A genomic history of the North Pontic Region from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age

[Anthrofennica]

Who early linguists?

I came accross David Anthony article from 2006: https://www.researchgate.net/publication...-_Germanic

But he is more of an anthropologist, but this hypothesis pops out here and there in google search but doesn't look convincing to me at all.

Both the question of where Usatovo was going and why some people might connect it with Pre-Germanic are connected to some degree. First off, the Cernavoda-Usatovo groups spread primarily in two directions: West into Transylvania and South into Bulgaria and possibly moving on to North West Anatolia as well.

One group of Cernavoda-Usatovo was mixing with both Tripolye-Cucuteni and GAC groups, and its this highly mixed group which moved into the Carpathian basin, presumably forming first Decea Muresului and then Cotofeni possibly.
They are therefore the direct ancestors of the Carpathian basin local element for the Bronze Age.

Transylvania had two significant EBA groups, Cotofeni and Zimnicea:

The discovery of inhumation rock tombs at Sânzieni (SZÉKELY 1980, 39–46) and Turia (SZÉKELY 1983b, 61–67), each with two Zimnicea–Mlăjet type askos vessels prove, that the development of communities from the Transition Period – represented by the first phase of the Coţofeni Culture – was disturbed by a Zimnicea type southern penetration (ROMAN 1986, 38). Therefore, the Early Bronze Age debuted much earlier in south/eastern Transylvania, marked by an earlier end of the last phase of the Coţofeni Culture, while in the central and western part of Transylvania there are attested the second and the third phases of this culture. The penetration of this Zimnicea–Mlăjet type shepherd communities had an economic ground, namely, the importance of this ore-rich zone from south-eastern Transylvania.

Now this is crucial, because it proves that the same kind of mix we find further East appeared in Transylvania, a mix of Usatovo, Triipolye-Cucuteni and GAC:

The discovery of a rock tomb with contracted skeleton burial at Sânmartin-Ciuc (Harghita county), (SZÉKELY 2002b, 40–44), informs us with new information about the Neo– Eneolithic period from south-eastern Transylvania. The inventory of this burial contained two bone applications found in the zone of the pelvis. Similar bone application was discovered in the second grave from Dolheştii Mari, dated to the Globular Amphora Culture (BERCIU 1960, 77– 79; DINU 1961, fig. 5, 6). This grave represents the first and the only proof of the penetration of the Globular Amphora Culture in the Ciuc Basin. These Volhyno–Podolian communities from the north-west penetrated to the territory of Moldavia after Cucuteni (B2) Culture together with the south-eastern Usatovo community forming the Horodiştea–Erbiceni Culture (DINU 1968). The tribes of the Globular Amphora Culture penetrated in the late phase of their evolution and occupied Moldavia up to Piatra Neamţ and down to Galaţi (ROMAN 1981, 38) and the settlement from Folteşti. These communities integrated into the transition process, forming the Zimnicea–Mlăjet–Sânzieni–Turia type settlements, and they may have contributed to the later formation of Schneckenberg Culture from south-east Transylvania and that of Scneckenberg B– Jigodin Culture from the Ciuc Basin (SZÉKELY 2000).

There are multiple GAC finds within the wider context of Cotofeni:

At Albiş, (Covasna County), in the garden of Bajka Ferenc a settlement belonging to the Coţofeni Culture was discovered, with two pottery fragments characteristic to the Globular Amphora Culture. A third discovery had been made between Sf. Gheorghe, (Covasna County) and Arcuş, (Covasna County). It was a Coţofeni Culture settlement, where the archaeological material consisted of a fragmentary vessel, belonging to the Globular Amphora Culture. Among other potsherds collected from the bank of the brook, there was a small cup with flat bottom and a little everted opening.

The Eastern GAC communities seem to have mixed with a WHG rich forager group, so they might be one of the spreaders of high WHG ancestry in various regional communities in and around the Carpathian Basin.

Here we have it, the three part fusion of Tripolye-Cucuteni (Gorodsk subgroup), Usatovo and GAC:

Based on these discoveries, as conclusion we can say the followings: in the territory of Suceava Plateau the communities of the Globular Amphora Cultures penetrated from northwest, while the Usatovo tribes arrived from south-east and pushed the Gorodsk type communities to the central and northern parts of Moldavia, which on the territory of northern Tripolje formed an individual culture. These communities penetrated into the territory of Moldavia after the B2 phase of Cucuteni Culture and gave birth to Horodiştea–Erbiceni Culture.

https://www.academia.edu/979382

I'm pretty confident that from these late Cucuteni groups, probably Gorodsk directly, the E1b1b carrier might have come from in the Usatovo context. Either that or from a nearby group of TCC or Petresti.

Already Gimbutas looked at these cultures as fusions of TCC, GAC and "Kurgan invaders":

Im Westen der Ukraine und in Bessarabien waren die neugebildeten kulturellen Gruppen (Usatovo, Gorodsk und Folteşti I) das Ergebnis der Kombination von Elementen der „Kurgan”-Tradition mit denen der lokalen Cucuteni-Tripolje-Kultur. Viel weiter westlich hatte die „Kurganbevölkerung” anscheinend auch auch die Entwicklung der Baden-Kultur geprägt (Gimbutas 1994, 49–88; Gimbutas 1997, 249–256).

The specific type of TCC, Gorodsk, being most often mentioned as influential and fusing with Usatovo steppe groups:

Im Nordwesten des Schwarzen Meeres unterhielten die neugebildetenen kulturellen Einheiten Cernavodă IIFolteşti II enge Kontakte mit dem Usatov-Milieu, während dieses seinerseits weiter ostwärts mit jenen des Typus Gorodsk und des frühen Jamnaja zusammenwirkte

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...0-_2500_BC

To sum it up, there were three important formations interacting with each other Tripolye-Cucuteni, Usatovo and Globular Amphora groups, From the West other groups influenced as well (Baden) and from the East too (new steppe groups, including Yamnaya).

The mixed element of the three West Ukrainian-Moldovan groups moved both West into Romania and South into Bulgaria. At least that's how I look at it right now.

Concerning Pre-Germanic, some might have speculated about Unetice being an important factor for Pre-Germanic. And Unetice had strong ties to the Carpathian basin. We see, beside Epi-Corded R1a and Bell Beaker R1b also some presumably GAC derived I2a in Unetice, and a distinctive connection, more so than for Bell Beakers and Corded Ware, to the Carpathian Basin.
Therefore the most likely link some might have seen should be, in my opinion, Unetice. A direct origin from Usatovo makes even less sense, even if some might have proposed it.

The Baden paper last year proposed the elevation in HG ancestry analogous to Funnel Beaker indicated an origin in Northern Europe. The Baden patrilineal pool is very different from the preceding Lengyel culture. Have you thought about the origins of Baden and how it might be connected to contemporary and preceding cultures?

[jdean]

In the Lazaridis paper

I12893
(Idzhil-2, 1981, kurgan 1, burial 1, IDZH-II-1981-1-1)
3300-2600 BCE
Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya
47.42, 45.523
R-L51

Can't find the BAM file but hope this is sound.

[ph2ter]

Judging from admixture maps.
Regarding the PIE people it seems to me that they were a blend of EHG, CHG and a small amount of EEF.
WHG people in Ukraine only later mixed with them. But because Ukraine Neolithic in lower Dnieper had significant proportion of WHG it is a question how EEF component ended east of Dnieper without any of WHG? Did EEF come to Don-Volga area via Caucasus or jumped over Dnieper WHG population without mixing with it?
Can someone explain to me.

They think that farmer admixture came from south of the caucasus. Technically speaking we should label them ANF in PIE. Even if I remember that in the supplement they can not rule out the arrival of farmers dna from the west.

From Eurogenes:

" If they had used the published data of the sample from the Nalchik burial ground, then this sample would have replaced their complex Berezhnovka + Progress + ARM_Aknashen_N scheme"

Judging by the lack of EHG in Anatolia I am afraid that Indo-Anatolian and Indo-European then arose from CHG-ANF people.

[Riverman]

The Baden paper last year proposed the elevation in HG ancestry analogous to Funnel Beaker indicated an origin in Northern Europe. The Baden patrilineal pool is very different from the preceding Lengyel culture. Have you thought about the origins of Baden and how it might be connected to contemporary and preceding cultures?

I gave Baden some thought, but quite honestly, its still very mysterious to me. The only thing for certain is that its a group which was influenced by GAC-TRB and to some degree from the steppe.

I'm really curious about Cotofeni, for many reasons, because it's so important on many levels, not just for E-V13, but also as the central hub for Copper Age survival in Central and South Eastern Europe, affecting, potentially, many succeeding cultures.

The only thing I can say for sure is that we deal with not just one, but two massive expansions of highly aggressive and warlike agro-pastoralists, one from GAC, the other from Sredny Stog. And all groups in the middle were squeezed to death in between them. If the steppe Sredny Stog people wouldn't have expanded over all the others, the GAC with whatever language they spoke would have. And its not by chance that they had the highest survival rate of all Copper Age populations in the future core areas of early IE, because they were in many respects so similar, physically, ideologically, culturally, to the Western steppe people. In some ways, they were closer to future Corded Ware than Corded Ware was to Yamnaya.

Baden represents a regional adaptation to the steppe challenge, but its really one of those groups I have the biggest trouble to sort out yet.

[Jack Johnson]

Basic components with old samples (before we get the new samples from this paper):

Swap out Tyumen with Tutkaul, Tyumen has way too much East Asian. Not sure why it’s still being used when better references are available.

[ph2ter]

Basic components with old samples (before we get the new samples from this paper):

Swap out Tyumen with Tutkaul, Tyumen has way too much East Asian. Not sure why it’s still being used when better references are available.

I can swap them, but Tyumen is irrelevant for the problem here.

[ph2ter]

Added Tutkaul (but Tyumen not removed):

[Jaska]

Ph2ter:

Judging by the lack of EHG in Anatolia I am afraid that Indo-Anatolian and Indo-European then arose from CHG-ANF people.

Why should there be direct EHG? EHG is included in the steppe component. BA Central Anatolians (~Hittites) have no Anatolian Farmer ancestry and less Caucasus ancestry than Steppe ancestry. They have mostly the Mesopotamian ancestry, according to the "twin-brother study" of this one (see the next thread).

[Enki]

We have an actual sampled Novodanilovka guy now

[Jerome]

It’s very in line with what Mallor said in the late 1980s  He said Stedny  Stog was a key thing in the formation of archaic phase of PIE BUT he also noted the formation of Stedny Stog involved a pulse westwards from the Volga. THEN Stedny Stog elements ‘returned eastwards’ to the Volga where the eastern Stedny Stog were a major part of the formation of Yamnaya. Then of course Yamnaya spread west.

So east-west then west-east then east-west!

The problem lies in the source of the Ylines. If you remember it is the same problem for the relationship between EEF and R1b bell beaker. You have italic speakers with R1b in central Italy that are something like 80% local copper age ancestry but still their language stems from their steppe beaker component. If the volga-caucasus cluster is the source of PIE then it means the vector of PIE is only R1b and the R1a and I2 folks at the Don Dneper were IEzed by Progress people. Is this a realistic scenary?

But we already know we have a R1b Z103 full fledged Yamnaya line in dereivka totally deprived of steppe ancestry. It is sample I5884 ( in the figure)
But again Allentoft already settled the question last year.

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.

It's true that The middle don HGs have 25% chg but the question is where does the other 25% chg in progress/eneolithic and Yamnaya comes from?
Because yamanaya is 45-50% CHG.

I think the dereivka sample has been redated to 2300 BC catacomb culture,check out the haplotree website.
It's case is probably similar to how we found "z93" in 3600 BC sredny stog but it later turned out fatayanovo from 1700 bc.
Theres a lot of misdating going on.

[parasar]

In the Supplementary Information they use the correct term of CHG-IRAN, unfortunately in the article the authors don't question or investigate how the Caucasus-Lower Volga (CLV) was originally formed by a movement or invasion by a CHG-IRAN population from the South and the Caspian Sea, the local EHG was native and originally formed before in the Volga and the steppe, afterwards the CHG-IRAN population/component gradually arrived (The Arrival) and invaded that region in good numbers to keep a perdurable proportion, the first beachhead of the CHG-IRAN conquest was the Caucasus-Lower Volga cline, where they created new admixed populations that bred early pioneers and vanguards from the Caucasus-Lower Volga (CLV) cline and their descendants moved westward. A secondary different Caucasus-Lower Volga group also moved westward later in a distinct but temporally overlapping wave and created other admixed group know as Sredny Stog (Serednii Stih). A third wave of expansion occurred when Yamna descendants of the Sredny Stog  forming ca. 4000 BCE expanded during the Early Bronze Age (3300 BCE).

Bonus from the Suppl.

  The J-Y6313-deived J-FT265222 lineage of Y haplogroup J1 identified in a genetically Usatove individual from the Revova kurgan (Burial 19) is present in modern populations of 30 Europe, as well as Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Another Usatove male from Mayaky carried the R1a lineage, has a widespread Eurasian distribution, but its initial diversification is thought to have started in Iran 

They are relying on modern DNA for that  -  Underhill, P. A. et al. The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a. European Journal of Human Genetics 23, 124–131 (2015)

Ancient DNA so far does not support Underhill.

[RCO]

No comprehensive modern or ancient DNA investigations in Iran and India. We have been waiting for 10 years for a good NGS sampling.
“Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence”.
That's what they relied for a scientific citation, quite poor because nobody investigated.