Corded Ware Culture admixture against Yamnayans

[holderlin]

From what I red (little?) the North Pontic Neolithic was rather a mixed culture were ancient HG habits were not overwhelmed by new agricultural modes. And compared to western Catacombs, the Yamnaya people were very less "farmerlike" in their economic ways. Could all that confirm a rather weak agricultural aspect of the South to North Caucasus colonisation (what demic input?), even before the metals ages? And Maykop seems to me more a "parasite" warlike spotty settled society that a slow continual colonisation (and I recall their craniometric means closer to SE Caspian people of the time than to Caucasus people with something from farther in them, spite this is not a proof, because they could have passed through South Caucasus by South Caspian even if it was not so easy); but I'm not archeologist and I could put someones to smile. Just to say that the most deeply farmerlike influences could have been more the result of a western proto-Tripolye and full Tripolye input (what dates?) than a S-Caucasus one, the last inputs being about Late Chalco and after (+Balkan cattle in Steppes). We know some of the later Steppes cultures show a Central-East European demic input, and it could confirm affirmations of scholars about part of the post-Tripolye pops going eastwards and taking on more nomadic ways of life (surely more in an osmosis pattern than in a conquest one), being responsible of EEF among CWC (soon enough) and others, later in Russia steppes. But for Catacombs, Grigoryev spoke of a clear I-I linguistic input so maybe more an eastern Caspian input, than a South Caucasus one. We know agriculture in SE Caspian was very evolved around the 2000BC but surely it began earlier. (I want not link recent BMAC culture to this possible more ancient input (before 3000 BC), nor I link by force BMAC to PIE pops, to date, even if possible).
*BMAC could have been linked to Hurro-Urartian language speakers and not I-E ones and Harappa to a language close to Dravidian or Elamitic?
I would be glad to have ancient auDNA of two Catacombs groups (Western and Eastern, not exactly the same); we have only mtDNA rather steppelike, but I don't know which Catacomb group has been studied for it, helas.

That's another thing that's very obvious in the Archeaology. All of the copper on the steppe was coming from the balkans, as was farming material culture. This was happening long before Yamnaya layers, which is sort of the basis of my Pre-Yamnaya PIE stance.

 

[holderlin]

Not sure what I was thinking here.

You were so excited to try and pwn me with linguistics that you posted before reading enough. I don't know what you're trying to prove, but Lithuanian is in fact the most archaic among living IE languages. It's hard to debate this.

Yes the verb forms are an exception as is Anatolian. You can't really compare Anatolian as it's likely older than the re-constructed PIE.

Sanskrit is not PIE, that's a given. One of the changes observed from the original [a/e/o] to [a].

When you say Lithuanian 'matches its archaisms' (in reference to Sanskrit), it would be helpful if stated how you came to this conclusion, since the consensus is that Lithuanian is very much a modern language and not some kind of linguistic fossil.

Yes the vowel convergence as I mentioned.

My opinion is based mainly in how it sounds, so it's a bit tricky to quantify. And you must know it's considered among Greek, Sanskrit, and Anatolian as the most important sources for reconstructing the root language. So it actually is some kind of linguistic fossil.

SON: Sanskrit sunus - Lithuanian sunus
SHEEP: Sanskrit avis - Lithuanian avis
SOLE: Sanskrit padas - Lithuanian padas
MAN: Sanskrit viras - Lithuanian vyras
SMOKE: Sanskrit dhumas - Lithuanian dumas

I don't think the conservativeness of modern languages relative to PIE can be quantified in any meaningful way - the timeframe between the split of the root language and today is simply too large to permit such comparisons. A more salient method would be a comparison with reconstructed Balto-Slavic, which most models show as branching off rather late.

This is a silly argument. Yes, it did branch off late, because PIE was spoken by Dnieper-Donets and Samara HG. Why would that be more "salient"? It's far more impressive to look at actual languages that were spoken than reconstructions.

 

[MOESAN]

@Goga
Thanks. I'm not sharp enough in archeology - I need more readings - I was speaking of the BMAC late developments linguistically not assigned yet for I know. That said, and I know it's boring for all of us, some cultural material links between cultures don't prove everytime a pure ethnic link nor continuity (we see that in Europe with plain Unetice and Uneticelike cultures) - It seems to me I red by example Kura-Araxes culture territory was not mono-ethnic, but maybe I mistake?

 

[MOESAN]

@Holderlin
I'm not an expert in eastern languages, far from that.
But at first sight, phonetically speaking, it seems Baltic (so Balto-Slavic I believe it has existed) are and was very close to I-I languages; it's why I don't believe in a hazardous convergence among diverse satem languages; a very tight comunity has existed I think somewhere in the Steppes for all these languages today a bit more diversified.
Conservative grammar traits left aside (I'm too short to speak about them) I have the fealing even proto-Greek was phonetically more palatalized than today Greek; its quick evolution in a relatively short time compared to history pushes me to conclude this is due to language shift and adoption of early Greek language by submitted or dominated population (non I-E?).

 

[bicicleur 2]

It seems that BMAC is older than we thought. BMAC is at least from 3700 BC. And it is from Iran and therefore of the 'Iranian' origin and NOT Hurro-Urartian.

3700 BC is after the same time when Leyla-Tepe folks migrated into the Maykop Horizon and Mesopotamia. So, Leyla-Tepe people migrated in different directions. BMAC was contemporary to Maykop.


Leyla-Tepe : 4350 BC

The Uruk period (Mesopotamia) : 4000 BC
Maykop : 3700 BC
BMAC : 3700 BC

" Archaeologists discover traces of BMAC in northeastern Iran

"Storage spaces dating back to 3700 BC have been discovered at the site. Large pots which were used for storing grains and other agricultural products have been dug out in the spaces," he added.
"We have found seeds of grain, barley and grapes. The grapes were likely used for production of vinegar or a special drink," he stated.

Vahdati said, "Chalo reveals details of the BMAC in Iran. Maybe it is better to call it the Greater Khorasan culture, because parts of Merv, Samarkand, and Bukhara were under the influence of Greater Khorasan."

storage pits 3700 BC, but also objects identifiable with BMAC ?

 

[Goga]

storage pits 3700 BC, but also objects identifiable with BMAC ?

not only artifacts but also graves were similar to BMAC:


"Based on previous studies, the BMAC was only limited to the sites located in Central Asia: in present day northern Afghanistan, eastern Turkmenistan, and some regions in Tajikistan, but the first season of excavation showed that the Chalo site is also part of this great culture," he added.

"In most of the trenches, we discovered graves exhibiting signs of the BMAC. Environmental factors have caused serious damage to the graves, which have been discovered in upper layers of the ground," Vahdati stated.

"All the artifacts unearthed from the graves have the same characteristics identified for the BMAC in Central Asia," he added.

http://www.payvand.com/news/13/nov/1138.html

 

[bicicleur 2]

not only artifacts but also graves were similar to BMAC:


"Based on previous studies, the BMAC was only limited to the sites located in Central Asia: in present day northern Afghanistan, eastern Turkmenistan, and some regions in Tajikistan, but the first season of excavation showed that the Chalo site is also part of this great culture," he added.

"In most of the trenches, we discovered graves exhibiting signs of the BMAC. Environmental factors have caused serious damage to the graves, which have been discovered in upper layers of the ground," Vahdati stated.

"All the artifacts unearthed from the graves have the same characteristics identified for the BMAC in Central Asia," he added.

http://www.payvand.com/news/13/nov/1138.html

But are these graves and artifacts identified as BMAC also dated 3700 BC ?

The Jétun farmers settled in the northern Kopet Dag mountains 6.2 ka and later also in the Murgab.

In the Zeravshan valley precious stones were found like lapis lazuli, turquoise and carnelium, along with copper ores.
These were traded with Uruk, just like Maykop was trading with Uruk.

 

[Goga]

Yeah, all those artifacts are from the prehistoric site of Chalo near the town of Sankhast in North Khorasan Province, Iran.

 

[MarkoZ]

I don't know what you're trying to prove, but Lithuanian is in fact the most archaic among living IE languages. It's hard to debate this.

It is hard debate this because you have thus far presented zero evidence to corroborate your claims. I have referenced Matasovic for an explanation with regards to some of the features observed in the Balto-Slavic branch. The hypothesis of Balto-Slavic and more specifically Lithuanian as linguistic fossils would require solid evidence to be taken seriously and the burden of proof is on you.

My opinion is based mainly in how it sounds, so it's a bit tricky to quantify.

I take that to mean that your subjective feelings are the deciding factor to you. Tricky to quantify indeed.

This is a silly argument. Yes, it did branch off late, because PIE was spoken by Dnieper-Donets and Samara

To my knowledge, the lexicostatistical models used in glottochronology usually don't involve geography. All they measure is the relative change with respect to the root language under the assumption that language development occurs in a linear fashion. If B-S was something like a frozen remnant of PIE the phylogeny would have to be revised.

 

[holderlin]

It is hard debate this because you have thus far presented zero evidence to corroborate your claims. I have referenced Matasovic for an explanation with regards to some of the features observed in the Balto-Slavic branch. The hypothesis of Balto-Slavic and more specifically Lithuanian as linguistic fossils would require solid evidence to be taken seriously and the burden of proof is on you.





I take that to mean that your subjective feelings are the deciding factor to you. Tricky to quantify indeed.




To my knowledge, the lexicostatistical models used in glottochronology usually don't involve geography. All they measure is the relative change with respect to the root language under the assumption that language development occurs in a linear fashion. If B-S was something like a frozen remnant of PIE the phylogeny would have to be revised.

Yeah you gave a reference. Nice work. I guess when something's so widely accepted and obvious one doesn't feel compelled to dig up papers or discuss in depth linguistics. Start a thread on the linguistics forum and I'll come play. The phylogeny relies on certain rules and assumptions in order to, you know, actually do something, but it doesn't mean that these convergences or reconstructions actually existed. They're derivative of a system designed to allow such a study. So no, you wouldn't have to revise shit. What I'm proposing is not significant enough to interfere with the consensus phylogeny. It only helps explain the genetics and the archaeology, in fact I'm actually relying on consensus phylogeny to help explain the nebulous archaeology and the sparse genetics.

The only reason I bring it up here is because most of these people are interested in the genetic identity of certain language speakers, and so I actually try to fit the linguistics to the genetics and the archaeology. It all has to match to be right.

Phonology has nothing to do with my subjective feelings, unless I said that Lithuanian gave me an erection and because of that it's archaic.

 

[holderlin]

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.

This is another wrinkle in the PIE homeland "problem". We're pretty darn sure that Yamnaya spoke IE or Proto-IE as some maintain, yet it's hard to force a Yamnaya->CW model. The root of the problem is the trajectory from Kunda-Swiderian ->Dnieper-Donets/Samara->Yamnaya, then we have CW and Srubna in the same spots, and later on we find that Srubna, Sintashta, Andronovo, Potapovka, and CW are very similar genetically. Some would say identical. These are R1a dominated groups, which we saw in the Kunda-Swiderian "Karelia" sample. So we're left, at the very least, being unable to rule out the Northern region as part of the PIE homeland. If we can't rule it out, and yet we're so damn sure of Yamnaya being PIE then we have no choice but to include the region encompassing the the CW horizon as PIE speaking as well.

Interesting also to note that CW has a relatively large amount of Paleo-euro and admixture that is lacking in Yamnaya. Paleo-Siberian too.

It's amazing that even after seeing essentially all of the genetics support the archaeological findings leading to the notion of a NE European PIE, that people still dispute it. Sometimes I open myself up to Goga and Alan's assertions, but there's just too much opposing evidence. Looking at Zoroastrian Iran admixture does help me open myself to the theory of a Zagros origin, but Look IE speakers all over the world today, they are mixed as ever, and that time in Iran was very late relative to the time frame for PIE. At best it could have been a very early lingua franca revolving around horse trading which led to it's roots being so difficult to trace. This is partly true as can be seen in the Mitanni horse training manuals.

A very interesting note is the small SSA signal seen in Sintashta and one of the CW samples. Sintashta is thought of as sort of the launch pad for archaeologically recognizable contacts between the steppe and the Iranian Plateau/South-South West Asia and we know that West Asia shows some SSA by the Neolithic/Copper age. I think one of the Zorastrian Iranian samples had a pinch of SSA as well. So this makes sense.

On a side note. Check out the super early and relatively large East Asian/Mongoloid admixture in Afanasevo. This lines up with speculation that the Chinese got metallurgy and Horses from Tocharian speakers.

 

[MarkoZ]

Yeah you gave a reference. Nice work. I guess when something's so widely accepted and obvious one doesn't feel compelled to dig up papers or discuss in depth linguistics. Start a thread on the linguistics forum and I'll come play. The phylogeny relies on certain rules and assumptions in order to, you know, actually do something, but it doesn't mean that these convergences or reconstructions actually existed. They're derivative of a system designed to allow such a study. So no, you wouldn't have to revise shit. What I'm proposing is not significant enough to interfere with the consensus phylogeny. It only helps explain the genetics and the archaeology, in fact I'm actually relying on consensus phylogeny to help explain the nebulous archaeology and the sparse genetics.

The only reason I bring it up here is because most of these people are interested in the genetic identity of certain language speakers, and so I actually try to fit the linguistics to the genetics and the archaeology. It all has to match to be right.

Phonology has nothing to do with my subjective feelings, unless I said that Lithuanian gave me an erection and because of that it's archaic.

 

[MarkoZ]

This is another wrinkle in the PIE homeland "problem". We're pretty darn sure that Yamnaya spoke IE or Proto-IE as some maintain, yet it's hard to force a Yamnaya->CW model. The root of the problem is the trajectory from Kunda-Swiderian ->Dnieper-Donets/Samara->Yamnaya, then we have CW and Srubna in the same spots, and later on we find that Srubna, Sintashta, Andronovo, Potapovka, and CW are very similar genetically. Some would say identical. These are R1a dominated groups, which we saw in the Kunda-Swiderian "Karelia" sample. So we're left, at the very least, being unable to rule out the Northern region as part of the PIE homeland. If we can't rule it out, and yet we're so damn sure of Yamnaya being PIE then we have no choice but to include the region encompassing the the CW horizon as PIE speaking as well.

You know, I actually believe that anyone who claims to know with absolute certainty what languages those preliterate archaeological cultures spoke must be greatly overestimating the power of historical linguistics.

I actually agree with most of the problems you mentioned. I recently learned that the oldest layers of Corded Ware are actually found in and around Latvia and Finland: https://www.researchgate.net/public...and_early_husbandry_in_the_East_Baltic_region

 

[holderlin]

You know, I actually believe that anyone who claims to know with absolute certainty what languages those preliterate archaeological cultures spoke must be greatly overestimating the power of historical linguistics.

Well it's all relative to the kind of data that a certain science is built on. In this case it's very soft, so being "certain" is a lot difference than being "certain" in say chemistry, or biology, or in the most extreme case math and logic. And of course the reason for this is that we're never really certain of anything.

I do agree though that people get ahead of themselves in these presuppositions, which over time leads to an inability to be creative when considering other possibilities.

e.g. people seem to be absolutely sure that CW was Balto-Slavic for example, but the genetics highlighted in this very thread, seem to suggest that CW was actually more like Indo-Iranian speaking.

I actually agree with most of the problems you mentioned. I recently learned that the oldest layers of Corded Ware are actually found in and around Latvia and Finland: https://www.researchgate.net/public...and_early_husbandry_in_the_East_Baltic_region

Don't think I've seen this paper, but I do know that Telegin held this opinion, and I would have to agree. These are broadly dispersed hunter gatherers that have very similar material culture, which as we move into the copper age seems to become centered on the Samara Valley. Then we see the genetics confirm that these are all the same people, essentially, with the same Y-HGs that we've been associating with the spread of IE for awhile now.

So yeah, when I claim Baltic PIE I don't know why people freak out.

 

[bicicleur 2]

@ holderlin

how do you figure the trajectory from Kunda-Swiderian ->Dnieper-Donets/Samara->Yamnaya ?

Swiderian has its roots 13 ka in Poland and expanded east after the youngest dryas.
I can't imagine they were ancestral to the Karelian/Samara R1a/R1b HG.
The Karelian/Samara R1a/R1b HG are autosomaly abt 85 % EHG and 15 % WHG.
I guess that 15 % WHG is due to admixture with Swiderian.

 

[holderlin]

@ holderlin

how do you figure the trajectory from Kunda-Swiderian ->Dnieper-Donets/Samara->Yamnaya ?

Swiderian has its roots 13 ka in Poland and expanded east after the youngest dryas.
I can't imagine they were ancestral to the Karelian/Samara R1a/R1b HG.
The Karelian/Samara R1a/R1b HG are autosomaly abt 85 % EHG and 15 % WHG.

I guess that 15 % WHG is due to admixture with Swiderian.

Knew you'd call me out.

Dneiper-Donets looks like a wedge from the North and the tools are similar to Swiderian-Kunda.

R1a Karelia is Kunda or very similar.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Knew you'd call me out.

Dneiper-Donets looks like a wedge from the North and the tools are similar to Swiderian-Kunda.

R1a Karelia is Kunda or very similar.

IMO the Swiderian/Kunda people were Y-DNA I, possibly I1 and mtDNA U5, U4, U2e and autosomal WHG

they spread all over Eastern Europe (only in very thin layers), but except near the Baltic (Kunda et al) were displaced by incoming EHG, Y-DNA R1 HG, their mtDNA was C and Z
the Swiderian males disapeared in Eastern Europe when these EHG arrived, but females remained (at least their DNA)

later also CHG admixture came into the Pontic steppe along with mtDNA H2a
you'll find the first H2a on the Pontic in both Khvalynsk and Dnjepr Donets
I guess its origin is south of the Caucasus

 

[MOESAN]

I had not the Harappa admixt tables at hand. As Lebrok if I understood him well, concerning Armenia, it seems it has been a huge increase of 'northern-euro' at BA (maybe CHL? I have not the data), with no decrease of 'baloch', but small decrease of 'mediter' - when we look at diverse old Steppes pops we see a 'northeuro' clear presence with a ratio 'baluch'/'caucasus' in favor of the first compared to ancient situations; I wonder if the new active mix was not more 'northern'+more 'baloch' at the expenses of 'caucasus'+'mediter'? All that could point to an East-Caspian scenario of expansion (PIE ties?) from South Central Asia rather than a S -> N Caucasus travel at first ( even if I know some parts of 'baluch' could be very old in Steppes), and later, mixed in Steppes, a N -> S Caucasus travel around BA...? the story of some later LBA Steppes cultures is another one, with an European input rising again the 'mediter' part. Sorry if this post is not centered on CWC, a more northern culture influenced by the Steppes ones but farther from the sources of big moves of the time. (I was said they were poor on metals and still had stone axes imitating the Sumerianlike metallic ones).

 

[holderlin]

IMO the Swiderian/Kunda people were Y-DNA I, possibly I1 and mtDNA U5, U4, U2e and autosomal WHG

they spread all over Eastern Europe (only in very thin layers), but except near the Baltic (Kunda et al) were displaced by incoming EHG, Y-DNA R1 HG, their mtDNA was C and Z
the Swiderian males disapeared in Eastern Europe when these EHG arrived, but females remained (at least their DNA)

later also CHG admixture came into the Pontic steppe along with mtDNA H2a
you'll find the first H2a on the Pontic in both Khvalynsk and Dnjepr Donets
I guess its origin is south of the Caucasus

Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree, sort of. There's no pots really until like 5000 BC, but the Red Deer Island cemetery looks similar to Kunda and Suomusjarvi cultures, and of course we now know the samples tested were EHG. They only tested 2 males, which happen to be EHG, other graves could show other admixture. Remember the Motala samples actually show some ANE, which is consistent with such a situation where we'd have long standing interactions between WHG and more ANE shifted EHG.

I understand you're saying that because the Karelia samples are EHG (R1a) and that Swiderian should be WHG (I1 or I2), and that because of this we can't relate Swiderian-> Suomusjarvi-Kunda to Dnieper-Donets, but I don't think we should be so sure of this. The cultures in the region were all very similar at this time and we see R1a EHG. This is what we know.

 

[berun]

A good combo would be Funnelbeaker + Yamnaya, this combo is not providing a good result for CW but it does for the Bronze Age Unetice culture, a millennia after the supposed steppe expansion in Central Europe, because it is around 10% WHG, 30 EEF, 55% EHG, 5% CHG; this would be a fine result if combining a Funnelbeaker (20% WHG, 5% EHG, 75% EEF) for each Yamnayan (85% EHG and 15% CHG). But of course the case fails when Central Europeans would number some 4 millions: there was not such numbers in the steppes, just looking at Mongolia tells it.