89th meeting of American. assoc. phys. anthropol. abstracts

I've read the paper. So have we all, and discussed it as well. You've forgotten?
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/37472-Was-Neolithic-Europe-the-source-of-the-plague/page4
In that discussion, I provided a link to their talk on their own paper where it is proposed that it was brought "from" the steppe to the Neolithic socieites of Europe through sporadic contact, where it spread, decimating the population, and thus, as he says, "paving" the way for the later migrations/invasions, call them what you will.
So, my interpretation is in line with that of the authors of the data you cite, and yours is not.
You keep on ignoring the fact that the first documented case of "any" disease is not necessarily where it started spreading.
and how does the 4,9 ka Yersenia Pestis in the Gökhem Passage grave fit in that story?

Kristiansen himself points to the Cucutenis-Trypolye megacities
and then it would have been spread prior to the arrival of the steppe herders
some point to the Globular Amphora for that

no proof has been found yet, allthough in the last Cucuteni-Tripolye study they checked for Yersenia Pestis

you yourself said his 'predictive modelling' is speculation
 
and how does the 4,9 ka Yersenia Pestis in the Gökhem Passage grave fit in that story?

Kristiansen himself points to the Cucutenis-Trypolye megacities
and then it would have been spread prior to the arrival of the steppe herders
some point to the Globular Amphora for that

no proof has been found yet, allthough in the last Cucuteni-Tripolye study they checked for Yersenia Pestis

you yourself said his 'predictive modelling' is speculation

This is about the paper on which "you" relied. It doesn't lead to your conclusion. He says it came from the steppe through sporadic contact with Neolithic settlements and then spread. Period.

This makes the third time I've pointed out that you're misinterpreting their conclusions.

The source then, in the Middle Ages, and later, is where the source of all the Yersenia Pestis has been and is: the rodents of the steppe like the marmosets. That's the reservoir. The reservoir in the U.S. is in the rodents of the desert.

It's like arguing Covid 19 doesn't have something to do with bats. The rats were the intermediary vector in Europe. In China it may have been the pangolin. It doesn't have anything to do with the ultimate source of the virus.

Go argue with Kristiansen and the other members of the team if you don't like their conclusion.
 
I've read the paper. So have we all, and discussed it as well. You've forgotten?
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/37472-Was-Neolithic-Europe-the-source-of-the-plague/page4

In that discussion, I provided a link to their talk on their own paper where it is proposed that it was brought "from" the steppe to the Neolithic socieites of Europe through sporadic contact, where it spread, decimating the population, and thus, as he says, "paving" the way for the later migrations/invasions, call them what you will.

So, my interpretation is in line with that of the authors of the data you cite, and yours is not.

You keep on ignoring the fact that the first documented case of "any" disease is not necessarily where it started spreading.
Angela, when did these sporadic contacts start? Could they by any chance help to explain the so-called WHG resurgence at the end of Neolithic?
 
Angela, when did these sporadic contacts start? Could they by any chance help to explain the so-called WHG resurgence at the end of Neolithic?

Unless we get very lucky and find a very old sample in the interface regions between Neolithic Europe and the steppe it's going to be deduction.

One way to look at it perhaps is to find the earliest tiny bit of admixture of "steppe" in "Old Europe", or Neolithic Europe. Look at the dates: they're BCE.

eJcObb9.png


As to WHG, it gets more complicated, yes, and even more speculative? WHG is just EHG without additional dna. It's a spectrum. Anatolian farmers had ancestry related to WHG.

So, if the immunity came from WHG, or relative immunity, maybe resulting in disease but not death, why did it decimate the Neolithic Europeans?

As I said, the closest the scientists have come to finding the original vector is in rodents of the steppe. Would that argue WHG didn't have more immunity to it?

On the other hand, perhaps it was some background variation in European hunter-gatherers. The more ancestry from them the more the chance you inherited some protective alleles.

Modern testing has shown northern Europeans have more protection from plague, HIV, etc. (It's in the earlier thread I linked.) It doesn't mean they don't get those diseases, just that fewer of them get it and the case might be milder.

Perhaps it's the same with Covid 19.

Perhaps what seems to be true of Covid 19 was also true of plague; perhaps more men die than women.

It might be a factor in the eventual dominance of R1b and R1a.

It might also explain what happened to the Neolithc G2a2.

It's all speculation, but the starting point seems pretty sound to me.
*-
 
Unless we get very lucky and find a very old sample in the interface regions between Neolithic Europe and the steppe it's going to be deduction.

One way to look at it perhaps is to find the earliest tiny bit of admixture of "steppe" in "Old Europe", or Neolithic Europe. Look at the dates: they're BCE.

eJcObb9.png


As to WHG, it gets more complicated, yes, and even more speculative? WHG is just EHG without additional dna. It's a spectrum. Anatolian farmers had ancestry related to WHG.

So, if the immunity came from WHG, or relative immunity, maybe resulting in disease but not death, why did it decimate the Neolithic Europeans?

As I said, the closest the scientists have come to finding the original vector is in rodents of the steppe. Would that argue WHG didn't have more immunity to it?

On the other hand, perhaps it was some background variation in European hunter-gatherers. The more ancestry from them the more the chance you inherited some protective alleles.

Modern testing has shown northern Europeans have more protection from plague, HIV, etc. (It's in the earlier thread I linked.) It doesn't mean they don't get those diseases, just that fewer of them get it and the case might be milder.

Perhaps it's the same with Covid 19.

Perhaps what seems to be true of Covid 19 was also true of plague; perhaps more men die than women.

It might be a factor in the eventual dominance of R1b and R1a.

It might also explain what happened to the Neolithc G2a2.

It's all speculation, but the starting point seems pretty sound to me.
*-
Very good infos and insights. Thanks!
 
This is about the paper on which "you" relied. It doesn't lead to your conclusion. He says it came from the steppe through sporadic contact with Neolithic settlements and then spread. Period.
This makes the third time I've pointed out that you're misinterpreting their conclusions.
The source then, in the Middle Ages, and later, is where the source of all the Yersenia Pestis has been and is: the rodents of the steppe like the marmosets. That's the reservoir. The reservoir in the U.S. is in the rodents of the desert.
It's like arguing Covid 19 doesn't have something to do with bats. The rats were the intermediary vector in Europe. In China it may have been the pangolin. It doesn't have anything to do with the ultimate source of the virus.
Go argue with Kristiansen and the other members of the team if you don't like their conclusion.
He says it comes from the Cucuteni-Tripolye megacities. That's a guess on his side, which he labels as 'modelling'.
He says it was spread by herders. He doesn't specify what herders. If they came before the CWC as he claims, it should have been the Globular Amphora. The Cucuteni-Tripolye megacities collapsed 5,4 ka.
But there is no proof whatsoever for any of these claims.
If you want to believe these speculations, that's fine, I'm not convinced unless you provide me more proof.
The 4,9 ka Yersenia Pesitis in the Gökhem passage grave is a proven fact.
Where the reservoir is today has nothing to do with where the origin was 5 or more millenia ago.
Do you know what kind of rodents were roaming around the granaries at that time?
 
This post was a mistake, it should be eliminated completely.
 
Last edited:
So somebody changed the article a little after reading my posts ;) Still most of the sources are garbage and the pages referred to in the qoutes are not about genetics in book.
Just giving some new insights what is written in the book than someone else can change the other stuff: The Dnieper-Donets-Culture is not a PIE culture and Khvalynsk gets all of the Y-Haplogroup diversity including R1a, (except R1b subcalades unknown) after minor CHG ancestry appears there. WHG don't play any role in the formation of the steppe cultures. It is not clear from where the CHG signal comes from, Anthony suggests to look to other places than the Caucasus and It is not the Hypothesis of David Anthony that *PIE is a language of dominant Uralic spoken by EHG and substratum Caucasian spoken by CHG, it is the Hypothesis of Bomhard, Anthony never said something like this, he is just presenting aDNA results(What about reading the only reliable link/source in this article?).


Edit: *more accurate definition of the Hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Response to Anfanger:

The page where you can read what I transcribed and the rest of this interesting part of the book is here: https://books.google.pt/books?id=DH...onepage&q=Maykop was Paleo Siberian?&f=false


Iosif Lazaridis: The proximal source of the Near Eastern ancestry in Yamnaya is not known. We have used Armenian/CHG/Iran over the years to model this as more samples became available. :


https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1253750847659479040
You have to copy/paste this link, I can't get it to work here.


CHG and Iran_N diverged, perhaps before the LGM. The CHG-like admixing in Steppe is from a sister population of CHG that diverged around Younger Dryas or before ( Wang et al. ).



 
Response to Anfanger:

The page where you can read what I transcribed and the rest of this interesting part of the book is here: https://books.google.pt/books?id=DH...onepage&q=Maykop was Paleo Siberian?&f=false


Iosif Lazaridis: The proximal source of the Near Eastern ancestry in Yamnaya is not known. We have used Armenian/CHG/Iran over the years to model this as more samples became available. :


https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1253750847659479040
You have to copy/paste this link, I can't get it to work here.


CHG and Iran_N diverged, perhaps before the LGM. The CHG-like admixing in Steppe is from a sister population of CHG that diverged around Younger Dryas or before ( Wang et al. ).




So you changed the wikepedia article ? On my previous post you can see that I have the whole book you are referring to, why should I read it again? It is chapter written by David Anthony and there is nothing written about EEF CHG females. David Anthony says CHG and Iran are quite the same, he is just using the terminology CHG to refer to Satsurblia/Hotu/IranN/Kotias ancestry. Btw, even freacking G25 Coordinates have Hotu/Iran-like ancestry in Yamnaya and Eneolithic_Piedmont.

Here read it for yourself:
IMG_4301.jpg


If it is you that wrote that genetics part of the article why are you, for example, using Page 10-13 in the sources there is nothing about genetics on these pages and the first time before someone changed it was full with false statements.

Like I wrote, Iosif Lazaridis wrote the exact same thing on twitter like I did he is saying it is not clear from where the CHG/Armenia/Iran ,what ever you want to call it, in Yamnaya came from. Also in the Caucasus paper (Wang et al. 2019) they didn't wrote where the CHG in Yamnaya came from.
 
Angela: The chart in post 24 is really nice. Is that from a paper that has a link or if it is something you put together, do you mind if I refer to it. The interesting thing is how the Anatolian Neolithic clusters vs the Levant Neolithic vs European Neolithic 2. Kind of suggest to me that these 3 groups need to be clearly modeled for in some of these calculators that don't do a good job for some Southern European Groups (me included) vs other ones. So is it safe to say that the Raveane et al 2019 Figure 2 Anatolian EEF ancestry (yellow chart) found in all modern Italian populations being the dominate source is this Anatolian Neolithic/European Neolithic 1 that is color coded in light brown. If this is a tangential topic, I apologize and will bring it up again in a more appropriate forum.

Again really good chart and analysis.
 
Those are the Mathiesen et al charts as modified by indo-european.eu, as you very well know. Never claimed it was my work. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day. Plus what he added doesn't change the clustering of farming populations. We've known all of this for years. There's more ancient Anatolian farmer in southern Europe than in the Near East by far.

I can't even say nice try. You've never fooled me yet, and don't bank on ever fooling me in the future. You're just not clever enough.

One's "voice" when writing is extremely difficult to disguise, at least to people who have been reading posts from that person for years. Let that be a lesson to you Mr. Palermo/Trapani all of whose Sicilian grandmothers ruled the roost, and who finds every Neopolitan in film gorgeous.
 
Mr. Anfanger:
If you permit, let's go ahead.
What is your opinion on this:
Steppe in the Vth millenium AC already have a CHG-like admixture. Yamnaya and the like (Corded Ware ...) were formed by merging with European Neolithic populations.
Kind regards.
 
Those are the Mathiesen et al charts as modified by indo-european.eu, as you very well know. Never claimed it was my work. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day. Plus what he added doesn't change the clustering of farming populations. We've known all of this for years. There's more ancient Anatolian farmer in southern Europe than in the Near East by far.

I can't even say nice try. You've never fooled me yet, and don't bank on ever fooling me in the future. You're just not clever enough.

One's "voice" when writing is extremely difficult to disguise, at least to people who have been reading posts from that person for years. Let that be a lesson to you Mr. Palermo/Trapani all of whose Sicilian grandmothers ruled the roost, and who finds every Neopolitan in film gorgeous.

Ok Angela, I wasn't sure where those charts were coming from. I actually off the top of my head did not and given there are folks here with all kinds of tools at home to make charts on their own, I thought it might have been something you put together.. I am not trying to fool anyone. I am who and what I say I am. Sorry about trying to make conservation with you. Unless I have a question that deals with a moderation issue when you are moderating, I will try not post anything to you again.

I actually was mostly trying to convey I liked your analysis, I should have just left it is that it. My apologies for my clumsy question but at I am at home and I don't have all my papers stored on my home computer, they are all on my work computer. And for the record, the owner of the site knows I am who and what I say I am for the record. I just want to be clear on that.


Regards and again my apologies

Again, my apologies. I actually do appreciate your work here, rather you believe that or not is up to you.
 
Mr. Anfanger:
If you permit, let's go ahead.
What is your opinion on this:
Steppe in the Vth millenium AC already have a CHG-like admixture. Yamnaya and the like (Corded Ware ...) were formed by merging with European Neolithic populations.
Kind regards.

Sure, let's go ahead. Since we don't have any aDNA from that unpublished paper, everything i am going to write is only a guess. If steppe(Eneolithic Piedmont like) is already formed 5000BC there are two options in my opinion:
1. There was a pure CHG population that was overrun by EHG, resulting in a 50/50 CHG/EHG population adopting the neolithic package of the CHG herders/farmers.
2. Steppe ancestry came from another region. Maybe Caucasus Piedmont, Azerbaijan or Central Asia but definitely not from the west or north.

What I find interesting is that steppe ancestry reaches the baltic about 4000BC, there is a Comb Ceramic Culture sample with 15% steppe ancestry (Lamnidis et al.2018). That's probably why the unpublished paper mentions Indo-european effects in Uralic languages.

In my opinion the EEF in Yamnaya is the result of mixing with other Steppe populations not directly with EEF but particularly a population like the Sredni Stog 2 Sample which has a lot of EEF (25-35%) and this mixture happens pretty late maybe after 4300BC because Eneolithic Piedmont and Khvalynsk don't have any EEF. Contact between EEF cultures and the Steppe people is obvious, see for example the Varna sample with Steppe ancestry.
 

This thread has been viewed 11873 times.

Back
Top