Corded Ware Culture admixture against Yamnayans

berun

Regular Member
Messages
1,084
Reaction score
183
Points
0
I have taken the results from Genetiker blog; the Pit Grave culture / Yamna is at around 80% EHG + 20% Caucasian; the Middle Neolithic Funnelbeaker culture (4300-2800 BC) provide some 20% WHG + 5% EHG + 75% EEF. The supposed blend of Neolithics and Yamnayans in the Corded Ware provide some 15% WHG + 20% EEF + 10% Caucasian + 55% EHG.

admix.jpg


Of course a simple blend between Yamnayans and Neolithics is not an answer as the incoming population would have 10% WHG + -17% EEF + 20% Caucasian + 100% EHG as to give the known results for CW... these percents only can be justified if newcomers outnumbered the local population. Also a 20% of EEF in CW is not supporting the discovery that the X chromosome displays a more local women intervention, as with simple numbers a Yamnayan male with 0% of EEF that would have descendency with a local farmer woman would have sons with 37% EEF, if such sons marry local womens again their EEF will rise to 55%...

Some CW individuals display admixtures that are not known among Yamnayans: orange and red is known for Chucki, orange and cian is known for Goyet Q56-16, red and cian is known for Cioclovina, and cian and purple is known for Vestonice14.

Maybe someone can give an explanation for these paradoxs or may provide better admixture results?
 
the K = 14
 
I've studied the K = 14 too, and I find it very interesting.

You'll find the Yamna, Afanasievo and Poltavka are all similar :
lots of EHG with an important share of CHG and no EEF, their identified Y-DNA is R1b-P297

Poltavka outlier, Potapovka, CW, Sintashta, Srubna & Andronovo are different :
lots of EHG too, but CHG is reduced and they have EEF, their identified Y-DNA is R1a-M417
they took over from the R1b-P297
 
the references in this K = 14 are not exact
e.g. EEF is not the stutgart genome, it is more like NW Anatolian
so you can't compare with other studies published
but browsing within this K = 14 population gives some very interesting insights
 
Realy not, as it fits well with LBK (5% WHG + 95% EEF) and then with the successive Funnelbeaker, where the HG proxy increases x5 after some centuries as neighbours, so that the EEF seems reliable at least. By the way you are right that Yamnyans R1b are against even the Corded Ware R1a, and their derived cultures (Andronovo, Srubna, Sintashta...). It's water-clear that CW was IE, but it's origins are blurred.
 
One explanation could be that CW sprung from one of the cultures in Northern Russia or perhaps the Moscow region. I think Mallory alluded to this possbility due to the difficulty in deriving the material culture of Corded Ware from Yamna directly.

Lothar Kilian isolated twenty-three diagnostic features. He argued that the Corded Ware burials possessed a series of traits not found in the Pontic-Caspian – amphorae, cord-decorated beakers, battle-axes – which are the essential markers of the Corded Ware culture. In contrast, the steppe burials utilized egg-shaped pottery, hammer-head pins, ochre and a variety of burial postures unknown in the Corded Ware horizon. While there may be some generic similarities, Kilian concluded that the specific differences do not support an historical connection between the two regions.’ (Mallory, 1989)


 
One explanation could be that CW sprung from one of the cultures in Northern Russia or perhaps the Moscow region. I think Mallory alluded to this possbility due to the difficulty in deriving the material culture of Corded Ware from Yamna directly.


I think CW were Northern Yamnayans. Rich in R1a and more forest dweller hunter-farmer than steppe farmer-herder more R1b.
 
I think CW were Northern Yamnayans. Rich in R1a and more forest dweller hunter-farmer than steppe farmer-herder more R1b.

Yes, and who took agriculture to those steppe people? Is Joahannes Krause right in being a 4900BC event coming from the South Caucasus?
 
it has been suggested that the CW/Sintashta people are actualy more western than eastern European in origin, because of their EEF admixture

if I recall well David Anthony suggested the Abashevo culture as ancestral to Potapovka/Sintashta
they were herders and probably had gotten horses from Yamna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abashevo_culture

from their DNA it is clear that CW and Potapovka/Sintashta have a common origin which is different from Yamna
 
I think CW were Northern Yamnayans. Rich in R1a and more forest dweller hunter-farmer than steppe farmer-herder more R1b.

Difficult case even for David Anthony:

Srubnaya Ethnicity
Russian archaeological traditions permit archaeologists to
discuss the linguistic affiliations of prehistoric populations
without much apology. Such a relaxed attitude toward
language identity and material culture perhaps is facilitated
by the steppe/forest ecological border that runs across
southern Russia, which was a persistent cultural and
linguistic border for millennia. Language and ecology
are easily seen as associated in this region because they
actually were associated historically at this persistent
economic-cultural-linguistic border. Most experts agree
that the languages spoken by the Scythians and Sarmatians
across the western steppes, north of the Caspian and Black
Seas, were Iranian, specifically from the eastern Iranian
subgroup (“eastern” in relation to west Iranian within
Iran), judging from roots contained in personal names, god
names, and occasional other words noted by Greeks and
Persians after 500 BC, and from toponyms in the steppes,
as well as from archaeological remains that correlate with
rituals specified in later Persian texts (Kuzmina 2007;
Parpola 2002; Sims-Williams 2002). Continuity in skeletal
traits and artifact styles between the LBA and the Iron Age
suggests that the LBA (Srubnaya-Andronovo) population
was ancestral to the Scythian-Saka population, so almost
all Russian archaeologists accept that the languages of the
LBA steppes were an archaic form of Iranian, ancestral
to the Iranian languages spoken later in the same steppe
regions (Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007:150). Western
archaeologists tend to be dubious (Lamberg-Karlovsky
2002). The late MBA or MBA II Sintashta-Potapovka-
Filatovka chain of cultures (Figure 1.5) between the upper
Tobol River in the east (Sintashta) and the upper Don in
the west (Filatovka) was ancestral to the LBA Srubnaya-
Andronovo cultures, so is often interpreted as the material
residue of the common Indo-Iranian ancestral community.
Finno-Ugric, the prehistoric ancestor of the Uralic
languages spoken today in the forest zone north of the
Samara Valley, borrowed vocabulary from both common
Indo-Iranian and early Iranian (Koivulehto 2001), proving
that these ancient languages bordered each other, so the
forest-zone Volosovo and Garin-Bor cultures are often
assumed to represent Finno-Ugric speakers. The Indo-
Iranian ethnonym Arya/Ārya appeared as a loanword in
ancestral Finno-Ugric as *orya, denoting “slave” (Carpelan
and Parpola 2001:112), implying that Indo-Iranian Aryans
were captured and enslaved by people in the forest zone.
Arya/Ārya was a self-applied ethnonym of the composers
of the oldest hymns in Sanskrit (in the Rig Veda) and early
Iranian (in the Avesta), both compiled before 1000 BC, so
it probably was a self-applied ethnonym of the speakers
of common Indo-Iranian (Filatovka-Potapovka-Sintashta).
Finno-Ugric *orya, “slave,” therefore implies hostilities
between forest-zone Uralic and steppe-zone Indo-Iranian
speakers. But another loan into common Finno-Ugric
during the same period was common Indo-Iranian *asura,
“lord,” borrowed into Finno-Ugric as *asera, “lord”
or “prince,” implying alliance or integration between
Uralic speakers and Indo-Iranian chiefs, testifying to the
complexity of the relationships between Finno-Ugric
speakers and Indo-Iranian speakers. Finno-Ugric later
borrowed phonologically early Iranian terms for hundred,
bee, honey, tribe/troop, wheel, spindle, bridge, and boat
(Koivulehto 2001), probably during the Srubnaya period.
 
Realy not, as it fits well with LBK (5% WHG + 95% EEF) and then with the successive Funnelbeaker, where the HG proxy increases x5 after some centuries as neighbours, so that the EEF seems reliable at least. By the way you are right that Yamnyans R1b are against even the Corded Ware R1a, and their derived cultures (Andronovo, Srubna, Sintashta...). It's water-clear that CW was IE, but it's origins are blurred.

I have started another thread about a Khvalynsk newcomer who seems ancestral to Yamna here :
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...d-during-Khvalynsk-period?highlight=Khvalynsk
some people didn't trust this K=14 admixture because of the EEF does not 100 % correspond to the light blue in this K=14.
that is their choice
I've browsed and checked a lot in this K = 14 population and to me it seems very logical
but again,you cannot compare rigorously with studies that take the Stutgart genome as EEF reference
 
Difficult case even for David Anthony:
Continuity in skeletal
traits and artifact styles between the LBA and the Iron Age
suggests that the LBA (Srubnaya-Andronovo) population
was ancestral to the Scythian-Saka population

Does it mean that west scythian and the Altai Pazyryk scythian were different people?

- The Altai scythians were achaeologicaly Atai natives.
Capture.png


- Moreover, the iron age Atai admixture is similar to Okunvo Indians.
Capture2.png[COLOR=


 
Yes, and who took agriculture to those steppe people? Is Joahannes Krause right in being a 4900BC event coming from the South Caucasus?
Iranian farmers coming through Caucasus.
 
Even so NW Asia Minor EN is blue as the sky...
 
Iranian farmers coming through Caucasus.
Why would Iran farmers go to steppe by crossing mountains and not just go up via eastern caspian? Dont think steppe 4000bc had much Iran neolithic. but ok.
 
@Bicicleur, even so NW Asia Minor EN is blue as the sky...

@johen, it's out of my scope, maybe different as could be vikings and anglo-saxons?

@Olimpus Mons, deserts and lack of in between cultures
 
Why would Iran farmers go to steppe by crossing mountains and not just go up via eastern caspian? Dont think steppe 4000bc had much Iran neolithic. but ok.
Perhaps some of them went through eastern Caspian, though is likely that farming was mediated in big part by Maykop culture to Yamnaya. Yamnayans look like 75% Samara H-G and 25% Iranian Neolithic in this Harappa run.

Samara HGYamnaya Rise522Iranian Neolithic 10,000 yearsCHG, Satsurblia georgia 13kya
PopulationPopulationPopulationPopulation
S-Indian-S-Indian-S-Indian6.13S-Indian0.62
Baloch14.33Baloch33.24Baloch62.71Baloch36.63
Caucasian-Caucasian6.58Caucasian24.97Caucasian54.15
NE-Euro75.62NE-Euro56.02NE-Euro-NE-Euro3.84
SE-Asian-SE-Asian-SE-Asian-SE-Asian0.59
Siberian-Siberian-Siberian-Siberian0.77
NE-Asian-NE-Asian-NE-Asian-NE-Asian-
Papuan-Papuan-Papuan0.35Papuan0.15
American9.62American2.46American-American-
Beringian0.15Beringian0.75Beringian-Beringian-
Mediterranean-Mediterranean-Mediterranean-Mediterranean-
SW-Asian-SW-Asian-SW-Asian3.88SW-Asian-
San-San-San0.18San-
E-African-E-African-E-African-E-African-
Pygmy-Pygmy-Pygmy-Pygmy0.25
W-African0.2W-African0.95W-African1.78W-African3.01
 
Perhaps some of them went through eastern Caspian, though is likely that farming was mediated in big part by Maykop culture to Yamnaya. Yamnayans look like 75% Samara H-G and 25% Iranian Neolithic in this Harappa run.

Samara HGYamnaya Rise522Iranian Neolithic 10,000 yearsCHG, Satsurblia georgia 13kya
PopulationPopulationPopulationPopulation
S-Indian-S-Indian-S-Indian6.13S-Indian0.62
Baloch14.33Baloch33.24Baloch62.71Baloch36.63
Caucasian-Caucasian6.58Caucasian24.97Caucasian54.15
NE-Euro75.62NE-Euro56.02NE-Euro-NE-Euro3.84
SE-Asian-SE-Asian-SE-Asian-SE-Asian0.59
Siberian-Siberian-Siberian-Siberian0.77
NE-Asian-NE-Asian-NE-Asian-NE-Asian-
Papuan-Papuan-Papuan0.35Papuan0.15
American9.62American2.46American-American-
Beringian0.15Beringian0.75Beringian-Beringian-
Mediterranean-Mediterranean-Mediterranean-Mediterranean-
SW-Asian-SW-Asian-SW-Asian3.88SW-Asian-
San-San-San0.18San-
E-African-E-African-E-African-E-African-
Pygmy-Pygmy-Pygmy-Pygmy0.25
W-African0.2W-African0.95W-African1.78W-African3.01

It looks like 60/40 to me for Yamnaya Rise 522, with 40% being the "southern" component. That would fit with all the other academic analyses. Or, am I reading it incorrectly?
 
It looks like 60/40 to me for Yamnaya Rise 522, with 40% being the "southern" component. That would fit with all the other academic analyses. Or, am I reading it incorrectly?
Looking at how much Baloch and Caucasian increased and that S-Indian completely vanished, there can't be more than 25%, I reckon at least from these numbers. There was one paper telling us that Yamnayans were 50% like Bronze Age Armenians, IIRC. But this could be due to migration of Yamnayans to the other side of Caucasus by Bronze Age, mixing their genes into population there and increasing similarity of two groups.
 

This thread has been viewed 91778 times.

Back
Top