67 R1a nadchodzi… z północy, czyli kolejne gwoździe do trumny tzw. południowej drogi R1a 02

A tu mam coś jeszcze o R1a, a zwłaszcza o jego braku w tzw. kulturze jamowej / Yamna / Yamnaya… ale także i dalej na południu, także wyznawcy południowej drogi R1a… ten teges…

Przy okazji w środku komentarzy jest widoczna piękna dyskusja o rasizmie, rasach, itp, czyli samozaoranie politycznie poprawnych lewaków maści wszelkiej…

A i przypomnę, że i ja także bardzo kocham Kristiansena i że dawałem temu tu wyraz wielokrotnie… Cieszy Mię, że i East Pole, którego bardzo cenię również kocha tego mendrca duńskiej archeologii miłościom bezgranicznom…

Miłego czytania…

http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/the-beast-among-y-haplogroups.html

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

The beast among Y-haplogroups

A lot has been written about Y-haplogroup R1a over the years. Sadly, most of it was wrong, such as its posited Pleistocene origin in the Indian subcontinent and subsequent migration to Europe.

In all likelihood, R1a was born somewhere in North Eurasia. More importantly, its presently most common subclade, R1a-M417, no doubt came into existence on the Pontic-Caspian (or Western) steppe in modern-day Ukraine and southern Russia just 7,000-6,000 years ago.

And within a couple of thousand years it expanded in almost all directions, probably on the back of the early Indo-European dispersals, to cover a massive range from Scandinavia to South Asia. It is the beast among Y-haplogroups.

The most common subclade of R1a-M417 in South Asia today is R1a-Z93, and, realistically, it couldn’t have arrived there earlier than about 2,000BC. So much for the Pleistocene.

See also…

R1a-M417 from Eneolithic Ukraine!!!11

Eastern Europe as a bifurcation hotspot for Y-hg R1

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but…

Ancient herders from the Pontic-Caspian steppe crashed into India: no ifs or buts

Posted by Davidski at 10:24:00 PM 241 comments:

EastPole said…
After discovering R1a-M417 in Dereivka culture somebody should inform Kristiansen, Anthony and others that their theory about Corded Ware and Proto-Germanic coming from Yamnaya is obsolete.

Kliknij, aby uzyskać dostęp the-split-abstracts.pdf

September 27, 2017 at 12:03 AM

Aram said…
There was no single M417 in Yamna? I can’t believe it. 🙂
September 27, 2017 at 12:58 AM

Davidski said…
(…) @Aram Too bad for Yamnaya (so far).
September 27, 2017 at 1:03 AM

Karl_K said…
Sredny Stog !
September 27, 2017 at 1:05 AM

Aram said…
Why Iran has relatively low R1a? Iran was harder to conquer than India?
September 27, 2017 at 1:11 AM

Davidski said…
@Aram Why Iran has relatively low R1a? Iran was harder to conquer than India?

Maybe at some level, but I think more importantly, Iran was basically the end point of the main R1a-M417 thrust as it moved from the steppe into Asia in a clockwise direction around the Caspian Sea.
September 27, 2017 at 1:16 AM

Rob said…
Aram Iran had its own things going on, different „rhythms” . People certainly moved in and out of Iran . The SW became related to Uruk system whilst the north certainly had an invasion/ migration of Kura-Arax groups. Northern Iran is an entity of it said own, but seems to me to be related to the Proto-BMAC irrigafion agriculturalists
September 27, 2017 at 1:17 AM

Chetan_Vit said…
@Aram Why Iran has relatively low R1a? Iran was harder to conquer than India?

The population of India has always been pretty high, much higher than Iran, allowing founder effects to occur and propagate pretty fast. I attribute the higher R1a in India to this- a few R1a paternal ancestors founding populations that then expanded rapidly
September 27, 2017 at 1:31 AM

Palacista said…
That rotation around the Caspian went at least as far as Mitanni before it ran out of steam. Perhaps the elite dominance was too weak by then to last long enough to cause language change.
September 27, 2017 at 4:01 AM

supernord said…
R1a-M417 is displayed incorrectly. The village of Alexandria is located in the Kharkiv region on the border of the Ukraine and Russia (near a local maximum), but not in Kirovohrad region, west of the Dnieper. The problem is that the village of Alexandria is not displayed in the Google map.
September 27, 2017 at 5:47 AM

Davidski said…
@supernord The Longitude/Latitude coordinates for the R1a-M417 sample are provided in the Mathieson et al. 2017 spreadsheet: 48.66 33.10. If you put them into Google, you’ll see that the pin is positioned where I put the R1a-M417 marker on my map.
September 27, 2017 at 6:00 AM

Richard Holtman said…
R1a I wouldn’t say is a beast of a Haplogroup, but it is very widespread and numerous.
September 27, 2017 at 6:05 AM

Richard Holtman said…
No doubt about it R1a invaded India.
September 27, 2017 at 6:07 AM

Davidski said…
If anyone still has doubts about the location of the Alexandria that this R1a-M417 comes from, it’s shown on this map.

September 27, 2017 at 6:10 AM

supernord said…
Date from R1a-M417 obtained from the average temperature in the hospital only for the hole steppe Eneolithic 5000-3500. This date is not radiocarbon. Alexandria burial refers to the time when there existed Constantine culture, that is, to the middle of the 4th Millennium BC.
September 27, 2017 at 6:11 AM

supernord said…
Mathison found in Google map not the same Alexandria. For Europeans there is no difference between Kharkiv and Kirovograd. Therefore Mathison was wrong.
September 27, 2017 at 6:18 AM

supernord said…

It is correct but this is not your (by Mathison)48.66 33.10 on topic map.
September 27, 2017 at 6:25 AM

supernord said…
Mathieson et al’s coordinates are NOT correct. See text of Mathieson Ukraine Alexandria (1 individual)
An Eneolithic cemetery of the Sredny Stog II culture was excavated by D. Telegin in 1955-1957 near the village of Alexandria, Kupyansk district, Kharkov region on the left bank of the river Oskol. Find the Kupyansk district on Google map.
September 27, 2017 at 6:31 AM

Davidski said…
OK, seems like commentator supernord was correct. The Sredny Stog II/R1a-M417 site in question is near the Russian border, not near the Dnieper. So I edited my map.

September 27, 2017 at 7:21 AM

AP said…
@Rob Re R1a1 map This from Underhill 2010 is close:

September 27, 2017 at 8:04 AM

MaxT said…
@Aram „Why Iran has relatively low R1a?”

They also appear to have lower steppe admixture compared to Central Asia and South Asia, low frequency of R1a probably correlates with that. Steppe admixture is highest in eastern/southern Iran among Iranian_Bandaris ~27% but as you move to West Iran, it gets lower as Persians are ~20% steppe admixed.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/04/zarathushtra-and-his-steppe-posse.html
Based on above analysis, it’s safe to say Iran was „Indo-Europeanized” by small band of steppe nomads. It is pretty obvious now that R1a/R1b correlates with spread of Indo-European language + steppe-admixture across Eurasia in Bronze-Age.
September 27, 2017 at 8:31 AM

Sofia Aurora said…
@EastPole Dear friend if you read the „Horse, Wheel and Language” book of David Anthony you will see that he clearly says that from the USATOVO lords and their patronage over the various peoples on Northcentral Europe emerged the Corded Ware culture and others alike! Hence from the Aryanisation of these areas various Indoeuropean dialects emerged indicating Proto-Germanic as the one of them
September 27, 2017 at 10:04 AM

Samuel Andrews said…
Ukraine HGs probably isn’t the origin of R1a M417 or anything Steppe. On another note, based on mtDNA it looks like Catacomb had a big chunk of Ukraine HG ancestry. Maybe they were a mix between Steppe and Ukraine HG and maybe also EEF.
September 27, 2017 at 11:18 AM

Davidski said…
@Rob The local peak in West Asia is among the Kurds.
@Sofia Aurora Ancient DNA shows that the Corded Ware horizon formed via the mass migration of steppe peoples. Anthony came up with the patronage angle probably to avoid criticism from anti-immigrationist colleagues at the time.
September 27, 2017 at 1:47 PM

Richard Holtman said…
@Davidski I don’t get your motive for posting this. Haplogroup R1a is a beast? What does that make the other Haplogroups? You claim not to be racist and then you post this kinda stuff well your going to get negative reactions obviously.
September 27, 2017 at 2:10 PM

Davidski said…
@Richard Holtman R1a-M417 experienced a very intense and wide ranging expansion in a very short time, more so than most other human Y-haplogroups of comparable age.
This makes it an unusual and special case among human Y-haplogroups, and, in the parlance of our times, a beast. There’s nothing wrong with pointing this out, and I’m sure you’ll be reading about it very soon in scientific literature, except I guess you won’t see the word beast used. If you don’t like this fact and you’re psychologically affected by it negatively, then get another hobby. Or just get over whatever it is that is bugging you and discuss things in a reasonable way here like most of the rest of us.
September 27, 2017 at 2:33 PM

Matt said…
Nirjhar007 It is ‚the beast’ as it is one of the most successful y-hg’s , perhaps more than R1b overall.

seems like an OK first approximation of haplogroup frequencies, albeit without assuming that all 6.7 billion are males (which is a bit of a problem with their scaling !). R1a at something like 50% of Eastern Europe (292/2 = 146 million males * 50% = 73 million males) + 40% India (1324/2 = 662 males * 40% = 265 million males) gives around 338 million males… so basically around 10% of the world male population seems like a decent first approximation.
September 27, 2017 at 4:10 PM

Roy King said…
@Davidski Other haplogroups could also be denoted as „beasts”, Like Haplogroup O in East Asia, Southeast Asia and India and E1b1a in Africa and Q in the Americas.
Beastly behavior is not unique to R1a1-M417
September 27, 2017 at 6:43 PM

Davidski said…
@Roy All of the Y-haplogroups you mention are older than R1a-M417 and had more time to expand.
September 27, 2017 at 6:51 PM

Roy King said…
@Davidski I agree with your caveat. R1a-M417 like several lineages across the globe had a rapid range expansion and demographic expansion during the Bronze Age. The term „beast” of course is your rhetorical flourish for accounting for these phenomena. I guess you are using football terminology?
September 27, 2017 at 8:01 PM

Davidski said…
Yes, it’s a football (soccer) term of sorts for players who had a great game.
September 27, 2017 at 8:04 PM

Roy King said…
@Davidski Thanks for the clarification! In my neck of the woods, in California, we might term it as „male chauvinist pig” rather than „beast”, but of course that is likewise rhetorical. That term could apply to the Bantu and Han Chinese expansions, as well.
September 27, 2017 at 8:14 PM

Ryan said…
What I find so remarkable about R1a isn’t just its expansion, but also how few living relatives from prior to that expansion we can find. R1b-M269 has relatives at least in the not too distant past. The post expansion R1a seems to have nothing related to it alive anywhere today.
September 27, 2017 at 10:26 PM

Matt Thomas said…
What do people here think about talking about haplogroups. Do you think it is racist to talk about Haplogroups ? I was talking to a Chinese guy and I was talking about DNA testing and casually mentioned my Haplogroup and how the distribution was shared in South Asia and Europe. He accused me of being a very Racist individual. What are your guys thoughts on this ?
September 28, 2017 at 5:29 PM

EastPole said…
What I find remarkable about R1a are strong links in language, poetry and religion between Slavs, Greeks and Indo-Iranians which correlate with R1a expansion. Looks like R1a were very religious people, poets and philosophers. They influenced Eastern Europe and India very much not only genetically.
September 27, 2017 at 11:51 PM

Davidski said…
@Matt Thomas These days, it’s very easy to be accused, or at least suspected, of being racist, especially for Europeans and individuals of European origin. In fact, I’d say that the concept of racism has been widened to such an extent in recent years that it’s fast losing its meaning, because when just about everyone is racist, then it makes no difference. But if you’re into population genetics and genetic genealogy, then this really sets off the alarm bells for many people, because they’ve been indoctrinated into thinking that differences between human populations at all levels are so trivial that they practically don’t exist.

So not only are they adamant that human races don’t exist, which is a reasonable position, but also that human population structure doesn’t exist, which is not a reasonable position. And if you argue with them that population structure does exist, and is often significant, then you’re likely to be branded a racist.
September 28, 2017 at 5:49 PM

Samuel Andrews said…
@Matt Thomas, I agree with what David said but racism easily mixes with a discussion of genetics. Maybe not really racism but ethnocentrism. I know first hand because I was definitely pretty ethnocentric when I first started getting into genetics. But what David said is true if you discuss inherent differences between human population at all in the 21st century there’s good chance you’ll be accused of being racist. I’ve had four teachers declare race doesn’t exist. They say it is only skin-deep which is an argument that defeats itself because skin color is inherited genetically and therefore it results from a inherent, genetic, biological difference.

In a hard to believe way the „race doesn’t exist” thing derives from Marxist thinking and communism. Race to some is just a social class created in order to privilage white people. White people to the radical and minority in America the equivalent of the Aristocracy of 19th century Europe. That’s why SJWs say things like „White Privlidge.” What they want to do is remove the idea of race because they believe it creates social inequaility just as tradtional Marxist want to remove social class and make everyone economically the same. I think it’s really important to be aware of this, much of the Social Justice stuff is Socialism in disguise which is creating more division, race/class politics in America.
September 28, 2017 at 6:30 PM

Roy King said…
@Samuel Andrews Having had a cross burned on our lawn and a rock thrown through our window when I was a teenager, only because we were a Black family moving into an all-white neighborhood (mother a math professor, father a physician), I find it difficult to attribute „racism” to Marxist ideology. Also, later, with the advent of sophisticated population genetics, finding out that I and all my family are very mixed–each of us with admixture across the globe–skin color is a poor proxy for genetic heritage.I rather view individuals as a different category of description from culturally derived groups: Black/Hispanic/White/Native American. Race is not equivalent to class, but in my opinion, one of the most socially constructed categories around–valuable for studying interpersonal interactions, not helpful in understanding population genetics.
September 28, 2017 at 7:36 PM

Samuel Andrews said…
@Roy King, „I find it difficult to attribute „racism” to Marxist ideology.” Lol, yeah no way. That’s not what I think at all. Racism is very real, was very real, and has had a huge impact on Black Americans. People who want to say Black Americans and White Americans are born with the same opportunities or past racism has no impact on America today are living in fantasy land. What I was saying is much of the social justice stuff derives marxism and isn’t good for America. It creates more division and too much emphasis on class differences (race, gender, sexual orientation). To them white=aristocracy, non-white=peasants. „Having had a cross burned on our lawn and a rock thrown through our window when I was a teenager, only because we were a Black family moving into an all-white neighborhood” Super sorry about that. To me it shows racism was just common belief in America before recently and still impacts the way Americans think about race. My Dad grew up around some confederate flag wearing racists.
September 28, 2017 at 8:18 PM

Open Genomes said…
@David & @Samuel Andrews: Let me respond: I (and those who agree with me) don’t say that variation doesn’t exist among humans. That’s nonsense. What we do say is that human variation is more complex than the traditional categorization of „Races” – of which there are many such categorizations, e.g. the „Semitic Race” or the „Jewish Race” – and that almost all individuals have a mix of these ancestral components. Consider, for example, that the Irula don’t really represent the actual ancestral „ASI”, but that is truly represented by the incredibly isolated Onge of the Andaman Islands. We’ve only been able to tease out these ancestral components through aDNA, as everyone here should be aware.

Certainly, it seems pretty obvious that the Mozabites won’t be „pure” North African Hunter-Gatherers (as represented by the IAMs) because they have Neolithic European (and later) admixture. The Bedouin B don’t represent the Natufians, even though they have a decently high percentage of this „Natufian” component, which in turn is itself a composite. There is much to be learned from regional variation. However, the perceived „Racial classifications” we always see have no real correspondence with this ancestral variation.

Also, much more critical to human health, are variations in the chr6 HLA region. We see that the same HLA antitypes (haplogroups, as it were) such as „Archaic” HLA-B*51:01 and HLA-B*27 are found all over the world, alongside others who they diverged from before the start of AMH. I’ve also seen remarkably that these two potentially pathogenic HLA antitypes went to high frequency among the Early Neolithic Farmers, regardless of their other ancestral components.

So what we object to here is not talking about human variation, but rather, the miscategorization of human variation according to what we know now, and the ignoring some important kinds of genetic variation which are not superfically apparent. There’s nothing „racist” about teasing out ancestral components. On the contrary. The problem is, that „Race” refers to a certain set of arbitrary categories that are just not backed up by science. (There is no such thing as „Negroid” because Africans of all kinds are more genetically variable among each other than between any other group on Earth.) So if anyone is interested in the real, genetic, and archaeologically attested forms of human variation, and the nuances revealed by admixture calculators and PC and MDS plots, then this is the kind of study and acknowledgment of human variation that counters traditional „Racism”. I think most people here are truly interested in this kind of study of human variation, and not the old-timey simplistic „Three (or Five or Seven) Great Races of Mankind”.
September 28, 2017 at 8:49 PM

Open Genomes said…
People here say they dislike the „Regressive Left” and „Political Correctness”. Fair enough: One major characteristic of the Regressive Left is a kind of „essentialism” that reduces people to categories innate categories that they cannot change. The biggest one of course is „Race”. People are either „Persons of Color” (or is it „Colored Folks”? >:) ) or „White”. That’s it. Imagine a K=2 where Turks and Armenians cluster together with Mbuti and Papuans, but Anatolian Greeks don’t cluster with Turks, they cluster with Saami. If people here oppose the „Regressive Left”, they you all should be glad about a look at human variation that doesn’t cluster people into K=3 (or K=3) and allows for multidimensional complexity. This is something that both the „Regressive Left” and the „HBD Alt-Right” hate with a passion. Do you want to help put an end to this K=2 or K=3 madness, where everyone is 100% of a certain component, regardless of their actual ancestry? The „One-drop Rule”, with „White” being the unadmixed „purest” on both sides. If so, then you are on the side of Science and not „essentialist mythology. Did you ever think of „Race” from that perspective?
September 28, 2017 at 9:35 PM

Open Genomes said…
@Samuel Andrews I think that people who abhor the „Regressive Left” and who are interested in Science and genetics, but who don’t think of themselves as traditionally liberal, can be valuable allies of those on the liberal side who also abhor the „Regressive Left” and their „essentialism” in regard to „Race”.

We are not on „opposite sides” in this battle. This traditional „Left-Right” spectrum is breaking down real fast, and explaining and presenting evidence for a new paradigm of human variation („ancestral components” and „admixture” vs. „Races”) is a good way to achieve this common goal. Just remember, in the US (and elsewhere), „Race” is conflated with „ethnicity”, „culture’ and even „caste”. (e.g. People with slave ancestors in the US are considered „Black”, regardless of their actual admixture.) That doesn’t mean that these groups don’t share a common heritage and culture, or that Racism (or more accurately, „Colorism”) doesn’t exist, or that it isn’t true that you’re more likely to be stopped by the cops in the US based on your 4 alleles in just two SNPs, but this isn’t biology. These are just „social constructs” as they say – but ones that mean something else than what people think they mean. We can work together to separate genetics and biology from these social ideas, which just aren’t based on Science, but culture. If you think about it, really what both the „Regressive Left” and the „Alt-Right” have in common is this „unchangable essential K=2″. Here’s the chance to change that, together!
September 28, 2017 at 9:48 PM

Grey said…
Matt Thomas said…”What do people here think about talking about haplogroups. Do you think it is racist to talk about Haplogroups?”

I think a lot of people want their native group or home region to have been a big deal in history and that motivates people to find useful and interesting info – so on a purely practical basis I don’t care as long as it’s not too obsessive. In terms of social implications, following the logic of genetics might be a bumpy ride but the end result has the potential to be immensely net beneficial imo.
September 29, 2017 at 4:32 AM

Richard Holtman said…
@Matt Thomas No it’s not racist to talk about Haplogroups. It becomes racist when people try and say that one Haplogroup is inferior to the other. That’s racist. And there’s no place for it in science.
September 29, 2017 at 4:46 AM

Matt said…
@Matt Thomas: What do people here think about talking about haplogroups. Do you think it is racist to talk about Haplogroups ?No not racist, but I don’t grok a lot of the interest in them. They don’t really carry any alleles which affect phenotype* in a major way, and they don’t tell you anything much about which populations your ancestry was evolving in. They can undergo these quick expansions and population switching due to founder effects. It’s cool to understand them as another tool to understand how and when populations *got* related, but they don’t tell you much about how much populations *are* related, or how you as an individual are related to others and to ancient cultures. Particularly, the whole thing where it seems like some men identify with some random ancient 2,000 BC guy, and think they’re particularly related to this person and not the other streams of their ancestry because that’s the one that managed to survive the whole random process is weird to me. Or where some guy with R1b would think he’s genetically closer in a meaningful way to a steppe culture than someone from the same population with I1 or something.

*at least, so I strongly expect y haplogroups are phenotypically unimportant, though doing a bit of GWAS on sequenced y chromosomes and UK Biobank scale 500,000 strong populations (males vs other males, males vs related females) might be worth doing just as a way of completely testing this stuff to death and checking out the unlikely hypothesis to be sure.
September 29, 2017 at 5:08 AM

a said…
Two sides to a story and freedom of speech,There are always two sides to every story. So it really depends who is in control of the narrative; and who is willing to stand up for freedom of speech and freedom of knowledge. For example, here are some populations to compare,longevity infant mortality and living standard, crime rates-some are in isolated islands while some are mixed/cosmopolitan examples. Haiti- Has it achieved a higher standard of living compared to beginning of its 200 year oppressive colonial rule.Have they set out in their quest for a better society and abolished child slavery? Japan- Do they have a higher standard of living, lower homicide rate, longevity rate, even after being influenced colonial rule and nuclear ware fare waged against them? What about cosmopolitan Venezuela and its abundant oil reserves and gun control policy?How does its standard of living and crime rate and longevity- compare with the above two genetic isolates? What about IQ difference among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Mizrahim- Does it exist? If so why even though they all groups are brought up in the same ethno-religious principles households and plot the same on PCA plots? Or how about a simple [male/female]demographic/genetic study on those who pass with flying colors and those who drop of Harvards Math 55 program? Can we see those results? As for the Beast in R1a- that two has 2 sides, and depends on who controls the narrative/blog .R1a-Z93 was not so successful in it’s original birthplace and Arkaim-Sintashta and surrounding regions. Despite having fortified complex’s with moats, choice weaponry, war chariots and large funeral feasts with many allies have little R1a-93 in the current maps . Look/compare modern frequency of Iranian branch R1a-93 in Bashkirs[Arkaim Sintashta region]and compare to well known former Iranian regions that still have Iranian place names and rivers[ in Ukraine]-Dnieper and Dniester rivers or the last vestiges of Iranian language bearers-Alans Ossetians-93 to compared to Haryana R1a-93.
September 29, 2017 at 5:54 AM

Davidski said…
@a As for the Beast in R1a – that two has 2 sides, and depends on who controls the narrative/blog. R1a-Z93 was not so successful in it’s original birthplace and Arkaim-Sintashta and surrounding regions. Despite having fortified complex’s with moats, choice weaponry, war chariots and large funeral feasts with many allies have little R1a-Z93 in the current maps. Not sure what point you’re trying to make here, but obviously the awesomeness of Sintashta and related peoples, like the Scythians, helped to make R1a the beast that it is.(…)
September 29, 2017 at 1:58 PM

Ryan said…
@David – „Not sure what point you’re trying to make here, but obviously the awesomeness of Sintashta and related peoples, like the Scythians, helped to make R1a the beast that it is.” Of course awesome from one standpoint is monstrous from another. A horde of horse riders raping and pillaging your countryside isn’t exactly a good time.
September 29, 2017 at 4:55 PM

Davidski said…
@Ryan By all accounts, Sintashta and close relatives were quite a civilized bunch. They did help to revolutionize warfare with their chariots and whatnot, but developments in warfare were always one of the main driving forces of human civillization. Scythians were probably monstrous to a lot of people, but pillaging is not all they got up to. Lots online about their awesomeness.
September 29, 2017 at 5:11 PM

a said…
@David – „Not sure what point you’re trying to make here, but obviously the awesomeness of Sintashta and related peoples, like the Scythians, helped to make R1a the beast that it is.” Scythian points you want to highlight?

How do you know those single rider chariots were not used for decorative showmanship? Or maybe they helped transport neurologically impaired cripples from years of toxic fumes, while smelting in their homes[Weekend at Bernies?]. Joking aside- As for actual chariot- warfare battle of Kadesh-3 man chariot,perhaps one of the largest.
Steppe warfare and Scythians- Horse and lance evolved in the same region. To drive a lance into a spoked wheel could seriously damage the chariot/rider. Ateas[90 year old?] suffered defeat at the hands of the Macedonians. However it was the Sarmatians[skilled in armor/15 foot lance] that over ran their lands and dominated them for 5centuries+/-. Perhaps that explains why there is very little in the way of R1a-93 around their original homeland.
September 29, 2017 at 6:33 PM

Roy King said…
Great new article on the pre-IndoEuropean substrate language in Scandinavia. The Neolithic language may have had an a-prefix and generated many agricultural terms such as those for chickpeas and peas and sturgeon. Explains well the interactions between Neolithic TRB and Yamana-derived IE populations.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.121.4.0511
September 29, 2017 at 6:42 PM

Roy King said…
@Davidski The Sintasha and Scythians seem awesome (literally evoking fear) from an Ares point of view. They were not awesome from an Aphrodite or Philia POV. A little Nietzschean I presume?
September 29, 2017 at 7:04 PM

postneo said…
zoroastrian elite don’t have any r1a and and are Iran-neo shifted. If the steppe scenario is right then they should be more steppe vs other Iranians
September 30, 2017 at 5:31 PM

Davidski said…
@postneo There are R1a samples from around Lake Baikal and Khvalynsk older than the Ukrainian one? Where are you getting this information?
September 30, 2017 at 6:02 PM

Davidski said…
The oldest Siberian R1a is at least a couple thousand years younger than the Ukrainian R1a. Noncalibrated radiocarbon dates (Isotrace, University of Toronto) from Lokomotiv suggest that this cemetery was used from approximately 7250–6040 BP. These dates correspond to the period between 6125–4885 BC when calibrated with the methodology of Stuiver et al. (1998)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20247/abstract
Make an effort to get your facts straight next time you post here.
September 30, 2017 at 6:38 PM

Ric Hern said…
@ Davidski So was this an earlier Pre-Khvalynsk migration to lake Baikal ? Maybe more related to the Dnieper Donets Culture ? Were they part of the Proto-Indo-European formation or totally different ? Did the later Afanasevo Culture Indo-Europeanize those people ?
September 30, 2017 at 10:57 PM

Gioiello said…
Ukraine
Vasilyevka 3 [I1819 /
skeleton 37]
M
8825-8561 calBCE
813114
R1a
R1a: L62: 17891241A->G; R1a: L63: 18162834T->C; R1a: L145: 14138745C->A; R1a: L146: 23473201T->A; R1: CTS997: 7132713G->A; R1: CTS2565: 14366723C->T; R1: CTS3123:14674176A->C; etc.
U5b2
Jones 2017; Mathieson 2017
September 30, 2017 at 11:29 PM

Gioiello said…
6125–4885 BC against 8825-8561 calBCE long more than 2000 years, because the CI is much less
September 30, 2017 at 11:33 PM

Davidski said…
@Ric I don’t know who they were or what their overall genetic structure was like, but it seems they may have been from the west and were replaced by groups resembling modern-day Siberians before Afanasievo and Andronovo got to South Siberia.
October 1, 2017 at 12:37 AM

Slumbery said…
Davidski Do we have any reasonable density DNA samples from the Central Asia/South Siberia region from the time period between Mal’ta and the Baikal samples? If not, then the Ukrainian sample’s seniority is not very decisive or even that much relevant for the question of the origin of R1a itself. The age of the Ukrainian sample is not particularly close the estimated age of R1a after all.
October 1, 2017 at 3:48 AM

Davidski said…
@Slumbery As per my blog post, R1a in all likelihood originated somewhere in North Eurasia. I guess one day we’ll figure out where exactly, not that it’s a big deal or anything or relevant to the PIE debate, but to date, by far the oldest R1a is from the Pontic steppe in Ukraine, so the Pontic steppe is a strong candidate for the R1a homeland.
October 1, 2017 at 4:02 AM

supernord said…
The dating of R1a-M417 is NOT calBP! There are just 6200 BP obtained by the average range of all the steppe Eneolithic! It is not the dates for this sample. But there are dates for the other samples, Mathison wrote, „Alexandria is dated to ~3600-3400 BCE”.
October 1, 2017 at 4:22 AM

Davidski said…
@supernord Objection noted, but for now I’m just going to quote the spreadsheet from Mathieson et al., because I can’t be bothered editing the image again.
Average of 95.4% date range in calBP (defined as 1950 CE) 6200
October 1, 2017 at 4:33 AM

supernord said…
See column name „Date: One of two formats. (Format 1) 95.4% CI calibrated radiocarbon age (Conventional Radiocarbon Age, Lab number) e.g. 5983-5747 calBCE (6980±50 BP, Beta-226472). (Format 2) Archaeological context date, e.g. 2500-1700 BCE ”
Name of other column is reduction of a description, only to the first format of this explanation. The date is Format 2 (the fact!), but not calibrated radiocarbon date (the fact!) and cannot be calBP.
October 1, 2017 at 4:46 AM

Davidski said…
Alright supernord, I made the correction…

October 1, 2017 at 5:10 AM

Slumbery said…
Davidski I have the impression that in ancient DNA R1a is pretty much always comes together with the presence of ANE in genome-wide terms. There is no R1a without ANE, except maybe very late samples where it could be diluted to noise level. If that is true, then R1a is very likely to be an ANE lineage. Doesn’t that weaken the chance of a very western (for example Pontic Steppe) origin?
Note: I agree that this is not important to the PIE debate. The known date of R1a presence on the Pontic-Caspian region is plenty old enough to support your argument.
October 1, 2017 at 5:10 AM

Davidski said…
All of the forager samples from the Pontic steppe have plenty of ANE, so that’s not an issue.
October 1, 2017 at 5:13 AM

Slumbery said…
Davidski Of course they have, that is part of what I am saying. But those samples are much later than the presumed starting date for R1a. Isn’t the oldest ANE related sample, that actually even used to represent ANE in models, is from the Baikal region? When did it reach Europe? When was EHG formed as a separate group?
October 1, 2017 at 5:22 AM

Davidski said…
How do you know that older samples from the Pontic steppe won’t show both ANE and R1a? Maybe the first person with the R1a mutation lived on the Pontic steppe and was a mixture of an Kostenki14-related population and recent R1 migrants from Siberia? But in any case, I’m not really interested in this type of speculation, and I honestly don’t care much where the first person with the R1a mutation lived.
October 1, 2017 at 5:32 AM

postneo said…
Khvalnsk is older than bakal. xiao-he is also similarly younger than cw but sampling is negligible and from what we gather these areas in general had similar haplogroups through the ages, despite the huge distances involved.
October 1, 2017 at 7:41 AM

postneo said…
@slubberry „Doesn’t that weaken the chance of a very western (for example Pontic Steppe) origin? ”
It does not weaken or strengthen the case. Its possible that r1a originated in khvalynsk but asserting so with the current lopsided sampling is foolish.
October 1, 2017 at 7:47 AM

Rob said…
@ PostNeo Where are you getting your figures man ? Khvalynsk most likely dates from after 4200 BC The Baikal neolithic samples, which featured 2 x R1a-M17 date to ~ 5500-5000 BC
October 1, 2017 at 8:01 AM

Ric Hern said…
So did pottery that spread from Lake Baikal maybe trigger the curiosity of some Dnieper Donets people who then migrated to find the source ? If there was a migration, what would have triggered it ? Maybe the R1b peoples of the Balkans were pressed Northwards and into Ukraine and this pushed some R1a peoples North and Eastwards ? A chain reaction…
October 1, 2017 at 8:07 AM

Olympus Mons said…
@Rob. To me is always a mess with Khvalynsk. If it is 5200bc is one thing, if its 4200bc its a different thing. And I suppose you know what I mean. 🙂 Do we know which is it? did something change? saying 5400bc-4200bc is meaningless…
October 1, 2017 at 9:20 AM

Rob said…
@ OM Yep some older works placed Khvalynsk to 5200 BC. But after considering reservoir effects, it’s been lowered to 4300-3800 BC
(https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/3511/3026)
The steppe eneolithic could be older in Ukraine (4500 Bc).
October 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM

Rob said…
^ of course, we should ask for a similar re-evaluation for Altai side too. Whatever, it seems only reverent for older R1a Clades, not Z645.
October 1, 2017 at 9:48 AM

supernord said…
Oldest R1a1 is 8280 calBP in Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, Lake Onega, Russia. According to Danilenko (1974), Kotova (2006) Sredny Stog culture spread from the east to the Don river and for him. Dreive culture from the North-East. Dniep-Donets culture has part of North-East invaders. Ukrainian HG is not ancestral to Yamnaya culture people, according to Mathieson, and apparently, Sredny Stog. According to Mathieson ancestral to them is still the same North-Eastern EHG.
October 1, 2017 at 10:56 AM

Ric Hern said…
@ supernord Didn’t Sredny Stog spread from the West into Khvalynsk, admixed and then formed Repin and Yamnaya ? That is how I understand the latest Archaeological Paper about Sredny Stog…..
October 1, 2017 at 11:07 AM

supernord said…
The Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk are related and began at the same time culture. The origin of one from another is unknown. But it is known that origin of the Sredny Stog culture is the Don river closed to the Volga river. The origin of Repino and Yamnaya cultures from other cultures is unknown. („Dreive” there’s a misprint, read Dereivka.)
October 1, 2017 at 11:27 AM

Rob said…
@ Supernord Sredny stog went from west to east But there was a middle Eneolithic „reflux” from east to west, or perhaps from the southeast (Kuban foothills).
October 1, 2017 at 11:31 AM

supernord said…
@Rob, you are fully wrong.
October 1, 2017 at 11:37 AM

Rob said…
The early Suvorovo-Skelya phase „Relations with the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture are attested by zoomorphoc sceptres of the Suvorovo phase, which appear in sceptre-bearer graves as well as in Cucuteni A3—4 / Tripolye B1 settlements. From there they spread farther to the east to the Volga River and the North Caucasus ”

This began c4500 BC in the western steppe („This is based on analogies with the necropolis Varna II, the Carbuna hoard, a Gumelnita A2 vessel found in Giurgiuleşti, and Cucuteni pottery in Căinari 2 and radiocarbon datings (Girugiuleşti 4490—4330; Căinari 4455—4360 BC)” Khvalynsk dates from 4300 at earliest.
October 1, 2017 at 11:52 AM

supernord said…
@Rob, you dont’t understand this text. The text is description of „zoomorphoc sceptres”, but about not Sredny Stog culture (or Khvalynsk culture)! Tripolye B1 is final phase Sredny Stog culture (Sredny Stog II), after it began Dereivka culture. Khvalynsk dates much erleast that 4300 BC, at 4300 BC Khvalynsk culture is down. Rob, I wrote to your facts form (all) Ukrainian archeologists. You don’t understand the texts that you reads. You can stay in delusion or normally study archeology, not scraps.
October 1, 2017 at 12:15 PM

Rob said…
@ Supernords Ok. please enlighten me with the facts so I dont stays in delusions. What do you even mean by Sredy Stog, because it’s an outdated term due to the elaboration of newer, more chronologically and culturally circumscribed definitions
October 1, 2017 at 12:17 PM

Rob said…
Also, although in struggling to understand what you’re attempting to communicate, you seem to be ignoring the new dates listed above for Khvalynsk
Given that the Skelya- Suv. Phase is the earliest stage of Sredni Stog II, your objections are unfounded
October 1, 2017 at 12:40 PM

supernord said…
Rob, no need to write fantazy if you do not know the subject about which you write. I I see it. See the descriptions of the archeologists https://www.academia.edu/19575239/Early_Eneolithic_in_the_Pontic_Steppe 64, 78
Everything I wrote has been known in 1970th years.]
October 1, 2017 at 1:34 PM

Rob said…
@ Supernord I have just outlined two start of the art publications, which you have chosen to ignore. And here’s a third (Rassamakin 1994, and ) The Skelyansk culture is the older Ensolithic culture…determined to be 4500-4100 BC” With the late & Final Eneolithic falling to 35/3400 – 29/2750 BC), coinceident with the start of Yamnaya. (Rassamakin 2006) Back to the Khvalynsk paper by Shishlina (2009) „the time interval for the Caspian steppe Eneolithic population has now changed to 4300–3800 cal BC.”

Are you able to provide any convincing reasons why we should ignore the data of these specialists in favour of your poorly articulated & outdated opinions ?
October 1, 2017 at 1:52 PM

supernord said…
Rob, you are reading outdated opinion Rassamakin, about dedicated only to them the Skelyansk culture that no one but him was not accepted. I gave you a link to Kotova 2008 radiocarbondating dates and extensive synchronization of cultures (https://www.academia.edu/19575239/Early_Eneolithic_in_the_Pontic_Steppe 64, 78). The Skelyansk culture simply does not exist, the attempt to allocate from the Sredny Stog to a new culture was not successful, in any case, we are talking about an Sredny Stog & Khvalynsk that is older than Skelyansk type. Read this!
October 1, 2017 at 2:05 PM

Rob said…
Sure one can claim certain perspectives of categorisation are better than others, but your attempting to dismiss the fact that Khvalynsk has been determined to date to 4300-3800 by the people who actually analyse it . And if that synchronises with SS, what does it say ? And the earliest reference was Govedarica, so no lone voices
October 1, 2017 at 2:14 PM

supernord said…
Rob, you are absolutely wrong. You spread incorrect dating of the Khvalynsk culture, because they know nothing about it. Perhaps because you don’t understand the difference between calibrated and not calibrated dates? I brought facts direct from them who does radiocarbon dating, you wrote your imaginations.
This discussion is useless because you ignore the facts.
October 1, 2017 at 2:25 PM

Davidski said…
@postneo The oldest R1a to date is not from Khvalynsk. It’s from a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer site in Ukraine dating to 10643 calBP. The Khvalynsk R1a only dates to about 6000 BP. Please confirm that you understand this.
October 1, 2017 at 3:57 PM

Davidski said…
@supernord You’re wrong this time about the oldest R1a.

ID: I1819 R1a Ukraine_Mesolithic Vasil’evka 8825-8561 calBCE
ID: I0061 R1a Karelia_HG Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov 6270-6000 calBCE
The Ukrainian R1a is more than 2,000 years older, no?
October 1, 2017 at 4:29 PM

Rob said…
@ supernord Yes I am familiar with the difference , thanks for asking In Western academic literature, it’s expected / encouraged to refer to calibrated BCE dates
In fact, it was written in the very quotes you keep ignoring But here it is again.

„After applying a reservoir effect correction for the steppe Eneolithic period, the time interval for the Caspian steppe Eneolithic population has now changed to 4300–3800 cal BC.”

This agrees with neighbouring regions too, eg Hungary („The recently obtained radiocarbon data of the Csongrád-Kettőshalom grave is 4370–4240 calBC, in good correlation with other Steppe Ochre Grave data (goveDarica 2004), but a little bit earlier then the Middle Copper Age.
In Eastern Europe this is the period of the Early Eneolithic (4550–4100/4000 BC) of the Eurasian steppe region. The period of the Khvalynsk and Skelya cultures is contemporaneous with the Cucuteni A-Tripolye B1 phase…”

Now, maybe your sources can speak to you about reservoir effects & propper pretreatment of materials
October 1, 2017 at 5:28 PM

supernord said…
@Davidski Compare my text
Oldest R1a1 is 8280 calBP in Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, Lake Onega, Russia.
and your
ID: I1819 R1a Ukraine_Mesolithic Vasil’evka 8825-8561 calBCE
Are you see difference between R1a1 and R1a?
October 1, 2017 at 5:38 PM

Davidski said…
@supernord R1a1 is neither here nor there, and that’s especially true of the R1a1 from Karelia, which is too far away to matter. The R1a from Ukraine is important because it’s by far the oldest R1a recorded to date. And the R1a-M417 from Ukraine is important because it confirms the steppe origin of Corded Ware and also the steppe origin of the vast majority of the R1a in the world today.
October 1, 2017 at 6:20 PM

supernord said…
Rob, „The period of the Khvalynsk and Skelya cultures is contemporaneous with the Cucuteni A-Tripolye B1 phase”
No. Skelya culture is rename Sredny Stog culture from Don river. Skelya is a name of subtype of first phase Sredny Stog culture. Synchronization between the cultures got from archeology contexts like imports of potteries and others things, not only not by radiocarbon dates. Origin of Sredny Stog culture from Don river was received without any radiocarbon dates due to archeology analyses by Merpert, Danilenko (1974), etc.

„After applying a reservoir effect correction for the steppe Eneolithic period, the time interval for the Caspian steppe Eneolithic population has now changed to 4300–3800 cal BC.”

If you subtract reservoir effects then you must subtract the effect from Sredny Stog and Cucuteni-Tripolye and other cultures for correct compare.
The dates of Khvalynsk I cemetery by Shishlina the bones of ruminant animals is 4800-4400 cal BC. Bones of animals cannot have reservoir effects. Shihlina suggests to subtract 300-350 years. Therefore it is not changes in hole. Synchronization between cultures isn’t changed.
October 1, 2017 at 6:32 PM

supernord said…
„R1a1 is neither here nor there, and that’s especially true of the R1a1 from Karelia, which is too far away to matter”
See Mathieson et al. where EHG from Karelia&Samara is parent to the steppe component, but not the Ukrainian HG. Therefore it is matter. R1a lived in the vast spaces.
October 1, 2017 at 6:45 PM

Rob said…
You’d have to also subtract from others if they too are liable to reservoir effects. That has to be demonstrated by C/ N isotopic study, or at least an archaeological pattern of high fish diet. Was that the case for CT? For example, the new C14 dates for Varna came back even higher than expected -4500 BC, even after reservoir effect considered.
October 1, 2017 at 6:49 PM

supernord said…
Shishlina doesnot isotop analyses to Khvalynsk culture. She only assumed that it exists by difference between bone of humans and one of late bone of sheep. Reservoir effect for Khvalynsk culture has no evidence. There are not any study for Trypolye culture and others step cultures. Therefore you assumes have not justification, relative archeological dates is not changed.
October 1, 2017 at 7:16 PM

Ric Hern said…
So Sredny Stog was basically a contact area between three Haplogroups R1a, I2a, and R1b. Maybe these represented three different cultures however I can not see how at least 4000 years of contact between these three in that area did not leave a significant underlying relatedness in later Cultures in that broader area. We already see some broader connection between Samara and Dnieper Donets Cultures. We also see some relatedness between WHG and EHG…. I wonder which component dominates EHG ? WHG or ANE ?
October 1, 2017 at 10:48 PM

Rob said…
Supernord shishlina did isotope study both to human and animal bones, as can be seen in table 2 and Fig 2 in the above linked paper.
October 2, 2017 at 1:43 AM

supernord said…
Rob, you don’t understand those tables, Shishlina wrote that she did not isotopic analyze on marine collagen, therefore your comments are meaningless. We’re talking about marine collagen. Shishlina only saw the difference between ages of the human bones from Khvalynsk II cemetery and the only one made of bone sheep from Khvalynsk I cemetery, but other animal bones coincide with Khvalynsk II cemetery. The Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog culture has a completely different culture, it is a fact, the elements of similarity, this phenomenon is even the level of hypothesis. No archaeologist imagined that some of them derives from another, it is the imagination of the fans. Your opinion does not play any matter.
October 2, 2017 at 3:20 AM

Rob said…
Supernord Maybe you should learn how to speak English if you want yours to matter Because I did not state one derives from another, but rather the flow of influences (cromlech construction, copper pnjevts( in the early Eneolithic went west to east. But the fact is these cultures date from 4500 BC, with Khvalynsk possibly slightly later 4300 BC. It’s written in plain English in the quoted texts, so your obfuscations are irrelevant
October 2, 2017 at 3:49 AM

Rob said…
And maybe you should read the Kotova paper you cited
„The traditions of the group of the Early Sredniy Stog population of the Don basin, which had to migrate during the aridity to the northern regions along the valleys of Don, Medveditsa and right bank of Volga, became its basis. The population of Sredniy Stog encountered the local population of the Late Neolithic Orlovka culture on the right bank of Volga and, perhaps, assimilated some of its groups, as well as southern groups of the Samara culture population. As the result of those complex processes, the Khvalynsk culture was formed”
Thanks for coming
October 2, 2017 at 3:53 AM

supernord said…
You cut off the text.
„The Khvalynsk Eneolithic culture was also formed about 5250-5150 BC.” When Sredny Stog formed about 5300 BC. „The beginning of the formation of the Sredniy Stog culture was connected with the aridity of the climate about 5300 BC, which caused some worsening of the conditions of living and disrupted the traditional way of life
of the Surskaya and Lower Don population of the Late Neolithic.”

By new opinion of Kotova the origin the Khvalynsk is Early Sredniy Stog population from Don, but not Khvalynsk culture. In original version had not this suggestion, it was common that Sredniy Stog & Khvalynsk source population like Lower Don culture. The Sredny Stog spreads from east to west, contrary to your belief.

„It would be onnected, mainly, with the full publication of the materials of Lower Don and excavations in the Don-Kalmius interfluve, where the oldest Sredniy Stog
monuments were localized.”

„The minor humidifying of climate about 5050-4800 BC created favorable conditions for dwelling in the south of steppe zone, that has caused the growth of population in these areas. The Khvalynsk culture population migrated to the south and reached of the Lower Volga and Caspian Sea region. The Sredniy Stog culture population settled to the west in the Dnieper-Kalmius interfluve, where the first Sredniy Stog cemeteries with the flexed burials (Krivoy Rog cemetery) appeared among the monuments of the second period of Azov-Dnieper culture. It was the beginning of formation of the western variant of Sredniy Stog culture, the bearers of which gradually assimilated the Azov-Dnieper population to 4800-4750 BC (the peak of new climate aridity) and adopted some of their traditions, including making of sacrificial grounds on the surface of ground burials.”

Only spreads from east to west is evidenced fact.
October 2, 2017 at 4:54 AM

Rob said…
Those dates are 1000 years off. I mean, they have the Nachik Cemetery at 5100 BC (!!). Brings us back to the correct, new dates, which you are ignoring 4500 BC
October 2, 2017 at 5:11 AM

supernord said…
„Nachik” means Nalchik? Nalchik cemetery is late Khvalynsk type cemetery. He is later derived from the Khvalynsk culture. It is not exists new dates because no studies entering these dates. So there is nothing to ignore. There have been no studies on the calculation of the new ages using a reservoir effect correction after calculation marine collagen for the Trypolia, Sredniy Stog, Khvalynsk cultures. There is only known radiocarbon date and nothing more. Synchronization between them remains the same. To synchronize of cultures the absolute dating is not important, important only to the date calculated by one method. If you want to move to your new dates, then as advised Shishlina subtract ~300-400 years of each date, that’s all.
October 2, 2017 at 6:04 AM

Ric Hern said…
@ supernord So according to you Sredny Stog originated near the Lower Don and migrated Northwestwards to the Dnieper River where they settled around the Middle Dnieper ? So did the migration towards the East from the Lower Don which introduced domesticates to the Lower Volga also originate from this Early Sredny Stog of the Lower Don ?
October 2, 2017 at 6:31 AM

Rob said…
@ supernord I am not ignoring relative typology, and it is not my opinion. PLease observe again :
„The recently obtained radiocarbon data of the Csongrád-Kettőshalom grave is 4370–4240 calBC, in good correlation with other Steppe Ochre Grave data (goveDarica 2004), but a little bit earlier then the Middle Copper Age. In Eastern Europe this is the period of the Early Eneolithic (4550–4100/4000 BC) of the Eurasian steppe region. The period of the Khvalynsk and Skelya cultures is contemporaneous with the Cucuteni A-Tripolye B1 phase.”
Re you saying everyone else is wrong ?
October 2, 2017 at 6:43 AM

supernord said…
@Ric Hern This is opinion of Kotova. But Lower Don culture not so simple. Danilenko pointed out the broader region to east of the Don.

@Rob „you saying everyone else is wrong ? ” Yes, because it compares the dates obtained by different methods without a direct calculation of the reservoir effect. In some dates it is only supposed on indirect symptoms and corrected after indirect calculation, and in others dates it actually is not evaluated and not corrected.
October 2, 2017 at 7:05 AM

Rob said…
Reservoir effects are pertinent to high marine source Regions And as stated, the recent dating at Varna incorporated such corrections So we at least have 2 clear points of reference for 4500 BC. Sure many more would be ideal, but the nihilism is perhaps an overkill
October 2, 2017 at 8:14 AM

Ric Hern said…
I wonder if the Mariupol Culture were mostly I2a individuals like the early samples of Vasilievka and surrounding area…where they indigenous I2a or did they maybe migrate along the Black Sea coast from the West ?
October 2, 2017 at 11:31 AM

Grey said…
Ric Hern said… „So Sredny Stog was basically a contact area between three Haplogroups R1a, I2a, and R1b. Maybe these represented three different cultures…” maybe kept partly separate through adaptation to distinct biomes: mountains, black sea coast and steppe? „…however I can not see how at least 4000 years of contact between these three in that area did not leave a significant underlying relatedness in later Cultures in that broader area.” maybe it did for a long time until horse domestication changed the balance and one of the three came to dominate?
October 2, 2017 at 2:01 PM

Ryan said…
@David – „The R1a from Ukraine is important because it’s by far the oldest R1a recorded to date. And the R1a-M417 from Ukraine is important because it confirms the steppe origin of Corded Ware and also the steppe origin of the vast majority of the R1a in the world today.”

Are there any R1a markers out there that seem to not have originated with Corded Ware or a closely related group? Or did that steppe expansion manage to exterminate all of their R1a cousins?
October 2, 2017 at 4:15 PM

Davidski said…
@Ryan Subclades like R1a5-­YP1272 are still around the place, mostly in Eastern Europe, but very, very rare. See here.
October 2, 2017 at 4:37 PM

supernord said…
The Lower Don culture aka Rakushechny Yar culture, so called the oldest settlement Rakushechny Yar near Volgograd, has nothing to link with the Caucasus. In it lived the North Europeods and ceramics is directly related to the Southern Ural region and the Kama region. This is the first Neolithic culture in Don region, it’s approximately the same age as the Bug-Dniester culture.
In the Caucasus on the merits of the Neolithic was not, there very long time was the Mesolithic, and then quickly passed the formal stage of the Neolithic. The Caucasus before the Maikop culture are very behind in the change of phase in general. Oldest R1a1 is no further from the R1a-M417 than the R1a-Z93.
October 3, 2017 at 9:49 AM

supernord said…
Rob „And again there is contention of chronology, but now most seem to be downtrendifn earlier dates, eg C-T dates 4000-2800 BC, not 5000” No trend decreasing date. Shishlina 2014 more accurately considered a reservoir effect in Khvalynskiy culture.

„Eneolithic Culture
Only one pair of dates is presently available, i.e. cow and human bones from the Eneolithic Khvalynsk Cemetery II, grave 10. The offset is 220 14C yr. We assume that other 14C dates of human bones available for this culture also would show this apparent age. The average value of the δ15N ratio in human bone collagen from the Khvalynsk humans is +13‰ (Shishlina et al. 2012a). This provides the size of the reservoir effect correction (Shishlina et al. 2009).”

Of the known 17th radiocarbon dating, Khvalynsk culture fit into the range 5300-4230 cal BC 1sigma, just need to subtract 220 years. (Only three dates are younger than 4700-4600 cal BC.) That is, the dates will be 5000-4000 cal BC, this will be the approximate range of existence of the Khvalynsk culture. This range corresponds to the Tripolie A – Tripolie B1. Rob, your text on which you referenced for your personal chronology is just wrong. A common mistake, it is fact.
October 4, 2017 at 1:05 PM

Rob said…
Shishlina 2014- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Natalia_Shishlina/publication/270183423_Reservoir_Effect_of_Archaeological_Samples_from_Steppe_Bronze_Age_Cultures_in_Southern_Russia/links/56894db808ae1975839a935f/Reservoir-Effect-of-Archaeological-Samples-from-Steppe-Bronze-Age-Cultures-in-Southern-Russia.pdf?_iepl%5BviewId%5D=zBHJYSYKGR5tVn1KAxWs060p&_iepl%5BprofilePublicationItemVariant%5D=default&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=prfpi&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationDownload

So have a look at table 1 and see what chronology is offered for Khvalynsk
October 5, 2017 at 12:02 AM

supernord said…
See Shishlina’s texts
„We studied populations that exploited the area between the Lower Don and the Lower Volga rivers and the North Caucasus piedmont.”
„Their time intervals and regional distributions are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, respectively.”
„The relative chronology of the Bronze Age cultures of this region is based on stratigraphy of the main archaeological funerary sites of the region, i.e. kurgans. This chronology is shown in Table 1.”
The table for Lower Caspian Region only. Eneolithic the Kvalynsk Culture, the Sredny Stog Culture are not included in it. For that one late grave of the Khvalynskiy culture, he cites the date 4500 cal BC in Figure 4.
October 5, 2017 at 4:10 AM

Rob said…
OK. Vybornov states that productive Neolithic begins in Caspian area (=Prikaspiiskaya culture) c. 5500- 4800 BC. This is followed by Khvalynsk, the main distinguisher being the appearance of some Copper.
OFfsetting ~ 220 years, give us the same ballpark for Khvalynsk / SS ..
October 5, 2017 at 5:14 AM