search this blog

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Hurrians and the others


Here's another graph based on my new D-stats datasheet. The contrast in the population affinities of Armenia_MLBA (Middle Late Bronze Age) and Armenia_EBA (Early Bronze Age) is, at least for me, surprising.


Armenia_EBA or Kura-Araxes shows strong affinity to Caucasus populations, particularly those from the Northeast Caucasus. This is very cool, and it makes a lot of sense, because historical linguists and archaeologists generally consider Kura-Araxes people to have been early speakers of Hurrian, an ancient language thought to be closely related to present-day Northeast Caucasian languages.

But what's going on with Armenia_MLBA? I really didn't expect to see Latvians and Swedes sitting near the top of this graph. Clearly, someone from the north, closely related to present-day people from around the Baltic Sea, moved into the Armenian Plateau during or just before the Middle Bronze Age. But who were they?

I don't have a clue, but f4-stats suggest that they may have also been closely related to the Sintashta people of the Middle Bronze Age Ural steppes, who do appear very Northern European in terms of genome-wide genetic structure. The time frame fits, so does the expansive and militaristic nature of the Sintashta Culture.

Yoruba Sintashta Armenia_EBA Armenia_MLBA f4 0.000676 Z 1.395
Yoruba Potapovka Armenia_EBA Armenia_MLBA f4 0.000459 Z 1.275
Yoruba Corded_Ware_CE Armenia_EBA Armenia_MLBA f4 0.000383 Z 0.933
Yoruba Poltavka Armenia_EBA Armenia_MLBA f4 0.000373 Z 0.814
Yoruba Andronovo Armenia_EBA Armenia_MLBA f4 0.000214 Z 0.486

By the way, these stats are based on transversion sites only to limit the effects of post-mortem damage on the ancient samples, some of which are not UDG treated.

Update 06/10/2016: As far as I can see, the qpAdm modeling software shows that Sintashta is indeed the best available proxy for the European-like admixture in Armenia_MLBA.

Outgroups
Andamanese_Onge
Bichon
Chukchi
Han
Israel_Natufian
Karitiana
Kostenki14
MA1
Mbuti
Papuan
Ust_Ishim

Armenia_MLBA
Armenia_EBA 0.799±0.069
Sintashta 0.201±0.069

chisq 7.181 tail prob 0.618257

Armenia_MLBA
Armenia_EBA 0.835±0.068
Andronovo (3) 0.165±0.068

chisq 9.549 tail prob 0.388179

Armenia_MLBA
Armenia_EBA 0.842±0.065
Andronovo (4) 0.158±0.065

chisq 9.742 tail prob 0.371809

Armenia_MLBA
Armenia_EBA 0.838±0.069
Srubnaya 0.162±0.069

chisq 9.993 tail prob 0.351059

Update 08/10/2016: By the way, the fact that Kura-Araxes shares high genetic drift with many Indo-European-speaking Southern Europeans, such as Albanians, has no bearing on its posited identity as an Hurrian-speaking population. That's because this inflated genetic affinity is mediated via ancient groups of largely Near Eastern origin not directly related to Kura-Araxes, such as Copper and Bronze Age pre-Indo-European Europeans. On the other hand, Caucasians, particularly Northeast Caucasians, in all likelihood do share direct ancestry with Kura-Araxes.

147 comments:

Rob said...

I don't know when the Lazaridis' 'MLBA Armenians' date from specifically, but 2200 BC is when Yamnaya-like Kurgans appear south of the great Caucasus .
But these don't look like the burials at Sintashta..

Davidski said...

The Armenia_MLBA sample with the most markers in this analysis is actually from a Kurgan burial, the Katnaghbiur Kurgan 1, dated to 1501-1402 calBCE.

I don't know if this burial is in any way similar to Sintashta or Andronovo burials, but it'd be very interesting if it was.

Rob said...

Ah. Too late
IIRC the paper states it was a single, woman's burial, and might not be representative of all MBA Armenia, and would require dense sampling of the region to get an overall picture
God speed

_______
What do you make of the fact that 'ANE' in Iran only continues to fall from Mesolithic to historic era ?

Davidski said...

It dropped in South Asia too since the Neolithic, because highly mobile groups from the steppes and Caucasus, including Kura-Araxes, moved south and east bringing with them western farmer admixture. Probably an inevitable consequence of increasing mobility.

FrankN said...

From the MBA (ca. 2000 BC) on, European pigs start to appear in E. Anatolia (Lidar Höyuk). Also, pigs there appear to become much more frequent in the archeological record than before. Ultimately, Anatolian and Armenian pigs (the neolithic ones, originally brought into Europe by EEF) disappear completely in E. Anatolia and Armenia).
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/4/824.full.pdf+html

Similar effects are documented from NE Romania (displacement of Anatolian pigs by ca. 2000 BC) and the Iron Age Levante.
Apparently, we are dealing here with immigrating swineherders that originate in the North European Plain (the earliest evidence of European domesticated pigs is from Dresden LBK and East Holstein Ertebolle). Timewise (ca. 2000 BC), those swineherders correspond to Early Sintashta, though the geographic distribution (NE Romania, Armenia/ E. Anatolia) is further West and South.

Davidski said...

Can't see any migrations from around Germany to West and Central Asia unless they were direct descendants of Corded Ware with a lot of R1a.

Ryan said...

It's nice to see linguistic and genetic evidence line up. This seems like really good evidence that Armeno-Aryan is a valid clade within Indo-European.

arza said...

I've always wondered what happened that Proto Indo-Iranians started their journey. What or who pushed them out of Europe? Uralics? But they were supposed to met at the Ural, not at Baltic shores.

Slumbery said...

arsa

(relative) overpopulation is a typical cause. Either because climatic changes or simply because the population got too big even for a stable climate. The hypothesis that they moved from an attack of a linguistic outgroup is unnecessary. Also it does not answer anything, because then you have to explain why the other group moved.

MfA said...

MLBA Armenia was 2xE-M84 (one of the which is PF6751-, other is no call low quality) , 1 J2b (S.Asian type), 2xR1b (P297 low q no call for the rest and Z2106)

FrankN said...

@Dave: I didn't want to imply that those migrating swineherders came directly and immediately from around Germany. Pig aDNA is understudied, and we don't know exactly how that European mtDNA, apparently first bred in East of the Rhine during the 5th mBC, made its way around. IIRC, European pigs reached the Paris Basin during the early 4th mBC (Michelsberg), and I think it is fair to assume that Funnelbeakers and GAC, both being heavy pig-breeders, already spread them quite south-eastwards, maybe already as far as Northern Moldova. [How much, btw, do we know about Yamnaya pig breeding?]

@Ryan: "This seems like really good evidence that Armeno-Aryan is a valid clade within Indo-European."
How so? Those migrating pigbreeders, related to CW (or, possibly, GAC) should have spoken (Para-)Proto-Balto-Slavic. Proto-IndoIranian most likely originated much further East, in the Southern Altai and in linguistic interaction with BMAC, respectively.
I am not aware of any study proposing a particular close relation between Armenian and Balto-Slavic, which suggests that the linguistic
impact of those migrating pig-breeders on Armenian (and Anatolian?)was rather limited.

[Advance of European pigs into the E. Carpathian Basin around 2000 BC is another story, though. Tentatively, we may find the origin of Proto-Dacian here. Moreover, during the MBA, cremation spread westward out of the E. Carpathian Basin, ultimately fusing with C. European (Unetice-derived) cultures into the Urnfield phenomenon. The Urnfield Culture, in turn, is commonly believed to have spoken Proto-Germano-Italo-Celtic.]

Samuel Andrews said...

Below are good fits for NE corner of Europe using David's new K=8 ADMIXTURE spreadsheet below. All peoples in what was hunter gatherer territory when Corded Ware times scores at least 20% SHG/WHG while ones who lived in what was farmer territory score 5-7%.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XswOpaOowUkH-Io2sjEN1dN9HeLFBKcKPd1K3dxIidc/edit#gid=1956803379

Hunter Gatherer Territory
Corded Ware Estonia: 78% CWC Germany, 18% SwedenMN, 9% EuroHG
Modern Lithuania: 60% CWC Germany, 20% SwedenMN, 20% EuroHG
Modern Ingrain(xSiberian): 64% CWC Germany, 15% SwedenMN, 21% EuroHG
Modern North Russia(xSiberian): 62% CWC Germany, 18% SwedenMN, 20% EuroHG
Modern Saami(xSiberian: 57% CWC Germany, 10% SwedenMN, 33% EuroHG

Farmer territory
Corded Ware Sweden: 88% CWC Germany, 12% EsperstedtMN, 0% EuroHG.
Late Corded Ware Poland: 65% CWC Germany, 27% SwedenMN, 8% EuroHG
Modern Norway: 60% CWC Germany, 35% SwedenMN, 5% EuroHG
Modern Poland: 68% CWC Germany, 25% SwedenMN, 7% EuroHG

Aram said...

Armenia MLBA was a very heterogeneous place, both archaeologically and genetically. This is just one sample. Other MLBA samples can point to different directions. For example Stanislav Grigoriev has noted some similarities between Sevan-Uzerlic culture and Sintashta. And guess what 25% of Armenia R1a (1% of total) is R1a-Z93*(xZ94) which is very upstream most probably related to Mitanni Aryan invasion. So it seems very plausible that Mitanni Aryans had crossed Armenia while moving to Mitanni. There is also a lot off E-V13 around lake Urmia which was the land of Iron Age Manneans. So I wouldn't be surprised to see there some Thraco-Balkanic influence. And of course there is the issue of R1b-Z2103 in North West Asia. Exact route of it's migration is still unresolved.

Btw one of the Lezgins from Simon's dataset is positive for KMS75 which means he is a direct descendant/relative of some Yamna/Poltavka burials. There are also Germans, two Bashkirs and one Iraqi related to Yamna burials. The Iraqi forms a clade with the Lezgin.
Here is the dendrogram. This was found by Sergei Malyshev.
https://dnaexplained.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/jakoblenz-malyshev-chart.png

Aram said...

I have good news. There is a new instruction to all archaeological teams working in Armenia. Every newly found ancient human remain should be handled properly to avoid contamination and collected to be send for aDNA testing. There are now more than 250 samples collected in this way some are already sent to laboratories. So new aDNA from Armenia will not be very late.
And they will not be only Bronze Age. Other time periods also are present. As late as Early Medieval, Neolithic etc. Unfortunatly still no Paleolithic or maybe I don't know yet.

Aram said...

And one amazing onomastic example.

Karannis was the name of one king in LBA kingdom Hayasa.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayasa-Azzi

Karanos was the first Macedonian king

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caranus_of_Macedon

Karl_K said...

@FrankN

"I am not aware of any study proposing a particular close relation between Armenian and Balto-Slavic, which suggests that the linguistic impact of those migrating pig-breeders on Armenian (and Anatolian?)was rather limited."

Seriously?

The satem languages include the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian branches, as well as Albanian and Armenian.

Rather than being a genetic separation, the centum–satem division is commonly seen as resulting from innovative changes that spread across PIE dialect branches over a particular geographical area.

This spread iver a geographical area could have come from a major migration that strongly influenced the already Indo-European speaking people in Armenia, and also the perhaps non-IE speaking Baltic region and parts of South-West Asia.

Antoni Małkowski said...

Przy okazji obalił Pan mit o Awarach jako lud Mongolsko-Turecki . Przynajmniej mi się tak wydaje.

Davidski said...

Niestety, chyba nie...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avars_(Caucasus)

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

Antoni Małkowski said...

Tu jest publikacja naukowa
http://www.academia.edu/3527980/Avarsk%C3%A9_s%C3%ADdlisk%C3%A1_v_strednej_Eur%C3%B3pe_probl%C3%A9mov%C3%A1_bilancia_-_Avar_Settlements_in_Central_Europe_the_Balance_of_the_Problem

która wspiera Pana wykres.

FrankN said...

@Aram: "There are also Germans (..)related to Yamna burials."
In that Malyshev Chart, I found one German, with the surname "Lentz". Unfortunately, "Lentz", and related forms like "Lenz", "Len(t)ze(n)" etc. are found all over the place, with specific concentrations a/o along the Belgian border, the Middle Rhine, and in Mecklenburg/ Altmark/ Prignitz.
http://www.verwandt.de/karten/relativ/lentz.html
http://www.verwandt.de/karten/relativ/lenz.html

The name may have various origins:

Patronymic: "Lenz" is a short form of Lorenz (Lawrence). Usually, one would expect a patronymic suffix of the "-son" type (->Lenzen), but Saxon often shorted such suffix to "-s", which means it would blend into the final "-z" and ultimately disappear (c.f. the "Max" surname);

Übername (Sobriquet): MHG "Lenz" = spring season, referring to the period when interest or land lease payments are due.

Ethnonymic: Referring to the Alemannic Lentienses or Linzer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lentienses

Toponymic, i.e. indicating the original home of a new citizen. Here we have two, maybe three clusters:
a1.) a Celto-Roman one, signified a/o by Lenz/Grisons, and Lens (Pas-de-Calais), Lens (Drome), Lens (Hainaut/BE), Lens VS (CH), possibly related to French "lande" (heath);
a2.) also Celto-Roman, but derived from Celtic lentos " (river) bend", various locations named "Linz" - aside from the well known Austrian city also several towns in SW Germany. Etymologically, the a/m Lentienses belong here as well.

b.) a Polabian cluster, centered around Lenzen/ Elbe (Lunkini/ Lunzini), the early medieval capital of the Linones. The cluster includes a/o Lenz/Miesto (Salzwedel County), Lenz/Malchow (Müritz), Lenz/Priestewitz (Meissen County), Lanze (Lauenburg), Lanze/ Prezelle (Wendland), Lanz (Prignitz), Lanz/ Łęczyce (Pommerania), Lehnitz/ Oranienburg (1350 den Lentzen), and a couple of Brandenburg lakes called Lehns-/ Lehnitzsee. According to the "Deutsches Gewässernamenbuch" (Book of German Hydronyms), the root goes back to OPolab *lacn<-*laka "river bend, bay". [Interesting here that Celtic and Polabian "river bend" ultimately yield nearly the same result when Germanized - the Saxon equivalent, btw. is Lün(n)e as in Lüneburg, Haselünne.]
Those Polabian toponyms should explain most of the "Len(t)z" names found in NE Germany.

To cut a long story short - there is a reasonable chance, say 25%, that the German "Lentz" related to Yamna aDNA is of Polabian origin, and the line entered Germany only during the 7th-10th century CE.

Rob said...

@ KarlK

"The satem languages include the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian branches, as well as Albanian and Armenian...."

Armenian is only "partly " Satem, and Satemization *could* have been a gradual process, over time first from I-A, then to Slavic, and from their to Baltic and Albanian (as per Katcic)

Karl_K said...

@Rob

"Armenian is only "partly " Satem, and Satemization *could* have been a gradual process, over time first from I-A, then to Slavic, and from their to Baltic and Albanian (as per Katcic)"

Well, that's one interpretation.

I prefer an explanation that also meshes with:

"But what's going on with Armenia_MLBA? I really didn't expect to see Latvians and Swedes sitting near the top of this graph. Clearly, someone from the north, closely related to present-day people from around the Baltic Sea, moved into the Armenian Plateau during or just before the Middle Bronze Age. But who were they?"

Ir Pegasus said...

Armenian is fully Satem.

epoch2013 said...

@Davidski

Thank you for those D-stats in the previous thread. If you don't mind I post this in this thread. The WHG part in El Miron doesn't seem to behave like Villabruna, which should clearly have added at CHG. See Chad Rohlfsons D-stats:

Ust_Ishim Satsurblia Villabruna GoyetQ116-1 -0.0448 -5.618 469034
Ust_Ishim Satsurblia Villabruna Kostenki14 -0.0317 -4.258 587354
Ust_Ishim Satsurblia Villabruna MA1 -0.0097 -1.192 439142
Ust_Ishim Satsurblia Villabruna AfontovaGora3 0.0143 1.470 170274

and other D-stats hinting at Gravettian influx:

Mbuti Villabruna Vestonice16 Ostuni1 0.0133 1.619 237094
Mbuti Villabruna Vestonice16 GoyetQ116-1 -0.0257 -3.463 486767
Mbuti Villabruna GoyetQ116-1 Ostuni1 0.0386 4.704 231046

So I wonder if how can make Villabruna behave more or less like that Magdalenian part. First, how does it behave normally?

Ust_Ishim Villabruna Satsurblia Israel_Natufian
Ust_Ishim Villabruna Kotias Israel_Natufian

And with El Miron?

ElMiron Villabruna Satsurblia Israel_Natufian
ElMiron Villabruna Kotias Israel_Natufian

And with Vestonice?

Vestonice16 Villabruna Satsurblia Israel_Natufian
Vestonice16 Villabruna Kotias Israel_Natufian


Also can we this to see the ANE admixture in Villabruna skews the admixture in CHG, which also has ANE.

AG3 Satsurblia Vestonice16 Villabruna
AG3 Kotias Vestonice16 Villabruna

Rob said...

@ KarlK

Yes, we should certainly entertain the possibility, but it does place a lot faith on one sample .

spagetiMeatball said...

David, where is a good place to learn about the stats you use in most of the posts, like f4, D, etc.

Davidski said...

David, where is a good place to learn about the stats you use in most of the posts, like f4, D, etc.

For a lot of the relevant theory try this...

http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037

Davidski said...

@epoch

Ust_Ishim Villabruna Satsurblia Israel_Natufian 0.0187 2.442
Ust_Ishim Villabruna Kotias Israel_Natufian 0.0118 1.713
ElMiron Villabruna Satsurblia Israel_Natufian -0.0148 -1.664
ElMiron Villabruna Kotias Israel_Natufian -0.0011 -0.142
Vestonice16 Villabruna Satsurblia Israel_Natufian 0.0019 0.215
Vestonice16 Villabruna Kotias Israel_Natufian 0.0068 0.851
AfontovaGora3 Satsurblia Vestonice16 Villabruna 0.0137 1.257
AfontovaGora3 Kotias Vestonice16 Villabruna 0.0155 1.564

batman said...

@Karl K

The centum/satem-divide does tell us something about a specific branching within the I-E language-family. Moreover it says something about a common origin of the IE and the Uralian languages, where both centum and satem are found - with the exact same semantics.

@ David

According to Jordanes there were a first migrations of Goths from Scania to Greece already "2.100-2.300 years" before Jordanes time. Counted from the time of his 4th Century teacher Cassiodorus that becomes just about 4.000 yrs BP - in the middle of the Bronze Age. (At that time Anatolia and the Northern Levant was still basically "greek", neighbouring Egypt.)

From the Mesopotamian/Persian records we have a paralell story, where the blond and palefaced "Gutians" are described contemporary with the Akkadians and the Elamites - with who they have several feuds. That 4.100-4.200 BP, seemingly a a reaction to the akkadians invasion of the Old Sumer - some 4.300 BP.

It may seem like the old, greek sumerians got some help from the Baltic blacksmiths as well as their armored men.

There may be reason to believe that the later Hurri and Hatti had a similar origin and 'migrational' purpose. They all seem to have arrived to the Anatolian and Tauric mountains from the north - before they advanced into the troubled areas.

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

Milennias later the Vendi/Vandali, Ostrogoths and Heruli do the same, to counter the offenses and offensives of the Persian and Roman empires. According to Jordanes the farming-communities of Northern Europe had the same, ancient origin - which explains why he calls Scania "A womb of nations".

ArtemisVentus said...

What modern populations score the highest for Ice Age Europe Pre-Villabruna cluster ancestry? I.E. which modern pop scores the highest in Vestonice or El Miron related ancestry? Would be interesting to see how Basque, Sardinian, and Baltic compare.

Ariel said...

@Artemis

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yrD6VI6c95RslwJeeoD8ELvidfUrFfgUGP2kqi59fQ8/edit#gid=359466717

These were Davidski's result from a while ago. The answer is Balts for both Vestonice, El Miron and Goyet.

ArtemisVentus said...

@Ariel

Thanks!

Aram said...

The mtdna of this Armenia MLBA is T1a1'3.
The T1a1 is very European.

http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/t1_genbank_sequences.htm

But keep in mind that the deep ancestry at T1a level is probably Near Eastern. Farmer women?
Amazing I found T1a1 in Sweden Nordic BA. Also in BA Germany and Hungary. Also 1x in Srubnaya.

epoch2013 said...

@David

Thanks. Surprised me a bit that none have a Z value over 3. Satsurblia is modeled as part Villabruna by some models, e.g. Could it be due to low coverage?

Davidski said...

We can try f4-stats to make sure...

Ust_Ishim Villabruna Satsurblia Israel_Natufian 0.001988 2.44 309215
Ust_Ishim Villabruna Kotias Israel_Natufian 0.00125 1.711 447110
ElMiron Villabruna Satsurblia Israel_Natufian -0.001354 -1.666 223674
ElMiron Villabruna Kotias Israel_Natufian -0.000106 -0.142 325285
Vestonice16 Villabruna Satsurblia Israel_Natufian 0.000182 0.215 250825
Vestonice16 Villabruna Kotias Israel_Natufian 0.000669 0.851 363702
AfontovaGora3 Satsurblia Vestonice16 Villabruna 0.001261 1.257 147513
AfontovaGora3 Kotias Vestonice16 Villabruna 0.001443 1.564 215473

You certainly need more markers for some of these stats, and a better sequence of AG3, definitely, but even so, I don't think you'd get anything really spectacular here, probably because you don't have the right reference genomes/pops.

Davidski said...

I made an update with some qpAdm models for Armenia_MLBA. Sintashta looks like a pretty strong contender.

Karl_K said...

@Davidski

"Clearly, someone from the north, closely related to present-day people from around the Baltic Sea, moved into the Armenian Plateau during or just before the Middle Bronze Age. But who were they?"

So the question really is where and when did the direct precursors of the Sintashta culture actually originate, and what initially allowed them to be so successful. I guess they could have invented the chariot.

They seem to have come out of Europe, because of the European Farmer ancestry. But I wouldn't say they had to have come from near the Baltics, because the Baltics were still WHG territory until 2000 BC.

It is more likely that the WHG in the Baltics were overtaken by the precursor of the Sintashta culture, as they expanded. The same could be true of the Swedes.

Karl_K said...

It appears that von Bradke's hypothesis that Sintashta are the source of satemization is somewhat correct.

In some places, their language largely replaced a totally unrelated language, so satemization was total. In other places, their language was replacing a highly related language, so satemization was incomplete, as some of the older centum language remained.

I think it makes a lot of sense.

Shaikorth said...

@ArtemisVentus

Here's IBS similarity heatmaps for Goyet-Q116 and Vestonice 16 respectively

http://oi66.tinypic.com/2d6uth.jpg

http://oi64.tinypic.com/2hwp9y1.jpg

Also, relative similarity to MA-1 vs Goyet-Q116, red indicates relatively more sharing with MA-1


https://verenich.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/maltavsgoyetq116-1.png?w=700

Aram said...

I found another T1a1 in Potapovka. The TMRCa of T1a1 is 7000 ybp according to Behar. So it is not surprising that I couldn't find any T1a1 in Europe Neolithic. Only few cases of T1a. But T1a was also present in Yamna!
Downstream of T1a1 most lineages are BA/IA expansions in Europe.


Mfa

My friend has calculated the tmrca of some E M84 clusters in North Near East. They seems to fit into Kura Araxian expansion period. So lets wait some new aDNA.
As for J2b You are right. J2b was found in Iran Neolithic. That LBA J2b2 was marking a migration toward Europe. But he was not the direct ancestor of Albano Balkanian J2b2a. It is amazing that Albanians have the highest level of J2b2a in Europe and also score close affinity to Anatolia Chalcolithic and Kura Araxes. When exactly J2b2 reached South Balkans is unknown. It was absent in Euro-Anatolian Neolithic.

CroMagnon said...

@ Arame

"(J2b) was absent in Euro-Anatolian Neolithic."

There is the J2- not further typed in late Neolithic Hungary . Although probably J2a, it could be J2b

Aram said...

FrankN

Everything is possible.
I wanted to ask You something. Have You read papers in English about Prisulak culture in Dagestan? I have only pages in Russian. This Prisulak culture is about the interaction of Steppe people and Caucasian highlanders.

Rob said...

KarlK

One could ask: why would a relatively peripheral group of metalworkers in the Urals institue such language expansion, but if so, why would this be limited to the treatment of the Dorsal consonants, which are but one of numerous isoglossic bundles shared across the IE oeucumene in Criss crossing fashion ?

Rather, & contrary to Ir Pegasus incorrect claim, Armenian often treats the Satem shift differently, and even Baltic preserves non-Satem features. This suggests a much later Satem shift, perhaps with the historical Scythians

MfA said...

Aram

They're most likely E-M84>Y5412 (But I don't know If RISE423 had any calls, could you ask Semargl its positive and negative calls?) and also FGC18401 probably born in the region.

BTW RISE397 Armenia_LBA/IA (R1b-Z2106>BY3296)[1048-855 BC] is contemporary to F38 Iran_IA (R1b-L584>Y23838)[971-832 BC], RISE397 shows some steppe ancestry that pulls him towards north Caucasians in Eurogenes PCA.

http://i.imgur.com/0K6JrL7.png

Karl_K said...

Rob

"Armenian often treats the Satem shift differently, and even Baltic preserves non-Satem features. This suggests a much later Satem shift, perhaps with the historical Scythians"

Ok, of course all sound shifts are gradual. So maybe it had started in Sintashta, and was full by Scythian times. It is also possible that the 'final' major language change of the Baltic people occurred that late.

It seems strange, though, that we don't really see any genetic evidence that Baltic people have considerable amounts of more modern Scythian ancestry. I would think that would be more obvious. So maybe it was just elite dominance.

I think that new ancient DNA study on the Baltic region will be enlightening.

Davidski said...

Nah, it wasn't the Scythians.

Balts are certainly in large part of Corded Ware origin. This has been obvious for a long time now.

So the only people we can implicate are Sintashta and related groups, because the expansion of the chariot complex was the last really profound expansion from the steppes into temperate Europe.

Rob said...

@ Karl K

Yes, I hope so.

I should clarify- I did not disagree with your original suggestion, Indeed, it would explain many things.
Although, by that token, we should have expected Tocharians to be R1b

Karl_K said...

Rob

"One could ask: why would a relatively peripheral group of metalworkers in the Urals institue such language expansion"

BTW, I didn't say that the Sintashta invaded the Baltic and Armenian regions.

I said that the direct ancestors of the Sintashta may have migrated to each of these places from an unknown location. They would be siblings, not parents and children.

Karl_K said...

Rob

"Although, by that token, we should have expected Tocharians to be R1b"

Unfortunately, the Tarim Basin mummies are not actually known to be speakers of Tocharian. But even if that was the case (which seems a bit reasonable), then it does not really change anything.

Is there any reason to think that the Tarim Basin people were descendants of the Sintashta culture?

I haven't seen any.

A few whole genomes would be nice.

Ir Pegasus said...

@Rob

"Rather, & contrary to Ir Pegasus incorrect claim, Armenian often treats the Satem shift differently, and even Baltic preserves non-Satem features. This suggests a much later Satem shift, perhaps with the historical Scythians."

It's incorrect. Satem has the oldest transition. Armenian it fully shares. This transition took place in it until all the other changes. Armenian has RUKI-law as all the other Satem languages. This law is unique in the world. Baltic and Armenian have even Satem reflexes abundant, and prohibitive positions where no Satem transition is in the IA.

Scythians do not have any relation to it.

Rob said...

@ KarlK

"Is there any reason to think that the Tarim Basin people were descendants of the Sintashta culture?"

No , I said quite the opposite; because the Tocharians probably descended from BA Tarim, which is derived from Afansievo, thus Yamnaya, or now, Repin, one would expect the BA Tarim to be R1b, unless some kind of differential founder effect occurred.

@ Ir-Pegasus

Thanks, I take your point.
However, there is always 'The Albanian and Armenian branches are also classified as satem, but some linguists claim that they show evidence of separate treatment of all three dorsal consonant rows and so may not have merged the labiovelars with the plain velars, unlike the canonical satem branches' Several scholars have pointed this out.Perhaps it's only a minor detail, but an important one. Similarly for Albanian; & Balto - Slavic. See Trubachev, or Andersen.

MaxT said...

@ KarlK

"Is there any reason to think that the Tarim Basin people were descendants of the Sintashta culture?"

Yes.

(Allentofte et al 2015) regrading Afanasievo - "This eastern branch of the Yamnaya (or Afanasievo) persisted in central Asia and, perhaps, Mongolia and China until they themselves were replaced by fierce warriors in chariots called the Sintashta (also known as the Andronovo culture)."


Karl_K said...

Thanks MaxT.

Is there any reason to think that the R1a associated Tarim Basin mummy people spoke Tocharian?

MaxT said...

@Karl_K

Considering there is evidence of translation of Buddhist manuscript in Tocharian from c. 7th-9th century A.D. We can either say Tocharian came with Sintashta or Sintashta did not replace tocharian but assimilated into Tocharian society.

Extinction of Tocharian language has more to do with Turkic migrations (10th a.d) into the region rather than Sintashta migrations.

Atriðr said...

Tocharian is the accepted misnomer for the languages that have been deciphered, but better to use than Agnean, Kuchean, or Tocharian C for those languages...

The R1a mummies likely spoke something within the Indo-Iranian tree.

Also, it's not precise to say Scythians (very large term), but I'd also say it's not entirely incorrect as there is a continuity of some sort.

It's getting hot now.

Ir Pegasus said...

"The R1a mummies likely spoke something within the Indo-Iranian tree."

These mummies are no Indo-Iranian subclades Z93.

Atriðr said...

These mummies are no Indo-Iranian subclades Z93.

So what?

Afanasievo closer to South/South-Central Asian aDNA than Andronovo, so the exact nature of genetics to languages is still not crystal clear.

There is always possibility that it wasn't Indo-Iranian (naturally, we have no written records); then it'll be a non-I-E language.

But we are talking likelihoods, not certainties.

Ir Pegasus said...

@Atriðr

"So what?
Afanasievo closer to"

The Tarim mummies is no belong to Afanasievo culture. These mummies it not belong to R1a1a-Z93 branch. The origin of Xiaohe Bronze Age mummy, Hui Zhou, Jilin University http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-8-15/comments
The Tarim mummies culture and Afanasievo culture originates from Europe.

Atriðr said...

@Ir Pegasus.

I know well the comment. Here it is for others:

Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried HgR1a1in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M*in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belong to R1a1a-Z93 branch(our recently unpublished data) which mainly found in Asians. mtDNA Hgs H, K, C4 primarily distributed in northern Eurasians. Though H, K, C4 also presence in modern south Asian, they immigrated into South Asian recently from nearby populations, such as Near East , East Asia and Central Asia, and the frequency is obviously lower than that of northern Eurasian. Furthermore, all of the shared sequences of the Xiaohe haplotypes H and C4 were distributed in northern Eurasians. Haplotype 223-304 in Xiaohe people was shared by Indian. However, these sequences were attributed to HgM25 in India, and in our study it was not HgM25 by scanning the mtDNA code region.

First of all, he/his team need to publish this for confirmation by others, instead of leaving a non-specific comment.

Secondly, doesn't anything jump out at you in all this information?

Atriðr said...

Also, for the interested, from the paper in question:

Considering that the cultural characteristics
of the Xiaohe cemetery are similar to those of the
Andronovo or Afanasevo culture that appeared
throughout the southern Russian steppe, Kazakhstan,
and western Central Asia during the second millennium
BC [1,46], the admixed population might have had rela-
tionship with populations settled South Siberia during
the Bronze Age.

Davidski said...

The ancestors of the Tarim Basin mummies picked up women on the steppe and in South Siberia as they moved east.

They were probably derived from the Repin Culture of the Don River region.

It makes no difference whether they were Z93 or not. Z93 is not native to South Asia, but arrived there recently from the steppes, so if the Tarim Basin mummies are Z93, this doesn't mean they have anything to do with South Asia.

Atriðr said...

@Davidski

I wasn't implying anything about South Asia. Although I don't discount what that means by itself.

Kjontendor001 said...

Many people have been left wondering about the quality of study
Apart from their piss-poor English (how'd it even make publication), referring to "see unpublished data" is generally poor form
Publish the data and submit for formal review
Finally, I wouldn't put it past the Chinese to manipulate data for political reasons

Davidski said...

That Chinese guy and his comments aren't all that relevant now.

Like I said, it makes no difference whether the Tarim Basin mummies were Z93 or not, since we have a Poltavka sample from the Middle Bronze Age western Russian steppe belonging to Z93, and he shows no signs of any South Asian or even Central Asian admixture. He's totally European.

And obviously the Tarim Basin mummies had a lot of North Eurasian maternal ancestry, so again, nothing points to South Asia.

FrankN said...

@Rob: "This suggests a much later Satem shift, perhaps with the historical Scythians."

A frequently-used word for dating sound shifts is "hemp" (Cannabis), believed to have been borrowed from BMAC. It is assumed to have reached Central Europe with the Scythians, and thus allows to date the Germanic "c"->"h" (centum-hundred) sound shift to the 6th cBC or later.
Slavic *konopie and Lith. kanape for hemp, in analogous conclusion, indicate that satemisation was already completed by the 6th cBC. Satemisation also must have been completed in Armenian when it received word of կանեփ (kanep), and of course by the time when Indoiranian (satemised) Scythians themselves borrowed it.
Indic, interestingly, knows two variants: the regularly satemised Śaṇa, and the irregular Ghanja. The latter possibly reflects older IVC Substrate (c.f. Telugu Janapanāra, but Arab. qannab, Turk. kenevir)

@Aram: I haven't read anything so far about the Prisulak culture, and about the interaction of Steppe people and Caucasian highlanders in more general, but I wouldn't mind learning some more about it. As you have said, most papers are in Russian, which I unfortunately don't understand.

To all: Compared to preceding Steppe cultures, Sintashta comprises a much stronger EEF element, plus WHG/SHG (Villabruna)which, acc. to Dave's new K13, is virtually absent in Poltavka. Moreover, it comprises a smaller "Bedouin" component (1.5-5%) that in the new K13 seems to signal a Natufian element in EEF, especially Cardial Pottery (15% in Stuttgart, 10% in Remedello, up to 8% in Iberia_EN, 2-5% in LBK). Interestingly, this Natufian element is not only virtually absent from pre-Sinashta Steppe cultures, but also from Hungary_EN/BA, and from most CW_Germany samples. However, it shows up in CW_Poland (7%), Sweden_MN (Gokhem2, 8%), and Nordic_LN (5-8%).
In fact, the K13 structure of CW_Poland (RISE431) looks almost identical to Sintashta.
Dave - do you mind running a few stats related to this observation?

MaxT said...

@FrankN

Yes, both Allentofte et al and Mathieson et al mention it. "Arrival of Early European Farmer-related ancestry prior to the Late Bronze Age Srubnaya culture."

EEF ancestry in Late-steppe Srubnaya, Sintashtah and Andronovo means Indo-Iranians probably come from Eastern Corded Ware. It explains fair-phenotypes that early steppe lacked.

If Tarim Mummies have EEF ancestry then they must have come from Sintastah-related migrations instead of early steppe Yamnaya/Afanasievo who din't have EEF ancestry.



Ryan said...

@batman - it's pretty well established that Jordanes made a lot of errors when discussing the Goths. I wouldn't take anything about ancient migrations too seriously there.

Davidski said...

@Frank

The Polish (proto-Unetice) Corded Ware, Estonian Corded Ware, Swedish Battle-Axe and Nordic LNBA samples are indeed all very similar to Sintashta and Andronovo in all analyses run to date.

It's still an open question why this is the case. But more ancient samples from Poland, Ukraine and the forest steppe (Fatyanovo–Balanovo + Abashevo) areas of Russia will settle the matter soon.

Rob said...

I think the key here is the late south polish >>Sandomiercz<< variant , whic shows Catacomb-like grave forms

FrankN said...

@Dave: The Polish CW sample seems to be misnomed. It comes from Leki Male (Barrow 4), which is regarded as one of the showcases of Unetice in Poland. Timewise (2286-2048 BC) it rather belongs into early Unetice than CW (generally believed to have ended around 2,300 BC), and a screening of your K13 indicates that it also DNA-wise has quite a lot in common with Unetice. As to why Allentoft e.a. may have chosen to label it as "Corded Ware/ proto-Unetice" is discussed here
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31514-Proto-Unetice-aDNA

Leki Male was the necropolis of Bruscewo, a major fortified regional center with developed metalurgy and other processing activities, and possibly a key hub of Trans-European amber trade. Bruscewo was located on a lakeshore, and fish and duck remains were quite frequent, so sweetwater reservoir effects might have pushed the C14 dating slightly upwards.
http://www.academia.edu/1347170/Bruszczewo_und_Leki_Male_Ein_fr%C3%BChbronzezeitliches_Machtzentrum_in_Gro%C3%9Fpolen

Around 2000BC, fortified settlements, as also typical for Sintashta, have a renaissance in Central Europe. The Vatya Culture along the Danube around Budapest stands out here, a/o for its richness that appears to have resulted from control of long-distance trade. In addition, Vatya shows the emergence of a more mobile and pastoralist lifestyle, and opens up the so far only sparsely-settled Danube-Tisza interfluvial. Your K13 shows Vatya as the first Hungarian aDNA with a considerable (4-11%) Bedouin (Natufian) element. Hung_EBA (I1502, Mako Culture, ca. 2 mBC) marks the first entrance of EMBA_Steppe (22%), in Vatya the share is 18-31%. I'd say those girls (Vatya yDNA is exclusively I) came from the North, i.e Slovakia and beyond.
http://www.academia.edu/22372865/Kakucs-Balla-domb._A_case_study_in_the_absolute_and_relative_chronology_of_the_Vatya_culture

Further east, the Transsylvanian Wietenberg culture, also fortified, comes with complete replacement of Anatolian by European pig mtDNA, as we find not much later in East Anatolia. Could this be a trail? Of course, Unetice and Vatya had trade connections and shared some similarities, as had Vatya and Wietenberg, but I haven't yet seen a comparative analysis of all these cultures and, eventually, Sintashta.

More aDNA from Poland, Belarus and Ukraine would surely be good. From the MBA on, Cypriote and Greek copper was traded into Sweden, while a lot of Baltic amber reached Greece. Both commodities should have followed the same routes later also taken by Goths and Varangians. Only BA trade, or also migration (and how can we tell apart a trader's from a migrant's burial)?

But I wouldn't expect much from the forest Steppe (Fatyanovo–Balanovo + Abashevo). As all pre-Sintashta Steppe pops, also Karelia_HG and Motala lack that Bedouin signal that, interestingly, Loschbaur possesses (3.5%). This makes me think that the origins of Sintashta lie further to the West.

Jijnasu said...

@MaxT If Sintashta represents a movement of IIr speakers from central europe, what does poltavka represent? Also in that case why is Yamnaya a better fit for the steppe ancestry in south asians rather than Sintashta & Andronovo. Also it can't be ruled out that the later steppe cultures had ancestry from both Poltavka as well as from the CWC rather than a complete replacement

Roy King said...

@Davidski
I am convinced that you have beautifully shown an Sintashta immigration influencing MLBA Armenia. Also, consistent with what I have proposed in Peregrine's book on human migration, the EBA/Kura-Araxes horizon fits with a NE Caucasian movement southward--ultimately to the Levant. My question is this: can you divide the samples into the MBA vs LBA Armenians and do you see any strong differences? I would suspect not. The most plausible accounting of these results would suggest that the MLBA Armenian reflect a Mitanni superstratum on a Hurrian substratum, since Sintashta may be Indo-Aryan speakers and ultimately derive from a Corded Ware eastward migration. Please, if you can, discern the best dates for the Sintashta/Kura-Araxes interaction.

Davidski said...

@Roy

Yep, based on the samples we have available, Katnaghbiur Kurgan 1 appears to be the early high water mark for this steppe influence, which is probably not a coincidence considering the burial type and the steppe-specific T1a1'3 mtDNA also recovered from the remains.

Mbuti Eastern_HG Katnaghbiur_MBA Areni1_ChL f4 -0.000467 Z -1.033
Mbuti Eastern_HG Katnaghbiur_MBA Talin_EBA f4 -0.00121 Z -2.157
Mbuti Eastern_HG Katnaghbiur_MBA Kalavan_EBA f4 -0.001922 Z -3.883
Mbuti Eastern_HG Katnaghbiur_MBA Nerquin_Getashen_MBA f4 -0.000809 Z -1.289
Mbuti Eastern_HG Katnaghbiur_MBA Kapan_LBA f4 -0.001849 Z -2.726
Mbuti Eastern_HG Katnaghbiur_MBA Norabak_LBA f4 0.00007 Z 0.101
Mbuti Eastern_HG Katnaghbiur_MBA Noratus_LBA f4 -0.001974 Z -2.142

But as pointed out by Lazaridis et al., the situation appears to be more complex than a pulse of admixture from the north during the MLBA, because Armenia Chalcolithic (Areni1_ChL) already shows this influence.

So I reckon what we're looking at here are population movements of unknown groups from the steppe into the Armenian highlands during the Chalcolithic, then an interruption of this process by the expansion of the Kura-Araxes people from the Northeast Caucasus, followed by more steppe intrusions during the MLBA, this time by the groups related to Sintashta.

Karl_K said...

How does that Poltavka outlier look in this context?

Can we assume he was actually Sintashta guy, or he was a first wave immigrant from the west?

He had a lot of extra WHG ancestry, right? And the eastern Baltics were heaviest on pure WHG people at the latest times known in Europe.



Gioiello said...

@ FrankN

What are you saying? "Slavic *konopie and Lith. kanape for hemp, in analogous conclusion, indicate that satemisation was already completed by the 6th cBC".

"Mitanni (/mɪˈtæni/; Hittite cuneiform KUR URUMi-ta-an-ni; Mittani Mi-it-ta-ni), also called Hanigalbat (Hanigalbat, Khanigalbat cuneiform Ḫa-ni-gal-bat) in Assyrian or Naharin in Egyptian texts, was a Hurrian-speaking state in northern Syria and southeast Anatolia from ca. 1500 BC–1300 BC".
"Some theonyms, proper names and other terminology of the Mitanni exhibit close similarities to Indo-Aryan, suggesting that an Indo-Aryan elite imposed itself over the Hurrian population in the course of the Indo-Aryan expansion. In a treaty between the Hittites and the Mitanni, the deities Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya (Ashvins) are invoked. Kikkuli's horse training text includes technical terms such as aika (eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (pancha, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, turn, round in the horse race). The numeral aika "one" is of particular importance because it places the superstrate in the vicinity of Indo-Aryan proper as opposed to Indo-Iranian or early Iranian (which has "aiva") in general.
Another text has babru (babhru, brown), parita (palita, grey), and pinkara (pingala, red). Their chief festival was the celebration of the solstice (vishuva) which was common in most cultures in the ancient world. The Mitanni warriors were called marya, the term for warrior in Sanskrit as well; note mišta-nnu (= miẓḍha,~ Sanskrit mīḍha) "payment (for catching a fugitive)".
Sanskritic interpretations of Mitanni royal names render Artashumara (artaššumara) as Arta-smara "who thinks of Arta/Ṛta", Biridashva (biridašṷa, biriiašṷa) as Prītāśva "whose horse is dear", Priyamazda (priiamazda) as Priyamedha "whose wisdom is dear", Citrarata as citraratha "whose chariot is shining", Indaruda/Endaruta as Indrota "helped by Indra", Shativaza (šattiṷaza) as Sātivāja "winning the race price", Šubandhu as Subandhu "having good relatives", Tushratta (tṷišeratta, tušratta, etc.) as *tṷaiašaratha, Vedic Tvastr "whose chariot is vehement".

Of course the satemisation happened long before. I think that Samara R1b-L23 spoke a satem IE language, in fact the dispersion Eastward, Southward, Westward (Slavs very likely) brought onle IE satem languages.

Karl_K said...

@Gioiello

"I think that Samara R1b-L23 spoke a satem IE language"

Now that is pretty far out there. What connection does R1b-L23 have with satem IE languages at all?

Davidski said...

@Karl

I reckon Poltavka_outlier is more closely related to Srubnaya.

Poltavka_outlier f3
Srubnaya 0.18374
Poltavka 0.181845
Sintashta 0.180124
Corded_Ware_CE 0.179604
Andronovo 0.178737

Yoruba Sintashta Poltavka_outlier Srubnaya f4 -0.000477 Z -1.255
Yoruba Srubnaya Poltavka_outlier Sintashta f4 -0.001287 Z -3.648
Yoruba Poltavka_outlier Sintashta Srubnaya f4 0.00081 Z 2.221

Aram said...

This specific sample linking with Mitanni Aryans is very plausible. In fact it is exactly from the period of Mitanni rise. And there is no hundreds of options here. Either via Central Asia or via Caucasus. But we should keep in mind that this type of Steppe ancestry will most probably start to appear in South Caucasus immediately after the Kura-Araxes. It would be to early to link to Mitanni and Aryans. It will even precede Sintashta. So such a linking will create all kinds of other problems with timing of chariot invention and other stuff.

There is another people who was very active in EMBA Near East. It was Gutians. Their physical appearance is described as very light skin (Nordic). They are also described as barbaric who don't respect Mesopotamian gods and customs. Nothing is known from their language but IE speakers is possible. Gutians being archaic IE ( close to Tocharian ? ) from Steppe is even more plausible if we remember the modern distribution of R1b-Y4364 ( aka L277 ) in Zagros, North Iran and South Caucasus. And also the fact that ethnonyms like Guti are widespread from Europe to India. Getae, Gotaland, Goths, Juts, Jats in India and many others.

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

Aram said...

As for Armenian ethnogenesis I repeated many times here and in other places there is a growing evidence that the most important place of Armenian ethnogenesis was the Ararat Valley and Lake Sevan. The genesis was triggered by this MBA events, it was sometimes inhibited by various incursions like Aryans but during Late Bronze Age Crisis ( 1200 BC ) in Near East when Mitanni and Hittite empire collapsed and Assyria was severely weakened Armenians got an occasion to expand. Later Urartu expansion had created some problems but it was a temporary setback.
The archaeological culture that was proposed to be linked to Proto-Armenians are the Dragon Stones. This is the map of their distribution.
http://armscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Vishap-map.jpg

Unfortunately the paper is still not translated but I hope it will be soon published in peer review journal.

https://www.academia.edu/16328496/%D5%8E%D5%AB%D5%B7%D5%A1%D5%BA_%D6%84%D5%A1%D6%80%D5%A1%D5%AF%D5%B8%D5%A9%D5%B8%D5%B2%D5%B6%D5%A5%D6%80%D5%A8._%D4%B5%D6%80%D5%A5%D6%82%D5%A1%D5%B6_2015._The_Vishap_Stelae._Yerevan_2015

Gioiello said...

@ Karl_K
"What connection does R1b-L23 have with satem IE languages at all?"

That R-L23 of Samara came from Western Europe, where I think the origin of R1b1-L389+ and subclades was, and they brought Eastward IE languages is just my theory. You are free not believing in that.

@ Aram

"Gutians being archaic IE ( close to Tocharian ? ) from Steppe is even more plausible if we remember the modern distribution of R1b-Y4364 ( aka L277 ) in Zagros, North Iran and South Caucasus".

About R-L277 I may say much, because I am studying this subclade from so long. That it came from Samara R-L23 isn't demonstrated, and its presence in Italy is huge and from so long. See the YFull tree and above all the smal's tree at FTDNA.
The oldest samples are in Italy and it isn't demonstrated the theory of my friend Tranchesi that they came to Italy and Western Europe with Alans during the Middle Ages. This theory risks to end as the Alan theory of Ricardo Costa de Oliveira about J-M365.

Karl_K said...

@Davidski

"I reckon Poltavka_outlier is more closely related to Srubnaya."

Interesting. It is a bit hard to predict anything, when these various cultures kept overtaking earlier ones and moving around so much. And they never seemed to write anything down.

At least the genetics are more interesting than the old views, like...

"The only real things that distinguish the Poltavka from the Yamna culture are changes in pottery and an increase in metal objects."

MaxT said...

"Interesting. It is a bit hard to predict anything, when these various cultures kept overtaking earlier ones and moving around so much. And they never seemed to write anything down."

Thats one more reason as to why PIE did not originate in Anatolia/West Asia. Earliest evidence of I.E is based on Mittian tablet with I.E names and places. If PIE expanded from Anatolia or Armenia they would have recorded their history in writing.



Karl_K said...

@MaxT

"Thats one more reason as to why PIE did not originate in Anatolia/West Asia."

Not really a reason, more of a consequence.

Illya P. Constant said...

So, did you people miss the part where Italians (Celtic, Italic), Albanians (Illyrian, Thracian) and Armenians were all as closely related to the Kura-Araxes people in the Caucasus as the modern inhabitants of the region themselves?

Atriðr said...

@Gioiello
I think that Samara R1b-L23 spoke a satem IE language...
Samara probably did. I can't speak for the haplogroup. And the same will be said for a lot more. Also, the listed translations are close, but a bit off. For instance, "Arta-smara" would be "who remembers Arta/Rta." But your point remains.

@FrankN
What are you saying? "Slavic *konopie and Lith. kanape for hemp, in analogous conclusion, indicate that satemisation was already completed by the 6th cBC".

Probably earlier than that.

Davidski said...

So, did you people miss the part where Italians (Celtic, Italic), Albanians (Illyrian, Thracian) and Armenians were all as closely related to the Kura-Araxes people in the Caucasus as the modern inhabitants of the region themselves?

Pretty sure everyone saw it.

But it's irrelevant, because all of these groups have excess Near Eastern ancestry that has nothing to do with Bronze Age or Indo-European expansions.

olga said...

" I really didn't expect to see Latvians and Swedes sitting near the top of this graph. Clearly, someone from the north, closely related to present-day people from around the Baltic Sea, moved into the Armenian Plateau during or just before the Middle Bronze Age. But who were they?"

¿Amber trademen?

Matt said...

If this adds to the discussion, here are comparative Fst scores for the Armenian ancient populations and present day (I am presuming Kura-Araxes is the samples Lazaridis labels as Armenia_EBA?):

Fst Scores - http://i.imgur.com/Treq29q.png

Shift between Fst scores between each era - http://i.imgur.com/hcN3l8F.png

By Fst, each era is closest to ancient and present day Caucasus and Armenian samples by quite a lot, and become relatively closer to present day Caucasus and Armenians through history, however the relative shifts between each are:

Chl->EBA: Greatest increase in closeness to CHG and present day Caucasus

EBA->MLBA: Greatest increase in closeness to EHG, steppe bronze age and present day Northern Europeans

MLBA->present day: Greatest increase in closeness to present day Arabian and Levantine populations, slight shift away from present day Northern Europeans and ancient steppe

Davidski said...

Yeah, the D-stats and graphs are just a really easy way to show these shifts. Clearly, Latvians are not the most similar population to any ancient Armenians; they just share unusual levels of genetic drift with Armenia_MLBA as measured by formal stats like double outgroup D-stats and f3-stats. But this peculiar pattern is what betrays the steppe influence in Armenia_MLBA.

Illya P. Constant said...

"all of these groups have excess Near Eastern ancestry"
Excess in relation to what? Do you have bronze age DNA from Italy and the Balkans? If it turns out the R1b indoeuropeans invading southeast Europe were the same as Kura-Araxes people as the STR variance of European R1b suggests, then they would rather be indoeuropeans with some minor excess European ancestry, but first there needs to be data on bronze age southeast Europe and clarification on the poorly told R1b story.

Shaikorth said...

How's the IBS for Armenia_MLBA?

Rob said...

@ Atrior

"Samara probably did."

Wait, what ?

Davidski said...

@Illya P. Constant

There's no direct relationship between Southern Europe and Kura-Araxes. The inflated affinity of Southern Europeans to Kura-Araxes is mediated via other groups that had no links to the Kura-Araxes culture, like, for instance, Copper Age/Bronze Age Old Europeans.

This graph essentially kills your argument, and it doesn't even include data from very late Near Eastern incursions into Southeastern Europe associated with ancient Greece, Rome and the Islamic conquests.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dAE9C412Ma4/V_gyxQ1xaYI/AAAAAAAAE9M/UGevUWf4DUglCYeJS55F1FhbeJ3B1XmnwCLcB/s1600/Remedello_vs_Kura-Araxes.png

Davidski said...

@Shaikorth

Armenia_EBA IBS
Abkhasian 0.726326
Armenian 0.726273
Lezgin 0.725998
Iran_ChL 0.725968
Armenia_MLBA 0.725902
Adygei 0.725833
Caucasus_HG 0.725736
Iberia_MNChL 0.725538
Barcin_N 0.725197
Armenia_ChL 0.725138
Georgian 0.724994
Tabasaran 0.724914
Italian_Tuscan 0.724625
LBK_Germany 0.724557
Chechen 0.724545

Armenia_MLBA IBS
Armenia_EBA 0.725902
Abkhasian 0.725633
Avar 0.724916
Lezgin 0.724771
Tabasaran 0.724512
Armenian 0.724488
Caucasus_HG 0.724423
LBK_Germany 0.724421
Sardinian 0.724204
Bulgarian 0.724106
Georgian 0.724030
Yamnaya_Samara 0.724021
Swedish 0.723922
Lithuanian 0.723838
Norwegian 0.723752

Atriðr said...

@Rob
Well, I should have qualified that. Let's just say it's dependent on who was there.

And sensibly, better to stick to language discussions within recorded/written history.

But yeah, that's a discussion that'll need having.

Ariel said...

@Davidsky

But the southern europeans that are showing this affinity are not the one with the biggest levantine influence. Actually is pretty much the contrary. Also since modern levant has a bias towards Iran that has a bias towards Armenia EBA, Sicilians and Greeks are actually pretty far from the top of the plot. You can see who has recent levant admixture with this plot alone. And levantine admxiture negatively correlates with Kura Araxes.
On the bottom right of the plot you have population from the caucasus (no surprise there), on the top right you have Germany, Tuscans, Bergamo, Sardinians, Albanians, how does that correlates with anything in particular? Let alone recent movement from the middle east, or the romans, or the arab conquest?

Ariel said...

@Davidsky

But you definitely right on the copper age europeans inflating the score for those populations on the top right.

Ariel said...

"Armenia_EBA IBS
Abkhasian 0.726326
Armenian 0.726273
Lezgin 0.725998
Iran_ChL 0.725968
Armenia_MLBA 0.725902
Adygei 0.725833
Caucasus_HG 0.725736
Iberia_MNChL 0.725538
Barcin_N 0.725197
Armenia_ChL 0.725138
Georgian 0.724994
Tabasaran 0.724914
Italian_Tuscan 0.724625*********************
LBK_Germany 0.724557
Chechen 0.724545"

I guess now we know were Etruscans came from ... Aside the joke, the Tuscan position is super out of place, beetween Georgian and Chechen!

Davidski said...

There was a lot of gene flow between Southeastern Europe and Anatolia during the Iron Age. The Aegean was a major hub at the time and its influence extended far into the Balkans. This, as well as inflated Neolithic farmer and Old European ancestry in Southern Europeans inflates their drift sharing with Kura-Araxes, and indeed with all Near Eastern populations.

But you can't completely ignore the Islamic conquests and their consequences. Apparently a lot of people moved from Anatolia to Southern Europe to escape the Turks and Ottomans. One obvious group that comes to mind are Anatolian Greeks.

Davidski said...

Tuscan position is super out of place, beetween Georgian and Chechen!

It's not actually. Like I say, Southern Europeans do share a lot of drift with ancient Armenians, while modern Northeast Caucasians have recent admixture from the steppes, including East Asian admixture, which pushes down their drift sharing with the ancient Caucasians.

Rob said...

@ Davidski

"There was a lot of gene flow between Southeastern Europe and Anatolia during the Iron Age. "

I doubt it
The genetic makeup of SEE, too, was probably established by the Bronze Age

Ariel said...

Modern middle east negatively correlates with Kura Araxes, how can the middle east be responsible for Kura araxes affinity? On the right are all europeans and Caucasians. Greeks and Sicilians (the aegeans) are not the high scorers, but Germans, Albanians and northern Italians!!!
Turks, Arabs and Iranians are all less Kura Araxes than Europeans. The caucasus and EEF are what drives the affinity. Sardinians are on the top right, caucasians on the bottom right.

"Southern Europeans do share a lot of drift with ancient Armenians"
Yes, but why Tuscans are on top? Why them in particular? I'd like to see the rest of that IBS. What if we find northern europeans first? Or if we find a similar patter like Kura Araxes?

"The Aegean was a major hub at the time and its influence extended far into the Balkans"
The problem is simple, there are caucasian affiniy in northern Italy and Albania that don't correlate with levantine admixture, east med, or anything else really. If that affinity was mediated by a levantine population than Albanians will not score high Kura araxes, because Kura araxes has a negative corellation to levantines.
That proves to me that there was at some point, I guess before the Iron age, a migration from the caucaus or anatolia to southeastern Europe. That population was similar to Armenia EBA and Kura araxes and lacked natufian and iran neolithic admixture that today's is more common in the region.

Rob said...

@ Ariel

"That proves to me that there was at some point, I guess before the Iron age, a migration from the caucaus or anatolia to southeastern Europe"

Yes there was. It's been known for many years, actually

@ Atrior

* I got the impression that you're suggesting that Yamnaya-Samara was already Satem speaking. If so, a rather bold conclusion, to say the least. ...

Davidski said...

@Ariel

The problem is simple, there are caucasian affiniy in northern Italy and Albania that don't correlate with levantine admixture, east med, or anything else really. If that affinity was mediated by a levantine population than Albanians will not score high Kura araxes, because Kura araxes has a negative corellation to levantines.

There's no problem. You're just attempting to create a problem.

I explained already why many Southern Europeans show high genetic affinity to Kura-Araxes, without actually having any ancestry from Bronze Age Armenia. It doesn't have anything to do with the Levant, but a lot to do with the fact that much of Southern Europe and Anatolia was the same biogeographic zone for thousands of years right up until the Turks got to Anatolia.

Ariel said...

@Rob
"Yes there was. It's been known for many years, actually"
The genetic composition of the people from that migration is what I find interesting here. (A CHG/EEF mix with low shared drift with modern Iranians and Turks/Levantines).

Davidski said...

@Rob

Yes there was. It's been known for many years, actually.

Which migration was that exactly?

Davidski said...

@Ariel and Rob

The genetic composition of the people from that migration is what I find interesting here. (A CHG/EEF mix with low shared drift with modern Iranians and Turks/Levantines).

What are you two babbling about?

Aram said...

Mfa

I will ask about Rise423 to Semargl. Promised. :)


Davidski said...

It'd be pretty easy to see gene flow from Kura-Araxes to Southeastern Europe after Remedello, because you wouldn't be seeing the gap that exists here between Southern Europeans and Caucasians. You'd see something resembling a cline instead.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dAE9C412Ma4/V_gyxQ1xaYI/AAAAAAAAE9M/UGevUWf4DUglCYeJS55F1FhbeJ3B1XmnwCLcB/s1600/Remedello_vs_Kura-Araxes.png

Rob said...

@ Ariel & Dave

There were probably 2 or 3 post-Neolithic waves from somewhere in the Near East, beginning with the appearance of nomadic & Arsenic-alloyed metallurgy of Caucasian origin, via the Ilpinar- Ezero axis, then c. 2200 BC with quasi-state colonization modelled on Mesopotamian chiefdoms. I see possibility for direct Levantine impact on the Aegean islands & Greece, also.

Throw the surviving EEF groups from pre-4000 BC, incoming central-European inspired Baden influences, Yamnaya pastoralists. whatever CT-Usatavo were, and it rapidly becomes all to complex based on current data, even with Davidski's modelling ability. Only solid aDNA will resolve all these..Can't wait !

The complexity would be as equal in a place like Armenia, because these regions were not liable to rapid genetic & cultural homogenization like the steppe and nth European plain, but were genetically & ethno-linguistically structured at multiple levels

Ariel said...

"There's no problem. You're just attempting to create a problem."
No. There is a problem. A contradiction, for istance. And a straw man argument.
"It doesn't have anything to do with the Levant, but a lot to do with the fact that much of Southern Europe and Anatolia was the same biogeographic zone for thousands of years right up until the Turks got to Anatolia."
I totaly agree. But I recall that you always bring up the roman empire, or the arab invasions (that never happened for much of southern Europe), or some other "deus ex machina" "ad hoc" argument to explain why Italians and Greeks are not Sardinians. I remember a post in which you just show the fact that there was an arab like person in England, after that you start blathering about "how southern Europe is not was it used to be". Now with Tepecik-Ciftlik and Anatolia Chalcolithic we have ancient east med individuals that cluster very close to modern Greeks/southern Italians. Like it or not an hypothetical individual from those groups with some extra Yamna admixture wouldn't be that different at all from modern Greeks. That means that in theory Greece could be like it is today since the bronze age.
I'll ask you this:
Could be modern Crete geneticaly just like ancient Crete? And if not, are there any "non straw men evideces" for that answer.

Ariel said...

"There was a lot of gene flow between Southeastern Europe and Anatolia during the Iron Age"

Prove it

Samuel Andrews said...

@David,
"That's because this inflated genetic affinity is mediated via ancient groups of largely Near Eastern origin not directly related to Kura-Araxes, such as Copper and Bronze Age pre-Indo-European Europeans"

So you think Near Eastern ancestry arrived in Southern Europe before Indo Europeans? To clarify my thoughts; IMO IEs arrived in Southern Europe and mixed with WHG/EEFs then people from the Near East arrived afterwards.

Ariel said...

"IMO IEs arrived in Southern Europe and mixed with WHG/EEFs then people from the Near East arrived afterwards."
Right. In fact Greek is a semitic language. Do you know that once I went in Greece and there was a Kebab shop?

André de Vasconcelos said...

@David

Can you explain me why Spaniards plot near Russians, Ukranians, Estonians and Hungarians on that Remedello-KuraAraxes graph? I find it really odd.

Gioiello said...

@ Ariel @ Rob

But didn't you know the Book of the Truth, the Bible, where it is documented that we all descend from Noah and from his three sons and that all languages derive from Hebrew?
It is proved from an army of PhD-s from Stanford, Harvard and many other Universities...

Davidski said...

@André de Vasconcelos

Can you explain me why Spaniards plot near Russians, Ukrainians, Estonians and Hungarians on that Remedello-KuraAraxes graph? I find it really odd.

Something is dampening their affinity to both Remedello and Kura-Araxes, pushing them down and left. My guess it's a combination of higher North European ancestry than other Southern Europeans and minor North African ancestry.

Davidski said...

Ariel you need to be more objective and realistic, and less paranoid. I gotta run in a few minutes, so in point form...

- Neolithic farmers arrived in Europe from the Near East, and Copper Age Europeans were their direct descendants albeit with higher levels of European forager admixture.

- Southern Europeans have an excess of ancestry from Neolithic farmers via Copper Age Europeans, which pushes them closer to ancient and modern Near Eastern and Caucasus populations relative to other Europeans.

- High genetic affinity between many Southern European groups and ancient and modern Caucasians is largely mediated via a high level of Copper Age European ancestry in Southern Europeans, rather than any direct ancestry from the Caucasus. The relevant graph again...

Remedello_BA vs Armenia_EBA

- There is absolutely no evidence of any significant population movements from the Caucasus to Southern Europe. Ancestry specific to the Caucasus actually peaks in parts of Northern Europe because Bronze age steppe pastoralists, who carried a lot of this type of ancestry, had a bigger impact there than in Southern Europe.

- Much of Southeastern Europe, especially the Aegean region and southern Balkans, were one and the same with western Anatolia during the early historic period, with cultural, language and population transfers commonplace.

- Due to the close contacts between Southeastern Europe and western Anatolia during the Bronze and Iron Ages, the Anatolia_Chalcolithic sample is currently one of the most relevant ancient samples for describing the ancestry of Southeastern Europeans. Carefully and objectively compare this graph to the above graph; see the difference?

Remedello_BA vs Anatolia_ChL

- And yes, some Southern European populations do have relatively recent ancestry from the Levant and North Africa, and the fact that this dampens their affinity to ancient Caucasian groups is irrelevant to the points above.

These are my last comments on the topic until we see the relevant ancient DNA from Southern Europe.

Atriðr said...

@Rob
I got the impression that you're suggesting that Yamnaya-Samara was already Satem speaking. If so, a rather bold conclusion, to say the least. ...

I didn't say I wasn't saying that either... and in fact...

Let's just say Occam's Razor is rarely applied - hence why the principle needed inventing.

Gioiello said...

@ Rob
"Curious
For a while I thought our hypotheses might be similar".

Actually was I to say that, and it seemd to me that also Atriðr agreed ("Samara probably did. I can't speak for the haplogroup. And the same will be said for a lot more. Also, the listed translations are close, but a bit off. For instance, "Arta-smara" would be "who remembers Arta/Rta." But your point remains").
It seems that he is best expert of Sanskrit and Latin than Italian.

Of course everything is due to my theory of an Italian (Villabruna) or lastly Western European Refugium of R1b1-L389+ and subclades and the origin of the IE languages amongst the Villabrunas. Of course it will be easier to prove that at the genetic rather than the inguistic level, and we'll know soon if our PhD-s will publish aDNA of BB and of Mesolithic Italy.

Rob said...

@ Gio

I don't think my and your view on PIE will ever allign, but I heartily wish for more aDNA from Italy of course
I gather you've seen this ?
https://www.ucd.ie/archaeology/research/phd/daniel_fernandes/

Matt said...

@ Davidski: Clearly, Latvians are not the most similar population to any ancient Armenians; they just share unusual levels of genetic drift with Armenia_MLBA as measured by formal stats like double outgroup D-stats and f3-stats. But this peculiar pattern is what betrays the steppe influence in Armenia_MLBA.

Running some D-stats graphs myself it kind of looks like:

http://i.imgur.com/etfTODz.png

1. Armenia Chalcolithic relative to CHG is a more Anatolia_Neolithic shifted population. So Armenia Chalcolithic shares more drift than CHG does with the populations who descend from the first farmers in Europe - Albanian, Italian, Basque, Sardinian but also Northern Europeans, who also have quite a bit of EEF ancestry.

(That could be because "Armenia Hunter Gatherer" was closer to Anatolia Epipaleolithic (Boncuklu) than CHGs, which seems possible on geographic grounds, or because of farming migrations. No way to know for now. I suspect based on the Fst that Armenia_Chalcolithic may have had quite some ancestry from local HG populations who were drifting separately and were otherwise intermediate Anatolia_N and CHG, but wouldn't place a lot of confidence on it.)

2. Kura-Araxes relative to Armenia Chalcolithic is shifted away from Europeans and towards the Caucasus. However, relative to CHG it is still quite shifted towards the Anatolia_Neolithic descendents.

3. Armenia Middle-Late Bronze Age shifts back toward Europeans and away from Caucasus. However this time the Northern European groups more strongly take the lead, suggesting the change is more related to steppe populations.

I think that mirrors the Fst shifts nicely (Here's the Fst shift for Armenia Chl compared to CHG - http://imgur.com/Qv4CMIj. Shows Armenia CHL is most shifted to EEF populations compared to CHG.)

Though yeah, I wouldn't take the absolute position of the populations in the columns as a measure of differentiation between them (e.g. population X is less differentiated from ancient Y because they're higher on the list), as they do seem to disagree with the Fst and PCA and not to be as intuitive as Fst and PCA. (The relative behaviour of each seems maybe more intuitive - http://i.imgur.com/W39KjC9.png though it places some populations that are not represented by anything much in the columns closer to others than they are).

Antoni Małkowski said...

To jest dla mnie zimny kubeł wody. https://dna-explained.com/2016/07/31/jakob-lenz-1748-1821-vinedresser-52-ancestors-128/ miałem cichą nadzieje że I0374 to przodek CTS9219. Ale jest inaczej tak jak mówił @Gioiello.

Gioiello said...

@ Rob

I thank you for the link. Since now I'll put Dublin aside Stanford, Harvard etc. They are the same PhD-s.
But what does it demonstrate this map? That agriculture began firstly in Middle East. We did know that from so long. But their theory that R1b came from Middle East is false.
Not only I have demonstrated beyond any doubt that R-V88*, R-V88-M18, R-V88-V35 are older in Sardinia/Italy and that the African and Middle Easterner haplotypes derived from them, not only that R1b1-L389* is older in Italy than any other place, so for R-M335 etc.
But just the aDNA of these PhD-s has demonstrated that they were wrong: no R1b in Natufians, in Iran and Anatolia, if not derived in recent times. But, worst for them, neither hg. J was there.
What I have to say more? And you know what I think about the genetic origin of Reich, Hammer, Behar, Erlich, Pinhasi, perhaps Fernandes too. Ahahahahahahah

Gioiello said...

@ Antoni Małkowski
"To jest dla mnie zimny kubeł wody. https://dna-explained.com/2016/07/31/jakob-lenz-1748-1821-vinedresser-52-ancestors-128/ miałem cichą nadzieje że I0374 to przodek CTS9219. Ale jest inaczej tak jak mówił @Gioiello".

I thank you very much for this link. I receive Roberta Estes' posts, but I didn't read that. If I had suspected of the argument, I'd have certainly read that.
"Dr. Sergey Malyshev, a geneticist at the Institute of Genetics and Cytology of Belarus National Academy of Sciences who specializes in plant genetics". I know smal from the times of Anthrogenica, before my banishment, i.e. before 2013, and we collaborated a lot, and he often writes to me on eng.molgen, and lastly he accepted my suggestion that Sardinians thought from him Z2105 are really on my line Z2110, as it is in his last tree (of course the discovery was of YFull's, but I communicated the question to smal).
Fortunately, it is the case to say, that he doesn't come from Stanford or Harvard or even Dublin! His work is very useful for my researches, of course he doesn't agree with me, but we'll see next who is right and who is wrong: "However, a second small group of the R-KMS67 branch (including Lentz’s ancestor) could stay near the Black Sea for a while and then migrated to Europe together with the R-CTS7822 and R-Y14414 lines. This is only hypothesis, of course".

I have written a lot about these arguments, I think demonstrating that Yamnaya derives from Western Europe and not the other way around. And Villabruna (14000 years ago) is in Italy and not in Southern Russia.

Gioiello said...

@ Antoni

"miałem cichą nadzieje że I0374 to przodek CTS9219. Ale jest inaczej tak jak mówił @Gioiello".

Antoni, also your name is Roman of likely Etruscan origin, so your R-CTS9219 descends from my R-Z2110 through Western European CTS7556 and Y5592.
As to these lines of Z2109 not only I have demnstrated that the Western European ones don't derive from the Eastern European from Yamnaya, but this cluster has nothing to do with me and with you all: we have DYS719=13 from 12 (all the subclades have it), one of the slowest markers tested so far, whereas R-Z2109 has the modal 12.
Believe me, in this matter, as to me, there isn't anything for anyone.


Davidski said...

Breaking news : Max Planck ditch the Kurgan hypothesis

Otherwise known as Johannes Krause puts foot in mouth and sucks hard.

FrankN said...

@Rob: "The genetic makeup of SEE, too, was probably established by the Bronze Age."
Not sure about this. One shouldn't underestimate the late IA/early Medieval in this respect. Goths, Heruli, Alans, Avars all relate to at leást the North Caucasian foothills, Slavic migrations should have "(south-)easternised" various areas between Copenhagen and Trieste; even the Magyars might have carried Caucasians along.
We still lack áDNA baselines (MN/CA/BA) for most of SEE,but we have some for adjacent areas further north. Dave's new K13 has some shortcomings - most importantly, as derived from ADMIXTURE, it is partly anachronistic, i.e. sometimes clustering around ancient pops (Villabruna, Zagros_Neol, etc.), sometimes on modern ones (e.g. Bedouin). OTOH, it conveys a lot of new information that, of course, requires interpretation and further checking, but to me seems to be quite telling. So, let's look at what it has to saý about genetic changes in North/Central Europe during/after the BA (all figures in percent):

1. Hungary LBA (I1504, ca. 12 cBC) vs. modern Hungarians
Bedouin 0.7 - 12.3 (+ 11.6)
Anat_Neol 51.7 - 25.8 (-25.9)
Villabruna 15.8 - 12.9 (-2.9)
Steppe_EMBA 30.5 -28.9 (-1.6)
Iran_Neol 0.9 - 15.0 (+14.1)
Pacific* 0.4 - 3.0 (+2.6)

2. Unetice vs. modern Czechs
Bedouin 2.7 - 12.1 (+ 11.4)
Anat_Neol 32,8 - 24.7(-8.1)
Villabruna 12.8 - 13.6 (+0.8)
Steppe_EMBA 46.4 -31.8 (-14.8)
Iran_Neol 4.0 - 13.4 (+9.4)
Pacific* 0.4 - 2.5 (+2.1)

3. Nordic IA (RISE174; Oxe/SE, 6 cAD - already medieval in non-Scandinavian chronology) vs. modern Swedes
Bedouin 7.3 - 9.1 (+ 1.8)
Anat_Neol 26.9 - 23.7(-3.2)
Villabruna 12.8 - 15.3 (+2.5)
Steppe_EMBA 43.9 -35.4 (-8.4)
Iran_Neol 5.3 - 11.2 (+5.9)
Pacific* 1.0. - 4.3 (+3.3)

Apparently, there has been substantial influx of Iran_Neol/ CHG-like populations into Central/ Northern Europe during the IA and even the early Medieval.

* Pacific sums up Siberian, East Asian, Beringian, Sahul and Amerindian. The largest contribution in the comparisons above stems from the Siberian component.

Rob said...

FrankN

Thanks.
I meant that the "overall " make up of SEE was *more or less" established by Bronze Age, with little further movements from outside Europe.

Of course later movements like Slavs made an impact, but that was within Europe changes.
I don't think Slavs "souhteasternized" , at least as far as the Balkans is concerned. Quite contrarily, they shifted everything more northeast. I think groups like Alans made minimal and non-long lasting impacts, as they were essentially used as cannon fodder by the Romans (but we see the odd J1 and Z93..)

I have an Off topic questions for you Frank: what relations / origins do you see form the late Magdalenian-Hamburgian- Ahresnburgian- Maglemosian sequences in Germany (u can just email me if easier)

Aram said...

Matt

Thanks for that summary. I also noticed that Armenia Chl is shifted toward Anatolia Neolithic, but I don't think it reflects the Paleolithic rather the South Caucasus Neolithic (Shulaveri) which came from Northern Central parts of Fertile Croissant. And possibly had a similar makeup of Tepecik or Boncuklu samples.

Aram said...

Well as for extra EHG in Chl. In theory it shouldn't be there in Early Neolithic Shulaveri. (I hope Olympos doesn't read this :) imho it came at late Neolithic /Chl.

Aram said...

Mfa

I asked Semargl here
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,9129.345.html

MfA said...

Thanks Aram, let's hope he looks into it.

BTW I uploaded this to gedmatch

M497255 RISE397 Armenia_LBA [1048-855 BC] T1a2 R1b-Z2103>Z2106>BY3296

Gioiello said...

@ Antoni, please say Sergey Malyshev that what I said, that the samples R-Z2109* from Samara were all KMS75 and had DYS534=14 from 15 that was the modal. All the Europeans have 15 or more, and also M9739 fron Arabia has the modal 15 and has nothing to do with Samara. It is a weird haplotype, separated from the others so long ago and we don't know how it came to Arabia and from where.
Thus to think that Lentz comes from a person remained along the Black Sea whereas the other went to Samara and migrated later to Western Europe is not only not demonstrated, but even absurd if linked to a whole theory where R1b1-L389+ and subclades is deeply rooted in Western Europe.

Gioiello said...

Against the theory expressed from Sergey Malyshev that R-Z2109/Y14512 (Western European) and R-Z2110 came from Eastern Europe and not the other way around I'd say that not only for the mutation in DYS534 from 15 to 14 in the Samara samples but also because R-Z2109/Y14512 Western European and R-Z2110 have also three rare (at least DYS441) mutations in the STRs in common
DYS441    shared with R-Z2110 13→14
DYR160    shared with R-Z2110 12→13
DYS576    shared with R-Z2110 17→19
we may presuppose that they are closely linked, and perhaps we may find some SNP in common.
Thus R-Z2109/Y14512 and R-Z2110 are linked and Western European. Lentz haplotypes is an R-M2109/KMS67 remained in Western Europe and which hadn't the mutation in DYS534 from 15 to 14, and the Samara samples are derived from the Western European ones and not the other way around.

MfA said...

David can you try qpadm and dstats with using bellbeakers instead of sintashta for armenia eba, mba, lba

Davidski said...

Bell_Beaker_Germany produces decent qpAdm fits for Armenia_MBA and LBA, with about the same ratios as Sintashta. But the fits aren't as good as those with Sintashta. So it's like a worse version of Sintashta in this respect.

And it mostly can't compete with the steppe MLBA groups in these sorts of f4/D-stats. Maybe it has too much WHG/EEF ancestry?

Yoruba Potapovka Armenia_EBA Armenia_MBA 0.0086 2.264
Yoruba Poltavka Armenia_EBA Armenia_MBA 0.005 1.842
Yoruba Sintashta Armenia_EBA Armenia_MBA 0.0032 1.115
Yoruba Corded_Ware_Germany Armenia_EBA Armenia_MBA 0.0022 0.881
Yoruba Andronovo Armenia_EBA Armenia_MBA 0.0022 0.785
Yoruba Srubnaya Armenia_EBA Armenia_MBA 0.0018 0.767
Yoruba Bell_Beaker_Germany Armenia_EBA Armenia_MBA 0.0007 0.306

Yoruba Sintashta Armenia_EBA Armenia_LBA 0.0085 2.838
Yoruba Andronovo Armenia_EBA Armenia_LBA 0.0067 2.366
Yoruba Poltavka Armenia_EBA Armenia_LBA -0.0003 -0.098
Yoruba Corded_Ware_Germany Armenia_EBA Armenia_LBA -0.0005 -0.189
Yoruba Srubnaya Armenia_EBA Armenia_LBA -0.0019 -0.777
Yoruba Bell_Beaker_Germany Armenia_EBA Armenia_LBA -0.003 -1.202
Yoruba Potapovka Armenia_EBA Armenia_LBA -0.0035 -0.839

MfA said...

Thanks dave, what about using both sintashta and bellbeakers in qpadm for eba vs mba/lba? Does Mba/lba score any bb and fits gets better than compared to solely sintashta?

Davidski said...

Nope, it's about the same as using the Bell Beakers.

Onur said...

@Davidski

You should also use Cypriots in your analyses.

By the way, if you want to see a population that represents the genetics of pre-Turkish Anatolia well except the easternmost parts such as eastern Pontus, I suggest you to use the Smyrnian Greek sample from the academic studies. Or if you have Greek individuals in your project of fully Anatolian Greek background, you can also use them. I know one tested person of fully central Anatolian Greek background who can join your project. Also, two more fully central Anatolian Greek tests are on the way, I can let you know when their test results become available.

Onur said...

@FrankN

The latter possibly reflects older IVC Substrate (c.f. Telugu Janapanāra, but Arab. qannab, Turk. kenevir)

The Turkish word kenevir is a direct loan to Turkish from Greek, it comes from the Greek word kannavúrion, a medieval Greek form of ancient Greek kannabis (cannabis). The Arabic word qannab also comes from a medieval Greek form of the ancient Greek word kannabis, but by way of Assyrian rather than directly from Greek.


FrankN said...

@Onur: Thx for the info. I suspected both terms being borrowed from a Centum IE source, just wasn't sure about the timing and the specific source language(s).

@Rob: "what relations / origins do you see form the late Magdalenian-Hamburgian- Ahresnburgian- Maglemosian sequences in Germany?"
Good question! As I have grown up just some 5km away from the eponymous Stellmoor site on the Ahrensburg - Hamburg(-Meiendorf) border, and my long-term workplace was even closer, I am highly interested myself and started checking recent research. Seems that a lot of traditional views require revision, but it is not yet clear what new consensus will arrive. Ongoing re-excavation of the Stellmoor site, triggered by the expansion of the Hamburg-Ahrensburg suburban railway, shall yield a lot of new material.

For reading, I suggest:

a) A good and recent (2015) overview on "traditional" views and interpretations:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272009037_Deglaciation_and_Human_Colonization_of_Northern_Europe

b) The academia.edu page of Felix Riede, Aarhus University, with lots of recent (2010-16) publications shattering/ questioning "traditional" views, e.g. his 2016 paper questionning the validity of large tanged points as cultural markers (and, in consequence, the existence of Bromme/Lyngby as distinct cultural entity, instead of just being a regional expression of Azilian/Federmesser/Cresswellian)

c) M.J. Weber: "From technology to tradition – Re-evaluating the Hamburgian-Magdalenian relationship" (2012). You won't find the publication online, but various reviews in German, French and Danish, which highlight the questions and research agenda inspired by that study.
My main takeaway is that the Hamburgian and Magdalenian formed two distinct cultures. The Hamburgian followed a SW (Upper Oder Basin) to NW (Havelte in NL/DK) trajectory, and already used bow and arrow (Riede 2010). Both cultures converged in the Paris Basin during the Late Magdalenian, with Late Magdalenians taking over Hamburgian bow and arrow technology. From that fusion, the Azilian/Federmesser Groups may have emerged. Several issues relating to those observations, e.g. what happened en route from Hamburg to Paris (NL/BE), and how Azilian/ Federmesser (Cresswellian) relate to both, are in the focus of on-going research (see below).

d) Ongoing research projects, e.g.
http://www.nordicbladetechnologynetwork.se/
http://www.zbsa.eu/research/projects/projekte-mensch-und-artefakt/technological-analysis-of-late-pleistocene-practices-of-processing-hard-osseous-materials-in-the-northern-european-lowlands?set_language=en

e) Studies on the post-glacial colonisation of Norway, e.g. those found on the academia.edu page of Hein Bjerck (MNTU Trondheim).
In this context, the 2016 publication on a possible "Northern Doggerland techno-complex" that may have linked Hamburgian and Ahrensburgian traditions (the Stellmoor site shows a hiatus, possibly climate-induced, between both) and extended between Scotland, Norway and the North European plains, is of particular interest.
http://journals.ed.ac.uk/lithicstudies/article/viewFile/1393/1923

Danish archeology, leading in submarine research, is setting an eye on the Danish portion of Doggerland, and I am extremely curious about what they may uncover, also as concerns Ahrensburgian /Bromme/ Hensbacka - Maglemosian relations.

What is clear already is that post-glacial recolonisation of N. Europe involved active and widespread human-mediated dispersal of the hazelnut, and I see the Maglemosian "hazelnut economy" (Duvensee, Rum etc.) in that tradition. But Maglemosian also incorporated Eastern (post-Swiderian) elements.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00293652.2013.770416?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=sarc20

Rob said...

Thanks Frank! I might email you a draft summary of what I've collated

@ Dave

What if you model MBA Armenia as BA Hungary (being a proxy for a Balkan , proto-Phrygian group).

epoch2013 said...

@FrankN

I always thought of Ahrensburg as continuation of Magdalenian *via* Hamburgian. That is obviously a relic from the times that cultures were considered nothing more than periodic development transitions. So in your model Ahrensburg is a merger between the El Miron cluster and the Villabruna cluster?

FrankN said...

@Epoch: "So in your model Ahrensburg is a merger between the El Miron cluster and the Villabruna cluster?"

I don't have a "model". I just note that several "traditional" views have come under recent criticism, and a lot of research is ongoing to clarify the relation of the various epi-paleolithic / early mesolithic groups. Fortunately, it looks like traditional national perspectives are being overcome, and international networks start to study phenomena on a much wider geographical scale.
In this context, e.g., I find it quite encouraging that the British Museum's new Director of Scientific Research, Carl Heron, has previously worked with the Schleswig Centre of Baltic and Scandinavian Archeology (ZBA) under a grant organised by J. Müller (Kiel University), which will most likely promote a more integrative perspective on trans-Doggerland/ North Sea phenomena. Moreover, from J.M. Weber's Homepage, it seems that her analysis of Hamburgian-Late Magdalenian relations is now being extended to also incorporate Dutch and Belgian finds (and respective researchers), as well as cooperation with Polish institutions on the Hamburgian in Silesia.

A huge programme, jointly designed by Müller and Heron, which has just (2016) received German national grant funding, includes one sub-component (B01) labelled "Pioneers of the north: Transitions and transformations in Northern Europe evidenced by high-resolution datasets (c. 15000¿9500 BCE)." [Also interesting in that package: "D02 - Third millennium transformations of social and economic practices in the German Lower Mountain Range (Project leader Furholt, Martin ; Rinne, Christoph)"].
http://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/290391021?language=en

So, I think, we may all be well advised to maintain some patience and await what new research shall uncover. Having said that:

a) There isn't a direct relation of Hamburgian and Ahrensburgian. Instead, we have the intermediate Azilian / Federmesser/ Bromme-Lyngby/ Cresswellian horizons, which way ever they relate to each other and pre-/succeeding cultures, respectively. However, earlier views of a complete hiatus between Hamburgian and Ahrensburgian, derived from the Stellmoor stratigraphy, are increasingly being questionned and giving way to hypothesizing about a transition with some degree of cultural continuity that may have taken place on doggerland. In these hypotheses, the continental hiatus is explained by a combination of the Laacher See volcanic eruption, which completely de-populated Hesse, Thuringia, most likely also Brandenburg and the Lower Oder for several centuries, and climatic worsenning during the Younger dryas. Both factors together could have driven reindeer herds NW-wards into ice-free Doggerland (see the respective Heide publications on his academia.edu side for further discussion of the Laacher See eruption's possible impact on humans and large ungulates).

b.) Indeed, it looks like the Hamburgian advanced from the SE, i.e. Silesia, which could imply that it belonged to the Villabruna Cluster (Vestonice-enhanced? or even Ukranian/ Black Sea input?). The Magdalenian would then rather be EL Miron. Both pops could have met and mixed in the Paris Basin (and/ or already in Belgium/ the Netherlands?). But that is all pretty speculative in the absence of aDNA.

epoch2013 said...

@FrankN

Thanks. Like the Laacher See connection. I recently realized the Campanian Eruption may have much to do with the fact that Oase 1 hardly left any trace in Europe. I also realized that all Denisovan admixture as well as the recently discovered first AMH traces are west of the Toba eruption.

Ric Hern said...

Davidski what is your definition of Near Eastern? I get a bit confused because some people use this to refer to a region stretching from Iran to Turkey and everything in between. Others refer to the Levant and Turkey....