Southern Ancestry in "Steppe"

It seems like people on AG refuted the Date of roughly 4400BC from the Patterson et al. 2022 preprint. I will update that part if the paper is peer-reviewed and a new date is proposed.
 
It seems like people on AG refuted the Date of roughly 4400BC from the Patterson et al. 2022 preprint. I will update that part if the paper is peer-reviewed and a new date is proposed.

Based on what evidence?
 
Based on what evidence?

Someone ran different models using DATES while using EHG+CHG/Iran_N as proxys and got a date of ~7000BC. I don´t know what to think about this, so i´ll wait till the paper is peer-reviewed and published.:unsure:
 
caucasus-mountains-eneolithic.jpg


The map shows the location of 1105 sites in the Caucasus. Progress 2 and Marinskaya 5 are located side by side at the southern edge of the Russian Steppe. Two Marinskaya 5 samples carried Y-DNA haplogroup L, which is rare in the north but common in South Asia and Mesopotamia. Ancient Maikop individuals carried Y-DNA haplogroups from the south such as J2a1, G2a2a and L. Maykop played a key role in the transfer of technical innovations and social alterations to the Russian Steppe and there were some genetic interactions along the way.

Sample Site Age, BP Culture mtDNA Y-DNA
MK5008.B0101 Marinskaya 5 5185.5 Late Maykop T1a2 ?
MK5004 Marinskaya 5 5171.0 Late Maykop T2al L
MK5001 Marinskaya 5 5141.5 Late Maykop K1a4 L
I6268 Klady 5564.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya R1a J2a1
I6267 Klady 5438.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya T2c1
I6270 Klady 5434.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya U1b ?
I6266 Klady 5200.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya X2f J2a1
I6272 Dlinnaya Polyana 5200.0 Maykop Novosvobodnaya U1b1 G2a2a

there was exchange of skills and knowledge
but the gene flow was more or less limited to the exchange of brides between the Maykop and the steppe elites
if Indo-European genes and languages crossed the Caucasus it must have happened before the Maykop era
that is at least what I remember from this study
 
Someone ran different models using DATES while using EHG+CHG/Iran_N as proxys and got a date of ~7000BC. I don´t know what to think about this, so i´ll wait till the paper is peer-reviewed and published.:unsure:

Sorry, now I'm getting confused.

Nick Patterson CREATED the DATES program, yes?

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.18.476710v1

Is this person on Anthrogenica claiming that Patterson doesn't know how to use his own program and he knows better? Or is he claiming that Patterson is using the wrong samples, or he doesn't know how to analyze them?

This all seems rather bizarre to me.

Also, isn't it now established that Dneiper Donets is NOT the ancestor of Yamnaya?
 
Sorry, now I'm getting confused.

Nick Patterson CREATED the DATES program, yes?

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.18.476710v1

Is this person on Anthrogenica claiming that Patterson doesn't know how to use his own program and he knows better? Or is he claiming that Patterson is using the wrong samples, or he doesn't know how to analyze them?

This all seems rather bizarre to me.

This was the statement:

Sure, there was a mix between a northern and a southern population around 4400-4000 BC, but what kind of southern population? Altvred managed to produce very similar dates when using ANF as a DATES reference and managed to produce far older dates for EHG and CHG mixing for the steppe_eneolithic samples. It might be worthwhile to read this.

He is claiming that Patterson is using wrong samples. Patterson wrote a comment at that Blog:

Nick Patterson (Broad)January 24, 2022 at 10:41 AM
One clarification. The Yamnaya are genetically a mix of Eastern Hunter Gatherer related
and "Iranian" related but the relatedness should be interpreted very loosely. The 5th millennium
Caucasus is "Iranian" related but only distantly. @altvred "no visible archaeological trace"; how would you recognize it? The DATES paper is primarily methodological. A big paper on the 4th and 5th millennium is being worked on, and much much more evidence will be presented there.


Also, isn't it now established that Dneiper Donets is NOT the ancestor of Yamnaya?

Yes, it is. Dnieper-Donets never was good a candidate to be a major source for steppe peoples.


 
Last edited:
So, another typical anthrogenica jerk. Not surprised.
 
I know that phenotype studies are not as useful as genetic data but what were those results ?

As sometimes I was imprecise. It concerned detailed Steppic tribes, but not exactly Catacomb nor Yamna. It concerned Alakul of Western Kazakhstan and the distances (metric) between them as a mean and other averaged tribes. In fact, on the top of ties with robust Steppic elements of EHG origin, as Kozincev said, these steppic pop's showed ties with western people; but these ties could concern as well EEF so southern;
it's true that the eastern 'med' element seems appearing too. And it could be more ancient than the EEF one, surely Chalco or post Chalco in the Steppes. I another tribe of Steppes he found some ties with a Kura-Araxes group, if my memory is good.
data to manipulate with "care".

Alakul, western Kazakhstan : early Catacomb,
Molochnaya (–1.35); Pit Grave, Ingulets (–0.36); early
Catacomb, Verkhne-Tarasovka, Lower Dnieper (0.44);
late Timber Grave, Volga–Ural area (0.54); Kemi-Oba,
Crimea (0.88).Nine-trait set:early Catacomb, Molochnaya
(–1.39); Pit Grave, Ingulets (–0.88); Timber Grave, ground
burials, Ukraine (–0.79), Pit Grave, Kakhovka, Lower
Dnieper (–0.67); Parkhay II, Turkmenia, Middle and Late
Bronze Age (–0.61); Tiszapolgar, Hungary, Chalcolithic,
5th–4th millennia BC (No.197) (–0.38); late Timber
Grave, Volga–Ural area (–0.16); Rössen, eastern France,
Neolithic, 5th millennium BC (No.43) (–0.09); Globular
Amphorae, Germany and Poland, Early Bronze Age (early
3rd millennium BC) (No.192)(–0.07); Timber Grave,
Ukraine, pooled (–0.03); Lengyel, Hungary, Neolithic,
5th millennium BC (No.40) (0.07); Meklenburg, Germany,
Early Bronze Age, 4th–3rd millennia BC (No.107) (0.07);
Aveyron, France, Early Bronze Age, 3rd century BC
(No.99) (0.09); Unetice, Germany and Czechia, Bronze
Age, 3rd–2nd millennia BC (No.208) (0.09); Linear Band
Pottery, Neolithic, 6th millennium BC (No.14) (0.11); Pit
Grave, Yuzhny Bug (0.20); Veterov, Austria, Bronze Age,
III–II millennia BC (No.205) (0.21).
 
More evidence for a homeland south of the Caucasus:

Here are the original (not simulated) samples from the Eneolithic Steppe:

Bildschirmfoto 2022-04-01 um 12.33.34.png

Vonyuchka has close to double the amount of Iran_N than Progress. Let´s exclude the EHG-related signal and calculate the amount of Iran_N the southern ancestry of Vonyuchka might have.
Simple math: 14/40,5=0,345=34,5%

So, it's 34,5% Iran_N and maybe including some traces of Anatolian_N.
The southern ancestry of Vonyuchka is approximately: 65,5(CHG)+34.5%(Iran_N)
IMHO, that's enough Iran_N to conclude a homeland south of the CHGs.
 
Last edited:
the metric analysis I posted, metrics, so to be taken with a taste of salt. And the 'anatolian-like' elements may as well be of western EEF (or CTC EEF) or transcaucasus 'anatolianlike' in a mix, and the 'robust-archaic' elements can hide EHG and WHG (TRB partial component) in these Steppic tribes. The question is: 1- metrics (and typology) doesn't always check allover genetics 2- the last tribes of Steppes were no more the same as the Eneolithic ones. 3- the CHG-like component may have introgressed Streppes two times, the first one, pure western CHG, the last one, more "iranlike". Concerning language, it complicates things; the datings of pre-proto-I-E are of importance, I think, spite the most often proposed dates for PIE and the languages stated in S-E Caspian regions and south Caucasus at those times doesn't point to an IE origin there; but have we all the clues? High level cultural influences are not always followed by language transmission.
 
That is a very interesting thread, it has gone a little out of topic.
I also personaly think that the southern element came from the southern caucasus, the north caucasus had much more interations with therest of the middle east than many think , georgia is not any isolated genetic island.In fact this topic realy interests me as some researches have considered the possibility of Y DNA J2b L283 being connected to this migration. This lineage very likely made its way to the balkans with the Indo european expansion as it was the main Y DNA among Illyrians, basal lineages are found in armenia (nurabak culture) and the oldest J2b so far has been found in western Iran + the only living basal J2b* is a dude from Uzbekstan(Toshkent).I am just repeating what been said many times, J2b L283 would have likely formed beetwen western Iran and Armeia around 7700 bce , the TMRCA is from 3500 bce and would have lived god knows where,but this seem to match way too much the theory you are putting out. I will not even touch on all the "southern " mtdna present among yamnaya that surely did come from parts of the middle east other than the north caucasus/Georgia.

The J2b-M12 mutation, an "ancestor" of L283 lived 16000 years ago in that region, but we absolutely don't have any evidence the J2b2a1 L283 branch itself was there 7000 years ago and it is very much unlikely. The estimated split happened 9700 ybp from the Pontic Steppe J-Z2432 branch. Also, the two "J2b" samples from Neolithic Hajji Firuz (NW Iran) turned out to be under
J2b-Z2453 AND NOT J2B2a1 L283.








 

The J2b-M12 mutation, an "ancestor" of L283 lived 16000 years ago in that region, but we absolutely don't have any evidence the J2b2a1 L283 branch itself was there 7000 years ago and it is very much unlikely. The estimated split happened 9700 ybp from the Pontic Steppe J-Z2432 branch. Also, the two "J2b" samples from Neolithic Hajji Firuz (NW Iran) turned out to be under
J2b-Z2453 AND NOT J2B2a1 L283.


How is it unlikely for J2b-L283 to have formed around Iran/caucasus? J2b2-M241 MRCA lived only 9700 ybp/ 7700 bce, and considering J2b2a2/Z2432 ancient distribution(and L283 ancient distribution on armenia and Kabardia-Balkaria) it is only logical to assume this J2b2-M241 common ancestor lived somewhere beetwen Iran/central asia and the caucasus mountains and that was also there that from it L283 mutated .
Considering the bottleneck effect that happened in the neolithic with our dear J2- L283 we may never have any "real evidence" so I don´t see what is wrong about suposing where it was using its parent and sibling clades for help/reference.
Thanks for letting me know about these iranian neolithic samples from west Iran, i did not know about them.Anyway if you want to discuss about this topic i would happily do so, but in another thread as i don´t enjoy being called out for going off topic.


 
Basically if you have a different opinion and don't want to be part of Mother Russia or don't believe in "out of Anatolia / Iran" theory of PIE origins, you are a "neo-nazi" these days. :LOL:

I was just discussing the same issue but with the OOA hypothesis and Eurasia.
People get mad when you point out that we may come from X, but the population we're talking about is actually from other place.
 
I suspect that calling people names like "neo-nazi" will become less frequent after this war.
Russian propaganda kind of ruined it for the leftists and discredited people using the term. Basically if you have a different opinion and don't want to be part of Mother Russia or don't believe in "out of Anatolia / Iran" theory of PIE origins, you are a "neo-nazi" these days. :LOL:

I actually do not understand what you mean here. ACTUAL nazis were a mix of EHG, CHG WHG, and Anatolian_N. Infact, as I pointed out previously, Western Europeans, like English and French, who were "Ayrans", were predominantly Anatolian_N. The place in European where Anatolian_N is small component is Eastern European, and the Nazis wanted to exterminate them

Anyway, I think it is dumb, as were the Nazis. I am not attacking you.
 
I actually do not understand what you mean here. ACTUAL nazis were a mix of EHG, CHG WHG, and Anatolian_N. Infact, as I pointed out previously, Western Europeans, like English and French, who were "Ayrans", were predominantly Anatolian_N. The place in European where Anatolian_N is small component is Eastern European, and the Nazis wanted to exterminate them
Anyway, I think it is dumb, as were the Nazis. I am not attacking you.
At any rate, they only cared about phenotypes, which is all they could go by. The Yamnaya were darker than modern Europeans. Ironically had the steppe people been brought to Nazi Germany in a time machine, they would have been discriminated against by their mixed descendants.
 
For the Russians, the epithet "Nazi", doesn't have precisely the same connotations as it does in the West. Most Russians, and most Ukrainians, for that matter, including Zelensky, who is himself Jewish, have no real understanding of the horrors of the Holocaust. The history that was taught behind the Iron Curtain was sanitized in many ways.

What the Russians were indeed taught, however, is that some Ukrainians, Latvians, Lithuanians etc. collaborated with the Nazis when they invaded Russia. That's, I believe, the context. Of course, the fact that they did so is not just because anti-semitism was rampant in Eastern Europe, but because of the heavy hand of the Russian "Empire", whether under the Czars or the Commissars.

Doesn't change any of the points made by Jovialis, which is that little did the Nazis know how much "southern" ancestry they had, how "mixed" they were, and that all their "measurements" were nonsense. If they hadn't been nonsense, Jewish boys wouldn't have been able to pass the tests and hide in the Hitler Youth to escape detection, as indeed did happen.

Their total dependence on physical attributes instead of ancestry is also shown in the fact that they stole Polish children who were blonde and blue-eyed and had the "right" metrics even though they thought of Slavs as untermenschen, and we now know that those children were just as "Slavic" as the brown-haired children. There's a great documentary on you tube about it. The irony is that as the children grew up some of them no longer fit the "standard", but thankfully the death camps were a thing of the past. The despair of these people once they realized what had been done to them, how their families, culture, and history had been stolen from them, is really heartbreaking.
 
One more thing, most people who are "Nazis' today think archeogenetics is a Jewish conspiracy, Because it shows there are no "pure" races, and haplogroups support African origins of humanity.

There is no (or only few remaining) "pure races" today, however several thousands years ago there existed clear-cut clusters, as I showed here:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/42412-Try-my-new-G25-calculator

Zz26NqL.png


As for deniers of African origins - these are various kinds of chauvinists or "local patriots" not necessarily "Nazis".
Chinese scientists also tried to prove that humans originated in China and they have nothing to do with the Nazis.

But the PCA of my "ancient races calculator" above clearly shows the directions of Out-of-Africa human migration:

m8fjRFT.png


Haplogroups of course also prove the Out-of-Africa theory. But it is nice to see a confirmation in autosomal DNA.
 
Western Europeans, like English and French, who were "Ayrans", were predominantly Anatolian_N

But calling Western Europeans "Aryans" and calling Slavs "Non-Aryans" was a Nazi falsification of (pre)history.
Slavic peoples are more closely related to the actual Aryans (Proto-Aryans) than most of Western Europeans.
Proto-Aryans and Proto-Balto-Slavs both spoke Satem languages not Kentum, and both carried R1a not R1b.

Besides I don't think that the English or Northern French are more Anatolian_N than they are Steppe + WHG.
 

This thread has been viewed 36478 times.

Back
Top