In the Laz paper they went to great lengths to model BA Central Anatolia (Hittites), the only ones with Steppe ancestry. The best model is with Sredni Stih ancestry. Needing Sredni Stih ancestry to model BA Anatolia is evidence for a Western entrance to Anatolia as neither their Hypothesis B or A-East account for the presence of Sredni Stih or Core Yamnaya ancestry in the PIA.
Lol what? They literally state the eastern route in their abstract. Those samples are 90% Mesopotamian + 10% non-Yamnaya CLV.
(04-20-2024, 05:04 AM)J Man Wrote: The new Eneolithic era I11828/I31755 J2a (J-M319) sample from the Lower Don Krivyanskiy-9 grave 19 site is really interesting. According to the paper autosomal wise this sample is genetically quite close to Yamnaya although of course he pre-dates Yamnaya. It will be very interesting to see this sample's G25 results once the data comes out.
Also this sample is described as being similar to "Serednii Stih" samples in terms of burial pose, artifacts and date and his CHG like ancestry is apparently more similar to Mesolithic CHG compared to Aknashen.
Anyway interesting to see a J2a sample from the Eneolithic Steppe context.
I11828 6257 Krivyansky Russia T2a1b J-M319 J2a1a1a2b1b
That sample is very significant, because I speculated in that past that around the Lower Don, where we have a higher cultural development and see Southern inputs in the archaeological context, leading up to Sredny Stog, that there might be lineages involved in this fusion, which didn't make it due to later founder events after the takeover of the EGH clans.
That sample is the first evidence for this hypothesis being correct, that the diversity might be highest in the Lower Don region.
Those sites are relevant for the issue:
Krivyansky:Rostov Oblast, Lower Don group
Mariupol:Mariupol Neolithic Necropolis
Its a shame they got just one site from the Lower Don group from a too late time period, but at least one, better than none. Are there more samples from that site with yDNA assignment? I find the table not very neat.
Quote:Thus, while we can conclude that low
amounts of European farmer ancestry entered the UNHG population (from the western neighbors of the
NPR hunter-gatherers), it is possible that for at least some of them there was CHG-related ancestry as
well (from the east). Such ancestry was also detected in the GK1 subset at Golubaya Krinitsa Neolithic in
the Middle Don and at the Krivyansky Eneolithic (ref.3) in the Lower Don and may have thus extended
further west into the Dnipro region.
One of the R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a3a2 is from Mariupol (I27983).
Also very important is the "Proto-Yamna", so still no developed Yamnaya, from Bulgaria, which is R1a1a1 (R-M417)
This debunks the idea of "R-Z2103 elites" only in the burials, and shows that R1a came form a different subset of only Yamna-related (!) people.
The developed Yamnaya are, like usual, nearly all R-Z2103.
As fun as it would be, the call for I27983 is anachronistic and it remains to be seen exactly how much of it is legit:
R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a3a2 is
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297> M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z290>L21>S552>DF13>FGC11134>FGC12055>Z3026>Z16250>A114>CTS4466 which Discover has forming around 300 BCE https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-CTS4466/path
04-22-2024, 09:09 PM (This post was last modified: 04-22-2024, 09:09 PM by old europe.)
(04-22-2024, 08:59 PM)Dewsloth Wrote:
(04-20-2024, 09:31 AM)Riverman Wrote:
(04-20-2024, 05:04 AM)J Man Wrote: The new Eneolithic era I11828/I31755 J2a (J-M319) sample from the Lower Don Krivyanskiy-9 grave 19 site is really interesting. According to the paper autosomal wise this sample is genetically quite close to Yamnaya although of course he pre-dates Yamnaya. It will be very interesting to see this sample's G25 results once the data comes out.
Also this sample is described as being similar to "Serednii Stih" samples in terms of burial pose, artifacts and date and his CHG like ancestry is apparently more similar to Mesolithic CHG compared to Aknashen.
Anyway interesting to see a J2a sample from the Eneolithic Steppe context.
I11828 6257 Krivyansky Russia T2a1b J-M319 J2a1a1a2b1b
That sample is very significant, because I speculated in that past that around the Lower Don, where we have a higher cultural development and see Southern inputs in the archaeological context, leading up to Sredny Stog, that there might be lineages involved in this fusion, which didn't make it due to later founder events after the takeover of the EGH clans.
That sample is the first evidence for this hypothesis being correct, that the diversity might be highest in the Lower Don region.
Those sites are relevant for the issue:
Krivyansky:Rostov Oblast, Lower Don group
Mariupol:Mariupol Neolithic Necropolis
Its a shame they got just one site from the Lower Don group from a too late time period, but at least one, better than none. Are there more samples from that site with yDNA assignment? I find the table not very neat.
Quote:Thus, while we can conclude that low
amounts of European farmer ancestry entered the UNHG population (from the western neighbors of the
NPR hunter-gatherers), it is possible that for at least some of them there was CHG-related ancestry as
well (from the east). Such ancestry was also detected in the GK1 subset at Golubaya Krinitsa Neolithic in
the Middle Don and at the Krivyansky Eneolithic (ref.3) in the Lower Don and may have thus extended
further west into the Dnipro region.
One of the R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a3a2 is from Mariupol (I27983).
Also very important is the "Proto-Yamna", so still no developed Yamnaya, from Bulgaria, which is R1a1a1 (R-M417)
This debunks the idea of "R-Z2103 elites" only in the burials, and shows that R1a came form a different subset of only Yamna-related (!) people.
The developed Yamnaya are, like usual, nearly all R-Z2103.
As fun as it would be, the call for I27983 is anachronistic and it remains to be seen exactly how much of it is legit:
R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a3a2 is
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297> M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z290>L21>S552>DF13>FGC11134>FGC12055>Z3026>Z16250>A114>CTS4466 which Discover has forming around 300 BCE https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-CTS4466/path
Any chance I27983 could be R1b M 269 . Just asking. I mean given his age
(04-22-2024, 08:59 PM)Dewsloth Wrote: As fun as it would be, the call for I27983 is anachronistic and it remains to be seen exactly how much of it is legit:
R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a3a2 is
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297> M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z290>L21>S552>DF13>FGC11134>FGC12055>Z3026>Z16250>A114>CTS4466 which Discover has forming around 300 BCE https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-CTS4466/path
Like I always tell people, all ancient DNA files have at least one or two L21 calls because it is the most deeply tested haplogroup in the world. Yamnaya sample I3525 is also listed as R1b1a1b1a1a2c1, but when you look at the amount of SNP calls, it is very, very low.
(04-20-2024, 09:31 AM)Riverman Wrote: That sample is very significant, because I speculated in that past that around the Lower Don, where we have a higher cultural development and see Southern inputs in the archaeological context, leading up to Sredny Stog, that there might be lineages involved in this fusion, which didn't make it due to later founder events after the takeover of the EGH clans.
That sample is the first evidence for this hypothesis being correct, that the diversity might be highest in the Lower Don region.
Those sites are relevant for the issue:
Krivyansky:Rostov Oblast, Lower Don group
Mariupol:Mariupol Neolithic Necropolis
Its a shame they got just one site from the Lower Don group from a too late time period, but at least one, better than none. Are there more samples from that site with yDNA assignment? I find the table not very neat.
One of the R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a3a2 is from Mariupol (I27983).
Also very important is the "Proto-Yamna", so still no developed Yamnaya, from Bulgaria, which is R1a1a1 (R-M417)
This debunks the idea of "R-Z2103 elites" only in the burials, and shows that R1a came form a different subset of only Yamna-related (!) people.
The developed Yamnaya are, like usual, nearly all R-Z2103.
As fun as it would be, the call for I27983 is anachronistic and it remains to be seen exactly how much of it is legit:
R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a3a2 is
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297> M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z290>L21>S552>DF13>FGC11134>FGC12055>Z3026>Z16250>A114>CTS4466 which Discover has forming around 300 BCE https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-CTS4466/path
Any chance I27983 could be R1b M 269 . Just asking. I mean given his age
I don't know, but I'm sure one of the more competent people here will eventually tweeze the thing apart for a better call.
(04-20-2024, 02:46 PM)Riverman Wrote: People just need to follow the breadcrumbs, because Yamnaya didn't use corded decorated pottery, but other Western steppe groups did, like Usatovo, Cernavoda and Cotofeni. That points to the Western complex being interrelated and in exchange, while the actual Yamnaya were intrusive and from a different subset of Sredny Stog descendants in the East.
The Besiktas Kurgan burials - As the crow flies just a few miles west from Anatolia - had figurines, with rune like signs said to have been connected to the Vinca "runes".
(04-19-2024, 11:29 AM)Archetype0ne Wrote: I wonder how do we interpret this?
"Pre-Indo-Anatolian languages were spoken by at least some of these diverse ancestors, but living Indo-European languages trace their ongins to the Yamnaya expansion ca. 3300BCE out of (3) and the earlier Indo-Anatolian expansion ca 4400-4000BCE out of (1)"
Does the <"out of" one> have the meaning of "bar"/"except". And if so would this mean that Armenian, Greek and Albanian (3) and Anatolian IE (1) somehow diversified from the stem pre Yamnaya?
To me it looks clear: all the living IE languages, including Armenian, Greek, and Albanian, stem from 3, and only Anatolian stems from 1. It means that after the phase 1, Pre-Proto-Anatolian branched off, and only after the phase 3, all the other branches (possibly excl. Tocharian, which is not living any longer) branched off.
so basically their take that area number 1 is the urheimat is based esclusively on the anatolian language split.
Well anatolian language arriving from the balkans ( and later on) would have been brought by a population that was basically nearly 100% EEF so quite difficult to spot them.
Lordy these R1bV136 folks are the greatest language teachers in history. Despite being a very tiny minority among every branch of IE living languages they are considered by the authors as the sole creators of PIE. Look a lot like BS to me frankly
This is how I currently see it:
1. Sredny Stog --> Anatolians
2. Yamnaya expand into steppe and push Sredny Stog and other lineages out to margins, encouraging them to expand northward and westward
3. These now marginalized groups take in some Yamnaya women, and adopt more "standard" Yamnaya dialect, similar to how Macedonians adopted Attic Greek, and become Corded Ware and other groups
The cline emphasis seems very contrived. Modeling populations as having admixture "from a cline" or being descended "from a cline" seems to serve no purpose but to connect Yamnaya having ancestry from one end of the cline, to Anatolians having ancestry from the other end of the cline. A cline may I add, that is clearly not part of some sort of cultural horizon and has a literal mountain range and two seas crossing through it.
(04-24-2024, 12:47 AM)billh Wrote: The cline emphasis seems very contrived. Modeling populations as having admixture "from a cline" or being descended "from a cline" seems to serve no purpose but to connect Yamnaya having ancestry from one end of the cline, to Anatolians having ancestry from the other end of the cline. A cline may I add, that is clearly not part of some sort of cultural horizon and has a literal mountain range and two seas crossing through it.
Not part of some cultural horizon? This cline spread the nomadic pastoralist lifestyle across the entire Pontic-Caspian steppe, before then populated by various mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups. That's a pretty impressive cultural horizon, I'd think.
04-24-2024, 08:30 AM (This post was last modified: 04-24-2024, 08:31 AM by old europe.)
I think this paper was elaborated nearly at the same time the Allentoft paper was. The explanation of the formation of Yamanya has been recentlu explained by Allentoft:
Although the broader effects of the steppe migrations around 5,000 cal. bp are well known, the origin of this ancestry has remained a mystery. Here we show that the steppe ancestry composition (Steppe_5000BP_4300BP) can be modelled as a mixture of around 65% ancestry related to herein-reported HG genomes from the Middle Don River region (MiddleDon_7500BP) and around 35% ancestry related to HGs from Caucasus (Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) (Extended Data Fig. 6 and Supplementary Data 9). Thus, Middle Don HGs, who already carried ancestry related to Caucasus HGs (Extended Data Fig. 4a), serve as a hitherto-unknown proximal source for the majority ancestry contribution into Yamnaya-related genomes. The individuals in question derive from the burial ground Golubaya Krinitsa (Supplementary Note 3). Material culture and burial practices at this site are similar to the Mariupol-type graves, which are widely found in neighbouring regions of Ukraine; for instance, along the Dnepr River. They belong to the group of complex pottery-using HGs mentioned above, but the genetic composition at Golubaya Krinitsa is different from that in the remaining Ukrainian sites (Fig. 2a and Extended Data Fig. 5). A previous study30 suggested a model for the formation of Yamnaya ancestry that includes a ‘northern’ steppe source (EHG + CHG ancestry) and a ‘southern’ Caucasus Chalcolithic source (CHG ancestry), but did not identify the exact origin of these sources. The Middle Don genomes analysed here show the appropriate balance of EHG and CHG ancestry, suggesting that they are candidates for the missing northern proximate source for Yamnaya ancestry.
That is why every european population can be modeled with the tripartite composition: MIDDLE DON-WHG-EEF
to take also in consideration the archeological origins of the lower Volga in the Azov Don area
The territory of Lower Volga occupies a special place in studying the cultural genesisof Eastern Europe. Prominent cultures of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age were formed there and played animportant role in the formation of the Volga-Ural hearth of cultural genesis. Equally important is the problem of theorigin of the Caspian culture, with which researchers associate the beginning of the spread of cattle breeding andthe emergence of the first copper products in the Volga steppe. Methods and discussion. The researchers expressedquite similar views on this issue. The process of Caspian culture origin in the Lower Volga region was consideredas autochthonous with the participation of northern components. The substrate basis was the Oryol culture, andthe superstrate was the societies of the Volga region forest-steppe. The comprehensive analysis of Volga steppematerials allows offering an alternative view of the Caspian culture genesis. The appearance of several features(collar-like thickening, a combed stamp, the technique of increased spin, producing economy, the dominance ofquartzite raw materials for the manufacture of tools, the technique of forced squeezing in the receipt of logs, theemergence of producing farming in the form of cattle breeding, etc.) is associated not with the northern foreststeppeand forest-steppe, but with western components. The comparative analysis of radiocarbon dates of theforest-steppe and steppe Volga, Northern Caspian Sea and Don area supports this version. The chronologicalpriority is fixed for materials of the Don area and Azov region. It is in these areas that the leading features characteristicof the Caspian culture appeared earlier.
Looks like Allentoft was way off. There were no mesolithic CHG's trekking to the Middle Don region in the Neolithic.
Instead, there were neolithic pastoralists (a CHG/EHG/Central Asian mixture) expanding in all directions from the N Caucasus/Caspian region. Which makes way more sense.
Quote:The chronologicalpriority is fixed for materials of the Don area and Azov region. It is in these areas that the leading features characteristicof the Caspian culture appeared earlier.
Both the Don and the Lower Volga regions got their cattle breeding and the accompanying cultural/technological package from N Caucasus.
At this point, the most interesting element of the CLV cline mix is probably their Central Asian component. How did it get there? What role did it play?
(04-25-2024, 02:31 PM)Jerome Wrote: Has anyone been successful with merging?
I was trying to merge the cayonu cay007 eigenstrat into Harvard v54 but I am getting a lot of errors.
I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on the BAM file for I33307 3705-3533 calBCE Russia_CaspianInland_EBA_Yamnaya R-Z2106. I think that is the oldest specimen that is derived for a subclade of R-L23. Interestingly the 14C date is close what FTDNA has for R-Z2106 which is 3650-3450 BCE. https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z2106/story
