search this blog

Saturday, December 15, 2018

Some German guy once said...


If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.

On a totally unrelated note, the Max-Planck-Institut für Menschheitsgeschichte (aka MPI-SHH) is apparently still claiming that its southern Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland theory has been corroborated by archaeogenetic data. For instance, check out the Youtube clip here.

Below is a screen cap from the clip showing a map that summarizes what the folks at the MPI-SHH are thinking in regards to the PIE question and the early spread of Indo-European languages.


Unfortunately, this map doesn't make any sense. Why? Here it is, in point form, as simply as I can put it:

1) There's no evidence in any archaeogenetic data of migrations during the Neolithic from what is now Armenia and surrounds to Western Europe, the Pontic-Caspian steppe, or, indeed, South Asia, that may have brought Indo-European languages to these regions. In fact, the currently available ancient DNA data outright contradict this scenario, because:

A) the Corded Ware and Yamnaya archeological cultures, which are generally considered to have been the main vectors for the spread of Indo-European languages from the Pontic-Caspian steppe into Northern and Central Europe, weren't founded by migrants from south of the Caucasus (see here)

B) the Neolithic farmer populations that migrated deep into Europe and eventually colonized the western third of the continent were especially poor in Caucasus-related ancestry, and, realistically, could only have come from well to the west of the Caucasus

C) conversely, the Neolithic farmer populations that moved deep into South Asia are inferred to have been especially poor in Anatolian-related ancestry, and, realistically, could only have come from well to the east of the Caucasus (see here)

D) Caucasus-related ancestry, of basically the same type that is being associated by the MPI-SHH with the PIE expansion, did move into Western Europe across the Mediterranean, but this happened during the Bronze Age and it impacted the island of Sardinia, which is generally regarded to have been inhabited by non-Indo-European speakers until the Romans got there (see here). Oops.

2) There's now overwhelming evidence both in ancient and modern DNA data that Eastern Europeans and Indians, especially Indo-European-speaking Indians, share significant ancestry, in particular paternal ancestry, from essentially the same Bronze Age populations living on the Pontic-Caspian steppe (not south of it!), and this is the only obvious, important genetic link between these two linguistically closely related but geographically far flung groups within the last...tens of thousands of years?

3) Ancient samples from Mycenaean, and thus Indo-European-speaking, Greece and parts of Iron Age Iberia where Indo-European languages were attested at the time also show steppe-derived ancestry, and, in fact, of a very similar character to that shared by Eastern Europeans and Indo-European-speaking Indians (see here and here, respectively).

4) However, Pre-Mycenaean and likely non-Indo-European Minoan samples, also from the Aegean region, don't show any steppe ancestry, but they do show Caucasus-related ancestry, of basically the same type that is being associated by the MPI-SHH with the PIE expansion. Oops again.

Thus, at the very least, these undeniable and, surely, easy to grasp facts that I've just set out should give pause to anyone who still claims that the Near East, rather than the Pontic-Caspian steppe, was the main staging point for the expansions of the early Indo-Europeans. Indeed, methinks it's now time to admit by all those concerned that the most likely homeland of all surviving branches of the Indo-European language family, and thus of late PIE, was the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Honestly, I'm shocked, and even disturbed, that none of this seems to have filtered down to the linguists at the MPI-SHH, especially since the MPI-SHH is also heavily populated by scientists who apparently know a thing or two about archaeogenetics.

Now, it's true that archaeogenetic data are yet to reveal an unambiguous signal of steppe ancestry in samples from Hittite era Anatolia (five have been published to date), which may perhaps suggest that the people who brought Hittite and the other Anatolian languages to Anatolia didn't come from the steppe. Of course, Anatolian languages represent the earliest, most basal split in the Indo-European phylogeny, and thus aren't part of the late PIE node. So if the Indo-European-speaking ancestors of the Hittites didn't come from the steppe, then it stands to reason that early PIE didn't either.

But this isn't relevant to my criticism of the MPI-SHH, because even if early PIE didn't come from the steppe, then like I said, there's very solid evidence now that late PIE did, and the problem is that the linguists and geneticists at the MPI-SHH appear to be missing this point, or they're unwilling to accept it.

Moreover, please note that I'm not arguing that the linguists at the MPI-SHH are getting things wrong when it comes to actual linguistics. For all I know, their approach in this area might well be perfect, and perhaps it has indeed revealed insights that have been missed by others using more traditional methods?

For instance, it's possible that the phylogeny of Indo-European languages as shown in the video linked to above reflects the truth better than anything else offered to date. I don't know, so I'm keeping an open mind about that. But admittedly, I'm skeptical, considering how lousy the MPI-SHH's interpretation of the archaeogenetic data has been to date in this context, even at the most basic level.

See also...

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

392 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 392 of 392
Slumbery said...

@Geroge
N1c1 is also very rare among Hungarians, almost absent

If I understand correctly what are you trying to say with this, this a weak argument. Just because Hungarians have not much of a male lineage that is generally associated with their language family, it does not follow that Balto-Slavs as a whole got their language from a a male lineage that is very rare among them. The best you can accomplish with an argument like this is to make the point that DNA is not a 100% decisive indication of language (something we know), but that still proves absolutely nothing about the role of J2 in the spread of IE.

Andrzejewski said...

@George are you in favor of a Caucasus/Near East origins of PIE vis-a-vis most researchers, who point to more evidence in the direction of a Pontic Caspian Steppe origin?

Ric Hern said...

@ George

Basque Neolithic Ancestry is from A Different Neolithic group than Neolithic groups in Central Europe who initially mixed with Steppe...Those Neolithic groups were basically at least 3000 years apart from each other before Steppe contact....

Ryan said...

Your title is from an Austrian, not a German.

Mark B. said...

I can't help thinking that Germans will put PIE ANYWHERE other than Europe. Because of a certain person, who shall remain nameless and his Aryan beliefs (coughAdolph).

Andrzejewski said...

@Ric Hern the replacement affected the Y-Hg pool, not the mtDNA. Later on the German Y-DNA would replace at least 60% of Britonic one. The LBK was pretty much replaced by another migration from Middle Neolithic onward, which brought not only an increase in mtDNA frequency (and variety) but also in skin fairness.

The farmer Y-DNA marker was used to be considered “G2a”, although many other markers came with the Neolithic package from Anatolia, such as E1b1b, T, J1, J2, H and others, some are very common in both contemporary Middle East and also in the Balkan. (E1b1b is very common in Bulgaria, Romania and Greece; J1 and J2 are common in Greece, Hungary, Romania, Albania but also among Jews, Armenians and Arabs). Which makes me think either of these things happened:

1. Anatolian Neolithic Farmers who are responsible for LBK we’re NOT a homogeneous population but it includes Natufians (early Semites), “Iranian” populations, some early Steppe groups, WHG groups and other unidentified ones. OR:

2. The EEF (G) groups were largely being supplemented by later E1b1, R, T and other groups from other areas before, after or maybe even associated with the IE expansion in the Balkans.

Leron said...

IE could be spread by people with little or no steppe. There's a difference between origin and spread. What George is stating shouldn't be dismissed (someone bringing up Bronze Age Muslims). I also suspected Indo-Aryan being spread by a population that's more reminiscent of West Asian farmers (although they would have stopped farming due to the climate shift) as opposed to a northern nomadic group. Clearly the former would not only have better appreciation for the rivers and fertile soil of India, but also possess the know how to take advantage of it after the previous civilization collapsed.

Ric Hern said...

Saying Natufians are early Semites is like saying Afantova 3 are early Indo-Europeans....

Ric Hern said...

@ Andrzejewski

I suggest that you go through Davidski's other discussions....Most of these things were already discussed in some detail....

Them meee said...

Damn it’s true, we have two Georges.

It’s Unknown all over again!

Andrzejewski said...

"@Geroge
N1c1 is also very rare among Hungarians, almost absent" @Slumbery

Magyar who invaded Hungary from the Steppes in the 900s were not genetically Uralic but had R1a1 marker. Perhaps indicative of a language shift? The Scythian Confederacy of tribes was very diverse and the Steppes included people of different ancestries. Khazars (supposed ancestors of Eastern European Jews by some) were also mostly R1a1, and 3 Khazar tribes (Kabars) joined the Hungarians in the invasion of Pannonia.

Andrzejewski said...

@Ric Hern most of the the details have been updated recently with brand new findings. Also, it's the *interpretation* that counts: Many people jumped on Reich's peer reviewed paper from May 2018 as allegedly vindicating their long held belief that PIE originated South of the Caspian (i.e. Armenia, ME, West Asia) while I and other people maintain that it actually gave a boost to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe theory. With @Davidski posting the study that Maykop and Yamnaya have very little in common genetically put the nail in the coffin of the "Anatolian/Caucasus/Out of Iran/India/Out-of-Anywhere-But-Steppe Theory".

Andrzejewski said...

P.S. Was I the only one/first one to bring up the linguistic similarities between IE and Kamchatka-Chukchi language families, on top of their mutual derivation of MA1/AG3 cluster (Basal R/Q), as corroborating my conviction that the earliest core of anything resembling Indo-European must've come from the vicinity of Lake Baikal ~24,000ya with the ANE component, and NOT as Johanna Nichols or others who propagate the so-called "Pontic" theory of putative origins of PIE or pre-PIE as a NW Caucasus phylum?

Andrzejewski said...

@Leron The Dravidian families in South India, the pre-Persian Elamites and the BMAC all stem from the Iran_N, although linguistic connections are hard to come by. This population of Iran_N is very divergent that Anatolia_N, the latter is also rich in WHG components. Later on Anatolia itself was overrun (along with the Aegean) with CHG, but not before Anatolian Farmers overran the Caucasus. The current population of the Caucasus seems mostly like an odd admixture/salad bowl of EEF and CHG. What strikes me the most is that the Kartvelian and Armenian population, who largely share the same ancestry (EEF + CHG + minor later Steppe ancestry) look very "swarthy" compared to Chechens and Adygea (NE Caucasus/NW Caucasus language families, respectively), and are regarded as non-White by East Slavs, whereas the the Northern Caucasus populations look very Europid.

In the Middle East it seems like the autochthonous Natufians merged with the incoming Iran_Chal (and to a much lesser degree Anatolia_N) to form the current ME population. On the other hand in Europe the mixed EEF/WHG population was retreating by the non-IE CHG in the South and then by the Yamnaya in the North. Therefore, Greeks and Italians not only have a strong pre-IE Anatolian component but also a CHG one, with the latter one even on par with the former?

Now, it was speculated that the Botai Culture, who according to recent studies were the first ones to domesticate the horse, were kins to the Okunovo Culture, and also according to some researchers they must've been close to Yenisseyans (in spite of their R1b samples). May I suggest further that the Sumerians, who speak a hitherto Language Isolate may have been Botai offshoots?

Slumbery said...

@Andrzejewski

"Magyar who invaded Hungary from the Steppes in the 900s were not genetically Uralic but had R1a1 marker.

They likely had some R1a1, but as a dominant lineage? There is no data to support that. So far the haplogroups that turned up from 10th century classic graves are R1b, I2a and N1c, but even those are mostly from STR analysis and the N1c-s actually from an analysis that specifically looked for N1c only and pretty much only determined whether a sample is N1c or not.
So this is understudied, but as far as I know not a single R1a1 turned up from 10th century classic conqueror graveyards. (This conversely means that so far more N1c was found than R1a1.)

There was a study that analysed a 12th century king from the founder dynasty and he was R1a1, but the relevance of that for the 900 AD guys is questionable.

Them meee said...

@Andrzejewski

“linguistic connections are hard to come by”

For that matter, there is a Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, if anyone’s wondering

capra internetensis said...

@George

I have no dog in this fight, but "mostly E1b1b" is a misleading description of Swat Iron Age. There is one Swat site (Udegram) out of eight which has predominantly E1b1b, none of the others have any. It just happens to be the site with the most samples.

Mouthful said...

As Slumbery said it's virtually non existent among Balts, going by eupedia's data it's non existent among Lithuanians and at 0,5% in Latvians...

Dragos said...

“"If the Caucasus was depopulated during LGM, as it is written, then the Dzudzuana ancestry found in later CHGs might be imported from elsewhere, perhaps near Iran."

Not likely from near Iran, because CHG have more of that ancestry than Iran HG. ”

That doesn’t exclude it. Perhaps a scenario where more southern migrants mopped up residual Dzudzuana groups , elevating local ancestry in CHG
In the Zagros , there is documented continuity between MUP & LUP which is so far to be found elsewhere (Anatolia, Caucasus, Central Asia).

Davidski said...

@Ryan

Your title is from an Austrian, not a German.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

Andrzejewski said...

@Them meee "For that matter, there is a Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, if anyone’s wondering"

Which has already been debunked and rendered obsolete by linguists, much like the Ural-Altaic theory of the 19th-20th century.

JuanRivera said...

It's now almost cristal clear that IE was carried by steppe populations, and a somewhat less clear thing is to what IE is most closesly related, among north eurasian languages.

EastPole said...

PhD Project at at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (MPI-SHH)

04 Contact and change in the diversification of the Indo-Iranic languages.

“While Indo-Iranic languages began to diversify already millennia ago, their extensive attestation across a long historical period makes them an excellent site for observing processes of linguistic change. Processes of linguistic change in Indo-Iranic are relevant for better understanding of the origin and diversification of Indo-European languages more generally, which has been an important research theme for scholars in both FSU and MPI-SHH.
Throughout their histories, Indo-Iranic languages have been involved in a wide range of contact scenarios in very diverse social, political and cultural configurations. This has led to significant borrowing and convergence in different languages at different points in time. The wide diffusion of Indo-Iranic into central Asia has led to contact with Turkic and other families of central and northern Asia, while there has been considerable contact in the western part of the Indo-Iranic area with languages of the Caucasus on the one hand and Afroasiatic languages on the other, while in the east of the area Indo-Iranic languages have been in contact with Dravidian and Sino-Tibetan ones. Not to be discounted either are phenomena of lateral transfer within Indo-Iranic, across the long history of the family.

This work would naturally take place in a cross-linguistic environment, combining lines of evidence also from archaeology and archaeogenetics to draw inference about the history of peoples speaking Indo-Iranic languages.


https://imprs.shh.mpg.de/index.php/applications/open-positions/


I don’t think they will get a better understanding of the origin and diversification of Indo-European languages by studying interactions of Indo-Iranic with Turkic, Afroasiatic and Caucasian languages together with genes.
Studying Indo-Iranic and Balto-Slavic languages and genes would be a much better idea for understanding of the origin and diversification of Indo-European languages. They would even have a chance of getting close to PIE.

JuanRivera said...

It smells like they want Indo-Iranian to originate in the Near East.

epoch said...

@andrew

"I don't think that the archaeology or historically attestations or any ancient DNA to date supports this very early date of Anatolian IE and abandoning a steppe hypothesis for IE is increasingly disfavored."

Not only is abandoning a steppe hypthesis for IE increasingly disfavored, I think that the Mathieson 2018 paper on South East Europe, which blatantly stated that a clear signal for a Balkan route to Anatolia couldn't be shown, exactly pointed to the opposite: Several scenarios for the entry of IE languages - pre-Yamnaya or later - have samples that support it: Whether the obvious Suvorovo proxies such as the Varna outlier or the Bulgarian Yamnaya sample. Early Bronze age has a quarter steppe.

Them meee said...

It doesn’t smell like, it obviously is. This has been their intention for years.

Also comparing Indo-Iranian with Turkic and studying their interactions will only improve our knowledge of Proto-Turkic.

Andrzejewski said...

The Tocharians remain a mystery: an IE people, Native to NW China, which may or may not be descennded from its first inhabitants, the Tarim Basin Mummies. Unlike their neighbors the Scythians who were Indo-Iranic Satem speaking and R1a1, the Tocharians (also called Yuezhi and Wusun, as well as Kushans) were R1b, spoke a Centum language and wore tartan and other forks of attire reminiscent of Celts and Germans of NW Europe. Along with the Saka (Scythians) the Tocharian ruled most of Asia before caving in to East Eurasian population like Turkic, Tungusic and Han Chinese.

No fixed verifiable link to Tarim Basin Mummies and/or to Afanasievo Culture has ever been undisputably established yet.

Dragos said...

@ epoch

“”Not only is abandoning a steppe hypthesis for IE increasingly disfavored, I think that the Mathieson 2018 paper on South East Europe, which blatantly stated that a clear signal for a Balkan route to Anatolia couldn't be shown, exactly pointed to the opposi”

We should be careful about misrepresenting studies conclusions
They suggest a lack steppe admixture into Anatolia, which is what their & Damgaard’s subsequent (small size) samples in fact show.
Of course, we are free to hypothesize that upcoming samples might disprove their position.

Andrzejewski said...

@Dragos linguists should study the Kett (sole survivor of previously much more extant Yenissean language family) for connections with PIE. This population is also ANE Hap-Q rich and originated as well in the proximity of Lake Baikal”, just about where MA1 and AG3 remains have been found.

JuanRivera said...

Steppe ancestry shows up in Varna and in Kumtepe. Also, a steppe shift shows up in Anatolia from as early as the Early Bronze Age in relation to Neolithic samples. Also, there's a clear archeology chain from the steppe through the Balkans to Anatolia.

Davidski said...

@Dragos

Those five samples from Damgaard et al. don't actually demonstrate a lack of steppe ancestry in Hittite era Anatolia.

This was the call made in the paper, but it was made in large part on the basis of a D-stat using a dataset with a reduced number of markers.

This is what happens when one runs similar stats using the full panel of markers.

Anatolia_EBA vs MLBA f4/Mbuti

I challenge you to get in touch with the authors and ask them to run these stats on the full panel of markers, and then tell you with confidence that their (Hittite era) Anatolia_MLBA samples don't show any steppe ancestry.

Let us know what they said.

Andrzejewski said...

This link is very important. It establishes that the Caucasus influences over PIE society was primarily cultural diffusion rather than a Demic one, that the ancestry between Caucasus and Steppe groups vary a lot in their origin, and lastly but even more importantly: that there was no discernible linguistic influence or impact of Maykop or any Caucasus-based civilization over any Steppe horizon one -

http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2018/11/why-is-knowing-about-maykop-culture-and.html?m=1

“Dispatches From Turtle Island: Why Is Knowing About The Maykop Culture And Other Early Caucasus Cultures Important?”

Bob Floy said...

@Ryan

You're thinking of Hitler.

Dragos said...

@ Davidski
Thanks those look very interesting
I guess more samples will provide clarification. Which source do you prefer from that list ?
Why do the findings not also come up in nMonte ?

@ JR
“”Steppe ancestry shows up in Varna and in Kumtepe. Also, a steppe shift shows up in Anatolia from as early as the Early Bronze Age in relation to Neolithic samples. Also, there's a clear archeology chain from the steppe through the Balkans to Anatolia.”

Davidski suggests MBA instead.

On the other hand, PF suggested earlier that the migration path was invisible, perhaps jokingly. But can you clarify what the path is (eg where and when it arrived, what signs it’s based on - corded ware in Anatolia or kurgans etc )?

Davidski said...

@Dragos

Which source do you prefer from that list? Why do the findings not also come up in nMonte?

Sredny Stog II and Yamnaya Bulgaria work for at least one of the Hittite era Anatolians using G25/NMonte.

Take a look at this post plus the comments.

Hittite era Anatolians in qpAdm

JuanRivera said...

Ran nMonte runs, and the result was that Ukraine_Mesolithic and their Neolithic counterparts were between 60% and 70% EHG and further decomposing it, between 45% and 50% ANE. In any case, it's further evidence that the populations called steppe shared ancestry from deep back. Also, it indicates a rather sharp transition in EHG levels between Ukrainian HGs and HGs from places northwest, west and southwest of it.

JuanRivera said...

Steppe contribution to anatolians seems more Ukraine_Eneolithic-like, though Khvalynsk comes just below when it comes to fits.

Andrzejewski said...

@JuanRivera OK. So Ukraine_Mesolithic + Neolithic were 60%-70% EHG, with 45%-50% ANE.

Now: 1. What PARTS of Ukraine? Samara/Khvalynsk are more Easternlty in contrast to Bug-Dniester, Dniester-Donets and Stredny Stog, which were much more to the Western side of Ukraine. Are you talking about mean average? We know that Yamnya was an almost even mix of 50:50 EHG: CHG? And the latter was Bronze Age/Eneolithic.

2. Mesolithic and Neolithic: Khvalynsk was 70% EHG, and that was during the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic in Europe (7yka), contemporaneous with the LBK in Germany. That's when experts think that the incursion of CHG element/component and the con/subsequent dilution of EHG ancestry resulted in the Steppe Culture as we know it (horse domestication, PIE speech, etc.).


"Also, it indicates a rather sharp transition in EHG levels between Ukrainian HGs and HGs from places northwest, west and southwest of it."

What do you mean? I am having a hardship catching your drift on the last one. A sharp transition from what to what?

Andrzejewski said...

@JuanRivera Steppe contribution to anatolians seems more Ukraine_Eneolithic-like, though Khvalynsk comes just below when it comes to fits.

What's the distinction between Ukraine_Eneolithic-like and Khvalynsk? I thought they were basically more or less the same.

Vara said...

There is a reason why the Steppe narrative always focused on India. Max Plank going for a southern origin for Indo-Iranian is the best idea ever for them. I guess they looked at the data and saw there is no way to connect the Mitanni, the maryanni warriors and the Hissar Gray Ware to Sintashta. They probably looked up a few archaeologists and saw that there is not a single Andronovo artifact in western Iran despite the fact that Indo-Aryans were amok running in that region.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_eykCQAAQBAJ&q=mitanni#v=snippet&q=mitanni&f=false

Someone has to ask Parpola how Sintashta folk made it to Hissar IIIB (2400-2170 cal. BCE) before there ever was a Sintashta. I guess it's like David Anthony's Gray Ware coming from "simple incised pottery of the steppes" despite it showing up in the Iranian plateau millenia before Andronovo and despite the fact that every other archaeologist has pushed for a local northern Iranian origin.

JuanRivera said...

Ukraine_Eneolithic had higher WHG, lower EHG and CHG, and EEF ancestry not found in their ukrainian Neolithic ancestors. Khvalynsk had no WHG nor EEF, had higher EHG and CHG, and had WSHG (West_Siberia_N) ancestry. As for the sharp transition, Ukraine_Mesolithic/N had high levels of EHG, while Baltic HGs, HG ancestors of neolithic cultures in Poland and Hungary, and Romania HGs had very low levels of EHG.

Davidski said...

@Vara

The MPI-SHH is going to push for a southern origin for Indo-Iranian, because the MPI-SHH was always going to do that, and we all knew it, including you.

There's nothing sophisticated behind its stance on the matter.

Obviously, the major Sintashta-derived cultural transformations in what is now Iran took place from the Late Bronze Age and well into the Iron Age. This is the mainstream narrative, including and especially among Iranian academics, and absolutely fits with the latest ancient DNA data from Central and West Asia.

A palimpsest grave at the Iron Age cemetery in Estark-Joshaqan, Iran

Corded Ware, Sintashta and Andronovo/Srubnaya are also the only ancient cultures and populations that really link Indo-European-speaking Europeans with Indo-European-speaking Iranians and South Asians.

The early appearance of Indo-Iranians in West Asian can be explained by very early incursions from the steppe, well before the main Indo-Iranian migrations from there.

Poking holes in pet theories floated by various academics at one time or another isn't very clever or useful.

JuanRivera said...

All Indo-European samples had steppe admixture of some kind, be it ukrainian-like, Khvalynsk-like, Yamnaya-like or extra EEF, WSHG and Baikal_HG admixed Andronovo-like. Also, evidence is demonstrating that farmer hypotheses for IE aren't holding. Steppe shows everywhere in Europe, including at the Iberian peninsula, shows in significant levels in India, Iran, Central Asia and Anatolia, and may be showing up in Chalcholithic Armenia. Also, cultural changes happen, which would obscure things. And there's the fact that Indo-Iranian is most closely related to Balto-Slavic.

Andrzejewski said...

R1a1 is the key to both Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic. There is obviously one or more missing links here. I would tentatively advocate the the Corded Ware was a direct extension of the preceding Sredny Stog and not a Yamnaya. My hypothesis is: Sredny Stog -> Corded Ware -> Balto-Slav; Stregny Stog -> Sintashta -> Andronovo -> Indo-Iranian. So, the Balto-Slav branch may be a sister branch to Indo-Iranian, but does it also mean that it was rich in EEF/WHG admixture through maternal mtDNA? If Sintashta is regarded an extension of the CWC and not the Sredny Stog itself, then it may lack the EEF/WHG components.

Vara said...

@David

An Iron Age Cimmerian or Scythian grave is not a Bronze Age Indo-Aryan grave. This type of burial is very rare and is not found in any other Median site (Eg. Marlik). There is a reason the Andronovo >BMAC > Iran scenario was being pushed but now that's not going to work because the movements from Andronovo to the south were very late.

"The early appearance of Indo-Iranians in West Asian can be explained by very early incursions from the steppe, well before the main Indo-Iranian migrations from there. "

That is interesting because these early Indo-Iranians, who later would become kings and conquerors, brought no weapons or artifacts that can be traced to the steppes.


"“The simple socketed axe-adze from Mohenjodaro closely resembles ones from Hissar (Schmidt 1937:P1.52) and Shahi Tump (Stein 1931). At Hissar this axe was found in IIIC. A macehead from Mohenjodaro, dated to ca. 2000 B.C. (Piggott 1947 : 3 1) , also is typologically similar to one from Hissar IIIC (Schmidt 1937:P1.52). Similar maceheads are known in Luristan, and dated there to cu. 1400 B.C. (Piggott 1947:39-41). ”
& “A bronze sword with a strong medial midrib, the Fort Munro sword, found in the Punjab and of unknown date, is unique within the entire Indian metallic inventory. The peculiar hilt finds its closest parallel in the “Luristan” words of Iran. La1 (quoted in Joshi 1962 : 18) claims that this sword, like the axe of Mohenjodaro and the socketed axes of Shahi Tump, has no relation to any Indian culture and is clearly intrusive”

https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/aa.1967.69.2.02a00020

Yep. The weapons of India are related to those of Iran long before a Steppe Invasion.

Andrzejewski said...

There have been so many indicators as to why Farmer ancestry did not contribute to PIE creation. The "“Dispatches From Turtle Island" paper that I was quoting was putting to rest the question of any influence from Caucasus groups being a demic one in lieu of a mere cultural diffusion, as was the case. Furthermore, it was finally the nail in the coffin of the theory that "PIE came from the CHG" groups. I did NOT. The paper found no discernible similarity between Maykop or any Caucasus-based group, and concluded that the cultural impact from the Caucasus may have been the kurgan, some religious ideas and metallurgy, very strong signals of Steppe culture, albeit the impact was shy of being also linguistic.

Therefore, PIE came with the ANE/EHG and NOT from the Caucasus/Middle East/West Asia.

JuanRivera said...

Mitanni graves have steppe ancestry. Indo-Iranian had words for horse, wheel and other Pontic-Caspian BA vocabulary. Also, Balto-Slavic wasn't taken into account. And next is the common excuses of "Iranians have no steppe ancestry", "Indians have no steppe ancestry" or the european counterpart "Spaniards have no steppe ancestry", which all were proven false by DNA data.

Them meee said...

@Vara

So where do you suppose that steppe ancestry and R1a come from? Yeniseians? Or did it come from Karelia_HG-like people mixing with Georgians? Or does it come from aliens?

Vara said...

I guess you tested these Mitanni graves yourself. The context of how a specific type of ancestry is what matters. For years it has been pushed that steppe ancestry reached S. Central Asia with Andronovo conquerors but guess what all the weapons are from Northern Iran.

"Indo-Iranian had words for horse, wheel and other Pontic-Caspian BA vocabulary. "

Best argument ever! It's not like Hissar IIIB had a depiction of a two wheeled cart or chariot or that two wheeled carts were not found at Altyn-Depe around 2800 BCE.

Them meee said...

And I speak in general. Including in Europeans.

Either way, if you ask me, I’ll repeat what David said here:

“Corded Ware, Sintashta and Andronovo/Srubnaya are also the only ancient cultures and populations that really link Indo-European-speaking Europeans with Indo-European-speaking Iranians and South Asians.”

Does any other explanation make sense? Maybe this?

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/comic-relief-from-russia-klejn-et-al.html

Kristiina said...

As for the Hungarian King Béla III, this was posted recently on Anthrogenica:

Based on the Y-STR haplotype of King Béla III, we estimated with the machine learning algorithm in the first step that he belonged to the R1a-Z93 subgroup
that is most common among Indo-Iranic and Turkic speaking peoples. The second step predicted that King Béla III belonged to the Z2123 subgroup of R1a-
Z93. The Phylogenetic analysis showed King Béla III most likely belonged to the
relatively rare YP451+ YP449-subgroup of Z2123, which practically only appears in the North Caucasus, especially among Karachays and Balkars.

http://real.mtak.hu/88674/1/Bernert_AK2018.pdf

According to Wikipedia:
The Karachays (Къарачайлыла, Qaraçaylıla) are a Turkic people descended from the Kipchaks, and share their language with the Kumyks from Daghestan. The modern Balkars identify as a Turkic people, who share their language with the Karachays from Karachay-Cherkessia and Kumyks from Dagestan. The ethnogenesis of the Balkars resulted, in part, from an invasion of Alania during the 11th century, by Kipchak Turks and their Cuman allies.

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

Lots of Indo-Iranians from the steppe became Turkic speakers during the Middle Ages.

It seems like some joined the ranks of the Magyars who were migrating into the Carpathian Basin.

But another option are political and familial royal links between early Hungary and the Turkic tribes from north of the Caucasus.

Huck Finn said...

@ George: N1c1 however has been found in Migration Era burials of Hungarians. Maybe Mongols whacked away most of the N1c1 lineages in and after the battle of Mohi?

Besides, the amount of N1c1 in Sargat Kurgans, apparently related to Hungarians, is a also something to consider.

Slumbery said...

@Davidsky + Kristiina

Just for the record. The 900 AD Hungarians being a mixed Uralic-Turkic alliance is pretty much canon. And one of the reasons for this that the Hungarian envoys who visited the Byzantine court in 948 AD pretty much spelled this out, when they said that the Hungarians had two languages and then gave example words for the two languages. The Byzantines noted that one of the languages is similar to the language of Bashkirs and the other was not familiar for them. The envoys also self identified as "Turks".

Of course the reliability of Medieval sources is always a shaky area, even when they claim first hand information like this, but the thing is, this is so far compatible with linguistic and archaeology as well as with later Hungarian sources that talk about 3 joined Turkic tribes (and possibly that was just one event in a multi-step mixing process).

Given that early Medieval western Turkic groups tended to pack a lot of steppe Iranian ancestry, there is an obvious connection.

Early sources also claim that there was strong connection with the Khazars before they moved west and a Khazar connection with intermarriages can serve as a bridge to modern groups in the Caucasus too. So really, there is plenty of plausible way for the founder dynasty to have this particular lineage.

Matt said...

Oddly coincidental tweet from Lazaridis on Dec 16- https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1074390616728064000 -

"Q: If Armenian didn't have living speakers/translations of texts (e.g., the Bible), how easy could we (1) identify it as IE, and (2) decypher it? Related: How certain are we that undecyphered languages are non-IE vs. IE (but with their own idiosyncratic sound changes?)".

Probably looking at the adna from Southern Europe is raising similar questions about the confidence in his mind. The Harvard group, at least by Reich in last published, tends to favor CHG proto-Indo-Hittite as well after all, whether their minds have now changed or not (poss. their data on the Maykop complex has actually changed their minds? As Davidski gives good reason for this to be so.).

(This comments thread here kind of seems like a fair amount of assertion based on selecting linguistic evidence in both directions, where we go back to recruiting this or that reconstructed word or this or that linguistic feature for an argument rather than considering a kind of neutral set of data that we don't get to be selective about, as a whole. These ideas seem a lot harder for us to discuss well on blogs than the adna. Although increasingly the adna seems hard to discuss well.)

Davidski said...

@Matt

Isn't Lazaridis perhaps indirectly referring to Minoan in that tweet about Armenian?

Davidski said...

On a related note, here's a riddle to ponder, especially for the linguists at the MPI-SHH: if practically everyone in West Eurasia spoke Indo-European languages since the early Neolithic, especially in the south, then why the hell was there such a rich selection of non-Indo-European languages, especially in the south, before the Indo-European languages (finally consolidated?) their gains during the Metal Ages and wiped out most of their non-Indo-European competitors in Europe and surrounds?

Took them long enough, don't you think?

Ric Hern said...

Apparently the Black Seas Water level are +-6 m higher today than what it was during the Chalcolithic in Bulgaria. Several occupation sites were discovered between 4 and 7 metres below Sea Level.

Seeing that most likely domesticated horse remains were found at one of these sites (Urdoviza) which dates to the beginning of the Bronze Age, could it be that the Proto-Hittite migration route was drowned beneath the waves ?

Zarzian said...

@Vara

“I guess you tested the Mitanni graves yourself”

Ya that juanribera guy seems a to be missing a few screws.

Ric Hern said...

We still see the practice of driving livestock into the sea for a swim to get rid of external parasites.

Seeing that horses from the Steppe when moving Southwards into a much warmer climate would have accumulated more external parasites, does it make sense that Steppe people moving Southwards with horses could have kept close to the Coastline for this purpose ?

Them meee said...

@Zarzian

What argument do you have against these “steppe cultists”, as you call them?

Once again, if you ask me, I’ll repeat David’s comment:

“Obviously, the major Sintashta-derived cultural transformations in what is now Iran took place from the Late Bronze Age and well into the Iron Age. This is the mainstream narrative, including and especially among Iranian academics, and absolutely fits with the latest ancient DNA data from Central and West Asia.”

Or is this bogus?

Andrzejewski said...

@Zarzian @Them meee Eneolithic Iran was populated by Elamites, Kassites, Gutians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Hurrian-Urartu, Subartians - none of them spoke any Indo-European language. It was only after 1,000BC that the Persians and the Medes descended from beyond the Zagros mountains and gradually assimilated all the Native non-IE populations. They had Steppe ancestry and they also referred to themselves as “Aryans”, meaning “noble”. The Steppe charioteers constituted the elite in the conquered countries - Iran and India, same as their fellow Steppe bands conquered Anatolia and ruled over the native non-IE Hatti and Hurrians, who were either CHG, EEF or an admixture of both.

Vara said...

What I meant to say in my last comment: The context of how a specific type of ancestry reached a certain place is what matters.

@Them meee

"So where do you suppose that steppe ancestry and R1a come from? Yeniseians? Or did it come from Karelia_HG-like people mixing with Georgians? Or does it come from aliens?"

I love these comments from you experts but sure I'll indulge you. R1a is irrelevant here because of the Swat samples. Sure R1a is common in India but that mostly is due to some Iron Age expansion. Again the context.

Basically, Witzel has the Indo-Iranian influence first showing up in the Gutian period and Parpola in Hissar III. Son, do you see the problem here? Both predate Sintashta itself including any other imaginary Andronovo movement to Iran.

^Another victim of the focus on India by the steppe narrative. Andrzejewski needs to brush up on Indo-Aryan, as do you of course.

JuanRivera said...

You're not taking into account steppe ancestry, nor Balto-Slavic, nor the contacts of Proto-Indo-Iranian and its near ancestor with Proto-Uralic. Also, you're the one focusing on Iran and India, and apparently you're not taking into account Indo-European-speaking europeans.

JuanRivera said...

Ran nMonte models and Sintashta_MLBA always improved fits.

Slumbery said...

@Andrzejewski

Eneolithic Iran was populated by Elamites, Kassites, Gutians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Hurrian-Urartu, Subartians - none of them spoke any Indo-European language. It was only after 1,000BC that the Persians and the Medes descended from beyond the Zagros mountains and gradually assimilated all the Native non-IE populations.

Sumerians and Akkadians did not live in Iran. Also he Zagros mountains are actually the western border of Iran (give or take), so if somebody is coming from beyond the Zagros into Iran, that somebody is coming from Mesopotamia.

I tend to agree with your main point, but please be more accurate.

Slumbery said...

@Vara

Basically, Witzel has the Indo-Iranian influence first showing up in the Gutian period and Parpola in Hissar III. Son, do you see the problem here?

The problem here is that you refer to some fringe speculations by linguists and believe that those are decisive arguments here.

Vara said...

@Slumbery

This isn't fringe unless the whole Mitanni=Aryans is fringe to you. Sorry, not everything that contradicts your favorite theory is fringe.

Mitanni Aryans have long been linked to West Iran by every mainstream academician and that includes David Anthony who like Cuyler Young links it to Western Iranian Gray ware (1500BCE), but guess what as many archaeologists have argued over the years; Western Iranian Gray ware is not intrusive and is entirely derived from Gurgan Gray ware of Hissar III and that is now supported by the Maryanni warriors showing up in Mesopotamia in the 18th century BCE making the theory of Ghirshman and Parpola, in this case, correct. Look at the archaeology paper I've linked. It shows clear parallels with the weapons of LBA India, Hissar and Kassite Luristan.

"Only a few Kassite words seem to come from IIr., e.g. Šuriiaš "sun god", Maruttaš "divine Marut comrades of Indra", Bugaš "god Bhaga?"; see Balkan 1954, for horse names such as akriyaš = agriya-s "(running) in front?", timiraš "black?", etc.;"

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/SPP129-IndoIranArch.pdf

^ The Kassites had Indo-Aryan elite just like the Mitanni. I'm sure you can search some names.

These are mainstream theories accepted even by the hardcore steppe dudes. I'm not citing any "non steppe scholar" here cause I know you guys will yell: "fringe this consensus that".

Anyways I'm off. You guys have no idea what your fringe theory is about in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if none of you actually read the Steppe Bibl- I mean The Horse, the Wheel, and Language.

JuanRivera said...

1500 BC? Both Sintashta and Andronovo are earlier than that. Sintashta was from 2100 BC to 1800 BC. Andronovo was from 2000 BC to 900 BC. So, there's plenty of time (5 or 6 centuries) for steppe folk to reach the location of the future Mitanni. Also, you still don't take into account Balto-Slavic, nor other IE-speaking europeans, and Proto-Uralic.

JuanRivera said...

Also, you didn't account for DNA evidence.

JuanRivera said...

And if your only argument is that, then you basically lost.

Vara said...

Do you understand that Hissar IIIB which depicts a chariot is dated IIIB: ca. 2400-2170 cal. BCE and IIIC 2170-1900 cal. BCE (Voigt and Dyson) thus the origin of the Western Ware and Mitanni goes back to before any Sintashta movement? Do you not see that the first Steppe Movements to BMAC were much later than that (17th century)?

How would I account for DNA evidence of the Mitanni, genius? I do not have a crystal globe or know how to read tarot cards like you in order to get that.

"Mitanni graves have steppe ancestry."

LOL! I'm really done for now. I was gonna answer the linguistics question but that has been answered so many times including in the comment section of this blog.

I guess I2922 can count? Unfortunately it's low coverage.

Damn, you were so certain. So yeah backpedal some more and enjoy your great "victory".

Slumbery said...

@Vara

Suddenly your dates became later than Sintashta. More importantly, just because local ceramic traditions lived on in the Bronze Age Iran that tell us nothing about the origin Indo-Iranian languages.

Also keep your projections to yourself. I have zero emotional investment in Indo-Aryan or Indo-European origin and that is something that apparently cannot be said about you.

Andrzejewski said...

@Vara David Anthony has since updated his research data since the book came out.

Davidski said...

@Vara

Are you sure you're talking about a spoked wheel chariot pulled by a horse and not a wagon pulled by a donkey?

JuanRivera said...

I'm certain Mitanni has steppe ancestry, but I have no access to them, therefore, I can't model them. I have no emotional investment on IE. And you're projecting when you say that we're focused on India. And you still didn't engage Balto-Slavic, nor other IEs, nor Proto-Uralic.

JuanRivera said...

And it's unwise to call me an eurocentrist. I'm left-wing and strongly dislike the present POTUS. Anyways, as long as you don't resort to that, we're going to have a rather friendly discussion. It partly goes to the Molgen people as well.

Zarzian said...

@Slumbery

“Suddenly your dates became later than Sintashta. More importantly, just because local ceramic traditions lived on in the Bronze Age Iran that tell us nothing about the origin Indo-Iranian languages.

Also keep your projections to yourself. I have zero emotional investment in Indo-Aryan or Indo-European origin and that is something that apparently cannot be said about you.”

The dates actually predate Sintashta, and Migrations most often do not occur at the time of the forming of a culture and this is proven by Vera’s other date of the Steppe signal trickling into BMAC circa 1700BC, which obviously means that a Migration into Iran would have to havr occurred later then 1700BC. And the Gray Ware culture is not just ceramics, it is cited as being the ancestral culture of Western Iranians and was thought to be intrusive into the plateau, so by proving that it is of local origin, it basically disproves that Iranians only moved into the plateau in the Iron age

Dragos said...

When did we get Mitanni aDNA ?

Davidski said...

@Zarzian

The earliest appearance of steppe ancestry in BMAC is ~2100 BC.

Vara said...

@Slumbery

What a load of sophistry. You ignored what I wrote and chose to put words in my mouth. What I said is pretty clear but I'll repeat myself one more time. DAVID ANTHONY is no longer correct in assuming that Indo-Aryans entered west Iran around 1500BCE because according to him that's when they were first attested and that is not true so archaeologist Ghirshman and Parpola are correct here in assuming a much earlier date (late 3rd mil).


"Suddenly your dates became later than Sintashta."

From Mr. AIT Witzel: "It is probable that this move was preceded by successive spearheading forays of (non-IIr. speaking) mountain peoples into Mesopotamia, such as the Guti, Lullubi, and Kassites (c. 2250-1750 BCE), who were as yet only marginally influenced by IIr. languages and customs."

Do you see the dates now? That fringe linguistic evidence kinda matches with the archaeology. Actually, my dates could be a thousand years later than Sintashta and that still won't change the fact that there was no movement of warriors from Sintashta to Kurdistan.


"More importantly, just because local ceramic traditions lived on in the Bronze Age Iran that tell us nothing about the origin Indo-Iranian languages."

It tells us of an culture that has no relation with the steppe and is related to the first attested Indo-Aryans in history. It tells us that weapons from 15th C. BCE India is related to that culture. It tells us that there was a cultural connection between Indo-Aryan India and the Kassites of Luristan. It tells us that the so called Andronovan-derived Gray Ware that was also later found in IA India was actually found in this culture before 17th century BCE. Etc..


"I have zero emotional investment in Indo-Aryan or Indo-European origin and that is something that apparently cannot be said about you."

Sure. It's not like I was provoked first by know it all geniuses, right?

"And next is the common excuses of "Iranians have no steppe ancestry", "Indians have no steppe ancestry" or the european counterpart "Spaniards have no steppe ancestry", which all were proven false by DNA data."

It's okay, I like a heated discussion from time to time but it's annoying when someone starts a fire then plays the victim.

@Davidski

It is a chariot drawn by two horses. Wheels cannot be determined if spoked or not. Few trumpets were found and I think that was one of the reasons they thought they were Mitanni because trumpets were used in Egypt and Syria later as well.

Zarzian said...

Thanks Davidski, is it possible to pinpoint exacttly which culture was the source of this ancestry? I guess I should re-read Narasimhan again.

Davidski said...

@Vara

Here's a page from a book which appears to be discussing the chariot that you mentioned.

Tepe Hissar III B chariot

I don't see any problem here, since Steppe_MLBA (Sintashta-related) ancestry first appears in BMAC around 2100 BC, and that's just based on the few samples currently available (many more are on the way).

It seems like you're getting your dates mixed up, and/or you're not aware of all of the facts.

Davidski said...

@Zarzian

Is it possible to pinpoint exactly which culture was the source of this ancestry?

I don't think it's possible to go beyond Steppe_MLBA or Sintashta-related at this stage. But both of these samples are from Gonur, and it's unlikely that they're the two first people with this type of ancestry in BMAC (just the first to be sampled for now).

Gonur1_BA_o2 I1789 2277-2030 calBCE
Gonur1_BA_o2 I2122 2139-1981 calBCE

Supp info page 72

Dragos said...

Bryant suggests that steppe people took over tile of BMAC, but we know that’s not true, due to more recent research of the settlements, and aDNA . It seems those who dwelt in post-BMAC have the bulk of their ancestry remains the same as pre and during BMAC.
Rather than anyone ruling anybody else, the decline of BMAC actually fostered more decentralised society. A raft of steppe -settlements also emerge in the post-BMAC phase, and communities and individuals were free to interact as they saw fit according to local needs and attitudes, instead of via any central authority.

JuanRivera said...

There isn't evidence of BMAC migrating northwards. In contrast, there's plenty of evidence of Andronovo migrating southwards.

Dragos said...

^ rule not tile :)

Zarzian said...

Thank you Davidski, so these dates do support a Southward migration of Sintashta. But even if we assume the Steppe Steppe theory to be true, can we rule out a male elite dominance model for Western Iranians since the modern Y-dna distribution of Iranians is quite diverse and not dominated by R1a.

Davidski said...

@Zarzian

It's very difficult to say what happened in Iran around 4,000 years ago based on modern frequencies of Y-haplogroups there, because it's such a large and ethnically varied country.

The lineages of the males who brought steppe ancestry to Iran during the Bronze and Iron Ages may have been replaced since then during several genetic turnovers that affected the warrior and ruling classes in the region.

It's even possible, for instance, that Steppe_MLBA ancestry and culture was brought to Iran mostly by males carrying typically BMAC Y-haplogroups, and that most of the Sintashta-derived R1a-Z93 in Iran is from Turks. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but just giving an extreme scenario.

So the only way to test these sorts of things is to get a lot of ancient DNA from the relevant burials, if they exist.

a said...

Zarzian said...
"Thank you Davidski, so these dates do support a Southward migration of Sintashta. But even if we assume the Steppe Steppe theory to be true, can we rule out a male elite dominance model for Western Iranians since the modern Y-dna distribution of Iranians is quite diverse and not dominated by R1a."


We have to wait and see the updates for the following paper-
"The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia" Vagheesh M Narasimhan et al paper.
However, one of the results might have connected R1b and Sintashta
I7670 J1c1b1a R1b1a1a2 Sintashta_MLBA 2200-1800 BCE Russia
Also Hajji Firuz Tepe is showing possible R1b.


Grugni et al, back in 2012 found R1b L23+ in Tehran-Zoroastrians and Lurs.
"Zoroastrians are the oldest religious community in Iran; in fact the first followers have been the proto-Indo-Iranians. With the Islamic invasions they were persecuted and now exist as a minority in Iran."
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041252

Hopefully we can get some clarification on these results.

Zarzian said...

@Davidski,

You make valid points but lets for example take Iranian Zoroastrians, who have been homogeneous since atleast the times of the Muslim invasion and most likely from further back, and being a Zoroastrian myself I know that to be a Zoroastrian, one has to be born into the religion with both prents being Zoroastrians, one cannot simply convert to Zoroastrianism. Yes the Zoroastrians have quite a diverse Y-dna pool with J2 being the most common haplogroup among us. That is why to me the elite dominance model doesn’t explain Western Iranians, unless we take into account what you stated which is that Iranians formed by the slow fusion of Steppe and BMAC and they subsequently moved south and integrated with the local populations of Iran.

JuanRivera said...

Personal insults will not be tolerated. Also, the r-word is discriminatory against people with real mental impairment.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski Iran is what happened in India and also Anatolia: unlike in most of Europe where there was a massive population movement replacing the entire genes of the populations (for example, Bell Beaker supposedly replacing over 90% of the Y-DNA in Britain; in Spain, a Steppe-based invasion killing every single Farmer/HG male and replacing the entire uniparental genome, including of the non-IE Basques), in Iran and India a ruling elite (Avesta in Iran, Brahmin in India) established themselves as the aristocracy in those country, and that's why the referred to themselves as the "Aryan", or "nobles". In Anatolia, which had been rich in Anatolia_N and CHG people like the Hatti or the Hurrians, the Steppe-derived (probably via Balkan routes) imposed their language and administration - horses, chariots on the native population, which greatly outnumbered it and therefore the language shift was very graduals, with a very high ratio of non-IE vocabulary, mostly likely in realms like religion ("Heba") and customs. If you look at Mari and Mittani, you see a "marianu" (same cognate word as "mars", "martial") as the warrior elite, riding horses and using Steppe-based metallurgy knowledge. Why did the Hittite, Luwians and other Anatolians managed to impose their language over the native population vis-a-vis the Mittani is an enigma, but it highlights the Steppe impact on so many Bronze/Iron Age Middle Eastern populations.

I also presume that the biblical "Jebusites" and other Hurrian-based tribes mentioned in the Old Testament may have been an offshoot of the Mittani kingdom. For instance, the name "Uriah" is based on the Anatolian/Indo-Aryan name "Arawna", which was also the name of the Jebusite king who was defeated by David. It's name has a cognate with "Aryan", means "lord". The name Zion is based on the word "Siunas", an Indo-Aryan/Anatolian word cognate with Zeus/Diu Pater (Jupiter). So we can even see how the Bronze Age Steppe influence was wide and profound and was even far reaching into Biblical Israel, Bronze Age Syria, and of course, Iran and Iraq.

Andrzejewski said...

@Zarzian "You make valid points but lets for example take Iranian Zoroastrians, who have been homogeneous since atleast the times of the Muslim invasion and most likely from further back, and being a Zoroastrian myself I know that to be a Zoroastrian, one has to be born into the religion with both prents being Zoroastrians, one cannot simply convert to Zoroastrianism. Yes the Zoroastrians have quite a diverse Y-dna pool with J2 being the most common haplogroup among us. That is why to me the elite dominance model doesn’t explain Western Iranians, unless we take into account what you stated which is that Iranians formed by the slow fusion of Steppe and BMAC and they subsequently moved south and integrated with the local populations of Iran."

So, Zarzian, who were the BMAC? Are they related to Dravidians and/or Elamites? I remember reading that all three groups were descendant of Iran_N (which is distinct from CHG).

JuanRivera said...

BMAC was a complex that existed in southern South-Central Asia. It was composed primarily by Iran_N, but there was also a significant degree of WSHG and very minor levels of AASI.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski There are 3 cultures that are still a mystery for me: BMAC, Botai and Sumerians, in terms of aDNA, language and physical anthropology. Another issue that boggles my mind is how come so many diverse populations with divergent origins - Adyghe (Northwest Caucasian language family speakers), Mari/Kumi (mostly Uralic) and other non-IE or even non-Steppe populations in Asia have a very typical Europoid looks that could be mistaken as "locals" had I "met" them in Warsaw, Bucharest or Italy.

Another quandary is how come Southern Caucasus populations (Kartvelians and Armenians) share the same genetic ancestry (CHG + Anatolia_N + minor ratio of R1b) of Northeast/Northwest Caucasus populations - Adyghe, Chechens - whereas the latter look very European while the former have a typical "Middle Eastern" appearance.

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

BMAC shouldn't be a mystery in terms of its genetic ancestry because there are now plenty of samples available from several BMAC sites. Most of them are in the Global25 datasheets.

Three Botai samples are also in the Global25 datasheets. They look pretty much as expected; very similar to West Siberian Hunter-Gatherers.

And I think that on closer inspection you'll find that the Adyghe and Mari don't look like any European populations by and large; they just include individuals who could pass in parts of Europe because they come from the borders between Europe and Asia.

The Komi aren't Asian, they live in Europe and are overwhelmingly of North European origin, so it's not surprising that they look European.

Zarzian said...

@Andrzejewski

I doubt that the inhabitants of BMAC spoke Dravidian, as Dravidian was spoken by the IVC and the Indus Periphery samples showed that they were distinct from BMAC, and any relationship with Elamite would only be speculation.ya

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski Thanx! I thought that the Komi were predominantly WSHG like the Uralic groups. When I was looking up the Botai Culture (following the thesis “revolutionizing” horse domestication history) the only source to the culture were some Wikipedia entry which ruled out the culture being either IE or Uralic. They add that it’s speculated that this culture contributed the word “horse” (=lox?) to modern Uralic languages. Then I started thinking they were actually Yenisseyan speaking (which are very rich in ANE admixture), until I read in your blog that some Botai sample found out to be R1b.

Andrzejewski said...

BTW, what do you think about the eupedia.com website? I personally think that they are either outdated or off-the-mark on lots of things. I recall reading the Proto-Indo-European was, according to them, a "jargon/creole" language, created by a merger of R1a1 Indo-Uralic speakers with an R1b component of CHG speakers of Hurrian/Kartvelian. Even in 2014-15 many of their theories seemed not too grounded in science but quite speculative.

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

The speculations at Eupedia about the dispersals of PIE and related genetic markers are indeed outdated and nowadays just look outright stupid, and that's the start of the problems there.

But I don't think the author will ever move with the times and the data, because he and his core followers seem to have a big emotional investment in PIE and R1b-M269 originating south of the Caucasus, and moving in tandem to the steppe during the Eneolithic or maybe Bronze Age.

So it's best to avoid Eupedia if you're looking for unbiased and up to date opinions and generally correct information.

It's sad to watch when people get obsessed with their pet theories like this and lose touch with reality. It's a similar case with Carlos, who's posting total garbage regularly trying to convince the world and probably himself that Corded Ware Culture was Uralic and R1a-Z645 is the Proto-Uralic marker.

Indo-European crackpottery

The guy's totally lost it, but he's dug such a hole for himself that I don't think his ego will ever let him climb out of it.

Them meee said...

I’d take if further and say Eupedia is almost like the MySpace or GeoCities of population genetics.

I’ll also just mention this briefly: dude once thought Eurasians were over 10% Neanderthal, claimed this triggered some new layer of behavioral modernity and the Neolithic revolution, and that Aboriginal Australians stayed behind because they apparently lacked Neanderthal ancestry.

His theories already were off-base.

Bob Floy said...

@Them meee

"dude once thought Eurasians were over 10% Neanderthal"

Lol, yes, Eupedia really is the pits. Some of the most obnoxious posts I've ever seen anywhere on the internet are in that place. A few of the best former posters have migrated here.

JuanRivera said...

Aboriginal Australians actually have one of the highest Neanderthal levels across all eurasians, and they were more advanced than most people think.

Andrzejewski said...

@JuanRivera Denisovans, not Neanderthals. ~3%. Both Australoid and Melanesians.

epoch said...

@Vara

I find that the chariot you talk about is 2100 BC and the idea that it was drawn by horses was merely deducted:

"The oldest indicator of this process is the already-mentioned depiction of a chariot with cross-bar wheels in a seal form Tepe Hissar, dated c.2100 BC. The cross-bar wheel is the result of an effort to lighten the chariot. This necessity can only be explained by the arrival of a new draught animal that could benefit from the vehicle‟s added speed and manoeuvrability. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that horses were present in northern Iran c.2100 BC."

www.academia.edu/765506/THE_ORIGIN_AND_SPREAD_OF_THE_WAR_CHARIOT

epoch said...

Anyway:

https://ancient-world-project.nes.lsa.umich.edu/tltc/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/WAR_Moorey-1986-WorldArch_The-Emergence-of-the-Light-Horse-Drawn-Chariot-in-the-Near-East-c.-2000-%E2%80%93-1500-BC.pdf

Picture of said chariot at Figure 1, there indeed dated t 2350 BC.

Al Bundy said...

Anything interesting coming out of the Vienna conference?

Vara said...

Hi,

I was too lazy and picked the mainstream dates.

From Chronology of Iran: "Clusters from Hissar III and Tureng Tepe IIIC place these related assemblages from 2400-2170 and 2170-1900 B.C. respectively. This conforms with historical dates from Mesopotamia: based on artifact parallels, Hissar III is correlated with the time spanned by Early Dynastic III to Ur III,ca. 2600-2000 B.C."

^ This is the most common chronology from Voigt & Dyson based on carbon dating. The later dates are based on the other Gurgan sites where IIIB was flourishing. In Hissar period IIIB ended earlier with it being burned.

The newest dates by Gürsan-Salzmann are 2200-2000 and 2000-1800 BCE for IIIB and IIIC. There are a few interesting ones, eg. Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology dates IIIB to 2800 - 2400 BCE and IIIC to 2400 - 1800 BCE.

It doesn't matter who made the first chariot or whatever. My point was that we have all we need for an Indo-Aryan Mitanni connection without the steppes being involved since it is too early for such a strong Sintashta influence. Mind you Sintashta derived nomads started expanding south and only made it to Zerafshan by Alakul (1700 BCE).

So, I wouldn't sleep on this model if Max Planck did it right. IF.

Davidski said...

@Vara

Mind you Sintashta derived nomads started expanding south and only made it to Zerafshan by Alakul (1700 BCE).

I just told you that there were people with significant steppe admixture in Gonur already around 2100 BC.

So ~2100 BC is the latest date for the arrival of Sintashta derived nomads on the Iranian border and, realistically, they were there earlier than that already, maybe much earlier.

George said...

@Huck Finn
Yes we know from ancient dna that early Hungarians in Hungaria were mostly N1c1
And from them the modern R1a and I2a Hungarians have their language

Also we know that Ugric languages are from Siberia

Same for Indoeuropeans of Europe their language have Semitic adstratum
Semitic languages spread from Palestine-Jordania not earlier than Chalcolithic cause Semitic are ~6400 years old(we know it from glottochronology) ,so Semitic could only influence proto-Indo-European in late Chalcolithic
The oldiest branch of IE in Europe is Balto-Slavic it is 3100 years old,
The non Neolithic branch of J2a in Kyatice culture 3200 years before that is clearly from Northern Mesopotamia indicates that there were also migrations from Northern Mesopotamia into Central Europe in Late Bronze age
Also E1b1 in Iron age northern Kazakhstan among Northern Massagetae("Central Saka"), and y-dna T1a among Sogdian Kangyuj, and E1b1b1b2 plus E1a among early Indo-Aryans of Northern Pakistan also indicates migration from Northern Mesopotamia in late Bronze age and early Iron age.

Slumbery said...

@Andrzejewski
I thought that the Komi were predominantly WSHG like the Uralic groups.

Except Uralic groups are not predominantly WSHG at all.
Also Komis are an Uralic group in every sense (they speak an Uralic language and they actually live in the Ural region).
Nevertheless, their low WSHG ancestry is not an exception, it is the norm among modern Uralic speakers (I did not test Samoyedic groups however). In G25 nMontes EHG + Sintashta + BHG + WSHG test only the Khanty and the Mansi take more than 10% WSHG and even that is topped out in 25% in Mansi who live (amd lived) in former WSHG territory. And I would not call even that 25% predominant, especially that in reality it could be less (swapping Sintashta to Baltic BA actually lessen WSHG in favor of BHG).

Slumbery said...

@George
Yes we know from ancient dna that early Hungarians in Hungaria were mostly N1c1

No, we do not know that. We have exactly 2 N1c from ancient Hungarians and that was 2/7*100 = 28.5% of the male samples of that study. We have another study with more samples that turned up zero N1c. The latter was just one site, while the former was multiple sites, but even so, the most we can say is that they had more N1c than modern Hungarians (very probably). There is no data to support a claim that they were "mostly" N1c.

Folker said...

@Andrzejewski
Just a pont: the conclusion about 90% replacement by BBs in Britain is not about Y dna but about autosomal DNA. If you look at Y haplogroups, you’ll find that BBs R1b subclades are found at very high levels in all Western Europe.
But I’m agree, elite dominance perhaps through administrative language could very well explain the diffusion of Hittite and Luwian. After all, Hittitologists see the Hittites as the larger group living in Kanesh around 1800, but only as the larger minority. They probably reached around 50% of the overall population in this city if you add other IE like Luwians. But it does mean that around half of the population was not IE. Even if Hittites considered that Kanesh was their homeland.

PF said...


The thread has become a bit disjointed. Personally I consider all the stuff regarding India and Iran long solved and nearly worthless to discuss. For PIE the main mystery and relevant open question remaining is Anatolian -- whether it's originally Steppe-derived and came through either the Balkans or Caucuses, or derived from a CHG group that moved both onto the Steppe and Anatolia in the Neolithic.

Let's just consider the Steppe option for now. The reason Anatolia / Anatolian is so murky is because based on the samples we have now the Steppe ancestry is questionable, a really early date for Anatolian is needed to explain the linguistics, and the archeological evidence is thin.

Seems like in general archaeologists and linguists that do support a Steppe PIE have preferred the Balkan route, though, with the not so many samples we have now, a migration related to Armenia_Chl produces the best genetic fits. (Perhaps can be explained by the CHG in Armenia_Chl being more of the "right kind" of CHG that moved into Anatolia?)

I think several scenarios are still possible but have warmed up to the Balkan route despite the problems I see with it and have presented before. In this case it would seem that the intrusion of IE was simply a very different process from the ones everywhere else -- not a mass migration but rather small groups pushing early into the Balkans and then to NW Anatolia. It's hard to imagine exactly how a small elite could dominate enough for language change at that point, and I'm not aware of archeology that definitely supports this (e.g., elite Kurgans), but still it seems like it makes the most sense at this point...

Anyways, here's a decent fit:

[1] "distance%=3.8462"

Anatolia_ChL

Tepecik_Ciftlik_N,69.4
CHG,21.6
Varna_o,9

Davidski said...

There are a few different options still open for how the ancestors of the Hittites and other Anatolian speakers arrived in Anatolia.

Apart from the more traditional scenarios, in which Anatolian came from the steppe from, say, Sredny Stog or Yamnaya via Yamnaya Bulgaria, another option is that early PIE came from the Balkans from the Hamangia culture and moved both into the steppe and Anatolia. We had a discussion about the Hamangia culture here.

Yamnaya: home-grown comments

In any case, a southern origin for early PIE still looks like BS to me. I haven't seen a single decent argument yet for this scenario. The search for the homeland of late PIE is done and dusted. It was the steppe.


a said...

In Europe and Caucasus-Eastern Iranian language connection-Jasz people(aka Sarmat)
Total population
200,000
Regions with significant populations
Hungary (in the Jászság region within the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County)
Languages
Hungarian (Uralic, Finno-Ugric) and formerly Jasz (Indo-European, Iranian)
Related ethnic groups
Ossetians and other Iranian people Jász is the Hungarian language and English language exonym for an ethnic minority, also known by the endonyms Iasi or Jassy, that has lived in Hungary since the 13th century. The Jász originated as an Ossetian people in Sarmatia.

The Jász live mostly in a region known as Jászság.....
Just connect the ydna dot's/data..........Jászság-Alans/Ossetians.....

Michał said...

@Davidski
"The Balto-Slavic paternal marker is R1a-M417.
It comes from Corded Ware. So Corded Ware was Proto-Balto-Slavic."

This would imply that Indo-Iranians were Balto-Slavs, which doesn't make much sense from the linguistic point of view. It would be much more appropriate to say that R1a-M417 was originally associated with a population ancestral to both the Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians, plus maybe to some related (Satem?) extinct branches, for example to some hypothetical Satem dialects initially associated with R1a-Z284 or R1a-L664. Thus, I doubt that the Corded Ware people spoke Proto-Balto-Slavic. I would rather call this Corded Ware language (Pre-)Proto-Balto-Slavo-Indo-Iranian, while Proto-Balto-Slavic was most likely spoken in Trzciniec, or in Trzciniec-Sosnica-Komarov horizon.

Davidski said...

@Michał

Right, what I meant was that R1a-M417 was the Balto-Slavic paternal marker, but not exclusively so, and also not that Indo-Iranians were Balto-Slavs.

Slumbery said...

@a
The Jász people in Hungary are very heavily admixed and in terms of autosomal ancestry they (we) are pretty much identical to modern Hungarians. I'd make an educated guess that their YDNA proportions are pretty shifted from the original too.
And even if we talk about the original, the Jász descend from the Alans and Alans probably packed extra Caucasus ancestry during Medieval times, plus the founding population in Hungary was small (seven villages), so heavy founder effects are almost guaranteed.

Anyway, I give you one YDNA data point from somebody who have all known ancestry from there (me): R-CTS7822 (falls under R1b-Z2103), whatever it means.

Ric Hern said...

@ George

It seems like the VSO Wordorder is the main thing behind Semitic in Some Indo-European languages. The thing is that VSO can develope independently and people do not need external contact. It has been proved in many papers the Semitic connection is less than convincing.

Them meee said...

Wouldn’t early Jasz look like Ossetians, who are almost essentially Caucasians?

George said...

@Ric Hern
The IE family shows a small (5.6 %) but highly significant “Semitic” shift relative to Uralic, indicating areal ties (Kozintsev 2018)

So Semitic is closer to IE by 5.6% then to Uralic (phonetical and lexostatistical analysis)

And PIE have words for High mountain environment but not for steppe according to linguist Dybo recent work

----
Exept that the Uralic show areal(?) contacts with Dravidian ( mostly cultural words)
imho the pre-proto-Uralic before moving into north-eastern China(where they mixed with local N1c1 in late Neolithic) were somewhere in the eastern part of western Asia

George said...

@Slumbery
Early Hungsrians with Mongoloid features were mostly those with N1c1
others were mostly locals

EastPole said...

@Davidski
"The Balto-Slavic paternal marker is R1a-M417.
It comes from Corded Ware. So Corded Ware was Proto-Balto-Slavic."

Definitely the language of Corded Ware was closer to Proto-Balto-Slavic than to Proto-Indo-Iranian IMO.
We don’t know the language of Corded Ware but we know that that it influenced Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Balto-Slavic and therefore it is now often called Indo-Slavic, based on common origin and many similarities between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages. Indo-Slavic has not been reconstructed and Proto-Balto-Slavic has not been reconstructed too so we cannot say that the language of Corded Ware was not Proto-Balto-Slavic or that it was Proto-Balto-Slavic. But actually I think that it is very probable that the language of Corded Ware was intelligible to much greater degree to Proto-Balto-Slavs than it was to Proto-Indo-Iranians and in such a case we could say that Corded Ware was indeed Proto-Balto-Slavic.
I think it is very likely because languages change when people move and mix. Indo-Iranians moved a lot, mixed a lot, are far away from Corded Ware origin. Balto-Slavs didn’t move, didn’t mix and remain exactly where Corded Ware originated and first expanded.
So it is logical to assume that Balto-Slavs preserved their original language better.
Another thing is the stability of religion and culture which influences language changes.
There are many common things in believes, myths, customs, poetic conventions, metaphors, symbols, between Vedic traditions in India, Orphic in Greece and Slavic. I believe it is very likely that these common things originated in Corded Ware. Because they survived among Slavs until modern times, it suggests a very stable religion and culture in our region.

Slumbery said...

@George
All of the ydna results I mentined are from classic style elite burials and most of them first or second generation on top of that. None of them were locals.
It is true that the N1c ones were more Asian than the R1b and I2a ones, but that does not mean that the latter were not Hungarians at the time as they were definetly not locals by origin.

Slumbery said...

@Them meee
Ossetians are the descendants of a peripheral group that weathered out the mongol/tatar invasion in the moutains. It is pretty sure that they have much more recent Caucasus ancestry than the original main group.

Davidski said...

@All

Ancient Alan samples are in the Global25 datasheets, so you can check them out. No need to speculate what they're like.




Dragos said...

Dave,
Do you have the Saltovo-Mayaki sample in the G25 ?

Davidski said...

@Dragos

They're not in there, but they are in my dataset, so I don't know what happened. They might not have enough data to be run in the Global25, but I'll check that during the next update.

George said...

@Slumbery
The "North Caucasian" Culture that replaced "Maikop" culture in North Caucasus 4000 BP had 4 R1b1a2, and was 90-95% Yamna like autosomaly
Ossetians "Alans"(not exactly Alans but Talae from Sarmatia Asiatica) Saltovo-Mayaki(eastern Ukranian borders) are close to Late Bronze age Dzharkutan2 from southern Uzbekistan

weure said...

Wolfgang Euler places the roots of the Germanic language in the Lüneberger Heath. This is based on name giving of places and rivers.

Some way this makes sense it's on the crossroads of influences during Bronze Age. In North Northwest Europe there were two dominant spheres in the Bronze Age.

VandKilde (2014):
I. The Sögel-Wohlde metalwork style appeared in southern Jutland and extended well into
northwestern Germany and the Netherlands.
II The Valsømagle metalwork style emerged in northern Jutland, Funen, Zealand, and Scania.

The Sögel Wohlde culture is the older one and influence the Valsømagle one. But during MBA the Sögel Wohlde area declined, the Valsømagle culture set foot until the Elbe (Stade area)/ Lüneberger Heath area (Bergerbrant 2007).

Just this overlapping area between Sögel-Wohlde and Valsømagle is the hotspot/cradle of the Jastorf culture! And also of the (proto) Germanic language.

The Sõgel-Wohlde Kreis is associated with proto-Celtic. Until end or Roman times and definitely during migration time early middle age the 'celtic language' was in North Dutch/Frisia and England replaced by the 'germanic language' (Schrijver 2017).

It's also reflected in the DNA. A new EBA calculator based on G25 (done by Ph2ter on Anthrogenica) gives me and my parents a so to say "Sögel-Wohlde result" represented by BRITAIN-CA-EBA! I consider this as a kind of basic Bronze Age layer from the Isles over North Dutch, NW Germany until Jutland.

Is this the reason why our results in the calculators show sometimes 'Germanic" Danish/Norwegian/Anglo-Saxon result and sometimes (especially my father) 'Celtic' / British results.....???? A same basic (Bronze Age) layer could explain this.....


Davidski said...

@George

Dzharkutan2 is a mixture of something from the steppe and something else from the Caucasus, and clearly not native to southern Uzbekistan.

There were probably all sorts of populations living in the North Caucasus during the Middle to Late Bronze Age, some almost like Yamnaya and others with a lot of Caucasian ancestry, like Dzharkutan2 and the Alans.

Dzharkutan2 obviously represents a population movement from the North Caucasus to Turan.

George said...

Dzharkutan2 is a mix of western Iran plus local Andronovo and BMAC
Grigoriev also showing in his maps this proto-Iranian migration from nothern Mesopotamia throu northwest Iran towards Bactria

At that time and little earlier North Caucasus was Yamna like

a said...

Slumbery said...
@
..................
And even if we talk about the original, the Jász descend from the Alans and Alans probably packed extra Caucasus ancestry during Medieval times, plus the founding population in Hungary was small (seven villages), so heavy founder effects are almost guaranteed.

Anyway, I give you one YDNA data point from somebody who have all known ancestry from there (me): R-CTS7822 (falls under R1b-Z2103), whatever it means.

Do modern day Jász [descend from the Alans] and modern day Ossetians fall under the same branch R-7822? Or are they closer to the Early R1b Sarmat sample?

epoch said...

@weure

"Until end or Roman times and definitely during migration time early middle age the 'celtic language' was in North Dutch/Frisia and England replaced by the 'germanic language' (Schrijver 2017)."

Schrijver bases this on a perceived Celtic substrate. However, there is enough reason to believe Frisians spoke Germanic during Roman times. Not the least that Plinius the Elder, who visited the area, named an old word for geese: "Gantae".

Davidski said...

@George

Way too busy right now for this BS.

The Dzharkutan2_BA samples are freely available online and they're in the Global25 datasheets, so save the fairy tales for somewhere else.

This is how they come out best with qpAdm; in other words, nothing especially to do with Mesopotamia or even BMAC.

This model has post-Maykop North Caucasus + Steppe + Kelteminar > Turan written all over it.

Dzharkutan2_BA
Armenia_EBA 0.795±0.040
Gonur1_BA_o 0.104±0.038
Sintashta_MLBA 0.101±0.047
chisq 12.635
tail prob 0.31786
Full output

George said...

Dzharkutan2_BA
Armenia_EBA 0.795±0.040
Gonur1_BA_o 0.104±0.038
Sintashta_MLBA 0.101±0.047

That is what l exactly said
Armenia is bordering with NW_Iran
Grigoriev conecting the "painted ware" ceramics in Armenia Azerbajan NW_Iran and Northern Mesopotamia with proto-Scythians and other Indo-Iranians

weure said...

@epoch there are even more reasons to believe that the old Frisians were not undoubtedly speaking Germanic.....only after the migration, the influence of the Anglo-Saxon stream. But no really sources so...

What I do know is that the Sögel-Wohlde Kreis was in the Bronze Age very expansive. The epicenter was in the western part of nowadays lower Saxony.

This Tumulus kind of culture is seen as proto-Celtic (German: Urkeltentum). And North Dutch as well as NW Germany were pretty strongholds (Elp culture, Harpstedt Nienburg). Reasons enough not to assume they were genetically not exactly the same as the Nordic Bronze Age (Valsømagle) and Jastorf.

I guess the Sögel-Wohlde (and in the slipstream Elp, Harpstedt-Nienburg) is the reason why Davidski stated about the Dutch (in the Celtic vs Germanic PCA) that their 'Celtic' amount is pretty high. I know no other set of cultures Sögel Wohlde>Elp>Harpstedt Nienburg that caused this, you?

Them meee said...

@weure

I’d assume Proto-Celtic emerged from Urnfield and Tumulus was somewhat like Urnfield, so like Hallstatt.

Also Celtic tribes lived in historic times in the Low Countries and probably came from Urnfield, Hallstatt or La Tène. These can largely explain the Celtic signal you’re talking about. Same thing in Britain:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-hallstatt-effect.html

So I doubt Sogel-Wohlde spoke anything but an extinct branch of Indo-European.

And I find it highly unlikely that Germanic speakers didn’t also live in the northern Netherlands in historic times.

Sorry, Finn.

epoch said...

@weure

Sure there was mixture of Bell-Beaker related groups. But to call them Celts may be an exaggeration. Perhaps there was a Celto-Italic related language, such as the North-West Block hypothesis, which indeed states that the proposed substrate is related to Italic languages. That way BB is related to a whole swathe of related languages of which Celtic and Italic languages are basically the only survivors.

I heard Germanic sometimes describe as a mix of Kentum and Satem languages as it shares some isoglosses with Balto-Slavic, if I understand it all correctly.

But the Frisians were undoubtedly Germanic speaking. Personal names are Germanic. There are votif stones with Germanic godesses with very clear Germanic names found in Frisia (Hludana). Neighbouring tribes (Tuihanti) serving in a Frisian cohort build votif stones for Mars Tingsus, undoubtedly Germanic.

weure said...

@epoch @them I did not label Sögel-Wohlde as Proto-Celtic or Urkeltentum, but ultra Nordicist like the archeologist Gustav Schwantes and Ernst Sprockhoff did.

So in labeling Sögel-Wohlde (and in the slipstream Elp and Harpstedt Nienburg) as Germanic or proto Germanic you are more Nordicist than the Nordicist ;)

Hallstatt and La Tene if they had an effect than this was on the South Dutch not on the North Dutch.

Sögel-Wohlde is indeed Indo-European, influenced the Nordic Bronze Age, but does not equal the Nordic Bronze Age.....who can analyse this Indo-European component?????

'Perhaps there was a Celto-Italic related language, such as the North-West Block hypothesis, which indeed states that the proposed substrate is related to Italic languages. That way BB is related to a whole swathe of related languages of which Celtic and Italic languages are basically the only survivors.' look reals to me.....

Based on G25 of Davidski it is remarkable that my and my parents 'DNA profile' is without doubt influenced by Sögel-Wohlde (Elp/Harpstedt), and is close to Brittonic and Anglo-Saxon alike ;)

weure said...

With thanks to Ph2ter on Anthrogenica, this is, based on G25 the analysis of England and Scotland EBA, that pops up pretty obvious in me and my parents results....so I suppose a connection with EBA NW Germany/North Dutch (Sögel-Wohlde, Elp).

[1] "distance%=0.8527"


England_CA_EBA


AFANASIEVO,44.4
EUROPEAN-FARMERS,42
YAMNAYA,7
EUROPEAN-HUNTERS,6.6

[1] "distance%=1.1023"


Scotland_CA_EBA


AFANASIEVO,46.6
EUROPEAN-FARMERS,43
EUROPEAN-HUNTERS,6.4
YAMNAYA,4


Who can add this?

weure said...

@epoch what about this picture and 'language tree' of Anthony?

https://www.mupload.nl/img/8xuypb9ae.15.18.png

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski Regardless of whatever you tell Vara, he is from India, therefore he's dead set against any "White Aryan" invasion from the Steppe. No matter how much science would debunk his "Out of India" theory, he will persist. The Hindu Nationalist BJP party has rewritten Indian history in the text books and it is a waste of time arguing with him over and over again. Same goes to any German or Austrian born scientist working as hard to square the circle or bend over backwards to "prove" that the Indo-Europeans originated in the Middle East just because of a man named Adolf Hitler.

Andrzejewski said...

@George @Ric Hern Neither PIE vis-a-vis Proto-Semitic nor PIE v. Proto-Uralic has a deep, profound cognate similarities to claim that they used to be part of the same phylum. OTOH, the main obstacle to establish an "Indo-Uralic" connection is the rather sparse lexical evidence, except for "name" or "water", which are thought to also be due to borrowing from PIE -> PU.

The only language family similar to PIE is Kamatcha-Chukchi, which makes sense because of their early connection to Mal'ta Boy, origins near Lake Baikal, and the ANE component and P ->Q, *R (basal R). I might also look into Kett and the larger Yenisseyan family for ancient pre-LGM connection with Pre-Proto-IE.

Andrzejewski said...

@Slumbery If modern Uralic aren't overwhelmingly Siberian then it's hard for me to figure out who ARE, or what *phenotype* WSHG were. Lots of researchers are trying to pin Uralics as mostly EHG, but I don't believe so, because they are Siberian but not overwhelmingly derived from ANE, let alone speak a completely different language family. Their male Hap-Y is N1c1 (mostly), so that's another factor ruling them out as close to PIEs.

Andrzejewski said...

@EastPole The Slavic languages have 3 layers: the first, most original one, is the CWC-derived one. Then later on because of Slavs being under Scythian domination for centuries, there were lots of lexical words coming from Scythian-Sarmatian Iranic languages. That is ON TOP of the fact that the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic branches were already close. Words like "bog" came from Iranic into Slavic. Then during the medieval times both West Slavs (Poles, Czech) and Eastern Slavs (Varangians) came under Germanic influences, which further transformed the languages (words like Szlachta, Rycerz, etc).

A striking feature is how modern Lithuanian is the closest among living languages to PIE.

Andrzejewski said...

@George The original Magyars did speak a Uralic language, but there were indication that it was NOT their original language because their lifestyle and material culture stood out than other FU groups.

Besides, among the founding Arpad-era Hungarian tribes 7 were believed to be Ugric while 3 were Turkic speaking (Kabars). These latter tribes were close to the Khazarians, who are known in history about their conversion to Judaism. They were R1a1 and were depicted as having red hair and blue eyes, so they may've been just recently a product of language shift. We know that the Pontic Caspian Steppe used to be part of the Scythian Confederacy which used to include both Western Eurasians as well as Eastern Eurasians.

The R1a1 in Hungarians could've come from Turkified Iranians, Magyarized Scythians or else.

We also know that the Magyars accounted to perhaps 5%-10% of the ruling elite, assimilating mostly Celtic and Slavic tribes in the process. Thus some of the R1a1 could've come from Slavic tribes or from even earlier CWC cultural and demic profusion.

The I2 was from assimilated EEF communities rich with WHG components during or before EBA.

EastPole said...

@ANDRZEJEWSKI
“@EastPole The Slavic languages have 3 layers: the first, most original one, is the CWC-derived one. Then later on because of Slavs being under Scythian domination for centuries, there were lots of lexical words coming from Scythian-Sarmatian Iranic languages. That is ON TOP of the fact that the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic branches were already close. Words like "bog" came from Iranic into Slavic.”

No, you are wrong. Read some books:

https://i.postimg.cc/zfqyTzkr/screenshot-371.png

https://goo.gl/XF7zpG

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-doorstep-of-india.html?showComment=1523740548383#c6191530895381495941

Slavic names like Boleslav were used in Corded Ware. Here is the proof:

https://i.postimg.cc/SRCmzFM6/Lakha.jpg

http://www.vedamsbooks.com/no55377/c...ian-indu-lekha

https://i.postimg.cc/BbKYVbnF/screenshot-132.png

So it follows that Slavic ‘l’ is older than Sanskrit ‘r’:

Sk. ‘r’ < Sl. ‘l’

Sk. ‘Bhurishrava’ < Sl. ‘Boleslav’

Some poetic meters in oldest Vedic and Greek poetry are the same as in Slavic poetry, probably also from CWC:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/05/hittite-era-anatolians-in-qpadm.html?showComment=1526494048205#c892906440646153904

Vedic religious and spiritual vocabulary is especially close to Slavic and mostly from Slavic, i.e. Vedic gods have better etymology in Slavic than in Sanskrit.
So in my opinion the chances that the language of CWC was close to Slavic are very high.

Ric Hern said...

@ Andrzejewski

Did you have a look at Nivk ?

JuanRivera said...

As for Chukotko-Kamchatkan and PIE, these word pairs are the most alike both in form and in meaning: *qiræt-/*gel-, *neki(nek)/*nókʷts, *əqqæmlə-/*h₂ekʷeh₂, *velɣe/*pleh₂-, *mənnə/*mánus, *turi/*tuH, *kənmæ(l)/*kom or *kʷe. The first word in a pair is Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan, and the second in a pair is PIE. To see more PCK (and proto-Chukotian/PC and proto-Itelmen/PI) material, there's a book named comparative Chukotko-Kamchatkan dictionary, though the pronouns aren't very reliable, as the M/T isogloss extends to several more language families. Though, at this early point, is still speculation, and the fact that the PIE and PU were nearby each other says a lot. As for genetics, the ANE present in both diverged a very long time ago, with Ancient Paleosiberian accounting for CK's ANE and steppe's ANE being derived mostly from the EHG-Ukraine_HG continuum, with some contribution from CHG and, in very minor amounts, WSHG.

JuanRivera said...

A 2011 paper by Michael Fortescue suggests that PCK and proto-Nivkh were closely related. The resultant phyllum was named Chukotko-Kamchatkan-Amuric, and a tentative reconstruction of it is provided in the paper. What can be wondered is if CKA and PIE were closely related and the name of the resultant phyllum, if confirmed.

Andrzejewski said...

@East Pole The "Iranic" influence is via the Scythian/Sarmatian/Alan who had subjugated the Slavs. Both were R1a1 but Scythians were warlike and despite what's called "Iranic", they had a very Europoid or even "Nordic" appearance.

Andrzejewski said...

@Ric Hern @JuanRivera I don't know much about the Nivkh except that it seems that they are the substrate of Ainu, Korean and other languages in Northeast Asia. All these ones have ANE basis. There was an extinct language isolate called Ruan Ruan, which might've influenced early Turkic. Might have been Yenisseyan. The latter may or may not be related to PIE, at least to a very early stage of it. I am very confused who the WSHG were, and whether or not they were related to PU. Yamnaya and related Steppe populations had EHG with some CHG, but NOT WSHG. Latest papers, however, point to a substantial EEF (Anatolia_N) coming through the West via extensive (2000 years) of ongoing contact with Cucuteni Tripolye Culture in Western Ukraine, and that's where the wheel came from.

Ric Hern said...

@ Andrzejewski

Was that EEF not specifically from Hamangia (Proto-Cucuteni Tripolye) and not from the later stages ?

Slumbery said...

@Andrzejewski
If modern Uralic aren't overwhelmingly Siberian then it's hard for me to figure out who ARE, or what *phenotype* WSHG were. Lots of researchers are trying to pin Uralics as mostly EHG, but I don't believe so, because they are Siberian but not overwhelmingly derived from ANE, let alone speak a completely different language family. Their male Hap-Y is N1c1 (mostly), so that's another factor ruling them out as close to PIEs.

This is something that was discussed multiple times under recent posts.
Based on G25 nMontes:
1. All modern Uralic population in Europe are predominantly of "western" descent in their autosomal ancestry. All of them have at least 60% European ancestry, most of them more. (Sintashta ancestry counts as European in this context.) Only the Uralic populations that live in Siberia are predominantly Siberian.
2. All Uralic populations with significant Siberian ancestry have more BHG-like ancestry than WSHG.

I cannot follow your second sentence, so I cannot comment on it as a whole. By "they are Siberian but not overwhelmingly derived from ANE" you mean Uralics or EHG?
I don't know if Uralic languages are from EHG. Not my first hypothesis either, but the argument that an EHG language cannot be a completely different language family (completely different from IE?) is wrong. Really, why not? You assume that PIE itself was an EHG language then further assume that EHG was homogeneous linguistically at any point of its existence. For all we know they spoke different language families already 10 000 years ago.

Fanty said...

" I would rather call this Corded Ware language (Pre-)Proto-Balto-Slavo-Indo-Iranian"

"Indobaltic" would more fit the concept of how the language family names are done. Usualy the both extreme, geographical oposites.

Like Indoeuropean (both extreme ends: India and Europe), originally called "Indogermanic" (both extreme ends India and Iceland (Germanic)

So, a proto Satem langauge would logically be named "Indobaltic" or "Baltoindic" or something.

;-D

Andrzejewski said...

@Slumbery "I cannot follow your second sentence, so I cannot comment on it as a whole. By "they are Siberian but not overwhelmingly derived from ANE" you mean Uralics or EHG?
I don't know if Uralic languages are from EHG. Not my first hypothesis either, but the argument that an EHG language cannot be a completely different language family (completely different from IE?) is wrong. Really, why not? You assume that PIE itself was an EHG language then further assume that EHG was homogeneous linguistically at any point of its existence. For all we know they spoke different language families already 10 000 years ago."

I was answering someone (JuanRivera?) who claimed that Indo-European was of a similar phylum to Proto-Uralic, and I ruled it out both on linguistic grounds (almost ZERO lexical similarities) but also on genetic one. I was asserting that Finno-Ugric were NOT descendants of Eastern Hunter Gatherers but from other "Siberian N1c1" population. Speaking of Y-DNA, N1c1 is very different that the (likely) R1a1 and R1b ANE-derived.

I did have a hard time finding a MODERN population with a mostly WSHG in order to figure out what the Botai Culture (preceded Yamnaya in horse domestication) looked like, or what language affiliation they have to any modern one (or even an ancient one, like the Sumerian). I'm sorry if my argument wasn't very clear, articulate or eloquent.

Andrzejewski said...

BTW, that's why I'm not a fan of the "Indo-Uralic" term. There's nothing that could prove any real, tangible links between the Macro-languages. And now I am happy to realize that not only did the Maykop leave very little genetic trace in Yamnaya, and that its influence on the latter was limited to *cultural* rather than a *demic* one - there was no linguistic similarity whatsoever between the Maykop language (and also not the Kura-Araxes) and Proto-Indo-European. It's kind of a slap in the face to linguists like Johanna Nichols, who were promoting and propagating the so-called "Pontic theory", espousing that Proto-Indo-European and the Northwest Caucasus language family were part of the same phylum 12,000ybp.

Slumbery said...

@Andrzejewski

Sorry, your comment was addressed to me and I did not follow the entire discussion with others, so it was out of context for me.

Pretty much there is no modern population with anywhere near 50% WSHG, so it is hard to find a good modern proxy for their phenotype. I think Botai spoke a now extinct language family, but that is just guessing.

Slumbery said...

@a
Do modern day Jász [descend from the Alans] and modern day Ossetians fall under the same branch R-7822? Or are they closer to the Early R1b Sarmat sample?

I am not aware of any scientific study about the genetics of modern day Jász people in Hungary, so there is no statistically sound data. Given the heavy admixture the Jász people received in the last 700 years, it is anybody's guess whether my paternal lineage is from 13th Alan refuges or not.

That being said, comparing it to Family Tree DNA Ossetian DNA project's results, the R1b Ossetians (that are less than 10% of Ossetians samples) have about the same haplogroup as me, as far as the resolution of the respective tests go. They are all positive to CTS9219 under CTS7822 just like me. However this is still not enough branch resolution to be meaningful. CTS9219 is something like 5000 years old and that is the finest resolution of my data. It could as well come from Early Medieval Hungarian or even Bronze Age Balkan-IE, just to pick out a few possibilities.

The branch resolution of the Sarmatian R1b is also not sufficient to tell whether they were ancestral to modern Ossetian R1b or my Y-DNA or both or neither.

If you are interested, there are 50 Jász samples in the Family Tree DNA Hungarian Y-DNA database. Most of them completely different from the Ossetian ones. There is only 6 that are might-be matches (4 R1b and 2 G2a), but they have even worse branch resolution than my data.

So the final answer is: insufficient data. I do not thing this is important to the big questions on the table anyway, just picked up an interesting side discussion.

By the way, about the Caucasus ancestry of Alans and Ossetians.
G25 nMontes Alan
Fit: 1.269
Georgian Imer: 63.33%
Sarmatian: 36.67

G25 nMontes North Ossetian
Fit:2.721
Georgian Imer: 66.67
Sarmatian: 33.33

This suggest that Ossetians are not actually more Caucasus than Alans, but Alans already have a ton of Caucasus ancestry. (I did not use Chechens, because Chechens have Sarmatian ancestry.)

Andrzejewski said...

@Slumbery ". (I did not use Chechens, because Chechens have Sarmatian ancestry.)"

What explains perhaps why they look more European than the Georgians or the Armenians. I sort of suspect that what sets them apart as "Middle Eastern looking" rather than "European looking" by-and-large populations is their lack of 2 other sets of ancestry shared by Europeans: WHG and especially EHG. Most Georgians and Armenians seem descendant in equal measure from Anataolia_N and Sabsublia Caucasus HGs with a minor later Steppe admixture, whereas Europeans share WHG, Anatolia_N, CHG and EHG. Same goes to Middle Eastern populations from West Asia/Levant: Natufian (Levant_N) + Anatolia_N + Iran_Chal (or maybe CHG instead) but lacking in either WHG and EHG.

EastPole said...

@Fanty
“"Indobaltic" would more fit the concept of how the language family names are done. Usualy the both extreme, geographical oposites.

Like Indoeuropean (both extreme ends: India and Europe), originally called "Indogermanic" (both extreme ends India and Iceland (Germanic)

So, a proto Satem langauge would logically be named "Indobaltic" or "Baltoindic" or something.”

In such a case Indo-Slavic is definitely more logical, Slavs have lived west of Balts and have been much more populous.

@Andrzejewski

“@East Pole The "Iranic" influence is via the Scythian/Sarmatian/Alan who had subjugated the Slavs. Both were R1a1 but Scythians were warlike and despite what's called "Iranic", they had a very Europoid or even "Nordic" appearance.”

We have plenty of aDNA of Scythians, show me on PCA which Scythians subjugated the Slavs and had Iranic component.
Ossetians for example who are often linked with Alans don’t have any R1a at all, are autosomaly Caucasian and don’t have the word ‘bog’, which is, as most competent linguists agree, Slavic.
Notice that Slavs don’t have East Asian component so common among Scythians/Sarmatians and also don’t have their Y-dna. Scythians/Sarmatians were very diverse, very multicultural people and you don’t know anything about them.

George said...

The Late Scythians/Clasical Scythians were mixed the Greeks borowed the late Scythian word "Tyri/Tyran"(~Cheese) this was of Altaic(from Altaic language family) origin according to linguist Anna Dybo, before the Scythians in Pontic Steppe and in Hungaria were the Altaic Hypomolgians(Horse-milkers), the Hungarian early Iron age sample have mtdna G2a(from China) and Y-dna N1a(from Siberia or China)
Also possibly the proto-Germanic and proto-Celtic people borowed the word Mare(=Horse) from those Altaic Hypomolgians
Proto-Altaic *mori (Mongolian morin, Chinese ma, Japanese uma, also found in Irish marc, English mare)

The early Scythians were from west Iran and South Caucasus, Scythian first King the Partitava/Prototius was buried in Sakkez Kurdistan, mother of first Scythian King was Assyrian Princes.

Pogrebova Raevskiy "On the formation of early Scythian culture"
s52.radikal.ru/i135/1403/d6/0eed8b3e6362.jpg
Here you see the early Scythians between Abkhazia and Lurestan

Them meee said...

@EastPole

Balts used to be way more common (not necessarily more than Slavs but way closer) and got absorbed by Slavs, but Slavs are the westernmost so yeah...

Ebizur said...

Thai ม้า máa "horse" and Japanese uma "horse" are most likely loanwords from Chinese (an irregular and, therefore, probably relatively early one in the case of the Japanese form) or else loanwords from a common external source from which the Chinese word 馬 "horse" also has been borrowed. (Note the parallelism of the above with Japanese ume and Chinese méi "梅, Prunus mume.")

The Chinese/Thai/Japanese set probably should be considered as a monophyletic set distinct from Mongol & Manchu mori(n) "horse" and Korean mɔl > mal "horse." The Mongol and Manchu forms are clearly cognate (possibly through borrowing from one to the other), and the Korean form may also be related to those two through borrowing.

George said...

In Jaszsag Dna project there are 5 old Jasz surnames Kocsan Gogan Kocso Fakan Bartal their results , the old Jasz surnames have absolutely different results from other in Jaszag dna project

Kocsan is G2a1a1 (Eastern Slavs were naming Saltovo-Mayak people in eastern Ukraine as Yassi/Jassi, and Saltovo culture is G2a1a1)
Gogan and Kocso are I1 (the Crymean Goths the Gotalans and Tetraxites were Alanian speaking people)
Fakan is J1c3d* (have matches in Azerbaijan, should be from the same subgroup, the first known Alanian princes Satenik was attaking Armenia in 1 or 2 century BC from Azerbaijan and east Georgian territories)
Bartal is G2a or G1

a said...

@Slumbery
Do modern day Jász [descend from the Alans] and modern day Ossetians fall under the same branch R-7822? Or are they closer to the Early R1b Sarmat sample?

I am not aware of any scientific study about the genetics of modern day Jász people in Hungary, so there is no statistically sound data. Given the heavy admixture the Jász people received in the last 700 years, it is anybody's guess whether my paternal lineage is from 13th Alan refuges or not.

That being said, comparing it to Family Tree DNA Ossetian DNA project's results, the R1b Ossetians (that are less than 10% of Ossetians samples) have about the same haplogroup as me, as far as the resolution of the respective tests go. They are all positive to CTS9219 under CTS7822 just like me. However this is still not enough branch resolution to be meaningful. CTS9219 is something like 5000 years old and that is the finest resolution of my data. It could as well come from Early Medieval Hungarian or even Bronze Age Balkan-IE, just to pick out a few possibilities.

The branch resolution of the Sarmatian R1b is also not sufficient to tell whether they were ancestral to modern Ossetian R1b or my Y-DNA or both or neither.

If you are interested, there are 50 Jász samples in the Family Tree DNA Hungarian Y-DNA database. Most of them completely different from the Ossetian ones. There is only 6 that are might-be matches (4 R1b and 2 G2a), but they have even worse branch resolution than my data.

So the final answer is: insufficient data. I do not thing this is important to the big questions on the table anyway, just picked up an interesting side discussion.

By the way, about the Caucasus ancestry of Alans and Ossetians.
G25 nMontes Alan
Fit: 1.269
Georgian Imer: 63.33%
Sarmatian: 36.67

G25 nMontes North Ossetian
Fit:2.721
Georgian Imer: 66.67
Sarmatian: 33.33

This suggest that Ossetians are not actually more Caucasus than Alans, but Alans already have a ton of Caucasus ancestry.

The link between Eastern European,Poland Czech, Hungary and Ossetian is at R1b-Y5587 branch, Ossetians R1b-Y5586.
http://xydna.blogspot.com/2015/11/y-dna-ftdna-r-l277-tree-2015-11-30.html
It is interesting that Kecskemét the same branch of R1b is also found[judging by str's]might be a connection?
"The first archaeological trace of a human in the area is about five thousand years old. The Sarmatians invaded the area in the first century B.C.; since then the area has been continuously inhabited by a variety of cultures. János Hornyik, the first town historian, believed that the settlement known as Partiskum of the Sarmatian Jazygian was here...."

a said...

Comparing the different branches- Sarmat Pokrovka I0575/F38 Iran/Armenian Rise 397.

Sarmatia-R-Y20993*=Sarmatian-id:YF03134 I0575, Pokrovka,
R-KMS67+[Yamnaya] Also R-Y20993 modern day sample found in Tartarstan.
Iron age sample from Tepe Hasanlu F38 belongs to R1b1a2a2-CTS1078/Z2103-Zagros.. [downstream-L584+]
Armenian sample[1045-855BC] Rise 397 is R1b Z2106 CTS7763.

Andrzejewski said...

It wouldn’t surprise me if Yamnaya is not necessarily the “mother” of all IE cultures but just one of related para-PIE cultures who spread forth. I believe that CWC is not Yamnaya based but stems from Stredny Stog. I think SS was already Satemized; BellBeaker is a direct heir to Yamnaya

a said...

It will be interesting to see the carbon date and branch of R1b found in Hajji Firuz Tepe.If it turns out to be R1b-Z2105+ then compared to Yamnaya I0443 Z2105-.
Yamnaya Russia Lopatino II, Sok River, Samara [I0443/ SVP 57] M 3300-2700 BC R1b1a2a* (L23) L49+, L23+, PF6399+, L150+, L1353+, PF6509+, M269+, CTS12478+, L51-, Z2105- W3a1a

JuanRivera said...

As for Nivkh, here's a entry on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nivkh_language

JuanRivera said...

Other similarities between CK and PIE are animate and inanimate genders, nominative-accusative alignment, some case endings, some phonology correspondences and some more core vocabulary.

Daedra said...

@Davidski “@Davidski “So those ancient E1b1 samples weren't Indo-Aryans. Indo-Aryans are derived from R1a-rich Sintashta.”

So what were they then? If J2 Myceneans can be Indo-European (Hellenic) speaking then why can’t E1b1 Iron Age Swat be Indo-Aryan speaking (which is actually in line with history)?

EastPole said...

From David Reich’s article:

“Nevertheless, ancient DNA data has provided evidence that the Yamnaya were indeed a society in which power was concentrated among a small number of elite males. The Y chromosomes that the Yamnaya carried were nearly all of a few types, which shows that a limited number of males must have been extraordinarily successful in spreading their genes. In contrast, in their mitochondrial DNA, the Yamnaya had more diverse sequences.9 The descendants of the Yamnaya or their close relatives spread their Y chromosomes into Europe and India, and the demographic impact of this expansion was profound, as the Y-chromosome types they carried were absent in Europe and India before the Bronze Age but are predominant in both places today.”

https://medium.com/@NautilusMag/social-inequality-leaves-a-genetic-mark-3ce4afc1c19c

I understand that by close relatives of Yamnaya he means CWC who spread R1a-Z645 to India, which was absent there before the Bronze Age.

Daedra said...

@Zarzian “I doubt that the inhabitants of BMAC spoke Dravidian”

The topic of the language of BMAC is interesting, the Brahui who speak an isolate Dravidian language have the highest amount of BMAC ancestry on Global 25 nMonte.

Brahui

71.67% Gonur1_BA
17.5% Shahr_I_Sokhta BA3
10.83% Sintashta_MLBA
fit: 3.061

Davidski said...

@Daedra

So what were they then?

I don't know, I was mainly playing Devil's advocate for Georgie boy, who's starting to really annoy the crap out of me, but having said that, those Swat ancients generally look fairly unusual compared to present-day Indo-Aryans, so perhaps at least some of them spoke pre-Indo-Aryan languages, and/or non-Indo-Aryan languages that came with Indo-Aryan languages from BMAC?

The protohistoric Swat Valley "Indo-Aryans" might not be exactly what we think they are

It's possible that Indo-Iranian languages only totally dominated the region fairly recently, at the same time as when the local populations took on more modern genetic profiles and R1a rose to high frequencies there.

Andrzejewski said...

@East Pole ““Nevertheless, ancient DNA data has provided evidence that the Yamnaya were indeed a society in which power was concentrated among a small number of elite males. The Y chromosomes that the Yamnaya carried were nearly all of a few types, which shows that a limited number of males must have been extraordinarily successful in spreading their genes. In contrast, in their mitochondrial DNA, the Yamnaya had more diverse sequences.9 The descendants of the Yamnaya or their close relatives spread their Y chromosomes into Europe and India, and the demographic impact of this expansion was profound, as the Y-chromosome types they carried were absent in Europe and India before the Bronze Age but are predominant in both places today.”

———

Not just their (rather limited, ie R1b and also R1a1) Y-DNA Hap (all derived from EHG, ANE sources), which make me and @JuanRivera link them to other Siberiann-based ANE rich populations like Nivkh-Chukotko-Kamadatcha, (point is that both me and @Davidski claim that the PIE originally came from AG3 or its ilk and NOT from any CHC source); the Yamnaya mtDNA was rich in East-CWC (Poland, Czech Republic of today). All these findings make me proud that my culture (assuming that Poland’s population has been largely continuous with Poland_EBA) is overwhelmingly a direct descendant of Steppe populations (Yamnaya or a closely related R1a1 one, not necessarily Yamnaya per se), both on the uniparental Y-DNa but also on the MATERNAL side. This dinlstinguisges Slavic populations who are directly offsprings of East-CWC v. Germans and other Western Euros who are scions of Western-CWC and have therefore more Anatolia_N on the maternal side.

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

This distinguishes Slavic populations who are directly offsprings of East-CWC v. Germans and other Western Euros who are scions of Western-CWC and have therefore more Anatolia_N on the maternal side.

Nope.

Northwest Europeans, and especially North and East Germans are way closer to Poles and Russians in terms of ancient ancestry proportions, including Anatolian_N ancestry, than they are to the French, let alone Iberians and Italians.

On the other hand, Iberians and Italians are closer to Slavs from the Balkans than they are to Northwest Europeans.

Daedra said...

@Davidski

How exactly do they look ‘fairly unsusual’ for present Indo-Aryans when most present north-western Indo-Aryans literally derive the overwhelming majority of their ancestry from them? The Swat Valley samples are from 1400 BCE - 1 CE and the chance of a non-Indo Aryan language being spoken in the area during that time is nil.

Punjabi Khatri
      
fit: 1.4911
 
Udegram_IA: 87.5
Krasnoyarsk_MLBA: 6.67
Shahr_I_Sokhta BA3: 5.83

Punjabi Jatt
 
fit: 1.2992
 
Udegram_IA: 79.17
Krasnoyarsk_MLBA: 12.5
Shahr_I_Sokhta BA3: 8.33

Punjabi Gujjar
 
fit: 2.0728
 
Udegram_IA: 90.83
Shahr_I_Sokhta BA3: 7.5
Krasnoyarsk_MLBA: 1.67

Sindhi
 
fit: 2.9002
 
Saidu_Sharif_IA: 90.83
Shahr_I_Sokhta BA3: 6.67
Levant_BA: 2.5

North-Western Indo-Aryan languages (like Punjabi and Sindhi, along with Dardic) are also the closest to ancient Sanskrit. These samples definitely spoke Indo-Aryan languages, for this there is both historical and genealogical proof.

Davidski said...

@Daedra

The Swat Valley samples are from 1400 BCE - 1 CE and the chance of a non-Indo Aryan language being spoken in the area during that time is nil.

The chance of that is nowhere near nil for the earliest part of that time frame, from, say, 1400 BCE to 1000 BCE.

Burushaski is still spoken today just north of the Swat Valley. I'm pretty sure it didn't arrive there after 1 CE.

Andrzejewski said...

@davidski “Burushaski is still spoken today just north of the Swat Valley. I'm pretty sure it didn't arrive there after 1 CE.”

I wonder what language affiliation Burushaski has. It’s been confirmed that the Harappa Indus Valley civilization was NOT Indo-European.

Daedra said...

@Davidski

Funnily, Udegram_IA along with Loebanr_IA are both from that earliest time period (1400-1000 BC) and the Kalash (along with other NW Indo-Aryans), who speak the closest modern day language to ancient Sanskrit and practice a religion that is directly derived from Rig-Vedic folk religion, cluster close to and model very well with both of them. How is this not proof enough? It seems pretty conclusive from a variety of evidence that the Swat Valley people were the early Rig-Vedic Indo-Aryans.

Kalash

fit: 1.4413

Udegram_IA: 80.83
Sintashta_MLBA: 12.5
Sappali_Tepe BA: 6.67

Regarding the Burushos, their language Burushaski is hypthothesised to be descended from the Keltimenar culture and they have higher WSHG as compared to the Kalash. They can be modeled well with the SPGT but with significant additional East Eurasian to capture their Siberian like ancestry.

Davidski said...

@Daedra

I'm not claiming that the Swat ancients aren't closely related to present-day Indo-Aryans and other Indo-Iranians in the Swat region. Obviously they are.

But what you seem to be missing is that there was a genetic shift, or shifts, happening in the Swat Valley during and after the Iron Age, and this fact might have some very serious linguistic implications.

You're actually corroborating what I'm saying with the models that you're posting, because you're showing that to get from Udegram_IA to the Kalash, you have to add a significant amount of Sintashta and BMAC ancestry.

Kalash

fit: 1.4413

Udegram_IA: 80.83
Sintashta_MLBA: 12.5
Sappali_Tepe BA: 6.67

Andrzejewski said...

@Daedra "Regarding the Burushos, their language Burushaski is hypthothesised to be descended from the Keltimenar culture and they have higher WSHG as compared to the Kalash. They can be modeled well with the SPGT but with significant additional East Eurasian to capture their Siberian like ancestry."

I kinda thought so! So high WSHG plus language isolate might in theory make them closer to Botai? (I got fascinated with the latter after reading about them being the first one to domesticate the horse). I'm awaiting the papers concerning the Sumerian aDNA - my guess is that they might be somewhat distantly related.

Could it be that the WSHG looked like Kostenki Man? Food for thought...

When it comes to Kalash, some have theorized that their Europoid features and fair skin and pigmentation have something to do with Alexander the Great's soldiers, although I am in the opinion that they are remnants of the original Indo-Aryan population that has not admixed much with the Dravidian, Munda and other NON-IE natives of the Indian subcontinent.

Mike the Jedi said...

@ Dave

Not sure if you saw this or not already, but Willerslev's lab has given us the first ancient Australian genomes, which would be a great addition to the Oceanian section of the Global25:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/12/eaau5064

Don't know if the genotype data is available yet.

Davidski said...

@Mike

Yeah, missed that. I'll look into it after Xmas.

Ric Hern said...

Interesting, Y-DNA Haplogroups S1a and S1c and MtDNA Haplogroups M42c *, R12a *, R12b *, and M42a3.

JuanRivera said...

Wonder if samples containing S1b, S1d, S2, S3, S4 and S* are going to be found. Still nice that one of the prevailing clades (S1a) are recorded.

Daedra said...

While the Kalash have a higher frequency of occurence of light eyes/hair, the average Kalasha does not look ‘Europoid’ or European. This documentary shows good examples of Kalash phenotypes

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wXDOZ2YiXwM

They are not even that steppe shifted, most of their ancestry comes from BMAC farmers. Also, the non-IE Burushos have the same frequency of light eyes/hair so it may not even necessarily be related to IE ancestry.

weure said...

@ Andrzejewski "Now, speaking of Erteboelle Culture, it seems that the Hunter Gatherer I2a Erteboelle + EEF LBK merged to form the Funnelbeaker with its mixed forager/Farmer economy. When IE (R1a1 Rich Corded Ware + R1b Rich Bell Beaker) took over Funnelbeaker/Globolar Amphora and form the basis of the Proto-Germanic Branch, does it indicate that the uniqueness of this branch is because of the Satem (Corded) + Beaker (Centum) merger, or does it alternately indicate a pre-IE substrate?"

IMO n the western parts of the North European Plain (nowadays NW Germany, North Dutch), the development is as follows. Ertebølle (I2a) and Funnelbeaker (EEF like) were first replaced by Single Grave/ Corded Ware and then by incoming East Bell Beaker (partly mixed and rooted in Corded Ware of that region, see Lanting 2103).

But that was just a prelude during EBA the Tumulus related Sögel-Wohlde Kreis, related to Hungarian-Moravian area, rolled over. These kind of Tumulus cultures influence a broad area, Hessen (SW Germany), Northern France, Belgium, The Lows Land, NW Germany.

Note: in this kind of Tumulus culture we got a R1b U106 sample from Oostwoud, West-Friesland, dated 1881–1646 BC (Olalde 2017). Did the Sögel-Wohlde Kreis spread R1b U106 into North Dutch, NW Germany, Jutland?

Because specific the Sögel Wohlde Kreis (or phase) 1800-1500 BC influenced the North Dutch, Lower Saxony, Schleswig Holstein, deep into Jutland. Language is??? Northwest Indo European? Italo-Celtic? In any way they were the founding fathers of the language that Hans Kuhn called the NorthWest Block (neither Celtic nor Germanic). That theory is controversial. But nowadays it is stated by language theory profs. like Peter Schrijver that until the Roman Times the North Dutch spoke a language close to Brittonic (Schrijver 2017). It's nowadays mainstream in the Frisian history writing that the Germanization took place around the big migration, so with the influence of the Anglo-Saxon stream not only into England but also to the Northern Netherlands.

The development of German is IMO a NordicBronze Age c.q. Valsømagle culture (Southern Scandinavia) and Iron Age Jastorf product. The spread of some kind of NW Indo European language may be rudimentary in the Bell Beaker period, and definitely during the EBA by the Wohlde Kreis got during MBA a set and roll back. The influence of the Valsømagle culture set foot not only in Jutland, but even spread into the Lüneberger Heath and the Stad/ Elbe region. I guess in this Nordic contact zone: NW Indo-European and Northern Scandinavian/ Finnic/Saami kind of languages, the (proto) German language developed. And more defined during the Jastorf period and area, the Anglo-Saxons are in fact heirs of the Jastorf culture....

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 392 of 392   Newer› Newest»