The debate over the location of the so called Indo-Anatolian homeland won't be decided by the persistence of any type of genetic ancestry in ancient Anatolia.
It'll be decided by a multidisciplinary study on the interactions between the ancient peoples of the North Pontic steppe, the eastern Balkans, and western Anatolia.
If such a study finds a pulse of steppe-related gene flow from the Balkans into Anatolia sometime during the early metal ages, it'll corroborate the linguistic hypothesis that a language ancestral to Hittite, Luwian and related tongues moved into Anatolia from Eastern Europe.
Why do we only need a pulse of gene flow, you might ask? Obviously, because:
- language and genetic ancestry can start with a strong association but, since they're not linked, they can eventually follow very different trajectories
- the dilution of genetic ancestry is an important factor, especially in ancient West Asia, and it must be taken into account in models of language spread, rather than ignored in favor of simple, elegant models that do not reflect reality.
Here's my favorite quote from the recent
Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. paper, because, probably unbeknownst to the authors, it's exceptionally revealing about the spread of a wide range of Indo-European speakers into Anatolia.
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.
Indeed, this is exactly what the Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. paper should've been about.
That is, the authors should've given us a painstaking account of the spread of different ancient Indo-European speaking groups into Anatolia and explained how, overall, their DNA was rapidly diluted to a trace amount.
However, instead they treated us to a make-believe tale about a so called Indo-Anatolian homeland in what is now Armenia.
See also...
Dear Iosif...Yamnaya
But Iosif, what about the Phrygians?
Dear Iosif...
Dear Iosif #2
Dear Iosif #3
267 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 267 of 267@All
I'll be dropping a bomb about Yamnaya in a day or so.
Iosif made me do it.
Yeah I think the 'wheel vocab' issue is another example of over-interpreting 'linguistic paleantology'. Not a hugely early physical split off just pre-existing diversity across broader steppe homeland
@Vasistha, another method to try and guess what is the best fitting 2-way model for Dinkha cluster B with simulated points (though it's still based on G25 data).
- Model all the Dinkha_Tepe samples as a single cline using PCA and regression*
- Project on PCA and look at nearest neighbour distance: https://imgur.com/a/0eTz396
Does show the same think (although obviously this is not independent data) that the Parkhai_LBA_o 1400 BCE sample I6667 is the best fitting admixing source (at about 75% in this model to the maximum shifted sample, or probably 50% overall), or the TUR_Alalakh_MLBA_o 1500 BCE outlier as the runner up.
(Pastebin of this cline - https://pastebin.com/axdX9Hb2)
*Like using the subtraction and addition of averages that many people do to extend the G25 clines, but should be more robust to outliers and sample noise.
@Matt
What do you think about the fact that there was a Sredny Stog population in East Central Ukraine practically identical to Yamnaya already in ~4,200 BCE.
Realistically, this puts the presence of such people in Eastern Europe earlier than that, and possibly much earlier.
So how does that square with the breakaway of proto-Anatolian from PIE (in Armenia??), and the appearance of nuclear PIE on the steppe?
@Copper Axe
There are some Parthian samples on the way: https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2022/repository/preview.php?Abstract=1397
That seems like a pretty big problem if the samples date from that time, and are identical, without even some small trace of 10% admixture or something. The Don River HG seem pretty different from Yamnaya though, and the Sredny Stog sample in the paper that Rob linked up thread (significantly more HG ancestry).
I would be surprised if Lazaridis would be waving around a comment here that - https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1571213715026087937?cxt=HHwWgsDQ5ZKjic4rAAAA - "Quite interesting that a mid-4th millennium BCE individual from Deriivka II (asterisk in Fig. 2 from the preprint) is off-Mesolithic cline (like the Yamnaya pink dots); another data point for the Eneolithic transformation of the steppe.", if he already knew that his colleagues at Harvard had samples that were long before this date and were already matching Yamnaya (effectively forming a complete clade with no room for differentiation), but then nothing would really surprise me any more.
"Perhaps unusual that lay-people have taken the solidity of the idea of "Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian" further than specialists do."
Bbbbut Rob is the expert and he told me that Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian formed a clade.
Hahahaha.
@Matt
I'll have a blog post about this in a day or so, but for now...
Some Yamnaya and especially Afanasievo are more Progress-like. Catacomb from the North Caucasus steppe as well, but once we get past late Yamnaya then nothing really matters in terms of PIE. Heck, late Yamnaya/Catacomb might even have ancestry from Armenia and Iran and it wouldn't matter.
UKR_Sredni_Stog_En,0.113823,0.091398,0.040729,0.124033,-0.033852,0.036814,0.001175,-0.014999,-0.037428,-0.05868,0.018837,0.006594,-0.006541,-0.020231,0.03678,0.019888,-0.011995,-0.009248,-0.011061,0.004877,0.001747,-0.006306,0.002465,0.005904,-0.011496
Target: UKR_Sredni_Stog_En
Distance: 4.0769% / 0.04076877
75.6 RUS_Progress_En
17.8 UKR_N
6.6 HUN_Vinca_MN
Target: RUS_Yamnaya_Samara
Distance: 3.2816% / 0.03281581
81.0 RUS_Progress_En
14.4 UKR_N
4.6 HUN_Vinca_MN
Target: RUS_Afanasievo
Distance: 3.4265% / 0.03426546
84.6 RUS_Progress_En
11.2 UKR_N
4.2 HUN_Vinca_MN
Target: RUS_Catacomb
Distance: 2.9940% / 0.02994035
83.8 RUS_Progress_En
10.4 UKR_N
5.8 HUN_Vinca_MN
I take it someone has shared some advance data with you?
Yep, and I didn't have to sign any waivers. :)
@ Vara
Thanks for referencing me. But what I said was ''Indo-Iranian is probably not solely due to bifurcation from a Sintashta Ur-Volk. Indeed, people speak of specific Indo-Slavic links on the one hand and Iranian -Armenian-Greek glosses on the other. And this is clearly born out with aDNA.''
So the opposiete of what you understood. Secondly, if you want to add or critique to somethign I have stated, it has to be more than monodimensional, eg a linguist who understands the extent of anthropological data that we, that is some of us, do.
@Matt
I sort of got the gist of what you tried to do there.
As I see it, for 2 source models, both Dinkha_A + Parkhai_LBA_o and Dinkha_A + Hasanlu_LBA_A are good. see here. https://imgur.com/a/k1DKyFr
This raises another imp point. For long I have seen these BMAC outlier samples with added Armenian /caucasus/Levantine ancestry like Parkhai_LBA_o. Wonder what was going on there.
eg
Target: TKM_Parkhai_LBA_o:I6667
Distance: 1.3704% / 0.01370430
42.8 TKM_Gonur1_BA
22.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
12.8 TKM_Parkhai_MBA
12.4 TKM_Parkhai_En
6.4 TJK_Sarazm_En
1.8 KGZ_Aigyrzhal_BA
1.8 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
0.0 ARM_Lchashen_LBA
0.0 ARM_Lchashen_MBA
0.0 KAZ_Dali_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 TKM_Parkhai_EBA
0.0 TKM_Parkhai_LBA
(using scaled individuals)
also see here https://imgur.com/a/k1DKyFr
@Matt
"I would be surprised if Lazaridis would be waving around a comment here that - if he already knew that his colleagues at Harvard had samples that were long before this date and were already matching Yamnaya (effectively forming a complete clade with no room for differentiation), but then nothing would really surprise me any more."
At Harvard they had a Yamnaya-like Sredny Stog sample in their unpublished dataset that was sequenced years ago and was never published. It doesnt have the best coverage however. A good friend of mine retrieved it and I played around with a sim of it a while back on my blog but it seems there are actual coordinates for it now. I came to the conclusion you have some variety in terms of a putative Middle Don forager to Steppe_En cline, particularly noticeable with the Afanasievo. Link to my entry: https://musaeumscythia.blogspot.com/2022/05/neolithic-don-river-foragers-were-key.html
@vAsiSTha
Those Dzharkutan2 samples are misdated Caucasians.
@Davidski, judging by the G25 distance difference in Vahaduo, that does at least behave like the same as a pop that forms a clade with Afanasievo but with some lack of a founder effect or sample quality issue with the issue with the sample that makes it very slightly more distant from the general steppe_EMBA group - https://imgur.com/a/pEleQ3D. Not so much admixture contributing to a differentiation, though maybe it has some small HG cline shift. So very close. Might fit as a pre founder expansion effect population that is essentially the same thing.
Rob
Sorry.
Your split personalities say many contradictory things I simply can't keep up anymore. Like one day BB is non-IE the next it's Celtic. Or Catacomb being non-IE the next it's Armenian and now Iranian. But sure who wrote this: "So there's no direct link apart from one which goes back to 2500 bc when the ancestors of pre-In-Ir set off from eastern Europe"?
Yes Rob there were no direct contacts between the Budini and Indo-Iranians. Nonono.
Hahahaha.
@copperaxe
"Those Dzharkutan2 samples are misdated Caucasians."
More info, if you have, will be helpful. On what basis have you concluded this?
@Matt
Yeah, pre-founder effect definitely, and with a higher HG ratio overall.
But this is the population that gave rise to Yamnaya.
You haven't seen all the new Yamnaya samples yet, but quite a few are like this or with even more HG ancestry.
"So Non-Anatolian Indo-European started splitting up around 2700 BCE, right?"
The best estimate of the breakup of Anatolian from Indo-European is probably about 4000 BC. This is the analysis from Warnow and Ringe's group. See the chart labeled "The WMC Tree dates are approximate 95% of the characters are compatible" on page 29.
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tandy/Swadesh-Warnow.pdf
Early Tocharian breaks away about 3500 BC and then Italo-Celtic and Pre-Germanc shortly thereafter about 3000 BC. This happens to coincide nicely with movements in and from the Steppes of Yamnaya and Corded Ware peoples.
@Copper_Axe / Davidski, ah, OK, that's a lucky oversight on their part. Did they provide the meta-data in this early version, with the dates and archaeological context, and is there y-dna data? (Latter because it could confirm, ideally, that the sample is definitely before the formation of R1b-M269 by being on a different haplogroup or a basal branch to R1b-M269. And thereby help to really confirm that we're not looking at an UKR_Alexandria_MBA type situation of a misdated sample. I don't have any reason to doubt it based on how its looks and what you say, but if there were something there on the y that would help to shore it up.)
@Matt
It's a female.
But there are other (post?) Sredny Stog samples from about ~3,700 BCE from near Odessa with M269/Z2103.
@ Vara
I don’t expect you to keep up with me, or my voices. I’m on another dimension. But I’ve never said “BB is Celtic”. Perhaps you aren’t able to evolve your views over years, which is why you keep repeating the same crap over again. The key is to understand every region, all expansion systems and evaluate them freshly rather than a pre determined vision
And I don’t know what the Budini have to do with it . They’re a Greco-Roman construct. But Scythians primarily interacted with halstatt people, not Slavs. Not my issue you can’t figure that out , or accept the word of someone who has
Yeah Rob who can keep up with your deleted comments.
https://www.academia.edu/43431149/Iranian_and_Slavic_In_Encyclopedia_of_Slavic_Languages_and_Linguistics_Online_edited_by_Marc_L_Greenberg_Lenore_A_Grenoble_Stephen_M_Dickey_Masako_Ueda_Fidler_Ren%C3%A9_Genis_Marek_%C5%81azi%C5%84ski_Anita_Peti_Stanti%C4%87_Bj%C3%B6rn_Wiemer_Nade%C5%BEda_V_Zorixina_Nilsson_Leiden_Brill_2020
But yeah no contacts between Indo-Iranians and Slavs lol. I guess the Slavic allies of Shahrbaraz were from Hallstat too.
You can go back to having meltdowns about Max Planck and Harvard. Remember I am the mainstream now haha.
@Matt
"the Anatolian split may be dated to the period between 4400–4100 BCE."
I think Kloekhorst's dating is generous, based on the idea that most of the grammatical differences of Anatolian are innovations in Anatolian. And it is still incompatible with out-of-Anatolia.
Based on phonology I would put the split-up of Anatolian from IE at no earlier than 4000BCE, and more probably 3700-3000 BCE. The lack of phonological innovations in non-Anatolian IE simply does not support more than a couple of hundreds of years between the split of Anatolian and the split-up of non-Anatolian IE.
Even Icelandic, one of the most conservative languages in Europe, has had significant phonological innovations in the last 1000 years, such as the merger of y and i, the palatalization of all kj, gj as well as k and g before front vowels.
@Matt
"Did they provide the meta-data in this early version, with the dates and archaeological context, and is there y-dna data? (Latter because it could confirm, ideally, that the sample is definitely before the formation of R1b-M269 by being on a different haplogroup or a basal branch to R1b-M269"
Even though Davidski has already stated that the sample is a female, what did you mean by the question? R1b-M269 is a block of 107 SNPs with a formed date of 13,300 ybp(11,278 BC) and a TMRCA of 6,400 ybp (4,378 BC). I really doubt any male sample that is proven to have belonged to a group that gave rise to Yamnaya will be old enough to be basal to R-M269, although it is possible. I think a more recent sample would be more convincing. If the resolution is good enough it should be positive for one or more of the 107 SNPs in the R-M269 block but not negative for the whole block itself. If the resolution is high enough it should be negative for R-L23 and all of the SNPs in that block since Yamnaya had already formed by the time the first SNP in that block mutated. The R-L23 block gave rise to both the R-Z2103 block and the R-L51 block. Hopefully soon a sample that meets what I described is found soon and with the same autosomal DNA of the female mentioned by Davidski.
@Vara
“But yeah no contacts between Indo-Iranians and Slavs lol.”
Read serious books not internet pseudoscience:
“The Sanskrit Language” by Thomas Burrow page 23:
“This absence of Iranian influence on Slavonic is surprising in view of the repeated incursions of Scythian tribes into Europe, and the prolonged occupation by them of extensive territories reaching to the Danube. Clearly at this later period the Slavs must have remained almost completely uninfluenced politically and culturally by the Iranians. On the other hand at a much earlier period (c. 2000 B.C.) before the primitive Aryans left their European homeland, Indo-Iranian and the prototypes of Baltic and Slavonic must have existed as close neighbors for a considerable period of time. Practically all the contacts which can be found between the two groups are to be referred to this period and this period alone.”
https://books.google.pl/books?id=cWDhKTj1SBYC&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=onepage&q=%22This%20 absence%20of%20Iranian%20 influence%20on%20Slavonic%22%20%22&f=false
It is clear that genetics confirms that Burrow is right. We today know that Scythian tribes entering Europe were a multicultural genetic mix of people of unknown languages and not Iranians.
Recently at the conference “The Secondary Homelands of the Indo-European Languages (IG-AT2022)” Axel Palmér had a lecture :"Assessing the value of Indo-Slavic lexical isoglosses as evidence for a Corded Ware origin of Indo-Iranian"
Here are some tweets from this conference all confirming Indo-Slavic subgroup or a node:
https://twitter.com/avzaagzonunaada/status/1567452397102051328
https://twitter.com/mattitiahu/status/1567454491032621057
https://twitter.com/avzaagzonunaada/status/1567461668011253761
Vara, you must understand that only by complementing the traditional arguments from archaeology and historical linguistics by the study of ancient DNA and stable isotopes can we get some valuable theories on the human past.
And this is what today genetics tells us in agreement with historical linguistics and archeology:
https://postlmg.cc/rzK5Tzmt
@Nevih Seven
Are those samples Parthians (coming from Parthia) or just samples from the Parthian period? The area falls outside of Parthia as far as I can tell, more around Hyrcania or perhaps the area where the Tapyri were settled. But I'm not too well versed on the period and dont know what the demographic shifts were like during the Arsacid dynastic rule. Are there telltale signs that can identify a burial site as Parthian?
So what’s the story with this J2b L283 lineage? I noticed they had a very strong showing in this recent Southern Arc study with 26 samples from across Albania, Montenegro, and Croatia, including that Mala Gruda tumulus. Many of these kurgans were categorized as “Cetina” and some of the L283 skeletons were quite robust in nature. This Cetina Culture is thought to be derived from this Ljubljana Culture which is a sort of fusion of Vucedol and Bell Beaker folk. There was also a Yamnaya element intrusive to this Vucedol group. So at first glance, I’d assume this J2b L283 lineage might have some sort of connection to the Yamnaya from around 3300 BC. However, there has yet to be any J2b L283 found amongst the Yamnaya. The Mokrin sample is very close and there is supposedly another ancient L283 from Hungary in the pipeline with an even higher Yamnaya autosomal component than Mokrin…but these Pannonia samples are probably a little bit too young to categorize as Yamnaya. This suggests that this L283 lineage must have spread with the very first IE groups across the Ukrainian Steppe. Many of the older L283 branches, based on their age, seem to line up quite tightly with the Suvorovo Novodanilovka, Cernavoda, and Usatovo cultures. I show an approximate formation date of 4200 BC for J2b L283 with ancient samples stretching from Nal’chik in the east to Hungary and the western Balkans in the west.
I know one of the authors from the Southern Arc study had indicated several very ancient samples from the NW Black Sea region had supposedly been sequenced by the Reich Lab to be included in that study, but unfortunately, for some reason, these samples weren’t included. I’m figuring these J2b L283 guys must have transited that area en route to Hungary and the Balkans.
@davidski
Are g25 co-ords built from transversions only, or all SNPs?
@vAsiSTha
If TUK001 is from Khwarezm then it is more likely for it to be an ethnic Khwarezmian, which was an Eastern Iranic-speaking population that is probably closer to Parthians rather than Persians. Sassanid context doesn't tell much about its ethnicity.
@ Vara
Im able to add and edit comments as I please. That article by Blazek does not support your bizarre claims that Europe was indo-europeanised by Iron Age Scythians. And my view on Harvard's lacklustre methodology has been the same since 2014, regardless of topic. You & your ilk on the other hand consistently cherry pick, twist & distort issues, as if us believing that PIE came from Calcutta will change the reality with which you're clearly unhappy about . But it won't
@vAsiSTha
This sample has a _d suffix. So it's just the damaged reads to get rid of potential contamination.
@ Sam Elliot
There hasn’t been any J2b in any steppe Eneolithic samples
I’d bet it had been a minor alpine Neolithic group
Somebody has asked abaout Anatolian admixture in BMAC. However, best source seems to be Caucasus-BA -related spifically (which harbours Anatolia-like admixture). Other sources e.g. from East Anatolia are not warranted
A 'proximo-distal' model
Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
Iran_GanjDareh_N
WSHG
Armenia_EBA_KuraAraxes
right pops:
Ethiopia_4500BP
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
Anzick
Kostenki14
Vestonice
MA1
Tianyuan
DevilsCave_N
Russia_EHG
Loschbour
Jordan_Late_PPNB
Turkey_TellKurdu_EC
Satsurblia_HG
Pinarbasi
Andaman_100BP
best coefficients: 0.469 0.082 0.449
std. errors all < 4%
tail Prob 0.32
@Istakhr
Best I can do.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11fkrCJ3AE6nZdfGLQUtg4vrpByguRvV1/view?usp=sharing
@Davidski
Thank you so much. You got most of the important ones I was looking to study. Really appreciate it.
For anyone interested in reading about my findings on the samples, one of the three (YZ018, YZ020, YZ024) Iranian Zoroastrian outliers turned out to be Ashkenazi Jewish which is odd to say the least. Another appears to be from Khorasan.
The more robust set of Hazara samples has helped me shed light on some unique individuals within the existing average on G25. One of the possibilities was that they were part of a a distinct sub population among Hazaras, but the higher number of samples helped me identify them as outliers https://i.imgur.com/iWzNt11.png
The Uzbek and Kumyk samples have interesting variation between their individuals.
Two of the Adana Turkish samples appear to be Arab Alawites.
The Mehri/Mahra outliers have much more SSA admix and some additional South Asian admix in comparison to the existing samples.
@Copper Axe
They are most probably Parthian:
It should be noted that in the second season unique objects such as pottery, metal, glass, ring, necklace, stamp, spear head and so on were discovered which are indicative of the administrative and fighting power of the Parthians...
...Since horse was very important for the Parthian fighters, and due to their belief in the afterworld, at the time of the burial of the fighter his horse would get suffocated and buried with him so that when he would be awakened, he could use their horse as well.
https://en.irna.ir/news/83068156/3rd-season-of-exploration-kicks-off-in-Parthian-area-Vastmin
Rob
"That article by Blazek does not support your bizarre claims that Europe was indo-europeanised by Iron Age Scythians."
It must've been one of your other personalities who said it cause it sure wasn't me.
"Cas if us believing that PIE came from Calcutta will change the reality with which you're clearly unhappy about"
Lol what??
Hahahaha whenever you're exposed for a cold reading fraud you still continue to strawman and lie?
@Matt,
" I really won't be surprised if we end up with some sampled populations from TJK with Sarazm+Steppe_MLBA admix and they offer a comparable or better degree of fitting here"
They do exist already, but the likelihood of relic Jeitun farmers in the Zerafshan valleys or anywhere south of the Syr Darya is highly unlikely.
There is this individual
sample: Dashti Kozy BA:I4160
distance: 2.1156
Maitan_MLBA_Alakul: 74
Sarazm_En: 14.5
Kumsay_EBA: 11.5
sample: Dashti Kozy BA:I4160
distance: 1.8618
Maitan_MLBA_Alakul: 72.5
Aigyrzhal_BA: 27.5
Then towards end phase of the BMAC this individual
sample: Bustan BA o1:Average
distance: 1.6391
Bustan_BA: 55
Sarazm_En: 20
Mereke_MBA: 16
CG_IVCp: 9
sample: Bustan BA o1:Average
distance: 1.336
Gonur1_BA: 53.5
Aigyrzhal_BA: 37.5
CG_IVCp: 9
Aigryzhal is from a region , north of the Syr Darya , suffice to say such population had vanished for the most part in the north as well, or at least does not contribute populations west.
In context of that Hasanlu sample , the excess Botai affinity can be accounted for by a Dashty Kozy source.
It works fine with that Megiddo sample
@ David for the other Megiddo sample sibling do you know what the call was it just says R, but based of this should be R1a.
sample: Levant Megiddo MLBA o1:I2200
distance: 1.9096
Sappali_Tepe_BA: 17.5
Dashti_Kozy_BA: 27.5
Levant_Megiddo_MLBA: 55
Hasanlu_IA: 0
sample: Hasanlu_4097
distance: 1.2457
Sappali_Tepe_BA: 71
Dashti_Kozy_BA: 18.5
Levant_Megiddo_MLBA: 10.5
Hasanlu_IA: 0
( I don't think Megiddo is need here though)
With the 4160, you get a sterling p value
left pops:
Megiddo_I2200
Megiddo_MLBA
Tajikistan_BA_DashtiKozy
Turkmenistan_Parkhai_MBA
best coefficients: 0.649 0.289 0.062
std. errors: 0.035 0.033 0.039
tail: 0.938
There is clearly a pattern here, the other 10100 child has even more Steppe MLBA and Botai like affinity . The only vector for bringing this distinctive pair of ancestry in these samples in the Near East at this juncture from Central Asia would be Indo Aryan Mitanni.
Surely not from Armenia, Iran or India for that matter.
@Dospaises, you're correct, I wasn't thinking clearly on "before the formation". Really I should have said something more like "Before R1b-M269 was driven to high frequency among sampled Steppe_EMBA".
@Onno, it seems then like you're in a situation where you have explain what Kloekhurst views as extreme grammatical differentiation in a short time span (rapid extreme derivation in the remaining IE branch seems no better than proposing it in Anatolian), whilst he has to explain what to you looks like extreme phonemic conservatism. As a non-linguist I clearly cannot really speak on this topic any further.
Quick Experiment with the new Sredni-Stog sample, at modelling modern European averages: https://imgur.com/a/uhosnxH
It seems like Sredni Stog sample is preferred by West Euros (Basques, British+Irish, Dutch+Norwegians+Danes), while others still prefer Progress (South East Europe+South Central Europe) or Progress+UKR_N (Northeast Europe) combinations in a different ratio.
This is probably just some quirk of G25 though with these finely structured populations, and not relevant to population history.
Curiously, several of the Iranic-> Slavic loans outlined by Blazek are Sogdian.
How could that be ? Well, the Avars utilised many Sogdian traders and merchants. Indeed, several Avar age inscriptions in Pannonia are Sogdian, and as we know Slavs constituted an important element in the Avar realm by the late period.
This is not to deny direct loans from Iranic steppe grups, but the Sarmatians would be a more historically plausible candidate, despite the commonly held belief that the 'Scythian Farmers' were proto-Slavs.
@Rob
'When a population shifts to that of another, whether by force or sheer charisma, you dont get blending of vocab. Instead, the elements of the langauge of shifting speakers can be preserved in syntax & phonology.'
Ah yeah I follow, this makes sense to me. As you say, it's speculative, but certainly plausible.
'To me, I1 isnt a great mystery. The chronologically most proximate I1 is in France, and the extesnvie flint-dagger trade network which stretched from SW France to Scandinavia is a hallmark of this, but I1 itself probably moved within the BB network which acquired it.'
I think likewise, definitely a sensible idea and I find it fairly compelling, but I think until we actually find some I1 samples who appear closely related to I1-M253, I'll refrain from putting any money down on it. Bragging rites for you if we do find them! ...Or maybe I'm behind with things already: What is the I1 sample you're thinking of there, in France?
Following up on that model above, it seems like all modern day Europeans fit better with Corded Ware Early than Afanasievo and Afanasievo than the whole Steppe_Eneo set on G25 now (Progress+Khvalynsk+the new Sredni Stog sample): https://imgur.com/a/OD9HGcL
Oddly there's an effect where the greater effect of substituting Afanasievo/CWC for the full set of Steppe_Eneo is more pronounced in reducing distance for NW Euros than others, but it's hard to think this reflects a real genetic effect rather than being some artefact of how G25 has placed the Steppe_EMBA type samples. However if we do get a robust set of Sredni Stog samples that form a clade with Yamnaya and Afanasievo what we could do to completely investigate this is to run f4(Sredni Stog, Steppe_EMBA; A, B) to identify if any populations (ancient or modern) really share more of a founder effect that we could see in the Steppe_EMBA.
There is no steppe_mlba ancestry at megiddo, it's all steppe_catacomb or arm_mba, as has also been described by the authors of the paper who label them _oCaucasus. Archaeological links with Caucasus are already present.
The megiddo sister I2200 with better quality sample can only be modeled as israel_mlba +catacomb/Arm_ba.
@Vashishta,
looking at the robust model, there is no way this sample is R1b , it looks R1a, David can confirm and you can keep wishing its from Armenia or India, or even Timbuktu with your shoddy nonsense models.
Yes the sample I2189 is R1a. R1a has already been found at steppe_maykop_o Caucasus heavy sa6013. There are 2 other M269 (iirc) R1b samples at Megiddo. Proves the Caucasus link. The better quality sister I2200 can only be modeled with catacomb or arm_mba/LBA.
So the authors of that paper are completely correct. And you just remain a propagandist.
@ H₂ŕ̥ḱtos
From Brunnell 2021a Cx 161 from Chassen culture context
@ Blue Caviar
That’s the thing about such claims - they have no coherent theory. It’s twisted and nonsensical. OIT by proxy of Iran N by proxy of Kura Araxes or CHG or everything and anything. A few ahistorical qpAdm models here, some vague and irrelevant links about Scythians there .
The claims are simply OIT
If future data supports that then great. But nothing convincing so far
@ Vara
Lol you're like the annoying hyena that gets mauled by the Lion in those natures shows
''Remember I am the mainstream now haha.''
Look at me. I am mainstream now !
LOL you're a meme
Rob
I am the mauler. You got an absolute intellectual beatdown Mr. "Hallstat had a monopoly on Scythian interactions".
I mean it's pretty funny that you don't even have a basic knowledge of Indo-Iranian interactions that something like Blazek's very basic paper was surprising for you.
I made you go from:"there's no contacts except 2500BCE" to "uuh not denying direct loans from Iranians" hahaha.
Remember you aren't the first nor the last person to be embarrassed here. You're welcome for lessons Rob.
Also, Catacomb was Iranian or some shit hahahahaha.
@Vara
You're a mental case.
The Indo-Iranian question is settled, and has been for many years.
I've got one word for you: Z93.
@Davidski
You're right it's missing from Hasanlu, Yaz I and Swat. Hahahahaha.
There's Z93 in both Yaz and Swat.
The only thing that's missing is your IQ.
@Rob
That map you linked just lays bare the insanity these OIT proponents like Vashishta or Assuwatama indulge in , they are so delusional, they don' t even know if they are BSing anymore, it really is past that inflection point. There are no legs on any of this OIT farce , so becoming spin doctors then gaslighting when reality comes crashing down are the only recourse. The larger issue is even the top marquee of Indian scientists now are propagating this fraud. You mentioned cultured southerner vs rag tag nomadic barbarians. I think its unfathomable for many of them in particular nationalists in that country to think an intrusive group of nomads barreled in and dramatically transformed the language and composition of people, particularly in Northern India. These OIT proponents reason , Steppe ancestry was a random process which occurred much later and has no correlation with language , R1a and the Vedic Age. Reality says otherwise.
Out of curiosity , I pooled 4 Steppe rich Indians from the GIH set and it connects with what is clearly the putative Indo Aryan ancestry, Steppe MLBA + Aigryzhal-Botai like+ BMAC
sample: GIH_MLBA
distance: 1.025
Gonur1_BA: 15.5
Dashti_Kozy_BA: 28
SIS2_ASI: 56.5
Levant_Megiddo_MLBA: 0
My strong guess is these would be upper caste Brahmins.
sample: Hasanlu_4097
distance: 1.0716
Sappali_Tepe_BA: 44
Gonur1_BA: 28.5
Dashti_Kozy_BA: 16
Levant_Megiddo_MLBA: 11.5
sample: Levant Megiddo MLBA o1:I2200
distance: 1.87
Levant_Megiddo_MLBA: 57.5
Dashti_Kozy_BA: 29
Gonur1_BA: 13.5
GIH cannot have any Kura Araxes or Hasanlu IA , but its sharing a very similar packet of ancestry as these other LBA samples. Check mate.
Yes David some randoms around 800BCE definitely brought Indo-Iranian languages lol.
Also, wasn't PIE solved too? So why are you having a meltdown making 20 posts in a row over Lazardis loool.
Your understanding of Brahminhood is too shallow.
"According to the results, the Mala, a south Indian Dalit population with minimal Ancestral North Indian (ANI) along the 'Indian Cline' have nevertheless ~ 18 % steppe-related ancestry, showing the strong influence of ANI ancestry in all populations of India."
Jatts (non-elite herders and agro-pastrolists) are 40% steppe.
All most all groups NW of India are more steppe shifted than Brahmins.
Many foreigners were absorbed into hindu society as kshatriya and Brahmins. Many myths cooked up to conceal their foreign origin.
Scythian and Parhian kings of India.
These ~50% scythian tribes were completely absorbed into Hindus fold.
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Eastern Pakistan, and Kashmir
Maues
Vonones
Spalahores
Spalagadames
Spalirises
Azes I
Azilises
Zeionises
Kharahostes
Hajatria
Kshaharatas (Punjab, Pakistan and beyond)
Liaka Kusuluka
Kusulaka Patika
Bhumaka
Nahapana
Aprācas (Bajaur, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan)
Apraca
Vijayamitra wife Rukhana
Indravasu wife Vasumitra
Vispavarman, wife Śiśirena
Indravarman, wife Uttara
Aspa or Aspavarma
Sasan
Pāratas
Yolamira
Bagamira
Arjuna
Hvaramira
Mirahvara
Miratakhma
Kozana, son of Bagavharna
Bhimarjuna, son of Yolatakhma
Koziya, son of Kozana
Datarvharna, son of Datayola I
Datayola II
"Northern Satraps" (Mathura area)
Hagamasha
Hagana
Rajuvula
Sodasa
"Great Satrap" Kharapallana
"Satrap" Vanaspara
Minor local rulers
Bhadayasa
Mamvadi
Arsakes (Indo-Scythian)
Western Satraps
Nahapana
Chastana
Jayadaman
Rudradaman I
Damajadasri I
Jivadaman
Rudrasimha I
Isvaradatta
Rudrasimha I
Jivadaman
Rudrasena I
Samghadaman
Damasena
Damajadasri II
Viradaman
Yasodaman I
Vijayasena
Damajadasri III
Rudrasena II
Visvasimha
Bhratadarman
Visvasena
Rudrasimha II
Jivadaman
Yasodaman II
Rudradaman II
Rudrasena III
Simhasena
Rudrasena IV
Rudrasimha III
Interesting data point
"Originally pastoralists in the lower Indus river-valley of Sindh, Jats migrated north into the Punjab region in late medieval times, and subsequently into the Delhi Territory, northeastern Rajputana, and the western Gangetic Plain in the 17th and 18th centuries."
Claim of high steppe people in Vedic homeland doesn't hold up. Jats moved to this region only in medieval times.
Enter Clown #2,
Those names look to be Sanskritized titles from the Classical Age. Try Again. The L657 subclade heavily predominates these groups, and is absent in almost all those Sakas and Kushans.
New theory unloading 321...
No one literally no one ever argued that Parthian Mirahvara and Miratakhma are closer to South Slavic Miroslava ;)
Similarly Sławomira being closer to Parthian Yolamira and Bagamira.
Steppe was proto-balto-slavic :)
R1a1a1b mutated into z283 and z93 around 3000bce. Genes mutation ≠ language mutation. Z93 were eastern wing of Proto-baltic-slavic speakers.
Proto-Indo-Iranians came from south of Caucasus.
Come again when you have relevant scythian and Kushan samples. These people numbered in hundred thousand possibly millions.
Jats are often considered to be related to the Sakā tigraxaudā or the Massagetae.
Then there are other scythian groups like Saka Haumavarga, Saka Paradraya etc
Altai people
Language: Turkic
N=98
C=23%
Q=17%
R1a=47%
Khakas people
Language: Turkic
N=53
N=42%
R1a=28%
Krygyz
Language: Turkic
N=52
R1a=63.5%
C=13.5%
On Harappa world
Krygyz
N=25
Siberian 30%
NE Asian 32%
Caucasian 8%
NE Euro 11%
Uzbeks
Language: Turkic
N=366
R1a=25%
C=12%
J=14%
Harappa world
N=15
Baloch=18%
Caucasian=17%
NE Euro=14%
Siberian=17%
NE Asian=20%
Stop hiding behind R1a and steppe ancestry. There is 0 reason to believe first z93 and many of its descendants ever spoke Proto-Indo-Iranian.
They shifted once they came in contact with BMAC like populations.
@Rob
'From Brunnell 2021a Cx 161 from Chassen culture context'
Bit late, apologies, just accidentally saw this one!
Seemingly this guy has I1-FGC3466, but is older than the TMRCA of I1-M253. Of course, TMRCA calculations can be wrong, so it can't be ruled out that this is legit off the bat, but is there any sort of verifying "check" that can be applied here? It doesn't appear like Cx161 appears on their PCA at all, which is frustrating. I feel like there's some more digging to do surrounding this but I'm not sure how to go about it!
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos
There's no association between R1a-Z84 and N-L550/Estonia_IA ancestry.
Z84 moved into Scandinavia during the Corded Ware/Battle-Axe period, and it does exist in ancient West Germanic samples.
@Davidski
'There's no association between R1a-Z84 and N-L550/Estonia_IA ancestry.
Z84 moved into Scandinavia during the Corded Ware/Battle-Axe period, and it does exist in ancient West Germanic samples.'
I probably ought to have been clearer, I don't mean to assert any sort of direct association with them; I just mean that both seem to have been spread largely by Scandinavian-originating migrations, where we see them outside of Scandinavia.
Maybe I'm massively underestimating the frequency of R1a-Z284 in West Germanics. My impression was that it seemed not fully specific to North Germanic people, but definitely far more common among them than among any West Germanic groups.
I admit this is nothing solid enough to be shouting from rooftops, and more samples would obviously help, but it just seems to me to remain the case that there's more evidence of an idiom--and genes with it--going from Jutland to Sweden in the LBA-EIA than vice versa.
""According to the results, the Mala, a south Indian Dalit population with minimal Ancestral North Indian (ANI) along the 'Indian Cline' have nevertheless ~ 18 % steppe-related ancestry, showing the strong influence of ANI ancestry in all populations of India."
Jatts (non-elite herders and agro-pastrolists) are 40% steppe."
@Assuwatama, Telugus Malas don't have 18% Steppe_MLBA ancestry when modelled with IVCp as one of the source populations. They will have barely 5% steppe_MLBA with IVCp. You are quoting a model estimates from an older lazardis paper when aDNA from south asia were not published, he used Iran_N with Steppe_MLBA and AASI which gave overestimates for Steppe_MLBA. Such models were present in Pathak et al paper too which gave jats, rors close to 60% Steppe_MLBA ancestry lol.
Post a Comment