A paper in
Science co-authored by around 200 scientists from some of the world's top academic institutions surely must mean something, right? Not necessarily.
In this short blog post I'll try to explain, as simply as I can, why the
Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. paper doesn't get us any closer to solving the riddle of the so called Indo-Anatolian homeland.
However, it must be said that the paper does include many interesting and valuable samples. I'll be using six of these samples, labeled TUR_C_Gordion_Anc, to argue my case.
The TUR_C_Gordion_Anc sample set is from Gordion, the capital of ancient Phrygia, and thus, in all likeliness, it represents Phrygian speakers.
Phrygian is an Indo-European language and the leading hypothesis is that it originated in the Balkans.
In terms of fine scale ancestry, TUR_C_Gordion_Anc can be reliably divided into two genetic clusters. In the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) below these clusters are labeled TUR_C_Gordion_Anc1 and TUR_C_Gordion_Anc2.
Note that TUR_C_Gordion_Anc1 is obviously pulling away from TUR_C_Gordion_Anc2 towards samples from the Balkans. I've used ancient samples from what is now North Macedonia, labeled MKD_Anc, to represent the Balkans. To see an interactive version of the plot, paste the PCA coordinates from
here into the relevant field
here.
Visually, this is not an especially dramatic outcome, but it's an incredible result nonetheless, because it shows that even a few ancient samples can help to solve an age old mystery.
Across many dimensions of genetic variation, the shift in the PCA from TUR_C_Gordion_Anc1 to TUR_C_Gordion_Anc2 represents about 20% admixture from the Balkans, and about 8% from the Eastern European steppe. That's plenty enough to corroborate the linguistic hypothesis that the Phrygians originated in the Balkans, and that some of their ancestors came from the steppe. The mixture models below were done with the tools
here.
Target: TUR_C_Gordion_Anc1
Distance: 1.6634% / 0.01663373
40.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
22.2 Anatolia_Barcin_N
21.8 MKD_Anc
13.6 Levant_PPNB
1.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.4 Han
Target: TUR_C_Gordion_Anc1
Distance: 1.7109% / 0.01710904
40.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
37.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
12.4 Levant_PPNB
8.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
1.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.4 Han
Target: TUR_C_Gordion_Anc2
Distance: 2.0293% / 0.02029339
51.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
26.8 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
17.6 Anatolia_Barcin_N
4.6 Levant_PPNB
Surprisingly, Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. didn't have much to say about this topic. This quote basically sums it up:
However, in individuals from Gordion, a Central Anatolian city that was under the control of Hittites before becoming the Phrygian capital and then coming under the control of Persian and Hellenistic rulers, the proportion of Eastern hunter-gatherer ancestry is only ~2%, a tiny fraction for a region controlled by at least four different Indo-European–speaking groups.
I have no doubt that Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. can run a very decent PCA, and then blow it up to a size big enough to show that the Gordion samples represent two genetically somewhat distinct groups. I'm also sure that, if they really try, they can locate significant levels of
proximate and relevant European ancestry in some of these samples.
They don't have to use my methods; they can use any methods they like. My point is that they won't find much if they're just looking for genetic signals from the Upper Paleolithic or Mesolithic.
Now, considering the way that the Phrygian question was treated by Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al., despite the fact that they managed to sequence a few likely Phrygian speakers from none other than the Phrygian capital, let's not pretend that their paper brought us any closer to understanding the genetic origins of Anatolian speakers or pinpointing their ancestral homeland.
In order to even try to solve these problems with ancient DNA, we need a wide range of samples from Hittite, Luwian and other key sites where Anatolian languages were spoken. And then we must analyze them properly.
I'm guessing that Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. went out of their way to get such samples, but for one reason or another they failed. If so, that's OK, but I have a feeling that even if they got them, they wouldn't know what to do with them, because at best these samples would only show ~2% Eastern hunter-gatherer ancestry. Haha.
For what it's worth, I believe that the ancient data in the Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. paper point to the North Pontic steppe as the Indo-Anatolian homeland, and I'll lay out my arguments in an upcoming blog post.
See also...
Dear Iosif...Yamnaya
Dear Iosif, about that ~2%
Dear Iosif...
Dear Iosif #2
Dear Iosif #3
I'm off hiking tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI'll try to approve blog comments whenever my mobile connection is working.
@Davidski, archaeological context from the paper:
ReplyDelete"During the Hellenistic period, from which these samples derive, Gordion transformed into a large multicultural town including the spread of Celts or Galatians from western Europe.
The human remains derive from the burial areas A and B of the Lower Town adjacent to the Citadel Mound at Gordion and were excavated between 1993 and 1995. The human skeletal remains recovered from the Later Hellenistic period show extensive evidence of Celtic sacrificial burial ritual including commingled human remains with animal bones, some with butchery marks, and pit burials along with evidence of extensive antemortem and perimortem trauma. All other human remains derive from traditional inhumations in a cemetery context. 6 individuals are included in this study (Archaic and Later Hellenistic)."
Regarding the two clusters in your analysis:
TUR_C_Gordion_Anc1 is I3916, I4029, I4030, I6574
TUR_C_Gordion_Anc2:I6573, I3917
In terms of the date period, the Later Hellenistic ones should be I6574, I6573, I4030, I3916 (323-31 BCE), while the earlier Hellenistic should be I4029 and I3917 (780-544 BCE).
These two sets of clusters in time don't seem to overlap too well with the PCA structure.
But doesn't this suggest that to investigate the shift we need to look at Celts as well?
Fine-scale determination on samples like this (e.g. determine whether its a pulse that's genetically more North Balkan or Celtic like) should be possible in theory.
ReplyDelete(Slightly related, took opportunity to look at the rich England dataset in the newest Reich Lab anno and Norway_IA vs England_IA seems quite easily separable from Anatolian->Steppe shift: https://imgur.com/a/nXxTJNo , once the confound of capture vs .sg is dealt with. Similar things should be possible for questions like this?)
Though large sample sizes might be needed. That's I think quite a key criticism of this paper, that it is still only a start despite the large numbers of samples, because the differences and vectors are often fine-scale, so much proximal testing is needed to really test things.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteThey show a very subtle shift to the Balkans or at least to Eastern Europe.
I can't see anything specifically Celtic about them genetically.
Do any of their mtDNA markers look Western European?
No, I don't think so. Actually the cluster you've identified do look like they like the IA_Bulgaria reference in Vahaduo (I didn't try the ancient period person from Macedonia) and avoid populations from France / La_Tene, which would support that the later period may have been culturally Celticised only, no gene flow.
ReplyDeleteAnd at the same time, in their supplementary, Gordion I4029 have 6,7% EHG
ReplyDelete@Matt
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's what I found as well.
Anatolian Celtic samples would be really nice, but till then I'm going to assume that these are Phrygian speakers with Iron Age Balkan ancestry.
Anyway, not sure if I made this point well enough, but my blog post is more about the need to analyze fine scale ancestry in these sorts of studies of language and genes, rather than about Phrygians per se.
Why are you using Kura-Araxes in your models, when not only is the choice erroneous from an archeological POV, it also solidifies Lazaridis' theory that Anatolians came from the Armenian Highlands.
ReplyDeleteA good amount of CHG ancestry already existed in Anatolia before the appearance of the Kura-Araxes culture. And such, you should be using Chalcolithic Anatolian samples to capture the native Anatolian ancestry instead of relying on KAC + basic Anatolia_N and Levant_N substitutes which will result in a very funky model.
Target: TUR_C_Gordion_Anc
ReplyDeleteDistance: 1.1223% / 0.01122315
57.4 TUR_BlackSea_Amasya_EBA
22.0 TUR_E_Van_Urartian
20.6 MKD_Anc
A possible model that works in your favor.
Probably getting too into looking at this, but after some more tests, I agree the MKD_Ancient source seems to work pretty well in combination with LBA sources from Turkey.
ReplyDeleteBut maybe one more interesting thing is that the source that seemed to work best in combination with Turkish LBA sources was the BGR_IA sample I5769 and also outlier RMPR437b from Italy (Prenestini_o). Both of these seem to have some kind of LBA Turkish ancestry that distinguishes them. BGR I5769 is actually from Eastern Bulgaria and would be very close to a source region for Phyrgian, while RMPR437b has quite a Balkan like profile in their low level of Euro_HG:Steppe ancestry (I don't think they look like an admixture involving a profile like the other Prenestini tribe member).
See: https://imgur.com/a/04r3khw
Obviously the time of these two doesn't really fit with these two being likely to be real ancestors, but I think it would support a Balkan-like vector where there is backflow back-and-forth, supporting that.
What was the Phrygians linguistic affiliation?
ReplyDeleteIllyrians and Messapians (Bulgaria Paleobalkan) natives are speakers of one IE branch, Thracians seem to be linked to Indo-Iranians, Dacians are of unknown IE affiliation (either Thracian or Illyrian) and Panonians are unknown really, although they did speak an IE language.
@Davidski @Matt “Anatolian Celtic samples would be really nice, but till then I'm going to assume that these are Phrygian speakers with Iron Age Balkan ancestry.”
ReplyDeleteAre you guys referring to the Galacians?
BTW - I wrote in a previous thread about the possibility that Sumerian was a Barcin farmer language, affiliated with LBK and Tripolye and that words for cow and pork could’ve been transferred to Yamnaya along with the up to 18% EEF on top of the classic “Steppe component”.
ReplyDeleteThen someone else brought up that there are many agricultural vocabulary words that are post-PIE loans and thus there wasn’t much common PIE terms for them.
I, OTOH, don’t believe that there are many loans from non-IE languages, just about half a dozen, including terms for cow and pork.
@Matt... It does not matter where RMPR437b plots on a PCA and it is not a good sample to use when looking for 1st generation migrants. It has a Bell Beaker R-L2 haplogroup and, below that, an FGC10543 subgroup that in modern samples is 99% found in the Italian peninsula. In ancient DNA, even with all the R-L2 Bell Beakers found to date, it has only been found in that Italic and another Iron Age Etruscan. It is obvious that this person had an Italic paternal line with an immigrant mother from the east.
ReplyDelete@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteThe Bestansur sample from Iraq is within the Uruk borders, it might be a Sumerian. The sample is too low quality and thus never made it to G25, but the salvaged simulation looks close to the outlier from Shirnak. Both the Bestansur simulation and the Shirnak sample display minimal Anatolian admixture. So this might be a glimpse to what the Sumerians were like.
Target: Bestansur_lc-K13-sim_scaled
Distance: 3.5414% / 0.03541449
66.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
29.8 Levant_PPNB
2.0 TUR_Boncuklu_N
1.6 GEO_CHG
Target: TUR_SE_Sirnak_C_A:I4483
Distance: 4.6900% / 0.04690010
46.0 Levant_PPNB
45.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
6.2 GEO_CHG
2.0 TUR_Boncuklu_N
@Richard_Rocca, well, it does matter where they plot on a PCA. If you wanted to argue they were a second generation person with two parents with different ancestry, you would have to show that. Alternatively they might have that lineage, but 3 grandparents from another community, or something like this.
ReplyDelete@ancrstralwhispers.org
ReplyDelete29.8 Levant_PPNB
Levant Neolithic was 50% Barcin related.
And Sumerians could not have spoken an Iran_N language because Elamites were Iran_N and their language was utterly unrelated to Sumerian.
But since Ganj Dareh was 50-50 ANE-Dzudzuana —> there must’ve been an even chance that Elamites spoke an ANE language.
I’m thinking that BMAC substrate in Indo-Aryan could be Elamite like.
But then, who were the Burushaski? The Kusunda? The other language isolate (name slipped slipped my mind) in India?
On the same vain, if we could link the pre-Laplandic 1/3 bulk of the Sami language and the Nganasan substrate with anything WSHG, ANE, WHG, SHG or whatever then we could reconstruct a clearer historiogenetic picture.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, is Basque connected somehow to GAC? Both language speakers were overwhelmingly Cardial Pottery with a considerable WHG component, although GAC also had a tremendous LBK-ish part.
Where did words like “dog” and “boy”, with no apparent Germanic or IE etymology enter the English language from?
What was the relationship between Basque, Tartessian and Iberian?
Did Ötzi speak an LBK, Balkanic route farmer language? Was this one ancestral or at least similar to Etruscan?
These are all the mysteries I’d like to have some “Sherlock” resolve and unravel for me 🙂
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteWhat was the Phrygians linguistic affiliation?
Nobody knows.
Illyrians and Messapians (Bulgaria Paleobalkan) natives are speakers of one IE branch
Maybe. Don't be too eager to consider that a settled answer.
Thracians seem to be linked to Indo-Iranians,
Maybe. But nobody knows the nature of any links that may (or may not) have existed between them. You can just as easily make the case that they're linked to the Balto-Slavic languages.
Dacians are of unknown IE affiliation (either Thracian or Illyrian) and Panonians are unknown really, although they did speak an IE language.
Most people working in the field consider it most likely that Thracian and Dacian were relatd.
The reality is that we don't know enough about any of the Paleo-Balkan languages to say anything about their relationships to each other or any other more well-known branch with any confidence. The connections that have been suggested are at best ephemerally documented, at worst, they're just wishful thinking. Be very cautious about speaking about any such connections with a major caveat that anything said about the linguistic affiliations beyond being IE could just as likely be wrong as not.
Take any cool pictures on the hike Dave?
ReplyDeleteIt's great how you model all these samples with 40-50% kura araxes.
ReplyDelete@ Matt
ReplyDelete''But doesn't this suggest that to investigate the shift we need to look at Celts as well?''
The Celtic sacrificial remains weren't analysed though. It seems the 'other 6' Hellenistic period are from the regular regional Pops
Re: The G25 datasheet, ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR835 and ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR836 are not from Rome at all, they are in fact from Picenum on the Adriatic side. Since there is ITA_Etruria_Imperial, I would suggest that there should also be ITA_Picenum_Imperial, i.e.:
ReplyDeleteITA_Picenum_Imperial:RMPR835
ITA_Picenum_Imperial:RMPR836
I also noticed there are now samples labelled with the suffix Mdv, I suppose that means Medieval. But why not keep the MA, in line with all the other Medieval samples? And then there are now samples with the suffix _Anc. What's that? Ancient or Antiquity?
Then there's the issue that most Levantine samples are under the prefix Levant_, but a few are not:
ISR_Natufian_EpiP
SYR_Ebla_EMBA
SYR_Tell_Qarassa_Early_Antiquity
I think either all of them should have the prefix Levant_ or none. It's best if the datasheet doesn't turn too messy.
I would also call into question the continued use of the VK2020 prefix for some of the samples. OK, when the paper came out, it was a good info that these samples were from that paper, but most other samples don't have such an additional info. And someone looking for Scandinavian or Polish samples might overlook them, if he doesn't think about VK2020 too.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteKura-Araxes or even Kura-Araxes-related ancestry being associated with Indo-Europeans is the worst theory in the world.
Ever heard of Hurrians, Hattians and all the other people who lived in West Asia?
@ Desdichado
ReplyDeleteNot heard of the Phrygian inscriptions ?
Phrygian is related to ancient Macedonian & Greek
"Why are you using Kura-Araxes in your models, when not only is the choice erroneous from an archeological POV, it also solidifies Lazaridis' theory that Anatolians came from the Armenian Highlands."
ReplyDelete@ancestralwhispers whether you like it or not, fact of the matter is that the post 4000bce samples from Anatolia can be best modeled with Kura araxes, whether in east or west. You can go ahead and try various sources of your choice with qpAdm rotations.
Also, your claim of no archaeological backing is wrong, KA materials have been found at kultepe, for eg. You can refer this https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2014_num_40_2_5645
Great points. This was a problem throughout the paper. I don't understand why they did not follow up their distal 5-way model with any testing whatsoever using proximate sources. I can understand (given the huge size of the sample set) why they started off with a one-size-fits-all model to easily scan for initial patterns across the data. But not following it up with a single proximate model, and then introducing and publishing a whole new Indo-European theory resting on such inadequate testing is baffling.
ReplyDeletenMonte on G25 consistently picks up Yamnaya among the new Anatolia and Urartu samples. That pull towards the steppe is easily discernible when plotted on a PCA, too.
This is exciting now we can more clearly discern language links
ReplyDelete- Kura Araxes : northeast Caucasian
- Hatto (-Minoan) : CHG rich neo-Anatolians
- Luwian-Hittite : Balkan Bronze Age
- Hurro-Urartian : interplay between KA and Mesopotamia
Have to think about Kartvelian more
Good post, but I do have questions on the topic of the Macedonian samples themselves. Do you think they are simply hellenized locals? Or are these Macedonians? They are very similar to Logkas samples, and a few are dated to the period of Macedonian rule and culture in the area.
ReplyDeleteThe outlier which looks Mycenaean on a PCA doesn’t really look like one under the hood, it has significantly higher CHG and Levantine component than Mycenaeans, as well as higher Steppe. When you model it in Vahaduo as having MKD_Anc subtracted, you get a pretty good match for Anatolian and Levantine Post-MBA populations, unlike Mycenaeans and Classical Greeks which score a CA Anatolian or Minoan or Helladic component. Both of these trends still occur if you use Logkas, btw. So I don’t think this individual is just a “true Macedonian among Paeonians”
P.S. Can Anatolia BA be modeled with steppe in qpAdm? I feel like this is the most important metric, but I don’t have access to qpAdm so alas I must ask you.
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteAnd you think that PPNB spoke the same language that West Anatolians and EEF spoke?
@vAsiSTha
My friend with tropical limb proportions, I understand that your models tend to ignore logic, archeology and previously published data, so I'd rather take them with a grain of salt.
Have you ever explained why Northeast Caucasians, who derive a predominant amount of their autosomal and Y-DNA input from the Kura-Araxes culture, speak a Northeast Caucasian language?
I'm sure that in time you will abandon your KAC theory, just as the Reich team recently abandoned their Iran_N theory.
@Davidski
There's a strong possibility that neither are linked to the Kura-Araxes culture.
ReplyDelete@vAsiSTha this is a different Kultepe.
@Billybobjoe717
ReplyDeleteI haven't got to qpAdm yet. I'll try and do that next week sometime hopefully.
But Bronze Age western Anatolians should have quite a bit of Balkan ancestry with some steppe mixed in.
Let's wait and see...
@alper
ReplyDeleteYou're right. The extent of KA in eastern anatolia is covered here. https://www.academia.edu/31294407/The_Development_of_Kura_Araxes_Culture_in_Eastern_Anatolia
@ancestralwhispers
"My friend with tropical limb proportions, I understand that your models tend to ignore logic, archeology and previously published data, so I'd rather take them with a grain of salt.
Have you ever explained why Northeast Caucasians, who derive a predominant amount of their autosomal and Y-DNA input from the Kura-Araxes culture, speak a Northeast Caucasian language?"
Let me disabuse you of your ignorant notion that Georgians or Chechens have high Kura araxes ancestry, they don't. They all derive most of their ancestry from a local neolithic substrate like CHG, MasisBlur_N, Aze_LN.
Target: Chechen
Distance: 1.7507% / 0.01750703
23.0 GEO_CHG
18.2 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
14.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
12.6 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
12.6 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
8.8 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A
8.2 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o
2.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 ARM_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B
0.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
Target: Georgian_Laz
Distance: 1.3895% / 0.01389493
36.2 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
29.6 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
20.2 GEO_CHG
8.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
5.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.2 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 ARM_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B
0.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
0.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o
0.0 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
Target: Georgian_Kart
Distance: 1.2023% / 0.01202281
37.4 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
17.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
15.2 GEO_CHG
9.2 ARM_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA
9.0 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
5.8 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A
5.6 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
0.6 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B
0.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
0.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
Target: Georgian_West
Distance: 1.9060% / 0.01905986
36.4 GEO_CHG
29.4 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
28.8 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
5.4 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 ARM_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B
0.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
0.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o
0.0 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
Now do you care to explain why some minuscule 5% ancestry in 2-3 outliers, without uniparental markers, can explain language change of a region better than 50% ancestry coming from outside?
Btw this was hilarious, very scientific of you.
"Why are you using Kura-Araxes in your models, when not only is the choice erroneous from an archeological POV, it also solidifies Lazaridis' theory that Anatolians came from the Armenian Highlands."
@ Billbobjoe
ReplyDelete"" Do you think they are simply hellenized locals? Or are these Macedonians? They are very similar to Logkas samples, and a few are dated to the period of Macedonian rule and culture in the area''
How would Bronze Age and early iron Age north macedonia be "Hellenized' ? Doesnt make any sense
Its the other way round - Proto-Greeks came from Macedonia as part of the pool of Phyrgians, Paeonians, etc, but historical Hellenes themselves became intermixed with Aegean peoples and hence more mediterranean/ Near Eastern than Macedonians.
@Andrei
ReplyDeleteMany Iberian words and phrases have already been translated into Spanish thanks to Basque and research continues to advance. Tartessian is much more difficult to translate and although it is a non-Indo-European language, its relationship with Iberian has not been proven.The coincidences between the numerals, words and onomastics between Iberian and Basque-Aquitanian are too numerous and too precise to be attributed to chance coincidences, so that a common origin for both languages has already been demonstrated. These names are identical in both languages (there are many more). Beles (Basque-Aquitanian>Belex), Adintar, Belestar, Laurdo, Laursu, Tautinko, Abarildur, Adingere, Atabels, Baiseltun, Belasbaiser, Iltubeles, Iltukebeles, Iltirailtun etc
Numerals;
Basque-Erdi /1/2), bat (1), bi (2), (h) iru (r) (3), lau (4), bortz/bost (5), sei (6), zazpi (7), zortzi (8), (h) amar (10), (h) ogei (20)
Iberian-Erdi (1/2), ban (1), bin (2), irur (3), lau (4), bors (te) (5), sei (6), sisbi (7), sorse (8), bar (10), orkei (20)-
Also, it is evident that the western megalithic culture spoke the same language since the neolithic uniparental markers in Iberia, France, Switzerland and the British Isles (also southern Scandinavia) are identical. There is no reason to think that different neolithic languages were spoken in western Europe, and there is enough data to think that this language was Vasconic or proto-Basque-Aquitanian or a language related to these. The autosomal similarity due to the high percentages of WHG in Western Europe and the GAC leads us to think that they may have spoken the same language, but here, the uniparental markers are very different from the Western ones. That is to say, nobody knows the language spoken by the European neolithic cultures, but at least in Iberia we have Basque, which is undoubtedly a language of neolithic origin to know the language of the Iberian neolithic farmers. The fact that Basque has survived to the present day despite the pressure of the Indo-European languages (celtic, latin, french, spanish) is a miracle.
No no, vasistha's models are the best. His canonical qpGraph clearly demonstrated that Yamnaya has admixture from India and the Tarim basin.
ReplyDelete@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteYou asked about Yamnaya. For now, to me it seems it's status quo: Khvalynsk is a variable mix of CHG + EHG, 'steppe-Caucasus Eneolithic' similar but higher CHG + additional WSHG.
In order to model Yamnaya itself, we would have to find the earliest R1b-M269 groups and model them. Modelling Yamnaya on Samara or Kamlykia is problematic because they were clearly new arrivals to those regions, probably absorbing significant amounts of 'EHG + CHG' of the Khvalnysk circle as they arrived.
But of course, for some reason, Lazarides & Reich had a brain explosion and concluded Yamnaya related to Natufians or something
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteWhen did I say that Georgians derive from Kura-Araxes? Since when are Georgians Northeast Caucasians? Talk about "scientific".
This is exactly what I mean, your knowledge in this field is extremely mediocre. First, the sources that you picked for Georgians are laughable, but lets forget that for now because they're not Northeast Caucasians and thus have little to do with Kura-Araxes.
You conveniently ignored Dagestanians, so lets start with them.
Target: Kura-Araxes_RUS_Velikent
Distance: 2.8398% / 0.02839787
86.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
13.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Target: Avar
Distance: 1.7993% / 0.01799346
57.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
39.6 RUS_Catacomb
3.2 KAZ_Karluk
Target: Darginian
Distance: 1.8640% / 0.01864024
54.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
43.0 RUS_Catacomb
2.8 KAZ_Karluk
As you see, the fit is very good, the archeology adds up, and the dominant Y-DNA of Dagistanians is the same that was found in Velikent and in recent KAC samples from Armenia. Everything is where it should be.
Now lets take a look at other Northeast Caucasians, the Nakh.
They can be modeled perfectly as a mixture of Dagestanians (the biggest Northeast Caucasian group), Northwest Caucasians and East Georgians, which also makes sense given their geographical location.
Target: Chechen
Distance: 1.0861% / 0.01086138
51.2 Avar
38.8 Adygei
10.0 Ahiska
Target: Ingushian
Distance: 1.2200% / 0.01219954
62.6 Adygei
30.8 Avar
6.6 Ahiska
The interesting thing about the Khevsur samples from Northeast Georgia is that they confirm that very recently, until the Alanian period, the Nakh used to be Dagestanian-like, that is they did not have any recent input from Northwest Caucasian-like people. A Nakh presence in Northeast Georgia is attested historically, and you also observe this in the Y-DNA of Northeast Georgians; their non-Kartvelian Y-DNA is a lot closely related to the Nakh subclades rather than to Dagestanian subclades, despite the Dagestanian autosomal preference over Chechen.
Target: Georgian_Khevs
Distance: 1.1789% / 0.01178928
60.4 Ahiska
39.6 Avar
0.0 Adygei
Target: Georgian_Khevs
Distance: 1.1732% / 0.01173230
58.0 Ahiska
34.2 Avar
7.8 Chechen
0.0 Adygei
And thus you can clearly observe the Kura-Araxes ancestry in Chechens as well, from their original Dagestanian-like ancestors.
As for the Kartvelians, the original Proto-Kartvelians would have been like the SVN5 sample, which is close to Darkveti-Meshoko. The Iran_N in Proto-Kartvelians would be very low, so Aze_N, Armenia_N would be bad proxies here. The Laz and Kartlians have later admixture from Pontics and Proto-Albanians respectively, hence why they display elevated Iran_N.
Target: Georgian_Svan:SVN5
Distance: 2.6822% / 0.02682243
64.4 Caucasus_Hunter-Gatherer_GEO_CHG
26.6 Anatolia_Neolithic_Farmer_TUR_Barcin_N
8.0 Levant_Neolithic_Farmer_Levant_PPNB
0.4 Pontic_Steppe_Yamnaya_Pastoralist_Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.4 Siberia_Uralic-like_Hunter-Gatherer_RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
0.2 Amerindian_BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
Target: RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2056
Distance: 3.0457% / 0.03045670
67.6 Caucasus_Hunter-Gatherer_GEO_CHG
19.6 Anatolia_Neolithic_Farmer_TUR_Barcin_N
7.8 Levant_Neolithic_Farmer_Levant_PPNB
4.2 Iran_Neolithic_Farmer_IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.8 Pontic_Steppe_Yamnaya_Pastoralist_Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
@ancestralehidpers.org
ReplyDeleteHow come Kartvelians and NWC speakers both have a majority CHG ancestry but their languages are utterly unrelated?
@ancestralwhispers
ReplyDeleteI agree Avars and Darginians show elevated KA ancestry, but that's about it. Good job massaging the data and using modern sources whenever it doesn't suit you.
Heres G25 runs on vahaduo restricting to usage of 4 sources.
Target: Avar
Distance: 1.2456% / 0.01245603 | R4P
51.6 ARM_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA
21.8 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
17.8 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
8.8 MDA_Cimmerian
Target: Darginian
Distance: 1.4078% / 0.01407789 | R4P
45.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
26.6 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
20.6 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
7.4 MDA_Cimmerian
However, Chechens and Ingush also speak NE Caucasian, they dont show KA ancestry.
"And thus you can clearly observe the Kura-Araxes ancestry in Chechens as well, from their original Dagestanian-like ancestors."
Nope. Don't switch from ancient to modern sources when the latter starts suiting you.
Showing full list for chechen to show pops used.
Target: Chechen
Distance: 1.3698% / 0.01369818
18.6 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
17.2 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
12.2 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
12.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
9.2 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
7.8 GEO_CHG
6.4 MDA_Catacomb_Dănceni_MBA
6.2 MDA_Cimmerian
5.8 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
2.4 Scythian_MDA
2.2 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 ARM_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B
0.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.0 MDA_Catacomb_MBA
0.0 MDA_CrihanaVeche_BA
0.0 MDA_MultiCordonedWare_MBA
0.0 MDA_Sabatinovka_LBA
0.0 MDA_Slobodzeya_MBA
0.0 MDA_Trypillia_Late
0.0 MDA_unknown
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_o
0.0 Sarmatian_MDA
0.0 Scythian_MDA_o
0.0 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
Target: Ingushian
Distance: 1.5753% / 0.01575263 | R4P
40.6 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
28.2 GEO_CHG
17.0 MDA_Cimmerian
14.2 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
So please, spare me your definitive conclusions.
You keep waxing eloquently about how Y haplogroups in modern caucasians prove KA spoke caucasian as well. This is no evidence and you know it.
After all Basques had 90%+ steppe Y hg and 40% steppe ancestry, why do they still speak Basque?
The gamechanger for the Armenian theory of course is Gamkrelidze-Ivanov's encyclopedic work on contacts between PIE and caucasian + Semitic. The genetic data proves it nicely.
It is self evident that the neolithic population of this small region spoke proto-caucasian - CHG, Arm_Masis_N, Aknashen_N, Aze_Lowlands_LN as caucasian languages are localized to this region. Proving KA spoke a specific branch of that requires much more proof than what you can offer. KA has some external ancestries as well.
Another question I'd really Lazaridis and his team to answer and explain is: if it's well known that the Neolithization of Caucasia, especially South Caucasia, was driven by cultural and population expansion from ANATOLIA, IRAN *AND* LEVANT/MESOPOTAMIA (and the Neolithic and Chalcolithic DNA samples from the region demonstrate that abundantly), then how did that CHG-rich "Proto-Indo-Anatolian" people miraculously live and preserve a virtually unmixed around farmers from all over West Asia?
ReplyDeleteOr do they really think that the Yamnaya, Sredny Stog or even Steppe Piedmont Progress/Vonyuchka Eneolithic did have Levant_N ancestry as the samples from Azerbaijan and Armenia do?
If CHG and, so they claim, Anatolia_N ancestry arrived or increased in the steppe due to that flow of PIE speakers from south of the Caucasus, where did they live and how did they migrate so that they never mixed with the other mixed peoples of the region until they spread in the steppe?
A mostly CHG people would be expected to exist in South Caucasia before the Neolithic or maybe in the Early Neolithic, but that is waaaaaay further back than the period where PIE is supposed to have started to split in distinct language group.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rpGs1UQa9EE&feature=youtu.be
ReplyDeleteThe formation of Sredny Stog is the ultimate enigma: how did words for milk, one, father and water came to be; if Pre-Proto-PIE putative proto-ancestor language was spoken not only by Sredny but also across the Steppe into Khvalynsk, then we could go back in time even further to a common ancestor producing both cultures.
The problem is whether the PIE nucleus was formed by EHG, CHG or a brand new integrated population which invented new terms.
@Sam Tarim Mummies were overwhelmingly R1a1. Why then did you claim that Tocharians were R1b and thus Yamnaya derived?
ReplyDeleteWe really do need some M269+L23+ samples older than 4000 BC as well as a lot of M269+L23- samples older than 5000 BC so that we have a good record of their autosomal makeup as well as how widespread they were. A nice addition to the samples would be the evidence of the minimal age of some of the SNPs and/or the phylogenetic equivalents that show positive especially if some of them have decent resolution of the Y-chromosome.
ReplyDeleteI was excited to see a huge new data set introduced in this paper. However, on closer inspection I can see that researchers like me will still be wandering in a data desert when it comes to the ancient lower Tigris-Euphrates.
ReplyDeleteIn this paper the furthest south latitude samples from Iraq, which would have been a nice addition to the data set despite not being close to the Red Sea, are at 35.0858 (Bestansur), however these are all extremely poor coverage. Next come the Nemrik9 at 36.7467, also poor, except for I6445 (which is weak, but usable I guess). Then comes Shanidar at 36.8006, also unusable.
So that means anything further south is either in Levant (AinGhazal: 31.988 and Raqefet: 32.65) or west at Shahr-i-Sokhta (30.6499)-- nothing around the Red Sea.
I realize that the southern Iraq area is not too relevant to an Indo-Anatolian language study, but as a person more interested in a comprehensive phylogeography of the Middle East, I believe I'm still relegated to hiking around in the data desert. :-)
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteWell, Koreans and Japanese are derived from the same source yet speak different languages. It's possible for overall genetic make up to remain similar across short distances due to exchange of brides. That, or we may also be looking at different CHGs drifted away from each other over time. On G25 NWC are pulled towards Darkveti-Meshoko whereas Georgians are pulled towards the CHG samples. Funny thing is, Yamnaya_Samara actually prefers Darkveti-Meshoko sample over the CHG ones even if you subtract the Anatolian Farmer in Darkveti (although the shift in distance itself is very minuscule).
Target: Circassian
Distance: 1.6772% / 0.01677247
23.2 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
16.0 GEO_CHG
15.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
14.4 Medieval_Turk
13.2 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
10.4 Kura-Araxes
7.6 Levant_ISR_C
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Target: Abazin
Distance: 1.5147% / 0.01514668
31.4 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
17.4 Medieval_Turk
16.6 GEO_CHG
14.8 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
13.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
6.2 Levant_ISR_C
0.2 Kura-Araxes
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Target: Cherkes
Distance: 1.7913% / 0.01791347
29.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
16.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
14.8 Medieval_Turk
14.6 GEO_CHG
13.8 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
7.4 Levant_ISR_C
3.6 Kura-Araxes
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Target: DolmenLBA_simulated
Distance: 2.1890% / 0.02189019
53.2 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
32.2 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
9.8 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
4.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Target: Georgian_Svaneti
Distance: 1.9075% / 0.01907529
37.2 GEO_CHG
18.4 Kura-Araxes
15.6 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
15.6 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
7.0 Levant_ISR_C
3.6 Medieval_Turk
2.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Target: Georgian_Megr
Distance: 1.7948% / 0.01794796
35.6 GEO_CHG
26.0 Kura-Araxes
16.8 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
13.4 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
7.2 Levant_ISR_C
0.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.4 Medieval_Turk
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Target: TUR_BlackSea_Samsun_Anc_B (Colchian?)
Distance: 2.5880% / 0.02588049
39.2 Kura-Araxes
38.6 GEO_CHG
12.2 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
6.2 Levant_ISR_C
3.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
@VerdianoBR
ReplyDeleteIn a new blog post I'll explain in detail why the David Reich Lab IE/Indo-Anatolian hypothesis is the equivalent of driving a bus off a cliff.
But maybe Genos will beat me to it, because I know that he's making a video about the same topic.
Just briefly...
Yamnaya is a direct descendant of Eneolithic steppe groups, probably from the Sredny Stog culture, and it's overwhelmingly of local hunter-gatherer origin. Even most of its so called CHG ancestry is local, that is from Eastern Europe.
So far, this fact has been downplayed by basically everyone for some reason that I don't quite understand. But a lack of samples has been and still is an issue, because admixture models are only as good as our assumptions and the data we have available.
Sredny Stog/Yamnaya may have some minor Eneolithic Caucasus and/or Balkan ancestry. But even if it does, then this represents non-Indo-European influences on Proto-Indo-European.
Proto-Anatolians most certainly came from the Eastern European steppe via the Balkans, not from Armenia.
If there were Indo-Europeans in Armenia before the Armenians, they also came from the steppe. There may have been a few migrations of different, now extinct Indo-Europeans into Armenia and surrounds via the Caucasus.
There are two main problems currently with proving beyond any doubt the Proto-Anatolians came from the steppe:
1) the lack of ancient data from key Anatolian-speaking centers, like Hattusa and Troy
2) the dilution of ancestry from groups coming into Anatolia during the Copper and Bronze Ages
Dilution of DNA is a real factor, and it was an especially powerful factor in West Asia, including Anatolia.
So dilution has to be taken into account to create more realistic models of language spread, rather than ignored in favor or simple, elegant models that assume unrealistic associations between language and autosomal DNA.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteNakh languages (Chechen/Ingush) are the anomaly in NEC, not the other way around. Moreover, Nakh has a significant NWC substrate which is often used to argue for a connection between NEC and NWC among Nostratists. You really are clueless.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteSurely you can find a way to make your point without resorting to defamatory slurs?
I can't post that stuff here for legal reasons.
It amazes me that people still push these ridiculous simplistic models and still won't read about the history of the Caucasus. K-A network with it's crazy variability from site to site being treated as this uniform Northeastern Caucasian culture is laughable.
ReplyDeleteThe reality of the Caucasus is that consistency was never a thing as various groups and clans dominated one another during certain periods. We know Dagestan and Chechnya are littered with Middle Persian toponyms. Circassia with their Sindoi rulers even the Scythians who gave it the name Caucasus haven't survived.
But sure, pretend everyone was stuck in the mud for millennia.
@Simon Stevin
ReplyDeleteThis character flew low overhead as a I was making my way to the hiking trail.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5LEuIArDtvZYN0hAhSZL8Uihzfhj4Yuuj7jZ63gnV8jWFMWQzRkO2AI_1dCO5uJZvX_qYicEnPZImbF41So4GhqnApd7yo65Nk-9EzBcpX04Bp6vksz6ah5_c6hbcygbepKvzqXZxr-fOFsvVkRyWxx1zpdSRBazIX1wmVyBoCUcV8ZnqgEt7fTVf2w/s1600/Sea_Eagle.jpg
@ Vara
ReplyDeleteSite variability relates to topography, different functions (domestic, ritual) and individual clans & households preferred style. It would in fact be simplistic to interpret material variability in ethnic terms
Whilst there might have very well been linguistic diversity within K-A, there is no evidence that PIE was one of them. Moreover, how did Europe or South Asia adopt the language from K-A when this groups did not extend into either region, and according to your own vision, wasn't even the dominant linguistic group within KA itself ?
There's no explanatory power there.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteI don't think PIE is from K-A.
Rob: "The Celtic sacrificial remains weren't analysed though. It seems the 'other 6' Hellenistic period are from the regular regional Pops"
ReplyDeleteWhere does the paper clear up that this is the case?
Kura Araxes is not PIE for sure. The question is whether it spread IE to Anatolia.
ReplyDeleteWhat is irrefutable is that Kura Araxes material has been found as far west as Arslantepe in Eastern Anatolia. Along with almost all Anatolian samples showing high affinity to KA-like populations.
Target: TUR_Marmara_Barcin_C
Distance: 1.9714% / 0.01971443 | R5P
43.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
23.0 BGR_C
19.4 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
10.8 IRQ_Nemrik9_PPN
3.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Target: TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
Distance: 1.4944% / 0.01494374 | R5P
34.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
25.0 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
19.0 IRQ_Nemrik9_PPN
12.8 BGR_C
8.4 Levant_PPNB
Target: TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_EBA
Distance: 1.1137% / 0.01113661 | R5P
44.4 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
38.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
10.8 Levant_PPNB
4.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
2.2 TUR_Tell_Kurdu_EC
Target: TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
Distance: 0.8880% / 0.00887995 | R5P
34.4 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
27.4 ARM_Aknashen_N
23.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
10.0 Levant_PPNB
4.4 TUR_Tell_Kurdu_EC
The %s here are significant enough to assert that Kura Araxes had a significant linguistic impact on the region, regardless of people on this blog who think that only 4% Yamnaya ancestry can change language but 40% of other ancestries can't.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteIt is telling how overfit and nonsensical your models are. All Nakh show Kura-Araxes, and it is even more evident in the non-Kartvelian ancestry of Northeast Georgian groups, who are admixed with Nakh from the Pre-Alanic period and managed to preserve much of that input. Utilization of ancient samples on the Nakh, with no vAsiSThaesque overfitting, shows the same picture.
Target: Chechen
Distance: 1.5824% / 0.01582411
46.2 RUS_Alan_MA:DA243
35.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
17.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
1.6 KAZ_Kipchak:DA23
Target: Ingushian
Distance: 1.7349% / 0.01734899
47.0 RUS_Alan_MA:DA243
40.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
8.6 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
4.2 KAZ_Kipchak:DA23
Target: Ingushian
Distance: 1.6969% / 0.01696925
37.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
20.8 RUS_Alan_MA:DA243
12.2 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
12.2 RUS_Alan_MA:DA160
10.4 RUS_Alan_MA:DA243
3.6 KAZ_Kipchak:DA23
3.6 RUS_Alan_MA:DA164
Target: Chechen
Distance: 1.5634% / 0.01563385
33.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
22.4 RUS_Alan_MA:DA243
17.8 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
14.4 RUS_Alan_MA:DA243
6.0 RUS_Alan_MA:DA162
4.4 RUS_Alan_MA:DA164
1.4 KAZ_Kipchak:DA23
You keep waxing eloquently about how Y haplogroups in modern caucasians prove KA spoke caucasian as well. This is no evidence and you know it.
After all Basques had 90%+ steppe Y hg and 40% steppe ancestry, why do they still speak Basque?
You yet again ignore the clear archeological roots of Kura-Araxes > Ginchi > Proto-Dagestanians > Kayakent-Khorochoi > Nakh, on top of their autosomal and Y-DNA continuity with KAC, and resort to grasping at straws with rare scenarios that can be used against the hypotheses that you shill in the same rat-like way that you just did.
It is self evident that the neolithic population of this small region spoke proto-caucasian - CHG, Arm_Masis_N, Aknashen_N, Aze_Lowlands_LN as caucasian languages are localized to this region. Proving KA spoke a specific branch of that requires much more proof than what you can offer. KA has some external ancestries as well.
I have already given you enough proof, but you will continue to make it seem as if you don't believe it, or that there's "no proof", so that you can continue to peddle the dead theory of Iran_N, Turan_N, Indus_N (or however you call it nowadays) of PIE origin, when not even Harvard supports it or acknowledges the existence of Iran_N anymore, quite ironic.
@Andrzejewski
I'd wait for samples from Southwest Caucasus, then the picture will be clearer.
1-Why does Lazaridis totally dissociate Anatolia from the steppes when in Greece the situation is very similar? There are no uniparental steppe markers until 1150 BC when the Mycenaean culture had already disappeared and the palaces had been destroyed and there are many Mycenaeans with 0% steppe ancestry (including elites), so how can he state so categorically that all IE languages in Europe including Mycenaean are linked to the Yamnaya culture? When did the migrations take place? Who participated in them? What explanation do you have for the 6000 words of the Anatolian substratum in Greek-Mycenaean?
ReplyDelete2-What about the CWC?, is the Narva signal in L151-Bohemia really compatible with Yamnaya? Why did Max Planck have to look for a solution in the forest steppe and Sredni Stog? Are the Germans really wrong?
3-If Wang was wrong about the western origin of the EEF component in Yamnaya and it turns out that now, a Levantine component that did not exist before has been detected, when did this south Caucasian migration take place? Are you talking about Maykop? do you know any other culture that could be linked to this Levantine contribution?
4-How do you explain the massive founder effect of Z2103 in Yamnaya? Does this marker (or even Khvalynsk-V1636) have its origin south of the Caucasus? really?
5-What about Ychr-J1-Popovo, Karelia, Khvalynsk II, Vasilyevskiy kordon, Marinskaya, Afanasievo & J2a-Unakozovskaya, Maykop?
@ Matt
ReplyDeleteon re-reading, you're right it's not clear. Which is frustrating
However, odds are they are from the '' all other human remains..'' in terms of number probability and the Celtic styles appear co-mingled and manipulated, making it less likely for them to be determined as ''Female aage 17-22'', or ''juvenile aged 4-8''
Wish they did get some Galati, though.
If trying to screen for a signal however, look to a mixed Celtic-Thracian (BGR_IA) signal
@ Gaska
ReplyDeletewhat about the Y-hg I in Helladic Greece from this paper . It's probably the same clade as in BA Anatolia, across Balkans, steppe & even Swat.
Surely a chauvanist occidentalist like you doesnt actually believe R1b-Z2103 is from the Levant ?
@ Rob
ReplyDeleteNot heard of the Phrygian inscriptions ?
Phrygian is related to ancient Macedonian & Greek
I have, yes. And Phrygian is possibly related to Greek and Armenian. At least, it shares some structural elements. That doesn't mean that it's related, however. The language isn't well enough known. We can't even pin down the relationship between Armenian and Greek, and those are extant languages with a long history.
I think the blithe reference to linguistic relatedness can only be done by people from other fields who don't really understand that linguistic landscape. Nothing definitive is known about the linguistic relatedness of any of the paleo-Balkan I-E languages other than that they were I-E and some of them were probably related to others in ways that we don't have enough information to say definitively.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteY-hg I in Helladic Greece? in which paper? there is I2a-L699 in Bulgaria, but I don't know if the same lineage has been found in Anatolia.
yes my friend, a chauvinist "occidentalist" like me, would always say "EX Occidente Lux".
There is Z2103 in Sredni Stog older than in Yamnaya (Dereivka) and taking into account the genetic components of that culture, what do you think is the origin of that marker-EHG?, WHG?, EEF? CHG?
@Rob If you are talking about I5737, the earliest Greek like genome, its closest relative on y full is RISE552 , Yamnaya Ulan IV.
ReplyDelete@Gaska
ReplyDeleteDo you think the Pylos guys are sea peoples /Balkan invaders or something? The Mycenaeans didn't just vanish into thin air after the collapse of their palatial administration, and the newcomers who took over in following centuries were Greek-speaking as well. So these samples are early Greek language representatives in any sense
The trend is very clear, the early IE arrivals have elevated steppe relative to their descendants who have been thoroughly mixed with the locals. This has always been indicated by archaeology, ancient history and linguistics, although the actual scale has been clarified by the aDNA work. With adequate sampling this trend will be evident in Anatolia as well
@ Gaska
ReplyDeleteit's fine to be proud as long as you move with evidence, Anyhow my point was if you believe that M269 arose in Bohemia or France or Latvia, how can Z2103 move from southern Caucasus ?
Im open to whatever the data brings, but I doubt it'll be very far from Yamnaya itself, probably somwhere between Latvia and the Don region. hunter-gatherers were very mobile in the distant period before Yamnaya itself. So 10 years ago when these papers first came out I pointed out the need to uderstand what happened before hand, implicating wide-ranging networks which reached the Baltic etc. People thought i was 'denying steppe migrations' or something.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"A paper in Science authored by around a hundred scientists from some of the world's top academic institutions surely must mean something, right?..."
Actually they are 201 co-authors.
@Carlos Aramayo
ReplyDeleteThanks, I edited my blog post.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteYour welcome. Yes, I saw that you edited it, a lot of people indeed. The other two papers were written also by these 201 scholars.
Pity that even with that many co-authors, they weren't able to obtain good enough coverage on some mighty interesting samples from N. Iraq in the 9500-7000 BCE range: Bestansur: 0/4, Nemrik9 1/3 (mildly okay one: I6445), Shanidar: 0/3. Maybe next time?
ReplyDelete@puree
ReplyDeleteThe Iraq_PPN samples are good enough (300k snps combined). Irq_ppn is 50% PPN, 25% IranN, 25% CHG. And it looks like this ancestry had a big impact on the Zagros(hajjifiruz) and armenia, but not too much on the east (sehgabiLN).
@LGK-
ReplyDeleteI only say what I see, i.e. there are no uniparental steppe markers in Greece from the Neolithic to the late Bronze Age and at that time there was an obvious cultural and genetic relationship between Anatolia and Greece, so to prove that Mycenaean Greek has any relationship with Yamnaya you need to prove that there were one or more migrations and who were involved. The heart of the Mycenaean culture is in the Peloponnese so in my opinion you need those steppe markers to reach the gulf of Corinth before 2,000 BC, in order to prove any cultural and genetic link with the steppes. Of course, if you think that R1b-PF7462 at Pylos (1150 BC) is enough proof to affirm categorically that Mycenaean is a language originating in the steppes, no one will try to convince you otherwise, after all that is what Lazaridis believes. What amazes me is the ability of geneticists to interpret data as they please, because with similar data, Greek Indo-Europeans have their origin in Yamnaya and yet Anatolian Indo-Europeans have their origin in the eastern wing of the southern arc. Doesn't it seem contradictory to you? In my opinion IF Lazaridis is right when he links CHG with PIE (or Proto-Anatolian) then Greece was Indo-Europeanized through Anatolia”
@Rob
I am only talking about data, the oldest M269 is actually in Bulgaria (4.500 BC) and Yamnaya is overwhelmingly M269>L23>Z2103 (3.300 BC), so everyone can draw their own conclusions-West Asia, Greece, Levant, China, Mongolia India are irrelevant when talking about the origin of R1b
@Gaska
ReplyDelete"In my opinion IF Lazaridis is right when he links CHG with PIE (or Proto-Anatolian) then Greece was Indo-Europeanized through Anatolia"
The problem with this of course is that Greek does not belong to the same family as Anatolian as per consensus. So if you want to argue that Greek came through Anatolia, either that consensus is wrong, or it would have to be through a more recent wave from east of Anatolia (and not from the Hittite/luwian/palaic regions) to Greece. Is there evidence of such an ancestry coming from the east into Greece later than the 4000bce Anatolian wave? I do not know, I haven't checked in detail.
As for Armenia, the Armenian MBA to IA samples are mostly all R1b or I2, with 20-25% yamnaya-derived autosomal ancestry (likely from late Kubano Tersk). So it is quite hard to argue against Lazaridis's position of Yamnaya--->Armenia. And if Greek and Armenian do form a linguistic clade, then it makes sense for Greek to be derived from Kubano tersk like population as well.
the other option of course is that Yamnaya had nothing to do with Armenian and Greek, and a common IE population (maybe late kuraraxes 2400bce) formed proto Armenian, and this population somehow also reached all the way over to Greece after 2000bce. I haven't checked deeply, but I do not see evidence of this. Whereas the R1b and I2 in Armenia BA/IA evidence is quite overwhelming, although that in itself is not a guarantee for language change (eg. Basques).
@Gaska wrote: -What about the CWC ?, is the Narva signal in L151-Bohemia really compatible with Yamnaya? Why did Max Planck have to look for a solution in the forest steppe and Sredni Stog? Are the Germans really wrong?
ReplyDeleteNumerous R-Z2103/Z2105 from CWC archaeogeneticists (e.g. Linderholm and Szecsenyi-Nagy) found in Małopolska and Polish Subcarpathia, and in the Carpathian Basin
Vague claims do not suffice, absolute precision is required
ReplyDeleteThe So-called CHG/ Iran N peaks in Mycenaeans over Minoans & earlier Bronze Age protoGreeks, which everyone expect 2 or 3 people understand also came from the balkans, like HittoLiwiams. It doesn’t matter what you think “the tree shows”
So the question is why do Mycenaeans have higher CHG ? It’s not because Greek came with KA
Why is Anatolian so apparently distinctive ?
Etc
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteAdvances in the study of Anatolian languages, suggest that the Anatolian linguistic substratum was present at least during the neolithic and did not appear during the BA. Further studies have supported the IE character of this linguistic substratum and linked the presence of these suffixes and place names to the IE branch of Anatolian languages (Carruba, 1995). Scenarios that linked the appearance of Greek with the end of the Mycenaean palaces (1,200 BCE) have been largely abandoned since the decipherment of Linear B established the use of the Greek language, from at least the mid 2nd millennium BCE”. Then the relationship of Mycenaean Greek to Anatolian and/or Indo-Anatolian languages is an open question.
Regarding Armenia no one can doubt the migrations with origin in Yamnaya (middle bronze age, approx 1.500 BC) because of the existence of Yamnaya steppe markers in the south of the Caucasus. Then the reasoning is very simple, if Greek and Armenian are related then we should find Z2103 (or I2a-L699, even V1636) in the Peloponnese (2.000-1.500 BC), otherwise, there is only one solution Greek-Mycenaean came from Anatolia in the Neolithic or later migrations linked to male markers typical of Asia Minor
@StP
I only know of one case of Z2103 in CWC (Bohemia), the rest are much later and are in the eastern domain of the BBC
Seems like Gaska amd Vasistha can go work for the Reich lab lol
ReplyDelete@ vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry for not knowing this already, but I'm not clear on what you mean by the 'Iraq_PPN samples are good enough (300k snps combined).' Is this a unique record in the G25 Datasheet, or a composite profile used in the Southern Arc (Lazaridis) study itself, or a composite profile you created by combining several samples from various studies, or something else from somewhere else? Some main questions about Iraq_PPN would be how is Iraq_PN created? What are the underlying samples that go into Iraq_PPN'? Thanks for the input.
yeah it's a pity that you can't participate in the conversation, it would be interesting to know what is your opinion about it.
ReplyDeleteThe Philistines and the Trojans are Anatolian language speakers who were uprooted by the incoming waves of Hellenic speakers.
ReplyDelete“Goliath” was thought to have been a Greek name but it turned out to be from a Carian (Anatolian) language, cognate with the word “valor”. It was originally something like “Waliant” or “valiant”, brave.
ReplyDelete@Gaska said: I only know of one case of Z2103 in CWC (Bohemia), the rest are much later and are in the eastern domain of the BBC
Polish, Carpathian and Czech CWC are largely the same!
@Gaska wrote (2): I only know of one case of Z2103 in CWC (Bohemia)
ReplyDeleteSee Gaska, Malopolska and Czech CWC are grandsons of the same grandfather!
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-PF6538/
@ Romulus
ReplyDelete“ you are talking about I5737, the earliest Greek like genome, its closest relative on y full is RISE552 , Yamnaya Ulan IV.”
And generally throughout central- western Yamnaya , bronzes age derivatives & Neolithic predecessors
Even I’m surprised. The speculation was aimed toward R1b-PF7563 or EV13, not to mention peopling gas-bagging on about KMK
These results imply that the early wave of Balkan IE & Hitto-Luwian was “associated with” this type of I2a and R1b-Z2103. It also shows that language trees constructed by linguists are inadequate, because they don’t have the multi dimensionality of tracing the real histories of the peoples associated with such languages. I will advocate a new era of population based language to tree construction. Finally it also shows how deeply within Europe Indo-European languages arose. I know some “woke” academics are gonna be uncomfortable with that, but who cares
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteI assume that following the general apparent trend that since locals were not replaced or excluded from the new sociopolitical system, when you have samples removed hundreds of years from the actual entry time or anything but the centrally important dynasties (such as at Mycenae itself) they are not going to reflect only the incoming Y-Dna lines. In other words more adequate sampling should clarify this over time.
Drews argued for Greek from the East based on similarities between Trialeti and Mycenaean burials and their goods, and close chronological overlap. But now it looks like those guys had definite EHG and steppe y-lines and were not merely local successors of Kura-Araxes.
"Is this a unique record in the G25 Datasheet, or a composite profile used in the Southern Arc (Lazaridis) study itself, or a composite profile you created by combining several samples from various studies, or something else from somewhere else? Some main questions about Iraq_PPN would be how is Iraq_PN created? What are the underlying samples that go into Iraq_PPN'?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the input."
@Puree
There are 2 samples from Nemrik 9500-8000BCE, I6445 and I6457 which can be used under a common label Irq_Nemrik9_PPN. Combined they give about 300k snps for analysis, which is more than enough.
Apart from these, there are other low quality samples from Shanidar and Bestansur, of which only 2 Shanidar samples with 40k and 60k snps respectively are good enough to analyse (although I haven't done so).
Irq_Nemrik9_PPN can be modeled in qpAdm as 50% Levant_PPN, 25%CHG and 25% Ganj_Dareh_N.
Some tweets from IG-AT2022
ReplyDeleteAxel Palmér, "Assessing the value of Indo-Slavic lexical isoglosses as evidence for a Corded Ware origin of Indo-Iranian"
Axel Palmér presented lexical and derivational evidence in favor of Indo-Slavic (a joint node comprising Indo-Iranic and Balto-Slavic).
Thomas Olander and Simon Poulsen argue for Indo-Slavic as well, and more strongly for a Satem node, using phonetic and morphological innovations, but, more radically, suggesting 2-velar series (as opposed to the traditional 3) in PIE
Does anyone know who the idiot peer reviewers were on this paper?
ReplyDeleteWell...
ReplyDelete1) If an accusation of being a member of some German political party of the mid-20th century would be made if the researchers claimed that the PIE home land was in Eastern Europe. (With possible severe repercussions if said researchers don't already have tenure.)
2) And the researchers know that there is a vibrant Interweb based community that would catch and correct any required (see 1) omissions from their research papers.
Then what we see and what is happening (here to a great extent) is what they expected. No need to call folks idiots when the alternative might be _NO_ western PIE ADNA research at all.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteWhat about modelling IRQ_Nemrik9_LBA as Levant PPNB + Iran C + Tell Kurdu? Does that work?
But there is no claim that the Phrygians were Anatolian. They are known to be Yamnaya related.
ReplyDelete@alkabir
ReplyDeleteNemrik9_lba can be modeled in qpAdm simply as Dinkha_A.
Which is 90% arm_masis_blurN + 10% bmac/ivcp/seh_gabi_c.
Masis_blur_n can be modeled as 60% Iraq_ppn + 40% barcinN/boncukluN
@Guy
ReplyDeleteRight, so they publish a bunch of crap, and then people like me are left with correcting and actually reviewing it.
Sure, no problem. Great honor too.
@Dumpling
ReplyDeleteRead my blog post again. Try and understand it.
Here's a three point summary:
ReplyDelete- the authors didn't bother to learn anything useful about their Phrygian samples because all they found was 2% of something
- they didn't get any samples from any great Anatolian sites, so they couldn't learn anything about Anatolian speakers
- instead they made some stupid inferences about them largely based on that 2% of something.
How probable are the odds that PIE is a scion of the language spoken by Dnieper Donetsk foragers?
ReplyDeleteAnthony thinks that it’s likely because both Sredny Stog and DD had R1a1, R1b and I2 paternal lineages.
These sorts of discussions about which forager tribe spoke the precursor of Proto-Indo-European, or near and far related languages, are way too theoretical for me.
ReplyDeleteProto-Indo-European was spoken somewhere north of the Black Sea during the Eneolithic.
Apart from that, all bets are off. If someone wants to argue that Pre-Proto-Indo-European was spoken in some cave in Georgia, then go for it.
"Anthony thinks that it’s likely because both Sredny Stog and DD had R1a1, R1b and I2 paternal lineages."
ReplyDeleteRelying solely on y markers sounds stupid. If a clan gets all their wives from another clan with a different language, odds are that the kids will speak the mothers' language primarily.
This is how the badeshi language got replaced by torwali in a patriarchal culture, took just 1-2 generations.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteYou're a moron.
The odds are always much higher that the kids will speak the fathers' language.
Lmao,
ReplyDeleteIt's called mother tongue for a reason.
Anyway, show your proof, send links to papers. Here's mine
"A generation ago, Badeshi was spoken in the entire village", says Rahim Gul. He doesn't know how old he is, but looks over 70.
"But then we brought women from other villages [for marriage] who spoke Torwali language. Their children spoke in their mother tongue, so our language started dying out."
Torwali is the dominant language in the area, which is itself under pressure from Pashto, but has pushed Badeshi to the brink in this valley.
"Now our children and their children speak Torwali," said Said Gul, Rahim Gul's first cousin. "So who should we speak our own language with?"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43194056
@Vasishtha "A generation ago, Badeshi was spoken in the entire village"
ReplyDeleteOnly one village in the entire world spoke this language, and they decided it wasn't worth the time learning it.
But I am curious how all of this helps the OIT project. Is Proto-Indo-Anatolian having migrated out of India a compromise to make the eventual Aryans more Indian? Or are you guys proposing multiple major migrations out of India at various times to explain the spread of Anatolian, Centum, and Satem languages?
apart from being a very vague claim, it ignores the local development of societies on the western steppe over millenia. Their culture developped locally and became patriarchal in the early Eneolithic. Even their CHG was locally acquired. What about the 'lcoal' and Euro Farmer mtDNA ? Were they mute.
ReplyDeleteBut of course Vasistha doesnt care about this, his intention isn't to learn but to tell a narrative often accompanied by gimmicky models.
@Rob-
ReplyDeleteNick Patterson, may 31, 2022-"Two different migrations brought IE northward (Ukraine) and southward (Anatolia)-What we don´t know-Steppe ancestry reaches Iberia around 2.400 BC and Britain perhaps a little later-Linguistic implications? Guess-These early migrants to Iberia did not speak IE”.
That is, even Patterson believes the men of that patriarchal society you are talking about did not speak IE (at least in Iberia). What do you think?
Regarding I2a-P78, if you are right and together with Z2103 they brought IE to Anatolia, you only have to follow their trail through the eastern Balkans. Indo-Europeanizing Anatolia or part of its territory (752,000 km2) should not have been an easy task in 2,500 BC. Do you have any theories about this?, mass migrations? exogamy? conquering elites? In any case I am glad you did not implicate L51>P312, years ago people were burned at the stake simply for suggesting that this was not possible.
I think that some hooligans have to be grateful to Lazaridis & company because he has kept Yamnaya culture alive without sufficient evidence to do so. After all he continues to link that culture with the spread of almost all branches of IE.
@Davidski,
ReplyDelete"Right, so they publish a bunch of crap, and then people like me are left with correcting and actually reviewing it."
Not a few people on anthrofora accuses you of pomposity or megalomania since you've dared to challenge Lazaridis and Reich's Southern Arc paper. It's a matter of fact, that both researchers are considered one of the greatest in the field of genetics. Telling professionals they are wrong about something in their profession requires absolute, objective confidence.
@Wise dragon
ReplyDeleteI haven't finished yet with this paper, the data, or the authors.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteThe Basques are not a problem for the steppe theory. If you knew the history of Spain you would understand; the Basques made a pact with the Romans and resisted fiercely to Goths and Moors, then, isolation in the mountains, “reconquista” and great privileges with the Hispanic Catholic monarchy. Nothing extraordinary considering what genetics has demonstrated these last years (founder effects etc...), so please, don't use us as an example to try to prove your theories.
The big big big problem for the Kurganists are the Iberians (and other non-Indo-European peoples of Spain, France and Italy). Genetic continuity (uniparental and autosomal markers) has been absolutely proven, so it will be very difficult to find reasonable alternative explanations, in my opinion the BB culture and the proto-Iberians (bronze age) never spoke IE and it seems that some people at Harvard think the same way I do.
@ Gaska
ReplyDeleteThe migrations into western Anatolia were substantive - in order of 40%. In fact, as a result, much of Thrace became depopulated, and LBA Thrace sees a different population emerge
I’ve already spelled this out to you , so try not to ask the same question over and over again
As for central Anatolia, it’ll become apparent over time . I don’t pretend to have it all figured out, … unlike some people
@Gaska
ReplyDelete"in my opinion the BB culture and the proto-Iberians (bronze age) never spoke IE and it seems that some people at Harvard think the same way I do."
That is possible. But it does not change the fact that R1b-M269 is from the steppe and by the time it mutates and reaches Iberia, these men no longer speak IE.
M269 from the steppes?, do you have any convincing evidence? When do you think L151>P312 stopped speaking IE, when they reached Bohemia, when they crossed France, when they crossed the Pyrenees and the Alps? I'm a little tired of everyone telling us what is the origin of our lineage.
ReplyDeleteRob, we are all very far from knowing what happened in Anatolia, if you don't find Lazaridis' explanation convincing you will have to offer a credible alternative better than "much of Thracia became depopulated" or I2a-P78
"M269 from the steppes?, do you have any convincing evidence? When do you think L151>P312 stopped speaking IE, when they reached Bohemia, when they crossed France, when they crossed the Pyrenees and the Alps? I'm a little tired of everyone telling us what is the origin of our lineage."
ReplyDeleteI don't care very much either way, you have obviously spent more time on the question of the specific lineages, so you do you. No matter the origin, the language transfer gets broken no matter which origin you support.
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteDo you also dispute 40% steppe ancestry in basques?
"Guy said...
ReplyDeleteNo need to call folks idiots when the alternative might be _NO_ western PIE ADNA research at all."
My friend, in less than a year we've had 2 humongous British-focused papers filled to the brim with R1b and steppe-heavy samples, both arguing for large-scale migrations. There's no conspiracy against "western PIE research", if anything we've had too much of it, compared to other regions of the world. Max Planck have been sitting on their Mediterranean samples for years and are instead putting out papers about the plague and salmonella..
Therefore, if you do not have conclusive evidence, you should not use the expression "the fact is that M269 is from the steppe", you should say, "I believe that" until the origin of M269 is absolutely clarified. I say that at the moment it has its origin in Bulgaria.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the steppe ancestry in Basques, we know what is the percentage of Yamnaya signal in the Iron Age Iberians, and it is much lower than that percentage (later migrations may have increased it). Try to model the current Basques and the IA_Iberians using the Lazaridis’ distal model. Let's see what percentage of EHG appears and discuss it. Want to bet with me?
It could be 5-10%-If you use Yamnaya, everything in mainland Europe looks much more steppe-like because other components overlap (EEF, WHG, CHG, etc.). Even WHGs have part of EHG-ANE If you think that using uniparental markers to prove the spread of a language is useless, how can you think that a % of an autosomal component convincingly proves that a people spoke a language?
ReplyDelete@Gaska
ReplyDelete'in my opinion the BB culture and the proto-Iberians (bronze age) never spoke IE and it seems that some people at Harvard think the same way I do.'
It seems exceedingly unlikely to me that Dutch BBC didn't speak IE, and we know that all BBC groups are descended from Dutch BBC due to the autosomal clinality to them and them all having (majority) Y-DNA downstream of Dutch BBC R1b-P312 (with some northern Beaker groups also having some closely related R1b-U106), and we also know that Italic, Celtic, and Germanic developed out of post-Beaker groups with strong genetic continuity with BBC.
I'm not saying that all post-Dutch BBC groups necessarily spoke IE languages, because I think that it's possible - in fact, I think that it's got to be the case with certainty - that some IE-speaking males assimilated into non-IE-speaking societies (as clearly happened in the case of Basques and Etruscans), but northern Beaker groups surely IE-speaking and their language was surely ancestral to languages such as Italic, Celtic and Germanic.
As for the origin of R1b-M269, it was clearly spread across central and western Europe by people rich in steppe ancestry. Its ultimate origins, of course, aren't necessarily bound to be on the steppe. I wouldn't give anything more precise than "Eastern Europe somewhere" for it, myself.
@Gaska
ReplyDelete“I’m a little tired of everyone telling us what is the origin of our lineage.”
I imagine you must be exhausted, since things haven’t gone your way since we first encountered you, several years ago, still arguing for the old idea that R1b spent the LGM in Iberia. Then, when that clearly became untenable, you argued for awhile that R1b-P312, at least, arose in Iberia. Now that notion too is gone, so you spend your time sniping at the hated “Kurganists”, despite the veritable mountain of evidence that they are right.
The force of the facts has shoved you farther and farther east. Now you seem to think (for some baffling reason) that M269 sample from Smyadovo bolsters your argument, perhaps because he wasn’t actually found on the steppe itself. Never mind that he had plenty of steppe DNA, like every other M269. Well, you’ve gotten as far as eastern Bulgaria, not far from the Black Sea coast. You don’t have too much farther to go!
@Alex wrote: Max Planck have been sitting on their Mediterranean samples for years and are instead putting out papers about the plague and salmonella..
ReplyDeleteCome on, don't simplify too much. Max Plank is also dealing with COVID-19, the Neanderthal from Vindija Cave and its haplotypes on our chromosome 3 and 21 working for Covid. :-)
ReplyDelete@Wise dragon
It isn't megalomania to question the results of a flawed paper. Actually it's the other way around, defending the results of a paper based on the Prestige of its authors is a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority. Ultimately the genetic data and the most logical conclusions from that data is what matters, not that Lazaridis stamped his name on it.
@ gaska
ReplyDeleteRegarding I2a-P78, if you are right and together with Z2103 they brought IE to Anatolia, you only have to follow their trail through the eastern Balkans. Indo-Europeanizing Anatolia or part of its territory (752,000 km2) should not have been an easy task in 2,500 BC. Do you have any theories about this?, mass migrations? exogamy? conquering elites? In any case I am glad you did not implicate L51>P312, years ago people were burned at the stake simply for suggesting that this was not possible.
Its really not hard to explain the IE-zing of parts of anatolia. People who spoke an IE language moved to anatolia, and they continued to speak an IE language. Its that simple.
People think you need to assimilate a local population or conquer them immediately. Thats not so. EEF and WHG lived side by side for thousands of years, neither assimilating the other. The relative success of EEF what largely displaced WHG over time.
I dont see what would prevent IE groups from the balkans, with lots of EEF, moving in to anatolia in large enough numbers to build successful kingdoms that spoke IE.
Again, replacement of a people and a language need not be an immediate conquest and absorption/conversion. Movement of people and differential success of distinct groups can cause the displacement of another group over time.
Look at England. The English people will be displaced if they do not protect their land and communities from outsiders. But the migration to England is not an immediate outright conquest for the time being. Its more of a neighborhood by neighborhood displacement and erosion of English community, at least for the time being.
The perspective people need to view this from is that people tend to be who they are, whether they move or not.
Most of the IE transition in Europe was the result of IE peoples quickly moving into new spaces as evidenced by abrupt aut and uniparental changes. They basically replaced the locals. The land of the basque did experience aut and uniparental changes that are consistent with steppe like input but i dont think it was that quick and dramatic. It could be that a few IE speaking men with r1b married into a Basque speaking community and their sons tended to be successful. A sort of trickle over time. It need not be the case that an entire IE community just switched to basque.
@ gaska
ReplyDeleteTherefore, if you do not have conclusive evidence, you should not use the expression "the fact is that M269 is from the steppe", you should say, "I believe that" until the origin of M269 is absolutely clarified. I say that at the moment it has its origin in Bulgaria.
What is your actual theory on the origin of west european r1b (L51)? Ive heard you say balkans and the baltic as possible sources. You seem to only be anti steppe. Do you agree that L23 and L51 came from east Europe? I lean towards the forrest steppe which has influences from both biomes.
@vasistha
ReplyDeleteRelying solely on y markers sounds stupid. If a clan gets all their wives from another clan with a different language, odds are that the kids will speak the mothers' language primarily.
Look at the automal changes. The increase in CHG was gradual. The EHG was probably on the dominant side during the EHG/CHG exchanges.
It doesnt look like they got all their wives from a CHG dominant group. It looks like they only got some of their wives from a CHG dominant group.
Also, the idea that CHG spoke IE 7kya and only left its mark on Anatolia and the Steppe seems pretty ridiculous seeing how 7kya CHG was spreading throughout the Middle East.
@ H₂ŕ̥ḱtos
ReplyDeleteAll BBC groups are descended from the Dutch? Come on man, the Dutch have nothing to do with this story, there are older P312s in Germany, France and Spain. The Dutch didn't even know metals when the BBs arrived there. Even the British are older than the available Dutch samples (all but one from the Bronze Age). And regarding the language it is absolutely proven that the BB culture did not speak Celtic so you will have to look for better arguments.
@RichS, Rms2
You're right I'm exhausted, we definitely live on different planets, you on Mars and me on earth. Remember that your thousands of posts on AG are recorded and, although this is not the forum to share them, I guess you won't mind if we make them public so everyone knows what you and your friends are saying for the last few years. Just a detail, how many times have you said that we would never find M269>L51>L151 in a European Neolithic site. I am going to tell you, hundreds of times, and you know what? not only Smyadovo, also Aesch (Switzerland), Atapuerca, cueva de la Lechuza (Spain), Lundby-Falster (Denmark), Trou Al'Wesse (Belgium) etc. if you don't know the sites, you can start reading Fischera's thesis (Belgian Neolithic farmers 3.245 BC). The longer it takes you to recognize that you have lost, the greater the ridicule will be. You should be more humble, I guess you are old enough to do it.
@Vashishta
ReplyDeleteYou are transforming into Nirjhar. Yes in few isolated cases language is transmitted via femme, but vast majority it is transmitted via homme and dominant ruling male elite. Observe Turkey, South and Central America, within 500-600 years there has been complete linguistic replacement
Y dna definitely correlates with expansion of populations and their language
ReplyDeleteExceptions require understanding , they do not serve as excuses to explain away associations
@Kouros
ReplyDeleteYou are biased by the steppe invasion of Europe, which saw a large autosomal replacement of the pre-steppe ancestry of the people.
Autosomal ancestry changes drives language change with much more certainty, not uniparental markers. This is the reason why Etruscan and Basque languages existed, because these areas had the least steppe autosomal impact in Europe. You should read Bellwood 2020 and Heggarty 2014 in this regard.
You take the example of South America. Here is Bellwood 2020
"The only potential example of ‘elite dominance’ on the scale of a major potential language family known to me is that of the Iberians in the Americas, which did not involve large quantities of settler migration, unlike that of the later British who travelled to North America and Australasia as migrant families and not simply as a male-dominated and estate-owning elite. However, the Old World diseases introduced during the sixteenth century ensured that many American indigenous peoples and their languages died together, up to a staggering 90% of the population in some regions (Koch et al., Reference Koch, Brierley, Maslin and Lewis2018), paving the way for an eventual domination by the Spanish and Portuguese languages amongst the admixed European, African and indigenous populations of the colonial era (Ongaro et al., Reference Ongaro, Scliar, Flores, Raveane, Marnetto, Sarno and Montinaro2020). The adoptions of Spanish and Portuguese by indigenous populations in the Americas were not just simple cases of language shift imposed by an elite minority through landscapes of intact and willing communities. Where Native American communities survived the impact of disease, as in the Arctic and parts of Mesoamerica, Amazonia and the Andes, their indigenous languages survived, and still do so."
Bastien LLamas et al 2016 on the extinction of Columbian mtdna lineages
"As a result, our ancient mitochondrial data suggest that European colonization was followed by local mass mortality and extinction of lineages associated with major population centers of the pre-Columbian past."
Lingaro et al 2019 shows quite high european autosomal admixture in central & south americans.
"European ancestry was observed at high proportion in European Americans (EuroAme), Caribbean Islands (PUR [Puerto Ricans from Puerto Rico] having the highest proportion, 79%), and Mexico (∼42% and ∼48% for Mexican and MXL [people with Mexican ancestry from Los Angeles, USA], respectively) but also in Southern America, with proportions ranging from 22% in Peru (PEL [Peruvians from Lima]) to ∼82% in Bambui."
That is also the reason why 1 I2 in Anatolia and 4-5% yamnaya like ancestry in 3 samples is not even close to the evidence required for a balkan origin of anatolian.
ReplyDeleteFrom Bellwood 2020
"No explanation for any major language family involving ‘elite dominance’ alone, that is, transmission by a small high status minority imposing a new language on a much larger indigenous population, carries much conviction for pre-state societies (or even for state-level ones), especially if long-term establishment of society-wide vernaculars (as opposed to short-term lingua francas) is in question. There are many examples of short-term ‘high status’ language introduction followed by eventual failure to establish the new language permanently amongst a large indigenous population – Alexander the Great, the Normans in England, the Mongols and the Ottomans all stand out. Even colonial European powers in countries such as Vietnam (French), Indonesia (Dutch), India and Malaysia (English) had little linguistic success in this regard. Latin was spread mainly through the army and its soldier-settlers, rather than because all of the native populations of the Roman Empire learnt it and abandoned their own languages. After the end of that Empire, the linguistic daughters of Imperial Latin continued for the next 1500 years as national vernaculars in less than half of the Empire's second century CE extent."
From Heggarty 2014
"The case might be made for ‘elite dominance’ as the mechanism behind the spread of some languages, at least in recent centuries. But in pre-Modern times, dominant elites in fact time and again conspicuously failed to spread their own language; rather, it was they who assimilated linguistically to the demographic majority they had conquered. Among a wide range of known historical examples are: the speakers of Turkic and Mongolic who became the Mughals in India, and the Yuan Dynasty in China; all known incursions from the Steppe into Europe too, save for Hungarian; all Viking conquests (rather than fi rst settlements); all Germanic-speaking elites established after the fall of Rome in France, Iberia, Lombardy and North Africa. In every case, the elite’s language soon vanished. (Contrast the result in England, where there was instead wholesale settlement by incoming Germanic-speakers, far more than a mere elite vis- à -vis the local population.)
Heggarty 2014 contnd..
ReplyDelete"This is not to deny that an elite can have linguistic impacts, which can certainly be significant, but in other respects: in the form of superstrate effects that modify the majority indigenous language, rather than eliminating it. The Normans left a mass of loanwords in English, but their own language lineage nonetheless died out in Britain. When and why conquests either do or do not bring about language replacement is clearest in cases where the same conquering entity spreads its language only to some areas, not others, as for instance in the Ottoman, Inca or Roman empires. Longer or shorter duration of control is sometimes suggested as potentially relevant, but in fact correlates rather poorly in these three examples. Again, more relevant seems to be whether conquest did or did not entail an incoming demographic component significant relative to the indigenous population. Certainly the large-scale pattern across the Americas is that European languages have failed yet to replace indigenous ones only in two types of context. One is where European settlement has been too thin or nil, as in remote parts of Amazonia and the Arctic. The other is where native populations were and remained densest, so that they were not swamped by incoming ones: in the two heartlands of pre-Columbian civilisation, Mesoamerica and the Central Andes. Here too, mass language replacement is now well underway, as the Modern Era increasingly rewrites the linguistic rulebook (section 6.1). But in earlier times, dominance only by elites, without major demographic incursions, offers precious few instances of language replacement, and far more counter-examples. This clear tendency from earlier historical cases suggests that historical linguists would do well to curb any enthusiasm for invoking elite dominance as a stock explanation for major language families."
Hey knucklehead,
ReplyDeleteNo one claimed that the introduction of Anatolian languages into Anatolia was just an elite dominance process.
What happened was that the ancestors of the Anatolians moved into western Anatolia, and their genetic ancestry was eventually diluted to the trace amounts we see in the Yassitepe Bronze Age samples.
However, the spread of Hittite and Luwian languages was indeed largely an elite dominance process, because Hittite/Luwian speakers already lived in state-like societies and there's even written evidence of how their languages spread via imperial expansion to other parts of Anatolia.
"What happened was that the ancestors of the Anatolians moved into western Anatolia, and their genetic ancestry was eventually diluted to the trace amounts we see in the Yassitepe Bronze Age samples."
ReplyDeleteAnd you have conclusively proven without doubt that a large % of yamnaya ancestry existed before being diluted, right? Can I see it?
You are on a sinking ship, abandon it before drowning. The entry of eastern ancestry into Anatolia is post 4500bce (between Tellkurdue MC sample 4900bce and Arslantepe_LC 3600bce), perfectly lining up with the proposed Anatolian split. It is large, and does not get diluted even 4000 yrs later.
You have a 1 in 100 shot at proving your case.
Vasistha is just trolling now with his lies and irrelevant distal models . He completely embarrassed himself in the lead up to this paper. I don’t know why he even pretends to have a clue , just spamming threads
ReplyDelete"Vasistha is just trolling now with his lies and irrelevant distal models . He completely embarrassed himself in the lead up to this paper. I don’t know why he even pretends to have a clue , just spamming threads"
ReplyDeleteYou have gone mad after this paper. Clearly both Max Planck and now Harvard like the idea of an IranN/CHG related PIE, as I had already suggested. Stay mad.
"Vasistha spent entire 2020 deploring Harvard"
ReplyDeleteI still do, check my latest post on Hasanlu.
But they're right about Anatolia.
They don't know shit about Anatolia.
ReplyDelete@Pnuadha-
ReplyDeleteI have already told you that I think that Basques are not a problem to explain the stepe theory we are smart enough to look for alternative solutions. The big problem is that the rest of Iberia was overwhelmingly NON-IE speaking with more than 30 culturally highly developed indigenous peoples (social structure, religion, writing, trade) who spoke Iberian or Tartessian. Then you would have to look for another 30 alternative explanations, one for each of these peoples. Besides, north of the Pyrenees the situation was the same, Aquitanians (at least up to the Garonne river) and Iberians (up to the Herault river) and then you have Italy with the Etruscans and Rhaetians,-The situation in the British Isles must have been very similar to the Iberian one, what happens is that there the NON-Indo-European languages did not survive until the arrival of the Romans, among other reasons because culturally they were much less developed peoples (alphabet, commerce, etc.). in short, you have to look for intelligent explanations and relate them to the available genetic data. There is a solution to the Kurgans theory in Iberia and you have come close to finding it in what you have written.”
Regarding R1b-L51, the Balkans because there are groups of R1b at least since the mesolithic and evidently because we have smyadovo (4.500 BC) whose descendants surely survived in the neolithic cultures of the region-The Baltic because the Kunda and Narva cultures have tons of R1b and because L151 in Bohemia has more than 10% of Narva-WHg signal absolutely incompatible with a Yamnaya origin.
I am not a fortune teller but I think we will continue to find isolated cases of M269-L51>L151 all over Europe (eastern, central and western). Obviously wherever the oldest sample is found it will have to be considered the place of origin of that lineage or clade until an older sample is found, that is why L754 is Italian, P297 is Baltic and M269 Bulgarian.
@ Vas
ReplyDelete''You have gone mad after this paper. Clearly both Max Planck and now Harvard like the idea of an IranN/CHG related PIE, as I had already suggested. Stay mad.''
The data in this paper has shown movements from Balkans to Anatolia, but we already knew that from Kum4 and Barcin_C. So it doesn;t matter if Harvard thinks PIE came from Venezuela, that's all secondary.
''I still do, check my latest post on Hasanlu.
But they're right about Anatolia.''
Anatolia is even more complex than South Asia. There are multiple ripples of overlapping ancestry and a complex archaeological record. This needs the greatest minds, not posers and storytellers
@ Gaska
ReplyDeleteAny comments about links between eastern Iberia and Sardinia + other central Med regions ?
Davidski: "No one claimed that the introduction of Anatolian languages into Anatolia was just an elite dominance process."
ReplyDeleteWell, to be honest, some people in the comments here really did make that claim... That there would be the highly steppe rich elite individuals found in Anatolia who in this made local people speak their languages, in the manner that is imagined happened with Hungarian. Fair to object if that's not a summary of your view, but it's not "No one", for sure.
(Similar claims made for Greece as I remember - shaft graves would have high steppe ancestry people, or something like this, but vapourware on that so far. Planck on Greece is still waiting but probably won't change things - https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2021/repository/preview.php?Abstract=2323).
It might be more viable to propose, like some others do, a scenario from the East Balkans that's more analogous to the medieval spread of Arabic language, where there might be some y-dna but it's more about a relatively primitive people introducing a useful social system for long-range networking during periods of change. The "how" is still quite weak and open to challenge here it seems though.
In some places IE could've spread as a useful social system that was co-opted by local people (contrast to SW Europe where the IE network may have been less useful and so abandoned), and in others demically on top of lower/reduced population density (as in NW Europe particularly). The key to both would be high mobility compared to farming cultures and high population size relative to foraging cultures, in a sweet spot.
There also could be an analogy to the explosive spread of Semitic in the Bronze Age.
I agree that they really do need more local sampling from Western Anatolia over time and just to start with basic f4 comparisons over time.
@Rob, what analysis, if any, do you base your assertions on?
ReplyDelete@ Matt
ReplyDelete''It might be more viable to propose, like some others do, a scenario from the East Balkans that's more analogous to the medieval spread of Arabic language, where there might be some y-dna but it's more about a relatively primitive people introducing a useful social system for long-range networking during periods of change. The "how" is still quite weak and open to challenge here it seems though.''
It is a poor analogy to compare spread of Hitto-Luwian to Arabic.
To repeat, there was significant mobility into western Anatolia, and these people were developed.
From Michelle Massa's PhD:
''Overall, the evidence brought forward here seems to suggest that, even though contacts between north-western Anatolia and Thrace/Macedonia can be detected at least from the 5th millennium (Steadman 1995; Thissen 1993), they seem to become more intense in the EBA, and are characterised by a mutual, bi-directional exchange of products, technologies and behaviours spread across time. .''
I have estimated with qpADM and G25 methods that some individuals to reach 30-40% ancestsry from the East Balkans. So no special explanations are needed
@Rob, if there was significant bi-directional movement from the 5th Millennium BCE (assuming your quote about bi-directional technological exchange is interpreted that these correlate with people), it was between groups in W Anatolia and SE Europe that lacked significant Iron Gates, Steppe and CHG ancestry.
ReplyDelete@ Matt
ReplyDelete''what analysis, if any, do you base your assertions on?''
Historical linguistics
contact linguistics
archaeology
theoretical anthropology
genome-wide modelling
uniparental comparitive analysis
plate tectonics
paleoclimatology
It would be hypocritical of me to not practice what I advocate
''f there was significant bi-directional movement from the 5th Millennium BCE (assuming your quote about bi-directional technological exchange is interpreted that these correlate with people), it was between groups in W Anatolia and SE Europe that lacked significant Iron Gates, Steppe and CHG ancestry.''
Laz's analyses are completely uninformative.
Such exchange was present just after 4000 BC
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThe genetic and commercial relations between Sardinia, Sicily and Iberia are very strong since the neolithic (even the Paleo-Sardinian has points in common with Basque). Afterwards, the BB migrations were abundant, with factories and colonies in the two islands and Liguria. But not only that, El Argar was a rich and cosmopolitan culture (comparable to mycenaeans and minoans) with strong contacts in the eastern Mediterranean through southern Italy and Sicily. We have discovered two Argarian mtDNA markers of Levantine origin coming directly from Sicily, and others coming from central Europe (Tollense warriors), and a small CHG-Iran_Neolithic signal previously non-existent in Iberia (although it disappeared at the beginning of the Iron Age)
Commercial contacts and exogamy extended to the British Isles (there are sicilian-levatine and iberian markers only found in Bronze Age Britain) with cultural, commercial and genetic relationships in both directions. Then in the Iron Age, we have two Df27 (autosomically Iberian) in Etruscan sites and a large number of Iberian mtDNA markers in Etruria not previously documented in Italy. Etruria also shows markers of the Western Balkans and is an example of the complexity and abundance of prehistoric migrations throughout Europe (especially in the richer and more powerful cultures). In other words, the eastern and western Mediterranean never ceased to have contacts of all kinds between the different territories.
Regarding the language, the relations between Etruscan and Iberian-Basque are weak although there are significant coincidences. In Sicily, the Sicans spoke an Iberian NON-IE language and of course, it is impossible that small groups of women incorporated into a powerful culture were able to change the language of the society that welcomed them, i.e. the Argarians certainly spoke Proto-Iberian.
@ Matt
ReplyDeleteAlthough, sure West Asia was more 'developed', urbanism, trade, etc.
But that's one of the things which might have facilitated the expansion of IE across Anatolia. There also is a lagre horizon of destructions ca 2200 BC
@ Vashishta
ReplyDeleteThose papers opining very biased view points probably for "woke" . When you have time to travel, please go to South and Central America and see for yourself, spamming comment section does not change realite. You are knowledgeable but seeing your blog and twitter it is apparent you cater to delusional nationalist incels in Indie, which makes you as delusional. Your most guache post to present, is declaring Andronovo Horizon did not spread Indo Iranien languages, considering there exist population in NW Indie in Vedic sanctum harboring 30-35% Steppe MBLA and they numbering in the tens of millions.
Ror
distance= 0.9987
Piramalai: 39.5
Sintashta_MLBA: 31
Dzharkutan1_BA: 24.5
Tarim_EMBA1: 5
"I am not a fortune teller but I think we will continue to find isolated cases of M269-L51>L151 all over Europe (eastern, central and western). Obviously wherever the oldest sample is found it will have to be considered the place of origin of that lineage or clade until an older sample is found, that is why L754 is Italian, P297 is Baltic and M269 Bulgarian."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately too many people believe that the region that few or singular ancient samples with a single Y-DNA SNP mutation is the definite region of origin even though there are 28 (R-P297) or 106 (R-M269) phylogenetic equivalents and with each of those SNP mutations there can be 3 or 4 generations on average before an equivalent SNP mutation occurs. Just in the case of R-P297 there can be 84 generations. Or put more simply the difference between the formed and TMRCA dates is about how much time there has been that would allow for movement of a defined block of SNPs. So for R-P297 there was a period of 2,300 years for movement of people positive for one or more of the phylogenetic equivalents of R-P297. No one knows which of the phylogenetic equivalents is older than the other for several reasons. Just as important is the fact that we will never have samples from all groups of people from the different centuries between 20,000 and 5,000 years ago and the number of ancient specimens we have are minute in comparison to the number of people that lived in that time period even taking into consideration the relatively low population level in that time period.
So to make general statements without proof, besides the sparse and low resolution ancient samples,a bout the region of origin of a block of SNPs is wholly misinformed about Y-DNA SNP mutations or is purposely attempting to misinform others.
In this day with so much misinformation being so abundant and with so many willing adherents it shouldn't shock anyone that we people doing the same with ancient Y-DNA.
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteYour posts don’t make any sense unless your purpose is to attempt to baffle with BS. You drop the names of samples and papers, apparently hoping against hope that no one will bother to take a closer look at them. Yet every time you name drop, the samples and papers you mention accomplish precisely the opposite of your purpose.
Take the Fichera thesis, for example, which you have mentioned a couple of times. Fichera’s samples formed two clusters: Neolithic A and Neolithic B. All of the R1b-M269 samples had steppe DNA and were in Neolithic B. The following is from page 90 of the thesis:
“The result of the D-test showed admixture between Neolithic-B Belgium with the Yamnaya Samara population. Populations who lack the CHG component, such as early LBKs from Germany, Neolithic populations from Western Europe and hunter-gatherers, instead, were genetically closer to Neolithic-A group (Figure 31). When the Neolithic-B Belgians, instead, were compared with Early Bronze Age populations, such as Corded Ware, and Bell Beakers, they formed a distinct cluster.”
Oops! You might want to quit citing Fichera’s thesis. It’s not helping you. Neither is the Smyadovo sample, which was loaded with steppe DNA. You ought to quit dragging out poor old “Atapuerca”, as well. That was hashed out years ago. Most people who have been watching ancient DNA for more than a couple of years know that was a lousy sample that no one takes seriously.
Meanwhile, the ancient R1b-M269 samples with steppe DNA and in a clearly Indo-European context continue to pile up: like the oldest Corded Ware samples yet tested, loads of Beaker men, and two old R1b-P310 samples from the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture.
Before anyone else tries to trot out Aesch25 from Furtwängler et al 2020 as an example of an R1b-L51 “Neolithic farmer”, he might want to read Davidski’s Eurogenes Blog post dated 21 April 2020. Pay close attention to the PCA there, which shows Aesch25 clustering with German Corded Ware.
ReplyDeletehttps://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/04/aesch25.html
Keep in mind also that Aesch25 was the latest of the Aesch samples and the only one who was R1b and had steppe DNA. Also keep in mind that Corded Ware folks were known to insert their burials into Neolithic tombs when the mood struck them or the need arose. Bell Beaker people later did the same thing on occasion.
Lesson: If he looks like Corded Ware and quacks like Corded Ware, he ain’t a “Neolithic farmer”.
@ Gaska
ReplyDeleteok, thanks for that. What about Paleo-Sardinian & Basque-Iberian language links ?
@ Rich S. and Dospaises
ReplyDeleteYou guys are doing great in deconstructing/debunking this schizo troll’s bad faith non-arguments, but I and many others have done the same thing. We’ve mentioned the same things, yet all this guy does is repeat the same garbage over and over. I called him out on his shit half a year ago and debunked all his arguments, and yet like a child, he’s here half a year later spewing the same nonsensical sewage. He’s simply a bad faith ideologue; he’s not willing to change his falsified beliefs.
@Dospaises
ReplyDeleteThere is no need for you to give basic genetics lessons, everybody knows perfectly well what you are saying. What matters are the facts and currently it is a fact that L754 is Italian, P297 Baltic and M269 Bulgarian as long as older cases of these markers are not found elsewhere
@Rich S-
I guess you didn't want to understand what I was saying-You and your friends have been claiming for years that we would never find neolithic farmers R1b-M269 and I have given you some examples to show everyone that not only have you been wrong hundreds of times, but that you continue to be wrong regardless of continuing to make a fool of yourself. All these samples (except Smyadovo, neolithic farmer with typical grave goods-Gumenlnita-Karanovo culture) have been located in collective burials (caves or dolmens) used by Neolithic farmers-The samples from Trou Al'Wesse (3. 245 BC) belong to the Hoguette culture (you should learn something about this culture, I'm sure you will find it very interesting), Aesch25 and Auvernier (2.734 BC) are buried in dolmens typical of the western megalithic culture, and Burgaschisee (2.721 BC) has typical grave goods of the Swiss late Neolithic. Atapuerca and Las Lechuzas are caves with burials typical of the Iberian Final Neolithic. None of these cases and others that I have mentioned in some occasions, have anything to do with Yamnaya, neither with the steppes nor with the CWC. You have even said nonsense like all M269s in Europe would appear buried in Kurgans typical of the Yamnaya culture-HA HA HA HA HA, sorry buddy you should look for another hobby. Those neolithic M269 farmers will continue to appear in mainland europe even if you and your friends insist on denying it. But even if you were right and those samples arrived in Western Europe as lone explorers, what ability would they have had to change the language of the neolithic societies - I can give you the answer – none-
@SS
You are like those provocative trolling admins at Anthrogenica, these guys dont care about the truth, when it doesnt fit their agenda, they start cursing or banning the person they are discussing with-This is not related to any kind of a civilized scientific discussion
"Your most guache post to present, is declaring Andronovo Horizon did not spread Indo Iranien languages, considering there exist population in NW Indie in Vedic sanctum harboring 30-35% Steppe MBLA and they numbering in the tens of millions."
ReplyDelete@kouros
Sintashta had absolutely 0, zilch to do with spread of I-Ir. 2200bce BMAC was already proto Iranian.
The first chip of the nonsensical Kurgan theory of Gimbutas has fallen, with PIE rightly moving south of steppe.
The data in the papers itself has dealt a second big blow to the steppe origin of I-Ir theory, via the Hasanlu and Dinkha Tepe samples. By 1000bce, these locations were already Iranian, as approved by your big momma Kuz'mina. We do not see a shred of Sintashta or R1a related ancestry at those sites till the last sample dated 500-600bce. What we instead see is a big chunk of bmac related ancestry and some armenia/catacomb related yamnaya and R1b ancestry. We also see a sample with 20% swat_nosteppe ancestry and another with swat specific L1a2 Y hg.
Viktor Sarianidi: 1
Kuz'mina, Anthony, Mallory: 0
I encourage you to go to my Hasanlu post and rebut me if you can.
@Gaska
ReplyDelete'All BBC groups are descended from the Dutch? Come on man, the Dutch have nothing to do with this story, there are older P312s in Germany, France and Spain. The Dutch didn't even know metals when the BBs arrived there. Even the British are older than the available Dutch samples (all but one from the Bronze Age).'
The age actually-found samples is what it is, but the autosomal picture is clear. Non-Dutch BBC clines are literally arranged like spokes of a wheel with the Dutch BBC cluster at its centre, except for British BBC which is basically a slightly off-set, but essentially Dutch-like cluster itself. What else could explain this pattern?
I don't understand the relevance of pre-BBC NL not having metallurgy, I'll be real with you.
'And regarding the language it is absolutely proven that the BB culture did not speak Celtic so you will have to look for better arguments.'
I never said that BBC spoke Celtic. I said that Celtic, and other IE languages in Western Europe, arose in post-BBC groups. What do you suggest was the vector of IE language into Western Europe, if not BBC?
@Rich S.
ReplyDelete'Meanwhile, the ancient R1b-M269 samples with steppe DNA and in a clearly Indo-European context continue to pile up: like the oldest Corded Ware samples yet tested, loads of Beaker men, and two old R1b-P310 samples from the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture.'
Those two R1b-P310 guys in Afanasievo are a real clue. There's also a J1a2b and three guys with Q1b2a1a among them, with the majority being the Yamnaya-typical R1b-Z2103. If Afanasievo does indeed represent an eastward expansion of something pre-Yamnaya like Repin, then I think it clearly points to R1b-Z2103, R1b-L51 (even further downstream, at R1b-P310), J1a and Q1b all being present in the same eneolithic steppe culture.
Honestly, I agree with Gaska in as much as the origin of our Central and Western European R1b-L51 probably doesn't lie in Yamnaya, but I think he's missing the point in that. I think the clearly sensible suggestion is that Central and Western European R1b-L51, like several of our earliest Czech CWC guys have (one has Q1b2a as well, recall!), comes from something related to Yamnaya, but not Yamnnaya itself, such as... The ancestor of Afansievo, obviously. If literally the same subclades of R1b are found in both Afanasievo and early Czech CWC, then... I mean I don't think it even needs saying, does it?
@Gaska
'None of these cases and others that I have mentioned in some occasions, have anything to do with Yamnaya, neither with the steppes nor with the CWC.'
The burial contexts might be clearly EEF, culturally, but do you refute Rich's claim that in every one of these cases, the individual in question has steppe ancestry? I'm not saying that they do, myself - I haven't looked at them - but he's saying that they do have steppe ancestry, and you're not saying they don't. Bear in mind that we have 100% EEF, 0% steppe, individuals buried in CWC and BBC cultural contexts.
'But even if you were right and those samples arrived in Western Europe as lone explorers, what ability would they have had to change the language of the neolithic societies - I can give you the answer – none-'
But that's not what's being argued by him? What's being argued is only that R1b-M269 was mediated by steppe ancestry. If there are individuals buried in EEF cultural contexts who have some steppe ancestry, they probably aren't the vectors of IE language, clearly. The vectors of IE language are CWC-derived groups (from different dates) from Central Europe, and I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteI guess we'll see once the actual shaft grave inhabitants at Mycenae are sequenced. Right now we obviously only have some mt haplos, for which a European origin is generally indicated over an eastern one. The good news is we should have a lot more to work with from 2027, all going well:
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101001951
"Since the excavation of the famous shaft graves at Mycenae, archaeologists have tried to understand the social structures evident in the burial of several individuals within the same grave. The EU-funded MySocialBeIng project will produce and integrate comprehensive archaeological, anthropological, genetic and isotopic analyses for all individuals buried together in selected collective graves in an effort to decipher the criteria for their selection and social belonging out of the dialectic interplay of biological relatedness and social practices. The project's results will shed light on the concept of social belonging in the human past."
If the genetics are truly going to be presented in a comprehensive, holistic manner alongside archaeological, anthropological and isotopic data, and assuming technical competency, the debate for Mycenaean origins should basically be settled by this project. There will be very little wiggle room to write off low steppe samples as merely integrated locals or "recruit" elites outside of the central dynasty etc. Of course, if the samples c.2000-1800BP in northern Greece truly do represent early Achaeans entering the Aegean it is entirely possible that by 1700-1650 at Mycenae a large dilution had already occurred in the course of their coming to power, but you would expect the Y-lines to primarily remain present.
@Simon Stevin
ReplyDelete“@Rich S. and Dospaises
You guys are doing great in deconstructing/debunking this schizo troll’s bad faith non-arguments, but I and many others have done the same thing. We’ve mentioned the same things, yet all this guy does is repeat the same garbage over and over. I called him out on his shit half a year ago and debunked all his arguments, and yet like a child, he’s here half a year later spewing the same nonsensical sewage. He’s simply a bad faith ideologue; he’s not willing to change his falsified beliefs.”
Thanks. Of course you are absolutely right. The man has already responded with yet another senseless post in which he merely repeats the same claims that have already been thoroughly debunked. It’s weird, but it simply shows what a waste of time it is to attempt to reason with Gaska. One would think he would have accepted the obvious by now, as so many who once thought R1b originated in Western Europe have already done, or that he would have slunk away and found something else to do.
H₂ŕ̥ḱtos said...
ReplyDelete“@Rich S
. . .
Honestly, I agree with Gaska in as much as the origin of our Central and Western European R1b-L51 probably doesn't lie in Yamnaya, but I think he's missing the point in that. I think the clearly sensible suggestion is that Central and Western European R1b-L51, like several of our earliest Czech CWC guys have (one has Q1b2a as well, recall!), comes from something related to Yamnaya, but not Yamnnaya itself, such as... The ancestor of Afansievo, obviously . . .”
I understand what you’re saying, but what gives me pause is that “steppe DNA” is literally Yamnaya DNA. CWC carried Yamnaya DNA. Of course, that could mean that both Yamnaya and CWC stem from the same pool of pre-Yamnaya steppe ancestors, but Reich and Patterson both recently said they have found genetic relationships between CWC and Yamnaya in genealogical time.
Not so many years ago, everyone, including me, thought CWC was almost 100% R1a-M417, because at that point almost all CWC samples were R1a-M417. Rich Rocca was the lone voice saying he thought R1b-L51 would eventually show up in CWC in a big way. Rich was right.
What if something similar is going on with Yamnaya? The steppe and forest steppe are huge expanses. They haven’t really been investigated in any kind of thorough fashion, and Yamnaya was a cultural horizon, not a single homogeneous culture. In terms of autosomal DNA, it was a single vast pool. In terms of Y-DNA, it wasn’t limited to a single haplogroup. As Papac et al say on page 10 of 18 of their recent Corded Ware paper, “As much of 4000 - to 2500 BCE (north) Eastern Europe remains unsampled, inferring the precise geographic origin of early CW individuals remains elusive.”
That’s been a problem for Corded Ware scholars for over a century. Until the advent of ancient DNA testing, there were quite a few of them who claimed Corded Ware was an indigenous Central European phenomenon, that it arose from GAC and TRB. Others, like Gimbutas, Mallory, and Bryusov, were ahead of their time and derived CWC from the steppe. We now know they were right. We just need to nail down the specifics.
@ Vashishta you don't anything
ReplyDeleteYou model all Iranien with Hasanlu , when the are no sample from anywhere in Iran in Iron Age. Dinka and Hasanlu are from far NW , that is like modelling your Nord Indien with SPGT and Sintashta to make it seem their formation is same, but that is not true at all. The suggestion BMAC is proto Iranien and IVC is Indo Aryan is the most idiotic thing ever, even Lazardis against your insane notion. Your deluding yourself as usual and you will eat your own words when Iron Age samples from Central Asia come out, in particular the Kuzaly period.
@LGK, possibly, if they can get the adna out of these skeletons. It still seems a bit fraught as to whether the initial y dna lines would survive. Assuming patrilocality, yes, although who knows what kind of weird shuffling of wanax status and dynastic marriages could happen by this time, if they were assimilating without sex bias (as it looks).
ReplyDeleteBy Mycenaean times, I imagine there’d be integration. So shaft graves might have “local Aegean” males with G2a and J2a (this would need cautious interpretation, as some Greek historians might start renderring continuity stories)
ReplyDeleteFor proto-Greeks we need to look Thessaly and Macedonia. And we already have preliminary answers.
@Matt & Rob
ReplyDeleteSure, it could very well be the case. If there is any truth to the Pelopids hailing from western Anatolia G2a or J2a might have a presence in the shaft graves anyway regardless of local integration
@kouros
ReplyDelete"You model all Iranien with Hasanlu , when the are no sample from anywhere in Iran in Iron Age. Dinka and Hasanlu are from far NW , that is like modelling your Nord Indien with SPGT and Sintashta to make it seem their formation is same, but that is not true at all. The suggestion BMAC is proto Iranien and IVC is Indo Aryan is the most idiotic thing ever, even Lazardis against your insane notion. Your deluding yourself as usual and you will eat your own words when Iron Age samples from Central Asia come out, in particular the Kuzaly period."
Hasanlu and Dinkha are not in NW Iran? Check your map lol.
Target: IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B
Distance: 0.8066% / 0.00806570
43.4 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A
34.8 UZB_Bustan_BA
13.2 ARM_Lchashen_MBA
5.8 RUS_Catacomb
2.8 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 TKM_IA
Here, this is proof that W Iranians came from BMAC. Aligns perfectly with the time of Iranian entry into the region (TC Young, Kuz'mina, Douglas Adams).
@Rich S
ReplyDelete'Not so many years ago, everyone, including me, thought CWC was almost 100% R1a-M417, because at that point almost all CWC samples were R1a-M417. Rich Rocca was the lone voice saying he thought R1b-L51 would eventually show up in CWC in a big way. Rich was right.
What if something similar is going on with Yamnaya? The steppe and forest steppe are huge expanses. They haven’t really been investigated in any kind of thorough fashion, and Yamnaya was a cultural horizon, not a single homogeneous culture. In terms of autosomal DNA, it was a single vast pool. In terms of Y-DNA, it wasn’t limited to a single haplogroup. As Papac et al say on page 10 of 18 of their recent Corded Ware paper, “As much of 4000 - to 2500 BCE (north) Eastern Europe remains unsampled, inferring the precise geographic origin of early CW individuals remains elusive.”'
Yeah no you're quite right. I think ultimately, one of two things has got to be the case:
1. Yamnaya did have lineages such as R1a-M417, R1b-L51, and Q1b, and we just haven't found those relevant samples yet (like how we hadn't found those CWC samples with R1b-L51 and Q1b, until we did).
2. Yamnaya, strictly defined, didn't have them, but very closely related cultures directly adjacent to Yamnaya did.
I honestly think that these two scenarios could be quite difficult to tell apart. That is to say, let's say we found a site in the extreme north-western region of the currently understood Yamnaya culture horizon, or just outside it, which is clearly very similar to "the main body" of Yamnaya, in terms of burial and material culture, with who knows what differences, and guys with R1b-L51 and R1a-M417 in it. Archaeologists might call it a Yamnaya site, or they might call it something else, based on XYZ criterion. Maybe it's in a slightly different ecological zone and there's evidence of a slightly different subsistence economy model, and that's enough for them to define a new culture.
I absolutely agree with what you're saying, I suppose I'm just being a little conservative and safe in saying "the origins of these Y-lineages in Central European CWC come from a steppe group very closely related to Yamnaya", because that covers the base that, maybe they come from Yamnaya itself, albeit a sub-group of it we haven't sampled yet, and it covers the base that the as-yet-unsampled group in question gets defined by archaeologists as something not-quite-Yamnaya-exactly.
Something that a friend suggested to me to consider - Yamnaya seems to expand from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, only across similar geographical conditions, into Europe - into the steppe area of the Balkans, along the Danube, and into the Carpathian basin. Meanwhile, the CWC expands across the forested Northern European plain. Could this maybe hint towards the ancestors of CWC having lived in the Russian forest steppe, rather than the Pontic-Caspian steppe proper, with both groups sticking to a similar ecological zone to the one they originated from, as they expanded? I don't know how much stock to put in that really; ultimately I just agree that the genetic picture clearly points to what it clearly points to.
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos & Rich S
ReplyDeleteWhen the desire for something to be true is used in place of/or as evidence for the truthfulness of the claim. Wishful thinking, more as a cognitive bias than a logical fallacy can also cause one to evaluate evidence very differently based on the desire outcome.
@Gaska
ReplyDelete“When the desire for something to be true is used in place of/or as evidence for the truthfulness of the claim. Wishful thinking, more as a cognitive bias than a logical fallacy can also cause one to evaluate evidence very differently based on the desire outcome.”
Now that you’ve diagnosed your problem, you may be on the road to recovery.
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos
ReplyDelete“2. Yamnaya, strictly defined . . . “
You and I agree for the most part, so I’m not trying to argue with you. I would like to repeat something I have mentioned more than once, however, and that is that Yamnaya is a cultural horizon, not a single, homogeneous culture. As Anthony wrote, on page 132 of The Horse the Wheel and Language, “A horizon is different from an archaeological culture because it is less robust - it is defined on the basis of just a few traits - and is often superimposed on local archaeological cultures.”
That’s why I see Yamnaya as a broad, Indo-European sort of steppe catch-all rather than as a tight-knit unit. Evidently it formed a vast autosomal DNA pool, but its assorted local tribes managed to hang onto their own particular dominant Y-DNA haplogroups. There were only a handful of those, but they weren’t all Z2103.
@Rich S
ReplyDeleteYes, of course, a cultural horizon overwhelmingly dominated by Z2103 where not a single L51>L151>P312 has been or ever will be found. The longer you take to recognize your disease the harder it will be to accept reality.
Your words are eloquent enough, the "way you see" Yamnaya is the way you would like that culture to be. Nothing to do with reality, you have been trying for years to impose that semi-paranoid vision on AG, and as I see that you will never recognize your mistakes, it is impossible for you to heal.
@Gaska
ReplyDelete@Rich S
"Yes, of course, a cultural horizon overwhelmingly dominated by Z2103 where not a single L51>L151>P312 has been or ever will be found. The longer you take to recognize your disease the harder it will be to accept reality.
Your words are eloquent enough, the "way you see" Yamnaya is the way you would like that culture to be. Nothing to do with reality, you have been trying for years to impose that semi-paranoid vision on AG, and as I see that you will never recognize your mistakes, it is impossible for you to heal."
You might try picking up and reading a book now and then, like Reich's book, Anthony's book, Mallory's book, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, and the works of Marija Gimbutas, for starters. Then you might have the glimmer of a clue of what is going on.
In the meantime, the steppe and forest-steppe are vast expanses. We have just begun to scratch the surface of them with regard to archaeogenetics. Despite that, R1b-P310 has already turned up in Afanasievo and in Corded Ware, loaded with autosomal DNA from that vast cultural horizon loosely termed Yamnaya. And, as you mentioned, R1b-Z2103, the brother clade of R1b-L51 under their father, R1b-L23, has shown up in that part of Yamnaya that has been explored.