search this blog
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Aesch25
During the early 3rd Millennium BC much of Central and Northern Europe was being infiltrated by pioneer herders, often young men, from the east associated with the Corded Ware culture (CWC).
In some important ways, this expansion may have been very similar to the European colonization of the more remote parts of the Americas during the 16th and 17th centuries.
For instance, the European newcomers weren't always able to dominate the indigenous peoples, and, sometimes, instead of trying to impose their culture on them, they accepted theirs.
I suspect that Aesch25, an ancient sample from the recent Furtwängler et al. paper on the social and genetic structure of the prehistoric populations of the Swiss Plateau, represents a similar case.
Aesch25 wasn't buried with grave goods so he wasn't given a cultural context in the said paper. However, dated to 2864-2501 calBC, he's the earliest individual in this part of Europe with the originally Eastern European Y-haplogroup R1b-M269 and a CWC-like genome-wide genetic structure.
Indeed, the other fourteen samples from the same burial site, dated to more or less the same period as Aesch25, are overwhelmingly of local Neolithic farmer origin.
In any case, irrespective of his cultural affiliation and life story, Aesch25 represents an important data point in the search for the homeland of the so called Bell Beakers who spread across much of Europe during the Copper Age. That's because most Bell Beaker males belong to R1b-M269 and are very similar to Aesch25 in terms of overall genetic structure, apart from an excess of Neolithic farmer ancestry.
My view is that the Bell Beakers were an offshoot of the Single Grave culture (SGC), the westernmost variant of CWC. Of course, the SGC was centered on what is now northwestern Germany and surrounds, and didn't reach into the Swiss Plateau. However, in all likelihood it was founded by men closely related to Aesch25.
Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on Global25 data featuring Aesch25 and several other individuals from the Furtwängler et al. paper. To view an interactive version of the plot, copy paste the data from the text file here into the relevant field here, then press Add to PCA. Also, you should copy paste each population separately to make sure that they don't form one grouping in the PCA key.
Aesch25 can easily pass for a CWC individual from what is now Germany (DEU_CWC_LN). On the other hand, the CWC samples from the Swiss Plateau (CHE_CWC_LN) are clearly shifted "south" relative to the German CWC cluster, which suggests that they harbor more Neolithic farmer ancestry. Indeed, they all belong to Y-haplogroup I2, which is especially closely associated with Middle Neolithic European farmers.
MX265, from Singen in southwest Germany, is the only sample in the Furtwängler et al. dataset that belongs to Y-haplogroup R1a. This is a somewhat unexpected outcome, because R1a is, overall, the most common Y-haplogroup in CWC males (see here).
Another surprise is that this individual is dated to just 763-431 calBC, which is a period that overlaps with the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures in Central Europe. Considering that these cultures are often associated with early Celts, was this person perhaps the speaker of a long lost Celtic language?
See also...
Single Grave > Bell Beakers
Dutch Beakers: like no other Beakers
Hungarian Yamnaya > Bell Beakers?
Hungarian Yamnaya predictions
The Battle Axe people came from the steppe
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
911 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 911 Newer› Newest»@mzp1
R1a and R1b were present in Europe since the Upper Paleolithic and CHG-like ancestry since at least the Mesolithic.
@mzp1: These are all stages and phases. One after another, with some clans surviving, spreading their lineages and never coming under the dominance of another. You have to look carefully for finding others for which this is true.
Cattle herding was adopted from the Western neighbours of the steppe people, I think this is pretty obvious from the archaeological point of view.
The steppe people as such resulted from a more CHG group being captured by EHG hunter warriors, my best guess is this happened in the Lower Don area, shortly after more advanced groups of CHG-like settlers arrived there, possibly introducing ovicaprids, waddle and daub constructions etc. This is when the Northern EHG hunters reached a new level and the steppe ancestry got its final form. They still didn't breed cattles at this point, but adopted it from their Western Neolithic neighbours some generations later.
The crucial point for the debate is that this this adoptions of Western Neolithic cultural practises did not result in a large scale genetic shift at all and the hunter warrior lineages, like at the point when they captured the more CHG influenced, more Southern leaning people, didn't change fundamentally. So it was the same male lineages dominating before assimilating the Eastern Southerners (CHG-like) and the Western farming technologies. At the end of this process, its still the same clans, the same people essentially, primarily with new female lineages and technologies. Even ideologically, there is more of a continuity of the hunter warrior than anything else.
There is no evidence for an arrival from East of the Caspian being of any greater importance at all.
@ Zardos
Its not that a disagree per se with what you're saying, its just that my analysis is a lot more detailed and less haplo-centric "muh R1b'.
As I have outlined, there is no such thing as an EHG language in 3000 BC. You need to grasp this. Just look at American languages, - even after excluding the more recent Greenlandic intrusions, there are so many which diversified after arrival with their ANE-containing ancestors in the Late Paleolithic, that some (very credible) linguists thought that such variety demands the Americas to have been colonized 50ky BP !
Secondly, if R1a-M17 and R1b-M269 did not come from the same location, then obviously one or the other needed to adopt the other's language (I dont know, maybe they did, maybe they did not). So we need a chain. Also, their great expansions occurred in the third wave after 3000 BC. The Balkan expansion occurred ~ 3800 BC, naturally not as geographically huge because its a different landscape
Thirdly, you for some reason keep ignoring the barrow grave cutures in Thrace, and their implications. I observe that I2a2a1b is a dominant in the Dnieper region during pre-Sredni Stog phase, is also found in ALPc (serving as a link between the Neolithic' and 'the steppe''), is found in Thracian Barrows, and potentially Ikiztepe. Let's see where else it shows up. If an R1b shows up here, it won't really change anything, and from what we've heard an R1a-Z93 or two might show up.
Now, I am happy to leave it here at the moment. As I said, anyone claiming to understand PIE must work with all the data, incorporate sociolinguistics, and generate a multi-modal understanding of the kurgan culture . .
Finding the location of CHG-EHG admixture is notsynonymous with understanding the genesis of PIE, you need to understand it as much as Harvard do - the difference between association and causation.
@Matt
Considering that you're a proponent of mainstream historical linguistics, at least judging by your comments above, how is it that you even considered the unusual idea that the affinity between the highly conservative Baltic languages and Sanskrit was mediated via (the non-existent) Iranian influence in Baltic?
This is one of the strangest suggestions that I have ever come across in this area of study, and obviously just a desperate attempt to take away attention from the R1a-related Bronze Age steppe link between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages. Despite this you don't seem to have any issues with it.
It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you defend historical linguistics when it suits you, and completely ignore it when it doesn't.
None of the historical linguists I’ve read have any issues with languages being adapted via networks; in fact they tend to be into that kind of stuff . And I think any sober HL will be malleable to data . Eg a cereal-poor economy is not, in fact, only found east of the Dnieper
So I don’t really know where Matt’s claims are coming from
@vAsiSTha
Y3* was found in Sredny Stog (I6561). L657 was not found outside of India in ancient dna yet. I suspect it will be found in Abashevo or maybe maybe Fatyanovo-Balanovo. But Abashevo looks like a better candidate now.
@Davidski
Are you aware of any other Y3+ or Y40+ (another parallel clade of Z2124 and L657 but quite rare) in ancient dna?
When you bake a cake you need all ingredients for it to be a cake after the baking process. All ingredients had to be in close proximity. Very important is that one ingredient on its own is not a cake.
@Coldmountains
Are you aware of any other Y3+ or Y40+ (another parallel clade of Z2124 and L657 but quite rare) in ancient dna?
I'm not but I'll ask around.
We're talking about PIE as a real language, but it's just a construct in the minds of linguists using the comparative method. Such a language probably never existed. The convergence of many dialects is more likely. When we understand this, we will stop arguing whether PIE was R1a, R1b, EHG, CHG or ANE.
@old europe
Corded Ware R1a-M417 isn't from the Dnieper area. From what I've heard, it's more likely to be from near Orlovka, just north of the Lower Don.
Davidski, there are certainly areal effects and convergences in linguistic innovations between Baltic and Indo-Iranian. Satem is the most famous one. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum_and_satem_languages -"since the early 20th century at least, the centum–satem isogloss has been considered an early areal phenomenon rather than a true phylogenetic division of daughter languages"). There are probably others. It's not a very unusual idea. So I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. Obviously I have never argued that all the archaic features of Baltic grammar are from influence.
Well, you did try to argue some crap that Indo-Iranian languages moved from the steppe across the Caucasus and Iran into India.
This obviously doesn't explain the close relationship between Baltic and Sanskrit, nor the influence of early Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages on Uralic, nor the fact that there's no genetic evidence of any such migration in Indian DNA.
@Davidski, there are quite a few different trees going on within historical linguistic reconstruction; I think some non-consensual ones may possible, and there are relationships between Indo-Iranian and Greek and Armenian which are not clearly explained by simply having II as a clade with BS until a later date. Trees where II clades with Greco-Armenian have been produced by some eminent experts, and I don't think it's some kind of horrible crime deserving of ire to so much as even present the possibility that II splits with GA and then similarities with BS are explained by contact effects.
There are also some reasonable grumbles to be had with paleolexical reconstruction. There is some debate to be had about that.
But this is irrelevant to the point of whether historical linguistics will ever swallow the idea that an entirely linguistically unattested linguistic expansion can be seen into the steppe by a movement of burial ritual, domesticates, etc, before the one that is reconstructed by historical linguistic methods, using actually attested languages (from the steppe). The likelihood seems to me (and I may be wrong) is that they (HL) will always go "OK, but we know of lots of movements of religion and material culture happen that are entirely unassociated with language expansions so....? This is all a fanciful story about *might* have happened, but as far as we know, nothing like this ever did, and there is no particularly strong evidence to say that it *must* have."
My comment was to caution "Old Europe", and any other readers with similar ideas on this possibility before it becomes his "White Whale". I know Rob has reacted strongly (and unavoidably) here as he has some similar ideas; I didn't really want to debate him on this given his extreme belligerence/trolling (let him debate Archi instead; they are well matched in argumentation style!), and was hoping that OE would respond instead.
@Rob: "As I have outlined, there is no such thing as an EHG language in 3000 BC."
Sure, I never said that or at least didn't wanted to say it that way. What I really wanted to say is that PIE was born largely from within EHG languages, of which one group played the decisive role, doing the steps necessary which led to the PIE society.
I'm not even saying that all steppe descendents spoke the same languages even if they shared elements of the genetic profile and culture, as we have seen this might not be the case looking at some BB branches in historical times. However, the chain is still unbroken from EHG clans taking over in the Lower Don region up to them expanding in all directions. Obviously the best proven link is R1a in Corded Ware and presumably in Usatovo, as well as Sintashta. The role of R1b clades might be more complicated, especially the BB case.
As for the barrows and the assimilation other lineages: That they show up, that other influences were incorporated in one region, doesn't make the case for a widespread elite dominance at the core of PIE. But its exactly that what we need, a widespread and continuing elite phenomenon. But such an even didn't take place at all.
@coldmountains
how was R-Y3 found in alexandria 4000bce when its formation date is 2700bce?
who made the determination of the calls?
@coldmountains
So Y3 is parallel to Y40, L657 and Z2124. Where are modern Y3 and Y40 concentrated?
@Ric Hern
“When you bake a cake you need all ingredients for it to be a cake after the baking process. All ingredients had to be in close proximity. Very important is that one ingredient on its own is not a cake.”
Exactly. The requirement that PIE homeland be located on “a plain near the highest mountains” which David Anthony reminded us about, is an important ingredient.
In practice it probably means that those highest mountains should be visible from PIE homeland or from some important religious center of this homeland.
Here we are: Tatri/Patri or “Father” the highest mountain range in Carpatian mountains is visible from Cracow:
https://www.national-geographic.pl/media/cache/photo_view_big/uploads/media/photo/0009/04/89842270747bbc79a43750b780adf0d40e8c333b.png
https://i.postimg.cc/SNw7SqBK/Tatry.jpg
pcw250 R1a R-Z645
pcw420 R1a R-M417 (xZ645)
pcw430 R1a R-M417 (xL664, FGC9988)
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?p=660299#post660299
That R1a rich CWC area around Cracow is very interesting. There the Bronocice pot was discovered, a ceramic vase incised with one of the earliest known depictions of a wheeled vehicle. It was dated by the radiocarbon method to the mid-fourth millennium BC.
TRB culture to which Bronocice pot is attributed was also using Corded ceramics so it probably had some early contacts with Dereivka Sredny Stog culture.
Another tasty ingredients are that in this area mead and beer were produced very early. Which explains why mead was so important to PIE.
Plus many linguistic arguments. But it is a huge area, so I give just one example.
https://i.postimg.cc/FscgRHpT/yontrew.png
Just as a sidenote to jątrew (yontrew) it can be noticed that verb ‘jąntrzy (yontri)’means also “to ignite fire”from root ‘*(y)on-tri’ ‘he is holding, scratching, rubbing’, ‘jądry’(yondri) meaning ‘strong, hard’ has been associated with Indra.
To sum up. West Slavic is the most archaic Slavic language and also the most archaic IE language. Helps to explain the etymology of many Sanskrit and Greek words, especially words related to religion.
Forget EHG or CHG as PIE, daughter means “milk maid’ in Polish (‘*doi-tri’, doiciela) and Sanskrit.
It all tastes well to me.
What are your Yamnaya ingridients? I have read some stories about wolves by David Anthony. Problem is there is nothing about it in Rigveda. In Polish folklore werewolfs live in the forests and steal children, so they are mainly used to scare children. They were probably Germanic ancestors of David Anthony, but no proof they were PIE.
@vAsiSTha
Yfull generally underestimates the age of clades by around 10-15%, so the date itself is plausible. Aaronbee on anthrogenica,I and some guy on molgen found him to be Y3+. David Anthony also mentioned last year that he was Z93+
"The currently oldest sample with Anatolian Farmer ancestry in the steppes in an individual at Aleksandriya, a Sredni Stog cemetery on the
Donets in eastern Ukraine. Sredni Stog has often been discussed
as a possible Yamnaya ancestor in Ukraine ... The single published grave is dated about 4000 BC ..and shows 20% Anatolian Farmer ancestry and 80% Khvalynsk-type steppe ancestry (CHG&EHG). His Y-chromosome haplogroup was R1a-Z93, similar to the later Sintashta culture and to South Asian Indo-Aryans, and he is the earliest known sample to show the genetic adaptation to lactase persistence (I3910 T)"
Interesting that Q1a didn't expand the way R1a and R1b. Also how do Q1b/R1b-M73/R2 play into the spread of ANE/WSHG?
@vAsiSTha, on a side topic, when it comes to CHG, I noticed that in a run you posted up, both Kotias and Satsurblia were shotgun.
Do you see any signs of a "shotgun effect" that might accelerate the degree to which K and S are related in f4 stats?
E.g. when you compared A: f4(Outgroup, Satsurblia.SG; Kotias.SG, X_Capture) and B: f4(Outgroup, Satsurblia.SG; Kotias.SG, X_Shotgun), do the stats with X as shotgun tend to be less negative?
For instance if you had X as Wezmeh_Cave as I think shotgun and Ganj_Dareh_N as a similar capture sample, or if had X with shotgun and capture version of Loschbour, Barcin, etc.
@Jatt_Scythian
Y3 and L657+ is today mainly restriced to South and Central Asia, where it peaks among Indo-Aryans, Dravidians, Baloch, Brahui and some East Iranics. It is also present among Uyghurs, Arabs, Iranians, Tatars and some other Turkic people.
But Y3+ and L657- was also found among Ukrainians, Brazilians and Turkic people.
Y40+ is much rarer than Z2124 and L657 but has a similar distribution (mainly restricted South and Central Asia) to Y3/L657 but unlike Y3 it was also found in the Balkan/Bulgaria and Italy. I read somewhere than Burusho are rich in Y40+. Hard to say with which Indo-Iranian group Y40+ can be linked but i guess all Z93 clades where present among early Iranics and Indo-Aryans
@Jatt_Scythian
Y3 is ancestral to L657 not parallel
@ Zardos
I share your interest in the LDC , but again, you're making a problematic link between LDC and Yamnaya, which are separated by over 2,000 years. Indeed, we barely have any Sredni-Stog samples.
I'd wait for data before imagining 'chains of unbroken dominance', but even if there was, at this stage I can neither agree nor disagree with priviliging it as the most important zone.
@coldmountains
rs529249366 snp at position 17801058 responsible for R-Y3 is missing from I6561. So idk how they determined he was R-Y3 +ve.
@vAsiSTha
Aaronbee and i got this for him
R-Z93:
Z2479/M746/S4582/V3664: 3/0
Z93/F992/S202: 0/0
FGC77882: 0/0
R-Z94:
Z95/F3568: 1/0
Z94/F3105/S340: 0/0
R-Y3:
Y3/F2597/M727: 0/0
Y26/M780: 1/0
R-Y2:
Y2/M723: 0/2
Y27/M634/V1981: 0/2
EastPole, the truth is that the only archaeological culture that can be unambiguously associated with Indo-Europeans is CWC.
@matt
W X Y Z f4 stderr Zscore BABA ABBA nsnps
Cameroon_SMA.DG Georgia_Satsurblia.SG Georgia_Kotias.SG Botai.SG -0.0125 6.85e-4 -18.3 39638 49583 793585
W X Y Z f4 stderr Zscore BABA ABBA nsnps
Cameroon_SMA.DG Georgia_Satsurblia.SG Georgia_Kotias.SG Botai -0.0124 6.92e-4 -17.8 31656 39538 638180
@ Samuel Andrews
"In 10,000 BC, there were four races in West Eurasia who were completely unrelated to each other, as unrelated as modern Europeans and East Asians."
Is this actually true? It sounds like nonsense.
@ EastPole
The only problem is that Corded Ware was significant Yamnaya-like genetically. Therefore R1b can not be excluded from the cake just like R1a can not be excluded.
@vAsiSTha: no differerence / no shotgun effect then. Any effect if you rotate the outgroup to present day Mbuti?
A wrote:
"
"In 10,000 BC, there were four races in West Eurasia who were completely unrelated to each other, as unrelated as modern Europeans and East Asians."
Is this actually true? It sounds like nonsense."
That is exactly what I thought. But then what do I know? I am not a geneticist. To put it crudely this sounds like black, white, yellow and brown people were living together in Western Asia just 10,000 years ago.
I think he was referring to a combination of EHG, CHG, WHG, EEF.
@epoch
"@Archi
You showed a book snippet assigning Aesch to the BB culture. I reckon that would be a part of the non-steppe, southern Eurpean BB culture, with communal burials? Is that based on the assignment of other megalith burials in the near vicinity?"
I suspect that the assignment of Aesch to the BBC was primarily based on the C14 dates obtained by the ETH Zürich in the 90ies, i.e. 2600-2400 BC. 2500 BC, that's when Bell Beaker culture is considered to start in central Europe. But now look at the fresh C14 dates in Furtwängler et al.: Aesch1 = 3090-2917, Aesch11 = 3011-2893, Aesch12 = 3010-2884, Aesch13 = 3016-2901, Aesch14 = 3014-2898, Aesch15 = 3013-2901, Aesch16 = 3090-2918, Aesch17 = 3011-2889, Aesch2 = 3011-2893, Aesch3 = 3078-2908, Aesch4 = 3094-2926, Aesch5 = 3017-2902. If these are actually Bell Beaker, then they are by far the earliest Bell Beaker samples in the world, and BBC originates from Northwestern Switzerland. More likely however that they belong to another culture, my guess: the Horgen culture.
I am really surprised no one has mentioned the appearance of mtDNA haplogroup B4c1b2c2 in the sample TU905 (SX18), dated to the Iron Age (178 BC-2 AD). How sure can we be with this papers calls then? The appearance of this marker simply seems impossible, are we sure there wasn't contamination or maybe low coverage with this sample? Anyone else have insight into this? MtDNA C would not be too surprising since it appears to have some connection to ANE/ANS, but mtDNA B4? This haplogroup only spikes in far Eastern Asia in countries such as Japan.
@Simon_W "I suspect that the assignment of Aesch to the BBC was primarily based on the C14 dates"
Nothing like that, don't fantasize, it's based on an archaeological context. This is a collective burial ground, so of course the entire burial ground could attributed to the BBC by the part of burials belonging to the BBC, but it just was attributed to the BBC long before radiocarbon dating.
Want UI also B4?
@vAsiSTha: Was lurking on anthrogenica and noticed in a thread you'd posted an example of a model output showing Wang's model for EEHG+CHG = Piedmont_En as failing (https://pastebin.com/dJwFeQHp).
Had a look at the qpAdm output and thought it was interesting as a good example of a failing model where the output gives useful hints for why it actually failed.
You're probably well aware of the following but thought may be interesting:
Looking at the section where it compares f_4(Base, Fit, right1, right2). This basically really means f4(pLeft target population, Model; pLeft source population, pRight non-base population. It shows some interesting properties.
I've graphically formatted the Z stats here: https://imgur.com/a/Sw8I3Qn
You can see that for the most part, the degree to which the model converges overly much with CHG relative to the pRight (negative stats, red), is matched by the degree to which it converges too little with EHG relative to the pRight (positive stats, blue).
So in theory to resolve these stats, the model could just assign more EHG ancestry and they would converge on zero.
But, there's one stat for which this doesn't work. The stat comparing model convergence to EHG relative to Ganj_Dareh_N is already too high, and the stat for convergence with CHG is about right. This means the model can't just add more EHG ancestry and make EHG+CHG model workable, as if it did, these stats would get even worse. And so, you'd need to then introduce something else; it can't fix this by altering proportions between its two pLeft sources.
There's another useful feature of the model output, which is the section with dscore:: f_4(Base, Fit, Rbase, right2). Like This basically really means f4(pLeft target population, Model; pRight base population, pRight non-base population. In this case, the base population is Mbuti. Again, it shows some interesting hints. Reformatted: https://imgur.com/a/LcNSpOx
So in this case we can see that the big stats where the model convergences more than the target with Mbuti outgroup are MA1 and Ganj_Dareh_N. This tells us that the model will need some sources with higher relatedness to North Eurasians and Iran N in particular, to succeed.
Two-way models seem to be quite to test in qpAdm this way; you can see which stats actually just wouldn't work by changing the proportions of the two source populations, in a way that's more transparent than having multiple populations in play!
@ Jatt_Scythian I am sorry but I am not sure what you mean. What even is UI? If this were a Cimmerian or even a Scythian/Sarmatian sample on the steppe, at this time frame, I would not be surprised but Switzerland?
@Simon Stevin
I'm not an expert for mtDNA, but that would be curious indeed. The autosomal Global25 data doesn't suggest any Japanese-like admixture in SX18 whatsoever.
@Archi
There's also the possibility that some burials were interred long after the original generation who errected the grave, which would be typical for Bell Beakers. What finds do exclude such a scenario? The style of the dolmen itself, the Schwörstadt type, is ascribed to the Horgen culture, 3400-2800 BC.
@Simom_W Thank you for the information. I find it to be very curious. As far as I know, there wasn’t any Scythian, Cimmerian, or Sarmatian presence in Switzerland or Central Europe in general for that matter, especially at that timeframe, though I suppose anything is possible. This is why I believe it to be an error.
Simon Stevin said... "Simom_W Thank you for the information."
This study is so bad that nothing is shown there, there is no normal ADMIXTURE and qpADM is the most primitive. Therefore actually the given statement does not mean anything. There is nothing shown for this sample.
@Ric Hern
“When you bake a cake you need all ingredients for it to be a cake after the baking process. All ingredients had to be in close proximity. Very important is that one ingredient on its own is not a cake.”
“The only problem is that Corded Ware was significant Yamnaya-like genetically. Therefore R1b can not be excluded from the cake just like R1a can not be excluded.”
I am not excluding anything. Yamnaya-like genetic component is one important ingredient, so it is not a cake. What are the other ingredients of your cake? Tell us what your cake is made off. Let’s compare or taste various cakes, which one is the richest and tastes best.
@matt
your post is gold for someone who wants to understand f4 and qpAdm in general.
I always use gen dstats to get a clue about why the model failed. Sometimes it is not that clear.
When i tested wangs model, the gendstats said that the optimal model needed more Iran_N and MA1, like you laid out above. vahaduo also preferred some turan admixture.
So i added geoksyur as a 3rd source and the model worked. result -https://pastebin.com/VpH4djLj
Only issue was that qpAdm preferred geoksyur over CHG, 50:50 EHG:Geoksyur passed and no CHG was required.
Therefore i decided to add Satsurblia to right pops to give a chance to CHG, and the result then ended up matching vahaduo.
Thanks, though you'd already be wise to that!
One other thing I noticed btw that may be of interest during your discussion with Kale on Anthrogenica was at one point you were replicating a model he produced of AG3+EHG+CHG for Piedmont_En, produced similar proportions, only you got a far lower tail P than his model produced (I think this was a model with allsnps=NO set). I had a look at what was systematically different between the runs.
A: it looked like the differences were that he had far fewer individuals in his sets for many pops, though the available SNPs were similar (possibly he has selected to use fewer high coverage individuals only?)
B: What looks possibly more important is it looks like he is using a much older version of qpAdm, v634, where you are using v1000. It seems like the output for these runs on v634 and v1000 is quite different for the f4rank sections. The output in your v1000 run seems a lot more similar to the sort of example output Harney lays out in her supplementary qpAdm guide (https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/qpAdm_Harney_SupplementaryMaterials_biorxiv.pdf) running v1010. These are matrices that form the core of how qpAdm functions.
I'm not entirely sure what the effect of any change in code here is (and can't find a version log for qpAdm that has any discussion) but there is presumably some reason for this change and possibly it may be advised for others (Kale etc) to use the latest version.
@Matt "only you got a far lower tail P than his model produced"
Because he doesn't have CHG, he has Kotias_CHG, and Satsurblia_CHG is used an outgroup for CHG. What's it called, my father's not my dad(( lol
UI is Ust'-Ishim.
@Matt
Apart from the version difference, Kale's model also had 200k SNPs used vs 258k for my model. hence my p value was lower than his.
Apart from that, minor differences such as - his ehg had 3 samples, mine had 2 from karelia. he used onge.dg, i used ong.sg. he usd 4 sunghir, i used 1 sample. he used ANA, i dont know what that is so i used the east asian Boisman thinking it could be ancient american.
Even if 2 models completely match, theyre using the same database and version etc, it wont surprise me if the p-values come out different on diff computers. After all, Harney had a uniform distribution of p values in 5000 runs for the optimal model with 5% being falsely rejected.
vAsiSTha said... "Apart from the version difference, Kale's model also had 200k SNPs used vs 258k for my model. hence my p value was lower than his."
The man does not understand anything about the methods he uses. He makes up a complete absurdity on the move. It's a terrible shame.
@ Simon W
“
I suspect that the assignment of Aesch to the BBC was primarily based on the C14 dates obtained by the ETH Zürich in the 90ies, i.e. 2600-2400 BC. 2500 BC, that's when Bell Beaker culture is considered to start in central Europe. But now look at the fresh C14 dates in Furtwängler et al.: Aesch1 = 3090-2917, Aesch11 = 3011-2893, Aesch12 = 3010-2884, Aesch13 = 3016-2901, Aesch14 = 3014-2898, Aesch15 = 3013-2901, Aesch16 = 3090-2918, Aesch17 = 3011-2889, Aesch2 = 3011-2893, Aesch3 = 3078-2908, Aesch4 = 3094-2926, Aesch5 = 3017-2902. If these are actually Bell Beaker, then they are by far the earliest Bell Beaker samples in the world, and BBC originates from Northwestern Switzerland. More likely however that they belong to another culture, my guess: the Horgen culture”
There are 2 different phases of burial activity
1st- all the collective burials . Horgen culture or whatever
2nd- reuse by the proto -BB guy
So it does suggest that the earliest BB is forming in the Rhine - Upper Danube region
@Jatt_Scythian Ust’-Ishim man belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup K2a* and mtDNA haplogroup R*. Tianyuan man belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup K2b and just mtDNA haplogroup B. This individual belongs to a more modern, far East Asian derived subclade and is from Iron Age Switzerland of all places. To me there was most likely some mistake or typo committed here in the nomenclature.
@vAsiSTha
You won't see any migrations from Central Asia or Iran to the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the Neolithic or Eneolithic.
All you'll see are some sporadic contacts between the populations of the Eneolithic steppe and nearby parts of the Caucasus.
You'll have to accept this eventually. The quicker you do it, the less time you'll waste fooling yourself and making a fool of yourself online. All the best with that.
@Simton Stevin,
"B4c1b2c2 in the sample TU905 (SX18), dated to the Iron Age (178 BC-2 AD). "
"The appearance of this marker simply seems impossible,"
The mtDNA files from this Swiss paper are available. I looked at all of them. TU905 really does carry B4c1b2c2. But, I believe her mtDNA is contaminated by an Asian researcher who handled her bones.
Her autosomal DNA is 100% European, basically identical to Iron age Latins in Central Italy during the same time period, so she appears to be from an Italic or Raetic pop living in Switzerland. No signs of Asian ancestry.
B4c1b2 is basically exclusive to SE Asia, is especially common is Malayasia and Tawian. There's no way ancestry from that area was carried into Iron age Western Europe. This is contamination for sure.
@A,"Is this actually true? It sounds like nonsense."
It isn't true. Harvard lab says it is true I don't. They say Meso/Neo West Eurasians were not related to each other which isn't true. They base the claim on fst stats which can't be used to accurately measure deep ancestral relationships.
There was significant common ancestry between EEF and WHG for example going back to the Upper Paleolithic like 35,000 years ago.
On the other hand, Europeans and East Asians might not have any common ancestry in the last 60,000 years.
Dave: "You won't see any migrations from Central Asia or Iran to the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the Neolithic or Eneolithic.
So, how do you explain this (Kulkova e.a., p. 75)
https://conferences.au.dk/fileadmin/conferences/2017/RadiocarbonAndDiet/RadiocarbonAndDiet2017_BookOfAbstracts.pdf
"The development of domestication in the forest-steppe zone of the Volga region can be explained by the appearance of Pricaspian and Khvalinian cultures from southern regions. (..) The Lebjazhinka III site is one layer site. The bones of (..) camel (..) were found (..). This site belongs to the Samara culture and it’s age is from 5300 to 4520 cal BC. "
Yeah, certainly, the camels migrated by themselves from Central Asia to Samara, to be hunted there. That camel migration clearly doesn't have anything to do with the arrival of pastoralists from the South (the Orlovka Culture region in Anthony's terminology).
Interesting is also that no pig/boar bones were found in Lebjazhinka III, and AFAIK also not in any other Pricaspian / Khvalynsk/ Samara sites. Pigs were the main domesticate in Darkveti-Meshoko, main hunting prey in the Crimean Mesolithic and at Kotias Klde, and are reasonably well attested from the Balkans Neolithic, the Middle Dniepr Sursk Culture, and Shulaveri-Shomu. One Near Eastern Neolithic culture, however, didn't know pig breeding: Jeitun. And Kelteminar, to the extent they were already pastoralists as proposed by some researchers, equally lacks evidence of pigs/boars.
And then, of course, there is the issue of bifacially-retouched "leaf-shaped" points, for which Khvalynsk is famous (see my comment towards the end of the previous thread). Simultaneously with Khvalynsk (actually already the Pricaspian Culture, including its appaearance on the Lower Don around 5,000 BC), such points are also found in Djebel (W. Turkmenistan), and the Atbasar Culture in N. Kazakhstan, plus Botai, which succeeds Atbasar sometime during the mid-5th mBC. They even made it to E. Mongolia (poorly dated, but most likely roughly attributable to the Eneolithic).
@Frank
The stray camel bone, even though an interesting find, is irrelevant.
Khvalynsk has southern ancestry from a population like that at Progress 2. That is, from the steppes just north of the Caucasus.
There's no sign of any significant Central Asian or even Siberian ancestry in Khvalynsk. And, in any case, Yamnaya doesn't derive from Khvalynsk, but from a similar population to the west, probably Sredny Stog.
If you're desperate for some exotic influence in the people of the Eneolithic steppe and Yamnaya, then the best you should hope for is a bit of Meshoko and maybe Maykop admix.
I know, right, such a dull outcome. No massive migrations from Iran or Turan. But you'll get over it.
Otherwise, we have two important agricultural innovations that originate on the Iranian Plateau:
1. Wool sheep, and
2. Light-sensitive (late flowering) barley, better adapted to non-Mediterranean climates than the light-sensitive strains domesticated in the Levante and N. Syria.
As concerns wool sheep (and also the spread of sheep-breeding to E. Asia), there's a couple of DNA studies available that demonstrate a spread out of Iran/Caucasia during the 5th mBC, a/o along the Volga to ultimately Finland. The trail has so far remained unclear - it may have lead through the Caucasus, but equally through Central Asia. Unfortunately, so far no analysis of sheep aDNA seems to have been conducted, which could provide further clarification.
Nevertheless, PIE *h₂wĺ̥h₁neh₂ "wool" is present in all branches except for Tocharian, and might as such be considered at least as, if not more significant to PIE culture as "horse and Wheel" terminology.
Light-sensitive barley has somewhat less well been researched aDNA-wise. However, archeology has clearly demonstrated that during the EN, barley cultivation mainly restricted to the Mediterranean but was of little relevance to LBK. The situation changed somewhat with Michelsberg, when barley accounted for up to 25% of the grain recovered from some sites. However, the real break-through in Central Europe came with Single Grave, especially in Denmark; Danish Single grave appears to almost exclusively have cultivated barley. Subsequently, barley also became the dominating crop for Unetice. Further to the south-east, (non-light-sensitive) barley was instrumental for Sioni and afterwards Kura-Araxes colonising higher altitudes.
Obviously, there are still some links missing between KA and Danish SG barley cultivation, but the contemporaneity of both phenomena is IMO more than just accidental.
@Frank
The problem is that you're making inferences about human population movements based on camel bones, wool and crops, but not human DNA.
The Samara, Khvalynsk, Yamnaya etc. populations didn't have any ancestry from Central Asia. It was all local stuff native to the Caspian steppe and North Caucasus that gelled together as people in the neighborhood became more mobile.
Regarding camels: there are no indications that camels at Lebyazhinka were domesticated, they could have been wild camels. In fact, accepted dates of domestication of camels are later than 4000 BC. Moreover, in the past native range of camels included southern Russia, for example there are Paleolithic images of two-humped camels in Ural and Siberia: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352226719300741
Dave: "Khvalynsk has southern ancestry from a population like that at Progress 2.
Yep!
"That is, from the steppes just north of the Caucasus."
No! It's from the Lower Don, and the Lower Volga. Anthony refers to the latter as "Orlovka Culture", but I'd rather stay with Russian archeologists, who call it the Pricaspian Culture. Importantly, while Anthony seems to want to restrict his Analysis to the Lower Volga, the Pricaspian Culture was in fact a phenomenon that united both the Lower Don and Lower Volga.
So far, I feel that - terminology aside - you and I aren't far apart.
The big question now is: Where did the Pricaspian Culture orignate from? All researchers agree that it didn't evolve locally, but represents a major break both as concerns lithics, and by introducing pastoralism. Obviously, this major cultural change means immigration. From all that has transpired so far, these immigrants were heavy on CHG, meaning they didn't arrive from the Balkans / Ukraine. This essentially leaves two possibilities, namely the Caucasus, and Western Central Asia.
AMS dating may provide some help in this respect. So far we have dates for the Pricaspian Culture from the Lower Volga (ca. 5,000 BC), but not yet from the Lower Don. My feeling, when looking at the available dates from Rakushechny Yar, is that the Pricaspian Culture arrived earlier on the Volga than on the Don, which would point towards a Central Asian origin. If it turns to be the other way around - fine.
In the absence of such chronology, we need to look towards other features. You have repeatedly stated that you deem a Trans-Caucasian migration unlikely - why just transfer sheep/goat breeding, not the full ShuSho package including pig breeding and cereals. I fully agree, and would actually add that ShuSho / Sioni had a completely different lithic assemblage, e.g. lacking bifacially-retouched "leaf-shaped" points.
Where does that observation take us, then? Obviously, to NW Central Asia, as a working hypothesis. Once we get aDNA from W. Turkmenistan (Djebel etc.), Kelteminar or similar, this working hypothesis may be confirmed or refuted. But as long as such aDNA isn't available, no-one (you included!) will be able to rule out that option.
If Anthony actually made the claim that the Orlovka people were CHG, then he was just speculating and he'll be proven wrong.
There was a cline in terms of the ratios of CHG and EHG ancestries in the populations from the North Caucasus to the Lower Don during the Eneolithic and probably earlier.
But these were foragers and they only occasionally mixed with people from the Caucasus proper, where Anatolian ancestry was already present at least 4,500 BCE.
So this idea that Khvalynsk or Yamnaya have anything to do with Central Asia is a fantasy.
@rozenfag: Archeofaunal assemblages from the Lower/ Middle Volga and the Pontic-Caspian (forest-)steppe have been extensively studied. I have gone through various respective reports - this Lebyazhinka find of camel bones is the first and only one ever reported for the Mesolithic to BA (sometimes during the LBA or IA, domesticated camels were introduced to the Astrakhan area). There seems to be general agreement that camels were never native to European Russia. Siberia is a different case (though note that your link refers to before the Younger Dryas, which in general affected various habitats).
The question of when and where camels were domesticated isn't yet fully answered. K. Szymczak, based on up to 75% camel bones in Kelteminar assemblages, clearly speaks out in favour of camel domestication by Kelteminar sometimes during the 6th mBC, F. Brunet seems to be at least sympathetic to this theory. Other authors have remained more sceptic.
Kapova cave has a painting of a camel.
@vAsiSTha, yeah, there is difference in SNPs and could be a difference from runs; I'm more interested in any systematic difference in runs because that gets us more towards standardised methodology. Which gets us away from people hunkering down around runs they like the results and then shouting down and insulting each other, and asserting they are correct with no effort to test themselves. Which is pretty boring, and also would look pretty ridiculous to anyone coming from the science looking in.
@FrankN
This is the complete quote you cited:
he Lebjazhinka III, VI sites have differ-ences from other. The Lebjazhinka III site is one layer site. The house’s remains with pottery sherds, stone and bone tools were studied. The bones of wild animals such as elk, roe deer, primitive bull, camel, bear, badger, otter, beaver, hare, turtle were found as well as the bones of birds and fish. The main food resources of people in this site were the wild animals. This site belongs to the Samara culture and it’s age is from 5300 to 4520 cal BC.
I'd say you could just as easy say that this is proof that there were wild camels in the vicinity of Samara bench, which 400 km west of Kapova cave.
@FrankN
Yes, there were bones of domesticated animals as well:
The bones of marten, beaver, elk, bear, wolf, fox, hear, badger, otter, marmot are prevailed among the wild animal bones. The domestic types are presented by cattle (Bos taurus) and small cattle (sheep or goat- Ovisaries/ Capra hircus). There are the bones of horse (Equus caballus) also. But there is unclear whether they are domestic or wild.
@ FrankN
Even if Wool Sheep came from South of the Caucasus and reached Finland at 4200 BC. There is not a trace of a human migration which accompanied those Wool Sheep all the way to Finland. So sheep husbandry was adopted by various Cultures along the way to Finland if this data is accurate. Basically just like Cattle husbandry was adopted...
If they did, they would have come with Majkop
Interesting, the Trialeti Petroglyphs from Georgia also had camel figures.
https://agenda.ge/en/news/2017/2605
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trialeti_petroglyphs
@FrankN
" Yeah, certainly, the camels migrated by themselves from Central Asia to Samara, to be hunted there."
You'd be surprised, but there were camels there back then. Even in the Kapova cave in the Urals, which belongs to the Paleolithic, there is image of camels who lived there.
@Davidski
" Khvalynsk has southern ancestry from a population like that at Progress 2. That is, from the steppes just north of the Caucasus."
The Khvalynsk culture has no origin from territories close to the Caucasus.
On the contrary, all Neolithic cultures of the territories adjacent to the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea from the north die with the onset of the Eneolithic, leaving no descendants, they have no continuation, they are replaced by cultures with clear northern forest attributes.
The Khvalynsk culture reached not only the North Caucasus, but also the eastern Caspian Sea.
@FrankN
"Anthony refers to the latter as "Orlovka Culture", but I'd rather stay with Russian archeologists, who call it the Pricaspian Culture"
The Orlovka culture and Pre-Caspian culture are completely different cultures. The first is Neolithic, and is also called Seroglazovskaya culture, and the second is Eneolithic, and they are not related.
"Obviously, this major cultural change means immigration. From all that has transpired so far, these immigrants were heavy on CHG, meaning they didn't arrive from the Balkans / Ukraine. This essentially leaves two possibilities, namely the Caucasus, and Western Central Asia."
I have not heard of such a version, I only read that it is clearly formed by the northern forest population. Exactly, it's got all the pottery from the north.
"The question of when and where camels were domesticated isn't yet fully answered. K. Szymczak, based on up to 75% camel bones in Kelteminar assemblages, clearly speaks out in favour of camel domestication by Kelteminar sometimes during the 6th mBC"
And what kind of bones should there be if there are only wild camels there and only they could be hunted?
Samuel Andrews wrote,
"The mtDNA files from this Swiss paper are available. I looked at all of them. TU905 really does carry B4c1b2c2. But, I believe her mtDNA is contaminated by an Asian researcher who handled her bones.
Her autosomal DNA is 100% European, basically identical to Iron age Latins in Central Italy during the same time period, so she appears to be from an Italic or Raetic pop living in Switzerland. No signs of Asian ancestry.
B4c1b2 is basically exclusive to SE Asia, is especially common is Malayasia and Tawian. There's no way ancestry from that area was carried into Iron age Western Europe. This is contamination for sure."
Regarding the B4c1 clade of human mtDNA, the following can be found in the supplementary materials for a paper by Andreia Brandão, Khen Khong Eng, Teresa Rito, et al. (2016), "Quantifying the legacy of the Chinese Neolithic on the maternal genetic heritage of Taiwan and Island Southeast Asia":
"Haplogroup B4c1
mtDNA haplogroup B4c has a pre-LGM Northern Asian origin, followed by a later distribution of its major subclade B4c1 and minor subclade B4c2 (Derenko et al. 2012). B4c1 is broadly frequent throughout East Asia and SEA (Fig. S1). It splits into two further subclades: a minor Japanese offshoot, B4c1c, and a second major subclade, B4c1a‟b, incorporating B4c1a, displaying a clear Northeast Asian ancestry centred on Japan, and B4c1b which, by contrast, is prominent throughout Malays, Filipinos and aboriginal Taiwanese. Within B4c1b, the subclade B4c1b2 – more specifically the branch B4c1b2a2, dating to ~8 ka (8.0[5.6; 10.5] ka) (Table 1) – is by far the most frequent lineage in Taiwan and ISEA, suggesting an ancestry within those regions.
Soares et al. (2015), based on mtDNA HVS-I data, suggested that B4c1 could represent a genetic marker for the OOT model. At the whole-mtDNA genome level, only one subclade of B4c1b2a2 is found in Taiwan, whereas several exist in ISEA, including the branch that appears in Taiwan (detected in the Philippines). This evidence points to an origin in ISEA and a northwards migration. Using an exploratory founder analysis, considering ISEA and Taiwan as hypothetical source and sink populations and vice versa, we estimated a founder age of ~1 ka (1.0 [0.3; 1.7] ka) in Taiwan and 7.6 [4.9; 10.4] ka in ISEA, emphasizing that an origin in Taiwan is very unlikely. The increment ~6 ka in the BSP (Table 2), as for B4b1 above, does not clearly distinguish between an OOT or a postglacial expansion. The age of B4c1b2a at 14.5 [6.4; 23.1] ka indicates that the clade entered ISEA between 15 ka and 8 ka, a pattern similar to the more common B4a1a1 (Soares et al. 2011).
In fact, the B4c1b2a2a subclade (defined here) is the only Taiwanese branch of B4c1, and is found only in the Yami. These people, also known as Tao, are native to the small outlying Orchid Island in Taiwan and are distinct from other Taiwanese aboriginal groups as the only non-Formosan Austronesian speakers among Taiwanese aborigines. The languages of Yami belong to the Batanic sub-branch of the Western Malayo-Polynesian branch, which comprises all of the Austronesian languages spoken outside Taiwan(Blust 2009), suggesting a recent migration from the Philippines. This hypothesis is supported by the recent founder age ~1 ka as calculated above. Given the overall pattern, B4c1b2a2 appears to constitute a genetic signature of the reticulated network of cultural/linguistic relationships between Orchid Island and Philippines previously described by Ross (Ross 2005). Considering that B4c1b2a2 is not defined by any HVS-I variants, the diversity detected outside ISEA was probably part of B4c1b2a* which allowed the clade to be considered a founder into ISEA in the HVS-I founder analysis (Soares et al. 2015) under the founder analysis criteria for derived clades in the source (Richards et al. 2000). This reinforces the need to study phylogeographic patterns at the whole-mtDNA level for optimal results."
In the PhD thesis (January 2014) of Ken Khong Eng, one of the authors of the paper that I have quoted above, mtDNA that belongs to haplogroup B4c1b2 has been found in 3/109 Northeast Peninsular Malay, 4/98 Northwest Peninsular Malay, 4/56 Southeast Peninsular Malay, and 10/34 Southwest Peninsular Malay. There is apparently a hotspot of B4c1b2 mtDNA among Malays somewhere in the southwestern part of the Malay Peninsula. However, I expect that all (or nearly all) of the B4c1b2 mtDNA among Malays should belong to the typically Austronesian B4c1b2a2 subclade.
B4c1b2c2 (and, in fact, the entire B4c1b2c clade) seems to be from some population of China (perhaps originally proto-Daic people from the lower Yangtze basin). I would say that it is Chinese (though perhaps not originally ethnic Chinese/Han) rather than authentically Southeast Asian.
If it is not merely a result of contamination by some researcher of presumably Chinese matrilineal ancestry, I wonder whether it might be connected somehow to the presence of N9a3a and M33c among modern European Jews. Those haplogroups seem like they might have originated in roughly the same area as B4c1b2c2. Unfortunately, mtDNA probably cannot provide resolution high enough to distinguish between a hypothesis of a common ancestry between European (Jewish) and East Asian members of these clades dating to the Iron Age versus a hypothesis of a common ancestry dating to some time in the first or second millennium CE.
@davidski
It's fun to watch you squirm. Central Asian contact with the steppe is a certainty, and with time you will come to accept it and not fear it.
@matt
The only solution to that is more and more (sane) people using qpAdm and posting results so consensus can be built.
Could the reason for Progress picking some Geoksyur ancestry be due to Geoksyur having some kind of a Steppe signal?
https://i.imgur.com/gtZDbKG.png
CrM said...
"Could the reason for Progress picking some Geoksyur ancestry be due to Geoksyur having some kind of a Steppe signal?"
There is an increase in EHG, naturally, it cannot increase from later components
Mbuti.DG EHG CHG Iran_N -0.026170984 -6.02495 0.0043438
Mbuti.DG EHG CHG Iran_LN -0.026942417 -5.41436 0.0049761
Mbuti.DG EHG CHG Iran_ChL -0.009127401 -2.64254 0.0034540
Mbuti.DG EHG CHG Iran_recent 0.001469850 0.31987 0.0045951
I have no dog in the fight and couldn't care either way if steppe cultures had Central Asian ancestry but are we getting any ancient dan from Central Asia (and South Asia for that matter) soon?
The reason Geoksyur gets picked is because Central Asia was colonized from the west during the Neolithic.
Similar populations that colonized Central Asia lived on the southernmost steppe and in the North Caucasus.
vAsiSTha doesn't want to accept this because it ruins his fantasy. But he'll have to accept it sooner or later when it's shown directly with ancient DNA.
@crm, personally, I don't think so, as seems to me to show some replication in patterns of outgroup f3 stats with samples with no later steppe ancestry. Just seems like patterns in f3 are better fit by being about 60-70% EHG+CHG with remaining balance from in rough order WestSiberiaN, IranN, Barcin. Seems just most likely that Piedmont_En not totally isolated from wider regional "reproductive networks", though there is no clear reason to think further ancestry arrived in a sudden pulse recent to the time of Piedmont_En, rather than low level ongoing geneflow over thousands of years since time of Kotias.
From what I've been able to learn, those Progress/Vonyuchka-like populations lived much further north than the Piedmont steppe already around ~5,000 BCE.
But they were absorbed and replaced across much of their range rather suddenly by migrants from the east and south associated with the Maykop expansions.
Yamnaya must be from the Progress/Vonyuchka-like groups that survived somewhere north of this zone, because it lacks obvious Maykop and Steppe Maykop ancestries.
Its Anatolian ancestry is definitely from something like GAC, not Meshoko or Maykop.
A quick (or lengthy) go at explaining my comment to crm about why outgroup f3 stats seem to indicate to me that Piedmont_En doesn't just have CHG+EHG ancestry.
Method: I took a set of f3 outgroup stats for the "standard outgroups" that are commonly used for qpAdm. See - https://imgur.com/a/QPJdj1v. Rows are the outgroups, columns are the source populations.
If you then drop this into Correspondence Analysis function in PAST3, it summarizes that data as a space where samples have pretty much the expected position we'd expect them to have based on ancestry proportions. See here: https://imgur.com/a/DBEH12Q
In Axis 2, the Piedmont_En column has a position close to a column made from about 50:50 EHG:CHG. But then in Axis 3, this shows that EHG+CHG would be too close to WHG and CHG relative to what Piedmont_En is: https://imgur.com/a/fuwJvld
I know this is kind of a non-standard method, but it does produce expected outcomes for the admixture clines we have well characterised (like MN Europe, admixed European LNBA, Yamnaya with an excess of WHG+Anatolian ancestry, Khvalynsk almost exactly intermediate Piedmont_En and EHG) so I'm happy enough to work with it (since it gives the right results in the known cases).
In the same space, I've added on orange line to the plot as the Barcin-> EuroHG cline : https://imgur.com/a/6Wi2XMz . This seems to indicate to me that Yamnaya_S can't probably be as well explained as EHG+CHG+EuroHG+Anatolian, as Piedmont_EN+EuroHG+Anatolian (and Yamnaya S looks to get EuroHG from a population with far higher EuroHG:Anatolian than European MN farmers had).
(It looks to me more like Yamnaya_Samara is basically the Piedmont_En pop plus EuroHG+Anatolian, rather than EHG+CHG+EuroHG+Anatolian. I wouldn't tend to think that actually the Piedmont_En group is a sister group that has absorbed slightly different influences, and the true ancestor was just approximated by CHG+EHG. Yamnaya_Samara seems very marginally weaker in affinity to CHG and EHG than would be expected if that were the case.
I think there is some difference between the Yamnaya samples in ancestry from Piedmont_En; it seems highest possibly in Yamnaya Caucasus, which I expect is because Yamnaya Caucasus probably doesn't just have an excess of ancestry from the people from the mountain flank but also from the piedmont steppe.
Another reason is that in these f3 stats Khvalynsk is very intermediate between Piedmont_EN and EHG, not intermediate some other point and EHG. If Khvalynsk were purely on a EHG+CHG cline, it wouldn't do that, though this is quite fine).
If we don't believe the correspondence analysis argument, here is just a straight forward comparing the correlation of these f3 stats in a complex model (CHG 27%, EHG 30%, West Siberia N 18%, Iran_N 13%, Barcin 9%, KorosHG 2%) to the simple 50:50 EHG:CHG model, against the real Piedmont_En. https://imgur.com/a/nMwb44q.
Closer correlation in the f3 stats when the model allows for Piedmont_En to still be mainly CHG+EHG, but with contributions from other groups to smooth out the excesses of the simple 50:50 model.
@crm
As Matt said above - EHG+CHG fails because of lack of GanjDareh & MA1, so when geoksyur is chosen as 3rd source by qpAdm it is for that reason. The south of caucasus and west iran has a lot of anatolian, so the only place to supply Iran_N+MA1 ancestry is east of caspian. It is to be noted that labels like tepe_anau also work as 3rd source, and also give slightly better p value.
left pops:
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Russia_HG_Karelia: 48.3
Turkmenistan_C_TepeAnau: 28
Georgia_Kotias.SG: 23.7
pvalue: 0.16
result file: https://pastebin.com/Qv0ufsRK
Tepe_Anau and other turan sources have ~0 EHG (vahaduo https://imgur.com/O9jo3lg), so contact from western steppe is out of question, but surely there was contact with west siberia/botai/kumsay or maybe an older ANE source, i dont know.
It is also possible (also probable imo) that CHG gave some ancestry (~15%) to the turan pops as vahaduo shows. Vagheesh Narsimhan did not have CHG as a right pop in his paper, so he did not test whether CHG was needed as a source for turan pops. This could imply intense bidirectional contact between east of caspian and west of caspian during the neolithic, as wheat and barley (first cultivated in SW & central asia) ends up in the north caucasus and east ukraine in 5th mill bce.
One should also remember that Turan pops used above are just a proxy and are 1 millenium later than steppe_en samples. 6000-5000bce samples from turan are ones that are needed.
@Matt, vAsiSTha
This is very interesting, it shows how complex the whole buildup is. But I reckon there should be another potential contributor that will make the picture clearer - Kelteminar. @Davidski, do you think Kelteminar will be any different from Tyumen/WSN/Botai? And regarding these western neolithic colonizers in Central Asia, did they leave any haplogroups in later CA populations like Geoksiur, Sarazm etc?
I'm still curious on why Q1a didn't expand the way R1a and R1b did. Is West/Central/South Asian Q1a related to IE or Turko-Mongols? ALso what's the ratio of R1b to R1a to Q1a to other in the steppe?
"It is also possible (also probable imo) that CHG gave some ancestry (~15%) to the turan pops as vahaduo shows. Vagheesh Narsimhan did not have CHG as a right pop in his paper, so he did not test whether CHG was needed as a source for turan pops. This could imply intense bidirectional contact between east of caspian and west of caspian during the neolithic, as wheat and barley (first cultivated in SW & central asia) ends up in the north caucasus and east ukraine in 5th mill bce."
Another possibility is that the chg & anatolian was given to the turan pops in the 4th millenium bce by tepe_hissar like pop, which would leave the 5th millenium pop in turan to be something like 80-90%:20-10% iran_N:Wshg. Samples from this time period are sorely missed.
@Samuel Andrews
"The mtDNA files from this Swiss paper are available. I looked at all of them. TU905 really does carry B4c1b2c2. But, I believe her mtDNA is contaminated by an Asian researcher who handled her bones.
Her autosomal DNA is 100% European, basically identical to Iron age Latins in Central Italy during the same time period, so she appears to be from an Italic or Raetic pop living in Switzerland."
Thanks for having a look at the mtDNA file. But I don't believe she is Italic or Raetic, but Celtic. Wartau is in the Alpenrheintal (approximately = "Alpine Rhine valley"), and inscriptions found there are written in the alphabet of Lugano, the same script that was used to write Lepontic. Secondly, the area was conquered by the Romans in 15 BC, but TU905 is C14 dated to 178 BC - 2 AD. So the chances are low that she is from the beginning of the Roman era. And last but not least the Wartau samples were buried in a natural cave. I don't believe recent Roman immigrants would be buried in natural caves, that's not a Roman custom. From the supplement:
"The human remains are located in a natural cave. In the 1970s and 1980s, several inspections by the archaeological service of the Canton St. Gallen took place. The cave was accessible to the public at all times and in the 1970s some human remains were recovered illegally and were transferred to the archaeological service in 2001."
That might explain how the mtDNA could have been contaminated.
"That might explain how the mtDNA could have been contaminated."
I'm wondering if something like this happened with the 2 i2 samples from katelai swat
Ancient genomes reveal social and genetic structure of Late Neolithic Switzerland
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15560-x
"we detect an arrival of ancestry related to Late Neolithic pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Switzerland as early as 2860–2460 calBCE. Our analyses suggest that this genetic turnover was a complex process lasting almost 1000 years and involved highly genetically structured populations in this region."
"The aim of this project is to investigate the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age in Switzerland in detail, with a specific focus on the timing of the arrival, source and mixture process of steppe-related ancestry, and the social and demographic structure before and after this transition."
"The social and family structures, as reconstructed by biological kinship networks, remain the same before and after the arrival of steppe-related ancestry in the region. "
@ CrM and @ vAsiSTha, using the method I described upthread*, and then feeding a scaled verison through Vahaduo (data: https://pastebin.com/sfRqB7hD), it doesn't give any result that shows CHG in Turan groups (just Iran N+ about 20% each of West Siberian+Barcin), but does show quite a bit of West Siberian seeming to be in the Caucasus EN-CA-BA groups, in connection with West Siberian: https://imgur.com/a/aK4z40a (Possibly Turan links / "Steppe Maykop"?). Doesn't seem to suggest too much CHG in Caucasus, ceiling at 42% in Darkveti-Meshoko.
(Last five rows of European farmers and intermediate HG and Dali EBA present as a sanity check that method working OK. Seems the proportions for them are similar to what would be expected).
*generate a correspondence analysis using outgroup f3 statistics as a sort of pright equivalent
Some more on Camels
1. The Kapova and Trialeti petroglyphs most likely represent Camelus knoblochi, a typical inhabitant of the Pontic-Caspian (forest) steppe and Caucasia well evidenced from Middle and Late Paleolithic assemblages, which went extinct during the Younger Dryas.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236247109_Habitat_conditions_for_Camelus_knoblochi_and_factors_in_its_extinction
For a graphical reconstruction of C. knoblochi, see
https://prehistoric-fauna.com/Camelus-knoblochi
2. Archi: " what kind of bones should there be [at Kelteminar sites]?" Saiga, Onager, wild horses, Argali, Bactrian deer and other ungulates that were roaming the Central Asian steppe/ semi-desert then (as many of them still do now).
Kelteminar undoubtedly practiced at least "selective hunting" for camels, usually considered the proto-stage of domestication. More specifically, acc. to Szymczak e.a. 2006, the share of Camel bones in Ayakagytma 'The Site' went up from 24% in Layer 5c (ca. 6,000-5,700 BC) to 61% in Layer 5a (undated, probably late 5th mBC) and 89% in Layer 4 (around 3,000 BC), at the expense of primarily cattle, (wild?) equids, and Bison, to a lesser extent also birds, dogs and tortoises.
https://www.academia.edu/2765764/Exploring_the_Neolithic_of_the_Kyzyl-kums_Ayakagytma_The_Site_and_other_collections
3. Intriguing about the Lebjazhinka III camel find is not only its singularity for all of pre-IA Europe. It also seems to represent the second-earliest AMS-dated Eurasian camel find after Kelteminar. Peters/ v.d. Driesch 1996 give a good overview of camel finds known by then, with the earliest dates (ca. 3,000 BC) stemming from Anau, and Balikun (Xinjiang).
[Note otherwise the presence of occasional camel bones in North Alpine Imperial Roman contexts, e.g. Windisch/Aargau (CH) and Augsburg, attesting some kind of long-range connection to the Silk Road during that period.]
https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1997.tb05819.x?casa_token=GucW5IpS7xcAAAAA:nJ2Mop6A3fLsBbsWNrcpI_IJRPyscN1qYB-PrjCPuQaKD0hoKAYiB7ubDFqg9tsusDd21xdrlaeG8lk
@FrankN "Kelteminar undoubtedly practiced at least "selective hunting" for camels, usually considered the proto-stage of domestication. More specifically, acc. to Szymczak e.a. 2006, the share of Camel bones in Ayakagytma 'The Site' went up from 24% in Layer 5c (ca. 6,000-5,700 BC) to 61% in Layer 5a (undated, probably late 5th mBC) and 89% in Layer 4 (around 3,000 BC), at the expense of primarily cattle, (wild?) equids, and Bison, to a lesser extent also birds, dogs and tortoises."
The increase in the number of camels is associated with an increase in their physical numbers of wild individuals due to desertification of these sites. There are no traces of domestication of camels, let alone before 3000. Camels were domestication later than all other animals.
@matt
great work. Could you also check labels - tepe_hissar_c, seh_gabi_c, steppe_maykop (the 3 samples which look like piedmont_steppe + WSHG).
It looks like EHG had very little impact south and east of caucasus in the chalcolithic and early bronze age.
@matt
also a suggestion to add Onge/Laos_hoabinhian to the outgroup list
@gamerz_J
No, just based on intuition and it is a guess. Ganj Dareh is closer to southern Anatolia and as far as I know, early animal husbandry and farming are both older in Zagros than they are in the Caucasus. Not saying that it will be Zagrosians for sure, but a branch possibly closer to GD than it is to CHG since it is more likely that a large animal husbanding population from western Iran interacted with a large population of Anatolian farmers prior to 10,000 BP, as opposed to Anatolian farmers interacting with a sparse and obscure northern CHG population. Still, it is a mere guess.
I5957 6500-4000 BCE Ukraine_Neolithic Volniensky, mtDNA haplogroup T2, Y DNA I
Ukraine Neolihic in G25 PCA fits as 8.4% Afanasievo. IN WE9 PCA, most samples in Volniensky sie fit as 20-30% Steppe Eneolihic. But, most of them aren't in G25.
This sample from Volniensky site has mtDNA T2 which a Near Eastern haplogroup. I think his mtDNA confirms CHG ancestry is very small but real in Ukraine Neolithic.
@vAsiSTha: No problem. I'm calculating this from a matrix of f3 statistics Davidski ran off for us (thanks David) in March 2019, so only certain pops / samples are there, but I believe I can cover anything you need.
Here are the "pRight"-like rows I'm using https://imgur.com/a/4lfAyj5. (CHG Est is because I'm using CHG as a row here, unlike the previous example, and again substituting into the matrix a CHG-CHG value based on Kotias and Satsurblia).
Running PAST3 Correspondence Analysis on this and then scaling generates this set of dimensions: https://pastebin.com/2vV2i5Ss
Now re-running your requested samples with that through Vahaduo: https://imgur.com/a/psgEygV
The result is pretty consistent with last time; removing Seh_Gabi_Chl as a row and replacing with CHG seems to have led to a bit more CHG in some populations and a bit less Ganj_Dareh, but it's mostly consistent. Seh_Gabi itself does not come out with any West Siberian. (There may be some issue with that with Levant ancestry in SehGabi and not just Barcin related?). Tepe_Hissar_Chl looks to have some.
Btw, note for Steppe_Maykop the two subgroups (Steppe_Maykop Steppe_Maykop_o) and from when the f3 matrix was run have slightly different compositions to the same in G25 at the moment; Steppe_Maykop includes not just the three "core" Steppe_Maykop who are between Piedmont_En and WSN, but also one of the Caucasus admixed Steppe_Maykop_o.
I've moved Iberia_Northwest_Meso out of rows as well and included as a source in the Vahaduo run as well (a bit redundant in rows with loads of Iberia related rows already). This isn't really relevant to the Caucasus / Steppe really but I just wanted to show that general appears able to distinguish between different WHG pops in Europe (at least in simple composites), with sufficient rows.
Moving Piedmont_En to source and trying with a reduced set of target populations: https://imgur.com/a/ZQqaEVc. Proportions seem OK.
As Vahaduo doesn't really weight parsimony against fit and there's no explicit Piedmont_En related sources I've used to build the Correspondence Analysis (limiting myself to ones that pre-date this general era or post-date it but have little West Eurasian ancestry), it's a bit spotty in distinguishing Piedmont_En from composite of sources when I include a wider range. When I ran Piedmont_En as a source in competition with other sources for the main run above, only got some in Armenia_MLBA of southern populations. But the method may not be distinguishing too perfectly. It's an experimental method that I'm playing about with anyway, some caution in interpreting results.
(For a version of the same scaled Correspondence Analysis above, but using all ancient inc. SSA and all modern, see here: https://pastebin.com/x9FK43qS. I've excluded these from above version, because the SSA tend to dominate appearance of dimensions and moderns probably have a distinctive signature in f3 stats that is unrelated to ancestry, but just in case of interest I include.
Here's a NJ tree based on that as well - https://imgur.com/a/GZQvChY . There is some evident batch effects (e.g. some of the non-Harvard samples like Slavic_Bohemia and Ireland_EBA, or Germany_MN and Ireland_MN attract, against expected population affinity) and some modern-modern attraction, but in general it seems like all the expected population structure is evident (with maybe some extra late Bronze Age samples in the rows able to totally resolve modern pops).)
I noticed in the last G25 two Battle axe samples are named "SWE_Battle_Axe" while another two "SWE_Battle-Axe", and there's two different averages too, I assume this is a typo?
@matt
yeah these seem more in line - with CHG being overestimated a bit in comparison to Iran_N. given Iran_N itself isnt part of outgroup whereas CHG is.
Here are some qpAdm runs for Turan. Iran_N is a source so it is not a part of right pops. Satsurblia is there to cover for Iran_N. This would mean - if anything, iran_N is being underreported in comparison to Kotias. dont really trust Hotu or wezmeh cave, abdul hosein in right pops.
left pops:
Turkmenistan_C_Parkhai
Iran_GanjDareh_N: 66.3 +- 4
Georgia_Kotias.SG: 10.3 +-3
WSHG: 7.2 +- 1.3
Anatolia_N: 16.3 +- 2.2
pvalue: 0.82 result https://pastebin.com/RVMTt6JX
left pops:
Turkmenistan_C_TepeAnau
Iran_GanjDareh_N: 63.9 +- 4.5
Georgia_Kotias.SG: 12.1 +- 3.3
WSHG: 8.5 +- 1.4
Anatolia_N: 15.5 +- 2.4
pvalue: 0.039 result https://pastebin.com/6C9f7YSR
For @davidski who proposd a massive migration from the west into turan.
The models used above also include Karelia_HG in the right pops, therefore proving that EHG component was miniscule to the east of the caspian in the 4th mil bce.
however, a migration from a neighbouring anatolia rich population like tepe_hissar is a possibility.
@TLT
" Still, it is a mere guess."
An educated guess, I agree with you it makes sense. It could also be mixed too, both Iran_N and CHG.
I'm going to bet ancient Mideast pops are more "Basal" than "West Eurasian." My opinon is based on mtDNA.
The fact is, no one knows how Basal, Basal is. Therefore, it is impossible to know exactly how much Basal ancient Near East pops have.
Looking at mtDNA, you see that mtDNA U never reaches 50% in Middle East. Therefore, they are more non-West Eurasian, than they are West Eurasian.
mtDNA R2 (inclu J, T), mtDNA R0 (including H) are not of "West Eurasian" origin.
Considering, Middle East is right next to Africa, it makes a sense a kind of "Basal Eurasian" ancestry existed there.
Looking at Eurasian Y DNA, the most basal F subclades all exist in Middle East. On the other hand in Asia, all Y DNA is K2 other than C and D.
More Y DNA F diversity in Middle East, which again makes sense because it is right next to Africa.
We can conclude, a "Basal Eurasian" pop lived in Middle East. We see their signs in Y DNA (Basal F lineages, Y DNA E).
Y DNA J, is probably the only "WHG-related" Y DNA in Middle East. The other F subclades are probably "Basal Eurasian." Especially yHG G, which is only distantly related to IJ and K.
mtDA U is probably the only "WHG-related" mtDNA in Middle East. mtDNA R0 (inclu H), R2 (inclu JT) are probably "Basal Eurasian."
There's many basal mtDNA U subclades in Middle East, confirming very old WHG-like ancestry, which is consistent with Dzuda from 28ky with WHG-like ancestry.
I don't see why mtDNA R0 and R2 have to be WHG-related to, when literally almost all Paleo European mtDNA is mHG U.
mHG U was clearly the signature of Upper Paleolithic "West Eurasian" pops. To say otherwise is special pleading. I can't see how somehow, some had mostly R0 or R2.
Ust-Ishi, 45ky, had Y DNA K2. This is probably why he is slightly more related to East Asians than to ancient West Eurasians.
Y DNA K2, was probably main Y DNA of Paleo East Eurasians. You see distant Y DNA F relatives in the Middle East. So, wala the many Y DNA F subclades in Middle East are Basal Eurasian.
@JuanRivera,
Not only that, but essentiall all mHG U in Iberian Neolithic is U5b. Indicating near 100% of Western European hunter gatherers had U5/b.
mtDNA R1 is ANE.
The C4, C5, G1a1 reported in Neolithic Europe 12 years ago are false results. Ancient mtDNA studies dating before 2010 should be seen as false results. mtDNA C1 is the only Asian mtDNA found in ancient Europe.
@Samuel Andrews
Only haplogroup that could be associated with Basal is Y-DNA E
We already have good evidence to support that with aDNA from Taforalt in North Africa, all of which turned out to be Y-DNA E
Basal Eurasian is split from Taforalt-like population, and then admixed with UHG (unknown hunter-gatherers) in Near East/Middle East. UHG (unknown hunter-gatherer) is WHG's sister lineage.
"UHG (unknown hunter-gatherer) is WHG's sister lineage."
Spectacular! And the history of 2.5 billion people is riding on this.
https://twitter.com/vagheesh/status/1169673263695319040/photo/1
@Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar
No, it has nothing to do with Central Asians or South Asians. Population living there during Paleolithic will be mainly ENA or similar to Ust Ishim.
UHG behaves just like WHG, that's why Near East/Levant score quite a lot of WHG by proxy. Natufian, Pinarbasi, AnatolianN, IranN, CHG, Villabruna, Dzudzuana will all have some of this UHG.
WHG , UHG are all made up entities which don’t exist in reality
You boys need to learn archaeology, instead of learning by proxy of genetic labels
@claravallensis
I noticed in the last G25 two Battle axe samples are named "SWE_Battle_Axe" while another two "SWE_Battle-Axe", and there's two different averages too, I assume this is a typo?
Yeah, it's a typo. I'll fix it in the next update.
"No, it has nothing to do with Central Asians or South Asians. "
Language family Approx. # of speakers % of world population
1. Indo-European 2.562 billion 44.78%
@Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar
That ancestry will have nothing to do with Indo-Europeans for the most part, it's just maximized in Levant/Near East/Arab Peninsula. Good luck figuring out what language family is spoken there.
@Numero,
"Basal Eurasian is split from Taforalt-like population"
I agree Y DNA E is Basal Eurasian. But, all Basal Eurasian can't be from Taforalt-like pops because there's no Y DNA E in ancient Anatolia and Iran. There's also no mtDNA M1, yHG E's partner, in ancient Anatolia and Iran.
Which shows the mystery of the origins of the Stone age Middle East is not resolved yet.
And, with the current ancient DNA, no ancestry models for ancient Middle East is verifiable. Models created by bloggers and in papers aren't final. Until we get the relevant ancient DNA, no one will know the origins of Paleo Middle East.
Looking at Middle Eastern mtDNA, the best candidates for Basal EUrasian mtDNA is anything whcih isn't mHG U. Therefore: R2 (inclu JT), R0 (inclu HV), N1 (Inclu I), N2 (inclu W).
Together they take up majority of Middle Eastern mtDNA. Which makes me think, "Basal Eurasian" is the main kind of ancestry in the Middle East and was not as basal as we expected.
I might be wrong but this is definitely a possibility. There's nothing which makes this an impossibility.
Sam: "We can conclude, a "Basal Eurasian" pop lived in Middle East."
I think BE represents the population of the "Persian Gulf Oasis"
https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/paradise-lost-gulf-oasis-was-home-earliest-humans-existed-africa-what-forced-021390
https://www.academia.edu/386944/New_Light_on_Human_Prehistory_in_the_Arabo-Persian_Gulf_Oasis
Once we get aDNA from Southern Mesopotamia, it will in all likelyhood contain lots of BE.
A main factor that sets apart Iran_N and CHG is that the former contains significantly more BE than the latter. In Lazarides e.a. 2018, CHG is modelled as containing 5.4% Basal (on top of the BE already incorporated in Dzudzuana), for Iran_N it is around 10%. I think it is a/o this difference which makes Iran_N look so "southern" for Reich's 4-way models*), and such a generally poor fit for "Steppe" populations.
Apparently, during the LGM the Zagros was very sparsely populated, if at all. Most of its Mesolithic / EN population should have been new colonisers, mostly from the North (CHG-like), but also from the Persian Gulf (Basal-rich). In fact, I would assume that, should we get more early holocene samples from Zagros and surrounds, they would display a CHG-BE cline from North to South.
The BE in Natufians is probably to a good extent stemming from post-LGM expansions out of the Gulf Oasis (c.f. the archeological discussion on p. 861ff in the Rose paper linked above). As such, I am not certain whether yDNA E is really originally BE. I'd rather place L and T here, which in all likelyhood wheathered the LGM in the Persian Gulf Oasis.
*) The Reich Team should really start thinking in higher dimensions, even if they don't fit a PCA anymore. And one of These dimensions is obviously represented by BE.
@vAsiSTha
Keep dreaming, but reality is going to hit you hard.
The high levels of Anatolian ancestry in Central Asian Eneolithic groups obviously prove that there were massive Neolithic migrations from West Asia into Central Asia. That's how goats, sheep and cattle got there too.
By the way, you'll love the upcoming results from Central Siberia, showing an interaction between western groups with R1a-M417 and eastern ones with N1c. Obviously, this is how Uralians picked up early Indo-Iranian influences.
Haha.
Dave: The high levels of Anatolian ancestry in Central Asian Eneolithic groups obviously prove that there were massive Neolithic migrations from West Asia into Central Asia. That's how goats, sheep and cattle got there too.
The Anatolian element only arrived during the Chalcolithic (Eneolithic). Jeitun still lacked it, as proven by aDNA (not human aDNA, which we still lack, but goat aDNA):
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10055921/1/Ancient_Goat_Genomics_Resubmission_Combined.pdf
Note in this context also the absence of domesticated pigs from Jeitun assemblages, which equally only arrived duting the CA.
@davidski
you are an idiot with a negative knowledge about archaeology of the central and south asian region.
Domesticated wheat and barley was already presnt in SW central asia by 8500bce. the goats sheep and cattle were herded in central asia before 6000bce, much before any anatolian ancestry got into the region.
"By the way, you'll love the upcoming results from Central Siberia, showing an interaction between western groups with R1a-M417 and eastern ones with N1c. Obviously, this is how Uralians picked up early Indo-Iranian influences."
yeah, solid evidence lmao. is this 6th grade?
Central Siberia is in part where the Indo-Aryans dwelt before pushing into South Asia and giving you your language.
The ancient DNA showing the interaction between R1a and N1c populations in that part of north Asia obviously supports historical linguistics data and long held views on the topic.
Yeah, all that Anatolian ancestry in Eneolithic Central Asia just wafted in with the air. Haha.
Speaking of goats, here's the latest dumbo.
We found that Chinese goats originated from the eastern regions around the Fertile Crescent, and we estimated that the ancestors of Chinese goats diverged from this population in the Chalcolithic period.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/advance-article/doi/10.1093/molbev/msaa103/5824306
@davidski
meh, read the paper with goat aDna provided above by FrankN. They have done a time transect of animal dna from the neolithic to the bronze age. That is what is known as 'evidence'. not some flimsy chinese connection.
The anatolian ancestry in central asia is from the chalcolithic period, ancestry mediated by a pop like tepe_hissar, which is hardly 500km SW from turkmenistan at the southern shore of the caspian.
left pops:
Turkmenistan_C_Parkhai
Iran_GanjDareh_N: 35.8 +- 7.5
WSHG: 4.6 + -1.3
Iran_C_TepeHissar: 59.7 +- 7
pvalue: 0.5999
result: https://pastebin.com/fHa5xnkn
vahaduo matches
https://imgur.com/jSHGnQF
Tepe Hissar got its Anatolian from Anatolia, dumbass.
mtdna of neolithic turkeish goats - A,C,T,F
mtdna of goats from sang-e-chakmaq turkmenistan 8000-5000bce - B,D,G
mtdna of turkmenistan goats from chalcolithic (5000-4500bce) - A,D,G
@ D and re "By the way, you'll love the upcoming results from Central Siberia, showing an interaction between western groups with R1a-M417 and eastern ones with N1c. Obviously, this is how Uralians picked up early Indo-Iranian influences."
So, you know that these results are real? Or, are you just speculating?
@Huck Finn,
Seima-Turbino culture, 2000 BC, Y DNA N1c, mtDNA U2e1h
I remeber reading several years ago, about a Bronze age culture in Russia (European side) with a mix of R1a and N1c. They only got Y DNA and mtDNA. That's huge for evidence of Uralic-Indo European admix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_phenomenon
"Notable is the similarity between the range of Haplogroup N3a3’6, especially in the western part of Eurasia and the distribution of the Seima-Turbino trans-cultural phenomenon during the interval of 4.2–3.7 kya"
Looks like the origin of DE is ping-ponging between Africa and Western Asia apparently due to DO...if I remember correctly the oldest DO was found in Syria...? Isn't CT supposed to have been the first to have left Africa and the Ancestor of DE and CF ? With so many proposed in and out of Africa migrations throughout the Ages, why do we expect to find pure Basal Eurasian in samples younger than 55 000 years old ?
We even see some transitional Homo Habilis to Erectus remains not confined to Africa. Anywhere from Kenya to Georgia(Caucasus) could have been the birthplace of Homo Erectus and now we see a close relative to the (Sapiens, Neanderthal, Denisovan) ancestor in Spain with some similarities to remains of Kenya and Georgia...
It will not surprise me if even CT did not move Out of Africa first...
Dave: "Speaking of goats, here's the latest dumbo.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/advance-article/doi/10.1093/molbev/msaa103/5824306
"
Yeah, great paper! They demonstrate that the oldest Chinese archeologically known goats (ca. 2ky BCE) did not arrive during the Neolithic, and neither during the BA. Without aDNA, we would never have figured that out..
Regarding the goats.
Didn't all Ancient samples show some genes of the West Caucasian Tur in the earliest domesticated goats ? According to a previous paper ? Does this not make the epicenter of the most likely earliest domestication closer to the Caucasus, Armenia/Northwestern Iran ?
@Huck Finn
So, you know that these results are real? Or, are you just speculating?
I'm referring to real results, not speculating.
Seima-Turbino.
I thought the Seima and Turbino sites had no actual burials? Or are these from nearby areas?
That's awesome. The Seima-Turbino phenomenon is fascinating. A massive trading network across Siberia and the Steppes, more or less fueled by warfare and conquest, and in my opinion the most plausible context for an Uralic migration to the west.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_1/9971/F1.large.jpg
http://s013.radikal.ru/i324/1411/be/656083f64ae4.jpg
@Davidski, on the f3 outgroup Correspondence Analysis dimensions that I was running for vAsiSTha, Saka_Tian_Shan *looks* exactly intermediate between Western IA and Eastern IA - https://imgur.com/a/vExITT7. (Using the analysis without SSA and moderns for visual convenience).
Running these dimensions and Saka_Tian_Shan shows that it these are the sort of distance minimising fit that Vahaduo selects for Saka_Tian_Shan - https://imgur.com/a/tw1gXWB .
This is only proximal pops, as I think running deep ancestry might get confusing. Runs are just screengrabbed from Vahaduo, not any particular order.
Pretty much selecting Western IA or Saka / Scytho-Sarmatian populations and equivalent Eastern populations. (Some Afanasievo creeps in there at the end of my set of runs when Kangju is allowed as the source, which may reflect that Kangju is right in some respect, but has a slightly off Steppe_EMBA ancestry ratio. Not a real signal of continuity I don't think.)
Does seem to be something specific to Wusun and Kangju which lead to them being preferred to Sarmatians. (Possibly extra "Turan" related ancestry).
I would have to look directly at the outgroup f3 stats to try and work out what's driving that.
(It's possible to run the f3 through Vahaduo directly as well, but I think that seems to bias towards stats that generate high f3 stats, as if one stat is systematically higher than another, it's more distance minimising to optimize it. The Correspondence Analysis relativizes all the stats, which removes or diminishes that problem.)
I can't remember how many of these groups were targetted by the usual Capture method, hopefully there is no confound here from Capture vs Shotgun effects on f3, etc.
@Matt
What about Shirenzigou_IA?
@Samuel Andrews
"I might be wrong but this is definitely a possibility. There's nothing which makes this an impossibility"
I agree it is too early to tell, and I also don't think that ANA/Taforalt=BE. There is ancestral connection but it's direction and original location(s) of BE population(s) is yet undetermined imo.
Somewhat off-topic but it's interesting that farming on a large scale enters South Asia so late, around 3500BC even though Mergarh has the Neolithic package very early.
It's as if they just didn't want the new way of life.
On PCA it's pretty evident where this Basal-UHG cline leads - Natufian, AnatoliaN, Pinarbaise all pull towards LevantN
In contrast, CHG and IranN pull away from this cline due to ANE admixture
"Yeah, great paper! They demonstrate that the oldest Chinese archeologically known goats (ca. 2ky BCE) did not arrive during the Neolithic, and neither during the BA. Without aDNA, we would never have figured that out.."
:D.
@Davidski,
For the 100th time it is not Indo-Iranian in Eastern Europe and Finno-Ugric, it is Iranian.
"..an early Iranian lexical stratum in Finno-Ugric. In some cases it is difficult to formally distinguish early Iranian from Sanksrit: *sata, *marta...But a survey of the entire set of loans leaves no doubt that as a group they belong to early Iranian, not Sanskrit"
Thomas V. Gamkrelidze, Vjaceslav V. Ivanov: "Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans..."
I don't blame you though because there is much dishonesty in the literature.
Interestingly Finno-Ugric also has a cognate of 'Arya', Orja, which to them means 'Slave, servant'. Just like the term Dasa means slave to the Aryans.
To the point of my post, the rivers Don, Donets, Dneiper, Dniestr and Danube are well-accepted as Iranian names, matching the Iranian borrowings in Finno-Ugric.
It is generally accepted that these rivers were named by the Iranian speaking Scythians, but this is clearly false.
1. According to Pliny the Scythians called the Don "Silys"
" As for the river Tanais, the Scithians call it Silys"
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny6.html
2. Danuvius is the Latin version of the name, but apparantly also a Celtic or Thracian one according to oxfordre.com. So unless the Latins, Celts or Thracians borrowed the name from the Scythians, it must be much older.
3. The geography of the names dont really tie up with the Scythian presence, according to Kuzmina - The Origin of Indo-Iranians.
4. No such terms are left behind by the Scythians anywhere to the East.
Therefore, it is more likely those names were given by the earliest EHG settlers in the region.
Danu is a term strongly associated with the Danube-Don region and only sporadically attested elsewhere in Europe. It seems to branch off from Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan specifically) is associated with a subset (non-Aryan) of Iranians and then found sporadically in Europe. It seems like whoever names those rivers had a strong identity association with the name Danu and then passed that on when they further migrated around Europe (Tutha De Danaan, Daneans, Doncaster etc). This term/usage is not found in early Centum IE.
Danu does not have any positive connotations in Central Indo-Iranian (IA and South-Eastern Iranian), probably related to the conflict between Indra and Vrtra and (according to Indo-Aryans) Vrtra's Mother, Danu, likely somewhere in South Central Asia.
Therefore the best explanation is that early EHG were Iranians related to South Central Asians who took the name to Eastern Europe and from there dissipated it further into Europe.
This also explains the presence and nature of Iranian contacts with Finno-Ugric.
@mzp1
dnieper, dniester, danube etc are clearly of iranian origin. the scythians/sarmatians have left behind a whole east iranian language in the steppes - ossetian - spoken in southern russia north of the black & caspian seas.
The Greeks knew the Danube as Ister, whereas the Italo-Celts knew it as Danuvius. Early Greeks are also lacking in Steppe DNA, have some Iran_N, and then there is Greco-Armenian-Aryan. This all points to the Greeks picking up Centum Westwards through Iran and Anatolia while the Italo-Celts passed North-Westwards past the Danube into their modern territories along with Steppe DNA, probably with Corded Ware or BB.
Corded Ware would have a Centum language associated with their farmer admixture and use of agriculture, also with a Southern, Neolithic homeland.
Those names are not Scythian, they're EHG.
@mzp1 i believe this guy
"According to Matasović (2008), "solving the problem of Iranian loanwords in Slavic, their distribution and relative chronology, is one of the most important tasks of modern Slavic studies".[3] Slavs in the era of the Proto-Slavic language came into contact with various Iranian tribes, namely Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans, which were present in vast regions of eastern and southeastern Europe in the first centuries CE. The names of two large rivers in the centre of Slavic expansion, Dnieper and Dniester, are of Iranian origin, and Iranian toponyms are found as far west as modern day Romania.[4]"
Nobody is denying that the Scythians were Iranian speakers. I have made a case which is not inconsistent with anything in your post. There is no evidence the Scythians actually gave those names, they didn't use that name and the Celts/Latins did. I don't think you understand where this is going. It's like this, Indo-Aryan in South Asia, Iranian to the North in Central Asia/Oxus (ANE) and Centum in the West (Iran_N/CHG, Neolithic). I really don't understand where your going.
@mzp1
Don't talk nonsense.
You don't know anything about Indo-Iranian borrowing in Finno-Ugric. So don't make it up, read Napolskich, a professional in the field. He writes clearly about the presence of Indo-Aryan loans in Finno-Ugric languages that cannot be considered Iranian.
1.You do not understand that in ancient times the name Don was used by the Greeks for the name of many rivers, actually for modern Don and Donets, these are different rivers. What's more, there are seven Donets's! Naturally, these eight rivers were called differently by the locals.
2. Danube is a later name, which spread together with Goth-Alans. The Greeks called it Istr. That was its Thracian name.
3. Don't bring Kuzmina here, who you know nothing about.
4. It doesn't mean anything. Don't write about probability, you don't know anything about it.
You should see a doctor about EHG in South Asia.
@mzp1
"Early Greeks are also lacking in Steppe DNA, have some Iran_N, and then there is Greco-Armenian-Aryan."
Early Greeks, as in proto-Greek speakers did not lack Steppe ancestry. Minoans did, and they did not speak Greek.
@gamerz_J,
Appreciate the correction. But I did mention Danaans in Greek History, which would be the term relating to Danube. Danaans/Danae is likely the assimilation of Steppe newcomers into Greek Civilization.
Many thanks for the information, D.
@Samuel Andrews
I think your list of west Eurasian mtDNA is too narrow. N1 was found in a south Ukrainian Gravettian sample known as BuranKaya3A and as far as I know, it didn't have any basal ancestry. Personally, my list for basal mtDNA would be R2 (xJT), R0 (xHV), various Ns (leaning towards including N2 with it's W). The reason why I excluded JT and HV groups is because their separation from the R2 (xJT) and R0 (xHV) groups is around 50,000 years ago, which is plausible for the separation of this basal Eurasian population, one set of groups (R2 (xJT) and R0 (xHV) would have gone with the basals while the other (JT + HV) stayed with regular Eurasians only to be separate into west Eurasians later on.
@mzp1
Danmark because it's on the Danube! LOL
@Copper Age
"I thought the Seima and Turbino sites had no actual burials? Or are these from nearby areas?"
Based on them being from "central Siberia" I would assume Krotov-Elunin-Loginov.
@Samuel Andrews
"Seima-Turbino culture, 2000 BC, Y DNA N1c, mtDNA U2e1h
I remeber reading several years ago, about a Bronze age culture in Russia (European side) with a mix of R1a and N1c. They only got Y DNA and mtDNA. That's huge for evidence of Uralic-Indo European admix."
This is leaked from a paper? I remember reading about mixed R1a and N1c in northern Abashevo but I thought that was just speculation.
Wait till I tell you the about Hara Barazeti -> Harborz -> Alborz/Elburz -> Alps/Alba/Albion and the development and distribution of Centum, paralleling the Danu cognates but from the South Caucuses. You'll have a heart attack Archi...
@mzp1
"Wait till I tell you the about Hara Barazeti -> Harborz -> Alborz/Elburz ->"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alborz
"The name Alborz is derived from Harā Barazaitī, a legendary mountain in the Avesta, the main text of Zoroastrianism. Harā Barazaitī is from a Proto-Iranian name, *Harā Bṛzatī, meaning "Mountain Rampart." *Bṛzatī is the feminine form of the adjective *bṛzant- "high", the ancestor of modern Persian boland (بلند) and Barz/Berazandeh, cognate with Sanskrit Brihat (बृहत्)"
Interesting. Incidentally Brihat (meaning greater or expansive) is a very common prefix in the LATE books of the Rig Veda and also in Mittani IA.
Brihadratha: with a great chariot
Brihadukta: with a refined speech
Brihaddeiva: Greatest of the gods.
I can probably offer some information but your post is not concise or well-written so it is difficult to understand your question. Maybe delete it and start again?
@Davidski, no Shirenzigou_IA in the matrix from March 2019 (file title: "f3_matrix_preliminary.csv"). If you're in running off a new one with your current dataset, I'll run the same method with them as the Saka and see what happens.
Jan 2020 paper
Adaptive introgression from indicine cattle into white cattle breeds from Central Italy https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-57880-4
"Genome-wide analyses have provided evidence that several southern European breeds contain ancestry from both African taurine and indicine lineages15,21. One example are the geographically widespread Podolian cattle breeds22, whose name refers to their presumed origin in Moldova/Western Ukraine. Among Podolian cattle are some breeds from Central Italy which display phenotypes such as red coat in calves and white to light grey coat in adults, and a predisposition for draught and beef production, all typical traits of Podolian cattle breeds22. Such breeds – often referred to as Central Italian white cattle – also show the highest levels of indicine ancestry among southern European cattle12,15,21."
@mzp1
" But I did mention Danaans in Greek History, which would be the term relating to Danube. Danaans/Danae is likely the assimilation of Steppe newcomers into Greek Civilization."
Apologies, I missed it. Still, Steppe ancestry most likely was already present before their arrival since they are described in Homer's epics. Now, these Danaans might refer to the Dorians or another group incoming from the north with more Steppe ancestry. I don't think all of the Steppe ancestry present in Greece came from the Slavs.
More detailed analysis of those Italian breeds
They have indicine admixture
"1. Note higher levels of indicine introgression in southern Europe, particularly for the Italian breeds Romagnola (group 36), Piedmontese (group 34), Chianina (group 37), and Marchigiana (group 38).
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2013/03/19/1303367110.full.pdf
And they have rare mTDNA from ancient non-Middle Eastern Taurine (mTDNA T), so the the indicine admixture is not recent, but a relic from pre-Near Eastern Taurine.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005753
"Yet, there were also eight mtDNAs (1.3%) that did not cluster within any subset of T. Four mtDNAs [one Chianina (Tuscany), one Italian Red Pied (Friuli), and two Romagnola (Romagna)] harboured a control-region motif that is not very dissimilar from those observed in T mtDNAs, but is characterized by the distinguishing mutation 15953G (Table 1), thus suggesting a possible affiliation with the recently discovered haplogroup Q [9]. The other four mtDNAs [one Agerolese (Campania), two Cinisara (Sicily), and one Romagnola] were characterized by a peculiar and very divergent control-region motif (28 mutations) relative to the bovine reference sequence"
"Breeds for the samples harbouring mtDNAs belonging to haplogroups Q, P and R are as follows: Chianina (1); Romagnola (2); Italian Red Pied (3); Romagnola (4); Cabannina (5, 6); “Beef cattle”, Korea (7); Agerolese (8); Cinisara (9, 10); Romagnola (11)."
P, Q and R are Eurasian, or European, non T lineages.
Also, the admixture is not due to contact between the wild populations, as Zebu and Taurine are distantly separated.
"Thus, after the deep bifurcation that ∼335 ky ago gave rise to the taurine and zebuine lineages (Table 2), the separation between the new haplogroup R and the other branches (E and PQT) represents the earliest known split in the mtDNA phylogeny of B. primigenius (Figure 1)."
@JuanRivera
Unless I am getting something wrong, Steppe ancestry in Myceneans is about 14% not 2 or 6%. Vahaduo too shows more than 10% IIRC.
In the scientific journal Kwartalnik Językoznawczy Polish linguist, Jacek Jarmoszko, wrote:
"In many cases, the Avestan language is actually more like Slavic languages than modern, lively Iranian languages. The main reason for this is the archaic character of this language, similar to the archaic character of Slavic languages. In the Avestan language you can see a much larger number of cores existing in Slavic languages than in any other Iranian language".
Early Iranian and Slavic languages could therefore be similar Indo-Slavic dialects.
Yeah, it makes sense because Avestan is conservative compared to West Iranian, and the Iranian influence in Slavic must be quite ancient. Also, Slavic is considered a Satem language.
Interestingly all the Iranian, Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages are stress-timed. Germanic is out of place here as the other Centum languages are not so much stress-timed. Greek/Latin/Celtic were all Mora timed, like Sanskrit and modern Indo-Aryan, but are now syllable timed (in between).
Germanic is strangely in between Balto-Slavic and Italo-Celtic. Perhaps the later migrations that led to Italo-Celtic affected Germanic more than Balto-Slavic, making it Centum.
I made a video some time ago presenting this theory, which is mostly consistent with all my posts above, it is about 1hr long and goes into linguistics, history and myths but not genetics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=966dAKcpoT8
The genetic data is pretty consistent as discussed above, but the only major tweaking is that the Centum languages didn't travel over the Caucuses but East into West Asia and then NorthWest.
@TLT,"I think your list of west Eurasian mtDNA is too narrow. N1 was found in a south Ukrainian Gravettian sample known as BuranKaya3A and as far as I know"
You're right, I did forget about that sample. He does confirm mHG N1 is not Basal Eurasia even though it was at the top of everyone's list for possible Basal Eurasian mtDNA.
Appreciate Davidsky allowing us to make our points here. He could easily ban us and end the discussion.
I think harvard papers have given a false impression of how related Middle East's "UHG" is to European WHG.
The mtDNA U clades in Middle East are basal U clades, separated from WHG U clades for 50,000 years. Which, should bring into question exactly how WHG-like the Middle East's WHG-related ancestry really is.
Gravitean mtDNA U5, U2e, Y DNA I, makes its uniparental markers closer to WHG than anything in the Middle East.
All we know is, Middle East and WHG share something in common which Gravitean lacks. But, there's no evidence of a very strong relation between WHG and Middle East. WHG is closer to Gravitean than it is to anything in the Middle East.
mzp, thanks for the movie! I watch.
The Polish linguist, Witold Mańczak, was of the opinion that great importance should not be attached to the centum / satem division. He specialized in Romance languages, so he gave an example that in this close language group there are centum and satem dialects.
It is a valid distinction not just interms of Satem and Centum but there are other factors too like diversity of vowels, consonant clusters, laryngeals and palatiovelars, and many of these in Centum seem to be linked to Caucasian languages.
ambron said...
" mzp, thanks for the movie! I watch."
Haven't you seen enough the delirium of madmen in your life? It's a shame to thank for such nonsense and watching it means not respecting yourself.
@ambron
“In the scientific journal Kwartalnik Językoznawczy Polish linguist, Jacek Jarmoszko, wrote:
"In many cases, the Avestan language is actually more like Slavic languages than modern, lively Iranian languages. The main reason for this is the archaic character of this language, similar to the archaic character of Slavic languages. In the Avestan language you can see a much larger number of cores existing in Slavic languages than in any other Iranian language".
Early Iranian and Slavic languages could therefore be similar Indo-Slavic dialects.”
Frederik Kortlandt wrote:
“The large majority of special correspondences between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian are archaisms, not innovations. This is important because it implies that a comparison of Balto-Slavic with Indo-Iranian leads to a reconstruction of an early stage of Indo-European.”
http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/2284
You should read T. Burrow “The Sanskrit Language”
https://goo.gl/mBeFD8
I made a post about it earlier:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-doorstep-of-india.html?showComment=1523740548383#c6191530895381495941
The special relation with Balto-Slavic was ancient and related to early Indo-Iranian. Early connection between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian is confirmed by many shared words. There are no special contacts between Iranian and Slavic or Baltic, the common words or features must be referred to early Primitive Indo-Iranian only. They estimate that those early Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian contacts took place around 2000 BCA before Indo-Iranians left Eastern Europe.
Genetics and archeology suggest this model:
CWC –> Sintashta –> Andronovo_East –> India.
I suspect that Indo-Slavic language spoken by CWC in Poland was much more similar to Slavic than to Indo-Iranian. I think so because languages change mainly as a result of mixing people, and in Poland we have a continuity of population.
http://naukawpolsce.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news%2C81896%2Cco-wiemy-o-ciaglosci-zasiedlenia-obecnych-ziem-polski-na-przelomie-neolitu-i
@Eastpole,
Reconstructions don't mean anything because they are arbitrary and exist only in the minds of Linguists.
You find me a simple list of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian cognates and you will see they all correspond to Iranian and not Indo-Aryan generally. Though archaic Iranian is closer to Indo Aryan than modern Iranian so it will be a bit skwewed.
You can't use reconstructions because they are already based on assumptions that Indo-Iranian separated from Balto-Slavic so reconstructed Indo-Iranian would be made in a manner consistent with that assumption. To use reconstructed Indo-Iranian to make your point doesn't work because reconstructed Indo-Iranian is not DATA it is a HYPOTHESIS.
All this is non-scientific circular reasoning. In my video I show with actual linguistic data that Balto-Slavic is almost always closer to some Iranian form than Indo Aryan.
You cant use the *Indo-Iranian because no such thing exists.
Find the data and compare it side by side with Iranian and Indo-Aryan and you will see. It is very clear.
Reconstruction, whether of PIE or Indo-Iranian, doesn't work, it is unscientific and outdated, this was before we had archeology or genetics and linguists were basically guessing at what they thought the audience wanted to see.
We only work on data, not 'reconstructions', because the reconstruction is a hypothesis that actual loses real information and presents something not necessarily associated with reality.
Reconstructions are an easy way to hide 'unwanted' data and create new entities that support an existing hypothesis. It is unscientific to the core.
@mzp1 "All this is non-scientific circular reasoning. In my video I show with actual linguistic data that Balto-Slavic is almost always closer to some Iranian form than Indo Aryan."
In your video, you embarrass yourself by showing absolute ignorance of either languages or linguistics. A smart man wouldn't be so disgraced by a topic he doesn't understand more than nothing. Smart people have seen such a thing and spinning a finger at the temple.
Naturally, there is a large number of words in Sanskrit and Slavic languages, which sound similar and have the same meaning. It's just that you don't have any knowledge.
I have done my homework and you haven't Archi. All your rebuttals are personal, empty and void of substance.
@mzp1
Everyone who's seen your delusional video has called its author an idiot who knows nothing. Everything you write is an absolute meaningless flood without meaning. In mental development you're just a little kid who doesn't understand why he looks stupid and doesn't understand why everyone calls him a fool.
"Matasović notes typological coincidences between Slavic and Ossetian, an Iranian language whose ancestor was Alanic. In both modern Ossetian and the Slavic group, verbs are conjugated for perfective and imperfective aspects; prefixation is a prominent means of deriving perfective verbs from imperfective verbs; there are certain syntactic behaviors of pronominal clitics in common; both sporadically mark direct objects with the genitive. It remains to be determined, however, whether those correspondences are a result of prehistoric contacts between Slavic and Alanic tribes, or just a case of accidental parallel development."
The parallels between the Slavic and Ossetian languages are very late, date back to the 1st millennium AD, when Eastern Slavic and Alanic languages began to contact. Prefixation in Proto-Slavic is very ancient, which has its parallels in European languages, while in Ossetian it is a young phenomenon, which was not in Iranian languages.
@Vasishta,
I've looked into this stuff. Basically what they do, is they see a correspondence between Balto-Slavic and Iranian, they will just refer to Iranian as Indo-Iranian. Then people actually think there is a correspondence between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian.
Look at all the literature that talks of Balto-Slavic and Finno-Ugric correspondence with 'Indo-Iranian' - they never actually say the similarity is with Iranian, they are just hiding behind the terms and reconstructions.
The funny thing is 'Indo-Iranian' doesn't even exist, and never did! Theres absolutely zero evidence for it.
The languages didn't move vertically, they moved laterally!
@Mzp1,
What do you mean Indo Iranian never existed? That's ridiculous. Iranian and Indic are related, they come from the same language, this is indisputable.
We don't have records of the Indo Iranian language but that doesn't change the fact it existed.
To say, something doesn't exist unless I can touch it is not being scientific.
@mzp1 said...
"The funny thing is 'Indo-Iranian' doesn't even exist, and never did! Theres absolutely zero evidence for it.
The languages didn't move vertically, they moved laterally!"
LOL :facepalm: I know for a fact this person didn't finish elementary school.
@Samuel,
I mean the hypothesized proto language Proto-Indo-Iranian never existed. Ofcourse I agree Indo-Aryan and Iranian can be grouped as a 'grouping' Indo-Iranian.
There is an 'intermediate' language, Nuristani, geographically and linguistically intermediate between Indo-Aryan and Iranian. Further North is where Iranian originated, as an off-shoot of Indo-Aryan.
@mzp1 "I mean the hypothesized proto language Proto-Indo-Iranian never existed."
Don't be a shameful raving fool. The language of the Avesta and Rigveda is so close that some phrases coincide literally textually. The Indo-Iranian group of languages is the only group of languages that no one doubts at all, and has never doubted, they clearly had a common ancestor.
Everything you say and write is unscientific propaganda nonsense, you need to see a doctor of mental retardation urgently.
@Sam, it depends on what mzp means, but the idea that there may *not* have been a single ancestor "Indo-Iranian" that then gave all its features to daughter languages is not an unusual one.
There are also models of dialect convergence within IE. See paper by Andrew Garrett - http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~garrett/IEConvergence.pdf
Basically the idea is that rather than a branching of Indo-European into a set of different families in a phased way, it just branches off into lots of dialects which then converge into languages over time.
(Think of an analogy where English speakers all move into North America and at the beginning speak the same language without much difference, but over time, different small regions develop new speech habits, and then over time, these merge and converge together in larger regions. A person looking at this hundreds of years later might think its an ordered tree branching that formed these dialects. But we know it was never so.)
The evidence for this is that in the only "nuclear Indo-European" (post-Anatolian) language we have early evidence for - Greek - this is what seems to happen. Proto-Greek innovations are not actually present in any or all Greek language when they are first attested, so must have spread within IE speakers in Greece later, and not developed long before that in some community that then moved into Greece.
So there is a reasonable bet that this is what happens in the formation of Celtic, Italic, Slavic, Indo-Iranian etc. Since there is no or less evidence we can't test it directly (though apparently Garrett indicates the limited evidence in Celtic and Italic appears to suggest it is so).
("In sum, especially if we allow that at least a few post‑Proto‑Greek changes must already have affected Mycenaean before its atestation (it is after all a Greek dialect), detailed analysis reduces the dossier of demonstrable and uniquely Proto‑Greek innovations in phonology and inflectional morphology to nearly zero.
Proto‑Greek retained the basic NIE noun system, verb system, segment inventory, syllable structure, and arguably phonological word structure. In all these areas of linguistic structure, Greek was not yet Greek early in the second millennium. But if so, it hardly makes sense to reconstruct Proto‑Greek as such: a coherent IE dialect, spoken by some IE speech community, ancestral to all the later Greek dialects. ... In short, Greek in the second millennium already had a distinctive derivational, lexical, and onomastic profile. It might not overstate the case to say that Mycenaean was a late NIE dialect with Greek vocabulary; a distinctively Greek phonological and inflectional profile was largely a development of post‑Mycenaean history."
It is thus possible that the dynamics behind the emergence of Celtic, Italic, and other IE branches of Europe refract the same history as those behind the emergence of Greek. In Asia, though there can hardly be direct evidence, we may imagine similar processes at play in the formation of Indo‑Iranian").
@Matt,
No, what mzp1, is arguing is that Iranian is an Indo-Aryan language. I don't think he should be taken seriously because he's obviously an Indocentrist who is looking for an excuse to say nothing in India is from outside of India.
Yeah, Iranian lost a few things, and innovated a few things, otherwise it is very similar to Sanskrit, because it came from Sanskrit.
Theres no complexity or structure missing in Sanskrit, that exists in Avestan, for which we need to create a proto parent language.
This lecture was given by Nicholas Kazanas titled "All inclusiveness of the Rigveda"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JYs2xRVzQ8
Unfortunately I don't have it in written form, but he goes into how there is nothing missing in the Rigveda, linguistic, prosodic, or mythology, that can be considered IE, so essentially it does not make sense to construct a proto language because it does not need to 'carry' anything not available in Sanskrit.
I never said Iranian is an Indo-Aryan language, I said Iranian (Avestan) developed (diverged) away from Sanskrit as it moved away from the homeland. That doesn't deny the classification of Iranian into a distinct family of it's own.
Yes, Matt, thanks for that, I have also seen the example of Greek attest to this phenomenon.
"Indo-Iranian" is a linguistically reconstructed phantom. Iranian shares isoglosses with Greek that it does NOT share with Indo Aryan
Five waves of Indo-European expansion: a preliminary model (2018)
https://www.academia.edu/36998766/Five_waves_of_Indo-European_expansion_a_preliminary_model_2018_
A note on PIE and Nuclear Nostratic (NN) – preliminary report
https://www.academia.edu/37026878/A_note_on_PIE_and_Nuclear_Nostratic_NN_preliminary_report
Vedic and Avestan
http://omilosmeleton.gr/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Vedic_and_Avestan.pdf
Rig Vedic all inclusiveness
http://omilosmeleton.gr/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/RAI_Aug_2012.pdf
@archi said
"The language of the Avesta and Rigveda is so close that some phrases coincide literally textually."
Thats exactly what mzp is trying to say. He is saying iranian is a daughter of Archaic sanskrit, not a sister language.
mzp1 said...
"I never said Iranian is an Indo-Aryan language, I said Iranian (Avestan) developed (diverged) away from Sanskrit as it moved away from the homeland. That doesn't deny the classification of Iranian into a distinct family of it's own."
LOL This person writes meaningless phrases with meanings of words that he does not understand.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
All i can say is that classifying comparative linguistics as a 'science' is a bit too much. Its more like an art form.
For science you have to provide a hypothesis which can be tested and falsified. This is not possible for most supposed ancient languages who have left 0 literary or spoken evidence behind.
Now if they can procure an authentic recorded CD of ancient PIE people speaking their language and it matches at least 80% with reconstructed PIE, I will leave my family and become a lifelong servant of the guy who best predicted it.
vAsiSTha "Thats exactly what mzp is trying to say. He is saying iranian is a daughter of Archaic sanskrit, not a sister language."
No, phonetically Avestan is different from Sanskrit, it's just a common culture and a common ancestral language. Languages just didn't have time to split up like that to become completely different. The origin of Iranian from Sanskrit can only be assumed by a madman.
The study of this topic has been hindered by the unnecessary production of reconstructed proto languages. They're not necessary scientifically because we have all the information available from existing and attested languages, where no information is lost or 'created' in the reconstruction process, so we should aim to work with these where possible.
As an example, Proto-Indo-Iranian doesn't work because the grouping does not account for the different relationships between Indo-Aryan and other languages, and Iranian and other languages, as these relationships are quite independent of each other.
@mzp1, "I said Iranian (Avestan) developed (diverged) away from Sanskrit as it moved away from the homeland"
And what homeland might that be? India ("South Asia")? Of course.
If Indo-Iranian (or as you say Indo Aryan) is from India, explain why it belongs to a language family in which basically all other members are from Europe.
And, explain why in the Bronze age, a European population lived in the smack middle of Asia. And why, many Indo-Iranian ("Indo-Aryans") in Asia today carry their Y DNA.
Yamna came from the West Asia. Who said Steppe MLBA came from Europe, we can make that closer to home, we have the required components. But maybe they did come from Europe. Seems more likely CHG mixed with ANE and Anatolian East of the Caucuses though, because CHG didn't cross the Caucuses in sufficient numbers.
Not every linguists agrees with Garrett . Eg de Vaan states :
“ . But it also appears to me that Garrett is overstating his case, partly because he gives an incomplete
analysis of the Mycenaean facts. The language of the Linear B tablets shows Greek innovations
such as the -t- in the oblique cases of mn-stem neuters ( pema ‘seed’, kemata ‘pieces’), the spread
of the genitive plural ending *-so¯m to the a¯-stem nouns (-a-o), the use of the suffix -e¯u- to form m.
agent nouns and names (ijereu ‘priest’, amoteu ‘cartwright’, etc.), the acc.sg. pronoun min (-mi
‘him, her, it’), the spread of the s-aorist to denominative verbs (ereuterose ‘set free’, with
restoration of s after the sound-law *s > *h), the rise of alpha-thematic s-aorists (dekasato /
de´ksato/ ‘accepted’, akera2te /agerrantes/ ‘gathering’), and the rise of the perfect middle. Of
course, one may hypothesize that, if we had more evidence for other IE languages/dialects from
the southern Balkans in the second millennium BC (e.g., from pre-Illyrian, pre-Macedonian, or
pre-Thracian), ‘‘we might not be able to separate out what was ‘Greek’ about Mycenaean from its
neighbours’’ (p. 15). The point is: we don’t have such evidence. “
@Rob, that's fine.
But say you have a language A spoken by group A, then some members of A go and live somewhere else and mix with others and their language diverges to form Language B. This is not implausible. Then why is it necessary to form a reconstructed language *AB ancestral to A and B. This is what happens in Indo-European linguistics, every difference is attributed to some proto-language. This may help linguists produce neat little trees but it is not necessarily related to reality.
mzp1 said...
"Yamna came from the West Asia. Who said Steppe MLBA came from Europe, we can make that closer to home, we have the required components. Seems more likely CHG mixed with ANE and Anatolian East of the Caucuses though, because CHG didn't cross the Caucuses in sufficient numbers."
Lies and the delirium of a mentally retarded idiot of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect.
East of the Caucasus is the Caspian Sea.
@mzp1 "This may help linguists produce neat little trees but it is not necessarily related to reality."
Understand, linguists are professionals, they are smart people, you are an absolute empty place that only squeals meaningless nonsense, you are despised by all non-smart fantasists who do not understand a word in the topics about which he writes.
Post a Comment