Southern Ancestry in "Steppe"

The folk group history named Italics were not yet born at the immediately post-PIE times IMO! I stop here on this question!
 
Elamites were actually an Italic people who lived in Hidali/Idali (Itali): https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hidali Hatamti people lived in the same region, Akkadians called both of them as Elamites.

The term "Italia" doesn't have anything to do with "Elam". It derives from the Oscan "Vitalus" (Pronounced: we-tah-loose) which means "Calf" or "Young Bull". Italy was named after the Oenotrean King Vitalus (Bull King) who was famed for converting his society from crop based to a pastoral/cattle based society. His tribe had taken up his title as an endonym which would've been pronounced as "Vitali/Itali" or "Vitalae" as plural. According to Antiochus of Syracuse this was the first Italic tribe the Greek colonists had come into contact with, so they simply applied their endonym to all related tribes which they would later encounter in Italy. The original tribe of the Itali would go on to be mentioned in passing in several historical sources as dwelling around Calabria and I believe later also Sicily. Anyways the term seemed to be accepted amongst most other Italic tribes and later the Romans would go on to adopt it as a descriptor of their own ethnic group. Once all of Italy had fallen under the Roman domain, it would be used to define the tribes that were considered part of the Roman nation state (Roman Italy) in contrast to foreigners such as Gauls, Carthaginians, Germanics etc.
 
Good answer Vitruvius - this *vitali/witali word seems in tight relation with the other Romance words as vitello, veau, vedel (Italian, French, Occitan) for calf - as a rule Greek lost the initial I-E *w- at the beginning of words.
 
The term "Italia" doesn't have anything to do with "Elam". It derives from the Oscan "Vitalus" (Pronounced: we-tah-loose) which means "Calf" or "Young Bull". Italy was named after the Oenotrean King Vitalus (Bull King) who was famed for converting his society from crop based to a pastoral/cattle based society. His tribe had taken up his title as an endonym which would've been pronounced as "Vitali/Itali" or "Vitalae" as plural. According to Antiochus of Syracuse this was the first Italic tribe the Greek colonists had come into contact with, so they simply applied their endonym to all related tribes which they would later encounter in Italy. The original tribe of the Itali would go on to be mentioned in passing in several historical sources as dwelling around Calabria and I believe later also Sicily. Anyways the term seemed to be accepted amongst most other Italic tribes and later the Romans would go on to adopt it as a descriptor of their own ethnic group. Once all of Italy had fallen under the Roman domain, it would be used to define the tribes that were considered part of the Roman nation state (Roman Italy) in contrast to foreigners such as Gauls, Carthaginians, Germanics etc.
Name of Hidali in Elam also means "land of young cattle", it is from Elamite hidu "young goat, sheep" https://ids.clld.org/units/216-110 cognate with Latin haedus "young goat, sheep" and English goat.
 
Name of Hidali in Elam also means "land of young cattle", it is from Elamite hidu "young goat, sheep" https://ids.clld.org/units/216-110 cognate with Latin haedus "young goat, sheep" and English goat.
However a goat or sheep is not the same as a calf/bull. The etymology here is different. Also, we already know that the Italics have no genetic links with Iran. They very clearly show European, Anatolian and Caucasian origins, but that's about it.
 
The original tribe of the Itali would go on to be mentioned in passing in several historical sources as dwelling around Calabria and I believe later also Sicily.
However a goat or sheep is not the same as a calf/bull. The etymology here is different. Also, we already know that the Italics have no genetic links with Iran. They very clearly show European, Anatolian and Caucasian origins, but that's about it.
About Calabria and Sicily look at these Genetic studies:

The Arrival of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western Mediterranean

Genetic history of Calabrian Greeks reveals ancient events and long term isolation in the Aspromonte area of Southern Italy


41598_2021_82591_Fig4_HTML.png
 
there is no direct link between (W)Itali and Hidali + first Italics seem bing come from North after a common cradle with Celts and other Western I-E peoples and evident contacts with Germanics and even Slavs at least at the linguistic level.
It's possible and even probable they had early contact after with Italy Greeks and so absorbed another "dosis" of so called 'Iranic' genomic input (a "second hand" one in fact) through the Metal Ages Anatolian contacts and inputs. A relatively light input doesn't imply this input was the ethnically founding one, far from that indeed.
 
About Calabria and Sicily look at these Genetic studies:

The Arrival of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western Mediterranean

Genetic history of Calabrian Greeks reveals ancient events and long term isolation in the Aspromonte area of Southern Italy


41598_2021_82591_Fig4_HTML.png
I've seen these studies in the past. The issue with them is the fact that they do not bother to try to differentiate between Neolithic N. Caucasian, S. Caucasian, Mesopotamian and Iranic input. They treat them all as if they are the same. All of these components while having a degree of relation are not identical. If you differentiate between these ancestries, what you find is that all southern Europeans, in fact derive their eastern ancestry ultimately from Neolithic Armenia and not Neolithic Iran. The same is true for BA and IA Anatolians who transported this profile to southern Europe in the first place. Western Sicilians are the only population that score any Iran_N whatsoever and I'm more inclined to think this is probably an calculator error due to our relative lack of samples needed to better map the full breadth of the Neolithic S. Caucasian profile.

Italy modern neolithic sources.png
 
I've seen these studies in the past. The issue with them is the fact that they do not bother to try to differentiate between Neolithic N. Caucasian, S. Caucasian, Mesopotamian and Iranic input. They treat them all as if they are the same. All of these components while having a degree of relation are not identical. If you differentiate between these ancestries, what you find is that all southern Europeans, in fact derive their eastern ancestry ultimately from Neolithic Armenia and not Neolithic Iran. The same is true for BA and IA Anatolians who transported this profile to southern Europe in the first place. Western Sicilians are the only population that score any Iran_N whatsoever and I'm more inclined to think this is probably an calculator error due to our relative lack of samples needed to better map the full breadth of the Neolithic S. Caucasian profile.

View attachment 14858
But these studies say different things, for example in the first one we read:

We detect definitive evidence of Iranian-related ancestry in an Iron Age Sardinian I10366 (391-209 calBCE) with an estimate of 11.9 ± 3.7.% Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic related ancestry.
In the Sardinian_LateAntiquity group (the earliest dating to 256-403 calCE), we detect even higher proportions of Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic-related ancestry: an estimated 29.6 ± 4.6.%.
We detect Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily by the Middle Bronze Age 1800-1500 BCE, consistent with the directional shift of these individuals toward Mycenaeans in PCA (Fig. 2b). Specifically, two of the Middle Bronze Age individuals can only be fit with models that in addition to Anatolia_Neolithic and WHG, include Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic.
 
But these studies say different things, for example in the first one we read:

We detect definitive evidence of Iranian-related ancestry in an Iron Age Sardinian I10366 (391-209 calBCE) with an estimate of 11.9 ± 3.7.% Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic related ancestry.
In the Sardinian_LateAntiquity group (the earliest dating to 256-403 calCE), we detect even higher proportions of Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic-related ancestry: an estimated 29.6 ± 4.6.%.
We detect Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily by the Middle Bronze Age 1800-1500 BCE, consistent with the directional shift of these individuals toward Mycenaeans in PCA (Fig. 2b). Specifically, two of the Middle Bronze Age individuals can only be fit with models that in addition to Anatolia_Neolithic and WHG, include Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic.

These models you posted exclude the possibility of neolithic Armenian ancestry so they will always default to using different types of ancestry in its place. They key word here is "Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic related ancestry", which if you read the study it specifies that this is actually a combination of CHG and Iranian Neolithic. The authors are just broadly generalizing an ancestry component that's associated with Caucasian hunter gatherers and Iran. They're not investigating the matter further, nor do they touch on the neolithic Caucasus:

"Mosaic plot of admixture ancestry profiles as inferred by qpAdm. Admixture profiles of Italian population groups included in the modern extended dataset have been tested using a four-population model including CHG/Iran_Neolithic, WHG, Steppe_EMBA and Anatolian_Neolithic as putative ancient source groups."
 
Last edited:
After the new paper focusing on the steppe, it was time to add new findings and samples that prove my point in this thread.
One sample of interest is a new Eneolithic sample from the Lower Don, a potential place where a migration from south of the Caucasus might have taken place roughly about 6000 BC. The sample is from Krivyanskiy (individual ID I11828): 4359-4251 calBCE :
The burial is dated to 4359-4251 calBCE (5465±30 BP, PSUAMS-7866). Inventory:
  1. A retouched flint blade displaced by burrowing rodents was found in the fill 10 cm above the floor of the grave. It retained a small bulb of percussion. Its tip was broken and missing, but was found in a deeper level (see #3). One edge exhibits small semi-circular flake scars from retouching, with a noticeable gloss. The flint is grayish-brown in color, translucent but patinated. Dimensions: 125x25x6 mm.
  2. On the right side of the skull were two large bifacial flint projectile points and an axe- shaped blank. They were elongated triangles in shape with edges tapering to a point in the upper third. The base was straight and thinned for hafting. Large, shallow flake scars covered both surfaces. The edges were sharpened with deep, shallow flake scars followed by fine edge retouch, forming a finely ribbed surface at the edges. The flint is brown, translucent, with inclusions of small organic residues, but patinated in places. Dimensions were 96x48x11 mm. and 78x34x6 mm.
  3. The axe-shaped flint blank is bifacial, sub-trapezoidal in shape. The cortex is preserved on one face. The edges are sharpened with a large, flat, long flakes followed by fine retouch. The flint is brown, translucent, with inclusions of small organic residues. According to its technical and morphological traits, it could be made into either a chopping tool or a projectile point. Dimensions: 77x49x13 mm.

That's much younger than the supposed migration of these southern Caucasus people to the Lower Don but at least for now there isn't any better sample. The interesting thing about this sample is that in distal modeling it is about 60% CHG without the second wave of Aknashen-related ancestry and more importantly it is the first sample with J2a from the Eneolithic Steppe alongside one J1 from Khavlynsk.

Y-DNA and mtDNA:
It's the subclade of J-M319:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M319/
By looking at the information from Yfull, its modern distribution and the basal clades imply an origin in Westasia.
Its mt-haplogroup is T2a1b:
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/T2a1b/
It shares the same clade as Vunyuchka, one of the already published Steppe_Eneolithic samples.

In the paper they don't differentiate between CHG or Iran_N and just use the term CHG, so I am still waiting for genotype and G25 data to test if this sample has just Kotias-type CHG or a CHG-type somewhat shifted towards the Iran_N cluster which could indicate an origin in Armenia and/or Azerbaijan.
 
After the new paper focusing on the steppe, it was time to add new findings and samples that prove my point in this thread.
One sample of interest is a new Eneolithic sample from the Lower Don, a potential place where a migration from south of the Caucasus might have taken place roughly about 6000 BC. The sample is from Krivyanskiy (individual ID I11828): 4359-4251 calBCE :


That's much younger than the supposed migration of these southern Caucasus people to the Lower Don but at least for now there isn't any better sample. The interesting thing about this sample is that in distal modeling it is about 60% CHG without the second wave of Aknashen-related ancestry and more importantly it is the first sample with J2a from the Eneolithic Steppe alongside one J1 from Khavlynsk.

Y-DNA and mtDNA:
It's the subclade of J-M319:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M319/
By looking at the information from Yfull, its modern distribution and the basal clades imply an origin in Westasia.
Its mt-haplogroup is T2a1b:
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/T2a1b/
It shares the same clade as Vunyuchka, one of the already published Steppe_Eneolithic samples.

In the paper they don't differentiate between CHG or Iran_N and just use the term CHG, so I am still waiting for genotype and G25 data to test if this sample has just Kotias-type CHG or a CHG-type somewhat shifted towards the Iran_N cluster which could indicate an origin in Armenia and/or Azerbaijan.
I’m more than sure that this is the same CHG-IRAN mixture as any mixture associated with the Caucasus in the Neolithic or Chalcolithic steppe, but why did you decide that its homeland is Azerbaijan? okay, let it be Azerbaijan, but modern Azerbaijanis have absolutely nothing to do with this steppe CHG
 
I’m more than sure that this is the same CHG-IRAN mixture as any mixture associated with the Caucasus in the Neolithic or Chalcolithic steppe, but why did you decide that its homeland is Azerbaijan? okay, let it be Azerbaijan, but modern Azerbaijanis have absolutely nothing to do with this steppe CHG
Can you be more precise which Neolithic Steppe samples you are talking about because I don’t know any. The CHG in steppe samples isn’t exactly the same as the one you find in Georgia, the Kotias-type. It’s more eastern, even if including Tutkaul, as it is more Iran shifted that’s why I think they would have come from the Eastern Caucasus route (Azerbaijan).

I could be wrong and Krivyanski turns out to be solely the Kotias-type, we will see, but what exactly are you talking about?
 
Can you be more precise which Neolithic Steppe samples you are talking about because I don’t know any. The CHG in steppe samples isn’t exactly the same as the one you find in Georgia, the Kotias-type. It’s more eastern, even if including Tutkaul, as it is more Iran shifted that’s why I think they would have come from the Eastern Caucasus route (Azerbaijan).

I could be wrong and Krivyanski turns out to be solely the Kotias-type, we will see, but what exactly are you talking about?
for example, I’m talking about such samples of the Don Neolithic as Golubaya Krinitsa, the same CHG_IRAN_ANE admixture, samples of Khvalynsk as well, and any sample associated with the steppe, and Azerbaijan has nothing to do with it, this is the profile of hunter-gatherers of the North Caucasus, I think that the hunter-gatherers of Azerbaijan were more Iranian than Caucasian and did not contain impurities associated with ANE-TTK001
 
for example, I’m talking about such samples of the Don Neolithic as Golubaya Krinitsa, the same CHG_IRAN_ANE admixture, samples of Khvalynsk as well, and any sample associated with the steppe, and Azerbaijan has nothing to do with it, this is the profile of hunter-gatherers of the North Caucasus, I think that the hunter-gatherers of Azerbaijan were more Iranian than Caucasian and did not contain impurities associated with ANE-TTK001

FYI, Middle Don sample is in the forest zone and Khvalysnk and other samples are from the Eneolithic. TTK001 is Tutkaul which I was referring to in my previous post. Tutkaul originates in Central Asia not the Northern Caucasus, and probably got into Steppe samples like Vonyuchka/Progress through intermediaries like the Keltiminar culture. Krivyanski doesn’t have this TTK001/Tutkaul ancestry, that’s why I think it is important to test if Krivyanski is solely Kotias-type or not. Steppe_Eneolithic samples have this Iran shift even when you include TTK001 in models, at least in G25.

I think Azerbaijan and Armenia HGs will be very much like Kotias but somewhat shifted to the Iran_N cluster. You can actually see this in Neolithic samples from Armenia/Azerbaijan where the substrate of ancestry that is not from Mesopotamia is very Kotias-like with little shift towards Iran_N
 
Можете ли вы уточнить, о каких образцах неолитической степи вы говорите, потому что я их не знаю. CHG в степных образцах не совсем такой же, как в Грузии, типа Котиаса. Он более восточный, даже если включить Туткаула, так как он более сдвинут к Ирану, поэтому я думаю, что они пришли бы с восточнокавказского маршрута (Азербайджан).

Я могу ошибаться, и Кривянский оказывается исключительно Котиасом, посмотрим, но о чем именно вы говорите?
This is clearly visible from the screenshots of the last article by Lazaridis, you can see where these two wedges that go towards the Caucasus converge, that the Khvalynsk cline (Volga) that the cline associated with Golubaya Krinitsa (Dnepro) converge at one point, which is exactly in the CHG_IRAN_ANE plane
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_29.png
    Screenshot_29.png
    169.5 KB · Views: 80
  • Screenshot_28.png
    Screenshot_28.png
    196.3 KB · Views: 77
FYI, Middle Don sample is in the forest zone and Khvalysnk and other samples are from the Eneolithic. TTK001 is Tutkaul which I was referring to in my previous post. Tutkaul originates in Central Asia not the Northern Caucasus, and probably got into Steppe samples like Vonyuchka/Progress through intermediaries like the Keltiminar culture. Krivyanski doesn’t have this TTK001/Tutkaul ancestry, that’s why I think it is important to test if Krivyanski is solely Kotias-type or not. Steppe_Eneolithic samples have this Iran shift even when you include TTK001 in models, at least in G25.

I think Azerbaijan and Armenia HGs will be very much like Kotias but somewhat shifted to the Iran_N cluster. You can actually see this in Neolithic samples from Armenia/Azerbaijan where the substrate of ancestry that is not from Mesopotamia is very Kotias-like with little shift towards Iran_N
no, the admixture associated with Tutkaul came to the North Caucasus a long time ago, bypassing the Caspian Sea from the south, perhaps it was in the Mesolithic, perhaps a little later, and the amount of this TTK admixture is proportional to the Caucasian admixture, that is, it was clearly attached to the North Caucasus, I know very well about what I say, and I know where Tutkaul is
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_30.png
    Screenshot_30.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 76
no, the admixture associated with Tutkaul came to the North Caucasus a long time ago, bypassing the Caspian Sea from the south, perhaps it was in the Mesolithic, perhaps a little later, and the amount of this TTK admixture is proportional to the Caucasian admixture, that is, it was clearly attached to the North Caucasus, I know very well about what I say, and I know where Tutkaul is
Note that samples of the South Caucasus such as Aknashen Mesis Blur or Azerbaijani Mentesh Tepe or Leyla Tepe do not have a mixture associated with TTK, it is found mainly in the North Caucasus. And in proportion to the Caucasian Kotias components, it is not in proportion to the Samara hunter-gatherers!
 
no, the admixture associated with Tutkaul came to the North Caucasus a long time ago, bypassing the Caspian Sea from the south, perhaps it was in the Mesolithic, perhaps a little later, and the amount of this TTK admixture is proportional to the Caucasian admixture, that is, it was clearly attached to the North Caucasus, I know very well about what I say, and I know where Tutkaul is

How can a population bypass the Caspian Sea from the south and end-up in Northern Caucasus without having tons of Iran_N ancestry when reaching the Kuban and leaving no trace in the southern Caucasus and this in Mesolithic and Neolithic times?

Note that samples of the South Caucasus such as Aknashen Mesis Blur or Azerbaijani Mentesh Tepe or Leyla Tepe do not have a mixture associated with TTK, it is found mainly in the North Caucasus. And in proportion to the Caucasian Kotias components, it is not in proportion to the Samara hunter-gatherers!

Of course they don’t have TTK ancestry because there was no Tutkaul migration into these regions. I still think it got into Khavlynsk and others through intermediaries like the Kelteminar culture. Also, don’t forget that Krivyanski doesn’t have Tutkaul ancestry. I think we agree to disagree.
 
How can a population bypass the Caspian Sea from the south and end-up in Northern Caucasus without having tons of Iran_N ancestry when reaching the Kuban and leaving no trace in the southern Caucasus and this in Mesolithic and Neolithic times?
maybe because they were hunter gatherers? They didn’t sit in one place, they moved forward and settled, for example, Dagestan, why not? the Chokh Mesolithic was quite populous for its time
there are freely available maps that show that the maximum ANE impurity in all of Europe is Dagestan

Of course they don’t have TTK ancestry because there was no Tutkaul migration into these regions. I still think it got into Khavlynsk and others through intermediaries like the Kelteminar culture. Also, don’t forget that Krivyanski doesn’t have Tutkaul ancestry. I think we agree to disagree.

Dude, how's your logic? Why, if she ended up in Khvalynsk, is there much less of her mixture there than at the Caucasian end of this Volga wedge - Progress and Vonyuchka? How do you explain this to yourself?
 

This thread has been viewed 41806 times.

Back
Top