Seima Turbino samples on my old North-Asian PCA (in blue):
![[Image: ASIATS-FU.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/MGB1s1sw/ASIATS-FU.png)
(download original image)
(download original image)
The GenArchivist Forum
›
Human Population Genetics
›
Ancient (aDNA)
Childebayeva et al. Bronze Age Northern Eurasian Genetics
Childebayeva et al. Bronze Age Northern Eurasian Genetics
Check for new replies
|
Childebayeva et al. Bronze Age Northern Eurasian Genetics
|
Yesterday, 09:16 PM
Code: Russia_Bolshoy:BOO001,0.080814,-0.148267,0.122941,0.095285,-0.070782,-0.001394,-0.001645,0.000231,-0.001432,-0.046652,0.032965,-0.006294,0.015609,-0.05381,-0.0057,0.002519,-0.003129,-0.000127,-0.003394,-0.000375,-0.00262,0.004081,0.005916,-0.00976,-0.005987
Yesterday, 10:14 PM
Eigenstrat
https://edmond.mpg.de/dataset.xhtml?pers...7/3.HOKI5I (This is actually the old data from 2022 .) I still don't find the new Eigenstrat files from 2024.
Target: Russia_EIA_Minino:NEO538
Distance: 2.3442% / 0.02344186 | R5P 45.8 seima_turbino_Rostovka_ROT2 20.6 RUS_Fatyanovo_MLBA_Volosovo_Danilovo 15.4 Russia_En_Middle_Don_Vasilyevskiy_kordon_17 14.0 Russia_Volosovo_En_Sakhtish_IIa 4.2 Baltic_EST_LBA Target: Russia_EIA_Minino:NEO538 Distance: 2.4811% / 0.02481107 | R3P 46.4 seima_turbino_Rostovka_ROT2 29.8 Russia_En_Middle_Don_Vasilyevskiy_kordon_17 23.8 RUS_Fatyanovo_MLBA_Volosovo_Danilovo 
Today, 07:04 AM
(Today, 03:43 AM)VladMC Wrote: Target: Russia_EIA_Minino:NEO538 Many thanks for the models! So, no WSHG or anything related to that in Minino, which is also the case in Rostovka regarding ROT2. However ROT2 already seems to have something Sintashta-like, according to models recently published by Gabru. This ROT2:ish and EHG-CWC-something type of a mixture is possibly/probably also a model for the Ananyino complex.
11 hours ago
Ananyino is quite possible, but such a model also corresponds to the formation of the Chirkovo culture. Fatianoid ceramics plus Volosovo plus the Ivanbugor culture plus the Siberian component. Moreover, the Siberian component is represented only by arrowheads and bronze weapons, and ceramic dishes and other local archaeology. Therefore, many archaeologists believed that the population remained local, and the bronze weapons arrived through exchange networks, therefore Seimo-Turbino was considered not a culture but a phenomenon. However, apparently it was the infiltration of armed men from Siberia, who fell into local women's groups that preserved their former household traditions, for example in the field of ceramics. In this sense, Chirkovo is an indicative culture, which has ceramics similar to Fatyanovo, Abashevo and Volosovo, while bronze weapons and arrowheads of the Siberian Seimo-Turbino.
Quote:Most of the samples in this paper have low coverage, fortunately some of them were also sequenced to higher coverage by Harvard (upcoming Zeng et al. paper), so we'll have to wait for those BAMs to get more detailed subclades. ROS002 is just N-L1026, and it should be at least N-Z1936 according to Zeng preprint, while I couldn't find anything derived below R1a-M417 in ROS003. In the beginning of the XXI century, it was suggested that the “Seimo-Turbino phenomenon” was related to the Tocharians. Scientists all over the world did not pay much attention to this “ghostly” northern Seima-Turbino phenomenon in the XXth century. Indeed, at a certain geographic territory, similar “Seima-Turbino” traits in the production of bronze weapons appeared, but this appearance was not accompanied by the appearance of any shared types of pottery or any other shared types of artifacts, serving for the spiritual sphere. Such a situation reminds very much of a situation, which would be caused by purely technical and economic considerations. The Seima-Turbino phenomenon was dated to 15-16th centuries BC in the end of the XXth century. However, the oldest “Seima-Turbino” occurences were redated with certain reservations to the second half of the third millennium before Christ less than 15 years ago. During this period of 15 years, the dating of yDNA haplogroups had already became publicly available. Surprisingly, new dates for the Seima-Turbino phenomenon much better fit the TMRCAs of some yDNA haplogroups, which are available for the general public. Unlike the “Seima-Turbino” phenomenon, which could only conveniently serve as the northern “dead-end” offshoot, the ancient Tocharian population was paid much more attention to in the western world for the potential of its hypothetical intractions with early China. However, today it is already known from archaeology that oldest towns in China are either contemporaneous with the dates for the early Tocharian Afanasievo culture or even older than the early Tocharian Afanasievo culture, which did not have towns. Moreover, today it is already known that the domestication of indigenous varieties of cattle in China started as early as ca.10700 years ago; there are also genetic data on the indigenous horse breeds in China; the oldest Austronesian-related dog, available from ancient DNA of Southern China was dated to 7000 years ago, which is also considerably older than the Tocharian Afanasievo culture. Moreover, the earliest bronze implement in China is older than the new dates for the Seimo-Turbino phenomenon and its design is based upon the indigenous Chinese Neolithic stone implements, used for the same purpose in China; earlier cases of artifacts, made of other metals, than bronze, are also available from Chinese archaeological sites; the oldest chariot pits in China were either contemporaneous with the Sintashta culture or even older than the Sintashta culture. Consequently, it is the southern part of the continental interactions ("pertaining to the Afanasievo sphere") that should be paid attention to, but not the “dead-end” northern part. The genetic contribution of Northeast China’s populations to some “Tocharian” Afanasievo-related individuals, revealed in the IVPP articles, should be paid attention to. “Tocharian” Afanasievo is the population, in which, in the IVPP articles, there appeared small, but meaningful amounts of the eastern components of: [1] of the Northeast China’s population, whose word for “sun” can be inferred to have resembled the non-Mongolic "Jiangsu relic"/"pan-Asian" word “pi” because of interactions in "Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans", and [2] of a more southern ancient Sinitic population...
8 hours ago
Target: CHN_Tangbalesayi_LBA:C1714
Distance: 1.0050% / 0.01004985 | R3P 68.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 21.8 RUS_Khvalynsk_LN 9.8 Denmark_En Target: CHN_Songshugou_LBA:C3348 Distance: 1.5385% / 0.01538538 | R3P 52.2 CZE_Unetice_MBA 36.0 TKM_Gonur1_MBA_o 11.8 RUS_Baikal_EMBA Target: CHN_Kuokesuxi_LBA:C1662 Distance: 0.7645% / 0.00764493 | R3P 67.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 23.6 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_o_MLBA 9.2 Russia_Volosovo_En_Sakhtish_IIa Target: CHN_Jirentaigoukou_LBA2:C1365 Distance: 1.0855% / 0.01085533 | R3P 55.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 23.2 POL_MLBA_Trzciniec 21.8 KGZ_Aigyrzhal_MBA Target: CHN_Jirentaigoukou_LBA1:C1367 Distance: 1.0804% / 0.01080436 | R3P 51.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara_EBA 34.2 TUR_Ulucak_En 14.0 RUS_Okunevo_MBA Target: CHN_Tuoganbai_MLBA:C1699 Distance: 2.0445% / 0.02044501 | R3P 69.2 RUS_Afanasievo_EBA 28.0 KAZ_Kazakh_steppe_MBA 2.8 JPN_Jomon_MBA Target: CHN_Tuoganbai_MLBA:C1700 Distance: 1.4199% / 0.01419895 | R3P 52.0 RUS_Afanasievo_EBA 30.6 CHN_Chemurcheck_Chagangole_MBA2 17.4 Russia_Baraba_En_Vengerovo2 Target: CHN_Tuoganbai_MLBA:C1702 Distance: 1.1044% / 0.01104386 | R3P 60.0 CHN_Chemurcheck_Chagangole_MBA1 20.8 RUS_Fatyanovo_Ivanovo_EMBA 19.2 KAZ_Kumsay_EBA Target: CHN_Tuoganbai_MLBA:C1704 Distance: 1.9954% / 0.01995397 | R3P 55.0 RUS_Afanasievo_EBA 33.2 KAZ_Kazakh_steppe_MBA 11.8 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o Target: CHN_Chemurcheck_Chagangole_MBA1:C2037 Distance: 1.7754% / 0.01775384 | R3P 47.0 RUS_Afanasievo_EBA 43.2 Russia_Baraba_En_Vengerovo2 9.8 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_EMBA2 Target: CHN_Chemurcheck_Chagangole_MBA1:C2046 Distance: 1.7112% / 0.01711208 | R3P 48.6 KAZ_Mereke_MBA 33.2 RUS_Okunevo_MBA 18.2 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_EMBA Target: CHN_Chemurcheck_Chagangole_MBA1:C2047 Distance: 1.8273% / 0.01827254 | R3P 80.0 KAZ_Kumsay_EBA 15.2 RUS_Boisman_LN 4.8 RUS_Fatyanovo_Yaroslavl_EMBA Target: CHN_Chemurcheck_Chagangole_MBA1:C2049 Distance: 2.7255% / 0.02725473 | R3P 38.0 CHN_Dzungaria_EBA2 32.8 Yamnaya_UKR_EMBA 29.2 Russia_Baraba_En_Vengerovo2 Target: CHN_Chemurcheck_Chagangole_MBA2:C2040 Distance: 2.8026% / 0.02802639 | R3P 47.0 KAZ_Kairan_MLBA_o 29.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1 23.4 KGZ_Aigyrzhal_MBA Target: CHN_Chemurcheck_Chagangole_MBA2:C2048 Distance: 1.4943% / 0.01494337 | R3P 53.8 CHN_Afanasievo_Gongnaisi_BA1 29.0 RUS_Steppe_Maykop_EBA 17.2 TKM_Tepe_Anau_En
6 hours ago
(Yesterday, 04:04 PM)Rozenfeld Wrote:(Yesterday, 12:06 PM)TanTin Wrote: The data from this study should be very interesting, because we have far East Asians , Europeans and Scandinavians as part of the same culture (archeology). According to former AG member zelto: "I was recently gifted Evgenij N. Chernykh's most recent book Nomadic Cultures in the Mega-Structure of the Eurasian World (2017). The scope of this book is massive but I have just finished reading his chapter focusing on Seima-Turbino. Because Chernykh has been a premier archeologist on this subject for over thirty years, I decided to share what I've read. - The first clear example of an aggressive east-west migration "forerunners of Genghis Khan". - Chance finds in an expanse of up to 4 million km², from the Baltic/Lower Dniester to Central China. There is an inexplicably small number of finds throughout this area. Finds are primarily weapons, flint spearheads, metal jewelry, sculptures and in larger assemblages, nephrite "bracelets" or disks. - ST "cemeteries" rarely contain burial pits, and when they do, they often don't contain human remains. When human remains are present, they are usually burned beyond usefulness to anthropologists. "Memorial sanctuary" or "altar" is sometimes used to denote similar sites. - "Transcultural Phenomenon" is used because Seima-Turbino assemblages appear across cultural boundaries and within synchronous cultural landscapes - Why have no proto-types of ST artifacts been found in this area? Chernykh attributes this to the "Mongolian syndrome". The early ST groups may not have deposited their goods in a way that preserved them over time. Similar to the 13th century Mongols, who left little archeological trace. ST could have altered their belief system after encountering other populations." |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Check for new replies
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)