The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

[Gabru77]

@Jaska
Linguistic analysis of Max Planck Institute Jena makes it clear and completely supports what I said, I'm if anything fully supporting the linguistic evidence that is there

[Gabru77]

@Jaska
Then you should pick up Gamkrelidze-Ivanov instead of ignoring all the linguistic evidences, linguistic evidence isn't alone proving whether Anatolian or Indo-Iranian are from Steppe, archaeological, genetic, philological, linguistic evidence all do and all point to Non-Steppe origin for these two branches. Check Heggarty and his 70+ linguists. Linguistics don't say Indo-Slavic clade that itself goes against Kurganist fantasy of R1a

[jdean]

Colin Renfrew conceding Marija Gimbutas was right : )

[Gabru77]

@jdean
Obviously Renfrew's hypothesis is one of the most wrong ones, it's still amazing how it was considered alongside Kurgan up until few years ago but Heggarty and Max Planck Jena theory which is actually possible in every inch as opposed to Renfrew's impossible theory is being brushed as false
Do you seriously think there are supporters of Anatolian hypothesis? Well good thing I'm not, Armenian hypothesis especially the Max Planck Jena one is what's correct

[Kale]

It is unfortunate we have no samples from Western Kazakhstan prior to the bronze age to help elucidate the 'Tutkaul' component of CLV.
I suspected it for a while but thought I was in a small crowd in that respect.
Anyways, here's some models for Kumsay_EBA and Steppe Maykop.
right = c('Congo_Mbuti.DG', 'Anatolia_Barcin_N.SG', 'Anatolia_Boncuklu_N.SG', 'Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG', 'Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG', 'CHG.SG', 'Morocco_OUB002_Epipaleolithic.SG', 'Morocco_SKH001_MN.SG', 'Italy_GrottaContinenza_HG.SG', 'Bichon.SG', 'Sweden_StoraForvar_HG.SG', 'RUS_Arkhangelsk_HG.SG', 'Tarim_EMBA1', 'Afanasievo_KarasukIII.SG', 'Yamnaya_Kazakhstan_Karagash.SG', 'Andaman_100BP.SG', 'RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG', 'Peru_RioUncallane_1800BP.SG')
allsnps=TRUE

Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic 0.359224 0.0208512 17.2280
Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N 0.297426 0.0332411 8.94754
Botai 0.343349 0.0321419 10.6823
Tail: 0.98

Maikop_Steppe
RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic 0.519477 0.0200897 25.8579
Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N 0.236266 0.0323298 7.30799
Botai 0.244258 0.0319512 7.64471
Tail: 0.29

I wonder if this surplus Tutkaul is from the same source that contributed to CLV in the first place?

[Moeca]

It is unfortunate we have no samples from Western Kazakhstan prior to the bronze age to help elucidate the 'Tutkaul' component of CLV.
I suspected it for a while but thought I was in a small crowd in that respect.
Anyways, here's some models for Kumsay_EBA and Steppe Maykop.
right = c('Congo_Mbuti.DG', 'Anatolia_Barcin_N.SG', 'Anatolia_Boncuklu_N.SG', 'Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG', 'Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG', 'CHG.SG', 'Morocco_OUB002_Epipaleolithic.SG', 'Morocco_SKH001_MN.SG', 'Italy_GrottaContinenza_HG.SG', 'Bichon.SG', 'Sweden_StoraForvar_HG.SG', 'RUS_Arkhangelsk_HG.SG', 'Tarim_EMBA1', 'Afanasievo_KarasukIII.SG', 'Yamnaya_Kazakhstan_Karagash.SG', 'Andaman_100BP.SG', 'RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG', 'Peru_RioUncallane_1800BP.SG')
allsnps=TRUE

Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic 0.359224 0.0208512 17.2280
Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N              0.297426 0.0332411  8.94754
Botai                            0.343349 0.0321419 10.6823
Tail: 0.98

Maikop_Steppe
RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic 0.519477 0.0200897 25.8579
Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N              0.236266 0.0323298  7.30799
Botai                            0.244258 0.0319512  7.64471
Tail: 0.29

I wonder if this surplus Tutkaul is from the same source that contributed to CLV in the first place?

Russians did a survey on Haplogroups of the altai kazaks ..................I think they are wetern Kazarks .....................most where L and T ydna

[Moeca]

and more .............................why cannot load bigger files ?

[Gabru77]

@Kale
Is there WSHG signal in Russia_Samara_HG/Meso? I know it has some CHG

[Anglesqueville]

Probability of branches not coming from Steppes, or weight of derivation from Non-Steppe ranked in accordance of the South of Caucausus theory:-
Euphratic(hypothesised branch) - 100% Non-Steppe
Anatolian - 95% Non-Steppe
Indo-Iranian - 80% Non-Steppe
Graeco-Armenian - 50% Non-Steppe
Albanian - 20% Non-Steppe

The above 4 real branches have two routes possible out of which first 2 real branches(Anatolian and Indo-Iranian) are indeed not from Steppes, while Graeco-Armenian is an ambiguous case

I've been completely busy with technical questions for the past few weeks, so I'm jumping late on the bandwagon of this discussion and chances are my question will fall flat. How should I understand this bizarre equation "Indo-Iranian = 80% Non-Steppe"? Do you dispute the connection with the culture of Sintashta? And if you don't dispute it, am I to understand that there is another equation "Sintashta = ?% Non-Steppe" behind the scenes?

[Kale]

@Kale
Is there WSHG signal in Russia_Samara_HG/Meso? I know it has some CHG

Same setup as earlier. Tried various combinations of Sidelkino, Vovnigi, GolubayaKrinitsa, Progress, Kotias, WSHG, and Tutkaul. 
Tutkaul pushes out all other Southern and Eastern sources. 

RUS_Samara_Lebyazhinka_HG 
RUS_Samara_Sidelkino_HG.SG 0.751220  0.0813236 9.23742
Ukraine_Vovnigi_NHG.SG    0.0818529 0.0557380 1.46853
Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N      0.166928  0.0421024 3.96480
Tail: 0.59

[alanarchae]

as with all papers in this kind of field, it’s already out of date but it gives an v good summary of why neither Indo Anatolian or core IE could have developed in farming areas like Anatolia
https://www.academia.edu/108547976/Ten_C...he_Steppes

[old europe]

@Kale
Is there WSHG signal in Russia_Samara_HG/Meso? I know it has some CHG

Same setup as earlier. Tried various combinations of Sidelkino, Vovnigi, GolubayaKrinitsa, Progress, Kotias, WSHG, and Tutkaul. 
Tutkaul pushes out all other Southern and Eastern sources. 

RUS_Samara_Lebyazhinka_HG 
RUS_Samara_Sidelkino_HG.SG 0.751220  0.0813236 9.23742
Ukraine_Vovnigi_NHG.SG    0.0818529 0.0557380 1.46853
Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N      0.166928  0.0421024 3.96480
Tail: 0.59

what does samara-sidelkino mean? I think they are different clusters ( tough both are EHG of course) both in composition and in age. Sidelkino is thousand of years older than samara IIRC

[Gabru77]

@Anglesqueville

"Do you dispute the connection with the culture of Sintashta?"
Yeah I'm against that completely. What I said with 80% was to imply how strong is a branch to be derived from Steppe or not from Steppe, in which Indo-Iranian ranks second to Anatolian. I only dispute the origin of Anatolian, Indo-Iranian and Graeco-Armenian branches from Steppe and support the Armenian homeland theory of Max Planck Institute Jena

[Gabru77]

@Kale

Check if Golubaya Krinitsa and Samara_HG/Meso show IranN in distal run. If I recall correctly the Eurogenes guys said there is Mesolithic CHG from Imereti culture or something. So I'm skeptic of actual TTK admixture in it. Although EHG pottery could have origins in Kelteminar

[Gabru77]

@Kale
If you have Allentoft merged with 1240K Eigenstrat then could you please send it via Dropbox/Mega .zip file if possible?