Diachronic map of Eneolithic migrations ca. 4000-3100 BC
Przedstawiam dwa artykuły na ten sam temat, z których jeden został napisany przez autora poniższego komentarza:
Davidski October 2, 2017 at 3:09 am
Haha. Thanks for the comedy. Obviously, Corded Ware is not from Cucuteni–Trypillia but from Sredny Stog, which now looks a very good bet for the Proto-Indo-European homeland and had nothing to do with Uralics. Time for another revision of your great work. Haha.
No właśnie… Zwróćcie uwagę na tzw. domieszkę stepową, czyli niby pochodząca od niby późnego PIE z Yamna / Yamnaya, czyli ulubione tzw. skałkazkie żony Davidskiego, czyli CHG + EHG lub WGH. Patrzcie na te różnokolorowe paski, a szczególnie na te żółte. Widzicie, że one pojawiają się już wcześniej niż tzw. 3000 pne na stepie pełnym Yamna / Yamnaya R1b?
Czy R1a-M417 z Sredny Stog II Alexandria na tę stepową domieszkę, to nie wiem, bo są tam widoczne 3 próbki z 15,… z których jedna jest w całości tylko EHG+ WHG, patrz:
Sredny Stog II Ukraine Alexandria [I6561 / Mos70, Skeleton 5, 88] M 5000-3500 BCE 738661 R1a1a1R1a1a1:M417:8533735G->A; R1a1a:M512:16315153C->T; R1a1a:M515:14054623T->A; R1a1:M459:6906074A->G; R1a1:Page65.2:2657176C->T; R1a:L62:17891241A->G; R1:CTS997:7132713G->A; R1:CTS2565:14366723C->T; etc H2a1a Mathieson 2017
Pozostałe dwie tę domieszką stepowa już mają… Nie wiem, co gorsze, czy to że ta jedna próbka może nie mieć szarego paska, czyli domieszki anatolijskiej / NW Anatolian, czy to że te dwie inne próbki mają już domieszkę stepową jakieś hm… 1.200 lat wcześniej od Yamna / Yamnaya…
A no i żadna z tych próbek nie jest Z93, ani J2,.. to tak przy okazji „Pra-Lewitów” i „Pra-Ario-Słowian”, ale co tam ja „biedny ruski troll” wiem… hehehe
Skoro Davidski i Amim / Atimere / Atimens / x Pietrzak zaczynają wycofywać się na nowe, z góry upatrzone pozycje, no to pewno czeka nas nawała nowych odkrywców, co to z początku z taka pewną nieśmiałością i wolno, ale jednak coraz szybciej i szybciej… podążą ich śladami… Ciekawe, że podobne twierdzenia, jak to Davidskiego można tu było przeczytać już od jakiegoś czasu… patrz:
… ale co tam ja „biedny ruski troll” znam się… No dobra bogate dziewczynki i chłopaki,.. tylko mi tam wspólnie w tym tłumie nowych odkrywców wzajemnie nie zadepczcie się… Aczkolwiek wolno wam i ja wam przecie niczego nie zabraniam. A tratujcie się wzajemnie do woli,.. ale może jakby co, no to z pewną taką godnością… dostojnie i powoli… 🙂
A no i może niczego nie róbcie samodzielnie, bo jeszcze za wcześnie i znów nie daj Bóg wygłupicie się. Może lepiej poczekajcie na jakiś rozkaz albo może na jakieś z ambony kazanie,.. bo przecież sami swojego zdania nie macie, niespecjalnie szybko myślicie i ktoś inny wcześniej musi wam przecie wszystko wyraźnie napisać, co myśleć i robić… 😦
New Ukraine Eneolithic sample from late Sredni Stog, near homeland of the Corded Ware culture
Carlos Quiles Archaeology, Demic diffusion, Indo-European, Linguistics September 23, 2017
Just one day after publishing the draft of the Indo-European demic diffusion model, 3rd version, Mathieson et al. (2017) have updated some information in a new version of their article, including a new interesting sample from late Sredni Stog. It gives support to what I predicted, regarding the potential origin of the third Corded Ware horizon.
After my first version, findings in Olalde et al. (2017) and Mathieson et al. (2017) supported some of my predictions. Now after my third, their new data also supports another prediction. Because the model is based on solid linguistic and archaeological models. Here is an excerpt from the Indo-European demic diffusion model, 3rd ed. (pp. 55-56):
At the end of the Trypillian culture, herding/hunting trends intensified, and the agricultural system collapsed, with people moving to the steppe zone, as confirmed by the presence of numerous graves to the south (Rassamakin 1999). At the same time, the Trypillian world absorbed a foreign tradition related to materials of settlement sites of the Dnieper steppes – such as the late Sredni Stog culture –, like cord impressions and burial rites similar to the later Corded Ware culture, marking also the transformation of decors and changes in their interpretation (Palaguta 2007).
The similarity in burial rituals between Yamna and Corded Ware made Gimbutas define a common “Kurgan people”, whose relationship has also been long supported by Kristiansen (Kristiansen 1989; Kristiansen et al. 2017). An equivalence of both burial rites has been, however, rejected (Häusler 1963, 1978, 1983), and it is generally agreed that the Yamna culture did not expand to the north of the Tisza River.
The importance of horse exploitation in Deriivka, in the forest-steppe zone of the north Pontic region along the Dnieper region, during the Middle Eneolithic period (probably ca. 3700-3530 BC), suggests that horses played a significant role in the life of this Sredni Stog community (Anthony and Brown 2003). In its late period (ca. 4000-3500 BC), this culture had adopted corded ware pottery, and stone battle-axes.
However, this [sic] western steppe peoples were mainly hunters (Rassamakin 1999), and the ‘herding skill’ essential for wild horse domestication seems absent (Kuzmina 2003). All this has been confirmed with zooarchaeological evidence and new molecular and stable isotope results, suggesting an absence of horse domestication in territories of the late Sredni Stog culture in the north Pontic steppe (Mileto et al. 2017), before the advent of migrants from the Indo-European-speaking Repin culture.
The new sample described in Mathieson et al. (2017), dated ca. 4200 BC (but within a wide range, 5000-3500 BC) is from a site classified as of late Sredni Stog (although potentially from Post-Mariupol / Kvitjana), a culture of hunters who probably did not breed domesticated horses (even after the period of conquest and dominance of Suvorovo-Novodanilovka chiefs, from Indo-Hittite-speaking early Khvalynsk, who had domesticated horses), and – more importantly – is of R1a-M417 lineage, shows high so-called “Yamna component” in ADMIXTURE, and clusters among Corded Ware samples in PCA approximately a thousand years before this culture’s expansion. Information from the supplementary material:
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. A total of 33 individuals were recovered. Based on craniometric analysis (I.Potekhina 1999) it was suggested that the Eneolithic inhabitants of Alexandria were not homogeneous and resulted from admixture of local Neolithic hunter-gatherers and early farmers, possibly Trypillian groups. We report genetic data from one individual: I6561
Another individual from Eneolithic Ukraine (of R1b1 xM269 lineage) clusters quite closely with Neolithic samples from the Baltic, which points to the strong connection between both – southern and northern – regions of east-central Europebefore the period of great Chalcolithic expansions, and the potential origin of the spread of R1b (xM269) lineages with the Corded Ware culture.
The so-called ‘Yamna component’ – an infamous name which, as expected, is turning out to be very wrong – has been found quite elevated in this sample, previous and completely unrelated to the Yamna culture and its expansion, and similar to the (later) Corded Ware samples. In fact, we are seeing that Corded Ware samples are actually clustering closely with east-central Europe (excluding the CWC outlier), and not with Yamna and other Indo-European-speaking steppe cultures.
It will be fun to see the mess that certain researchers have made (and will still make in the near future) of their findings coupled with the concept of “Yamna component”, when trying to describe the “proxy ancestral populations” of European Copper Age and Bronze Age cultures… Difficult times ahead for many, after the collapse of the simplistic Yamna -> Corded Ware -> Bell Beaker genetic model laid out since Haak et al. (2015) and Allentoft et al. (2015).
[EDIT 27 September 2017] Not directly related, but here is today’s interesting discussion on Twitter surrounding the ancestral populations of the “Yamnaya component”, for illustration of the discussions to come when this ancestry is divided into different, more precise, older (Neolithic) steppe components, and these in turn shown to contribute to different European and Asian Chalcolithic and Bronze Age cultures:
Given the variance found in the three samples from Eneolithic Ukraine (comparable to the variance found in east Bell Beaker samples), we may now be getting closer to the precise territory and culture where the Corded Ware culture might have formed, which cannot be much further from the Dnieper-Dniester region before the Yamna expansion to the west ca. 3300 BC, judging from the elevated steppe component.
It seems, because of the proximity of both cultures and the similar dates of their migrations, that the westward expansion of the Yamna culture may have indeed provided an important push (among some strong ‘pull’ forces) for peoples of the expansion of the Corded Ware culture.
Diachronic map of Eneolithic migrations in the Caucasus ca. 4000-3100 BC
It keeps being demonstrated that archaeologists like Anthony, Heyd, Mallory, etc. were right where others tried to interpret admixture based on few samples and their own imagination, without any knowledge (or interest) whatsoever about Archaeology or Linguistics.
So Genetics reinforces the solidest models of Archaeology and Linguistics? Professional academics being mostly right in their careful research, and amateur geneticists playing with software being wrong? Who would have thought… More and more papers help thus shut up naysayers who state (again and again) that new algorithms are here to revolutionise these academic fields.
As Heyd predicted more than 10 years ago, and as many pointed out in terms of linguistic influence (like Mallory or Prescott) the transformation of Yamna settlers into the east Bell Beaker culture, and this culture‘s spread into western and northern Europe, must be noticed in genetic investigation.
The expansion of peoples is known to be associated with the spread of a certain admixture component + the expansion and reduction in variability of a haplogroup (i.e. few male lineages are usually more successful during the expansion): Neolithic farmers from the Middle East expanding with haplogroup G2a; Natufian component (Levant hunter-gatherers or later, Neolithic farmers) and haplogroup E southward into Africa; CHG component expansion with haplogroup J; WHG expansion into east Europe with haplogroup R1b; etc.
There were (at least) two main expansion processes involving Proto-Indo-European: one causing the branching off of the language ancestral to Anatolian, and another during the spread of Late Indo-European dialects. Based on this, and on known archaeological models, I have predicted since the first version of the demic diffusion model:
- Based on haplogroups found until then in Yamna (R1b-M269), Corded Ware (R1a-M417, especially Z645), and Bell Beaker (R1b-L151):
- that mainly R1b-L23 (especially L51) lineages and more steppe admixture would be found in east Bell Beaker – confirmed some two months after my publication by Olalde et al. (2017);
- and that mainly R1a-M417 (especially Z645) subclades will be found in Corded Ware samples.
- Based on the finding of “Yamna component” in the Corded Ware culture: that this admixture must have come from somewhere else. I pointed out to eastern Europe, including the forest and forest-steppe zone especially in the natural continuum of the Dniester-Dnieper region. Especially after Mathieson et al. (2017), in my second and third versions of the model, I have more specifically suggested a southern origin in the region, nearer to where the CHG ancestry must have come from (the Caucasus and cultures formed in contact with it), according to mainstream archaeological data, i.e. cultures of the North Pontic steppe / steppe-forest. But of course, until more samples are available, more CHG ancestry in other cultures of the Forest Zone cannot be discarded.
For the vast majority of academics, more samples (regionally proportioned) are needed only from early Corded Ware, as we have from Bell Beaker: if they are (as expected) mostly R1a-M417, then everything is clear, and it will finally mean the end for the tiring, now almost ‘traditional’ association R1a – Proto-Indo-European. Some more samples from the potential homeland of the third Corded Ware horizon, most likely Ukraine (Podolia and Volynia regions), nearer to the time of the Corded Ware expansion, would also be great, to locate the actual ancestral population of Corded Ware migrants – recognisable by the main presence of haplogroup R1a-Z645 (formed ca. 3500 BC), and elevated “Yamna component” before the arrival of the Yamna culture…
If, however, early Corded Ware samples of R1b-L23 subclades are found in certain quantity, especially old samples from east-central Europe (excluding Yamna migrants along the Prut), the tricky question of Late Indo-European cultural diffusion will remain: Did Corded Ware peoples adopt a Late Indo-European language from clans of R1b-L23 lineages? That is what Kristiansen and Anthony have been betting for, a cultural diffusion, caused by:
- A long-lasting contact, according to Kristiansen (1989,…,2017). He defends that Sredni Stog adopted the language – but obviously not the same culture – from the east, but that it is a genetic and cultural mix from Globular Amphora, Trypillia, and steppe cultures. This has been Kristiansen’s model for almost 30 years, and it follows Marija Gimbutas’ outdated theory of the “Kurgan people”.
- A rapid change according to Anthony (2007). He associates the adoption of Pre-Germanic with the domination of Yamna chiefs over Usatovo people, and the adoption of Balto-Slavic by the people from (Corded Ware) Middle Dnieper group because of the technical superiority of neighbouring Yamna herders.
Linguistics, with the growing support of a North-West Indo-European group, points clearly to a European expansion of a community speaking the ancestral language of Italo-Celtic, Germanic, and probably Balto-Slavic. Archaeology, too, showed migration from Yamna only to south-eastern Europe (correcting Gimbutas’ Kurgan model) and later with east Bell Beaker mainly into central, western, and northern Europe.
Even Kristiansen admits that only after the arrival of Bell Beaker in Scandinavia was a linguistic community (i.e. Germanic) formed – although he places the center of gravity in Úněticean influence, and (yet again) a cultural diffusion event into the Danish Dagger period.
Because of more and more data contrasting with old theories, some have elected to develop weak, indemonstrable links, to keep supporting e.g. Gimbutas’ concept of “Kurgan people” in Archaeology, and a sudden, early expansion of all PIE dialects at once in Linguistics. It seems that, after so much fuss about the (misleading) ‘Yamna component’ concept – and so many far-fetched assumptions by amateur geneticists -, the Corded Ware connection will once again hinge on weak, indemonstrable cultural diffusion theories, be it ‘Kurgan peoples’ (including now, of course, Eneolithic cultures of Ukraine) or any culture from eastern Europe that will reveal some close samples to Corded Ware migrants, in terms of PCA, ADMIXTURE, or haplogroup.
So once we find mainly R1a-Z645 in more Corded Ware samples (and this haplogroup and more “Yamna component” in non-Yamna cultures of Eneolithic Ukraine, and potentially Poland or Belarus) we all may finally expect a peaceful acceptance of reality, at least in Genetics? Nope. No siree. Nein. Not then, not ever.
Why? Because some people want their paternal lineage to have lived in their historical region, and spoken their historical language, since time immemorial. It won’t matter if Archaeology, Linguistics, Genetics, etc. don’t support their claims: if they need to use some aspects of admixture, or haplogroups (or a combination of them) from carefully selected samples instead of looking at the whole picture; if they have to support that Indo-Europeans came from a culture different than Yamna, in- or outside of the steppe or forest-steppe, be it the Balkans, Anatolia, Armenia, or the Moon; if their proto-language should then come directly from Indo-Hittite, or from a Germano-Slavonic, or Indo-Slavonic, or Indo-Germanic group, or whatever invented dialectal branch necessary to fit their model, or if they have to support the ‘constellation analogy’ of Clackson, or thousands of years of development for each branch; etc. They will support whatever is necessary.
And this adaptation, obviously, has no end. It’s stupid, I know. But that’s how we are, how we think. We have seen that these sad trends continue no matter what, for decades, and not only regarding Indo-European. Some common examples include:
- Indo-Aryan-speaking Indians defending an autochthonous origin of R1a and Indo-European; as well as the ‘opposite’ autochtonous continuity theory of Dravidian-speaking Indians (based on ASI ancestry, haplogroup R2, mtDNA haplogroup M, or whatever is at hand).
- Western Europeans defending an autochthonous origin of the R1b haplogroup, with a Palaeolithic or Mesolithic origin, including the language, viz. the recent Indo-European from the Atlantic façade theories (in the Celtic from the West series, by Koch and Cunliffe); the now fading Palaeolithic Continuity Theory; and many other forgotten Eurocentric proposals; as well as the more recent informal hints of a central European/Balkan homeland based on the Villabruna cluster and south-eastern Mesolithic finds, which is at risk of being related to a Balkan origin of Proto-Indo-European…
- There is also the ‘opposite’ theory of the autochthonous origin of the Basques, including Proto-Iberians and potentially other peoples like Paleo-Sardinians, based on the previously popular Vasconic-Uralic hypothesis (and an ancient Europe divided into R1b and N1c1 haplogroups), which is still widely believed in certain regions.
- Finno-Ugric speakers of N1c1 lineage defending an autochtonous origin of the lineage and language in eastern Europe.
- Nordic speakers supporting the autochthonous nature of Germanic and haplogroup I1 to Scandinavia.
- Armenian speakers delighted to see a proposal of Indo-European homeland in the Armenian highlands, be it supported by glottalic consonants, CHG ancestrty, R1b (xM269) or J lineages…
- Greek speakers now willing to support continuity of haplogroup J as a ‘native’ Greek lineage, of people speaking Proto-Greek (and in earlier times PIE), because of two Minoan, and one Mycenaean samples found in Lazaridis et al. (2017).
- Even Turks linking Yamna with the expansion of Turkic languages. That one is fun to read, almost like a parody for the rest – substituting “Indo-European” for “Turkic”.
- For years, a lot of people – me included (at least since 2005) – believed, because of modern maps of R1a distribution, that R1a and Corded Ware are the vector of Indo-European languages. For those of us who don’t have any personal or national tie with this haplogroup, this notion has been easy to change with new data. For others, it obviously isn’t, and it won’t be.
For all these people, a sample, result, or conclusion from any paper, just dubiously in favour, means everything, but a thousand against mean nothing, or can be reinterpreted to support their fantasies.
The Kossinnian “autochthonous continuity” crap permeates this relatively new subfield of Human Evolutionary Genetics, as it permeated Indo-European studies (first Linguistics, then Archaeology) in its infancy. It seems to be a generalised human trend, no doubt related to some absurd inferiority complex, mixed with historical romanticism, a certain degree of chauvinism, and (falling in the eternal Godwin’s Law of our field) some outdated, childish notion of ‘supremacy’ linked with the expansion of the own language and people.
Such simplistic and popular models are also lucrative, judging by the boom in demand for DNA analysis, which companies embellish with modern fortune tellers (or fortune tellers themselves sell for a price), promising to ascertain your ‘ancestry proportions’ using automated algorithms, so that you don’t have to get lost in complex genetic data and prehistoric accounts, which can’t help you define your “ethnicity”…
Some just don’t want to realize that the spread of prehistoric languages (like Late Indo-European dialects) was a complex, non-uniform, stepped process, devoid of modern romantic concepts, which in genetic terms necessarily included later founder effects and cultural diffusions, so that no one can trace their haplogroup, lineage, family, region, or country to any single culture, language, or ethnic group. The same, by the way, can be said of peoples and countries in historic times.
As I said before, we shall expect supporters of the Kurgan model (and thus the expansion of R1a-Z645 with Yamna) to wait for just one sample of R1a-M417 in Yamna and/or Bell Beaker (which will eventually be found), and just one sample of R1b-M269 in Corded Ware (which will also eventually be found), to blow the horn of victory in this naïve competition against time, general knowledge, and (essentially) themselves.
A sad consequence of how we are is that, because of the obvious influence of these stupid modern ethnolinguistic agendas, because we are not all rowing in the same direction, genetic results and conclusions are still perceived as far-fetched and labile, and thus most archaeologists and linguists prefer not to include genetic results in their investigation. And those who dare to do so, are badly counselled by those who go with the tide, so that their papers become almost instantly outdated.
- The concept of “outlier” in studies of Human Ancestry, and the Corded Ware outlier from Erperstedt
- Heyd, Mallory, and Prescott were right about Bell Beakers
- Germanic–Balto-Slavic and Satem (‘Indo-Slavonic’) dialect revisionism by amateur geneticists, or why R1a lineages *must* have spoken Proto-Indo-European
- Something is very wrong with models based on the so-called ‘steppe admixture’ – and archaeologists are catching up
Glorious Wolf October 19, 2017 at 5:09 am
Although I am not a specialist, for quite some time I have noticed the correlation between Corded Ware Horizon (including Middle Dnieper and Fatyanovo-Balanovo) with haplogroup R1a and Satem languages (roughly, I would not include languages such as Armenian, Phrygian, Illyric, etc.). On the other hand there seems to be a correlation between R1b haplogroups, European Languages (Italo-Celtic and possibly Germanic) with Bell Beaker expansion.
I wonder if both, Late Sredny Stog and Repin/Yamna spoke Proto-Indo-European, maybe different dialects of it by the time of their expansion (~3.500 BCE).
In this case, Corded Ware horizon would be more related to Sredny Stog expansion and related to the expansion of Baltic, Slavic, Iranian and Indo-Aryan branches, while Repin/Yamna expansion along Danube would have brought what would become Illyric branch associated with Vucedol culture (possibly imposed over a local population? maybe or coexisting with autochthonous languages?), then further west Italo-Celtic and other “italoid” languages such as Lusitanian associated with Bell Beaker expansion. The presence of Beaker people on territory of western Corded Ware would have brought Proto-Germanic and similarities between Germanic and Balto-Slavic would be due to long time contact as well as maybe the presence of some similar language from Wester Corded Ware territory.
If this scenario is correct, Proto-Indo-European unity would have to be pushed further in the past and Anatolian branch would probably not fit with Ezero culture.
Carlos Quiles October 21, 2017 at 10:35 am
Yes, the model you propose is indeed possible, and similar models will probably be supported in the future by those supporting a strong and old Indo-Slavic connection, especially those interested in its connection with Y-DNA haplogroups.
But, as you say, that model would push the branching off of Late Indo-European further back in time, either to the Sredni Stog – Early Khvalynsk formation, or at least to an adoption of the language by the Sredni Stog culture from Suvorovo-Novodanilovka chiefs of an Early Khvalynsk origin – which includes a cultural diffusion, difficult to prove, because in terms of haplogroups Sredni Stog does not seem to have been simplified to the predominant R1b subclades of the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe.
The problem here are language guesstimates – which I trust more than the labile glottochronological methods, which have supported almost every model. Guesstimates offer a rather late framework for IE dialect formation: proto-languages can indeed be pushed as far back as you want (after all, we can only know a historic or proto-historic pattern of change, so you can argue for a different pace of change before the known time), but going back thousands of years from Proto-Germanic to Proto-Indo-European does not seem warranted. The same goes for Proto-Balto-Slavic, whether you support a connection with Proto-Indo-Iranian (associated with Sintashta) or with North-West Indo-European (associated with Bell Beaker), or maybe connecting both options through a NWIE Temematic substrate under an Indo-Slavic dialect.
If you mix the current (late) guesstimates with the current trend in favour of an Indo-Uralic family, the relationship between the Sredni Stog (and later Corded Ware) and Khvalynsk (and later Yamna) cultures – originally related in a cultural-historical community – during the Neolithic become clearer. That is just my opinion, of course.
About Anatolian, its origin is still unknown, but I tend to favour a Balkan route, because of the ancestry components (CHG plus or minus EHG) found to date in the Armenian highland, Anatolia, and in the Balkans. Today (unless different data comes from other Chalcolithic regions in Anatolia), only the Chalcolithic Balkan cultures have shown CHG from the steppe at an early time, and no steppe-related haplogroup change has been found in the Caucasus. The connection with Ezero is obviously tentative, as is any homeland of Proto-Greek before its invasion of Greece.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
R1a-M417 from Eneolithic Ukraine!!!11
A new version of Mathieson et al. 2017 has just been posted at BioRxiv [LINK]. It includes more samples. One of these new samples is a male from an Eneolithic Sredny Stog culture site on the North Pontic (Ukrainian) steppe who belongs to Y-haplogroup R1a-M417 (ID I6561 from Alexandria in the ADMIXTURE bar graph below). This is huge, obviously with major implications for the peopling of large parts of Eurasia. Why? Because of this. Here’s the new abstract:
Abstract: Farming was first introduced to southeastern Europe in the mid-7th millennium BCE – brought by migrants from Anatolia who settled in the region before spreading throughout Europe. To clarify the dynamics of the interaction between the first farmers and indigenous hunter-gatherers where they first met, we analyze genome-wide ancient DNA data from 223 individuals who lived in southeastern Europe and surrounding regions between 12,000 and 500 BCE. We document previously uncharacterized genetic structure, showing a West-East cline of ancestry in hunter-gatherers, and show that some Aegean farmers had ancestry from a different lineage than the northwestern Anatolian lineage that formed the overwhelming ancestry of other European farmers. We show that the first farmers of northern and western Europe passed through southeastern Europe with limited admixture with local hunter-gatherers, but that some groups mixed extensively, with relatively sex-balanced admixture compared to the male-biased hunter-gatherer admixture that prevailed later in the North and West. Southeastern Europe continued to be a nexus between East and West after farming arrived, with intermittent genetic contact from the Steppe up to 2000 years before the migration that replaced much of northern Europe’s population.
Three new Yamnaya, all from Ukraine, but sadly all females.
Expected the Mesolithic/Neolithic R1a/R1b in Ukraine, and it would’ve been good to see some Yamnaya males from there, because some are likely to be R1a-M417.
But it’s nice to see that Bulgarian MLBA R1a/U5a sample. Interesting date for R1a to be in the Balkans: 1750-1625 calBCE (3400±30 BP).
It can’t be a coincide that all of their Yamnaya samples from Ukraine are females.
I reckon they’re holding the males back for their South Asian paper.
I’m surprised they let the Bulgarian MLBA R1a out of the bag, because that’s a big clue about what we’ll see in BA Ukraine.
Update 20/09/2017: I put together a spreadsheet with the key details for the samples in this paper (click on the image below to open it). I’m not sure which of the individuals are new, because many of the IDs have been changed. A spreadsheet with the original set of samples is located here.
Posted by Davidski at 5:11:00 PM
I was speculating some time ago that Corded Ware didn’t come from Yamnay but from Sredny Stog.
“The expert Dmytro Telegin has divided the chronology of Sredny Stog into two distinct phases. Phase II (ca. 4000–3500 BC) used corded ware pottery which may have originated there, and stone battle-axes of the type later associated with expanding Indo-European cultures to the West. Most notably, it has perhaps the earliest evidence of horse domestication (in phase II), with finds suggestive of cheek-pieces (psalia). “
Now the romantic side of what really happened in Alexandria/Dereivka:
Of course “an angel’s kiss in spring” is a poetic metaphor. Girls used hops (xъmel/haoma/s
oma) not angel’s kisse.
September 20, 2017 at 1:14 AM
Ric Hern said…
@ EastPole And what about Phase 1 of Sredny Stog ? Can you throw any light on that ?
September 20, 2017 at 1:28 AM
Ric Hern said…
@ EastPole And what about this also from Wikipedia: „…Yuri Rassamakin suggests that the Sredny Stog culture should be considered as an areal term, with at least four distinct cultural elements co-existing inside the same geographical area.” Any thoughts ?
September 20, 2017 at 1:33 AM
@Ric Hern “And what about Phase 1 of Sredny Stog ?” It could be related to the division into Dereivka I and Dereivka II. Dereivka I population was made of hunter-gatherers and Dereivka II of pastoralists related to Corded Ware Culture. Because of some local differences Sredny Stog was divided into following cultures: Skelanska, Stogovska, Kvitanska and Dereivka by Rassamakin. Let’s wait for aDNA from those cultures before we speculate about them.
September 20, 2017 at 3:14 AM
It makes no difference where M417 originated. The only thing that really matters is that its main expansion was from the Pontic steppe via an Yamnaya-like population. That’s why Corded Ware is 70-100% Yamnaya-like and South Asians have a big dose of Yamnaya-like admixture.
September 20, 2017 at 5:03 AM
Wow. I5883 is a Dereivka outlier, basically largely Ukranian Mesolithic with a tad WHG. Y-DNA: R1b1a. Alexandria has more EHG/Yamnaya than I4110 Dereivka.
September 20, 2017 at 6:41 AM
Ages ago I showed that CHG was already spreading west across Anatolia during the early Neolithic. See here. But it seems that it really started to move west, and even into the Balkans, around 5,000 BC. Check out what they say about that farmer from Krepost, Bulgaria:
In contrast, five southern Greek Neolithic individuals (Peloponnese_Neolithic) – three (plus one previously published 26 ) from Diros Cave and one from Franchthi Cave – are not consistent with descending from the same source population as other European farmers. D-statistics (Supplementary Information Table 2) show that in fact, these “Peloponnese Neolithic” individuals dated to ~4000 BCE are shifted away from WHG and towards CHG, relative to Anatolian and Balkan Neolithic individuals. We see the same pattern in a single Neolithic individual from Krepost in present-day Bulgaria (I0679_d, 5718-5626 BCE ). An even more dramatic shift towards CHG has been observed in individuals associated with the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures, 26 and thus there was gene flow into the region from populations with CHG-rich ancestry throughout the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age. Possible sources are related to the Neolithic population from the central Anatolian site of Tepecik Ciftlik, 21 or the Aegean site of Kumtepe, 11 who are also shifted towards CHG relative to NW Anatolian Neolithic samples, as are later Copper and Bronze Age Anatolians.
September 20, 2017 at 7:16 PM
What puzzles me greatly is the position Varna and Balkans_Chalcolithic outliers. Assuming that their position on PCA was due to some early migrations from the steppe we can conclude that at the very early age there existed different steppe populations: NO. 1 is like Sredny Stog, NO. 2 is like Yamnaya and NO. 3 is like Yamnaya outlier with a lot of CHG:
@ EastPole It’s probably a gradient that’ll fill out with more individuals tested. I’d also add Kumtepe IV to that list. It means that the migration of these „steppe” people, aka north Caucasus or central Eurasians, had begun by 4500 BC, and they had started to arrive at key sites
September 20, 2017 at 11:29 PM
@Rob “It means that the migration of these „steppe” people, aka north Caucasus or central Eurasians, had begun by 4500 BC, and they had started to arrive at key sites”
If a population similar to late Sredny Stog Dereivka formed somewhere on the steppe as early as 4500 BC then I would guess they are the best candidates for PIE.
September 21, 2017 at 12:06 AM
@ East Pole The old term Sredny Stog is too loose. This R1a-M417 is probably from Kvityana culture, and would date between 4000-3500 BC. This again confirms what I have been saying, & Alberto just did above, some kind of new admixture event was occurring on the east-of -Dnieper steppe and forest steppe at this time, because up until this point the -CHG component is missing in steppe samples, and is probably an extraneous component. (and the curious thing is there is no delay in reaching Varna or Anatolia, at least on an individual level.) West of this , the earlier Suvorovo people and Mikhailovka would be still the older type layer of SHG – Balkan Neolithic mix, as seen by the Ukrainian Neolithics – Eneolithics to date. Now it’s blind guesswork and personal pet-theorism to claim this or that site or sub-region is the PIE. Intsead, it’s very much a interaction thing, with successive waves, with the heavy ANF/SHG being formative for the Balkans, the M417 from middle Dnieper for CWC-related groups, and later the Yamnaya groups, if they’re IE.
September 21, 2017 at 12:52 AM
@Rob “The old term Sredny Stog is too loose. This R1a-M417 is probably from Kvityana culture, and would date between 4000-3500 BC.”
There is some confusion about localization of this sample:
I6561 with R1a-M417 is from Alexandria :
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
Actually both Alexandrias are on the territory of Dereivka culture:
@ East Pole Yes, its out in east Ukraine
Going by the conversion of SSII into sub-periods, that would mean its Kvityana culture area, possibly very early Repin.
September 21, 2017 at 3:28 AM
„Yes, its out in east Ukraine”
It is very confusing, because on their map they also show Alexandria West of Dnieper River:
@Rob “The old term Sredny Stog is too loose. This R1a-M417 is probably from Kvityana culture, and would date between 4000-3500 BC.”
According to Rassamakin it is Dereivka culture:
September 21, 2017 at 10:00 AM
@Rob “Now it’s blind guesswork and personal pet-theorism to claim this or that site or sub-region is the PIE.”
Yes, I am guessing and it is my pet theory but it is not blind. There are reasons to believe that it is a very probable theory. R1a-M417 is a good candidate for PIE marker. Corded Ware Culture is considered to be IE. Here are 12 articles on Corded Ware ornamentation phenomenon in central and eastern Europe:
“Moreover, there are times and places when such ornamentation was extremely frequent. This concerns above all central and eastern Europe from the 5th mill. BC to the 3rd mill. BC. Corded ornamentation in this context even became a type of distinguishing mark, allowing for the creation of a name for one of the important archaeological taxonomic cultures identified in the 3rd mill. BC, the Corded Ware culture (CWC).
“Corded ornamentation was observed for the first time in the steppe area between the Dnieper and the Don rivers in the Sredniy Stog culture monuments of the early Eneolithic Age. Artefact ornamentation was represented by imprints of a coiled cord [Kotova 2008]. Classic ‘corded’ ornamentation appeared in the Middle Eneolithic in the monuments of the Dereivka culture and the lower layer of the Mykhailivka settlement.”
Classic ‘corded’ ornamentation was also found in Alexandria/Oleksandriya where we now have R1a-M417:
After Dereivka, Tripolye, TRB, Yamnaya and other cultures started to use it too.
Dereivka culture occupied southern part of the forest-steppe region, interacted with Tripolye and is the region where steppe and farmer tradition mixed. I think that PIE were a mixed culture not a pure steppe culture. 4200-3850 BC Alexandria settlement was occupied by Dereivka culture.
Assuming that PIE started to depart after 3500 BC and before that lived on area not exceeding 500000 km2 this is the best candidate for PIE homeland IMO:
September 21, 2017 at 11:10 PM
@ EastPole I don’t think you’re wrong, but that’s my point, it’s seems a tad speculative to argue we can drop pre-expansion PPIE right at the door of Dereivka, or wherever someone else might prefer. Tracing back presumed development of the Corded ware Pot, or an M17 lineage, is a different phenomenon to understanding the intertwining prehistory of sociolinguistics
September 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM
Oh and congrats to R1a bros for finding their roots
September 22, 2017 at 4:16 AM
@EastPole One thing we’ve learned this year thanks to the aDNA from the north pontic region (Ukraine) is that this area was not the homeland of the Yamnaya-like population that some presume to be PIE.
That area during the Mesolithic and Neolithic was not the home to either EHG or CHG. The native Neolithic people were SHG-like, and they were replaced by this Yamnaya-like population on their migratory way.
So there’s 100% certainty that even if this Yamnaya-like population carrying R1a-M417 and R1b-L23 was PIE, the North Pontic region was not their homeland. They just entered Europe through that region.
The possible origin of such population can be:
– The North Caucasus
– The North Caspian region
– Central Asia?
I always favoured Central Asia, but no aDNA from there make it difficult to guess.
September 22, 2017 at 4:40 AM
The possible origin of such population can be:
– The North Caucasus
– The North Caspian region
– Central Asia?
I always favoured Central Asia, but no aDNA from there make it difficult to guess. Nonsense.
The relevant mixture event between EHG and CHG took place on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe.
September 22, 2017 at 4:49 AM
Much of Eastern Europe and Siberia were part of the same ecosystem back then, and for foragers that’s more important than distance. That’s because foragers can move great distances, usually when following prey, but they have a very hard time moving from one ecosystem, to which they’re adapted, to another, to which they’re not. But I doubt that EHG originated near Lake Baikal. Both WHG and EHG look like a population that formed after the LGM in Europe and maybe Western Siberia from a mixture of European and ANE foragers. The ANE foragers were probably migrants from around Lake Baikal.
If ancient DNA shows the presence of EHG around Lake Baikal during the Mesolithic and/or Neolithic, then they will be migrants from the west.
September 22, 2017 at 6:12 PM
The Mesolithic/Neolithic Ukrainian foragers are not SHG, nor are they derived from SHG. They just have a similar ratio of WHG/EHG ancestry. There is no R1b or R1a in any SHG samples tested to date, but plenty of R1b and R1a in Baltic, Balkan, Russian and Ukrainian foragers with zero Near Eastern ancestry.
September 23, 2017 at 5:45 AM
The Northern Germany scenario isn’t possible, let alone plausible. However, what is possible and plausible is that R1a-M417 is native to the Dereivka region, because we already have Mesolithic and Neolithic R1a from there. And a realistic way to explain the Yamnaya-like genetic structure of the M417 male is via the generally accepted cultural and economic contacts with Khvalynsk and female exogamy. His mtDNA is H2a1a, while the mtDNA of the R1b Khvalynsk guy is H2a1, so that fits.
September 25, 2017 at 3:53 AM
@Davidski No, that’s totally unrealistic. Look again:
Ukraine_Neolithic: 39.1% WHG, 52% EHG, 8.9% CHG
Yamnaya_Samara: 2.8% WHG, 47% EHG, 50.1% CHG
Those 2 populations cannot be one and the same, neither can one be derived from the other. Female exogamy won’t make it. Certainly not in that timespan or in any realistic amount. The first population (who were food gatherers, despite the „neolithic” label) was replaced by the second one (who were food producers). Don’t make complicated what is simple.
September 25, 2017 at 4:14 AM
@Alberto You’re making assumptions out of thin air, and ignoring the long posited links between Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk. There’s nothing in those ancestry proportions that you posted that prevents the formation of a Corded Ware-like population at Dereivka during the Eneolithic.
R1a has a long presence in the area, and the only thing that changes is the mtDNA, from strictly U4 and U5 clades to more southern clades, like J2 and the H2 that is seen in Khvalynsk and common in later steppe groups. And keep in mind that lots of population movements, even if sex biased, can change the genetic structure of small groups very quickly.
September 25, 2017 at 4:24 AM
Well, the Sredny Stog M417 guy is very similar to Yamnaya, and considering that some early Corded Ware look basically 100% Yamnaya, I wouldn’t argue now that associating the „Yamnaya” genetic component with PIE was a bad idea.
September 26, 2017 at 2:38 AM
Yes I agree, the genetic component which formed / appeared (?) in the steppe c 4000BC (=before Yamnaya) can be linked to the dispersal of IE into Europe
September 26, 2017 at 2:49 AM
Not only Europe. Definitely also South Asia and probably Armenia.
September 26, 2017 at 2:57 AM
Ric Hern said…
A while back someone posted a link about an Archaeological paper which shows that Sredny Stog spread into Khvalynsk territory.
September 26, 2017 at 3:51 PM