Something is very wrong with models based on the so-called ‘Yamnaya admixture’ – and archaeologists are catching up (II)

A new article by Leo S. Klejn tries to improve the Northern Mesolithic Proto-Indo-European homeland model of the Russian school of thought: The Steppe hypothesis of Indo-European origins remains to be proven, Acta Archaeologica, 88:1, 193–204.

Abstract:

Recent genetic studies have claimed to reveal a massive migration of the bearers of the Yamnaya culture (Pit-grave culture) to the Central and Northern Europe. This migration has supposedly lead to the formation of the Corded Ware cultures and thereby to the dispersal of Indo-European languages in Europe. The article is a summary presentation of available archaeological, linguistic, genetic and cultural data that demonstrates many discrepancies in the suggested scenario for the transformations caused by the Yamnaya “invasion” some 5000 years ago.

Excerpts:

Both teams [Reich/Anthony, and Willerslev/Kristiansen] interpreted this resemblance in the same way: as evidence of mass migration of the Yamnaya culture from the steppes into the Central and Northern Europe, resulting in the formation of the Corded Ware cultures, and these are universally recognised as Indo-European. Since earlier in this part of Europe existed a different pool of genomes, geneticists presumed that the Yamnaya migration alone had brought the Indo-European languages into Europe. It is difficult to say to what extent the pre-convictions of the involved archaeologists influenced these conclusions, or whether the results of the genetic studies attracted archaeologists with such beliefs.

Mismatch of cultural manifestations

First, we might question the idea of the Yamnaya culture as a unity rather than a loose conglomerate of cultures. Merpert (1974) divided it into nine local groups but did not recognise them as separate cultures. However, in 1975 I suggested that Nerushay (Budzhak) monuments should be recognised as a distinct culture (Klejn 1975), although still as a part of the same broader steppe community.

This was accepted by other specialists (Ivanova 2012; 2013; 2014). Generally, in the western branch of this community, a mixture of the eastern rites of interment with local, Balkan ceramics can be observed. It should be noted that hitherto all genetic samples were taken from eastern material (in the vicinity of Samara in the Volga basin and Kalmykia), while the central thesis concerns the intrusion of the western branch of this community (Budzhak culture) into Europe.

yamnaya-corded-ware.connection
The spread of cultural-historical communities of the Yamnaya culture and the location of the Budzhak culture. GAC – Globular Amphora culture; CWC – Corded Ware culture. After Ivanova 2013.

Simultaneity of cultures

The Yamnaya culture (Chernykh & Orlovskaya 2004a; Heyd 2011; Frȋnculeasa et al. 2015) appears not to be the predecessor of the Corded Ware cultures but is contemporary with them. The Corded Ware cultures appeared also around the turn between the fourth and third millennium BC (Stöckli 2001; Furholt 2003). Their derivation from the Yamnaya seems, therefore, to be less probable. This is evidenced by the fact that the corded beakers or amphorae found in the Budzhak culture are not the prototypes of the corded beakers or amphorae found in more northern territories, but seem instead to be an outcome of contemporaneous contacts (Ivanova 2014; Klejn 2017c).

Discrepancies across the haplogroups

Even more remarkable is the variation in the distribution of types of Y chromosome. In the Yamnaya population, R1b is not just a single occurrence (there are about seven known occurrences) while in the Corded Ware population a different clade of R1b is found and R1a is predominant (several instances). Thus the postulate of unbroken succession finds no support!

yamna-into-corded-ware
Distribution of artefacts and customs of the Yamnaya culture in the area of the Corded Ware cultures. After Bátora 2006.

Paradoxical gradient

In the tables presented in the article by Reichs’ team (Haak et al. 2015) the genetic pool connecting the Yamnaya culture with the Corded Ware people is shown to be more intense in Northern Europe (Norway and Sweden) and decreases gradually from the North to the South (Fig. 6). It is weakest around the Danube, in Hungary, i. e. areas neighbouring the western branch of the Yamnaya culture! This is the reverse image to what the proposed hypothesis by the geneticists would lead us to expect. It is true that this gradient is traced back from the contemporary materials, but it was already present during the Bronze Age (Klejn 2015a).

The author also uses questionable interpretations from selected articles to advance his (as of today) untenable positions regarding a Mesolithic origin of the reconstructible Proto-Indo-European language.

1. Glottochronology, for a PIE origin:

If based on the data of glottochronology (taking into account all disputes) the period of initial dispersal is to be dated to the 7th-5th millennium BC.

2. Doubts on the origin of R1b-L51 subclades expressed in Genetic differentiation between upland and lowland populations shapes the Y-chromosomal landscape of West Asia, by Balanovsky et al. (2017), Human Genetics 136, 4. 437-450:

The currently available dataset does not contradict the hypothesis that R-GG400 marks a link between the East European steppe dwellers and West Asians, though the route and even direction of this migration is disputable. It does, however, demonstrate that present-day West European R1b chromosomes do not originate from the Yamnaya populations analyzed in (Haak et al. 2015; Mathieson et al. 2015) and raises the question of their origin. A Bronze Age origin is more likely than a Neolithic one (Balaresque et al. 2010), but further ancient DNA studies may be necessary to identify this source.

Just yesterday I read the post The retraction paradox: Once you retract, you implicitly have to defend all the many things you haven’t yet retracted, by Andrew Gelman. While – in my opinion – the post does not live up to its title, it poses an interesting question, as to how ad logicam (fallacy fallacy) is often used today in research: One author proposes something that is later demonstrated to be wrong, so everything they wrote or write can be said ipso facto to be wrong…especially if they accept that it was wrong.

This is usual with amateur geneticists (those who don’t publish, and are therefore not subjected to criticism): if anyone is wrong (whether in Archaeology or Genetics), then they are wrong in everything else. It seems to me that Klejn’s theses against recent genetic results rest on the same assumption: The Yamna -> Corded Ware migration model is wrong, ergo the Yamna homeland model is wrong.

I guess this same fallacy is what a lot of angered geneticists (whether professional or amateurs) are going to use to dismiss Klejn’s criticism, trying to focus on what he clearly does not grasp – about genomic data of Yamna peoples and their expansion – to disregard his doubts on genetic interpretations entirely.

I have warned many times about how simplistic interpretations of genetic data would cause a general mistrust in the field, and that archaeologists won’t take the discipline seriously, no matter how many articles get published in famous research tabloids like Nature or Science…

Those who dismiss this warning lightly seem to forget the fate of other recent “scientific breakthroughs” which were initially so promising that Humanities appeared to matter no more, like glottochronology for Linguistics and, to some extent, that of radiocarbon analysis for Archaeology.
EDIT: see here a recent example of discusion on discrepancies between archaeological and 14C-based chronologies, whereby ‘scientific data’ obviously needs archaeological context for a meaningful interpretation

Featured image: The direction of the supposed migration of the bearers of the Yamnaya culture into the area of the Corded Ware cultures. After Haak et al. 2015.

NOTE: I obviously don’t agree with Klejn’s main model: he criticises the Proto-Indo-European steppe homeland, and more specifically the expansion of Yamna peoples with R1b-L23 subclades, which I support. But, probably because of his “pre-convictions” (as he puts it when describing proponents of the steppe hypotheses) about the Proto-Indo-European homeland in Northern Europe during the Mesolithic, he was one of the first renown archaeologists to criticise the obvious inconsistencies in the genetic model of migrations based exclusively on the “Yamnaya ancestral component” concept, and to provoke the necessary reaction from (until then) overconfident geneticists, and he deserves credit for that.

In my opinion, the Russian school’s “Northern European Mesolithic” homeland model – as I have said before – could be based on the appearance of EHG ancestry, or maybe on the expansion of haplogroup R1b with post-Swiderian cultures, but the timeframe proposed is too early for any reconstructible parent proto-language, even for Indo-Uralic.

Related:

Differences in ADMIXTURE between Khvalynsk/Yamna and Sredni Stog/Corded Ware

neolithic-steppe

Looking for differences among steppe cultures in Genomics is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

It means, after all, looking for differences among closely related cultures, such as between South-Western and North-Western Anatolian Neolithic cultures, or among Old European cultures (such as Vinča or Cucuteni–Trypillia), or between Iberian cultures after the arrival of steppe-related populations.

These differences between closely related regions, in all these cases and especially among steppe cultures, even when they are supported by Archaeology and anthropological models of migration (and compatible with linguistic models), are expected to be minimal.

Fortunately, we have phylogeography, which helps us point in the right direction when assessing potential migrations using genomic data.

User Tomenable recently pointed out a curious finding on Anthrogenica, from data available in Mathieson et al (2017): in ADMIXTURE results with K=12, a different ancestral component (in light green in the paper, see below) is traceable from the North Caspian steppe since the Neolithic. This is also partially distinguishable on K=10 and K=11, although not so clearly differentiating among later cultures.

NOTE: Read more on the controversy regarding the ideal number of ancestral populations, the absurd use of ADMIXTURE to solve language questions, and the meaning of cross-validation (CV) values

admixture-khvalynsk-yamna-sredni-stog-cwc
Unsupervised ADMIXTURE plot from k=10 to 12, on a dataset consisting of 1099 present-day individuals and 476 ancient individuals. We show newly reported ancient individuals and some previously published individuals for comparison.

Explanations for this finding might include, as the user points out, a greater contribution of CHG ancestry in the eastern steppe cultures (Khvalynsk/Yamna) compared to the North Pontic steppe (Sredni Stog/Corded Ware), which is probably one of the main genomic differences among both cultures, as I pointed out in the Indo-European demic diffusion model (see accounts on the origins of Khvalynsk and Sredni Stog populations and on contacts between Yamna and the Caucasus, and see below also my sketch of Eurasian genomic history).

Interesting is also the appearance of similar ancestral components later in Vučedol – which probably received admixture from Yamna settlers (see admixture components in West Yamna samples and in the Yamna settler from Bulgaria) – , and later still in the Balkans.

On the other hand, previous ancestral components in outliers from the Balkans seem to be more similar to Sredni Stog samples, giving still more strength to the hypothesis that this common (“steppe”) component expanded westward within the Pontic-Caspian steppe with the spread of Suvorovo-Novodanilovka chiefs.

Problems with this interpretation include:

1) The scarce samples available, the different cultures included, and the CV values of the K populations selected in ADMIXTURE.

2) The lack of data for comparison with Bell Beaker peoples (from Olalde et al. 2017).

3) The sample classified as Latvia_LN/CWC has this component. I have already said before that, given the differences with all other Corded Ware samples, this quite early sample might be an outlier, with Khvalynsk/Yamna population connected directly to the ancestors of this individual, possibly through exogamy (as it is clear from my sketch below). Whether or not this is an outlier among CWC populations in the Baltic, only future samples can tell.

4) Three later individuals from Corded Ware in Germany have the component, in a minimal amount. I would bet – judging by their position in the graphic – that this might be explained through the Esperstedt family. These individuals might have in turn got the contribution directly from the oldest member, who shows what seems (in PCA) like a recent admixture from contemporary steppe cultures (such as the Catacomb culture).

NOTE: See my graphics with interesting members of the Espersted family marked: ADMIXTURE and PCA (outlier).

qgraph-eurasia
Tentative sketch modelling the genetic history of Europe and West Eurasia from ancient populations up to the Neolithic, according to results in recent genetic papers and archaeological models of known migrations.

Again, needle in a haystack… And confirmation bias by me, indeed.

But interesting nonetheless.

EDIT (4 JAN 2017): A reader points out that the interpretation of Unsupervised ADMIXTURE should work backwards (i.e. different contributions into different modern populations), and not based solely on ancestral populations, which seems probably right. So again, confirmation bias (and potentially wrong direction fallacy) by me…

Related:

Massive Migrations? The Impact of Recent aDNA Studies on our View of Third Millennium Europe

corded-ware-map

Thanks to Joshua Jonathan, I have discovered the paper Massive Migrations? The Impact of Recent aDNA Studies on our View of Third Millennium Europe, by Martin Furholt, European Journal of Archaeology (28 SEP 2017).

Abstract:

New human aDNA studies have once again brought to the forefront the role of mobility and migration in shaping social phenomena in European prehistory, processes that recent theoretical frameworks in archaeology have downplayed as an outdated explanatory notion linked to traditional culture history. While these new genetic data have provided new insights into the population history of prehistoric Europe, they are frequently interpreted and presented in a manner that recalls aspects of traditional culture-historical archaeology that were rightly criticized through the 1970s to the 1990s. They include the idea that shared material culture indicates shared participation in the same social group, or culture, and that these cultures constitute one-dimensional, homogeneous, and clearly bounded social entities. Since the new aDNA data are used to create vivid narratives describing ‘massive migrations’, the so-called cultural groups are once again likened to human populations and in turn revitalized as external drivers for socio-cultural change. Here, I argue for a more nuanced consideration of molecular data that more explicitly incorporates anthropologically informed mobility and migration models.

I was copying and pasting whole excerpts to post them here, but I think it is best to read the full paper.

yamna-corded-ware-bell-beaker
From the paper: “Simplified map showing the extent of the most important archaeological units of classification in the third millennium cal BC in Europe discussed in this text.”

It is a great summary of potential flaws of the current reasoning in genetic papers.

It should be a must-read for any serious geneticist involved in discussions on migrations, especially regarding archaeology in Indo-European studies.

As for the answers to the paper, well, unsurprisingly quite disappointing that of Haak, neither addressing the main flaw of their proposed “Yamna -> Corded Ware migration” model, nor taking the opportunity to evaluate other potential models fitting their findings of steppe ancestry in Corded Ware peoples, not even those directly suggested to them (like the expansion of Suvorovo-Novodanilovka chiefs).

NOTE: A funny thing about the paper is that, although published at the end of September, it does not take into account certain recent developments supporting Furholt’s doubts, such as the Esperstedt’s family, the new sample of Sredni Stog (and consequently the change in interpretations of outliers in Eneolithic Ukraine populations), or even the elevated steppe ancestry found in East Bell Beaker peoples. I guess Haak’s answer to all that would still be the same thorough argument: “meh, massive Indo-European migration Yamnaya -> Corded Ware is right”…

#EDIT (30 DEC 2017): Check out the interesting article by Bruce G. Trigger, referenced by John Hawks, about the question of descriptive vs. theoretical archaeologist vs. ethnologist/anthropologist from the 1950s to the 1980s. Interesting to see how today the new playboys in Academia, geneticists, are playing the archaeologist playing the ethnologist playing the linguist in Indo-European questions, and how we are living a historical debate on essential questions for the future of all these disciplines.

Related:

The Great Hungarian Plain in a time of change in the Balkans – Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age

hungary-yamna-burials-map

I wrote recently about Anthony’s new model of Corded Ware culture expansion from Yamna settlements of Hungary. I am extremely sceptic about it in terms of current genetic finds, and suspicious of the real reasons behind it – probably misinterpretations of the so-called ‘Yamnaya ancestral component’ in recent genetic papers, rather than archaeological finds.

Nevertheless, it means a definitive rejection by Anthony of:

  • The multiple patron-client relationships he proposed to justify a cultural diffusion of Late Indo-European dialects from Yamna into different Corded Ware cultures in the forest-steppe and Forest Zone (see one of his latest summaries of the model in 2015). Now the language change is explained as a pure migration event, and cultural diffusion is not an option. Ergo, if no migration is found from Hungarian Yamna into Lesser Poland, then Corded Ware cultures were not Indo-European-speaking.
  • Ringe’s glottochronological tree for Proto-Indo-European languages (Ringe, Warnow, and Taylor 2002). An early and sudden split of Late PIE dialects in all directions is substituted by a common, Old European language that expanded from a very small area of settlers, in the Carpathian Basin. This is coincident with the current view on North-West Indo-European, and I think that his final acceptance of a sound linguistic model is essential to solve Indo-European questions.
  • The simplistic assumption of Yamna -> Corded Ware -> Bell Beaker migration found in genetic papers of 2015. The new model implies Yamna->Yamna settlers (Eastern Hungary). Yamna settlers are known to have developed into East Bell Beakers (as described by Gimbutas and accepted by Anthony originally, and now also found in the adoption of Heyd’s theory for his new model); therefore a Yamna settlers (Hungary) -> East Bell Beaker evolution is evident and mainstream, now clear also in genetics. It remains to be seen if the additional Yamna settlers (Hungary) -> Proto-Corded Ware migration proposed by him as a novelty in this new model is also right, i.e. if Yamna settlers from Hungary did in fact migrate into sites of Lesser Poland (to form a Proto-Corded Ware culture). If not, then only Heyd’s model remains.

This new model offers thus a more suitable time frame for usual proto-language guesstimates, that would be compatible with a spread of Late Indo-European with Yamna settlers (of R1b lineages) from the steppe into a small region, where North-West Indo-European would have been spoken, and then a potential cultural diffusion through (or founder effect in) a Proto-Corded Ware culture (of R1a-M417 subclades) of Lesser Poland, which is compatible with the Corded Ware Substrate hypothesis.

Since Anthony has stuck his neck out in favour of this new theory – changing some of his popular theories, and rejecting what many geneticists seem to take as certain – , and because of his previous impressive improvements over Gimbutas’ simple steppe theory (now apparently fashionable again), I think he deserves that his proposal of Yamna/Late Indo-European expansion in the Balkans be further investigated, if only to be improved upon.

I recently found the paper 4000-2000 BC in Hungary: The Age of Transformation, by T. Horváth, in Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica, 20/II, 51-113. While it deals mainly with the potential survival of the Baden culture into the late third millennium BC, it gives some interesting quite early dates for Yamna (‘Pit’) graves in the Carpathian Basin, and potential cultural (and population) movements within the Balkans.

A note about the Corded Ware culture in the Carpathian Basin:

Many researchers may assume that it is unnecessary for us to deal with the Corded Ware and Globular Amphorae cultures of north Germany, Poland and Denmark, and if so it does not matter what the names of the periods are. It actually matters a lot. It is true that in these areas there was no Baden complex, but the period had many Baden (and other) culture “period phenomena”. These seem to part of a larger formation than cultures – evidenced by traces such as cattle burials, the relationship between copper metallurgies and jade – which link these territories even when the culture complexes were different, because these phenomena appear not just in the Baden, but in the Corded Ware and Globular Amphorae area as well (and these cultural complexes partly overlapped each other both in space and time!). Even the characteristics of sites show many similarities: e.g. in the northern part of corded ware distribution area, mainly burials have been discovered (similarly to the Pit Grave culture in the Great Hungarian Plain) and in the southern part only settlements appear.

At the moment we have no explanation regarding the nature of the relationship between them (it is supposed that as a result of geographical conditions the people of the same culture lived in different ecological conditions and they adapted differently to their environment). In considering the whole of Europe around 3500-3000 BC, easily observable settlement signs disappeared (Milisauskas and Kruk, “Late Neolithic/Late Copper Age,” 307), similarly to Hungary, even though in Hungary this occurred from the end of the Middle Copper Age to the Early Bronze Age, between 4000 and 2000 BC. If we do not take into account that the cattle burials of the Baden culture between 3600 and 2800 BC, and possibly even longer than that, have analogies with the cattle burials of areas in the Early and Middle Neolithic Corded Ware culture (because “logically” analogies would be sought in those areas in the Bronze Age but this period is not analogous with that period in those areas), we would not find any spiritual resemblance in their relationships that lies behind their spatial and temporal analogies; cf. comp. Niels Johannsen and Steffen Laursen, “Routes and Wheeled Transport in Late 4th-Early 3rd Millennium Funerary Customs of the Jutland Peninsula: Regional Evidence and European Context,” PZ 85 (2010): 15-58; Horváth “The Intercultural Connections of the Baden „Culture,” 118. It is painful to think about how many relationships we have not explored or even assessed yet!

hungary-yamna-corded-ware-map
One version from both maps shown in the article, by T. Horváth: “Since the two cultures surely lived together in the Late Copper Age, their collective map represents the Late Copper Age (supplemented with Vučedol sites). Since the direction of diffusion of the Kostolac ceramic style is still unclear, two map versions were made. On one the Kostolac followed the Danube River, on the other they diffused in the opposite direction. In northeast Hungary, Coțofeni III appeared. On this map Kostolac sites are not depicted as dots but, in light of their position and density, proportionately sized arrows are used.”

On Yamna culture and burials in the Carpathian Basin:

Looking at Pit Grave kurgans on the distribution map, it is apparent that burials are the densest where there were no Boleráz or Baden occupations (in this respect this was a kind of “no man’s land”, but from the whole Late Copper Age perspective it was not: the sites of the Baden complex and Pit Grave complemented each other and even partially overlapped). Apart from burials, no Pit Grave settlements or other types of Pit Grave sites are known in Hungary, therefore we do not know whether Pit Grave settlements were situated near the kurgans or whether were somewhere else entirely and we simply have not found them yet.

Since the Pit Grave people had a different lifestyle from the Baden, we can assume that, up to the line of the Tisza River, small animal-keeping mobile groups (Pit Grave) met more populated and settled, agriculturalist, indigenous Boleráz-Baden groups. Animal keepers (Pit Grave) settled in areas where agriculturalists (Boleráz and Baden) did not; in some places, however, they crossed each other’s paths (Fig. 5, 7). Sometimes their sites are very close to each other, sometimes they appear on one site and they can be identified in the stratigraphy of a site. In the latter case the kurgan is always situated on top of a Baden settlement, indicating that Pit Grave not only followed the Baden at these sites but may have represented a somewhat higher social power and belief system than the Baden.

The relationship between pastoral, patrilineal, combatant nomadic tribes and agriculturalist communities is often described as some sort of patron and client relationship. In reality, the signs of such assumption are not visible in the Pit Grave-Baden relationship. There are cases when more aggressive herders conquered more developed agriculturalist communities, but there are also cases when the conqueror’s culture was more developed or stronger than that of the conquered. Always, the conquering nomads are the patrons, the rulers and the empire builders.

In our case, timing is important. How much time had passed on those common sites where a Baden settlement was followed by a Pit Grave kurgan? In these cases, it is certain that the kurgan is younger, but how much younger?

hungary-yamna-settlements
From the article, by T. Horváth. “On the 10 locations analysed, surviving Baden can be assumed after 2800 BC. Unfortunately, it is not possible to predict which sites would survive further scrutiny of radiocarbon dating in this respect; only a few dates are available so far. Therefore, on the map of Baden that still existing after the Late Copper Age, I have also represented all sites (up to the Danube River line) and combined them with Early Bronze Age sites. Since the majority of Makó sites are represented by only one find (scattered finds), and the majority of sites have just one grave, it is impossible to ascertain whether it was part of a cemetery, was within a settlement, or was an individual burial without any further features. Therefore, following Dani 2005, I utilized subdivisions: perhaps in the future this fine subdivision will provide a meaningful explanation (1). Since the radiocarbon dates of Pit Grave kurgans clearly show that the Pit Grave survived at least until 2500 BC, I combined the previous map with that of the Pit Grave. This map would show a realistic picture of cultures after 2800 BC east of the Danube River (2).”

To sum up, the Pit Grave and Baden in the Late Copper Age were certainly contemporary from 3350 BC in the Great Hungarian Plain, and they had common sites, sites which were very close to each other, sites which were far from each other, and also independent sites. The Pit Grave culture surely survived in the transitional period, and into Early Bronze Age I, but perhaps even longer. For the most part, the Baden had ended by 2900 BC in the Great Hungarian Plain. Mapping and some other data (e.g. the discovery that Younger-type, not Mondsee-type, metal objects, which can now be considered to be Baden, even appear east of the Danube River) does not exclude the possibility of searching further for traces of Baden surviving in the Great Hungarian Plain together with or alongside to the Pit Grave. On the common Baden-Pit Grave sites, even without carbon dating, we can assume from already known stratigraphical data that they closely followed each other in time.

For those of you interested in more detailed radiocarbon analysis and assessment of Yamna burials and settlements, from the steppe to the Balkans, to investigate Anthony’s theory further – apart from those authors referenced by him – , I can recommend reading Y. Rassamakin (e.g. Import and Imitation in Archaeology, 2008), S. Ivanova, or Claudia Gerling (e.g. Prehistoric Mobility and Diet in the West Eurasian Steppes 3500 to 300 BC).

Featured image, from the article, by T. Horváth: Distribution map of the Pit Grave.

Related:

Archaeological origins of Early Proto-Indo-European in the Baltic during the Mesolithic

zaliznyak-old-european

New article by Leonid Zaliznyak, Mesolithic origins of the first Indo-European cultures in Europe according to the archaeological data (also available in Russian).

The article refers to the common Meso-Neolithic basis of Ukrainian ancient Indo-European cultures (Mariupol, Serednii Stih) and Central Europe (Funnel Beaker and Globular Amphorae cultures) of the fourth millennium BC. Archaeological materials show that the common cultural and genetic substrate of the earliest Indo-Europeans in Europe was forming from the sixth to the fourth millennia BC due to migration of the Western Baltic Mesolithic population to the east through Poland and Polissia to the Dnipro River middle region and further to the Siverskyi Donets River.

I already spoke about the view of the Russian school, and its interpretation of the origin of Proto-Indo-European (and potentially Indo-Uralic) in North-Eastern European Mesolithic. While the genetic interpretation seemed quite off in Klejn’s last article discussing Genetics, Zaliznyak improves the archaeological model to some extent.

This model is partially compatible with the expansion of R1b lineages and the Villabruna cluster with migrating peoples of post-Swiderian cultures into eastern Europe. However – as seems to be often the case with linguists of post-Soviet countries (maybe because of the greater influence of Nostraticists there) – proto-language dates are pushed further back in time than is warranted by usual guesstimates, and thus the model is way off as it approaches the Neolithic, and especially beyond that time.

As you can see, a Post-Swiderian expansion of (a language ancestral to) Proto-Indo-European (e.g. Pre-Indo-Uralic) is compatible with the Indo-European demic diffusion model. On the other hand, it is very difficult to assert anything about that period in terms of language change or evolution, because of scarce and obscured archaeological finds, and because of different admixture waves found in east Europe (in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, forest-steppe, and Forest Zone) during the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic – and even during the Mesolithic-Neolithic – transition.

It is therefore impossible today to ascertain if it was a community of western (R1b) or eastern (R1a) Eurasian lineages who spread Pre-Indo-Uralic; or which combination of WHG:ANE (if any) might have yielded EHG ancestry (and thus how a Pre-Indo-Uralic language might have developed from the influence of west and east Eurasian communities); or how later waves of ANE and CHG ancestry found in steppe populations (during the Neolithic) might have brought cultural change to the communities, or even if they accompanied the more recent R1a-M417 subclades (or haplogroup Q) found in the region…

zaliznyak-post-swiderian
Spreading of Post-Swiderian and Post-Krasnosillian sites in Mesolithic of Eastern Europe in the 8th millennia BC. See the article for an explanation of all details.

This Russian (or post-Soviet, or East European) school of thought, which is mainly based on their traditional archaeological models, tries to use new genetic data to obtain plausible archaeological-linguistic models of Indo-European expansion. Nevertheless, this improved model is likely to cause some quick dismissals and be made fun of by certain amateur geneticists.

It is curious, though, that some people are quick to judge archaeologists trying to fit new data to their traditional models – which seems like the right way of obtaining sound models for prehistoric human migrations -, but are on the other hand extremely confident about any new model based solely on genetics and their personal desires: very strong confirmation (and rejection) bias at play, indeed.

For example, how could Sredni Stog be Late Indo-European-speaking, if the best candidate for a Late Indo-European-speaking community (the Yamna culture) is almost fully unrelated? For some, simply because of the ‘Yamnaya ancestral component’.

In spite of many naysayers – amateur geneticists who hate archaeological models not fitting their dreams – , it seems that otherwise extremely disparate Indo-European schools of thought (like the German, American, and Spanish schools, the British, and even Leiden, the French, and to some extent the East European school) are converging in Linguistics, while in Archaeology Heyd’s model of Yamna migration (independent of the Corded Ware culture) is being accepted as mainstream with help from aDNA analysis – now also partially by Anthony, at last.

Only researchers of a single workgroup (very popular today, it seems) – tend to diverge from the general unifying trend, following mostly their interpretations of new genetic papers in a funny vicious circle, that is creating a growing bubble of misinformation with no substantive basis (apart from the controversial existence of a Kurgan people).

Let’s see how this ends up, if new genetic algorithms can truly revolutionise Archaeology and Linguistics, or if academic models will keep proving right over misinterpretations from recent genetic papers…

Featured image, from the article, “The settling of the early Indo-Europeans in the period from the 4th to the 2nd millennia BC”.

Related:

The new “Indo-European Corded Ware Theory” of David Anthony

allentoft-yamna-corded-ware

I recently wrote about the Indo-European Corded Ware Theory of Kristian Kristiansen and his workgroup, a sort of “Danish school”, whose aim is to prove a direct, long-lasting interaction between the North Pontic steppe and east European cultures during the Late Neolithic, which supposedly gave rise to a Late Indo-European-speaking Corded Ware culture. That is, a sort of renewed Kurgan model; or, more exactly, Kurgan models, since there is no single one preferred right now.

David Anthony had remained more or less in the background after the controversial assessment of the so-called Yamnaya ancestral component by recent genetic papers, which posited that there was a genetic flow in the Late Neolithic suggesting a migration model that could be hypothetically simplified to Yamna -> Corded Ware -> Bell Beaker.

With his previous publications, especially The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World (and its revisions), Anthony had set up an impressive revised steppe theory that overcame some of the errors of Gimbutas’ Kurgan model.

Whereas Indo-European-speaking Corded Ware cultures (CWC) were still featured prominently in his model, the different languages supposedly spoken by these groups were explained through multiple cultural diffusion events, and actual migrations from Yamna peoples were only described into Early Bronze Age cultures of the Balkans, and into the Afanasevo culture.

More recently, he has offered (in collaboration with his wife, Dorcas R. Brown) a tentative original connection Yamna -> Corded Ware in the Lesser Poland region, in their paper Molecular archaeology and Indo-European linguistics: Impressions from new data. It seemed to be based merely on recent genetic finds, and on the fact that Corded Ware remains appear to be oldest in that region, according to radiocarbon analysis.

Now he seems to be more and more supportive of this hypothesis in his new essay, Archaeology and Language: Why Archaeologists Care About the Indo-European Problem, in European Archaeology as Anthropology: Essays in Memory of Bernard Wailes ed by P.J. Crabtree and P. Bogucki (2017).

The chapter is interesting to read, as always. Nevertheless, it commits to previous errors – driven by the wrong interpretation of recent genetic papers -, and deepens thus this untenable archaeological-linguistic model of migrations from the steppe, in a weird vicious circle of wrong feedback between archaeologists and geneticists that diregards what archaeologists have been saying in the last decade.

Instead of waiting for the current storm of genetic papers (and their misinformation) to pass, and see what remains, Anthony is now supporting a different model than the one that made him popular, risking the good name he has earned in Archaeology and in popular science texts – in spite of initial setbacks due to the prevailing criticisms of Indo-European migration models.

Some excerpts (emphasis mine):

indo-european-corded-ware-bell-beaker
Central and Eastern Europe ca. 3000–2500 BCE showing the early Yamnaya culture area 3300–2700 BCE and the Yamnaya migration up the Danube Valley with related/offshoot Makó and Vučedol sites; also the distribution of Corded Ware sites in northern Europe; and site areas sampled for aDNA in Haak et al. (2015). The oldest Corded Ware radiocarbon dates are from southern and central Poland. The Yamnaya cemeteries in the Danube Valley are after Heyd (2011), the shaded Globular Amphorae site area is after Harrison and Heyd (2007); the Corded Ware and Globular Amphorae sites in southern Poland are after Machnik (1999); and the blue dots were all Corded Ware sites with radiocarbon dates as of Furholt (2003).

A Yamnaya migration from the steppes up the Danube valley as far as Hungary was already accepted by many archaeologists (Fig. 2.2). Hundreds of Yamnaya-type kurgans and dozens of cemeteries have been recognized by archaeologists in the lower Danube valley, in Bulgaria and Romania; and in the middle Danube valley, in eastern Hungary, with radiocarbon dates that began about 3000–2800 BCE and extended to about 2700–2600 BCE (Ecsedy 1979; Sherratt 1986; Boyadziev 1995; Harrison and Heyd 2007; Heyd 2012; Frînculeasa et al. 2015). The migration stream that created these intrusive cemeteries now can be seen to have continued from eastern Hungary across the Carpathians into southern Poland, where the earliest material traits of the Corded Ware horizon appeared (Furholt 2003). Corded Ware sites appeared in Denmark by 2800–2700 BCE, probably within 100–200 years after the first Yamnaya migrants entered the lower Danube valley. This surprisingly rapid migration introduced genetic traits such as the R1a and R1b Y-chromosome haplogroups and a substantial element of ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) ancestry that remain characteristic of most northern and western Europeans today.

(…)

The oldest radiocarbon dates from Corded Ware sites occur in southern Poland (upper Vistula) and north-central Poland (Kujavia), and this was seen as the region where the early networking of amphorae styles from Globular Amphorae and axe types from Scandinavia began. The genetic evidence shows a somewhat different picture: the Corded Ware people were largely immigrants whose ancestors came from the steppes (probably immediately from eastern Hungary), but they quickly adopted local material traits in amphorae and axe types that obscured their foreign origins. Middle Neolithic northern European populations composed of admixed WHG/EEF survived but were largely excluded from Corded Ware cemeteries, and from marriage into the Corded Ware population. Even centuries after the initial migration the Corded Ware population at Esperstedt, dated 2500–2400 BCE, still exhibited 70–80% Yamnaya genes, although individual variations in the extent of local admixture were apparent. Intermarriage with the surviving local population was more frequent during the ensuing Bell Beaker period. However, the resurgence is more visible in mtDNA than in Y-DNA (Szécsényi-Nagy et al. 2015), suggesting that men of the older EEF heritage were disadvantaged more than women.

(…)

Settlements were more permanent before the Corded Ware migration, and remained so among the Globular Amphorae people, who continued to create more localized site-and-cemetery groups in the same landscape with the more mobile immigrants. Afterward, during the Bell Beaker period, when local genetic ancestry rebounded and the population became more admixed, settlements again were more permanent. The Corded Ware culture introduced both a large, steppe-derived population and an unusually mobile form of pastoral economy that was a regional economic anomaly, but nevertheless survived in varying forms for centuries before the regional economic pattern was re-established. A steppe language certainly accompanied this demographic and economic shift. As we have seen above, there are good independent reasons (loans with Uralic and South Caucasian) to think that PIE was spoken in the steppes. It is likely that the steppe language introduced between 3000–2500 BCE was a late (post-Anatolian) form of PIE and survived and evolved into the later northern IE languages.

So, to sum up the new developments of Anthony’s preferred model:

  1. Abandonment of the multiple cultural diffusion models from Yamna into Corded Ware, i.e. Pre-Germanic (in the Usatovo culture) and Pre-Balto-Slavic (in the Middle Dnieper culture).
  2. The only potential Yamna connection with Corded Ware in Archaeology must come from Yamna migrants in the Carpathian basin. Therefore, R1a must come from Hungarian settlements.
  3. Corded Ware cultures from Northern Europe, from roughly 2800 BC, must come from Yamna settlers of the Carpathian basin.
  4. Esperstedt is a great example of Yamnaya genes, and of the mobility (and lack of intermarriage) of Corded Ware peoples centuries, after their migration from Yamna settlers in Hungary.

My answers (obvious for anyone reading this blog, or my demic diffusion model):

  1. It is a pitty that cultural diffusion models are abandoned. They were the last hope to keep these IE-CWC/Kurgan hypotheses alive.
  2. The Carpathian Basin is obviously the only potential early connection between Corded Ware and Yamna. But no single R1a has been found in western migrants, and admixture (including ancestral components and PCA) from Early Yamna, West Yamna, Balkan EBA, and early Bell Beaker samples from Hungary make it very unlikely that such a connection existed.
  3. Corded Ware peoples formed and began their migration much earlier than Yamna settlers arrived in the Carpathian Basin. Compare e.g. the Late Neolithic sample from Latvia (dated ca. 2885 BC) with steppe ancestry attributed to Corded Ware, or the early appearance of east European cultures like Fatyanovo-Balanovo or Abashevo. Also, known Yamna migration routes don’t include these proposed population expansions.
  4. I have already written about the Esperstedt outlier, and why its definition as an outlier should have been clearly made to avoid this kind of misinterpretations…
yamna-bell-beaker
Yamna – East Bell Beaker migration ca. 3000-2300 BC, according to Heyd (2007)

With each new genetic paper it is less and less likely that many individuals of Y-DNA haplogroup R1a, and especially R1a-Z645 (if any at all), will appear associated with Yamna, either in the Pontic-Caspian steppe or in western settlements (at least clearly belonging to Yamna, Balkan EBA, or Bell Beaker cultures), which will make the life of this new Indo-European Corded Ware Theory model still shorter than could be a priori expected for any archaeological model.

Also, it seems that the Bell Beaker preprint paper by Olalde et al. (2017) will be published in Nature soon with more samples, so a swift rejection of this theory may be near. On the other hand, the first paper on this model by Anthony and Brown (like the first paper of Kristiansen and his workgroup) appeared just before Olalde et al. (2017) and Mathieson et al. (2017), and yet all samples against their pet theories have not deterred any of them to continue supporting them…

I would say it is a shame that some geneticists are misleading good archaeologists into so many different wrong models, but I guess it is only fair to blame authors for what they write, not whom or what they trusted to write…

I think there is much more to be said about the interaction among Neolithic cultures from the steppe (viz. Sredni Stog and Khvalynsk), than about the Yamna migration, and Anthony was in a better position to judge this. Right now, it seems that other researchers like Rassamakin or Ivanova are taking the lead in the research of Neolithic cultures from the steppe, while Heyd or Prescott are taking the lead in the explanation of Yamna -> Bell Beaker migrations and their connection with the expansion of Late Indo-European languages.

#EDIT (December 18 2017): Just to be clear, Anthony’s new Indo-European Corded Ware Theory model in Archaeology would be compatible with the development and expansion of a North-West Indo-European dialect of Late Indo-European in Linguistics (which is my main source of disagreement with other recent models). In fact, Anthony’s new model could explain the different nature of Balto-Slavic, being adopted by peoples of mainly R1a-Z645 subclades of Lesser Poland – from Yamna migrants of R1b-L23 subclades – , and later influencing Pre-Germanic brought by Bell Beakers to Scandinavia, so in that sense it could offer some light to certain controversial linguistic aspects. See Corded Ware Substrate Theory for more on Germanic and Balto-Slavic similarities based on a common, intermediate substrate.

What I am criticising with this post is that the model seems to rely heavily (in fact, almost solely) on what some geneticists (and especially amateurs, fanboys of specific haplogroups and/or admixture components) are selling about the ‘Yamnaya component’ (and thus the assumption of a common migration of peoples of R1a-Z645 and R1b-L23 subclades), something which is – to say the least – highly controversial today. Instead of departing from Archaeology (his field) to try and make sense of what others are saying, he seems to be abandoning his own migration models and adopting one compatible with genetic studies of 2015-2016 made by laymen in Indo-European studies, who based their conclusions on their own new methods, applied to a few scattered samples. These new IECWT proponents are thus in turn giving still more reasons for these geneticists to support wrong assumptions in future studies, by relying on any of these new potential archaeological scenarios. And so on and on it goes…

Related: