to the Western farmers, and the CHG that was observed in the Minoan paper is surely from the Kura-Araxes expansion.

hummm, too much credit to Kura-araxes.

What does this have to do with anything Indo-European?

Proto Indo-European, as Krause, Reich and all the rest are now saying was transcaucasia 5500bc formed.
the same population taking IE to Steppe also took the same language to balkans. ie KUM girl spoke PIE. therefore so did many thrace, greece populations in chalc and bronze age.
 
Varna with steppe? maybe. But I want to know what happen to the Mathieson inconvenient Romania HG individual, 7000bc, that was 80% EHG?
Varna should have elements from that pop, elements from LBK and from what I call sons of Shulaveri (Boian, Gulmenita, etc).



hummm, too much credit to Kura-araxes.



Proto Indo-European, as Krause, Reich and all the rest are now saying was transcaucasia 6500bc formed.
the same population taking IE to Steppe also took the same language to balkans. ie KUM girl spoke PIE. therefore so did many thrace, greece populations in chalc and bronze age.

6500 BC? According to your hypothesis, didn't that spread to the steppe and the Balkans happen around 4900 BC? Would you assume that the language remained the same across 1600 years and it was already fully formed as the last common ancestor of all IE branches? As with all languages, it is obvious that there was a continuous chain of linguistic evolution going back thousands and dozens of thousands of years, but "the" PIE we all talk about is just the dialect from which all IE branches directly sprung, not its mother language(s).

Also, according to what you think, would the Anatolian IE branch have separated from the rest in that first dispersal (4900 BC) or only later as a secondary - but still related - effect of their consolidation and expansion in other regions, their new homelands? A date as early as 4000-4200 BC or maybe even a bit earlier has been estimated by some linguists, but 4900 BC looks a bit less credible.
 
...Also, according to what you think, would the Anatolian IE branch have separated from the rest in that first dispersal (4900 BC) or only later as a secondary - but still related - effect of their consolidation and expansion in other regions, their new homelands? A date as early as 4000-4200 BC or maybe even a bit earlier has been estimated by some linguists, but 4900 BC looks a bit less credible.

Interesting - I don't know.

What is the relation between Mycenaean and Hittite?
*If any relation, then separation could happen later (meaning Hittite ancestor was Balkan "Shulaveri" IE).
*If no relation, but Hittite related to Armenian then separation happened immediately (meaning local "shulaveri" IE stood in Erzurum region and became Hittite).

Note: I find it strange, to say the least, that linguistics can pretend to ascertain the split of two 7000 year old languages measured by centuries, I truly don't get it. Instinct is to called it Bullshit.
 
Interesting - I don't know.

What is the relation between Mycenaean and Hittite?
*If any relation, then separation could happen later (meaning Hittite ancestor was Balkan "Shulaveri" IE).
*If no relation, but Hittite related to Armenian then separation happened immediately (meaning local "shulaveri" IE stood in Erzurum region and became Hittite).

That's the main problem (except for the Anatolian languages, which would fit an earlier Early PIE dispersal before the later Steppe PIE expansion): as far as I have read from the works of linguists, Anatolian and Hittite more specifically does not look particularly more related to Greek or Armenian at all and, in fact, IIRC some have argued that, among non-Anatolian IE branches, Anatolian could be assumed to be a bit (not much) closer to some Italo-Celtic features. Also, there is the fact that a Hittite-Armenian or Hittite-Greek, or then a tripartite Hittite-Armenian-Greek connection is not very supported by mainstream linguistics. Greek and Armenians are, much more even than Italo-Celtic, noticeably closer to arguably "steppe" IE branches, particularly Indo-Iranian, and in fact an appreciable number of linguists entertained the possibility of a Graeco-Armenian-Aryan dialect continuum in the early development of those subfamilies. Indo-Iranian also has clear connections with Balto-Slavic. So, it doesn't look like Greek and Armenian are "that" ancient - not as much as Anatolian - in terms of divergence form the rest of the PIE family, which would've developed in the steppes.
 
They possibly got their hands on some samples from the Caucasus that show some of the genes previously thought to be EHG are actually CHG like.

Alan... this might be the boldest statement in the last few years.
I have the feeling that between alleles of WHG, EHG and CHG....there is a lot of misconceptions, mostly to serve the notion of the super uber steppe warriors BS.
 
Interesting - I don't know.

What is the relation between Mycenaean and Hittite?
*If any relation, then separation could happen later (meaning Hittite ancestor was Balkan "Shulaveri" IE).
*If no relation, but Hittite related to Armenian then separation happened immediately (meaning local "shulaveri" IE stood in Erzurum region and became Hittite).

This is a Hittite vessel in shape of a boot:

e95b208af6611601374f37e27a02433e.jpg
opinga%2B-%2Balbanian.jpg


Ceramic & Paint Vessel, ca 1900–1600 BC. Central Anatolia, Hittite

Here is another one:

Hittite_rhyton.JPG



The pointed shoe is obvious in the guy in the middle of this hittite engraving:

CAogYsz.jpg








Now this is a Mycenaean Rhyton in shape of boot:

Mycenaean%2Bryhton%2B(ritual%2Bvase)%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bshape%2Bof%2Ba%2Bshoe.%2BChamber%2Btomb%2C%2BVoula%2C%2BAttica%2C%2B1300s%2Bbce.jpg


A Mycenaean rhyton in the shape of a shoe, from a chamber tomb from Voula, Attica, 1,400-1,300 BCE



Albanians wore these until the 20th century and called them opinga. The pom pom at the front because it absorbs water faster and was good for combat in wet conditions.

Kt3DN9E.jpg
 
Interesting - I don't know.

What is the relation between Mycenaean and Hittite?
*If any relation, then separation could happen later (meaning Hittite ancestor was Balkan "Shulaveri" IE).
*If no relation, but Hittite related to Armenian then separation happened immediately (meaning local "shulaveri" IE stood in Erzurum region and became Hittite).

Note: I find it strange, to say the least, that linguistics can pretend to ascertain the split of two 7000 year old languages measured by centuries, I truly don't get it. Instinct is to called it Bullshit.


Hittite lions:

lion_gate_lead.jpg





Mycenean Lions:

02.jpg
 
That's the main problem (except for the Anatolian languages, which would fit an earlier Early PIE dispersal before the later Steppe PIE expansion): as far as I have read from the works of linguists, Anatolian and Hittite more specifically does not look particularly more related to Greek or Armenian at all and, in fact, IIRC some have argued that, among non-Anatolian IE branches, Anatolian could be assumed to be a bit (not much) closer to some Italo-Celtic features. Also, there is the fact that a Hittite-Armenian or Hittite-Greek, or then a tripartite Hittite-Armenian-Greek connection is not very supported by mainstream linguistics. Greek and Armenians are, much more even than Italo-Celtic, noticeably closer to arguably "steppe" IE branches, particularly Indo-Iranian, and in fact an appreciable number of linguists entertained the possibility of a Graeco-Armenian-Aryan dialect continuum in the early development of those subfamilies. Indo-Iranian also has clear connections with Balto-Slavic. So, it doesn't look like Greek and Armenian are "that" ancient - not as much as Anatolian - in terms of divergence form the rest of the PIE family, which would've developed in the steppes.

Makes sense. Leaps of thousands of years and linguistics always problematic.
I asked Mycenean not Greek. but anyways. So, Hittite an isolated (Erzurum or south balkans?) and Armenian derived from Iranic IE.

Note: I still don't understand how LPIE is ascertained as "Steppe", which a large enough component of it I am sure it was, and the evolution of IE into several families and branches not have room for a Balkan IE that was similar to the Steppe IE (not time for big divergence) and most important, all 4th milenia saw movements from balkans to "steppe" and from there to balkans...

See https://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo.pt/otzi-the-ie-speaker-8042
 
Derite...
Thanks for explaining the Pom Pom... I was worried about the albanians for a second.

And albanian as an IE is also "weird", right ;)
 

This thread has been viewed 239499 times.

Back
Top