Genetic ancestry changes in Stone to Bronze Age transition in the East European plain

Well said, the steppe was the land of nomads, such as Turkic, Mongolic, Uralic and Hunnic people, not Hittites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Indians and other major Indo-European people, of course there were some IE people like Scythians who migrated there and adopted a nomadic lifestyle, but the absolute majority of Indo-Europeans had an agricultural lifestyle. We see nothing in Greek, Indian and other Indo-European cultures which show they originally wandered in the steppe, the fact is that Indo-Europeans didn't migrate like nomads, but they conquered other lands and imposed their own culture on them. The main reason which could cause the migration of IE farmers was drought and famine which happened in the West Asia, especially Iran, several times.

More anachronistic views to reply to another anachronistic view. Between the PIE speakers and the Late Iron Age Turkic, Mongolic, Uralic and Hunnic people you're mentioning there's a very long gap of nearly 3,000 years. It's ridiculous to imagine nothing changed culturally and demographically in such a long time, particularly to people who emigrated in all directions and mixed heavily with already established societies. Besides, the steppe was the land of nomad PASTORALISTS, heavily relying on animal husbandry and on the horse, just like the roots of many IE cultural concepts that place a huge role and status on the ownership of livestock (to the point words related to money are even to this day derived from roots meaning "cattle") and of horses, especially horse mounting. Not to mention that they also worshipped horse and cattle gods and had as their original main deity a Sky God, as was typical of some other steppe semi-nomadic peoples. Nothing in IE cultures showing they originally wandered in the steppe? Ha, okay.
 
Other than Underhill and Grugni, as you read in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a According to Di Cristofaro et al. "All Iranian R1a individuals carried the M198 and M17 mutations except one individual in a sample of Iranians from Gilan (n=27), who was reported to belong to R1a-SRY1532.2(xM198, M17)." Malyarchuk et al. found R1a1-SRY10831.2 in 20.8% (16/77) of a sample of Persians collected in the provinces of Khorasan and Kerman in eastern Iran, ...

Do you really think all genetic studies regarding R1a in Iran are wrong? In fact they don't know that these are just Z95, not M198 and SRY1532.2!!

You're clearly (again) having a hard time understanding what we are saying. R1a-M198/M17 (with a set of mutations linked to it, mainly M198 and M17) is just the upstream clade to R1a-M417, which is the upstream clade to several subclades like the one that clearly prevails the most among Indo-Iranian (including Iranian) people, which is Z93. When you belong to Z93, you also automatically belong to M17 and M198. Haplogroups are basically accumulated combinations of successive mutations. That has nothing to do with R1a-carrying male Iranians belonging to the basal forms of those haplogroups, mate. There's nothing "Iranian" about M198/M17, it's just that those studies didn't test their samples for the more recent and specific subclades of R1a, they just tested them to determine whether they belonged to the upstream M198/M17, which includes virtually 99% of all R1a carriers in the world today, or not. M198/M17 is basically what's present everywhere in the world where R1a has some non-negligible frequency. INTERPRET what you read before drawing conclusions, man.

What's so difficult about this basic phylogeny, huh?
 
Your entire post is full of anachronism, a chronology that is totally upside down (R1a and Z93 in particular far predate Scythian, Jewish or Turkic presence in Europe or actually even Scythian, Jewish and Turkic cultures themselves, they are essentially LBA/IA phenomena).
“LBA/IA” is simply one instance when these genotypes were transferred to the West. The same phenomena was repeated at later times with Scythian/Turkics and the like. We know that the plethora of R lines do not originate in the West or Russia for that matter and there are multiple lines of evidence which lead to this conclusion. The west was sink for these lines however and thus can deceptively appear as a source.

Besides, what Levantine origin in Fatyanovo and other parts of Northern Europe? That just doesn't exist.
There is extra EEF in the Fatyanovo samples, EEF is essentially Levantine. Even if the migration took a circuitous route over many centuries, it still originated in the MidEast. The CHG (subsumed under “steppe”) and Levantine in Fatyanovo likely traveled together. At any rate, the steppe is an highly admixed region where almost all components have a prior history in the South.

And where is R1a anywhere in the ancient DNA samples from West/Southwest Asia from any time before the MLBA? Nowhere at least so far.
The Mideast including Iran are large ecosystems that can hold and produce many lines while Europe lies at the recipient end of this Souther diversity starting with the yDNA-G in EEF, and yDNA-I which orignated from IJ in Iran. There are R lines in the South like R2. Mal’ta has R* and MtDNA-U*. and we know that U had to originate in the South among the much larger southern diversity of N/R/U. This gives an indication of where the yDNA-R lines originated - not to far from where all other european sink diversity originated.
 
You're clearly (again) having a hard time understanding what we are saying. R1a-M198/M17 (with a set of mutations linked to it, mainly M198 and M17) is just the upstream clade to R1a-M417, which is the upstream clade to several subclades like the one that clearly prevails the most among Indo-Iranian (including Iranian) people, which is Z93. When you belong to Z93, you also automatically belong to M17 and M198. Haplogroups are basically accumulated combinations of successive mutations. That has nothing to do with R1a-carrying male Iranians belonging to the basal forms of those haplogroups, mate. There's nothing "Iranian" about M198/M17, it's just that those studies didn't test their samples for the more recent and specific subclades of R1a, they just tested them to determine whether they belonged to the upstream M198/M17, which includes virtually 99% of all R1a carriers in the world today, or not. M198/M17 is basically what's present everywhere in the world where R1a has some non-negligible frequency. INTERPRET what you read before drawing conclusions, man.

What's so difficult about this basic phylogeny, huh?

On top of that Iranian R1a doesn't even belong to more basal Z93 clades which are mostly found in Europe.
 
“LBA/IA” is simply one instance when these genotypes were transferred to the West. The same phenomena was repeated at later times with Scythian/Turkics and the like. We know that the plethora of R lines do not originate in the West or Russia for that matter and there are multiple lines of evidence which lead to this conclusion. The west was sink for these lines however and thus can deceptively appear as a source.


There is extra EEF in the Fatyanovo samples, EEF is essentially Levantine. Even if the migration took a circuitous route over many centuries, it still originated in the MidEast. The CHG (subsumed under “steppe”) and Levantine in Fatyanovo likely traveled together. At any rate, the steppe is an highly admixed region where almost all components have a prior history in the South.


The Mideast including Iran are large ecosystems that can hold and produce many lines while Europe lies at the recipient end of this Souther diversity starting with the yDNA-G in EEF, and yDNA-I which orignated from IJ in Iran. There are R lines in the South like R2. Mal’ta has R* and MtDNA-U*. and we know that U had to originate in the South among the much larger southern diversity of N/R/U. This gives an indication of where the yDNA-R lines originated - not to far from where all other european sink diversity originated.

You followed up your first post on site that was full of misinformation with even more misinformation in your second post.

R1a and R1b are present in Europe very early on. Europe is where they diversified if not originated. There was no constant stream of migration from the east or south to account for the diversity of R1a and R1b in ancient European DNA.

EEF is not Levantine life. Its basically Anatolia_N + WHG. EEF has its genesis in Europe. Also the idea that CHG and EEF traveled together is laughable. So CHG had to take a circuitous route from the Caucasus to Anatolia to the Balkans to the steppe as opposed to admixing onto the steppe directly? Also it is wrong that all steppe components are from the south. EHG (which is basically WHG + ANE) developed from Northern populations and for most of history of the steppe was the dominant component.

Y R2 exists in Iran_N. Guess what? Iran_N can't be modeled without significant ANE so still a northern line. Of course everything had to originate in the south at some point. Who ******* cares? Everything originated in Africa at some point too but nobody says R1a or R1b or I or J are African lineages. That's not where they originated or diversified or spent most of their history. Sure K* or K2 might be from Iran. That lineage might be more than 50,000 years old.
 
“LBA/IA” is simply one instance when these genotypes were transferred to the West. The same phenomena was repeated at later times with Scythian/Turkics and the like.

No, they weren't the same phenomena. They were completely different populations (genetically and culturally) under totally different socioeconomic circumstances. These ideas about extremely broad, sweeping "historical trends" over dozens of thousands of years always miss the details and end up being very deceiving. In North Eurasia, Upper Paleolithic ANE westward migration was not the same as EBA eastward migration from Eastern Europe, which was not the same as westward Scythian migration in the early IA, which was not the same as westward Turkic/Hunnic migration in the late IA, etc. Everything differed: the starting point, the extent of the expansion, the genetic makeup of the expanding population, and so on.

We know that the plethora of R lines do not originate in the West or Russia for that matter and there are multiple lines of evidence which lead to this conclusion. The west was sink for these lines however and thus can deceptively appear as a source.

No, we don't know that. The earliest R* is in Russia (Siberia), the earliest R1a and R1b lineages are all in North Asia and Europe (North Eurasia). The brother haplogroup of R, Q, is also mostly North Eurasian in both ancient and modern DNA distribution. Humankind's expansion from the south of course happened, but again pay attention at the chronology. We are talking about lineages that have a TMRCA in the last 6,000 years, we aren't talking about demographic events 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, when North Eurasia was peopled in different waves.

There is extra EEF in the Fatyanovo samples, EEF is essentially Levantine.

Hmm, no, it isn't "essentially Levantine". It's Anatolian, without the significant (~25-30%) North African ancestry found in Natufian (Epipaleolithic Levantines). And it's also ~5-25% WHG-admixed.

Even if the migration took a circuitous route over many centuries, it still originated in the MidEast. The CHG (subsumed under “steppe”) and Levantine in Fatyanovo likely traveled together. At any rate, the steppe is an highly admixed region where almost all components have a prior history in the South.

No, they likely didn't at all. EEF and CHG blended into steppe admixture spread northward through totally different routes and in different timelines. EEF and CHG were taking completely independent and isolated expansions in Europe until the Copper Age. Where have you been in the last years that you missed all the ancient DNA studies?

Also, the "prior history" in the south that you're speaking about happened hundreds or even thousands of years before the TMRCA of R1a-M17, so it has nothing to do with what we were originally discussing.

The Mideast including Iran are large ecosystems that can hold and produce many lines while Europe lies at the recipient end of this Souther diversity starting with the yDNA-G in EEF, and yDNA-I which orignated from IJ in Iran. There are R lines in the South like R2. Mal’ta has R* and MtDNA-U*. and we know that U had to originate in the South among the much larger southern diversity of N/R/U. This gives an indication of where the yDNA-R lines originated - not to far from where all other european sink diversity originated.

R2 probably came to South Asia with the early Iranian agriculturists, who were ~50% ANE, that is, derived from a NORTH > SOUTH migration in the Upper Paleolithic. That fits with a split between a southern lineage developing into R2 and a northern lineage remaining and developing into R1. Not everything went from the south to the north, history was much more complex.

Besides, ultimately you're talking about events that took place before 30,000 years ago, which have nothing to do with the much latter expansion of R1a-M17 in the Early Bronze Age.
 
You're clearly (again) having a hard time understanding what we are saying. R1a-M198/M17 (with a set of mutations linked to it, mainly M198 and M17) is just the upstream clade to R1a-M417, which is the upstream clade to several subclades like the one that clearly prevails the most among Indo-Iranian (including Iranian) people, which is Z93. When you belong to Z93, you also automatically belong to M17 and M198. Haplogroups are basically accumulated combinations of successive mutations. That has nothing to do with R1a-carrying male Iranians belonging to the basal forms of those haplogroups, mate. There's nothing "Iranian" about M198/M17, it's just that those studies didn't test their samples for the more recent and specific subclades of R1a, they just tested them to determine whether they belonged to the upstream M198/M17, which includes virtually 99% of all R1a carriers in the world today, or not. M198/M17 is basically what's present everywhere in the world where R1a has some non-negligible frequency. INTERPRET what you read before drawing conclusions, man.

What's so difficult about this basic phylogeny, huh?

You may be right but I think you also want to fool me, when they say there are also R1a-SRY1532.2(xM198) and R1a-M198(xM417) in Iran, it means they are negative for M198 and M417, so they couldn't be Z93.
 
More anachronistic views to reply to another anachronistic view. Between the PIE speakers and the Late Iron Age Turkic, Mongolic, Uralic and Hunnic people you're mentioning there's a very long gap of nearly 3,000 years. It's ridiculous to imagine nothing changed culturally and demographically in such a long time, particularly to people who emigrated in all directions and mixed heavily with already established societies. Besides, the steppe was the land of nomad PASTORALISTS, heavily relying on animal husbandry and on the horse, just like the roots of many IE cultural concepts that place a huge role and status on the ownership of livestock (to the point words related to money are even to this day derived from roots meaning "cattle") and of horses, especially horse mounting. Not to mention that they also worshipped horse and cattle gods and had as their original main deity a Sky God, as was typical of some other steppe semi-nomadic peoples. Nothing in IE cultures showing they originally wandered in the steppe? Ha, okay.

You are wrong those who originally lived in the steppe were nomadic hunter gatherers, nomadic pastoralism originated in the mountainous Zagros region in Iran, not the steppe: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31326
 
You are wrong those who originally lived in the steppe were nomadic hunter gatherers, nomadic pastoralism originated in the mountainous Zagros region in Iran, not the steppe: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31326

Yes, originated, but by the time PIE was spoken and started to split and expand, which is around the late 5th to early-mid 4th millennium B.C. pastoralism had already been developed in many different parts of the world, including the Pontic-Caspian steppe, even without any direct input from Iran_N people. Pastoralism is the natural way to go when you know agriculture, but cultivation is hard and not very productive in your land, but it's very favorable to animal husbandry. So, again: don't forget the chronology of events.
 
You may be right but I think you also want to fool me, when they say there are also R1a-SRY1532.2(xM198) and R1a-M198(xM417) in Iran, it means they are negative for M198 and M417, so they couldn't be Z93.

Yes, of course, but those are very minor lineages just like everywhere else where R1a achieves reasonably high frequencies.
 
off topic:Corded Ware distribution resembles rye output.

RyeYield.png
 
Yes, originated, but by the time PIE was spoken and started to split and expand, which is around the late 5th to early-mid 4th millennium B.C. pastoralism had already been developed in many different parts of the world, including the Pontic-Caspian steppe, even without any direct input from Iran_N people. Pastoralism is the natural way to go when you know agriculture, but cultivation is hard and not very productive in your land, but it's very favorable to animal husbandry. So, again: don't forget the chronology of events.
You say "the steppe was the land of nomad PASTORALISTS" and then you admit that the earliest nomad pastoralists were those who lived in Iran, not the steppe, so if these nomad pastoralists migrated to different lands and spread IE culture, their original land should be in Iran, not the steppe, whether 5,000 or 10,000 years ago.
For the same reason if R1a and R1b were their main haplogroups, they should be originated in Iran, not the steppe. Iran was not in another world but a major land in the south of steppe.
 
You say "the steppe was the land of nomad PASTORALISTS" and then you admit that the earliest nomad pastoralists were those who lived in Iran, not the steppe, so if these nomad pastoralists migrated to different lands and spread IE culture, their original land should be in Iran, not the steppe, whether 5,000 or 10,000 years ago.
For the same reason if R1a and R1b were their main haplogroups, they should be originated in Iran, not the steppe. Iran was not in another world but a major land in the south of steppe.

Pastoralism appeared in different populations in different parts of the world just like an agrarian way of life. Sorry, but we're long past the time people still believed one only population spread agriculture to the entire world. Independent evolutions do happen.

Also, Eneolithic and BA steppe pastoralists had no Iran_N admixture, far less any Iran_Chalc admixture. So, unless there was a people that looked like Eastern European hunter-gatherers admixed with Caucasians living in complete isolation in Iran, your hypothesis once again fails.
 
Iran is absolutely another world when it comes to genetics. The steppe was EHG originally and then EHG + CHG. These components obviously differ from what was found in Iran at the same time.
 
Pastoralism appeared in different populations in different parts of the world just like an agrarian way of life. Sorry, but we're long past the time people still believed one only population spread agriculture to the entire world. Independent evolutions do happen.

Also, Eneolithic and BA steppe pastoralists had no Iran_N admixture, far less any Iran_Chalc admixture. So, unless there was a people that looked like Eastern European hunter-gatherers admixed with Caucasians living in complete isolation in Iran, your hypothesis once again fails.

I have no hypothesis, this is what geneticists say, for example according to Lazaridis et al.: "a population related to the people of the Iran Chalcolithic contributed ~43% of the ancestry of early Bronze Age populations of the steppe".

4000-BC-gene-map.gif


Compare to this map:

lwhw_dome.jpg
 
I have no hypothesis, this is what geneticists say, for example according to Lazaridis et al.: "a population related to the people of the Iran Chalcolithic contributed ~43% of the ancestry of early Bronze Age populations of the steppe".
4000-BC-gene-map.gif

Compare to this map:
lwhw_dome.jpg

Both these maps look questionable. EHG in Southern Sweden in 4000 BC? Buffalo were domesticated in South Asia and SE Asia. Zebu were domesticated in the Indus Valley likely.
 
I have no hypothesis, this is what geneticists say, for example according to Lazaridis et al.: "a population related to the people of the Iran Chalcolithic contributed ~43% of the ancestry of early Bronze Age populations of the steppe".
4000-BC-gene-map.gif

Compare to this map:
lwhw_dome.jpg

Lazaridis' statement is extremeley dubious, particular because he mentioned CHALCOLITHIC Iranians, who had a lot of other Near Eastern admixtures lacking in the Chalcolithic and EBA steppe. Very suspicious assertion, most likely wrong.

Did you notice in your second map that that Near Easten zone of animal domestication includes the Caucasus and Anatolia? Well, that's where genetics and archaeology indicate that the steppe hunter-gatherers took their pastoralism from.
 
EHG were dark haired and dark eyed, but they had lighter skin.

:bored:

EHG weren't dark haired and dark eyed. They had the KITLG allele from the Ancient North Eurasians that contributes to blond hair and blue eyes in modeen Europeans.


Also, so much misinfo in this thread. Fatyanovo in this paper had the same frequency of blond hair and blue eyes as modern white Americans. Actually, they had more blonds than white Americans naturally do.

The later Indo-Aryans/Scythians would have had Baltic-tier pigmentation, which makes sense as Andronovo was already majority light haired and eyed, and the Scythians were already whiter than modern Europeans before the iron age. The reason Indians don't have that today is because it was a small number of Aryans mixing with mostly dark featured subcon natives. It's difficult for light pigmentation (which is polygenic) to predominate when so many people in a group carry a high number of dark pigmentation allele copies.


P.s. Sintashta had way more blonds than the claimed 20%.

Another proof is that several groups like the Yenisei Kyrgyz were majority blond/red haired and blue/green eyed in the iron age. Meaning that the light features weren't something that evolved in Europe gradually to the present day, but were already widespread across Eurasia before the iron age.

P.S. European people are actually losing their light pigmentation traits very quickly. In the early 1900s about half of white Americans had blue eyes; by 2006 it's only 1 in 4. Light pigmentation is something that was more common in the Bronze and Iron Ages and have been decreasing ever since.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/americas/18iht-web.1018eyes.3199975.html
 
Lazaridis' statement is extremeley dubious, particular because he mentioned CHALCOLITHIC Iranians, who had a lot of other Near Eastern admixtures lacking in the Chalcolithic and EBA steppe. Very suspicious assertion, most likely wrong.

Did you notice in your second map that that Near Easten zone of animal domestication includes the Caucasus and Anatolia? Well, that's where genetics and archaeology indicate that the steppe hunter-gatherers took their pastoralism from.

Even in this study about "Genetic ancestry changes in Stone to Bronze Age transition in the East European plain", we read about Fatyanovo individuals: "These populations are composed of the blue “WHG” and yellow “Khanty” component and two brown components maximized in HG from the Caucasus and Iran, similarly to Yamnaya populations."

Whether through the Caucasus or Anatolia, Iran is the original source where pastoralism originated, in fact about 4,000 BC Iranian pastoralists migrated to the steppe and spread their own culture.

As Maciamo mentioend:

The Neolithic male sample is Q1a2-L54 (the Proto-Ameridian and Mongolian branch, also found in Scandinavia today as L804).

All the Bronze Age Fatyanovo samples are R1a, with 4x R1a-M417, 4x R1a-Z645 and 6x R1a-Z93.

R1b in Yamnaya:

R1b-migration-map.jpg


R1a in the Corded Ware and Fatyanovo:

1024px-R1a_origins_%28Underhill_2010%29_and_R1a1a_oldest_expansion_and_highest_frequency_%282014%29.jpg


There is one common source: Iran
 
:bored:

EHG weren't dark haired and dark eyed. They had the KITLG allele from the Ancient North Eurasians that contributes to blond hair and blue eyes in modeen Europeans.


Also, so much misinfo in this thread. Fatyanovo in this paper had the same frequency of blond hair and blue eyes as modern white Americans. Actually, they had more blonds than white Americans naturally do.

The later Indo-Aryans/Scythians would have had Baltic-tier pigmentation, which makes sense as Andronovo was already majority light haired and eyed, and the Scythians were already whiter than modern Europeans before the iron age. The reason Indians don't have that today is because it was a small number of Aryans mixing with mostly dark featured subcon natives. It's difficult for light pigmentation (which is polygenic) to predominate when so many people in a group carry a high number of dark pigmentation allele copies.


P.s. Sintashta had way more blonds than the claimed 20%.

Another proof is that several groups like the Yenisei Kyrgyz were majority blond/red haired and blue/green eyed in the iron age. Meaning that the light features weren't something that evolved in Europe gradually to the present day, but were already widespread across Eurasia before the iron age.

P.S. European people are actually losing their light pigmentation traits very quickly. In the early 1900s about half of white Americans had blue eyes; by 2006 it's only 1 in 4. Light pigmentation is something that was more common in the Bronze and Iron Ages and have been decreasing ever since.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/americas/18iht-web.1018eyes.3199975.html

Whats your evidence that Sintashta was more than 20% (actually 25%) blonde?
 

This thread has been viewed 30734 times.

Back
Top