search this blog

Friday, January 30, 2015

Half of our ancestry comes from the Pontic-Caspian steppe


Here's the latest teaser for the new David Reich et al. paper on the ethnogenesis of present-day Europeans. It's part of an abstract for a seminar to be held by Professor Reich at Jesus College, Oxford, on February 9. Interestingly, it argues that migrations from the steppe resulted in a ~50% population turnover across northern Europe from the late Neolithic onwards, which is very much in agreement with recent discussions on the topic at Eurogenes (for instance, see here).

By ~6,000-5,000 years ago, a resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry had occurred throughout much of Europe, but in Russia, the Yamnaya steppe herders of this time were descended not only from the preceding eastern European hunter-gatherers, but also from a population of Near Eastern ancestry. Western and Eastern Europe came into contact ~4,500 years ago, as the Late Neolithic Corded Ware people from Germany traced ~3/4 of their ancestry to the Yamnaya, documenting a massive migration into the heartland of Europe from its eastern periphery. This steppe ancestry persisted in all sampled central Europeans until at least ~3,000 years ago, and comprises about half the ancestry of today’s northern Europeans. These results support the theory of a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe, and show the power of genome-wide ancient DNA studies to document human migrations.

Source: Ancient DNA documents three ancestral populations for present-­day Europeans


Update 11/02/2015: Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (Haak et al. 2015 preprint).


Wolfgang Haak et al., Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe, bioRxiv, Posted February 10, 2015, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/013433

645 comments:

1 – 200 of 645   Newer›   Newest»
Chad Rohlfsen said...

Watch some still argue it...

Mike Thomas said...

Please do watch, Chad

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Weren't you just saying that Yamnaya is not important, like a couple hours ago? I'm not sure if you're serious about what you say or just trolling for shits and giggles.

Mike Thomas said...

Basically ; I suspect this will be found over the near future
- multiple sources for European ANE
- pre-Yamnaya presence of R1a in EE
- west Asian higland route for R1b (the dominant lineage of Europe )

This 'll leave the "genetic proof" for a yamnaya origin of IE in a rather untenable position.
And yes, there is nothing special about yamnaya, culturally speaking. It's not me who's being denialist, but rather you who is being uninformed

Davidski said...

99% of the R1a found in the world today can be traced back to the same founder effect during the Copper Age.

Obviously it came from some part of the Yamnaya horizon.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I'm uninformed? Linguists agree with the Steppe hypothesis, and they never mention a spread without genes. Are you a linguist Mike? What are your credentials and publications?

Mike Thomas said...

Yes, as Ive said the steppe hypothesis is the leading model. That doesn't make it right.

I choose not to disclose personal details.

But my comments stand, for now.
And as I said, I'll happily withdraw my critique if in near future the proof become 'beyond reasonable doubt.
Im not being stubborn for the sake of it.

Krefter said...

"Basically ; I suspect this will be found over the near future
- multiple sources for European ANE
- pre-Yamnaya presence of R1a in EE
- west Asian higland route for R1b (the dominant lineage of Europe ) "

We've been discussing the ANE-possibilities on this blog for a while and according to the current model, Yamna is most likely the main source of ANE.

Don't forget ANE also popped up in Hungary during the bronze age. Yamna-types made a big genetic impact in a very large span of land.

Sardinians were the only west Euros free from Yamna-admixture(for the most part). It is pretty incredible such people still exist after 7,000 years.

Mike Thomas said...

Ok, whilst I think ANE was already in Eastern Europe, and cannot be solely attributed to Yamnaya, please explain how ANE got to Ireland - from your Yamnaya perspective

Offer a somewhat sophisticated model.

And no, horse-riding cowboys doesn;t cut it.

Krefter said...

This is consistent with "Theoretical Yamna"(That's what I call it at least).

We weren't far off it seems and were interpreting previous leaks correctly.

Using different non-Yamna ancestors can come up with different scores.

Remember an earlier leak said Lithuanians have the most Yamna-type ancestry today? Not all north Euros are in the same category.

50% might be the average estimate or the lowest estimate for a north Euro pop, like Germans and Austrians(who should be labeled central European).

I think Lithuanians have something like 60% Yamna ancestry or more.

My guess is that Corded ware will be just east of Poles, Belorussians, Scandnavians, and British-east. Defiantly southeast of Balts.

Yamna will be even farther southeast.

Krefter said...

"Ok, whilst I think ANE was already in Eastern Europe, and cannot be solely attributed to Yamnaya, please explain how ANE got to Ireland - from your Yamnaya perspective "

Like I said I've looked into this.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3747-Using-the-quot-fateful-traingle-quot-to-discover-who-Euro-s-non-Yamna-ancestors-were

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3694-ANE-K8-oracles-for-Euros-using-ancient-Euros-and-modern-Middle-easterns

I 100% agree east Euros had ANE before Yamna, but Yamna gave much much much more.

Mike Thomas said...

and Chad, the linguists who perpetuate the Kurgan hypothesis are those from yesteryear. Modern linguists do not pay much attention to the question of origins, and treat PIE as a nebulous, abstract construct. The IE lore and gods as reconstructed Dumezil are the dreamings which are no longer supported. Any honest scholar will readily accept that palaeolinguistics cannot prove any homeland over another, at least those which are more or less geographically adjacent.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Mike,
Ireland got their ANE from Bell Beaker and Bronze-Iron Age migrations. That will be obvious from the paper. Ireland experiences a 4-fold increase in population during the Beaker period. England more than doubled.

Modern linguists do discuss IE and the Steppes..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ

Krefter said...

I don't think Yamna nomads arrived in Ireland on flying chariots, but similar people one way or another made it there and there's no denying this.

Have you noticed how my estimates on Yamna ancestry in north Europe was 50%, a few weeks ago? So, I think we have a pretty good idea what CWC, Yamna, and EHG were genetically already.

Matt said...

abstract: This steppe ancestry persisted in all sampled central Europeans until at least ~3,000 years ago, and comprises about half the ancestry of today’s northern Europeans.

I read this as meaning the mix didn't really change between 2,500 BC (earliest Corded Ware) to 1,000 BC. Anything interesting happen in Central Europe around 1,000BC? That's around the Iron Age border. Of course, 1,000BC might be the beginning of slow change towards modernity, or just the end of their sample sequence rather than a sharp change itself.

Yeah, I'd prefer they'd worded it so that it was clear whether the central Europeans and northern Europeans they are discussing are separate categories or overlapping ones.

abstract: These results support the theory of a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe

More caution. "Except maybe Albanian and Hellenic"? Of course, it's not like the field of linguistics seem to have ever agreed a consensus phylogeny of IE, or one which distinguish early branch offs from late, due to the complexity of the question and the difficulty of fitting IE to a consensus tree... Be strange if satem / Corded Ware area = languages descending from Yamnaya and centum / non-Corded Ware area = languages not descending from Yamnaya.

Be nice if one of the Oxford guys at this seminar leaked it all over twitter!

Mike Thomas said...

David - make explicit :
Do you propose R1a-M417 'evolved' im somewhere in the western steppe from a R1 predecessor which had been present since the UP ?

Krefter said...

"And no, horse-riding cowboys doesn;t cut it."

We're discussing 2,000-3,000BC steppe, not 19th century western United States. The evidence points towards Yamna-*types* giving contributed all Euros(pretty much) 20% or more ancestry.

I'm not ultra pro-Yamna. In terms of Yamna ancestry I'm on the lower-end, and would be self-hating myself. I'm going with the evidence, not what I want to be true.

Mike Thomas said...

Matt; they're cumbersome wording only proves they don't have a clear understanding of what they claim to prove

Mike Thomas said...

Krefter - simple question
How did "Yamnaya types" arrive in Britain

Krefter said...

The 3,000YBP would be Urnfield, no?

If they don't cluster with eastern French, I wonder if Gauls(Urnfield ancestor of La Tene?, too distant to mean much?) east of France were more similar to Brits, Germans, and Balto-Slavs.

Krefter said...

"Krefter - simple question
How did "Yamnaya types" arrive in Britain"

I don't know, but that doesn't matter. Celts are one guess. Bell Beaker and earlier movements is another.

Just because I don't give an archaeological answer doesn't mean my position is wrong.

A 2 year old can be right and an academic with 20 phds can be wrong. Truth is truth.

Mike Thomas said...

No, fair enough
But afaik , there's littke aDNA from Britain yet
How would ut position be affected if im future data doesn't show anything significant drying the 3000-2000 BC mark ?

Mike Thomas said...

*during*

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Mike,
Later Bell Beaker is not the same as Iberian Bell Beaker. Those Bell Beakers in Germany are 3/4 of the way from Gok2 to Corded Ware. They had quite a bit of ANE, prior to going to Britain.

Krefter said...

"No, fair enough
But afaik , there's littke aDNA from Britain yet
How would ut position be affected if im future data doesn't show anything significant drying the 3000-2000 BC mark ?"

Matt you have to understand.

Compared to you, Davidski, ryku, and Maju, etc. I'm a total nub. I want to become like you guys one day.....

I'll lean towards whatever the evidence does(in my view), and don't have any personal theories.

If aDNA from Britain doesn't show the same shift at that time, maybe it came in 2000-1000BC or even in the Iron age.

Alberto said...

"Watch some still argue it"

No one argues much about the Corded Ware origins or the admixture of populations around the Baltic sea. And as far as I can tell this abstract sticks to that.

Much better than extrapolating to the whole of Europe.

And even when referring to that area, they are careful to say that the results "support the THEORY of a steppe origin of at least some..."

Not much to discuss about that statement. (On the other hand, if I'm allowed to be picky I would discuss the use of the expression "the heartland of Europe" because of the geographical situation of the west end of the CWC. But hey, I guess everyone has the right to sell his paper or seminar a bit.)

Now we only need new data that supports some theory about what happened in the south and west of Europe...

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Matt
It seems quite clear they draw a distinction between Northern and Central Europeans.

If Northern Europe refers to what David thinks it refers to, then I think the >60% figure for the highest present-day Europeans would be too high, and the estimates are off in being too close to present-day Europeans.

If CW is modeled as 75% and the highest figure for modern Europeans is ~50%, then one of the anchors we used, that CW would place with present-day NE Euros, is off by quite a bit I expect.

Last of all, this confirms my thoughts that CW and IE-ization was not the last genetic turnover in Europe, and later movements decreased affinity to Yamnaya across a wide swathe of Europe.

Mike Thomas said...

So then, RK, as I've stated ; the ANE shift was mere one event
Nothing amazing about it if we don't already work within a kurgan story

Krefter said...

Ryuk, the abstract says "about half" it never said at the most half.

We can't be sure exactly what they mean by those geographic terms.

50% is a humble estimate for northeast Euros.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Krefter


Judging from their description, I think assuming that some NE Euros are the same as CW in having approx 73% Yamnaya is out of the question.

This would affect the placement of CW on the PCA plots, and thus Yamnaya.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Mike,
Migrations were constant through the Iron Age. It wasn't one movement with ANE. It does appear that much of the shift occurred during the Copper Age.

Davidski said...

IMO Northeast Euros will be at least 60% Yamnaya-derived, which will also be obvious by looking at uniparental markers; Y-DNA and full mito sequences.

Watch Eastern Europe light up if they make a map of modern matches with the mtDNA sequences from the Copper Age steppe.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

rk,
NE Europe is a different monster. They already had ANE in their hunters. It could be "fit" as a certain amount of Yamnaya, but a true number would require samples throughout a good period.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Davidski

No doubt East Euros will have heightened affinity to Yamnaya. However I think you might be reaching conclusions too fast.

Rmb that Yamnaya had Near Eastern ancestry of a non-european source, and signals of this reaches a minimum in NE Euros.

This is further reflected in the fact that J2 and G2 also seem to have been present in the PIE, but are not common in NE Euros.

IMO NE Euros have their affinity to yamnaya inflated by excess EHG+SHG, probably expanding later. Choosing only the uniparental markers that have an EHG derivation would not help to untangle this.

In the autosomal side, I think it is quite clear that CW should not be nested within NE Euros, but be east of them, outside the cluster altogether.

This would shift Yamnaya further east a bit, thus making for less dissonance between them and C+S Asians.

Davidski said...

The distinction in this abstract is between all of northern Europe and southern Europe, not between northern Europe and central Europe.

ryukendo kendow said...

All the same, approximately half != 73%.

Davidski said...

How did you work out that J2 and G2 were present in the PIE population?

I very much doubt they were.

Krefter said...

Hunter gatherers from east Europe were probably similar to SHG(Samara HG was ~65% WHG, so nothing super-doper ANE). When Lithuanians are modeled as a mix of theoretical Yamna and BHG, they come out ~75% Yamna. East Euros are majority Yamna-type, even though ANE was already there.

Gaspar said...

Another person talking through his poo-funnel.
north germany is north europe and south germany is central europe.

there is no point in fabricating numbers to favour north europe by including central europe numbers in the mix.
Your wasting your time is you pursue this line.

Mike Thomas said...

I still maintain, to make conclusions, we need to test the affinity of EE plain c.f. the steppe *prior* to Copper Age. If they were already a continuum in the Neolithic, then we havent shown or proven anything.

Krefter said...

"All the same, approximately half != 73%."

There is no perfect model for predicting Yamna-type ancestry. 50% is a generalization and doesn't stand for all north euros.

East euros are probably in the 60% range, close to CWC.

My bet is that CWC will have slightly more ANE and ENF than east Euros.

Matt said...

RK: Last of all, this confirms my thoughts that CW and IE-ization was not the last genetic turnover in Europe, and later movements decreased affinity to Yamnaya across a wide swathe of Europe.

Well, population movements and genetic change for sure.

Whether these are more mass migrations - for one instance, there's that IR1 sample in Gamba et al, but would that push most Europeans more in the modern direction?

Or whether it is more that at the dawn of the Iron Age, the old cultural barriers break down and Europe gradually ceases to joint where the Atlantic Bronze Age system vs Corded Ware boundary sits (boundary maintained in part by the different Bronze Age trade systems?) and eventually became a genetically joined up area, properly. Then Isolation by Distance begins to homogenize towards smooth clines.

Affinity to Yamnaya may have decreased in some regions (Germany, Poland), increased in others (Britain, Balkans), maybe simply through genetic isolation?

Davidski said...

Gaspar,

All of Europe north of the Pyrenees, Alps and Balkans is broadly Northern Europe when it comes to genetics. That's because the major axis of genetic differentiation in Europe runs from north to south.

Here's an off the cuff example of what I'm talking about through my "poo-funnel".

http://www.ashg.org/2014meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f140121458.htm

Make a formal protest to someone if you don't like it. But I think this generalization is here to stay, for good reason.

Davidski said...

Matt and rk,

The change in European genetic structure since the steppe invasions of the Copper Age was very likely overwhelmingly due to isolation-by-distance, which, as you point out Matt, probably decreased Yamnaya-related ancestry in Eastern Europe, and increased it in Western Europe.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Matt
Agree.

'Movements' here refers to, I think in many cases, class-- or ethnicity--based turnovers, not necessarily geographical movements. I suspect that highly diverse genotypes coexisted in Europe for a long time prior to the emergence of new sociopolitical structures in the Iron Age, as can be seen from the genomes from Bulgaria and etc.

Speculatively, can perhaps detect vestiges of this in the 'dwarves' and 'Vulcan' figures, dark, short, ugly, with an association with metals, vs. the 'elf'/'alba' figures, white, tall, fair, and their incorporation into different roles in the pantheon? Or the Aesir/Vanir integration.

Or non-IE elements in the pantheon in general, e.g. Athena, Dionysus.

@ Davidski
I don't agree that it was purely isolation-by-distance, because it is almost certain that Eastern Europe has higher WHG than CW, and this could not have come from anywhere else.

Davidski said...

I said it was overwhelmingly due to isolation-by-distance.

And I certainly don't agree that Eastern Europe has higher WHG than the CWC genomes. Maybe Balts and Estonians have higher WHG than CWC, but I won't be surprised if they're basically the same.

Mike Thomas said...

Davidski - there is one major and simple problem with ur model
For these large scale (at leat large enough to make the posited genetic impact) migrations , you'd need to see at least some evidence of people actually *leaving*. But we see the opposite . Rather than a drop in population , we see a rise in population during the late Uamnaya - Catacomb period.
Clearly , your model has major problems

Davidski said...

The ancient DNA speaks for itself, so the problem must be at your end Mike.

Mike Thomas said...

Or maybe in someone's interpretation of the DNA data
Because the archaeological evidence speaks for itself - it's either there or not there
No PCAs , no "adjustments", no "ghosts"

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Mike,
Late yamnaya and catacomb are 700 and 800 years minimum, after the first migrations. That leaves room for a lot of things to happen.

Mike Thomas said...

Chad , you're talking utter nonsense
Yamnaya morphs into Catacomb within a more or less continuous process . We see a large rose in the number of settlements in the north Pontic region. Yet at the same time we are meant to see a massive and widespread diaspora like movement all the way to Western Europe .
David - please "model " the expected reproductive rate required for such a scenario

Whilst I don't deny some movement of individuals , small family groups , and tribal splinters to the Carpathian region; the idea of massive movements to wide flung regions from the Yamnaya zone is impossible . Period

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Catacomb is not the same as previous occupants. Different weapons, pottery, and some cranial deformations. They're very different from the groups from 4200-2800bce.

Mike Thomas said...

Ok so your proposing a wholly new population ?

Mike Thomas said...

Either way, I think rather than moving toward more plausible models, you chaps are retreating from them
I think you have vested too much faith in what you think the genetic evidence shows , culminating in a caricaturical model

Davidski said...

Yamnaya and Catacomb were very similar in terms of mtDNA. But we don't yet know what their Y-DNA and genome-wide DNA were like.

For now I'd say that Catacomb was probably the result of local innovations and movements within the steppe/forest steppe region of southern Russia. But it might be linked in some important way to the earlier Yamnaya push to the west, as well as the population increase on the steppe that Mike is talking about.

Mike Thomas said...

I agree Dave
But I'm interested in ur reply to the R1a question above

Mike Thomas said...

David ; am i missing something, or is it a fact that we have no aDNA from EE apart from Hungary and the steppe (?)

Mike Thomas said...

And the one or two (of questionable quality from Bulgaria

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Not completely new, but there was very likely a turnover of some degree. Migrations from here, into the Carpathian Basin probably left a bit of a vacuum to fill. Kemi Oba type burials appear west of the Carpathians around 3000BCE. Catacomb looks more Caucasus influenced than Kemi Oba and Lower Mikhailov.

There is a constant flow from the Caucasus, which IR somewhat hints at. The archaeological evidence is there. I would bet that this paper will confirm it, seeing them become more Near Eastern like as Yamnaya progresses.

Davidski said...

We don't need aDNA from between Germany/Hungary and the steppe to know that the genetic structure in Germany and Hungary changed abruptly in the same direction at the same time.

The populations that caused this change weren't living just across the Oder or Vistula, because they were very similar to Yamnaya nomads from the Samara Valley, which is near the Urals.

Why would Germany and Hungary be populated by Sardinian-like people, and Poland by Samara Yamnaya-like people? What is the logical behind this assumption?

And I doubt that there was any R1a in Poland before the Copper Age. But if so, then it was represented there by subclades that no longer exist. In other words, R1a doesn't guarantee population continuity in East Central Europe; for that you need R1a downstream of Z645.

Mike Thomas said...

Maybe
But some ane rich population could have lived much further west than samara
No need to posit sharp boundaries as opposed to clines

Davidski said...

If there was a cline in ANE across the middle of Europe during the Neolithic then we'd see some ANE in Hungary before the Bronze Age, because the steppe reaches into the Hungarian Plain.

Mike Thomas said...

Not the middle of Europe , but *beginning* in *Eastern* Europe

Davidski said...

So what if there was a cline starting in Eastern Europe?

How would 1-2% of ANE in Neolithic Poland turn into ~20% of ANE in Bronze Age Germany without a migration from deep within that cline?

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''99% of the R1a found in the world today can be traced back to the same founder effect during the Copper Age.

Obviously it came from some part of the Yamnaya horizon.''
Seriously? this is your game plan?
Jesus Christ!!!!

Davidski said...

It is hard to fathom, I'll give you that. But when it makes it into scientific literature, and it will sooner or later, it'll be one of the biggest stories of the decade in science.

Nirjhar007 said...

@RK
''This is further reflected in the fact that J2 and G2 also seem to have been present in the PIE, but are not common in NE Euros.''
I Agree with J2 as Dienekes and Giacomo Does but not Sure of G2 It is interesting that Kalasha population has significant presence of the Y-DNA G
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_people#Genetic_origins
I think some people in South India also has G2.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''It is hard to fathom, I'll give you that. But when it makes it into scientific literature, and it will sooner or later, it'll be one of the biggest stories of the decade in science.''
Don't get excited and get rid of your presumptions that is my only advise.

Davidski said...

It's coming soon Nirjhar.

Tick tock, tick tock...the clock is ticking.

Mike Thomas said...

Lol
But seriously , any idea when reich's paper is coming ?

Nirjhar007 said...

David just hope that there is no ASI component found among Yamanaya folks! chances are slim but again....

Kristiina said...

In any case, the rise of hunter gatherer ancestry in Europe coincides with the change in the climate, including a cooling of climate, from 4,500 BP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene#mediaviewer/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png). It is possible that Eastern European hunter gatherers were better suited for new climatic conditions, including they had a better economy, and, therefore, spread their genes more efficiently. The highger ANE and WHG percentages may have flowed from the Poland, Baltic and Belarussian areas to Central, West and Southern Europe. (http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Ancient_North_Eurasian_admixture.png, http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/European_hunter-gatherer_admixture.png)

If there ever was a IE cultural hegemony, it probably worked in the way that later empires have worked, i.e. promoting multiple movements inside the area, which movements are not only going from the centre to the periphery. As many of you are interested in military feats, you must remember that for example Roman and Turkish solders had diverse places of origin and did not represent a pure Roman or Turkish race. The idea of culturally and pyhysically superior IE race originating in Yamnaya that replaced previous people is quite unpalatable.

Mike Thomas said...

I don't think anyone here claims that, kristina
I for one just find their Pavlovian equation of this supposed intrusive genes with IE language simplistic ; especially given that it " comprises about half the ancestry of today’s northern Europe" (D Reich);
So half of Northern europe , which is half of SFA

Davidski said...

These scientists have seen the autosomal DNA, Y-DNA and full mito sequences of the Kurgan and related samples, so when they say there was a massive migration from the steppe into central Europe they must be looking at some very convincing evidence.

Mike Thomas said...

Well as I said , I don't doubt some intrusion into northern & eastern europe; but I wouldn't overlook the reciprocal movements East.
Moreover ; this wholly overlooks southeastern Europe and anatolia ; arguably , where all the action was.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Kristina
''In any case, the rise of hunter gatherer ancestry in Europe coincides with the change in the climate, including a cooling of climate, from 4,500 BP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene#mediaviewer/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png). ''
That roughly fits the same period of this-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event

Davidski said...

You're right Mike, there certainly was a lot of action in the Balkans and Anatolia.

Neolithic farmers with a grand total of 0% ANE and Y-DNA R came from the Fertile Crescent and passed through Anatolia and the Balkans on their way to Central Europe.

Nowadays, ANE and Y-DNA R reach double figures in these parts. Something crazy must've happened.

spagetiMeatball said...

David, do you have a good map of the location of excavated kurgans in Russia? Are most of them in the Yamnaya zone? Or are they pre-yamnaya?

To any sane person, the steppe hypothesis is the obvious answer to the PIE problem. The interesting part now is knowing precisely where the culture/language originated.

Davidski said...

I can't remember seeing any really good maps of the Kurgan cultures of late, just the usual stuff on Google and at Wikipedia.

You should try Academia.edu. There are bound to be some papers there with detailed new maps.

Kristiina said...

Very high levels of ANE are found in Pakistan area, for example Pathans have 0.34% of ANE. In Caucacus, the highest percentage of ANE is found in non-IE populations, such as Lezgins (c. 0.27%).

I suppose that a part of ANE in the Near East came from Pakistan area and not from Europe.

spagetiMeatball said...

Why is everybody attributing all the ANE everywhere except europe, to the early indo-europeans?

Lezgins and Brahui have very high ANE, but they don't speak indo-european.


We can only say with certainty that ANE in europe is from the indo-european expansion because we have dozens of samples now from late neolithic farmers with 0% ANE.

Davidski said...

I think most of the ANE in the Near East came with the Kura-Araxes expansions from the northeast Caucasus.

But surely some of it had to have come from the steppe, because steppe migrations into the Near East are well attested in ancient literature.

I doubt that any significant part of the ANE in the Near East can be traced back to South Central Asia, simply because there isn't very much South Asian ancestry west of Iran.

spagetiMeatball said...

I was actually thinking of south central asian ANE being rather older than neolithic, but yeah near eastern ANE, west of Iran has to be recent.

Btw, there isn't that much ANE in the near east, outside the caucasus. What is it like, a peak of a 8-10%?

Fanty said...

@Matt:

"Anything interesting happen in Central Europe around 1,000BC?"

In my old schoolbooks and most od the older books I read (have not read any newer books on the topic)
1000BC was the mark for "A Culture that can be called Celtic starts to exist" (somewhere where Germany, Switzerland and France meet) aswell as for "A Culture that can be called Germanic starts to exist (in Denmark/Northern Germany)

Those books usualy claim that "Germanen" (German for Germanic peoples) is a phenomen that spans a maximum of 2000 years only. Starting from 1000BC and ending at about 1000AD.

What does not mean that the people end to exist. Just the cultures that we connect to that term disapeared in new cultures.

Tesmos said...

Alberto,

Which countries do you consider as Western Europe?

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"For these large scale (at leat large enough to make the posited genetic impact) migrations , you'd need to see at least some evidence of people actually *leaving*. But we see the opposite . Rather than a drop in population , we see a rise in population during the late Uamnaya - Catacomb period. "

I'd have thought one of the most likely reasons for large scale migration - whether en masse or through regularly repeating pulses - would be a dramatic population expansion.

e.g. current African immigration to Europe is happening at the same time and as a result of a dramatic population expansion in Africa.

.

"how ANE got to Ireland"

Route 1) There's a gap around the northern limit of LBK. PIE or a population displaced by PIE with domesticated animals moved into the forest zone north of the farmers as semi-nomadic slash and burn herders where they mixed with the local HGs and eventually spread all the way to Holland/Belgium.

Route 2) Down the west coast of the Black Sea then along the Danube mixing with the neolithic farmers eventually becoming La Tene and west from there.

Route 3) BB copper smiths / miners associated somehow with the Atlantic Megalith culture sailing from Iberia.

The question beyond that is if they were home grown or came from somewhere else. My guess on that is either

Route 3A) part of route (2) broke off through Croatia to Italy and some miners / artisans moved on from there following the trade routes and eventually settled among the Atlantic Megalith culture people in Iberia.

Route 3B) An earlier movement where copper hunting miners / artisans /smiths from one of the collapsed Balkan cultures followed the trade routes and settled among the Atlantic Megalith culture.

4) All three options converging in separate waves at different times.

5) Maybe some ANE already there among remnant paleo populations in swamps or mountains.

Alberto said...

On the subject of mass migrations, does anyone have any estimate of the population of countries about the Baltic sea some 5000 years ago?

If I say that the population of modern day Estonia+Latvia+Lithuania at that time was about 5000 individuals, would it be controversial or reasonable?

I think that any good estimates on demographic density at those times (if it exists) would help to put into context the phenomenon of population turnover.

@Tesmos

France, Spain, Portugal, UK, Ireland..? You know, the ones in the west. No exotic or personal definition.

Davidski said...

Population densities were very low indeed in northern Europe, that's why it's not reasonable to assume that late hunter-gatherers could have made a significant impact on the genetic structure of modern Europeans.

Only the hunter-gatherers who were incorporated into farming and pastoralist societies before their major population expansions could have done so. That's why we can mostly ignore Ajvide58 and related populations around the Baltic as significant sources of ANE for present-day Europeans.

Alberto said...

Uh-huh, so it's reasonable to think that those populations couldn't have much impact in the rest of Europe, and also that even a small amount of "invaders" (be it conquerors/warriors or just pacific settlers with a better economy) from more populated areas could easily cause a very big impact in them.

Which I think puts into context the terms "mass migration" and "population turnover".

Tesmos said...

Alberto,

UK and Ireland are considered as NW Europe and sometimes even as Northern Europe.

Matt said...

RK: Speculatively, can perhaps detect vestiges of this in the 'dwarves' and 'Vulcan' figures, dark, short, ugly, with an association with metals, vs. the 'elf'/'alba' figures, white, tall, fair, and their incorporation into different roles in the pantheon? Or the Aesir/Vanir integration.

Re: dwarves and metal, IRC there is some link speculatively made to Bronze Age craftsmen who had to handle arsenic, Davidski has an similar post for this from 2013 although not focused on the arsenic idea. Although Europe used tin bronzes.

There are fairly major migrations we know about - Greek colonization, Germanic groups who developed stationary dairy farming (Anglo-Saxon), Slavic groups developing heavily grain fueled agriculture adapted to Eastern Europe that allowed an empire (Russia) to develop there (of course its more complicated than this). Those seem to be fairly close and regional so perhaps didn't reshuffle the deck too much.

@ Fanty: Thanks, that's an interesting perspective, change towards Celtic, Germanic (and Balto-Slavic?) cultural spheres.

Although for all, I've had more of a look at the abstract, the bit I missed before indicates that actually their sampling ends at 1,000BC so that may be it rather than a sharp change there.

@ Alberto: Fairly reasonable population estimate I think. Without checking in any detail on wiki, world population estimates for 5000 YBP are 44,819,893 on the high end 14,000,000 on the low end.

Lithunia has a population of 2,921,920, proportionately 0.04% of the total (7150000000), so you could estimate a population from 5600 to 17900 for Lithuania if the % holds constant.

Although either would be on the high end I think, as it seems undoubtably true that Lithuania became relatively much more suitable for agriculture than many microclimates in the world at that time.

You wouldn't need much absolute population size for a Corded Ware to replace many pre-Corded Ware cultures, since the absolute numbers of both in a given region could be similar to what we think of as rather small villages. But the Corded Ware incomers might need to be unusually concentrated relative to the pre-Corded, which could be possible if the Corded Ware group were relatively mobile, and so had more effective size in any conflict / dispute (whether it actually became violent or merely had the threat of violence behind it).

Davidski said...

Alberto,

Keep in mind though that France, Germany and the Hungarian Plain were well populated by late Neolithic standards. These places were very different from Scandinavia and northeastern Europe in this regard.

So the impact from the steppe during the late Neolithic had to be relatively considerable to cause a 50% population turnover in these areas.

The genetic structure of southern Europe was shifted by secondary population expansions mostly from the Hungarian Plain and France. That's why the impact from the steppe now looks much less impressive there.

Alberto said...

@Tesmos

I really don't see where you want to go. Of course Ireland is also NW Europe and also Northern Europe. And Spain is also South West Europe, and also South Europe. But both of them are Western Europe.

Are we going back to school? Maybe you can enlighten me as to what is your point?

Alberto said...

David, yes, Germany (specially the south and probably west), France and Hungary were much more populated. But I'm not so sure this paper includes those places when talking about 75% ancestry from Yamna.

We'll have to wait for the paper, but France is probably out of the question, while Hungary and Germany might be partially included but toning down that figure by quite a bit. We'll see.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''But surely some of it had to have come from the steppe, because steppe migrations into the Near East are well attested in ancient literature.''
Please give the references of those literature as i would love to see them.
''I doubt that any significant part of the ANE in the Near East can be traced back to South Central Asia, simply because there isn't very much South Asian ancestry west of Iran.''
Maykop got his ANE( I suggest it was there before though but got hiked by the Input) from SC Asia-Iran only question is will Maykop aDNA show some notable ASI component? we will not know for that long time BUT we can look in the soon coming results of Yamnaya anyway the chances are slim as i said before but who knows that eventually some ENA related ancestry will not comes up? above noise level frequency?? .

Mike Thomas said...

@ David

"because steppe migrations into the Near East are well attested in ancient literature."

Dave , please enlighten me . Which ones ?

Davidski said...

Mike & Nirjhar,

Assyrian and other Near Eastern texts referring to Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Scythians etc...

Alberto,

This paper focuses on eastern Germany and the Hungarian Plain.

Mike Thomas said...

Grey
I like the way your thinking about multiple possible sources of ANE in Britain

But I have to poubt out the failure of your logic in the yamnaya - catacomb comment :
Quite simply, even if the Yamnaya cowjerders had some major time virility , grew their populatin at rates greater than other regions of Europe , central asia and the near east, to have then migrated in numbers significant enough to make notable if not major polpulatiion shift over such vast expanses , their "Yamnaya" homeland would be still * decrease * at least somewhat in settlement number ; not increase .

Mike Thomas said...

David :
Scythians and Cimmerians are originally from Central Asia.
That is where true mounted nomadic warfare originated , on the periphery of ancient Persia .
And that is why they are first recorded raiding ancient Assyria , Persia and anatolia .
The names were then transferred by ancient greek historians to populations North of the Black Sea

Alberto said...

@David

Ah, yes, It specifically mentions Germany when quoting the ~3/4 Yamnaya ancestry.

However, the problem I see with this is that they pick samples from settlements belonging to one culture and extrapolate as them being the average of all the population in one country.

This has been a problem for a long time. Getting genomes from neolithic settlements in Europe and concluding that since they are Sardinian like, the whole population of Europe in the Neolithic was Sardinian like. While time proves that after a while, the resulting populations are a mix of the "native" and "newcomer" ones, in whatever proportions, depending on each case. In this case they claim 50% for the resulting population in Northern Europe, but I'd like to see how those numbers are defined in the paper.

@Nirjhar

"only question is will Maykop aDNA show some notable ASI component?"

I think that you're missing that most of ANE should come from Central Asia (north of Afghanistan), and there people didn't have any ASI. They had a lot of ANE and a smaller amount of HG (and maybe some Near Eastern). Nothing suggests that ANE was originally combined with ASI (since only the populations from South Asia that have high ANE have also ASI).

Davidski said...

Alberto,

There's a good range of Neolithic genomes in this paper from Germany, Hungary and Spain, so if there was any hint of ANE among them, then I'm sure the authors wouldn't be using words like "massive" to describe the population movements from the east that they identified in their data.

Mike,

The earliest Scythian remains are from the Siberian steppe, and they're basically a continuation of the Andronovo culture.

Feel free to look up the aDNA results for the Andronovo and Scytho-Siberian remains tested to date.

Kristiina said...

”I doubt that any significant part of the ANE in the Near East can be traced back to South Central Asia, simply because there isn't very much South Asian ancestry west of Iran.”

On the basis of this admixture chart http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/07/30/005850.DC1/005850-1.pdf I would give the following estimates:
South Asian ancestry: Iranians 25%; Kurds 16%; Turks 5%; Armenians 5%; Lezgins 10%; Turkmens 10-25%
European ancestry: Iranians c. 5-10%; Kurds 10%; Turks 20%; Armenians 10%; Lezgins 1-5%; Turkmens 5-10%

Then, if I am honest, at the moment when that famous paper that we all are waiting for has still not been published, I am thinking that R1b spread from Iran to the Near East. However, ancient yDNA will hopefully resolve also this issue in the future.

Davidski said...

The so called South Asian cluster you're showing us there looks like a composite of ANE and Near Eastern ancestry, and isn't informative about South Asian admixture.

In other words, you're putting the horse before the cart and claiming the horse is from South Asia, when in fact both the horse and cart are from Central Asia and the Near East.

Mike Thomas said...

David
"Mike,

The earliest Scythian remains are from the Siberian steppe, and they're basically a continuation of the Andronovo culture.

Feel free to look up the aDNA results for the Andronovo and Scytho-Siberian remains tested to date."

David, you got your wires crossed completely on that one. Utterly confused. The first historical Scythians mentioned by text place them just northwest of Iran.
The mummies from Siberia are completely different entities. Conflating them with Scythians is babble-gook.

Alberto

"However, the problem I see with this is that they pick samples from settlements belonging to one culture and extrapolate as them being the average of all the population in one country."

Alberto, are you suggesting that they are looking for particular types of remains, and happen to be 'striking it lucky' ; or are you suggesting that they are as if deliberately omitting results which do not fit with what they are looking for ?

Davidski said...

No Mike it goes like this...

Andronovo > Scytho-Siberians > Scythians

See that's why the R1a Siberan and Altai mummies are called Scythians.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Dr. Wesolowski
''Assyrian and other Near Eastern texts referring to Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Scythians etc...''
Right! however isn't that a bit new????
They all seems to be post 1000 BC correct me if i'm wrong.
''The earliest Scythian remains are from the Siberian steppe, and they're basically a continuation of the Andronovo culture.

Feel free to look up the aDNA results for the Andronovo and Scytho-Siberian remains tested to date.''
We discussed this before that Andronovo was BMAC dependent WITH Arkaim and FYI the predominant physical type of Andronovo people was indeed the so-called Pamir-Ferghana type according to Kuzmina and Mallory which is more massive than the eastern Mediterranean typical of the farmers of South Central Asia, but was included by G.F. Debets in the Indo-Afghan type, which belongs to the 'Indo-Mediterranean race'
http://books.google.it/books?id=x5J9rn8p2-IC&pg=PA370&lpg=PA370&dq=Gorgan+grey+ware&source=bl&ots=VNYmM0aeiw&sig=Yx6d_rJ4Yku7Nj4okH0IWkRcpEc&hl=it&sa=X&ei=awcJUfaHI4nesgb8yoHYBA&sqi=2&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=pamir-fergana&f=false
Y-DNA wise they were Asian with Z-93 and Mtdna wise some West Eurasian with major number of Mtdna having Asian Origin.

Mike Thomas said...

Several of you have mentioned the iron age.

Its significance lies in several developments. First, of course, was the advent of iron, which was very much a protracted, regionally specific affair. But this caused, or resulted from, the collapse of bronze age networks and heirarchies which existed largely around the acquisition of bronze and its required alloys. This was imbued with a certain religious meaning, and the elites which controlled access to it earned sacrally legitimized leadership.

Iron catalyzed the ability for more efficient farming tools, which resulted in a shift back toward agriculture compared to the bronze age which had swung toward animal husbandry.

The improved farming, along with the greater necessity and attachemnt to land, as well as iron weapons, naturally led to greater territoriality and 'tribal conflict'.

Over the centuries, more complex chiefdoms developed which for the first time could control more vast expanses of land - the property of new chiefly lineages, often in contact with one another. The La tene phenomenon and "Celts" are the final, pre-Roman progression of this, although they represent different things.

La Tene refers to the materiality , symbolism and 'warrior ethos' shared amongst otherwise disparate communities in temperate Europe. The true, earliest "Celts' are those particular groups located around Marseille, attested by the colonial Greeks. Soon the term became more widely used.

Make of it what you will, genetically. But likely the process of R1'inization of Europe and its final autosomal substrate c.f. modern western Europes had finally been forged.

Mike Thomas said...

David

"No Mike it goes like this...

Andronovo > Scytho-Siberians > Scythians

See that's why the R1a Siberan and Altai mummies are called Scythians."

LMFAO. ITs like debating with a child.
Dont worry

Mike Thomas said...

building a concrete palace on sticks for foundation....

Nirjhar007 said...

MT, who were Andronovans? your View Please....

Mike Thomas said...

The Andronovans are a heuristic category made up by modern scholars. Naturally, there were no "Andronovans".

YEs, David is right, they descend from preceding Bronze age groups, broadly speaking, and yes they are R1a and ANE rich.

But they have nothing to do with historical Scythians. We are talking about apples and oranges here. The historical Scythians were tribes that developed mounted warfare, around Iran. These Sakae are the 'true' Scythians. This military developement soon naturally spread to other regions, including the vast steppe, from EE to Mongolia. The Herodetean SCythians are those ocmmunities of the Black sea which Greeks came into contact with, and becuase of their similar lifestyle, were called "Scythians".

The Iron Age Siberian steppe tribes also adopted this lifestyle, broadly speaking. But no contemporary sources called them Scythians. They are only called "SCythians" by modern scholars, more specificaly the "Scytho-Siberian archaeological community', because of the said broad similarities in material culture. But they did not invade the Near East and central Asia, and were far from being the 'original SCythians'.

Davidski said...

Poltavka > Andronovo/Sintashta > Indo-Iranians

And there's really nothing Central Asian about the Andronovo DNA. It looks Eastern European with some Siberian steppe admixture.

So aDNA backs up what was already generally accepted. No need for any complex new theories.

Mike Thomas said...

as i said David, Apples and Oranges. You're confused.

Mike Thomas said...

And going back further, Andronovo was not even Indo-Iranian.
BMAC was I-I. Influence went from south to north. Culturally speaking.
Im not saying this translates into a similar genetic picture.
Im not arguing against the picture currently drawn for R1a-M417

Nirjhar007 said...

@Dr. Wesolowski
''Poltavka > Andronovo/Sintashta > Indo-Iranians''
Goodness Gracious!
Did you even look the Anthropological data i gave of Andronovans!!!! that COMPLETELY discards your equation!!!

Mike Thomas said...

Nirj and David.
I think you're both missing my point, although on the surface it apperas that Nirj and I agree

Nirjhar007 said...

Mike please clarify:).

Mike Thomas said...

just re-read what I wrote carefully. But it has little to do with Indo-Europeans and ANE, anyway. Scythians appear in 800 BC, north of Iran; and that's all that matters. Andronovo has nothing to do with it.

Nirjhar007 said...

==ANDRONOVANS==
They are most likely depicted in Avesta as the Turanians(Tuiryas) and Sairimas(Sarmatians?) they were situated north of the from BMAC horizon, the Scythians-Sarmatians are the historical Iranian speakers of the steppe. They should be seen not as the bearers of Indo-Iranian languages from the north to the south, but the opposite, as the nomadic pioneers of the Iranian languages (like the Tuiryas and Sairimas of the Avesta), who brought them up to Siberia in the east and Ukraine in the west.
We can also suggest that they introduced some of the Z-93 Mutation that we see in E Europe,
Conclusion- Andronovans are indeed the Pre-Scythian-Sarmatian folks.
The fact that there was trade with BMAC suggests that Bactria-Margiana merchants and metallurgists went north in search of metal sources and maybe of a better climate, in that period of aridification at the end of the third millennium, and started to colonize that region with their fortified settlements with their perpendicular streets, inner square and concentric walls These fortresses are identical of the late BMAC sites of Gonur Depe, Sapalli Tepe, Jarkutan and Dashly-3, which are dated to the Middle and Late Bronze Age (2500-1700 BC, Sapalli and Dashly-3 are dated more precisely 2200-2000 BC), then are contemporary and even earlier than Sintashta!.Kuzmina and Mallory accept the parallelism between Jarkutan and Arkaim in the south Urals, and connect them with the Avestan vara, but in order to support the view that Arkaim is the model, showing the influence of the northern steppe cultures on the Bactrian farmers: an exemplary case of invasionist reversal can you imagine? which is particularly strange since the Bactrian fortifications represent rather the northern outposts against the steppe warriors, who are not generally supposed to teach sedentary people how to make buildings! On the other hand, they recognize that BMAC objects are found frequently in Sintashta-Petrovka sites-

http://books.google.it/books?id=x5J9rn8p2-IC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Abashevo+skulls&source=bl&ots=VNYmL1dlhC&sig=9gMCtyIyeNMgPHE2y7Bi8-DxuDc&hl=it&sa=X&ei=TLYHUdqCCIyL4gTs2IGACQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Petrovka%20BMAC&f=false
Arkaim displays also the use of unburnt bricks and irrigation ditches earlier found at BMAC from where it went there with of course people!

Alberto said...

@David

I thought that this paper would present new data from the DNA obtained from the Samara Valley samples, and that everything else was based on previous data already available (and that we already know).

Do you mean that they will present new genomes from Germany, Hungary and Spain, in addition to the Samara ones? Well, if so, then it will be much more interesting and I'll have to give more credibility to these abstracts.

@Mike

I was not thinking about any conspiracy. In this case I was just criticizing the oversimplification in jumping to certain conclusions. It's been a general trend in genetics due to the very scarce data and our rudimentary knowledge of it. Every new paper in the last 5 years (and probably even more before that) changes many of the previous views. This means that everything is still to weak and that 5 years from now we might be laughing at what we're saying today.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Davidski

"Population densities were very low indeed in northern Europe, that's why it's not reasonable to assume that late hunter-gatherers could have made a significant impact on the genetic structure of modern Europeans."

Population densities of HGs were extremely low throughout Europe, as the inferred pop size from Loschbour shows, but this did not prevent a very substantial increase in WHG in Gok vs. neolithics in Germany as the neolithic expanded to Scandinavia, nor did it prevent the rise in WHG in Europe in the late neolithic. Furthermore, the forest neolithic in the Baltic area is the only area in Europe with craniometric continuity, in fact near-complete craniometric continuity with HG as opposed to agricultural populations well into the neolithic. All other areas have craniometric continuity with agri pops. This should tell us something about the people the CW interacted with in the Baltic as opposed to in other regions.

Kurti said...

in North Europe
So average 46% WHG /2 = 23%
Average ANE 16% / 2 = 32%
And the rest ENF

I know, it's very superficial :D

Kurti said...

I mean 16 * 2 of course

Romulus said...

These results support the theory of a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe, and show the power of genome-wide ancient DNA studies to document human migrations.

They are saying that the Yamnaya were not the PIE people in the paper.

postneo said...

@Romulus
"They are saying that the Yamnaya were not the PIE people in the paper."

No. They say Yamna could have been majority IE but perhaps not the sole contributor of IE to Europe. They are being conservative on the linguistic side. Its the right approach since they don't have audio equipment and a time machine.

They do seem to be ruling out spread of yamna into the near east or south asia and south caucasus.

Mike Thomas said...

RK
"the forest neolithic in the Baltic area is the only area in Europe with craniometric continuity,"

Not that I buy into craniometry; but that's not what I read. Eg the journal of indo european studies monograph on the IEs in northern Europe , they argue just that- the bronze age ushered in a new, "more robust", dolicicephalic peoples in the Baltic

Mike Thomas said...

Nirj

I agree . I think the rise of sites like sintashta etc owe their rise to trade and metal seekers from BMAC. They modelled several aspects of their world on BMAC, such as forts, as well as the chariots they copied or received as gifts.

(but don't tell these facts to kurganists. It'll get their panties ina twist)

Davidski said...

Alberto,

This paper will include 69 new Neolithic and Bronze Age genome-wide samples from Germany, Hungary and Russia. As far as I know, most will be from Germany.

Mike,

The oldest chariots are found at Sintashta, not BMAC or anywhere else. You're obviously confusing chariots with wagons, but they're actually very different things.

Mike Thomas said...

No ; I know the difference
And the Ural chariots were modelled on near eastern prototypes

Davidski said...

Which prototypes?

Mike Thomas said...

Don't worry David
Its difficult to engage in debate when your entire reference corporus consists of David anthony on YouTube

Mike Thomas said...

And engaging in the debate is about as useful as arguing where the wheel itself was invented
But my remarks on sintashta stand
This is not to say that I'm arguing that people from Central Asia moved north c. 2000 BC

Davidski said...

Link to a paper backing your claim that Sintashta chariots were copies of Near Eastern or Central Asian prototypes.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

http://www.academia.edu/765506/THE_ORIGIN_AND_SPREAD_OF_THE_WAR_CHARIOT

Davidski said...

Thanks Chad.

"Considering the connections between the steppes south of the Urals and West Asia, it is possible to conclude that the first developments towards the light chariot took place in the Sintashta region, c. 2000 BC. However, in West Asia, that particular technology was adapted to native chariot designs, in order to produce a vehicle better suited to specific regional needs."

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It goes deeper, showing abrupt changes to steppe burial and pottery practices occurring in South Central Asia at later dates than those in the steppes.

Mike Thomas said...

David ; you can refer to Drews and Littaurer. With your extensive knowledge of Eurasian archaeology ; I'm sure you know exactly which works I'm referring to.

Thanks for that paper ; Chad
However, the author bases his conclusion more or less on the fact that the horse was domesticated in the steppe earlier than the near East . To me ; that's a non sequitur.
Moreover; the majority of sintashta assemblages date mostly to 19-17 centuries BC ; although the earliest started 2000BCs. Now, there are wall paintings in the near East depicting chariots which date clearly to 2000BC; making a uralian origin improbable if Littaurer's dating is correct .

As i said, whatever the case , the chariot dissipated rapidly ; and was not the exclusive cultural right of some (non-existent) andronovian indo-Iranians.

It is moreover very clear that the shintashta Chiefs owed their position of prominence to the exclusive hold on exports to Central asia, and in turn the gifts they received from the power brokers further south .
North did not invade South, nor South north; at least not in the early 2nd mil

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"their "Yamnaya" homeland would be still * decrease * at least somewhat in settlement number ; not increase."

Nope.

example:
1000 a year population increase
500 a year migration

Africa's population is increasing at the same time as large scale immigration is occurring because

population increase > migration.

Also note current African immigration is disproportionately young males and I wouldn't be surprised is that was relevant to some of these ancient migrations also.

Rapid population increase -> limited opportunities for landless (or herdless) young men -> migration.

Davidski said...

The horse was indeed first domesticated on the steppe.

https://www.academia.edu/1785203/Earliest_horse_harnessing_and_milking

Mike Thomas said...

Grey,
Modern immigration of disenfranchised doesn't equate to the Bronze Age. On th the step during the Yamnaya period there was plenty of land. Yet again there is a hole in your logic

Mike Thomas said...

Perhaps not your logic, but a deficit of knowledge of the Basic data
.
Whilst you're brainstorming is productive the fundamental deficit nevertheless leads to unsubstantiated speculation, Ultimately leading to meaningless statements

postneo said...

@davidski
"Nowadays, ANE and Y-DNA R reach double figures in these parts. Something crazy must've happened."

yes its simple non levantine agriculture spanning western iran to baluchistan(meharharh) picked up. A secondary non levantine population boom leaked over into the west asia.

R split into R1 and R2 somewhere in or around India. R1 split into r1a and r1b some where in or slightly west of iran. The latter lineages participated in this secondary agricultural boom.

So no need to imagine exotic migration from the Pontic steppe.

Mike Thomas said...

The evidence for R 1A I admit is strong for David's case. However his oddly silent for R1B, the dominant lineage of Europe

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"Yet again there is a hole in your logic"

The hole seems to be in your understanding of arithmetic so I'll try for the third time.

If population increase > migration increase then population increase and migration increase will occur at the same time.

Yes or no?

Not only is population increase and migration increase at the same time perfectly possible the two going hand in hand is extremely likely as population increase is a *reason* for migration increase.

For example did the population of England decline during the colonization of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc or did it continue to increase despite large amounts of migration?

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"Whilst you're brainstorming is productive the fundamental deficit nevertheless leads to unsubstantiated speculation, Ultimately leading to meaningless statements"

That's a lot of multi-syllable words to cover up your problems with arithmetic.

Mike Thomas said...

Inferring post industrialist growth rates and pattern to Bronze Age society is where you going wrong. Especially the steppe which was subject to lmrather large fluctuations in settlement number and population size.

Davidski said...

postneo,

I don't have to imagine anything of the sort. I can see it in the Andronovo, Scytho-Siberian, Altai and Tarim Basin ancient DNA.

There was a series of Kurgan migrations from Europe to Asia during the Bronze Age, and the people involved mostly belonged to R1a.

Mike,

R1b must be linked to the spread of ANE into western Europe after the Neolithic.

Who exactly took this R1b and ANE to western Europe is an open question at this stage, because of a lack of ancient DNA from the Carpathian Basin, which likely served as the main staging point for the repopulation of western Europe after the Neolithic.

But we already know that both R1b and modern levels of ANE were present in England over 2,000 years ago, because Hinxton4, the Iron Age Celt from Oxford, belongs to R1b and shows over 15% of ANE.

Grey said...

@various

"Basically ; I suspect this will be found over the near future
- multiple sources for European ANE
- pre-Yamnaya presence of R1a in EE
- west Asian higland route for R1b (the dominant lineage of Europe )

This 'll leave the "genetic proof" for a yamnaya origin of IE in a rather untenable position."

Depends if there are specific clades.

I think it's likely that 100 people going from A to B followed centuries later by 100,000 people of a slightly different clade going from B to A will be able to be differentiated.

.

"the idea of massive movements to wide flung regions from the Yamnaya zone is impossible . Period"

If you're arithmetic challenged.

.

"There is a constant flow from the Caucasus"

Raiding populations will likely add mtdna from raided populations over time so it will be interesting if flow like that was male and female or mostly female.

.

"On the subject of mass migrations, does anyone have any estimate of the population of countries about the Baltic sea some 5000 years ago? If I say that the population of modern day Estonia+Latvia+Lithuania at that time was about 5000 individuals, would it be controversial or reasonable?"

I don't know for sure but although HG populations are low in general isn't it the case that they are higher in wetlands?

Also there are known examples e.g. Ertobolle of northern coastal HGs picking up animal husbandry. A population expansion based on that seems highly likely.

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"Inferring post industrialist growth rates and pattern to Bronze Age society is where you going wrong."

I'm not inferring and not going wrong.

It is perfectly possible for a population to experience population increase and migration increase at the same time.

Obviously.

population increase: 1000 per year
migration: 500 per year

Not only is it possible it is extremely likely and has happened many times in the past.

Krefter said...

Various

No one said all ANE is of Yamna origin. Several posters at Eurogenes have played out pretty much every post-Neolithic possibility.

It is impossible for Mesolithic HGs who had ANE and middle easterns who have ANE to be the main source of ANE in Europe.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3747-Using-the-quot-fateful-traingle-quot-to-discover-who-Euro-s-non-Yamna-ancestors-were

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3694-ANE-K8-oracles-for-Euros-using-ancient-Euros-and-modern-Middle-easterns

Mike Thomas said...

Grey and David, simply not possible. The admixture rates that David is advocating across Northern Europe, the Balkans, in central Asia Would not have been able to be met by the base population present in the yamnaya Homeland

Mike Thomas said...

Combine this with the fact that the said Kurgan invasions are more A figment of David's imagination than historical reality, then you have a highly unlikely reconstruction.

Davidski said...

So you're now claiming Mike that the kurgans of South Siberia were a local development, and the people buried in them just happened to carry R1a-M417 and European DNA?

Mike Thomas said...

Yes and no
First of all, you have to show that the two arrived Together which you haven't so far
And you need to drop the simplistic and inaccurate idea that Kurgan burials are a relict of IEs par excellence. They're not. They communicated chiefly burials marking claims to land and territoriality; and not what language they spoke . As such; communities in Siberia could have adopted such burial styles from the southwest , which otherwise differ in almost all respects. Kurgans ain't kurgans .

But that's not my main point , which was -where are the proofs of an invasion from Yamnaya to Margiana and Bactria ?

As for the dna ; you might be right . But it might also be a wholly different matter to IE language spread.
Moreover , this "European" DNA could have already been in Siberia since it's earliest colonisation ; making what you claim as european something more like a North eurasian genetic continuum

Nirjhar007 said...

@Mike
''But that's not my main point , which was -where are the proofs of an invasion from Yamnaya to Margiana and Bactria ?''
Its the reverse as i depicted some but obviously David is from another parallel universe:)....

Mike Thomas said...

I'm willing to speculate that Z93 expanded from BMA C. From there it spread further north to the steppe, east to the tarim and south to the Indus.

Nirjhar007 said...

You are half right:) as i think BMAC itself was influenced by Sindhu Civilization which was superior in most of the cases.
But Yes BMAC influenced the steppes which is evident.

postneo said...

@davidski
"There was a series of Kurgan migrations from Europe to Asia during the Bronze Age, and the people involved mostly belonged to R1a"

There is absolutely none. No trail of kurgans/pottery/horse bones any material culture. Please cite. Surely there would have been movement but demographically it would be like pissing in the ocean.

Steppe cultures have only interacted with Iran and Afghanistan e.g. Massagetae but never spread beyond their northern borders. Those that did in the historic period period like the mongols were still a minority and left no genetic impact in west asia/Iran despite massive killings. They adopted language culture scripts and religion of civilized populations even in their core areas.
-------

So you have focus narrowly on R1a. Let's stick to that. A combination of basal R1a and R1b are found in the circum-Iranian region and nowhere else So called Old european R1a* is found in England and places like Kuwait and of course Iran. Its just that the english and nordic samples are well typed(L664).

There is a pattern to the basal lineages. No one so far has talked about their expected percentage based on extinction/decay rates. England and places like Kuwait work well as fossil/zombie populations since they were minority in a sea of wholly other lineages. In northern Europe overall populations were small for a while which also helped.

the probability of discovering old branchings is even lower in south asia. But I have predicted earlier that basal lineages will show up in the most extremely spread populations. This is borne out by the recent discovery of old R1b in Bhutan across a sea of R1a.

Krefter said...

"Moreover , this "European" DNA could have already been in Siberia since it's earliest colonisation"

There's ancient mtDNA from the area of Siberia Andronovo existed, before Andronovo was there. It was very different from Andronovo, with no near eastern farmer lineages, some EHG(U5a, U4, U2e), and mostly east Asian.

http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110266306/9783110266306.93/9783110266306.93.xml

Krefter said...

Matt,

Yamna's mtDNA connection to Andronovo is very obvious and can't be explained by anything else but migration, which is what archaeologists have been saying for years.

Davidski said...

Postneo,

The Old European DYS392=13 R1a* lineage has never been reported from Kuwait or Iran. You're imagining things.

And I'm sure you can find the papers on the ancient R1a from South Siberia, the Mongolian Altai, and Tarim Basin.

Mike,

You're just stalling for time now. Full genome sequences from those Kurgan remains are on the way, and we both know how they'll come out. Quit playing games.

Nirjhar007 said...

Thank you krefter for that lets see-
U5a has its highest concentration with Saamis and Fins.
U4, lets see what Wiki says-
'' U4 is found in Europe with highest concentrations in Scandinavia and the Baltic states[34] and is also associated with the remnants of ancient European hunting-gatherers preserved in the indigenous populations of Siberia.[35][36][37] U4 is found in Nganasans the indigenous inhabitants of the Taimyr Peninsula,[13][38] in the Mansi (16.3%) an endangered people,[37] and in the Ket people (28.9%) of the Yenisey River.[37] U4 is also preserved in the Kalash people (current population size 3,700)[39] a unique tribe among the Indo-Aryan peoples of Pakistan where U4 (subclade U4a1[40]) attains its highest frequency of 34%.''
Well it appears the SC Asian Kalash have handsome amount of it, the Kets people believed to have originally lived throughout central and southern Siberia have it by 30% and more intriguingly the Pakistan shows the highest concentration of the Mtdna!
U2 is very deep in SC asia but U2e is European.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

There is a good cover of Turkic ancestry, which masks that Yamnaya influence in Central Asia. However, if you look at the rate of WHG, Near Eastern, and ANE, you see a clear pattern. There were migrations from the north into the south. North Caspian pottery and burial styles end up in South Central Asia.

Huge loads of WHG bearing women weren't taken and transplanted in specific locations where Indo-Iranians ended up. That would be one hell of a coincidence.

One thing that is not taken into account here, is the fact that farmers also went into Central Asia, via Iran. It's not like cultural contacts and trade weren't very old. Movement of camels is as useless as saying that Spain must be IE in 3500BCE, because they had domesticated horses.

Mike Thomas said...

Krefter those mtDNA sequences in the Vicheslav paper are weat eurasian . What makes you claim they are explicitly "European? .

David ; I'm not stalling
I have a feeling that reich's paper will only augment what I'm saying - about europe

Mike Thomas said...

Krefter
" before Andronovo was there. It was very different from Andronovo, with no near eastern farmer lineages, "

Krefter are you full of shit or just a bit dim ?

Chad Rohlfsen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ryukendo kendow said...

@ Mike

Read my comment properly.

The sedentarists that CW interacted with were different in different parts of Europe. Europe has neolithic populations with craniometric affinities with the near east, but the Baltic and Russia has neolithic populations with almost perfect craniometric continuity with HGs, in the forest neolithic cultures there.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/early/2011/02/17/rspb.2010.2678/F3.large.jpg

So the dolichocephals would have interacted with a different pop in the Baltic compared to elsewhere.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Chad
'' North Caspian pottery and burial styles end up in South Central Asia. ''
Are you nuts? What about the gigantic BMAC influence in Sintastha, Arkaim and Andronovo???
please refer what are you talking about.
'' if you look at the rate of WHG, Near Eastern, and ANE, you see a clear pattern. There were migrations from the north into the south.''
I thought ANE is way higher in SC asia!
and WHG is negligible! but may reflect the FACT that it is commonly inherited by Mtdna U2 which is so frequent and diverse in there and archaic at least probably from paleolithic times.
''One thing that is not taken into account here, is the fact that farmers also went into Central Asia, via Iran. It's not like cultural contacts and trade weren't very old.''
BMAC influence for the rise of those steppes sites are undeniable! get that in your brain and Iran was the PIE cradle what you seems to be missing, the aridification around the End of 3rd millennium BC is the Culprit behind BMAC invasion of the Steppes.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

U2a, b, and c's restriction to South and Central Asia. While U2e is spread from Western Europe to Mongolia, Central Asia and the Tarim Basin, is pretty telling.

Davidski said...

There are mtDNA genomes in south Siberia that can only be explained by post-Mesolithic but pre-Russian migration from Europe.

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/ancient-east-european-and-west-asian.html

Some of these European-specific genomes fall under mtDNA haplogroups that arrived in Europe during the Neolithic from the Near East.

Do you understand now Mike?

There's no point pretending that these lineages couldn't have arrived with the kurgan expansions from Eastern Europe, when we have ancient DNA from Siberian kurgans that includes a lot of R1a-M417 and a typically Eastern European mix of mtDNA haplogroups.

Mike, you're so biased that it's affecting your ability to think straight.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

The connection between the south Russian steppes and south Central Asia has been established with the appearance of Petrovka pottery at Zeravshan sites, afterc.1900 BC. These findings have been interpreted as the first signs of an imminentsouthwards migration by steppe peoples. Between c.1900 and c.1800 BC, new steppecultures began to appear in the Zeravshan region. Andronovo populations settled in theAmu Darya delta became irrigation farmers, giving rise to the Tazabagyab variant. Thisculture produced a distinct pottery, called Incised Coarse Ware (ICW), which becameincreasingly common in BMAC walled sites, after 1800 BC. This coincides with adrastic reduction in size of the earliest BMAC sites, and with the advent of new post-BMAC fortifications, reminiscent of the earlier Sintashta types, according to Masson

http://www.academia.edu/765506/THE_ORIGIN_AND_SPREAD_OF_THE_WAR_CHARIOT

Nirjhar007 said...

@ryukendo kendow
''So the dolichocephals would have interacted with a different pop in the Baltic compared to elsewhere.''
Mediterranean anthropological type is found evidently in cultures CWC, the Pit Grave (Yamna) culture of Ukraine WITH Shirochanski (1800-1100 BC) etc are evident to the scenario that those populations had input from Iran-SC Asia area.

Mike Thomas said...

That mtDNA paper Krefter linked to shows predominankt Eastern mtDNA and some Hg U subcldes.
Then followed Hg T, which is pan west Eurasian

Davidski said...

rk,

Craniometric traits are affected by environmental factors like climate and diet and susceptible to secular trends.

You can't claim that there was population continuity in northeastern Europe based on that type of data, when we know for a fact that people there have similar levels of EEF ancestry to other northern Europeans, most belong to Neolithic mtDNA haplogroup H, and about 50% of them carry R1a-M417 which expanded after the Neolithic.

Seriously, what's the point of this?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

and WHG is negligible! but may reflect the FACT that it is commonly inherited by Mtdna U2 which is so frequent and diverse in there and archaic at least probably from paleolithic times.

WHG is not negligible in Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, and others. Take away the East Eurasian and you get an underlying population of 20-30% WHG. Sounds like a good Yamnaya movement into Central Asia. Are you trying to say that WHG in Central is Paleolithic?!? That makes no sense. We don't even know how and when WHG came about. It sure as hell wasn't around when U2 formed, and it didn't form in Central Asia. That you can count on.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

That top part is your quote Nirjhar.. you're quite off in your assessment.

Davidski said...

Mike,

I posted a link to a paper on full genome sequences. These can be traced to specific locations within Eurasia even if the haplogroups they belong to are "Pan-Eurasian".

What the hell is going on here? Are some of you on the sauce when posting comments?

Nirjhar007 said...

Well i must take a break now when i come back i will deal with your childish desperations.....
'' U2a, b, and c's restriction to South and Central Asia. While U2e is spread from Western Europe to Mongolia, Central Asia and the Tarim Basin, is pretty telling.;;
Yeah that When BMAC established cultures like of Andronovo,Arkaim,Sintastha they interacted and probably swapped women from the western Eurasia which is obvious since they brought a superior culture.
''The connection between the south Russian steppes and south Central Asia has been established with the appearance of Petrovka pottery at Zeravshan sites, afterc.1900 BC''
Skulls of the Andronovo cemetery at Muminabad on the Zeravshan are assigned to the Eastern Mediterranean type, among the funerary objects there were mirrors with handle typical of the BMAC, found also in the Andronovan cemeteries of Ferghana and Semirech'e, and under the Krasnoe Znamya kurgan near the South Urals. Also in the Tautara cemetery on the northern slopes of the Karatau chain, near the Syr Darya, the pottery includes forms imitating the commercial vessels produced in the southern oases. At Kokcha in Khorezm, along the lower Amu Darya (Tazabagyab culture, second half of the 2nd mill. BC) we have vessels typical of Namazga VI, and other objects of southern origin: pins with double-spiral head, earrings with cones, and clay figures.
Kuzmina and Mallory add that Muminabad skulls are close to those found in Zaman Baba, an older site of the Zeravshan (late 3rd-early 2nd mill. BC), which represents the first development of animal husbandry in the region (of cows, sheep and goats), with many southern influences: two-tier pottery kilns, wheel-made vessels, terracotta statuettes, metal objects, beads of turquoise and carnelian!
Do you understand now Chad???
I go to Break.

Mike Thomas said...

Chad, granted Nirj can be hard to follow at times
But your statements are woeful
You claim as definitive proof of invasions a few sherds of "nomadic looking "" pottery scattered around the peripheries of BMAC settlenrnts and forts ? In any case they likely represented imported secondary products sold by nomads ; not a sign of their take over and rule

Your so basic I'm just gonna stop taking heed of your BS

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I'm not just using pottery, but burial styles and WHG. WHG is the big one. Can you explain an underlying population that is certainly 20% WHG, prior to East Eurasian introgression to Uzbeks, Kirghiz and others? I'd love to hear it.

If you guys can come up with something besides insults, I may fall over in disbelief...

Mike Thomas said...

I won't bother . The selectivity if your arguments speak for themselves .

David - please explain how the mtDNA data proves your theories ?

MtDNA U has been found throughout eurasia; since earliest of times .
MtDNA T found , which in the andronovo period added to rather than displaced the earlier genetic profile of the studies pop, is also widespread ; from Iran to europe

Have I had a TIA ?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Selectiveness? DNA trumps archaeological hypotheses. Look how Kurgan/IE Baden was... not at all. Please explain how WHG ended up in the Andronovo area if not via Yamnaya.

Krefter said...

"Krefter are you full of shit or just a bit dim ?"

So, you're just going to ignore the maternal and skeletal differences between Andronovo and the pre-Andronovo people of Siberia? Andronvo did not blend in with locals, which is what you suggested.

Andronovo and their descendants were (probably would fit in the far east)genetically modern Europeans, who instead of carrying R1a-Z282 carried its brother branch R1a-Z93.

Actually the bronze-Iron age IEs of central-north Asia were pretty much exclusively R1a.

Go to ancestral journeys. You'll see R1a keeps popping up not just in Andronov-Sycthian related people, but in Mongolia and Huns, along with typical Yamna-mtDNA. This frequency of R1a can't be explained as borrowing it from central Asian locals.

Is it random the only two Y DNA samples from Corded ware are also R1a?

I won't be surprised if something like 70% of Corded ware and or Unetice Y DNA comes out R1a-Z282. I also won't be surprised if all the Yamna males have R1a, maybe R1a-Z93.

Krefter said...

"MtDNA U has been found throughout eurasia; since earliest of times .
MtDNA T found , which in the andronovo period added to rather than displaced the earlier genetic profile of the studies pop, is also widespread ; from Iran to europe "

We need to stop running in circles.

Here's more evidence Andronovo was a new comer:
Most Andronovo(and descendants) had blue eyes and rs16891982 GG. This is what most north Euros have today, but their Late Neo/bronze age 5,000YBP ancestors did not.

It was a very recent(6,000-3,000YBP) evolutionary event specific to bronze age north Europe. It never happened anywhere else, so this means appear Andronovo has recently shared evolutionary history with them.

Andronovo didn't just have plain U.

They had U5a1, U2e, U4a1.

They didn't just have plain T.

They had T1a and T2a1b.

The mtDNa connection between Andronovo, Corded ware, and Yamna has been discussed for a while, and is very convincing.

I suggest you look at this.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3701-The-new-way-to-look-at-Ancient-mtDNA

Davidski said...

Mike,

There are very specific lineages of U and T in Siberia which can be traced to Europe based on complete mtDNA sequences, and clearly have not been in Siberia since the Paleolithic, nor did they arrive with Russian settlers in the last few hundred years. We know this from their very detailed phylogeny.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Chad
''I'm not just using pottery, but burial styles and WHG. WHG is the big one. Can you explain an underlying population that is certainly 20% WHG, prior to East Eurasian introgression to Uzbeks, Kirghiz and others? I'd love to hear it.''
What was the Y-DNA structure of the underlying population?
What was the Mtdna structure of the Underlying Population?
Which Culture that population is been Associated with and why?
First answer these questions.

Mike Thomas said...

I have no doubt that andronovo is europoid.
But how dues that prove the kurgan hypothesis ?
What we have is evidence of ongoing admixture . Hardly surprising

Nirjhar007 said...

@Krefter
'' you're just going to ignore the maternal and skeletal differences between Andronovo and the pre-Andronovo people of Siberia? Andronvo did not blend in with locals, which is what you suggested.''
I wonder how you missed that the Andronovans had Indo-Afghan Type Skeleton structure! pointing again an Intrusion from those areas...

'' their descendants were (probably would fit in the far east)genetically modern Europeans, who instead of carrying R1a-Z282 carried its brother branch R1a-Z93. ''
Thats nonsense given their craniometric origins which is Asian not European, on the other hand cultures like Yamnaya,CWC also show such Eastern Mediterranean origins as evident i'm saying this by keeping the Archaeological evidence away btw see this impressive research also-
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ach/article/view/18453
''Actually the bronze-Iron age IEs of central-north Asia were pretty much exclusively R1a.''
R1a-Z93 which is Asian.
''Go to ancestral journeys. You'll see R1a keeps popping up not just in Andronov-Sycthian related people, but in Mongolia and Huns, along with typical Yamna-mtDNA. This frequency of R1a can't be explained as borrowing it from central Asian locals.''
There is no Yamna Mtdna but most probably the result of Interactions with West Eurasia the R1a (which is obviously Z-93 all ways) Frequency is in Central Asia your comment is paradoxical.
''Is it random the only two Y DNA samples from Corded ware are also R1a? ''
We need more but that is completely in Harmony with the data i referring if i'm not wrong of course.
''''I won't be surprised if something like 70% of Corded ware and or Unetice Y DNA comes out R1a-Z282. I also won't be surprised if all the Yamna males have R1a, maybe R1a-Z93.''
There will be no Z-93 in Yamnaya but Probably some older mutations which is obvious but if we talk about the 2000 bc period then it is different and possible!

Nirjhar007 said...

@Mike,
''I have no doubt that andronovo is europoid.''
Errr....Eastern Mediterranean! which has origins in South and also present there with CWC,Yamnaya etc cultures skeletons physical structure.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Krefter
''Most Andronovo(and descendants) had blue eyes and rs16891982 GG. This is what most north Euros have today, but their Late Neo/bronze age 5,000YBP ancestors did not.''
That is irrelevant there was West Eurasian Specific Mtdna admixture with Asian R1a-Z93 as evident.
'' this means appear Andronovo has recently shared evolutionary history with them.''
By Mtdna not Y-DNA which is the important thing when BMAC Invaded Steppes and built cultures like Arkaim,Andronovo,Sintastha and greatly interacted they Acquired it by Mtdna.
''They had U5a1, U2e, U4a1. ''
DUH though U4 is found frequently in Kets who are Indigenous and originally lived throughout central and southern Siberia and Pakistans Kalasha have a handsome Frequency of it,Nganasans also have it which suggests its Pan-Siberian Origin.

Krefter said...

Nir,

There's no point in arguing with you because no matter what the evidence says, Indo Iranian in your mind can't have any connections to Yamna.

You're clearly biased.

You have to understand no one is apart of some type of anti-South and west Asian conspiracy. We're saying what the evidence does. A Yamna origin of Indo Iranian languages doesn't inferiorite south and west Asians.

Think about this objectively.

Krefter said...

@Mike
"What we have is evidence of ongoing admixture . Hardly surprising"

Did you read the link I've mention in multiple posts? Why do we have to go through the same things with you a gazillion times before they sink in? Andronovo marks sudden migration into Siberia, not ongoing admixture.

All you're doing Mike is attempting to prove wrong everything that is mainstream on this blog. You're not being an objective critic though. You're biasedly going with anything but mainstream.

I'm tired of it.

Kurti said...

Let me get that straight. People are arguing about a Sintasha origin of Chariots 2000 BC, while I know that there are new archeological facts that Chariots already existed prior to that in Western Asia?

It doesn't matter if 2 or 4 wheeled chariots the technique remains the same. A chariot is simply a wagon driven by horse.

a 3000 BC depiction of Sumerian chariots
http://sumerianshakespeare.com/media/9e52fba4c8055a72ffff80bdffffe415.jpg

Now another very important aspect of this depiction is the headgear worn by those Sumerians. They clearly remind someone to the Iranic horse archers such as the Scythians. http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Elam/persepolis_images/Skudrian.jpg

I am pretty convinced for a long time now that both charriots and the headgear are a prove of West Asian influx in both Andronovo and Yamna culture.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Chad
Sorry i missed some points of yours:)
''WHG is not negligible in Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, and others. Take away the East Eurasian and you get an underlying population of 20-30% WHG. Sounds like a good Yamnaya movement into Central Asia. Are you trying to say that WHG in Central is Paleolithic?!? That makes no sense. We don't even know how and when WHG came about. It sure as hell wasn't around when U2 formed, and it didn't form in Central Asia. That you can count on.''
''That top part is your quote Nirjhar.. you're quite off in your assessment.''
We don't know how much WHG did the Southern Siberians-Central Asians had in Say Neolithic Times do we? and Tajiks,Turkmen and others are mainly of the Pre-Scythian Andronovo type people the nomads Who have R1a but Asian R1a-Z93.
I think it is possible that WHG type ancestry was dominant in ancient S Siberia-Central Asia as obviously they are nearby the European area and Indo-Europeans from Archaic times from Iran interacted with those populations as you can see here-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html#comment-form
But it wasn't so what can i say drastic like around 2000 bc when they were forced to invade.
When BMAC invaded steppes it was populated by Nomads most of them were of Iranian origins who heavily interacted with West Eurasia as even we see from the First Historical records from steppes which depict Scythians,Sarmatians were already there in the area of Eastern Europe, Andronovans Were Pre-Scythians-Sarmatians depicted in Avesta as Turanians, Saririmas(Sarmatians) etc there home according to Avesta was Turan Exactly located in the North of BMAC where Andronovo was! and it was BMAC which made Andronovo,Sintastha,Arkaim possible! The structure of Those cultures are based on the culture of BMAC and not the opposite! Physical evidence, Archaeological evidence begs to us that the Nomads of steppes learned the wonders of Sedentary Lifestyle from the Superior BMAC which was itself influenced by SSC!
The reason for the BMAC invasion of Steppes which made those cultures was indeed the Catastrophe of the 4.2 Kiloyear Event
Now Both BMAC-SSC are of Indo-Iranian origin we should keep that on mind.

Kurti said...

@Davidski
"and the people buried in them just happened to carry R1a-M417 and European DNA?"

You keep talking about European DNA. In which of the papers I am not aware of have Scytho-Siberian and Andronovo burials been identified as "European DNA". All I know is that they have been identified as West Eurasian DNA and nothing specific.

Kurti said...

@Mike

There is no doubt that the Scytho-Siberian burials were not local but related to those in South_Central Asia. As seen on Khotanese Scythian inscription in West China they have been identified as a East Iranic tongue. What does not mean I am disagreeing with you that they might have originated ultimately in Western Asia. I also still have this assumption that Andronovo was just a secondary homeland for SOME Indo_Iranian tribes such as Yamna was just a layover of PIE.

Nirjhar007 said...

Dear Krefter,
''There's no point in arguing with you because no matter what the evidence says, Indo Iranian in your mind can't have any connections to Yamna.

You're clearly biased. ''
Yamnaya was not Aryan but when Aryans invaded the steppes from BMAC they got admixed with Nomads of Pre-Sythian origin who had West Eurasian specific Yamnaya type Mtdna as they interacted with them of course those pre-scythians were of Iranian origin whom as nomads inhabited the steppes from before.
''You have to understand no one is apart of some type of anti-South and west Asian conspiracy. We're saying what the evidence does. A Yamna origin of Indo Iranian languages doesn't inferiorite south and west Asians. ''
First there have to be a relation with Yamnaya and the Avestan-Vedic aryans Krefter whom actually were of Neolithic Asian Origin So was the PIE!
From Asia the Indo-Europeans went to Europe Via the Maykop Culture around 3000 BC but other records show that it already started around the 4000 bc period and i consider the 3000 bc Maykop Intrusion of Indo-Europeans to Yamnaya as the climax of that previous set up nothing else.

Kristiina said...

As for mtDNA, we should remember this recent paper according to which ”from a survey of 158 western Eurasian mtDNA genomes found in Siberia we estimate that nearly 40% of them most likely have western Asian and another 29% European ancestry. It is striking that 65 of northern Asian mitogenomes, i.e. ~41%, fall into 19 branches and subclades which can be considered as Siberian-specific being found so far only in Siberian populations. From the coalescence analysis it is evident that the sequence divergence of Siberian-specific subclades was relatively small, corresponding to only 0.6-9.5 kya (using the complete mtDNA rate) and 1–6 kya (coding region rate).” By contrast, haplogroups C and D have much older coalescence ages in Siberian populations.

As for archaeology, we all know that there were flourishing and innovative cultures in southern Russia and in northern South Asia, including:
Samara culture: 6000-5000 BC, Volga area
Sredny Stog culture: 5000–3500 BC, Dnieper river
Khvalynsk culture: 5000-4500 BC, Southern Russia
Dnieper–Donets culture: 5000—4000 BC, north of the Black Sea between the Dnieper and Donets River,
Yamna culture: 3500-2000 BC in Southern Bug/Dniester/Ural region
Catacomb culture: 2800–2200 BC, in Ukraine
Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex: 2300–1700 BCE, Central Asia
Srubna culture: 1800–1200 BC in Southern Russia
Andronovo: 1800–1400 BCE in western Siberia

It seems obvious that both Russian and Central Asian cultures influenced Andronovo culture in western Siberia and brought most of the western Eurasian mtDNA in that area. Only U5a, U4 and U2e seem to have spread to Siberia earlier, as evidencec by Baraba Steppe paper (http://dienekes.blogspot.fi/2012/07/population-strata-in-west-siberian.html)
However, WHG must have started to spread to the East already then.

Kurti said...


"As for mtDNA, we should remember this recent paper according to which ”from a survey of 158 western Eurasian mtDNA genomes found in Siberia we estimate that nearly 40% of them most likely have western Asian and another 29% European ancestry."

Thanks Kristina. So much to European DNA of Scytho-Siberians. People seem to always confuse West Eurasian with European for whatever reasons. Still I would not try to divide y or mtDNA (especially not mtDNA) in European and West Asian.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Kristina
''It seems obvious that both Russian and Central Asian cultures influenced Andronovo culture in western Siberia and brought most of the western Eurasian mtDNA in that area. Only U5a, U4 and U2e seem to have spread to Siberia earlier, as evidencec by Baraba Steppe paper''
The Steppes were inhabited by Iranian Nomads from very ancient times they interacted with West Eurasians who were in the neighboring regions hence we find those Mtdnas but i suspect their Y-DNA was purely Asian with R1a-Z93, as their origin also which can be proven by their skeletal and other Archaeology related studies.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 645   Newer› Newest»