# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics >  Ancient genomes from Caucasus inc. Maykop

## Angela

Yeah, Haak and Strause (and Reich)!

See: Chuan-ChaoWang et al:
*"The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus"*https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/16/322347

Archaeogenetic studies have described the formation of Eurasian 'steppe ancestry' as a mixture of Eastern and Caucasus hunter-gatherers. However, it remains unclear when and where this ancestry arose and whether it was related to a horizon of cultural innovations in the 4th millennium BCE that subsequently facilitated the advance of pastoral societies likely linked to the dispersal of Indo-European languages. To address this, we generated genome-wide SNP data from 45 prehistoric individuals along a 3000-year temporal transect in the North Caucasus. We observe a genetic separation between the groups of the Caucasus and those of the adjacent steppe. The Caucasus groups are genetically similar to contemporaneous populations south of it, suggesting that - unlike today - the Caucasus acted as a bridge rather than an insurmountable barrier to human movement. The steppe groups from Yamnaya and subsequent pastoralist cultures show evidence for previously undetected Anatolian farmer-related ancestry from different contact zones, while Steppe Maykop individuals harbour additional Upper Palaeolithic Siberian and Native American related ancestry.
Happy Reading.

----------


## Cpluskx

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdWlGPgVAAA9Hom.jpg

It is over.

----------


## Milan.M

Seems that Ivanov and Gamkrelidze without genetic data we have today were the most close to PIE homeland.

----------


## Milan.M

Even I myself numerous times on the forum said that Greek came from east like the paper suggest rather than steppe,so I started to consider "Armenian" homeland,even thought most people here insisted that everything came from steppe,as if matter that much.

----------


## Jovialis



----------


## CrazyDonkey

My emphases:




> Perceiving the Caucasus as an *occasional* bridge rather than a strict border during the Eneolithic and Bronze Age opens up the *possibility* of a homeland of PIE south of the Caucasus, which itself provides a parsimonious explanation for an early branching off of Anatolian languages.


Note that they don't say the Caucacus was a _river_, running south to north.

Waiting to hear more from the DNA wonks...

----------


## Angela

> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdWlGPgVAAA9Hom.jpg
> 
> It is over.


Well, well, well, Krause and Haak and David Reich( and presumably Patterson and the rest of the Harvard group by implication since Reich is listed as an author), Kurt Alt, and Ron Pinhasi don't just consider a south of the Caucasus origin for PIE possible, they're also seeing a possibility for Greek and Armenian spreading from there (so Drews may have been right after all) and perhaps into India as well. That would be a modified "Armenian" homeland hypothesis. Or is it modified at all???? WOW!



Oh wait, Krause, Haak, Patterson, Alt, Pinhasi, the Chinese, they're all Middle Easterners biased against EHG hunter-gatherers. It's a conspiracy! :)

I guess I wasn't crazy to think that there was something to the Ivanov and Gamkrelidze body of work, as I argued back in 2012 and before. 

I have to read this all carefully and the supplement too, however. 

I'm also not sure how this fits with the South Asian paper the Harvard team just put out.

----------


## Angela

> Seems that Ivanov and Gamkrelidze without genetic data we have today were the most close to PIE homeland.


Indeed. Dienekes too, without any ancient dna. That's IF this is correct. The authors aren't saying it's definite. They're just saying it's possible. 

There was no appreciable gene flow south over the Caucasus according to the authors, so Anatolian by that route is out. Those languages either descend from "origiinal" PIE or it came from the Balkans. 

How does the "steppe" that the amateurs found in some early Armenian groups fit into all this?

----------


## Milan.M

> Indeed. Dienekes too, without any ancient dna. That's IF this is correct. The authors aren't saying it's definite. They're just saying it's possible. 
> There was no appreciable gene flow south over the Caucasus according to the authors, so Anatolian by that route is out. Those languages either descend from "origiinal" PIE or it came from the Balkans. 
> How does the "steppe" that the amateurs found in some early Armenian groups fit into all this?


Well I will stay on my opinion cause it makes more sense to me.Armenian samples from which date? Anyway if that will be Iron age there was migrations some even recorded from Balkans to Anatolia,and steppe to Anatolia and Iran like Phrygians,Cimmerians,Scythians etc if that can explain steppe in early Armenians? But that does not concern PIE homeland or migrations,until that time several daughter languages were developed.

----------


## Angela

I don't see much of a difference between Kura Araxes and Late Maykop on the admixture chart above. The Caucasus samples also seem to be G2, J, and L, yes? Our prior Kura Araxes sample was also L.

----------


## Angela

[IMG][/IMG]

----------


## Ygorcs

I honestly see no proof for a Southern Caucasian homeland for PIE and, more than that, a supposed expansion of PIE right from there. They themselves say it's also a possibility, it is also compatible with their data, but the authors simultaneously stress that from the North Caucasus or Pontic region "some or all of the Proto-Indo-European branches" could have been spread. The details of the narrative of the "classic" Kurgan hypothesis are certainly outdated by now, but I still see no reason to state that it is "game over". Not now, not yet.

Actually, what I see is that there are still a lot of questions to be answered, at least two likely and competitive hypothesis, and maybe the need to finally consider the possibility that the truth relies on some middle ground between the extremes of those hypothesis, and the increasingly likely scenario of a PIE expansion (with its split into many daughter subfamilies) in two or three different stages that not only differed in chronology, but maybe also in geography, even though all the genetic data still point to the same broad region roughly between the Black Sea, Caucasus and Caspian. I think in the end we will all find that, whether the earliest (still pre-Anatolian split) PIE was north or south of the Caucasus, the IE expansion was not just a star-shaped expansion from just one original dialect, but rather a succession of expansions at different stages of the development and diversification of that language (much like the spread of Latin and eventually Romance - or should we say "Late Latin"? lol - languages).

----------


## davef

> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdWlGPgVAAA9Hom.jpg
> 
> It is over.


Yep I agree; wrap it up, line up, shake hands, say "good game".

----------


## Promenade

Finally! It seems like they sampled many of the same specimens they discussed recently in "Contextualizing Innovation: Cattle Owners and Wagon Drivers in the North Caucasus and Beyond" too, very cool. I haven't had to time to read it through fully, but the y-dna here is quite the puzzle.

----------


## Ygorcs

> [IMG][/IMG]


Though I understand the possibility (and even likelihood) of an ultimate South Caucasian homeland for the earliest form of PIE, I somehow find it difficult to understand that, in the ancient world, the steppe populations would've been linguistically assimilated by a South Caucasian population even before the Bronze Age (that's if Repin/Yamnaya is already a sign of that acculturation) without any significant or even minor male dominance. Centralized states with an official language can be ruled out for that region as early as that period, and there was certainly no permanent long-distance contact, otherwise we'd expect the 2 regions to have become much more similar in their Y-DNA and Mt-DNA makeup. Would this Indo-Europeanization have happened without any appreciable migration and mostly via maternal lines? I try to accept this scenario, but the details of how that linguistic shift could've happened do not seem to be clearly explained (or even understood as of now).

----------


## Angela

This is getting muddy in terms of the genetics. 

"An interesting observation is that steppe zone individuals directly north of the592 Caucasus (Eneolithic Samara and Eneolithic steppe) had initially not received any593 gene flow from Anatolian farmers. Instead, the ancestry profile in Eneolithic steppe594 individuals shows an even mixture of EHG and CHG ancestry, which argues for an595 effective cultural and genetic border between the contemporaneous Eneolithic populations in the North Caucasus, notably Steppe and Caucasus. Due to the temporal597 limitations of our dataset, we currently cannot determine whether this ancestry is598 stemming from an existing natural genetic gradient running from EHG far to the north599 to CHG/Iran in the south or whether this is the result of farmers with Iranian farmer/600 CHG-related ancestry reaching the steppe zone independent of and prior to a stream601 of Anatolian farmer-like ancestry, where they mixed with local hunter-gatherers that602 carried only EHG ancestry."

Well, if it wasn't there before, and then it was there, wouldn't you lean toward it moving in, especially as it's showing up in steppe Maykop?

Anyway, this is helpful to keeping it straight:
[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

----------


## Angela

Well, there's no R1b south of the Caucasus in this set, that's for sure. 

There's definitely movement south to north but it may be qualitatively different when talking about the very early admixture versus the time of late Maykop.

Anybody feel like they're still not telling us everything they know? 

I mean, I get it, all the fellows have to get a chance to publish, but it's like reading tea leaves.

----------


## berun

In the map provided they only have a sample in South Caucasus. 
Maybe they keep more samples from there for another round.

----------


## Maciamo

> Well, there's no R1b south of the Caucasus in this set, that's for sure. 
> 
> There's definitely movement south to north but it may be qualitatively different when talking about the very early admixture versus the time of late Maykop.
> 
> Anybody feel like they're still not telling us everything they know? 
> 
> I mean, I get it, all the fellows have to get a chance to publish, but it's like reading tea leaves.


The haplogroups in this set of Chalcolithic/Bronze Age South Caucasus correspond to the haplogroups that I have associated with the Kura-Araxes expansion (J2a, J1-Z1828, L1b, T1a-P77 and G2a-L293) except that they didn't find any T1a among those 12 samples (but it's not surprisingly considering the low frequency of this haplogroup in any region today).

The Bronze Age admixture from the South Caucasus that they detect in Greece is obviously from the Kura-Araxes expansion (just look at the haplogroups found in Minoan Greece or modern Crete), not from the Anatolian branch of IE. I completely agree that Proto-Indo-European descend from a language spoken by R1b-L23 in the South Caucasus, but that group of R1b-L23 wasn't related to Kura-Araxes (Georgia, Armenia), but to a distinct population apparently more concentrated around Azerbaijan and NW Iran, where R1b-L23 is still found today at reasonable frequencies.

I have only very briefly browsed the paper, but from the admixtures posted above it is startling to see just how different Steppe Maykop (almost pure EHG) is from core Maykop (CHG + Anatolian Chalcolithic).

----------


## Cpluskx

> Though I understand the possibility (and even likelihood) of an ultimate South Caucasian homeland for the earliest form of PIE, I somehow find it difficult to understand that, in the ancient world, the steppe populations would've been linguistically assimilated by a South Caucasian population even before the Bronze Age (that's if Repin/Yamnaya is already a sign of that acculturation) without any significant or even minor male dominance. Centralized states with an official language can be ruled out for that region as early as that period, and there was certainly no permanent long-distance contact, otherwise we'd expect the 2 regions to have become much more similar in their Y-DNA and Mt-DNA makeup. Would this Indo-Europeanization have happened without any appreciable migration and mostly via maternal lines? I try to accept this scenario, but the details of how that linguistic shift could've happened do not seem to be clearly explained (or even understood as of now).


Maybe more advanced civilization with much more population in the south forced the steppe population to assimilate into them? Steppe population need to know the language to communicate, trade, work etc. with them.

----------


## halfalp

Well apparently we dont read the studies the same way, their only assumptions of a south caucasus homeland is the absence of EHG wich can be debunked many ways. I mean i'm the complete genetic amateur here, but i feel some of you and even them forget many genetic rules, like change of autosomal dna etc for the particular IE hypothesis. Anatolian languages have believed to came from Balkans and not Caucasus so that.

----------


## Maciamo

Looking at the supplements, I see that Maykop had R1b-M269 (L23?), just as I had predicted since 2009. The surprise is that it has an awful lot of haplogroup L (L1b?) too.

There are two Q1a2 from Nevinnomiskiy in the Kuban region (Steppe above Maykop) dating from c. 2000 BCE and two more Q1a2 from Sharakhalsun in the same region, alongside an R1b-L23. These are apparently the Steppe Maykop samples. Those Q1a2 samples were almost pure EHG, so that means they have been in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe for a while. I wonder if they could be related to the Scandinavian Q1a2 (L527 and L804).

----------


## halfalp

Q1a2 is together with R1b in mesolithic Baltic and Khvalynsk and Afanasevo, it makes a little too much for only be a coincidence, they must have lived together for a certain amount of time.

----------


## halfalp

Edit: What they mean by anatolia neolithic is actually EEF, dont know why they said anatolia neolithic instead of EEF. So Yamnaya was basically WHG / EHG / CHG / EEF / ANE its a gigantic melting pot if you ask me.

----------


## halfalp

Its also weird that the CHG amount dont decrease in post-yamnaya cultures like sintashta and andronovo, the logic for andronovo would be an increase of EHG and an input of ANE or siberian / central asian dna, so is that means that in bronze age, south caucasus and the eurasian steppe always exchange some dna to keep the pretty much same ratio?

----------


## halfalp

Sad for Jean Manco to pass away just before all those premium papers, her that was passionate by history... :/

----------


## halfalp

Btw, that siberian ancestry in maikop is very important, recently the oldest kurgan have been found in a western siberian context and maikop have one of the earliest kurgans, is Q1a2 and western siberian in the origins of kurgans ?

----------


## kingjohn

and not even one e1b1b1 expected but still bummer  :Sad:

----------


## halfalp

> and not even one e1b1b1 expected but still bummer


Why would there be ? Isn't E1b1b1 the lineage of Natufians and some EEF ? Why would they be in the Caucasus ?

----------


## halfalp

That's pretty weird that Krause and Reich both from a south caucasus origin of PIE publish a paper that somehow contradicte it. South Caucasus is now a dead end for PIE origin or they are enough stupid to believe that an admixture but any y-dna haplogroups lineage gonna explain the movement of a population and a language. But what this study shows clearly is that south and north caucasus had intense relationship and as it was said, the mtdna is pretty much the same in both so the women trade hypothesis blabla was maybe right after all. The final response now have 3 possibilities, Bulgaria / Romania coastline, North Trukey near Sinop ( for a marine migration of anatolians speaker from crimea to anatolia ) or coastline of Georgia and / or Azerbaidjan. Really those recent studies are strange in the way their authors are interpreting it, from the amateur community it's understandable everybody have bias, but from professionnal researchers, i really dont understand.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

Kura-Araxes samples are G2b and J1 and we also have an older R1b(xM269) and mtDNA R1a1, K3, U4a2 (I don't remember what was the mtDNA of the older sample*)

Most things said about Kura-Araxes expansion in this thread and also in Anthrogenica by users Agamemnon, Principe etc, are not based on the actual data.

*It was X2f

----------


## halfalp

But the datas are here, Maikop Steppe are north eurasian R1 foragers and Maikop foothills are CHG / middle eastern. Maikop was not indo-european and certainly played the rule of the kartvelian influence in PIE and the introduction of metallurgy and or carts. Western part of eastern europe was EHG so ANE with some WHG influence and the eastern part were EHG with female mediated CHG influence and ANE western siberians, those same could have bring kurgans to steppe and south caucasus near daghestan / azerbaidjan to J1 people. That study debunked completely the PIE origin south of the caucasus. There is no way to explain in so much little time frame how an elite " Maikop " with totally different y-dna lineage would influence the entire steppe with PIE but not survive as a lineage. Steppe was intensively sampled, no J1, no L1, no G2b, nothing... Maikop was certainly related with modern caucasian languages and might influence the steppe culturally, genetically and linguistically. Even Daghestan had J1. That study put an end to the Armenian hypothesis or the south caucasus hypothesis but nether the authors, nether some people of eupedia have understand it.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> But the datas are here, Maikop Steppe are north eurasian R1 foragers and Maikop foothills are CHG / middle eastern. Maikop was not indo-european and certainly played the rule of the kartvelian influence in PIE and the introduction of metallurgy and or carts. Western part of eastern europe was EHG so ANE with some WHG influence and the eastern part were EHG with female mediated CHG influence and ANE western siberians. That study debunked completely the PIE origin south of the caucasus. There is no way to explain in so much little time frame how an elite " Maikop " with totally different y-dna lineage would influence the entire steppe with PIE but not survive as a lineage. Steppe was intensively sampled, no J1, no L1, no G, nothing... Maikop was certainly related with modern caucasian languages and might influence the steppe culturally, genetically and linguistically. Even Daghestan had J1. That study put an end to the Armenian hypothesis or the south caucasus hypothesis but nether the authors, nether some people of eupedia have understand it.


We haven't found yet any J2a or G2a in Kura-Araxes samples and people still connect them to the Kura-Araxes expansion. My comment was about that. 

And, theoretically at least, R1b-M269 people could have brought CHG admixture in Greece.

Concerning the IEness of Maykop, in my book those on the foothills could have been Indo-European. The presence of an IE language there can explain the similarities between NWC and IE.

The region where Maciamo thinks Proto-Indo-European could have originated is a possible NEC homeland or 'Alarodian' speaking area, imo.

----------


## halfalp

> Did you even bother reading the paper? This paper burried your Steppes hypothesis finally. Even the authors themselve say this. Embarrassing.


That's the contrary, they based their origin of PIE between CHG and EHG in their mind, if CHG is in steppe and EHG not in anatolia, so PIE came from the south. This is of course a ridiculous hypothesis. The fact is, this study shows that Caucasus is a dead end for both PIE coming from south to north or north to south. The real scenario is Anatolians came throught the Balkans and Iranians of course from the eurasian steppe way later. Their conclusion dont match the facts that some people have put together for many years, you want to know what is the real meaning of this paper ? north caucasus was EHG / ANE, south caucasus was CHG / ??? with CHG influencing north with a female biased scenario, it shows in the mtdna of both. The only point is, Maikop culture have a southern origin meaning they influence somehow the pontic steppe but it's not IE it's caucasus languages, you ask why ? well i say it, where is the southern caucasus y-dna marker in pontic steppe ? We are not in a babylonian hypothesis here with a master race, if maikop was PIE than arabian J1 would be IE too and not semitic, PIE would be showing way more in ancient time in the south caucasus. Instead we have semitic, hurrite and many isolate. PIE came from steppe try to debunked it.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

The L samples, labeled 'Late Maykop' are from the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, near Nalchik.

The J2a1 and G2a2a samples labeled 'Maykop Novosvobodna' are from Adygea, near Maykop (the city). There, according to Alexei Rezepkin, the most ancient bronze sword on record, dating from the second or third century of the 4th millennium BC is found.

I haven't read his work but Rezepkin believes the following (from Wikipedia):



> According to Rezepkin, Central Europe must have been the homeland of the Indo-Europeans.[5] Accordingly, Indo-Europeans were behind the successive Linear Pottery culture, the Funnelbeaker culture, the Globular Amphora culture, and the Corded Ware culture. In favor of this view is the apparent lack of any abrupt change in European populations since the Neolithic, and until the first written sources appear.
> Rezepkin sees the emergence of Novosvobodnaya culture as the result of a migration from Europe. Their 'megalithism', their black-polished ceramic amphorae, bowls and cups, find a compelling analogy in the Funnelbeaker culture of Germany.


According to the Greek myths there was a prehistoric movement towards that region from Thessaly. Greeks called some of the inhabitants of that region 'Achaeans' and 'Heniochians'.

--
I don't know if the 'Steppe Maykop' samples are really from Maykop. I think all of them are from Stavropol Krai. Three of them closer to Kalmykia, near Kalaus river. (the males have R1, Q1a2, we have Y-DNA only from those but the first is labeled 'outlier'). Only one is closer to Kabardino-Balkar Republic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalaus_River

----------


## halfalp

> The L samples, labeled 'Late Maykop' are from the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, near Nalchik.
> 
> The J2a1 and G2a2a samples labeled 'Maykop Novosvobodna' are from Adygea, near Maykop (the city). There, according to Alexei Rezepkin, the most ancient bronze sword on record, dating from the second or third century of the 4th millennium BC is found.
> 
> I haven't read his work but Rezepkin believes the following (from Wikipedia):
> 
> 
> According to the Greek myths there was a prehistoric movement towards that region from Thessaly. Greeks called some of the inhabitants of that region 'Achaeans' and 'Heniochians'.


We enter into very complicate hypothesis here. Most easy way to interprete Maikop are a non-indo-european culture coming from the south with a copper age package that influence materially the pontic steppe, and steppe maybe more from the east ( botai ) influence maikop and western pontic steppe with kurgans and horses.

----------


## IronSide

The only sound conclusion I can draw from this is that the common Caucasus ancestry between Transcaucasia and the Steppe was driven by female-mediated gene flow, how that happened may not be as stupid as my mind pictures it for me.

Its true Hajji Fairoz was Z2013, but given how large the admixture into the north is, you would expect *at least one* guy who is L or J or G. and yet none have been found.

If their society was matriarchial, then PIE could have been spoken south of Caucasus, else all IE language branches fall to the north, even Anatolian.

----------


## halfalp

> The only sound conclusion I can draw from this is that the common Caucasus ancestry between Transcaucasia and the Steppe was driven by female-mediated gene flow, how that happened may not be as stupid as my mind pictures it for me.
> 
> Its true Hajji Fairoz was Z2013, but given how large the admixture into the north is, you would expect *at least one* guy who is L or J or G. and yet none have been found.
> 
> If their society was matriarchial, then PIE could have been spoken south of Caucasus, else all IE language branches fall to the north, even Anatolian.


Maikop steppe have y-dna Q1a2 with mtdna U7b, looks like U7b is purely an iranian mtdna lineage, dont know if that fact gonna change soon. Kura-araxes is J1 with mtdna U4, looks really female mediated for me. It's actually a more important point than the origin of PIE if you ask me, sounds like Caucasus was an electron who attract both north and south.

----------


## IronSide

We already knew that the Caucasus genetic profile is Anatolian Neolithic + CHG, what can that tell us about the languages spoken in the Caucasus and Europe ?

Etruscan’s genealogical linguistic relationship with Nakh-Daghestanian and other ancient languages like Hurrian and Urartian could very well be explained as emanating from a language spoken by Anatolian farmers.

other theories connect Basque and Georgian.

That is if an ancestor language of Etruscan was indeed spoken by European farmers.

----------


## halfalp

Btw Catacomb is R1b, and not R1a, Maciamo gonna have to change a little bit his paper.

----------


## halfalp

> We already knew that the Caucasus genetic profile is Anatolian Neolithic + CHG, what can that tell us about the languages spoken in the Caucasus and Europe ?
> 
> Etruscan’s genealogical linguistic relationship with Nakh-Daghestanian and other ancient languages like Hurrian and Urartian could very well be explained as emanating from a language spoken by Anatolian farmers.
> 
> other theories connect Basque and Georgian.
> 
> That is if an ancestor language of Etruscan was indeed spoken by European farmers.


I guess this is because they believe PIE came from south, because new samples of Yamanaya have CHG + Anatolian_Neolithic + EHG, but how do they defferienciate EEF of Anatolia_Neolithic ?

----------


## berun

Instead to be the homeland of the Mighty it was an international meeting point. Just for fun.

----------


## halfalp

It would be odd that they had detected a new anatolian_neolithic that would be different than EEF but the same as Anatolian Bronze Age and that the same Anatolian_Neolithic previously inexistant in the datas and in steppe would than now pop in some steppe samples from the same timeframe that we have between many years. Is there something with their calculator or ?

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> We already knew that the Caucasus genetic profile is Anatolian Neolithic + CHG, what can that tell us about the languages spoken in the Caucasus and Europe ?
> 
> Etruscan’s genealogical linguistic relationship with Nakh-Daghestanian and other ancient languages like Hurrian and Urartian could very well be explained as emanating from a language spoken by Anatolian farmers.
> 
> other theories connect Basque and Georgian.
> 
> That is if an ancestor language of Etruscan was indeed spoken by European farmers.


If European farmers were speaking a language related to Etruscan there would have been an Etruscan-related substrate in all European IE languages.
I associate early Etruscans with Central European pile dwellers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehis...round_the_Alps

Dionysius of Halikarnassus had associated Tyrrhenians with the first builders of high *wooden* structures 'resembling towers'.




> As regards these Tyrrhenians, some declare them to be natives of Italy, but others call them foreigners. Those who make them a native race say that their name was given them from the forts, which they were the first of the inhabitants of this country to build; for covered buildings enclosed by walls are called by the Tyrrhenian as well as by the Greeks tyrseis or "towers." So they will have it that they received their name from this circumstance in like manner as did the Mossynoeci in Asia; for these also live in high wooden palisades resembling towers, which they call mossynes.


Mossynoeci is a compound word, the second part of that word is Greek and means 'those who live in mossynes (=high wooden palisades resembling towers)'

----------


## johen

I think Bolshemysskaya P297 sample in Altai, predating afanasievo, would be connected to steppe Maykop R1b, sintashta z2103 with dominant west siberia HG, Botai M73 (botai samples are extremely rare).

Maybe Round2 would be Greek bronze and China bronze, being buried in supine position.




> The practice of digging shaft tombs was a widespread phenomenon with prominent examples found in Mycenaean Greece; in Bronze Age China; and in Mesoamerican Western Mexico.[2]


https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...836#post534836 (#14)

----------


## Angela

> The only sound conclusion I can draw from this is that the common Caucasus ancestry between Transcaucasia and the Steppe was driven by female-mediated gene flow, how that happened may not be as stupid as my mind pictures it for me.
> 
> Its true Hajji Fairoz was Z2013, but given how large the admixture into the north is, you would expect *at least one* guy who is L or J or G. and yet none have been found.
> 
> If their society was matriarchial, then PIE could have been spoken south of Caucasus, else all IE language branches fall to the north, even Anatolian.


Those mtDna lineages indicate to me that there was bride exchange going both ways, but the impact north of the Caucasus might have been greater since the population density would have been less. 

I have to go back and comb through it again, but the only samples I recall which had definite autosomal gene flow from a late Maykop type group were some of the "Steppe Maykop" ones.

Also, as I said, I don't see much difference between Late Maykop and Kura Araxes, so that ancestry definitely moved north.

----------


## bicicleur

> Those mtDna lineages indicate to me that there was bride exchange going both ways, but the impact north of the Caucasus might have been greater since the population density would have been less. 
> 
> I have to go back and comb through it again, but the only samples I recall which had definite autosomal gene flow from a late Maykop type group were some of the "Steppe Maykop" ones.
> 
> Also, as I said, I don't see much difference between Late Maykop and Kura Araxes, so that ancestry definitely moved north.


if there was bride exchange both sides of the Caucasus, it must have been before the arrival of Anatolian farmers south of the Caucasus,
and then, it stopped

----------


## bicicleur

> Did you even bother reading the paper? This paper burried your Steppes hypothesis finally. Even the authors themselve say this. Embarrassing.


explain yourself, I don't get it

----------


## Alan

> How does the "steppe" that the amateurs found in some early Armenian groups fit into all this?


Made me lol, considering me trying to tell those guys how on earth could you expect or be so sure that there was no EHG related ancestry in the Caucasus and adjusting region already by Late_Neolithic. 

I was 100% convinced we would find EHG like ancestry in Caucasus.

----------


## Angela

> if there was bride exchange both sides of the Caucasus, it must have been before the arrival of Anatolian farmers south of the Caucasus,
> and then, it stopped


Why do you say that, Bicicleur?

----------


## Alan

> This is getting muddy in terms of the genetics. 
> 
> "An interesting observation is that steppe zone individuals directly north of the592 Caucasus (Eneolithic Samara and Eneolithic steppe) had initially not received any593 gene flow from Anatolian farmers. Instead, the ancestry profile in Eneolithic steppe594 individuals shows an even mixture of EHG and CHG ancestry, which argues for an595 effective cultural and genetic border between the contemporaneous Eneolithic populations in the North Caucasus, notably Steppe and Caucasus. Due to the temporal597 limitations of our dataset, we currently cannot determine whether this ancestry is598 stemming from an existing natural genetic gradient running from EHG far to the north599 to CHG/Iran in the south or whether this is the result of farmers with Iranian farmer/600 CHG-related ancestry reaching the steppe zone independent of and prior to a stream601 of Anatolian farmer-like ancestry, where they mixed with local hunter-gatherers that602 carried only EHG ancestry."
> 
> Well, if it wasn't there before, and then it was there, wouldn't you lean toward it moving in, especially as it's showing up in steppe Maykop?
> 
> Anyway, this is helpful to keeping it straight:
> [IMG][/IMG]
> 
> [IMG][/IMG]


Holy crap Steppe Maykop far more EHG than Yamnaya? As I wrote in a post at the Central_ South Asian thread. How does this work with the narrative "EHG exclusive to north like Steppe/East Europe, CHG/Iran_Neo exclusive Iranian Plateau_Caucasus"? How can a part of a southern culture have more EHG than a culture further North from which according to some people they should have actually absorbed it.




> Well, there's no R1b south of the Caucasus in this set, that's for sure.


Considering we found it in Kura Araxes and on the Iranian Plateau with no EHG admixture. I don't doubt there is some sleeping in Maykop culture with far more EHG too.

12 samples is good but far from enough for a real picture of the yDNA landscape.
But still as I said, I don't think Maykop is the origin of influence into Yamnaya. It is a little East. Leyla Tepe, North/Northwest/West Iran.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

Concerning the samples labeled as 'Kura-Araxes' the G2b sample is from Armenia, NW of Gyumri but very close to the borders with Turkey. The J1 sample is from Dagestan, Russia, NW of Derbent. The distance between the two is 390km. The older R1b(xM269) sample was from the region N of Lake Sevan.

----------


## bicicleur

> Why do you say that, Bicicleur?


if there was still bridal exchange after Anatolian farmers had arrived south of Caucasus, then there also should have been autosomal Anatolian farmer in the steppe, quod non

----------


## bicicleur

well we have 2 different genetic entities living next to each other without a barrier that seperates them (frontiers are even shifting), but no substantial admixture between both for at least 3000 years

isn't that amazing?

----------


## kingjohn

> Why would there be ? Isn't E1b1b1 the lineage of Natufians and some EEF ? Why would they be in the Caucasus ?


yes but still bummer  :Sad: 
because in *south caucasus{armenia}* it was present since bronze age .....

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Did you even bother reading the paper? This paper burried your Steppes hypothesis finally. Even the authors themselve say this. Embarrassing.


Where, exactly? All I'm seeing is the hedging of their bets.

----------


## Angela

> if there was still bridal exchange after Anatolian farmers had arrived south of Caucasus, then there also should have been autosomal Anatolian farmer in the steppe, quod non


The authors say there IS autosomal Anatolian farmer in the steppe.

----------


## Angela

> 


Their Eneolithic steppe sample in Admixture is far more than 50% CHG. In Samara Eneolithic, the CHG gets cut down a bit by WHG and, what, East Asian? Still, more than 50%.

CHG was on the steppe very early indeed. Perhaps that's why they put in all that language about pre-existing clines.

----------


## halfalp

Lol their chart shows CHG in Motala, CWC more CHG than EHG please... here we going away of PIE, we are reconstructd the genetic prehistory of europe with CHG in is core.

----------


## Angela

> Lol their chart shows CHG in Motala, CWC more CHG than EHG please... here we going away of PIE, we are reconstructd the genetic prehistory of europe with CHG in is core.


Excuse me, are you the poster who says he doesn't know very much about genetics? Pretty amazing certitude in that case. :)

Maybe, just maybe, statisticians who created these programs know more than you do?

Also, did you forget about J1 in the mesolithic far northeast? I think you did.

----------


## Olympus Mons

Amazing how they are evading altogether Shulaveri Shomu both in time and geography. I am expectant! they have something!

----------


## IronSide

This admixture graph is weird



Do the EHG only have 9% ANE ?

Steppe Eneolithic is EHG + Basal Eurasian. and it is from the basal part of CHG.

CHG is Basal Eurasian + West Eurasian lineage that separated from the line contributing to WHG, EHG, and EEF. Where is ANE ? there is a lot of it in CHG based on the modelling of Lazaridis 2016.

----------


## Angela

From Razib Khan, a rather balanced analysis minus the histrionics.
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/...medium=twitter

----------


## bicicleur

> The authors say there IS autosomal Anatolian farmer in the steppe.


yes, in the steppe Maykop outliers and the late north Caucasus
and there was a little seeping in maybe from the west, maybe from the south, maybe from Globular amphora,

but if the bride swap brought so much CHG/Iran Neo, there should have been more Anatolian Farmer have come along

----------


## halfalp

> Excuse me, are you the poster who says he doesn't know very much about genetics? Pretty amazing certitude in that case. :)
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, statisticians who created these programs know more than you do?
> 
> Also, did you forget about J1 in the mesolithic far northeast? I think you did.


That J was 100% EHG, they knew about teal even before CHG was conceputalized. So how most of ancient samples turn CHG now ? Because CHG came from the north ?

----------


## bicicleur

> Their Eneolithic steppe sample in Admixture is far more than 50% CHG. In Samara Eneolithic, the CHG gets cut down a bit by WHG and, what, East Asian? Still, more than 50%.
> 
> CHG was on the steppe very early indeed. Perhaps that's why they put in all that language about pre-existing clines.


in his book David Reich says CHG admixture in the steppe started ca 7 ka, but nobody knows exactly when
it is observed in Khvalynsk, that is the earliest afaik

----------


## Angela

> yes, in the steppe Maykop outliers and the late north Caucasus
> and there was a little seeping in maybe from the west, maybe from the south, maybe from Globular amphora,
> 
> but if the bride swap brought so much CHG/Iran Neo, there should have been more Anatolian Farmer have come along


Yes, if most of it was relatively late in the day. 



So, are we looking at a v*ery* early movement of a "CHG" heavy population north onto the steppe which is responsible for the majority of the "CHG" signal?

This might tie in with their speculation of a mixed EHG/CHG cline running north to south through the Caucasus, which ties in with how they model EHG in that Admixture chart. Of course, Admixture is not the be all and end all. I'm still going through the Supplement results for the other analyses.

The fact remains that the mtDna in this new cluster of samples shows mtDna usually associated with northern groups in the Caucasus and vice versa. 

You might want to read the Razib Khan opinion piece I just posted.

@halfalp,

I know. That ONE sample was 100% EHG. The point is that "J", an unambiguously "Caucasus" clade, made it all the way up there, so SOME samples might have retained a trace of CHG, although that one sample did not.

Yes?

----------


## Ailchu

> Lol their chart shows CHG in Motala, CWC more CHG than EHG please... here we going away of PIE, we are reconstructd the genetic prehistory of europe with CHG in is core.


seems like these admixture % are varying from study to study. first it was 50-60% EHG in yamnas. now its more like 30%. or the 50-60% were not saying how much was "actual" EHG admixture but how much was contributed by EHG populations including CHG like ancestry already present in these EHG's.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> yes, in the steppe Maykop outliers and the late north Caucasus
> and there was a little seeping in maybe from the west, maybe from the south, maybe from Globular amphora,
> but if the bride swap brought so much CHG/Iran Neo, there should have been more Anatolian Farmer have come along


You talk about that region? Because Sintashta samples (those labeled Sintashta_MBA_RISE.SG in that study) appear close to 30% Anatolian Neolithic. If someone modeled them as partly Globula Amphora Culture related they would appear ~40% GAC like.
Srubnaya a little less.


--edit--
Btw, as I wrote we have Y-DNA from only two 'Maykop-steppe' samples. Both of them are near Kalmykia. The 'outlier' is R1, the other Q1a2.

----------


## bicicleur

> Excuse me, are you the poster who says he doesn't know very much about genetics? Pretty amazing certitude in that case. :)
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, statisticians who created these programs know more than you do?
> 
> Also, did you forget about J1 in the mesolithic far northeast? I think you did.



this J1 would have been from the isolated Y6304 branch, which split from Satsurblia 14.5 ka, he was EHG

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J1/

----------


## bicicleur

> You talk about that region? Because Sintashta samples (those labeled Sintashta_MBA_RISE.SG in that study) appear close to 30% Anatolian Neolithic. If someone modeled them as partly Globula Amphora Culture related they would appear ~40% GAC like.
> Srubnaya a little less.
> 
> 
> --edit--
> Btw, as I wrote we have Y-DNA from only two 'Maykop-steppe' samples. Both of them are near Kalmykia. The 'outlier' is R1, the other Q1a2.


yes, both CWC and Sintashta had EEF admixture, and the source was very very likely West-European

----------


## halfalp

> Excuse me, are you the poster who says he doesn't know very much about genetics? Pretty amazing certitude in that case. :)
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, statisticians who created these programs know more than you do?
> 
> Also, did you forget about J1 in the mesolithic far northeast? I think you did.





> Yes, if most of it was relatively late in the day. 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are we looking at a v*ery* early movement of a "CHG" heavy population north onto the steppe which is responsible for the majority of the "CHG" signal?
> 
> This might tie in with their speculation of a mixed EHG/CHG cline running north to south through the Caucasus, which ties in with how they model EHG in that Admixture chart. Of course, Admixture is not the be all and end all. I'm still going through the Supplement results for the other analyses.
> 
> The fact remains that the mtDna in this new cluster of samples shows mtDna usually associated with northern groups in the Caucasus and vice versa. 
> ...


 Actually, a south caucasus clade until 12’000 BC. It might originate somewhere else further we explore the true genetic meaning of CHG. Because no way CHG were in Motala or CHG is a strange brother of EHG.

----------


## Angela

> in his book David Reich says CHG admixture in the steppe started ca 7 ka, but nobody knows exactly when
> it is observed in Khvalynsk, that is the earliest afaik


I think that Eneolithic steppe sample is 4300 BC, so that's about right. However, it's already there in really big percentages by that time, so it must have come earlier. The other hint, as you said, is lack of ANF at that point. 

Maykop is just too young for most of it. 

This is why they're saying they can't be more definitive. They don't have, or don't want to publish samples old enough to know for certain whether it's really old on the steppe, or a bit more recent but from an as yet unsampled population. 

Since I've always thought that Basal may have moved in from the Mesopotamia region, I'd love to see some ancient genomes from there.

----------


## Sile

> The haplogroups in this set of Chalcolithic/Bronze Age South Caucasus correspond to the haplogroups that I have associated with the Kura-Araxes expansion (J2a, J1-Z1828, L1b, T1a-P77 and G2a-L293) except that they didn't find any T1a among those 12 samples (but it's not surprisingly considering the low frequency of this haplogroup in any region today).
> 
> The Bronze Age admixture from the South Caucasus that they detect in Greece is obviously from the Kura-Araxes expansion (just look at the haplogroups found in Minoan Greece or modern Crete), not from the Anatolian branch of IE. I completely agree that Proto-Indo-European descend from a language spoken by R1b-L23 in the South Caucasus, but that group of R1b-L23 wasn't related to Kura-Araxes (Georgia, Armenia), but to a distinct population apparently more concentrated around Azerbaijan and NW Iran, where R1b-L23 is still found today at reasonable frequencies.
> 
> I have only very briefly browsed the paper, but from the admixtures posted above it is startling to see just how different Steppe Maykop (almost pure EHG) is from core Maykop (CHG + Anatolian Chalcolithic).


there are many y haplogroups missing when you compare with this paper below....figure 2................
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2011192

----------


## Alpenjager

> Yes, if most of it was relatively late in the day. 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are we looking at a v*ery* early movement of a "CHG" heavy population north onto the steppe which is responsible for the majority of the "CHG" signal?
> 
> This might tie in with their speculation of a mixed EHG/CHG cline running north to south through the Caucasus, which ties in with how they model EHG in that Admixture chart. Of course, Admixture is not the be all and end all. I'm still going through the Supplement results for the other analyses.
> 
> The fact remains that the mtDna in this new cluster of samples shows mtDna usually associated with northern groups in the Caucasus and vice versa. 
> ...


My thoughts are that EHG and CHG are mostly linked to J in origin. J is very diverse in the Caucasus, So CHG doesn't needs to belong to only one J or to the whole J lineages.

When R1a arrived to the western steppes, this should be populated mostly with J and I individuals (not necessarily only IJ lineages but not P(xV88) lineages).

Also CHG doesn't need to be made only of J-linked components but also could be involved other lineages like LT (as could work for some EHG components)

----------


## Ygorcs

> I think that Eneolithic steppe sample is 4300 BC, so that's about right. However, it's already there in really big percentages by that time, so it must have come earlier. The other hint, as you said, is lack of ANF at that point. 
> 
> Maykop is just too young for most of it. 
> 
> This is why they're saying they can't be more definitive. They don't have, or don't want to publish samples old enough to know for certain whether it's really old on the steppe, or a bit more recent but from an as yet unsampled population. 
> 
> Since I've always thought that Basal may have moved in from the Mesopotamia region, I'd love to see some ancient genomes from there.


This is one thing that is bothering me in this whole "Transcaucasia vs. Steppes" discussion. I mean, if the bulk of the CHG in the Pontic-Caspian steppe populations is very ancient, having being absorbed in high proportions before 5000 BC (the lack of ANF in the steppes also indicate that early introgression), then it is, from a linguistic point of view, very hard to accept the possibility that Early PIE was a "CHG language" from the southern slopes of the Caucasus, because that would imply that Anatolian IE (or also possibly, according to this study, even much less diverged languages like Armenian and especially Greek) and the Pontic-Caspian steppe IE would've split in the 6th millennium BC. Either scientists assumed a much faster pace of linguistic evolution, or it is just impossible that the initial split of PIE happened so early.

Now, if we could demonstrate that there was a significant amount of extra CHG in the Chalcolithic Pontic-Caspian region, that could suggest a new demographic and presumably linguistic layer onto the older ethnic makeup.

As for the lack of EHG in those few "Hittite" (or at least "near to the Hittite") samples, I was thinking (okay, speculating) a bit about it from the assumption (pretty much mainstream among linguists) that Anatolian IE split much earlier than the others and probably in a very different historic context (certainly not the mobile horse-driven pastoralism of Yamnaya and descendants). It also seems from this paper that the North Caucasus, right next to the steppes, had a very different genetic structure with a much higher CHG and ANF, so I'd think it is plausible that the southernmost portions of Sredny-Stog and/or Khvalynsk in direct contact with the North Caucasus could have some substructure in a transition zone to the steppes. We know now that Maykop had EHG, which is not found further to the south, so there was some cline. If the ancestors Hittites came from this region and expanded more or less in the fashion of later IE branches into regions that were already very populated (like Greece and South Asia), then they could've migrated south becoming a relevant and dominant minority with an increasingly diluted DNA makeup, and given their very early separation from the steppe or North Caucasus populations it's probable that by the time they established in former Hattic-speaking lands to form their kingdom and empire their EHG portion was just too small to make a significant presence in the genomic makeup of the region's average inhabitant. Mere genetic drift and regional substructure could make EHG virtually invisible after a few centuries unless we had many more samples. Doesn't this type of thing happen when migrations were not that powerful to trigger an appreciable population replacement? Just playing a bit with this speculation, let's imagine this totally hypothetical (and admittedly baseless for now) scenario:

From CHG-enriched southern steppes just north of the North Caucasus (South_Steppe): *40% EHG*, 55% CHG, 5% ANF
Admixture with (north or south?) Caucasians during the Proto-Anatolian phase: 25% South_Steppe + 75% Local Caucasians (5% EHG, 70% CHG, 25% ANF) >>> 13% EHG, 66% CHG, 8% ANF.
Admixture with North-Central Anatolians during the Hittite phase: 20% Proto-Anatolian + 80% Hatti and other natives (0% EHG, 30% CHG, 70% ANF) >>> *2.5% EHG*, 37% CHG, 60.5% (2.5% EHG - and that's assuming that the Caucasians already had some EHG even before Maykop and that the Proto-Anatolians still made a reasonable demographic impact of ~25% and the Hittites one of ~20%, not too shabby)

I'm just entertaining all the possibilities, especially considering that apparently the CHG component in the steppes is MUCH older than even the 1st Indo-European split around ~4000 BC, and not just some Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic influx bringing not just a new (presumably more advanced) people but potentially a new language family.

----------


## Promenade

Considering Sabine Reinhold et al, the results we have are actually not surprising. 

Have a read, I think it will do a lot to clear confusion and focus things:

"_At the community level, bioarchaeological investigations seriously challenge the hypothesis of large-scale mobility both in piedmont and in steppe environments. Given this background, intensification of contact through a greater volume of trade promoted by wheeled transport (Sherratt 1981) is rather unlikely. Other mechanisms for the transfer of knowledge need to be considered (Frachetti 2012). The small number of non-local individuals in the North Caucasian sample suggest an isolated exchange of individuals and the knowledge they brought with them._" 

"_If strontium and carbon or nitrogen isotope data are combined, sufficiently variegated data clusters emerge for the sites in the steppe zone and the piedmont areas. This is an argument against highly mobile groups with home ranges covering a number of environmental and geological zones. However, each site also featured a few individuals whose stable isotope data were more similar to those of the majority of one of the other burial communities. Some burials, e.g. the oldest of the North Caucasian culture in mound Mar’inskaya 5 including grave 23 with a pair of bucrania, revealed noteworthy differences between early and late-developing teeth. These fi__ndings suggest deviant dietary habits and/or origin from another area and community. As we have seen earlier, such individuals may have been driving forces in the exchange of knowledge and a precondition for the spread of innovations. The home ranges of the local communities were spatially distinct, so frequent contacts did not occur naturally between the investigated groups. Accordingly, these individuals were certainly of special relevance._" 

There was no large influx of Maykop people into the steppe or vice versa, hence why they do not share any y-haplogroups or much EEF/Anatolia_N ancestry until contact with Cucuteni–Trypillia. Wagons did not help facilitate transportation on a macro-level scale and were rather a novel invention that was quickly adopted over much of the old world. As we already know CHG ancestry entered the steppe much earlier than Maykop and if one believes this was a male dominated migration the same is then true for R1b as well. By this period in time though there was no massive genetic exchange occuring between the Caucusus and the steppe (it if occured it was centuries before this period) and knowledge was instead being transported by only a small number of individuals whose lineages may have gone extinct millenia ago. What this all means for the genesis and spread of IE is up for debate.

*"Burials and the transportation involved need not necessarily imply mobile individuals or mobile communities*_. While the usefulness of wheeled transport for pastoral communities living in steppe environments is indisputable, this need not entail large-scale mobility or long-distance migrations. In fact, the bioarchaeological data currently available from the North Caucasus suggest that the opposite was the case. We should thus focus our attention on the symbolism of the objects related to early transport or animal labour. The appropriation of traction discussed here as a social act in two different symbolic traditions did not tremendously change the normal lifestyle of the communities involved. However, it does reveal a sharp difference between the communities that emphasised social difference and power relations in their societies,_ _e.g. Maikop, and those that did not, e.g._ _Yamnaya. It is most probably the symbolic aspect of the activities for which draught animals were employed that prompt different representations of traction in the two symbolic systems._"

What were some of these sharp cultural differences between the Maykop and Steppe communities? Both societies performed kurgan burials, but whereas Maykop burials focused on the engine of this new invention, the cattle, the Steppe communities focused on the actual vehicles, the wagons themselves. The study also mentions that burial with a cart was not stratified among gender or age with infants and women frequently being buried with carts and that there didn't seem to be any ritualization to the process yet. What is also interesting is that neither being buried with cattle nor a cart in Maykop or Steppe communities was a symbol of status. If we can infer from dietary consumption and physical stress those buried with cattle or carts had the same levels of physical stress and no better diets.

"_All isotope data on the individuals buried with wagons or pairs of cattle skulls plot among those buried without. As indicated by the physical anthropological analyses, the stable isotope data displayed no evidence that inhumation with a wagon or with cattle offerings marks a distinct social group with access to certain kinds of higher-quality food (Knipper_ _et al. 2015). These observations also apply to the Maikop individuals, who lived in a society that used grave goods to emphasise social status. Moreover, the strontium isotope data from the wagon burials were indistinguishable from those of the other individuals and do not indicate any differences in mobility. Overall, the isotope data of the skeletal remains did not provide any evidence that the presence of wagons or cattle offerings as grave goods indicates membership of some kind of social elite characterised by regular access to certain types of food or by special mobility patterns...Only_ _in the following late 3rd and early 2nd millennia BC in the South Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia and Mesopotamia did wagon burials become formalised status markers for elite burials (Sagona 2013)._"

Btw this study is directly referencing specimens we now have genetic data for, including Sharakhalsun 6, kurgan 2, grave 23 who is mentioned here in Sabine Reinhold et al: 
"_It would indeed be tempting to see the male from Sharakhalsun 2/6, grave 18 not only as the driver of the oldest wooden vehicle dated so far but also as the trainer and master of the animals that once pulled his cart. Despite his frequent serious fractures, an anthropological examination cannot con__firm or refute this hypothesis beyond all doubt. At the time, all individuals were very muscular due to constant heavy work and walking long distances._"
And also in the supplements of this study:
"_The second mound-shell was also built by early Steppe Maykop groups and graves 12 and 15 date to this period__40. The third Maykop cluster dates to the second half of the 4th millennium BC. It includes grave 6, 11 and the atypical grave 18, which are among those that produced genome-wide data. This grave belongs to a specific group, with influences from Maykop and Yamnaya traditions3. During the 3rd millennium, Yamnaya groups used the Maykop mound and added several graves in central positions and on the periphery as well as at least one new mound-shell. The last interments (graves 1, 2, 7,8 and wagon grave 9) belong to the late Bronze Age Catacomb period. Empty grave 10 can only roughly be dated to the Middle Bronze Age. Mound 6 in Sharakhalsun revealed four complexes with remains of wooden wagons belonging to different cultural formations. It is one of few places with a concentration of wagon burials among the hundreds of excavated mounds in the vicinity and yielded the oldest dated wooden wagon so far in grave 186. This individual probably was one of the first that adopted this new technology in the North Caucasian and Caspian steppe41__. The complexes of Sharakhalsun are part of a larger bioarchaeological study and are scheduled for full publication in 2019_."


They also have dna from Marinskaya 5, but unfortunately it doesn't look like it includes grave 23... one of the individuals thought to be an "innovator" who helped spread the technology/knowledge and originated from someplace foreign.

----------


## hrvclv

> This is one thing that is bothering me in this whole "Transcaucasia vs. Steppes" discussion. I mean, if the bulk of the CHG in the Pontic-Caspian steppe populations is very ancient, having being absorbed in high proportions before 5000 BC (the lack of ANF in the steppes also indicate that early introgression), then it is, from a linguistic point of view, very hard to accept the possibility that Early PIE was a "CHG language" from the southern slopes of the Caucasus, because that would imply that Anatolian IE (or also possibly, according to this study, even much less diverged languages like Armenian and especially Greek) and the Pontic-Caspian steppe IE would've split in the 6th millennium BC. Either scientists assumed a much faster pace of linguistic evolution, or it is just impossible that the initial split of PIE happened so early.
> 
> Now, if we could demonstrate that there was a significant amount of extra CHG in the Chalcolithic Pontic-Caspian region, that could suggest a new demographic and presumably linguistic layer onto the older ethnic makeup.
> 
> As for the lack of EHG in those few "Hittite" (or at least "near to the Hittite") samples, I was thinking (okay, speculating) a bit about it from the assumption (pretty much mainstream among linguists) that Anatolian IE split much earlier than the others and probably in a very different historic context (certainly not the mobile horse-driven pastoralism of Yamnaya and descendants). It also seems from this paper that the North Caucasus, right next to the steppes, had a very different genetic structure with a much higher CHG and ANF, so I'd think it is plausible that the southernmost portions of Sredny-Stog and/or Khvalynsk in direct contact with the North Caucasus could have some substructure in a transition zone to the steppes. We know now that Maykop had EHG, which is not found further to the south, so there was some cline. If the ancestors Hittites came from this region and expanded more or less in the fashion of later IE branches into regions that were already very populated (like Greece and South Asia), then they could've migrated south becoming a relevant and dominant minority with an increasingly diluted DNA makeup, and given their very early separation from the steppe or North Caucasus populations it's probable that by the time they established in former Hattic-speaking lands to form their kingdom and empire their EHG portion was just too small to make a significant presence in the genomic makeup of the region's average inhabitant. Mere genetic drift and regional substructure could make EHG virtually invisible after a few centuries unless we had many more samples. Doesn't this type of thing happen when migrations were not that powerful to trigger an appreciable population replacement? Just playing a bit with this speculation, let's imagine this totally hypothetical (and admittedly baseless for now) scenario:
> 
> From CHG-enriched southern steppes just north of the North Caucasus (South_Steppe): *40% EHG*, 55% CHG, 5% ANF
> Admixture with (north or south?) Caucasians during the Proto-Anatolian phase: 25% South_Steppe + 75% Local Caucasians (5% EHG, 70% CHG, 25% ANF) >>> 13% EHG, 66% CHG, 8% ANF.
> Admixture with North-Central Anatolians during the Hittite phase: 20% Proto-Anatolian + 80% Hatti and other natives (0% EHG, 30% CHG, 70% ANF) >>> *2.5% EHG*, 37% CHG, 60.5% (2.5% EHG - and that's assuming that the Caucasians already had some EHG even before Maykop and that the Proto-Anatolians still made a reasonable demographic impact of ~25% and the Hittites one of ~20%, not too shabby)
> ...


Two questions : Do you mean, as I seem to understand, that the Proto-IE/Anatolian ancestor language was initially EHG ? What is your estimate of the time span between the departure of the Anatolians and the emergence of Yamna ?

----------


## Cpluskx

> This is one thing that is bothering me in this whole "Transcaucasia vs. Steppes" discussion. I mean, if the bulk of the CHG in the Pontic-Caspian steppe populations is very ancient, having being absorbed in high proportions before 5000 BC (the lack of ANF in the steppes also indicate that early introgression), then it is, from a linguistic point of view, very hard to accept the possibility that Early PIE was a "CHG language" from the southern slopes of the Caucasus, because that would imply that Anatolian IE (or also possibly, according to this study, even much less diverged languages like Armenian and especially Greek) and the Pontic-Caspian steppe IE would've split in the 6th millennium BC. Either scientists assumed a much faster pace of linguistic evolution, or it is just impossible that the initial split of PIE happened so early.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Two questions : Do you mean, as I seem to understand, that the Proto-IE/Anatolian ancestor language was initially EHG ? What is your estimate of the time span between the departure of the Anatolians and the emergence of Yamna ?


No, I don't mean that, I don't think any of us should be too sure about it. I'm entertaining the possibilities of both scenarios: that it originally (actually not PIE per se, but the distant ancestors of it) came from a EHG-majority population or from a CHG-majority population, and on a separate note that it came from north of the Caucasus or from the Caucasus itself (South Caucasus mainly). See, it's even perfectly possible that, if a large % of CHG arrived in the steppes very early on (Early Neolithic), PIE could've been BOTH a CHG language AND also a steppe language. It would've been brought so long ago to the Pontic-Caspian region that its IE descendants couldn't realistically have split in the beginning of the Neolithic, so the language would've moved to the steppes before it started to diverge. There are several possibilities.

I myself believe that a Caucasian origin among originally CHG-majority tribes followed by a consolidation of the language (at least non-Anatolian PIE) in the steppes is very likely, however I can clearly see that there is no way I can pretend that the data already allow me to discard any other hypothesis, especially if one doesn't focus only on the genetics, but also - as we all should, we're talking about a language family here - on the linguistic perspective on this matter.

I think that the data, including these latest data from this Caucasus paper, are not conclusive at all, so both hypotheses sound plausible and worth investigating at least as of now. Those who claim that all the evidences are pointing to a "game over" either for the Steppe hypothesis or for the South Caucasus hypothesis are deluding themselves. There are still a lot of missing links and unclear stuff in this narrative, and there is certainly no "game over" (the authors themselves are extremely cautious, talking about "possibilities", "could have happened" and so on). Beginning, of course, from the fact that the CHG in the steppes looks like it's very old, and not some Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic influx that would fit perfectly well with a South Caucasian expansion in two directions, one to Anatolia (Anatolin) and the other to the Pontic-Caspian region (Residual Late PIE).

Well, as for the dating of the split of Anatolian PIE I personally estimate that it certainly happened before 3500 BC (so, before Yamnaya) and most probably around 4000 BC, so some 500-700 years before the start of the Yamnaya expansion. That's basically the conclusion given by comparisons of the technological vocabulary in the IE branches and also by glottochronological methods, and also a safe date to explain why Hittite already was so very divergent from Mycenaean Greek and the few attestations of Old Indic by 1600 BC.

Therefore, I think steppe IE and Anatolian derived from the language of a pre-Yamnaya culture either in the steppes or in the Caucasus (regardless of whether it was originally more EHG or more CHG), but we definitely still need to explain how on earth the steppes could have absorbed that Caucasian language without any major Caucasian-shifted Y-DNA makeup transformation, and when there are signs that even before 4300 BC (the Eneolithic Ukraine sample) the EHG+CHG was already there in the steppes. If that CHG mix with EHG is too old, that could mean that even if the pre-PIE language had come with CHG people it would've been established in the Pontic-Caspian steppes for so long that it's really hard to imagine that Anatolian PIE and Steppe/Late PIE would've split in the Caucasus, possibly before 5000 BC. That's just too early, as most linguists AFAIK would agree.

----------


## Ygorcs

> 


What is the source? Without that information we can conclude basically nothing. If this is extracted from Bouckaert et al. or Renfrew, honestly the vast majority of linguists found so many mistakes in their data (including using wrong words and wrong assignments of some languages to an IE branch, actually the mistakes of Bouckaert et al. were so many that they inspired an entire book about them by linguist Asya Pereltsvaig) that I wouldn't consider these graphs at all. There was massive criticism from real experts against the models of those two studies, and not just because of methodological disagreements, but simply because there were lots of wrong premises leading to wrong conclusions.

Some of those dates look extremely suspicious to me: Anatolian splitting in 6700 BC, when not even agriculture and pastoralism had been spread to the whole Caucasus region (so what was the expansion about?). Tocharian splitting in the steppes as early as 5900 BCE even before Khvalynsk existed, and even before any pastoralism had developed there. Northwestern/European branches splitting at 4500 BC, before any major CHG or EHG expansion into Europe and before Sredny Stog, Yamnaya, Maykop, Kura-Araxes and virtually any other major culture possibly associated with the dynamics of CHG or more specifically PIE expansion. The dates just don't fit the archaeological evidences, unless they want us to believe that, without any major migration an/or acculturation, EEF people in Europe spoke IE, CHG people in Caucasus spoke IE, EHG people in the steppes spoke IE, and so on.

----------


## Cpluskx

you can find more info here: http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2011...neolithic.html

----------


## hrvclv

The ancient presence of CHG north of the Caucasus does indeed complicate the pattern. I wish that team of geneticists would conduct a similar scrutiny of ancient genomes from Northern Mesopotamia and the Lake Van area.
Their kind of rather impermeable genetic frontier between Maikop and Steppe runs counter to an R1b link between NW Iran and the Steppe. What of that R1b guy in Hajji Firuz ? A stray lone wanderer ?

----------


## Ygorcs

> you can find more info here: http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2011...neolithic.html


Oh this is from 2011, the times when Dienekes still staunchly supported the Anatolian Neolithic expansion hypothesis for PIE, and when biology-inspired glottochronological methods were still beginning to be more widely used and, honestly, being believed somewhat naively as if languages function exactly like biological entities. Also, we know so much more about the genetics part of this equation now, just imagine how little we knew in 2011 about ancient populations.

This Bayesian glottochronological results given by Gray & Atkinson were very criticized in later years by several linguists, and they really yield some strange results especially as you go for more ancient language connections, because of the higher likelihood of accumulated borrowings and less well known lexicon (but there are weird datings even some of the later branches, like estimating that Latin split into its distinct daughter languages as early as 300 AD). There are also heavily controversial classifications, like Celtic being much further from Italic than Germanic, Romani splitting off very soon from other Indo-Aryan languages, and Polish and Belarusian being more related between themselves than they are due to prolonged contact. The method seemed to be prone to several mistakes caused by borrowings, different rates of phonetic and morphological evolution, presence of significant non-IE substrate, and so on.

There are studies that suggest there is a serious over-estimation of the dates using that Bayesian method, as the aforementioned linguist Asya Pereltsvaig pointed out in her book (see below, I really recommend reading her professional criticism of these supposedly "revolutionary" and "conclusive" methods). So, all these extremely old dates should be, probably, pushed forward significantly to be more credible and fit the archaeological and linguistic evidence better. Very few serious linguists today even entertain the possibility that, if Anatolian IE supposedly split from the rest in 6700 BC, PIE was spoken in Mesolithic 7000-8000 BC and spread even before the Caucasian and Pontic-Caspian Neolithic.

https://books.google.com.br/books?id...page&q&f=false

https://imgur.com/a/KpwgW4p

----------


## Ygorcs

> I have only very briefly browsed the paper, but from the admixtures posted above it is startling to see just how different Steppe Maykop (almost pure EHG) is from core Maykop (CHG + Anatolian Chalcolithic).


I wonder if the so-called "Caucasian influence" (substrate or superstrate? I don't know) assumed by some linguists to have impacted the early development of PIE came from such a situation of strong "Caucasianization" of acculturated Southern Steppe tribes even in the absence of major immigration/population replacement, maybe even starting before Maykop. As per this paper, there seems to have been a long and hard genetic boundary between the steppe and the North Caucasus, but what if some of the steppe populations themselves had adopted Caucasian culture and language and thus become an intermediary vehicle for Caucasian influence to the more northern parts of the steppe away from the slopes of the Caucasus?

----------


## Ygorcs

> Maybe more advanced civilization with much more population in the south forced the steppe population to assimilate into them? Steppe population need to know the language to communicate, trade, work etc. with them.


Maybe, but I don't think a people in a huge pre-modern region, much of which located hundreds of kilometers away from the Caucasus societies, would shift their everyday language just to be able to trade with them. They were mostly subsistence hunter-gatherers and later pastoralists, not export-driven societies. According to the study, they seem to have had "occasional contacts" with each other and maintained a strongly differentiated genetic border for centuries. That doesn't look like the situation where an entire population would shift to the more prestigious language to communicate, work and exchange ideas and goods with the foreigners who live far away and seldom mix with them. AFAIK in the past there is virtually no attested evidence of a people that forsook their language and adopted a foreign one just because they had occasional trade with them (if someone among you remembrs one such a case, please tell me), but probably lived apart from each other most of the time (see the aforementioned centuries-long genetic border with few influences from each side), so apparently there was no need to have inter-ethnic communnication on a daily basis. Multilingualism in the distant past was also no rare stuff, but linguistic shift usually requires much more than being neighbored by a more advanced society.

----------


## MOESAN

> This is getting muddy in terms of the genetics. 
> 
> "An interesting observation is that steppe zone individuals directly north of the592 Caucasus (Eneolithic Samara and Eneolithic steppe) had initially not received any593 gene flow from Anatolian farmers. Instead, the ancestry profile in Eneolithic steppe594 individuals shows an even mixture of EHG and CHG ancestry, which argues for an595 effective cultural and genetic border between the contemporaneous Eneolithic populations in the North Caucasus, notably Steppe and Caucasus. Due to the temporal597 limitations of our dataset, we currently cannot determine whether this ancestry is598 stemming from an existing natural genetic gradient running from EHG far to the north599 to CHG/Iran in the south or whether this is the result of farmers with Iranian farmer/600 CHG-related ancestry reaching the steppe zone independent of and prior to a stream601 of Anatolian farmer-like ancestry, where they mixed with local hunter-gatherers that602 carried only EHG ancestry."
> 
> Well, if it wasn't there before, and then it was there, wouldn't you lean toward it moving in, especially as it's showing up in steppe Maykop?
> 
> Anyway, this is helpful to keeping it straight:
> [IMG][/IMG]
> 
> [IMG][/IMG]


I find strange some admixtures tries, above: GAC input without any WHG??? so their HG's would have been only EHG from Ukraine? in Eurogenes I think I red the Steppes Maykop had some 'siberian' or 'american' input, so something from far East?
aside of this, I don't know it these people did IBD approaches? 
concerning Mycenia, they show in some admixtures (GENERETIKER, amateur it's true) slight but maybe significative differences with Minoans (BTW these last ones would show some far East auDNA too, spite very light); Mycenia appears with less 'westasian', more 'HG' but this 'HG' is not 'WHG' for the most, but 'EHG'; more 'EHG' with less 'westasian', this doesn't point to a South Caucasus/Anatolia route...
I found confusing the three last studies about Caucasus Steppes and SCAsia -
I 'm still about R1b-L23 born in Armenia or Azebaidjan and have not made my thought about steppe or no steppe in metals ages Armenia; I red in Wiki Kura-Araxes had been kind of regression compared to Leila Tepe, and maybe multicultural; some flood from North?
South-Caucasus seems attractive for PIE but spite my ancientopinions about Renfrew I begin to wonder if Tripolye could not have played an important role in IE genesis?
So for me, "game is not over"

----------


## bicicleur

I must see, after this study, PIE origin didn't become much clearer.
The solution seems more complicated now.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> The ancient presence of CHG north of the Caucasus does indeed complicate the pattern. I wish that team of geneticists would conduct a similar scrutiny of ancient genomes from Northern Mesopotamia and the Lake Van area.
> Their kind of rather impermeable genetic frontier between Maikop and Steppe runs counter to an R1b link between NW Iran and the Steppe. What of that R1b guy in Hajji Firuz ? A stray lone wanderer ?


Hi. You might find the answers here: 
*https://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo...ra-araxes-8426
*
Remember... there is a reason Lab rats are avoiding publishing Shulaveri. Everyone surrounding Shulaveri , earlier and later, have already been published. Not them tough.

----------


## Milan.M

CHG route went probably from "Iran,Kurdistan or Armenia" from around Caspian sea into steppe rather than through Caucasus mountains into steppe.

----------


## Angela

> I find strange some admixtures tries, above: GAC input without any WHG??? so their HG's would have been only EHG from Ukraine? in Eurogenes I think I red the Steppes Maykop had some 'siberian' or 'american' input, so something from far East?
> aside of this, I don't know it these people did IBD approaches? 
> concerning Mycenia, they show in some admixtures (GENERETIKER, amateur it's true) slight but maybe significative differences with Minoans (BTW these last ones would show some far East auDNA too, spite very light); Mycenia appears with less 'westasian', more 'HG' but this 'HG' is not 'WHG' for the most, but 'EHG'; more 'EHG' with less 'westasian', this doesn't point to a South Caucasus/Anatolia route...
> I found confusing the three last studies about Caucasus Steppes and SCAsia -
> I 'm still about R1b-L23 born in Armenia or Azebaidjan and have not made my thought about steppe or no steppe in metals ages Armenia; I red in Wiki Kura-Araxes had been kind of regression compared to Leila Tepe, and maybe multicultural; some flood from North?
> South-Caucasus seems attractive for PIE but spite my ancientopinions about Renfrew I begin to wonder if Tripolye could not have played an important role in IE genesis?
> So for me, "game is not over"



After finally getting through all the supplementary material, I think this paper, like the one on South Asia, doesn't really provide the genetic data to completely support the conclusions, even if in this paper the conclusions are called "possibilities". 

At this point, I have more questions than answers.

----------


## Ygorcs

> If European farmers were speaking a language related to Etruscan there would have been an Etruscan-related substrate in all European IE languages.
> I associate early Etruscans with Central European pile dwellers.'


If you think that for Etruscans to be descended from Anatolian farmers we'd have to see an Etruscan-like substrate in all European IE languages, then who do you think those pre-Etruscan CE pile dwellers were if not descendants of at least one branch of Anatolian-derived EEF? I honestly don't think we can presume that the Anatolian Neolithic colonization of Europe happened with just one language group involved in it. Why should we think that the entire European continent spoke just 1 language family (the same directly ancestral to Etruscan) when IEs arrived, especially given that the Anatolian immigration had happened more than 3000 years earlier?

----------


## Ygorcs

> Hi. You might find the answers here: 
> *https://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo...ra-araxes-8426
> *
> Remember... there is a reason Lab rats are avoiding publishing Shulaveri. Everyone surrounding Shulaveri , earlier and later, have already been published. Not them tough.


Why would they conspire against the Shulaveri-Shomu if it would even help them advance the very hypothesis they seam to lean to and have been finding more worth investigating, which is the South Caucasus homeland? I think you're fantasizing too much on this specific point.

----------


## Ygorcs

> After finally getting through all the supplementary material, I think this paper, like the one on South Asia, doesn't really provide the genetic data to completely support the conclusions, even if in this paper the conclusions are called "possibilities". 
> 
> At this point, I have more questions than answers.


My thoughts. I think those who have read these results and are now claiming victory for one of their "homeland" models, which are now looking increasingly simplistic, must have not read very carefully or are too blinded by wishful thinking. This study, while fascinating, only made everything even more confusing and uncertain. LOL

----------


## Angela

> I find strange some admixtures tries, above: GAC input without any WHG??? so their HG's would have been only EHG from Ukraine?* in Eurogenes I think I red the Steppes Maykop had some 'siberian' or 'american' input, so something from far East?*
> aside of this, I don't know it these people did IBD approaches? 
> concerning Mycenia, they show in some admixtures (GENERETIKER, amateur it's true) slight but maybe significative differences with Minoans (BTW these last ones would show some far East auDNA too, spite very light); Mycenia appears with less 'westasian', more 'HG' but this 'HG' is not 'WHG' for the most, but 'EHG'; more 'EHG' with less 'westasian', this doesn't point to a South Caucasus/Anatolia route...
> I found confusing the three last studies about Caucasus Steppes and SCAsia -
> I 'm still about R1b-L23 born in Armenia or Azebaidjan and have not made my thought about steppe or no steppe in metals ages Armenia; I red in Wiki Kura-Araxes had been kind of regression compared to Leila Tepe, and maybe multicultural; some flood from North?
> South-Caucasus seems attractive for PIE but spite my ancientopinions about Renfrew I begin to wonder if Tripolye could not have played an important role in IE genesis?
> So for me, "game is not over"


You can see it upthread in the Admixture chart.

Maybe you'd find this helpful from the Razib Khan link I posted:

"Another curious nugget in their results is that there was early detection of both Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE) ancestry and, some East Eurasian gene flow (related to Han Chinese). One of their individuals carries the East Eurasian variant of _EDAR_, which today is only found in Finns, though it was found in reasonable frequencies among the Motala hunter-gatherers of Scandinavia. Additionally, Fu et al. 2016 found that the ancestors of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers received some gene flow from Eastern Eurasians as well (also in the supplements of Lazaridis et al. 2016)."

----------


## Ygorcs

> Lol their chart shows CHG in Motala, CWC more CHG than EHG please... here we going away of PIE, we are reconstructd the genetic prehistory of europe with CHG in is core.


Well, that wouldn't be completely surprising if the Yamnaya-like source of the vast majority of the autosomal ancestry of CWC was already heavily CHG (and it's been a long time since we first knew that the steppe population was ~50% CHG), and if some of the CHG-related influx into Southeastern Europe also reached Central Europe bringing even more CHG via EEF-majority populations. Even before the CWC horizon started, much (most?) of the CWC territory had already been "cleaned" from heavy WHG and EHG presence by EEF, anyway.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> If you think that for Etruscans to be descended from Anatolian farmers we'd have to see an Etruscan-like substrate in all European IE languages, then who do you think those pre-Etruscan CE pile dwellers were if not descendants of at least one branch of Anatolian-derived EEF? I honestly don't think we can presume that the Anatolian Neolithic colonization of Europe happened with just one language group involved in it. Why should we think that the entire European continent spoke just 1 language family (the same directly ancestral to Etruscan) when IEs arrived, especially given that the Anatolian immigration had happened more than 3000 years earlier?


I don't know what their genetic profile would have been. They could have descended from 'native' (pre-Neolithic) 'hunter gatherers' who could have acquired admixture from LBK and then expanded in a region which was _genetically_ Mycenaean-like (Tuscany), if I interpret the ancient sources correctly.

Concerning the substrate my comment was about those who believe that EEFs/ANFs were speaking Etruscan-related languages. I don't believe that is something that can be supported.

Those who expanded from the same source (wherever that was) in the Neolithic could have spoken languages that belonged to the same language family.

----------


## Angela

Razib Khan is also grappling with the timing questions:

*"The close relationship of Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages is obvious to any speaker of either of these languages* (I can speak some Bengali). A divergence in the range of 4 to 5 thousand years before the present seems most likely to me. But the relationship of the other Indo-European languages is much less clear.
One of the arguments in Peter Bellwood’s First Farmers is that the Indo-European languages exhibit a “rake-like” topology with the exception of Indo-Iranian, which forms a clear clade. To him and others in his camp, this argues for deep divergences very early in time.
It is hard to deny that the steppe migrations between 4 and 5 thousand years ago had something to do with the distribution of modern Indo-European languages. But, it is harder to falsify the model that there were earlier Indo-European migrations, perhaps out of the Near East, that preceded these. Only a deeper understanding of linguistic evolution, and multidisciplinary analysis of regional substrates will generate the clarity we need."


On the relevance of steppe in Hittites:

"More interesting are the results in West Asia, and the linguistic supplement. In the authors note that tablets now indicate an Indo-Aryan presence in Syria ~1750 BC. Second, Assyrian merchants record Indo-European Hittite, or _Nesili(the people of Nesa), as early as ~2500 BC.

"_The main aspect I’d bring up with this is that in other areas *steppe ancestry has spread deeply and widely into the population, including non-Indo-European ones. It is certainly possible that the sample is not needed enough to pick up the genuinely Hittite elite, but I probably lean to the likelihood that the steppe signal won’t be found. It seems that the Anatolian languages were already diversified by ~2000 BC, and perhaps earlier. Linguists have long suggested that they are the outgroup to other Indo-European languages, though this could just be a function of their isolation among highly settled and socially complex populations."*

----------


## Ygorcs

> I don't know what their genetic profile would have been. They could have descended from 'native' (pre-Neolithic) 'hunter gatherers' who could have acquired admixture from LBK and then expanded in a region which was _genetically_ Mycenaean-like (Tuscany), if I interpret the ancient sources correctly.
> 
> Concerning the substrate my comment was about those who believe that EEFs/ANFs were speaking Etruscan-related languages. I don't believe that is something that can be supported.
> 
> Those who expanded from the same source (wherever that was) in the Neolithic could have spoken languages that belonged to the same language family.


I see. Do you know if there is an (apparent) common pre-IE substrate in all European branches of IE? I think there were some hypothesis, including the "Vasconic" one, but most of them were discredited by most linguists, and AFAIK the mainstream position has been that there is no demonstrated common thread between the non-IE substrates in all of Europe... I remember reading that there were some very similar non-IE borrowings in Germanic and Greek, but they were also not particularly similar to Basque. These results are the main reason why I think it is perfectly plausible that the Anatolian Neolithic spread to Europe could have involved two or more linguistically differentiated populations (we already know, at least, that they took two totally different routes of expansion, maybe that indicated also a different tribal/cultural identity?), or maybe the linguistic evolution was very rapid and intense, creating highly diverged subfamilies, in the 3,000-3,500 years before the IEs absorbed the EEF.

----------


## IronSide

> I see. Do you know if there is an (apparent) common pre-IE substrate in all European branches of IE? I think there were some hypothesis, including the "Vasconic" one, but most of them were discredited by most linguists, and AFAIK the mainstream position has been that there is no demonstrated common thread between the non-IE substrates in all of Europe... I remember reading that there were some very similar non-IE borrowings in Germanic and Greek, but they were also not particularly similar to Basque. These results are the main reason why I think it is perfectly plausible that the Anatolian Neolithic spread to Europe could have involved two or more linguistically differentiated populations (we already know, at least, that they took two totally different routes of expansion, maybe that indicated also a different tribal/cultural identity?), or maybe the linguistic evolution was very rapid and intense, creating highly diverged subfamilies, in the 3,000-3,500 years before the IEs absorbed the EEF.


Well, I'm no linguist, but I noticed that "gods" in Etruscan means "aisar", reminded me of the æsir of Norse mythology.

The other theory on Etruscan origins is a migration from Anatolia in the Iron Age, but Etruscan territory has a striking one to one correspondence to the previous Villanovan culture, which theoritically came from the north, no major disruption is found that would support the IA Anatolian model, so it does seem Etruscan descends from a farmers language, since its not IE.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

Razib Khan's inconclusive conclusions (my emphases):




> It is *hard to deny* that the steppe migrations between 4 and 5 thousand years ago had something to do with the distribution of modern Indo-European languages. But, it is *harder to falsify* the model that there were earlier Indo-European migrations, perhaps out of the Near East, that preceded these.


So, we are left with the Steppe Hypothesis being still probable ("hard to deny") and what might be called the Pre-Steppe Hypothesis being not impossible (harder to falsify). The only thing that is quite certain is that languages, cultures, and genes are muddy affairs.

To what degree are they pussyfooting around what can only be called "nationalistic" sensitivities?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> The ancient presence of CHG north of the Caucasus does indeed complicate the pattern. I wish that team of geneticists would conduct a similar scrutiny of ancient genomes from Northern Mesopotamia and the Lake Van area.
> Their kind of rather impermeable genetic frontier between Maikop and Steppe runs counter to an R1b link between NW Iran and the Steppe. What of that R1b guy in Hajji Firuz ? A stray lone wanderer ?


I’m not commenting specifically on this(!), but don’t discount the idea of social hierarchies in cultures actually involving genetic divisions between the classes. People always seem to assume that these cultures were uniform within their hierarchies - that DEFINITELY will not be the case considering the nature of many of these societies (e.g. invaders as a ruling elite, and perhaps in "the early days" where societies relied much more on intensive subsistence farming, assimilation by e.g. metallurgists, who will naturally be of a high social standing), and in many examples I expect these differences to be pronounced. Another thing to consider is that if burials are involved, you’ll be sampling more from the higher standing individuals of that culture.

We all accept that there would have been an extremely strong caste system in the midst of the Indo-Aryan invasion of South Asia, so I think the community as a whole should be more open to these kind of ideas.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> I see. Do you know if there is an (apparent) common pre-IE substrate in all European branches of IE? I think there were some hypothesis, including the "Vasconic" one, but most of them were discredited by most linguists, and AFAIK the mainstream position has been that there is no demonstrated common thread between the non-IE substrates in all of Europe... I remember reading that there were some very similar non-IE borrowings in Germanic and Greek, but they were also not particularly similar to Basque. These results are the main reason why I think it is perfectly plausible that the Anatolian Neolithic spread to Europe could have involved two or more linguistically differentiated populations (we already know, at least, that they took two totally different routes of expansion, maybe that indicated also a different tribal/cultural identity?), or maybe the linguistic evolution was very rapid and intense, creating highly diverged subfamilies, in the 3,000-3,500 years before the IEs absorbed the EEF.


I don't want to state what I believe exactly without more data but if we assume that the following map is correct (I don't know if it is), maybe related languages expanded from Anatolia to Thessaly to Danube to Northern Europe (incl. Danemark, S. Sweden), maybe also to S/SW Spain and distinct languages expanded to Italy, S. France, E Spain, Slovenia (?)

----------


## Saetrus

> The haplogroups in this set of Chalcolithic/Bronze Age South Caucasus correspond to the haplogroups that I have associated with the Kura-Araxes expansion (J2a, J1-Z1828, L1b, T1a-P77 and G2a-L293) except that they didn't find any T1a among those 12 samples (but it's not surprisingly considering the low frequency of this haplogroup in any region today).






What time frame and cultures would you associate with the arrival of south Caucasus people in Italy?

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> I’m not commenting specifically on this(!), but don’t discount the idea of social hierarchies in cultures actually involving genetic divisions between the classes. People always seem to assume that these cultures were uniform within their hierarchies - that DEFINITELY will not be the case considering the nature of many of these societies (e.g. invaders as a ruling elite, and perhaps in "the early days" where societies relied much more on intensive subsistence farming, assimilation by e.g. metallurgists, who will naturally be of a high social standing), and in many examples I expect these differences to be pronounced. Another thing to consider is that if burials are involved, you’ll be sampling more from the higher standing individuals of that culture.
> 
> We all accept that there would have been an extremely strong caste system in the midst of the Indo-Aryan invasion of South Asia, so I think the community as a whole should be more open to these kind of ideas.


The traditional IE tri-partate division: Jarls, Karls, and Thralls. The Scandinavians attributed phenotypic, not just status, differences to them.

----------


## holderlin

> if there was still bridal exchange after Anatolian farmers had arrived south of Caucasus, then there also should have been autosomal Anatolian farmer in the steppe, quod non


Yeah I don't know how people are missing this.

Bronze Age steppe is Eneolithic steppe + GAC. If any "pure CHG" was flowing into the steppe to form the steppe eneolithic populations it was long before the Caucasian samples shown in this paper, and actually it looks like its been there since MA-1. So there may be nothing "Caucasian" about it. 

We should call it "Siberian Teal"

----------


## holderlin

> Their Eneolithic steppe sample in Admixture is far more than 50% CHG. In Samara Eneolithic, the CHG gets cut down a bit by WHG and, what, East Asian? Still, more than 50%.
> 
> CHG was on the steppe very early indeed. Perhaps that's why they put in all that language about pre-existing clines.


Look at AG3 and MA-1. It's not that CHG came into the steppe early, it's that its been there since MA-1.

----------


## holderlin

> This is one thing that is bothering me in this whole "Transcaucasia vs. Steppes" discussion. I mean, if the bulk of the CHG in the Pontic-Caspian steppe populations is very ancient, having being absorbed in high proportions before 5000 BC (the lack of ANF in the steppes also indicate that early introgression), then it is, from a linguistic point of view, very hard to accept the possibility that Early PIE was a "CHG language" from the southern slopes of the Caucasus, because that would imply that Anatolian IE (or also possibly, according to this study, even much less diverged languages like Armenian and especially Greek) and the Pontic-Caspian steppe IE would've split in the 6th millennium BC. Either scientists assumed a much faster pace of linguistic evolution, or it is just impossible that the initial split of PIE happened so early.
> 
> Now, if we could demonstrate that there was a significant amount of extra CHG in the Chalcolithic Pontic-Caspian region, that could suggest a new demographic and presumably linguistic layer onto the older ethnic makeup.
> 
> As for the lack of EHG in those few "Hittite" (or at least "near to the Hittite") samples, I was thinking (okay, speculating) a bit about it from the assumption (pretty much mainstream among linguists) that Anatolian IE split much earlier than the others and probably in a very different historic context (certainly not the mobile horse-driven pastoralism of Yamnaya and descendants). It also seems from this paper that the North Caucasus, right next to the steppes, had a very different genetic structure with a much higher CHG and ANF, so I'd think it is plausible that the southernmost portions of Sredny-Stog and/or Khvalynsk in direct contact with the North Caucasus could have some substructure in a transition zone to the steppes. We know now that Maykop had EHG, which is not found further to the south, so there was some cline. If the ancestors Hittites came from this region and expanded more or less in the fashion of later IE branches into regions that were already very populated (like Greece and South Asia), then they could've migrated south becoming a relevant and dominant minority with an increasingly diluted DNA makeup, and given their very early separation from the steppe or North Caucasus populations it's probable that by the time they established in former Hattic-speaking lands to form their kingdom and empire their EHG portion was just too small to make a significant presence in the genomic makeup of the region's average inhabitant. Mere genetic drift and regional substructure could make EHG virtually invisible after a few centuries unless we had many more samples. Doesn't this type of thing happen when migrations were not that powerful to trigger an appreciable population replacement? Just playing a bit with this speculation, let's imagine this totally hypothetical (and admittedly baseless for now) scenario:
> 
> From CHG-enriched southern steppes just north of the North Caucasus (South_Steppe): *40% EHG*, 55% CHG, 5% ANF
> Admixture with (north or south?) Caucasians during the Proto-Anatolian phase: 25% South_Steppe + 75% Local Caucasians (5% EHG, 70% CHG, 25% ANF) >>> 13% EHG, 66% CHG, 8% ANF.
> Admixture with North-Central Anatolians during the Hittite phase: 20% Proto-Anatolian + 80% Hatti and other natives (0% EHG, 30% CHG, 70% ANF) >>> *2.5% EHG*, 37% CHG, 60.5% (2.5% EHG - and that's assuming that the Caucasians already had some EHG even before Maykop and that the Proto-Anatolians still made a reasonable demographic impact of ~25% and the Hittites one of ~20%, not too shabby)
> ...


Yeah I don't know what all these people are celebrating. The CHG in steppe eneolithic could not have come from the groups that everyone is trying to say spoke PIE. wtf

*sigh*

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I don't want to state what I believe exactly without more data but if we assume that the following map is correct (I don't know if it is), maybe related languages expanded from Anatolia to Thessaly to Danube to Northern Europe (incl. Danemark, S. Sweden), maybe also to S/SW Spain and distinct languages expanded to Italy, S. France, E Spain, Slovenia (?)


But isn’t the Neolithic expansion in Europe mediated by a cline of G2a farmers with I2 hunter-gatherers, originally keeping to themselves but inevitably mixing over time?

The keys to this, in my opinion, are to try and track L51 and Z2103, but also to note the clear relationship between the Balkan and Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures (The oldest examples of Swastikas and metallurgy are found here) - based on modern distributions, you’d expect this to be mediated by Z2103.

What I don’t understand is if Z2103 went on such a rampage from the Steppe, why was the post-CW IE expansion mostly mediated by L51? If Z2103 and L51 split from L23 on the Steppe (unlikely to me), what explains that Copper Age Z2103 from NW Iran?

----------


## Ownstyler

I'm not sure how the expansion of the Greek language is impacted by these findings. Greeks have both Neolithic farmer (south of Caucasus) and Bronze Age Steppe ancestry at substantial levels, so in my opinion genetic data does not change much for linguistics.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I’m not commenting specifically on this(!), but don’t discount the idea of social hierarchies in cultures actually involving genetic divisions between the classes. People always seem to assume that these cultures were uniform within their hierarchies - that DEFINITELY will not be the case considering the nature of many of these societies (e.g. invaders as a ruling elite, and perhaps in "the early days" where societies relied much more on intensive subsistence farming, assimilation by e.g. metallurgists, who will naturally be of a high social standing), and in many examples I expect these differences to be pronounced. Another thing to consider is that if burials are involved, you’ll be sampling more from the higher standing individuals of that culture.
> 
> We all accept that there would have been an extremely strong caste system in the midst of the Indo-Aryan invasion of South Asia, so I think the community as a whole should be more open to these kind of ideas.


Well, the effects of the strong and longlasting South Asian caste system can actually be very easily seen in the samples from within the very same population, because there is a substantial genetic structure even in the same place and cultural milieu. As Razib Khan recently pointed out, some of the samples from the very same region look like they came from totally different and distant regions. On the contrary, these steppe samples, as early as the Eneolithic, look heavily EHG-CHG mixed (proportions vary, but the trend is the same) and without a very starkly different autosomal makeup denoting a strongly enforced endogamy and significant internal social hierarchy based on distinct genetic/ethnic origins. At least I can see nothing suggesting that in these data.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I don't want to state what I believe exactly without more data but if we assume that the following map is correct (I don't know if it is), maybe related languages expanded from Anatolia to Thessaly to Danube to Northern Europe (incl. Danemark, S. Sweden), maybe also to S/SW Spain and distinct languages expanded to Italy, S. France, E Spain, Slovenia (?)


I also lean towards that position, though of course it probably can't be demonstrated. But it's plausible that such massive migrations didn't came exactly from just one place and the different patterns of expansion may have been correlated with different cultures/languages (and linguistic diversity in early Neolithic societies must've been really big if the example of Pre-Columbian Americas- essentially Neolithic or Chalcolithic-like - is any indication).

----------


## Ygorcs

About the presence of ANF-related ancestry in Yamnaya samples, it's important to notice that it probably did not come from the Caucasus populations bordering on the steppes, but from WHG-admixed ANF i.e. EEF in and near the westernmost steppe (I add: possibily via earlier Sredny-Stog influence, since there was one, some time ago, one published Dereivka sample with some 30% of EEF???). 

The study says: _"Importantly, our results show a subtle contribution of both Anatolian farmer-related ancestry and WHG-related ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Tables 13 and 14), which was likely contributed through Middle and Late Neolithic farming groups from adjacent regions in the West. A direct source of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry can be ruled out (Supplementary Table 15). At present, due to the limits of our resolution, we cannot identify a single best source population. However, geographically proximal and contemporaneous groups such as Globular Amphora and Eneolithic groups from the Black Sea area (Ukraine and Bulgaria), which represent all four distal sources (CHG, EHG, WHG, and Anatolian_Neolithic) are among the best supported candidates (Fig. 4; Supplementary Tables 13,14 and 15)."

_To me the results of this study seem to point out that by the time of Maykop and even before Yamnaya (considering their Eneolithic steppe samples) the overall genetic makeup of the region, as far as Caucasian influence/influx is concerned, was already consolidated. So, if a southern source of CHG is also the source of PIE spoken in the steppes, that was an earlier Neolithic phenomenon - and then I have strong doubts that any split of a Common PIE (incuding pre-Proto-Anatolian) could've happened even before that immigration into the steppe, pushing the existence of PIE even further back.

----------


## halfalp

> This is one thing that is bothering me in this whole "Transcaucasia vs. Steppes" discussion. I mean, if the bulk of the CHG in the Pontic-Caspian steppe populations is very ancient, having being absorbed in high proportions before 5000 BC (the lack of ANF in the steppes also indicate that early introgression), then it is, from a linguistic point of view, very hard to accept the possibility that Early PIE was a "CHG language" from the southern slopes of the Caucasus, because that would imply that Anatolian IE (or also possibly, according to this study, even much less diverged languages like Armenian and especially Greek) and the Pontic-Caspian steppe IE would've split in the 6th millennium BC. Either scientists assumed a much faster pace of linguistic evolution, or it is just impossible that the initial split of PIE happened so early.
> 
> *Now, if we could demonstrate that there was a significant amount of extra CHG in the Chalcolithic Pontic-Caspian region, that could suggest a new demographic and presumably linguistic layer onto the older ethnic makeup.*
> 
> As for the lack of EHG in those few "Hittite" (or at least "near to the Hittite") samples, I was thinking (okay, speculating) a bit about it from the assumption (pretty much mainstream among linguists) that Anatolian IE split much earlier than the others and probably in a very different historic context (certainly not the mobile horse-driven pastoralism of Yamnaya and descendants). It also seems from this paper that the North Caucasus, right next to the steppes, had a very different genetic structure with a much higher CHG and ANF, so I'd think it is plausible that the southernmost portions of Sredny-Stog and/or Khvalynsk in direct contact with the North Caucasus could have some substructure in a transition zone to the steppes. We know now that Maykop had EHG, which is not found further to the south, so there was some cline. If the ancestors Hittites came from this region and expanded more or less in the fashion of later IE branches into regions that were already very populated (like Greece and South Asia), then they could've migrated south becoming a relevant and dominant minority with an increasingly diluted DNA makeup, and given their very early separation from the steppe or North Caucasus populations it's probable that by the time they established in former Hattic-speaking lands to form their kingdom and empire their EHG portion was just too small to make a significant presence in the genomic makeup of the region's average inhabitant. Mere genetic drift and regional substructure could make EHG virtually invisible after a few centuries unless we had many more samples. Doesn't this type of thing happen when migrations were not that powerful to trigger an appreciable population replacement? Just playing a bit with this speculation, let's imagine this totally hypothetical (and admittedly baseless for now) scenario:
> 
> From CHG-enriched southern steppes just north of the North Caucasus (South_Steppe): *40% EHG*, 55% CHG, 5% ANF
> Admixture with (north or south?) Caucasians during the Proto-Anatolian phase: 25% South_Steppe + 75% Local Caucasians (5% EHG, 70% CHG, 25% ANF) >>> 13% EHG, 66% CHG, 8% ANF.
> Admixture with North-Central Anatolians during the Hittite phase: 20% Proto-Anatolian + 80% Hatti and other natives (0% EHG, 30% CHG, 70% ANF) >>> *2.5% EHG*, 37% CHG, 60.5% (2.5% EHG - and that's assuming that the Caucasians already had some EHG even before Maykop and that the Proto-Anatolians still made a reasonable demographic impact of ~25% and the Hittites one of ~20%, not too shabby)
> ...


Well they actually have done it... look at their graph, CWC have more CHG than EHG, Yamnaya have more CHG than EHG. Genetically, everything is going in they way they have meant to, meaning they have the result of those samples between a long time now and that they already have create a story around them. Thats a huge meli-melo, because EHG is ANE + WHG but CHG is Iran_Neolithic + something WHG / EHG. Meaning there is no way to say what is what, Satsurblia is older than Iran_Neolithic, so what's the ancestor of Iran_Neolithic ( that have ANE ) that contribute to the early CHG ? This is really a mind breaker at this point, CHG needs to be clearly defined without any Iran_Neolithic because it is technically older than Iran_Neolithic. The response of CHG can only come from paleolithic samples of eastern europe and iran / armenian plateau. And they have create that new ANF for refute the possibility than anatolian neolithic ancestry in steppe came from EEF, i mean i'm not a complotist really, but in this study everything mingle a little too much good, more than a hundreded yamnaya samples didn't have any anatolian_neolithic at all and now in that study it pops from everywhere, but it didn't came from europe, so frome where, the caucasus ? that study is not clear at all, where in all previous studies it let place to controversy, this one tries to underground the steppe one for good, with newly created genetic notions.

----------


## halfalp

> Well, I'm no linguist, but I noticed that "gods" in Etruscan means "aisar", reminded me of the æsir of Norse mythology.
> 
> The other theory on Etruscan origins is a migration from Anatolia in the Iron Age, but Etruscan territory has a striking one to one correspondence to the previous Villanovan culture, which theoritically came from the north, no major disruption is found that would support the IA Anatolian model, so it does seem Etruscan descends from a farmers language, since its not IE.


Etruscan have a lot of obscure words that is related with obscure IE languages words. For exemple The Son is _Clan_ like in Gaelic ( Irish ) the word _Clann_ means The Childs. I'm pretty sur there is way more relative words that exists. There is a theory of the Nordwesternblock being related to a Rheatic language, itself related to Etruscan. And if i'm not wrong, etruscans were mostly y-dna J2a. If thats the case, we have two possibilities, an autochtonous origin going way back to neolithic europe and the LBK ( where substantial y-dna lineage were J2a ) wich would have borrowing with IE languages at the time of the Bell Beaker expansion from central europe to north-western europe. Or a way more younger origin in anatolia like the ancient texts says, somewhere around the bronze age collapse ( 1400BC ), maybe related to the antic Gasgas of northern anatolia ? But the fact that they borrow words related to obscure words in IE only found in continental proper europe goes more for a neolithic origin for the core of the etruscan language.

----------


## halfalp

> Razib Khan is also grappling with the timing questions:
> 
> *"The close relationship of Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages is obvious to any speaker of either of these languages* (I can speak some Bengali). A divergence in the range of 4 to 5 thousand years before the present seems most likely to me. But the relationship of the other Indo-European languages is much less clear.
> One of the arguments in Peter Bellwood’s First Farmers is that the Indo-European languages exhibit a “rake-like” topology with the exception of Indo-Iranian, which forms a clear clade. To him and others in his camp, this argues for deep divergences very early in time.
> It is hard to deny that the steppe migrations between 4 and 5 thousand years ago had something to do with the distribution of modern Indo-European languages. But, it is harder to falsify the model that there were earlier Indo-European migrations, perhaps out of the Near East, that preceded these. Only a deeper understanding of linguistic evolution, and multidisciplinary analysis of regional substrates will generate the clarity we need."
> 
> 
> On the relevance of steppe in Hittites:
> 
> ...


What would happenned autosomaly if a 50/50 CHG / EHG people would go in a 50/50 Anatolian_Neolithic / CHG population for the EHG signal ?

----------


## halfalp

Ok so i might have been completely wrong with the graph, but what is the green component because it pop as a majority in Iran_Neolithic ? And what is the red " Caucasus " component, because CHG is mainly green ? How i understand the graph is, in southern steppe, the CHG element become dominant over the EHG one and also a new component wich is the orange " Anatolian_Neolithic " pop up. But for what i see the orange component is only relevent for Maikop wich is not steppe but from south caucasus ?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Do these results support the hypothesis of R1b moving from Anatolia through the Caucasus and taking CHG women, and then further moving up and taking some EHG women, with the Kura-Araxes expansion resulting in mainly J2 taking the R1b women (yeah, I know, Y DNA is only found in men) from the stage of R1b taking women in the Caucasus?

Because that's what I think happened. It could be the other way round, with K-A forcing the R1b guys upwards instead of just expanding from the power vacuum left by R1b moving upwards.

I could also be completely wrong, but I'm just trying to model in two things I see as very likely: R1b coming from (Eastern) Anatolia, and the Kura-Araxes picking up R1b-like ancestry.

----------


## halfalp

> Do these results support the hypothesis of R1b moving from Anatolia through the Caucasus and taking CHG women, and then further moving up and taking some EHG women, with the Kura-Araxes expansion resulting in mainly J2 taking the R1b women (yeah, I know, Y DNA is only found in men) from the stage of R1b taking women in the Caucasus?
> 
> Because that's what I think happened. It could be the other way round, with K-A forcing the R1b guys upwards instead of just expanding from the power vacuum left by R1b moving upwards.
> 
> I could also be completely wrong, but I'm just trying to model in two things I see as very likely: R1b coming from (Eastern) Anatolia, and the Kura-Araxes picking up R1b-like ancestry.


Probably not, that's a very complicate hypothesis you present here. I mean people have already difficult to assume that R1b have conquered most of western europe from eastern europe in millenia, so your hypothesis looks like a Master Race Rampage over the world. It also sound a little bit, correct me if im wrong, that you would like middle-eastern to have culturally and genetically conquer europe isn it ?

----------


## Cpluskx

What do you think this? (uruk migrants in caucasus?)
http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2013...-caucasus.html

----------


## halfalp

That study shows no mesopotamian signals both in Kura-Araxes and Maikop. R1b and IE's are still no Japhetic.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Probably not, that's a very complicate hypothesis you present here. I mean people have already difficult to assume that R1b have conquered most of western europe from eastern europe in millenia, so your hypothesis looks like a Master Race Rampage over the world. It also sound a little bit, correct me if im wrong, that you would like middle-eastern to have culturally and genetically conquer europe isn it ?


This isn't some kind of Jewish fantasy I'm having of West Asians being the master race, and their descendents completely outclassing the Europeans they invaded. I just think these R1b guys picked up some CHG on the way to the Steppe - I don't think they originally were, or at the very least it doesn't make sense that they originally were given I'm set on R1b stemming from the Anatolian highlands.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> What do you think this? (uruk migrants in caucasus?)
> http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2013...-caucasus.html


Probably Ubaid rather than Uruk, but it has to stand for some genetic change. I can see R1b moving up from Mesopotamian settlements to Leyla Tepe, then to Maykop. These Chalcolithic Mesopotamian cultures trace back to the Halaf culture originally. I think that R1b guys acted as the ruling class over advanced but peasant farmers (based on the Swastika in these cultures but also phylogeny and evidence of clear social divisions based between farmers and patriarchal herders, not to mention the clear link between R1b and advanced metallurgy, and where that would put you on a social level), and that they moved down Mesopotamia (forming cultures like the Hassuna and Samarra cultures along the way). Then, they would have moved up to Leyla Tepe from during the Ubaid-Uruk transition, but the Halaf-Ubaid transition is also an interesting thing to examine (was there population replacement and population displacement here too? - if I had to guess, I'd say the Halaf-Ubaid transition was simply of the mixing of Western and Eastern farmers, who would have done most of the pottery in this kind of hierarchical society)

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Don't know why this link is on Dutch Google as the book is in English, but this book makes for great reading in understanding Halaf, Hassuna and Samarra, Ubaid, and Uruk culture. The first four seem to stem from Halaf, which according to the book has very clear links with Anatolia (not much of a surprise considering how close it is to Anatolia, but the link being there nonetheless strengthens my theory (well, I say my theory - most of it is Maciamo's)). Uruk, on the other hand, seems to be much more concentrated in Southern Mesopotamia, which to me (along with the fact that they said it themselves!) says the Sumerians invaded the Ubaidians (perhaps invasion through assimilation though, I'm not sure).

Sometime during this Ubaid-Uruk transition is when the R1b guys I imagine as the ruling class moving down Mesopotamia supported by farmers actually pack their bags and head for Leyla Tepe. Through what means I'm not sure, but I can see them being replaced by J2, which I see as having been around in the Caucasus and Zagros regions during the early Chalcolithic at least.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=klZ...page&q&f=false

Also worth mentioning that of course the segregation would not be total at all and intra-class mixing would occur all the time, the only thing being I think it would be mostly from mating women from the lower class - as happened in almost all societies.

----------


## Johane Derite

In Iran Assyrians and Zoroastrians are interesting in terms of R1b. Abrahamic religion took a lot from Zoroastrians:

----------


## Johane Derite

Also this Ydna void from the Caucasus seems almost like a set up for the next moment to come. 

It feels as if the authors are aware of something and withholding and setting it up so that the next paper that comes out is almost like a final act in a narrative.

----------


## hrvclv

From Wiki : "The appearance of the Ubaid folk has sometimes been linked to the so-called Sumerian problem, related to the origins of Sumerian civilisation. Whatever the ethnic origins of this group, this culture saw for the first time a clear tripartite social division between intensive subsistence peasant *farmers*, with crops and animals coming from the north, tent-dwelling nomadic *pastoralists* dependent upon their herds, and *hunter-fisher* folk of the Arabian littoral, living in reed huts."

Hunters, farmers, herders... living side by side. Did they mix, or ignore/exploit each other ? Did some of them move on ?

An unusual social structure anyway - which leaves plenty of options open...

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Also this Ydna void from the Caucasus seems almost like a set up for the next moment to come. 
> 
> It feels as if the authors are aware of something and withholding and setting it up so that the next paper that comes out is almost like a final act in a narrative.


Johane, agree.
And most people do not seem to "get it" (mostly in other forums). this paper is about setting straight the record of who Maykop were. Nothing else. Now we know.

So, the paper has nothing to do with PIE, or R1B, etc. Just look at the staggering number of Y dna L in there. Like the ones found in Kura araxes and pretty clear the NEW component that made the south caucasus mix AFTER 4.900B.C. , after the disappearance of the Shulaveri. - Its obvious, that the last chapter will be about the Shulaveri and their dispersal to Steppe and Southeastern Balkans.

----------


## MOESAN

Thanks, John Derite, for the table of Y-haplo's in iran - the question is: very too small sample for Assyrians here!

----------


## Johane Derite

> Thanks, John Derite, for the table of Y-haplo's in iran - the question is: very too small sample for Assyrians here!


Yes I totally agree, it annoyed me quite a bit also. But I wasn't able to find any other study that did all of Irans different peoples neatly like this. The paper is from 2012, so its very old now, maybe someone
has done something more in depth.

Anyway when you dont have much to work with, better to keep working than wait imo.

Pluto 1994 vs Pluto 2018:



*LINK:* http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0041252

----------


## Promenade

I think we can all agree that this era in the Caucasus/South Steppe was not one of great migrations of people, but rather of great ideas. Novel technologies such as wagons and knowledge of sophisticated metallurgy were being transported quite rapidly by intrepid individuals, but they were few and did not influence the genetic composition of the steppe as we can see in Steppe and Caucasus samples who do not even share a single y-dna haplogroup and the stability of the autosomal admixture in the steppe. Different cultures of close proximity were also interpreting this technology through separate lenses with steppe people focusing on the wagons and Maykop focusing on the animals that pulled them, interestingly enough neither saw them as status markers at first. We can assume this migration of ideas did not usurp the original language of the steppe either as this technology was spread over the middle east and we still see a rich diversity of languages there centuries later. Maykop has been hypothesized to be both Kartvelian and Northwest Caucasian, considering the NW Caucasians supposed relationship with IE and the distribution of modern NW Caucasian speakers I'd say the latter is more likely. Everyone here has the right idea and looking further back in time to the original source of CHG (and cattle) in the steppe as the progenitors of what would eventually become PIE/LPIE or whatever term you wish to call it, this also gives more time for Anatolian languages if the Indo-Hittite theory is correct.





> From Wiki : "The appearance of the Ubaid folk has sometimes been linked to the so-called Sumerian problem, related to the origins of Sumerian civilisation. Whatever the ethnic origins of this group, this culture saw for the first time a clear tripartite social division between intensive subsistence peasant *farmers*, with crops and animals coming from the north, tent-dwelling nomadic *pastoralists* dependent upon their herds, and *hunter-fisher* folk of the Arabian littoral, living in reed huts."
> 
> Hunters, farmers, herders... living side by side. Did they mix, or ignore/exploit each other ? Did some of them move on ?
> 
> An unusual social structure anyway - which leaves plenty of options open...


It's not too unusual, this is exactly what was going on in South Asia during the IVC, but in India it was a stable system that lasted for much longer. It does give me a farfetched idea though, there have been theories that much of the mideast was a sprachbund where separate languages were used depending on the context of the conversation e.g you use a different language in mercantile, pastoral, religious or urban related situations. Is it possible that the original PIE or so called EPIE was the language of the pastoralists?

----------


## johen

> Also this Ydna void from the Caucasus seems almost like a set up for the next moment to come. 
> 
> It feels as if the authors are aware of something and withholding and setting it up so that the next paper that comes out is almost like a final act in a narrative.


I don’t know, but the assyians have no M73. So is it possible for only M269 to cross over the caucasus? 
We have yamna M269, eneolithic steppe R1b(?) and botai M73 in the steppe.

So I think Bolshemysskaya P297 sample in Altai would be connected the R1b and the M73.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> From Wiki : "The appearance of the Ubaid folk has sometimes been linked to the so-called Sumerian problem, related to the origins of Sumerian civilisation. Whatever the ethnic origins of this group, this culture saw for the first time a clear tripartite social division between intensive subsistence peasant *farmers*, with crops and animals coming from the north, tent-dwelling nomadic *pastoralists* dependent upon their herds, and *hunter-fisher* folk of the Arabian littoral, living in reed huts."
> 
> Hunters, farmers, herders... living side by side. Did they mix, or ignore/exploit each other ? Did some of them move on ?
> 
> An unusual social structure anyway - which leaves plenty of options open...


Yup, mentioned this earlier on in a different thread - and this thread too I think.

Expect more R1b, and later J2.

----------


## epoch

> Did you even bother reading the paper? This paper burried your Steppes hypothesis finally. Even the authors themselve say this. Embarrassing.


Did you bother to read it? Because this paper doesn't even remotely bury the steppe theory. If anything, it buries the south of the Caucasus theory. Because, if the PIE homeland is there, how did late PIE get in the steppe? Not by males. And that is what this paper's data says.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Did you bother to read it? Because this paper doesn't even remotely bury the steppe theory. If anything, it buries the south of the Caucasus theory. Because, if the PIE homeland is there, how did late PIE get in the steppe? Not by males. And that is what this paper's data says.


Is there data from the early Maykop period not in the Steppe?

Also am I right in saying Maykop samples are either from the Steppe or just south in the higher lands?

----------


## Sile

> In Iran Assyrians and Zoroastrians are interesting in terms of R1b. Abrahamic religion took a lot from Zoroastrians:


it would seem that the R1b you mentioned came via the north caucasus on the black sea side as none appear with the kurds who came to eastern turkey via Gilan province south caspian sea area

----------


## Ygorcs

> Well they actually have done it... look at their graph, CWC have more CHG than EHG, Yamnaya have more CHG than EHG. Genetically, everything is going in they way they have meant to, meaning they have the result of those samples between a long time now and that they already have create a story around them. Thats a huge meli-melo, because EHG is ANE + WHG but CHG is Iran_Neolithic + something WHG / EHG. Meaning there is no way to say what is what, Satsurblia is older than Iran_Neolithic, so what's the ancestor of Iran_Neolithic ( that have ANE ) that contribute to the early CHG ? This is really a mind breaker at this point, CHG needs to be clearly defined without any Iran_Neolithic because it is technically older than Iran_Neolithic. The response of CHG can only come from paleolithic samples of eastern europe and iran / armenian plateau. And they have create that new ANF for refute the possibility than anatolian neolithic ancestry in steppe came from EEF, i mean i'm not a complotist really, but in this study everything mingle a little too much good, more than a hundreded yamnaya samples didn't have any anatolian_neolithic at all and now in that study it pops from everywhere, but it didn't came from europe, so frome where, the caucasus ? that study is not clear at all, where in all previous studies it let place to controversy, this one tries to underground the steppe one for good, with newly created genetic notions.


If they did, I missed it. As far as I can see, the very large percentage of CHG that they present are there in the steppe populations since a very early time, it's already present in large proportions in the Eneolithic samples. So, it does not seem like that they found that "extra CHG" that I'm talking about. I'm not talking about an "extra" amount of CHG in relation to other studies, but in terms of comparing the earliest with the latest steppe samples, that is, a diachronic increase in CHG ancestry during the Eneolithic until the Yamnaya expansion, which would suggest that "CHG-led Indo-Europeanization" of the steppe that the South Caucasus hypothesis relies on. That does not seem to have happened. If the influx of CHG happened before those Eneolithic ~4300 BC samples then it wasn't even related to any big economic revolution, like farming and pastoralism, because the bulk of these changes came to the steppes later.

Actually even Eurogenes in his blog had repeatedly posted about Yamnaya samples showing some minor ANF or more specifically EEF-derived ancestry. It's just that the scientists' data were much less numerous and comprehensive until a few years ago. Also, EEF had already been identified years ago in significant proportions in a few Sredny Stog individuals just west of Yamanaya, in the steppes, so it would be really unbelievable if not even the later stages of Yamnaya, when it basically absorbed and superseded Sredny Stog, did not show any EEF ancestry. So, if even knowledgeable amateurs like Davidski noticed that more than two years ago, I'm pretty sure most scientists already believed it was a possible outcome, too.

Also, I don't know where you took this idea that "they have create that new ANF for refute the possibility than anatolian neolithic ancestry in steppe came from EEF". Actually what they say in the study is exactly the opposite, that there was no ANF ancestry in earlier steppe samples and when it appears it comes together with WHG, so it probably came from EEF via the western EEF societies in Ukraine/Bulgaria/Romania. As far as I've understood they don't say most of it came from the Caucasus ANF/CHG mix at all.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Ok so i might have been completely wrong with the graph, but what is the green component because it pop as a majority in Iran_Neolithic ? And what is the red " Caucasus " component, because CHG is mainly green ? How i understand the graph is, in southern steppe, the CHG element become dominant over the EHG one and also a new component wich is the orange " Anatolian_Neolithic " pop up. But for what i see the orange component is only relevent for Maikop wich is not steppe but from south caucasus ?


I think those components do not mark more specific post-Neolithic Revolution admixtures like CHG, EHG or Iran_Neolithic. See that even these most ancient admixtures look like mixtures of some of these components, so they're probably indicating Paleolithic genetic structures. I'd say the green component is something ANE-related, because we can see CHG, EHG and Iran_Neolithic had it.

----------


## halfalp

> If they did, I missed it. As far as I can see, the very large percentage of CHG that they present are there in the steppe populations since a very early time, it's already present in large proportions in the Eneolithic samples. So, it does not seem like that they found that "extra CHG" that I'm talking about. I'm not talking about an "extra" amount of CHG in relation to other studies, but in terms of comparing the earliest with the latest steppe samples, that is, a diachronic increase in CHG ancestry during the Eneolithic until the Yamnaya expansion, which would suggest that "CHG-led Indo-Europeanization" of the steppe that the South Caucasus hypothesis relies on. That does not seem to have happened. If the influx of CHG happened before those Eneolithic ~4300 BC samples then it wasn't even related to any big economic revolution, like farming and pastoralism, because the bulk of these changes came to the steppes later.
> 
> Actually even Eurogenes in his blog had repeatedly posted about Yamnaya samples showing some minor ANF or more specifically EEF-derived ancestry. It's just that the scientists' data were much less numerous and comprehensive until a few years ago. Also, EEF had already been identified years ago in significant proportions in a few Sredny Stog individuals just west of Yamanaya, in the steppes, so it would be really unbelievable if not even the later stages of Yamnaya, when it basically absorbed and superseded Sredny Stog, did not show any EEF ancestry. So, if even knowledgeable amateurs like Davidski noticed that more than two years ago, I'm pretty sure most scientists already believed it was a possible outcome, too.
> 
> Also, I don't know where you took this idea that "they have create that new ANF for refute the possibility than anatolian neolithic ancestry in steppe came from EEF". Actually what they say in the study is exactly the opposite, that there was no ANF ancestry in earlier steppe samples and when it appears it comes together with WHG, so it probably came from EEF via the western EEF societies in Ukraine/Bulgaria/Romania. As far as I've understood they don't say most of it came from the Caucasus ANF/CHG mix at all.


Yes i know that Davidski have say that there would be EEF in steppe between a long time. Why change EEF for ANF so ? because as far as i know their ANF is the same to south caucasus, so why not say EEF = ANF + WHG ? For the graph its all over the topic, the green component ( CHG ? ) pop in Motala.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Do these results support the hypothesis of R1b moving from Anatolia through the Caucasus and taking CHG women, and then further moving up and taking some EHG women, with the Kura-Araxes expansion resulting in mainly J2 taking the R1b women (yeah, I know, Y DNA is only found in men) from the stage of R1b taking women in the Caucasus?
> 
> Because that's what I think happened. It could be the other way round, with K-A forcing the R1b guys upwards instead of just expanding from the power vacuum left by R1b moving upwards.
> 
> I could also be completely wrong, but I'm just trying to model in two things I see as very likely: R1b coming from (Eastern) Anatolia, and the Kura-Araxes picking up R1b-like ancestry.


That isn't very likely because of dating. Even before 4000 BC (the rough time of Kura-Araxes and Maykop was began in the 4th milennium BC, so a bit later) the CHG component and the R1b haplogroup was already found in the steppes. That migration from the Caucasus to the steppes could've happened, but it would've happened in an earlier historic context (not with Kura-Araxes, Yamnaya and Maykop so on), and you'd have first to establish what autosomal ancestry was mainly found in those R1b males, because if they were autosomally different, then they took CHG women and mixed with them and then they arrived in the steppes and took EHG women, then we certainly wouldn't expect the Chalcolithic steppe to be almost entirely EHG+CHG, as if the autosomal contribution of those R1b men had simply vanished completely. Unless, of course, the "R1b men" were just a small minority (but if they were then why are almost all the steppe males R1b? Not very likely IMHO), or they were already fully CHG just like the CHG women they took before moving into the steppes. In any case, if I were you I'd look for earlier Neolithic cultures, not those of the Copper Age and Early Bronze Age. The real "boom" of CHG in the steppes doesn't look to be that comparatively recent.

----------


## Promenade

To the one who found my post unhelpful, you can elaborate about what you found unhelpful and we can deliberate and have a conversation about it that we may both find helpful in the end.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Yes i know that Davidski have say that there would be EEF in steppe between a long time. Why change EEF for ANF so ? because as far as i know their ANF is the same to south caucasus, so why not say EEF = ANF + WHG ? For the graph its all over the topic, the green component ( CHG ? ) pop in Motala.


They didn't. EEF vs. ANF is a terminology that has been used for years, did you somehow miss that? ANF needs to be distinguished from EEF especially in an Asian or Europe-Asia border context. I think they don't say that EEF = ANF + WHG because, firstly, because everyone knows that by now, and secondly because WHG and ANF may theoretically have come to some place in different waves and not from the same genetic structure that created EEF (there was certainly genetic drift and differentiation by isolation between certain strands of WHG and other WHG absorbed by EEF, and ditto for ANF). They can and did test if that increase in ANF and WHG in the steppes fits better with separate routes than with an arrival together as part of EEF - and they confirm that it's much more likely that it came with EEF populations.

Also, as I said in other answer, I don't really think the green component is CHG. CHG looks like a mix of that green component with other admixtures, so by definition it can't be defined as that green component. It looks more like something ANE-related or a broadly North Eurasian ancient admixture - and I wouldn't be surprised at all that Motala had it.

----------


## Ygorcs

> To the one who found my post unhelpful, you can elaborate about what you found unhelpful and we can deliberate and have a conversation about it that we may both find helpful in the end.


Right, I also noticed that. Isn't it ludicrous that someone disagreed so strongly and absolutely with what you said that they felt they should give your post a negative rating, yet does not care to write anything even if just to enlighten other people about the "truth" and avoid people from believing wrong stuff? Or maybe, well, the negative rating means just "I didn't like it, this is so inconvenient to my stubbornly held beliefs", and there is not much else to say. LOL

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Johane, agree.And most people do not seem to "get it" (mostly in other forums). this paper is about setting straight the record of who Maykop were. Nothing else. Now we know.So, the paper has nothing to do with PIE, or R1B, etc. Just look at the staggering number of Y dna L in there. Like the ones found in Kura araxes and pretty clear the NEW component that made the south caucasus mix AFTER 4.900B.C. , after the disappearance of the Shulaveri. - Its obvious, that the last chapter will be about the Shulaveri and their dispersal to Steppe and Southeastern Balkans.


Please, without rambling, why do you think Shulaveri went to the Balkans?

----------


## halfalp

It's then pretty confusing to see south caucasus 30% ANF and Yamnaya ANF too. if yamnaya is ANF and not EEF it means Anatolian_Neolithic came from south caucasus. EEF is anatolian_farmer + WHG = european farmer. ANF is just anatolian_neolithic, so if anatolian_neolithic is in steppe without WHG, why are they saying ANF with something WHG and not EEF ? And the green is CHG it's says in the graphics, i didn't understand first because iran_chalcolithic is like 80% CHG, but it says in the graph that this is CHG.

----------


## berun

It would be convenient to take into account the ecosystem as to understand old migrations: EEF or ANF would'nt be much interested in bare lands with no possibility to grow crops, for farmers the steppe was a desert, instead, for herders the steppe was a wide land free to colonize. The line dividing steppe and Caucasus in the map is telling well what I'm suggesting, it was an invisible frontier.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> That isn't very likely because of dating. Even before 4000 BC (the rough time of Kura-Araxes and Maykop was began in the 4th milennium BC, so a bit later) the CHG component and the R1b haplogroup was already found in the steppes. That migration from the Caucasus to the steppes could've happened, but it would've happened in an earlier historic context (not with Kura-Araxes, Yamnaya and Maykop so on), and you'd have first to establish what autosomal ancestry was mainly found in those R1b males, because if they were autosomally different, then they took CHG women and mixed with them and then they arrived in the steppes and took EHG women, then we certainly wouldn't expect the Chalcolithic steppe to be almost entirely EHG+CHG, as if the autosomal contribution of those R1b men had simply vanished completely. Unless, of course, the "R1b men" were just a small minority (but if they were then why are almost all the steppe males R1b? Not very likely IMHO), or they were already fully CHG just like the CHG women they took before moving into the steppes. In any case, if I were you I'd look for earlier Neolithic cultures, not those of the Copper Age and Early Bronze Age. The real "boom" of CHG in the steppes doesn't look to be that comparatively recent.


Why can’t there be two waves? If it’s of any relevance, I think the CWC is mostly separate from Yamnaya (phenotypically they are extremely different, but they also had a completely different Y DNA profile, lacking metallurgy skills etc.), so I agree that given CHG is found in abundance amongst the CWC, the migration bringing CHG to the Steppe must be pretty old. One thing of interest is that, according to Coon at least, the stone battle axes used by the CWC heavily resemble copper variants in Sumeria (I’m just taking that to mean roughly in the area, not enough information was given to pinpoint it to a culture (that I could find)). Then there’s also further links in the form of R1a originally (a long time ago though, even compared to the Chalcolithic) supposedly forming roughly in that region (according to Underhill), but also the clear parallels between the Corded and Iranid phenotypes - these parallels are too obvious for them not to have common origins.


What about a second wave though, from Maykop, bringing Z2103 and metallurgy? Why couldn’t it have happened around the time of Maykop? What about that Copper Age Iranian Z2103 that was mostly Anatolian + Iranian Neolithic (correct me if I’m wrong)? And what about other things to note, such as the clear parallels in things like Chalcolithic pottery between Mesopotamia and the Balkans, and also Swastikas found in both areas?

What really, REALLY puzzles me though, and I hope I’m misreading this, but how on Earth are the Maykop Steppe samples so EHG - far more than contemporary and even previous Steppe cultures (I think)? Also, one final thing - the paper shows similar mtDNA profiles between the Steppe and the Caucasus, but do they say where they’re getting their samples from for each? Is it just the Steppe (North) Maykop and the Caucasus (South) Maykop? Because if that is the case, we could learn a lot from comparing it to Yamnaya (and Corded Ware) mtDNA profiles...

----------


## berun

R1b-Z2105 could be a clade of herders, they can colonize much more lands than farmers and much more faster. If coming from the south some pockets would be found in the Caucasian highlands.

----------


## epoch

> It's then pretty confusing to see south caucasus 30% ANF and Yamnaya ANF too. if yamnaya is ANF and not EEF it means Anatolian_Neolithic came from south caucasus. EEF is anatolian_farmer + WHG = european farmer. ANF is just anatolian_neolithic, so if anatolian_neolithic is in steppe without WHG, why are they saying ANF with something WHG and not EEF ? And the green is CHG it's says in the graphics, i didn't understand first because iran_chalcolithic is like 80% CHG, but it says in the graph that this is CHG.


Possibly because using the abbrevation EEF you'd suggest an European origin and ANF + WHG is more neutral. However, considering the fact that some of the first signs of pastoralism on the Pontic steppe is by a culture - Usatovo - associated with Cucuteni-Tripoli you can make the guess where it came from.

https://www.academia.edu/11290674/De...chwarzmeerraum

----------


## Ygorcs

> I think we can all agree that this era in the Caucasus/South Steppe was not one of great migrations of people, but rather of great ideas. Novel technologies such as wagons and knowledge of sophisticated metallurgy were being transported quite rapidly by intrepid individuals, but they were few and did not influence the genetic composition of the steppe as we can see in Steppe and Caucasus samples who do not even share a single y-dna haplogroup and the stability of the autosomal admixture in the steppe. Different cultures of close proximity were also interpreting this technology through separate lenses with steppe people focusing on the wagons and Maykop focusing on the animals that pulled them, interestingly enough neither saw them as status markers at first. We can assume this migration of ideas did not usurp the original language of the steppe either as this technology was spread over the middle east and we still see a rich diversity of languages there centuries later. Maykop has been hypothesized to be both Kartvelian and Northwest Caucasian, considering the NW Caucasians supposed relationship with IE and the distribution of modern NW Caucasian speakers I'd say the latter is more likely. Everyone here has the right idea and looking further back in time to the original source of CHG (and cattle) in the steppe as the progenitors of what would eventually become PIE/LPIE or whatever term you wish to call it, this also gives more time for Anatolian languages if the Indo-Hittite theory is correct.


This is also what I'm seeing and concluding from the data of this coupled with previous recent studies. No doubt Pre-PIE could've (possibility, no hard proof until now) come from the Caucasus of Transcaucasia with CHG-majority people, but it looks like the IE expansion, probably even including the Anatolian branch, would've begun not with this CHG northward migration, but only with a language already firmly consolidated in the Pontic-Caspian region (in the steppe or in the since centuries earlier (and possibly significantly changed by an EHG substrate and phonological influence, as well as simple internal dynamics - remember the Kortlandt hypothesis of a "mixed" Eurasian language imposed onto a Caucasian one?).

If the scientists managed to find a profound CHG vs. EHG cline in the steppes, with some region concentrating much more CHG and less EHG than others, then I think the apparent lack of EHG in the few samples of arguably Hittite-dominated lands in BA Anatolia can be explained (as I demonstrated above, even an original Pre-Anatolian PIE tribe with a full 40% EHG could easily yield just 2.5% of EHG in BA Anatolia), without needing to resort to an unlikely scenario where PIE was spoken south and north of the Caucasus in the Copper Age circa 4000-3500 BC, but there was no significant autosomal and Y-DNA exchange between the two regions in the same period.

----------


## Ygorcs

> It's then pretty confusing to see south caucasus 30% ANF and Yamnaya ANF too. if yamnaya is ANF and not EEF it means Anatolian_Neolithic came from south caucasus. EEF is anatolian_farmer + WHG = european farmer. ANF is just anatolian_neolithic, so if anatolian_neolithic is in steppe without WHG, why are they saying ANF with something WHG and not EEF ? And the green is CHG it's says in the graphics, i didn't understand first because iran_chalcolithic is like 80% CHG, but it says in the graph that this is CHG.


I had missed those labels, but then I agree it's really confusing, because even their samples labeled "CHG" are not completely green. And Iran_Neolithic and CHG are usually considered to be related, not one descending from the other. Weird terminology, indeed.

----------


## Ygorcs

> What about a second wave though, from Maykop, bringing Z2103 and metallurgy? Why couldn’t it have happened around the time of Maykop? What about that Copper Age Iranian Z2103 that was mostly Anatolian + Iranian Neolithic (correct me if I’m wrong)? And what about other things to note, such as the clear parallels in things like Chalcolithic pottery between Mesopotamia and the Balkans, and also Swastikas found in both areas?


Well, it COULD, but we can't say that it is LIKELY that that happened until we find an appreciable amount of Z2103 in Maykop, and if later studies prove that there was indeed a 2nd heavy genetic impact from CHG-majority Caucasian populations onto the steppes. That isn't clear in this study, what we see is actually that by the Copper Age and afterwards, in Yamnaya, there was no sign of any major change either in the Y-DNA distribution or in the autosomal admixtures mainly found in the steppe populations. An important migration of a more advanced and powerful people, but leaving very few genetic impact? Not very likely. But you could still be right. We just need more data that fit this hypothesis.

As for that Chalcolithic Iranian Z2103, I think we should wait the final publication, because the Y-DNA in that preprint were all over the place, including some very obvious and virtually unbelievable mistakes. In any case, if that Z2103 in Hajji Firuz had a lot of Anatolian and Iranian Neolithic, then they can't be the best source of Z2103, because by the Chalcolithic there were already a lot of R1b-Z2103 in the steppes and they were associated with an almost entirely EHG+CHG autosomal ancestry.

As for swastikas, as I already told you in another topic I don't think we can connect the spread of a symbol with a genetic expansion, especially when we know that that symbol was found in EEF-majority Balkans, ANF/Levant-majority Mesopotamia, EHG/CHG-majority steppes and so on. It doesn't look like it came inside a coherent and exclusive package together with just one specific expansive population.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Johane, agree.
> And most people do not seem to "get it" (mostly in other forums). this paper is about setting straight the record of who Maykop were. Nothing else. Now we know.
> 
> So, the paper has nothing to do with PIE, or R1B, etc. Just look at the staggering number of Y dna L in there. Like the ones found in Kura araxes and pretty clear the NEW component that made the south caucasus mix AFTER 4.900B.C. , after the disappearance of the Shulaveri. - Its obvious, that the last chapter will be about the Shulaveri and their dispersal to Steppe and Southeastern Balkans.


What Balkanic culture do you think was associated with this later dispersal to Southeastern Balkans contemporary to the dispersal to Steppe? Your hypothesis at least has the big advantage of having a credible dating to before the Eneolithic ~4500 BC, so probably when CHG was still entering massively into the steppes and when PIE was still (probably) one common, undivided language.

----------


## Angela

> To the one who found my post unhelpful, you can elaborate about what you found unhelpful and we can deliberate and have a conversation about it that we may both find helpful in the end.


Yes, I'd like to see an explanation. It was a good post which I would have given an upvote if I had any "juice" left.

----------


## Cpluskx

It's interesting that some of our commenters here are reaching a different conclusion than the authors of the paper. I think we will have to wait for more papers and data.

----------


## Ygorcs

> It would be convenient to take into account the ecosystem as to understand old migrations: EEF or ANF would'nt be much interested in bare lands with no possibility to grow crops, for farmers the steppe was a desert, instead, for herders the steppe was a wide land free to colonize. The line dividing steppe and Caucasus in the map is telling well what I'm suggesting, it was an invisible frontier.


I agree as a whole, but can we really make it a sort of "historical rule"? Weren't the Cucuteni-Tripolye very successful occupying a large part of the westernmost Pontic-Casian steppe and forest-steppe between the Bug and Dniester?

----------


## halfalp

I might be wrong at end of the day but looking at the graphic, orange is ANF, blue is EHG and green is CHG. I might read the graphic completely wrong but even EHG have substantial part of CHG, even Mal'ta have CHG, so has a said in previous post, CHG have now to be defined because it looks really like a combination of a lot of origin and not just Iran_Neolithic and CHG.

----------


## halfalp

> Possibly because using the abbrevation EEF you'd suggest an European origin and ANF + WHG is more neutral. However, considering the fact that some of the first signs of pastoralism on the Pontic steppe is by a culture - Usatovo - associated with Cucuteni-Tripoli you can make the guess where it came from.
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/11290674/De...chwarzmeerraum


I dont feel it's the case, nobody a part amateur interested in those studies are aware of all we are talking here, there is no mass sensitivity applied, there is no need to be neutral. I think they know exactly what they are saying, but that's the point what are they saying ? It's an amazing paper, the Caucasus paper, i waited it for so many months, but the semi-conclusion and the fact that this study let more questions than answers about the genetic history of europe is frustrating. Like a lot of people have said, i think they have way more samples and they have constructed a story about PIE before publishing this paper and certainly many other papers. I feel they should give their analysis to how they percieve CHG and genetic interactions, because this study is very different than the previous in their results, i mean CHG in Motala, this is not random, this is not nothing, i believe the result, but i can't believe some guys from south caucasus roaming into scandinavia in mesolithic, so CHG have to have more secrets, what are those secrets ?

----------


## epoch

> well we have 2 different genetic entities living next to each other without a barrier that seperates them (frontiers are even shifting), but no substantial admixture between both for at least 3000 years
> 
> isn't that amazing?


Almost like WHG and farmers, although those admixted far more. And what's even more amazing is that they are considered to be part of the same culture/horizon.

----------


## epoch

> I dont feel it's the case, nobody a part amateur interested in those studies are aware of all we are talking here, there is no mass sensitivity applied, there is no need to be neutral.


But a large part of their audience are archaeologist and linguists, who have long standing fierce discussions. As archaeogenetics is delivering data these geneticists may feel it their task to be as neutral as possible. If you'd had a lab specialized in C14 dating you'd also be bloody careful not to present your data with a verdict attached.




> I think they know exactly what they are saying, but that's the point what are they saying ? It's an amazing paper, the Caucasus paper, i waited it for so many months, but the semi-conclusion and the fact that this study let more questions than answers about the genetic history of europe is frustrating. Like a lot of people have said, i think they have way more samples and they have constructed a story about PIE before publishing this paper and certainly many other papers. I feel they should give their analysis to how they percieve CHG and genetic interactions, because this study is very different than the previous in their results, i mean CHG in Motala, this is not random, this is not nothing, i believe the result, but i can't believe some guys from south caucasus roaming into scandinavia in mesolithic, so CHG have to have more secrets, what are those secrets ?


I think the Reich lab makes a big mistake in mingling in the Urheimat discussion the way they do. For two reasons, the first being what I said about being neutral. The second is that they don't call it and point to a culture. I think that is because that need for neutrality remains being felt, but it now becomes a constant hinting. This way nobody can counter or take apart their proposal because it's too vague. And yet we are constantly prodded in one direction.

----------


## Alan

> Lol their chart shows CHG in Motala, CWC more CHG than EHG please... here we going away of PIE, we are reconstructd the genetic prehistory of europe with CHG in is core.


They possibly got their hands on some samples from the Caucasus that show some of the genes previously thought to be EHG are actually CHG like.

----------


## epoch

@halfalp

ADMIXTURE does not show percentages of real admixture but percentages of how far several samples are from each other in Fst and f3 stats (IIRC). That is a subtle difference which will allow for artifacts. The value of ADMIXTURE is the first raw interpretation of the data. You therefore can state that this or that sample clearly has this or that affinity if it has a clear difference. However, it does show strange artifacts, or describes unadmixted samples as unexpected admixtures, as you noticed.

EDIT: BTW, ADMIXTURE comes in K levels, meaning it forces the data in a limited number of populations, expressed in K=[number]. The runs that are done come with a P value, a statistical value related to the reliability. The way to run it is increasing K with one, run it, and then check the value of P. The best value of P is than taken as the best representation of reality. Very often, though, several adjacent K-level have P values that hardly differ. Still, the best is presented. That gives you an idea on how to interpret its results.

----------


## Alan

> seems like these admixture % are varying from study to study. first it was 50-60% EHG in yamnas. now its more like 30%. or the 50-60% *were not saying how much was "actual" EHG admixture but how much was contributed by EHG populations including CHG like ancestry already present in these EHG's.*


^this
That is the most likely scenario in some samples form the Caucasus they found DNA formerly attributed to younger EHG samples.

CHG admixture in the Steppes must be from several waves. The eariest reaching the region during early Neolithic or maybe Mesolithic. All the way into Chalcolthic/Bronze Age and even Iron Age.

----------


## epoch

> ^this
> That is the most likely scenario in some samples form the Caucasus they found DNA formerly attributed to younger EHG samples.
> 
> CHG admixture in the Steppes must be from several waves. The eariest reaching the region during early Neolithic or maybe Mesolithic. All the way into Chalcolthic/Bronze Age and even Iron Age.


Why is that the most likely scenario? And which samples are those? And why wouldn't the added CHG populations pick up their part of the admixture, yet the EHG part would?

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Please, without rambling, why do you think Shulaveri went to the Balkans?


With a warning. I give you one chance. I have Little time for certain phenotypes:

so, ... which part of Zuzana Hofmanová et al 2016, telling us KUM6 (4600bc) belongs to a new and different anatolian population for having CHG, unlike previous Anatolia populations and EEF and which part of her , Hofmanova, telling us that, confirming Archeology, KUM6 (Kumtepe) shared ancestry with shortly later North Greece samples from late Neolithic, Klei10 , Pal7,and all sharing CHG, did you not get?.
Which part of GM Kılınç - ‎2016, writing about her, again about her CHG, but also the shared ancestry with Remedello culture in North Italy, 1000 year later. Actually, telling us how remarkably close she was to Otzi the Iceman, that is thought to be a Remedello man did you not get?

What is the part about Laziridis 2017 paper about Minoans and Mycenaeans that got you lost?


So, the expansion of EEF/CHG into Balkans in the 5th millennium via North Anatolia is a reality. Boian, Gumelniţa–Karanovo VI, moving north into Varna and Cucuteni-trypolie, moving south into North Greece (yes later Mycenean), moving west until north Italy as Remedello. Like so many, others in other places, give it time and they will mix with other people.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> But a large part of their audience are archaeologist and linguists, who have long standing fierce discussions. As archaeogenetics is delivering data these geneticists may feel it their task to be as neutral as possible. If you'd had a lab specialized in C14 dating you'd also be bloody careful not to present your data with a verdict attached.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Reich lab makes a big mistake in mingling in the Urheimat discussion the way they do. For two reasons, the first being what I said about being neutral. The second is that they don't call it and point to a culture. I think that is because that need for neutrality remains being felt, but it now becomes a constant hinting. This way nobody can counter or take apart their proposal because it's too vague. And yet we are constantly prodded in one direction.


Epoch, you are not a newbie. So show us where you were in the past voicing such concerns when these labs for over 5 years pretty much voice Steppe as the urheimat of PIE?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> With a warning. I give you one chance. I have Little time for certain phenotypes:
> 
> so, ... which part of Zuzana Hofmanová et al 2016, telling us KUM6 (4600bc) belongs to a new and different anatolian population for having CHG, unlike previous Anatolia populations and EEF and which part of her , Hofmanova, telling us that, confirming Archeology, KUM6 (Kumtepe) shared ancestry with shortly later North Greece samples from late Neolithic, Klei10 , Pal7,and all sharing CHG, did you not get?.
> Which part of GM Kılınç - ‎2016, writing about her, again about her CHG, but also the shared ancestry with Remedello culture in North Italy, 1000 year later. Actually, telling us how remarkably close she was to Otzi the Iceman, that is thought to be a Remedello man did you not get?
> 
> What is the part about Laziridis 2017 paper about Minoans and Mycenaeans that got you lost?
> 
> 
> So, the expansion of EEF/CHG into Balkans in the 5th millennium via North Anatolia is a reality. Boian, Gumelniţa–Karanovo VI, moving north into Varna and Cucuteni-trypolie, moving south into North Greece (yes later Mycenean), moving west until north Italy as Remedello. Like so many, others in other places, give it time and they will mix with other people.


Didn't Varna have Steppe, or am I mistaking it for WHG? Also, what you are describing is basically the Caucasian component on Dodecad K12b, and your story seems to match the distribution.

However, Maciamo seems to link it's spread in Europe to the Western farmers, and the CHG that was observed in the Minoan paper is surely from the Kura-Araxes expansion.

What does this have to do with anything Indo-European?

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Did you bother to read it? Because this paper doesn't even remotely bury the steppe theory. If anything, it buries the south of the Caucasus theory. Because, if the PIE homeland is there, how did late PIE get in the steppe? Not by males. And that is what this paper's data says.


Did you really didn't understand what this paper is all about?

This paper is about settling the record straight about Maykop origin and their role in the spread of PIE. So, Zero! People that thought that they were R1b/PIE origin can give up (like I always said and fought) and move on. which is good.

Maykop is the extension of the two (now apparently two) components that made the Chalcolithic transcaucasia. The period from 4900bc onwards, as we are learning now should be described as the ultimate move of Ubaid into northern part of transcaucasia and the arrival of a another component that might have come from the Kopet Dag mountains, something linked to Jeitun culture/Keltiminar culture. 

So, leave ethnogenesis of you beloved Yamnaya out of these paper. That, happened in 4900bc. Why do you think any sample older than 4500bc was left out?

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Didn't Varna have Steppe, or am I mistaking it for WHG? Also, what you are describing is basically the Caucasian component on Dodecad K12b, and your story seems to match the distribution.


Varna with steppe? maybe. But I want to know what happen to the Mathieson inconvenient Romania HG individual, 7000bc, that was 80% EHG? 
Varna should have elements from that pop, elements from LBK and from what I call sons of Shulaveri (Boian, Gulmenita, etc).




> However, Maciamo seems to link it's spread in Europe to the Western farmers, and the CHG that was observed in the Minoan paper is surely from the Kura-Araxes expansion.


hummm, too much credit to Kura-araxes.




> What does this have to do with anything Indo-European?


Proto Indo-European, as Krause, Reich and all the rest are now saying was transcaucasia 5500bc formed.
the same population taking IE to Steppe also took the same language to balkans. ie KUM girl spoke PIE. therefore so did many thrace, greece populations in chalc and bronze age.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Varna with steppe? maybe. But I want to know what happen to the Mathieson inconvenient Romania HG individual, 7000bc, that was 80% EHG? 
> Varna should have elements from that pop, elements from LBK and from what I call sons of Shulaveri (Boian, Gulmenita, etc).
> 
> 
> 
> hummm, too much credit to Kura-araxes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


6500 BC? According to your hypothesis, didn't that spread to the steppe and the Balkans happen around 4900 BC? Would you assume that the language remained the same across 1600 years and it was already fully formed as the last common ancestor of all IE branches? As with all languages, it is obvious that there was a continuous chain of linguistic evolution going back thousands and dozens of thousands of years, but "the" PIE we all talk about is just the dialect from which all IE branches directly sprung, not its mother language(s).

Also, according to what you think, would the Anatolian IE branch have separated from the rest in that first dispersal (4900 BC) or only later as a secondary - but still related - effect of their consolidation and expansion in other regions, their new homelands? A date as early as 4000-4200 BC or maybe even a bit earlier has been estimated by some linguists, but 4900 BC looks a bit less credible.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> 6500 BC?


Sorry. typo. changed (5500bc more likely)

----------


## Olympus Mons

> ...Also, according to what you think, would the Anatolian IE branch have separated from the rest in that first dispersal (4900 BC) or only later as a secondary - but still related - effect of their consolidation and expansion in other regions, their new homelands? A date as early as 4000-4200 BC or maybe even a bit earlier has been estimated by some linguists, but 4900 BC looks a bit less credible.


Interesting - I don't know. 

What is the relation between Mycenaean and Hittite?
*If any relation, then separation could happen later (meaning Hittite ancestor was Balkan "Shulaveri" IE).
*If no relation, but Hittite related to Armenian then separation happened immediately (meaning local "shulaveri" IE stood in Erzurum region and became Hittite).

Note: I find it strange, to say the least, that linguistics can pretend to ascertain the split of two 7000 year old languages measured by centuries, I truly don't get it. Instinct is to called it Bullshit.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Interesting - I don't know. 
> 
> What is the relation between Mycenaean and Hittite?
> *If any relation, then separation could happen later (meaning Hittite ancestor was Balkan "Shulaveri" IE).
> *If no relation, but Hittite related to Armenian then separation happened immediately (meaning local "shulaveri" IE stood in Erzurum region and became Hittite).


That's the main problem (except for the Anatolian languages, which would fit an earlier Early PIE dispersal before the later Steppe PIE expansion): as far as I have read from the works of linguists, Anatolian and Hittite more specifically does not look particularly more related to Greek or Armenian at all and, in fact, IIRC some have argued that, among non-Anatolian IE branches, Anatolian could be assumed to be a bit (not much) closer to some Italo-Celtic features. Also, there is the fact that a Hittite-Armenian or Hittite-Greek, or then a tripartite Hittite-Armenian-Greek connection is not very supported by mainstream linguistics. Greek and Armenians are, much more even than Italo-Celtic, noticeably closer to arguably "steppe" IE branches, particularly Indo-Iranian, and in fact an appreciable number of linguists entertained the possibility of a Graeco-Armenian-Aryan dialect continuum in the early development of those subfamilies. Indo-Iranian also has clear connections with Balto-Slavic. So, it doesn't look like Greek and Armenian are "that" ancient - not as much as Anatolian - in terms of divergence form the rest of the PIE family, which would've developed in the steppes.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> They possibly got their hands on some samples from the Caucasus that show some of the genes previously thought to be EHG are actually CHG like.


Alan... this might be the boldest statement in the last few years. 
I have the feeling that between alleles of WHG, EHG and CHG....there is a lot of misconceptions, mostly to serve the notion of the super uber steppe warriors BS.

----------


## Johane Derite

> Interesting - I don't know. 
> 
> What is the relation between Mycenaean and Hittite?
> *If any relation, then separation could happen later (meaning Hittite ancestor was Balkan "Shulaveri" IE).
> *If no relation, but Hittite related to Armenian then separation happened immediately (meaning local "shulaveri" IE stood in Erzurum region and became Hittite).


*This is a Hittite vessel in shape of a boot:*



Ceramic & Paint Vessel, ca 1900–1600 BC. Central Anatolia, Hittite
*
Here is another one:

*


The pointed shoe is obvious in the guy in the middle of this hittite engraving:



*





Now this is a Mycenaean Rhyton in shape of boot:

*

A *Mycenaean* rhyton in the shape of a shoe, from a chamber tomb from Voula, Attica, 1,400-1,300 BCE



Albanians wore these until the 20th century and called them opinga. The pom pom at the front because it absorbs water faster and was good for combat in wet conditions.

----------


## Johane Derite

> Interesting - I don't know. 
> 
> What is the relation between Mycenaean and Hittite?
> *If any relation, then separation could happen later (meaning Hittite ancestor was Balkan "Shulaveri" IE).
> *If no relation, but Hittite related to Armenian then separation happened immediately (meaning local "shulaveri" IE stood in Erzurum region and became Hittite).
> 
> Note: I find it strange, to say the least, that linguistics can pretend to ascertain the split of two 7000 year old languages measured by centuries, I truly don't get it. Instinct is to called it Bullshit.



*Hittite lions*:






*Mycenean Lions:*

----------


## Olympus Mons

> That's the main problem (except for the Anatolian languages, which would fit an earlier Early PIE dispersal before the later Steppe PIE expansion): as far as I have read from the works of linguists, Anatolian and Hittite more specifically does not look particularly more related to Greek or Armenian at all and, in fact, IIRC some have argued that, among non-Anatolian IE branches, Anatolian could be assumed to be a bit (not much) closer to some Italo-Celtic features. Also, there is the fact that a Hittite-Armenian or Hittite-Greek, or then a tripartite Hittite-Armenian-Greek connection is not very supported by mainstream linguistics. Greek and Armenians are, much more even than Italo-Celtic, noticeably closer to arguably "steppe" IE branches, particularly Indo-Iranian, and in fact an appreciable number of linguists entertained the possibility of a Graeco-Armenian-Aryan dialect continuum in the early development of those subfamilies. Indo-Iranian also has clear connections with Balto-Slavic. So, it doesn't look like Greek and Armenian are "that" ancient - not as much as Anatolian - in terms of divergence form the rest of the PIE family, which would've developed in the steppes.


Makes sense. Leaps of thousands of years and linguistics always problematic.
I asked Mycenean not Greek. but anyways. So, Hittite an isolated (Erzurum or south balkans?) and Armenian derived from Iranic IE. 

Note: I still don't understand how LPIE is ascertained as "Steppe", which a large enough component of it I am sure it was, and the evolution of IE into several families and branches* not have room for a Balkan IE* that was similar to the Steppe IE (not time for big divergence) and most important, all 4th milenia saw movements from balkans to "steppe" and from there to balkans...

See https://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo...e-speaker-8042

----------


## Olympus Mons

Derite...
Thanks for explaining the Pom Pom... I was worried about the albanians for a second. 

And albanian as an IE is also "weird", right ;)

----------


## Johane Derite

> Derite...
> Thanks for explaining the Pom Pom... I was worried about the albanians for a second. 
> 
> And albanian as an IE is also "weird", right ;)


They also look cool : p

https://imgur.com/5U6IOyb

----------


## Ygorcs

> Makes sense. Leaps of thousands of years and linguistics always problematic.
> I asked Mycenean not Greek. but anyways. So, Hittite an isolated (Erzurum or south balkans?) and Armenian derived from Iranic IE. 
> 
> Note: I still don't understand how LPIE is ascertained as "Steppe", which a large enough component of it I am sure it was, and the evolution of IE into several families and branches* not have room for a Balkan IE* that was similar to the Steppe IE (not time for big divergence) and most important, all 4th milenia saw movements from balkans to "steppe" and from there to balkans...
> 
> See https://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo...e-speaker-8042


Theoretically, that Balkan IE could have existed, but it could have simply been absorbed by later IE branches well before writing arrived in that region. And of course it isn't still settled where the Anatolian IE branch came from. If it ultimately came from the Balkans, it could theoretically be either a very early (and already heavily diluted in terms of EHG) steppe-via-the-Balkans branch, or... this "Balkan IE" which you hypothesize.

As for Mycenaean vs. Greek, it doesn't matter much. Classical Greek is clearly derived from the same language as Mycenaean Greek and actually most probably its own daughter language. So the story of their origins would be exactly the same. Greek, Armenian and Indo-Iranian probably had a common immediate source, and for now I'd bet it was in the steppes - and also reasonably later than the 1st IE dispersals with Anatolian, Tocharian and very possibly other IE families that were simply not attested because their homelands lacked literacy until when it was too late.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> ....Greek, Armenian and Indo-Iranian probably had a common immediate source, and for now I'd bet it was in the steppes - and also reasonably later than the 1st IE dispersals with Anatolian, Tocharian and very possibly other IE families that were simply not attested because their homelands lacked literacy until when it was too late.


...and I don't get it why, with the tenets and beacons of current "truth" (labs) saying that PIE origin was miles way from Armenia and Iran, you think its origin, au contraire, was actually beyond a great mountain range and a huge desert. Strange.

----------


## Ygorcs

Another good indication in the study that, if PIE came originally from the South Caucasus, it's a _very_ ancient phenomenon of CHG-like > CHG+EHG admixture and more like the origins of pre-PIE or "Early PIE" than a consequence of "the" process of PIE expansion and dispersal/divergence we all talk so much about it:
_
"Our fitted model recapitulates the genetic separation between the Caucasus and Steppe groups with the Eneolithic steppe individuals deriving more than 60% of ancestry from EHG and the remainder from a CHG-related basal lineage, whereas the Maykop group received about 86.4% from CHG, 9.6% Anatolian farming related ancestry, and 4% from EHG."_

Notice they, for some reason, make a clear differentiation between the "CHG-related basal" ancestry of Eneolithic Steppe (and the autosomal makeup didn't seem to change much until later in Yamnaya times) and the plain "CHG" in Maykop. That must mean something.

----------


## Ygorcs

> ...and I don't get it why, with the tenets and beacons of current "truth" (labs) saying that PIE origin was miles way from Armenia and Iran, you think its origin, au contraire, was actually beyond a great mountain range and a huge desert. Strange.


I honestly didn't understand what you're talking about. I'm not even talking about the PIE origin, but about the source of the dispersal of some late IE dialects that split to form separate IE subfamilies. That, of course, happened centuries or even milennia after the origin of PIE somewhere in Eurasia. Also, you yourself just said, a few answers above, that you also believe that part of the PIE-speaking Shulaveri Shomu dispersed to the steppes and spoke PIE there, not just in the Balkans. So, you seem to be contradicting yourself now. Sometimes it feels like you get confused with the chronology, and suddenly facts that probably - even if you're totally right - happened in 4900 BC BC and circa 3000 BC are lumped together as if they're all the same. Finally, I'm totally sure the Ukrainian and Russian southern steppes are not a huge desert, they're actually excellent land for pastoralism and even, at least with modern techniques, for farming.

----------


## johen

> The pointed shoe is obvious in the guy in the middle of this hittite engraving:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Albanians* wore these until the 20th century and called them opinga. The pom pom at the front because it absorbs water faster and was good for combat in wet conditions.


Interesting, Albanian people has still kept authentic greek cultures. 

Anyway the Hittite seems to have dreadlocks like ancient greek, dardic, and maybe Yazidi kurd. And I think Hittite god Teshub, holding a triple thunderbolt and a weapon, would be conceptually connected to mesoamerican creator Votan, western odin, and maybe Jeus.


http://kurdishpeople.org/kurdish-hairstyle/






http://www.probashionline.com/alexan...ity-of-ladakh/




> Senyurek (1951d, pp. 614-15) concludes that "the majority of the Chalcolithic and Copper Age inhabitants of Anatolia were dolichocephals of mainly Eurafrican and Mediterranean types, and that the brachycephals, probably representing the invaders, were rare in these periods. This study has further supported the conclusion that the earliest inhabitants of Anatolia were longheaded, and that the brachycephals came in subsequently. "The craniological evidence indicates that an invasion of brachycephals into Anatolia took place during the Chalcolithic period and that it was followed by a second invasion, bringing in the brachycephalic elements to Alaca Huyuk and other Copper Age sites, probably at about the middle of the Copper Age. The next invasion of brachycephals, which was more important and extensive than the previous ones, occurred at about 2000 B.C. This was made by *the Hittites who were predominantly of the classical Alpine type.*"

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Another good indication in the study that, if PIE came originally from the South Caucasus, it's a _very_ ancient phenomenon of CHG-like > CHG+EHG admixture and more like the origins of pre-PIE or "Early PIE" than a consequence of "the" process of PIE expansion and dispersal/divergence we all talk so much about it:
> _
> "Our fitted model recapitulates the genetic separation between the Caucasus and Steppe groups with the Eneolithic steppe individuals deriving more than 60% of ancestry from EHG and the remainder from a CHG-related basal lineage, whereas the Maykop group received about 86.4% from CHG, 9.6% Anatolian farming related ancestry, and 4% from EHG."_
> 
> Notice they, for some reason, make a clear differentiation between the "CHG-related basal" ancestry of Eneolithic Steppe (and the autosomal makeup didn't seem to change much until later in Yamnaya times) and the plain "CHG" in Maykop. That must mean something.


Good. Because if I am right the Iran/CHG for Maykop, deriving from lets call it Ubaid/leilatepe mix with some eastern caspian Kura-araxes IranN can not, can not (!) be the same admixture that the shulaveri, at least from Arukhlo, mentesh, Gadichrilli, shulaveri, Shomutepe, etc that by 5000bc , 1300 years later, need to haver admixed with Paluri/Anasueli and Ckhok people (Kotias sons?) that, contrary to IranN, were (i dont know). Isolation in western Georgia, land of Kotias, is the ones we would see admixing with Shulaveri and moving north.
A different story should be said about the Aratashen/Arknashen and how by late 6tn milenia must be heavly admix with Kamiltepe and mil plains, until Hajji firuz.

Shulaveri was also a wide set of people. Arrived and brought agriculture to transcaucasia by 6200bc, but by 4900bc must have different admixtures.

----------


## holderlin

"CHG" and "EHG" share a ton of common ancestry from an MA-1 related population, which is relatively recent, and we're trying to separate the two.

----------


## berun

> I agree as a whole, but can we really make it a sort of "historical rule"? Weren't the Cucuteni-Tripolye very successful occupying a large part of the westernmost Pontic-Casian steppe and forest-steppe between the Bug and Dniester?


I only see Trypolians extending into two steppe krais... better then to check exact archaeological sites/points instead to wiki maps, maybe they were capable to do some agriculture near rivers or just the map pretends to show a cohesive extension.

----------


## berun

a different mapping

Attachment 10145

----------


## halfalp

> That's the main problem (except for the Anatolian languages, which would fit an earlier Early PIE dispersal before the later Steppe PIE expansion): as far as I have read from the works of linguists, Anatolian and Hittite more specifically does not look particularly more related to Greek or Armenian at all and, in fact, IIRC some have argued that, among non-Anatolian IE branches, Anatolian could be assumed to be a bit (not much) closer to some Italo-Celtic features. Also, there is the fact that a Hittite-Armenian or Hittite-Greek, or then a tripartite Hittite-Armenian-Greek connection is not very supported by mainstream linguistics. Greek and Armenians are, much more even than Italo-Celtic, noticeably closer to arguably "steppe" IE branches, particularly Indo-Iranian, and in fact an appreciable number of linguists entertained the possibility of a Graeco-Armenian-Aryan dialect continuum in the early development of those subfamilies. Indo-Iranian also has clear connections with Balto-Slavic. So, it doesn't look like Greek and Armenian are "that" ancient - not as much as Anatolian - in terms of divergence form the rest of the PIE family, which would've developed in the steppes.


I think here we have to understand the remnants of their hypothesis. Krause pretty much believe to the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. The point he wants to prove is that Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Armeno-Greek languages wich shares some grammatical relationship, in one side and Proto-Anatolian languages the other side are basically PIE or the first form of PIE evolution that must have happened south of the caucasus, therefore PIE is from south of the caucasus. Here, we dont talk anymore about Yamnaya, about the steppe expansion, this is the past. Of course they try to stay professionnal by referencing the recent Central Asian / South Asian paper to a reference that Proto-Indo-Iranians could have come with steppe MLBA, but this is science and scientific a lot of times dont believe ( in god ) but have convictions, and those convictions dont evicte with a single paper or whatsoever ( see how Renfrew never abandoned any idea of a near-eastern origin, he pass from his own hypothesis, the Anatolian one, to accept a little bit more the Armenian one in recent years ). So basically when we read those paper, we have to keep the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis in mind to try to understand where they want to go with the history the have created. The sample doesn't lie, the history arround can be biased ( or not ).

----------


## halfalp

> "CHG" and "EHG" share a ton of common ancestry from an MA-1 related population, which is relatively recent, and we're trying to separate the two.


Yes, it's become complicate.

----------


## bicicleur

> Theoretically, that Balkan IE could have existed, but it could have simply been absorbed by later IE branches well before writing arrived in that region. And of course it isn't still settled where the Anatolian IE branch came from. If it ultimately came from the Balkans, it could theoretically be either a very early (and already heavily diluted in terms of EHG) steppe-via-the-Balkans branch, or... this "Balkan IE" which you hypothesize.
> As for Mycenaean vs. Greek, it doesn't matter much. Classical Greek is clearly derived from the same language as Mycenaean Greek and actually most probably its own daughter language. So the story of their origins would be exactly the same. Greek, Armenian and Indo-Iranian probably had a common immediate source, and for now I'd bet it was in the steppes - and also reasonably later than the 1st IE dispersals with Anatolian, Tocharian and very possibly other IE families that were simply not attested because their homelands lacked literacy until when it was too late.


the Olalde Bell Beaker paper shows the expansion from Central Europe to the British Isles of R1b-L21 4.5 ka
around the same time R1b-U106 seems to have expanded into the Netherlands, northern Germany and south-Scandinavia
later expansions, as Unetice and urnfield also originated in the Carpathian Basin

my view is that R1b-L151 was in the Carpathian Basin, with 4.8 ka
and that from there the Italo-Celtic languages dispersed
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L151/

in South-Scandinavia R1b-U106 merged with CWC R1a and I1 with TMRCA 4.6 ka from where later on Nordic Bronze Age and ultimately the Germanic tribes developped

as for Armenian, Greek and Albanian, I'd guess it originates from late Yamna which ended when climate deterioriated on the steppe with 4.2 ka climatic event
they would have been in contact with early Sintashta

----------


## halfalp

> the Olalde Bell Beaker paper shows the expansion from Central Europe to the British Isles of R1b-L21 4.5 ka
> around the same time R1b-U106 seems to have expanded into the Netherlands, northern Germany and south-Scandinavia
> later expansions, as Unetice and urnfield also originated in the Carpathian Basin
> 
> my view is that R1b-L151 was in the Carpathian Basin, with 4.8 ka
> and that from there the Italo-Celtic languages dispersed
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L151/
> 
> in South-Scandinavia R1b-U106 merged with CWC R1a and I1 with TMRCA 4.6 ka from where later on Nordic Bronze Age and ultimately the Germanic tribes developped
> ...


One possibility for Greek, Armenian, Albanian and maybe even Indo-Iranian is that at the time of the Catacomb even if they were mostly Steppe they get an input from Maikop bigger than the previous culture and that it changes most of their autosomal dna to be way more CHG than their ancestors but also maybe an origin into the creation of the Satem language. Armenians shows the perfect exemple of that possibility full R1b-Z2103 with a satem language.

----------


## berun

farmers faced a problem to colonize the steppes

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ne_Eneolit.png

----------


## halfalp

Do anybody have noticed that Catacomb culture is actually R1b-V88 ? Eneolithic Caucasus, Maikop, and some steppe folks have mtdna R1a, modern distribution of mtdna R1a is in Brahmins caste, some tribes of the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. Meaning those wives came from the south and give partial dna to the R1b y-dna steppe. Lola culture have mtdna R1b alongside Q1a2 wich seems completely Afontova Gora 3 related. Steppe Maikop have mtdna U7b wich for what i recall U7 came from Iran. H13 is also found in North Caucasus in a R1b paternal context. U4a2 and U4c1 are found respectivally in Kura-Araxes and Late Maikop. Multiple U1 mtdna lineage such as U1b, U1b1, U1a1a3 are found in a Maikop and North Caucasus context. North Caucasus is predominant y-dna R1b, multiple mtdna I found in a y-dna R1b and North Caucasus context too. Conclusion, R1b and Q1a2 steppe folk have taken mtdna U1, U7, R1a, H13 and maybe I from the southern new comers and Kura-Araxes and surely Maikop too have taken mtdna U4a2, U4c1, U5a1b1 from the steppe. Note that both CHG Satsurblia and Kotias Klde maternal side K3 and H13 are found here in both and respectively Maikop and North Caucasus R1b y-dna context. What an intense time of history, away of PIE hypothesis, steppe and south caucasus have very mingle together here especially with the maternal side, in a female mediated way. I mean it shouldn't be so difficult to be aware of that, a part if we are an hysterical feminist, in ancient times we made friends by giving the hand of his beautiful daughter. I think we can now imagine that Maikop is not indo-european or is indo-european in a southern context, CWC and BB dont have Maikop signals so it's pretty presumable that Maikop was a non-indo-european chalcolithic / bronze age coming from the south caucasus. They probably have influenced a lot the steppe with their cultural package especially Metallurgy. Steppe or more presumably western siberia would influence both Caucasus ( meaning south caucasus too ) and western steppe ( pontic steppe ) with horse package ( even if it have clearly to be proven ). The only thing it left it's to understand why CHG pop in prehistoric Eastern / Northern Europe, is it have something to do with mtdna U4 ?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> One possibility for Greek, Armenian, Albanian and maybe even Indo-Iranian is that at the time of the Catacomb even if they were mostly Steppe they get an input from Maikop bigger than the previous culture and that it changes most of their autosomal dna to be way more CHG than their ancestors but also maybe an origin into the creation of the Satem language. Armenians shows the perfect exemple of that possibility full R1b-Z2103 with a satem language.


Maciamo has made a great thread on satem and centum, which seems entirely foolproof, except for some speculation on the Anatolians which seems unlikely, yet to me every hypothesis seems unlikely, and one of them is probably true. EDIT: I change my mind every time I think about this due to the spread of the chariot.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...pean-languages

----------


## Alan

> Do these results support the hypothesis of R1b moving from Anatolia through the Caucasus and taking CHG women, and then further moving up and taking some EHG women, with the Kura-Araxes expansion resulting in mainly J2 taking the R1b women (yeah, I know, Y DNA is only found in men) from the stage of R1b taking women in the Caucasus?
> 
> Because that's what I think happened. It could be the other way round, with K-A forcing the R1b guys upwards instead of just expanding from the power vacuum left by R1b moving upwards.
> 
> I could also be completely wrong, but I'm just trying to model in two things I see as very likely: R1b coming from (Eastern) Anatolia, and the Kura-Araxes picking up R1b-like ancestry.



I think people didn't notice here the R1b found in Maykop might actually be a late Steppe arrival in the culture. Probably coming to Maykop after Steppe Indo European culture was formed. 

Imo it went this way Northwest Iran/Leyla Tepe => North Caucasus => Steppe=> back to Maykop.

Also keep in mind folks no R1b found in Hittites so far. Hittites G2a and J1 more similar to Maykop than Yamnaya.

----------


## Alan

> it would seem that the R1b you mentioned came via the north caucasus on the black sea side as none appear with the kurds who came to eastern turkey via Gilan province south caspian sea area


local anomaly. The samples are from the Kordestan province. A region known to have been the capital of the Royal Scythians in Western Asia with their capital City of Saqqez. 

Kurds from Kirmashan and Urmiya are heavy in R1b.

----------


## Alan

> Yes i know that Davidski have say that there would be EEF in steppe between a long time. Why change EEF for ANF so ? because as far as i know their ANF is the same to south caucasus, so why not say EEF = ANF + WHG ? For the graph its all over the topic, the green component ( CHG ? ) pop in Motala.



Because EEF = ANF. The samples EEF were modeled after (Stuttgart) were basically 95% ANF + 5% WHG.

----------


## Alan

> If the scientists managed to find a profound CHG vs. EHG cline in the steppes, with some region concentrating much more CHG and less EHG than others, then I think the apparent lack of EHG in the few samples of arguably Hittite-dominated lands in BA Anatolia can be explained (as I demonstrated above, even an original Pre-Anatolian PIE tribe with a full 40% EHG could easily yield just 2.5% of EHG in BA Anatolia), without needing to resort to an unlikely scenario where PIE was spoken south and north of the Caucasus in the Copper Age circa 4000-3500 BC, but there was no significant autosomal and Y-DNA exchange between the two regions in the same period.


This is a very very unlikely scenario considering the very little time gap between the proposed dispersal of Steppe Indo Europeans and the age of these Hittite Bronze Age samples. if these Hittites really came from a roughly ~40-50% EHG source. You would need at least a century until the EHG get's deluded down to 6,25% per individual. And this is *only* possible if you assume the "Hittites" exclusively and rapidly mated only with individuals with zero EHG. That even excludes other EHG mixed Hittites. How often do you see it happen that people of the same folk do not even touch each other over the course of 4 generation? Even in societies with high mixing rate you always see more a pattern like this.

1. gen 
same + foreign, same + same, same+ same, same+ same
2. gen
1/2 mixed + same, same+ same, same+ same, same + same, same + foreign

3. 1/4 mixed + same, same+ foreign, same+ same, same+ same, same+ same, same + 1/2 mixed

And this is rather the pattern for a mixing society.
And in this scenario allot of the foreign admixture actually get's washed out. And the mixing on basis of DNA is much slower. "Steppe" Hittite with 40% EHG mixes with 1/2 mixed "~20% " EHG result is =30% EHG. That 30% EHG mixes with a "full blooded" Hittite result is 35% EHG. This 35% EHG Hittite mixes with a 20-30% EHG Hittite result is 27,5% to 32,5% EHG. Keep in mind and this is the pattern for a strongly mixing society because it is *never* linear.




But for your theory above to work you would need to assume something more like this.

1. gen 
same+ foreign, same+ foreign, same+ foreign, same+ same

2. gen
1/2 + mixed, mixed+ 1/2 mixed, mixed+1/2 mixed, mixed+ 1/2 mixed

As if they were always exclusively mating with foreigners and killing of those pure "Steppe kids".


So no I don't agree with this. There must be a different reason why BA Hittite samples lack EHG just like the Calcolthic Hajji Firuz sample a little further east. And both being basically a mix of Iran_Neo/CHG and ANF.

I think the authors are holding back something.

----------


## halfalp

> I think people didn't notice here the R1b found in Maykop might actually be a late Steppe arrival in the culture. Probably coming to Maykop after Steppe Indo European culture was formed. 
> 
> Imo it went this way Northwest Iran/Leyla Tepe => Steppe=> back to Maykop.


No R1b was found in Maikop, R1b were in Maikop Steppe full western siberian, nothing to do with iran or even eastern europe and North Caucasus without a particular culture and them had some CHG.

----------


## halfalp

> This is a very very unlikely scenario considering the very little time gap between the proposed dispersal of Steppe Indo Europeans and the age of these Hittite Bronze Age samples. if these Hittites really came from a roughly ~40-50% EHG source. You would need at least a century until the EHG get's deluded down to 6,25% per individual. And this is *only* possible if you assume the "Hittites" exclusively and rapidly mated only with individuals with zero EHG. That even excludes other EHG mixed Hittites. How often do you see it happen that people of the same folk do not even touch each other over the course of 4 generation? Even in societies with high mixing rate you always see more a pattern like this.
> 
> 1. gen 
> same + foreign, same + same, same+ same, same+ same
> 2. gen
> 1/2 mixed + same, same+ same, same+ same, same + same, same + foreign
> 
> 3. 1/4 mixed + same, same+ foreign, same+ same, same+ same, same+ same, same + 1/2 mixed
> 
> ...


Wait there is BA Hittite R1b-L23 samples ?

----------


## Alan

> *No R1b was found in Maikop, R1b were in Maikop Steppe* full western siberian, nothing to do with iran or even eastern europe and North Caucasus without a particular culture and them had some CHG.


Do you see the contraditicion yourself?

I know the R1b was from *Maikop* Steppe this is why I wrote it is most likely a late arrival from Steppe cultures. Therefore plays no role for my theory.

Also did you know that there was no R1b found in Hittite samples.

The Hittite samples were G2a and J1 more akine to Maikop than Yamnaya to be fair. Maybe just maybe what the authors try to tell us is, 

a culture akine to Maikop is the source of PPIE and Maikop the source for HIttite, and these Yamnaya Steppe nomads got their language and culture/Ideas through contact to these cultures and movement of people, as we see from the Steppe Maikop sample (contact zone?)

This would explains why the Hittite Y and aDNA resembles Maikop.

----------


## Alan

Actually what I find quite hilarious is how we all with the arrival of this paper focused again on R1b and completely missed out the absence of it in those Hittite samples. And no one even noticed or bothered to mentioned that the early Maikop y and aDNA fits well fith those Hittite samples.





> Wait there is BA Hittite R1b-L23 samples ?





No my mistake. You see exactly how I explained above. People here are so confident and 100% sure that Hittite must be R1b L23, that I automatically connected it to them. 

Of course the Hittite samples had no R1b, but autosomally they were very akine to Hajji Firuz and Maikop.

I am still waiting for Leyla Tepe samples because imo they will be the missing link between the Steppes and Hajji Firuz.

And one of my earlier theories of the PIE network of cultures might turn out correct. I often tried to see the Indo Europeans more like a network of cultures than deriving from one single source.

----------


## Ailchu

> Do you see the contraditicion yourself?
> 
> I know the R1b was from *Maikop* Steppe this is why I wrote it is most likely a late arrival from Steppe cultures. Therefore plays no role for my theory.
> 
> Also did you know that there was no R1b found in Hittite samples.
> 
> The Hittite samples were G2a and J1 more akine to Maikop than Yamnaya to be fair. Maybe just maybe what the authors try to tell us is, 
> 
> a culture akine to Maikop is the source of PPIE and Maikop the source for HIttite, and these Yamnaya Steppe nomads got their language and culture/Ideas through contact to these cultures, as we see from the Steppe Maikop sample (contact zone?)
> ...


what if maikop got its ideas through contact with steppe people? in this case we can't use popgen anymore to search for the PIEs.

----------


## halfalp

> Do you see the contraditicion yourself?
> 
> I know the R1b was from *Maikop* Steppe this is why I wrote it is most likely a late arrival from Steppe cultures. Therefore plays no role for my theory.
> 
> Also did you know that there was no R1b found in Hittite samples.
> 
> The Hittite samples were G2a and J1 more akine to Maikop than Yamnaya to be fair. Maybe just maybe what the authors try to tell us is, 
> 
> a culture akine to Maikop is the source of PPIE and Maikop the source for HIttite, and these Yamnaya Steppe nomads got their language and culture/Ideas through contact to these cultures, as we see from the Steppe Maikop sample (contact zone?)
> ...


No i wasn't contradicte myself they make a distinction between Maikop Culture and Maikop Steppe, they are certainly not late arrival, more likely Maikop Culture is a new arrival in steppe.

Maikop doesn't have J1, it's Kura-Araxes that have J1, Maikop y-dna is mostly J2a1 and G2a2a and L in late Maikop. Kura Araxes was related to Maikop Culture, therefore if Kura-Araxes was the culture of the Proto-Anatolian, Hittite would be J1 too or are you suggesting that both were related culture with a totally different language, saying Maikop is PIE and Kura-Araxes Proto-Semitic ? at the end of the day, everything gonna go contrary to the PIE hypothesis coming from the south.

----------


## Alan

> what if maikop got its ideas through contact with steppe people? in this case we can't use popgen anymore to search for the PIEs.



Maikop predates Yamnaya by some hundred years and as we know from archeology most of the ideas and inventions went from south to north. Maikop had wagons before the Steppes. Bronze was certanly earlier in Maikop than Steppes. Maikop is central to allot of invention. Actually almost every invention crucial to Steppes is found during earlier time further South. The only exception being probably tamed horses.

----------


## halfalp

And probably the R1b in Hajji Firuz, is the J1 in Karelia, nobody talks about that J1, nobody thinks he is not an outlier ( in term of male lineage ) in eastern europe, but when its about Hajji Firuz R1b, people are done, that's it ! B.I.A.S

----------


## halfalp

> Maikop predates Yamnaya by some hundred years and as we know from archeology most of the ideas and inventions went rather the opposite way. Maikop had wagons before the Steppes. Bronze was certanly earlier in Maikop than Steppes.


Yes, you are right for wagons and bronze or metallurgy in general. What all this have to do with PIE ? I even press myself on the topic that Maikop could be the northern bastion of southerners bringing new cultural package in steppe, while steppe give them horses and kurgans. Maikop have probably nothing to do with PIE or IE in general, or you assume that a little factions of J2a1, G2a2a and L metalsmiths bring in less than 1000 years, IE languages to all steppe savages and further north in CWC later... Interesting hypothesis, difficultly applied.

----------


## Alan

> And probably the R1b in Hajji Firuz, is the J1 in Karelia, nobody talks about that J1, nobody thinks he is not an outlier ( in term of male lineage ) in eastern europe, but when its about Hajji Firuz R1b, people are done, that's it ! B.I.A.S


I agree with you here.
I actually argued J1 in Karelia might not be an outlier. Actually quite frankly I discussed with people on Eurogenes who are biased as hell for a Steppe homeland that J1 in Karelia might most likely demonstrate that some J lineages could be EHG by source. But they simply ignored me. However the Hittite and Maikop J1 are Iran_Neo/Maikop linked.

----------


## Alan

> Yes, you are right for wagons and bronze or metallurgy in general. What all this have to do with PIE ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even press myself on the topic that Maikop could be the northern bastion of southerners bringing new cultural package in steppe, while steppe give them horses and kurgans. Maikop have probably nothing to do with PIE or IE in general, or you assume that a little factions of J2a1, G2a2a and L metalsmiths bring in less than 1000 years, IE languages to all steppe savages and further north in CWC later... Interesting hypothesis, difficultly applied.


Wagons are crucial for a mobile nomadic people to move around. Especially for nomadic herders who need to change places for seasonal farming.

Bronze is crucial for conquering other regions. And most importantly stock breeding is essential to survive at some places on the Steppes. All three are importated from South. 

Be it from Maikop or Leyla Tepe or some other cultures. But most importantly the importance of these things is not the crucial point. The point is that they were adopted and this shows the flow of ideas and people. We see *far more* CHGIran_Neo admixture towards the north but rather little EHG towards south. Obviously the Steppes were, at least during the Neolithic to Bronze Age on the receiving end.

----------


## halfalp

> I agree with you here.
> I actually argued J1 in Karelia might not be an outlier. Actually quite frankly I discussed with people on Eurogenes who are biased as hell for a Steppe homeland that J1 in Karelia might most likely demonstrate that some J lineages could be EHG by source. But they simply ignored me. However the Hittite and Maikop J1 are Iran_Neo/Maikop linked.


The most simple explanation is that Maikop is more likely the origin of the Kartvelian side in IE languages. We can't legitimally take any Hittite sample for granted, their elite got burned and their people were mostly native to the place. EHG is partially ANE, so at the end of the day, R1 had to have something to do with EHG if its not Q1a. We should probably also wait for the Willerslev Maikop paper that could have more sample of proper Maikop and surrounding steppes. All that Maikop and Kura-Araxes relation might be however interesting in the case of semitic languages or related hurrian languages and their historical relationship.

----------


## halfalp

> Wagons are crucial for a mobile nomadic people to move around. Especially for nomadic herders who need to change places for seasonal farming.
> 
> Bronze is crucial for conquering other regions. And most importantly stock breeding is essential to survive at some places on the Steppes. All three are importated from South. 
> 
> Be it from Maikop or Leyla Tepe or some other cultures. But most importantly the importance of these things is not the crucial point. The point is that they were adopted and this shows the flow of ideas and people. We see *far more* CHGIran_Neo admixture towards the north but rather little EHG towards south. Obviously the Steppes were, at least during the Neolithic to Bronze Age on the receiving end.


Well we are not talking about the Gimbutas IE's here, it was decades ago and a fertile hypothesis. I never actually believed that steppe folks would have developped wagons and wheels by themselves or even invente the concept of pastoralism, pretty sur nobody have ever think of it. Neolithic Europe could have been another source proposal but that's it. But the flow of ideas, are one thing and the change of a language another thing. Thing is, steppe knew metallurgy already in khvalynsk, so maikop is not related to the idea of metallurgy in the steppe and we dont have any lineage poping in steppe that could tell us, those immigrants probably participate to the elaboration of this or that. But southern women are clearly identify in steppe, so we have a physical relationship and certainly a spiritual one, or practical one. Steppe people have borrowed both women and technology from their southern neighbor before creating their own society.

----------


## epoch

> This is a very very unlikely scenario considering the very little time gap between the proposed dispersal of Steppe Indo Europeans and the age of these Hittite Bronze Age samples. if these Hittites really came from a roughly ~40-50% EHG source. You would need at least a century until the EHG get's deluded down to 6,25% per individual. And this is *only* possible if you assume the "Hittites" exclusively and rapidly mated only with individuals with zero EHG. That even excludes other EHG mixed Hittites.


No, Hittite should be an early offshoot, possibly pre-Yamnaya and there is a fairly good candidate that would give enough time for dilution. Suvorovo-NovoDanilovka. A kurgan culture most likely from Sredny Stog, buried in barrows, sometime with zoomorphic scepters just like Khvalynsk. Settled in Mldavia, but also settled in the Danube delta, as direct successor of Varna round 4.400 BC. Remember that Varna outlier? 




> How often do you see it happen that people of the same folk do not even touch each other over the course of 4 generation?


It's for an invasive culture quite natural to take on local wives.




> Even in societies with high mixing rate you always see more a pattern like this.
> 
> 1. gen 
> same + foreign, same + same, same+ same, same+ same
> 2. gen
> 1/2 mixed + same, same+ same, same+ same, same + same, same + foreign
> 
> 3. 1/4 mixed + same, same+ foreign, same+ same, same+ same, same+ same, same + 1/2 mixed
> 
> ...


The next step would be Turkish Europe, where a at least one bronze age Kurgan style burial was found recently. If Luwians expanded from that, and Hittites from Luwians or somewhere around them, you'd see at least four steps. Enough time and enough movement for dilution. And it did leave traces of EHG.

PS: This is David Anthony's explanation.

----------


## halfalp

I mean their is a simple response to that, how many EHG were the R1b beakers from central europe in the Olalde paper ? If we know, we can make an estimation to how much bulgarian steppe people should have EHG, because they basically roam through the same europe neolithic.

----------


## halfalp

The bulgarian outlier is like 30 % EHG 30 % CHG 25 % ANF and a little bit iran_chalcolithic. If we imagine that ancestors of hittite were of the same ratio in like 3000 BC, in the time of 1600 BC that EHG component is likely away for good.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> I agree with you here.
> I actually argued J1 in Karelia might not be an outlier. Actually quite frankly I discussed with people on Eurogenes who are biased as hell for a Steppe homeland that J1 in Karelia might most likely demonstrate that some J lineages could be EHG by source. But they simply ignored me. However the Hittite and Maikop J1 are Iran_Neo/Maikop linked.


I think that J1 and maybe J2 could have existed in E/SE Europe during the Epigravettian. (Upper Paleolithic)
I don't know what their autosomal profiles would have been, though. They could have been diverse.

----------


## Cpluskx

> No, Hittite should be an early offshoot, possibly pre-Yamnaya and there is a fairly good candidate that would give enough time for dilution. Suvorovo-NovoDanilovka. A kurgan culture most likely from Sredny Stog, buried in barrows, sometime with zoomorphic scepters just like Khvalynsk. Settled in Mldavia, but also settled in the Danube delta, as direct successor of Varna round 4.400 BC. Remember that Varna outlier?


How did these people come to Anatolia, as invaders or as immigrants? If they were invaders why were they not elite and being ruled by Semites in North Syria in 2500 BC then?

----------


## epoch

> How did these people came to Anatolia, as invaders or as immigrants? If they were invaders why were they not elite and being ruled by Semites in North Syria in 2500 BC then?


They weren't in North Syria. Read the doc yourself. 
https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.Wvju1hzhU8p

----------


## Ygorcs

> This is a very very unlikely scenario considering the very little time gap between the proposed dispersal of Steppe Indo Europeans and the age of these Hittite Bronze Age samples. if these Hittites really came from a roughly ~40-50% EHG source. You would need at least a century until the EHG get's deluded down to 6,25% per individual. And this is *only* possible if you assume the "Hittites" exclusively and rapidly mated only with individuals with zero EHG. That even excludes other EHG mixed Hittites. How often do you see it happen that people of the same folk do not even touch each other over the course of 4 generation? Even in societies with high mixing rate you always see more a pattern like this.
> 
> 1. gen 
> same + foreign, same + same, same+ same, same+ same
> 2. gen
> 1/2 mixed + same, same+ same, same+ same, same + same, same + foreign
> 
> 3. 1/4 mixed + same, same+ foreign, same+ same, same+ same, same+ same, same + 1/2 mixed
> 
> ...


Well, I don't there is a "little time gap" between the split of Proto-Anatolian and the first absolutely confirmed Hittite presence in Anatolia around 1700 BC. According to linguistic evidences, Proto-Anatolian may have set apart from the other Indo-European communities as early as circa 4000 BC. Nobody (not linguists and most geneticists, anyway) assumes that the Proto-Anatolian dispersal happened along with the early-mid BA dispersals of other "late PIE" branches from the steppe. Some of the latest estimates still date that split to around 3500 BC, still virtually 90 generations before the first undeniable Hittite prevalence in Central Anatolia. With that very early split, there was enough time for us to assume several plausible different possibilities - and we'll need more data to settle what's really likely or not.

A lot of different processes of Indo-Europeanization, including a complete revolution in a people's autosomal makeup, could happen in ~2300 years, especially if the Hittite society was, as it seems from archaeological and linguistic evidences, mainly a result of a gradual, non-massive infiltration and/or eventual elite conquest. Just look at some Turkic-speaking populations now and how much Northeast Siberian and East Asian they still carry after a mere ~1500 years of immigration, mixing and acculturation. 

My scenario for the progressive and profound regression of the EHG does allow for a lot of Hittite-Hittite relations, actually my "hypothesis" allows for a significant, even though minor, autosomal contribution from a EHG/CHG Proto-Anatolian population (which of course means that a large part of the offspring involved relations between two peopel of full or major PIE ancestry).

You're thinking of 3 or 4 generations, but when you consider that there was very probably at least 50-80 generations between the Anatolian vs. Residual PIE divergence and the Hittite kingdom/empire, that possibility becomes much higher. That autosomal transformation can happen in the long term even in the absence of any complete population replacement. It's simple to demonstrate, doing the maths, how that could've easily occurred given the historic conditions for that. In a hypothetical and evidently simplified scenario (the same thing, only with much more ANF than EEF, would happen in a Balkanic route):
_
1) Pre-Proto-Anatolian PIE-speaking population: 40% EHG. 60% CHG.
2) Proto-Anatolian population (mixing with Caucasians with little EHG, ~5%, but ~70% CHG and ~25% ANF), contributing to an appreciable 30% of the future population >>>> 15.5% EHG, 67% CHG, 17.5% ANF.
3) That Pre-Hittite Anatolian IE population heading to Anatolia, absorbing conquered and allied people (virtually 0% EHG, and assuming some 30% CHG, 70% ANF), and mixing more along the way, contributing to a large 45% of the future population: 7% EHG, 47% CHG, 46% ANF.
4) Early Hittite population in Central Anatolia, infiltrating gradually, slowly gaining prominence, and mixing with the local, presumably very large and advanced population of Hattians and other farmer people (still contributing to a sizeable 20% of the local ancestry of their future empire): 1.4% EHG, 33.4% CHG, 65.2% ANF. - Of course just an average, so if the average were 1.4% a lot of people would have 0% EHG (and we have very few Hittite or "Hittite" samples), but some others, probably a small minority, could have 10% or even more._

I don't really support this scenario more than any other, I'm just trying to think of all the possibilities that are still rightly on the table and haven't been completely debunked at all - and I think people shouldn't believe that those few supposedly Hittite samples settled this once and for all, no geneticist has affirmed that).

I myself believe that it is probable that PIE originally came from the South Caucasus, and those origins are probably showing in the large increase in CHG ancestry that even the Eneolithic Steppe by 4300 BC already had, and the fact the authors of this paper apparently differentiate between the CHG in Caucasus populations and the "CHG-like basal lineage" in the steppes. 

However, for me that's an entirely different thing from stating that the PIE expansion came from the South Caucasus. Those are not just two different issues, they also most definitely happened at different times and under different historic contexts, because PIE is simply not that ancient and there was probably a wide time gap between the gradual splits of its IE daughter branches, beginning with Anatolian probably more than 1000 years before, say, Indo-Iranian. If IE came to the steppes with CHG people, but that happened during the early Neolithic, then Proto-Indo-European (the latest stage before the formation of several IE branches) may be just the daughter language of that ancient CHG language, and not the same language (and also not the same people). Since no study seriously doubts that at least several branches of IE are connected to the BA steppe populations, then the real question is: did IE develop in the steppes very early on in a still undivided form, or is the "steppe IE" the very result of the 1st divisions of PIE?

If this study really suggests, as it seems now, that by 4000 BC the steppe population's autosomal, Y-DNA and Mt-DNA makeup were all basically consolidated and not significantly different from what we'd see later with the expansion of the Yamnaya horizon, then the origins of PIE - whether it was originally EHG or CHG (coming from Transcaucasia) - are further back in time, and it was not brought to the steppes at roughly the same time as Proto-Anatolian IE diverged from the rest (that assumption of a two routes dispersal: one forming Anatolian, the other forming the direct ancestor of "the rest" i.e. Late PIE). The origins of PIE in the steppe would be more ancient, and no big Caucasian influx happened in the transition from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age (so who would've made the steppes speak PIE? I really doubt people just adopted the language a distant foreign people with whom they have few contacts in times before centralized and civilized states).

As I said, I think there are now many more questions and possibilities than answers. I don't really get why some people are becoming so confident to affirm either this or that hypothesis of their liking.

----------


## Ygorcs

> the Olalde Bell Beaker paper shows the expansion from Central Europe to the British Isles of R1b-L21 4.5 ka
> around the same time R1b-U106 seems to have expanded into the Netherlands, northern Germany and south-Scandinavia
> later expansions, as Unetice and urnfield also originated in the Carpathian Basin
> 
> my view is that R1b-L151 was in the Carpathian Basin, with 4.8 ka
> and that from there the Italo-Celtic languages dispersed
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L151/
> 
> in South-Scandinavia R1b-U106 merged with CWC R1a and I1 with TMRCA 4.6 ka from where later on Nordic Bronze Age and ultimately the Germanic tribes developped
> ...


I agree with your views, that also pretty much sums up my impressions on the later expansion of IEs in Europe. Thanks for the nice explanation. However, those facts, if they happened as we think, wouldn't have any direct relationship with that supposed (by Olympus Mons) "Balkan PIE", because if I understood him correctly he assumes that variant of PIE would've arrived after the Shulaveri-Shomu expulsion/dispersal, some 6.5-6.9 kya. That would be about a much earlier expansion (of languages and also Y-DNA) still in the Neolithic, not some Bronze Age developments. That's just too early, from a linguistic perspective, to date any of the extant IE branches now spoken in Europe, none of them AFAIK looks like they had diverged more than 2000 years before than the others and actually derive from a "sister language" to the kind of PIE that gave birth to the other branches. That assumption could fit the weird case of Anatolian IE, but not Italo-Celtic or Germanic in comparison with Greek, Balto-Slavic or Indo-Iranian.

----------


## Angela

IF the "origin" of PIE is in or south of the Caucasus, and the stream leading to the Anatolian languages, or rather the people speaking it, never left for the steppe, then even the "Royal Hittites" would of course have no or extremely minimal EHG.

Of course, it could also be that the origin was in the south, but the Anatolian languages spread from the steppe later. Then the question would be did it disperse via the Balkans or south through the Caucasus.

----------


## Angela

> IF the "origin" of PIE is in or south of the Caucasus, and the stream leading to the Anatolian languages, or rather the people speaking it, never left for the steppe, then even the "Royal Hittites" would of course have no or extremely minimal EHG.
> 
> Of course, it could also be that the origin was in the south, but the Anatolian languages spread from the steppe later. Then the question would be did it disperse via the Balkans or south through the Caucasus.


One of my problems with the hypothesis that the Anatolian languages spread from the steppe via the Balkans is precisely their age. Where were the "Anatolian" speakers all that time that they didn't come into contact with other IE speakers, with the wheel and on and on?

Also, yes, Anthony traces them to the Balkans, but where is the archaeological trail from there to Anatolia. I remember combing through Anthony's book as well as all the papers I could find, and so far as I know there is no specific archaeological trail in that direction. In fact, it goes the other way.

If there was a reflux south through the Caucasus, then we should find SOME EHG somewhere in Anatolia from the proper (and old) time period, it seems to me, or it starts to look like special pleading.

Armenian is, of course, an entirely separate issue.

----------


## ROS

Ask the academic scholars and also the amateurs. What is the relationship between Caucasian iberia and western iberia?

----------


## Ygorcs

> what if maikop got its ideas through contact with steppe people? in this case we can't use popgen anymore to search for the PIEs.


I really doubt ancient people - before strong centralized states, high horse-riding mobility, official administrative languages, empires and so on - regularly switched their language for another spoken by a foreign population just because of an influence of "ideas" (cultural/economic influence).

Diffusion happens and, in the distant past, must've happened even more usually without complete acculturation (including language shift), except when some significant (in numbers or in power) immigration took plac. (By the way, in the case of the steppes, doesn't much of the influence seem to have come from the west (EEF Europe), not overwhelmingly from the Caucasus?). If that regularly happened, then it'd really be impossible to assume anything about language and culture from paleogenetics.

Let's just see the oldest examples of the "ancient world" we know, from the Middle East, and how even regions in profound contact and mutual influence between themselves retained not just different languages, but several unrelated language families for a very long time until the later large empires.

----------


## MOESAN

I agree with Ygorcs; this new "religion" of languages accelerated shifts does not hold too much in my mind; shifts occurred and are documented but they took long time with long periods of bilinguism, more or less balanced between the two languages; and even if PIE became a 'lingua franca' for trade (it's true the steppes cultures exchanges seem having been long during and wide and sometimes both ways), it's no more sure the transmission of it took place in the same time in every place; our chronologic perspective is a bit flattened I think - Breton language, supposed imponed upon latin speakers, was surely helped by gaulish relative permanence in far West (not the USA!), and spite the lost of relations with Celtic Britain after the 1000's, spite the light weight of this weak "sub-state" in front of Franks Empire and following french states, Breton was still the natutal language of most of western Bretons until the 1950's... even if the centralized Rpublique made its best to eradicate it. What I say about "national" language is true with dialects too.

----------


## MOESAN

Here and elsewhere I see oppositions (interesting in some way) about papers newly published; OK; but I find the sampling a bit scarce, and sometimes someones have doubts about the cultural precise affiliation of some samples (the Hittites too); the number of "borderline" or "outsiders" in the samples of diverse ancient DNA studies shows us these cultures were not locked in, at least concerning females - 
the relatively clear existance of mating exchanges between cultures could explain the diminution of traces of EHG in some IE later cultures, but it's true the argument could be used in the other way: low presence of EHG DNA in Transcaucasus or SWCA mediated by females, so without supposed Steppes domination (males) nor language transmission from Steppes (I never believed in the "mother's language transmission" before proof...

----------


## Ailchu

> I really doubt ancient people - before strong centralized states, high horse-riding mobility, official administrative languages, empires and so on - regularly switched their language for another spoken by a foreign population just because of an influence of "ideas" (cultural/economic influence).


well yes i doubt it too. but if people look at the possibibilty that maikop influenced the steppe in this way just through contact then we also have to consider the opposite a possibility.

----------


## Ygorcs

> well yes i doubt it too. but if people look at the possibibilty that maikop influenced the steppe in this way just through contact then we also have to consider the opposite a possibility.


Yes, you're right. Anyway, I can only say that a very sensible picture is slowly emerging to me for a comparably early (Late Neolithic) origin of PIE, at least in its broadest strokes: before 5th milennium BC (Khvalynsk), mostly EHG; signs of a comparably late arrival of the ANF found in significant % in the contemporary Caucasus, when there was already a lot of CHG; and after ~4000-3500 BC, not much profound changes in the autosomal makeup of the steppe. If PIE came from Transcaucasia to the steppes, then the moment that looks more likely to have occurred is ~5000-4000 BC.

The real missing link which still needs to be found is explained mostly involves the Anatolian IE, whether it in fact split even earlier than mainstream linguists assumed (before the Indo-Europeanization of the steppe, so roughly ~5000 BC), or if came centuries later from somewhere in the steppes and we haven't found good signs of that immigration yet, partly because Hittites and the place they were living in are attested only so much later.

----------


## ROS

At least the Hittite is attested, but from when there is empirical evidence (not hypothesis) of the Indo-European steppe?

----------


## Sile

> No i wasn't contradicte myself they make a distinction between Maikop Culture and Maikop Steppe, they are certainly not late arrival, more likely Maikop Culture is a new arrival in steppe.
> Maikop doesn't have J1, it's Kura-Araxes that have J1, Maikop y-dna is mostly J2a1 and G2a2a and L in late Maikop. Kura Araxes was related to Maikop Culture, therefore if Kura-Araxes was the culture of the Proto-Anatolian, Hittite would be J1 too or are you suggesting that both were related culture with a totally different language, saying Maikop is PIE and Kura-Araxes Proto-Semitic ? at the end of the day, everything gonna go contrary to the PIE hypothesis coming from the south.


There is no reason to avoid the Herrera 2012 paper on south caucasus when we have these markers........from* Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists.*

.
and the link below cannot be IE source.
.
This leaves modern armenia and modern Georgia as the only possible site for IE if one was to say "from south caucasus "

.
The bottom turkey map is the area of SAS on the haplogroups above ............clearly we see R1b and is it Hatti/Hittite lands ?

----------


## epoch

> IF the "origin" of PIE is in or south of the Caucasus, and the stream leading to the Anatolian languages, or rather the people speaking it, never left for the steppe, then even the "Royal Hittites" would of course have no or extremely minimal EHG.
> 
> Of course, it could also be that the origin was in the south, but the Anatolian languages spread from the steppe later. Then the question would be did it disperse via the Balkans or south through the Caucasus.


But then no linguistic, no genetic and no archaeological evidence would need a south of the Caucasus Urheimat. Why then propose one? What problem would it solve that the steppe theory doesn't solve?

----------


## halfalp

I didn't know about that study, thanks.

----------


## berun

the paper states:




> the Darkveti-Meshoko Eneolithic culture (analysis label ‘Eneolithic Caucasus’) show
> 243 mixed ancestry mostly derived from sources related to the Anatolian Neolithic
> 244 (orange) and CHG/Iran Neolithic (green) in the ADMIXTURE plot (Fig. 2C).


the genetic structure is corresponded with archaeology (from From the Mesolithic to the Chalcolithic in the South Caucasus: New
data from the Bavra Ablari rock shelter):




> The first Chalcolithic groups in the North Caucasus are found in the context of the Svobodnoe-
> Meshoko-Samok culture, around 4500 BCE.36 Around 4000 BCE, these groups
> developed into a new cultural entity, the Majkop culture, whose pottery and metallurgical
> production show clear contacts with populations from northern Mesopotamia.37 In the South
> Caucasus (Azerbaijan steppes and mid-Kura valley), the same connections with Ubaid
> groups are identified in the so-called Leilatepe culture, through similar architecture, funerary
> rituals, and ceramic production.


next:




> Four individuals from mounds in the grass steppe zone, which are archaeologically
> 252 associated with the ‘Steppe Maykop’ cultural complex (Supplementary Information
> 253 1), lack the Anatolian farmer-related component when compared to contemporaneous
> 254 Maykop individuals from the foothills. Instead


so two options are left: the CHG admixture was done by Mesolithic people or by pionner southern herders with a strong CHG signal.




> The Maykop period, represented by twelve individuals from eight Maykop sites
> 283 (Maykop, n=2; a cultural variant ‘Novosvobodnaya’ from the site Klady, n=4; and
> 284 Late Maykop, n=6) in the northern foothills appear homogeneous. These individuals
> 285 closely resemble the preceding Caucasus Eneolithic individuals and present a
> 286 continuation of the local genetic profile. This ancestry persists in the following
> 287 centuries at least until ~3100 yBP (1100 calBCE) in the mountains, as revealed by
> 288 individuals from Kura-Araxes from both the northeast (Velikent, Dagestan) and the
> 289 South Caucasus (Kaps, Armenia), as well as Middle and Late Bronze Age individuals
> 290 (e.g. Kudachurt, Marchenkova Gora) from the north. Overall, this Caucasus ancestry
> ...


without a EHG signal it denies any IE migration to Transcaucasia... no Hittites through the Caucasus then? (other than in a frog leap transit)




> 4). By modelling Steppe Maykop outliers successfully as a two-way mixture of
> 370 Steppe Maykop and representatives of the Caucasus cluster (Supplementary Table 3),
> 371 we can show that these individuals received additional ‘Anatolian and Iranian
> 372 Neolithic ancestry’, most likely from contemporaneous sources in the south. W


Maykop people was spreading northwards being invaders or being merchants. Both outsiders were male otherwise, being one R1.




> Here, we observe an
> 404 increase in farmer-related ancestry (both Anatolian and Iranian) in our Steppe cluster,
> 405 ranging from Eneolithic steppe to later groups. In Middle/Late Bronze Age groups
> 406 especially to the north and east we observe a further increase of Anatolian farmer407
> related ancestry consistent with previous studies of the Poltavka, Andronovo,
> 408 Srubnaya and Sintashta groups23, 27 and reflecting a different process not especially
> 409 related to events in the Caucasus.





> Importantly, our results show a
> 425 subtle contribution of both Anatolian farmer-related ancestry and WHG-related
> 426 ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Tables 13 and 14), which was likely contributed
> 427 through Middle and Late Neolithic farming groups from adjacent regions in the West.
> 428 A direct source of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry can be ruled out (Supplementary
> 429 Table 15).


this is a game changer, now with EEF WHG EHG and CHG in the play ground to who it's supposed to assign IE to Yamna uh? some people will need to crash their skulls. Additional EEF/WHG ancestry in late steppe cultures must come from Balkans, from Central Europe, no more alternatives, but such Western push is linked to the eastward expansion of BB... (by archaeological dates)

----------


## berun

> The Yamnaya 486 individuals from the Caucasus derived the majority of their ancestry from Eneolithic
> 487 steppe individuals but also received about 16% from Globular Amphora-related
> 488 farmers


time to crash skulls now; GAC had burial cists and some reused old dolmens/stone kurgans.

----------


## epoch

> Maykop people was spreading northwards being invaders or being merchants. Both outsiders were male otherwise, *being one R1.*


And that is exactly where your theory becomes improbable. R1b is abundant among the Steppe population north of the Caucasus and *absent* in the Caucasus Maykop.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> And that is exactly where your theory becomes improbable. R1b is abundant among the Steppe population north of the Caucasus and *absent* in the Caucasus Maykop.


And that is exactly where you both get it wrong. 
The paper is specifically telling us that maykop was related to chalcolithic south caucasus and not at all with Neolithic transcaucasia (prior to 4900bc) which had a diferent genetic makeup them chalcolithic.
And it should. Even if we don't know the genetic makeup of Shulaveri we pretty much can figure they the only ones in contact with people from the slopes of the great caucasus mountains and georgia plains. Hence the descendentas of kotias klide(CHG).
So pretty much setting the stage for the next paper that will close the loop. The only ones missing in this story are....Shulaveri shomu.

See the hint: shulaveri were mtdna I1, H2a, H15a1a....see where it shows? Mtdna steppe. Got it?

----------


## berun

> And that is exactly where your theory becomes improbable. R1b is abundant among the Steppe population north of the Caucasus and *absent* in the Caucasus Maykop.


In Maykop MAYBE, but un Haji Firuzz and Kura Araxes no.

----------


## halfalp

> And that is exactly where you both get it wrong. 
> The paper is specifically telling us that maykop was related to chalcolithic south caucasus and not at all with Neolithic transcaucasia (prior to 4900bc) which had a diferent genetic makeup them chalcolithic.
> And it should. Even if we don't know the genetic makeup of Shulaveri we pretty much can figure they the only ones in contact with people from the slopes of the great caucasus mountains and georgia plains. Hence the descendentas of kotias klide(CHG).
> So pretty much setting the stage for the next paper that will close the loop. The only ones missing in this story are....Shulaveri shomu.
> 
> See the hint: shulaveri were mtdna I1, H2a, H15a1a....see where it shows? Mtdna steppe. Got it?


Dude we found J2a and J1 in Kura-Araxes and Maikop, the descendants of Kotias Klde and Satsurblia, everything is logic, but in your head what is logic is that R1b should be dominant in neolithic were others lineage are dominant in paleolithic and chalcolithic. I mean just think a little more to your hypothesis... And your mtdna link is away to any response, because how women were spreading in ancient times is pretty obvious by now.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Dude we found J2a and J1 in Kura-Araxes and Maikop, the descendants of Kotias Klde and Satsurblia, everything is logic, but in your head what is logic is that R1b should be dominant in neolithic were others lineage are dominant in paleolithic and chalcolithic. I mean just think a little more to your hypothesis... And your mtdna link is away to any response, because how women were spreading in ancient times is pretty obvious by now.


Your post is too confusing and mix too many mistakes. See ....
https://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo...ra-araxes-8426


Secondly,
Understand the *****ed pearl culture (it hides P.r.ick.ed lol ) , prior to arrival of Uruks/Kura-araxes to make Maykop and kick them out is understand the arrival of the Shulaveri to Kuban river running away from the incoming people . But its rare to have a linkage making the connection. this reference is priceless.

see.
https://books.google.pt/books?id=WET...ucasus&f=false

----------


## halfalp

> Your post is too confusing and mix too many mistakes. See ....
> https://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo...ra-araxes-8426
> 
> 
> Secondly,
> Understand the *****ed pearl culture (it hides P.r.ick.ed lol ) , prior to arrival of Uruks/Kura-araxes to make Maykop and kick them out is understand the arrival of the Shulaveri to Kuban river running away from the incoming people . But its rare to have a linkage making the connection. this reference is priceless.
> 
> see.
> https://books.google.pt/books?id=WET...ucasus&f=false


My post is the most easiest thing to understand, Paleolithic Caucasus is J2 and J1. Chalcolithic Caucasus both North and South are J2a and J1, it's then a logical continuation. And you, you believe that coming from the flow of the Euphrates, R1b have replaced J2 and J1 in the neolithic until those same retake the Caucasus in the Chalcolithic. And i already read your blog, a part that you seem to change ideas every two months, there is nothing to take of it.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> My post is the most easiest thing to understand, Paleolithic Caucasus is J2 and J1. Chalcolithic Caucasus both North and South are J2a and J1, it's then a logical continuation. And you, you believe that coming from the flow of the Euphrates, R1b have replaced J2 and J1 in the neolithic until those same retake the Caucasus in the Chalcolithic. And i already read your blog, a part that you seem to change ideas every two months, there is nothing to take of it.


Halfalp... I don't know if you are just very young or is something else. But you seem to have grave problems with more elaborate concepts and models. You seem to want to play Warlord and that is not going to take you very far.
a. J1 and J2 means nothing! those are so old in the region that nobody even knows were to start...
b. By 6000bc, in the region, J was everywhere and was local.
c. Shulaveri-Shomu, as per cattle and Sheep adna, was not iranian. Was coming from west.
d. Most unadmix form of CHG must have been in the slopes of Western Georgia, isolated by the mountains from eastern Georgia and azerbaijan plains...!
e. Right now we even Maykop makeshift know! and it was the NEW admix of south caucasus admix - the only ones left and not publishd is Shulaveri and there is a reason for it. 

So, this is not a PS game of Y haplogroups. you need to step up your game or it becomes impossible for more patience people than me, to get anywhere with you.
If you think I change my mind every month, after being repeating the same mantra for years, means you haven't read anything. 

Don't bother to engage me any further. Have no patience.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Are the L51 BBs really from Yamnaya? Here’s the thing - surely the Yamnaya expansion into the Balkans was R1b-Z2103, and if that is the case where could the BBs have gotten their L51? Also, the Middle Eastern prevalence of Z2103 relative to Z93/Z94 really doesn't fit in with Z2103 coming predominantly from the Indo-Iranians, which would mean that Z2103 is pre-proto-Indo-European.

So, how about this:

What if L23 originated in the Balkans (where L23* is noticeably highest), and that the Copper Age originated with migrations of an L23 elite (matching where the oldest locations of metallurgy are - and yes I associate metallurgists as the elite because that's what they were!), with L51 forming from a migration into South-Western Europe (say, Iberia, somehow through the Mediterranean along the Megalithic route) and Z2103 forming with a migration into Anatolia? Z2103 would then go from Anatolia to the Caucasus - perhaps as the bird flies (through the highlands), or down Mesopotamia to the Gulf before going up along the Zagros (or perhaps both), eventually forming Leyla Tepe, then Maykop, and then spilling over into the Steppe, leading to the Steppe invasions of the Balkans massively increasing Z2103 there. It's worth noting too, that the reason concentrations of R1b are far higher in places like ancient Yamnaya and Western Europe today, is that the lower population densities historically supported by those regions meant elites having more offspring would change the Y DNA landscape to a far greater degree than among a very large farmer population - therefore, we should expect the distribution of R1b to be masked in areas with historically high populations, which could put us off the scent. Anyway - this migrational theory not only tracks the spread of metallurgy, but also the spread of the Swastika, which itself basically tracks perfectly with the initial spread of metallurgy. It's worth noting that given the Swastika's presence in R1b-V88- dominated Africa, this symbol can't directly be associated with the proto-Indo-Europeans themselves (the oldest Swastika is from the Paleolithic Ukraine, for example). The Steppe also had copper metallurgy at a very early state, but I'm not convinced yet whether they would have gotten this from pre-Maykop interactions with Caucasian cultures or the Balkans.

As for L51, what if it formed somewhere in SW Europe from these L23 guys from the Balkans, who were the metallurgical elite of a bunch of Megalithic I2s? We know the Bell Beakers would have been small in number, being a metallurgical elite, so it's not a surprise we haven't found them yet in Spain. This was Coon's reasoning behind the lack of BB Dinaroid types in Bell-Beaker Iberia too. In mountainous regions like the Pyrenees, where this type would have been protected, we see the Dinaroid features more strongly - such as with the Basques. We also see that Megalithic-like admixture peaks here, for the same reason. Why the Basque language wasn't replaced isn't clear, as the level of R1b-P312 clearly shows they must have been a small group when dominated by Indo-Europeans, but I've heard theories that most of the original non-Indo-European Iberian languages were preserved until the Roman era. If I had to guess though, the almost complete lack of Indo-European-like mtDNA suggests that a bunch of P312 men made their way up their and simply assimilated into the culture as the elite, bringing with them Bronze Age technology. It's worth noting the clear links between the Baskid and North Atlantid phenotypes, and considering how a fusion of a Baskid and Corded phenotype would create something akin to the North Atlantid phenotype - and I think this accurately matches the idea of R1b-L51 moving from SW Europe to dominate the CWC, perhaps learning Bronze Age metallurgy from contact with the Balkan branch of Yamnaya (we know the Beaker and Balkan Yamnaya folk met at some point from the distribution of Beaker pottery). Yes, phenotypes aren't as accurate as DNA, but as I've said a bunch of times there are very clear distribution patterns, and these patterns have to be more than random. On another note, I also don't think these guys would have had Steppe admixture, as R1b does not seem to be so intimately related to the Steppe as something like R1a (there was that Z2103 individual from Chalcolithic Iran that was mostly a blend between Anatolian and Iranian farmers).

I can't see a better alternative to describe how the split between Z2103 and L51 took place, as a splint in Yamnaya or during its expansion into the Balkans seems unlikely.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Oh one other thing I forgot to say - this idea is dependent on the L51 languages being spread by the CWC, and that the L51 (or L11) men would have been minority rulers (as we know the BB folk tended to be) and just adopted the language of the locals - the product being the Unetice culture. U106 would have split from P312, moving West along the N European plain to further mix with remaining CWC folk (who had themselves assimilated I1 - this explains why the I1 in the Netherlands, for example, isn't descended from that of Scandinavia. It also explains why a region like the Netherlands has a lot of blonde hair for a mostly R1b area - much more than, say, Wales.) P312 would have split into L21, DF27 and U152 somewhere in West Central Europe (between France and Germany), with each haplogroup mainly simply moving into their regions of high concentrations today.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

What do people think about this? Not a new idea but I think it makes a lot of sense!

If you disagree, where do you think Z2103 and L51 split? If it was Yamnaya, L51 clearly didn't follow the same path as Z2103 through the Balkans because of its rarity there, so the only other Steppe-origin alternative is going West along the Northern European plain - but this was the path of the CWC, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of the Unetice culture suddenly springing up from a source in the late Steppe. Also, where is all the Steppe L51?

If you say that L23 split into L51 and Z2103 during the Yamnaya expansion into the Balkans, which is really the only other alternative if you don't accept the theory I just outlined, how can you explain the Z2103 in Yamnaya and much earlier in the Middle East? 

I'm going to go all in here - L51 HAD to have originated in the Beaker culture! Meaning, essentially, L23 HAD to have originated either in the Balkans or in Anatolia - but the idea of the Balkans makes more sense in my opinion.

----------


## Silesian

> Are the L51 BBs really from Yamnaya? Here’s the thing - surely the Yamnaya expansion into the Balkans was R1b-Z2103, and if that is the case where could the BBs have gotten their L51? Also, the Middle Eastern prevalence of Z2103 relative to Z93/Z94 really doesn't fit in with Z2103 coming predominantly from the Indo-Iranians, which would mean that Z2103 is pre-proto-Indo-European.
> 
> So, how about this:
> 
> What if L23 originated in the Balkans (where L23* is noticeably highest), and that the Copper Age originated with migrations of an L23 elite (matching where the oldest locations of metallurgy are - and yes I associate metallurgists as the elite because that's what they were!), with L51 forming from a migration into South-Western Europe (say, Iberia, somehow through the Mediterranean along the Megalithic route) and Z2103 forming with a migration into Anatolia? Z2103 would then go from Anatolia to the Caucasus - perhaps as the bird flies (through the highlands), or down Mesopotamia to the Gulf before going up along the Zagros (or perhaps both), eventually forming Leyla Tepe, then Maykop, and then spilling over into the Steppe, leading to the Steppe invasions of the Balkans massively increasing Z2103 there. It's worth noting too, that the reason concentrations of R1b are far higher in places like ancient Yamnaya and Western Europe today, is that the lower population densities historically supported by those regions meant elites having more offspring would change the Y DNA landscape to a far greater degree than among a very large farmer population - therefore, we should expect the distribution of R1b to be masked in areas with historically high populations, which could put us off the scent. Anyway - this migrational theory not only tracks the spread of metallurgy, but also the spread of the Swastika, which itself basically tracks perfectly with the initial spread of metallurgy. It's worth noting that given the Swastika's presence in R1b-V88- dominated Africa, this symbol can't directly be associated with the proto-Indo-Europeans themselves (the oldest Swastika is from the Paleolithic Ukraine, for example). The Steppe also had copper metallurgy at a very early state, but I'm not convinced yet whether they would have gotten this from pre-Maykop interactions with Caucasian cultures or the Balkans.
> 
> As for L51, what if it formed somewhere in SW Europe from these L23 guys from the Balkans, who were the metallurgical elite of a bunch of Megalithic I2s? We know the Bell Beakers would have been small in number, being a metallurgical elite, so it's not a surprise we haven't found them yet in Spain. This was Coon's reasoning behind the lack of BB Dinaroid types in Bell-Beaker Iberia too. In mountainous regions like the Pyrenees, where this type would have been protected, we see the Dinaroid features more strongly - such as with the Basques. We also see that Megalithic-like admixture peaks here, for the same reason. Why the Basque language wasn't replaced isn't clear, as the level of R1b-P312 clearly shows they must have been a small group when dominated by Indo-Europeans, but I've heard theories that most of the original non-Indo-European Iberian languages were preserved until the Roman era. If I had to guess though, the almost complete lack of Indo-European-like mtDNA suggests that a bunch of P312 men made their way up their and simply assimilated into the culture as the elite, bringing with them Bronze Age technology. It's worth noting the clear links between the Baskid and North Atlantid phenotypes, and considering how a fusion of a Baskid and Corded phenotype would create something akin to the North Atlantid phenotype - and I think this accurately matches the idea of R1b-L51 moving from SW Europe to dominate the CWC, perhaps learning Bronze Age metallurgy from contact with the Balkan branch of Yamnaya (we know the Beaker and Balkan Yamnaya folk met at some point from the distribution of Beaker pottery). Yes, phenotypes aren't as accurate as DNA, but as I've said a bunch of times there are very clear distribution patterns, and these patterns have to be more than random. On another note, I also don't think these guys would have had Steppe admixture, as R1b does not seem to be so intimately related to the Steppe as something like R1a (there was that Z2103 individual from Chalcolithic Iran that was mostly a blend between Anatolian and Iranian farmers).
> 
> I can't see a better alternative to describe how the split between Z2103 and L51 took place, as a splint in Yamnaya or during its expansion into the Balkans seems unlikely.


 I have to do some light construction work around the yard today.Lets reason this out from a logical point using our knowledge of tools/weapons and or building materials.
1)First we have to figure out the Hajji Firuzz R1b-Z2103 sample; and how it fits into the puzzle. As for metallurgy specific- copper>derivative bronze. 
Where is some of the oldest copper & [bronze and or arsenic bronze]tools and or weapons found ?
2)What are the different properties of copper versus bronze?

----------


## Johane Derite

> I have to do some light construction work around the yard today.Lets reason this out from a logical point using our knowledge of materials.
> 1)First we have to figure out the Hajji Firuzz R1b-Z2103 sample; and how it fits into the puzzle. As for metallurgy specific- copper>derivative bronze. 
> Where is some of the oldest copper & [bronze and or arsenic bronze]tools and or weapons found ?
> 2)What are the different properties of copper versus bronze?


"The oldest securely dated tin bronze artefact are found in the heart of the Balkans in Serbia. A tin bronze foil from the Pločnik (archaeological site) are dated to 4650 BC."

Plocnik is south serbia near border with Kosovo. 





This head on the left from Vinca culture was found in Barileva, 3 kilometers from my fathers village. He mentions finding clay plates in his youth when farming but was a child and didn't know better to report it lol

----------


## Olympus Mons

> What do people think about this? Not a new idea but I think it makes a lot of sense!
> 
> If you disagree, where do you think Z2103 and L51 split? If it was Yamnaya, L51 clearly didn't follow the same path as Z2103 through the Balkans because of its rarity there, so the only other Steppe-origin alternative is going West along the Northern European plain - but this was the path of the CWC, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of the Unetice culture suddenly springing up from a source in the late Steppe. Also, where is all the Steppe L51?
> 
> If you say that L23 split into L51 and Z2103 during the Yamnaya expansion into the Balkans, which is really the only other alternative if you don't accept the theory I just outlined, how can you explain the Z2103 in Yamnaya and much earlier in the Middle East? 
> 
> I'm going to go all in here - L51 HAD to have originated in the Beaker culture! Meaning, essentially, L23 HAD to have originated either in the Balkans or in Anatolia - but the idea of the Balkans makes more sense in my opinion.


Hi. Not bold at all. :)
The reason why reich changed is view must be because they found L23 and probably Z2103 in transcaucasia. Remember, afaik the only L23 without subclades found thus far is a guy who lives in Erzurum in armenia/turkey.

So.
a. If am right about Boian (romania/bulgaria/thrace) L51 was there being a younger (4500bc) brother of Z2103. So showing up as L51 in eastern bell beaker.

Which would make me wrong on ...
b. Which will make me a moron on my batshit crazy rheory that he was born as part of Merimde beni Salama in the Delta of Egypt that vanished by 4000bc as i thought were part of the arriving population to iberia by 3500bc (BB iberia).... We will see how merimde will turn out.

----------


## Silesian

> I have to do some light construction work around the yard today.Lets reason this out from a logical point using our knowledge of tools/weapons and or building materials.
> 1)First we have to figure out the Hajji Firuzz R1b-Z2103 sample; and how it fits into the puzzle. As for metallurgy specific- copper>derivative bronze. 
> Where is some of the oldest copper & [bronze and or arsenic bronze]tools and or weapons found ?
> 2)What are the different properties of copper versus bronze?


1)Arsenic bronze Iran and or Maykop. R1b-Z2103 is situated Hajji Friruzz is in between these two locations. Although not c14 dated, lets say this sample is 6000YBP in North western Iran.
2)Bronze is stronger {depending on what is added to the copper}than softer copper, making it better for tools[working with lumber-cutting sawing etc...]and weapons.

Next question- what type of lumber/wood[tree] was used in the construction of some of the first wagons? Say for example this one depicted in Sumerian art. The axes depicted in the picture below bronze or copper?

----------


## Johane Derite

> 1)Arsenic bronze Iran and or Maykop. R1b-Z2103 is situated Hajji Friruzz is in between these two locations.
> 2)Bronze is stronger {depending on what is added to the copper}than softer copper, making it better for tools[working with lumber-cutting sawing etc...]and weapons.



Sorry i thought you meant in europe XD

----------


## Cpluskx

Anyone knows when will we learn about the c14 result of Hajji Firuz r1b?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> 1)Arsenic bronze Iran and or Maykop. R1b-Z2103 is situated Hajji Friruzz is in between these two locations. Although not c14 dated, lets say this sample is 6000YBP in North western Iran.
> 2)Bronze is stronger {depending on what is added to the copper}than softer copper, making it better for tools[working with lumber-cutting sawing etc...]and weapons.
> 
> Next question- what type of lumber/wood[tree] was used in the construction of some of the first wagons? Say for example this one depicted in Sumerian art. The axes depicted in the picture below bronze or copper?


Please just write it all at once ffs lol

----------


## Angela

> But then no linguistic, no genetic and no archaeological evidence would need a south of the Caucasus Urheimat. Why then propose one? What problem would it solve that the steppe theory doesn't solve?


There are numerous issues linguistically in terms of the Anatolian languages, and *no* hypothesis totally lays them to rest. That's been apparent for years, although it was most clearly articulated by Mallory relatively recently. It is by no means a question of a satisfactory answer or hypothesis already existing about which there is a consensus, but which various people are now trying to destroy by raising new concerns.

For those who haven't read it.
https://www.proto-indo-european.ru/i...ds-nallory.pdf

"The essential argument as it is normally presented is that Anatolian lacks a considerable numberof features that would characterize Brugmanian Proto-Indo-European (aorist, perfect, subjunctive,optative, etc.; Fortsom 2004, 155) and, therefore, its links with an earlier continuum musthave been severed before Proto-Indo-European (or the rest of the Indo-European languages) developedin common. This can essentially be explained in one of two ways:1. The ancestors of the Anatolian languages migrated from the homeland of the protolanguagebefore it developed common Indo-European features. In this model, Anatolianwould have preserved an archaic structure while the ancestors of the rest of the IndoEuropeanlanguages still remained together and evolved later stages of Proto-Indo-European.2. The ancestors of the Indo-European languages migrated from the homeland of theproto-language. Here it is Proto-Indo-European that moves off to innovate while, presumably,Anatolian was left in the homeland to preserve its archaisms.Obviously we could complicate matters further by proposing a homeland from whichboth the ancestors of Anatolian and (Proto­)Indo-European migrated in different directionsbut this would hardly be likely and it would have little bearing on the following discussion."

The issues for me with Anthony's proposal that the people speaking perhaps a "pre-Anatolian" language left the steppes first and moved into Anatolia via the Balkans is that although he locates a culture he considers probable as the one bringing a "steppe" language to the Balkans, there is no archaeological trail from that culture into Anatolia at that time. The archaeological trail goes in the other direction. 

If we assume that despite that they moved quickly into Anatolia, where is the EHG they would have carried.

If they stayed long enough in the Balkans to lose their EHG, why is their language still so archaic. Wouldn't they have come in contact with the wheel, with other Indo-European languages? 

I could go on and on, but the point is that there are issues.

There are, of course, also issues with the "origin" being in Anatolia, and the stream leading to the Anatolian languages developing there, but at least the archaism is completely explained. The lack of EHG in this case also presents no problems, because the genetic marker we'd be tracking would be CHG, not EHG.

----------


## berun

@ToBeOrNotToBe, by now everything fits my pet idea about herders expanding from SE Turkey: Z2103 towards the north, L51 towards the west, and V88 towards the south (Green Sahara) by Mediterranean route first

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> @ToBeOrNotToBe, by now everything fits my pet idea about herders expanding from SE Turkey: Z2103 towards the north, L51 towards the west, and V88 towards the south (Green Sahara) by Mediterranean route first


Well V88 split off a long time ago, so that's irrelevant. Iron Gates was V88 though, which complicates things, but it is only logical R1b would have its ultimate homeland somewhere in Balkano-Anatolia.

Apart from that, the idea makes sense. L51 could have taken a path across the Med. to Iberia, which is the most likely, but also potentially up through the Balkans and across Europe (or skipping across the Adriatic, Tyrrhenian and Balearic seas). Even though a Mediterranean route is most likely, this idea is pretty interesting. I think it went from the Balkans to Anatolia to Iberia (M269 to L23 to L51), but Anatolia to Balkans to Iberia is possible too. Anatolia or the Balkans are, without a doubt, going to be the departure point of L23 though.

----------


## Ygorcs

> this is a game changer, now with EEF WHG EHG and CHG in the play ground to who it's supposed to assign IE to Yamna uh? some people will need to crash their skulls. Additional EEF/WHG ancestry in late steppe cultures must come from Balkans, from Central Europe, no more alternatives, but such Western push is linked to the eastward expansion of BB... (by archaeological dates)


I don't know if I understood your point correctly, but... unless the very little % of EEF was sufficient to engender a huge language shift as early as in the entire Eneolithic steppe, I don't think any IE / EEF connection is plausible. The extra EEF growth, which you say is chronologically associated with the eastward expansion of BB (is it really, didn't it begin earlier?), is IMO too late to be a source of the Indo-European expansion, because by the time of the eastward expansion of BB some of IE branches are already supposed to have spread long ago not only in Europe, but also in Asia, even before 3000-3200 BC, especially in the case of Tocharians (and partially also Anatolians, for I find it simply impossible that CHG/Iranian-enriched ANF and EEF would still speak similar languages or even the same language family after some 4000 years since the immigration to Europe. The highest increase of EEF in the steppes is in the Middle-Late BA groups, too late to explain the IE expansion.

If some of those admixtures is mainly associated with the origins of PIE, then it was due to some historic process that certainly happened before 3000 BC and even, quite probably, before 4000 BC - that is the time where we should be trying to find some archaeological/genetic links with the Ciscaucasian lands, especially the steppes (in my opinion, the most likely thing is that PIE - not its ancestors, PIE proper - already appeared in a heavily mixed EHG/CHG populatioin). I think you're right when you say:_ the CHG admixture was done by Mesolithic people or by pionner southern herders with a strong CHG signal._ I'd look especially for Early-Middle Neolithic movements from the Caucasus (that's explaining the genetic part of the formation of Indo-European populations that would later disperse and bring IE languages to other regions. I myself think it is very difficult to establish whether the language that ultimately prevailed was related mainly to EHG or CHG admixture. It's just too much of a non-empirical detail).

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I don't know if I understood your point correctly, but... unless the very little % of EEF was sufficient to engender a huge language shift as early as in the entire Eneolithic steppe, I don't think any IE / EEF connection is plausible. The extra EEF growth, which you say is chronologically associated with the eastward expansion of BB (is it really, didn't it begin earlier?), is IMO too late to be a source of the Indo-European expansion, because by the time of the eastward expansion of BB some of IE branches are already supposed to have spread long ago not only in Europe, but also in Asia, even before 3000-3200 BC, especially in the case of Tocharians (and partially also Anatolians, for I find it simply impossible that CHG/Iranian-enriched ANF and EEF would still speak similar languages or even the same language family after some 4000 years since the immigration to Europe. The highest increase of EEF in the steppes is in the Middle-Late BA groups, too late to explain the IE expansion.
> 
> If some of those admixtures is mainly associated with the origins of PIE, then it was due to some historic process that certainly happened before 3000 BC and even, quite probably, before 4000 BC - that is the time where we should be trying to find some archaeological/genetic links with the Ciscaucasian lands, especially the steppes (in my opinion, the most likely thing is that PIE - not its ancestors, PIE proper - already appeared in a heavily mixed EHG/CHG populatioin). I think you're right when you say:_ the CHG admixture was done by Mesolithic people or by pionner southern herders with a strong CHG signal._ I'd look especially for Early-Middle Neolithic movements from the Caucasus (that's explaining the genetic part of the formation of Indo-European populations that would later disperse and bring IE languages to other regions. I myself think it is very difficult to establish whether the language that ultimately prevailed was related mainly to EHG or CHG admixture. It's just too much of a non-empirical detail).


Non-ironically you're clearly an intelligent guy - what do you think about L51's origin? Do you really think it waded through the densely populated Balkans as an elite lineage, only to leave no genetic trace? I'll remind you that ALL the Steppe R1b found in the Balkans, all the way up to Vucedol, is Z2103. If it didn't come from the Balkans, how could it have come from the Steppe - and if it didn't come from the Steppe, how could it have come from anywhere else other than the Bell Beaker culture (gaining Steppe admixture from CW women)?

Also, North Atlantid is so painfully obviously Baskid+Corded it irritates me...

----------


## Ygorcs

> There are numerous issues linguistically in terms of the Anatolian languages, and *no* hypothesis totally lays them to rest. That's been apparent for years, although it was most clearly articulated by Mallory relatively recently. It is by no means a question of a satisfactory answer or hypothesis already existing about which there is a consensus, but which various people are now trying to destroy by raising new concerns.
> 
> For those who haven't read it.
> https://www.proto-indo-european.ru/i...ds-nallory.pdf
> 
> "The essential argument as it is normally presented is that Anatolian lacks a considerable numberof features that would characterize Brugmanian Proto-Indo-European (aorist, perfect, subjunctive,optative, etc.; Fortsom 2004, 155) and, therefore, its links with an earlier continuum musthave been severed before Proto-Indo-European (or the rest of the Indo-European languages) developedin common. This can essentially be explained in one of two ways:1. The ancestors of the Anatolian languages migrated from the homeland of the protolanguagebefore it developed common Indo-European features. In this model, Anatolianwould have preserved an archaic structure while the ancestors of the rest of the IndoEuropeanlanguages still remained together and evolved later stages of Proto-Indo-European.2. The ancestors of the Indo-European languages migrated from the homeland of theproto-language. Here it is Proto-Indo-European that moves off to innovate while, presumably,Anatolian was left in the homeland to preserve its archaisms.Obviously we could complicate matters further by proposing a homeland from whichboth the ancestors of Anatolian and (Proto­)Indo-European migrated in different directionsbut this would hardly be likely and it would have little bearing on the following discussion."
> 
> The issues for me with Anthony's proposal that the people speaking perhaps a "pre-Anatolian" language left the steppes first and moved into Anatolia via the Balkans is that although he locates a culture he considers probable as the one bringing a "steppe" language to the Balkans, there is no archaeological trail from that culture into Anatolia at that time. The archaeological trail goes in the other direction. 
> 
> ...


That pretty much sums up the controversy while putting aside the most deranged fringe hypotheses. lol! I think the main issue that troubles me with this "neat" explanation of a Transcaucasian Indo-Hittite PIE > Steppe PIE & Anatolian PIE is that the linguistic evidences (an early, but not _that_ early Anatolian split) and the genetic evidences are not agreeing perfectly with each other, and as far as I can see from this study at least the post-4000 BC Caucasus could not be the source of a PIE-speaking population into the steppes.

They had ANF "proper" ancestry, they had a kind of CHG that is not the supposedly "basal lineage" of CHG present since the Eneolithic Steppe, their Y-DNA makeup was completely different (sorry but, considering virtually all historic/attested background in peoples around the world, the "female transmission" idea doesn't hold).

I also just can't accept the "native people adopted the language of the more advanced people to trade with them", because if that was really likely and usual, and people usually gave up on their native languages even in the absence of any migration, cultural absorption and/or conquest, then I think we should all just give up establishing any connections between linguistics, genetics and archaeology.

Besides, the hypothesis relying on later events, like the growth of EEF-related or even more CHG-related ancestry in the Middle-Late Bronze Age is just too late to explain the dispersal of IE branches and the degree of their linguistic divergence.

----------


## Ygorcs

> @ToBeOrNotToBe, by now everything fits my pet idea about herders expanding from SE Turkey: Z2103 towards the north, L51 towards the west, and V88 towards the south (Green Sahara) by Mediterranean route first


In what period and historic context would that expansion have occurred and made its genetic impact? What autosomal admixtures do you think were most related to this R1b-Z2103/L51/V88 population and would have increased its presence significantly in the north, south and west alike (CHG, ANF?)?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> In what period and historic context would that expansion have occurred and made its genetic impact? What autosomal admixtures do you think were most related to this R1b-Z2103/L51/V88 population and would have increased its presence significantly in the north, south and west alike (CHG, ANF?)?


Ya cheeky bastard lol, what have I done to deserve a blank. Just because I believe gingers really got about (as in, they did) doesn't mean none of what I say has value.

But seriously, FOKIN CHINCHORRO MUMMIES!!! How is that not proof in and of itself...

----------


## Ygorcs

> Non-ironically you're clearly an intelligent guy - what do you think about L51's origin? Do you really think it waded through the densely populated Balkans as an elite lineage, only to leave no genetic trace? I'll remind you that ALL the Steppe R1b found in the Balkans, all the way up to Vucedol, is Z2103. If it didn't come from the Balkans, how could it have come from the Steppe - and if it didn't come from the Steppe, how could it have come from anywhere else other than the Bell Beaker culture (gaining Steppe admixture from CW women)?
> 
> Also, North Atlantid is so painfully obviously Baskid+Corded it irritates me...


Thanks for your words, mate. R1b-L51 is really a big puzzle for me (for everyone who really strives to follow the data, I think). I won't pretend I have any favorite hypothesis that I support more than any other.

In my opinion, since L51 and Z2103 both come from the same upstream ancestor L23, and since they seem to have split so much later than V88, my hunch is that L23 dispersal was not involved in the same demographic process that separated L388 (eventually M269) from V88. I'd say they probably dispersed from the same region. I think that we don't have enough genetic data to affirm or even speculate with better substantiation what exactly happened. If Z2103, already fully diverged, already existed in the steppes around 4000 BC, then that Z2103/L51 two-direction expansion was certainly before that, firmly in the Neolithic. Then, we should find more R1b-L23 (and ideally L51) in Neolithic Europe as early as 4500-3500 BC. Did scientists find R1b-L23 and R1b-L51 in Western Europe that early? 

I also think we should then define what kind of autosomal DNA these males also spread to the regions where they migrated (and supposedly spread IE dialects too). If Z2103 is found in the steppes early together with a mainly EHG/CHG mix, then these R1b-L23 (Z2103 & L51) people probably were associated mainly with CHG ancestry. Do we have proofs of a big increase of CHG in the region of Neolithic Western Europe (circa 4500-3500 BC) that would later become the 1st points for the spread of BB, together with R1b-L51? I don't really know, but I haven't read anything about either.

Besides, this kind of hypothesis would probably assume that Italo-Celtic is related to BB and other IE branches are related to the "steppe" Z2103-majority populations. But that isn't really supported by mainstream linguistics, not at all, because we'd have to assume a very early split of PIE and assume that Italo-Celtic diverged earlier than virtually any other group (including even Tocharian), virtually as early as the estimated date of divergence of the Anatolian branch.

And why would BB, gaining its L51 and supposedly a lot of autosomal ancestry directly from the Near East, have spread their genes and IE languages, but some of the main regions (mainly Ireland and Britain) where we know L51, BB and Celtic languages were spoken since early on are exactly the ones that show more steppe-related ancestry in Western/Central Europe? All that expansion, which started from Iberian, would have left a deep genetic impact only when the BB males found CWC women and mated with them? Would the BB expansion have been mostly irrelevant (in terms of genetic impact) in non-Iberian North/West Europe until they founded a "secondary BB expansion" in CWC/steppe-enriched Central European BB? don't know, in my view there are several inconsistencies in that "BB as Indo-European R1b-L51" hypothesis, though I can't really deny that possibility with the information we have now. I think we just don't know enough.

My main point is that if Z2103 and L51 are both really associated with the spread of PIE-derived languages, then PIE is very ancient and its dispersal is a 5th milennium BC Neolithic phenomenon. And I don't think this expansion would have happened without an important change in the autosomal makeup of the regions where BB seems to have really changed things for ever, especially the British Isles. And there we see a lot of increase of the same kind of EHG + CHG combination that, coincidentally or not, was also typically found in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. If IE languages came with a CWC-admixed Iberian BB with R1b-L51 of Near Eastern, mainly CHG origin, then I think the BA/IA Britons and Irish would necessarily have a lot more CHG than EHG, because the steppe ancestry in CWC was already itself a roughly 50%-50% EHG-CHG mix, and scientists would have already noticed that that Central European BB were not "just" steppe-derived locals, but a mix of EEF/CHG Iberians with CWC.

Okay, I'll admit: I just don't know, this is all pretty confusing to me, but I confess I can't see PIE, L51 or the Bronze Age genetic transformations in Western Europe coming from Iberian-derived Bell Beakers.

----------


## MOESAN

I avow I'm still puzzled (old song of mine) here my thoughts, not "points"- I say above all this that we have not so much ancient DNA region by region to make so affirmative statements ; keep in minde the "huge" sample we have todate is ridiculously small for statisticians - concerning L51, it have been found in Central-Eastern pops of today - and in Central Europe or even Poland we find today some rather successive SNPs (L23, L51, L11, P312 + U106, a rather northern one?) even if they are not dense, being in lands where new waves of Y-R1a settled and can have erased some R1b clans (this clannic aspect makes we have to sample more again and again: we have already had surprises with new studies, have we not? - I don't discard some legends and the possibility of a two ways forking of Y-R1b-L51 of Europe, one along Mediterranea shores, another along Danube or even more northern lands (old SNP's in southern sweden of today: proto- BB's from Portugal arrived tardily ? lost tribes? I doubt) - BTW some SNP's we have are from surveys not too recent, and they could give us other stages of SNP with new analysis - 
for V88? yes, I ask for more prudence too -
concerning auDNA (ancient one) the increase of more *south*(west)*ern* DNA at the BB's period in some places could correspond to a general tendancy to homogeneization with exchanges on every direction in West (Atlantic Bronze, BB's, CWC) and even in Center: one part of the BB's "southern" element is rather from East-Central Europe, not all from Atlantic regions (confirmed by mtDNA); and don't forget the TRBK/FBC input and role for exchanges; nothing simple here -

----------


## Ygorcs

> Well V88 split off a long time ago, so that's irrelevant. Iron Gates was V88 though, which complicates things, but it is only logical R1b would have its ultimate homeland somewhere in Balkano-Anatolia.


I was going to say that right now, as I had forgotten before. Thanks. V88 expansion just can't have happened, independently of other R1b subclades, together with the dispersal that separated L51 from Z2103. Chronology and historical context really matters in genetics. 

P.S.: Sorry, I didn't ignore your hypothesis, but, you know, the so-called "pet theory" of Berun may be completely different from yours. It seems you're coming from the same premises... but not arriving at the same conclusions at all. LOL! I'd like to compare them, even if just to ultimately criticize them, hahaha, but who knows? Maybe some light turns on in my brain suddenly. :-D

----------


## MOESAN

Southwestern Northwestern Europeans have globally rather less 'westasian' than East or South-east, but when we try to discriinate deeper we see

----------


## Angela

> That pretty much sums up the controversy while putting aside the most deranged fringe hypotheses. lol! I think the main issue that troubles me with this "neat" explanation of a Transcaucasian Indo-Hittite PIE > Steppe PIE & Anatolian PIE is that the linguistic evidences (an early, but not _that_ early Anatolian split) and the genetic evidences are not agreeing perfectly with each other, and as far as I can see from this study at least the post-4000 BC Caucasus could not be the source of a PIE-speaking population into the steppes.
> 
> They had ANF "proper" ancestry, they had a kind of CHG that is not the supposedly "basal lineage" of CHG present since the Eneolithic Steppe, their Y-DNA makeup was completely different (sorry but, considering virtually all historic/attested background in peoples around the world, the "female transmission" idea doesn't hold).
> 
> I also just can't accept the "native people adopted the language of the more advanced people to trade with them", because if that was really likely and usual, and people usually gave up on their native languages even in the absence of any migration, cultural absorption and/or conquest, then I think we should all just give up establishing any connections between linguistics, genetics and archaeology.
> 
> Besides, the hypothesis relying on later events, like the growth of EEF-related or even more CHG-related ancestry in the Middle-Late Bronze Age is just too late to explain the dispersal of IE branches and the degree of their linguistic divergence.


Sorry, you have perhaps misunderstood me. I never said nor implied there aren't issues with the homeland in the Caucasus hypothesis.

However, to address some of your points:

Just as there is no specific archaeological context for the movement of this early form of Pre Proto IE from the Balkans to Anatolia, there is none for the movement from the Caucasus, or perhaps better, for the movement of "Caucasus like people" to the steppe carrying this early form of the language. Perhaps in one case we'll eventually find the appropriate culture, which will make things a lot clearer, but we don't have them yet.

In both cases we're probably indeed looking at around 4000 BC or so.

I don't know whether at that point only women moved onto the steppe. The fact that we've as yet found no Caucasus like y dna (according to current thinking) in the steppe at this early period certainly is evidence for that, and, indeed, women are not usually the vehicles for language change. 

That is the biggest issue.

However, I think it is still possible that certain R1b groups, wherever R1b first developed, might have moved back and forth across the Caucasus, as Maciamo opined years ago, and some could have picked up a more CHG like autosomal profile before returning north. Jean Manco, although she was a standard issue steppist, did publish her speculations to the effect that the R1b groups might have pastured their herds along the Black Sea and perhaps in the Caucasus during the summer. 

I don't understand the issue with EEF. It could have entered the steppe with different people and from a totally different direction. From my perspective all this blather there used to be about the "steppe" people, as if they were some unique, holy group dropped from a spaceship is ridiculous. I think what the evidence tells us is that the steppe was like a giant stew pot where everybody got mixed up. We're talking about EHG, CHG, WHG, and EEF, and then maybe this Siberian Neolithic group. Look at what happened in later periods: it turned majority "East Asian like". Even in the Bronze Age, the "modelers" keep pointing out this and that "outlier", and that's in very small sample sets. Different areas were getting different inputs. That's why it's a mistake imo to "drop" the outliers and create these artificially "cohesive" clusters. If you do that you may forget them. It was a fluid situation from very early on. 


Well, I suppose there's one possibility where the language of the women is considered. It just occurred to me that perhaps a Caucasus origin "trade" language could have become the lingua franca on the steppe, spoken by the wives on behalf of their men. French acted as a sort of trade language among the Indian tribes of Canada and the northern U.S. for Indian tribes who didn't understand each other's languages, although in that case it was the French men or Coureurs de bois who usually provided those services. 

Anyway, there are problems no matter which alternative you choose.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Thanks for your words, mate. R1b-L51 is really a big puzzle for me (for everyone who really strives to follow the data, I think). I won't pretend I have any favorite hypothesis that I support more than any other.
> 
> In my opinion, since L51 and Z2103 both come from the same upstream ancestor L23, and since they seem to have split so much later than V88, my hunch is that L23 dispersal was not involved in the same demographic process that separated L388 (eventually M269) from V88. I'd say they probably dispersed from the same region. I think that we don't have enough genetic data to affirm or even speculate with better substantiation what exactly happened. If Z2103, already fully diverged, already existed in the steppes around 4000 BC, then that Z2103/L51 two-direction expansion was certainly before that, firmly in the Neolithic. Then, we should find more R1b-L23 (and ideally L51) in Neolithic Europe as early as 4500-3500 BC. Did scientists find R1b-L23 and R1b-L51 in Western Europe that early? 
> 
> I also think we should then define what kind of autosomal DNA these males also spread to the regions where they migrated (and supposedly spread IE dialects too). If Z2103 is found in the steppes early together with a mainly EHG/CHG mix, then these R1b-L23 (Z2103 & L51) people probably were associated mainly with CHG ancestry. Do we have proofs of a big increase of CHG in the region of Neolithic Western Europe (circa 4500-3500 BC) that would later become the 1st points for the spread of BB, together with R1b-L51? I don't really know, but I haven't read anything about either.
> 
> Besides, this kind of hypothesis would probably assume that Italo-Celtic is related to BB and other IE branches are related to the "steppe" Z2103-majority populations. But that isn't really supported by mainstream linguistics, not at all, because we'd have to assume a very early split of PIE and assume that Italo-Celtic diverged earlier than virtually any other group (including even Tocharian), virtually as early as the estimated date of divergence of the Anatolian branch.
> 
> And why would BB, gaining its L51 and supposedly a lot of autosomal ancestry directly from the Near East, have spread their genes and IE languages, but some of the main regions (mainly Ireland and Britain) where we know L51, BB and Celtic languages were spoken since early on are exactly the ones that show more steppe-related ancestry in Western/Central Europe? All that expansion, which started from Iberian, would have left a deep genetic impact only when the BB males found CWC women and mated with them? Would the BB expansion have been mostly irrelevant (in terms of genetic impact) in non-Iberian North/West Europe until they founded a "secondary BB expansion" in CWC/steppe-enriched Central European BB? don't know, in my view there are several inconsistencies in that "BB as Indo-European R1b-L51" hypothesis, though I can't really deny that possibility with the information we have now. I think we just don't know enough.
> ...


I’m not saying L51 is Indo-European. I’m saying that the Indo-European languages we associate with L51, are actually originally from Corded Ware. The ONLY way L51 could be Indo-European is if it expanded from the Steppe after contact with some other Indo-European group. That is, assuming L23 is pre-Indo-European.

----------


## Silesian

> Next question- what type of lumber/wood[tree] was used in the construction of some of the first wagons? Say for example this one depicted in Sumerian art. The axes depicted in the picture below bronze or copper?


Let's speculate the Sumerians had access to oak trees[since oak is a strong wood compared to palm tree] found in select areas in Iraq;and there tools and weapons were made of arsenic bronze. To put them on equal ground as Maykop[early bronze sword] culture in terms of wood and bronze tools/weapons.



> Oak trees form the main species of the mountain forests. _Quercus brantii (balut) has the widest range, with Q. infectoria commonly admixed, occurring more frequently on the more favorable sites. Q. libani (dindar) is found in the northern mountains above 1,500 meters elevation_


http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5346e/x5346e06.htm

Now it would make sense if R1b-Z2103 from Hajji Firuzz-Iran[and descendants] lived anywhere near these useful tools [arsenic bronze]and materials-[wood ]they would incorporate innovations as they travel north into the steppe.




We know that R1b found in Khvalynsk were not shy about burying the dead with metal. 




> Khvalynsk Eneolithic in the Volga steppes: Saratovo, Russia (n=3)Three individuals described here were among 39 excavated in 1987-88 at the Eneolithiccemetery of Khvalynsk II, Saratov oblast, Russia, on the west bank of the Volga River, 6 kmnorth of the village of Alekseevka. Khvalynsk I and II are two parts of the same cemetery,excavated in 1977-79 (Khvalynsk I) and 1987-88 (Khvalynsk II).23 The two excavationsrevealed 197 graves, about 10x larger than other cemeteries of this period in the Volga-Uralsteppes, dated by radiocarbon to 5200-4000 BCE (95.4% confidence). Bones of domesticatedcattle and sheep-goat, and horses of uncertain status, were included in 28 human graves andin 10 sacrificial deposits. The 367 copper artifacts in the graves, mostly beads and rings, arethe oldest _copper objects_ in the Volga-Ural steppes, and trace elements and manufacturingmethods in a few objects suggest trade with southeastern Europe. Together with high 15N inthe human bones from Khvalynsk, which might have caused a reservoir effect making 14Cdates too old, the circulation of so much copper, which increased in SE Europe after 4700BCE, suggests that a date after 4700 BCE would be reasonable for many graves atKhvalynsk. Copper was found in 13 adult male graves, 8 adult female graves, and 4 sub-adultgraves. The unusually large cemetery at Khvalynsk contained southern Europeoid andnorthern Europeoid cranio-facial types, consistent with the possibility that people from thenorthern and southern steppes mingled and were buried here. 10122 / SVP35 (grave 12)Male (confirmed genetically), age 20-30, positioned on his back with raised knees, with 293copper artifacts, mostly beads, amounting to 80% of the copper objects in the combinedcemeteries of Khvalynsk I and II. Probably a high-status individual, his Y-chromosomehaplotype, R1b1, also characterized the high-status individuals buried under kurgans in laterYamnaya graves in this region, so he could be regarded as a founder of an elite group ofpatrilineally related families. His MtDNA haplotype H2a1 is unique in the Samara series


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...16477.full.pdf

----------


## Silesian

> Now it would make sense if R1b-Z2103 from Hajji Firuzz-Iran[and descendants] lived anywhere near these useful tools [arsenic bronze]and materials-[wood ]they would incorporate innovations as they travel north into the steppe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that R1b found in Khvalynsk were not shy about burying the dead with metal. 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...16477.full.pdf


 In fact we can find another R1b-Z2103+ sample with copper celt. Not as fancy as the bronze found further south among the Sumerians or bronze sword in Maykop, technology that a 6000YBP+/- Iranian farmer sample-R1b-z2103 would have been aware of.



> Figure S3.2. Skeleton SVP58 from grave 1 at Kutuluk kurgan cemetery I25,26.Yamnaya in Russia: KutulukKutuluk kurgan cemetery I, located 60 km east of the city of Samara, contained:x SVP58/I0444 (central grave 1, kurgan 4, 3335-2881 calBCE, AA12570)




https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...13433.full.pdf




> The remains are of male aged 25-35 years (Fig. S3.2), estimated height 176 cm, with no obvious injury or disease, and buried with the largest metal object found in a Yamnaya grave anywhere26. The object was a blunt mace 48 cm long, 767 g in weight, cast/annealed and made of pure copper, like most Yamnaya metal objects.

----------


## Silesian

Not all R1b-Z2103 bought into the ideas of arsenic bronze or copper tools and weapons as can be seen in Lopatino I with a nice early date[grave 1, 3339-2917 calBCE] sample-this R1b-Z2103 individual preferred to be buried [old school]with the old flint projectile technology rather than a fancy bronze or copper dagger/axe/sword found further south in the Maykop and Uruk-Sumerian cultures.



> Yamnaya in Russia: Lopatino IA large cemetery of 39 kurgans was located on a low terrace beside the Sok River, Samaraoblast, Russia (N53°38’24”/E50°39’18”). Eight kurgans were excavated in different years byvarious teams. Five were constructed in the Yamnaya period and three were added by theMBA Poltavka culture. We included three individuals from this site:x SVP5/I0357 (kurgan 35, central grave 1, 3090-2910 calBCE, Beta 39248)was from a grave that contained the remains of two Yamnaya individuals, includingan adult woman and a child, an unusual pair, because 75-80% of individuals inYamnaya kurgans in the Samara region were adult males.x SVP38/I0429 (kurgan 31, central grave 1, 3339-2917 calBCE, AA47804)was from a grave of an adult male 35-45 years old, 175 cm tall, supine, _with atriangular flint projectile point beside him._x SVP52/I0439 (kurgan 1, central grave 1, 3305-2925 calBCE, Beta 392491)was from an adult male 25-35 years old, 178.5 cm tall.


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...13433.full.pdf

----------


## halfalp

Well once again i'm lost... i re-re-read the paper and they say that. " _Our fitted model recapitulates the genetic separation between the Caucasus and Steppe groups with the Eneolithic steppe individuals deriving more than 60% of ancestry from EHG and the remainder from a CHG-related basal lineage, whereas the Maykop group received about 86.4% from CHG, 9.6% Anatolian farming related ancestry, and 4% from EHG. "_ But looking at their graph, the 60% in steppe eneolithic is green, wich is the dominant color in their Iran Neolithic, Iran Hotu etc.

----------


## Ailchu

> Well once again i'm lost... i re-re-read the paper and they say that. " _Our fitted model recapitulates the genetic separation between the Caucasus and Steppe groups with the Eneolithic steppe individuals deriving more than 60% of ancestry from EHG and the remainder from a CHG-related basal lineage, whereas the Maykop group received about 86.4% from CHG, 9.6% Anatolian farming related ancestry, and 4% from EHG. "_ But looking at their graph, the 60% in steppe eneolithic is green, wich is the dominant color in their Iran Neolithic, Iran Hotu etc.


the way i would explain their senrence is that when they say EHG they do not mean the blue admixture but the EHG people, which according to this graphic already had CHG like ancestry or whatever this green thing actually is. if we look at the bluue it doesn't seem to be simply EHG. its also ancestry similar to WHG's who are mostly blue. so maybe we could say that EHG's are WHG like people with CHG-like input?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Well once again i'm lost... i re-re-read the paper and they say that. " _Our fitted model recapitulates the genetic separation between the Caucasus and Steppe groups with the Eneolithic steppe individuals deriving more than 60% of ancestry from EHG and the remainder from a CHG-related basal lineage, whereas the Maykop group received about 86.4% from CHG, 9.6% Anatolian farming related ancestry, and 4% from EHG. "_ But looking at their graph, the 60% in steppe eneolithic is green, wich is the dominant color in their Iran Neolithic, Iran Hotu etc.


Maybe they see EHG as a hybrid population between WHG and CHG, but I thought EHG itself should just be modelled as 100% EHG.

----------


## halfalp

> Maybe they see EHG as a hybrid population between WHG and CHG, but I thought EHG itself should just be modelled as 100% EHG.


EHG is probably in eastern europe between 15'000 / 13'000 BC, because after Epoch, in the recent paper on Horse domestication and Botai, they found an 100% EHG individual in ukraine dated 11'000 BC. So if it's their idea that EHG is WHG + CHG and not WHG + ANE, CHG is then something else, something like ANE + WHG + Iran_Paleolithic ( ??? ) ( Basal Eurasian ? ).

----------


## johen

> We know that R1b found *in Khvalynsk* were not shy about burying the dead with metal. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Probably a high-status individual, his Y-chromosomehaplotype, R1b1, also characterized the high-status individuals buried under kurgans in laterYamnaya graves in this region, so he could be regarded as a founder of an elite group ofpatrilineally related families. His MtDNA haplotype H2a1 is unique in the Samara series_


Do you know whether Eneolihic steppe R1b1 on this paper was buried in just supine position or with legs flexed? 

- looks like R1b-Z2103 from Hajji Firuzz-Iran could not be connected to yamna, b/c the burial types from Khvalynsk R1b to yamna R1b were supine positions with legs flexed as you quoted. This burial type is a unique form in steppe.




> Not all R1b-Z2103 bought into the ideas of arsenic bronze or copper tools and weapons as can be seen in Lopatino I with a nice early date[grave 1, 3339-2917 calBCE] sample-this *R1b-Z2103* individual preferred to be buried [old school]*with the old flint projectile technology* rather than a fancy bronze or copper dagger/axe/sword found further south in the Maykop and Uruk-Sumerian cultures.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> because 75-80% of individuals in Yamnaya kurgans in the Samara region were adult males.x SVP38/I0429 (kurgan 31, central grave 1, 3339-2917 calBCE, AA47804)was from a grave of an adult male 35-45 years old, 175 cm tall, supine,
> 
> 
> ...


I think the Z2103 would not be yamna people, but from Khvalynsk people who was buried *in supine position*. The Khvalynsk is an Uraloid, which means intermediate, I think.

https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/the...y-cape-burial/

So Bolshemysskaya P297 sample in Altai, predating afanasievo, would be connected to steppe sintashta z2103 with dominant west siberia HG, Botai M73, this Khvalynsk one.

I think this dead one might be sintashta z2103 by plague, being different from CWC and yamna burial type.

----------


## halfalp

> the way i would explain their senrence is that when they say EHG they do not mean the blue admixture but the EHG people, which according to this graphic already had CHG like ancestry or whatever this green thing actually is. if we look at the bluue it doesn't seem to be simply EHG. its also ancestry similar to WHG's who are mostly blue. so maybe we could say that EHG's are WHG like people with CHG-like input?


We shall wait their explanation.

----------


## bicicleur

> Well once again i'm lost... i re-re-read the paper and they say that. " _Our fitted model recapitulates the genetic separation between the Caucasus and Steppe groups with the Eneolithic steppe individuals deriving more than 60% of ancestry from EHG and the remainder from a CHG-related basal lineage, whereas the Maykop group received about 86.4% from CHG, 9.6% Anatolian farming related ancestry, and 4% from EHG. "_ But looking at their graph, the 60% in steppe eneolithic is green, wich is the dominant color in their Iran Neolithic, Iran Hotu etc.


the graph is K-admixture, green is not CHG, blue is not EHG and ocre is not EEF, but they are proxys

----------


## berun

> I don't know if I understood your point correctly, but... unless the very little % of EEF was sufficient to engender a huge language shift as early as in the entire Eneolithic steppe, I don't think any IE / EEF connection is plausible. The extra EEF growth, which you say is chronologically associated with the eastward expansion of BB (is it really, didn't it begin earlier?), is IMO too late to be a source of the Indo-European expansion, because by the time of the eastward expansion of BB some of IE branches are already supposed to have spread long ago not only in Europe, but also in Asia, even before 3000-3200 BC, especially in the case of Tocharians (and partially also Anatolians, for I find it simply impossible that CHG/Iranian-enriched ANF and EEF would still speak similar languages or even the same language family after some 4000 years since the immigration to Europe. The highest increase of EEF in the steppes is in the Middle-Late BA groups, too late to explain the IE expansion.
> 
> If some of those admixtures is mainly associated with the origins of PIE, then it was due to some historic process that certainly happened before 3000 BC and even, quite probably, before 4000 BC - that is the time where we should be trying to find some archaeological/genetic links with the Ciscaucasian lands, especially the steppes (in my opinion, the most likely thing is that PIE - not its ancestors, PIE proper - already appeared in a heavily mixed EHG/CHG populatioin). I think you're right when you say:_ the CHG admixture was done by Mesolithic people or by pionner southern herders with a strong CHG signal._ I'd look especially for Early-Middle Neolithic movements from the Caucasus (that's explaining the genetic part of the formation of Indo-European populations that would later disperse and bring IE languages to other regions. I myself think it is very difficult to establish whether the language that ultimately prevailed was related mainly to EHG or CHG admixture. It's just too much of a non-empirical detail).


Even considering BB the original carriers of IE (6th option), that would justify the spread of Celtic, Italic, Germanic and even 
Balto-Slavic, and Balkanic languages (from Hungary), they might be capable to change language to former CWC people but in eastern areas, much less colonized, the autosomal would be more diluted, and even local R1a Y-DNA would be integrated, which ultimately would expand eastwards providing Indo-Iranic and Tocharian by 2000 BC in the steppes... sounds like writting a major heresy, but now, with the data on hand, one can expose even this case.

Your point about Tocharian is based in an assumption not demonstrated: that Afanasievo are linked to Tocharians (different Y-DNA profiles, 3 millenia diffrence and 2000 km distance). Also it's an assumption to link IE to Yamna.

----------


## berun

> In what period and historic context would that expansion have occurred and made its genetic impact? What autosomal admixtures do you think were most related to this R1b-Z2103/L51/V88 population and would have increased its presence significantly in the north, south and west alike (CHG, ANF?)?


It would be a Neolithic expansion linked to herders (cows? sheeps?); the area of departure is just in the possible frontier ANF-CHG so it is difficult to say what original autosomal profile they would present; as herders are allways a minority among farmers the final regional admixture would depend greatly on the main admixture profile of each region.

By the way as now genetists are finding EEF in Yamnayans, let's check if they find also some CHG in EEF peoples...

----------


## halfalp

> the graph is K-admixture, green is not CHG, blue is not EHG and ocre is not EEF, but they are proxys


What does that mean, concretely ?

----------


## Ygorcs

> It would be a Neolithic expansion linked to herders (cows? sheeps?); the area of departure is just in the possible frontier ANF-CHG so it is difficult to say what original autosomal profile they would present; as herders are allways a minority among farmers the final regional admixture would depend greatly on the main admixture profile of each region.
> 
> By the way as now genetists are finding EEF in Yamnayans, let's check if they find also some CHG in EEF peoples...


I see, that makes some sense, so we just need the data to either confirm its plausibility or put it aside. I must say that, if those same herders also brought PIE to the steppes, I can only visualize them as a CHG-majority people, because the main "steppe" mix since very early (4300 BC) was only EHG-CHG, there was no ANF in the Eneolithic Steppe, and when the ANF appears it is mainly associated with "western" (European) EEF and not with Near Eastern ANF, with that happening only significantly later (probably too late to account for the departure of Tocharian from an already differentiated Late PIE, and for the wide dialectal differentiation in the steppes that was probably already quite advanced by 3000-2800 BC according to linguists).

----------


## Ygorcs

> Even considering BB the original carriers of IE (6th option), that would justify the spread of Celtic, Italic, Germanic and even 
> Balto-Slavic, and Balkanic languages (from Hungary), they might be capable to change language to former CWC people but in eastern areas, much less colonized, the autosomal would be more diluted, and even local R1a Y-DNA would be integrated, which ultimately would expand eastwards providing Indo-Iranic and Tocharian by 2000 BC in the steppes... sounds like writting a major heresy, but now, with the data on hand, one can expose even this case.
> 
> Your point about Tocharian is based in an assumption not demonstrated: that Afanasievo are linked to Tocharians (different Y-DNA profiles, 3 millenia diffrence and 2000 km distance). Also it's an assumption to link IE to Yamna.


Irrespective of the culture that gave origin to Tocharian, or where PIE was first spoken and spread from, it is certain that steppe-related ancestry, with EHG signal, spread significantly during the early and middle Bronze Age in Central Asia, but not much before. Also, it would be necessary to find a Neolithic (assuming that the expansion you hypothesize is a Neolithic spread of pastoralism, as you said) archaeological link that can indicate a spread of a particular culture from the northern Fertile Crescent to the vicinity of the Altai mountains. Is there such a culture? It's not enough to simply dismiss the current hypothesis, it's necessary to substantiate the new one and, additionally, explain the details of the expansion and not just the place of origin.

It also certain that, wherever Proto-Tocharian was spoken, it split from the rest of the IE languages very early, probably before 3000 BC (I think most linguists assume a date around 3200-3500 BC). So, I think that sets a "latest" possible date for the dispersal and differentiation of IE languages even excluding the most archaic and controversial branch, Anatolian. PIE was most certainly spoken, in undivided form, before 3500 BC and, including Antolian, very probably before 4000 BC. And if they came from the Near East as early as the Neolithic it's necessary to find a common genetic sign of that expansion right from the Near East to both Western Europe and the Tarim Basin. Otherwise, we'll just be coming back to the "steppe as a vehicle" hypothesis, that is, Pre-PIE coming from Transcaucasia or Anatolia but developing and splitting into different languages in the steppes, possibly with the exception of Anatolian.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Sorry, you have perhaps misunderstood me. I never said nor implied there aren't issues with the homeland in the Caucasus hypothesis.
> 
> However, to address some of your points:
> 
> Just as there is no specific archaeological context for the movement of this early form of Pre Proto IE from the Balkans to Anatolia, there is none for the movement from the Caucasus, or perhaps better, for the movement of "Caucasus like people" to the steppe carrying this early form of the language. Perhaps in one case we'll eventually find the appropriate culture, which will make things a lot clearer, but we don't have them yet.
> 
> In both cases we're probably indeed looking at around 4000 BC or so.
> 
> I don't know whether at that point only women moved onto the steppe. The fact that we've as yet found no Caucasus like y dna (according to current thinking) in the steppe at this early period certainly is evidence for that, and, indeed, women are not usually the vehicles for language change. 
> ...


I agree with your points. That's why I say that those who are claiming "game over" (funnily enough people from both sides, is that some kind of confirmation bias or really cognitive dissonance?) should be more careful, because as far as I can see we now have more doubts and questions than before, especially because the historic process of the formation of PIE _and_ (a different issue) of the dispersal and expansion of its daughter languages looks increasingly more complex, without one only pattern that applies to everywhere.

My main point now, with all these considerations made above, is that, chronologically, there's an "elephant in the room", which is: if those who brought what would become PIE came from the South Caucasus, but that cultural change and mixing with EHG natives happened too early, say, around 5000-4300 BC, then it's simply hard, especially to linguists, to accept that "PIE was a South Caucasian language, period". We'd be talking about different stages in the evolution of the language (comparatively, it would be like saying that "Portuguese is a Central Italian language, because Latin was born there, period"). Maybe its origins were there, but PIE couldn't have been spoken in 5000 BC in the South Caucasus and still be the same undifferentiated language in 3500-3000 BC in the steppes.

In that case, nor the "steppists" nor the "caucasianists" would be completely right nor completely wrong: Pre-PIE would've been from the Caucasus, but certainly not PIE, the last common and undifferentiated language that links all IE groups together, and the IE expansion would've been almost entirely a steppe phenomenon, with Anatolian possibly (we'll see when we have more samples) splitting so early (circa 4300 BC?) that there was still some regional structure where at least one CHG-majority PIE population still existed, somewhere near the steppes, becoming the Proto-Anatolians.

----------


## Ernekar

> I agree with your points. That's why I say that those who are claiming "game over" (funnily enough people from both sides, is that some kind of confirmation bias or really cognitive dissonance?) should be more careful, because as far as I can see we now have more doubts and questions than before, especially because the historic process of the formation of PIE _and_ (a different issue) of the dispersal and expansion of its daughter languages looks increasingly more complex, without one only pattern that applies to everywhere.
> 
> My main point now, with all these considerations made above, is that, chronologically, there's an "elephant in the room", which is: if those who brought what would become PIE came from the South Caucasus, but that cultural change and mixing with EHG natives happened too early, say, around 5000-4300 BC, then it's simply hard, especially to linguists, to accept that "PIE was a South Caucasian language, period". We'd be talking about different stages in the evolution of the language (comparatively, it would be like saying that "Portuguese is a Central Italian language, because Latin was born there, period"). Maybe its origins were there, but PIE couldn't have been spoken in 5000 BC in the South Caucasus and still be the same undifferentiated language in 3500-3000 BC in the steppes.
> 
> In that case, nor the "steppists" nor the "caucasianists" would be completely right nor completely wrong: Pre-PIE would've been from the Caucasus, but certainly not PIE, the last common and undifferentiated language that links all IE groups together, and the IE expansion would've been almost entirely a steppe phenomenon, with Anatolian possibly (we'll see when we have more samples) splitting so early (circa 4300 BC?) that there was still some regional structure where at least one CHG-majority PIE population still existed, somewhere near the steppes, becoming the Proto-Anatolians.


The anatolian branch is crucial here.
Because if the anatolian branch came from the steppes, then like you say, the language south of the caucasus would be pre-PIE, while the later steppe version would be PIE.
But if the anatolian branch branched off already while south of the caucasus, then the language it branched off from would be PIE, not pre-PIE. And then the steppe IE would just become an early form of IE, not PIE.

----------


## Angela

> I agree with your points. That's why I say that those who are claiming "game over" (funnily enough people from both sides, is that some kind of confirmation bias or really cognitive dissonance?) should be more careful, because as far as I can see we now have more doubts and questions than before, especially because the historic process of the formation of PIE _and_ (a different issue) of the dispersal and expansion of its daughter languages looks increasingly more complex, without one only pattern that applies to everywhere.
> 
> My main point now, with all these considerations made above, is that, chronologically, there's an "elephant in the room", which is: if those who brought what would become PIE came from the South Caucasus, but that cultural change and mixing with EHG natives happened too early, say, around 5000-4300 BC, then it's simply hard, especially to linguists, to accept that "PIE was a South Caucasian language, period". We'd be talking about different stages in the evolution of the language (comparatively, it would be like saying that "Portuguese is a Central Italian language, because Latin was born there, period"). Maybe its origins were there, but PIE couldn't have been spoken in 5000 BC in the South Caucasus and still be the same undifferentiated language in 3500-3000 BC in the steppes.
> 
> In that case, nor the "steppists" nor the "caucasianists" would be completely right nor completely wrong: Pre-PIE would've been from the Caucasus, but certainly not PIE, the last common and undifferentiated language that links all IE groups together, and the IE expansion would've been almost entirely a steppe phenomenon, with Anatolian possibly (we'll see when we have more samples) splitting so early (circa 4300 BC?) that there was still some regional structure where at least one CHG-majority PIE population still existed, somewhere near the steppes, becoming the Proto-Anatolians.


I can't say all, of course, but for some people the stance they take seems to me more emotionally invested, rather than rational, perhaps stemming from issues of identification.

Anyway, as to substance, the geneticists are talking about possible,* late* PIE on the steppe, implying perhaps *early PIE* south of the Caucasus or in the Caucasus, but they're not linguists and I didn't check to see if any linguists are signed onto the paper. 

What I find interesting is that all three of the major labs are at least holding this out as a possibility. I don't know if it's because they have samples of which we're unaware, although this Willerslev group seems to be pretty definite that they have no samples from older time periods, or because they think perhaps Reich does and he left it open. Who knows? They just might be trying to cover all bases.

One thing I can say definitely is that they didn't present evidence here that can lay it to rest. On the other hand, I didn't think the Reich Lab's paper on South Asia presented a rock solid chain of proof either, although I agree with the conclusion in general, although more son than this paper. There are just no smoking guns lately. It's all much more complex than a lot of people were willing to credit.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Well once again i'm lost... i re-re-read the paper and they say that. " _Our fitted model recapitulates the genetic separation between the Caucasus and Steppe groups with the Eneolithic steppe individuals deriving more than 60% of ancestry from EHG and the remainder from a CHG-related basal lineage, whereas the Maykop group received about 86.4% from CHG, 9.6% Anatolian farming related ancestry, and 4% from EHG. "_ But looking at their graph, the 60% in steppe eneolithic is green, wich is the dominant color in their Iran Neolithic, Iran Hotu etc.


According to Razib Khan's post in his blog, the green component means simply "basal component mainly found in Iran Neolithic". It is not even CHG or Iran_Neolithic, but the basal, older component that is found in very high proportions in these two populations, but probably also contributed to other populations like the EHG.

----------


## Ygorcs

> The anatolian branch is crucial here.
> Because if the anatolian branch came from the steppes, then like you say, the language south of the caucasus would be pre-PIE, while the later steppe version would be PIE.
> But if the anatolian branch branched off already while south of the caucasus, then the language it branched off from would be PIE, not pre-PIE. And then the steppe IE would just become an early form of IE, not PIE.


Exactly. Maybe, if that becomes increasingly likely in the scientific record, the reconstruction of PIE should be rethought to account for this "Indo-Hittie" hypothesis, that is, the reconstructed PIE, including Anatolian, wouldn't be exactly the same creature as the reconstructed Late PIE language. People often forget that this language was alive and evolving and changing along the centuries. If the later IE expansions (with the subsequent IE subgroups) happened for example ~1300 years after the split of Anatolian (imagining a scenario where Anatolian split just before the EHG+CHG mix in the steppe got formed), then we'd be talking about 2 similar and consecutive languages that could be as distinct from each other as Vulgar Latin is from Modern Portuguese, for instance.

----------


## berun

> I see, that makes some sense, so we just need the data to either confirm its plausibility or put it aside. I must say that, if those same herders also brought PIE to the steppes, I can only visualize them as a CHG-majority people, because the main "steppe" mix since very early (4300 BC) was only EHG-CHG, there was no ANF in the Eneolithic Steppe, and when the ANF appears it is mainly associated with "western" (European) EEF and not with Near Eastern ANF, with that happening only significantly later (probably too late to account for the departure of Tocharian from an already differentiated Late PIE, and for the wide dialectal differentiation in the steppes that was probably already quite advanced by 3000-2800 BC according to linguists).


How much "steppe" is present in Mycaenians to be recognized as IE? not so much, elites are capable to change languages. You are "glued" yet to the steppe as the source, inertia is big after so many decades of learning, but opening mind eases many contras. Even so for me the BB option would be the 6th and EEF would be the 5th, my favorite pet idea is Middle Dnieper Culture yet, it deserves more datations and genetic work.

----------


## Ygorcs

> How much "steppe" is present in Mycaenians to be recognized as IE? not so much, elites are capable to change languages. You are "glued" yet to the steppe as the source, inertia is big after so many decades of learning, but opening mind eases many contras. Even so for me the BB option would be the 6th and EEF would be the 5th, my favorite pet idea is Middle Dnieper Culture yet, it deserves more datations and genetic work.


AFAIK around 10-20% in the few simples we've found (and I think that could even be more like 15-25% if you consider that Mycenaeans probably arrived around 2000 BC, so their makeup was definitely not very high in EHG even before they mixed with Pre-Greeks). I think that's more than enough considering that they aren't early PIE speakers, but people firmly established in populous Mediterranean, Southeastern Europe some 1500 years after PIE is supposed to have been last spoken. I'm not deeply attached to the steppe hypothesis, and in fact I myself think the most likely hypothesis is just a "mild" version of it mainly with heavy Caucasian influence, but until now all the data seems to fit a scenario where at least most (not all necessarily) IE branches came from the steppes or somewhere immediately neighboring it, so in my opinion if things will change it will be a bit to the north or to the south, or maybe to the west, but still around the Pontic-Caspian area (the Middle Dnieper culture is actually IMO too late to account for the origin of Common - undivided - PIE, but it's still just a minor change in terms of geographical origins and genetic associations for PIE, we're still placing it in the forest-steppe of Ukraine and in a culture with a very high autosomal DNA similarity in relation to earlier Sredny Stog II and Yamnaya).

----------


## LeBrok

> I agree with your points. That's why I say that those who are claiming "game over" (funnily enough people from both sides, is that some kind of confirmation bias or really cognitive dissonance?) should be more careful, because as far as I can see we now have more doubts and questions than before, especially because the historic process of the formation of PIE _and_ (a different issue) of the dispersal and expansion of its daughter languages looks increasingly more complex, without one only pattern that applies to everywhere.


I hear Yanni ;). 

But seriously, a great paper but very difficult to decipher movement of all the cultures. They should have used specific admixtures for cultural groups or the once we are used to. I'm yet to read it anyway, ... perhaps on my vacation, when time allows.
Maybe when they publish the genomes we could figure additional info running them through gedmatch.

----------


## Ernekar

> Exactly. Maybe, if that becomes increasingly likely in the scientific record, the reconstruction of PIE should be rethought to account for this "Indo-Hittie" hypothesis, that is, the reconstructed PIE, including Anatolian, wouldn't be exactly the same creature as the reconstructed Late PIE language. People often forget that this language was alive and evolving and changing along the centuries. If the later IE expansions (with the subsequent IE subgroups) happened for example ~1300 years after the split of Anatolian (imagining a scenario where Anatolian split just before the EHG+CHG mix in the steppe got formed), then we'd be talking about 2 similar and consecutive languages that could be as distinct from each other as Vulgar Latin is from Modern Portuguese, for instance.


I agree.

And yes, it could be very interesting if someone made a PIE reconstruction where anatolian is included as well(im not sure if it has been done yet, or if anatolian was excluded in the reconstructions we have today)
I know that Max planck institute are making a whole new database for IE, with root, root-language and other stuff. But it is not yet public. Although there is a screenshot of it on Max Plancks site, and i think it looks very promising: http://www.shh.mpg.de/207610/cobldatabase

I have also had the thought that a language would change radically when crossing a mt. range like the caucasus in prehistory and then mixing in something like a one-to-one ratio with another people with a completely different language(in this case the language of the EHG-like peoples).

But then again, some tribes who mixed to a lesser degree would retain a more archaic dialect, while those tribes who mixed more would have a higher rate of change linguistically. Like specific sound changes('b' becoming 'v' for instance) or even borrow new words from the hunter gatherers for some more basic things like 'head', 'arm', 'meat', 'caribou' etc.

But i think the words linked to metal, pastoralism, agriculture, seafaring etc. would have been shared in the same form by most of the tribes(regardless of their EHG/CHG proportions), as these things were probably more or less unknown to the hunter gatherers prior to the arrival of the southerners. So they probably just borrowed those words directly.

----------


## johen

> Now it would make sense if R1b-Z2103 from Hajji Firuzz-Iran[and descendants] lived anywhere near* these useful tools [arsenic bronze]and materials-[wood ]*they would incorporate innovations as they travel north into the steppe.


That things happened in south Caucasus around 2,400bc. 




> Going back to Southern Caucasus, the apparent stability of the Kura-Araxes communities went through a crisis around the mid-third millennium BC, and by 2400 BC their traditions and system of values were replaced by that of the *“Early Kurgans.”* It is not yet clear if, between ca. 2600 and 2500 BC, another “gray” cultural phase of coexistence between Kura-Araxes and “Early Kurgans” traditions (table 1) took place in the region (Rova, 2014). However, by 2400 BC changes are consistently visible, starting with settlement patterns; the abandonment of the former Kura-Araxes villages and a shift toward less permanent occupations and higher mobility coupled with the construction of monumental funerary tumuli (Edens, 1995). 
> 
> *These earthen kurgans*—with their preserved wooden-log funerary chambers containing wheeled wagons (Djaparidze, 2003; Makharadze and Murvanidze, 2014; Lyonnet, 2014) and rich funerary inventories composed of skillfully crafted golden and silver artifacts, arsenical copper, and tin-bronze objects (Chernykh, 1992; Carminati, 2014)—*are paradigmatic of the radical changes in the region*. While the focus on land as a primary resource for agro-pastoral activities was a pillar of the socioeconomic organization of the Kura-Araxes communities, the symbolic presence of wheeled vehicles in the new kurgans emphasizes the importance of mobility, which is not only the result of a new focus on a pastoral economy but presumably also a fundamental prerequisite to connect with routes of communication and trade networks focused on metals (Lyonnet, 2014; Smith, 2015).


So drastic changes:



> See, Armenia had pretty violent history. Here is the chart telling it. First is CHG, the second one is Armenian Farmer of Early Bronze Age. We can see it he is very similar to CHG but with additional admixtures of Iranian and Anatolian Farmers.





> *Next two point to drastic changes Armenia went through during Bronze Age*. The telling sign is sharp rise of North East Euro admixture. The closest source was Bronze Age Steppe, therefore Steppe invasion through Caucase.
> The big surprise is that Modern Armenians don't have much of NE Euro left. They look surprisingly like EBA Armenian before Steppe invasion. It looks like the all the late BA Armenians, possibly the communities extensively mixed with IEs, left the area or were wiped out, and "original" Armenians took over once again.
> 
> M603839
> 
> M536324
> I1658
> 
> M691697
> ...

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> There are numerous issues linguistically in terms of the Anatolian languages, and *no* hypothesis totally lays them to rest. That's been apparent for years, although it was most clearly articulated by Mallory relatively recently. It is by no means a question of a satisfactory answer or hypothesis already existing about which there is a consensus, but which various people are now trying to destroy by raising new concerns.
> 
> For those who haven't read it.
> https://www.proto-indo-european.ru/i...ds-nallory.pdf
> 
> "The essential argument as it is normally presented is that Anatolian lacks a considerable numberof features that would characterize Brugmanian Proto-Indo-European (aorist, perfect, subjunctive,optative, etc.; Fortsom 2004, 155) and, therefore, its links with an earlier continuum musthave been severed before Proto-Indo-European (or the rest of the Indo-European languages) developedin common. This can essentially be explained in one of two ways:1. The ancestors of the Anatolian languages migrated from the homeland of the protolanguagebefore it developed common Indo-European features. In this model, Anatolianwould have preserved an archaic structure while the ancestors of the rest of the IndoEuropeanlanguages still remained together and evolved later stages of Proto-Indo-European.2. The ancestors of the Indo-European languages migrated from the homeland of theproto-language. Here it is Proto-Indo-European that moves off to innovate while, presumably,Anatolian was left in the homeland to preserve its archaisms.Obviously we could complicate matters further by proposing a homeland from whichboth the ancestors of Anatolian and (Proto­)Indo-European migrated in different directionsbut this would hardly be likely and it would have little bearing on the following discussion."
> 
> The issues for me with Anthony's proposal that the people speaking perhaps a "pre-Anatolian" language left the steppes first and moved into Anatolia via the Balkans is that although he locates a culture he considers probable as the one bringing a "steppe" language to the Balkans, there is no archaeological trail from that culture into Anatolia at that time. The archaeological trail goes in the other direction. 
> 
> ...


The Balkan "trail" is 1) steppes (5,000 BCE), Balkans (4,000 BCE), Anatolia (Troy, 3,000 BCE), Hattusa (1,600 BCE). They would have spent a thousand years in the Balkans as an IE "island" surrounded by non-IE speakers, until booted out by the Yamnaya. If from Sredny Stog, they were originally WHG, not EHG, right? Without real royal Hittite DNA, we might never know.

----------


## halfalp

> According to Razib Khan's post in his blog, the green component means simply "basal component mainly found in Iran Neolithic". It is not even CHG or Iran_Neolithic, but the basal, older component that is found in very high proportions in these two populations, but probably also contributed to other populations like the EHG.


Oh ok thanks. So Iran_Neolithic is something ANE + something Basal Iranian, but Basal Iranian is not Basal Eurasian ? And CHG is something Iran_Neolithic ( Basal Iranian ) + something on the spectrum of WHG / EHG but at the same time, most EHG that we found also have some of that Basal Iranian on the spectrum of CHG. How do we understand the true pattern of migration ?

----------


## epoch

> There are numerous issues linguistically in terms of the Anatolian languages, and *no* hypothesis totally lays them to rest. That's been apparent for years, although it was most clearly articulated by Mallory relatively recently. It is by no means a question of a satisfactory answer or hypothesis already existing about which there is a consensus, but which various people are now trying to destroy by raising new concerns.
> 
> For those who haven't read it.
> https://www.proto-indo-european.ru/i...ds-nallory.pdf
> 
> "The essential argument as it is normally presented is that Anatolian lacks a considerable numberof features that would characterize Brugmanian Proto-Indo-European (aorist, perfect, subjunctive,optative, etc.; Fortsom 2004, 155) and, therefore, its links with an earlier continuum musthave been severed before Proto-Indo-European (or the rest of the Indo-European languages) developedin common. This can essentially be explained in one of two ways:1. The ancestors of the Anatolian languages migrated from the homeland of the protolanguagebefore it developed common Indo-European features. In this model, Anatolianwould have preserved an archaic structure while the ancestors of the rest of the IndoEuropeanlanguages still remained together and evolved later stages of Proto-Indo-European.2. The ancestors of the Indo-European languages migrated from the homeland of theproto-language. Here it is Proto-Indo-European that moves off to innovate while, presumably,Anatolian was left in the homeland to preserve its archaisms.Obviously we could complicate matters further by proposing a homeland from whichboth the ancestors of Anatolian and (Proto­)Indo-European migrated in different directionsbut this would hardly be likely and it would have little bearing on the following discussion."
> 
> The issues for me with Anthony's proposal that the people speaking perhaps a "pre-Anatolian" language left the steppes first and moved into Anatolia via the Balkans is that although he locates a culture he considers probable as the one bringing a "steppe" language to the Balkans, there is no archaeological trail from that culture into Anatolia at that time. The archaeological trail goes in the other direction. 
> 
> ...


First this: You stated literally that _it could also be that the origin was in the south, but the Anatolian languages spread from the steppe later_. That scenario would off course mean exactly the same issues as with the origin in the Pontic steppe.

However, let's see if a south of the Caucasus or even Anatolian origin actually fixes the two issues you seem to see. Is it more logical that Anatolian kept a more archaic character if they kept living on their ancestral grounds? The most archaic of Germanic languages is a migrants language: Icelandic. But also English, a migrants language that changed enormously strangely kept the archaic Germanic "th" sound which disappeared in the place where they migrated from. 

Then the archaeological trail. You state that an archaeological trail into the Balkans exist. But if that originated from the Anatolians and led to the Pontic steppe second PIE homeland, the _late_ PIE homeland, then why doesn't late PIE have a substrate that Anatolian lacks? This tidbit seems to be forgotten by all promoting a different homeland for early PIE than for late PIE, but if PIE was transferred to the steppe, how on earth could that have happened without picking up anything from the original language of its new speaker? This becomes especially important as we see more and more clearly that the CHG part in the steppe is female mediated. I already have a hard time to see female mediated language change in such highly patriarchal societies as pastoral cultures. It becomes almost impossible to see this female mediated language change happen without a noticable substrate.

And if that archaeological trail into the Balkans did not led to anything related to PIE, how is it relevant for the Urheimat question?

Do also take note that Hittite apparently has a Hattian substrate, but not a Hurrian.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I agree.
> 
> And yes, it could be very interesting if someone made a PIE reconstruction where anatolian is included as well(im not sure if it has been done yet, or if anatolian was excluded in the reconstructions we have today)
> I know that Max planck institute are making a whole new database for IE, with root, root-language and other stuff. But it is not yet public. Although there is a screenshot of it on Max Plancks site, and i think it looks very promising: http://www.shh.mpg.de/207610/cobldatabase
> 
> I have also had the thought that a language would change radically when crossing a mt. range like the caucasus in prehistory and then mixing in something like a one-to-one ratio with another people with a completely different language(in this case the language of the EHG-like peoples).
> 
> But then again, some tribes who mixed to a lesser degree would retain a more archaic dialect, while those tribes who mixed more would have a higher rate of change linguistically. Like specific sound changes('b' becoming 'v' for instance) or even borrow new words from the hunter gatherers for some more basic things like 'head', 'arm', 'meat', 'caribou' etc.
> 
> But i think the words linked to metal, pastoralism, agriculture, seafaring etc. would have been shared in the same form by most of the tribes(regardless of their EHG/CHG proportions), as these things were probably more or less unknown to the hunter gatherers prior to the arrival of the southerners. So they probably just borrowed those words directly.


The present reconstruction of PIE takes into account the lexicon, phonology and some of the grammar (too innovative and different in comparison with the rest) of the Anatolian languages, especially because one of the biggest successes of comparative linguistics (which reinforced that it is imperfect, but effective), the laryngeal theory, was developed before the decipherment of Hittite and in the end was confirmed by the findings of Hittite vocabulary. However, I think that this reconstruction of PIE still considers most of the noun and verb morphology of the "Residual" Late PIE branches, with Anatolian's being considered either a very archaic feature or a very innovative novelty. However, my point is that, if linguistics and especially genetics point increasingly to the likelihood of a very long time gap between Anatolian IE and Residual IE, then linguists should probably start working much more deeply into an Early PIE heavily based on the Anatolian "unique" features, and go back, as they did before Hittite and other Anatolian languages were better known, to reconstructing a Late PIE without Anatolian being taken into account in their comparative work, probably a Late PIE already with the "classical" IE grammar (masculine, feminine and neuter; verb tenses and aspects, optative mood, etc.) and without the laryngeals, which would've already disappeared and fully developed into distinct vowels. More or less like two closely related languages, a mother and a daughter (e.g. 11th century Old French vs. 21st century French).

I agree with you that the EHG-CHG must've happened in different proportions, contexts and demographic/cultural processes in the steppes, and I actually think that it is very likely that there were, in the earlier period at least, several distinct PIE-like dialects belonging to the same common source, and the Late PIE from which all the non-Anatolian branches sprang was more or less a successful and prestigious dialect, probably associated with the Yamnaya horizon expansion, that gradually absorbed all the other dialects or even sister languages, or made them slowly re-converge towards it under heavy linguistic influence, maybe because their much more mobile, nomad and far-reaching pastoral culture now needed a common lingua franca (if PIE already existed before 4000 BC, by 3200-3000 BC it was certainly already differentiated into clearly separate dialects). Just speculating here, but I think these are plausible observations if you consider how languages work and the multiple times where there was a process of dialectal differentiation and afterwards, due to some cultural/political expansion, a backwards effect of elimination of the dialect continuum and reconvergence of the dialects-bordering-on-distinct-languages into mere accents of the same common tongue.

----------


## Angela

> First this: You stated literally that _it could also be that the origin was in the south, but the Anatolian languages spread from the steppe later_. That scenario would off course mean exactly the same issues as with the origin in the Pontic steppe.
> 
> However, let's see if a south of the Caucasus or even Anatolian origin actually fixes the two issues you seem to see. Is it more logical that Anatolian kept a more archaic character if they kept living on their ancestral grounds? The most archaic of Germanic languages is a migrants language: Icelandic. But also English, a migrants language that changed enormously strangely kept the archaic Germanic "th" sound which disappeared in the place where they migrated from. 
> 
> Then the archaeological trail. You state that an archaeological trail into the Balkans exist. But if that originated from the Anatolians and led to the Pontic steppe second PIE homeland, the _late_ PIE homeland, then why doesn't late PIE have a substrate that Anatolian lacks? This tidbit seems to be forgotten by all promoting a different homeland for early PIE than for late PIE, but if PIE was transferred to the steppe, how on earth could that have happened without picking up anything from the original language of its new speaker? This becomes especially important as we see more and more clearly that the CHG part in the steppe is female mediated. I already have a hard time to see female mediated language change in such highly patriarchal societies as pastoral cultures. It becomes almost impossible to see this female mediated language change happen without a noticable substrate.
> 
> And if that archaeological trail into the Balkans did not led to anything related to PIE, how is it relevant for the Urheimat question?
> 
> Do also take note that Hittite apparently has a Hattian substrate, but not a Hurrian.


I just listed all the possibilities. It's also possible that the language originated south of the Caucasus, and the stream leading to the Anatolian languages remained behind and they developed there.

Icelandic speakers were isolated on an island after arrival. I don't see how the two situations are at all analogous. You think that if the precursor to the Anatolian languages was in the Balkans for 1000 years they wouldn't have picked up influences linguistic and technological from the people surrounding them?

What I said is that David Anthony locates the archaeological trail for the spread of the Anatolian languages from the steppe into the Balkans in cultures established early in the Balkans. What he doesn't do, to the best of my recollection, is locate a continuation or trail of that specific culture into Anatolia. 

This is where all the Indo-European Anatolian languages were spoken. This is what has to be explained:






Of course, there are issues with the south of the Caucasus homeland hypothesis as well. As I said, there are unanswered questions in both hypotheses. If people are objective, I think they'd acknowledge that.

----------


## Cpluskx

Found an article by the Copenhagen group. It's in German, looks like they think Caucasus is the home of Early PIE: https://www.academia.edu/36689289/In...aus_der_Steppe

----------


## Alpenjager

> Found an article by the Copenhagen group. It's in German, looks like they think Caucasus is the home of Early PIE: https://www.academia.edu/36689289/In...aus_der_Steppe


If this is the case then Haplogroup L and J are good candidates of being among the Earliest IE populations.

----------


## Ernekar

> Found an article by the Copenhagen group. It's in German, looks like they think Caucasus is the home of Early PIE: https://www.academia.edu/36689289/In...aus_der_Steppe


Interesting indeed when it comes from K. Kristiansen. He has practically had verbal blood feuds with, for example, Renfrew through the years over the spread of IE.
He has always been a huge advocate for the steppe hypothesis. So when even he is pointing to the south of the caucasus, we can be very sure that the Denmark team has found something huge that we don't know about yet.


*@Ygorcs,* what you wrote makes a lot of sense. There is always some constructive feedback and ideas in your posts. That is great.

I actually read a good paper about the phenomenon you mention here, you know the one where a language swallows up all or most of the neighbouring dialects of the same language, so they all reconverge into a language that is pretty much like the expanding language.

The paper is not about the Indo-europeans, it is about later steppe languages like mongolic, turkic and hungarian. But some of the concepts are the same as those you mention. If you have not read it yet, i think you will find it interesting. 
Its a linguistic paper, and im not a linguist, so i don't know how good the paper is quality-wise. But i sure felt like i learned a lot while reading it:

*FORERUNNERS TO GLOBALIZATION: THE EURASIAN STEPPE AND ITS PERIPHERY*

JOHANNA NICHOLS
Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics
Vol. 38, Language Contact in Times of Globalization (2011), pp. 177-195
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4126144...n_tab_contents

----------


## halfalp

Well by now it's pretty easy, if PIE came from the Caucasus or South of the Caucasus in the respect of that study, it has to be related either with or both Kura-Araxes and Maikop. Basically the only point they have is that those two culture are mainly CHG and that CHG is found in later Yamnaya. EHG however, the most important autosomal dna of Yamnaya is not found in Bronze Age Anatolia. 1) Male lineage of both Kura-Araxes and Maikop doesn't correspand to anything for Yamnaya or other Eastern European Cultures. 2) The CHG component in Eastern Europe is oldest than Kura-Araxes or Maikop so then semi-irrelevant to explain PIE. 3) Most of Kura-Araxes / Maikp dna in Yamnaya is pretty certainly female mediated.

So, if we really want to assume that Caucasus possibility, we have to assume multiple things. 1) IE languages are not related with ethnic and then autosomal dna until Yamnaya. 2) PIE doesn't actually really exist or has existed in the past. what " Steppe " IE and " Anatolian " IE have in common is too cramped to hypothesized a conceputal PIE talking by a certain population at one point. And more likely IE or PIE for that respect was more a sparse lingua franca coming from multiple linguistic origins. 3) Steppe folks actually learned the language from Caucasus and South Caucasus women and or Caucasus and South Caucasus roamers too sparse to found any respectable y-dna haplogroup linking with them. 

My honest point to all this is, Anatolian people are actually very bad for IE hypothesis lol. First, they happened to come in a very multicultural lands before even they exists, with multiple language families and y-dna lineage wich we can difficultly assess any modern languages. Secondly, their elits used cremation as we know and we shall never discover anything on the autosomal dna of Hittites. I mean, even if PIE and Anatolians came from Maikop, they should have some EHG signals as we see in that study, at least a little bit. So we do not have the good samples. I think we might happened in a time were scientists working on the subject gonna assess PIE in the Caucasus without any other reason than being " in between ". Wich actually doesn't make sense because the sample gonna still come explain history at the end of the futur day.

----------


## Angela

CHG appears on the steppe long before Maykop. Maykop is too late, imo, for it to be responsible for most of the CHG on the steppe.

----------


## IronSide

Isn't it strange that Caucasus ancestry expanded all over Anatolia, the Levant, and the Steppe at the same time ? 

They weren't a single culture, othrwise we would see the same language family all over the place, who were these people ?

----------


## epoch

> The Balkan "trail" is 1) steppes (5,000 BCE), Balkans (4,000 BCE), Anatolia (Troy, 3,000 BCE), Hattusa (1,600 BCE). They would have spent a thousand years in the Balkans as an IE "island" surrounded by non-IE speakers, until booted out by the Yamnaya. If from Sredny Stog, they were originally WHG, not EHG, right? Without real royal Hittite DNA, we might never know.


Sredny Stog are the Eneolithic Ukranians from Mathieson. Carrying the first attested CHG in the steppe. Had EHG + WHG.

----------


## halfalp

Both Semitic and Urartu languages, doesn't really sound like Hittite, Hittite sound a lot IE, so it might really be an archaic language.

----------


## epoch

> CHG appears on the steppe long before Maykop. Maykop is too late, imo, for it to be responsible for most of the CHG on the steppe.


Well, we *do* have a population that seems almost like unmixed CHG on the north sloped of the Caucasus: Dolmen_BA. They are seriously too late to be responsible for that admixture. But the very fact they exist mean that *some sort of* hardly unadmixted CHG population must have survived there. And two of the three of their mtDNA as per this paper - U2e1 and H6a1a2a - pops up in in some sort in Corded Ware and Yamnaya, even as it is in the H6 case some upstream variant.

I know, very circumstantial evidence. But still.

----------


## Ernekar

> Found an article by the Copenhagen group. It's in German, looks like they think Caucasus is the home of Early PIE: https://www.academia.edu/36689289/In...aus_der_Steppe


Does anyone here read german fluently?
I would like to know what the paper says, and why exactly the Danish team places early PIE south of the caucasus.
I can read german, but it would take me half a day to read it all and understand it with my untrained german skills. So if someone here can read it rather fast, im curious as to what it says.

----------


## halfalp

> Isn't it strange that Caucasus ancestry expanded all over Anatolia, the Levant, and the Steppe at the same time ? 
> 
> They weren't a single culture, othrwise we would see the same language family all over the place, who were these people ?


What i'm gonna say might be risky to assign the same in ancient times but, look at modern days. I mean you live in a western european country in 10 years most of the people saying 6/10 look stranger, africans, asiatics, middle-easterners... without talking of race melting pot that is really a modern thing. The automatisation of humanity have create globalization but just imagine the first people that had the chariots, a way to migrate and the technology to survive. We might not be looking at a specific population or even an event, but more in a change of life. The end of the tribe and the security, the beginning of the nuclear family and the social stratification. All those notions probably originate in middle-east and probably that from somewhere, saying mesopotamia the idea expand everywhere, in anatolia, in iran, in the levant and in the caucasus, from each of those point other populations and other languages have taken the torch and migrate somewhere else giving that new cultural material pretty much over all eurasia.

----------


## epoch

> Does anyone here read german fluently?
> I would like to know what the paper says, and why exactly the Danish team places early PIE south of the caucasus.
> I can read german, but it would take me half a day to read it all and understand it with my untrained german skills. So if someone here can read it rather fast, im curious as to what it says.


Arrival in Anatolia

Already round 2400 BC can we trace the to Indo-European belonging Hittite in Anatolia. How it speakers came there remains enigmatic. Scientist suspect they came from the Caucasus, where a people ancestral to Yamnaya could have lived.

EDIT: So the usual innuendo without stating a proper theory or naming an actual culture.

----------


## Angela

> Well, we *do* have a population that seems almost like unmixed CHG on the north sloped of the Caucasus: Dolmen_BA. They are seriously too late to be responsible for that admixture. But the very fact they exist mean that *some sort of* hardly unadmixted CHG population must have survived there. And two of the three of their mtDNA as per this paper - U2e1 and H6a1a2a - pops up in in some sort in Corded Ware and Yamnaya, even as it is in the H6 case some upstream variant.
> 
> I know, very circumstantial evidence. But still.


It's interesting, indeed, just too late, as we both seem to agree. The authors specifically said, if I recall correctly, that they don't have sufficiently old samples to show this first entrance onto the steppe, so, who knows, maybe we'll never find them, although again, who knows what Reich has in that vault! :) I don't think there's any love lost between him and Willerslev, so... 

There's just no "smoking gun" yet, imo, for either of these two hypotheses.

Not my mtdna, as I'm U2e2, but suggestive that U2e1 and perhaps also U2e2 moved from somewhere around the Caucasus, as I always suspected.

----------


## Ernekar

> Arrival in Anatolia
> 
> Already round 2400 BC can we trace the to Indo-European belonging Hittite in Anatolia. How it speakers came there remains enigmatic. Scientist suspect they came from the Caucasus, where a people ancestral to Yamnaya could have lived.
> 
> EDIT: So the usual innuendo without stating a proper theory or naming an actual culture.


I translated the texts and read the english version, and every time something in the translation didn't make sense, i read the sentence in the german version. So i was able to read it through pretty fast that way.

Its some kind of interview rather than an actual paper. So they will probably bring a theory when they release their maykop paper.

As i understand it Kristiansen seems to suspect that the caucasus was the earliest PIE homeland. 
At least that is what i understood from this excerpt which i have taken the liberty of translating:

"_(K. Kristiansen:)"Especially the first chapter of the (Indo-European)story needs to be rewritten." He (K. Kristiansen) suspects that there was a precursor to the Yamna culture, in which a kind of early Proto-Indo-European (Ur-Ur-Indo-Europäisch in German) was spoken. And he (K. Kristiansen) also has a suspicion, where this people could have been: The Caucasus, says Kristiansen, was their home._"

----------


## epoch

> I translated the texts and read the english version, and every time something in the translation didn't make sense, i read the sentence in the german version. So i was able to read it through pretty fast that way.
> 
> Its seems to be an interview rather than an actual paper. So they will probably bring a theory when they release their maykop paper.
> 
> As i understand it Kristiansen seems to suspect that the caucasus was the earliest PIE homeland. 
> At least that is what i understood from this excerpt which i have taken the liberty of translating:
> 
> "_(K. Kristiansen:)"Especially the first chapter of the (Indo-European)story needs to be rewritten." He (K. Kristiansen) suspects that there was a precursor to the Yamna culture, in which a kind of early Proto-Indo-European (Ur-Ur-Indo-Europäisch in German) was spoken. And he (K. Kristiansen) also has a suspicion, where this people could have been: The Caucasus, says Kristiansen, was their home._"


Yes, it seems the "theory" (It really isn't a theory, as it doesn't name a time frame or points to a culture) seems to become en vogue. 

It's still wrong, though.

PS: You kept out one crucial line from his statement:




> Das aber sei unausgegoren: »Da klafft noch ein Loch«, gesteht er.




Meaning that still leaves holes.

----------


## Ernekar

> Yes, it seems the "theory" (It really isn't a theory, as it doesn't name a time frame or points to a culture) seems to become en vogue. 
> 
> It's still wrong, though.


Pointing towards specific cultures has pretty much lost its value in processual and post-processual archaeology. Because as you know, we don't know the name of cultures that early on.
So all "cultures" we see in old litterature are constructs. We don't know if they were cultures at all, or if the similar archaeological findings over vast areas are just indications of trade or fashion. 
The Bell beakers are a great example. They were not a culture, it was just fashion shared by different groups with different cultures.

So i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to name a culture, as most of archaeologists today don't believe that material culture equals actual cultures.

----------


## Ernekar

> PS: You kept out one crucial line from his statement:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning that still leaves holes. 
> [/COLOR]


He just states that its not perfect, and that there are still holes. Which is expectable for every theory.
So in my opinion that line is not crucial at all regarding the point of my post: Which was to put forward an excerpt which showed that Kristiansen believes that the PIE homeland was in the caucasus.

----------


## Ernekar

@epoch,
but i have read Kristiansens old papers. And i can assure you that he will bring forward a timeframe and more precise geographical location of those Caucasus Proto-Indo-Europeans with one of his next papers. Im sure he is already working hard on it.

----------


## epoch

> Pointing towards specific cultures has pretty much lost its value in processual and post-processual archaeology. Because as you know, we don't know the name of cultures that early on.
> So all "cultures" we see in old litterature are constructs. We don't know if they were cultures at all, or if the similar archaeological findings over vast areas are just indications of trade or fashion. 
> The Bell beakers are a great example. They were not a culture, it was just fashion shared by different groups with different cultures.


Exactly those same _most of archaeologists today_ were all part of the "Pots not People" dogma from 5 years ago. Their view has been wiped off the table by modern DNA research. That gives a pretty good indication on how to place such opinions. 




> So i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to name a culture, as *most of archaeologists today don't believe that material culture equals actual cultures.*


See above.

----------


## epoch

> @epoch,
> but i have read Kristiansens old papers. And i can assure you that he will bring forward a timeframe and more precise geographical location of those Caucasus Proto-Indo-Europeans with one of his next papers. Im sure he is already working hard on it.


So, which culture will it be then?

----------


## epoch

> I know German fluently. I will translate it partially.


It is basically a summary of what we all already know. The only oddity is that Kristianson is going for the south hypothesis.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Found an article by the Copenhagen group. It's in German, looks like they think Caucasus is the home of Early PIE: https://www.academia.edu/36689289/In...aus_der_Steppe


Dear friend... and who lived in the exact place of that doted circle?

----------


## ROS

If the Danes on that map are placing the origin in the South Caucasus, and their Anatolian neighbors know that they had Indo-European languages empirically and taking into account the geography, those mountains higher than the Alps, it is not reasonable to think that the IE movement was mainly towards Anatolia, Balkans or Greece directly or both, Balkans north of Italy and south-east of France and south of Germany, in addition to other expansions through the Mediterranean that were the basis of the Argaric culture in the Iberian Peninsula? I do not deny that an important branch crossed the Caucasus mountain range or raced by the Caspian Sea as I have seen on some map and gave rise to the Balto-Slavic language and influenced the Germanic languages partially, since its R1B and being a centum language indicate its proximity to the Anatolian-Greek-Italian-Celtic languages.

----------


## Ernekar

> Exactly those same _most of archaeologists today_ were all part of the "Pots not People" dogma from 5 years ago. Their view has been wiped off the table by modern DNA research. That gives a pretty good indication on how to place such opinions. 
> 
> 
> 
> See above.


No their view hasn't been wiped off any table. The whole meaning of "pots not people" was that material culture doesn't always equal people.
So just because of the fact that ancient DNA can show that *sometimes* pots are indeed brought by people, it does not invalidate the point that pots are *not always* brought by people. In fact ancient DNA supports "pots not people" in some cases.
Like in the case that you quite elegantly ignored(my example with the bell beakers). Was the Bell beaker phenomenon brought by people everywhere? No, it wasn't. So "Bell beaker pots, not bell beaker people", in other words "pots not people" still holds, and in the bell beaker case "pots not people" has even been confirmed by genetics.

So all unsampled material complexes are nothing but "pots", until we sample the people behind them.

You can probably not find one single archaeologist (who is still alive) who promotes the idea that a change in material culture always means that there was a migration. Only hobbyists say such things, because they don't have the attention span to read anthropological or archaeological theory.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Isn't it strange that Caucasus ancestry expanded all over Anatolia, the Levant, and the Steppe at the same time ? 
> 
> They weren't a single culture, othrwise we would see the same language family all over the place, who were these people ?


What?!! - Who were? 
Shulaveri -Shomu. and they were the same people. Actually shy people that "landed" in that dotted circle you see in the picture and developed spectacularly. Reason for sucess? Luck and annoying people, because everybody seems to kicked them out!

----------


## Olympus Mons

> If this is the case then Haplogroup L and J are good candidates of being among the Earliest IE populations.


L and J where not the earliest PIE speakers. R1b and J2 yes. 
L is incoming population after 4900bc! PIE originals were already gone.

*L is incoming population from either a. beyond Kopet Dag, most likely very close to Jeitun Culture... b. an Iran south population moving up by zagros mountains. 

*J2 is spectacular. this guys must be like the diplomats of pre-History. I know, makes no sense. Just a feeling.

----------


## Ernekar

> So, which culture will it be then?


You mean what material culture maybe?
I don't know, and it doesn't really matter much. We will have to wait and see what samples they will bring us next, and then we can choose which ones seem to be the most likely ancestors of a people who went north to form the later IE language of the yamnaya, and west to form the anatolian branch. 

Then we can pinpoint into which material culture those samples fit into. 

Although i don't know why you focus that much on the material culture. Lets say those samples falls into Shulaveri-Shomu(which i find most probable). Then how can we know that all the people in the shulaveri-shomu complex spoke the same language? Maybe the core was PIE, and the periphery were other people who just traded with the PIEans and imitated their material style? 
So the name of the material culture does not mean much. What means something is the geographical location and the timeframe.

----------


## Ernekar

> L and J where not the earliest PIE speakers. R1b and J2 yes. 
> L is incoming population after 4900bc! PIE originals were already gone.
> 
> *L is incoming population from either a. beyond Kopet Dag, most likely very close to Jeitun Culture... b. an Iran south population moving up by zagros mountains. 
> 
> *J2 is spectacular. this guys must be like the diplomats of pre-History. I know, makes no sense. Just a feeling.


R1b and J2's reason for success is our stubbornness and extremely hard heads hehe (joke of course)

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Arrival in Anatolia
> 
> Already round 2400 BC can we trace the to Indo-European belonging Hittite in Anatolia. How it speakers came there remains enigmatic. Scientist suspect they came from the Caucasus, where a people ancestral to Yamnaya could have lived.
> 
> EDIT: So the usual innuendo without stating a proper theory or naming an actual culture.


Me, Me, Me....Shulaveri Shomu, Shulaveri-Shomu, Shulaveri-Shomu, Shulaveri-Shomu, Shulaveri-Shomu!

----------


## Cpluskx

IMO the earliest PIE might be from more southern place/culture, like Halaf-Hassuna/Samarra. Though as an amateur, i will defer to the professionals on this.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> IMO the earliest PIE might be from more southern place/culture, like Halaf-Hassuna/Samarra. Though as an amateur, i will defer to the professionals on this.


Well...
You know I all about Shulaveri for so long and fought such hard fights that I will always instinctively say it has to be them. 
However, don't give up on your theory. Halaf is troublesome. because they can be so many different things. Even R1b mixing up with J2 all over south caucasus and Anatolia, maybe descendents of Original Hogoshim r1bs, and even shulaveri just being being J2 or G2 or whatever. :)

but, nah - My shulaveri are it! - Have fun! https://shulaveri2bellbeaker.blogs.sapo.pt/

----------


## Olympus Mons

One thing missing on that Map arrows, shades and formats. 
Kristiansen, like all others keep missing a huge chunk that is so obvious...
they are so hooked to steppe that they dont register that if PIE was following that CHG admix... then the line to Anatolia must not stop there. Actually the line to Anatolia drawn *is the second one that must have happened much later (anatolian)*. The first line is Anatolia... then Hungary/Romania, then North Greece and Moldova (pre-cucuteni). there are so may signs that is chocking. Kum6 being the first with CHG, then Kei10 and pal7 north greece... 

So, by 4000bc many spoke PIE/IE. and the Balkan and Steppe IE must be pretty close. Since we know that by 3800bc they, Steppe and Balkans were exchanging .... how do you know which IE got the upper hand ?

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> I translated the texts and read the english version, and every time something in the translation didn't make sense, i read the sentence in the german version. So i was able to read it through pretty fast that way.
> 
> Its some kind of interview rather than an actual paper. So they will probably bring a theory when they release their maykop paper.
> 
> As i understand it Kristiansen seems to suspect that the caucasus was the earliest PIE homeland. 
> At least that is what i understood from this excerpt which i have taken the liberty of translating:
> 
> "_(K. Kristiansen:)"Especially the first chapter of the (Indo-European)story needs to be rewritten." He (K. Kristiansen) suspects that there was a precursor to the Yamna culture, in which a kind of early Proto-Indo-European (Ur-Ur-Indo-Europäisch in German) was spoken. And he (K. Kristiansen) also has a suspicion, where this people could have been: The Caucasus, says Kristiansen, was their home._"


The problem is that he takes for granted that Yamnaya was Indo-European.
What type of data can prove that a culture was Indoeuropean?
Even if we are certain about which ancestral component was associated with Proto-Indoeuropeans-proper (that is something which is debatable really), how can we be sure about cultures the populations of which were made by 3 or more ancestral components?

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Epoch, from reading your hypothethical stuff on Anthrogenica, I can tell you that you are far away from knowing "what [we] all know". The scientific millieu is not supporting (almost nobody) the Kurgan hypothesis anymore. The PIE culture was not Yamnaya. 
> 
> Below an interesting passage translated:
> "Because exactly Hittite plays an important role in the "theorybuilding" of the linguists. On one hand this idiom is counted to that branch of the Indoeuropean languages which split as the first from the others. On the other hand Hittite does deliver the first written sources of that language family [...] And exactly here where Asia and Europe [Anatolia] meet geographically, every trace of the Yamnaya "genes" (this is an article for laymans that is why they use this undefining term) are missing. This wanderlusty people from the pontic-caspian Steppes did neither found, apparently, their way over the Balkans (as said by me for more than 2 years) nor over the Caucasus-mountains.[...] Archeolog Kristiansen however does not want to believe that. [...] He assumes that there must have been a predecessor of the the Yamnaya culture, in which a type of Pre-Proto-Indoeuruopean was spoken. And he also has an idea on where that people roved around: The Caucasus, means Kristiansen, was their homeland."


I always said: There will be a day when everybody "knew all along" that the Shulaveri where it! Marvelous human brain. :)

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> Pointing towards specific cultures has pretty much lost its value in processual and post-processual archaeology. Because as you know, *we don't know the name of cultures that early on.*
> So all "cultures" we see in old litterature are constructs. We don't know if they were cultures at all, or if the similar archaeological findings over vast areas are just indications of trade or fashion. 
> The Bell beakers are a great example. They were not a culture, it was just fashion shared by different groups with different cultures.
> 
> So i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to name a culture, as most of archaeologists today don't believe that material culture equals actual cultures.


Can you post the names of some cultures that we know their names and how we came to know them?

----------


## Olympus Mons

Time to remember me in 2015.

"*“**Shulaveri-Shomu is the birth of the R1b expansion!*_por Olympus Mons, em 09.01.16_
_*the European dominance of Y-dna Haplogroup R1b had its origin in a very specific culture of the Caucasus the Shulaveri-Shomu, Not Yamna, nor Maikop, nor Kura arexes… no! Places like Kwemo-Kartli and Mentesh tepe are the true_ _Urheimat__ (homeland) of all western Europeans. And the spread of that cultural and genetic trait started in the Iberia peninsula, because after the immediate ending of the SSC not millennia but centuries later pure r1b (M269) inhabit the peninsula making the downstream clades that populate western world (L11 and M51).”
_

But it looks like I was wrong about the second part (bell beakers) .... or not.
Just amazingly how with just a week into the subject I knew this in my gut and not much later wrote the entry. As I said it then, just wanted to make the digital record associating Shulaveri to expansion of R1b...."

----------


## Ernekar

> The problem is that he takes for granted that Yamnaya was Indo-European.
> What type of data can prove that a culture was Indoeuropean?
> Even if we are certain about which ancestral component was associated with Proto-Indoeuropeans-proper (that is something which is debatable really), how can we be sure about cultures the populations of which were made by 3 or more ancestral components?


Yes, maybe he does take it for granted. Most geneticists and archaeologists are starting to do that. Although i think Kristiansen has the right to do it, as he has been arguing for an Indo-European yamnaya all his life. So he is not just taking other peoples word for it, but he has actually thought it through himself, and through theoretical considerations come to the conclusion that yamna is IE.

But this doesn't mean that other theories won't be constructed during the next couple of years. 
I even think the anatolian hypothesis has great chances of a renewal. You have to take into consideration that most archaeologists don't even know about these genetic findings yet, they are still in 2013-2015 DNA-knowledge-wise. When they find out, they will see things in other perspectives.
Personally i could even think of plenty of ways to attribute PIE to the ANF or IranChl if i was to write a paper. Anything is still possible. (although right now i think Caucasus(south or north of it) sounds reasonable and least problematic. Probably south because of the anatolian samples.)

The reason that anything is still possible is exactly because of the problem that you address: That no type of data(except for written sources) can prove if the people of a specific material culture was IE or not. So the PIE question will go on for years, maybe even decades or centuries.
So unless they discover some new scientific method, then IMO the only way of settling the PIE question forever would be to find tablets with a written language, ancestral to all surviving IE languages+the anatolian branch. And that is probably not going to happen. Until then we will have varying hypothesis'.

----------


## Ernekar

> Can you post the names of some cultures that we know their names and how we came to know them?


Well that depends on if you want the emic or etic identifications of cultures.

Either way, we need written sources to do it.

The Illyrians can be an example of an culture we know of. But as they did not write themselves, we don't know their emic identification(how they saw themselves from an inside perspective).
But we have an etic identification of their culture(identification from an outside perspective - in this case the greek or roman perspective)
There are even text that tell us exactly how long and how wide the area inhabited by the Illyrians was.
But all of it etic. All of it from an outside perspective.

I wont list all cultures ever identified through ancient text, as that is probably a huge task on its own which requires me to spend time on something i don't need to know right now. But you get the picture.

And broad questions like that also have to be narrowed down a bit. Or else its hard for me to answer. First you have to tell me exactly what *you* mean by culture, then i can give you examples of cultures. Or else i have to guess what you mean by culture(as i just did above).

----------


## Johane Derite

> Time to remember me in 2015.
> 
> "*“**Shulaveri-Shomu is the birth of the R1b expansion!*_por Olympus Mons, em 09.01.16_
> _*the European dominance of Y-dna Haplogroup R1b had its origin in a very specific culture of the Caucasus the Shulaveri-Shomu, Not Yamna, nor Maikop, nor Kura arexes… no! Places like Kwemo-Kartli and Mentesh tepe are the true_ _Urheimat__ (homeland) of all western Europeans. And the spread of that cultural and genetic trait started in the Iberia peninsula, because after the immediate ending of the SSC not millennia but centuries later pure r1b (M269) inhabit the peninsula making the downstream clades that populate western world (L11 and M51).”
> _
> 
> But it looks like I was wrong about the second part (bell beakers) .... or not.
> Just amazingly how with just a week into the subject I knew this in my gut and not much later wrote the entry. As I said it then, just wanted to make the digital record associating Shulaveri to expansion of R1b...."


I don't really care either way, so I hope you're right just for the sake of the underdog winning : )

----------


## Ygorcs

> Found an article by the Copenhagen group. It's in German, looks like they think Caucasus is the home of Early PIE: https://www.academia.edu/36689289/In...aus_der_Steppe


What a strange use of the terms, don't you guys think so? They name Hittite, which was actually a Mid-Late Bronze Age language and not the whole Anatolian family, and Proto-Indo-European as two distinct entities. Are they supporters of the "pure" Indo-Hittite hypothesis, i.e. Anatolian as a sister language family and not part of the Indo-European family "per se"? That's what it sounds like. Also, it seems to me that they're clearly leaning toward the "middle ground" hypothesis that I've talked about above: PIE as a Pontic-Caspian steppe language, and pre-PIE, possibly a very distinct language before the heavy mixing with EHG populations, in the Caucasus/Transcausus region. If that is so, then we will just refine and fix the steppe hypothesis, not reject it, because it will still be the direct source and cause of the expansion of all the IE branches except for Anatolian.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Epoch, from reading your hypothethical stuff on Anthrogenica, I can tell you that you are far away from knowing "what [we] all know". The scientific millieu is not supporting (almost nobody) the Kurgan hypothesis anymore. The PIE culture was not Yamnaya. 
> 
> Below an interesting passage translated:
> "Because exactly Hittite plays an important role in the "theorybuilding" of the linguists. On one hand this idiom is counted to that branch of the Indoeuropean languages which split as the first from the others. On the other hand Hittite does deliver the first written sources of that language family [...] And exactly here where Asia and Europe [Anatolia] meet geographically, every trace of the Yamnaya "genes" (this is an article for laymans that is why they use this undefining term) are missing. This wanderlusty people from the pontic-caspian Steppes did neither found, apparently, their way over the Balkans (as said by me for more than 2 years) nor over the Caucasus-mountains.[... some absurd "Kurgan" explanations are mentioned here... followed by Kristiansens opinion] Archaeologist Kristiansen however does not want to believe that. [...] He assumes that there must have been a predecessor of the the Yamnaya culture, in which a type of Pre-Proto-Indoeuruopean was spoken. And he also has an idea on where that people roved around: The Caucasus, means Kristiansen, was their homeland."


Well, the text you're quoting actually assumes that PIE was the language spoken by the Yamnaya culture, and it explicitly states that, according to Kristiansen, _PRE_-PIE was spoken by a predecessor language probably in the Caucasus. PIE, let's remember, does not the ultimate, most ancient form of the language family from which PIE arose (yes, PIE was also once just one language belonging to a larger family, as all other tongues except for strict isolates). It means "the last stage of the common ancestor of IE language families". The text you mention seems to indicate that Kristiansen is a supporter of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis, separating Hittite and the Anatolian languages from the rest and considering it a sister family to PIE and its descendants.

----------


## Ygorcs

> The reason that anything is still possible is exactly because of the problem that you address: That no type of data(except for written sources) can prove if the people of a specific material culture was IE or not. So the PIE question will go on for years, maybe even decades or centuries.
> So unless they discover some new scientific method, then IMO the only way of settling the PIE question forever would be to find tablets with a written language, ancestral to all surviving IE languages+the anatolian branch. And that is probably not going to happen. Until then we will have varying hypothesis'.


Honestly, I think no one interested in this kind of very ancient pre-history (before literate civilizations, especially if we're talking of anywhere outside the Fertil Crescent) should expect any objective, empirical and hard proof linking this or that archaeological culture with a certain language or even with a certain genetic component. The best we can do, even for later periods of history, but especially for this one, is to expect to settle in a "high probability" scenario. Even if (or when) we have thousands of multidisciplinary evidences, the conclusions will still depend on interpretation based on probabilities and plausibilities. I won't hold my breath waiting for "proofs" that either Yamnaya or any other culture spoke PIE (including those of the Caucasus, none of which still seems to be named by scientists as a possible source of the CHG and supposedly PIE influx into the Neolithic/Eneolithic steppes). That won't happen.

----------


## Aaron1981

> I might be wrong at end of the day but looking at the graphic, orange is ANF, blue is EHG and green is CHG. I might read the graphic completely wrong but even EHG have substantial part of CHG, even Mal'ta have CHG, so has a said in previous post, CHG have now to be defined because it looks really like a combination of a lot of origin and not just Iran_Neolithic and CHG.


This is because of the way they are modeling the data. There is deeper, shared ancestry between the ancestors of J, and K descendants L (possibly T) and MP(R and maybe Q too).

I wouldn't read this graph as "Ma'lta having CHG ancestry" because it just suggests there is an even older ancestor >24,000 ybp that contributed ancestry to both populations. That said, there is probably genuine "CHG" ancestry that was donated to the foragers with the arrival of domesticated goats, sheep and cattle. I don't see any evidence that this arrived with a R1b rich population at this time. Even in the even the 1 R1b sample from the chalcolithic period in Iran were correct, it appears to be an outlier.

----------


## berun

The picture now seems like steppitis archaeologists and genetists see that they don't find EHG in Hittites and India, but that is by biased data (by incineration), so as to save their asses seated in the steppes by so many years they try to provide a first Urheimat for PIE taking CHG as watermark. Problem there is the Dolmen guy 90% CHG in an area with Circassian languages now, or that CHG spread eastwards so that Indic would be spoken in India from the Neolithic and it has no sense... other to make room in a region full of non IE languages (Hurrian, Hattian, Gutian, Elimian, Georgian, Caucasian Albanian and so on).

----------


## berun

And now with the Maykop paper they can check how their IE CHG were not colonizing the steppes in the right timeframe for common IE (common words for metals per example......)

----------


## epoch

> Shulaveri-Shomu(which i find most probable)


Then tell me: Why, *apart from genetics*, would that culture be a candidate for being an early PIE culture?




> Then how can we know that all the people in the shulaveri-shomu complex spoke the same language? Maybe the core was PIE, and the periphery were other people who just traded with the PIEans and imitated their material style?


But early PIE and late PIE don't show different substrates. The scenario you propose would even make that more remarkable than if Shulaveri was PIE entirely.




> So the name of the material culture does not mean much. What means something is the geographical location and the timeframe.


Good, let us go by that road: Why, *apart from genetics*, would that geographical location be a candidate for early PIE?

----------


## Alpenjager

> L and J where not the earliest PIE speakers. R1b and J2 yes. 
> L is incoming population after 4900bc! PIE originals were already gone.
> 
> *L is incoming population from either a. beyond Kopet Dag, most likely very close to Jeitun Culture... b. an Iran south population moving up by zagros mountains. 
> 
> *J2 is spectacular. this guys must be like the diplomats of pre-History. I know, makes no sense. Just a feeling.


There is no evidance that L is an "incoming population" but looks pretty native to me. You seems mixing modern samples with ancient DNA. R1b doesn't looks Indoeuropean (by origin) at this point. Key sites lack of R1b.

----------


## Alpenjager

> Time to remember me in 2015.
> 
> "*“**Shulaveri-Shomu is the birth of the R1b expansion!*_por Olympus Mons, em 09.01.16_
> _*the European dominance of Y-dna Haplogroup R1b had its origin in a very specific culture of the Caucasus the Shulaveri-Shomu, Not Yamna, nor Maikop, nor Kura arexes… no! Places like Kwemo-Kartli and Mentesh tepe are the true_ _Urheimat__ (homeland) of all western Europeans. And the spread of that cultural and genetic trait started in the Iberia peninsula, because after the immediate ending of the SSC not millennia but centuries later pure r1b (M269) inhabit the peninsula making the downstream clades that populate western world (L11 and M51).”
> _
> 
> But it looks like I was wrong about the second part (bell beakers) .... or not.
> Just amazingly how with just a week into the subject I knew this in my gut and not much later wrote the entry. As I said it then, just wanted to make the digital record associating Shulaveri to expansion of R1b...."


I would change "dominance" by "abundance" is not equivalent.

----------


## halfalp

> Epoch, from reading your hypothethical stuff on Anthrogenica, I can tell you that you are far away from knowing "what [we] all know". The scientific millieu is not supporting (almost nobody) the Kurgan hypothesis anymore. The PIE culture was not Yamnaya. 
> 
> Below an interesting passage translated:
> "Because exactly Hittite plays an important role in the "theorybuilding" of the linguists. On one hand this idiom is counted to that branch of the Indoeuropean languages which split as the first from the others. On the other hand Hittite does deliver the first written sources of that language family [...] And exactly here where Asia and Europe [Anatolia] meet geographically, every trace of the Yamnaya "genes" (this is an article for laymans that is why they use this undefining term) are missing. This wanderlusty people from the pontic-caspian Steppes did neither found, apparently, their way over the Balkans (as said by me for more than 2 years) nor over the Caucasus-mountains.[... some absurd "Kurgan" explanations are mentioned here... followed by Kristiansens opinion] Archaeologist Kristiansen however does not want to believe that. [...] He assumes that there must have been a predecessor of the the Yamnaya culture, in which a type of Pre-Proto-Indoeuruopean was spoken. And he also has an idea on where that people roved around: The Caucasus, means Kristiansen, was their homeland."


Dude... your statement is the proof that IE hypothesis turns into Political Correctness, your kurgans that you despite is the reason for IE's all over western and eastern europe with central asia and south asia. But no, Anatolians are more important, because... ? You seems to think like others, and even maybe those scientists, that if PIE came from the south caucasus it annihile all the rest of the history, like a pure Communist dream utopia. I'm not really choked, this is pretty much 2018.

----------


## halfalp

> Time to remember me in 2015.
> 
> "*“**Shulaveri-Shomu is the birth of the R1b expansion!*_por Olympus Mons, em 09.01.16_
> _*the European dominance of Y-dna Haplogroup R1b had its origin in a very specific culture of the Caucasus the Shulaveri-Shomu, Not Yamna, nor Maikop, nor Kura arexes… no! Places like Kwemo-Kartli and Mentesh tepe are the true_ _Urheimat__ (homeland) of all western Europeans. And the spread of that cultural and genetic trait started in the Iberia peninsula, because after the immediate ending of the SSC not millennia but centuries later pure r1b (M269) inhabit the peninsula making the downstream clades that populate western world (L11 and M51).”
> _
> 
> But it looks like I was wrong about the second part (bell beakers) .... or not.
> Just amazingly how with just a week into the subject I knew this in my gut and not much later wrote the entry. As I said it then, just wanted to make the digital record associating Shulaveri to expansion of R1b...."


At the end of the day you are still wrong. If Yamnaya and R1b ( wich is so much a ridiculous statement because M269 is not R1b it's M269 ) came genetically from Shulaveri-Shomu, they would not be 60% EHG but more likely 80% CHG. And what do you mean by " homeland of all western europeans " wtf is that kind of statement. I hope they give you your freaking R1b-M269 in Shulaveri just so you can do something else of your life and not being obsessed by genetic anymore.

----------


## Ernekar

> Honestly, I think no one interested in this kind of very ancient pre-history (before literate civilizations, especially if we're talking of anywhere outside the Fertil Crescent) should expect any objective, empirical and hard proof linking this or that archaeological culture with a certain language or even with a certain genetic component. The best we can do, even for later periods of history, but especially for this one, is to expect to settle in a "high probability" scenario. Even if (or when) we have thousands of multidisciplinary evidences, the conclusions will still depend on interpretation based on probabilities and plausibilities. I won't hold my breath waiting for "proofs" that either Yamnaya or any other culture spoke PIE (including those of the Caucasus, none of which still seems to be named by scientists as a possible source of the CHG and supposedly PIE influx into the Neolithic/Eneolithic steppes). That won't happen.


Thats what i said bro.
Look ----> _And that is probably not going to happen. Until then we will have varying hypothesis'._

And its a good thing imo that we will always have different hypothesis'. Because it makes scientists more productive and makes them investigate the PIE matter from a lot of different perspectives.

----------


## Ernekar

> Why, *apart from genetics*, would that geographical location be a candidate for early PIE?


Stop cherry picking from my posts. You only answer the parts you like, and elegantly leave the rest out.
I remember why i told you on AG i wouldn't reply you anymore. You seriously lack the theoretical knowledge to be able to discuss something that happened that long ago.

The last answer you will ever get from me in any forum:

Apart from half of their genetics, the whole culture, the animals, the way of living, the wheels, the metals and the tools of the steppe people descend from the populations south of the caucasus.
Before the advent of the southerners, they were nothing but hunter gatherers.
I simply have a hard time seeing why the southerners should have a hard time imposing their language upon a couple of small bands of primitive hunters.

----------


## halfalp

> Stop cherry picking from my posts. You only answer the parts you like, and elegantly leave the rest out.
> I remember why i told you on AG i wouldn't reply you anymore. You seriously lack the theoretical knowledge to be able to discuss something that happened that long ago.
> 
> The last answer you will ever get from me in any forum:
> 
> Apart from half of their genetics, the whole culture, the animals, the way of living, the wheels, the metals and the tools of the steppe people descend from the populations south of the caucasus.
> Before the advent of the southerners, they were nothing but hunter gatherers.
> I simply have a hard time seeing why the southerners should have a hard time imposing their language upon a couple of small bands of primitive hunters.


When the real self emerge from the limbo of the soul. You only have 34 messages here and you talk like you know everything. Epoch is a long time amateur in that community, he knows pretty much every possibility genetically, linguistically, culturally about the spread of PIE in ancient times. You better not turn out to be the sockpuppet of a more older user... If people brainstorm and question hypothesis this is not because triggering, this is because there is matter to question.

----------


## Ernekar

> When the real self emerge from the limbo of the soul. You only have 34 messages here and you talk like you know everything. Epoch is a long time amateur in that community


So what if i have 34 posts. I try to keep it down on purpose.

Yes he is a long time *amateur*, i'm an archaeologist. 
You know, those guys with the trowels who are writing the papers which the amateurs discuss. What counts more in your eyes? 
In 3-4 years you are going to quote my papers on this forum and you are going to see my name on a lot of these archaeogenetic collaborations. 
By that time you and epoch will still be on eurogenes and AG trying to push forward your disinformation.




> he knows pretty much every possibility genetically, linguistically, culturally about the spread of PIE in ancient times. You better not turn out to be the sockpuppet of a more older user... If people brainstorm and question hypothesis this is not because triggering, this is because there is matter to question.


You don't know what you are talking about. He doesn't know anything. He hasn't read one single book on archaeological theory in his whole life. I can see that in every post he makes. 
All he does is bring forward conspiracy theories which contradict what all the great institutes like Max planck, Copenhagen geogenetics and Harvard Labs. are saying.

----------


## Alan

> The most simple explanation is that Maikop is more likely the origin of the Kartvelian side in IE languages. We can't legitimally take any Hittite sample for granted, their elite got burned *and their people were mostly native to the place.*


That is some bold statement and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that my friend. Only some wishfull thinking of some bloggers. Hittites and Hattians became pretty much one and the same people (they basically merged). And their number was most likely equal. If there was even 10% Hittite inclusion into the Hatti population and you consider the Hittites as Steppe migrants, the way the Hatti and Hitittes became one people you would guarantee at least ~3-4% extra EHG admixture in comparison to their surroundings. But there is absolutely no sign for that.




> That EHG is partially ANE, so at the end of the day, R1 had to have something to do with EHG if its not Q1a. We should probably also wait for the Willerslev Maikop paper that could have more sample of proper Maikop and surrounding steppes. All that Maikop and Kura-Araxes relation might be however interesting in the case of semitic languages or related hurrian languages and their historical relationship.


Imo Kartvellian is descend of an ANF family and not a CHG one. Maikop is not a homogenous culture. The North was Steppe admixed the South more ANF what if towards Leyla Tepe we find a little different genetic structure. Maikop was halfway ANF. Therefore it is quite possible that Kartvellian evolved out of a portion of Maikop. But I would not rule out that Hittites themselves might have evolved from there too. After Maikop was influenced by a Proto Indo European culture.

----------


## Alan

> No, Hittite should be an early offshoot, possibly pre-Yamnaya and there is a fairly good candidate that would give enough time for dilution. Suvorovo-NovoDanilovka. A kurgan culture most likely from Sredny Stog, buried in barrows, sometime with zoomorphic scepters just like Khvalynsk. Settled in Mldavia, but also settled in the Danube delta, as direct successor of Varna round 4.400 BC. Remember that Varna outlier?


Well that could be... if we found any EHG signs, remember no additional EHG in Anatolian Samples and the yDNA does not fit the Steppes. 






> It's for an invasive culture quite natural to take on local wives.


 Just that Hittite is not a "invasive culture". You are missing out allot here. You might have not known but by the time of the early Hittites there were no Charriots. Hittites were not even known horse tamers. They imported horses from Mitanni. In fact Hittite culture was basically Hattian. What kind of "invasive culture " completely assimilates into the "local culture?" Also there are historic proves that the relationship between Hittites and Hattians was not that of Invaders vs the conquered. No matter how often this superstition is repeated, it will not become more than wishfull thinking.




> The next step would be Turkish Europe, where a at least one bronze age Kurgan style burial was found recently. If Luwians expanded from that, and Hittites from Luwians or somewhere around them, you'd see at least four steps. Enough time and enough movement for dilution. And it did leave traces of EHG.
> 
> PS: This is David Anthony's explanation.


"Bronze Age Kurgan Style burials" are found in the Caucasus too and they even predate Khvalynsk. That's what Anthony missed out.

----------


## Alan

> A lot of different processes of Indo-Europeanization, including a complete revolution in a people's autosomal makeup, could happen in ~2300 years, especially if the Hittite society was, as it seems from archaeological and linguistic evidences, mainly a result of a gradual, non-massive infiltration and/or eventual elite conquest. *Just look at some Turkic-speaking populations now and how much Northeast Siberian and East Asian they still carry after a mere ~1500 years of immigration, mixing and acculturation.*


And the Turkic speaking groups are the best example of why even the most admixed groups still show signs of their ancestors in their DNA. You are making the mistake that you equate Turkic with East Eurasian DNA. But even the most pure Turkic speaking groups are at least 25% West Eurasian. Take in mind the distance between the first Turkic speaking groups and Anatolian Turks. And that the Anatolian Turks are from the Oghuz branch which evolved somewhere around modern day Turkmenistan. So the source for the Anatolian Turks are actually Turkmenistanis and not Kyrgyz. Even if you take Kyrgyz you still get something around 10% Turkic admixture. But if you take Turkmenistanis the admixture rises up to 20-30%. 

"proto Steppe Hittites" completely ignoring their own females and going all out on "local" Hattian wifes is a possibility, but does that sound plausible. Not for me.

If that's what happened than for real they must have hated their own females or those girls must have been really really not good looking.

----------


## halfalp

> That is some bold statement and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that my friend. Only some wishfull thinking of some bloggers. Hittites and Hattians became pretty much one and the same people (they basically merged). And their number was most likely equal. If there was even 10% Hittite inclusion into the Hatti population and you consider *the Hittites as Steppe migrants, the way the Hatti and Hitittes became one people you would guarantee at least ~3-4% extra EHG admixture in comparison to their surroundings*. But there is absolutely no sign for that.


Well that's the same reasoning in the other side, if Maikop were CHG who give PIE to the steppe and later return south in Anatolia we should saw some EHG because Maikop have EHG, so if we didn't found any EHG is that those sample are neither related to the steppe, neither with Maikop. You actually applied the same mistakes you put to the steppe hypothesis into the southern hypothesis. Anatolians whatever the hypothesis need EHG, that they came from proper steppe or from Maikop / Kura-Araxes. Why you dont actually applied the " sample bias " to those anatolians one when you applied them into the steppe in the past ?




> *Imo Kartvellian is descend of an ANF family and not a CHG one*. Maikop is not a homogenous culture. The North was Steppe admixed the South more ANF what if towards Leyla Tepe we find a little different genetic structure. Maikop was halfway ANF. Therefore it is quite possible that Kartvellian evolved out of a portion of Maikop. But I would not rule out that Hittites themselves might have evolved from there too. After Maikop was influenced by a Proto Indo European culture.


That is actually a bold statement.

We shall not discuss about Leyla-Tepe or Shulaveri Shomu until we have samples from them.

----------


## halfalp

> This is ignorance, being proven wrong and then accusing everyone of being Communists. You do not even know what the importance of the Anatolian branches for the PIE matter is, so how are you still speaking? And nobody is fighting your Steppe cowboys expanding their language further to Europe, but they were not PIE.


You even say yourself on Anthrogenica " you dont believe what those people say because they are right winged ". You complain about the negative reputation here, but you just give me a negative response. If you are not a *****, you are definitely mindless.

----------


## Alan

Someone else directed towards me a comment about Maikop being J1, G2 and L while Hittites J2 and G2. And therefore it not being plausible that Maikop is ancestral to Hittites.

Well there being absolutely zero link between Steppe and Hittite yDNA doesn't hinder the persons in their theory of a Steppe origin for Hittites now does it? So why is suddenly G2 link not enough to assume a connection?

Also where you find J1, J2 is usually not far away. They are still close enough. There being a complete lack of R1b L51 on the Steppe doesn't hinder the same persons to assume that it must have come from there, since R1b is found at this spot on mass, so why do they not show the same level of conviction in the case of Hittites and Maikop.

It's not only the yDNA that Maikop shares with Hittite. It's also in the aDNA. It is very similar.

Now let me give you few facts that speak against a Steppe origin of Hittites and why I am not convinced it comes from there.

1. Their aDNA. It absolutely shows no sign of "Steppe admixture" that has not been found already in previous samples from their surrounding. 
2. Their yDNA. It shows no signs of Steppe admixture if we assume J2 and G2 were not found in the Steppe cultures.
3. The Elite argument does not work with Hittites due to their relationship with Hattians and the way the society was build. But even in the case of "Hittite" dominance above the "local" Hattians you would expect at least Steppe related yDNA.
4. Some of the more important linguistic points. Hittite,(don't know about Tocharian) is the only Indo European language that differs drastically from all the other Indo European families. If all the other Indo European families, of which we are pretty sure they originated on the Steppe share something that this one very archaic Indo European language called Hittite lacks. Than I would naturally assume this Hittite did not evolve at the same place as the other.

5. Another important point in my view. But not sure if true. I have heard that Hittite is the only known (not sure of Tocharian) Indo European language that lacks Finno_Ugric loanwords. If this is true, this can only mean. Hittite left the rest of the bunch before they came into contact with Finno_Ugrics how much more obvious than that can it be? 


My own theory is this. I don't think Maikop is in origin PIE but part of it was Indo European or Indo Europeanized in that way that it might have given birth to Hittites and the other Anatolian branches. How does that work? 

Well let me try to explain. If my theory of a NW Iran/Leyla Tepe origin of PIE(or PPIE) is true, than pioneers of this group would walk into two direction.

One into Maykop where they meet the Proto Hatti and the other directly into the Steppes. Those who went into Maykop became known as the Hittites. And I am thinking of the possibility that the Hattians and Hittites already met in Maykop and this might explain the one people structure of their society. 

https://img3.picload.org/image/doldw..._all_sites.jpg

Please note: the Theory that Hittite and Hattians already met in Maykop and that Hittite actually stems from Maykop is just some speculative idea that I think has gained some weight due to the DNA found in Maykop and among the Hittites. It is not a theory I am 100% sure off.

----------


## Alan

@Halfalp I can't answer your post now but one think. Please read my post again. I never said Maykop is PIE. I am saying Maykop is/might be influenced by PIE and Hittite might be the result of this influence.

----------


## halfalp

> Someone else directed towards me a comment about Maikop being J1, G2 and L while Hittites J2 and G2. And therefore it not being plausible that Maikop is ancestral to Hittites.
> 
> Well there being absolutely zero link between Steppe and Hittite yDNA doesn't hinder the persons in their theory of a Steppe origin for Hittites now does it? So why is suddenly G2 link not enough to assume a connection?
> 
> Also where you find J1, J2 is usually not far away. They are still close enough. There being a complete lack of R1b L51 on the Steppe doesn't hinder the same persons to assume that it must have come from there, since R1b is found at this spot on mass, so why do they not show the same level of conviction in the case of Hittites and Maikop.
> 
> It's not only the yDNA that Maikop shares with Hittite. It's also in the aDNA. It is very similar.
> 
> Now let me give you few facts that speak against a Steppe origin of Hittites and why I am not convinced it comes from there.
> ...


Maikop is J2a not J1, it's Kura-Araxe that is J1. G2 is also linked with modern Caucasian Languages no ?

----------


## halfalp

And Olympus Mons, can you please stop negative writing all my posts because you dont like me > :Laughing: .

----------


## Alan

> Maikop is J2a not J1, it's Kura-Araxe that is J1. G2 is also linked with modern Caucasian Languages no ?


That's what I said at the beginning but someone tried to tell me Hittites were J2a and Maykop J1. So Maykop was J2a, G2 L and what about Hittites? Weren't say J2 and G2 too? Still even if they were J1 my argument still stays.

I explained myself in the posts above. I believe Caucasian languages (at least Kartvelian) is linked to ANF ancestry and therefore G2. The reason for this is simple. Kartvelian shows linguistic structures also found in Basque but lacking in other (ergativity) and Kartvelians are dominated by G2 Haplogroup too.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> And Olympus Mons, can you please stop negative writing all my posts because you dont like me >.


What is negative writing?

----------


## Olympus Mons

> I would change "dominance" by "abundance" is not equivalent.


Don't hold to strickly to that. If today I would have written it very differently. ;)

----------


## Olympus Mons

> At the end of the day you are still wrong. If Yamnaya and R1b ( wich is so much a ridiculous statement because M269 is not R1b it's M269 ) came genetically from Shulaveri-Shomu, they would not be 60% EHG but more likely 80% CHG. And what do you mean by " homeland of all western europeans " wtf is that kind of statement. I hope they give you your freaking R1b-M269 in Shulaveri just so you can do something else of your life and not being obsessed by genetic anymore.


Kid, grow up.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Then tell me: Why, *apart from genetics*, would that culture be a candidate for being an early PIE culture?
> 
> 
> 
> But early PIE and late PIE don't show different substrates. The scenario you propose would even make that more remarkable than if Shulaveri was PIE entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> Good, let us go by that road: Why, *apart from genetics*, would that geographical location be a candidate for early PIE?



Apart from Genetics.
(note: you do realize that for all the 3 main labs to have changed their mind and making a bullseye in the Shulaveri land it’s because they know what as not been published, right?)
First, I need to write an entry on Kickedoutdogs (https://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo.pt/) about *****ed pearl culture!

Ok, apart from genetics. --- “would that culture be a candidate for being an early PIE culture” 


about the *****ed pearl culture (it masks Pri.c.ked). Some know it by svobodnoe settlement is actually the shulaveri arriving to north Caucasus. Only when I read the google translation from russian of the wiki *****ed pearl culture did I get it so clearly: Shulaveri, agriculture, pastoral, shulaleri spoons, antler, carnelian beads, etc--- and copper! – so, 4800bc. The story of early *****ed pearl as shulaveri moving to kuban river, then overrun by incoming later bla bla,etc that led to Maykop...
Start here: https://books.google.pt/books?id=WET...ulture&f=false 
So, in a nutshell. Shulaveri had all the baggage of agriculture, all the baggage of pastoral, all the topominia baggage, metal baggage, horse baggage…. You name it. and, why not, the perfect place to be the start of the most common tale of the PIE, the hero that killed the snake/Dragon, because they were gone the moment Ubaid, snake people, arrived to their land. 

In time for be the ignite of PIE dispersal I don’t really know of any local culture with the number, the amount of settlement and population density to be source of a language and most important they were the ones gone the moment agriculture arrived to Steppe, etc... this could go on, and on and on.

----------


## Angela

Gentlemen, dial it back on the language and the negative aspersions please.

----------


## johen

> "_At the community level,_ bioarchaeological investigations seriously challenge the hypothesis of large-scale mobility both in piedmont and in steppe environments_._ 
> *"*Burials and the transportation involved need not necessarily imply mobile individuals or mobile communities. While the usefulness of wheeled transport for pastoral communities living in steppe environments is indisputable, this need not entail large-scale mobility or long-distance migrations."


Then, how to explain yamna migration to altai?

As far as I know, wagon was not found in afanasievo of which kurgan is not earthen mounds. They have Q1a.
Interersting thing is the oldest wagon was found in the kurgan of Q1a2 in Maykop steppe where they *reused* Maykop mound. why? 




> During the 3rd millennium, Yamnaya groups used the Maykop mound and added several graves in central positions and on the periphery as well as at least one new mound-shell. The last interments (graves 1, 2, 7,8 and wagon grave 9) belong to the late Bronze Age Catacomb period. Empty grave 10 can only roughly be dated to the Middle Bronze Age. Mound 6 in Sharakhalsun revealed four complexes with remains of wooden wagons belonging to different cultural formations. It is one of few places with a concentration of wagon burials among the hundreds of excavated mounds in the vicinity and yielded the oldest dated wooden wagon so far in grave 18. This individual probably was one of the first that adopted this new technology in the North Caucasian and Caspian steppe41. The complexes of Sharakhalsun are part of a larger bioarchaeological study and are scheduled for full publication in 2019. Five individuals produced genome-wide data





> "Only in the following late 3rd and early 2nd millennia BC in the South Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia and Mesopotamia did wagon burials become formalised *status markers for elite burials* (Sagona 2013)_._"


Looks like that thing happened by Invader, which resulted in 55.6% Assyrian L23 as mentioned before. I think the L23 came with their armenoid nose or convex nose style. As far as I know, ancient med people didnot have that type of noses, who lived in caucasus area until neolithic.


And I always think that sintashta chariot also seemed to be just a symbol of elite group, not for transportation or war. Until now, I never heard that there was petrograph of chariots regarding sintashta. However, tons of chariot petroglyphs in Andronovo age were found in altai, tuva, mongolia, east karzakstan, kirgistan, and even Tibet. Looks like in inner asia mountain corridor.




> However, by 2400 BC changes are consistently visible, starting with settlement patterns; the abandonment of the former Kura-Araxes villages and a shift toward less permanent occupations and higher mobility coupled with the construction of monumental funerary tumuli (Edens, 1995). These earthen kurgans—with their preserved wooden-log funerary chambers containing wheeled wagons (Djaparidze, 2003; Makharadze and Murvanidze, 2014; Lyonnet, 2014) and rich funerary inventories composed of skillfully crafted golden and silver artifacts, arsenical copper, and tin-bronze objects (Chernykh, 1992; Carminati, 2014)—are paradigmatic of the radical changes in the region.

----------


## halfalp

> Kid, grow up.


Classic solitude that brings narcissism and egocentrism. I'm probably older than you and you are probably 24-25 but you always thought you were more intelligent than other people, then you condescendently called others kiddos.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> That's what I said at the beginning but someone tried to tell me Hittites were J2a and Maykop J1. So Maykop was J2a, G2 L and what about Hittites? Weren't say J2 and G2 too? Still even if they were J1 my argument still stays.
> 
> I explained myself in the posts above. I believe Caucasian languages (at least Kartvelian) is linked to ANF ancestry and therefore G2. The reason for this is simple. Kartvelian shows linguistic structures also found in Basque but lacking in other (ergativity) and Kartvelians are dominated by G2 Haplogroup too.


There are studies which support that Georgian is neither an ergative, nor a 'split-ergative' language either and that it is 'more accurately analyzed as a language having a split between the nominative and the active alignment according to the case and agreement marking, rather than as ergative or “split-ergative”'

----------


## epoch

> So what if i have 34 posts. I try to keep it down on purpose.
> 
> Yes he is a long time *amateur*, i'm an archaeologist.


True. And I know exactly what that makes me. But you know what? I also do know archaeologists that don't make such a point about that but basically like amateurs. We share a passion, you know.




> You know, those guys with the trowels who are writing the papers which the amateurs discuss. What counts more in your eyes? 
> In 3-4 years you are going to quote my papers on this forum and you are going to see my name on a lot of these archaeogenetic collaborations. 
> By that time you and epoch will still be on eurogenes and AG trying to push forward your disinformation.


And the name on those papers will be what? Because I'd like to come back to that. And if you turned out to be right, I wholeheartedly will acknowledge that.




> You don't know what you are talking about. He doesn't know anything. He hasn't read one single book on archaeological theory in his whole life. I can see that in every post he makes.


You take the AG beef we had here. So be it.

You see, I'd love to tap into your knowledge exactly for that. What you, however, mentioned is that *all archeology is political* based on the sociological theory of Social Constructivisme and I tend to consider _that_ just as much bias. For if you feel an obligation to "_prove Nazi's wrong_" and you think that the origin of PIE is a crucial part therein since all archaeology is political, something that seems to be hinted by you, then you _may_ think you have neutralized political bias, but in effect you actually have _introduced_ political bias. 

A political bias that may blind people to the point that they seem to forget that an Ukrainian Urheimat *is* proving Nazi's wrong.




> All he does is bring forward conspiracy theories which contradict what all the great institutes like Max planck, Copenhagen geogenetics and Harvard Labs. are saying.


What conspiracy theories, exactly?

Mind you, I asked a question. You see, as I am an amateur I was curious why I haven't read about the possible big time migrations from Iran, or the Caucasus into the steppe to form Yamnaya before the whole genetics stuff came about.

----------


## Ygorcs

> And the Turkic speaking groups are the best example of why even the most admixed groups still show signs of their ancestors in their DNA. You are making the mistake that you equate Turkic with East Eurasian DNA. But even the most pure Turkic speaking groups are at least 25% West Eurasian. Take in mind the distance between the first Turkic speaking groups and Anatolian Turks. And that the Anatolian Turks are from the Oghuz branch which evolved somewhere around modern day Turkmenistan. So the source for the Anatolian Turks are actually Turkmenistanis and not Kyrgyz. Even if you take Kyrgyz you still get something around 10% Turkic admixture. But if you take Turkmenistanis the admixture rises up to 20-30%. 
> 
> "proto Steppe Hittites" completely ignoring their own females and going all out on "local" Hattian wifes is a possibility, but does that sound plausible. Not for me.
> 
> If that's what happened than for real they must have hated their own females or those girls must have been really really not good looking.


I'm making no such mistakes. The Turks are actually the perfect example for a comparison, because they were also probably a people with two main and very distinct streams of ancestry. To assess the "real" demographic impact of Turks in a population after some of their many migration waves along ~1000 years, you'd have first to consider not Proto-Turks from the Altai, but the specific (and much more admixed) Turkic source where the migrants came from, and you'd have to consider the East Asian ancestry just a "proxy" for the presence of Proto-Turkic descent, but not as the entire percentage of the Turkic impact in the local gene pool. Depending on the Turkic population (for example, whether it is Gagauz, Chuvash, Anatolian Turkish etc.), a ~5% East Asian signal can mean an "effective" Turkic presence of 8%, 10%, 20%, 30%. It varies widely. That's exactly like in the case of Indo-Europeans. 

The logic of what you say about the Turkish people is exactly the same I'm applying, hypothetically, to the Hittite population, with the caveat, of course that the EHG component was already very reduced (~40-50% at most) even in the earliest Proto-Indo-European population in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Eneolithic Steppe circa 4300 BC), let alone after thousands of years mating with people with little or no EHG.

Many Turkic people today descend from medieval Turks in significant (not major) percentages, enough to engender a linguistic shift, but the East Asian/Northeast Siberian component in them is negligible. Why? Because they do not descend from people who came straight from Northeast Asia, but from previously assimilated Turkic populations increasingly mixed with West Eurasians. Similarly, it's not just possible, but very probable that, if the Anatolians really left their homeland very early (before 4000 BC), by 1700-1600 BC they would've been completely changed, especially if the migration was male-biased and their destination was (as in fact it was) already very populous.

Again, it seems to me you still didn't get my point on the maths. We're talking about averages here. If EHG was diluted until it became on average just 1% of the Central Anatolian gene pool, then, well, you may find some people with 10% or 20%, but the vast majority will have virtually 0%. It doesn't matter how many females were Hattian or Anatolian IE, what matters is that, on average, they were probably in the minority especially if the Proto-Anatolian movements were very male-biased as it also happened elsewhere during the BA IE expansions. Of course, people do not mate exclusively outside their own group, but, yes, exogamy was pretty common back then (actually that, according to Mt-DNA distributions, seems the main reason for the high CHG in the steppes, for example), and we have so few samples that we unquestionably have to think of how the "average" person of a given region was, because the probability to find people from the tiny minority is of course very small when you have analyzed the DNA of only 2, 3 or 5 individuals in a place where hundreds of thousands must've lived.

----------


## Sile

> I'm making no such mistakes. The Turks are actually the perfect example for a comparison, because they were also probably a people with two main and very distinct streams of ancestry. To assess the "real" demographic impact of Turks in a population after some of their many migration waves along ~1000 years, you'd have first to consider not Proto-Turks from the Altai, but the specific (and much more admixed) Turkic source where the migrants came from, and you'd have to consider the East Asian ancestry just a "proxy" for the presence of Proto-Turkic descent, but not as the entire percentage of the Turkic impact in the local gene pool. That's exactly like in the case of Indo-Europeans. The logic of what you say about the Turkish people is exactly the same I'm applying, hypothetically, to the Hittite population, with the caveat, of course that the EHG component was already very reduced (~40-50% at most) even in the earliest Proto-Indo-European population in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Eneolithic Steppe circa 4300 BC), let alone after thousands of years mating with people with little or no EHG.
> Many Turkic people today descend from medieval Turks in significant (not major) percentages, enough to engender a linguistic shift, but the East Asian/Northeast Siberian component in them is negligible. Why? Because they do not descend from people who came straight from Northeast Asia, but from previously assimilated Turkic populations increasingly mixed with West Eurasians. Similarly, it's not just possible, but very probable that, if the Anatolians really left their homeland very early (before 4000 BC), by 1700-1600 BC they would've been completely changed, especially if the migration was male-biased and their destination was (as in fact it was) already very populous.
> Again, it seems to me you still didn't get my point on the maths. We're talking about averages here. If EHG was diluted until it became on average just 1% of the Central Anatolian gene pool, then, well, you may find some people with 10% or 20%, but the vast majority will have virtually 0%. It doesn't matter how many females were Hattian or Anatolian IE, what matters is that, on average, they were probably in the minority especially if the Proto-Anatolian movements were very male-biased as it also happened elsewhere during the BA IE expansions. Of course, people do not mate exclusively outside their own group, but, yes, exogamy was pretty common back then (actually that, according to Mt-DNA distributions, seems the main reason for the high CHG in the steppes, for example), and we have so few samples that we unquestionably have to think of how the "average" person of a given region was, because the probability to find people from the tiny minority is of course very small when you have analyzed the DNA of only 2, 3 or 5 individuals in a place where hundreds of thousands must've lived.


Can you link any turkic migrations into Anatolia prior to the roman period.
I see nothing until either they came with the mongols or circa 11th century AD.................basically as far as I know there was no Turkic people in ancient anatolia

----------


## berun

quoting "The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World"




> The rather limited vocabulary pertaining to metallurgy in Proto-Indo-
> European is listed in Table 15.2.
> The basic word for ‘metal’ in Proto-Indo-European is *haey-es- (e.g. Lat aes
> ‘copper, bronze’, NE ore, Av ayah- ‘metal (probably bronze)’, Skt a´yas- [earlier]
> ‘copper’, [later] ‘iron’) and it is generally presumed to mean ‘copper’ or the
> copper-tin alloy of ‘bronze’ although it has come to mean ‘iron’ in some of the
> Indo-European languages, e.g. Indo-Iranian; however, there is clear evidence
> that it earlier meant ‘copper’ or ‘bronze’. In the Germanic languages it tends to
> mean ‘ore’ and it is possible it simply meant ‘metal’ rather than a speciWc type
> ...


They say nothing about Anatolian languages, but Yamnayans had copper tools and weapons, so Anatolians were steppe blondish guys 2 meters tall that didn't need any metal to cut trees or kill enemies, just an slap was enough. Now seriously, or Anatolians were roaming deep into the forests, or the Caucasian homeland takes more points... but then departing before knowing metals. Even the few metal names seem related to IE adjectives. Just a mess as usual with this case.

----------


## Ygorcs

> And now with the Maykop paper they can check how their IE CHG were not colonizing the steppes in the right timeframe for common IE (common words for metals per example......)


Nice observation. I'd like to know what words for metals and other technology Anatolian IE shares with the rest of the IE family. We already know Maykop was not the source of that CHG, and other Chalcolithic/Bronze Age samples from the region nearby don't look like the source either, so if PIE came from outside the steppes then it was still a Neolithic or at best an Early Copper Age language and couldn't have start to split and colonize other regions before the Bronze Age (or if Anatolian IE doesn't share typical Bronze Age terms with the rest, maybe in the Late Copper Age). 

As for Indic, yes, it's complete nonsense to imagine that it would've been an early arrival in South Asia spread by CHG people, thus assuming a simply impossible situation where Indo-Aryan would've "coincidentally" evolved for many centuries or even milennia in the very same way of other IE dialects very far away from South Asia, in Northeastern Europe/Northwest Asia.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Can you link any turkic migrations into Anatolia prior to the roman period.
> I see nothing until either they came with the mongols or circa 11th century AD.................basically as far as I know there was no Turkic people in ancient anatolia


You're totally misunderstanding my post. That's not what we are discussing here at all. We're comparing the fact the probable demographic and genetic dynamics of the CA/BA Indo-European migrations with the fact that medieval Turkic immigrations happened in multiple waves and with a lot of dilution of their original autosomal makeup to the point that some of the Turkified populations received Turkic immigration, but have very little Northeast Asian/East Asian admixture. The Turkic immigrations didn't involve Proto-Turks, but a lot of Turkic and Turkified "daughter" populations.

By comparing with historically attested steppe immigrations from relatively recent and literate times, we're trying to address how the immigrations of IE tribes could've impacted the local populations of their new homelands in very different ways and proportions (including a lot of dilution of their original "genetic signal", be it EHG in the case of steppe IEs, or East Asian-related in the case of Turks), especially if we take into account the very high likelihood that they didn't leap from one place to another one far away from their original lands, rather they probably expanded slowly and unsystematically, upon several generations until they finally reached their final destination.

----------


## Milan.M

> Nice observation. I'd like to know what words for metals and other technology Anatolian IE shares with the rest of the IE family. We already know Maykop was not the source of that CHG, and other Chalcolithic/Bronze Age samples from the region nearby don't look like the source either, so if PIE came from outside the steppes then it was still a Neolithic or at best an Early Copper Age language and couldn't have start to split and colonize other regions before the Bronze Age (or if Anatolian IE doesn't share typical Bronze Age terms with the rest, maybe in the Late Copper Age). 
> 
> As for Indic, yes, it's complete nonsense to imagine that it would've been an early arrival in South Asia spread by CHG people, thus assuming a simply impossible situation where Indo-Aryan would've "coincidentally" evolved for many centuries or even milennia in the very same way of other IE dialects very far away from South Asia, in Northeastern Europe/Northwest Asia.


Yesterday i looked for words for metals among IE and it seems that it was spoken in copper age;

Many are taken from wiktionary including opinions of authors,with some words added from me;

Proto-Slavic "želězo"(iron) Cognate with Lithuanian geležìs, Latvian dzèlzs and Old Prussian gelso.Has been connected with Ancient Greek χαλκός (khalkós, “ore, copper, bronze”), but the connection cannot be established in terms of regular phonetic correspondences. However, both could be independent loanwords from a common eastern source, whence also possibly Hittite [script needed] ((ḫ)apalki, “iron”).

Latin "aenus" is the only word in Proto-Indo-European that unequivocally refers to a metal,this word refers to copper (and bronze), and the Proto-Indo-European word refers with absolute certainty to one of these metals, or both. There is no word for iron and the words for gold and silver seem to mean ”that which shines”, or ”the golden” and ”the silvery”, respectively.This shows that the Indo-European language was spoken during a time when copper was used.

Slavic -"med"(copper),most likely connected with Germanic-"smith"(craftsman) from IE  *(s)mēy(H)- (“to cut, hew”). Ancient Greek-σμίλη "smī́lē"(tool for cutting,carving),Celtic-mēnis (ore,metal,mine).

Persian- "mes"(copper) in my opinion is also connected to above.

Itself the word "metal" come from Greek but seem connected to me.


I think that Proto-IE started expanding in early copper age (Chalcolithic,Eneolithic)

----------


## Jovialis

Okay, that's enough with the bickering between you guys.

Let's get back on to the topic.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> Proto-Slavic "želězo"(iron) Cognate with Lithuanian geležìs, Latvian dzèlzs and Old Prussian gelso.Has been connected with Ancient Greek χαλκός (khalkós, “ore, copper, bronze”), but the connection cannot be established in terms of regular phonetic correspondences. However, both could be independent loanwords from a common eastern source, whence also possibly Hittite [script needed] ((ḫ)apalki, “iron”).


I have thought about that, the Greek word at least, that it might have something to do with Colchians.

compare kolkhós, 'a Colchian', khalkos 'copper, copper alloyed with tin, bronze'

First of all, a parallel exists, the word _copper_ comes from late Latin _cuprum,_ which in turn ultimately from _Kúpros_, “Cyprus”

Then, there is this map > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tallurgie.png
------------
Words that derive from **h₂erǵ-* which means 'silver' exists in many branches, though. I am not sure how that is interpreted if we assume the languages expanded during the Bronze Age or earlier. That being said the original meaning of the root in PIE should have been related to the meaning _white_ and although cognates seem to have existed in Tocharian and Hittite they don't have anything to do with metals.

----------


## holderlin

Honestly, after going through the data again, and reading this thread, it looks to me that we mostly likely have Caucasian speakers in the Caucuses, and Indo-European speakers to the North. Just as the archaeologists have been saying all along.

Y lines match up, autosomal matches up, we're as certain as we'll ever be that every other IE language came from the steppe. There's only Anatolian, and this one R1b-Z2103 guy that everyone is freaking out about. And that sample still hasn't been hit with a mass spec.

----------


## berun

you forget that the guy is half ANF half CHG...

----------


## Milan.M

> I have thought about that, the Greek word at least, that it might have something to do with Colchians.
> 
> compare kolkhós, 'a Colchian', khalkos 'copper, copper alloyed with tin, bronze'
> 
> First of all, a parallel exists, the word _copper_ comes from late Latin _cuprum,_ which in turn ultimately from _Kúpros_, “Cyprus”
> 
> Then, there is this map > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tallurgie.png
> ------------
> Words that derive from **h₂erǵ-* which means 'silver' exists in many branches, though. I am not sure how that is interpreted if we assume the languages expanded during the Bronze Age or earlier. That being said the original meaning of the root in PIE should have been related to the meaning _white_ and although cognates seem to have existed in Tocharian and Hittite they don't have anything to do with metals.


That's all good but it seems that words for copper exists in PIE and later bronze,that was the point.The word "copper" however is not shared by IE speakers,Latin is "aenus" for copper and bronze.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> That's all good but it seems that words for copper exists in PIE and later bronze,that was the point.The word "copper" however is not shared by IE speakers,Latin is "aenus" for copper and bronze.


That related words though, often don't mean 'copper' or 'bronze', therefore the reconstructed meaning should be 'metal'.

In Greek there is also a word ασήμι ('silver'). Compare Kurdish asin / hesin (“iron”) and Middle Persian asēm, (“silver”).

They don't include the Greek word in the words which are said that derive from *h₂éyos / *áyos

But if a relationship really exists, in Greek there are data that point to an original meaning 'raw metal' (literally 'formless')

There isn't a widely spread word that means 'bronze'. Some expansions were before the Bronze Age, imo but then I don't know how the words that derived from h2erg and mean silver are explained. Words that derive from h2erg and also mean 'silver'* exist in Celtic, Italic (attested in many dialects), Greek and Indo-Iranian. Also in Armenian, but in Armenian at least some say the word is a loan as far as I understand.

*Though in some languages that is less clear. For example in Sanskrit the word arjuna also meant gold. It also has meanings like 'clear' or 'shape'. 
I think it could be supported that the word originally referred to processed metals in general.

----------


## Johane Derite

> That related words though, often don't mean 'copper' or 'bronze', therefore the reconstructed meaning should be 'metal'.
> 
> In Greek there is also a word ασήμι ('silver'). Compare Kurdish asin / hesin (“iron”) and Middle Persian asēm, (“silver”).
> 
> They don't include the Greek word in the words which are said that derive from *h₂éyos / *áyos
> 
> But if a relationship really exists, in Greek there are data that point to an original meaning 'raw metal' (literally 'formless')
> 
> There isn't a widely spread word that means 'bronze'. Some expansions were before the Bronze Age, imo but then I don't know how the words that derived from h2erg and mean silver are explained. Words that derive from h2erg and also mean 'silver'* exist in Celtic, Italic (attested in many dialects), Greek and Indo-Iranian. Also in Armenian, but in Armenian at least some say the word is a loan as far as I understand.
> ...


You can add this also:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hekur

----------


## Johane Derite

Maybe relevant:

In Gheg Albanian "me hekë (heq in Tosk)" means "to remove/pull out" but can also be used "to suffer"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heq#Albanian

----------


## Johane Derite

> Maybe relevant:
> 
> In Gheg Albanian "me hekë (heq in Tosk)" means "to remove/pull out" but can also be used "to suffer"
> 
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heq#Albanian



The suffix "-ur" in Albanian is past participle similar to the "-ed" as in "finish*ed*" in English.

So "hekur" which means Metal/Iron in Albanian is directly related to "hekë" which means "remove" but also is 
very specifically connected to "pulling out."

Hek*ur* = "Pull*ed* out"
Hekuri = "The Pulled out"

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> You can add this also:
> 
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hekur


(I'm separating my post in two parts, the second is more speculative)

Yes. If the word is related, along with the Germanic ones, where we have reconstructed words thought to have meant 'type of metal', also 'genuine, pure' and evidence from Sanskrit, where as I said, apart from 'silver' meanings like 'gold', 'clear' or 'shape' etc are attested and Celtic where also the meaning 'money' is attested etc

We can say that the original meaning of the root wasn't 'silver' and likely not exactly 'white' either. *Concerning the words which are said that derive from *h2erg and came to be associated with metals at least, I personally consider an original meaning 'processed metal' likely.*

Also linguists reconstruct roots like *reyǵ-(“stretch tight, bind”) and *h₃reǵ-(“straighten”), from the second we have words that acquired meanings like Sanskrit ṛjú, (“just, right”), or 'law'/'order' in Celtic dialects.
Latin rigo, which has meanings like 'lead, convey' etc but also 'irrigate, wet, moisten etc' is thought to have descended from one of those roots.

>>>

One blogger in Greece has supported that Greek word Argos descended from a root *Hre_ǵ-_ / *h2reǵ-, and that it was associated with irrigated plains. 
Albanian has a word rjedh, associated with a Proto-Indo-European *Hreǵ- ('flow') by some and have compared it to Celtic hydronyms like Rodanos.

The meaning 'flow' could have had theoretically something to do with the process of smelting. I think it is evident but some similarities can be coincidental.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Yesterday i looked for words for metals among IE and it seems that it was spoken in copper age;
> 
> Many are taken from wiktionary including opinions of authors,with some words added from me;
> 
> Proto-Slavic "želězo"(iron) Cognate with Lithuanian geležìs, Latvian dzèlzs and Old Prussian gelso.Has been connected with Ancient Greek χαλκός (khalkós, “ore, copper, bronze”), but the connection cannot be established in terms of regular phonetic correspondences. However, both could be independent loanwords from a common eastern source, whence also possibly Hittite [script needed] ((ḫ)apalki, “iron”).
> 
> Latin "aenus" is the only word in Proto-Indo-European that unequivocally refers to a metal,this word refers to copper (and bronze), and the Proto-Indo-European word refers with absolute certainty to one of these metals, or both. There is no word for iron and the words for gold and silver seem to mean ”that which shines”, or ”the golden” and ”the silvery”, respectively.This shows that the Indo-European language was spoken during a time when copper was used.
> 
> Slavic -"med"(copper),most likely connected with Germanic-"smith"(craftsman) from IE  *(s)mēy(H)- (“to cut, hew”). Ancient Greek-σμίλη "smī́lē"(tool for cutting,carving),Celtic-mēnis (ore,metal,mine).
> ...


Very interesting. It seems to confirm my observations with these latest studies, about the development of PIE (including its seemingly steppe-derived daughter branches) being very early, not an Early Bronze Age thing, and probably involving an early expansion from one common homeland already from somewhere in or near the Pontic-Caspian region (if not in the steppes per se, at least in the North Caucasus or maybe the Azerbaijani coastal steppe strip), as well as a much later expansion of Late PIE dialects already from the huge expanse of the steppes (maybe propelled by the spread of the Yamnaya horizon). Otherwise, I think we should expect a much more differentiated IE family (if it had divided into different languages even earlier, when CHG did not even exist in high proportions in the Pontic-Caspian steppe), or a much _less_ differentiated IE family, if it had started to split into different dialects only after the Yamnaya people started to disperse.

----------


## Cato

Wasn't the Ezero culture steppe-free genetically? So even if they (the Hittites) came from Europe they had no steppe since the beginning...but i doubt that they came from the Balkans because if i'm not wrong - i didnt read the study -they are Near eastern genetically with no WHG (?)

P.S. Ezero culture was one of the possibilities mentioned by scholars about their origin, the other one was that they came from the Caucasus....

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## epoch

> Stop cherry picking from my posts. You only answer the parts you like, and elegantly leave the rest out.
> I remember why i told you on AG i wouldn't reply you anymore. You seriously lack the theoretical knowledge to be able to discuss something that happened that long ago.
> 
> The last answer you will ever get from me in any forum:


A retreat. Fine with me. Mind you, you don't seem very keen on sharing archaeological knowledge. 




> Apart from half of their genetics, the whole culture, the animals, the way of living, the wheels, the metals and the tools of the steppe people descend from the populations south of the caucasus.


The first copper in Khvalynsk was found to be from the Balkans. Sheep bones in the steppe were found in herder cultures related to Cucuteni-Tripoli. The first kurgans were found in the Balkans. The oldest drawing of a wheeled vehicle is from TBR Poland. There is EEF in Yamnaya. So why didn't they leave any trace in late PIE?




> Before the advent of the southerners, they were nothing but hunter gatherers.


Off course they copied everything. We see that kind of adaptation with WHG remnants such as Ertebolla wrt pig herding as well. Or Swifterband. 




> I simply have a hard time seeing why the southerners should have a hard time imposing their language upon a couple of small bands of primitive hunters.


You should have a hard time seeing female mediated language transmission to a patriarchal society.

----------


## epoch

> Wasn't the Ezero culture steppe-free genetically? So even if they (the Hittites) came from Europe they had no steppe since the beginning...but i doubt that they came from the Balkans because if i'm not wrong - i didnt read the study -they are Near eastern genetically with no WHG (?)
> 
> P.S. Ezero culture was one of the possibilities mentioned by scholars about their origin, the other one was that they came from the Caucasus....
> 
> Utilizzando Tapatalk


From Mathieson:




> Bronze Age (~3400-1100 BCE) individuals do have steppe-related ancestry (we estimate 30%; CI: 26-35%), with the highest proportions in the four latest Balkan Bronze Age individuals in our data (later than ~1700 BCE) and the least in earlier Bronze Age individuals (3400-2500 BCE;Figure 1D).


From the supplementary tables (XL sheet) one of the early Bronze Age samples is, Bul10, is assigned to the Ezero culture.

----------


## Cato

> From Mathieson:
> 
> 
> 
> From the supplementary tables (XL sheet) one of the early Bronze Age samples is, Bul10, is assigned to the Ezero culture.


Ok, so they had some Steppe admixture, thanks..(unless it was the steppe-like admixture that Varna already had)

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5b/ec...c310ac54fc.png

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## epoch

> Ok, so they had some Steppe admixture, thanks..(unless it was the steppe-like admixture that Varna already had)
> 
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5b/ec...c310ac54fc.png
> 
> Utilizzando Tapatalk


The Varna culture was succeeded by the copper age Kurgan builders of the Suvorovo culture, which occupied the same area. These people build Kurgans with zoomorphic scepters or maces as burial gifts, which Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk also had. David Anthony considers them horse heads, other think more various animals. Suvorovo is widely considered an offshoot of Sredny Stog. Mathieson did not sample Suvorovo, but the two copper age samples that show steppe admixture are from the copper age culture immediately preceding Suvorovo (Varna) and from a copper age cultures not very far from Suvorovo territory (Smyadovo).

I think they are Suvorovo samples.

David Anthony's theory of Anatolian was an early offshoot from the Steppe, from one of the precursors of Yamnaya: Sredny Stog. From Suvorovo then came early Bronze Age Ezero. This migrated to Turkish Thrace and migrated to Anatolia. I haven't heard from anyone that the data seem to confirm this theory. But it looks to me like it does.

----------


## Angela

> The Varna culture was succeeded by the copper age Kurgan builders of the Suvorovo culture, which occupied the same area. These people build Kurgans with zoomorphic scepters or maces as burial gifts, which Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk also had. David Anthony considers them horse heads, other think more various animals. Suvorovo is widely considered an offshoot of Sredny Stog. Mathieson did not sample Suvorovo, but the two copper age samples that show steppe admixture are from the copper age culture immediately preceding Suvorovo (Varna) and from a copper age cultures not very far from Suvorovo territory (Smyadovo).
> 
> I think they are Suvorovo samples.
> 
> David Anthony's theory of Anatolian was an early offshoot from the Steppe, from one of the precursors of Yamnaya: Sredny Stog. From Suvorove came early Bronze Age Ezero. This migrated to Turkish Thrace and migrated to Anatolia. I haven't heard from anyone that the data seem to confirm this theory. But it looks to me like it does.


I'd be very interested to see papers documenting the archaeological trail from Ezero, or Suvorovo, for that matter, to Anatolia.

----------


## epoch

> I'd be very interested to see papers documenting the archaeological trail from Ezero, or Suvorovo, for that matter, to Anatolia.


As I said, it's David Anthony's theory. I got it from books, he must have written more about it.

EDIT: So yeah, it might be interesting if someone started digging into the papers. But where to start?

----------


## Cato

Some info about the Ezero culture from Europe in the Neolithic by A.Whittle

Attachment 10205Attachment 10206Attachment 10207

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Cpluskx

Btw, there's a lot of talk about the Maykop but don't forget that Reich put the PIE homeland in his book to present day Iran or Armenia.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> As I said, it's David Anthony's theory. I got it from books, he must have written more about it.
> 
> EDIT: So yeah, it might be interesting if someone started digging into the papers. But where to start?


hummm. Fed up with David Anthony to tell you the truth. 

a. Boian and Gulmelnita (around 4600bc and related to Kum6) , rapidly mixed with Hamangia culture (from 5000bc) which was a related Anatolia people, as a differentiation of the others around and northwestern LBK, Starcevo type of people that were Early neolithic. 

b. In the awake of the southern movement, we rapidly see first the formation of the Pre-Cucuteni by merging this incoming people and a LBK/Starcevo local substratum.... and Cucuteni-Trypolie was born. Whatever you think of Cucuteni-trypillian culture impact this is the common knowledge of it. the "leftovers" of this mixing from new arriving people (related to Kumtepe, Kum6 people) is also Varna culture in 4300bc.

c. First (thought of being) incoming "Steppe" eastern population is Cernovada culture which arrives at 4000bc, after the end of even Varna. Lets see if Cernovada doesn't turnout as GAC, with cultural "steppe" traits but no "steppe" aDna. most seem to believe Cernovada as steppe. that is fine.

d. Ezero Culture, as Usatovo, much later by 3300bc, if anything, were related more to Baden and GAC than anything else. Naturally also related to whatever remains from the later Cernovada (steppe?) layers and probable all others I mentioned before. Here you have the later 10% steppe seen in Mycenaeans. However, the key note is: At most Cernovada was the one related to steppe. And they, in spite of coming after some cataclysm that wiped the region, didn't really made much impact in the region.

e. There is no record of this millieu entering Anatolia. 

So, epoch, what do you add to this?

----------


## Angela

This is all I know Anthony to have said about connections between Ezero and Anatolia.

"Beginning in about 3000 BC rich cultures emerged in the coastal steppes of the Crimea (the Kemi Oba culture) and the Dniester estuary northwest of the Black Sea (the Usatovo culture). They might have participated in seaborne trade along the Black Sea coast - artifact exchanges show that Usatovo, Kemi Oba, and late stages of the Maikop cultures were contemporary. Perhaps their trade goods even reached Troy I. A stone stele much like a Pit Grave marker was built into a wall at Troy I, and the Troy I ceramics were very much like those of the Baden and Ezero cultures in southeastern Europe _(The stele is consistent with philological and mythological evidence that Troy was an outpost of Türkic settlement in Anatolia)_."
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...ronzeAgeEn.htm

Sounds like trade to me, not evidence of a migration, and I don't think Anthony proposed it as such.

Also:
"Steppe herders, archaic Proto-Indo-European speakers, spread into the lower Danube valley about 4200-4000 BCE, either causing or taking advantage of the collapse of Old Europe.[37]According to Anthony, their languages "probably included archaic Proto-Indo-European dialects of the kind partly preserved later in Anatolian."[38] According to Anthony their descendants later moved into Anatolia, at an unknown time, but maybe as early as 3,000 BCE.[39] According to Anthony these herders, forming the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka complex,[note 3] probably were a chiefly elite from the Sredni Stog culture at the Dniepr valley.[41"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ho...,_and_Language

The references are to page 229 and 262 of the book if anyone has it.

As I remembered, it seems that Anthony uses a time frame of about 4200 BC for Pre-Anatolian, and speculates that the Suvorovo culture might have brought it to the Balkans. There's no proof of any kind proffered from what I remember.
He doesn't propose any particular culture for the movement into Anatolia that I remember, but maybe there's something on page 262.

----------


## epoch

> This is all I know Anthony to have said about connections between Ezero and Anatolia.
> 
> "Beginning in about 3000 BC rich cultures emerged in the coastal steppes of the Crimea (the Kemi Oba culture) and the Dniester estuary northwest of the Black Sea (the Usatovo culture). They might have participated in seaborne trade along the Black Sea coast - artifact exchanges show that Usatovo, Kemi Oba, and late stages of the Maikop cultures were contemporary. Perhaps their trade goods even reached Troy I. A stone stele much like a Pit Grave marker was built into a wall at Troy I, and the Troy I ceramics were very much like those of the Baden and Ezero cultures in southeastern Europe _(The stele is consistent with philological and mythological evidence that Troy was an outpost of Türkic settlement in Anatolia)_."
> http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...ronzeAgeEn.htm
> 
> Sounds like trade to me, not evidence of a migration, and I don't think Anthony proposed it as such.
> 
> Also:
> "Steppe herders, archaic Proto-Indo-European speakers, spread into the lower Danube valley about 4200-4000 BCE, either causing or taking advantage of the collapse of Old Europe.[37]According to Anthony, their languages "probably included archaic Proto-Indo-European dialects of the kind partly preserved later in Anatolian."[38] According to Anthony their descendants later moved into Anatolia, at an unknown time, but maybe as early as 3,000 BCE.[39] According to Anthony these herders, forming the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka complex,[note 3] probably were a chiefly elite from the Sredni Stog culture at the Dniepr valley.[41"
> ...


Hm. Maybe I conjured it up myself from these two samples. I _was_ citing from memory. Mind you, this route has another consequence: It would likely have left traces of another language in *all* Anatolian languages. I don't know if that is the case.

EDIT: A southern origin and movement into the Steppe would have likely left a huge trace in late PIE. According to Agamemnon on AG one of the reasons PIE is considered an original language is that it fits rules almost mathematically. That was a response on my question if PIE might have been a mixed language like Michif.

----------


## Cato

A good paper about EBA W.Anatolia, presumably when the Anatolian branch entered Anatolia. At first glance i didn't notice any references about Kurgan or Steppe influences...

http://www.academia.edu/21769212/An_...rly_Bronze_Age

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> It is important to emphasize that at Ezero, the excavators Nikolai Merpert and Georgy Georgiev discovered a sequence of ceramics clearly ancestral to, and then contemporary with, those found in the Troy culture.


-- J.P. Mallory, _In Search of the Indo-Europeans_, p. 239.

----------


## Cato

"Troy culture" should be a synonym of Yortan culture..they buried their deads into pithoi.

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Cato

Maybe a Kurgan influence can be seen in the spread of the Megara in 3000-2700 BC ?? 

"What should be emphasized at this point is that, from this period on, the megaron plan became characteristic throughout the region"...p.67

apparently the Megaron originated in Neolithic Russia

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

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Leka

Mallory....


The earliest Indo-European-speaking peoples to enter the historical record were the Anatolians who are first attested by about the nineteenth century BC. By this time Assyrian merchants had penetrated into south central Anatolia and established their karum or 'trading office' at Kanes, the modern Kultepe. Excavations at this site, and at several other Assyrian trading posts, have uncovered clay tablets in Assyrian cuneiform that record the daily business of the Assyrian tradesmen. In addition, they also mention personal names and places which are recognizably Indo-European. By far the best attested of these is Hittites. With their capital at Hattusa (modern Bogazkoy), the Hittites have left us over 25, 000 clay tablets spanning the period from about 1650 to 1200 BC. In addition, their archives contain tablets in two other Indo-European languages, Luwian and Palaic. They present us with a picture of Anatolia where the Hittites are master of the central region, the Palaic speakers subservient to their north, and the Luwians occupying the role of the traditional rival in much of the western and southern Anatolia. After the collapse of the Hittites about 1200 BC, Luwian seems to have prevailed widely over southern Anatolia and Luwian-related languages such as Lycian continued down into the last centuries of BC, only to be finally engulfed by the expansion of Greek colonists. 


 It is most important for our purposes to inquire how autonomous were the Anatolian languages in their respective regions. The general opinion of both linguists and archaeologists would almost universally deny them a role as natives to Anatolia but cast them rather in the part of Bronze Age intruders who assimilated the indigenous non-Indo-European populations. The Assyrian merchants of the nineteenth century BC not only record the names of Indo-European peoples in their texts but make it quite clear that there was also a great body of non-Indo-European-speaking peoples in the region. The existence of these non-Indo-European peoples is undoubted since the Hittite archives themselves contain texts, translations of texts, and frequent borrowings from a language called Hattic. These Hatti are regarded as the predominant substratum, the aborigines if you will, of central Anatolia over whom the Hittites and Palaic speakers superimposed themselves. From the Hatti the Hittites borrowed not only many words, but also much of their culture, certainly much of their religion, and even the name Hittite derives from Hatti (the Hittites called themselves nes and their language nesili). Linguistically, Hattic is a non-Indo-European language with no certain close relationships, although there are some grounds (absence of grammatical gender, use of prefixes) to link it with the northwest Caucasian group of languages (Abkhaz) or perhaps Kartvelian, the major south Caucasian linguistic group. 


 Further to the east, on the fringes of Anatolia and north of Syria, lay another major non-Indo-European people, the Hurrians. Hurrian texts maintained in the Hittite archives, coupled with Hurrian loan words in Luwian and the Hurrians' own inscriptions and texts in north Mesopotamia which date as early as the twenty-third century BC, all speak for an additional non-Indo-European presence on the eastern borders of the Indo-Europeans of Anatolia. To their south were the lands of Semites and (formerly) Sumerians, again non-Indo-European speakers. The natural conclusion to be drawn from all of this is that the Indo-European-speaking Anatolians were intrusive into central Anatolia and were unlikely to have emigrated from directly east of southeast of this region were major non-Indo-European populations are historically attested. It is also clear from the abundance of mixed texts, foreign loanwords in Hittite and Luwian, and the entire cultural picture that emerges from the content of the texts, that the Indo-European Anatolians had already undergone considerable assimilation to the culture of the non-Indo-European Anatolians before they appear in history. Now what do linguistics and archaeology tell us about their origins?


 For the linguists, the existence of three Indo-European languages in Anatolia by the seventeenth century BC generates two issues of considerable historical importance. The firs is their relationship with the other Indo-European languages. Here there is fairly universal agreement among historical linguists that the Anatolian branch offers us some of the most extreme examples of archaism among all the Indo-European languages. By this is meant that they retain grammatical forms and constructions that disappeared very early on in other languages. Some would go further and argue that the Anatolian branch appears to lack some grammatical forms that developed in all the other Indo-European languages. This, they maintain, indicates that the Anatolian branch diverged from the rest of the Indo-European continuum before it had even evolved into the form of Proto-Indo-European that gave rise to all the other Indo-European languages. This view is not universally accepted, especially since most linguists admit that the Anatolian languages had already undergone vast changes under the influence of non-Indo-European languages native populations before they emerged into history. Although there is much finely argued controversy about the details of these linguistic issues, there would be few to argue against the conclusion that the Anatolian languages represent a very early separation or divergence from the common Proto-Indo-European continuum of dialects. 


 The second major issue is the internal relationship among the Anatolian languages. With our evidence for the both Luwian and Palaic so meagre compared with Hittite, it is difficult to ascertain fully how divergent the three languages were. That differences did exist can easily be seen in comparing some of their vocabulary. 


But despite these differences, and some are more thoroughgoing than these, the three languages are vastly more similar to one another than they are to any of the other Indo-European languages, even those other languages which are also attested as early as the Bronze Age. They give all the appearance of being the result of linguistic differentiation across a broad band of common Anatolian dialects. Their divergence from one another must obviously have occurred before their earliest historical attestation, but not too long before or we would expect yet greater differences. Linguists normally provide a broad estimate that the ancestors of the different Anatolian languages penetrated into their respective territories some time during the third millennium BC, or possibly as early as the later fourth millennium. Where does all this leave the archaeologists? 


 First, the Indo-European-speaking Anatolians are difficult to distinguish from their non-Indo-European neighbours or predecessors. They appear to have embraced thoroughly the local Anatolian Bronze Age cultures and they display no obvious cultural traits that mark them off as distinctly Indo-European. This is hardly surprising, as the basic social picture of Bronze Age Anatolia is of a series of city-states comprised of linguistically diverse populations sharing the same material culture. It has even been suggested that Hittite itself was not the language of the dominant group but rather a lingua franca, developed out of the close association of the earlier Hittites of Kanes with the Assyrian merchants, who were the first literate population in Anatolia and who used Kanes as a trading base. 


 We must also remember that our knowledge of Anatolian archaeology is still quite inferior to many other areas of Eurasia and so any argument for ethnic intrusions are generally build on admittedly meagre evidence. This is more than compounded by the length of rope with which the linguist has provided the optimistic archaeology, because with a 1,500-year time span to seek intrusions, few archaeologists who believe that such phenomena are traceable in the archaeology record can resits discovering several possible invaders - both the west and the east. 


 Probably the most widely accepted case for intrusion falls at the end of Early Bronze Age II, about 2700-2600 BC, when the evidence for population movement is coupled with destruction and abandonment. Beginning in western Anatolia we see destruction phases on every major site and abandonment of smaller sites. The Konya Plain is offered as the most convincing example since field surveys here have indicated a collapse from 100 Early Bronze Age II sites to a mere four in the following period. Some suggest that an infiltration by nomads who profoundly altered the sedentary economy of the region may be credited with this change. In addition, new ceramic elements which take their origin from northwestern Anatolia (Troy V) spread rapidly eastward as also does the classic form of status or ritual architecture - the megaron which was common at Troy and Beycesultan - which now begins to appear in central Anatolia at such sites as Kanes-Kultepe. 


 The arguments for a west to east movement of intruders in the mid-third millennium BC accords well with some linguistic theories concerning the dispersion of the Anatolian languages. Essentially, the new horizon embraces the subsequent historical lands of the Luwians who maintained a west to east pressure throughout their existence. This crisis at the end of Early Bronze Age II may have been either the manifestation of the earliest Luwians or even the earliest Anatolian speakers, including the ancestors of the Hittites, who underwent subsequent linguistic differentiation. The abandonment and destructions may nevertheless have simply been the result of climatic or internal calamities while the spread of yet another ceramic style or architectural form may not have required a new people with a new language. 


 The original nucleus of these proposed expansions is northwest Anatolia, which naturally includes Troy itself. Links between this region and Southeast Europe, especially in ceramics - including figurines - and architecture, have long been known, and until the past few decades generally attributed to an expansion of Near Eastern high culture to European barbarians. More recently there has been a recognition by some archaeologists that the direction of influence may require reversing, at least during the transition from the Chalcolithic to early Bronze Age. This can be seen, for example, in the ceramics, metallurgy and architecture exhibited at Bulgarian sites such as Ezero which only appear later at Troy. These similarities are seen by some to be little more than a general cultural horizon embracing both sides of the Sea of Marmara while other argue for actual folk movements, possibly refugees, who abandoned the Balkans for northwestern Anatolia about 3500-3000 BC under either the pressure of leadership of the Indo-Europeans. The remains of horses - whether wild or domestic is not certain - at Anatolian sites such as Demirci Huyuk is also cited as evidence for intrusions from Southeast Europe where the domestic horse antedates the Anatolian evidence and is a known possession of the earliest Indo-Europeans. We are not yet prepared to follow such a trail so early in our enquiry since this concerns too closely the problem of the Indo-European homeland itself. Rather, we must briefly turn our attention to those who prefer to seek the origins of Indo-European-speaking Anatolians to the northeast. 


 Most arguments for an Indo-European invasion from northeast concern the appearance of a new burial rite at the end of the fourth and through the third millennium BC. At this time, both north of the Black Sea and Caucasus, burials on the Russian-Ukrainian steppe were typically placed in an under-ground shaft and covered with a mound (kurgan in Russian). Before 3000 BC there begin to appear in the territory of the indigenous Transcaucasian (Kuro-Araxes) culture somewhat similar burials such as the royal tomb at Uch-Tepe on the Miliska steppe. As tumulus burials are previously unknown in this region, some would explain their appearance by an intrusion of steppe pastoralists who migrated through the Caucasus and subjugated the local Early Bronze Age culture. More importantly, a status burial inserted into a mound at the site of Korucu Tepe in eastern Anatolia has been compared with somewhat similar burials both in the Caucasus and Russian steppe. The discovery of horse bones on several sites of east Anatolia such as Norsun Tepe and Tepecik are seen to confirm a steppe intrusion since, as mentioned earlier, the horse, long known in the Ukraine and south Russia, is not attested in Anatolia prior to the Bronze Age. Continuing contacts or migrations are employed to explain subsequent similarities between the royal tombs of north - central Anatolia, such as their thirteen graves of Alaca Huyuk, with tombs formally similar to possessing related grave goods known north of the Caucasus. 


 At present, a northeastern intrusion does not make quite so good a linguistic 'fit' as does the northwestern hypothesis. The evidence for intrusion is either confined to eastern Anatolia - lands historically attributed to Hurrian or Caucasian languages - or north-central Anatolia where we might expect Hattic or Kaskian, another apparently non-Indo-European linguistic group. The evidence of kurgan-related burials is generally absent from those territories were we find the major Indo-European peoples of our search, especially the Luwian of southern and western Anatolia. And even if our kurgan-entombed overlords are proximate to the Hittite's traditional territory, linguists adamantly oppose an eastern entry for the Hittities and a separate western entry for the Luwians. The languages seem to closely related, too similar to have experienced the degree of separation implied by each having taken an opposing course around the Black Sea. Furthermore, what similarity exists between royal burials both north and south of the Caucasus may have far more to do with the need to develop more impressive forms of entombment for the hierarchies that developed in the both regions during the Early Bronze Age, and which participated in mutual exchange networks of prestigious goods. At present, the scales are tipped in favour of a western entry.

----------


## Cato

Thanks Leka, however it seems to me that their traces are not as evident as in the Balkans and in the Danube plain, where hundreds of kurgans appeared suddently.

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## epoch

> especially since most linguists admit that the Anatolian languages had already undergone vast changes under the influence of non-Indo-European languages native populations before they emerged into history.


That is interesting, I would like to read about what those changes were, and if they can be linked to a known language or not. Also, thanks for the citation.

----------


## holderlin

> -- J.P. Mallory, _In Search of the Indo-Europeans_, p. 239.


This is a good read

----------


## Cpluskx

> Maybe a Kurgan influence can be seen in the spread of the Megara in 3000-2700 BC ?? 
> 
> "What should be emphasized at this point is that, from this period on, the megaron plan became characteristic throughout the region"...p.67
> 
> apparently the Megaron originated in Neolithic Russia
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaron
> 
> Utilizzando Tapatalk


https://www.britannica.com/technology/megaron

''It seemingly originated in the Middle East, attaining a peculiarly Aegean aspect because of its open porch...''

----------


## Cato

Not unlikely, however it seems that it spread in Anatolia in a West to East movement..... (from the Balkans ??)

From the post of Leka:
"In addition, new ceramic elements which take their origin from northwestern Anatolia (Troy V) spread rapidly eastward as also does the classic form of status or ritual architecture - the megaron which was common at Troy and Beycesultan - which now begins to appear in central Anatolia at such sites as Kanes-Kultepe. "

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## halfalp

It's not really related with the paper, but with a previous Kura-Araxes sample from " The genetic structure of the world's first farmers " of Lazaridis. They found an R1b labeled R1b-M415 (xM269) what is that sample ? I never heard of that M415 denomination. By barely searching on google i read that. *Note, though, that R1b-M415, a branch ancestral to R1b-M269, was found as early as 14,000 ya in Italy and 7,000 ya in Spain.*

----------


## halfalp

Btw, i read an interesting idea from, i guess it was Agamemnon of Anthrogenica. He postulated the idea that in paleolithic. People with related CHG ancestry or Basal Eurasian might have been north of the caucasus up to the Manych-Kerch Spillway wich was a water flow going from the Caspian Sea to the Black Lake / Sea and formed a natural barrier with the eurasian steppe and the caucasus. Maybe people with haplogroup J1 found with 2 individuals of eastern europe 100% EHG were originally from that population.

----------


## Saetrus

> A good paper about EBA W.Anatolia, presumably when the Anatolian branch entered Anatolia. At first glance i didn't notice any references about Kurgan or Steppe influences...
> 
> http://www.academia.edu/21769212/An_...rly_Bronze_Age
> 
> Utilizzando Tapatalk


EBA is not when the Anatolian branch entered Anatolia, the chalcolithic sample from western Anatolia 3800BC clusters autosomally with the Hittite samples, it's already Indoeuropean.

----------


## Angela

> EBA is not when the Anatolian branch entered Anatolia, the chalcolithic sample from western Anatolia 3800BC clusters autosomally with the Hittite samples, it's already Indoeuropean.


Yes, and they're all Anatolian farmer and Iranian farmer autosomally.

----------


## epoch

> EBA is not when the Anatolian branch entered Anatolia, the chalcolithic sample from western Anatolia 3800BC clusters autosomally with the Hittite samples, it's already Indoeuropean.





> Yes, and they're all Anatolian farmer and Iranian farmer autosomally.


But we know that the Hittite empire was multi-cultural because its origin is described in cuneiform tablets, many of its deities are from other cultures and part of the liturgy was done in Hattic. And we can be absolutely undeniably sure that it's entirely possible that communities existed in Hittite rule that did not receive any gene flow because we have a more or less similar situation in Ptolemaic Egypt. The language of government was Greek, Alexandria was in majority Greek, there were Greek settlers. Yet in Abusir the genomes from mummies show no exotic gene flow from the New Kingdom until the Roman times.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

So it is quite clear that such conclusions can't be made.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> But we know that the Hittite empire was multi-cultural because its origin is described in cuneiform tablets, many of its deities are from other cultures and part of the liturgy was done in Hattic. And we can be absolutely undeniably sure that it's entirely possible that communities existed in Hittite rule that did not receive any gene flow because we have a more or less similar situation in Ptolemaic Egypt. The language of government was Greek, Alexandria was in majority Greek, there were Greek settlers. Yet in Abusir the genomes from mummies show no exotic gene flow from the New Kingdom until the Roman times.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694
> So it is quite clear that such conclusions can't be made.


Special pleading.
Using that logic almost all conclusions from adna can be ignored. 
Actually by some fluke of universe all the samples that do not support my claims are in fact born out of far away kidnapped girls by adventurous guys the brought those girls to be slaves. ...are you saying there is no slaves in history? ..:) see the fallacy?
In fact not ro recognize the locality (broader area) of Hittites is something that eludes me completly. They were as local as they come. Highly developed and complex minded as the others that in circle them in the region from the east.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> But we know that the Hittite empire was multi-cultural because its origin is described in cuneiform tablets, many of its deities are from other cultures and part of the liturgy was done in Hattic. And we can be absolutely undeniably sure that it's entirely possible that communities existed in Hittite rule that did not receive any gene flow because we have a more or less similar situation in Ptolemaic Egypt. The language of government was Greek, Alexandria was in majority Greek, there were Greek settlers. Yet in Abusir the genomes from mummies show no exotic gene flow from the New Kingdom until the Roman times.
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694
> 
> So it is quite clear that such conclusions can't be made.


What type of exotic admixture do you expect if the Greeks were mostly ANF + CHG?

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

By the way, we don't have autosomal DNA from Early Dynastic Egypt or the Old Kingdom, unless I have missed something.

Every study Haak is involved has titles that are not supported by the data of the studies.

----------


## Angela

> But we know that the Hittite empire was multi-cultural because its origin is described in cuneiform tablets, many of its deities are from other cultures and part of the liturgy was done in Hattic. And we can be absolutely undeniably sure that it's entirely possible that communities existed in Hittite rule that did not receive any gene flow because we have a more or less similar situation in Ptolemaic Egypt. The language of government was Greek, Alexandria was in majority Greek, there were Greek settlers. Yet in Abusir the genomes from mummies show no exotic gene flow from the New Kingdom until the Roman times.
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694
> 
> So it is quite clear that such conclusions can't be made.


I'm sorry, I agree with Olympic Mons to the extent that this is special pleading. I've personally come to no actual conclusion yet. What I meant is that the samples we have so far are Anatolian and Iranian farmer genetically. If we get quite a few more samples, including ones from the royal Hittite tombs and that is still true, then there's an issue here. Plus, the Hittite area is not the only one where Anatolian languages were spoken, and so far there is nothing.

----------


## Sile

> Mallory....
> The earliest Indo-European-speaking peoples to enter the historical record were the Anatolians who are first attested by about the nineteenth century BC. By this time Assyrian merchants had penetrated into south central Anatolia and established their karum or 'trading office' at Kanes, the modern Kultepe. Excavations at this site, and at several other Assyrian trading posts, have uncovered clay tablets in Assyrian cuneiform that record the daily business of the Assyrian tradesmen. In addition, they also mention personal names and places which are recognizably Indo-European. By far the best attested of these is Hittites. With their capital at Hattusa (modern Bogazkoy), the Hittites have left us over 25, 000 clay tablets spanning the period from about 1650 to 1200 BC. In addition, their archives contain tablets in two other Indo-European languages, Luwian and Palaic. They present us with a picture of Anatolia where the Hittites are master of the central region, the Palaic speakers subservient to their north, and the Luwians occupying the role of the traditional rival in much of the western and southern Anatolia. After the collapse of the Hittites about 1200 BC, Luwian seems to have prevailed widely over southern Anatolia and Luwian-related languages such as Lycian continued down into the last centuries of BC, only to be finally engulfed by the expansion of Greek colonists. 
> 
> 
>  It is most important for our purposes to inquire how autonomous were the Anatolian languages in their respective regions. The general opinion of both linguists and archaeologists would almost universally deny them a role as natives to Anatolia but cast them rather in the part of Bronze Age intruders who assimilated the indigenous non-Indo-European populations. The Assyrian merchants of the nineteenth century BC not only record the names of Indo-European peoples in their texts but make it quite clear that there was also a great body of non-Indo-European-speaking peoples in the region. The existence of these non-Indo-European peoples is undoubted since the Hittite archives themselves contain texts, translations of texts, and frequent borrowings from a language called Hattic. These Hatti are regarded as the predominant substratum, the aborigines if you will, of central Anatolia over whom the Hittites and Palaic speakers superimposed themselves. From the Hatti the Hittites borrowed not only many words, but also much of their culture, certainly much of their religion, and even the name Hittite derives from Hatti (the Hittites called themselves nes and their language nesili). Linguistically, Hattic is a non-Indo-European language with no certain close relationships, although there are some grounds (absence of grammatical gender, use of prefixes) to link it with the northwest Caucasian group of languages (Abkhaz) or perhaps Kartvelian, the major south Caucasian linguistic group. 
> 
> 
>  Further to the east, on the fringes of Anatolia and north of Syria, lay another major non-Indo-European people, the Hurrians. Hurrian texts maintained in the Hittite archives, coupled with Hurrian loan words in Luwian and the Hurrians' own inscriptions and texts in north Mesopotamia which date as early as the twenty-third century BC, all speak for an additional non-Indo-European presence on the eastern borders of the Indo-Europeans of Anatolia. To their south were the lands of Semites and (formerly) Sumerians, again non-Indo-European speakers. The natural conclusion to be drawn from all of this is that the Indo-European-speaking Anatolians were intrusive into central Anatolia and were unlikely to have emigrated from directly east of southeast of this region were major non-Indo-European populations are historically attested. It is also clear from the abundance of mixed texts, foreign loanwords in Hittite and Luwian, and the entire cultural picture that emerges from the content of the texts, that the Indo-European Anatolians had already undergone considerable assimilation to the culture of the non-Indo-European Anatolians before they appear in history. Now what do linguistics and archaeology tell us about their origins?
> 
> ...


https://www.quora.com/How-credible-i...ated-to-Hattic
The kaska people came from the north-caucasus .........they settled north of the hatti/hittite and could never be conquered.......in the end , their many, many raids into the hittite empire led to one reason for its downfall.
The link is the most logical in regards to the linguistic side of the debate......that is , hatti and kaska are similar, hittite and luwian are similar....hittite imposed their language onto hatti area

----------


## epoch

> I'm sorry, I agree with Olympic Mons to the extent that this is special pleading. I've personally come to no actual conclusion yet. What I meant is that the samples we have so far are Anatolian and Iranian farmer genetically. If we get quite a few more samples, including ones from the royal Hittite tombs and that is still true, then there's an issue here. Plus, the Hittite area is not the only one where Anatolian languages were spoken, and so far there is nothing.


Off course it isn't special pleading as we know from historic sources that the Hittite empire wasn't mono-cultural. In such a scenario firm Hattic continuity is expected, even required. Hell, I'd even go farther: If we would have found *all* Anatolian samples heavily loaded with steppe we'd have had a problem as we then needed to explain a *massive* immigration into Anatolia, which is in conflict with historic sources.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

We don't know where the Hittites were before about 1,650 BC. Heck, I'd like to see some Luwian samples (Troy I, c.3,000 BC)...

----------


## Ygorcs

> I'm sorry, I agree with Olympic Mons to the extent that this is special pleading. I've personally come to no actual conclusion yet. What I meant is that the samples we have so far are Anatolian and Iranian farmer genetically. If we get quite a few more samples, including ones from the royal Hittite tombs and that is still true, then there's an issue here. Plus, the Hittite area is not the only one where Anatolian languages were spoken, and so far there is nothing.


Do you know the exact dating estimate of the so-called Hittite samples? I think that is a really important information, especially if, as I read somewhere (that's why I ask, I want to know if those weren't just rumors), some of them were actually from the pre-Hittite Assyrian Colony period. We don't know for sure is Anatolian IEs had really settled massively in the core area of the eventual Hittite Empire much before the time they conquered it.

----------


## Angela

> Do you know the exact dating estimate of the so-called Hittite samples? I think that is a really important information, especially if, as I read somewhere (that's why I ask, I want to know if those weren't just rumors), some of them were actually from the pre-Hittite Assyrian Colony period. We don't know for sure is Anatolian IEs had really settled massively in the core area of the eventual Hittite Empire much before the time they conquered it.


This is the information I have. I don't know if it's the latest word:
*MA2205, MA2206, MA2208, Assyrian Colony Period, 2000–1750 BCE; MA2200, MA2203, Old Hittite Period, 1750–1500 BCE*The following is about the Assyrian Colony Period. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't sound like "colonies" in the sense of significant gene flow.
http://www.smie.co/html/cultural_his...colonies.shtml

These karums are small trading posts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karum_(trade_post)

I don't remember how much context was provided in the paper in terms of the burials. Was there something specifically "Assyrian" about the burials rather than "local"? A few trade goods wouldn't be enough to not make them local people, imo.

The argument seems to me to increasingly be framed by some people so that the "steppe" input into the Hittites is being made unfalsifiable. 

The basic issue is rather simple in my mind. There were documented Anatolian speakers over a great deal of Anatolia. There should be some steppe showing up somewhere at the appropriate time. If not, there's no proof they came from elsewhere.

----------


## epoch

> This is the information I have. I don't know if it's the latest word:
> *MA2205, MA2206, MA2208, Assyrian Colony Period, 2000–1750 BCE; MA2200, MA2203, Old Hittite Period, 1750–1500 BCE*


IIRC there were two old Kingdom samples and two pre-Hittite samples: MA2200 and MA2203. The samples are low res.





> The following is about the Assyrian Colony Period. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't sound like "colonies" in the sense of significant gene flow.
> http://www.smie.co/html/cultural_his...colonies.shtml
> 
> These karums are small trading posts.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karum_(trade_post)
> 
> I don't remember how much context was provided in the paper in terms of the burials. Was there something specifically "Assyrian" about the burials rather than "local"? A few trade goods wouldn't be enough to not make them local people, imo.
> 
> The argument seems to me to increasingly be *framed by some people so that the "steppe" input into the Hittites is being made unfalsifiable.*


That is essentially a conspiracy theory.




> The basic issue is rather simple in my mind. There were documented Anatolian speakers over a great deal of Anatolia. There should be some steppe showing up somewhere at the appropriate time. If not, there's no proof they came from elsewhere.


That would require the steppe be a secondary homeland. And that theory now is in trouble. It would require a neolithic transfer to the steppe. We see no male mediated migration there from the copper age on. Unless you want a female mediated language transfer to a patriarchal pastoral society that utterly replaced the original language these people spoke. And that is highly unlikely.

Mind you, in the latter scenario the women bringing the language that was to utterly replace the original language settled with the men.

----------


## Angela

> IIRC there were two old Kingdom samples and two pre-Hittite samples: MA2200 and MA2203. The samples are low res.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That is essentially a conspiracy theory.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It seems to me it's simple logic, which seems in short supply everywhere I turn. If "steppe"* genetic* ancestry is no longer necessary to "prove" *migration* from the steppe, as has been the case for every other group, then how on earth could you falsify this claim? You couldn't. You either use genetics to prove the steppe theory or you take a huge step backwards to endless wrangling over unprovable assertions. 

*Both* "theories" have their issues, which the professionals seem to understand, but which internet people on both sides of the debate insist on denying.

----------


## Pygmalion

Hatti and Kaska are similar? I don't think there are documents written in the Kaska language, what we know of them comes from what the Hittites, Egyptians and Assyrians tell us about them.



> We don't know where the Hittites were before about 1,650 BC. Heck, I'd like to see some Luwian samples (Troy I, c.3,000 BC)...



Aren't there a few samples from South West Anatolia from the study about Minoan and Mycenaean DNA? That area would've been Lycian or Carians at the time, Lycians and Carians spoke Luwic languages in the iron age, which were either closely related or perhaps directly derived from Luwian. The samples had no steppe admixture.

----------


## Angela

These are numerous papers on the Assyrian Colony Period in Anatolia.

See:
https://www.academia.edu/people/sear...es+in+Anatolia

The Assyrian tablets which provide us with all the information we have about this period are found in "merchant's quarters" outside the official precincts of the cities and the normal residential areas. So, context, burial rites etc. are extremely important.

I didn't read them all so I don't know if any of the authors opine as to how many people actually lived in these merchant areas.

----------


## Cato

Bronze Age Central Western-Anatolians in the PCA, they are even more eastern shifted (Levant) than Minoans Screenshot_20180602-201630.jpg

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Hatti and Kaska are similar? I don't think there are documents written in the Kaska language, what we know of them comes from what the Hittites, Egyptians and Assyrians tell us about them.
> 
> Aren't there a few samples from South West Anatolia from the study about Minoan and Mycenaean DNA? That area would've been Lycian or Carians at the time, Lycians and Carians spoke Luwic languages in the iron age, which were either closely related or perhaps directly derived from Luwian. The samples had no steppe admixture.


There is no proof that any of the samples taken were from "Hittites", who could have been an upper crust, or royal caste, that was never numerous compared to the underlying Hattic population. They also apparently practiced cremation, which means you can probably forget finding their DNA.

The Hittites would also have been something like 2,000 years removed from the steppes, extensively interbreeding with much more numerous EEF populations both in the Balkans and Anatolia, so it might be possible the "steppe" signal had been mostly bred out. The Sredny Stog also were probably already heavily interbred with the Tripolyes before they ever left the steppe. Migrations can also pick up what amounts to a "motley crew" along the way which is partly, or even mostly, unrelated to the initial group - see the Huns and Turks.

Iron-age Lycians or Carians could have been 3,000 years removed. Just because you speak an IE-related language doesn't mean you are IE.

----------


## Cpluskx

Upper crust elite people would have high reproductive success and left their mark on average people's dna. Steppe supporters are still nitpicking and coming up with ad hoc solutions.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> There is no proof that any of the samples taken were from "Hittites", who could have been an upper crust, or royal caste, that was never numerous compared to the underlying Hattic population. They also apparently practiced cremation, which means you can probably forget finding their DNA.
> 
> The Hittites would also have been something like 2,000 years removed from the steppes, extensively interbreeding with much more numerous EEF populations both in the Balkans and Anatolia, so it might be possible the "steppe" signal had been mostly bred out. The Sredny Stog also were probably already heavily interbred with the Tripolyes before they ever left the steppe. Migrations can also pick up what amounts to a "motley crew" along the way which is partly, or even mostly, unrelated to the initial group - see the Huns and Turks.
> 
> Iron-age Lycians or Carians could have been 3,000 years removed. Just because you speak an IE-related language doesn't mean you are IE.


By that reasoning and logic, albeit may be true, all that has been said so far about any ancient dna can be false and falsified. All samples up to date can be a far way guy or group of guys travelling or kidnapped girls or just a set of different people....you name it.

Most derived inferences done with adna have centuries or thousands of years and hundreds or thousands of miles between them.

So could....would....might...really ruins the purpose. Because at that point its possibilities and not probabilities.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Upper crust elite people would have high reproductive success and left their mark on average people's dna. Steppe supporters are still nitpicking and coming up with ad hoc solutions.


Exactly. And that is when the conversation looses purpose. Whats the point?

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Upper crust elite people would have high reproductive success and left their mark on average people's dna. Steppe supporters are still nitpicking and coming up with ad hoc solutions.


Anatolia was not Europe, which was underpopulated by comparison. Anatolia was already full of non-Indo-European farmers.

----------


## Ygorcs

> These are numerous papers on the Assyrian Colony Period in Anatolia.
> 
> See:
> https://www.academia.edu/people/sear...es+in+Anatolia
> 
> The Assyrian tablets which provide us with all the information we have about this period are found in "merchant's quarters" outside the official precincts of the cities and the normal residential areas. So, context, burial rites etc. are extremely important.
> 
> I didn't read them all so I don't know if any of the authors opine as to how many people actually lived in these merchant areas.


Thank you very much, Angela. I found this study particularly interesting: http://www.academia.edu/354138/2008_...ogy_11_4_25-40

Of particular interest were these passages about the social organization of the Old Assyrian colonies in Anatolia, suggestive of some kind of numerous and influential diaspora of foreign people (so there must've some substantial immigration involved, but probably creating a multiethnic urban society with many native people involved, too) that did not directly rule and control the colonies:





> _"This diversity within a singlecolony is very clear when we look at the textsfrom karum Kanesh/Kültepe. We know that theinhabitants of the karum were not just Assyrians,but local people of Kanesh, and merchants fromother polities such as Ebla."
> 
> "The acculturation model does not apply in thecase of the Old Assyrian trading colonies andtheir interaction with their Anatolian host poli-ties in the early second millennium BC. The Anatolian city-states of this period seem to havebeen highly selective in their appropriation of Assyrian ideologies, material culture, and orga-nizational forms. If anything, the cultural influ-ences would seem to have gone the other way,so that the homes of the Assyrian merchants were filled with items and styles of Anatolianmaterial culture. This is highly significant,because it reflects, at least in part, the lack of Assyrian political or economic dominance overthe communities in which they resided."
> 
> "The Old Assyrian colonies conform exactly to Abner Cohen’s definition of trade diasporas asspatially dispersed specialized merchant groups who are culturally distinct, organizationally cohesive, and socially independent from theirhost communities while maintaining a high levelof economic and social ties with related com-munities who share the same social identity (A.COHEN 1971, 266-7). Of the three main typesof possible relationships with the local hostcommunities, the Assyrian traders seem to mostclosely match the idea of diaspora autonomy. Inc lose parallel to the Chinese traders of southeast Asia, the Assyrians were able to negotiate economic privileges and explicit recognition of their autonomous political status because they were so financially useful to the rulers of the local Anatolian city states in which they had settled."_

----------


## bicicleur

> Thank you very much, Angela. I found this study particularly interesting: http://www.academia.edu/354138/2008_...ogy_11_4_25-40
> Of particular interest were these passages about the social organization of the Old Assyrian colonies in Anatolia, suggestive of some kind of numerous and influential diaspora of foreign people (so there must've some substantial immigration involved, but probably creating a multiethnic urban society with many native people involved, too) that did not directly rule and control the colonies:


keep in mind that trade was probably controlled by the local rulers, who allowed some private initiatives to some degree
that is, at least how it was in the later MBA where the Egyptian pharoa and the rulers of Ugarit and of Cyprus, the Minoans and the Myceneans kept controll over all the trade
the trade was probably restricted to a few assigned 'free trading zones', or maybe even to the palace of the ruler
and I don't think they allowed mass migrations or peoples movements into their territories

----------


## Aaron1981

The way I see it is that R1b-L584 and R1b-L277 are far too common in Anatolia to have arrived with a later group such as the Turks. There really isn't any other explanation than arriving from the steppes, and both are quite old in the Middle East and the strongest candidates for PIE at least among the R1b group. I don't see how they could have not carried "steppe" ancestry, that combination of EHG + WHG + CHG-like component and probably some Anatolian. The locals would have already been rich in Anatolian + Iran ancestry which was not a feature of the people of the PC steppes.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> By that reasoning and logic, albeit may be true, all that has been said so far about any ancient dna can be false and falsified. All samples up to date can be a far way guy or group of guys travelling or kidnapped girls or just a set of different people....you name it.
> 
> Most derived inferences done with adna have centuries or thousands of years and hundreds or thousands of miles between them.
> 
> So could....would....might...really ruins the purpose. Because at that point its possibilities and not probabilities.


You can't claim that a handful of samples from "the Hittite area", and not all within the Hittite period, are necessarily actual Hittites, rather than Hattians, who were there before, and remained after, the Hittites arrived. Since Hattians were almost certainly much more numerous than Hittites, you could randomly throw darts at the population and not hit any Hittites. If the samples are actually Hattians, lack of a steppe signal is exactly what you should expect. 

If they cremated their dead, took local wives, but did not marry their daughters outside their caste or clan, that would greatly lessen the likelihood of finding any actual "Hittite" DNA in the general population. As to the "reproductive success" (e.g., population replacement) argument that was made, there is literary/historical evidence that most Hittites, other than the king, practiced monogamy, not polygamy. See: http://www.judithstarkston.com/artic...tery-and-rape/

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> The way I see it is that R1b-L584 and R1b-L277 are far too common in Anatolia to have arrived with a later group such as the Turks. There really isn't any other explanation than arriving from the steppes, and both are quite old in the Middle East and the strongest candidates for PIE at least among the R1b group. I don't see how they could have not carried "steppe" ancestry, that combination of EHG + WHG + CHG-like component and probably some Anatolian. The locals would have already been rich in Anatolian + Iran ancestry which was not a feature of the people of the PC steppes.


Well, the region of Caucasian Albania, which corresponds to modern Azerbaijan mostly was described as very fertile and its inhabitants as shepherds.
This is one population that may have had certain R1b subclades. Caucasian Albanian language is thought to have been a North East Caucasian language. (Usually people associate the original NEC speakers with certain J2a and J1 suclades. The frequency of R1b is significant in some Lezgic groups. Tabasaran & Lezgic are Eastern Samur languages like Caucasian Albanian and R1b reaches almost 40% in Tabasarans)

Strabo (Geography, 11.4) says:



> The Albanians are more inclined to the shepherd's life than the Iberians and closer akin to the nomadic people, except that they are not ferocious; and for this reason they are only moderately warlike. They live between the Iberians and the Caspian Sea, their country bordering on the sea towards the east and on the country of the Iberians towards the west. Of the remaining sides the northern is protected by the Caucasian Mountains (for these mountains lie above the plains, though their parts next to the sea are generally called Ceraunian), whereas the southern side is formed by Armenia, which stretches alongside it; and much of Armenia consists of plains, though much of it is mountainous, like Cambysene, where the Armenians border on both the Iberians and the Albanians.
> 
> The Cyrus [Kuras], which flows through Albania, and the other rivers by which it is supplied, contribute to the excellent qualities of the land; and yet they thrust back the sea, for the silt, being carried forward in great quantities, fills the channel, and consequently even the adjacent isles are joined to the mainland and form shoals that are uneven and difficult to avoid; and their unevenness is made worse by the backwash of the flood tides. Moreover, they say that the outlet of the river is divided into twelve mouths, of which some are choked with silt, while the others are altogether shallow and leave not even a mooring place. At any rate, they add, although the shore is washed on all sides by the sea and the rivers for a distance of more than sixty stadia, every part of it is inaccessible; and the silt extends even as far as five hundred stadia, making the shore sandy. Near by is also the mouth of the Araxes, a turbulent stream that flows down from Armenia. But the silt which this river pushes before it, thus making the channel passable for its stream, is compensated for by the Cyrus.
> 
> Now perhaps a people of this kind have no need of a sea; indeed, they do not make appropriate use of their land either, which produces, not only every kind of fruit, even the most highly cultivated kind, but also every plant, for it bears even the evergreens. It receives not even slight attention, yet“all things spring up for them without sowing and ploughing,
> ”1according to those who have made expeditions there,2 who describe the mode of life there as "Cyclopeian." In many places, at any rate, they say, the land when sown only once produces two crops or even three, the first a crop of even fifty-fold, and that too without being ploughed between crops; and even when it is ploughed, it is not ploughed with an iron share, but with a wooden plough shaped by nature. The plain as a whole is better watered by its rivers and other waters than the Babylonian and the Egyptian plains; consequently it always keeps a grassy appearance, and therefore is also good for pasturage. In addition to this, the climate here is better than there. And the people never dig about the vines, although they prune them every fifth year;3 the new vines begin to produce fruit the second year, and when mature they yield so much that the people leave a large part of the fruit on the branches. Also the cattle in their country thrive, both the tame and the wild.
> 
> The inhabitants of this country are unusually handsome and large. And they are frank in their dealings, and not mercenary;1 for they do not in general use coined money, nor do they know any number greater than one hundred, but carry on business by means of barter, and otherwise live an easy-going life. They are also unacquainted with accurate measures and weights, and they take no forethought for war or government or farming. But still they fight both on foot and on horseback, both in light armour and in full armour,2 like the Armenians.3


The second population are the Urartians in the Iron Age and the Armenians later. It doesn't even need to have been responsible for the presence of Armenian there. Then the Armenians would have expanded (re-expanded?) west. We should take into account movements that took place much later and their role in Eastern Roman Empire.

In Iron Age R1b-Z2103 is found in a context which can be non-IE. In Teppe Hassanlu, where it is found (971-832 calBCE), there were contacts with the Assyrians and violent sacking possibly by the Urartians around 800BC. That person could have spoken a Semitic language or Urartian, at least as a result of language shift. Assyrians as far as I remember have significant amounts of R1b.

If we take into account Turks and movements from the Balkans, yes, it is possible Hittites didn't have any R1b.

----------


## Sile

interesting post by a linguist

https://www.quora.com/How-credible-i...ated-to-Hattic

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> The way I see it is that R1b-L584 and R1b-L277 are far too common in Anatolia to have arrived with a later group such as the Turks. There really isn't any other explanation than arriving from the steppes, and both are quite old in the Middle East and the strongest candidates for PIE at least among the R1b group. _I don't see how they could have not carried "steppe" ancestry, that combination of EHG + WHG + CHG-like component and probably some Anatolian._ The locals would have already been rich in Anatolian + Iran ancestry which was not a feature of the people of the PC steppes.


Most of the other Indo-European languages stemmed from the Yamnaya culture (Greek being a possible exception), while the Anatolian IE languages are theorized, by Mallory/Anthony, to have stemmed from the Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog cultures, which may have not carried the same "steppe signature" as the Yamnayas. The Khvalynsk culture started around 4,200 BCE, well before the Yamnayas brought the CHG admixture onto the steppes.

As to R1b having been "far too common in Anatolia to have arrived with a later group such as the Turks", you're ignoring the Phrygians who (with others) overthrew the Hittite Empire around 1,200 BCE. The Dorians who overthrew the Mycenaeans (mostly R1a) around the same time were also apparently primarily R1b.

----------


## Angela

^^
There's the movement of the Armenian speakers as well as the Phrigians, who do have a lot of R1b. 

No one knows what ydna the Dorians carried, but it's a possibility.

There was extensive colonization of western Anatolia by the Greeks, who do have some R1b, although in low percentages, not to mention how many Muslim Balkanites moved to Anatolia. 

So, there are a lot of ways this ancestry could have arrived. Who would attribute it or need to attribute it to the "Turkics"?

How could "Anatolian" ie Early Farmer ancestry not have been on the steppe? We in fact know it was there. We also know there was 40-50% CHG on the steppe, CHG which is also in and related to Iran Neo. And no, I don't believe all the "modelers" can really pull these strands apart yet.

----------


## epoch

> Most of the other Indo-European languages stemmed from the Yamnaya culture (*Greek being a possible exception*), while the Anatolian IE languages are theorized, by Mallory/Anthony, to have stemmed from the Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog cultures, which may have not carried the same "steppe signature" as the Yamnayas. The Khvalynsk culture started around 4,200 BCE, well before the Yamnayas brought the CHG admixture onto the steppes.
> 
> As to R1b having been "far too common in Anatolia to have arrived with a later group such as the Turks", you're ignoring the Phrygians who (with others) overthrew the Hittite Empire around 1,200 BCE. The Dorians who overthrew the Mycenaeans (mostly R1a) around the same time were also apparently primarily R1b.


Why is Greek the possible exception?

----------


## epoch

> ^^
> There's the movement of the Armenian speakers as well, who do have a lot of R1b. 
> 
> No one knows what ydna the Dorians carried.
> 
> How could "Anatolian" ie Early Farmer ancestry not have been on the steppe? We in fact know it was there. We also know there was 40-50% CHG on the steppe, CHG which is also in and related to Iran Neo. *And no, I don't believe all the "modelers" can really pull these strands apart yet.*


"Modelers" such as the authors of the Damsgaard paper? Or the Caucasus paper?

----------


## Angela

> Thank you very much, Angela. I found this study particularly interesting: http://www.academia.edu/354138/2008_...ogy_11_4_25-40
> 
> Of particular interest were these passages about the social organization of the Old Assyrian colonies in Anatolia, suggestive of some kind of numerous and influential diaspora of foreign people (so there must've some substantial immigration involved, but probably creating a multiethnic urban society with many native people involved, too) that did not directly rule and control the colonies:


Is there anything, however, about how numerous they were in comparison to the locals. The Chinese in southeast Asia became a very numerous group. The Jews of Europe could be seen as a mercantile and financial elite diaspora, but even if they were willing to intermarry, given their numbers I don't see how they could have made much impact. Look even at Holland, a small country.

So, unless there's more in the papers, I'm not convinced.

----------


## Angela

> "Modelers" such as the authors of the Damsgaard paper? Or the Caucasus paper?


I'm not so impressed with the Damgard paper, or the other Caucasus paper as well. The quality went down in the Reich Lab paper on South Asia as well. Not all papers are equal, and perhaps due to competition and thus a rushing of the analysis, or the quality of the post docs taking the lead, the general quality of the analysis has gone down in those papers imo: too much of the conclusions not even flowing from the data presented. 

If you're asking about eurogenes and his "merry" band of followers, I've had enough of reading "headlines" based on biased interpretations, a fact which becomes clear if you're willing to wade through a disorganized mish mash of opinions, many of them by denizens of Stormfront, it sounds like. 

It's a total waste of time imo, time which I don't have in infinite quantities. I do have other interests, unlike the people on there, although on days like today it may not seem like it. :) I'm feeling guilty as I type!

----------


## Angela

> Why is Greek the possible exception?


Mycenaeans from the east as a possibility was raised in the paper on the Mycenaeans, yes?

Drews is interesting in this regard.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

Nakh languages have some similarities with IE. Concerning Chechen, for example. 

The ergative of the 1.SG pronoun is /ʔəs/ and we have nominative 'es' / 'as' in many IE languages. (like Lithuanian, Armenian)

The 1.PL pronoun is /vəɪ/, fairly close to how it is reconstructed for IE by Beekes and Sihler *uei / *wei

The genitives of the pronouns have an -n (sən, ʜən, vəɪn, txʰən, ʃun). An -n exists in the reconstruction of the genitive of the IE first person pronoun (*mene, h₁méne) and Uralic first and second pronouns (*mun, *mina 'I'/me, *tun, *tina 'you')

The 3.SG singular personal pronoun is ɪ, ɪzə, which can be related to IE demonstratives or pronouns. For example a Latin/proto-Italic equivalent is *is from an IE pronoun reconstructed as*éy.

The plural is often formed by adding suffixes -ii or -ash which are at least reminiscent of IE suffixes.
k'ant (boy) - k'entii (boys)
ph'āgal (rabbit) - ph'āgalash (rabbits)

Example:
Latin lupus - lupī but for example dux - duces
Attic lukos - lukoi but fore example rhetor - rhetores
Sanskrit vṛka - vṛkas, OCS vlьcŭ- vlьci, Lithuanian vil̃kas - vilkaĩ etc

Although both Nakh and Dagestanian are considered NEC languages, the relationship is considered distant despite the geographical proximity. Either way, I don't claim there is a close relationship with IE or even that I can prove that any relationship exist (or even that I want or plan to do it, I don't have the necessary free time and motivation)

Either way, I believe that might be explained with the following scenario
-pre-proto-Indoeuropean possibly in Catal-Hoyuk (something Diakonoff had considered but it is an assumption with 'no necessary validity' as he had said)
-a movement of a pre-IE / para-IE group to North Caucacus (Maykop), responsible at least for the similarities between IE and North West Caucasian (Adyghe, Abkhaz)
-late Indoeuropean possibly in the Balkans, Hungary, West Ukraine.
-late PIE expansions towards east
1) first wave with Globula Amphora like ancestry
2) second wave with Steppe MLBA like ancestry (Sanskrit speakers could have followed a southern route, though. I don't consider the conclusion of the S. Asian study necessarily valid)
-proto-Uralic languages developed in proximity to two IE languages, a Baltic one spoken in Fatyanovo and an early Indo-Iranian that had influenced Abashevo culture and it expanded mostly the last 4.000 years.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Why is Greek the possible exception?


Arnold connects the Mycenaean shaft-graves with the early Western Catacomb culture in southeast Europe. He sees Greek along with Phrygian and Armenian forming an early branch off from PIE, which preceded the later Yamnaya migration (_The Horse, The Wheel, and Language_, p. 368-369).

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Mycenaeans from the east as a possibility was raised in the paper on the Mycenaeans, yes?
> 
> Drews is interesting in this regard.


Mycenaeans and Hittites arrive on the scene at about the same time (1700-1600 BCE), and their empires also collapse about the same time (1300-1200 BCE). (The Hyksos, a Semitic people, also invaded the Nile Delta around 1650 BCE.) The first was attacked and destroyed by the Dorians and the second by the Phrygians and the "Ahhiyawa" (Achaeans?), part of the overall movement of peoples called "the Sea Peoples". Both periods are denoted by mass migrations, warfare, raiding/piracy, droughts/climate change, famine, plague(?), etc.

Historically the steppes have served as a migration engine. Any drought, I assume, would hit the drier eastern steppes first, impelling people and their herds westward in search of water and greener grass. Wet cycles would cause populations (people and herds) to expand, with thus severe dry cycles putting everybody in motion, like balls on a billiard table. Agricultural civilizations, which used irrigation, dams, dikes, and canals to move water from rivers to fields were better able to withstand drought cycles in place, unless attacked by "barbarians" (in search of surplus grain) and brought down.

----------


## halfalp

Does anybody knows when this paper and the one of central / south asia gonna have their final conclusions and rectifications ?

----------


## halfalp

> Nakh languages have some similarities with IE. Concerning Chechen, for example. 
> 
> The ergative of the 1.SG pronoun is /ʔəs/ and we have nominative 'es' / 'as' in many IE languages. (like Lithuanian, Armenian)
> 
> The 1.PL pronoun is /vəɪ/, fairly close to how it is reconstructed for IE by Beekes and Sihler *uei / *wei
> 
> The genitives of the pronouns have an -n (sən, ʜən, vəɪn, txʰən, ʃun). An -n exists in the reconstruction of the genitive of the IE first person pronoun (*mene, h₁méne) and Uralic first and second pronouns (*mun, *mina 'I'/me, *tun, *tina 'you')
> 
> The 3.SG singular personal pronoun is ɪ, ɪzə, which can be related to IE demonstratives or pronouns. For example a Latin/proto-Italic equivalent is *is from an IE pronoun reconstructed as*éy.
> ...


I'm sorry and you probably gonna explain to me but, how actually " yeah so there was those R1b guys in Armenia, they roamed from armenia to the caucasus and the pontic steppe, they didn't change the native Caucasus lineage and languages, they were very hurried to go in eastern europe " makes more sense than " yeah so there was those pontic steppe R1b guys and they roamed west and east " ? I mean everybody have failed until now to present a coherent hypothesis for PIE and eventually R1b coming at one point from south of the caucasus. If the final point is " there is CHG but not EHG " well what a waste of money.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> I'm sorry and you probably gonna explain to me but, how actually " yeah so there was those R1b guys in Armenia, they roamed from armenia to the caucasus and the pontic steppe, they didn't change the native Caucasus lineage and languages, they were very hurried to go in eastern europe " makes more sense than " yeah so there was those pontic steppe R1b guys and they roamed west and east " ? I mean everybody have failed until now to present a coherent hypothesis for PIE and eventually R1b coming at one point from south of the caucasus. If the final point is " there is CHG but not EHG " well what a waste of money.


I am not sure I understand. I don't connect Early IE to R1b, or any haplogroup. If people with R1b subclades had expanded west, east, south, north etc already in the Bronze Age _and earlier_, they could have reexpanded with other groups, IE or not IE. That is true about any haplogroup.

I have said also though that the fact that, for example, R1b isn't found in Megalithic sites doesn't _necessarily_ mean that it didn't exist around them. For example Bell Beaker people can be more '_native'_ than it is assumed. They just appear in archaeology when they acquired the technology to do so.

----------


## suyindik

> Does anybody knows when this paper and the one of central / south asia gonna have their final conclusions and rectifications ?


Yes i also posted about this a while ago, it seems people dont reply to these questions... 
For the South Central Asia paper a revised paper was promised to come out, but still nothing.
For the Caucasus study, more samples were promised, but no news about this yet.
As for the Damgaard paper, they didnt even publish the Y-SNP haplogroups of all samples they have. Even the Open Genomes volunteer(?) person did a lot of work to determine the haplogroups of more samples.

I dont get it actually, what is being waited for? Is there some kind of special agenda behind this?

----------


## halfalp

> I am not sure I understand. I don't connect Early IE to R1b, or any haplogroup. If people with R1b subclades had expanded west, east, south, north etc already in the Bronze Age _and earlier_, they could have reexpanded with other groups, IE or not IE. That is true about any haplogroup.
> 
> I have said also though that the fact that, for example, R1b isn't found in Megalithic sites doesn't _necessarily_ mean that it didn't exist around them. For example Bell Beaker people can be more '_native'_ than it is assumed. They just appear in archaeology when they acquired the technology to do so.


What do you link with a southern origin for PIE then ?

----------


## halfalp

> Yes i also posted about this a while ago, it seems people dont reply to these questions... 
> For the South Central Asia paper a revised paper was promised to come out, but still nothing.
> For the Caucasus study, more samples were promised, but no news about this yet.
> As for the Damgaard paper, they didnt even publish the Y-SNP haplogroups of all samples they have. Even the Open Genomes volunteer(?) person did a lot of work to determine the haplogroups of more samples.
> 
> I dont get it actually, what is being waited for? Is there some kind of special agenda behind this?


I'm not sure about the Caucasus study, but the Willerslev team also work on some Maikop samples i do believe, that might be what you are referencing. As for the agenda, it pretty much doesn't care, at the end of the day. You can't fake Genetic, Anthropology and Linguistic to create a coherent false. Eventually you could manipulate the mass that doesn't know at all about all those studies, but there always gonna be some knowledgeable people that gonna question results. Like just look how some people from western countries feel the right to viciously criticize pioneer eastern anthropologists like Gimbutas or Telegin only because the Pontic Steppe hypothesis doesn't fit their idealized world of love. But sincerely, i dont believe their can be an agenda. Just imagine if Harvard turns into a shitstorm of critics for being bigoted.

----------


## epoch

> I'm not so impressed with the Damgard paper, or the other Caucasus paper as well. The quality went down in the Reich Lab paper on South Asia as well. Not all papers are equal, and perhaps due to competition and thus a rushing of the analysis, or the quality of the post docs taking the lead, the general quality of the analysis has gone down in those papers imo: too much of the conclusions not even flowing from the data presented.


Why?




> If you're asking about eurogenes and his "merry" band of followers, I've had enough of reading "headlines" based on biased interpretations, a fact which becomes clear if you're willing to wade through a disorganized mish mash of opinions, many of them by denizens of Stormfront, it sounds like.


Maybe you should stop this. You called me a nordicist and an anti-semite. I try to keep the my huge amusement [1] on this to myself in order to keep this a normal discussion but it is getting increasingly difficult to do so. I don't know what David's political opinions are, and I don't care. He doesn't express them. I do know, though, that Nick Patterson every now and then reacts on his blog.




> It's a total waste of time imo, time which I don't have in infinite quantities. I do have other interests, unlike the people on there, although on days like today it may not seem like it. :) I'm feeling guilty as I type!


[1] I am really, really tempted to do a Peter Sellers imitation everytime I'm being called a Nazi. With exactly the same speech.

----------


## Angela

> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should stop this. You called me a nordicist and an anti-semite. I try to keep the my huge amusement [1] on this to myself in order to keep this a normal discussion but it is getting increasingly difficult to do so. I don't know what David's political opinions are, and I don't care. He doesn't express them. I do know, though, that Nick Patterson every now and then reacts on his blog.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] I am really, really tempted to do a Peter Sellers imitation everytime I'm being called a Nazi. With exactly the same speech.


Epoch, not everything is about you, although I know we all have the tendency to think that way. Don't take all of this stuff so very personally. Sorry if I got under your skin a while back, but since then, and in this particular case I wasn't thinking of you at all. Fwiw I consider you one of the sane posters on eurogenes, the few times I've actually seen you post there. As I said, I've given up hoping to find anything I think of value there and go there very infrequently. That's my prerogative, surely?

I frankly don't see the point in going through each of my reservations about any of this material with you, as you don't seem to have an open mind about any of it. You seem to me to have a position and then you interpret every single piece of data in a way that will support that position. You've already stated your very unflattering view of what you think are my thought processes. :)

I've said this before, but I'll say this again: I don't have a position on this issue. I don't know how it happened, and, as I've said often, I don't particularly care, other than as a matter of intellectual curiosity. What on earth difference does it make if the earliest forms of the language were spoken in or south or the Caucasus or just north of it on the steppe? On a personal level I have absolutely no emotional attachment to one side of the debate or the other. Also, frankly, I'm beyond bored with it. How many times can people say the same things over and over again. Hopefully, we'll get more ancient dna and it will become clearer. If it doesn't, my life will go on regardless, and happily, I might add. :)

The other and more important factor in all of these cases is that all of my professional training and years of work have led me to examine every issue from all possible sides, probing for every weakness of fact or logic, and not having any emotional stake in either "side" or position. That's part and parcel of not being able to choose your "side". In some cases, indeed, you have to argue vehemently a "side" you don't particularly like or even know to be "unjust". It can be acutely uncomfortable emotionally sometimes, but it's a great intellectual exercise.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Most of the other Indo-European languages stemmed from the Yamnaya culture (Greek being a possible exception), while the Anatolian IE languages are theorized, by Mallory/Anthony, to have stemmed from the Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog cultures, which may have not carried the same "steppe signature" as the Yamnayas. The Khvalynsk culture started around 4,200 BCE, well before the Yamnayas brought the CHG admixture onto the steppes.
> 
> As to R1b having been "far too common in Anatolia to have arrived with a later group such as the Turks", you're ignoring the Phrygians who (with others) overthrew the Hittite Empire around 1,200 BCE. The Dorians who overthrew the Mycenaeans (mostly R1a) around the same time were also apparently primarily R1b.


CHG wasn't brought onto the steppes by Yamnaya. It was probably present there since the Neolithic. We now know it was already present in significant proportions at least as early as in the Eneolithic steppe circa 4200-4300 BC, when Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk were still in their early stages (this Caucasus study demonstrated that). Besides, Yamnaya doesn't seem to have come from elsewhere (it's rather a continuous development from previous steppe cultures), nor to have had a lot of extra CHG or broadly Caucasian influence in relation to the earlier Late Khvalynsk/Repin or to Sredny Stog II.

----------


## epoch

> Epoch, not everything is about you, although I know we all have the tendency to think that way. Don't take all of this stuff so very personally. Sorry if I got under your skin a while back, but since then, and in this particular case I wasn't thinking of you at all. Fwiw I consider you one of the sane posters on eurogenes, the few times I've actually seen you post there. As I said, I've given up hoping to find anything I think of value there and go there very infrequently. That's my prerogative, surely?
> 
> I frankly don't see the point in going through each of my reservations about any of this material with you, as you don't seem to have an open mind about any of it. You seem to me to have a position and then you interpret every single piece of data in a way that will support that position.


I am an amateur. But I know the gist of what was proposed by the Linguistic evidence and the substantial minority of archaeologists that supported them. It is called the steppe theory.

What I argue isn't so much as a position. I am far to low in the tree to even consider "taking a position". That is a weakness, but also a strength as it permits me the position of looker on. And all I see is that there is not a shred of evidence that refutes the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis. 




> You've already stated your very unflattering view of what you think are my thought processes. :)


Are you seriously going to say that you didn't laugh at the Youtube piece? 




> I've said this before, but I'll say this again: I don't have a position on this issue. I don't know how it happened, and, as I've said often, I don't particularly care, other than as a matter of intellectual curiosity. What on earth difference does it make if the earliest forms of the language were spoken in or south or the Caucasus or just north of it on the steppe? On a personal level I have absolutely no emotional attachment to one side of the debate or the other.


Unlike most others I haven't tested my DNA. 




> Also, frankly, I'm beyond bored with it.


The interesting and revolutionary part of this is that it reinstates old archaeological and linguistic models to the exclusion of the modern ones. It wipes the "innovating" waves of archaeology off the table. THAT makes this to such an important debate. 




> How many times can people say the same things over and over again. Hopefully, we'll get more ancient dna and it will become clearer. If it doesn't, my life will go on regardless, and happily, I might add. :)


As obviously does mine.




> The other and more important factor in all of these cases is that all of my professional training and years of work have led me to examine every issue from all possible sides, probing for every weakness of fact or logic, and not having any emotional stake in either "side" or position. That's part and parcel of not being able to choose your "side". In some cases, indeed, you have to argue vehemently a "side" you don't particularly like or even know to be "unjust". It can be acutely uncomfortable emotionally sometimes, but it's a great intellectual exercise.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Arnold connects the Mycenaean shaft-graves with the early Western Catacomb culture in southeast Europe. He sees Greek along with Phrygian and Armenian forming an early branch off from PIE, which preceded the later Yamnaya migration (_The Horse, The Wheel, and Language_, p. 368-369).


I don't think I understood this point. The Catacomb culture postdates the Yamnaya and is mostly a derivation of it along with other external influences and internal changes. A split from the Catacomb culture would necessarily be later than the Yamnaya migrations and would probably be, through the Catacomb people, related to the earlier Yamnaya too. What I think was really proposed by some authors in the past was that Greek, probably together with Phrygian, Armenian and Indo-Iranian, left the steppes much later than other IE branches (after the Yamnaya expansion) and probably derived from the dialects of the latest stage of the PIE language that remained in its Pontic-Caspian homeland.

----------


## bicicleur

> I don't think I understood this point. The Catacomb culture postdates the Yamnaya and is mostly a derivation of it along with other external influences and internal changes. A split from the Catacomb culture would necessarily be later than the Yamnaya migrations and would probably be, through the Catacomb people, related to the earlier Yamnaya too. What I think was really proposed by some authors in the past was that Greek, probably together with Phrygian, Armenian and Indo-Iranian, left the steppes much later than other IE branches (after the Yamnaya expansion) and probably derived from the dialects of the latest stage of the PIE language that remained in its Pontic-Caspian homeland.


if I understand well from the Olalde study, the West-European IE languages (Celtic & Italic) started to spread ca 4.5 ka - maybe even a few centuries earlier - from Central Europe or the Carpathian Basin

Yamna culture lasted till 4.6 ka and then lingered on in Catacomb culture
by the time the Sintashta-related (R1a-Z93) Srubnaya arrived in the northern Pontic steppe ca 3.8 ka, most of the Pontic steppe was already desterted due to the 4.2 ka climate change
could it be that those Yamna-related tribes that left the Pontice steppe late (ca 4.2 ka?) were ancestral to Greek, Armenian and Albanian?
and these herding tribes may have left the Pontic steppe through different routes and at different times

----------


## Pygmalion

> Mycenaeans and Hittites arrive on the scene at about the same time (1700-1600 BCE), and their empires also collapse about the same time (1300-1200 BCE). (The Hyksos, a Semitic people, also invaded the Nile Delta around 1650 BCE.) The first was attacked and destroyed by the Dorians and the second by the Phrygians and the "Ahhiyawa" (Achaeans?), part of the overall movement of peoples called "the Sea Peoples". Both periods are denoted by mass migrations, warfare, raiding/piracy, droughts/climate change, famine, plague(?), etc.
> 
> Historically the steppes have served as a migration engine. Any drought, I assume, would hit the drier eastern steppes first, impelling people and their herds westward in search of water and greener grass. Wet cycles would cause populations (people and herds) to expand, with thus severe dry cycles putting everybody in motion, like balls on a billiard table. Agricultural civilizations, which used irrigation, dams, dikes, and canals to move water from rivers to fields were better able to withstand drought cycles in place, unless attacked by "barbarians" (in search of surplus grain) and brought down.


No, no please let us be more precise to avoid confusion. The Mycenaeans enter on the scene in the 15th century bc with their attack on Crete, the Hittites at least 2 centuries earlier. They do not collapse in 1300-1200 bc, that century saw the construction of some of the most iconic monuments of both civilizations such as the Tomb of Agamemnon, the Lions' gate and Tyrins' gallery in Mycenaean Greece and the cyclopean galleries at Hattusash along with many iconic stone reliefs. The Mycenaeans fell slightly before the Hittites around the end of that century, and the theory of a "Dorian invasion" is pretty outdated, there is no evidence for an external invasion, and both Mycenaeans and Dorians were Greek speakers. The Hittites fell around 1180 bc, a few decades after the Mycenaeans, and it was not because of the Ahhyawa, who were likely the Mycenaeans by the way, but likely because of the civil war that had been going on for 70 years along with a massive drought that had hit all the Mediterranean, the Kaska invaders in the North might have also played a part, but the last enemies that the Hittites faced were an unnamed force coming from Alashiya (Cyprus) and the Lukka (Lycians), the Lycians had been known for several centuries by the Hittites. Since you named the Ahhyawa, they were mentioned by the Hittite texts since the early 14th century bc, they were at one point ruled by a king and had Greek names, they also were located West of Western Anatolia, likely somewhere in Greece, there is no doubt anymore that they were Mycenaean Greeks, Achaeans, and while they sometimes supported the West Anatolian kings against the Hittites they were never mentioned as a major threat by the Hittites. As for the Phrygians, they are not mentioned even once by the Hittites and likely migrated to central Anatolia sometime after the collapse of the Hittite empire, not before.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

Because there is no literary/historical reference to the Mycenaeans prior to their invasion of Crete does not mean there isn't archaeological evidence for their presence in Greece long before that, dating back to the shaft graves at Mycenae (late 17th century?).

----------


## CrazyDonkey

As to the Catacomb culture link:




> At the beginning of the 20th century V. A. Gorodtsov proposed a culture proposed a cultural-chronological scheme for the Early Bronze Age in the East European steppes with three succeeding periods. Based on observations of burial constructions and their positions in the burial mound, Gorodtsov placed the Catacomb culture, which is characterized by graves with catacomb constructions, between the Yamnaya and Sryubnaya cultures. *Today, however, radiocarbon dates have revealed that the late Yamnaya and the Early Catacomb cultures coexisted for some time. The overlap of several hundred years with the preceding Yamnaya culture pushed the beginning of the Catacomb culture several hundred years earlier than originally suggested by Gorodtsov.*


-- Claudia Gerling, _Prehistoric Mobility and Diet in the West Eurasian Steppes 3500 to 300 BC_ (2015)

https://books.google.com/books?id=M4...scheme&f=false

----------


## Ygorcs

> As to the Catacomb culture link:
> 
> 
> 
> -- Claudia Gerling, _Prehistoric Mobility and Diet in the West Eurasian Steppes 3500 to 300 BC_ (2015)
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=M4...scheme&f=false


Thanks, I didn't know that. But how could that supposed Catacomb migration that would've given birth to Greek and Armenian have preceded the Yamnaya migrations? The same source you linked states this right after your quote (and it reinforces that Catacomb coexisted with the *late phase* of Yamnaya and seems to have sprung continously, without ruptures, from Yamnaya, not that it precedes it), referring to dates that are certainly centuries later than the appearance of Yamnaya and also later than the usually accepted estimates (around or before 3000 BC) for the initial divergence of such probably Yamnaya-related branches from PIE, as Celtic, Italic, Germanic and Tocharian. In my opinion, the Catacomb culture (and its possible IE proto-languages, like Greek and Armenian) was an organic and in situ continuation of the Yamnaya, with some novelties and innovations that spread from the southeast (near the sea of Azov).




> "The beginning of the Catacomb culture in the area between the river Don and the northern Caucasus Mountains can be absolutely dated to the early 3rd millennium BC, more precisely to 2800/2700 cal BC, and comes to an end around 2000 cal BC (Table 2.2). Similar dates are given for the North Pontic region, where the Early Catacomb culture is thought to have emerged about 2800/2700 to 2500 BC, coexisting with the Yamnaya culture and followed by the developed phase of the Catacomb culture that lasted until 2000/1900 BC."





> There is no doubt in recent research about a continuous development from the Yamnaya to the Catacomb culture and a coexistence of Yamnaya and Early Catacomb culture for several hundred years. [...] Other scholars believe the Catacomb culture originated from intense interactions between the Yamnaya and contemporaneous cultural groups in the Caucasus. Bratchenko (2001), for example, regards the Catacomb culture as a product of interactions between the Precaucasus region and the steppe cultures.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

Regardless, the Catacomb culture could have been a parallel development or a product of an interaction with the Yamnayas. The hypothesis is that the speakers of the language (proto-Balkan?) that became Greek, Phrygian, and Armenian was an offshoot of the "western" Catacomb culture, splitting off from PIE before the later Yamnaya migrations. After a period in the Balkans, they split off from each other, with Greek speakers migrating into Greece and Armenian and Phrygian speakers migrating into Anatolia. The language of the Linear B script is Greek, not proto-Greek.

----------


## MOESAN

Catacombs: some possible clues: the earlier ones show metrically more ressemblances with Western,Northern and Central Europe people of the LN than Yamnaya (so among diverse inputs, rather an EEF input than a strong CHG or "iranian" input; and they seem having been more depending on agriculture than were Yamnaya people (picked in some readings)... all the way an imput of non typically steppic pops, rather from a post-Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, in Western Ukraina, or maybe people of Eastern Balkans or Eastern Carpathians - why not a mix of Old Europe and early Steppics occurred there with a kind of return to the Steppes? here we need the competences of archeologists - it seems the Late Catacombs show more Steppic or at least "eastern" elements, principally through females? New osmosis after this return?

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Catacombs: some possible clues: the earlier ones show metrically more ressemblances with Western,Northern and Central Europe people of the LN than Yamnaya (so among diverse inputs, rather an EEF input than a strong CHG or "iranian" input; and they seem having been more depending on agriculture than were Yamnaya people (picked in some readings)... all the way an imput of non typically steppic pops, rather from a post-Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, in Western Ukraina, or maybe people of Eastern Balkans or Eastern Carpathians - why not a mix of Old Europe and early Steppics occurred there with a kind of return to the Steppes? here we need the competences of archeologists - it seems the Late Catacombs show more Steppic or at least "eastern" elements, principally through females? New osmosis after this return?


Moesan,
Because its not a mix of early steppist with anything.
What you say makes lots of sense but it does not need steppe for any purpose.
In reality is a mix of old europe with 5000 bc newly arrival to balkans coming from south caucasus as we already know was a movement of CHG loaded people into west.
Boian, gulmenita, etc was rabidly mixing with old europe and is best seen in what is known as pre-cucuteni. 
This mix moved to east into steppe as well as steppe moved into west. People really moved around. All not just steppe.

----------


## MOESAN

I cited some nude facts, and after that, an hypothesis (among other possibilities I did not propose then). I have no certainty or agenda as you surely know.
By the way, it seems the CHG input was rather weak among Trypillia people; I have an admixture table where i'm not sure of the value of the orange colour : 'steppe' or 'CHG'. On another side, I looked on CH and BA in Iberia, and it seems the HG element were very more EHG than WHG compared to precedent periods in Iberia...

----------


## Olympus Mons

> I cited some nude facts, and after that, an hypothesis (among other possibilities I did not propose then). I have no certainty or agenda as you surely know.
> By the way, it seems the CHG input was rather weak among Trypillia people; I have an admixture table where i'm not sure of the value of the orange colour : 'steppe' or 'CHG'. On another side, I looked on CH and BA in Iberia, and it seems the HG element were very more EHG than WHG compared to precedent periods in Iberia...


Yes. and all caveats need to be in place. 4000bc was a time when new groups were starting to form. 
Trypillia might not be as close to Cucuteni as one expects and even less to pre-cucuteni. 
archaeologically one has Hamangia (what was their admix?) mixing with Boian (what was their admix?) and Gulmenita ((what was their admix?)) and rapidly going to encounter "old Europe" remains of starcevo-Cris. 
Nobody expects this large amount of people to immediately inter breed and become homogenous, do we? 
At this point (_4000bc-3500bc_) I would imagine that even ingroup, same culture, several differences in admix should really be apparent dependent on the site one gets the samples.

----------


## Angela

Ah, the justifiably banned Tomenable strikes again. Now it's a paper from the Reich group that gets a downvote in an attempt to get back at me. 

I don't care, Tomenable. You're wasting your time. :)

----------


## holderlin

> Amazing how they are evading altogether Shulaveri Shomu both in time and geography. I am expectant! they have something!


I still look at these posts like

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I still look at these posts like


Yeah his SS obsession is ******* stupid, but his jist makes sense

----------


## Olympus Mons

...
Humm.

----------


## Johane Derite

Trojet tested the BAM file for: KDC001.A0101	Kudachurt	3823.5	MBA North Caucasus	X2i	J2b
and he is


*J2b-L283*+ Z590+ Z627- (or *J2b-L283**)



So now we have a confirmed J2b2-L283 in the North Caucasus dated at 1971-1777 calBCE

----------


## halfalp

Just saw on Eurogenes after the Wang datas were out, that apparently, rumors are saying that 2 individuals from Eneolithic Steppe ( PG2001 and PG2004 ) were found by some to have been R1b-V1636, while the R1b-M415 individual from Kura-Araxes ( 2000 years later ) was also refound to be R1b-V1636. If this turns to be confirmed, it's another big fail for any kind of " R1b coming from Middle-East " and i know someone who will be very dissapointed. Did they somehow found a potential Hittite trace?

----------


## bicicleur

Isn't V1636 the Bootai clade?

----------


## halfalp

> Isn't V1636 the Bootai clade?


You mean Botai? No, Botai was R1b-M73 ( R1b1a1a1 ) so downstream to P297. As for V1636, i'm not really sure were it is in the Phylogenetic Tree of R1b, i think it's a brother of P297, something like R1b-L388 (xR1b1a1a ).

----------


## markod

> Just saw on Eurogenes after the Wang datas were out, that apparently, rumors are saying that 2 individuals from Eneolithic Steppe ( PG2001 and PG2004 ) were found by some to have been R1b-V1636, while the R1b-M415 individual from Kura-Araxes ( 2000 years later ) was also refound to be R1b-V1636. If this turns to be confirmed, it's another big fail for any kind of " R1b coming from Middle-East " and i know someone who will be very dissapointed. Did they somehow found a potential Hittite trace?


IIRC the Kura Araxes guy is the one with zero EHG admixture out of the Armenian metal age samples.

----------


## halfalp

> IIRC the Kura Araxes guy is the one with zero EHG admixture out of the Armenian metal age samples.


PG2001 and PG2004 are dated 6000 BCE so almost 2000 ( 1500 to be fair ) years before the Kura-Araxes sample. We keep thinking that Anatolian Languages must have came from the Steppe in the Yamnaya times, but what if there was a pre-migration? Roughly 4000BC a change into male lineages in south caucasus with steppe ones, without clear cultural change, but with a linguistic change? Also even if i'm not very found of, shouldn't this hypothesis somewhow be confirmed by glottochronology? It still have to be confirmed that those calls are right, but let's think a minute, what are the odds that P297 was in the Baltic while his closer sibling would be from Armenia? Also i know i keep this argument ever and ever, but nobody is questioning that the Popovo J1 individual with 100% EHG zero CHG came ultimately from South Caucasus.

----------


## halfalp

> IIRC the Kura Araxes guy is the one with zero EHG admixture out of the Armenian metal age samples.


Also interesting enough that both the R1b from Kura-Araxes and the one from Hajji Firuz seems to not shows any EHG, while they were found with non-R1b individuals clearly showing Steppe ancestry, what can we conclude of this? That neighboring ancestry should tell us on the origin of those individuals?

----------


## berun

@halfalp... so, do you agree that IE was born in Anatolia? you know, the first IE language was recorded / written down there (irony, of course)

----------


## markod

> Also interesting enough that both the R1b from Kura-Araxes and the one from Hajji Firuz seems to not shows any EHG, while they were found with non-R1b individuals clearly showing Steppe ancestry, what can we conclude of this? That neighboring ancestry should tell us on the origin of those individuals?


I don't know for sure, but I think V1636 looks like a wayward branch that doesn't tell us much about the relevant clades of R1b. It's M269 that should interest us, and judging by the ancient samples published thus far I'd think it diversified somewhere in Ukraine or vicinity. Perhaps it expanded out of some as yet unsampled pocket in the Caparthian range or something, which might be why we can't make sense of its trajectory just yet.

----------


## halfalp

> @halfalp... so, do you agree that IE was born in Anatolia? you know, the first IE language was recorded / written down there (irony, of course)


I’m not sure to get your irony here. So Semitic languages came from Mesopotamia because first written / recorded there? ( I’m stopping you right now, Old Egyptian is not Semitic ).

----------


## halfalp

> I don't know for sure, but I think V1636 looks like a wayward branch that doesn't tell us much about the relevant clades of R1b. It's M269 that should interest us, and judging by the ancient samples published thus far I'd think it diversified somewhere in Ukraine or vicinity. Perhaps it expanded out of some as yet unsampled pocket in the Caparthian range or something, which might be why we can't make sense of its trajectory just yet.


I know, you alteady express your view over V1636. But if, this lineage turns out to be important for the Anatolian Languages family question? Did it gonna become relevent?

----------


## markod

> I know, you alteady express your view over V1636. But if, this lineage turns out to be important for the Anatolian Languages family question? Did it gonna become relevent?


I don't think it's relevant to be honest. It's an almost dead branch as far as I can tell, and the lack of evidence for autosomal admixture between Steppe/Kura Araxes leads me to believe that the connection is too old to be relevant for IE origins. Perhaps it goes back to some Mesolithic WHG type hunter gatherer, not sure.

----------


## halfalp

> I don't think it's relevant to be honest. It's an almost dead branch as far as I can tell, and the lack of evidence for autosomal admixture between Steppe/Kura Araxes leads me to believe that the connection is too old to be relevant for IE origins. Perhaps it goes back to some Mesolithic WHG type hunter gatherer, not sure.


But there is clear link between Steppe and KA. Such as mtdna U4a and U4d in KA. Also this potential V1636 individual. I think lineages are more relevent than admixture. Because we might never found the good proxy, the first generation sample showing 50% EHG 50% CHG in Armenia. Keep in mind that Armenia_Chl wich is y-dna L1a and non-Steppe mtdna lineages, arbor some EHG ancestry. Wich tell us that R1b and U4 were there somewhere.

----------


## markod

> But there is clear link between Steppe and KA. Such as mtdna U4a and U4d in KA. Also this potential V1636 individual. I think lineages are more relevent than admixture. Because we might never found the good proxy, the first generation sample showing 50% EHG 50% CHG in Armenia. Keep in mind that Armenia_Chl wich is y-dna L1a and non-Steppe mtdna lineages, arbor some EHG ancestry. Wich tell us that R1b and U4 were there somewhere.


The problem is the narrow timeframe of IE. I personally don't believe that autosomal DNA would completely mix itself out of existence in between the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age as migrating groups probably wouldn't outmarry to such an extent. The same problem exists for a south->steppe migration, albeit to a lesser extent because there are autosomal components that might be construed as being of southern origin.

For now I believe that the Caucasus was a genetic and linguistic barrier until much later. If Anatolian came from Europe it did so via the Balkans.

----------


## halfalp

> The problem is the narrow timeframe of IE. I personally don't believe that autosomal DNA would completely mix itself out of existence in between the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age as migrating groups probably wouldn't outmarry to such an extent. The same problem exists for a south->steppe migration, albeit to a lesser extent because there are autosomal components that might be construed as being of southern origin.
> 
> For now I believe that the Caucasus was a genetic and linguistic barrier until much later. If Anatolian came from Europe it did so via the Balkans.


You are not facilitate anything for Anatolian Languages! But to be fair, for years and still today actually, i was convinced from multiples deductions that Anatolian Languages came ultimately from the Catacomb Culture.

----------


## berun

nope, you didn't catch the irony, it was just about the first R1b clade dates.

----------


## halfalp

> nope, you didn't catch the irony, it was just about the first R1b clade dates.


I think i clearly catched it. But your Low IQ and your ETA philosophy is hiding everything.

----------


## Cpluskx

You have to find steppe in Anatolia before 2500 BC because there are Anatolian names from North Syria 2500 BC. Otherwise David Reich is right.

----------


## berun

halfalp, take a pill

----------


## Olympus Mons

> halfalp, take a pill


Aren't you Catalan? What is the reference to ETA?

----------


## berun

I just don't care, better to send the case to a psychologist.

----------


## halfalp

Paper's out!

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08220-8.pdf

*Supplementary material:* https://static-content.springer.com/...MOESM1_ESM.pdf
*
On the authors rectifying their misunderstood position:* " _There is indeed very limited gene flow between the Caucasus and the steppe groups (apart from the examples highlighted). However, wehave based our PIE-related speculations on the observation that the CHG/Iranian (green) ancestrycomponent is increasing already during the Eneolithic north of the Caucasus. This led us to proposethat this might be the actual ‘tracer dye’ of an early PIE spread, which could then also accommodatethe spread of PIE south of the mountain range where this ancestry component also rises in frequencyresulting in a relatively homogenised dual ancestry (Anatolian + Iranian farming-related ancestry) inChalcolithic times (see also brown arrow in Figure 2)._ "

Taking from Ryukendo and Pribislav on Anthrogenica.

----------


## berun

so R1b-Z2103 came from south Caucasus or from Balkans? 

we are sure that the dates for steppe Yamna are older than those in Pannonia and lower Danube?

----------


## Jovialis

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-caucas...aign=item-menu

----------


## johen

Another one:



> Reviewer no 2: On lines 410 and 432 the authors preferred to see the Anatolian Farmer genes that appeared in Yamnaya as flowing from *southeast*ern Europe, with a 20% WHG component, not from Maikop, without the WHG component.


Gimbutas is absolutely correct now that she said yamna culture originated in southeast and East on the 10 page papers around 1950 as I remember. The southeast has something to do with corded ware, but she didnot mention about the East, but a hint. As I quoted weeks ago, yamana culture is not special one, but just “sunhead and animal culture.” Their mound culture is not special also, where they were buried with legs flexed as same as shaman was dancing on the petroglyphs in lake baikal, altai, america. 

Moreover, they penetrated M73, wild horse butcher of botai, to go to altai according to anthony Map. Anthony found botai horse domestication culture in afanasievo, but no wagon. Their altai is so different from the starting point, and furthemore they simply lived with Q people; looks like home-coming. Their descendant, sintashta did again, making a developing society but trying not to go south of civilized world even with chariot.
However, modern scientists tried to seperate those people by east and west. If so, I think ancient steppe people would have a democratic society.

Afanasievo kurgan

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/hawks/tr...gans-2012.html

So smart Anthony tried to say that the afanasievo were from Repin, which is not the East. The East would be a place where M73 with horse, CHG and Q1a with the oldest wagon and EDAR gathered around before bronze age: south east Ural, sintashta zone.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...319#post565319

----------


## Angela

I don't see much difference from the pre-print. Either there is a very ancient cline from EHG in the north to CHG in the south or, if there was a specific folk migration more recently than that, it had to take place before the date of these samples, i.e. Neolithic times. It certainly can't be traced to Maykop.

All the reams of commentary boil down to that, yes?

Unless they find a migration during that Neolithic period it's bad news for hypotheses about a migration of pre-or proto-PIE from the Caucasus onto the steppe.

----------


## Olympus Mons

I love the NEW reviewers comments supplement ….


_"Lines 442 and 606-608 : The abstract for this paper highlights this finding as one of the principal_
_discoveries of the project. The Yamnaya population of the Pontic-Caspian steppes, whose Bronze_
_Age migrations east into Asia and west into Europe laid the foundation for modern populations, is_
_here described as having previously undetected Early European Farmer and Western Hunter_
_Gatherer ancestry. Neither component had been recognized in the same samples when previously_
_published. This is indeed a discovery, and I do not (cannot) debate the finding. I only want to note_
_that this is both a discovery and a revision of results previously published in Nature by Haak et al_
_2015 Allentoft et al 2015 and Mathiesson et al. 2018. I think that the reader should be alerted more_
_clearly to the potential for debate on this topic. I recognize that methods are moving quickly in this..."_



For a Guy that is saying for years that the Yamnaya were an offshoot of Shulaveri that in turn came from the Balkans (*WHG*) and admix with some Anatolian in Thrace and Fikirtepe region (*EEF*) and later brought *CHG* into steppe …. This all sound real sweet. Pure honey.

----------


## Olympus Mons

Those reviewers were delicious...

_"Figure 2: On the right side, the color bar graphs for Yamnaya Samara and Yamnaya Kalmyk do not_
_show any orange color for Anatolian (or Early European) Farmer ancestry. The discovery of_
_Anatolian/Early European Farmer ancestry in these samples is one of the major findings of the study_
_but is not represented graphically in Figure 2, where these samples are represented graphically as_
_they were described previously, as a simple admixture of EHG and CHG/Iran. I realize that these_
_samples are in a column labeled Previously Published, but this is the only graphical representation of_
_these sample...."
_
Lindo, Lindo, lindo.

----------


## Olympus Mons

reviewer 2 is brutal...

_" It’s good to point out that older Neolithic sites could be found in the northern flanks, but what you’re implying here is that Gorelik was wrong to specify a PPNB influence on the steppes (fine, I agree) and it really was an extension of the Georgian Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture going over the mountains (sites not yet found) that introduced domesticates to the steppes. Gorelik already dismissed that because of the absence of artifact parallels in the Azov steppes with Shulaveri-Shomutepe. Too complex to explain, too many speculative elements." ------_ These guys are, bit by bit, introducing the Shulaverian hypothesis into the narrative... Its the "we knew all along" factor that is coming.


One note of explanation to the dumbass reviewer (sharp guy but not that knowledgeable). 
the Shulaverian moving into steppe by end 6th millenium BC were the same stock that we see roaming, pastoral, in the western georgia plain. in fact Same life style that was in 2018 published by Andrea ricci regarding the shulaveri in Nagorno-Karabakh region and Azerbaijan steppes. Very light and almost transhumance...

----------


## bicicleur

so the R1b-Z2103 in 2.9 ka Armenia was probably a recent arrival, after 3.5 ka
where did they come from? late north caucasus?

----------


## Olympus Mons

.... 
one of replies from the authors to reviewers...

Reply: This statement is based o*n the hypothesis put forward by Mathieson et al. 2018*: “An alternative hypothesis is that the *homeland of Proto-Indo-European languages* was in the Caucasus or in Iran. In this scenario, *westward population movement* contributed to the dispersal of Anatolian languages, *and northward movement and mixture with EHG* was responsible for the formation of a ‘Late Proto-Indo European’-speaking population associated with the Yamnaya complex. Although *this scenario gains plausibility from our results*, it remains possible that Indo-European languages were spread through southeastern Europe into Anatolia without large-scale population movement or admixture.”

See, what I always said about the "knew all along" phenomenon?-- Now its an hypothesis from Mathieson in 2018. The same Mathieson that used to comment on Eurogenes where I was defending my Shulaverian Hypothesis in endless comments since early 2016 has put forward is brilliant hypothesis in 2018!!! - Love it, I love it. :)

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> .... 
> one of replies from the authors to reviewers...
> 
> Reply: This statement is based o*n the hypothesis put forward by Mathieson et al. 2018*: “An alternative hypothesis is that the *homeland of Proto-Indo-European languages* was in the Caucasus or in Iran. In this scenario, *westward population movement* contributed to the dispersal of Anatolian languages, *and northward movement and mixture with EHG* was responsible for the formation of a ‘Late Proto-Indo European’-speaking population associated with the Yamnaya complex. Although *this scenario gains plausibility from our results*, it remains possible that Indo-European languages were spread through southeastern Europe into Anatolia without large-scale population movement or admixture.”
> 
> See, what I always said about the "knew all along" phenomenon?-- Now its an hypothesis from Mathieson in 2018. The same Mathieson that used to comment on Eurogenes where I was defending my Shulaverian Hypothesis in endless comments since early 2016 has put forward is brilliant hypothesis in 2018!!! - Love it, I love it. :)


What I don't get is that, from the data shown so far, this would mean a spread of PIE with typical Caucasian females. That just cannot be true. 

The question is, where did M269 come from? It seems to have introduced itself between Khvalynsk and Yamnaya (from somewhere else, where it would have been for much longer), but we don't have M269 in ChL Caucasus.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> What I don't get is that, from the data shown so far, this would mean a spread of PIE with typical Caucasian females. That just cannot be true. 
> 
> The question is, where did M269 come from? It seems to have introduced itself between Khvalynsk and Yamnaya (from somewhere else, where it would have been for much longer), but we don't have M269 in ChL Caucasus.


What you don't have is: Caucasus NEOLITHIC - do think that is a coincidence? 
The place where Shulaveri lived was a wastland for a couple centuries before you see Sioni arriving. Let alone a thousand years later the Kura-Araxes. What is the problem people have with time?

----------


## bicicleur

> What I don't get is that, from the data shown so far, this would mean a spread of PIE with typical Caucasian females. That just cannot be true. 
> 
> The question is, where did M269 come from? It seems to have introduced itself between Khvalynsk and Yamnaya (from somewhere else, where it would have been for much longer), but we don't have M269 in ChL Caucasus.


this exchange of females must have happened around 7 ka, early khvalynsk

----------


## Olympus Mons

> this exchange of females must have happened around 7 ka, early khvalynsk


Yes. We are back to hordes of amazon women roaming into new lands and having babies with local men. Specially these in particular that manage to cross alone one of the most dificult mountain ranges to cross. And all by themselves. Remarkable. ;)

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> this exchange of females must have happened around 7 ka, early khvalynsk


The paternalistic culture of PIE didn't come from women, I refuse to accept that. But besides, there was an extra addition of CHG to Khvalynsk that also seems to have brought M269.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> What you don't have is: Caucasus NEOLITHIC - do think that is a coincidence? 
> The place where Shulaveri lived was a wastland for a couple centuries before you see Sioni arriving. Let alone a thousand years later the Kura-Araxes. What is the problem people have with time?


Do we have samples from the Western Caspian (i.e. Azerbaijan)? If we have samples spanning the entire Caucasus with no M269, and knowing the Steppe groups to the immediate North had no M269, where the hell does that leave M269?

----------


## bicicleur

> Yes. We are back to hordes of amazon women roaming into new lands and having babies with local men. Specially these in particular that manage to cross alone one of the most dificult mountain ranges to cross. And all by themselves. Remarkable. ;)


beside your Amazonian women phantasies, explain to me how EHG got admixed with CHG
mtDNA for both the steppe and Caucasus cluster are the same, and different from previous (>7ka) EHG samples
Y-DNA between steppe and Caucasus cluster is different, with steppe cluster typical EHG Y-DNA

the authors themselves say the Caucasus Mountains didn't form a boundary

----------


## Olympus Mons

> beside your Amazonian women phantasies, explain to me how EHG got admixed with CHG
> mtDNA for both the steppe and Caucasus cluster are the same, and different from previous (>7ka) EHG samples
> Y-DNA between steppe and Caucasus cluster is different, with steppe cluster typical EHG Y-DNA
> 
> the authors themselves say the Caucasus Mountains didn't form a boundary


I get confused, worried, and ? - Read the replies from authors to reviewers! 

How they got admixed?

at least as early as by 5500BC some shulaverian were starting to pour into north Caucasus (that is the exchange with reviewer 2).There might be or not be already a CHG population that had least or not Iran/CHG in Western Georgia or even north Caucasus that Shulaveri were interacting with by mid 6th M BC..Shulaverian upon 6.9K mystery and _magical disappearance event_ moved to kuban river and started to move into steppe, even to make early Meshoko. God knows where some of them were at that point…

Now. Break. Stop. Pause, sleep, Idle...
A century goes by, tic.tac, two centuries, tic tac, three centuries…. Maybe more. Wake up!!!


Now, the Wang at all starts (!). Most of what they are reporting is 1000 years later. Even Mesohko, it is known that the population that made the first settlements were shortly after substitute by another population.

In this playful way, not intent to piss you off, I am repeating what I have been saying. Reich, Haak , Krauser, Mathieson, etc… they have the samples for the first part and there is an “embargo” for them. 
First they need to clean the slate because not long ago they were the ones pushing the Steppe as the Urheimat of this universe and the next. So they need time. Now it’s the brilliant Iain Mathieson having this new hypothesis in 2018. Leave it a couple more months and they all will be the embattle resistants that are pushing for a south Caucasus theory and being harassed by everyone….

That is how its done.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I'll point out that the Y-DNA in Tel Shadud's sample is there. It's an R1b.


I know, I was actually the first to point that out, but it's too late to draw meaningful conclusions.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> I'll point out that the Y-DNA in Tel Shadud's sample is there. It's an R1b.


No subclades known?

What I am saying next is just a coincidence, ok? Not intented to mean nothing....
But that place is 13 miles from Tel Tsaf. And tel tsaf is important in the shulaverian hypothesis... slide 4600BC. (https://shulaverianhypothesis.blogs.sapo.pt/)

----------


## markod

Why would Shomu be a much better fit for Yamnaya than Kura Araxes etc. ? It doesn't make sense.

Note that the southern ancestry is inferred to have split off _prior_ to the formation of CHG. Here's betting that steppe North Caucasians don't have any ancestry from the Transcaucasus region.

----------


## Cpluskx

If PIE was an ANE language it would have been agglutinative. All the languages of North Eurasia are agglutinative. PIE was born somewhere very close / around of Caucasus.

----------


## halfalp

If R1b came from Armenia with women in the Neolithic ( a big scale migration ). How is EHG component dominant in the Steppe? The few U5a and U4 cannot explain that almost perfect 50/50 EHG/CHG in Steppe. Also Dolmen BA doesn't have any Iran_Neo or Iran_Chl, only CHG and Anatolia_Chl, wich means Iran ancestry wasn't that predominant in the Caucasus before the Chalcolithic.

----------


## halfalp

> No subclades known?
> 
> What I am saying next is just a coincidence, ok? Not intented to mean nothing....
> But that place is 13 miles from Tel Tsaf. And tel tsaf is important in the shulaverian hypothesis... slide 4600BC. (https://shulaverianhypothesis.blogs.sapo.pt/)


The call might be wrong, i also saw on Anthrogenica that they have an R1b sample from Tanzania, wich is odd.

----------


## halfalp

> The paternalistic culture of PIE didn't come from women, I refuse to accept that. But besides, there was an extra addition of CHG to Khvalynsk that also seems to have brought M269.


The CHG ancestry found in Khvalynsk was on the Q1a individual, ironically.

----------


## halfalp

It's also quite noticable that more we have new papers on Yamnaya or prehistoric Steppe, more the CHG / Iran ancestry seems to take importance, and that's actually weird. The reason is, theres is not much difference in the time frame of the samples, but if you put random Yamnaya samples in one paper, and in another papers all samples with the highest Caucasus ancestry, you obviously gonna create a big bias in the mind of the people who read those. In this paper, some Yamnaya samples the CHG/Iran ancestry is at almost 80%, and that's sound pretty weird too. Some Corded Ware samples have almost 60% of CHG/Iran ancestry and that can only happened with a big scale migration just like EEF in the Balkans and Iberia. But it cannot happened after the Neolithic because Chalcolithic South Caucasus shows in Areni-1 the L1a individuals that were related to the ancestors of Maikop. Now we are clearly into an South Caucasus Neolithic demic migration hypothesis, were Iran farmers have replaced EHG HG's but ironically with a very local y-dna lineage.

----------


## bicicleur

> The CHG ancestry found in Khvalynsk was on the Q1a individual, ironically.


what other DNA from the Pontic steppe prior to 6.5 ka do we have besides Khvalynsk?
Khvalynsk is at the northern edge of the Pontic steppe

Q1a2 brought in Siberian ancestry

----------


## bicicleur

for Greek and Armenian language I see 2 possible scenarios :

1/ the 4.8-3.7 ka North Caucasus were the Greco-Armenian speakers

2/ the 4.8-3.7 ka North Caucasus were the Proto-Armenian speakers and the Catacomb were the Proto-Greek speakers

----------


## Olympus Mons

... The published paper is full of novelties over the preprint or added explanation by the authors. however you guys just move over it as if nothing changed. Nothing to see. As long as each of you is able to keep the mantra its ok. ... And I am the one accused of being the one that only _talks about its prefered pet theory_... right.

----------


## Olympus Mons

Just to make it clear how far Wang et al went in the direction of my shulaverian Hypothesis 


_This is in accordance with the Neolithization of the Caucasus (ie The Shulaveri-Shomu), which had started in the flood plains of South Caucasian rivers (ie Kura and araxes river where shulaveri lived) in the 6th millennium BCE (yes, 6000bc to 5000BC when Shulaveri were there), from where it spread across to the West/Northwest (exactly like the shulaverian hypothesis says, the ones that went west and the ones into kuban river and the steppe) during the following millennium (yes, from 4900BC to 4000BC) . It remains unclear whether the local CHG ancestry profile (Kotias Klde and Satsurblia in today’s Georgia) was also present in the North Caucasus region before the Neolithic. However, if we take the CHG ancestry as a local baseline and the oldest Eneolithic Caucasus individuals from our transect as a proxy for the local Late Neolithic ancestry, we notice a substantial increase in AF ancestry. This in all likelihood reflects the process of Neolithization, which also brought this type of ancestry to Europe. As a consequence, it is possible that Neolithic groups could have reached the northern foothills earlier35 (Supplementary Note 1). Hence, additional sampling from older individuals would be desirable to fill this temporal and spatial gap (yes, as if reich and Krauser do not have those samples for a while...)._

From this point on, on the next published papers, it will start to appear the mentions to, as "_the hypothesis of Ian Mathieson in 2018_" and "_as we had anticipated in Wang et al_"

This is how it is done. Its just fun to watch.

----------


## bicicleur

wasn't there J in mesolithic Karelia?
crossing the Caucasus was done all the time
even in Mesolithic times
but the formation of steppe DNA was ca 7 ka

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Interestingly, and I don't think anybody has actually mentioned this somehow, but the first North Caucasian kurgans (in the Wang paper) are seen with Steppe individuals (Progress and Vonyuchka) around 4200 BCE, with the typical Caucasians (e.g. Y DNA J etc.) joining in the trend at least 400 years later (i.e. when Maykop begins). So, despite older kurgans in the South Caucasus and perhaps with deeper origins in Mesopotamia, it appears that kurgan burials were never spread from "farmers" to Steppe folk.

What's more, it seems like this is a link to Leyla Tepe, which was earlier than Maykop and had kurgans at exactly the same time Progress and Vonyuchka did (those barely North Caucasian individuals Davidski is raving about as proof against a Southern origin of IE).

The Soyugbulag kurgans of Leyla Tepe are located in the Kaspi municipality. which is immediately to the South of Ossetia, where Progress and Vonyuchka were found, and corresponding with this map showing the genetic barrier between North and South that is the Caucasus:



This parting is exactly where the Leyla Tepe kurgans were found, and where the first North Caucasian kurgans (those of Progress and Vonyuchka) were also found.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Admittedly perhaps (definitely) very speculatively, looking at the etymology of the Ossetian god of metallurgy (Kurdalaegon) can give extra circumstantial information. Etymologically, this comes from Kurd + Alae + Waergon: Kurd coming from "to heat/to incandesce", Alae ultimately coming from "Aryan" (later "Alan"), and Waergon apparently being a variant name of Kurdalaegon, and corresponding to the word for wolf, "waerg". This wolf "waerg" derivation is supposedly comparable to the etymology of the Roman god Vulcan, from the Latin "Vulcanus", a word originally of Etruscan origin via one name for their blacksmith god, "Velchans". This too has been linked with the Minoan god of metallurgy, "Velchanos" (and I've previously linked both the Etruscans and Minoans to a post-Kura Araxes expansion of Anatolian warlike elites across the Aegean and beyond). 

Ossetian is an Iranian language, but it's completely possible and seemingly likely that at the very least the variant name of the god (Waergon) has this connection predating the Iranian incursions, and even if it doesn't it could be a pan-IE thing rather than a Kura-Araxes thing. The other variant, Kurdalaegon, seems to have a clearer meaning in (_kurd_ smith+ _on_ of the family+ _Alaeg_ name of one of the Nartic families), so perhaps there is no link there (but Waergon to Vulcan to Velchans to Velchanos clearly has a link besides all being blacksmith gods of metallurgy, no need to be a professional linguist).

----------


## halfalp

> what other DNA from the Pontic steppe prior to 6.5 ka do we have besides Khvalynsk?
> Khvalynsk is at the northern edge of the Pontic steppe
> 
> Q1a2 brought in Siberian ancestry


We have Samara and Sidelkino ( wich is not technically on the steppe i think ).

----------


## halfalp

> Interestingly, and I don't think anybody has actually mentioned this somehow, but the first North Caucasian kurgans (in the Wang paper) are seen with Steppe individuals (Progress and Vonyuchka) around 4200 BCE, with the typical Caucasians (e.g. Y DNA J etc.) joining in the trend at least 400 years later (i.e. when Maykop begins).
> 
> What's more, it seems like this is a link to Leyla Tepe, which was earlier than Maykop and had kurgans at exactly the same time Progress and Vonyuchka did (those barely North Caucasian individuals Davidski is raving about as proof against a Southern origin of IE).
> 
> The Soyugbulag kurgans of Leyla Tepe are located in the Kaspi municipality. which is immediately to the South of Ossetia, where Progress and Vonyuchka were found, and corresponding with this map showing the genetic barrier between North and South that is the Caucasus:
> 
> 
> 
> This parting is exactly where the Leyla Tepe kurgans were found, and where the first North Caucasian kurgans (those of Progress and Vonyuchka) were also found.


The Progress individuals were R-V1636. Also the two samples from Velikent wich is Daghestan ( were Leyla-Tepe should have bring R1b or R1a according to some ) were J-Z1842.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> The Progress individuals were R-V1636.


I know, a shame really, but the modern distribution anyway suggests an origin of V1636 South of the Caucasus. V1636 could have just moved up as a minority with Z2103 - there's only been two Y DNA samples (both V1636) from these early Steppe Eneolithic kurgans and even that is perhaps just one line.

See here:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=47477

and here:
_
Complementaryto the southern Eneolithic component, a northern component started to expand between 4300and 4100 calBCE manifested in low burial mounds with inhumations densely packed in brightred ochre. Burial sites of this type, like the investigated sites of Progress and Vonyuchka, arefound in the Don-Caspian steppe12, but they are related to a much larger supra-regional networklinking elites of the steppe zone between the Balkans and the Caspian Sea18. These groupsintroduced the so-called kurgan, a specific type of burial monument, which soon spread acrossthe entire steppe zone._

----------


## Angela

> wasn't there J in mesolithic Karelia?
> crossing the Caucasus was done all the time
> even in Mesolithic times
> but the formation of steppe DNA was ca 7 ka


Yes, there was, and in the latest papers some of the EHG samples are close to 20% CHG. 

The authors themselves posit two possibilities:

1) A long standing cline perhaps from the Paleolithic of EHG/CHG running north/south

2) A Neolithic era migration from the south

They just need the samples, if they don't already have them, to nail it down.

Of course, it might be both, as the ancient J in Karelia would show. 

The language issue is separate. Would the Neolithic be too early for even a proto-PIE?

Then there's the yDna issue. Was the exchange always female exchange between the two groups?

----------


## markod

Wasn't the Kura Araxes guy with R1b-V1636 the only ancient Armenian without EHG ancestry? What happened there  :Thinking:

----------


## Angela

> Wasn't the Kura Araxes guy with R1b-V1636 the only ancient Armenian without EHG ancestry? What happened there


Well, after a couple of hundred years the autosomal trace might have disappeared, I suppose. 

On the other hand, Maciamo has for years maintained that R1b people moved south of the Caucasus, picked up different dna, and then moved back north.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Wasn't the Kura Araxes guy with R1b-V1636 the only ancient Armenian without EHG ancestry? What happened there


Woah, is that true? That's like, a really big deal to me, are you sure?

----------


## halfalp

> Just to make it clear how far Wang et al went in the direction of my shulaverian Hypothesis 
> 
> 
> _This is in accordance with the Neolithization of the Caucasus (ie The Shulaveri-Shomu), which had started in the flood plains of South Caucasian rivers (ie Kura and araxes river where shulaveri lived) in the 6th millennium BCE (yes, 6000bc to 5000BC when Shulaveri were there), from where it spread across to the West/Northwest (exactly like the shulaverian hypothesis says, the ones that went west and the ones into kuban river and the steppe) during the following millennium (yes, from 4900BC to 4000BC) . It remains unclear whether the local CHG ancestry profile (Kotias Klde and Satsurblia in today’s Georgia) was also present in the North Caucasus region before the Neolithic. However, if we take the CHG ancestry as a local baseline and the oldest Eneolithic Caucasus individuals from our transect as a proxy for the local Late Neolithic ancestry, we notice a substantial increase in AF ancestry. This in all likelihood reflects the process of Neolithization, which also brought this type of ancestry to Europe. As a consequence, it is possible that Neolithic groups could have reached the northern foothills earlier35 (Supplementary Note 1). Hence, additional sampling from older individuals would be desirable to fill this temporal and spatial gap (yes, as if reich and Krauser do not have those samples for a while...)._
> 
> From this point on, on the next published papers, it will start to appear the mentions to, as "_the hypothesis of Ian Mathieson in 2018_" and "_as we had anticipated in Wang et al_"
> 
> This is how it is done. Its just fun to watch.


Oh come on please... Back in 2016 you saw that Yamnaya was EHG + CHG, you thought " what is the link? " then you googled Caucasus Neolithic and Shulaveri-Shomu was the absolute only result. You didn't create a whole hypothesis that make sense, you just filled the gap with what could be the best proxy. Nobody ever say that Shulaveri-Shomu didn't participate to the creation of the Steppe package, people are calling you out for always trying to put R1b-M269 while absolutely nothing is giving you credit. That you noticed that Shulaveri-Shomu had Wine and that IE cultures have a strong Wine symbolism, doesn't give you any credit. Stop always bashing others, and wait for your godamn Shulaveri paper in silence.

----------


## halfalp

> Wasn't the Kura Araxes guy with R1b-V1636 the only ancient Armenian without EHG ancestry? What happened there


So how this lineage that apparently wasn't that interesting is now turning to become interesting? Were is even V1636 in the phylogeny tree, isn't the brother of P297?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Yes, there was, and in the latest papers some of the EHG samples are close to 20% CHG. 
> 
> The authors themselves posit two possibilities:
> 
> 1) A long standing cline perhaps from the Paleolithic of EHG/CHG running north/south
> 
> 2) A Neolithic era migration from the south
> 
> They just need the samples, if they don't already have them, to nail it down.
> ...


I think by far the best hypothesis is that of a Zarzian expansion from the Zagros to the Urals via the East side of the Caspian (there's an archaeological trail from the spread of distinctive geometric microliths from the Zagros across Iran and up through the -stans by the Caspian until the Urals). From the Urals, pottery would be spread Westwards via the Elshan culture - the main haplogroups being R1a-M198 and potentially R1b-P297 as well as a bit of Mesolithic Q of some variety (Q1a? I don't really pay much attention to Q). Traces of Caucasian J would have been picked up from their Paleolithic Zagrosian origin, as well as a bit of CHG, which seemingly definitely made a contribution to EHG. This also explains why basal R1a and R1b appear (very strongly) to be Iranian.

----------


## markod

> Woah, is that true? That's like, a really big deal to me, are you sure?


Yeah pretty sure. Arame did a lot of tests with those. EHG is there in Chl. disappears in Eba. and appears again in Mlba. .

See his posts here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...3000-BC)/page4

----------


## markod

> So how this lineage that apparently wasn't that interesting is now turning to become interesting? Were is even V1636 in the phylogeny tree, isn't the brother of P297?


I didn't know those samples belonged to V1636. It's probably still not very interesting because it was very unsuccesful.

----------


## halfalp

Btw, were did you see that Vonyuchka was y-dna J? ToBeOrNotToBe?

----------


## halfalp

> I didn't know those samples belonged to V1636. It's probably still not very interesting because it was very unsuccesful.


They might not be dominant nowadays but were maybe very important in the genesis of PIE.

----------


## markod

> They might not be dominant nowadays but were maybe very important in the genesis of PIE.


But how do we know that unless it turns up in the Mycenaean shaft graves or something?

Btw does anyone know what the earliest confirmed R1B-M269 sample is?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> So how this lineage that apparently wasn't that interesting is now turning to become interesting? Were is even V1636 in the phylogeny tree, isn't the brother of P297?


Yeah, it's the brother of P297. In my view, R1a/b diversified around Iran, with R1b-L754 pre-V88 moving into Europe as part of the Epigravettian. As mentioned, I think specific subclades of R1b and R1a spread from Iran to the Urals, before heading West with the introduction of pottery into Eastern Europe.

_According to Bernard Sergent the lithic assemblage of the first Kurgan culture in Ukraine (Sredni Stog II), which originated from the Volga and South Urals, recalls that of the Mesolithic-Neolithic sites to the east of the Caspian sea, Dam Dam Chesme II and the cave of Djebel.[27]He places the roots of the Gimbutas' Kurgan cradle of Indo-Europeans in a more southern cradle, and adds that the Djebel material is related to a Paleolithic material of Northwestern Iran, the Zarzian culture, dated 10000–8500 BC, and in the more ancient Kebarian of the Near East. He concludes that more than 10,000 years ago the Indo-Europeans were a small people grammatically, phonetically and lexically close to Semitic-Hamitic populations of the Near East.[28]





__Further north still, in the southern Ural Mountains, the Mesolithic culture that_
_developed during the 11th Millennium BP clearly derived from Iran (Vasiliev et al, 1996),_
_based on similarity in microlithic technology and also in the fact that sheep and cattle_
_arrived at an early date. This culture then spread both east and west. In the west it has to_
_be assumed that the 10th Millennium BP Yelshanian culture of the Volga steppe,_
_previously described as Neolithic, developed from it, although the point was made that the description ‘Neolithic’ really only refers to the people’s use of pottery and the presence of some domesticated animals. At the site of Mullino to the west of the Urals,_
_the earliest Mesolithic layers have been dated to 8.5-8.3ky BP (Matyushin, 1986), and_
_this is followed by a 300-500 year gap before the first true Neolithic culture appears._
_Matyushin (1986) dates the first true Neolithic culture of the Volga steppe to around_
_7.6ky BP. He makes the point that there are anthropological affinities between the_
_Neolithic people of Mullino and those of the Mediterranean and the Middle East,_
_contrasting with the broad-faced Russians of the Mesolithic._
*Thus the picture would appear to be that of a northward movement of Iran-derived
culture right at the start of the Holocene, developing into the 11th Millennium BP
Mesolithic cultures of the southern Urals, the Yelshanian culture of the steppe and the
*_earliest occupation levels at Mullino. The occupational gap at Mullino is consistent with a_
_widespread disaster having occurred in about 8.2ky BP, and the progress of subsequent_
_Neolithic culture is consistent with a re-colonisation of low-lying areas from a survivor_
_population in the southern Urals.
_

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> But how do we know that unless it turns up in the Mycenaean shaft graves or something?
> 
> Btw does anyone know what the earliest confirmed R1B-M269 sample is?


I think ATP3 in Spain funnily enough - either that or Yamnaya. We definitely don't have M269 on the Steppe before Yamnaya.

EDIT: It's ATP3, though obviously Yamnayan Z2103 doesn't descend from it (but L51 on the other hand... (not ATP3 as that's too late, but perhaps when copper first arrived in Iberia))

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Btw, were did you see that Vonyuchka was y-dna J? ToBeOrNotToBe?


I never said that...

----------


## markod

> I think ATP3 in Spain funnily enough - either that or Yamnaya. We definitely don't have M269 on the Steppe before Yamnaya.
> EDIT: It's ATP3, though obviously Yamnayan Z2103 doesn't descend from it (but L51 on the other hand... (not ATP3 as that's too late, but perhaps when copper first arrived in Iberia))


Lol, I wasn't that interested in R1b so I'd always assumed there were M269s in Khvalynsk or some other early steppe culture.
M269 might as well have come from the moon in that case. We need samples from other places, not same old Transcaucasus/PC steppe/Zagros.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Yeah pretty sure. Arame did a lot of tests with those. EHG is there in Chl. disappears in Eba. and appears again in Mlba. .
> 
> See his posts here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...3000-BC)/page4


Hmm, interesting. I'd expect some pseudo-EHG from ANE + something WHG-like in Zarzian territory (as I think R1a and R1b mostly diversified around the Northern Zagros; plus, I think EHG has some Iran_Meso without Basal Eurasian in it), but not sure why it completely disappears with Kura-Araxes. 

Apparently though (from Lazaridis):
_
Armenia ChL = c. 18% EHG, 50% IRAN N, 17% Levant N, 14% WHG 
Kura Araxes = c. 12% EHG, , 58% IRAN N, 14% Levant N, 16% WHG 
Armenia MLBA = c. 22% EHG, 53% IRAN N, 11% Levant N, 13% WHG_

----------


## markod

> Hmm, interesting. I'd expect some pseudo-EHG from ANE + something WHG-like in Zarzian territory (as I think R1a and R1b mostly diversified around the Northern Zagros; plus, I think EHG has some Iran_Meso without Basal Eurasian in it), but not sure why it completely disappears with Kura-Araxes. 
> 
> Apparently though (from Lazaridis):
> _
> Armenia ChL = c. 18% EHG, 50% IRAN N, 17% Levant N, 14% WHG 
> Kura Araxes = c. 12% EHG, , 58% IRAN N, 14% Levant N, 16% WHG 
> Armenia MLBA = c. 22% EHG, 53% IRAN N, 11% Levant N, 13% WHG_


That's what happens when you don't include CHG when modelling Caucasus samples.

----------


## halfalp

> I never said that...


So i didn't understand well this sentence " _Steppe individuals (Progress and Vonyuchka) around 4200 BCE, with the typical Caucasians (e.g. Y DNA J etc.)_ "

----------


## halfalp

> Yeah, it's the brother of P297. In my view, R1a/b diversified around Iran, with R1b-L754 pre-V88 moving into Europe as part of the Epigravettian. As mentioned, I think specific subclades of R1b and R1a spread from Iran to the Urals, before heading West with the introduction of pottery into Eastern Europe.
> 
> _According to Bernard Sergent the lithic assemblage of the first Kurgan culture in Ukraine (Sredni Stog II), which originated from the Volga and South Urals, recalls that of the Mesolithic-Neolithic sites to the east of the Caspian sea, Dam Dam Chesme II and the cave of Djebel.[27]He places the roots of the Gimbutas' Kurgan cradle of Indo-Europeans in a more southern cradle, and adds that the Djebel material is related to a Paleolithic material of Northwestern Iran, the Zarzian culture, dated 10000–8500 BC, and in the more ancient Kebarian of the Near East. He concludes that more than 10,000 years ago the Indo-Europeans were a small people grammatically, phonetically and lexically close to Semitic-Hamitic populations of the Near East.[28]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __Further north still, in the southern Ural Mountains, the Mesolithic culture that_
> ...


And how your hypothesis explain the complete dissapearance of Basal Eurasian from Dzudzuana to Villabruna and R1b?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Lol, I wasn't that interested in R1b so I'd always assumed there were M269s in Khvalynsk or some other early steppe culture.
> M269 might as well have come from the moon in that case. We need samples from other places, not same old Transcaucasus/PC steppe/Zagros.


Yeah, Samara and Khvalynsk R1b aren't even P297 I don't believe (at most R1b1a, so more archaic than the V88 in Iron Gates!).

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> And how your hypothesis explain the complete dissapearance of Basal Eurasian from Dzudzuana to Villabruna and R1b?


 Well the main thing is the etc. - immediately after that I say that their earliest dated kurgans (in that study at least) date to the Maykop period, almost 500 years after the first of the Steppe North Caucasian kurgans.

And

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Oh come on please... Back in 2016 you saw that Yamnaya was EHG + CHG, you thought " what is the link? " then you googled Caucasus Neolithic and Shulaveri-Shomu was the absolute only result. You didn't create a whole hypothesis that make sense, you just filled the gap with what could be the best proxy. Nobody ever say that Shulaveri-Shomu didn't participate to the creation of the Steppe package, people are calling you out for always trying to put R1b-M269 while absolutely nothing is giving you credit. That you noticed that Shulaveri-Shomu had Wine and that IE cultures have a strong Wine symbolism, doesn't give you any credit. Stop always bashing others, and wait for your godamn Shulaveri paper in silence.


Yes. I will still ignore you. Your role and intent is to provoque me in order for that other someone (s) is able to give me an infraction.

----------


## halfalp

> Yeah, Samara and Khvalynsk R1b aren't even P297 I don't believe (at most R1b1a, so more archaic than the V88 in Iron Gates!).


Samara was labeled L278 so at the beginning of the phylogenetic tree.

----------


## halfalp

> Yes. I will still ignore you. Your role and intent is to provoque me in order for that other someone (s) is able to give me an infraction.


I do not wish to provoque you, i wish you would go down to earth and stop thinking only what you believe matters and to think other people are retarded.

----------


## Ygorcs

> this exchange of females must have happened around 7 ka, early khvalynsk


Yes. The main takeaway, which some people as usual will pretend mean nothing, is like Angela said: these results suggest that the CHG influx is either Late Paleolithic or Early Neolithic, but the earliest PIE split certainly did not date to before the Chalcolithic. However, by the Chalcolithic the steppe samples are basically formed in its CHG-EHG mix, and the EEF (ANF+20% WHG) ancestry increases mainly from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age Yamnaya, so the CHG probably didn't arrive with (most of) the EEF found there latr. All of that strongly counters the "South Caucasian PIE" and "PIE expansion from the Caucasus" hypothesis. A pre-PIE or a proto-pre-PIE from the Caucasus in the late Mesolithic or even more probably early Neolithic? Maybe, even likely... but PIE proper - the common and immediate source of all known IE branches - was a Chalcolithi/Early BA language, and the evidences suggest that it didn't spread from the steppes as a secondary home after an expansion from south of the Caucasus by the Chalcolithic. If it came from there, it developed and started to diverge in the steppes, not elsewhere. 

As for M269, it's not found in Chalcolithic Caucasus. It may have been there in Early Neolithic Caucasus, or maybe it was north of the Caucasus all that time just like M73 was, too. But the fact its arrival in the Pontic-Caspian area is certainly older than some thought also suggests the very same conclusion: if PIE origins are not in a language family indigenous to the steppes, then it arrived there well before PIE proper as it was spoken some time before it started to split.

----------


## Ygorcs

> If PIE was an ANE language it would have been agglutinative. All the languages of North Eurasia are agglutinative. PIE was born somewhere very close / around of Caucasus.


Those assumptions do not make sense linguistically. There is nothing to suggest that all languages of North Eurasia are still derived from ANE languages. Considering the huge genetic upheavals in that region since ANE was prevalent there, I'd say that assumption is quite unlikely. Besides, ANE already existed as a distinct group some 20,000 years before PIE was spoken. That's more than enough time for languages to change completely to the point of becoming unrecognizable, including a change in their grammatical typology. PIE was fusional, and fusional languages are basically a later development of agglutinative languages that blended affixes together so that they lost their semantic independence and turned into affixes that convey several meanings all at once. Thus it would make total sense if PIE derived from a much earlier agglutinative language family, or even from an analytic language that slowly became agglutinative and then fusional. There is the hypothesis of Dixon that languages tend to slowly move to another typology in a sort of cycle from analytic > agglutinative > fusional > analytic.

The classic example of how that may change along the development of a language is Ancient Egyptian, which started as fusional, became more analytic, then started to become more agglutinative and finally more fusional again by the time of late Coptic. Another example is found in the Finno-Ugric languages, which are agglutinative, but have had a tendency to become slowly more fusional. Native American languages, most of whom must derive from the same language family or a couple of language families, range from polysynthetic to fusional and agglutinative.The boundaries between one typology and the other one are not insurmountable, they are rather fluid.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Just to make it clear how far Wang et al went in the direction of my shulaverian Hypothesis 
> 
> 
> _This is in accordance with the Neolithization of the Caucasus (ie The Shulaveri-Shomu), which had started in the flood plains of South Caucasian rivers (ie Kura and araxes river where shulaveri lived) in the 6th millennium BCE (yes, 6000bc to 5000BC when Shulaveri were there), from where it spread across to the West/Northwest (exactly like the shulaverian hypothesis says, the ones that went west and the ones into kuban river and the steppe) during the following millennium (yes, from 4900BC to 4000BC) . It remains unclear whether the local CHG ancestry profile (Kotias Klde and Satsurblia in today’s Georgia) was also present in the North Caucasus region before the Neolithic. However, if we take the CHG ancestry as a local baseline and the oldest Eneolithic Caucasus individuals from our transect as a proxy for the local Late Neolithic ancestry, we notice a substantial increase in AF ancestry. This in all likelihood reflects the process of Neolithization, which also brought this type of ancestry to Europe. As a consequence, it is possible that Neolithic groups could have reached the northern foothills earlier35 (Supplementary Note 1). Hence, additional sampling from older individuals would be desirable to fill this temporal and spatial gap (yes, as if reich and Krauser do not have those samples for a while...)._
> 
> From this point on, on the next published papers, it will start to appear the mentions to, as "_the hypothesis of Ian Mathieson in 2018_" and "_as we had anticipated in Wang et al_"
> 
> This is how it is done. Its just fun to watch.


Well, but this excerpt apparently talks about the CHG in the North Caucasus, not about the distinct steppe genetic structure. Also, the authors clearly associate the Neolithization of the Caucasus (of which you say "i.e. the Shulaveri-Shomu") with the substantial increase in Anatolian Farmer ancestry... They basically say that the Neolithic expansion in the Caucasus implied _a lot more_ of ANF in the resulting population. However, the earliest (Chalcolithic) samples of the steppe show quite negligible ANF as well as CHG that already seems to have been there since well before, most of the ANF seem to have increased during the Chalcolithic (post-Shulaveri times in the Caucasus, right?), and additionally that ANF that appears later seems to be part of EEF coming from the west (Eastern/Southeastern Europe), not from the Caucasus. All in all, it seems to me that excerpt is very useful, but to the North Caucasus area, not the Pontic-Caspian steppe at large.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Interestingly, and I don't think anybody has actually mentioned this somehow, but the first North Caucasian kurgans (in the Wang paper) are seen with Steppe individuals (Progress and Vonyuchka) around 4200 BCE, with the typical Caucasians (e.g. Y DNA J etc.) joining in the trend at least 400 years later (i.e. when Maykop begins). So, despite older kurgans in the South Caucasus and perhaps with deeper origins in Mesopotamia, it appears that kurgan burials were never spread from "farmers" to Steppe folk.
> 
> What's more, it seems like this is a link to Leyla Tepe, which was earlier than Maykop and had kurgans at exactly the same time Progress and Vonyuchka did (those barely North Caucasian individuals Davidski is raving about as proof against a Southern origin of IE).
> 
> The Soyugbulag kurgans of Leyla Tepe are located in the Kaspi municipality. which is immediately to the South of Ossetia, where Progress and Vonyuchka were found, and corresponding with this map showing the genetic barrier between North and South that is the Caucasus:
> 
> 
> 
> This parting is exactly where the Leyla Tepe kurgans were found, and where the first North Caucasian kurgans (those of Progress and Vonyuchka) were also found.


What do you think that means? I don't know if I understood your point (or the map's legend) well, but the Leyla Tepe vs. North Caucasian kurgans look like they are separated by a strong genetic barrier...

----------


## Ygorcs

> Samara was labeled L278 so at the beginning of the phylogenetic tree.


Isn't it possible that they just lacked enough genetic data in the sample to be more precise than that? Even the earliest R1b of the Villabruna cluster 14,000 years ago was already downstream of L278, L754, how likely is it that the Samara people still carrieed L278* (unless it just happened that they found an exceptional outlier)?

----------


## Cpluskx

> Native American languages, most of whom must derive from the same language family or a couple of language families, range from polysynthetic to fusional and agglutinative.The boundaries between one typology and the other one are not insurmountable, they are rather fluid.


But still mostly agglutinative.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Does the Areni-1 sample I1634 have much Anatolian farmer ancestry? If not, it maybe suggests that it came to the Caucasus before Maykop. If it does have Anatolian farmer ancestry, it suggests the arrival of CHG on the Steppe is too early to be related to PIE.

EDIT: It has a large chunk of Anatolian farmer ancestry, for some reason better modelled as EEF. Am I right in saying Yamnaya has some EEF, but Eneolithic Steppe has none? In any case, the EHG is surely maternal with Armenia ChL.

----------


## Pip

> Does the Areni-1 sample I1634 have much Anatolian farmer ancestry? If not, it maybe suggests that it came to the Caucasus before Maykop. If it does have Anatolian farmer ancestry, it suggests the arrival of CHG on the Steppe is too early to be related to PIE.
> 
> EDIT: It has a large chunk of Anatolian farmer ancestry, for some reason better modelled as EEF. Am I right in saying Yamnaya has some EEF, but Eneolithic Steppe has none? In any case, the EHG is surely maternal with Armenia ChL.


If I recall, Areni does have Anatolian, and Yamnaya has very little.
Areni is striking in that it models as the second largest contributor to Ezero, which itself models as the second largest contributor to R1b Bell Beaker.

----------


## halfalp

@Pip Why exactly did you negatively respond to my Samara HG message?

----------


## Ygorcs

> But still mostly agglutinative.


Exactly the same case with North Eurasian languages if PIE is one of them: mostly, but not all agglutinative. In any case, fusional and agglutinative languages are not worlds apart. Fusional languages tend to appear merely by agglutinative languages "collapsing" their morphemes into one only morpheme carrying all the meanings that previously two or three different morphemes had. It's more a gradual transformation from one typology to the other, not a strictly separate category.

Besides, I maintain that, given EHG being mostly WHG-like, ANE having been overwhelmed by East Asian ancestry, and many other genetic transformations since the Middle Paleolithic in North Eurasia, there is just no evidence that all language families of that region must all derive from ANE languages (that is, if - and that's a big if - ANE people all spoke the same language family).

----------


## Pip

> @Pip Why exactly did you negatively respond to my Samara HG message?


Sorry, when was this? I don't remember doing it.

----------


## johen

> *Afanasievo* kurgan
> 
> http://johnhawks.net/weblog/hawks/tr...gans-2012.html
> 
> So smart Anthony tried to say that *the afanasievo* were from Repin, which is not the East. The East would be a place where M73 with horse, CHG and Q1a with the oldest wagon and EDAR gathered around before bronze age: south east Ural, sintashta zone.
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...319#post565319


Did the afanasievo people enter Mongolian steppe or not? problem is Shatar chuluu culture.





> Molecular evidences of paleogeographical ancestry of *neolithic* proto-mongolians and their craniofacial reconstruction
> 
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
> To give thumbnail sketch of genetic lineage, physical appearance and dietary life of Neolithic proto-Mongolians, two individuals excavated in Dunguljin, Dornod, Eastern Mongolia and *Shatar chuluu*, Bayankhongor, Western Mongolia were examined for haplotypes/haplogroups of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome, craniofacial features and carbon/nitrogen stable isotopic signatures. Physical anthropological analysis revealed that Eastern and Western individuals were Mongoloid and Caucasoid, respectively, and were all males by amelogenin-based sex determination. Eastern individual belonged to mtDNA haplogroup D4e5b and Y haplogroup C2 whereas Western individual was affiliated to *mtDNA haplogroup N1a1a1a and Y haplogroup R1b,* indicating that Eastern and Western individuals had Mongoloid and Caucasoid origins given their patrilineal and matrilineal lineages. In addition, HIrisplex estimation for alleles of pigment-associated SNP markers showed that both individuals had brown eyes, black hair and light brown skin. Interestingly, combining results of HIrisplex estimations and computerized 3D modelling based craniofacial reconstruction, Western proto-Mongolian revealed mixed physical appearance between Mongoloid and Caucasoid, although his patrilineal and matrilineal origins were all Caucasoid. His brown eyes and black hair may imply that alleles of genes determining eye and hair colors were not mutated to reveal light-colored eyes and hair in Neolithic proto-Mongolians. Carbon and nitrogen stable isotopic values of bone collagen were -16.6‰ and 12.8‰ in Eastern Mongoloid and -18.6‰ and 11.3‰ in Western Caucasoid, respectively. This may indicate that the staple diets of Neolithic proto-Mongolians consisted of C3/C4 mixed plant foods with small proportion of C4, mainly millet, and high amount of meat sources, presumably including freshwater fishes. This investigation clearly indicates that Eastern and Western parts of the Mongolian Plateau were occupied by individuals with Mongoloid and Caucasoid genetic lineages, respectively, but were not mixed in their genetic makeups. However, difference of their physical appearance was not so apparent compared to that in modern Asian and European.
> 
> 
> Open Access http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T14428880


http://www.ranhaer.org/forum.php?mod...extra=page%3D1

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> What do you think that means? I don't know if I understood your point (or the map's legend) well, but the Leyla Tepe vs. North Caucasian kurgans look like they are separated by a strong genetic barrier...


We don't have Leyla-Tepe genomes, so I'm withholding judgement. I used to think it was the source of Yamnayan CHG, but I'm not sure given it likely had ANF.

The map is just to show that penetration of the Caucasus goes through Ossetia, and that perhaps not by coincidence those Nalchik (=Steppe Eneolithic, seemingly spread Kurgan culture to rest of Steppe) samples were based around that area.

----------


## MOESAN

I 'm afraid some ancient Y-DNA findings were not good enough to provide all useful SNP's. It's not the first time.
So "archaic" Y-R1b in Steppes and before in Samara HG's ...?

----------


## markod

> I 'm afraid some ancient Y-DNA findings were not good enough to provide all useful SNP's. It's not the first time.
> So "archaic" Y-R1b in Steppes and before in Samara HG's ...?


Pre-R1b-M478 in Samara. Quite removed from what we're intereested in.

----------


## markod

So much for all those old models. Barely any EHG in Yamnaya and Hajji Firuz admixture is just about zero:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

Yamnaya/CWC increasingly look like immigrants.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> So much for all those old models. Barely any EHG in Yamnaya and Hajji Firuz admixture is just about zero:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
> 
> Yamnaya/CWC increasingly look like immigrants.


Wdym barely any EHG in Yamnaya, where is that coming from?

----------


## markod

> Wdym barely any EHG in Yamnaya, where is that coming from?


Just speculation, but the confounding variable might have been native Ukranian and Baltic admixture.

The confusion about the CHG component in EHG should have been a red flag already IMHO. It's very difficult to pick those components apart once they have coalesced and stablelized

----------


## halfalp

> So much for all those old models. Barely any EHG in Yamnaya and Hajji Firuz admixture is just about zero:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
> 
> Yamnaya/CWC increasingly look like immigrants.


Can you explain the results of those sheets? CWC cannot have 0 WHG and EHG and 0.5% Yoruba or 1.2% of Levant_Neo. That is virtually impossible.

----------


## Megalophias

The WHG is contained mainly in Globular Amphora, the EHG mainly in Progress Eneolithic.

----------


## markod

> Can you explain the results of those sheets? CWC cannot have 0 WHG and EHG and 0.5% Yoruba or 1.2% of Levant_Neo. That is virtually impossible.


Why? CWC is just north Caucasian Steppe with additional local ancestry, esp. GAC which had lots of Mesolithic ancestry.

----------


## halfalp

> Why? CWC is just north Caucasian Steppe with additional local ancestry, esp. GAC which had lots of Mesolithic ancestry.


If you consider WHG and EHG are real entities and not just offshoots of CHG. Then it's mathematically impossible. We are changing terminology for nothing here. So modern Baltic people with high WHG, is in fact just GAC ancestry and not WHG. Also the GAC paper of 2017-2018 speaks about 100% EEF wich itself only countains little WHG. So taking the terminologies of your sheets, Yoruba and Levante_Neolithic represent Basal Eurasian, then. Also why if WHG is picked up by GAC, why is there a distinction between GAC and Barcin wich is virtually the same ancestry, and not a distinction between GAC and WHG?

----------


## markod

> If you consider WHG and EHG are real entities and not just offshoots of CHG. Then it's mathematically impossible. We are changing terminology for nothing here. So modern Baltic people with high WHG, is in fact just GAC ancestry and not WHG. Also the GAC paper of 2017-2018 speaks about 100% EEF wich itself only countains little WHG. So taking the terminologies of your sheets, Yoruba and Levante_Neolithic represent Basal Eurasian, then. Also why if WHG is picked up by GAC, why is there a distinction between GAC and Barcin wich is virtually the same ancestry, and not a distinction between GAC and WHG?


I'm equally suspicious of CHG as anything more than a transient population. For those Steppe samples I think the source population will most likely be in the east.

Afaik the Mesolithic Huto cave samples already were intermediate between CHG and EHG. Probably not eastern enough though.

----------


## halfalp

> I'm equally suspicious of CHG as anything more than a transient population. For those Steppe samples I think the source population will most likely be in the east.
> 
> Afaik the Mesolithic Huto cave samples already were intermediate between CHG and EHG. Probably not eastern enough though.


The problem is that EHG needs WHG and CHG needs EHG. So here i dont know what i'm talking about, but exactly how could WHG be in East Caspian? The EHG needed in CHG cannot be ANE itself, because it's already in Iran_Neo. Also, remember ourselves that Dzudzuana is not directly related with CHG, but is highly related with Anatolian and Levante Neolithic. It looks like the ancestor of CHG, but not CHG proper have to come from Eastern Europe and get BA ancestry South of the Caucasus at some point. We are probably talking here about something that old as Epigravettian in North Caucasus.

----------


## markod

> The problem is that EHG needs WHG and CHG needs EHG. So here i dont know what i'm talking about, but exactly how could WHG be in East Caspian? The EHG needed in CHG cannot be ANE itself, because it's already in Iran_Neo. Also, remember ourselves that Dzudzuana is not directly related with CHG, but is highly related with Anatolian and Levante Neolithic. It looks like the ancestor of CHG, but not CHG proper have to come from Eastern Europe and get BA ancestry South of the Caucasus at some point. We are probably talking here about something that old as Epigravettian in North Caucasus.


Most of this will probably be answered when the source of the East Eurasian ancestry seeping into West Eurasia in the timeframe between Dzudzuana and Huto/Karelia (as well as speculatively Villabrunna) is discovered.

----------


## halfalp

> Most of this will probably be answered when the source of the East Eurasian ancestry seeping into West Eurasia in the timeframe between Dzudzuana and Huto/Karelia (as well as speculatively Villabrunna) is discovered.


My bet is that Cultures, Ancestral Components and Haplogroups gonna confuse together when more samples we gonna have. It looks like there were switch in lineages but continuity of ancestral components and culture in Paleolithic era. But with the datas we have actually, there is only 2 propositions: EHG and pre-CHG came both from Eastern Europe ( North Caucasus included ) while pre-CHG probably in the Bolling-Allerod migrated South to become proper-CHG. Or Pre-EHG and CHG came from Iran, at a time when Iran was actually mostly of ANE ancestry without Basal Eurasian, and that Pre-EHG became EHG in Eastern Europe ( through Caucasus or East Caspian ), while CHG mingle with BA later on.

----------


## markod

> My bet is that Cultures, Ancestral Components and Haplogroups gonna confuse together when more samples we gonna have. It looks like there were switch in lineages but continuity of ancestral components and culture in Paleolithic era. But with the datas we have actually, there is only 2 propositions: EHG and pre-CHG came both from Eastern Europe ( North Caucasus included ) while pre-CHG probably in the Bolling-Allerod migrated South to become proper-CHG. Or Pre-EHG and CHG came from Iran, at a time when Iran was actually mostly of ANE ancestry without Basal Eurasian, and that Pre-EHG became EHG in Eastern Europe ( through Caucasus or East Caspian ), while CHG mingle with BA later on.


I think that for now there are any number of possibilities. It would probably be interesting to take a good look at where HGs tended to live during the LGM. I don't think that will tell us much about the genesis of the steppe tribes though. It would be better to look for their immediate ancestors and then work from there.

Before the Advent of population genomic a very common view among archaeologists used to be that the origin of the the Kurgan cultures lay in the cave settlements of the eastern Caspian like Dam Dam Chesme, Dzebel and others. I would love to see whether such a chronology could be supported with ancient DNA.

----------


## halfalp

> I think that for now there are any number of possibilities. It would probably be interesting to take a good look at where HGs tended to live during the LGM. I don't think that will tell us much about the genesis of the steppe tribes though. It would be better to look for their immediate ancestors and then work from there.
> 
> Before the Advent of population genomic a very common view among archaeologists used to be that the origin of the the Kurgan cultures lay in the cave settlements of the eastern Caspian like Dam Dam Chesme, Dzebel and others. I would love to see whether such a chronology could be supported with ancient DNA.


Yes, but lithic material is a tricky one. It's like Solutrean, Swiderian and Clovis. I think you are talking about the Bullet-shaped core found in South Urals and East Caspian that FrankN were talking about right? So now, what is the probability that Solutrean and Swiderian peoples had the same autosomal component and y-dna haplogroups while they have clearly the same lithic culture origin?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Yes, but lithic material is a tricky one. It's like Solutrean, Swiderian and Clovis. I think you are talking about the Bullet-shaped core found in South Urals and East Caspian that FrankN were talking about right? So now, what is the probability that Solutrean and Swiderian peoples had the same autosomal component and y-dna haplogroups while they have clearly the same lithic culture origin?


I wouldn’t write off the Solutrean hypothesis so easily, even if it wasn’t demic diffusion the lithic material really is quite similar. More and more, it’s looking like plenty of populations migrated into the Americas.

----------


## halfalp

> I wouldn’t write off the Solutrean hypothesis so easily, even if it wasn’t demic diffusion the lithic material really is quite similar. More and more, it’s looking like plenty of populations migrated into the Americas.


I'm still convinced by the y-dna R ( maybe R1b ) and Solutrean culture link, but i'm not interested into the trans-atlantic Solutrean Hypothesis. In Europe, Solutrean and Swiderian have a strong lithic link, but do we know such link coming from Siberia? Like AG, didn't have the same lithic reductions. What is interesting is that the preceding culture of Swiderian was Ahrensburgian, wich is mostly _Baltic Magdalenian_. So were did that Solutrean-like Lithic culture came from?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I'm still convinced by the y-dna R ( maybe R1b ) and Solutrean culture link, but i'm not interested into the trans-atlantic Solutrean Hypothesis. In Europe, Solutrean and Swiderian have a strong lithic link, but do we know such link coming from Siberia? Like AG, didn't have the same lithic reductions. What is interesting is that the preceding culture of Swiderian was Ahrensburgian, wich is mostly _Baltic Magdalenian_. So were did that Solutrean-like Lithic culture came from?


i really doubt it would be Y DNA R considering it’s mostly M269.

----------


## halfalp

> i really doubt it would be Y DNA R considering it’s mostly M269.


I mean R broadly. But M269 cannot be part of the Solutrean, it's a way older culture.

----------


## Jack Johnson

So what is the deal with Steppe Maykop? I keep seeing on Eurogenes all this West Siberian Neolithic talk, but what samples are they deriving this ancestral component from? I cannot find anything online about it. What is it exactly? How do they even differentiate the ANE in these samples? There is also the presence of EDAR in the Steppe Maykop, as well as in the Mesolithic Motala hunter gatherers of Sweden and in Karelia. Could we be looking at something connected to the spread of mtDNA C1 and Y-DNA R/Q during the Upper Paleolithic, or was this also a gene present in the earliest West Eurasians/Paleo-Europeans, but due to selection, it has been diluted to non-existence in most of Europe. Much of this can be solved if we simply had more ancient East Eurasian samples.

----------


## halfalp

> So what is the deal with Steppe Maykop? I keep seeing on Eurogenes all this West Siberian Neolithic talk, but what samples are they deriving this ancestral component from? I cannot find anything online about it. What is it exactly? How do they even differentiate the ANE in these samples? There is also the presence of EDAR in the Steppe Maykop, as well as in the Mesolithic Motala hunter gatherers of Sweden and in Karelia. Could we be looking at something connected to the spread of mtDNA C1 and Y-DNA R/Q during the Upper Paleolithic, or was this also a gene present in the earliest West Eurasians/Paleo-Europeans, but due to selection, it has been diluted to non-existence in most of Europe. Much of this can be solved if we simply had more ancient East Eurasian samples.


I think this West Siberian Neolithic makes reference either to something Botai-like or with Baikal Neolithic, mainly liked with y-dna N1c and Q1a. But i'm not sure.

----------


## markod

> So what is the deal with Steppe Maykop? I keep seeing on Eurogenes all this West Siberian Neolithic talk, but what samples are they deriving this ancestral component from? I cannot find anything online about it. What is it exactly? How do they even differentiate the ANE in these samples? There is also the presence of EDAR in the Steppe Maykop, as well as in the Mesolithic Motala hunter gatherers of Sweden and in Karelia. Could we be looking at something connected to the spread of mtDNA C1 and Y-DNA R/Q during the Upper Paleolithic, or was this also a gene present in the earliest West Eurasians/Paleo-Europeans, but due to selection, it has been diluted to non-existence in most of Europe. Much of this can be solved if we simply had more ancient East Eurasian samples.


Afaik ANE/AG are bad proxies for the eastern ancestry of EHG. Neolithic Baikal might be better.

----------


## drecfg

Are they still alive?

----------


## 4mypeople

Maternal Haplogroup R1a here, my Eurogenes Hunter Gatherer VS Farmer results:

Population


Anatolian Farmer
11.06 Pct

Baltic Hunter Gatherer
51.40 Pct

Middle Eastern Herder
-

East Asian Farmer
-

South American Hunter Gatherer
0.53 Pct

South Asian Hunter Gatherer
2.13 Pct

North Eurasian Hunter Gatherer
0.08 Pct

East African Pastoralist
-

Oceanian Hunter Gatherer
-

Mediterranean Farmer
34.52 Pct

Pygmy Hunter Gatherer
0.28 Pct

Bantu Farmer
-

----------


## epoch

> So what is the deal with Steppe Maykop? I keep seeing on Eurogenes all this West Siberian Neolithic talk, but what samples are they deriving this ancestral component from? I cannot find anything online about it. What is it exactly? How do they even differentiate the ANE in these samples? There is also the presence of EDAR in the Steppe Maykop, as well as in the Mesolithic Motala hunter gatherers of Sweden and in Karelia. Could we be looking at something connected to the spread of mtDNA C1 and Y-DNA R/Q during the Upper Paleolithic, or was this also a gene present in the earliest West Eurasians/Paleo-Europeans, but due to selection, it has been diluted to non-existence in most of Europe. Much of this can be solved if we simply had more ancient East Eurasian samples.


The deal is that qpAdm can't make feasible models of Steppe Maykop unless you add Karitiana Indians. And that admixture also pops up in Botai.

----------


## bicicleur

> The deal is that qpAdm can't make feasible models of Steppe Maykop unless you add Karitiana Indians. And that admixture also pops up in Botai.


steppe maykop is late Khvalynsk
a mix of steppe DNA with a touch of Siberian
a mix of Y-DNA R1a, R1b-M478 and Q1a2
they were whiped out by Yamna, who also had steppe DNA but much less or no Siberian DNA

----------


## johen

> steppe maykop is late Khvalynsk
> a mix of steppe DNA with a touch of Siberian
> a mix of Y-DNA R1a, R1b-M478 and Q1a2
> *they were whiped out by Yamna*, who also had steppe DNA but much less or no Siberian DNA


However, Yamna R1b adapted the wagon burial culture of Q1a as an elite culture. So I think it is just a transition w/o conflict within the same culture zone of sunhead/animal culture, like in altai. I think it would be a problem that modern people classification tool, genetics, applies to ancient people. Actually we don't know how the ancient people classified themselves.




> Overview of archaeological sources confirming the astronomical dating We consider it necessary to argue our position particularly on correct attribution First Sunduk and Seraphim Stone to Okunev and Andronovo cultures of Khakassia As was convincingly shown by the studies of Khakassia University archeological laboratory under the direction of A. Gotlib [19], D. A. Kirillova and M.A. Podol`skaya publications [20,21], *sanctuaries of the same kind in Khakassia existed during different periods of the Bronze Age – from Afanas`ev to Karasuk culture.* Okunev ceramics were discovered on four sve (Khakassia term meaning «stronghold on a mountain») examined by these authors. On Chebaki sve that is located 30 km south-west from the described objects A. I. Gottlieb discovered Okunev and Karasuk ceramics. D. A. Kirillova and M.A. Podol`skaya studied sve Kyzul hai, located on the right bank of Black Ius river between s. Ustinkino and s. Podkamen`, 25 km north-west from the objects described in the article. Okunev, Karasuk and Andronivo ceramics were discovered in the Kyzul hai sve. Structures such as system of swells, marking and isolating inner space and the «wall» made of dry masonry of sandstone slabs [22] similar to the objects described in the mentioned sources were discovered on the First Sundu territory. Based on that as well as on the object`s chronology in accordance to the observations of Arkturus on the First Sunduk we came to the conclusion that the First Sunduk is the monument of Okunev and Andronovo cultures. We are also sure that should archeological excavations be conducted Okunev, Karasuk, Andronovo and Afanas`ev ceramics are found. Seraphim Stone was attributed to the Okunev culture because of two images placed in situ on the Stone that are certainly attributed to the Okunev culture. Judging by the Arcturus and Betelgeuse observation, we can attribute Seraphim Stone to the Okunev-Andronovo culture. The presence of the two atypical images that define astronomically significant directions and cannot be attributed

----------


## Tomenable

> But the datas are here, Maikop Steppe are north eurasian R1 foragers and Maikop foothills are CHG / middle eastern. Maikop was not indo-european and certainly played the rule of the kartvelian influence in PIE and the introduction of metallurgy and or carts. Western part of eastern europe was EHG so ANE with some WHG influence and the eastern part were EHG with *female mediated CHG influence* (...)


This myth probably echoes some cultural practices and admixture events that were taking place there:

The legend about Gargarians and Amazons: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...rabo/11E*.html

"The mountains above Albania" refer of course to Caucasian Albania and North Caucasus Mountains.

----------


## Susanfut

There was that entire bit at the end of Legend where you had to go through the ark that transported the humans from the Blue Star to Lunar. So, they had the relics in the beginning which explained what happened and how Althena brought them here. KF

----------


## ratchet_fan

What makes Q1a more Siberian than R1a or R1b? Isn't it likely all three moved together as part of heavily ANE population?

----------


## ratchet_fan

> So what is the deal with Steppe Maykop? I keep seeing on Eurogenes all this West Siberian Neolithic talk, but what samples are they deriving this ancestral component from? I cannot find anything online about it. What is it exactly? How do they even differentiate the ANE in these samples? There is also the presence of EDAR in the Steppe Maykop, as well as in the Mesolithic Motala hunter gatherers of Sweden and in Karelia. Could we be looking at something connected to the spread of mtDNA C1 and Y-DNA R/Q during the Upper Paleolithic, or was this also a gene present in the earliest West Eurasians/Paleo-Europeans, but due to selection, it has been diluted to non-existence in most of Europe. Much of this can be solved if we simply had more ancient East Eurasian samples.


WSHG are 20% East Eurasian so that could explain it.

----------

