search this blog

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) kurgans are as old as Maykop kurgans


Many people believe that Maykop kurgans of the North Caucasus are older than those of the Eastern European steppe, and thus ancestral to them. I've seen this claim made in the comments section of this blog and elsewhere, and regularly cited as evidence for a more southerly Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland than the steppe. But this appears to be false:

Abstract: We studied the chronology and periodization of the Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) culture at the Volga and Ural interfluve. Establishing the chronology of the Pit-Grave culture by archaeological methods is difficult due to the lack of artifacts in the burials. Therefore, we excavated 3 kurgan groups in the Orenburg region of Russia during the last decade. Eighteen kurgans of the Pit-Grave culture were studied using archaeological and paleopedological methods and radiocarbon dating. The funeral complexes studied were divided into 3 stages. A variety of carbon-containing materials from the same complexes were dated by different laboratories to increase the accuracy of the obtained dates. In addition, from the excavations of the last years some monuments of the Repino stage, the earliest period of the Pit-Grave culture, were dated using ceramics. Together with archaeological and paleopedological data, 14C dating helped to clarify and, in general, to confirm the 3-stage periodization of the Pit-Grave culture in the Volga-Ural interfluve: the early (Repino) stage, 4000–3300 BC; the advanced (classical) stage, 3300–2600 BC, which is divided into substages A and B at 3300–2900 and 2900–2600 BC, respectively; and the late (Poltavkinsky) stage, 2600–2300 BC.

...

Thus, on the basis of 14C dating, the chronological limits of the early (Repino) stage of the Pit-Grave culture in the Volga-Ural region are approximately between 4000 and 3300 cal BC. This is ~500 yr older than previously thought (Chernykh and Orlovskaya 2004). At this stage, the Pit-Grave culture developed synchronously with the early stage of the Maikop culture in the northern Caucasus, according to the archaeological evidence and the calibrated 14C dates obtained for the early stage of the Maikop culture (Korenevsky 2004).


Citation...

Nina Morgunova, Olga Khokhlova, Chronology and Periodization of the Pit-Grave Culture in the Area Between the Volga and Ural Rivers Based on 14C Dating and Paleopedological Research, Radiocarbon, Vol 55, No 2–3 (2013), DOI: 10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16087

128 comments:

Alberto said...

In the conclusions they seems rather sceptical about the validity of the dates they obtained. They are rather more inclined to think they are wrong. Or did I misunderstand?

Jean said...

I had already noted this paper for any possible 2nd edition of AJ.

spagetiMeatball said...

If one influenced the other, then that one should be older. Since they are the same age, does that mean there was a third source?

Matt said...

Not specifically on this paper, but I was browsing around for information on the Kelteminar Culture* a few days ago, since it's what was happening directly east of Yamnaya during the period Yamnaya arose (there's still a lot I don't know about in the archaeology), and happened upon Mallory's take on Gimbutas Kurgan idea -

http://tinyurl.com/k7nsquw - Mallory's evaluation of the Kurgan evidence and theory seems to be of a sort that is clearly the case for direct steppe expansions in East Europe, sketchy elsewhere and a lot of what are called kurgans and kurgan influence probably aren't and isn't.

That seems fairly reasonable and neutral, and not surprising if Gimbutas fixated the Balkan evidence a lot. Also not contradicted by the evidence we have at the moment that large genetic replacement from the western steppe seems certain in Europe, particularly Northern Europe and is an unknown quantity elsewhere.

Another point with Gimbutas, (and I'm sure this may have been discussed before and I missed it), at least as per Mallory's description of her model is that it seems like the wave I and wave II kurgan expansions (timed respectively to 4400-4300 BC and 3500 to 3000BC) should affect Hungary *prior* to the Copper Age sample in Gamba 2014, which is 2810 BC.

Map of expansions here - http://i.imgur.com/wUoEP2s.png. Waves also described here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis. The spread of kurgans or "kurgan culture" to Hungary seems well before the Bronze Age.

Yet that Copper Age sample just looks like a regular Oetzi type farmer. The paper describes it as a Baden Culture sample, which under the Kurgan Hypothesis "is seen as being Indo Europeanised". Interesting or not?

*Re: Kelteminar because I hadn't heard of it before, and I can recall some rumblings about cultures east of Yamnaya being candidates for Indo European if the Yamnaya samples didn't check out well across their whole horizon. Kelteminar apparently had a sedentary economy based on fishing, not any form of agriculture, with husbandry. That contradicts them having much to do with the early Indo Europeans who clearly had some form of grain agriculture and farming based on plowing, if not familiarity with Near Eastern legumes or textile crops, but does point to an interesting, advanced culture (maybe that recalls other advanced, sedentary fishermen in Lepenski Vir). The Volga-Kama culture was again just at a hunting and gathering stage. I'm not too sure what the extent of these cultures is.

Davidski said...

Alberto,

My interpretation of the conclusion is that the authors are surprised by their results for the early Yamnaya stage, despite being very careful to get everything right, and are encouraging others to use C14 dating more extensively to see if similar surprises happen more often.

sM,

I have no idea how this fashion spread, why it spread, and who started it. I don't think anyone will really know. But it seems to me that it's a practice that would make most sense on the steppe, because that's where large mounds are most effective as markers that can be seen from large distances, sort of like very big border posts.

The North Caucasus is about the southern geographic limit where these mounds would be useful in such a context, because further south you wouldn't be able to see them unless up close. In other words, I'd hazard a guess that it was a steppe invention, although not necessarily by the Yamnaya people. Also, I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that knowing who built the first burial mound will tell us who spoke the first PIE words. The two things might not be directly related.

Moreover, here's a quote from "The “Steppe Belt” of stockbreeding cultures in Eurasia during the Early Metal Age" by Evgeny Chernykh.

"Here we must draw attention to a surprising feature of Maikop antiquities. Radiocarbon dates indicate that the chronological range of Maikop sites is more ancient than had been assumed earlier based on comparisons of the categories and types of archaeological materials. The 68 % confidence range for the 37 dates from Maikop contexts indicates a chronological range of 4050-3050 BC (Fig. 7). Equally extremely important is fact that 19 dates for “steppe Maikop” (8) sites fall within practically the same time range, namely 4000-3000 BC (Fig. 7)."

So just like for Yamnaya, C14 dates pushed back the age for Maykop to a maximum of 4000 BC. Does that mean anything for the origins of PIE? I don't know? I'd say linguistic evidence is more persuasive, and it favors Yamnaya as PIE anyway.

Davidski said...

Matt,

CO1 does show a slight shift to the east compared to Oetzi and all of the Neolithic farmers. Also, it's a female genome, which might be important in this context, because my impression from mtDNA is that women were often incorporated into invading populations, while men more likely to be chased out or killed.

Also, Kelteminar people didn't have cows. I think that's an important point. I might be wrong, but PIE people would've had cows.

spagetiMeatball said...

Thanks for the answer. I think all the evidence is now pointing to the Yamnaya groups being the PIE group, although the spread of indo-european is probably a very complex phenomenon with different groups (with very different autosomal DNA) being responsible for spreading the language in different regions of europe and asia.

I think you jumped the gun with one thing though: associating ANE with indo-european.

1) North caucasians have more ancestry from the Mal'ta boy's population than most europeans, but their uniparental markers don't match, and they have a famously non-indo-european language.

2) There is loads of R1a, and ANE in south central asia, but no WHG ancestry.

This probably means we should be careful about associating ANE ancestry in eurasia with indo-european off the bat. Maybe some of has a much deeper history where it is found.

Alberto said...

Yes, the conclusion is not too clear. To me it seems they say that their new dating is not really valid:

"Traditionally, all obtained 14C dates were limited within the 3rd millennium BC only. The traditional range of the Pit-Grave culture seems more correct [than their new one that goes from the 4th to the 2nd millennium], as history knows only few cultures ranging longer than a millennium. This is especially true for nomadic cultures, including the Pit-Grave culture."

When they say that "the traditional range of the Pit-Grave culture seems more correct" they seem to be admitting that these new dates are likely wrong. Strange, that's why I'm asking if someone else understands it in a different way.

Matt said...

Davidski: Also, Kelteminar people didn't have cows. I think that's an important point. I might be wrong, but PIE people would've had cows.

I'm not sure whether they had some cows or not, but yeah. I was saying that Kelteminar and other cultures east of Yamnaya* are bad candidates for Proto-IE (e.g. because of lack of agriculture terms which are part of PIE, plowing and grains), and a lack of cows reinforces that.

*I can't quite get a handle on where these cultures extended to on the north-south axis.

Davidski: CO1 does show a slight shift to the east compared to Oetzi and all of the Neolithic farmers. Also, it's a female genome, which might be important in this context, because my impression from mtDNA is that women were often incorporated into invading populations, while men more likely to be chased out or killed.


Maybe a little - CO1's shift just seems like almost nothing from the PCA in the papers and which you've run - http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/genetic-continuity-and-shifts-across.html and http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images/ncomms6257-f2.jpg.

There could be a sex bias I guess and incorporation.

But if women were incorporated, why would they still not show much genetic change well into what should be kurganisation under Gimbutas' waves?

Incorporated should mean that gene flow goes into the women, not that they stay where they are.

At the moment CO1 does seem to me like some evidence that Gimbutas's Kurgan waves themselves don't have much to do with genetic changes, although Yamnaya (and maybe lactase persistance) might as a separate and later phenomenon. But weak evidence.

Davidski said...

sM,

I don't think my views have changed much since seeing the first draft of Laz et al. back in 2013. I'm still of the opinion that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were natives of Eastern Europe who carried higher ratios of ANE than seen there today.

The possibility that they migrated into areas south and east of their homeland, where ANE was already present, maybe even at higher levels than what they carried, isn't something I gave much thought to initially. But even if true, it's not really an issue, and it doesn't change the fact that across much of West Eurasia, and especially in Europe, ANE seems to be a solid autosomal marker of early Indo-European ancestry.

I recall that I mentioned in the past on this blog that ANE might have also been spread into the Near East by the Kura-Araxes culture, which probably originated in the Caucasus and wasn't Indo-European. If so, that's fine, and there may have been other examples of that sort of thing across Eurasia.

Matt,

Well, CO1 is just one sample, from a supposedly archeological hybrid culture.

Alberto,

I think they're saying that it "seems" the traditional dates are more correct, but more extensive use of C14 dating might shift the goal posts, because both Yamnaya and Maykop have ended up with much earlier dates thanks to new C14 studies.

Krefter said...

I just realized when Patterson said Indians and Armenians can't fit as being part Yamna because they lack obvious signs of "hunter gatherer" ancestry, it must be because EHG(or whatever HG he's talking about) had significant WHG. He may have meant WHG when he said hunter gatherer ancestry.

U5a may originally be a western European lineage that was brought to east Europe and mixed with ANE.

Davidski said...

"So, it seems likely that the sub-cluster U5a1g or its founder has arrived to Iran from Eastern Europe/southern Ural via the Caspian Sea coastal route."

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/mtdna-haplogroup-u5a-link-between.html

So the question is, do Armenians and Indians show such markers, like the Iranians do? And if so, then why don't they carry any EHG/WHG?

Fatima said...

What haplogroup were they?

Mike Thomas said...

Very interesting. Naturally, I'd like to see further, independent verification.

Whatever the case, the wealth of Majkop kurgans fur supercede anything in the Yamnaya- related cultures in the open steppe.

@ Spag Meatball
"Since they are the same age, does that mean there was a third source?"

Actually, some Georgian archaeologists have argued that some of the Kurgans a*south* of the Caucasus are older. However, again, this needs clarification by better studies and 'western' scholars (not, of course, to say that Georgian scholars are not to be trusted :) )

@ Davidski
"Id say linguistic evidence is more persuasive, and it favors Yamnaya as PIE anyway"

The linguistic evidence can say whatever you *wish it to*. Ie Kurganists argue that the "linguistic evidence' points to a steppe, others see are West Asian / Anatolian/ sth Caucasian homeland. Clearly "Linguistic palaentology" is not the miracle window into the past that many lignuists (still) believe.

Krefter said...

Davidski,

How would you explain the same Yamna-signal in Finns and Estonians as in other Europeans? Do you see it as likely that current ethnic groups in the Ural are a genetic-continuation of the Yamna-type people, plus some east Asian?

Davidski said...

The only "linguists" I know who favor a late Neolithic Anatolian/south Caucasian PIE homeland are G & I, and they're clearly bonkers.

Btw, suggestions that PIE spread into Europe during the early Neolithic don't even deserve a mention.

Davidski said...

Krefter,

Estonians and Finns are mostly of the same pre-Indo-European and Indo-European stock as other Northern Europeans, except they have elevated levels of ENA, which they probably got from their Uralic ancestors who moved into Northeastern Europe after the Indo-Europeans.

However, linguistics show that the Indo-European homeland was just south of the Uralic homeland, so even the Uralic ancestors of the Estonians and Finns probably carried Yamnaya-related ancestry.

Nirjhar007 said...

Since the Steppe theory is a total disaster for explaining the case of Indo-Iranians and Tocharians with Armenians also it will be interesting to know which specific hgs Samara aDNA will show on 4000-3000 BC and Before 4000 BC, the presence of Y-DNA I,R1b and R1a and G will be deciding!.

Davidski said...

Indo-Iranians carry R1a-Z93, which is a verified ancient South Siberian and steppe Kurgan marker, and closely related to Balto-Slavic R1a-Z282.

Now, Balto-Slavs are probably in large part descendants of Corded Ware and Yamnaya, and we've already seen R1a among ancient Corded Ware remains. Also, we already know that Corded Ware genomes can be modeled as 73% Yamnaya.

So how is it exactly that the posited steppe origin of Proto-Indo-Iranians is a disaster? It looks better than ever.

Yamnaya R1a > Andronovo R1a > Indo-Iranian R1a-Z93 > Indo-Aryan R1a-Z93

What's the problem?


Nirjhar007 said...

The Problem is Anndronovo just has connections to BMAC and it is far new for even for the theorised migration and the STR Depth of R1a in SC Asia can't be achieved just by connections and more importantly the presence of Indo-Europeans can be found from Chalcolithic times in Central+SC ASia.
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/
and of course no Harappan aDNA or C Asian aDNA is available for Aryan related cultures! So Sorry but your theory is Brain Dead:(.

Davidski said...

The R1a-Z93 in South Asia isn't older than the Bronze Age. And R1a-Z93 is primarily an Indo-Iranian marker.

Surely your Indologist friend can grasp that much.

Nirjhar007 said...

Tell me do you have Future Vision?

Nirjhar007 said...

Besides that OMG Look what i'm reading now-
http://priyadarshi101.wordpress.com/
You theory can't even be called Horeseshit now!!

Matt said...

Davidksi Well, CO1 is just one sample, from a supposedly archeological hybrid culture.

Last comment on this (I think) which I hope will still be interesting / relevant -

I've read a little more on Gimbutas Kurgan expansion idea, and CO1's position (essentially Old European, despite supposedly her culture being kurganised) may not actually be that surprising, as

a) Gimbutas herself associated her Kurgan waves only with "no more than small bands of warriors who imposed themselves as an elite", who could easily become very diluted genetically, and

b) Anthony (like Mallory) seems to mostly discount the Kurgan waves of Gimbutas as "so lacking in precision as to be useless. He points out that "The Kurgan culture was so broadly defined that almost any culture with burial mounds, or even (like the Baden culture) without them could be included." He therefore does not use the term and discusses instead the core Yamna Culture and its relationship with other cultures. He does not include the Maikop culture* among those that he considers to be IE-speaking, presuming instead that they spoke a Caucasian language."

So considering all this, if Gimbutas kurgan expansions involved either small bands of males like she thought or they actually don't really map to anything sensible as Anthony (and Mallory?) seem to think, then it is explicable that CO1 does not show any real increase in ANE/WHG affinities. (Although there might some y-dna R if we check out enough Copper Age Hungarian and Balkan samples from the right period - Vucedol, etc.).

Overall genetic change (in Europe, where we know it happened) may be linked to later Yamna or Corded Ware specifically than kurganisation, which may not be a real phenomenon.

This is one of those things where the Kurgan Hypothesis of Gimbutas seems actually substantially very different from what seems to be a mainly or exclusively Yamna Hypothesis of Anthony in ways which I did not previously grasp.

* Anthony does not consider Maikop Culture to be IE unlike Gimbutas for who apparently "Wave 2" of kurgan culture expansion "mid 4th millennium BC, originating in the Maykop culture and resulting in advances of "kurganized" hybrid cultures into northern Europe around 3000 BC (Globular Amphora culture, Baden culture, and ultimately Corded Ware culture). According to Gimbutas this corresponds to the first intrusion of Indo-European languages into western and northern Europe."

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
Okay, i'm bored and leaving with you with your'Chelas', you don't even know how to argue! you also have a disease called 'R1asis' please consult to a genetist!!
Good Day.
P.S. If you want to argue you are always welcome in my and my friends blog:).

Davidski said...

Yeah, the people who brought R1a-Z93 to South Asia during the Iron Age used magic carpets.

It's all in the Rigveda. I'm surprised you missed it.

Alberto said...

Davidski,

Yes, I think you're right about that interpretation of the word "seems" in the conclusion.

But I still think that the main point of this paper is to note that using different methods for dating some site/remains can yield quite different results, and therefore more effort is needed in using the same advanced methodologies in every site who's ages want to be compared. Otherwise the results will be flawed.

"However, chronological questions still remain".

So as usual, no definitive answer. Only new questions raised ;)

Davidski said...

Yes, I realise the paper doesn't solve much, but the point of my blog post is to show that Yamnaya and Maykop appear to be the same age when compared with the same methods.

In fact, before new C14 dates were obtained for Maykop sites about 10 years ago, it was generally assumed that Yamnaya was older, and that Maykop kurgans were inspired by those on the steppe. Since those new C14 dates came out, a lot of people have been claiming that Yamnaya copied the Kurgan concept from Maykop.

Now, with the new C14 dates for early Yamnaya, we're almost back to where we were 10 years ago. Or at least, it's now more difficult to claim that Yamnaya kurgans were inspired by Maykop kurgans.

Mike Thomas said...

Perhaps, G & I are wrong, but I;m not sure calling them clowns halps much. As I said, linguistic evidenece is not a hard science, and can be 'flexibly' interpreted into almost virtually any model the scholar wishes it to be.

And as above, even if this dating is correct, the Majkop Kurgans are endowed with wealth 100x greater than the Pit grave ones, which look like poor emulators.

andrew said...

The real issue is not so much "which culture existed first" as it is "which culture was the superstrate culture whose technological and cultural elements lead to massive PIE expansion that would come to dominant Europe, Anatolia, Central Asia, West Asia, and South Asia."

The leading arguments for PIE dominance are horse based pastoralism on one hand, and copper/bronze age metallurgy on the other, although they aren't exclusive. It could be that PIE culture wasn't dominant until the horses and the metals were combined.

Effective utilization of horses is very likely a steppe development, since that is where horses provide the biggest advantage and is their natural habitat. Effective utilization of metal is very likely a Caucasus development because the early mines whose products would have been accessible to early PIE people are in the highlands.

Also, simultaneous development doesn't have to mean that one was first and the other was second, or that there was a third source for both. It could mean that the two cultures shares a religion with specific and evolving prescriptions related to burial customs that evolved at the same time, despite not being a single homogeneous culture. By analogy, early Christianity was a religion which within a century of its coming into being as an organized religion had ethically Roman, Greek, Jewish, Egyptian and Ethiopian adherents. Similarly, there could have been steppe PIE speakers and highlands non-PIE speakers who simultaneously shared to kurgan religion and had a shared and coordinated priesthood that caused burial practices to evolve in lockstep with each other in accordance with the prounouncements of the latest kurganite high priests.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''Yeah, the people who brought R1a-Z93 to South Asia during the Iron Age used magic carpets.

It's all in the Rigveda. I'm surprised you missed it.''
You have confused Arabian Nights with Rigveda Boy You are a lost case!!
anyway as an active Aryan priest performing ancient rituals say 4000 years old like of here-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mYu_Ckh_K8
I haven't found anything in rigveda including translations of Griifith,Maxmueller,Mayrhofer etc to support your view!

Nirjhar007 said...

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
Since our dear author has carefully avoided the link on Horses and its actual case in areas like of Ukraine and places like of West Siberia-
''No Horse was domesticated in the steppe of Kazakhstan, west Siberia and Ukraine: DNA study''
It raises the ultimate question-
''Was the wild steppe horse ever domesticated?''
Some crucial facts about the issue-
1''....the domestic horses had a multiple origin, that they include amongst their ancestors not only varieties allied to the wild horse which still survives in Mongolia, and varieties adapted for a forest life, but also varieties specialized for ranging over boundless deserts and plateaus, and for living amongst foothills and upland valleys.”
2. ''The import of the steppe horses from outside during the Bronze Age is further confirmed by ancient DNA studies (vide infra). Morphological studies too have shown that metrically, the Bronze Age and later domestic horses of Eurasia resembled the European and Indian fossil horses (stenonis, sivalensis etc), but not with the steppe horse.''
3.Ancient DNAs of horse recovered from archaeological samples do not support the steppe origin or domestication of horse. Keyser-Tracqui (2005) examined 13 horse DNAs recovered from a third century BC Scythian Era frozen tomb at Berel in Kazakhstan. “It shows that the 15 ancient Asian horse’s sequences obtained did not form a separate cluster.” (p. 206). This means they did not have a common source of origin, and they were not locally domesticated. The study revealed that the DNAs had come from six different clades of Vila. “No clear geographical affiliation of the specimens studied was thus determined”, they noted.

Intriguingly, none of these third century Scythian horse samples matched with Akhal Teke (Turkmenistan) breed of horse. Keyser-Tracqui noted, “Whereas no matches were found with the Akhal-Teke specimens, some complete matches were observed with Chinese Guanzhong and Tuva horses (the Tuva republic is localized between the Siberia and the Mongolia) as well as with Anatolian horses.” (p. 208)
4.This finding helps us understand the origin of the Akhal Teke horse. The South Central Asian horse Akhal Teke has no contribution from the hypothetical source of horse located in the steppe. It also means that the Akhal Teke breed is not as old as we think, and it has been formed after the Scythian Era from admixture of Iranian and other breeds.
5.Many of these ancient horses in Kazakhstan had arrived from north Europe: “None of the Scythian haplotypes matched those provided for Przewalski’s horses, which are considered to be a relic population of wild horse of Eurasia (Lister et al. 1998; Oakenfull & Ryder 1998). Interestingly, we noted that BER10-11-13 sequences perfectly matched that of a Viking Age horse bones found in a restricted area in Sweden (Vila` et al. 2001) as well as that of an Icelandic horse, which represents an ancient Norwegian breed.” (p. 208)

This indicates arrival of the European as well as the Chinese horse in Kazakhstan during or before the Scythian period. Older Bronze Age DNAs from the steppe are not reflected in these third century BC samples, implying that the Scythian Era horses were fresh arrivals from other places and the Bronze Age horses had been replaced by the imported horse during the Scythian period. Two of the samples belonged to haplogroup A6, two to hg D and three to C1 (p. 205). Thus the haplogroups ascribed to the horses in this study were A, C and D. The Bhutia (Himalayan, Country Bred Indian) breed of horse has haplogroup composition of A, C, D, F, and it is possible that there was a significant arrival of Himalayan horse from North India to Berel.

Nirjhar007 said...

Continuing...
6.Warmuth (2011) noted that apart from Iberia, there was another likely source for the European domestic horse–the region of Iran south of the Caspian Sea. The archaic Caspian breed lives here. “Our investigation of genetic diversity in traditional European horse breeds reveals two hotspots of genetic diversity, one in the Caspian region of western Asia and one in the Iberian Peninsula.” (Warmuth 2011:2 pdf). However the steppe was not found to be a genetic hotspot in their study. This study was not extended to the further east and had not included India and China.
Study of the autosomal genes by Warmuth (2012b:7pdf) demonstrated that there was a general migration of the true horse from east to west before domestication. However, horses of Lithuania and Kazakhstan showed evidence of recent arrival from the East, implying import after domestication. This fact about Kazakhstan militates against Central Asia having been a place of domestication of horse.
7.The study (2012b:7) ruled out any migration of horse from north to south: “There was no significant correlation between genetic diversity and latitude, despite written accounts documenting a continued flux of horses from the steppe lands in the north into both India and much of China (Gommans 1994)” (Warmuth 2012b:7pdf). This finding rules out the common conjecture that the horse arrived into Iran and India from north.

DNA study of living Greek horses revealed that many of them (Crete, Pindos and Pinias breeds) had arrived there from the Middle East route, and not from Ukraine/East Europe route (Bömcke 2010:7/9pdf). This too goes against the domestication of the horse in the steppe, and is consistent with the arrival of the horse from Iran and India to Middle East and from there to Southeast Europe.
8.Hence the steppe region of today was not the source of the horse populations for Central Asia, China, India, Iran, Greece and Spain–we can say from the above studies. The study by Warmuth (2012b:5,Table 1) also showed that Ukraine, Kalmykia (Russia) and Kyzilorda (Kazakhstan) of the steppe had no private or unique alleles, while other regions like Jammu (India), Yunnan (Southwest China adjoining northeast India) and Naryn (Kyrgyzstan not far from the northern reaches of India) had many unique alleles each indicating local evolution in these areas.[1] Thus Kyrgyzstan, located immediately to the north of Pamir, was the only place north of the Indo-Iranian plains where we find any evidence of in-situ horse domestication. No place to the further north, including Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Siberia has any DNA evidence of local domestication of horse.
End of Part-I.

This reflects that Ukraine and the other steppe regions possibly had received all their domestic horse DNAs from outside, while Jammu, Kyrgyzstan and Yunnan—the regions adjoining the Himalayas where sivalensis, the Indian wild horse once prevailed–had local domestication of horse. Considering facts from every angle it becomes obvious that the steppe origin of horse domestication cannot be sustained any more, and it was an academic hoax.

Nirjhar007 said...

Part-II
The Multiple Primary Domestication events of Horse:

Necessarily associating the horse domestication with the Aryans was the most unfortunate event of historiography. The DNA studies revealed that horse had not been domesticated only at one or a few places, but at seventy seven places throughout Eurasia, and can be grouped into seventeen DNA types (Jansen, 2002; Vila, 2001; Lippold 2011a; Cieslak 2010). Lippold (2011b) noted that the DNA remains of the wild horse from ancient Siberia, Alaska and Yukon proved that they all belonged to the Przewalskii, and it is enough to prove that the caballus horse had not lived there in the wild then. Lippold also found that all the ancient remains of horse with features of domestication (dated 800 BCE) belong to the non-Przewalskii type of DNA, clearly indicating the arrival of the domestic horse from outside the range of the Przewalskii horse.

All the regions of Eurasia other than Mongolia, Siberia and the steppe at the Bronze Age had domestic horses which had been locally captured (Kavar 2008). Clearly Siberia, Mongolia (and North America and steppe) were the regions where ancient domestic horses had been imported from outside, and not locally domesticated.

Lindgren (2004) and Lau (2009) found (DNA study) that although wild mares had been recruited from all over Eurasia, yet on the male side there were only one or just a few stallions. It was also confirmed that none of the male progenitors was the steppe or Central Asian Przewalskii stallion (Lindgren:336). In our opinion this progenitor stallion could have been from the sivalensis stock (vide infra).

DNA studies found that some northwest European domestic ponies namely the Fjord, Icelandic and Shetland ponies have a single cluster of DNA, which originated very early just after the Late Glacial period (about 10,000 BCE; Jansen:10908). Achilli (2011) found one lineage of European horse (haplogroup L) was domesticated in Europe from where it seems to have spread to Middle East and Asia.

Study of DNA recovered from the Neolithic and Bronze Age horse bones showed that many of the extant European lineages had already been there at those times, and some even during the late Pleistocene (Achilli 2011:3-4 pdf; Cieslak 2010:3; Lira 2012). In fact at least one lineage of modern domestic horse Lusitani Group C had been domesticated quite early, possibly during the Neolithic period itself (Lira 2009). The haplogroup D lineage, which is the most prominent lineage of Iberia, arrived here only during the Bronze Age. Another study found that at least one breed of horse had been domesticated in Spain much before Indo-European linguistic arrival to the area (Achilli et al 2011:4 pdf). Solis (2005) showed many horse breeds of the Iberian Peninsula are autochthonous and have been domesticated locally in Europe itself (Solis: 677). The study by Royo noted common DNA motifs in Iberian and Barb (North African) horses, which is consistent with our view that the late Bronze Age arrivals of the domestic horse to Iberia took place through North Africa. These studies rule out the association of the European horse with the Indo-European culture.

Krefter said...

Nirjhar007 and Davidski, please just learn to respect each other. It doesn't matter how much you think the other is wrong about a subject in human history. Believing something wrong about history or making bad assumptions isn't a reason to dis respect someone.

Nirjhar007 said...

continuing....
A recent study by Devi (2013) revealed that the 59 Indian horse samples studied carried 35 haplotypes, which gives one of the highest index of genetic diversity in the word. Such figure is consistent with the oldest horse domestication event having taken place in India. A total of seven major mtDNA haplogroups (A–G) was identified in the Indian horse breeds that indicated the abundance of mtDNA diversity. The haplogroup D constituted 33% of Indian horse breeds. The Manipuri breed of horse comes from the eastern end of India and it has remained segregated from the other horse breeds of India and outside. It is presumed to be the local descendant of the Wild Asiatic Horse. However, it was noted that the Manipuri horse showed closest affinity with the various Indian horse breeds as well as the Thoroughbred horse, and not with the Chinese or Central Asian breeds (ibid).

Horse statue (three feet tall) dating 7000 BCE was found recently from Asir (Arabia Felix, near Abha, southwest Arabia; Science News, BBC News, Reuters etc). Arabia was not inhabitable by horse during the last glacial owing to cold desert like conditions. Any early Holocene presence of the horse must have been from India, where the sivalensis horse had survived the Last Glacial maximum. There is plenty of evidence of Indian migration to the East Arabian coast (human DNA, Underhill 2009:2 and 3; shrew, mice, Duplantier) during late Pleistocene and early Holocene. Evidence from the other regions indicates that the Indian sivalensis was domesticated as early as 8,000 BCE. Hence it could have been taken to the Arabian coastal region by the early Holocene migrants.

xxxx

Climate change and the arrival of the Domestic Horse in Central Asia:

The archaeology of the steppe has confused the archaeologists because the steppe archaeological sites have horse bones which had been hunted for meat, or captured live then sacrificed ritually. They belong to the Przewalskii horse which was never domesticated, but lived in the wild in the steppe. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make distinction between the Przewalskii and the true-horse bones. There is no evidence to support that any non-Przewalskii type wild horse lived in the steppe about 2000 BCE or earlier.

In spite of the several horse hoaxes raised about the steppe, the recent archaeological studies serious challenge the long held view that steppe was the home of the true horse which we have today as the domestic species. The archaeological study done at Begash (Kazakhstan) confirmed in a recent study: “While pastoral herding of sheep and goats is evident from the Early Bronze Age, the horse appears only in small numbers before the end of the first millennium BC” (Frachetti and Benecke 2009: Abstract).

The paper adds the “horse use seems to commence gradually and is not highly associated with early and middle Bronze Age pastoralists.” (ibid:1025). The authors find, the “percentages of horse remains at Begash remain below 6 per cent until approximately AD 50 (Phase 3b)”, and “The domestic horse is documented at Begash by the start of the second millennium BC, but its impact on pastoralism is not clear.” In our view, such stray domestic horses as the ones documented from the second millennium BC Begash were Bronze Age imports from the further south i.e. Iran and northwest India. Challenging the whole hypothesis, Frachetti and Benecke note: “Thus the data from Begash draw into question the general view that Eurasian pastoralism diffused eastward as a result of mounted horsemen in the Bronze Age”.

Nirjhar007 said...

Continuing...
A study at Tentek-sor (northern Caspian, Kazakhstan) revealed that horse bones do not increase between 4000 BCE and 2000 BCE (Koryakova), and the samples did not contain any domestic sheep or cattle, even wild aurochs was only 5% (Frachetti 2012:7; Koryakova 2007). However, after 2000 BCE, we get a very large number of domestic cattle (60 to 90%) in the steppe and Central Asia, indicating the arrival of pastoralists with cattle into this region only after 2000 BC (Koryakova:88, 65, 146-147). This indicates that probably all the horse bones from earlier than 2000 BC dates are of the wild horses.
Koryakova (p.54) noted “but horse bones are extremely rare in the Kurgans”, and “a larger group of specialists share the idea that classical steppe nomadism appeared in the first millennium BCE” (ibid:55). This is consistent with the palaeo-climatic studies of Asia too. Earlier than this period there were forests in Central Asia and South Siberia although breaking and fast changing into open grass-lands due to human interference after 2000 BC. Yet forests dominated the region up to 1000 BC which were cleared by the farmers for agro-pastoral purposes. However, it is the total conversion into grassland and desert ecosystem which would have forced man to adopt the nomad existence. Thus nomadism was not the product of the mood or temperament of the particular nationality, but a geographic-ecological compulsion. It was a specialized niche for man.

The fossil pollen studies from Central Asia, South Siberia, Northern and Western China and other steppe zones have shown that the steppes converted into forests in the early Holocene (8000-6000 BC). Jiang (2006) found that the inner Mongolian steppe changed into birch-pine (Betula/Pinus) forest at 10,500 BC-7,200 BC period, and evolved into woodland with these trees dominating at 7,200-4,700 BC period, but reverted back to the steppe after 4,700 BC. It is at this very time, i.e. at 8,500 BC that the North American horses became extinct, a latest report based on ancient DNA says (Haile 2009). Earlier such extinction was stated to have taken place about 12,000 BC on the basis of fossil studies (Buck and Bard 2007). Clearly extinction of the North American horse occurred owing to the same climatic reasons which were operative in Central Asia and India. In Asia too horse became extinct from the region which we call the steppe.

Nirjhar007 said...

Last Part...
Conversion back to the steppe and desert ecosystems took place at different times in different areas. Many areas remained forest as late as 2000 BC. At Yolin Am steppe (Southern Mongolia), it was found that it was a forest between c. 3600 BC and 2000 BC, and Betula (birch) and Salix (willow) trees dominated (Miehe 2007:156, Table 1). In general, however, after 3000 BC, more and more of Central Asia converted into steppe and desert (Zhao 2009; Zhao 2008: cited in F. Chen Editorial 2009:1). There was an abrupt change to arid climate at 2500 BC in many regions of China (Zhao 2009: Abstract; Chen, W. 2009). Miehe et al noted in their study of the succession of ecologies in the Gobi desert, that birch and willow pollens and charcoal were present in the soil layers up to 3000 BC (calibrated radiocarbon date), however birch became extinct from that site after that time (Miehe 2007:163; 156 Table 1).

Dense forest and desert are the places where horses die. In the dense forest, that harbours tiger, panther etc, horse can be easily predated because it cannot run fast enough in there to escape from the carnivores. Hence in all likelihood, hardly any horse may have lived before 4000 BC in the regions which we know today as the Eurasian steppe.

On the other hand, northwest India became a semi-arid region in about 33,000 BC and continued to be so until the end of the Glacial period (Petraglia 2009). Semi-arid ecosystems consist of deserts and grasslands like savannah, steppe, Sahel etc, but no dense forests. The Sivalensis horse must have found the northwest Indian grasslands as the ideal habitat. This situation lasted up to 6,000 BC, after which the region became moist leading to the growth of dense forests in Northwest India, which was not a friendly ecosystem for the horse. But then, the former Thar Desert evolved into grasslands (Deotare 2004a:Abstract), which stayed so until 2200 BC. Thus horses could have lived conveniently in the Thar between 6,000 BC and 2200 BC.

On the basis of the recent archaeological and palaeo-environmental studies, we are in a position to say that the horse domestication could have been possible in Central Asia and the north Pontic-Caspian steppe only after 2000 BC, if at all it took place in any of the two regions. The Bronze Age economy of this region remained mainly cattle and goat dominated and the classical horse based nomadism appeared only in the first millennium BCE after the aridity of the region increased enough to eliminate the possibility of farming-pastoralism.
Link-
http://priyadarshi101.wordpress.com/
Note:
On Indian Horse something Interesting-
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_7/June_1875/A_Curious_Question_of_Horses%27_Ribs
Voila!

Michael said...

It does not matter where the horse was first domesticated. This is not the issue. It does not matter where metallurgy originated. And it also does not really matter where exactly the first PIE was spoken. What is under discussion is who the people were that put these elements together in one culture that swept across continents and made a huge impact on modern genetics and linguistics.

Davidski said...

Horses were domesticated on the steppe near the Urals during the Copper Age because horse milk was drunk there. See from 26 minutes here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HliaR2Ep24s&list=PLAXoDomeFLX90fTHi0W8lYBtEoZHSBH2i&index=6

Tell us Nirjhar007, how would you go about milking a wild mare? Thanks in advance.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Krefter
''Nirjhar007 and Davidski, please just learn to respect each other. It doesn't matter how much you think the other is wrong about a subject in human history. Believing something wrong about history or making bad assumptions isn't a reason to dis respect someone.''
The problem of David is that he is sticking his nose on the area (Central+SC Asia) and its respected Indo-European culture of which he has no depth knowledge his idea is if it works for Europe it will surely do for the rest of the world!
90% his conclusions are based on his pet speculated assumtions on one Y-DNA which is R1a even though there is no geneticist or aDNA available who has either suggested or proved that with raw data, i'm talking about data not assumptions Krefter and his conclusions are therefore prejudiced and insulting for someone of scientific mindset that's why i'm so attacking! my advice to david is to stay out of Central Asian-SC Asian area and their cultures without any raw data!
I also gave him a blog of an Academic which he neglected a classical case of Misoneism!......

Nirjhar007 said...

@Michael
''It does not matter where the horse was first domesticated. This is not the issue. It does not matter where metallurgy originated. And it also does not really matter where exactly the first PIE was spoken. What is under discussion is who the people were that put these elements together in one culture that swept across continents and made a huge impact on modern genetics and linguistics''
Michael there is always a better explanation and what are you saying is not possible without Data from C+SC Asia or without having some depth knowledge of the region.

Nirjhar007 said...

(Sorry for the typos)
@David
''Tell us Nirjhar007, how would you go about milking a wild mare? Thanks in advance.''
Its Just Nirjhar BTW it is quite rude and childish to
not reading ones reference which is given first and which has more research references!
David Anthony is also a failure in case of Asia and BTW again read my reference first see the points! then talk......

Krefter said...

Nirjhar007,

"The problem of David is that he is sticking his nose on the area (Central+SC Asia) and its respected Indo-European culture of which he has no depth knowledge his idea is if it works for Europe it will surely do for the rest of the world!"

That's a good point. The focus isn't on SC Asian Indo Europeans, but that doesn't mean they're being dis respected.

"90% his conclusions are based on his pet speculated assumtions on one Y-DNA which is R1a even though there is no geneticist or aDNA available who has either suggested or proved that with raw data, i'm talking about data not assumptions Krefter and his conclusions are therefore prejudiced and insulting for someone of scientific mindset that's why i'm so attacking! "

I think you're anger at Davidski mostly for one reason.

You assume he's arrogant. Because... he has a blog and several people take his theories very seriously. The viewers of this blog choose to take his theories seriously, he never commanded them to. He gives little attention to opposing ideas(he fells he already understands), like most people, that shouldn't be a surprise.

Maybe in the future the trend will change and focus on the genetics and origins of Indo Europeans SC Asians, and then you won't feel you guys aren't being represented/respected enough.

I agree people shouldn't assume what happened in Europe(Indo Europeans, farmers) had to of happened in the Middle east and SC Asia.

Davidski said...

But I'm not asking about your opinion on David Anthony. I'm asking you how you would go about milking a wild mare.

If you're claiming that horses weren't domesticated on the steppe at this time, then you need to have a reasonable explanation how one would go about milking a wild mare, because late Neolithic steppe people drank horse milk.

There's evidence of this, and it wasn't found by Anthony, just referenced by him.

Nirjhar007 said...

I have given the data and milking is NOT equivalent to Military advances!! or is it? Can we use Cows or Goats for battle? Boy is that the Aussie Way of Thinking:).....

Davidski said...

Horses need not have been used in military advances during the early Indo-European expansions, just for transportation and herding cows and sheep on the steppe.

But they were certainly used in Indo-European military advances from the Iron Age onwards.

Nirjhar007 said...

Krefter,
"You assume he's arrogant. Because... he has a blog and several people take his theories very seriously. The viewers of this blog choose to take his theories seriously, he never commanded them to. He gives little attention to opposing ideas(he fells he already understands), like most people, that shouldn't be a surprise''
I'm not concerned of his chela number but what kind of silly conclusions he make without any actual and neutral references...
''Maybe in the future the trend will change and focus on the genetics and origins of Indo Europeans SC Asians, and then you won't feel you guys aren't being represented/respected enough. ''
It has started but a long way to go....

Michael said...

Unfortunately, modern horse genetics cannot tell us where they were first domesticated. It is very likely that domestication originally occurred at only one location, but the domesticated horses had introgression from wild horses when they arrived in new locations. Some of these new horses later replaced the horses at the original location. This situation can easily confuse people into thinking that the original domestication event occured at one or more distant locations. If the modern horses of some region have the highest genetic diversity, this is only because a larger effective population has been maintained there since mixing with wild horses.

Nirjhar007 said...

David,
''Horses need not have been used in military advances during the early Indo-European expansions, just for transportation and herding cows and sheep on the steppe.''
That is baseless at least while explaining Asia as shown on the reference.....
Okay, i go now enjoy your Chelas!.
See you i mean text you tomorrow...

Nirjhar007 said...

Before i go
Michael,
You are not wrong and go to the blog i linked.....
Good Day.

Davidski said...

What are Chelas?

Michael said...

Disciples?

Mike Thomas said...

@ Andrew
"The leading arguments for PIE dominance are horse based pastoralism on one hand, and copper/bronze age metallurgy on the other, although they aren't exclusive. It could be that PIE culture wasn't dominant until the horses and the metals were combine"

Sorry, but this betrays a verbatim, uncritical acceptance of a flawed model. Horse-based pastoralism was a local adaptation to an ecological niche, and not some advantageous new military tactic until 2000 years after the fact. Moreover, a horse economy only predominated farther to the east (Botai, ect) than the generally posited "IE homeland" in Yamnaya and related "cultures" ; and the use of bronze metallurgy was not an exclusive "IE" phenomenon, but likely had origin *south* of the Ponto-Caspian corridor.


@David; "But they (horses) were certainly used in Indo-European military advances from the Iron Age onwards."

So are you finally coming round to the nonsense that is Copper/ Bronze Age horse back warfare. And there in lies your self-contradiction. How is it, then these magical Indo-Europeans from the steppe maintained an exclusive monopoly on horse back riding for thousands of years. They must have had pretty good darn lawyers (!)

@ Michael "It is very likely that domestication originally occurred at only one location,"

Possibly, but just as agriculture and pastoralism in general have been proven to have had multi-centric origins, then why not horses ?

That is the entire problem with Kurganists. They heap a whole bunch of speculations and geographicaly, culturally and temporally diverse phenomena and lump them into a nice neat "indo-European' package to provide 'evidence' of their meta-narrative.

Davidski said...

Mike,

I don't think I ever claimed that the expansion of the earliest Indo-Europeans was a conquest in which mounted warfare was important. My claim is that the Indo-Europeans initially expanded thanks to a mobile subsistence strategy that was more diverse and healthier than that of the people around them. They also had a culture and language designed for this type of lifestyle, which spread along with it.

I'm well aware that the chariot and horse riding Indo-Europeans of the Iron Age weren't the Proto-Indo-Europeans of the late Neolithic.

Michael said...

@Mike Thomas

The fact is that Indo-Europeans very quickly spread their genes and language over vast areas. In order to do this, they must have had a considerable advantage over other populations. It is actually a quite reasonable assumption that the use of horses and metallurgy are what provided the advantage. It also seems reasonable that while other people may have had horses, they did not have a lactase persistence allele.

As for horses, the extremely limited diversity found in domestic horse Y chromosomes strongly hints at a single origin. No one is claiming that Indo-Europeans invented animal domestication in general, which must have occurred multiple times in different locations. They are just saying that horses were domesticated a single time, just as many individual plant crops were probably only domesticated in a single location.

Comparing the domestication of one animal to the invention of agriculture and pastoralism in general is ridiculous.

Do you have any ideas about what advantage the Indo-Europeans had if not these?

Mike Thomas said...

Yes - * Nothing *

It is merely an unsettling notion to claim so, I accept. It is human nature to need to find the why and when of our ancestors. But most likely, they had no special advantage over others.

"Language expansions do not just happen" - you'd say.

I'd beg to differ the alternate possibility, for certain occasions. In fact, i'd argue that IE language expansion was a longue duree process, and not as explosive and all -encompassing event generally posited, whether one looks exclusively to metals, horse, wheels or milk !

Sometimes , things 'just happen". Of course, i have a more sophisticated model than that. But whilst I work on it, Ill leave my comments at that. :)

Mike Thomas said...

Of course there were important factors ; but these cannot be reduced to any one, or even set of, factors; certainly not across the wide final distribution of IE.

Simon_W said...

What ecological difference is there between the steppe and the northern Caucasus? Obviously there is much less rain on the steppe, and it's much flatter. But else, is there anything crucial? Moreover the steppe is immediately adjacent to the northern Caucasus, so can it really be presumed that there was anything in the northern Caucasus the steppe people didn't even have a word for? Linguistic paleontology for instance can't distinguish between a central European and a steppe homeland, because the typical plants and animals are too widely distributed. Actually a central European homeland has even slight advantages, because words for beeches and the salmon have been reconstructed for PIE. The reason why the steppe is preferred by linguists is merely the archeological evidence for a warlike, patriarchalic, expansionist culture there at the right timeframe and the putative lack thereof in central Europe. So the dry steppe climate and the flat terrain are certainly not demanded by the PIE vocabulary. To the contrary, as Anna Dybo's study suggests:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/08/indo-europeans-in-journal-of-language.html
„The main conclusion is that the hypothesis of a steppe environment is more applicable for the Proto-Altaic population,whereas for Proto-Indo-Europeans a mountainous region seems more appropriate.“

Simon_W said...

By far the most plausible argument against Maikop and the northern Caucasus as being the source of the PIE (or any IE, at that) is the fact that the Caucasus looks very much like a refuge area for non-IE languages. There are three very distinct language families in the Caucasus which are found nowhere else: Northwest Caucasian, Northeast Caucasian and South Caucasian. And the northwestern, partly also the southern Caucasus are also a refuge area for the EEF haplogroup G. And Maikop overlaps with the two northern Caucasian linguistic phylae.

Davidski said...

Proto-Indo-European has an intimate relationship with proto-Uralic, and you'd be hard pressed to push the proto-Uralic homeland anywhere close to even the most northern parts of the Caucasus.

Also, Central Europe as the Indo-European homeland is done for, unless you can come up with a reasonable explanation why steppe people rushed into Central Europe from the final Neolithic to Bronze Age, replaced most of the population there, especially on the male side, but did not manage to replace the language.

Europe west of the Black Sea from the final Neolithic to the Bronze Age was like the New World from the 15th century onwards. The fact that the new settlers from the east were a bunch of scrappy, illiterate cow herders doesn't change anything. In fact, that kind of strengthens the parallels in some ways, doesn't it?

Simon_W said...

Yeah, I don't believe in a central European homeland either, I just mentioned that to depict the limits of linguistic paleontology, i.e. that it can't be the latter alone that suggests a steppe homeland to the majority of linguists.

I agree that the relationship between proto-Uralic and PIE is an argument that has to be taken seriously. But then again, homelands of language families are not places where the pre-proto speakers must always have been, for thousands of years. They are merely the place from where the expansion started that led to the first splits. Where the pre-proto-IEs had been a couple of thousands of years earlier is another question.

So the Yamnaya proper seems to have started soon after 4000 BC, according to the new paper. And that's precisely the time when new mtDNA haplogroups appeared in Samara. A coincidence?

Simon_W said...

As for G & I, see what Bernfried Schlerath wrote about their magnum opus:
http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/igmedien/archiv/schlera1.htm
....„a cornerstone in the field of Indoeuropean studies“; „a comprehensive reference book“; „the outlines of the entire knowledge about the PIE language and the homeland and culture of the PIE on the latest state of scholarship“; „it points to the future“; „methodological progress of the work“ etc...

And Schlerath wasn't a nobody, he was professor for comparative and Indo-European linguistics in Berlin, member of the Indo-European society and chairman of the Humboldt centre. In 1992 a festschrift was dedicated to him for his 70th birthday.

Davidski said...

The fact that women migrated or were brought into the region doesn't tell us much. Women were a commodity back then, like the copper from Bulgaria that also appeared near the middle Volga at this time. Y-chromosomes will be more informative.

Richard Rocca said...

@Nirjhar007...You know what Allied soldiers did when they overran German positions during WWII? They ditched their crappy semi-automatic machine guns for the technologically more advanced weapons of the Germans. You know why? Because humans use things that are better suited for the task at hand. Nothing would have prevented the IE men from the steppe from ditching their steppe horses for superior breeds once they entered new territories, especially if the aboriginals of an area weren't making much use of them. Reverse migrations at a later date could have caused steppe horses to be replaced.

Also... if people want to go to another blog, they will do so because they want to and see value in it, not because you keep telling them to.

Nirjhar007 said...

Hi Guys,
On related issue of Yamnaya and Maykop there is the clear anthropological data for movements into the Sredny Stog-II phase with Yamnaya from the Southern Caspian area-http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html
Now, both Yamnaya and Maykop has starting points around ~4000BC some centuries before on that period this is what happened-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
I think the people of those cultures settled there due to the effect of that catastrophe from their respected west asian/ Iranian homeland as in case of Yamnaya and SrednyStog-II's anthroplological data agree!
There is also the 8.2 KYO Event which according to Prof. Giacomo Benedetti
is connected with the development of Jeitun Neolithic
and the migration to the Urals. if they study the aDNA of Ural sites they can find
Iranian Hgs around 6000 BC, already the physical type is Mediterranean, and certainly sheep
did not arrive by themselves!
In Case of SC Asia there is also clear data available of West Asians settling in Mehrgarh starting from 4500 BC-
http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/19th-century-paradigms
They were surely Indo-Europeans just like in case of Europe and close by areas, we already know that Samara aDNA Around 4000 BC has West Asian specific Mtdna found also in Iran, so lets see their Y-Hgs in few days!

Nirjhar007 said...

RR
''. Nothing would have prevented the IE men from the steppe from ditching their steppe horses for superior breeds once they entered new territories,''
And you were witnessing that? OMG! David! we finally got our Twilight Breaking Dawn Part-II! Vamp that we were looking for;) send him to Reichs lab so we can know the results right now!!!
''Also... if people want to go to another blog, they will do so because they want to and see value in it, not because you keep telling them to.'' Nah you guys situation is like the followers of Catholic Church when Copernicus and Galilio discovered the Earth is not the centre point of the universe and etc....

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"Horse-based pastoralism was a local adaptation to an ecological niche, and not some advantageous new military tactic until 2000 years after the fact."

How do you know?

.

"So are you finally coming round to the nonsense that is Copper/ Bronze Age horse back warfare."

Obviously as we've had this argument before there is no point in arguing with you about it but for anyone else reading - "horse back warfare" i.e. fighting on horseback is not necessary for horse riding nomads to have a military advantage over settled farmers.

The military advantage is mobility, surprise and being able to get away afterwards.

Close analogies would be sea-borne raiding or highlanders coming down from the mountains and back again.

The history of the plains Indians after they took up horses would probably provide an exact analogy.

In effect, it's guerilla warfare.

.

TL;DR

Did the vikings carry their ships on their backs when they raided a town?

Grey said...

@Simon_W

"So the Yamnaya proper seems to have started soon after 4000 BC, according to the new paper. And that's precisely the time when new mtDNA haplogroups appeared in Samara. A coincidence?"

raiding

Pierre de Laclos said...

@Nirjhar007

"And you were witnessing that? OMG! David! we finally got our Twilight Breaking Dawn Part-II! Vamp that we were looking for;) send him to Reichs lab so we can know the results right now!!!"

smirk.

yeah, I'm sure David's got his army of underpaid post docs slaving away on the all important issue of IE men, their slave women, and their superior horse breeds, now, as we speak.

Of course, it's important that we spend those hard earned tax payer dollars on this essential medical question.

I'm sure that Simon Wiesenthal also considers this to be a matter of the utmost medical importance.

Davidski said...

Simon Wiesenthal? WTF?

Is there something you want to say? Don't hold back. I'm all about free speech on these blogs, unless you're a spam bot.

Let me guess, you don't believe in the Holocaust and you think that the latest genetic research is a Jewish hoax?

spagetiMeatball said...

If you spend a few minutes on a typical anthroboard, you'll come across people doing pretty cool research like David, but for everybody like that, you'll meet 10 complete kooks.

Richard Rocca said...

@Nirjhar007, as we have seen with ancient DNA from humans, scenarios are infinitely more complex that we could have imagined, especially after mixing takes place. If ancient female mtDNA is all over the map due to male led migrations, one only needs a little thought to see how useless tying one type of horse DNA to an entire horizon like Yamnaya. Your tactic of belittling others' scenarios is a pretty typical trolling tactic who's own ideas carry very little weight.

Pierre de Laclos said...

"Let me guess, you don't believe in the Holocaust and you think that the latest genetic research is a Jewish hoax?"

Ah, no, but nice try Davidski. Up to your old tactics I see, accusing people you disagree with of being racists.

Returning to the topic at hand, there's very little medical research value to discerning the "origin" of ydna in Europe from the last 7000 years.

Yes, it's a curiosity, but not something that should be conducted by a "medical" research team at Harvard.

Davidski said...

I accused you of having a fixation with Jews, which you obviously do, since you mentioned Simon Wiesenthal for no good reason.

Helgenes50 said...

Sorry if I am off topic

Gedmatch results for 2 kits

103313 SNPs used in this evaluation ( my 23andme kit) V3
71535 SNPs used in this evaluation ( my FTDNA kit)

Number of SNPs for the same calculator , the difference is very huge
The result is also different , that makes sense!!!

Shaikorth said...

How different, Helgenes? In my experience the difference between components tends to be clearly <1% when compering FtDNA and 23andMe data in Gedmatch calculators, so not much.

Helgenes50 said...

@ Shaikorth

The difference is smaller in the results, although the number of SNPs is huge.
In the case of this calculator (MDLP K23 not Eurogenes)
EHG = 34.29% (23andme) and 35.37% ( FTDNA)

But where is the best result ?
I thought that the FTDNA results were more accurate because of the number of SNPs used
What was said in an other thread, about the calculator K7 it seems to me ?

Shaikorth said...

More SNPs should translate into a better result. Gedmatch shows how much SNPs a calculator uses so you should see whether 23andMe or FTDNA is better for MDLP K23. Eurogenes calculators usually work best with 23andMe v3.

Nirjhar007 said...

@RR
'' as we have seen with ancient DNA from humans, scenarios are infinitely more complex that we could have imagined, especially after mixing takes place''
Yes but period by period aDNA data and their comparative data is the logical call....
'' If ancient female mtDNA is all over the map due to male led migrations, one only needs a little thought to see how useless tying one type of horse DNA to an entire horizon like Yamnaya''
What i wrote is this-
'' we already know that Samara aDNA Around 4000 BC has West Asian specific Mtdna found also in Iran, so lets see their Y-Hgs in few days!''
Y-DNA is far more decisive specially when we are talking about PIE which was patriarchal as far onus goes but the Iranian homeland as far the data is concerned is consistent with both Asia+Europe and Middle-Eastern anthropological+Linguistic+Genetic data all we need now is the aDNAs,
About the Horse it is highly obvious now that Asia and Europe had different cases as i have linked and there is more also.....
'' Your tactic of belittling others' scenarios is a pretty typical trolling tactic who's own ideas carry very little weight.''
I have given data for every claim i made the rest is up to you.....

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
Apart from the video do you have the authentic research for horse domestication on the Urals+Others of Chalcolithic period?

Davidski said...

The video talks about authentic research for horse domestication on the Urals+Others of Chalcolithic period. I'm not sure how you missed that point?

"Here, we present three independent lines of evidence demonstrating domestication in the Eneolithic Botai Culture of Kazakhstan, dating to about 3500 B.C.E."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5919/1332

Davidski said...

By the way, the full paper is available here...

The Earliest Horse Harnessing and Milking

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

Nirjhar007 said...

I Like to verify things! BTW many thanks for the links(I think i remember the case of Botai) i don't have time now to read them now but surely will!! BTW Can't you just email Reich to know the publication date? I f he knows of course;)

Mike Thomas said...

Grey; you speak of raiding and surprise attacks as if you have actual proof of the nature of warfare in the Copper & Bronze Age steppe, and ignore specialist archaeologists like Robert Drews (a military and Bronze Age specialist) objections to the flaws of the Kurgan model.

No one doubts that horses were domesticated and perhaps even being ridden. What you (again) dont know was this was mostly much farther east, in Botai and the surrounds. The 'nomands" of Yamnaya - the area most immediate to Europe and the supposed lauching HQ of your "raids", was overhwelmingly one of ovicaprids, according to the faunal assemblages.

Now, I cannot claim any expertise on the matter, but Im not sure how effective bareback, cow-riding Blietzkreig usually is, nor how "suprising" it would have been for the lower Danubians, who otherwise had a system of fortified sites to foresee such an event.

In any case, even one puts aside that your ideas are entirely speculative, not to mention anachronistic (each time bringing ideas of Viking raids from some 4000 years after the fact), just how swift , stealthy and threatening would a bareback legion of cowboys be ? I suspect, they'd have been please with themselves to have merely stayed on the horse at such 'surprising speeds'.

nay, the horse in 4000 - 3000 BC was used for its meat and milk.

Finally, as I previously alluded to, your ideas of invasions from the east stem from anachronistic ideas from much later periods. I do not doubt that there was no conflict between the steppe and the sown, but this was not one of territorial gains. In fact, the steppe was rather scantily populated during this very period.; which entirely removes motif for needing to invade further west - into country *less* suited for grazing, mind you.

Clearly, the entire construct is bonkers.

Helgenes50 said...

@ Shaikorth

Thanks, I have come to the same conclusion

Davidski said...

Mike,

And yet, the Neolithic-derived old Europeans like Oetzi, Gokhem2 and CO1 largely disappeared, to be replaced by the people of the steppe who went on to create modern Europe.

There's no argument you can conjure up that will make this go away, and the evidence for it gets stronger every time new aDNA from prehistoric Europe is published.

spagetiMeatball said...

So you're saying that the majority of people today in Germany, Scandinavia, Poland, and the rest of Central Europe derive most of their ancestry from the steppe?

By the way the steppe is a big place, where exactly do you have mind, where exactly are Reich et al. getting getting samples form. You said it was Samara right?

Davidski said...

Yes, most Europeans drive most of their ancestry from the western steppe, which ranges from western Ukraine to the Ural river. You can see this on the West Eurasian PCA that I post here regularly, because Neolithic and Copper Age Europeans cluster around Sardinians, while most modern Europeans are shifted northeast. This shift had to have happened well after the final Neolithic.

Helgenes50 said...

And yet, the Neolithic-derived old Europeans like Oetzi, Gokhem2 and CO1 largely disappeared, to be replaced by the people of the steppe who went on to create modern Europe.



Yes, but this is less the case in Western Europe

Davidski said...

Almost all modern Western Europeans are surprisingly eastern compared to late Neolithic/Copper Age samples like Oetzi, Gokhem2 and CO1. Most modern French can basically pass for steppe nomads compared to CO1 from Hungary.

It's really not something I would've ever predicted based on modern DNA, and it indicates a massive and recent genetic turnover everywhere in Europe except Sardinia and Basque country, although the latter was clearly affected too.

Mike Thomas said...

David, I am not burying my head in the sand. Clearly, R1 appears to have come from the east (incl the derived R1b, most likely, Helgenes50).

Im just skeptical of the current explanatory framework, esp given that population geneticists and and blogger genealogists alike, can be accused of (still) making rather premature conclusions based on (i) still not fully sampled data set (ii) and have otherwise cursory or little awareness of advanced anthrpological models.

But as you said, the data set is coming in by the boat load. Nevertheless, massive blanks abound, and until the entire ponto-caspian region, north and south, as well as SEE are more fully sampled, Ill keep wearing my sceptic hat.

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

We've already had this argument a few times now so I'm not going to waste too much time.

"you speak of raiding and surprise attacks as if you have actual proof of the nature of warfare in the Copper & Bronze Age steppe"

No I speak of the possibility.

.

"Im not sure how effective bareback, cow-riding Blietzkreig"

I said raiding is like guerrilla warfare i.e. pretty much the exact opposite of a blitzkreig.

Your repeating this straw man on multiple occasions now is why you're not worth wasting time on.

.

"had a system of fortified sites"

Why.

.

"I suspect, they'd have been please with themselves to have merely stayed on the horse at such 'surprising speeds'."

There are dozens of youtube videos of people - including five year old girls - galloping and jumping on horses without any bridle, saddle or stirrups.

.

"Clearly, the entire construct is bonkers."

Clearly, you are fixated on your construct.

Krefter said...

"So you're saying that the majority of people today in Germany, Scandinavia, Poland, and the rest of Central Europe derive most of their ancestry from the steppe? "

Why are several of you surprised by this? Alot of people online expected or already believed this years ago.

The sampling of southern and northern European hunter gatherers and farmers, revealed a major part of Europe's population history, and that alot changed after the Neolithic. But somehow people like Maju found a way to argue for Neolithic continuation and a complicated nonsense story.

This is good news to me, because it ends the nonsense. No one can deny this simple truth anymore with the argument that nothing simple is ever true.

Dick Shrinker said...

@Krefter

"The sampling of southern and northern European hunter gatherers and farmers, revealed a major part of Europe's population history, and that alot changed after the Neolithic."

Guess it depends what you call "a major part".

The problem with Reich's model is that he's got Caucasus populations confounded with northern European populations. Both these populations probably originated from the steppe, but the process was over the last 20,000 years or so, not only since the Neolithic.

Anyone with half an ounce of analytical capability can figure this out for themselves just by looking at admixture data.

Of course, Reich will carry on with his Neolithic replacement model and the legions of PR people at Harvard will fall for it.

Who cares about a few tens of thousands of years here or there, or scientific honesty, for that matter, when you can create your own religion?

Make sure you throw words like "migrant" and "colonialism" into the mix so your space case fund minders fall for it.

Go for it!

Krefter said...

You make a good point Dick. What has been found about the population history of western Europe, does not necessarily work for the rest of west Eurasia.

Ancient DNA though has revealed the most important stage in Europe's population history. The Mesolithic-Neolithic changes stands for all of "Europe", except maybe the SE part.

Now Reich has confirmed another important event which we can't deny.

No one is saying nothing happened in west Eurasia before the end of the Mesolithic.

Davidski said...

Dick (aka. Pierre) is in denial.

Dick Shrinker said...

@Krefter

"The Mesolithic-Neolithic changes stands for all of "Europe", except maybe the SE part."

No.

Looking at Admixture data, the contribution to Western Europeans from the Caucasus during the Neolithic isn't more than about 10%.

90% of the population of Western Europe is formed from HGs that were in Europe before the Neolithic.

In Eastern Europeans, the contribution from the Caucasus during the Neolithic is not more than about 35%.

Anyway, Willerslev, Orlando, Nielsen, Wall, Seguin-Orlando, etc., are on this, so I'm not all that concerned with Reich, his farmers, and his Mesolithic-Neolithic replacement model.

Maikop is probably R1b, but BFD. Most of the Steppe and Caucasus are R1 and have been since MA1.

Davidski said...

"90% of the population of Western Europe is formed from HGs that were in Europe before the Neolithic."

Hilarious shit.

Mike Thomas said...

@ Grey

"possible" , Ok sure, its "possible" but not exactly supported by the evidence

"rading" aka guerilla. Ok, then , raiding can also be done on foot.

"The Forts" - no one reason for their existence can be ascribed. Most probably, they served as 'central places', and their function was variable, depending on specific time and context. Defesne was certainly one reason, but most likely due to endemic warfare *amongst* the communities on the lower Danube, rather than a 'foreign' , wholly new enemy.


And I have no "fixation", rather an awareness of the existing body of literature which has raised serious issues re: the kurgan-horse people narrative.

In fact, Ill drop the matter. just to show us all about how well informed you are - please quote the names of 4 papers you have read about the archaeology of bronze age warfare:..?

Davidski said...

And as these local communities were squabbling with each other, a new genetic structure emerged across most of Europe. The two things are unrelated though, because that wouldn't fit any advanced anthropological models.

Helgenes50 said...

@ David

For the ancient genomes, your calculator K36 is very informative.
But a little forgotten

With K13 and K15, the North Atlantic and the Atlantic are shared by Mesolithics and Neolithics. This is not the case with K36, the Sea North and the North Atlantic are not found in the EEFs

It's easier to see what we share with each others
For the WHG: East Central Euro, Eastern Euro, Fennoscandian, North Atlantic, North Sea.

And for the Neolithics: Italian, Iberian, West Med, Near Eastern, North African+ East Balkan

The Basque is shared by both the one and the other, so for it, this is not so clear

It's why I like this calculator, although K15 and K13 certainly are more accurate

Davidski said...

It was just an experiment for a bit of fun, so it's good that it's useful.

Shaikorth said...

@helgenes

K36 Basque should be compared to K15 Atlantic because both peak in Basques, rather than comparing K15 Atlantic to K36 North Atlantic which peaks in Irish. The component names may be the same between calculators, but their makeup is different.

K13 North Atlantic is pretty much a hybrid of K15 Atlantic and North Sea and thus peaks in both NW Europe and Basques while for instance French and West Germans have less of it, and that's also why neolithic farmers have it. It even shows up in Mozabites @10% level while they have no Baltic.

Helgenes50 said...

@ David
Yes indeed K36 is useful.

@ Shaikorth

I agree, what I mean The Atlantic ( K15) and the North Atlantic are shared
by the WHG and the EEF, what is not the case for the K36 North Atlantic
But both are different

What is interesting also with K36, is Italian and Iberian.

By comparing with the old genomes the Italian seems more continental, LBK?
The Iberian , more Atlantic Neolithic, cardial ?

In my case, I am of an area supposed LBK and my Italian is high compared to my Iberian ( nothing to see with the Roman Empire, not where I live)

It's why I think we are in Normandy more LBK than Long barrows
This seems to be confirmed by the high level of Iberian in Gokhem, the Hungarians, for them, it's the opposite, even 42 % of Italian for CO

It's why I find K36 very useful

Alberto said...

@Davidski, I don't know how can you be so sure about French people (as an example of Western Europeans) being steppe people who arrived after the Neolithic. I can see this as a possibility, but we just don't have enough data to confirm it or deny it.

First, regarding the Eastern shift compared to EEF: Do we know what was the impact of EEF in the population of France along the Neolithic? We know they were there because some G2a samples have been found. But by the end of the Neolithic, do we have any idea of what percentage of the population did they represent? 5%? 10%? 95%? We have no idea. Or more probably by then, after thousands of years, they had already mixed with the "native" HGs, so maybe the EEF didn't "disappear", they just mixed with a larger local population.

And do we even know how was that "native" local population? Not really. We could assume based on 2 samples from neighbour countries (Loschbour and La Braña) that the whole population of France and Western Europe before the Neolithic were just like them. But this is a pretty bold assumption, isn't it?

And now let's look at your own K13 analysis of these 2 genomes:

La Braña:
45% North Atlantic
50% Baltic
3.5% Amerindian

Loschbour:
48% North Atlantic
50% Baltic
1.5% Amerindian

Don't they look very Northern and Eastern to you? Didn't they cluster with modern Finns (the most North Eastern population in Europe) in your own statistics?

Modern French:
42.6% North Atlantic
17.5% Baltic
19.5% West Med
10% East Med
5% West Asian

I rather see a shift to being more Western, and definitely more Southern. The shift to the east looks definitely south east, not north east.

Yes, you might say that other kind of analysis do show those 2 Mesolithic samples as more Western than modern French people. But then it seems that it all depends on the analysis we decide to use to fit our own views. How accurately can we analyse genomes as of today? I'm afraid we just have rudimentary tools to give us some hints (some true, some false).

You might bring out here the ANE thing... but again, how accurate is that? What if instead I bring out the Gedrosia thing (present in Western Europeans but lacking in Eastern Europeans)? Wouldn't it prove that French people didn't come from the Eurasian steppe if we used the same logic? And again I must go back to those 2 samples. Can we really say that ANE component was not present in Western Europe before the Neolithic? I think it was present in samples from Sweden, so why not in Western Europe? Just because of those 2 samples? I've heard you say before that you expect to find different populations in Western Europe HG than those 2 samples, so maybe they do have ANE admixture.

And let's just not get started with haplogroups or languages, because there we even have a higher questions to answers ratio compared to ancient genomes data.

The reality is that we don't know. Patience is our friend.

Shaikorth said...

The French are "eastern" (and not southern) compared to neolithic farmers like Stuttgart, and also compared to Basques. The theory discussed here assumes that before Western Europe got its current makeup, France was populated by neolithic farmer or Basque-like people, not Loschbour or La Brãna, although Basque-like people would be result of these and neolithic farmers mingling.

Alberto said...

Yes, but the assumption that around 2000-2500 BC France was populated by Neolithic Farmers with a DNA equivalent to Otzi or Stuttgart and that WHG got extinct is a very wild assumption. Can you point to any source that has any data about this?

So the whole story goes that EEF replaced WHG due to their superior skills for generating food. But then EHG replaced EEF due to their superior (healthier) way of life. Really?

Shaikorth said...

Even Sweden had relatively pure EEF's (closer to Sardinians than to Basques) at one point so I don't see why this couldn't have been the case in France.

Basque-like mixtures are WHG+EEF so it's not all that clear pure EEF's like Stuttgart or Oetzi lived in France before the "steppe invasion" reached it. In a sense that they don't exist in their original form the WHG's did go extinct while Sardinians still approximate EEF quite well. I don't think WHG genes disappeared from France before steppe invasion though, and I don't think there was a total replacement from the steppe either, just enough gene flow to cause an observable difference to Basques.

There are many possible causes for why the steppe types with ANE were successful and I don't pretend to know for sure what was the right one, could be a tech advantage combined with arriving at the right moment to make the most of it.

Alberto said...

Yes, Sweden had pure EEFs. But "having" means that they could be anything between 1% and 100% of the population.

France also "had" EEF, as I said. But we have no idea about how many compared to the HGs. We have no figures for when they arrived, and no figures for the end of the Neolithic. Not even some good (or even bad) clues, as far as I know. We just have no idea about the percentage of the population they represented.

Basques do look like a mixture of WHG and EEF. And the main difference with other Western populations is that they lack an Eastern component usually referred to as "West Asian". This West Asian component is highest in Southern Italy and southern Balkans. It was lacking in EEF, but it was obviously brought into Europe (mostly the South East of Europe) by later migrants from the Middle East (which took this component likely from some Central Asian population that moved westwards).

In Western Europe there is much less West Asian than in the SE, but still enough to shift the population to the east (and make it slightly different from Basques).

As a side note, the ANE thing is, in spite of its name, higher in South Asia than in the Eurasian steppe. A similar profile to the West Asian thing.

Shaikorth said...

West Asian isn't the only thing causing eastern shifts in modern West Europeans compared to Basques though, it's caused by just ANE as well (as comparing Motala or Ajv58 which don't show West Asian in various admixture calculators) to pure WHG's shows). EHG's are supposed to be even more eastern and this is more likely to be caused by ANE or even ENA than West Asian. However the Yamnaya steppe types are supposed to be only half EHG, the other half is Armenian-like and it's very possible that at least part of the West Asian in West Europe comes from there instead of directly from the Middle East through the Balkans. Places like Southern Italy and the Balkans may have experienced different migrations bringing in more West Asian.

Alberto said...

Yes, everything is possible. That's my point.

But I guess you realize that you are now forcing the arguments quite a bit to fit them into that theory of the steppe people.

Don't Basques have ANE? In the PDF here:

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552

Page 111, it say that Basques have 11.4% ANE. French 13.5% and English 14%. Not that much of a difference, is it? Actually northern Spaniards have 16.3% (Ukrainians or Belarusians have 15.1% in that table). If that table is correct I don't see the point in this ANE thing.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Basque are about 10% ANE, Sardinians 4%. I would bet that France was between gok2 and NE7. There were still pitted ware HGs running around in 2200bce, but they probably had some EEF.

Shaikorth said...

That table is much at odds with both the North Spanish (Basque Country) samples' and the French Basque samples' westernness on PCA's and the fact that in the same study they manage to model those two pops with zero ANE while those models fail for Spanish, French and other mainstream West Europeans. So it's very unlikely that they are correct estimates.

Alberto said...

Right. The authors of that paper don't seem to know how the EEF-WHG-ANE model works. They probably read about it somewhere and got confused :)

Shaikorth said...

Surely they know what they're doing. There's just no *the* EEF-WHG-ANE model in that paper.

Matt said...

I think it is a real point that, with the median estimates from Laziridis, if you take them and make a chart or PCA from them, whether or not you weight it according to the distances between the components or not, you don't really get anything quite like a PCA of Europe based on SNPs -

http://imgur.com/RhIBfKY - as in the paper, absolute amounts

http://i.imgur.com/ULJoRwa.jpg - PCA weighted by the distance of EEF, ANE, WHG components from one another

http://i.imgur.com/zcsAGPP.jpg - PCA unweighted

(note here PC1 actually comprises over 10 times the amount of variance of PC2, which is higher than in normal first 2 PC with similar panels)

http://i.imgur.com/sITL3VV.jpg - plus the levels for the four ancient samples themselves

All similar of course.

I guess that's a limitation of trying to use two mixing populations "hunter" and EEF where hunter is quite tight in its ratio of WHG:ANE. It seems to artificially conform more to a single north-south cline than in reality with the residual east-west dimension being unreliable.

Or maybe the estimates are accurate and just don't tell us as much about relatedness of Europeans to one another as we might think.

...

Re: with the ADMIXTURE components like West Asian, remember they're essentially theoretical populations produced by ADMIXTURE which can mix one another to produce all the populations in the sample panel.

ADMIXTURE components are the most parsimonious set of populations that can mix to produce the modern populations.

We know that West Asian, Mediterranean, Southwest Asian, Northeast European components are probably the most parsimonious four components for most of West Eurasia, North Africa and India on a reasonable panel balancing West Eurasia against the rest of the world. (Higher degrees of components are even more questionable as real ancient populations, although Eurogenes seems like its very scrupulous in this regard.)

But, if you consider where the ancient West European hunter gatherers sit in PCA panels and the parsimonious nature of ADMIXTURE, a panel based on modern populations wouldn't *need* a population that far out to mix with others to produce modern Europeans.

So ADMIXTURE doesn't produce anything like WHG, even though that's what actually seems to have existed and mixed with early farmers in Europe.

Instead we get North European, Mediterranean, etc. components even though they appear likely from the ancient samples to apparently actually represent complex mixes of WHG, ANE and EEF that may never have quite existed in those forms.

You can also see this in the recent paper on African genomes, where the African genomes were all run together without and West Eurasian references, and a single unbroken Amhara component formed. But this didn't form when any Eurasian samples were included (West or East). The components just form at ceiling of combinations of ancient admixtures and post admixture shared drift which can be combined to model present day people.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nature13997-f1.jpg

Introducing ancient samples straight into ADMIXTURE on their own has the problem that the samples tend to have low overlap with recent samples and falsely high levels of drift from the recovery process. So they tend to just form their own clusters or be split which obscures things.

On this, one of the good things about Reich and Patterson's new paper might be that with 40 samples, assuming they've got good overlap with one another, including a number of them together can cancel a lot of the drift effects from recovering the samples out, and they might be able to produce productive results with multiple of the ancient samples in ADMIXTURE, even if again any new components will be ancient admixed again and not any people who went any where or lived anywhere at any time.

Shaikorth said...

We know that they modelled those ancient samples as mixes which included ancient and modern populations. This may imply we won't get any uniquely important ADMIXTURE-related stuff out of them.

Something sorely needed is a high coverage ANE proxy. Low coverage does bad things to genomewide homozygosity and that affects results. Homozygosity rates in some samples we have now for demonstration:

Ust-Ishim (high coverage) 66,29%

Modern French 66,36%

Modern Karitiana 76,17%

MA-1 (low coverage) 94,41%

Mike Thomas said...

I've always maintained it's all interrelated , no doubt. There was major transformation , including genetic, in central and Eastern Europe during the final Neolithic - copper- early BA period. I'm just maintaining a skepticism for the communis opinion as perceived by the genetic community and that of the Kurgan archaeologists.

Without any ancient DNA fro the Balkans , Moldavia/ Romania, or the near east, i need not iterate how presumptive any conclusions are at this point; especially when we further make speculative jumps and reduce these complexes of change to catch-all reasons like drinking-milk; or pulling oxen

Mike Thomas said...

Alberto, I like your critical thought. And it is a good thing to show skepticism, not bad, as some people allude to here.

My only objections have been, not the Kurgan-steppe model 'per se' (as an idea), but becuase I'm just at all loss how people can be so confident when, on the one hand we still need far more samples, and testing of the models used , and 2) people are happy to altogether ignore other data; eg archaeology, or at best, have a very rudimentary, Wikipedia-esque undesrtanding of it. Not to mention the idea gene change = IE language arrival (Specifically).

Of course, just because a model appears straightforward, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I'm not sure what PCA plots some of you are looking at. Basque are just under 10% ANE. Lithuanians are maybe 17%. Look at the British. Just over half way to the Lithuanians from the Basque, which is perfect. If you make the Basque as zero, and Lithuanians at 17%, then that makes the British about 9-10%, which is not correct. A little work with a measuring system and a good eye can catch it pretty easily. The Spanish go South and East of the Basque because they are 10-20% more EEF, depending on where you go, and 2% more ANE. So, of course they don't plot together.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQTlhNVERObV9jd2M/view

Chad Rohlfsen said...

A better comparison might be to look at basque vs Spanish, and compare it to English vs Hungarian. The distance is about the same, compared to ANE difference between the two.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Or orcadians. Your choice. The EEF difference is comparable there, and the ANE.

Grey said...

Mike Thomas

"just to show us all about how well informed you are"

I know how raiding works.

.

""raiding" aka guerilla. Ok, then , raiding can also be done on foot."

As the key element is surprise the actual raiding part is almost always done on foot because it's quieter.

The second key element is getting away afterwards.

Grey said...

""90% of the population of Western Europe is formed from HGs that were in Europe before the Neolithic."

I think a lot of the dna in western Europe has similar ancestry to the dna that was there before the neolithic but not necessarily the same ancestors i.e. I think the most likely case is the original HGs were pushed to the periphery by the farmers but then the IE brought a lot of it back again.

So more continuity by cousin than direct continuity.

(although having said that I'm sceptical that 100% of EEF is what people think it is)

.


@Alberto

"So the whole story goes that EEF replaced WHG due to their superior skills for generating food. But then EHG replaced EEF due to their superior (healthier) way of life. Really?"

Population density imo. The farmers had a much higher population density than the HGs so outnumbered them.

However the HGs who had been pushed back to the periphery and turned into pastoralists had a higher population density than their HG ancestors - still not as high as the farmers but much less outnumbered especially on the edge of the farming zone where by definition farming was most marginal.

.

Shaikorth

"Even Sweden had relatively pure EEF's (closer to Sardinians than to Basques) at one point"

I don't think the idea that "Basal" represents middle-east is very likely at all.

It seems much more likely to me that there was a pre-existing layer of Basal HGs spread over a wide area and one segment of these developed farming leading to farmers containing "Basal" moving into the territory of HGs containing "Basal".

So the "EEF" in the places least likely to have neolithic farmers probably isn't EEF imo - it's just the HG version of Basal.

Grey said...

@Chad

"A better comparison might be to look at basque vs Spanish, and compare it to English vs Hungarian. The distance is about the same, compared to ANE difference between the two."

If "Baltic" was one end of one axis and one or more of (Georgia / Levant / Anatolia / Armenia) were the other end and "North Sea" "Atlantic" and "West Med" represented a coastal cline between the two ends then there ought to be an equivalent overland cline as well.

In which case somewhere around Hungary / Moldova would be where the overland version of "Atlantic" might be.

Pierre de Laclos said...

@Grey

"although having said that I'm skeptical that 100% of EEF is what people think it is"

I would agree.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Something to consider, and I'm doing research now, is that prestige goods and elite burials begin at Varna. They are credited by some as bringing this tradition to the steppes. It would precede elite, rich burials at Maykop by a few hundred years.