search this blog

Tuesday, November 9, 2021

When it seems like the whole world has gone crazy


I'm hoping that 2022 is the year when this problem is finally straightened out. Over to you David Reich, Nick Patterson, Iosif Lazaridis, David Anthony, Wolfgang Haak, Johannes Krause and colleagues.
See also...

An early Iranian, obviously

The Hajji Firuz fiasco

A Mycenaean and an Iron Age Iranian walk into a bar...

463 comments:

1 – 200 of 463   Newer›   Newest»
Milton said...

So basically the academic consensus agrees with Dienekes' belief.

Davidski said...

Yes, and this consensus is actually based on a belief that there had to have been an Indo-European migration into the steppe, rather than an objective analysis of the ancient DNA.

Genos Historia said...

Well, basal positioning of Anatolian branch is a huge reason for their Iranian theory.

So it is a similar argument the old Anatolian theory used.

Their Theory is PIE originated in Iran. One branch went to Steppe, one branch to Anatolia.

Looking at the basal positioning of Anatolian, this does make some sense.

But not really. A big mistake they make is giving the lone Anatolian branch as much respect as every other IE languages combined.

They see, oh Late PIE is in the Steppe. Anatolian is in SW Asia. Therefore, we can't be sure if PIE originated in Euro Steppe or in SW Asia. They're both equal options.

No, Anatolian is just one IE language even if it is the most basal. It should not be seen as equal to all other IE languages combined.

If all other IE languages come from East Euro Steppe, basic reasoning suggests we should favor the idea Anatolian originally comes from there too. It is just a branch that left early.

Matt said...

Waiting for Ghalichi Ayshin et al...

Davidski said...

Well, I'm waiting for the samples from that paper, rather than the paper itself.

Do recall the nonsense that appeared in the Wang et al. conclusion.

Matt said...

@Genos, there are multiple Anatolian languages. Where methods have tried to quantify lexical divergence between two of them, in Chang's study, it came out quite deep. Though I have low confidence in some of that data after Heggarty announced that their datasets had problems due to presence of high numbers of synonyms.

Matt said...

@Genos, anyway, around that argument, we can argue from variety like that, but an implication; if we argued that way for China, then we'd reverse the recent papers placing Sino-Tibetan in North China and be back to putting proto-Sino-Tibetan in Tibet because "... after all Sinitic may be the most basal branch, but it's only one branch, set against the great mass of Tibetan related languages". Thus is just to highlight that the approach should generally be consistent across language families and not just sort of picking and choosing what seems like common sense.

Ric Hern said...

I think they base everything on the CHG part of the majority Indo-Europeans. If they based it on EHG Ancestors then somehow a migration from Siberia (in their minds) was only possible via the Southern Caspian and somehow people couldn't cross frozen river beds in the North or simply row over on a canoe or float...the ancestors of Australian Aborigines could do it but somehow our Ancestors were to stupid or timid to do this....

Copper Axe said...

You know how often when a new article comes out people immediately try and shoehorn their data into their wacky little theories, even when the data is not in agreement with their hot takes?

This armenian/iranian angle really reminds me of that. I guess the only difference is that tgose researchers dont come to these comment sections to shout into the void.

Vladimir said...

If they take this position, then they will face the Y-DNA problem again. If they believe that the proto IE population is CHG, then they should find the basic subclades of Y-DNA R1b-M269 and R1a-M198 on the Iranian plateau and in the South Caucasus in the period up to 5000 BC.

old europe said...



the reality is only one. they root for the south of the caucasus theory because they know very well that the other plausible contender is the WHG/EHG rich population of the western steppe. They know and they do not like it. If PIE would be a siberian thing they would have rooted for it but they know is impossible. PIE from europe and with WHG in it is the greatest nightmare possible for a lot of people.very lot of people. hence the iran theory is pushed so strongly.

EastPole said...

@old europe
“PIE from europe and with WHG in it is the greatest nightmare possible for a lot of people.very lot of people. hence the iran theory is pushed so strongly.”

Why is PIE from Europe a nightmare for a lot of people?
It is the only reasonable explanation. Other theories resemble Atlantis or Thule theory.
Could somebody link recent papers showing that PIE from Iran theory is the academic consensus.

Ned said...

And what everybody forgets is that tribes can adopt other tribes' languages so genes and language do not have to match.
There is enough match between genes and peoples whose forebears spoke late proto-indo-european to theorise that late proto-indo-european was spoken by the yamna culture. However there is no evidence yet that any of the various speakers of anatolian languages were genetically the same.
Until there is that evidence we cannot say whether the speakers of early indo-european were genetically similar to the speakers of the yamna culture or the speakers of the early anatolian cultures, or neither.

Davidski said...

@EastPole

The consensus is that an Iranian-related and possibly even Iranian population moved up into the steppe and gave rise to Yamnaya.

There are plenty of recent papers and books backing this scenario, so there's no need to link them here.

Also, some academics believe that because of this the PIE homeland may have been in Iran, but these generally aren't linguists.

Indeed, the consensus among linguists is still that the PIE homeland was on the steppe, never mind the wacky theories about Yamnaya's Iranian origins.

Andrzejewski said...

@Genos Historia “ If all other IE languages come from East Euro Steppe, basic reasoning suggests we should favor the idea Anatolian originally comes from there too. It is just a branch that left early.”

The Steppe invaders were swamped by Hurrians, Kaskian, Hatti and other non-IE that their genetic heritage was lost. Albeit, some R1b was still retained, although in a very diluted form.

The first historic attestation of Anatolian speakers dated from 1900BC, but researchers somehow decided that they stemmed from the Novosurovka some 6,000 years ago, who had taken the Balkan route.

Andrzejewski said...

@Vladimir “ if they take this position, then they will face the Y-DNA problem again. If they believe that the proto IE population is CHG, then they should find the basic subclades of Y-DNA R1b-M269 and R1a-M198 on the Iranian plateau and in the South Caucasus in the period up to 5000 BC.”

Anthony is the exception; he thinks that PIE was from the EHG and not the CHG. I take neither side, I believe that PIE was some sort of a “language isolate”, just like the Sumerian language was.

Andrzejewski said...

@old europe “ PIE from europe and with WHG in it is the greatest nightmare possible for a lot of people.very lot of people. hence the iran theory is pushed so strongly.”

PIE is not from WHG. I believe the only substrate of WHG origin in any modern language is the 1/3 of Sami vocabulary which isn’t Uralic nor IE. But it could also be from EHG (Genos’ ‘extra EHG’ theory) or from SHG.

That said, PIE *IS* from Europe because it’s rooted in Eastern Europe (Steppes). I believe Sredny Stog, Corded Ware and maybe also late Yamnaya had lots of non-IE influences from GAC, and to a lesser extent some Tripolye or Narva HG, but that’s as far as can go for WHG. GAC was probably a Cardial Pottery language and therefore was similar to Vasconic IMO.

Leonidas D said...

@ Davidski, why don't you publish a paper where you explain your views? It is clear that many researchers are paying attention to your blog, but by actually publishing your interpretation of the data, you might clear the ground for an even greater number of people in the academic world.

I am sure that a lot of people here would greatly support such a move.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski @EastPole “ The consensus is that an Iranian-related and possibly even Iranian population moved up into the steppe and gave rise to Yamnaya.

There are plenty of recent papers and books backing this scenario, so there's no need to link them here.

Also, some academics believe that because of this the PIE homeland may have been in Iran, but these generally aren't linguists.”

The must be confused out of their minds. I bet that they mistake the 50% ANE in Iran_N (Ganj Dareh?) and think that it must indicate an Iranian origin. That’s the only explanation for their wacky theory. We all know that Sintashta and the Andronovo Horizon were responsible for the introduction of Indo-Iranian languages millennia later. So if anything it’s Steppe —> West/Central Asia rather than the other way around.

Overall, Yamnaya before the 18% Farmer admixture was 50% ANE as well, stemming from the EHG (75%) and CHG (35%), although the ANE in all 3 (including Iran_N) must’ve been very different because of founder effect, genetic drift and natural selection. In short, these experts had a hard time distinguishing between clades so they reached a wrong conclusion.

Davidski said...

I might try and do that next year, after a few more samples from Anatolia and the Caucasus are published.

MH_82 said...

@ Old Europe

It might be surprising to some people how centrally within Europe PIE appears to be from. For various reasons, often technical & historiographical (rather than necessarily social or political), there might have developed a perception that it requires a more exotic origin, but that's clearly not the case.
The appearance of CHG might have lent initial credence to such an idea. However, CHG is evidently linked to the Forager-Pottery phase of eastern Europe, not the Kurgan phase.

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “ The appearance of CHG might have lent initial credence to such an idea. However, CHG is evidently linked to the Forager-Pottery phase of eastern Europe, not the Kurgan phase.”

Rob, I agree with every word. I do wonder if it turns out that Samara HG, Khvalynsk, Vonyuchka or any other pop could’ve spoken a dialect directly ancestral if not at least related to a putative Pre-Proto-Proto-PIE speech, or whether the very primordial PIE community in a recognizable form has arisen within the Lower Don communities- Sredny, Corded Ware and late stage Yamnaya?

MH_82 said...

@ Andrzejewski


Vasconic is likely to be from those southern French Late Neolithic groups which remained or perhaps re-acquired a G2a-rich population (Trielles, Veraza, etc). I cant see any links with GAC

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “ Vasconic is likely to be from those southern French Late Neolithic groups which remained or perhaps re-acquired a G2a-rich population (Trielles, Veraza, etc). I cant see any links with GAC”

Could be. I tend to see all Neolithic groups stemming from Cardial Pottery as speakers of same language macro family just as Anthony believes that PIE is an EHG language. So both Anthony and myself apply the same logic in different situations. That’s why I tend to think that Tripolye, Etruscans and LBK had something in common with Ötzi’s language- deriving from a Balkan Route Barcin nucleus.

But when it comes to Proto-IE, I somehow tend to attribute its origin in a Lower Don small founder group, likely or possibly related to the remains found in Mariupol cemetery.

a said...

I can't imagine the amount of mental gymnastics required to weave a scenario where steppe pastoralist cultures-- R1b-Z2109+/L51+ extending all the way to R1a branches; but not R1b-M73+ or R1b-V1636+ migrate from Iran to the steppe.

SKRiBHa said...

@EastPole
(…) Why is PIE from Europe a nightmare for a lot of people? (…)

It is obvious, isn't it?

Oddly enough, 'modern science' and its supposedly 'accurate' research methods, such as PCR, somehow can not determine where haplogroups of the so-called White Mummies from Tarim Basin, came from, etc.

Somehow there was no R1b in Andronovo, but this does not prevent some from claiming that White Mummies from Tarim Basin and their R1b come from there…

It is the same with CWC, Yamna, etc.

pnuadha said...

@genos historia

No, Anatolian is just one IE language even if it is the most basal. It should not be seen as equal to all other IE languages combined.

The number of descendant languages does not really matter. What matters is how many languages there were when proto anatolian split off from what would become late PIE and the relative population size of each group. Right now, we only know of two IE groups at the time, proto anatolian (which ended up in Anatolia) and late PIE (which ended up on the Steppe) . So PA does hold a lot of weight. It does stand to reason that late PIE had a greater population seeing how it led to a much greater diversity and number of speakers. Regardless,linguists place PIE in the Steppe.

Genetically, the steppe was already set by the mesolithic, when PIE should have evolved. Anatolia was too NA as was the Caucasus. When did Iran gain NA and levant? I think it was before PIE became a thing. Also, any time people travel very far it always includes males. Ydna on the steppe is native, so CHG came from nearby.

Im with @old europe,
Its political

Genos Historia said...

@Matt,
"Thus is just to highlight that the approach should generally be consistent across language families and not just sort of picking and choosing what seems like common sense. "

The situation for Indo European is different than Sino Tibetan.

Because we actually have documented, IE languages spreading like crazy out of the PC Steppe. We don't have this for Anatolia.

This makes Anatolia & PC Step uncomparable. Yet the Harvard lab compared them as equals. Language diversity isn't all that matters. When looking for the origins of a language family you look for where it was spreading out of.

It would be quite strange if IE languages did almost nothing in SW Asia, except make a home in Anatolia. While in the PC Steppe they spread like wildfire all over the place.

This never made sense. The Harvard lab should have been able to see this.

Genos Historia said...

@Matt,

I really don't appreciate the condescending tone you often have. I made a pretty solid point. Yet you talk down to me like I said something irresponsible.

It seems you have a habit of critiquing the obvious about IE language origins and defending debunked theories.

Genos Historia said...

@MH_82,

I suspect the same. I watched a video from 1958 where they made no hesitation to say Proto-Indo Europeans originated in Eastern Europe.

Maybe sometime recently a need was felt to call them Eurasian.

To talk about IE migration into Lithuania or Romania, as like a migration from China, always sounded like inaccurate to me. We consider Russia today to be apart of the same region as them, but somehow in Bronze age it was twice as far away as today?

The genetic distance between IEs and farmers justifies describing them as being from another continent. But hunter gatherers in Russia & Baltic States, were closely related to PIEs.

Robert Hartmann said...

@davidski after @leonidas D

I think Leonidas is right, and I hope you will not wait too long. Sure, some more appropriate samples from Anatolia would be welcome but your plot is strong enough even now to be elaborated in a decent paper for a wider audience. I follow the debate since long (and sine ira et studio), and I'm rather convinced that you will reach the better end.

vAsiSTha said...

The academic consensus is right on this one. arrows need to start just to E/SE of caspian though.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

You're out with the fairies in la la land, along with all of the people I mentioned in my blog post.

MH_82 said...

@ Andrze

''Could be. I tend to see all Neolithic groups stemming from Cardial Pottery as speakers of same language macro family just as Anthony believes that PIE is an EHG language. So both Anthony and myself apply the same logic in different situations. That’s why I tend to think that Tripolye, Etruscans and LBK had something in common with Ötzi’s language- deriving from a Balkan Route Barcin nucleus.''


Im not against putative higher order affinities, but Neolithic groups were too heterogeous to cast macro-linguistic nets. John Robb's overview on Neolithic Europe is the most optimal, where he rightly points out that the language diversity in Europe peaked during the LN.

GAC is a completely different culture to Cardial pottery. Sure they share some genome-wide affinties, but all other details are different.



''But when it comes to Proto-IE, I somehow tend to attribute its origin in a Lower Don small founder group, likely or possibly related to the remains found in Mariupol cemetery.''

yes there was a commentator who went on & on about LDC, but it's just another ''Neolithic steppe'' group, probably with Balkan farmer links via the Azov & Crimea regions.
It is just a few sites & has no direct filiation with Sredny Stog or Yamnaya. If anything, Khvalynsk is more relevant demographically
Mariupol type sites are strewn from the Dnieper to the Volga -Ural


Matt said...

@Genos, maybe you should go make a YouTube video about it.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

"@vAsiSTha

You're out with the fairies in la la land, along with all of the people I mentioned in my blog post.
"

Yes davidski, CHG and IranN in steppe and modern europe is from the steppe, right next to your parents house.

MH_82 said...

“ The academic consensus is right on this on”

in fact no such perspective of a migration from the Zagros region to the steppe amongst archaeologists.
However a heterogeneous malady does seem to feed it :

- low-Res academic genetic papers dabbling with the IE question.

- an open door for “ghost exotics” was left by the problematic perspectives of Russian scholars (with dubious claims of early pastoralism in the Volga-Ural region) . But they got everything wrong because they were averse to central European influences, which biased their work

- zealous OIT pundits & internet genetics Gurus

Vara said...

Ah, the smell of copium.

It's pretty clear that PIE arose somewhere in the vicinity of Iran, though it's quite surprising that these kurganists have accepted it after a century of using dubious methodology and making stuff up. However, the plot twist is that LPIE isn't from steppes either.

Greek colonists with no steppe ancestry? Yaz with no steppe? Bbbbbut 1 dude with in Turkemenistan brought Iranian languages 2 centuries after the Iranians have already migrated to the Zageos.

Isn't it funny how a few chicks managed to erase the languages of highly advanced civilizations in South Central Asia. Yet when these Bell Beakers annihilate every dude that walks they somehow end up not speaking PIE?


But sure, copper age PIE was spoken by hunter gatherers and stone age fishermen somewhere in Europe. Don't get me wrong, the Yamnaya is very strong contender. For Vasconic. Hahahahhaa

Vara said...

Yeah 1 lost dude had steppe ancestry contemporary with this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsua

Every Iranoligst will tell you that the Iranians stayed in the east for centuries before migrating to the Zagros. But when all else fails resort to time travel!

As for the Greek colony thing go back to your last post. It's been explained many times in the comments.

Weren't you the one yapping about consensus all this time? Poor David, how the tables have turned.

Vladimir said...

Heh... Rob is still pushing his stillborn idea of PIE's homeland in the Balkans

Vladimir said...

The only thing that could be so is if they found a large amount of R1b-V1636 on the Iranian plateau. For example, starting from the final Paleolithic, and then traced how this population moved from the south of the Caspian Sea to the lower Volga and Lower Don.

Tea said...

Occam's razor still applies. The problem is a lack of archeological, linguistic, or genetic evidence for an Iranian origin. Sure they have some genetic components in common but it isn't like there was a population in Iran that has to be ancestral to later steppe dwelling PIE people.

vAsiSTha said...

"Sure they have some genetic components in common but it isn't like there was a population in Iran that has to be ancestral to later steppe dwelling PIE people."

There is, and that population is made up of iranN like + minor ANE, a typical profile of a population eastern to caspian.

I disagree with Vara on the following though, I do think yamnaya spoke some sort of IE related language, possibly an ancestral one to modern euro languages

epoch said...

@Vara + Vasishta

if an Iranian Urheimat is indeed the case, explain to me what non-DNA related arguments there are that would make such a case.

Simon Stevin said...

@Vladimir

Not even that, there’s no R1b-M269, R1a-M198, R1b-V1636, or Q1b2a, in any West Asian samples, prior to the Copper and Bronze Ages. The earliest branches of R1b (L754*, V2219/V88, L389, P297, Y13200/M73) have all been found in Europe, specifically in Italy, Serbia, Romania, Latvia, Ukraine, European Russia, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway, and Spain. All of the earliest R1a samples belong to clades upstream or ancestral to M198/M417 (M459 and YP5056*), and they’re all located in Ukraine, European Russia, and Estonia. These lineages are EHG/proto-EHG in origin, deriving from ANE R and Q lines, like those found in Mal’ta and Afontova Gora. There likely is a proto-Dzudzuana-like component in EHG too, hence the J1 in Khvalynsk and Karelia; there may have been multiple waves of CHG-like populations migrating into Eastern Europe, throughout the Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic (prior to 6000-6500 BCE). However, the main paternal lineages of WSHs are EHG/ANE in origin, and they originated in Europe (I’m talking about R1a and R1b here, not R*, Q1a-F746*, K2b, or P1). There was a massive genetic turn over in the Chalcolithic/Bronze Age, and it emanated from the Pontic-Caspian/East European forest steppes; PIE/IE arrived along with it. Frankly, it’s impossible to say PIE came from Caucasia/Iran, since we’re dealing with prehistoric CHG-like populations, ones that had been on the Pontic-Caspian steppe since the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. This is like saying Sino-Tibetan comes from the Levant or Southeastern Europe, because the IUP emanated from there. In my opinion, PIE is a language isolate, having evolved on the steppes of Eastern Europe.

Ric Hern said...

The problem is that the most probable faint connection to PIE would be 8000 BC. and we already know that R1a and R1b were in and near the Forest Steppe by that time...so going by this I can only think that they think PIE came in later than 8000 BC. with females.

MH_82 said...

@ Vladimir

Seeing through your straw-man (& rather macabre metaphor) highlights your significant unease that modern science has debunked several pseudo-theories with which you were indoctrinated (humans spreading from the Altai, ''early'' Volga-Ural'' pastoralists, Nostraticism/Indo-Uralic; and other such nonsense) But the problem is, you can't get cheeky when you're a Basic Bitch

Vladimir said...

David, maybe it makes sense to add these samples to the G25 collection? There are quite ancient samples from Korea here.
GDI002 Changhang Changhang South Korea Chulmun 4689-4891 calBC F This study
GDI008 Changhang Changhang South Korea Chulmun 4701-4545 calBC M This study
GDI009 Changhang Changhang South Korea Chulmun 4668-4463 calBC F This study
DAJ001 Taejungni Taejungni South Korea Chulmun 761-541 calBC M. This study
AND001 Ando Ando South Korea Chulmun 6300-3000 BC M This study
AND004 Ando Ando South Korea Chulmun 6300-3000 BC F This study
TYD006 Yŏndaedo Yŏndaedo South Korea Chulmun ca. 5000 BC? M This study
TYD007 Yŏndaedo Yŏndaedo South Korea Chulmun ca. 5000 BC? M This study
TYJ001 Yokchido Yokchido South Korea ~2000 BC? F This study
YAK002 Kuma−Nishioda Kuma−Nishioda Yayoi Japan Yayoi 200-100 BC M This study
YAK006 Kuma−Nishioda Kuma−Nishioda Yayoi Japan Yayoi 200-1 BC M This study
NAG016 Nagabaka Nagabaka_early Japan Early Neolithic 2026-1906 calBP F This study
NAG037 Nagabaka Nagabaka_late Japan Late Neolithic M This study
NAG038 Nagabaka Nagabaka_late Japan Late Neolithic 821-794 calBC F This study
NAG012 Nagabaka Nagabaka_late Japan Late Neolithic M This study
NAG019 Nagabaka Nagabaka_late Japan Late Neolithic 796-560 calBC F This study
NAG007.A0102_merged
Nagabaka Nagabaka_late Japan Late Neolithic M This study
NAG035.A0102_merged
Nagabaka Nagabaka_late Japan Early modern 300-0 calBP M This study
NAG036.A0102_merged
Nagabaka Nagabaka_late Japan Early modern 284-0 calBP M This study
NAG039.A0101 Nagabaka Nagabaka_late Japan Early modern 286-0 calBP M This study
Chengjialiang Chengjialiang WLR_EN Liaoning, China Xinglongwa ~~7500 BP This study
Chahai Chahai WLR_EN Liaoning, China Xinglongwa ~~7500 BP This study
HQH2 Honghecun Angangxi Northeast China Angangxi 2000 BC This study
HQH3 Honghecun Angangxi Northeast China Angangxi 2000 BC This study
HQH4 Honghecun Angangxi Northeast China Angangxi 2000 BC This study
HQH5 Honghecun Angangxi Northeast China Angangxi 2000 BC This study

These are new samples from the study - Triangulation supports agricultural spread of the Transeurasian languages
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04108-8#Fig8
https://edmond.mpdl.mpg.de/imeji/collection/59JGAaOpSxRb96Vh?q=

Andrzejewski said...

@Simon Stevin “ In my opinion, PIE is a language isolate, having evolved on the steppes of Eastern Europe.”

My theory exactly. I don’t even think that Khvalynsk, Progress or Samara had anything to do with PIE at al, nor did Dnieper Donetsk. I suspect that PIE was a Sredny Stog language and it was a language isolate.

Andrzejewski said...

@Vladimir I read the study about transeurasian, formerly called “Altaic” language family. First, it was debunked decades ago. Second, Korean and Japanese are considered by mainstream linguistic community to be language isolates. And third, the genetic component of this family when it comes to uniparental markers such as Hap C have some genetic relations to the Ulchi like East Asian side of Native Americans.

Tirail said...

We have to surrender to the science of genetics

Aram said...

Some remarks that can be relevant to subject.

+Ikiztepe_LC shows extra CHG shift relative to other Anatolian LC/BA sites. Despite being more western than Arslantepe it is genetically more Eastern than Arslantepe_EBA who technically fall into Kura-Araxes period. So it seems there was a migration from West Caucasus (Maykop?) to North Anatolia in Eneolithic. But linguistically Hattic/Kashkian are more suitable to this migration given later their distribution.

+ Areni cave (Armenia_LC) skull was reconstructed. And the phenotype of that reconstruction do favour the presence of Steppe ancestry in Areni. But abrupt drop of Steppe in EBA means that whoever those migrants were they didn't left much genetic and linguistic? legacy. Maybe because their number was small.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nrken19/status/1441813309016010767?lang=ca


Aram said...

Imho Greek case is practically solved. An important migration affected Greece in MBA with significant steppe ancestry.


Target: GRC_Helladic_MBA
Distance: 2.8871% / 0.02887092
64.0 GRC_Helladic_EBA
36.0 Yamnaya_UKR
0.0 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
0.0 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
0.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps

The addition of Bulgaria_C will further improve the fit. Which means they came somewhere from Eastern Balkans.

epoch said...

@Rob

"Nostraticism/Indo-Uralic"

There still is something in the Nostratic theory that I find remarkable. While it concerns only a few roots they are related to pronouns and what/who/when. I saw the term "Mitian languages" being used, for "mi" and "ti" these languages share. It all could be waved away as coincidence if the languages concerned weren't adjacent.

Now, I very much realise that this isn't proof of anything, and certainly not a neat language family tree. But the people speaking these languages all have ANE admixture. Mind you, as almost all Eurasians outside S.E. Asia do that may mean absolutely nothing.

3rdacc said...

@Vara

"Every Iranoligst will tell you that the Iranians stayed in the east for centuries before migrating to the Zagros. But when all else fails resort to time travel!"

Do you have any reading material regarding this? Furthermore, you think I can get your email?

Nathan Paul said...

Long time lurker. Looks like both approaches are correct. K1 and K2 Y haplogroup descendants from east and evolved autosomal migration to east and rise.

vAsiSTha said...

whats the status of Glav_14 I11955 Z93?
Its removed from harvard dataset. is the dating of the sample secure?

MH_82 said...

@ Aram

''it seems there was a migration from West Caucasus (Maykop?) to North Anatolia in Eneolithic. But linguistically Hattic/Kashkian are more suitable to this migration given later their distribution.''

There was more than this. Some Ikiztepe are indeed Majkop like, but others came via central Anatolia and Malataya, being Arslantepe like
Others still came from NW Black Sea region. IKI003 might belong to Y-hg I, and although poor coverage, it might not be the local Neolithic variety of I2c.


@ Epoch

''There still is something in the Nostratic theory that I find remarkable. While it concerns only a few roots they are related to pronouns and what/who/when.''

Maybe the general tendencies of human languages and long periods of interconnectivity ?
Otherwise, history has been too dynamic and shifting.

Davidski said...

@Foxvillager

I couldn't approve your last comment because it's not the direction that I want this discussion to go.

Foxvillager said...

Ok you know... no problem.But this IMO the big issue behind such papers and studies.

Andrzejewski said...

Regarding the Indo-Uralic BS:

There’s nothing in common between IE and Uralic, except some loan words from IIr —> PU via Seima Turbino in the LBA, including “name” and “water”. Uralic comes from some migrations of Hap N from Northern China and it was formed in Western Siberia. PIE otoh was formed in Eastern European PC Steppe by an amalgamation of EHG and CHG clans who were bearing R1a1 and R1b and whose language was isolate and formed on the lower Don in Ukraine (Sredny Stog).

Andrzejewski said...

@Aram @Rob . So it seems there was a migration from West Caucasus (Maykop?) to North Anatolia in Eneolithic. But linguistically Hattic/Kashkian are more suitable to this migration given later their distribution.”

Do you suspect that all pervasive language families in the Caucasus today - Kartvelian, NEC and NWC - along with Hurro-Urartian, Hatti and Minoan - came from Maykop and Kura Araxes? Any relations to Leyla Tepe? IIRC, Lazaridis mentioned that Kartvelians have “Iran-related” admixture component that NWC/NEC both lack. Did he possibly mix up between Iran_N and CHG?

What’s about that hyped up Uruk migration? Last time I checked Uruk was a Sumerian major city. Does it mean that these putatively Sumerians are the ancestors of Hurrians, Kartvelians and so on?

Clarity is urgently needed here.

MaxT said...

Steppe makes most sense but questions still remain about when and how CHG-related arrived and if there was multiple layers to this CHG-related ancestry?

Wilkin et al 2021 talks about Yamnaya having goats and sheeps as part of herd animals. It would be good to figure out when and who introduced them to steppe.

Vara said...

@epoch

Everything.

The fact that the reconstructed PIE religion doesn't even match with anything found on the steppes. Literally the core IE myth is that of a mountain king/god fighting a dragon. Also, a common a IE formula is the poet considering himself a builder of verses or wordsmith(see Mallory). Where are these great metallurgists that inspired the smith god/hero? The Khvalynsk stone age fishermen?

https://www.academia.edu/36444696/Some_Indo-Iranian_mythological_motifs_in_the_art_of_the_Novosvobodnaya_Majkop_culture

^ Here's the earliest evidence of IE religion and it's from Iranian migrants. It's funny how Klady was supposed to be this wave of steppe chieftains moving south but now that we have the Novosvobodnaya samples it's all hush hush.

As for the second oldest evidence it's the literal dragonslayer myth almost a thousand years before it appears in Mesopotamia but that's coming soon.

Aram said...

epoch

"if an Iranian Urheimat is indeed the case, explain to me what non-DNA related arguments there are that would make such a case."

Extremely large number of lexical parallels between IE and Kartvelian languages. How Steppe theory explains this?
I can send You the link on Klimov's etymological dictionary of Kartvelian languages. You can see Yourself the list of this parallels.

ancestralwhispers.org said...

@Andrzejewski
Don't recall Lazaridis ever mentioning this, but Megrels and Svans don't really have much Iran_N either, the Iran_N in West Georgia seems to be more recent, related to a back movement of East Georgians into West Georgia.
Northeast Caucasian was likely spoken by some parts of the Kura-Araxes culture. Kartvelian is unlikely to be KAC, and Maykopian linguistics are far more complicated.

@Aram
I remember some Areni individuals being predicted as red or blonde haired, but I don't know if it was the reconstructed individual. But when it comes to craniometry, the Areni skull has nothing "Steppe" about him; it is very "Anatolian".

Aram said...

Ancestralwhispers

It is the I1632. There were contradictory predictions about their hair/eye color.
Imho this person look as having some Siberian ancestry. I don't think he look as a typical Anatolian.

ancestralwhispers.org said...

@Aram
Steppe skulls are characterized by dolichocephaly, strong cheekbones and cranial width that is often lower or on par with byzigomatic width. The reconstructed skull is the total opposite of this.

vAsiSTha said...

https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2021/11/qpadm-101.html

qpadm tutorial on my blog.

EastPole said...

@Vara
“The fact that the reconstructed PIE religion doesn't even match with anything found on the steppes. Literally the core IE myth is that of a mountain king/god fighting a dragon. Also, a common a IE formula is the poet considering himself a builder of verses or wordsmith(see Mallory). Where are these great metallurgists that inspired the smith god/hero? The Khvalynsk stone age fishermen?”

Metallurgy came from the Balkans. But in case of Slavs, Indo-Iranians and Hellenes religion probably came from Poland/Western Ukraine and was influenced by Tripolye/TRB/GAC.
Tripolye/TRB/GAC –> CWC –> Sintashta –> Andronovo –> India/Iran
Tripoley/TRB/GAC –>CWC –> Nitra –> Fuzesabony –> Greece

Slavic folk stories about poets as divine wheelwrights and smiths are very ancient and probably original, because they can be directly related to the solar cult and we can explain many elements in Indo-Iranian and Greek stories.

To me PIE origin is not clear. There are three possibility for its origin:

1.Forest-steppe Sredny-Stog
2.Tripolye/TRB/GAC
3. Mix of Forest-steppe and Tripolye/TRB/GAC i.e. CWC

Other stories are like Atlantis i.e. nothing is known and people speculate.

Aram said...

Ancestralwhispers

I understand that. But he didn't got his steppe like ancestry from Yamna. He got it in most likelihood from Progress/Vonyuchka related people, who were slightly more ANE/CHG shifted than Yamna.

I read once more the report of this reconstruction, indeed they claim that it has light hairs and blue eyes. A joint European Armenian team worked on it. Two other skulls will be ready soon.

Ned said...

@Genos Historia: you said:
Anatolian is just one IE language even if it is the most basal. It should not be seen as equal to all other IE languages combined.
I cannot let you get away with that.
In the first half of the second millenium BC (when the first written evidence exists) between 8 and 10 classic I-E languages can be identified (Proto-Germanic, Proto-Italo-Celtic [1 or 2], Proto-Balto-Slavonic, Proto-Albanian, proto-Greek, Proto-Armenian, Proto-Indo-Aryan [1 or 2] and proto-Tocharian). Four Anatolian languages can be identified, three of them with written evidence (Hittite, Luwian, Palaic and Pre-Lydian).
8 against 4, although the balance is not equal, is much closer.

rozenblatt said...

@Andrzejewski Nitpicking: Lower Don is in Russia, not Ukraine.

Andrzejewski said...

@EastPole “ To me PIE origin is not clear. There are three possibility for its origin:

1.Forest-steppe Sredny-Stog
2.Tripolye/TRB/GAC”

No. Tripolye/GAC/TRB are completely distinct from any Steppe pop. A 2018 study proved that.

Genos Historia said...

@Ned,

I understand phylogenetic trees and how to interpret them. I should have said what I wanted to say about Anatolian different.

I understand from a strict sense, two basal branches, Anatolian & LPIE, should be seen as equals. I came off a little stupid ignoring this.

Really, what i meant to say Anatolian is just one branch in one location. Regardless of how basal it is, it never left Anatolia.

So I mean you say four Anatolian branches existed, but they all only existed in Anatolia.

When looking for the origins of a widespread language family, you look for a place you have evidence it spread from.

Anatolian languages stayed in Anatolia. LPIE languages in PC Step spread throughout Eurasia.

Even if you see LPIE and Anatolian as equal branches, this fact makes the PC Step a superior option.

Genos Historia said...

@Ned,

I did not know three Anatolian branches existed that far back. Thanks for sharing.

pnuadha said...

@ned

The northern languages arent recorded. We only know of the ones that survived.

What you are actually pointing out is that Anatolia did not have much diversity, all of its IE languages were more related to each another than the outside IE languages. That points to a migration into anatolia. Contrast this with the genetic diversity found in africa, whereby africans are not closely related to one another, which supports the Out of Africa Theory.

It all comes down to the fact that the first split we know of is between proto anatolia and late PIE. Wouldn't it be odd for the first known split to place one half entirely out of anatolia/middle east, if anatolia/middle east were the homeland? It makes more sense to me that the first known split only appeared to place one half entirely out of the steppe because the languages that resided there were not recorded early enough.

The theory that PIE came out of the middle East is so strange because it argues that the Steppe ended preserving just as much linguistic archaichness (late PIE) as the entire middle east (anatolian).

MH_82 said...

proto-Anatolians began entering western Anatolia ~ 3300 bce. By 2200 more might have arrived, and pushed toward central Anatolia. The clues are subtle but there - hocker burials in male/female position, pottery forms otherwise new/ foreign to Anatolia, the layout of the fortlet at Demircihoyuk is almost a mirror image of Sintashta, etc

SKRiBHa said...

@EastPole, @Andrzejewski

Here you have my last revised version (English and Polish) of the formation of PIE and Post-PIE:

https://skrbh.wordpress.com/2021/11/11/300-definicje-powstawania-jezykow-pie-i-post-pie-wg-skribha/

Vara said...

@eastpole

I see you ignored the Novosvobodnaya paper and made stuff up. Where's this IE religion in Tripolye?

Reality is Corded Ware didn't have proper metallurgy hence why their stone battle axes are an emulation of proper metal shaft-hole axes.

Let's see what David Anthony has to say about Sintashta's metallurgy.

"Finally, the technique of lost- wax metal casting first appeared
in the north during the Sintashta period, in metal objects of Seima- Turbinotype (described in more detail below). Lost- wax casting was familiar to
BMAC metalsmiths.....The sudden shift to large- scale copper production that began about 2100–2000 BCE in the earliest Sintashta settlements must have been stimulated By a sharp increase in demand. Central Asia is the most likely source.

Sintashta's metallurgy from BMAC. Yep, everything related to IE is from Iran. Sounds right.

Ric Hern said...

@ MaxT

What is interesting about domesticated European goats is that they have West Caucasian Tur admixture and not East Caucasian Tur admixture. The range of the East Caucasian Tur extends over 3/4s of the Greater Caucasus Range which is nearest to Iran.

This I think make it highly unlikely that any migration from Iran through the Caucasus brought goats to the Steppe. If there was any migration bringing goats it had to be via the Eastern coast of the Black Sea from Anatolia.

Something else that is interesting is the early split of the Romanov Sheepbreed of the Volga from other Primitive European Short tailed sheep and we know these Short tailed sheep came from Anatolia via the Balkans...

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

The fact that you're citing Carlos Quiles' incoherent babble shows that you're very confused.

Davidski said...

@Vara

You've got a hard battle ahead of you convincing most scientists at any decent level that Iranian languages didn't come from the steppe, especially considering that ancient DNA now shows that Iranians are in large part of steppe origin.

It really is a pointless cause.

And I think you're also taking way too seriously what people like David Reich and Johannes Krause have said in their books about PIE origins in Iran.

The idea that PIE came from Iran isn't a serious contender to the steppe theory, and it never will be.

Indeed, at some point David Reich, Johannes Krause and colleagues will have to admit that there are huge problems with their ideas that Yamnaya has any sort of real Iranian-related ancestry, and this whole PIE from Iran/South Caucasus hypothesis will die.

Grant said...

pnuadha

"What you are actually pointing out is that Anatolia did not have much diversity, all of its IE languages were more related to each another than the outside IE languages. That points to a migration into anatolia."

I believe there is some evidence that Anatolian is a partly areal/chronological grouping (or a _sprachbund_ of languages with similar origins, but separate trajectories). In other words, it can plausibly be hypothesised that the four known Anatolian subgroups may have resulted from two or three geographically-separate migrations from the north: e.g. possibly Proto-Hittite and Proto-Palaic arriving via the Caucasus, and "Proto-Luwo-Lydian" arriving via the Balkans. Admittedly, the evidence for this is limited (and we will probably never know enough about languages like Palaic to be sure). However, there is some (e.g.) such as Proto-Tocharian and Proto-Italo-Celtic (being probably the second and third groups to separate from PIE) having statistically significant similarities to Luwian and Lydian (but not so much to Hittite). Of course, there could well be other perfectly logical explanations, such as Hattic and other Paleo-Anatolian languages having a much greater substrate effect on Hittite (than on its IE siblings).

MH_82 said...


CWC stone axes are an emulation of Yamnaya shaft-hole copper axes . The significance rise in the symbolism of the axe itself; not the copper. The choice of material was a pragmatic one
The notion that Sintashta’s metalwork is from BMAC is highly dubious. Let’s recall the “Alpine” (Baden; Remedelli, etc) variant of I2a1 in one of the Sintashta individuals

epoch said...

@Vara

Can you point me to a link to the PIE "Mountain God"?

vAsiSTha said...

"Indeed, at some point David Reich, Johannes Krause and colleagues will have to admit that there are huge problems with their ideas that Yamnaya has any sort of real Iranian-related ancestry, "

There is no doubt in my mind that steppe en has E SE Caspian ancestry. qpAdm can g25 shows it. Will work on full blown qpgraph project on this question soon.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Bullshit.

vAsiSTha said...

Just a basic G25 on progress en shows that's it's you who's full of shit

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski said...
@SKRiBHa
The fact that you're citing Carlos Quiles' incoherent babble shows that you're very confused.

Dear Davidski

I have already explained it to you here before, but I am doing it again.

Firstly. I understand that you (like me) are rightly prejudiced against Carlos' s claims about CWC as UF.

It is just that in his last post from August, he cancelled this idea and stopped writing at all! It is about time you realised this...

Secondly. It is sad that you do not distinguish between providing links for comparison and quoting data from them, see the so-called PIE homeland and R1b in CWC ...

Is that really me who is ‘very confused’ here?

By the way, I do appreciate that you looked at what I put together in my post! Do you have any substantive comments on what I have stated there?

Best regards
SKRiBHa

Ned said...

@pnuadha said...
"The northern languages arent recorded. We only know of the ones that survived.What you are actually pointing out is that Anatolia did not have much diversity, all of its IE languages were more related to each another than the outside IE languages."
We don't know how many northern, southern or other unrecorded IE languages there were. By 1500 BC we know of only three recorded IE languages (Hittite, Luwian and Palaic).
Nor do we know how closely related the northern IE languages were to each other at this time. The Anatolian languages look like they've got very approximately a thousand-year of development from proto-anatolian.
Yamna is dated 3,300 to 2,600 so some of the northern languages may only have had just over a thousand year of development from late PIE.
So the level of relatedness between individual late PIE languages and the level of relatedness between individual Anatolian languages could well have been similar .

@pnuadha said...
"The theory that PIE came out of the middle East is so strange because it argues that the Steppe ended preserving just as much linguistic archaichness (late PIE) as the entire middle east (anatolian).
I'm not arguing for an Anatolian origin early I-E, nor for a steppe origin. But in discussing archaisms there is one in the Anatolian branches that needs to be considered: the existence of only two genders: common and neuter, and no trace of a relic feminine gender in 'aH', even indicating feminine lexically. This was developed by the northern languages, all in the same way, which suggests it was done before they broke away and also suggests they had a significant period to do it (at least 500 years). This suggests this happened during the Yamna period.
What this indicates is that the split between the Anatolian language speakers and the late PIE speakers happened either early in the Yamna period or before it.

vAsiSTha said...

https://populationgenomics.blog/2019/03/09/steppe-eneolithic-or-prikaspiiskaya-caspian-culture-from-the-south/

Chad's qpgraph also has steppeEn preferring south Caspian instead of CHG ancestry.

You will admit defeat soon, don't worry.

epoch said...

@Vara

"Where are these great metallurgists that inspired the smith god/hero?"

You are aware of the copper axes of Yamnaya?

"Reality is Corded Ware didn't have proper metallurgy hence why their stone battle axes are an emulation of proper metal shaft-hole axes."

There are Corded Ware copper axes and metal artifacts, e.g. copper
axe-hammer from Lužice. Also, the fact that battle axes emulate metal axes says a lot.

Arza said...

The files from the Iberian study were uploaded a few days ago.

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB46907?show=reads

Desailly said...

@Davidski

Indeed, at some point David Reich, Johannes Krause and colleagues will have to admit that there are huge problems with their ideas that Yamnaya has any sort of real Iranian-related ancestry, and this whole PIE from Iran/South Caucasus hypothesis will die.

David Reich also wrote in his book that the homeland of Afro-Asian languages ​​is the Levant, which in itself is nonsense. It seems that he has the same nonsense with the homeland of Indo-Europeans. If a person is a Harvard Professor, it does not mean that this person is necessarily right.

Genos Historia said...

I haven't done the research.

But I'm not going to trust experts when they say Late Proto Indo European and Anatolian are truly two separate IE branches instead of representing some kind of dialect continuum.

Sure Anatolian is a branch. But I'm not convinced Late Proto Indo European is a branch instead of multiple branches who share some features in common that Anatolian lacks.

Genos Historia said...

A Near East origin of PIE is also strange because it would make Anatolian the only native branch there.

This is strange if it is the homeland. The oldest written records are in the Near East. We have recorded lots of languages from people who had Iranian-related ancestry. All, but Anatolian, spoke none-IE.

Stuff like this should have prevented Harvard lab from taking a Iranian/Near Eastern origin so seriously.

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

The fact that Quiles wasn't just wrong, but actually argued against the data, should tell you that he's not an objective or reliable source.

And yet you still cite him. That tells me a lot about you.

What it tells me is that you're completely lost. And indeed, my opinion is that your work is largely incoherent and pointless.

Matt said...

@Arza, thanks, I've been checking it but missed that. That looks like 156 separate samples!

I would guess that the particularly large set of ALM samples that is about half of the set are from the "palace" site of La Almoloya itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Almoloya).

..

@Ned, that's what I thought was true about internal Anatolian differentiation. Glad to have you here to confirm it. Though it seems like measuring the sort of diversity Anatolian and comparing to contemporaries would be difficult due to an absence of evidence at this time on both sides?

Generally, I don't think any of the arguments like:
"The distribution should have been larger and it should have totally displaced Semitic, if Indo-Anatolian was in Northeast West Asia! (... But not if it entered via SE Europe for some reason; if they entered from SE Europe its understandable that they aren't found extensively throught the Middle East outside Anatolia... for some reason)"

or

"Why do we think that Indo-European languages outside Anatolia (...and thousands of years later) are more diverse, if IE if Indo-Anatolian was in Northeast West Asia?"

are really that persuasive, even if the latter was clearly true. Linguists haven't really argued that way for a reason. Those aren't ideas they won't have thought of, they're just both pretty arbitrary criteria.

(They're also things that I guess have been argued against from the other side. "Level of measured language differentiation and diversity has nothing to do with antiquity or dispersal time of a language - that is glottochronology!" is a always trotted out when when people have tried to argue that IE has differentiated at a certain earlier than expected date due to apparent rates of change. So it is odd to see assumption about levels of differentiation then brought out for evidence that the Anatolian languages are only a small side branch.)

Do still think that in the absence of anything better I think it's OK to take "Anatolian from NW" on the basis of the linguist general opinion. But I don't really see any clear archaeological idea about why this is supposed to have happened. I got the impression the common argument (from Anthony or whoever) was that domesticated horses caused a group of early pre-proto Indo European speakers to break off and "take over" societies to the south and east... However this seems more difficult now that it looks like evidence of horse domestication, or at any rate people bringing horses outside the steppe, is much more doubtful since the recent paper by Orlando and his team.

Maybe the samples that indicate a trail of steppe ancestry people, early, that Davidski I think mentioned, will show up.

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski
(…) The fact that Quiles wasn't just wrong, but actually argued against the data, should tell you that he's not an objective or reliable source. (…)

Have I allegedly stated otherwise? Where?

(…) And yet you still cite him. That tells me a lot about you. (…)

Each of us can be said to be 'wrong'. The fact is that he had the balls to admit his serious mistake, see CWC =/= UF.

Would you be able to do the same, see for example CWC R1a =/= Yamna R1b?

I repeat, I only provided a link to the data for comparison about the "homelands of PIE" and about his climbdown to this serious mistake.

Unlike you, I distinguish between a link for comparison of the data and a quotation of the data. I am surprised you do not understand the difference, it is strange but it is not important and I leave it like that.

(…) What it tells me is that you're completely lost. And indeed, my opinion is that your work is largely incoherent and pointless. (…)

Can you give one specific example where I made a mistake or will you remain in such a general slide on this topic?

I will be very obliged to you for the first one, although judging by how you have behaved for a long time, I expect the latter.

Maybe you can explain this discrepancy about EHG formation:

EHG (Haak 2015) = 75%ANE + 25%WHG (??%EEMH + ??%EHG/75%ANE)
EHG (Wang 2018) = 9%ANE + 91%NoWHG???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Hunter-Gatherer

(…) In archaeogenetics, the term Eastern Hunter-Gatherer, East European Hunter-Gatherer, or Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer, is the name given to a distinct ancestral component that represents descent from Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Eastern Europe. The term is abbreviated as EHG. During the Mesolithic, the EHGs inhabited an area stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Urals and downwards to the Pontic-Caspian steppe.[1]

According to a study by Haak et al. (2015), EHGs have about 75% Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) and 25% WHG descent, and to have contributed significantly to the ancestry of the WHGs and SHGs (a mixture of WHG and EHG). Wang et al. (2018) models EHGs as 9% ANE and 91% descended from a group more closely related to but distinct from WHGs.[4] During the Neolithic and early Eneolithic, EHGs on the Pontic-Caspian steppe formed the Yamnaya culture, after some admixture with Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHGs).[5] The genetic cluster formed from this admixture is known as Western Steppe Herder (WSH). (…)

Arza said...

@ Matt

Locations:

https://pastebin.com/W9wxs377

MH_82 said...

@ Matt

“ Do still think that in the absence of anything better I think it's OK to take "Anatolian from NW" on the basis of the linguist general opinion. But I don't really see any clear archaeological idea about why this is supposed to have happened. I got the impression the common argument (from Anthony or whoever) was that domesticated horses caused a group of early pre-proto Indo European speakers to break off and "take over" societies to the south and east... However this seems more difficult now that it looks like evidence of horse domestication, ”


Luckily there are far deeper sources on the matter than DA / DA+ ringe, which don’t rely on a cooker-cutter horse theory
The attentive reader would have already noted my clues

@ vasistha
Even if there is ~ 25% Iran Meso related ancestry in Progress, that doesn't mean that PIE came from Iran. Such a framework lacks cultural coherence, which places the emergence of kurgan cultures East Central Europe, where local hunter-gatherers interacted with Farmers
But even if we cast aside for a moment the processual understanding of culture-history, how does 25% of Hotu cave related ancestry in Progress override the remaining 75% , when in turn it is further attenuate in Yamnaya & Corded Ware, and wholly female mediated

I think you & Vara might benefit from going back to basics. Although details might vary; no linguist has ever positioned info-Iranian as a basal group. It is in fact nested with European diversity . The distribution shows the NW Black Sea region as the point of departure

Matt said...

Hamp thought Indo-Iranian was the first branch after Anatolian and Tocharian splits, but it is not a common PoV.

Tigran said...

Regarding the deeper origins of PIE would it be more similar to the language of the UP European population that contributed the most to its ancestry or the languages ENA/IUP side of ANE?

Still think its also a bit strange all WSHG belonging to R were R1b and very little if any R1a, R2 or even Q.

Davidski said...

@Tigran

There's no reliable way to measure language affinities beyond a few thousand years at best, and anyone who has ever claimed that they can see links between languages that go all the way back to the UP is probably making things up or just plain crazy.

Also, since R1a-M417 was one of the most important Y-haplogroups in the Corded Ware population, and found in some of the oldest Corded Ware samples from Poland and the Baltic states, then it was also present in the WSH group that gave rise to Corded Ware, and that's what really counts.

Whether it was common in some as yet unsampled WSH group or extremely rare until the rise of the Corded Ware is interesting, but of secondary importance.

Wastrel said...

On the Anatolian question, we should clarify one point: there is no doubt that LPIE does form a coherent single branch of PIE.

We know this because LPIE shares many innovations that are absent from PA; it's not plausible for them all to developed independently in each LPIE language. And while some differences are, as it were, 'symmetrical' (we can't tell which branch innovated and which conserved), it's clear that many are asymmetrical and all point to the LPIE forms being innovations, not conservations (i.e. they cannot represent a common ancestry that happens to be preserved in each language, but must have been invented after the departure of PA).

One way we can see this is where Anatolian preserves more irregular forms or paradigms, and LPIE has innovated by regularising them by analogy. This occurs in certain nouns (where diachronically regular but synchronically surprising forms in Anatolian have been regularised in LPIE), in pronominal paradigms (where for example LPIE has found new ways to distinguish number in certain cases where number forms would have merged in PIE), and in the verbal system. In particular, in both nouns and verbs LPIE has a lot more thematisation - replacing an older but less predictable pattern with a more uniform modern pattern (similar to if, for instance, we replaced all the irregular ablauting past tenses in English with uniform -ed suffixes) - a change that is very understandable, but not plausible to have happened in reverse.

We can also probably see it structurally. PA's split ergativity perfectly explains the form of the neuter gender in both branches, which is otherwise motiveless in LPIE; it is also more plausible for LPIE to have innovated a feminine gender from collective and abstract suffixes than vice versa.

And although it's more debateable, people have also argued that you can see it in the direction of semantic drift, with LPIE seeming to show meanings in some cases that can be derived semantically from PA meanings, where the opposite is less likely. Most famously, the split is assumed to occur before agriculture, because agricultural vocabulary is not shared, and PA seems to retain an older meaning for a verb that in PA means "to crush", but in LPIE means "to plough". And the fact that LPIE even HAS a single word for "to plough" that PA lacks rather suggests that LPIE was still united when ploughs were introduced.

Another striking example of this is that the LPIE prohibitive particle (added to imperatives to mean "don't!") can arguably be derived from the imperative of the PA verb meaning "refuse". It's easy to see how this derivation could happen, but the opposite would be weird.

It really does seem, therefore, that PIE split into two equal branches: PA and LPIE. Indeed, if either of these could be questioned, it would be PA: Anatolian languages seem to have fewer common innovations than LPIE languages do, and those that they do share could arguably be attributed to language contact (as indeed it's now known that some of them are). This isn't likely, but it's more likely than LPIE not being a true branch.

Genos Historia said...

@Wastrel,

Thanks for some explanations for why LPIE probably represents a separate IE branch. I'll take note of it. Grammar differences like what you explain make it more likely LPIE is a branch than shared vocab.

vAsiSTha said...

@MH_82

"Even if there is ~ 25% Iran Meso related ancestry in Progress, that doesn't mean that PIE came from Iran. "
I never talk about PIE. i only talk about ancestries.

I dont like reading up on linguistic papers because most of it can be interpreted to mean 1000 things. Im sure there must be many models in which, for eg indo armenian greek are closer than balto slavic to indo iranian, but i dont care enough to read them.

As long as the IE linguistic study is constrained by the assumption that IIr and BS share a common ancestor, the output is going to be wrong.
Get rid of the assumption, and include the assumption that the part satemization of BS is due to extended later iranian contact, these these linguists might get somewhere.

Slumbery said...

@Wastrel

Thank you for the nice summary.

Note that the not-shared agricultural vocabulary is an argument against SW Asian PIE, because agriculture was long established all over SW Asia by the time of the split.

Matt said...

@Slumbery, or that LPIE all descended from a branch that lost and reinnovated such terminology...?

But wouldn't an absence of a shared proto-Anatolian agricultural terminology also be a problem for an idea that Anatolian languages enter from some group from the NW that must have had knowledge of agriculture...?

old europe said...



@SKRiBHA


yes the more updated version of the populations involved in the formation of EHG recognizes that EHG are mostly ( that is pretty much all) made up of the Common West Eurasian genetic cluster that is very similar to the Villabruna cluster.
This is line with both ANE and WHG stemming from the same source popualtion.

Ned said...

@Matt said...

that's what I thought was true about internal Anatolian differentiation. Glad to have you here to confirm it. Though it seems like measuring the sort of diversity Anatolian and comparing to contemporaries would be difficult due to an absence of evidence at this time on both sides?
Thanks for your response. I agree with you - very difficult. We can only talk in very broad terms. The further back in time we go the harder to talk with any certainty. As you note glottochronology doesn't work that well and has many pitfalls, easily demonstrable when using living languages.

@Wastrel said ...
Most famously, the split is assumed to occur before agriculture, because agricultural vocabulary is not shared,
A good summary. Note also that there is a suggestion it occured before widespread use of wheeled vehicles due to the lack of suitable vocabulary in Anatolian that exists in classic I-E languages.

Tom said...

@Tigran

We will never know what the East Eurasian side of ANE (yDNA K2b and P) spoke

MH_82 said...

@ Vasistha

''I dont like reading up on linguistic papers because most of it can be interpreted to mean 1000 things. Im sure there must be many models in which, for eg indo armenian greek are closer than balto slavic to indo iranian, but i dont care enough to read them.''

We would need to know something very well, esp if you wanted to disprove it or suggest an alternative. If someone were to force a claim based on toponyms or loan words strata alone, then all due caution is required. But 150 years of the comparative method is on fairly solid grounds


''As long as the IE linguistic study is constrained by the assumption that IIr and BS share a common ancestor, the output is going to be wrong.
Get rid of the assumption, and include the assumption that the part satemization of BS is due to extended later iranian contact, these these linguists might get somewhere.''

I don't think the main features of Balto-Slavic are due to late iranian contacts, because Ba-Sl did not develop in southern Russia or even the middle-lower Dnieper, where significant nomadic influence can be expected. The main receptors of Scythian influence were 'eastern Halstatt populations'.
but even accepting some interaction and secondary convergence, what about all the other IE languages ? How would they be accounted for ? In particular, we have to account for Anatolian languages, which are from an older stratum and focus in western-central Anatolia, whilst eastern parts are non-IE. This is fairly constraining.

Anyhow, it'd be interesting to see what qpgraph suggests for CHG, Progress, Iran Meso, etc



MH_82 said...

To me, the evidence lines up perfectly. Anatolian-related languages developed in some earlier network, possibly which included Bug-Dniester, Dnieper-Donetz, so forth, whilst nPIE developed in Mariupol groups. Their linguistic distinction might go back to ~ 5000 bc, which is when EEF influences were first diffusing through, piecemeal, but they did not physically separated until much later. The main movement of proto-Anatolian groups would still fall within the Cernavoda/ Usatavo/ Yamnaya phases after the old netowrk began to collapse or shift, and their final push into central Anatolia was most likely within the 3rd millenium.

Slumbery said...

@Matt

"or that LPIE all descended from a branch that lost and reinnovated such terminology...?"

Sure, it is possible, but Occam's Razor says the other explanation is more likely. Nevertheless, I do not say that agricultural terminology decides the question. It is just one piece of information that points into a certain direction set by other information.

From the genetic side we state two things:
- The main male lineages commonly attributed to IE expansion(s) are European, so saying that PIE came from SW Asia is the same as saying that these lineages were all just picked up coincidentally, none of them is actually from PIE.
- The ancient presence of CHG-related ancestry in Europe renders the hypothesis of recent-to-Yamnaya migration from Iran unnecessary, as there is no hole for it to fill up. That means the theory of migration from Iran needs a direct evidence to be even considered. (Still technically possible, but there is no missing link in the formation of the EBA Steppe population that would lower the bar for it.)

Now, there are a lot of open question about how the Anatolian-IE speakers came by? Sure. It is somewhat of a mystery.

vAsiSTha said...

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147856155.pdf
著者(英) Yasuko Suzuki, Sanskrit RUKI Revisited

"
However, there are enough differences
among the four branches that require further developments beyond this peculiar context.
First, Indo-Aryan is the only branch among the four that has developed a full series of retroflex
consonants.
"
"There are some further differences, which suggest that sibilant retroflexion has developed
during a certain span of time and has multiple origins. "


https://sites.ff.cuni.cz/chatressar/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2016/03/Jan-Bi%C4%8Dovsk%C3%BD.pdf
Initial *x- in Slavic revisited
Jan Bičovský

"
There have also been attempts to explain initial x- in Slavic as a result of
an Iranian adstratum and borrowing. Attempts have been made to explain
even the very phonetic process of the ruki-rule as being of Iranian origin (Sussex 2006: 24 among others). Since it is universal in Indo-Iranian,
the ruki rule must have been at least of Proto-Indo-Iranian antiquity (the
unity of these dialects is variously dated between 2000 and 2500 BCE),
and failed to apply at some stage to the newly developed Iranian *s < *,
in the same manner as it did not apply to PSL *s < PIE *. At such a deep
time level, rule borrowing among closely related languages is possible,
but so is an independent (and similar) development of a common heritage. "

There are also constraints on Indo Iranian timing of split.
The sankritic proper nouns in Mitanni and amarna letters are squarely found in the late vedic texts and mahabharata. This is easy to test, make a list of all the Indo aryan words in Mitanni and find where they occur in ancient indian texts. This is probably a millenium after the oldest RV Riks.

Therefore I say that 1500bce steppe is completely irrelevant to the question of Indo aryan in India. The R1a L657, which is the most common clade in South asia, which most likely was born inside south asia itself to a single man and spread from this single man.

Old research told us that a large number of Z93 men stormed India and introduced language, that was when they could not dig into the child subclades. This research is old and is not true anymore. One z93 man produced a child who had Y3, then L657, within south asia. and it then spread.

The level of disdain / brain fart that these scholars show when writing about indo iranian astounds me. just 2 weeks back the horse paper authors said horses came along with indo iranian from steppe without studying a single horse aDna from south or central asia. This is the propaganda level we are at.



SKRiBHa said...

@old europe
yes the more updated version of the populations involved in the formation of EHG recognizes that EHG are mostly ( that is pretty much all) made up of the Common West Eurasian genetic cluster that is very similar to the Villabruna cluster. This is line with both ANE and WHG stemming from the same source popualtion.

Many thanks for your kind reply. Can you explain it somehow in more detail as what you wrote is quite general?

1. What was that 'Common West Eurasian genetic cluster that is very similar to the Villabruna cluster'?

2. What was that ‘the same source popualtion’ - the Gravettians?

3. Do you know what 'a group more closely related to but distinct from WHGs' was? See:

EHG (Haak 2015) = 75%ANE + 25%WHG (??%EEMH + ??%EHG/75%ANE)
EHG (Wang 2018) = 9%ANE + 91%NoWHG???

vAsiSTha said...

"In particular, we have to account for Anatolian languages, which are from an older stratum and focus in western-central Anatolia, whilst eastern parts are non-IE. This is fairly constraining."

Barcin N has ganj dareh ancestry. Since then there have been many bursts from Iran into Anatolia. Can say more than that

vAsiSTha said...

*can't say more than that

Andrzejewski said...

@Wasrel @Genos Historia “ It really does seem, therefore, that PIE split into two equal branches: PA and LPIE. Indeed, if either of these could be questioned, it would be PA: Anatolian languages seem to have fewer common innovations than LPIE languages do, and those that they do share could arguably be attributed to language contact (as indeed it's now known that some of them are). This isn't likely, but it's more likely than LPIE not being a true branch.”

It might ultimately turn out that there were 3 related PIE-scioned dialects that begat 3 distinct branches: Novodanilovska is the source of PA, Corded Ware is for all European and IIr ones while the Armenia language is a true direct descendant of the Poltava or Catacomb, aka Yamnaya speech. From reconstruction of the Hittite language we do know that at least the words for “eat”, “water” and the pronoun “I” are similar to other IE languages and to modern English ones.

Luuk said...

@Davidski,

Did you see any unpublished ancient dna data regarding the Y-haplogroups of early Neolithic Northern Mesopotamia, including Southeastern Turkey and Southern Caucasus?
Do you have any knowledge when the ongoing Harvard study on this subject will be published?
Did you see any unpublished ancient dna data about Y-haplogroup T?
Until now did you see any unpublished ancient dna data which shows a trace of the predecessors/ancestors of the Steppe Maykop outlier individual from the Ipatovo kurgan with Y-haplogroup T?
Also, in 2018 Lazaridis wrote the following: "Chalcolithic Levantines were probably more blue-eyed than Bronze Age people from Russia", did you see any ancient dna data regarding an explanation for the reason of this fact?

Tigran said...

@Davidski

Thanks. That makes sense. I guess I am just a little confused on how languages come about. I always thought everybody would speak something that is a descendant of their ancestors but it seems like new language families popped up without that happening.

Yea the R1a thing is interesting. And any R1a found in WSHG or any Asian population won't change the fact that R1a spread with IE languages and just about every lineage has its origins in Eastern Europe. I think I did read that Baltic CW was Z284 instead of Z280. Would be curious if that would be found in Finnish CW.

Tigran said...

@Lukk

Sounds interesting. Would be curious to know where K1 split from K2 and K from IJ as well. Also wonder what the original y H0/H1-H3 carriers were like.

Ric Hern said...

Unless maybe something in the Xinjiang Mummies make them think that there is a connection between them and the WSHG in Maykop ? A route from Xinjiang via the Southern Caspian to the Piedmont Steppe...wild speculation.

Davidski said...

@Luuk

Based on what I've seen, Y-DNA G and J will be important in ancient Mesopotamia.

Not sure about T. I can't remember seeing that in any upcoming samples from the region.

But it's already quite clear how the Steppe Maykop outlier T arrived on the steppe.

It came from contacts between Steppe Maykop and Caucasus Maykop, because obviously the Steppe Maykop outliers have Caucasus Maykop ancestry.

Genos Historia said...

@Luuk,

The statement lazardis made is correct.

Eastern European hunter gatherers, and their Kurgan descendants, had a low frequency of blue eyes. 5-10% range. Blue eyes were predominate in north & west hunter gatherers.

Anatolian farmers had a higher frequency. 15-20%, some cases in Neolithic Europe 20-25%.

Levant inherited genes for blue eyes from their Anatolian ancestors. The few Levant Chalcolithic samples are exceptionally fair in skin color and eye color genes. But it isn't enough samples to say much. It just demonstrates European-style fair pigmentation exists is native in the SW Asian variation.

Andrzejewski said...

@Luuk @Genos “ Levant inherited genes for blue eyes from their Anatolian ancestors. The few Levant Chalcolithic samples are exceptionally fair in skin color and eye color genes. But it isn't enough samples to say much. It just demonstrates European-style fair pigmentation exists is native in the SW Asian variation.”

Levant and Anatolian, especially Pequi’in populations were light skinned. It’s the Kura Araxes, Hurrian, Jebusites (Mitanni migrants?), Iran_Chl & CHG wave, possibly reflected in founding myths passed from generation down to generation about so-called “Patriarchs” eg Abraham etc., who are possibly responsible for the typical “Semitic” look of Bronze Age onward, near eastern appearance.

Jews are closely related to Kurds, Armenians and northern Mesopotamians, more than to Arabs or southern Levantines, so the influx into Canaan must’ve been substantial to completely change the phenotype over from something distantly reminiscent of LBK, TRB, GAC or anything pre-IE Neolithic European like into the middle eastern melange we have today.

Perhaps it was the founding effect, natural selection and/or genetic drift that made Iran_Chl/CHG darker than their fellow Dzudzuana counterparts of Barcin.

But the following example vindicates my theory: the contemporary modern populations of the Southern Caucasus- Georgians and Armenians, for instance - are on much darker on average than the European Russians, with the former having a considerable (or even majority!) amount of CHG and/or Iran vis-a-vis the latter being the typical CWC + GAC + WHG makeup.

Carlos Aramayo said...

Did anyone of you watch this talk on Mesopotamia?

Near Eastern Seminar Series - NESS
·
"Please join us for next Monday’s (8th November) NESS seminar by Matthew Williams from the University of Adelaide, who will be speaking on "Exploring the Genetic Diversity of Mesopotamia and the Zagros Foothills between the Bronze Age and Persian Periods". The talk will be delivered on Zoom at the normal time of 4pm (AEDT). Please see the attached flyer for further details and the Zoom link is https://uni-sydney.zoom.us/j/81270055775..."

It was announced in NESS site at Facebook:

https://tinyurl.com/snu645mw

Vara said...

from going back to basics. Although details might vary; no linguist has ever positioned info-Iranian as a basal group. It is in fact nested with European diversity . The distribution shows the NW Black Sea region as the point of departure"

I don't think you understand. It doesn't matter how basal Indo-Iranian is even though Matt gave a hint on the Indo-Burushaski model.

The fact is my arguments are based on the kurganist well established chronology.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25203451

This isn't based on some hypothetical mumbo jumbo of "archaeological site xyz spoke some unattested hypothetical para Italo-Celtic language that went extinct based on a burial direction or pottery or some horse bones or some R1b spoke PIE 8000BCE nonesense. This is based on the bronze age texts that made the reconstruction of PIE possible not some language split estimates. The fact that you aren't well read on the subject means you should be the one who should go back to the basics, right?

I'm tackling this through multiple disciplines while you run around about cavemen and WHG. The reality is archaeologists who are proponents of the steppe theory date the migration of Iranians to the west to around ~1100BCE, which is earlier than the Turkmenistan dude. Philologists and linguists put a few centuries between that and their arrival in Eastern Iran. Mallory, C. Young, Parpola, Burrows...etc all proponents of the steppe hypothesis. The fact is aDNA already confirms a hard truth archeologists have known for a while is that there is no evidence of a movement into South Central Asia that brought I-I languages. Kulturkugel, rings a bell?

It's hilarious how the goalpost continues to be shifted. But please tell me why red ochre in Yamnaya means Indo-Aryans have their roots in the steppe while ignoring the Novosvobodnaya rituals.

I won't say anymore than that. Everything else wil to be sent to Alberto in time.

Davidski said...

And which Indo-European speaking population did Novosvobodnaya contribute to genetically?

I can't think of any.

Compare that to the impact that Corded Ware had all the way from Iberia to India.

MH_82 said...

@ Vara

I see; language and light can only come from central, western or Southern Asia, not European cave men who spoke in click and banged stones together.
Despite your claims of multidisciplinarity; you have offered little of substance. PIE spread with Iran N which is actually CHG; but it’s also in Barcin N thrice removed during the Epipaleolithic; but it’s also linked to ANE which is from south Central Asia originally; as indeed all of the worlds YDNA because Onge like males replaced all others

Arguments need to be held in the same standard. The fact that no Iran N ancestry has been found in relevant European contexts is not an issue for you; but an R1a Andronovo male in SCA, rather than affirming actually disproves the Andronovo model because he is in a slightly different location & date than what was postulated by some general History paper from 1973 (!). Genes don’t match language, unless of course it’s when it’s related to Iran N, then it’s beautifully coupled. So forth
It’s difficult to make much of your claims because they’re rather incoherent


Vara said...

"And which Indo-European speaking population did Novosvobodnaya contribute to genetically?"

The point isn't the genetic contribution here but who the rituals are associated with. Hint: Eastern Iran has similar rituals.

"Compare that to the impact that Corded Ware had all the way from Iberia to India."

I'm not denying the genetic impact of CW on SCA. I am denying that these iron age movements brought Indo-Aryan, Nuristani and Iranian to SCA. Not that I agree with it entirely, but read that Burrows paper and convince me that Turkmenistan dude brought Iranian languages. You realize that we are talking about a group that supposedly erased the entire toponyms of South Central Asia except maybe for 3 around the Hindu Kush, but somehow there is no sign of conquest, movement or genetic evidence of it happening in the bronze age.

If you want to ignore archeology, the textual evidence and want to argue that we'll never get the samples of the first Indo-Iranians then we might as well argue for whatever we want like abstinent Indian gurus bringing IE to the steppes. Or better yet PIE from northern Canada by Yemo and Manu who rode "sea chariots" and killed each other after teaching WHG PIE.

vAsiSTha said...

IranN related ancestry is found all throughout the steppe through steppe en and yamnaya.

Davidski said...

So what happened to the uniparental markers from Iran N in Europe?

They didn't make it along with the autosomal DNA and Indo-European languages?

How strange.

Vara said...

Tsk,tsk. Bobby, I don't think you understand the concept of space and time but I'm here to explain. We have Iranian and Indo-Aryan bronze age texts from SCA. Bbbut great Vara, how do we know they are from the bronze age? Well, Bobby there are many descriptions of the weapons and tools they used in those texts and the texts that come after them mentions knives and weapons made from iron. So it's already well established that IA was spoken in SCA during the bronze age. Well you see Bobby, the dude we have is from the iron age which means he's after the Rigveda was composed. Holy shit mind blowing.

Here's something more recent but since you couldn't read one of shortest and also best papers I don't think you can read this:

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Roots_of_Hinduism.html?id=_eykCQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1

Is 2015 too recent for you? Here's something a bit older:
https://brill.com/view/title/13426

Do you want something from Mallory too? Don't worry he is a well known Indo-Europeanist.

Davidski said...

Tell us again how R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 are from the Caucasus, so I can piss myself laughing.

MH_82 said...

@ Vara the Great

If you are able to present some hard evidence of Indo-Aryan speakers in India, or indeed SCA ~ 2500 BC, then that would be fascinating. You know- some real evidence, not hyperbolic and miscontextualised back-projections from the Vedas and misunderstood appeals to the Majkop culture.

Luuk said...

@Davidski
And what about the more northern regions in Southeastern Turkey, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan? Did you see recently any data from there?

Davidski said...

Nothing surprising. It's all very similar to what we've already got from these regions.

Well, there's more R1b-M269, including from eastern Anatolia and northern Iraq. But it's all quite late, and obviously from the steppe.

Luuk said...

@Davidski
Do you have any recent information regarding T in these regions?

Davidski said...

I can't remember any instances of T. Just lots of J and G.

Vara said...

@Davidski,

Ah, David how you hurt me even though that comment wasn't directed to you. But remember when all the internet was rejoicing that we would finally have that evidence of 70% steppe in Swat that will shut the Hindutvas up I was one of the few sensible ones who typed down these great words: Ancient Indo-Iranians will have less steppe ancestry than their modern day descendants.

All trolling and joking aside. There is a problem when we conceptualize yDNA, autosomal ancestry or archaeological cultures as having spoken a certain language without much context. Saying PIE spread by IranN or PIE spread by WHG or Steppe whatever is simply ridiculous. We can pull many examples from history that disprove such notions. The development of language and cultures is extremely complex.

As someone who as of 2019 dropped the Caucasian hypothesis for an Iranian one, let's take Iran for example we can't simply say IranN spoke PIE because you what IranN also probably spoke? Kassite, Lullubean, Gutian, Burushaski and probably some dozen unrelated and extinct languages. I've recently read some paper on how if Dravidian and Hindi keep on converging we'll see a new language that is neither Indo-European nor Dravidian and this important to know. As for language attestation arguments, the Caucasus is a good example since there are gazillion languages spoken there yet most aren't found in historical texts.

Archeological cultures shouldn't be looked at as monolithic entities. Looking at the Arabian vassals of Rome, their elites dressed as Romans, the mosaics were Roman, and even their gods had Roman statues, but we know they were Arabs, and many of them were bilingual.

One of the most complex religion and language imposition ever would be the early Abbasid elite. They were Iranians and spoke Persian in private yet they funded Arabic grammarians. They claimed kingship from the Sassanids yet persucuted and killed Zoroastrians and Manicheans left and right. It's truly fascinating that I'd suggest reading some actual Islamic studies and comparing it with Indo-European studies and you'll see how underdeveloped this field actually is. Not some wikipedia nonesense but Lindstedt, Albrecht Noth..etc. Even the famous A.J Deus short paper can show the complexity of studying an emerging culture.

Yes dna has given us much needed clarity but geneticist are seemingly trying to avoid elite models which may hinder things for some models. We also have tons of examples of conquerers adopting the language of the "high cultured" conquered. However, in some rare cases the "higher culture" can adopt the language of the lower culture, ie. Ottomans.

All of that should be taken into consideration when coming up with a hypothesis for PIE. There is also an important fact that is being forgotten here and that is we may simply never know.

Till next time.

vAsiSTha said...

@mh_82 give any inscribed alphabet even from the great Sintashta culture circa 2000bce plz. Thanks.

Genos Historia said...

@Vara,

Corded Ware's descendants in Europe almost all speak IE languages. With some exceptions.

How better to explain why Southern Asia speaks IE languages, than that it comes from their Corded Ware ancestry?

The fact a Corded Ware derived people, Andronovo, expanded deep in the heart of Asia should not be taken for granted and should make obvious to anyone what IE connection between Europe & Asia is.

At the very least we can say, Andronovo spoke IE.

It is the only genetic link between Southern Asia & Europe which could explain IE languages.

Yes, IE migrations into Southern Asia didn't have a big genetic impact. But this doesn't change where the language comes from.

Genos Historia said...

What people are going to have to get used to is IE migrations didn't have a big genetic impact on Southern Asia.

This is a major reason why I'm against the Harvard lab trying to say the history of India & Europe parallel each other.

The Swat Valley DNA ~1000 BC having low Steppe ancestry isn't a dent to the Kurgan hypothesis, since we already know modern South Asians also have low levels.

Genos Historia said...

*By Southern Asia, I include Iran. I like to use my own geographic categories which make more sense to me.

Davidski said...

You can't measure the impact of steppe migrations on South Asia by looking at average autosomal admixture from the steppe across the whole region.

In fact, steppe migrations had a massive impact on South Asia, because they changed most of its genetic character.

Also, some South Asian groups have as much as 30% steppe ancestry, which is a lot, and R1a-Z93 is one of the most important Y-haplogroups there now.

If not for the steppe migrations, South Asia would be a very different place today genetically.

Genos Historia said...

@Davidski,

I think the average does matter.

Afghanistan, Tajikistan, parts of Pakistan have significant levels.

But the majority of close to a billion Indians have ~15% (much less if they are Dravidian). Iranians in Iran have ~15%.

They include more land and people than Afghanistan & parts of Pakistan.

Matt said...

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1044480/v1 -

"Genomes From Verteba Cave Suggest Diversity Within The Trypillians In Ukraine" -
"The transition to agriculture occurred relatively late in Eastern Europe, leading researchers to debate whether it was a gradual, interactive process or a colonization event. In the forest and forest-steppe regions of Ukraine, farming appeared during the fifth millennium BCE, associated with the Cucuteni-Trypillian Archaeological Complex (CTCC, 4800-3000 BCE). Across Europe, the Neolithization process was highly variable across space and over time. Here, we investigate the population dynamics of early agriculturalists from the eastern forest-steppe region based on analyses of 20 ancient genomes from the Verteba Cave site (3789-980 BCE). The results reveal that the CTCC individuals’ ancestry is related to both western hunter gatherers and Near Eastern farmers, lacks local ancestry associated with Ukrainian Neolithic hunter gatherers and has steppe ancestry. An Early Bronze Age individual has an ancestry profile related to the Yamnaya expansions but with 20% ancestry related to the other Trypillian individuals, which suggests admixture between the Trypillians and the incoming populations carrying steppe-related ancestry. A Late Bronze Age individual dated to 980-948 BCE has a genetic profile indicating affinity to Beaker-related populations, detected close to 1,000 years after the end of the Bell Beaker phenomenon during the Third millennium BCE."


"Eighteen out of the 20 VC individuals were placed close to Neolithic and Eneolithic European populations, such as LBK, Central European Middle and Late Neolithic samples and Moldova Trypillian individuals 37 (Fig. 2A). The PCA also evidenced the extreme similarity between the 18 newly reported Trypillians and the other 4 Trypillians from Verteba cave previously sequenced"

Interesting. They seem to think there's not too much substructure, but there's some differentiation in their PCA.

I don't know if they're all in the current G25 datasheet or Davidski withdrew some because they were low quality, but what I found from the existing Trypillian samples was that the earlier samples from 3700-3650 BCE from Verteba had next to no steppe ancestry (2$ or 0%), and were almost purely just WHG+Anatolian people... while the 3 later females from 3340 to 3230 BCE (Gordinesti, Pocrovca1, Pocrovca3) had a steppe pulse of around 10-16%. They think there's no Ukraine_N, but I don't know...

Vahaduo: https://imgur.com/a/LHfrG4I

They refer to Trypillia Moldova and include them on PCA. Those were also on David Anthony's PCA from his presentation earlier in the year - https://imgur.com/a/MWX38hE

No R1 in the males, all I2a/I2c and G2a and C1a.

The Trypillians from Verteba are noted to be majority derived in terms of having blue eyes, and have the SLC45A2 allele at around 7/16 as far as I can tell (which is quite a high derived frequency for the time). They don't seem to have got reads on SLC24A5, but it would be surprising if it wasn't almost completely derived.

Matt said...

Actually the Moldovan Trypillia refer to seem to be Gordinesti, Pocrovca1, Pocrovca3 from Immel's paper... (Been calling them UKR_Trypillia - wrong!). So if these samples have more steppe ancestry than the ones in this paper, and this paper's ones are more like the previous samples from Verteba Cave from Mathieson's paper, that suggests that the ones in this paper have very little steppe ancestry indeed.

Matt said...

The functional models here from Verteba_Trypillia are:

Hungary_LateC_EBA_Baden_Yamnaya:WHG:Trypillia-Moldova at
0.586:0.019:0.395

Presuming that my Vahaduo G25 fit of Gordinesti+Pocrovca1+Pocrovca3 at 13.3% Progress_En related ancestry is correct, then the Verteba_Trypilla would be expected to be 5% Progress_En...

Matt said...

One reason to be skeptical of their models here:

"Five models worked (Table S4), with the simplest ones involving approximately 93% of Hungary_LateC_EBA_Baden_Yamnaya ancestry plus 7% from Yamnaya-related populations, evidencing the connection between Trypillians and steppe populations, as Hungary_LateC_EBA_Baden_Yamnaya also has Steppe ancestry (Fig. 4)."

But the Hungary_Baden_LCA do not take any steppe ancestry in G25...

MH_82 said...

New archaeological evidence shows that steppe groups were infiltrating beyond the BMAC frontier after the latters demise, or decentralization, ~ 1700 bce. The appearance of indo-Iranian names in Mittani ~ 1400 bce therefore become fairly explicable. We don't need to reference the kulturkugel model, which was always a probative & tentative model due to the infancy of research into SCA/SA

Also, there are groups in South Asia like Ror with high levels of steppe admixture. But it's also true that this admixture was bidirectional.

Desailly said...

@Davidski,

Sorry for my English, and off-topic, but are you know if any results will be published in the near future about genetic history of ancient Egypt / Sudan, and whether any research is being conducted there at all. Thanks.

Davidski said...

Yes, there are ancient Egyptian samples coming soon, including from the Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, the Dynastic period, etc.

Don't expect any surprises. They're similar to Neolithic and Bronze Age Near Eastern samples that are already available, with very little Sub-Saharan ancestry.

But I don't know when they'll be published.

MH_82 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Arza said...

Re: Sudan

BAM files from Kulubnarti:

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB42975?show=reads

Social stratification without genetic differentiation at the site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.17.431423v1

Tigran said...

@Davidski

Are those Ancient Egyptian samples from both Upper and Lower Egypt?

Also I think I saw a map showing one of the Kazakh Scythians or Saka samples was I2b? Is that outdated nomenclature or is there actually an I2b in addition I2a/I2c?

Davidski said...

I can't remember where the Egyptian samples are from. It was a while ago that I saw the info, so things have probably changed since then.

No idea if there's an I2b Scythian.

Davidski said...

@Genos

There are two main reasons why South, Central and West Asia isn't as rich in steppe ancestry as Europe:

- it's a long way from the Pontic-Caspian steppe

- much of it is still non-Indo-European (ie. Dravidian, Tribal, Turkic), and Iran was still largely non-Indo-European during the Iron Age.

So considering these two facts, the amount of steppe ancestry that did make it down there is very impressive IMHO.

In fact, many Dravidian and Tribal Indians totally lack steppe ancestry, which obviously makes sense because they're not Indo-Europeans.

Genos Historia said...

@MH_82,

I'm confused why you say that.

The Tryiplla Y DNA in the study is about 80% Anatolia. It is not a hub of hunter gatherer Y DNA.

7 of 11 Tryippla males are G2a. The C1a is from Anatolia too, so 8 of 11 have Anatolian Y DNA.

C1a in Neolithic Europe is of Anatolian origin. The La Brana man had C1a. But in Eastern Europe we don't see C1a in Mesolithic. Yet we see it in Neolithic, Epipaleolithic Anatolia. Its existence in Neolithic eastern Europe, is from Anatolia.

MH_82 said...

@ Genos

I did not say Trypilia is a hunter-gatherer hub, but the eastern Carpathian region and lower Danube region as a whole (or certain regions within it, to be specific) were before Anatolian-derived farmers expanded into that

but even in Tripilja, you can see 40/60% mix in the YDNA (and Triplje is a classic 'old Farmer' group, unlike TRB or GAC). I've previously explained why we cannot take autosomal % at face value - differential pre-mixture population sizes.

Lastly, of course therell be more Mesolithic y-hg C than in just La Brana

George said...

@Genos re: Anatolian origin C1a

Not necessarily for the V182 branch. There are a couple Turkish/Pontic guys on there in a position that kind of shifts the probability toward an Anatolian origin further, but their mrca date doesn't rule out a migration from Europe, possibly with Anatolian speakers if they were entering around 3000bc, and there are always regular old non-mass migration event migrations as well (but maybe those were really rare back in the day come to think of it). Both a2a1 and a2a2 are downstream from V86 as well and V86 was carried by Vestonice16, pointing to a probable western origin/center of gravity. V86 formed 43 kya though, could have been pretty much anywhere.

vAsiSTha said...

Also, some South Asian groups have as much as 30% steppe ancestry, which is a lot, and R1a-Z93 is one of the most important Y-haplogroups there now.


This is where your BS making comes in.
Z93 is not the most important. L657 is. Why is it different you ask?

Because l657 origin was 1 person in south asia itself. Not thousands of steppe mantra chanting z93 warriors (lmao) invading south asia.

Davidski said...

Z93 in South Asia is more than just L657.

And there's no evidence that L657 originated in South Asia.

Genos Historia said...

I don't think he is saying L657 originated in South Asia.

I think he is saying it is not evidence of a large scale migration of Steppe Z93 into South Asia.

I disagree. No doubt many Andronovo people went to Southern Asia, but I just don't think they made a big genetic impact in Iran & India. Maybe, because they were heavily populated.

Genos Historia said...

@Davidski,

I'm going to do a video on distribution of Kurgan ancestry in Eurasia in 0ad and present day. The focus will be how it reflects the impact of IE migrations.

The basic narrative I'm going with, is IE migrations had big demographic impact everywhere they went except Southern Asia.

If you think that is wrong I'd like to talk about it later via email.

vAsiSTha said...

So I'm sure there must be lots of l657 in steppe adna as well as modern Russia. I need to take a look at this tremendous amount of evidence you have.

Davidski said...

@Genos

Considering how big South Asia is, and how populated and varied it is, especially compared to Europe, the fact that almost everyone there has steppe ancestry means that steppe migrations had a big impact there.

And the fact that steppe ancestry only started to arrive there during the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition makes this even more remarkable.

vAsiSTha said...

"the fact that almost everyone there has steppe ancestry means that steppe migrations had a big impact there."

too bad that none of this 20% ancestry reflects upon the archaeology and local customs of the people in south asia where the customs with relation to food, b angles, clothes, yogic postures in seals etc predate steppe ancestry and continue till today.

The highest steppe% groups arent even brahmins. Bulk of this 30-40% R1a in india is L657 which is indian unless you provide evidence otherwise.

So Harvard and people like you lie when they claim there was this R1a invasion. there wasnt, as is clearly shown by the only adna paper we have from Swat.

The only IE(probable) invasion happened in Europe where yamnaya like groups completely overturned the existing population of the region in east as well as west.

Davidski said...

Go tell your fairy tales to someone who actually cares.

Aram said...

Matt

Thanks for that Trypillian paper. Interesting to see I2c there.
I suspect that the event which affected Greece in MBA also affected Pontic Steppe. I could be wrong but I expect that post Catacombian Multi Cordoned ware (2200-1800bc) will have an impact from Carpathian region. An impulse that will move to East and reach Caucasus.

Andre

I don't think that all non IE languages that You mentioned have single origin.

Minoans are unrelated to Caucasus. Their Y dna was found in ancient Malatya but it's virtually absent from modern Caucasus. So it might be related to Eneolithic developments in Anatolia.

NEC is from Kura-Araxes. The North Eastern parts of it. It is very easy to track their development in subsequent periods. Somewhere in Iron Age or maybe earlier one group of them known Lezgin branch moved to South Caucasus where later they were known as Caucasian Albanians. They initially had lower Steppe. But with time they got more and more. They have excellent correlation with J1-Z1842. This J1 was already found in Kura-Araxes.

NWC might be related to BA Dolmen culture and Iron Age Meotic culture. But still not much DNA to make definitive judgments.

Kartvelian origins might be in so called Proto Colchian MBA culture in Western Georgia. No ancient DNA. Later we can mention also the LBA-IA Colchian culture also in Western Georgia.

Some scholars linked Kashkians with Colchian culture. But a closer look on the boundaries of Colchian culture do not favour this idea. Kashkians were further west and in most likelihood a different group with different culture.

Hurro-Urartian might be from Kura-Araxes also. Later developments are long to list here. But we have dozens of samples from Alalakh MLBA and we have some idea how historic Hurrians were looking. Closer to Caucasus we will occasionally see R1b/Steppe among them but it's levels will not be comparable to those we have seen in Etruscans and Iberians.


A said...

@ Davidski,

I don't know if you noticed, but we already have some royal Mitanni DNA.

According to Gad et al. (2020) Amenhotep III had mtDNA H2b. Amenhotep's mother, Mutemwiya, was the daughter of the Mitanni king Artatama I.

About H2b:

"H2b is a minor branch. It contains several ancient samples from Russia, all basal to the rest of the branch, including one individual from the Yamnaya culture and one from the Late Bronze Age Srubnaya culture, both from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe region, and five other Bronze Age samples from east of the Volga river: three from Sintashta and two from Krasnoyarsk. Also in a basal position, there are three modern Russian samples (two from the Altai region) and one Danish sequence.

Interestingly, while the vast majority (70%) of H2 modern sequences in our dataset are of European origin, H2b displays a strong South Asian component, with seven samples from Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka. The newly published Sintashta and Middle Bronze Age Krasnoyarsk (Russian) sequences (Narasimhan et al. 2018), together with the previously released Yamnaya and Srubnaya, span a period from c.5 to 3.5 ka. These, plus the modern South Asian sequences, support our earlier suggestion that H2b was involved in movements east and southwards from the Pontic-Caspian region into South Asia (Silva et al. 2017), by documenting its progress eastwards across the Eurasian Steppe. The Sintashta Culture in the Ural Mountains, or a “Sintashta-derived” culture (such as the Andronovo), is thought to have expanded eastwards into Central Asia c.3.8 ka, reaching South Asia within several hundred years (Gimbutas 1963; Anthony et al. 1986) and, based on linguistic and archaeological evidence, they are thought to have been responsible for spreading the Indo-European language family across Central and South Asia (Parpola 2015).”

(Silva et al. 2019, Untangling Neolithic and Bronze Age mitochondrial lineages in South Asia)

Aram said...

Andre

The situation in Western Caucasus was in reality more complex than I described. Both NWC and Kartvelian seems to be from the same region yet linguistically they are very different. It is possible that one of this groups was intrusive to that region. If the theory of Hattic/Kashkian/NWC connection is real then it is the Kartvelian that will be left alone there.
Anyway without ancient DNA we are just speculating. The main reason is that there are young clusters there (L1b Pontic , G2-PH311 etc) which means that the situation was not settled even in Classic period. Many tribes attested Graeco-Roman sources later disappears.

Leonidas D said...

I really don't get why so many members are obsessed with refuting the IE migrations into India.

If the IE migrations are at odds with religious scripture, mythology and national narratives, then too bad. The science will not change to accommodate cultural beliefs.

If one can interpret phylogenies in any way, then it will be immediately clear that there is no way that R1a-Z93 and its downstream subclades could have originated in India.

I also like the double standards - IE had a genetic impact in Europe, but not in South Asia? Give us a break.

Denying the IE migrations into the subcontinent has equal merit to the arguments promoted by flat Earthers and moon-landing deniers.

Repeating a lie a million times does not make it true.

As David has said in the past, the subcontinent has been a sink, not a source.

There were large-scale admixture events prior to the IE, most notably with Iranian Neolithic farmers, who without doubt introduced the majority, if not all, of Y-DNA haplogroups L and R2. The IE migrants added even more to the DNA palette of south Asia.

Mind you, some high caste Indians are almost 40% IE, and peripheral populations such as the Kalash have some of the highest percentages of steppe ancestry worldwide.

Also, reading Vedic texts, and analysing the IE linguistics of India also lead to the inescapable conclusion that they were imported from the steppe.

Andrzejewski said...

@Leonidas D “ There were large-scale admixture events prior to the IE, most notably with Iranian Neolithic farmers, who without doubt introduced the majority, if not all, of Y-DNA haplogroups L and R2.”

Isn’t L a Dzudzuana marker and R2 from ANE, in Iran farmers?

Andrzejewski said...

Can anyone link the Triplian paper here?

vAsiSTha said...

"and peripheral populations such as the Kalash have some of the highest percentages of steppe ancestry worldwide."

Are they Brahmins? Lol

"Also, reading Vedic texts, and analysing the IE linguistics of India also lead to the inescapable conclusion that they were imported from the steppe."

Do you even know the bloody language of the steppe? All you got is impressions of spoked wheels in the mud few feet below ground.

Have you read the Vedic texts? Does it say they came from the steppe?

vAsiSTha said...

@A

"According to Gad et al. (2020) Amenhotep III had mtDNA H2b. Amenhotep's mother, Mutemwiya, was the daughter of the Mitanni king Artatama I."

Thanks A. Just another example of mtdna connection of steppe with south asia.

MH_82 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MH_82 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

There's a lot of confusion about level of Steppe ancestry in South Asia it seems to me, that arises because of the different level of actually originally late Neolithic steppe ancestry, which is diluted in Yamnaya / early CWC a bit, then a lot more by Sintashta.

If we carry out an ahistorical model and simplified where Sintashta is used as the source for a set of contemporary European and South Asian populations, then the results look a bit like this: https://imgur.com/a/ilCZFKP

Eyeballing it: Norwegian: 70%, Bulgarian: 60%, Tuscan: 40%, Basque: 38%, Kalash: 34%, Punjabi groups: 25-30% (variable), Brahmins from Gujarat: 20% (variable but no higher than 28%), Sardinian 8% (variable but no higher than 15%), Bengali about 8% (variable but no higher than 15%).

Sintashta itself can be modelled as 60% Progress_Eneolithic and 40% Globular_Amphora, so if we were interested in early Steppe ancestry, reduce those proportions to slightly more than half those values.

It is a big confusion to think Kalash have a high level of ancestry from steppe groups. Even Tajiks probably do not have such a high level of ancestry.

(I do actually find that in this model you can get more Progress Eneolithic into South Asia on G25 plus Vahaduo than the Sintashta level suggests... But this seems not really explicable or compatible with the model where Sintashta or Steppe_MLBA represents the sole source of steppe like ancestry in South Asia).

A said...

@ vAsiSTha,

yes, showing migration from the steppe to India and to Mitanni.

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt “Sintashta itself can be modelled as 60% Progress_Eneolithic and 40% Globular_Amphora, so if we were interested in early Steppe ancestry, reduce those proportions to slightly more than half those values.”

Then how come Polish is 55%-60% Steppe, 30%-35% Anatolian and 15% WHG? It’s like 4:2:1 with each migration wave. GAC ratios must be much lower then.

Tigran said...

I wonder what IE language families went extinct besides the ones we know about. Srubnaya was maybe something non Indo-Iranian but closely related?

a said...

Progress Eneolithic is related to Denmark- samples from Single Grave Culture Gjerrild 5 and 8. The only Sintashta samples that are related to Ochre kurgan burial mounds of PG2001 PG2004 are,I7670 I1020 or the much later PR3 Sarmatian sample found in the same region as the earlier Sintashta I7670,I1020 samples and/or original PG2001 area.

Wise dragon said...

Hi Davidski,

Someone on Anthrogenica showed a leak about The upcoming Egypt Paper:

„There is some upcoming data from Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt that I've seen, some of it has been discussed already on the forum. Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA, then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period. SSA ancestry also increases in time. Haplogroups so far are E-M35 and J1-P58 (wish there were more resolution, looks like we'll have to sift through the BAM files again).“


If these OK Egyptians turn out to be "North African"-like wouldn't that mean OK Egyptians had substantial ANA DNA, thus they were similar to Iberomaurusians?



Can you confirm that?


Matt said...

@Andrzejewski, that's what Global 25 gives me for Sintashta, and I think qpAdm is similar (think came back about 65% Progress Endolithic). Take it or leave it.

vAsiSTha said...

@ vAsiSTha,

yes, showing migration from the steppe to India and to Mitanni.

@a
'migration of daughters, in this case of mitanni, as is the case with swat'

vAsiSTha said...

"Also, reading Vedic texts, and analysing the IE linguistics of India also lead to the inescapable conclusion that they were imported from the steppe"

I'm stuck on this BS comment.

What part of Vedic texts say that the people came from steppe..
Are there peacocks, elephants, camels, trees like peepal (focus religiosa) in the steppe? Are there the rivers in the steppe as mentioned in the RV? Are there fire altars in the steppe?

MH_82 said...

@ Matt

“ I do actually find that in this model you can get more Progress Eneolithic into South Asia on G25 plus Vahaduo than the Sintashta level suggests... But this seems not really explicable or compatible with the model where Sintashta or Steppe_MLBA represents the sole source of steppe like ancestry in South Asia”

Are you suggesting earlier Yamnaya - Afanasievo, alternative trans-Caucasian routes &/or later nomads as co-contributors ?

Matt said...

@Wise Dragon: "Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA"

If preview is correct, I wonder if that will be true Seh_Gabi_C ancestry. In many other instances there is usually a case made that the apparently Iran_N or CHG or Iran_C like ancestry we find is unrelated and diverged during the Mesolithic - CHG in Progress is not really Caucasus or Turan related, Iran_N in Indus_Periphery is a Mesolithic diverged parallel group. Perhaps the same idea could come up in OK Egyptians...

a said...

@ vAsiSTha, Io246 and-R1a

yes, showing migration from the steppe to India and to Mitanni.?
migration of daughters, in this case of mitanni, as is the case with swat'?

India’s native horses disappeared by 8000 BC. But Rig Veda mentions them more than the cow
The oldest, the Rig Veda, itself attests to the cultic importance of horses to ancient Indian culture. It might surprise us to find that the horse is mentioned in it 215 times, thirty-nine times more than the cow, which has come to be widely revered in India.
Potapovka-I0426
earliest apparent chariot rider we have - "The Utyevka VI cemetery was located 0.8 km north-northeast of the village of Utyevka, Samara oblast, south of the Samara River. It contained some of the richest and most unusual graves of the Potapovka culture. Kurgan 6, grave 2 contained six humans: a male-female couple buried facing each other aged 15-17; and four children and infants too old and numerous to be the offspring of the couple—perhaps siblings. Horse sacrifices, shield-shaped studded bone cheekpieces interpreted as chariot-driving gear, weapons (three copper daggers, a flat copper axe, 16 flint projectile points), copper beads and rings, and other objects were found in the grave. Sample I0246 is from the 15-17-year-old male (confirmed genetically).").


https://imgur.com/a/oUeeaLF
Russia Progress Eneolithic component in early Potapovka- Sintashta.

The Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture was a Chalcolithic and early Bronze Age culture which flourished in the forests of Russia from c. 2900 to 2050 BC.[1]

There are not many regions you can get potential DOM2 ancestry for training horses, and or Russia Progress Eniolithic component.

The origins and spread of domestic horses from the Western Eurasian steppes
" Western Eurasia steppes, especially the lower Volga-Don, but not in Anatolia, during the late fourth and early third millennia BC."

Kikkuli was the Hurrian "master horse trainer" (assussanni) of the land Mitanni" (LÚA-AŠ-ŠU-UŠ-ŠA-AN-NI ŠA KUR URUMI-IT-TA-AN-NI) and author of a chariot horse training text written primarily in the Hittite language (as well as an Old Indo-Aryan language, similar to Vedic, as seen in numerals and loan-words), dating to the Hittite New Kingdom (around 1400 BCE).

A said...

@ vAsiSTha,

H2b in Amenhotep III is from marriage between Mitanni and Egyptian royals. Amenhotep III also had R1b-M269 (Nevgen says R-U152), but that's another matter.

A said...

@ Matt.

"I wonder if that will be true Seh_Gabi_C"

Why wouldn't it be? Levant Chalcolithic just next door had Seh_Gabi_C - related ancestry. They apparently introduced metallurgy to Egypt (copper and gold), and also lapis lazuli. Their high incidence of blue eyes is also interesting given the Predynastic and Old Kingdom figurines and statues with blue eyes (made from lapis lazuli in the case of the predynastic figurines).

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt @Aram “ If preview is correct, I wonder if that will be true Seh_Gabi_C ancestry. In many other instances there is usually a case made that the apparently Iran_N or CHG or Iran_C like ancestry we find is unrelated and diverged during the Mesolithic - CHG in Progress is not really Caucasus or Turan related, Iran_N in Indus_Periphery is a Mesolithic diverged parallel group. Perhaps the same idea could come up in OK Egyptians...”

Maybe I’m getting it figured out. The Iran_N was Dzudzuana like Barcin, but a diverged branch of it, with an equal amount (50%) of ANE, which was diverged from that in EHG or WSHG but was similar to ANE in CHG. That Iran_N went to India and intermarried with the Onge-like native HG to create Dravidians. So Dravidians are Iran_N (Seh Gabi?) + Onge-ish. Whether Vara and Vasistha agree or not.

The Elamites were Iran_Chl and so were BMAC. Both were an admixture of Iran_N + an influx of Anatolian farmers. This is also a similar population that later migrated to Israel and created the Hebrews and the Canaanites, upon mixing with the PPNB/PPNC of Natufians + Anatolians. True unadvisedly BMAC descendants could be the Burusho in India, whose language is currently unclassified or isolate.

Sumerians were probably the Anatolian Barcin like farmers w/o the Iran component.

The CHG in Progress must’ve had a similar ANE to Iran_N or Hotu (Iran Meso?) but their ANE was highly diverged than it’s EHG counterpart.


vAsiSTha said...

@matt

I'm just getting to the good part for progress in qpgraph. Naaltifian ponb taforalt ganj dareh satsurblia barcin all added. Let's see what I get from it in the next step.

vAsiSTha said...

Whats the motivation behind this post. a new big paper coming out soon?

Slumbery said...

@Matt

Quick G25 nMontes check tells me Levant PPNC and PPNB have no or only noise level Iranian ancestry. It shows up only with ISR_C. These samples are pretty much from the door of Egypt, a Mesolithic gene flow reaching Egypt would not have bypassed them or at least not likely.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 463   Newer› Newest»