Teal people found: Caucasians!

[Tomenable]

I define Indo-Europeans as people who spoke Proto-Indo-European language.

That's the only way how they can be defined because PIE is a linguistic term, not a cultural term.

===============================================

Angela it's bad that you removed so many posts because Alan's misinformation will spread.

I mean you also removed a lot of Alan's misinformation but some still remained.

The people to the north of them, who developed into the Corded Ware people, were not "Indo-Europeans" in that cultural sense even if they were related to them genetically. Certainly the forest steppe people didn't possess any of the hallmarks of that culture.

We do not know who developed into the Corded Ware people, and where did they originally live.

It is Maciamo's hypothesis that they lived in the forest steppe.

Khvalynsk culture is not in the forest steppe, R1a sample from that culture is from the steppe.

If you push the definition back in time to include fisher hunters living in some yurt or cave without any of those developments then the term loses all meaning, in my opinion.

No it does not because "Proto-Indo-European people" = people who spoke PIE language.

BTW - Samara and Khvalynsk cultures were not fisher hunters, but those were Copper Age cultures already.

 

[LeBrok]

I define Indo-Europeans as people who spoke Proto-Indo-European language.

That's the only way how they can be defined because PIE is a linguistic term, not a cultural term.

===============================================

Angela it's bad that you removed so many posts because Alan's misinformation will spread.

I mean you also removed a lot of Alan's misinformation but some still remained.

All of topic posts were moved here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31734-Cephalic-index-of-ancient-populations-and-reconstructions

 

[LeBrok]

I define Indo-Europeans as people who spoke Proto-Indo-European language.

That's the only way how they can be defined because PIE is a linguistic term, not a cultural term.

It started as a linguistic term. Now, when we know much more, it should be expended for their entire culture. I addressed it as IE package: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31383-Indo-European-package

 

[Tomenable]

I also must ask, have you lost your sense of irony, Tomenable? All of your many posts could be interpreted to be an attempt to prove that the Indo-Europeans were "pure" EHG whose closest living descendants, and therefore the inheritors of their "glory", such as it is, are the Balto-Slavs.

Khvalynsk was not pure EHG but mixed EHG + Teal, and I claimed that Khvalynsk were Proto-Indo-Europeans (as did Gimbutas).

By the way - how did you come up with an idea, that Balto-Slavs are the closest living descendants of EHGs ??? Most of EHGs have NO living paternal descendants, because they got nearly extinct (only 1% of R1a in the world is not under M198/M417).

Only a few lineages or clans out of hundreds of thousands were so successful.

And I don't need to remind, that EHGs were both R1a and R1b (see the Samara HG), not just R1a.

When I check Fig. 3 from Haak 2015, it shows that Eastern and Northern Euros are autosomally largely descended from Yamnaya.

And Yamnaya were 52% EHG + 48% Teal so we are autosomally largely Teal / Caucasus HG as well, not just EHG.

Weren't you just underlining the importance of autosomal DNA (compared to Y-DNA) in your last post ??? :wink:

Some ethnic groups with high frequency of R1b are at the same time not very much "Steppe" autosomally, indicating that R1b increased to high frequencies due to elite dominance by a small group of steppe males over large native populations.

While Eastern Europeans and some Northern Europeans (like Norwegians) are largely "Steppe" autosomally, so here it was a mass migration rather than just elite dominance with foreign Y-DNA transmitted with local autosomes.

Western Europeans may have a lot of steppe Y-DNA, but they are autosomally VERY Non-Steppe. This indicates that their ruling chieftains (who had a lot of wifes and children) were from the steppe, but the bulk of the population were locals.

Thanks to founder effects, steppe Y-DNA increased in frequency, but autosomal DNA remained mostly local.

Yamnaya autosomal ancestry decreases in Europe as you go from north-east to south-west!

therefore the inheritors of their "glory", such as it is, are the Balto-Slavs.

What glory ??? According to Gimbutas Indo-Europeans were the "bad guys", not the "good guys" !!! :wink:

According to Gimbutas, those evil Indo-Europeans came and ruined the superb Neolithic civilization.

We must accept our heritage with all its glory and all its horror - not just glory alone. :wink:

Not to mention that those IE brutes probably even destroyed the flourishing Indus Valley Civilization.

Why is it that everyone wants to be descended from the "bad guys"?

I guess that's why I like the Sith more than the Jedi in "Star Wars".

 

[Tomenable]

Of course, there's that bothersome "teal" component, but apparently if it was acquired through wife stealing it's acceptable, but if some R1b "teal" men brought it, it's not. Do I have that right?

Angela, what "R1b teal" ??? There is no R1b in CHGs so far - both of them were J.

But there is R1b in EHGs - see that Samara Hunter, who was 0% Teal, but had R1b.

We have 3 samples of EHG males, of whom 1 was R1a and 1 was R1b.

Then we have 3 from Khvalynsk, of whom 1 was R1a and 1 was R1b.

BTW, what if "Teal" component was brought by R1a men - would that be acceptable?

It is just as likely that there was R1a among "Teal" people, as that there was R1b there.

But currently it is most likely that Teal people = CHG and that there was J there.

 

[Tomenable]

Lazaridis (co-author together with Haak of the "Massive migration from the steppe" 2015 study) twitted this:

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/666355572501954560

So he is quite convinced that CHGs are "the right Teal people", not "wrong Teal people" as some of us here think.

We now have two groups of hunter-gatherers - EHGs and Caucasus HGs - mixing together and creating PIE.

BTW it seems that modern Kurds - among some other groups - are autosomally a good modern proxy for CHGs.

 

[Tomenable]

All of topic posts were moved here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31734-Cephalic-index-of-ancient-populations-and-reconstructions

Thanks LeBrok.

culture which developed on the steppe per Anthony and Mallory in the period from about 4200 BC to 3000 BC.

Khvalynsk is dated 4200-3800 BC (I've seen also 4700-4000 BC but this dating is wrong according to Gravetto-Danubian).

BTW, all Yamnaya samples that we have so far are dated 3340-2620 BC, which means that we do not have any samples from the earliest centuries of Yamnaya culture, as shown in this link by Maju (4000-3500 BC, "Early Yamna" - Indoeuropean stage 2):

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

 

[Tomenable]

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that a lot of people interested in and discussing this topic are influenced by some sort of "ethnic" agenda.

Well one of "symptoms" of such ethnic agenda on your part was assuming that if Teal people came from the south, then they belonged to "Italian" R1b haplogroup.

The truth is that EHG Samara hunter was R1b, and had no "Teal" admixture, while Khvalynsk samples were mixed - one R1a, one R1b - and both had 25% "Teal".

So R1b was in the steppe before Teal admixture came, while the first sample of steppe R1a appears in a Teal-admixed population.

There are also claims here, that "Teal people" probably came from Iran. Perhaps nobody remembers Underhill's 2014 study on R1a, in which he claimed that R1a was originally spreading from Iran or from West Asia, due to the fact that it's basal clades are most abundant there (it seems that Goga also has such a basal clade of R1a). One of users from Anthrogenica also posted autosomal stuff, which shows that modern R1a-rich Kurds are a good proxy for Teal / CHGs - better than Armenians.

Not that I am necessarily supporting this idea in its entirety, I am just posting this to illustrate that assuming that if anything came from the south then it automatically had to be R1b rather than R1a, is totally wrong.

In modern times in West Asia R1b-Z2103 is not even more numerous than R1a-Z93, both are roughly on par - but it is irrelevant because we are not talking about Z2103 and Z93, but about M269/L23 and M198/M417.

So modern frequencies of some very late branches are irrelevant when we are talking about origins of more basal lineages.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Thanks LeBrok.



Khvalynsk is dated 4200-3800 BC (I've seen also 4700-4000 BC but this dating is wrong according to Gravetto-Danubian).

BTW, all Yamnaya samples that we have so far are dated 3340-2620 BC, which means that we do not have any samples from the earliest centuries of Yamnaya culture, as shown in this link by Maju (4000-3500 BC, "Early Yamna" - Indoeuropean stage 2):

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

why the link with Baalberge?
is this because of the R1 DNA found there?

 

[Tomenable]

^
I think you mean this sample (it seems that it was R1, but neither R1b1a2 nor R1a1a):

http://s22.postimg.org/6m28v92jl/Baalberge_R1.png

I'm not sure why the link with it - I would rather propose the Globular Amphora as first IE-speakers in Central Europe.

Wikipedia says this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalberge_group

Marija Gimbutas and her followers argue that the Baalberge culture was an intrusive hybrid culture deriving ultimately from the Eurasian steppe, part of the Kurgan hypothesis. In that case it would have been an Indo-European-speaking culture. Some aspects of Baalberge burials might support this theory, such as the presence of pottery allegedly influenced by the Baden culture (an Indo-Europeanised culture according to Gimbutas) and the Bodrogkersztúr culture and the posture of the corpses, laid on their right hand side with their legs pulled up - a posture typical of the "Yamna culture." But other aspects of the burials are very different from burials in the east, such as the placement of the hands over the mouth in an eating gesture (which is unknown in authentic kurgan sites) and the much less marked use of red ochre. In particular, there are no signs of the steppe kurgans that characterise the Kurgan culture. Finally, comparative anatomy suggests the deceased came from a locally derived population, not from the east. Mallory therefore considers the Baalberge group a local development.[6]

Anatomy is one thing, but it would be much better to actually test their autosomal DNA. Has this been done already?

 

[bicicleur 2]

The truth is that EHG Samara hunter was R1b, and had no "Teal" admixture, while Khvalynsk samples were mixed - one R1a, one R1b - and both had 25% "Teal".

So R1b was in the steppe before Teal admixture came, while the first sample of steppe R1a appears in a Teal-admixed population.

There are also claims here, that "Teal people" probably came from Iran. Perhaps nobody remembers Underhill's 2014 study on R1a, in which he claimed that R1a was originally spreading from Iran or from West Asia, due to the fact that it's basal clades are most abundant there (it seems that Goga also has such a basal clade of R1a). One of users from Anthrogenica also posted autosomal stuff, which shows that modern R1a-rich Kurds are a good proxy for Teal / CHGs - better than Armenians.

Not that I am necessarily supporting this idea in its entirety, I am just posting this to illustrate that assuming that if anything came from the south then it automatically had to be R1b rather than R1a, is totally wrong.

In modern times in West Asia R1b-Z2103 is not even more numerous than R1a-Z93, both are roughly on par - but it is irrelevant because we are not talking about Z2103 and Z93, but about M269/L23 and M198/M417.

So modern frequencies of some very late branches are irrelevant when we are talking about origins of more basal lineages.

IMO Yamnaya teal must have come through Maykop.
We need Maykop DNA, both autosomal and Y.

yes R1 tribes originaly came from south of Caspian Sea which was populated since 13-14 ka.
IMO R1a and R1b entered via Caucasus Europe > 10 ka, and they followed the big east-European rivers up north.
Before that the Pontic Steppe was populated by I or J. (the eastern Epigravettian like in Satsurblia had also spread in the Don and Dnjepr valleys)

David Anthony about the Dnjepr Rapids : 8000 BC there were 3 different skull and body types. Many skeletons in the graves had arrowtips in them.
Between 7000 and 6200 BC only one of these 3 was taking over the whole Dnjepr Rapids area (not only body type, also funeral customs).

So R1 tribes had arrived and there were wars untill 1 tribe dominated this interesting area full of big fishes to catch.

 

[Angela]

Well one of "symptoms" of such ethnic agenda on your part was assuming that if Teal people came from the south, then they belonged to "Italian" R1b haplogroup.

The truth is that EHG Samara hunter was R1b, and had no "Teal" admixture, while Khvalynsk samples were mixed - one R1a, one R1b - and both had 25% "Teal".

So R1b was in the steppe before Teal admixture came, while the first sample of steppe R1a appears in a Teal-admixed population.

There are also claims here, that "Teal people" probably came from Iran. Perhaps nobody remembers Underhill's 2014 study on R1a, in which he claimed that R1a was originally spreading from Iran or from West Asia, due to the fact that it's basal clades are most abundant there (it seems that Goga also has such a basal clade of R1a). One of users from Anthrogenica also posted autosomal stuff, which shows that modern R1a-rich Kurds are a good proxy for Teal / CHGs - better than Armenians.

Not that I am necessarily supporting this idea in its entirety, I am just posting this to illustrate that assuming that if anything came from the south then it automatically had to be R1b rather than R1a, is totally wrong.

In modern times in West Asia R1b-Z2103 is not even more numerous than R1a-Z93, both are roughly on par - but it is irrelevant because we are not talking about Z2103 and Z93, but about M269/L23 and M198/M417.

So modern frequencies of some very late branches are irrelevant when we are talking about origins of more basal lineages.

What on earth are you talking about? Your post is totally incoherent.

I have no special attachment to "R1b", Italic or otherwise. I don't even know my father's y dna line, nor do I care. I leave this kind of atavistic nonsense to you guys.

I also have no special attachment to the Indo-Europeans. I'm perfectly aware that the language I speak and much of the culture I inherited owes a great deal to them, but that doesn't stop me from finding a lot of the hallmarks of the Indo-European culture very unattractive, and I think it's a damn shame that the Balkan cultures fell. Every time we claw ourselves up toward some kind of civilization, less advanced cultures from the fringes bring it all crashing down and we have to start building it up all over again. This has been repeated ad nauseam throughout human history. So, whether the proto Indo-European language first developed south of the Caucasus or north of it is immaterial to me,I although as I've opined before, on balance I think the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the "least bad" option.

I also don't know whether the "teal" in the Indo-Europeans came strictly from women or also from men through some version of the scenario that Maciamo has proffered. There isn't enough ancient dna yet for firm conclusions so far as I can see. I don't care either way about that either, but apparently for some weird combination of "ethnic" or "racialist" ideology combined with macho posturing some of you guys do.

As to culture, it's clear to me that other than the domestication of the horse and the marrying of wheeled vehicles and pastoralism, everything else was borrowed either from the Balkans or from Maykop. There's nothing wrong with that. I actually admire the Indo-Europeans for their ability to take technology from other, more advanced cultures, adapt it to their own particular environment and then make further developments on their own.

Perhaps you should stop projecting your own world view, prejudices, agenda, and inability to be objective about history onto other people. I'd also advise using less emotion and more reason when attempting to understand pre-history.

As to your specific complaint about the moved posts, luckily I am not the only moderator here. If you feel that some posts have not been preserved for posterity in the proper thread, address your concerns to LeBroc.

For further clarity about my point of view, see LeBroc's post number 203 and the accompanying link.

With regard to my original post about Corded Ware peoples,I don't think we have enough data to decide which scenario is closest to what actually happened, but I am leaning toward thinking that the proto-Corded Ware people were a related group and not the result of a migration from Yamnaya, because if they were transplants it's unclear why they didn't have all the hallmarks of the Indo-European "package".

I'm quite aware of the nature of the Khvalysk culture, and that it was beginning to be mixed "genetically". I was attempting a bit of humorous exaggeration to show how ridiculous it can become to try to push the "Indo-Europeans" as a specific group of people too far into the past. As to the nature of the Khvalysk culture, classifying it as a "Copper Age" culture is rather misleading, in my opinion. It's clear to me that although one can see the beginnings of the Indo-European "package" in the archaeological remains, they still had a long way to go: they had domesticated animals, but their only copper was of the ornamental kind and came from the Balkans as they had no copper metallurgy of their own, early graves were communal, and even when later on individual graves are found there is no great evidence of social stratification as would be seen by more material wealth in the graves of any "chiefs". I'm unclear about the nature and extent of the agriculture they practiced.

Perhaps they hadn't imported enough "Teal" wives yet, with their superior culture?

As for their language, according to Anthony, perhaps by 4,000 BC people in the western steppe tribes were speaking "archaic" dialects of "proto Indo-European" similar to "Anatolian".
https://books.google.com/books?id=0...AEISTAJ#v=onepage&q=Khvalynsk culture&f=false

Now that bit of housekeeping has been taken care of, our discussion is at an end.

 

[bicicleur 2]

^
I think you mean this sample (it seems that it was R1, but neither R1b1a2 nor R1a1a):

http://s22.postimg.org/6m28v92jl/Baalberge_R1.png

I'm not sure why the link with it - I would rather propose the Globular Amphora as first IE-speakers in Central Europe.

Wikipedia says this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalberge_group



Anatomy is one thing, but it would be much better to actually test their autosomal DNA. Has this been done already?

Would Baden culture not be related to the speakers of the Anatolian languages?

 

[Angela]

IMO Yamnaya teal must have come through Maykop.
We need Maykop DNA, both autosomal and Y.

yes R1 tribes originaly came from south of Caspian Sea which was populated since 13-14 ka.
IMO R1a and R1b entered via Caucasus Europe > 10 ka, and they followed the big east-European rivers up north.
Before that the Pontic Steppe was populated by I or J. (the eastern Epigravettian like in Satsurblia had also spread in the Don and Dnjepr valleys)

David Anthony about the Dnjepr Rapids : 8000 BC there were 3 different skull and body types. Many skeletons in the graves had arrowtips in them.
Between 7000 and 6200 BC only one of these 3 was taking over the whole Dnjepr Rapids area (not only body type, also funeral customs).

So R1 tribes had arrived and there were wars untill 1 tribe dominated this interesting area full of big fishes to catch.

You don't think it could have come from further east? What do you think R1a and R1b were like autosomally when they first arrived?

 

[bicicleur 2]

I also have no special attachment to the Indo-Europeans. I'm perfectly aware that the language I speak and much of the culture I inherited owes a great deal to them, but that doesn't stop me from finding a lot of the hallmarks of the Indo-European culture very unattractive, and I think it's a damn shame that the Balkan cultures fell. Every time we claw ourselves up toward some kind of civilization, less advanced cultures from the fringes bring it all crashing down and we have to start building it up all over again. This has been repeated ad nauseam throughout human history. So, whether the proto Indo-European language first developed south of the Caucasus or north of it is immaterial to me,I although as I've opined before, on balance I think the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the "least bad" option.

Neither have I my DNA tested, but I am aware that I am in part the product of Indo-European culture.
I think they acted as typical cattle herding tribes.
You could compare it to the Bantu expansion and the Zulu kingdoms for a more modern parallel.
And I don't think the IE were unique at that time either.
I guess the Semitic tribes arrived from Africa into the Levant during 4th mill BC, they were pastors too.

The Semitic family is a member of the larger Afroasiatic family, all of whose other five or more branches have their origin in East Africa. Largely for this reason, the ancestors of Proto-Semitic speakers were originally believed by some to have first arrived in the Middle East from Africa, possibly as part of the operation of the Saharan pump, around the late Neolithic.^[14][15] Diakonoff sees Semitic originating between the Nile Delta and Canaan as the northernmost branch of Afroasiatic. Blench even wonders whether the highly divergent Gurage languages indicate an origin in Ethiopia (with the rest of Ethiopic Semitic a later back migration).
A recent Bayesian analysis of alternative Semitic histories supports the former possibility and identifies an origin of Semitic languages in the Levant around 3,750 BC with a single introduction from southern Arabia into Africa around 800 BC.^[16]
IMO they were responsable for the end of the Uruk expansion.
They enter written history with the Akkadians, who had allready assimilated the culture of the Summerians.
But the Amorites were still wild and feared nomads with cattle or goats, and if you read about the cruelties during the wars between the cities in Mesopotamia, it is horrifying.
It was what it was back then.
I don't believe either that 'Old Europe' was that peacefull and egalitarian as Gimbutas described.
Somebody had to dig and do the hard work in the mines, but we see from the graves in the Varna necropolis that the bulk of the gold was concentrated in just a few graves.
Furthermore it looks like Old Europe was allready in decline before the first IE people invaded.
Maybe it was climate change and there was hunger in both the Balkans and the steppe and it was a matter of survival of the fittest.

 

[bicicleur 2]

You don't think it could have come from further east? What do you think R1a and R1b were like autosomally when they first arrived?

My guess is they survived LGM north of the Hindu Kush, where R1 would have split from R2 - but this is speculating from my side.
There would have survived some people LGM in the Kupruk area, Afghanistan, but this is not an area which has had much attention, nor will it in the near future.
They must have been mostly ANE.
It is strange the Karelian EHG didn't have teal though as they were acompanied by some J.

 

[Tomenable]

Every time we claw ourselves up toward some kind of civilization, less advanced cultures from the fringes bring it all crashing down and we have to start building it up all over again. This has been repeated ad nauseam throughout human history.

Yes but that was not the fault of those less advanced cultures which took over, but the fault of those civilizations which decayed:

http://www.sq.4mg.com/AppA.htm

Why do civilizations rise and fall?

One of the best explanations came from Ibn Khaldun, considered by many to be the father of the Social Sciences. He lived from 1332-1406, working as an Islamic scholar in Tunis, Fez, Granada, and Cairo. Khaldun argues that each dynasty (or civilization) has within itself the seeds of its own downfall. He explains that new ruling houses tend to emerge on the peripheries of great empires. They use the much stronger social solidarity present in those peripheries to their advantage, in order to bring about a change in leadership. The new rulers are at first considered barbarians in comparison to the old ones. As the new dynasties establish themselves at the center of their empires, they become increasingly lax, less coordinated, disciplined and watchful. They become more concerned with maintaining their new power and lifestyle at the center of their empire. Their original internal cohesion and ties to the peripheral group dissolves into factionalism and individualism, diminishing their capacity as a political unit. Thus conditions are created wherein a new dynasty can emerge at the periphery of their control, grow strong, and effect a change in leadership, beginning the cycle anew. This pattern can be seen throughout history. Rome was on the periphery of the Etruscan and Greek civilizations, and conquered both.

The most recent change in the world's leading civilization was from the British Empire to the United States, one of its colonies. While the British may not have considered American colonials as barbarian, they definitely looked upon Washington, Lincoln, Rockefeller, and Ford as socially inferior.

And even though this has been repeated all the time, the humanity is advancing. We are making 3 steps forward per 1 step back.

====================================

Considering that the general pattern has been that new leading civilizations tend to emerge on the fringes of old leaders, I would say that after the USA sinks into oblivion, Canada will probably emerge as the new leading civilization. Watch your own hat!

Or Mexico, who knows. Especially if Mexican immigrants take over the southern half of the USA, which is already taking place.

Alternatively it is possible that Canada and Mexico will partition the USA, and one of them will become the new leader.

 

[Alan]

More worrisome for me is the fact that posters seem to be claiming as an authority on matters anthropological a notorious racist of who knows what academic background, if any, (is he in prison, btw?) and proudly claiming as well an eight year long association with him. Really? How disappointing.

Just because someone has false which has likely put him in jail, that doesn't play minimal role for his anthropological skills when it comes to cranial classification. Just in case no one noticed all almost all 19th to 20th century racialists had a dubious ideology. Most of those "racial classification are even based on them. He knew what I though about his political ideology and we were often enough arguing about this. It was also him with whom I argued about Yamnas complexion/pigmentation. He thought they must be "Nordic" based on their location, I told him instinctively that they were possibly not "natives" to that region for so long and had darker/olive pigmentation.

I am betting nearly half, if not more of anyone who is interested in anthropology or genetics in these forums, indeed came across that man.

virtually everyone I saw were quoting or asking him for his opinion when it came to physical anthropology.

 

[oriental]

Don't forget the Sahara was not always desert. Only 5,000 years ago it turned to desert. Every 21,000 years the Sahara and the Middle east becomes green for 5,000 years. So around 3,000 BC approx., 24,000 BC, 45,000 BC, 66,000 BC, 86,000 BC the Sahara and Middle east were green for roughly 5,000 years so during those slotted times there would have been plenty of people living around those areas. The desert conditions forced them to migrated to higher ground where there was vegetation or other wetter greener pastures for hunting or growing food.

 

[Alan]

And to the questions of PIE. Last time I checked the oldest Kurgans, characteristic for PIE are placed in Leyla-Tepe and Maykop.

The earliest known kurgans are dated to the 4th millennium BC in the Caucasus.^[3] Kurgan barrows were characteristic of Bronze Age peoples, and have been found from the Altay Mountains to the Caucasus, Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria. Kurgans were used in the Ukrainian and Russian steppes, their use spreading with migration into eastern, central, and northern Europe in the 3rd millennium BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan


What I start to believe is that we are dealing here with a network of "PIE cultures" who were residing in the territory all around the Caspian see (West, South, North and possibly even East of it).