TUR_Aegean_Yassitepe_EBA AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN 0.565±0.054 ROU_N 0.387±0.041 RUS_Progress_En 0.048±0.022 P-value 0.103248 Full outputIf anyone reading this can find a better, more convincing solution then I'd love to see it. Feel free to share it in the comments below. Obviously, both of the Yassitepe samples are from the recent Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. paper. Their EBA dating suggests that they might be relevant to the debate over the origins of Anatolian speakers, such as the Hittites and Luwians. See also... Dear Iosif, about that ~2% The precursor of the Trojans
Thursday, October 27, 2022
The Yassitepe challenge
This is about the only successful qpAdm model that I can find for the pair of Early Bronze Age (EBA) females from Yassitepe, Turkey, using a decent set of outgroups and markers. I wouldn't take it too literally, but it does suggest a potentially significant level of European ancestry, including some steppe ancestry, in these Yassitepe individuals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
153 comments:
The Yassitepe MBA singleton shows a bit more steppe ancestry, but I can't find a model that passes P 0.05 yet.
I am not very hopeful. I’m starting to think that perhaps Rob might be right here about the linguistic origins: the fact that 5% Progress is all that has been found (so far), combined with the lack of common vocabulary for many terms between PIE and Anatolian.
It all makes me ponder when was the exact time that terms for you, I, water, father, snow, all common in IE languages- came to resemble our own.
My estimate is no earlier than 4000BCE
Obviously, we need more samples from western Anatolia, especially from Troy.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-precursor-of-trojans.html
What about the new, high coverage Barcin_C lass :
TUR_Marmara_Barcın_ChL
TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N
GEO_Satsurblia
RUS_Eneol_Piedmont
best coefficients: 0.603 0.242 0.155
TP 0.31
Full output
In addition to more West Anatolian data, Cernavoda & Usatavo-related samples might be helpful too
Yet another problem with this paper is it draws an arbitrary line in the sand. Laz. claims that there’s no European admixture in Anatolia despite the fact that Anatolian farmers draw a large proportion of their ancestry from European epigravettian - similar to that in the balkans & Black Sea region
I can demonstrate this with qpGraph, but can be straightforwardly noted in uniparentals- Yhg I2, C1a & mtDNA U6
It is not qpAdm but G25 (maybe can help in finding better qpAdm model):
I5733_sc.txt
-------------- ANCESTRY BREAKDOWN: -------------
70.396% TUR_Camlibel_Tarlasi_LC__CBT013
19.393% MNE_Vrbicka_N__I16994
6.342% SRB_Yamnaya_EBA__I11446
3.869% Corded_Ware_CZE_early__STD002
------------------------------------------------
Fit error: 0.01796119379981993
And
I5735_sc.txt
-------------- ANCESTRY BREAKDOWN: -------------
35.825% TUR_SE_Sirnak_C_C__I4480
24.000% ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_C__I7127
14.981% Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps__ARM001
14.602% TUR_BlackSea_Amasya_EBA__I5744
10.592% GRC_Peloponnese_N__I3709
------------------------------------------------
Fit error: 0.018591492384581486
@ph2ter
Right, so I5733 has significant steppe ancestry (via the Balkans), while I5735 doesn't.
How much steppe are you seeing in Kura-Araxes?
@Rob “Yet another problem with this paper is it draws an arbitrary line in the sand. Laz. claims that there’s no European admixture in Anatolia despite the fact that Anatolian farmers draw a large proportion of their ancestry from European epigravettian - similar to that in the balkans & Black Sea region”
Rob is absolutely right! I’ve read that Pinarbasi was created when the local, indigenous, Natufian-related autochthonous UHG were mixing with an Epigravetian, Villabruna-cluster related pop to form Dzudzuana 25kya.
Anatolian Barcin HG and later farmers cluster smack dab in the middle of the cline from WHG to Natufians.
Dzudzuana + ANE created Iran_N and CHG much later in time (25yka).
@Davidski & @Rob
When it comes to think about it, WHG and not Kostenki14 is the common denominator of all West Eurasian pops;
ANF = Villbruna like + Basal Eurasian —> Gravetian = ANF = Dzudzuana.
Dzudzuana + extra ANE —> CHG + Iran_N.
EHG = 9%-75% ANE + 25% -91% WHG related population.
* The main difference between modern Europeans and Neolithic Anatolian farmers or current Semitic language speakers is that the latter one has an extra Basal Eurasian (with Semites having an even greater dose of Basal Eurasian)*.
We know without any shadow of a doubt that the obscure “Philistines” were a coalition of Indoeuropean speakers, overwhelmingly Carian and Mycenaean but possibly also Sicanians (Italic) snd other tribes. The enigma whether the Philistines were Trojan refugees is yet to be resolved.
@Andrzejewski
WHG is specific to Europe. There was no WHG in the Near East until actual European populations spread it there during more recent times, like the Bronze Age.
On the other hand, many populations that are near and far related to WHG are native to North Africa and the Near East.
That's why it's still very difficult to untangle all of the ancient relationships between West Eurasians, and we can only talk about very broad patterns until many more Upper Paleolithic, Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic populations are sampled from across West Eurasia.
"On the other hand, many populations that are near and far related to WHG are native to North Africa and the Near East."
There are populations closely related to WHG in the Greater Middle East?
Have a look at where the Villabruna-related cluster is found. And even the Basal-rich cluster is WHG-like to some extent.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/07/sneak-peek-basal-eurasian-k7.html
@ Davidski
I think there was an actual migration of WHG-like people into Anatolia . But this is not obvious because they then mixed with Natufian-like groups
Don't you mean Balkan hunter-gatherers?
@Davidski
I see 2% of steppe:
KuraAraxes ARM001_sc.txt
-------------- ANCESTRY BREAKDOWN: -------------
55.251% RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya__I6268
23.230% IRN_TepeHissar_C__I2337
16.227% TUR_Ikiztepe_LC__IKI002
3.179% HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA_contam__I2356
2.113% RUS_Afanasievo__I5279
------------------------------------------------
Fit error: 0.022315284825727328
Related to the side discussion about WHG, published this week https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01883-z - This paper on "Dual ancestries and ecologies of the Late Glacial Palaeolithic in Britain" is interesting.
Not new but it more clarifies an interesting theory around the Magdalenian cluster ancestry that seems to disappear or become very marginal after the LGM: "However, the presence of individuals with un-admixed Goyet Q2 ancestry in northern Europe until ~14,000 cal. bp (ref. 9) also suggests some degree of sustained isolation throughout the LGM and into the Late Glacial. There is evidence of populations living in ice-marginal environments within northern Europe at the LGM and of long-distance movement of people from east to west north of the Alps, which has also been linked to the expansion of Magdalenian cultural groups. This evidence raises suggestions of Magdalenian populations with Goyet Q2 ancestry—who appear to have been cold-adapted hunter gatherers—retreating to northern Europe, perhaps due to climatic warming and the movement of prey species such as reindeer and horse.".
our qpAdm modelling indicates that Goyet Q2 ancestry persisted in Britain until at least 15,070 cal. bp and potentially as late as 14,610 cal. bp based on the modelled boundary start and end dates for Gough’s Cave
However, although admixed Goyet Q2 and Villabruna ancestry can be seen in southern Europe at El Mirón from at least ~18,770 cal. bp (ref. 8; Fig. 1), this signature of admixture is not visible in British individuals, thereby suggesting a more significant genetic turnover or replacement in northwestern Europe than in the southwest.
So El Miron is not really the source population for the Gough's Cave sample. Instead the source there might be more of different population with a more northern distribution at that time.
It may be that the Magdalenian ancestry disappears after the LGM because it represents a group specialized for glacial conditions who were disadvantaged after the LGM compared to the major WHG cluster, who were more hunter-fishers.
It looks like it might end up being apt to call the WHG something like "Southern European Hunter Gatherers" (as I think the "Stone Age Eurasia" paper does), if they represented a population which was widespread across southern europe between the last samples in Italy that are part of Vestonice cluster and the movements by neolithic people. With the Balkan Mesolithic variant being more admixed with Pinarbasi + EHG groups.the LGM compared to the major WHG cluster, who were more hunter-fishers.
It looks like it might end up being apt to call the WHG something like "Southern European Hunter Gatherers", if they represented a population which was widespread across southern europe between the last samples in Italy that are part of Vestonice cluster and the movements by neolithic people. With the Balkan Mesolithic variant being more admixed with Pinarbasi + EHG groups.
Tagliente like ; before balkans acquired EHG admixture
@ph2ter
OK, but I think that Novosvobodnaya has some steppe ancestry.
@Davidski
I agree.
Additionally 2.5% from 55% of Novosvobodnaya. It is additional 1.35% for Kura Araxes ARM001.
Total ARM001 for steppe is 2.1 + 1.35 = 3.5%.
I6268_sc.txt
-------------- ANCESTRY BREAKDOWN: -------------
25.282% TJK_Sarazm_En__I4290
19.933% TUR_Arslantepe_LC__ART039
17.724% TUR_Ikiztepe_LC__IKI037
15.588% TUR_Ikiztepe_LC__IKI016
9.963% TUR_Arslantepe_LC__ART018
7.950% TKM_Geoksyur_En__I12484
2.460% RUS_Afanasievo__I5279
1.100% TUR_Arslantepe_EBA__ART010
------------------------------------------------
Fit error: 0.04975034386215333
@Davidski & @Rob “Don't you mean Balkan hunter-gatherers?”
Something like Iron Gates. They have a closer affinity to ANF compared to other Balkanic forager groups
@andrzejewski
"Am African-American acquaintance told me that “white people” have the “privilege” of having migrated to Northern Europe and as a result their skin color lightened. I explained to him that pastoralists from Ukraine assimilated the farmers and foragers who had lived before them in the rest of Europe.
“That is not what happened” was his quick reply.
He immediately made me think of Gaska, Vara, Renfrew, Vasistha et al, who deny Steppe origins of PIE."
You should add Reich, Lazaridis & the whole Harvard team, Krause, Heggarty and the whole Max Planck team, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, etc. to this illustrious list of winners.
@ Matt
''It may be that the Magdalenian ancestry disappears after the LGM because it represents a group specialized for glacial conditions who were disadvantaged after the LGM compared to the major WHG cluster, who were more hunter-fishers.''
Magdalenian (GoyetQ2) does not disappear after the LGM (20000 bp), instead it becomes widespread across western Europe. It disappears ~ 14000 bp, which is during the Bolling-Allerod
''So El Miron is not really the source population for the Gough's Cave sample. Instead the source there might be more of different population with a more northern distribution at that time.''
El Miron is admixed with VB/ Taglient groups, so the 'purer' GoyetQ2 folks from southern France -> Belgium -> Britain
''It looks like it might end up being apt to call the WHG something like "Southern European Hunter Gatherers"''
they're known by Archaeologists as epigravettians. Geneticists insist on coming up with their own names which are often 'wrong'. e.g. WHG is a misnomer
These folks dont really come from soutern Europe either. Southern Europe wasn't really
'happening' until after the Ice Age, so we can't really say its the source for this group
Epigravettian territory. Note the east European aspect. IMO parts of Anatolia should be included too
@Rob, it's not like the LGM ended instantly after 20kya; that's the peak of glaciation.
"The Holocene glacial retreat is a geographical phenomenon that involved the global retreat of glaciers (deglaciation) that previously had advanced during the Last Glacial Maximum. Ice sheet retreat initiated ca. 19,000 years ago and accelerated after ca. 15,000 years ago. The Holocene, starting with abrupt warming 11,700 years ago, resulted in rapid melting of the remaining ice sheets of North America and Europe. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_glacial_retreat
Epigravettian is not a useful term for any genetic cluster relating to "WHG", given that Satsurblia and Dzudzuana are both ascribed to the material tradition.
I think both I5733 & I5735 have some En. steppe ancestry ~ 7%, but the other aspect is the Romanian _N related ancestry. Taken together & Y-DNA, this suggests something related to a Cernavoda or Gordinesti etc.
However, what limits the study of post-Neolithic Anatolia is the assumption of continuos development (quite the oppositve narrative of Europe where its mostly about 'rapid transitions). However, if we understand the physical settlment dynamics, you dont need to bust yourself trying to find 'the genetic model', it leans back toward basic components.
I ran rotating models for Yassitepe_EBA & Barcin_C (2,3 & 4 sources). Steppe_en, Khvalynsk and Yamnaya were used as possible steppe sources.
For Yassitepe_EBA, no model crosses 0.03 p-value.
Best model is 76% Arm_Masis_N + 24% Bulgaria_Chl/Romania_Chl
3 and 4 source models provide no improvement.
For Barcin_C, 2 source models work.
58% Arm_Aknashen_N + 42% Bulgaria_Chalc. p-value 0.18
For 3 source, Barcin_C gives
6% Steppe_En + 50% Arm_Aknashen_N + 44% Bulgaria_chalc. p-value 0.15
Given that 2 source model works, and 3 source provides no p-value boost, I conclude that Steppe_En is not needed.
Results of all the runs can be found here
@vAsiSTha
Steppe En isn't Progress En.
Davidski,
In my google sheet, I have provided sample IDs of all the labels used.
Steppe_en includes 2 from Progress and 1 vonyuchka sample.
Progress is closer to Sredny Stog, which is what we want here.
Adding Vonyuchka means too much CHG-related ancestry.
That's a very weird observation. PG2001 is closer to Vonyuchka than PG2004 on G25. Those 3 sort of form a triangle on PCA. There's no reason to keep them separate, and no paper has done so either.
Distance to: RUS_Progress_En:PG2001
0.03305037 RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001
0.03979701 RUS_Progress_En:PG2004
Nothing is going to change if I remove Vonyuchka. If I'm bored enough I may try that as well.
@ Davidski
In my look, 2-source passes, but adding Steppe_En does improve score.
@ Matt
'' it's not like the LGM ended instantly after 20kya; that's the peak of glaciation.''
Perhaps broadly speaking its within the last glacial cycle, but strictly speaking, the LGM is the period 26-20,000 calBP.
The period 20 - 15,000 is often called 'Final Pleniglacial' in ecological terms.
''Epigravettian is not a useful term for any genetic cluster relating to "WHG", given that Satsurblia and Dzudzuana are both ascribed to the material tradition.''
The Caucasian Epipaleolithic is genearally known as the Immeretian culture.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.04.034
WHG span several 'archaeological types' (Epigravettian, Azilian, several Mesolithic groups), but the 'origin' is from Epigravettians. So the term is all encompassing.
Was just saying that WHG is slightly problematic because they neither began in the west, nor are they restricted to that region, but I think there's no issue with using it because it has a heuristic purpose
E.g. from that article in Golovanova, they write ''After the Last Glacial Maximum at ∼25–18 ka BP (cal.), a new Epipaleolithic (EPP) industry is found between ∼18 ka BP (cal.) and the early Holocene at 10 ka BP (cal.) from Georgia in the Southern Caucasus through the Northwestern Caucasus to the southern Russian Plain''
@Rob
Old-school anthropologists associated the Magdalenian culture with the Eskimos because of the wealth of tools made from the bones of mammals that generally live in the far north. Of course, today we know that Magdalenian culture has absolutely nothing to do with Eskimos. However, I must say that the hypothesis of Magdalenian tribes migrating northwards, following the melting ice as the Ice Age ends, makes a lot of sense.
@ vasistha
“Best model is 76% Arm_Masis_N + 24% Bulgaria_Chl/Romania_Chl”
Lol you were so busy squaking ability “only 4% EHG” that you missed the large Balkan / steppe migration
not-so-illustrious indeed but at least you did see for yourself eventually
YassitepeEBA have huge levels of balkan/ steppe ancetry
TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassıtepe_EBA1
ROU_N
IRN_HajjiFiruz_ChL
BGR_Yamnaya_EBA
best coefficients: 0.457 0.406 0.137
TP 0.39
Yassiteppe MBA is even more Balkan
TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA
ROU_N
TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassıtepe_EBA1
best coefficients: 0.214 0.786
TP 0.85
CMR_SMA_published
MAR_Taforalt_EpiP
CZE_Vestonice15
RUS_Kostenki14
RUS_MA1_HG
CHN_Tianyuan
RUS_DevilsCave_N
LUX_Loschbour.DG
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
TUR_Pınarbaşı_EpiP
ISR_Natufian_EpiP
IRQ_Nemrik9_PPN
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
RUS_EHG
TUR_Hatay_TellKurdu_ChL
RUS_Tyumen_HG
TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N
GEO_Satsurblia
GRC_Peloponnese_N
UKR_Trypillian
AZE_N
@vAsiSTha
My observation is that there was subtle but important substructure on the Neolithic/Eneolithic steppe.
But anyway, at least your models are useful in the sense that they suggest significant Balkan ancestry in Copper Age/Bronze Age western Anatolia.
You know, in accordance with the Balkan route...
@ modas
“However, I must say that the hypothesis of Magdalenian tribes migrating northwards, following the melting ice as the Ice Age ends, makes a lot of sense.”
As per above, Magdalenian culture proliferated after the LGM, it disappeared with the start of the sharp warming , which are two different things
“Old-school anthropologists associated the Magdalenian culture with the Eskimos because of the wealth of tools made from the bones of mammals that generally live in the far north. ”
well that’s just a straw man because that theory sounds like something you came across in a dodgy website. Specialists always looked to SW European origins for Magdalenians, not Alaska
@Rob
"Lol you were so busy squaking ability “only 4% EHG” that you missed the large Balkan / steppe migration not-so-illustrious indeed but at least you did see for yourself eventually"
I have never said there was no Balkan ancestry in westernmost Anatolia (if I have, point out where), merely that there is 0 to minimal steppe ancestry which has again become clear for all to see. Earlier I thought there might be some steppe ancestry in Yassitepe due to G25, but models using the newer Balkan samples are showing me that it just requires minor IronGates ancestry from the balkans, not EHG.
@Davidski
"But anyway, at least your models are useful in the sense that they suggest significant Balkan ancestry in Copper Age/Bronze Age western Anatolia.
You know, in accordance with the Balkan route..."
Is it your opinion now that the Balkan_chalc ancestry (BarcinN + minor Serbia_Iron Gates without EHG/steppe) is PIE?
@Davidski
Target: ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_C
Distance: 0.7469% / 0.00746873
49.8 ROU_N
39.2 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
11.0 ROU_Iron_Gates_N
0.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
Do you believe that this population gave Anatolian languages? A population which is basically derived from Anatolian farmers itself, along with 10% 7000bce IronGates ancestry?
@Rob
Just to be clear, I do not espouse any heterodox anthropological theory on the matter, I am just saying what other anthropologists of the past have said. And I'm aware that as a rule you shouldn't discuss physical anthropology here in the comments. But just to add to the above comment, Carleton Coon for example says of Magdalenian culture that "These southern inroads [Spain] were, however, but minor Magdaleman incidents. It was a sub-glacial tundra culture, and stretched eastward across Siberia, where numerous sites have recently been discovered." And he then proceeds to discuss the Eskimoid adaptations in the typical Magdalenian skull. Geofrey Morant went further to say that there was indeed a genealogical link between the two cultures.
Though discredited today, both Morant and Coon were respected researchers in their respective times. It's certainly not something I've read on a "dodgy website".
@ Modas Califa
okay, and one archaeologist probably claimed that homo sapiens evolved in Arizona.
But I dont see how that links into the subject
@ vasistha
Marmara, Iron Gates HG, Dnieper, Volga HG. They're all points on a continnum which came even closer together between 6000 and 4000 bc
Admixture prgrammes alone arent adequate.
@vAsiSTha
You're not making any sense.
When a language spreads it can sometimes do so with quite different populations, because genes don't speak, people do.
If there are clear signs of contacts between the Balkans and western Anatolia in ancient DNA during the Copper and Bronze Ages, then this corroborates the long established consensus that Anatolian languages moved from Europe to Anatolia during that time.
Ergo, we can then start looking for a more precise location for the Indo-Anatolian homeland somewhere in Eastern Europe.
This field is a scam of colossal proportions.
~1380bce treaty mentions Vedic deities.
People of interest in and around the region; Anatolian IE, Proto-Armenians, BMAC related people.
1300bce sintastha related andronovians were far east in xinjiang bringing proto-Tocharian with them to the region.
@davidski
Sure, whatever floats your boat lol.
@Modas Califa
Creswellian samples are Magdalenian.
https://www.science.org/content/article/oldest-british-dna-reveals-mass-immigrations-after-last-ice-age
And there is a small trace GoyetQ2 in GAC samples from Poland.
oit fans are so happy that the hypothesized birthplace of PIE is the Caucasus (which again is quite questionable as not even all geneticists agree and almost all linguists would disagree) and not the steppes of the northern Black Sea region, and it's so funny, relax it doesn't change anything for you guys. Indo-Europeans came to India from the steppe. Neither Krause nor Lazaridis denies this.
@ Davidski
It would be useful if you published your p-right dataset or at least the .ind file.
@Arza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U27oklMzS_5KSK_1ir7Cd20kDLnLd7ry/view?usp=sharing
@Desailly
"oit fans are so happy that the hypothesized birthplace of PIE is the Caucasus.."
I'm not an OIT fan, I do not consider India or Pakistan to be PIE. You are probably too stupid to know this. If anything, my stance for PIE has shifted more westwards from Southern Central Asia, not towards India, given the big connections to Anatolia as well as minor ones to steppe. That said, OIT does make more sense than steppe theory lmao. At least those buggers weren't hunter fishers of the steppe.
"Indo-Europeans came to India from the steppe. Neither Krause nor Lazaridis denies this."
Have you read Krause's book? Do you know the views of Heggarty, his Max Planck linguist colleague? If you did, you wouldn't spout this illiterate falsity.
@Modas Califa, yes, obviously no one would be not talking about a genealogical link, but some convergent features of skull in adaptation to climate might be possible, and also toolset, that might give rise to these notions of a Solutrean shared material culture with Siberians due to similarities in toolkits and/or cranial shape similarities that reflect climate adaptation. Shame there's probably no way the cranial stuff will ever be truly testable (there just won't be the sample sizes of adna nor crania to test to modern satisfaction).
Some quick f4 stats comparing GoyetQ2 to other populations: https://imgur.com/a/BGKCoGm
everyone was a fisher hunter gatherer at some stage
But those from near the Black Sea took out the Gonur chiefs and their Harappan vassals . Of course, they helped create the most developed society some 2000 years before anything developed in south Central Asia , hence it makes historical sense
I wouldn't ask Heggarty or Krause for traffic directions, let alone for their advice on the location of the Indo-Anatolian homeland.
@vAsiSTha
You can believe in your fantasies, it's just funny to me how you are burning with the fact that the Indo-Europeans came to India from the steppe.
By the way, David Reich claimed in his book that the homeland of Afro-Asians is the Levant. I don't think I even need to explain that this is complete bullshit.
"I wouldn't ask Heggarty or Krause for traffic directions, let alone for their advice on the location of the Indo-Anatolian homeland."
Their theories are better than your claims of East Europe transferring Anatolian languages via Balkans as if there was a language relay race lol. You will claim basically anything to keep PIE next to your ancestral home.
@Davidski,
Amen.
@Desily,
Yep. What it is, is Harvard has a Neolithic farmer obsession.
They want everything to come from Neolithic farmers of the fertile crecent. Indo-Europeans and Afro-Asians.
They claimed East Africans have Levant Neolithic farmer ancestry when in related they have ancestry from Natufian-like people who came from Egypt or Arabia.
It is like how they claimed IEs have Iran Neolithic farmer ancestry when in related they have Caucasian hunter gatherer ancestry.
@vAsiSTha,
It's not about Anatolian.
The issue is there's no prove of migrations from the Caucasus, or anywhere in Asia, into the Steppe during the time of the formation of Indo-European languages.
The Proto-IndoEuropeans were local Eastern European people. There's no way to trace their language to any region in Asia.
@Davidski,
could you add these 21 samples from this study to g25?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219312412#app2
their genotype information is here:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB29142
a quote from the study explaining the new samples:
"Twenty one complete genomes from North African individuals (n = 17), Basque (n = 2), and Iraqi (n = 2) were sequenced for the present study. Samples from North Africa belong to Arab- and Berber-speaking groups from Western Sahara (n = 1), Morocco (n = 4, including two Berbers from the Rif), Algeria (n = 4, including two Zenata Berbers), Tunisia (n = 4, including two Berbers from Chenini), Libya (n = 2), and Egypt (n = 2)."
i could rename them if you post the coordinates, but if you want to name them yourself:
MOR01, MOR02 = Moroccans
BMOR01, BMOR02 = Riffian berbers from morocco
ALG01, ALG02 = Algerians
BZEN01, BZEN02 = Zenata berbers from algeria
TUN01, TUN02 = Tunisians
BTUN01, BTUN02 = chenini berbers, other Chenini samples are already on g25 under the name: "Berber_Tunisia_Chen"
EGY01, EGY02 = Egyptians
LIB01, LIB02 = Lybians
IRQ01, IRQ02 = Iraqis
BAS01, BAS02 = Basques
SAH = Saharawi
What's the link to the actual genotype data?
If those are just BAM files at the ebi, then they need to be converted, and I can't do that right now.
@Samuel Andrews
You sure you want to open the can of worms?
Hittite and Tocharian ...
1st and 2nd to split languages are attested in Asia.
Indo-Iranian too is attested in Asia
Even the mycenaeans were steppe depressed with many not even having any steppe ancestry.
People whose own languages are attested in 2nd millennium ce don't tell people with 2nd and 1st millennium bce attestation about the origin of their languages.
In your own models Afnasievo 3000bce is proto-tocharian but stays virtually untouched by Proto-Indo-Iranian andronovians despite a huge impact in late bronze age.
In your own models Mitanni indo aryans are direct from steppe_mlba yet steppe_mlba derived Iron age people speak Iranian but steppe depressed people of Swat and Magadh speak Indo aryan.
"because genes don't speak, people do."
Sintastha sharing same genes doesn't make them related to balto slavs that too when the communication lines broke down and there was hardly any interaction between them for a millenia.
Your only saving grace would be Andronovo origin of Tocharian.
Only total newbs drag out the "attested first" argument when they finally run out real arguments.
The only reason Indo-European languages were attested in Asia first is because the people who spoke them migrated into areas where writing existed.
Samuel
"The issue is there's no prove of migrations from the Caucasus, or anywhere in Asia, into the Steppe during the time of the formation of Indo-European languages."
You are wrong, please read my post. https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2022/09/Steppe-southern-source.html
Yes David as is evidenced from migration of BMAC related groups in and around the Hurrian region :)
South asia and the middle east are sinks here just like they were in the historical era for population movements, invasions, conquests etc...
@assuwatama
You're not smart enough to open any "can of worms".
No one is arguing for an Indian origin of PIE here. I am arguing for a non-steppe origin of Indo-Iranians.
For now i am gunning for PII split from Proto-Europeans south of Caucasus with Proto-Europeans going into steppe.
It's bound to change when data starts flowing from the east both archaeological and genetic.
Genetic impact of these iron age and historical age invasions haven't been done. Language impact is limited to loan words from Perso-Arabic.
Fatyanovo gave rise to the Proto-Indo-Iranians.
And Fatyanovo was located near Moscow.
Indo-Aryan is only attested early by way of Indo-Aryan fragments in Mitanni-linked documents. Greek, Italic, Celtic, and Thracian too I think have written attestations made in their own language before the oldest Indo-Aryan inscriptions in South Asia. Mycenaean goes back as far as 1400 BC which is as old as the Mitanni Aryan attestations.
By the way Mitanni Aryan has never been attested on its own accords, we don't have a single sentence written in Mitanni Aryan. It is just through the names of deities, people, titles, cities as well as some few words that we have Mitanni Aryan attested. This more or less is the same degree of attestation we have for the Scythians.
^ and that's Progress_En, which is a peripheral part of Sredni-Stog. Direct West Asian admixture is minimal in Sredni Stog, Yamnaya & CWC. To call it ''transformative'' is maliciously dishonest
Oldest attestation in south asia belong to later phase of Indo-Aryans MIA (250bce Prakrits) which were wide spread by Buddha's time.
Old Persian is attested ~500bce
Till someone deciphers harappan script.
@ Vasistha
The sources of southern admixture in Progress_En are (1) EEF (2) "Mesolithic CHG'' (3) Darkveti-Meshoko
The 'pastoralization of the steppe' did not occur due to a special group from the southeastern Caspian. It was a long, complex process which accelerated c. 3300 bc.
And Progress_En is a somewhat pearipheral part of Sredni Stog. Direct West Aisan admixture in the core regions and later Yamnaya & CWC are minimal, let alone transformative.
"Fatyanovo gave rise to the Proto-Indo-Iranians. And Fatyanovo was located near Moscow."
No it did not. There is zero chance that non agriculturist barbarians of the steppe without pucca houses were mantra chanting brahmins of the Rig Veda. The central asians have changed language, culture and attire throughout recorded history like a chameleon changes colours.
The indo-iranians were situated in SC asia, from which BMAC developed into Iranian and the admixture in IVC led to indo-aryan. This is why you see BMAC related ancestry in western Iran during the time that Mitannis are attested as having contacts with Indo Iranians. This is also the reason why BMAC ancestry in Hasanlu is present at the right time when Iranian languages are supposedly introduced in the western Iranian regions. BMAC attests, wagons, horses, horse head sceptres, horse training horns, fire rituals, fire temples, horse pulled proto chariots 200 yrs before Sintashta even existed.
Your Fatyanovo Z93 has no role here, just like 30-40% Y hg N in a small populations of Lithuania and Latvia doesn't make it Finnic speaking.
Most Indians speak Indo-Iranian today precisely because of men bearing R1a-Z93 whose origins can be traced back to Fatyanovo.
Latvia and Lithuania are two small countries with small populations. So not relevant in this context.
"There is zero chance that non agriculturist barbarians of the steppe without pucca houses were mantra chanting brahmins of the Rig Veda"
It will always be funny when these clowns reveal their emotionally driven ulterior motives behind their "scientific" opinions.
@vAsiSTha
"The indo-iranians were situated in SC asia, from which BMAC developed into Iranian and the admixture in IVC led to indo-aryan. This is why you see BMAC related ancestry in western Iran during the time that Mitannis are attested as having contacts with Indo Iranians."
So BMAC is Iranian according to you but it also the vector for Mitanni Aryan, an Indic language, travelling to the near east?
@Assuwatama
"Till someone deciphers harappan script."
Sure and the Vinca script actually represents early PIE...
I doubt that BMAC has had that much genetic, let alone cultural, influence on Indo-Aryans
No. Sintashta / Andronovo related Z2124 is present only in 3-10% Indians, Its absent in UP, central and east India. It's present in higher % in NW India, Pakistan and Afghanistan due to historical turko-mongol invasions. Indian Muslims have higher percentage of it.
R1a-L657 though descended from Fatyanovo, was born inside India ~2300BCE by random chance to a single man much before steppe autosomal contact with Swat. Because you wont find a single L657 in 200+ male samples in central asia/russia, and neither will you find it in modern Europeans (except Roma).
Your simplistic Z93 = 'we wuz aryans' wont cut it here. You can understand the nuances here. https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2022/10/r1a-explained.html
@Vashishta
"The indo-iranians were situated in SC asia, from which BMAC developed into Iranian and the admixture in IVC led to indo-aryan."
So, basically next to your ancestral home?
@epoch This is what you said on September 26, 2021 at 8:06 AM
on this post https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/09/lizard-gorge.html
"@Vasishta
Even waning immunity is not an argument that vaccines have no influence on transmissibility, because it's the waning effectiveness rather than the workings of the vaccine induced immunity response that causes it.
A booster will reinstate effectiveness and thereby restore the ability to stop transmission."
While I was adamant that vaccines don't stop transmission based on UK data among others, which is more than clear today. You defended the garbage unscientific claim that vaccine mandates will prevent transmission for at least 10-20 more posts. Will you now finally admit that you were wrong?
"So, basically next to your ancestral home?"
Yes genius, the Indo-Iranians were placed close to indo-iranians, not close to the Spanish lol. Also, Turkmenistan is 2500km from my home lol.
Davidski said...
“Only total newbs drag out the ‘attested first’ argument when they finally run out real arguments.“
Absolutely true. The “attested first” arguments only lasts until more evidence is available. This applies to ancient DNA as well as languages and archaeology.
Unfortunately, even the learned fall to “attested first” false leads.
@Davidski Is it factual that both sides of Tollensee valley warriors had WHG ancestry ratio in excess of 50%?
How did BMAC bring Mittani to Mesopotamia from Iran when aDNA shows BMAC migrated from west to east ?!
@ Copper Axe
“ Sure and the Vinca script actually represents early PIE...”
Probably not completely bizarre given what data shows
@Andrzejewski
Nope.
It's almost 2023 and our local "expert" still doesn't know the basics.
From Parpola:
“At this time Assyria was trading with Cappadocia and importing tin from the east. The source of this tin may have been in central and northern Afghanistan (Kandahar and Badakshan), whence the Harappans and the Bactrians appear also to have obtained their supplies… On the other hand, from the 18th century B.C. onwards, north Syrian seals show such a typically Central Asian motif as the two-humped Bactrian camel, which is depicted in the BMAC seals several times…These cultural contacts between the Syro-Hittite world and the BMAC do not prove that the hypothetical Aryan authors of the BMAC came from the west, as suggested by Sarianidi (1993b, 1994), but rather foreshadow the takeover of power in Syria by the Mitanni Aryans and support their Central Asian origin.”
Isn't it funny that there is actual evidence for a BMAC-Anatolian interaction while there is none for the steppe-Anatolia? It looks like these BMAC warriors must have been legendary. Makes sense why the first time we see an individual with heavy steppe ancestry in Turan is during the Median era long after the collapse of BMAC.
Except that there is a steppe - Balkan - interaction sphere
The archeogenetic evidence is unequivocal
The archaeogenetic evidence also proved Siriandi correct. Iran saw multiple populations flows into it. Unfortunately, Parpola is still under the impression that FU came from the middle Volga , so..
However I am sympathetic to the view that IndoIranian arose in an interaction sphere encompassing West Asia and SCA rather than from a preformed packed jn Sintashta
Comment from new paper on hard sweeps in ancient dna in Europe - https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41559-022-01914-9/MediaObjects/41559_2022_1914_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
"To estimate the impact of our population assignment on the robustness of our candidate sweep detection, we reran the sweep detection pipeline on alternate sample groupings for both the WHG and Steppe populations and compared these to the original sample groupings. The original sample assignments for each population were governed by minimizing the temporal and spatial variability within each population while maintaining a homogeneous archaeological context. The alternate population groupings preserve the archaeological context but use a coarser geographical and temporal context, and/or include samples with additional ancestry components not present in the original sample groupings (Supplementary Table 1). Specifically, for the WHG population – which initially comprised 44 samples largely derived from the Balkan region – we added 12 samples mostly sourced from the Gravettian culture from western Europe (sourced from France, Germany, and Luxembourg) that were ~1 ka older on average (mean sample ages: 10 ka vs 9 ka for original samples). The 75 samples from the Steppe population were supplemented by 15 samples of similar antiquity and provenance (Maykop Culture samples; mean age ~4.5 ka for both groupings), but which draw ~4% of their ancestry from Siberian hunter-gatherers (i.e. Eastern Hunter-Gatherers with Siberian genetic affinity) that is absent in the samples in the
original grouping (14,15)."
(link for 14 and 15 - https://paperpile.com/c/J9egW7/7hLCo+VtbbS)
Steppe Maykop or published Maykop?
@Copper Axe
"So BMAC is Iranian according to you but it also the vector for Mitanni Aryan, an Indic language, travelling to the near east?"
Looks like there's a misunderstanding here. Hasanlu has Mitanni-Arya and Hurrian elements. HP Francfort concludes the following about the Hasanlu golden bowl in his 2008 paper.
The main conclusion is the proposal that the Hasanlu bowl ornamentation is composed of two blocks of beings linked together:
- The Mitanni-Arya in the upper register, the heaven and the hierarchical domain of the ruling elites; it seems that it is the exaltation of a priestly cast and of male divinities in chariots;
- The Oxus-Hurrian-Mesopotamian in the lower register, which is an Ancient Oriental-Eurasian complex scheme in the process of being minimized.
The present analysis of the Hasanlu bowl might give more substance to the hypothesis of the religious in-fluence of Arya groups in Western Iran at some point. However, we do not pretend that the Hurrian “reading” that proposes to identify images as Kumarbi, Tešub, Ullikummi, Ištar, Šaušga, a “reading” favored by Winter in her comprehensive study of 1989, has been invalidated. Simply, our “reading” gives more consistency to the upper register deities (not simply as Tešub, sun and moon facing sacrificers), the key element being the identification of the Aśvin.
Archeological connection can also be seen between Swat and Hasanlu (click here to see the snippet).
And regarding genetics, Swat Culture from Pakistan can explain these Mitanni-Arya and Hurrian elements in Hasanlu. Individual I4233 (902-812 calBCE) from IRN_Hasanlu_IA cluster has chrY haplogroup L-Y28524 and this subclade's direct ancestor is L-Y6288 which is found in individual I6555 (906-816 calBCE) from Loebanr, Pakistan. In qpAdm, Aligrama_IA/Indus_Periphery ancestry work for some individuals of Hasanlu_IA cluster. @vAsiSTha has discussed this in his blog entry.
@vAsiSTha
„Figure out where fedorovo got the practice of cremation from, that will be more worthwhile.”
You wrote it in response to my post:
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/01/para-turbo-balto-slavic.html?showComment=1643283260737#c1492327640261540977
I think fire and solar cults and cremation link Slavs and Indo-Iranians, and it all started around Carpathian mountains:
Giorgio Stacul “Cremation Graves in Northwest Pakistan and Their Eurasian Connections: Remarks and Hypotheses”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/29755643
https://postimg.cc/z3F7zgVb
https://postimg.cc/DWPt1kWZ
I am not sure if WHG component comes necessarily from Europe. It is clearly present in Dzudzuana which is 30,000 years old, as well as in El Miron and Pinarbasi. It could have been some sort of Southern European refugia population but it is also possible it was present in the middle east before the intrusion of Basal Eurasian types.
Also,
@Vara
The first Turanic steppe sample is not an IA sample. Plenty of Andronovo samples from what we would now call "Turan", what are you talking about? And what is this about no Steppe influence in Anatolia? Aren't there connections between Cernavoda and North Anatolia?
WHG is not present in Dzudzuana. It only shows up because of a lack of resolution.
@Vara
First of all, There are clear archaeological connections from the steppe into the eastern Balkans, and from there into Anatolia. Secondly, what is this about no Steppe ancestry in Turan? All of our Andronovo samples are from Turan. Turan is all of Central Asia, lands which our earliest records of say they were inhabited by Iranian Scythians.
@Assuwatama
No reason to assume that BMAC ancestry in the middle east is due to Mitanni. Could have been Kassites.
I genuinely do not understand this push to make Indo-Iranian "BMAC" now. It doesn't make chronological sense. PII split off after every other Indo-European lang family, from what I know, so even if you believe in Out-of-Armenia theres no reason to assume it somehow split off while Indo-Europeans were still in Armenia, spread to Central Asia and expanded into the Indus Valley, and then this completely unrelated ghost population of Andronovo people with Z93 and the same DNA that marked the Indo-European expansion in almost every other area swoop in, conquer a bunch of territory, but leave no linguistic impact?
Yes, there are quite a few samples with steppe ancestry from Turan.
But Turan doesn't include any part of Russia, like the Kazakh steppe or Siberia, and this is where most of the Andronovo samples are from.
Population dynamics are much more complex than ancestry models.
1 in 4 Dravidians are R1a
1 in 4 kashmiri Brahmins are R1a
1 in 4 Burusho is R1a
1 in 5 kalash is R1a
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%
Uzbeks
Language: Turkic
N=366
R1a=25%
C=12%
J=14%
R1a scythians of India 150bce-400ce patronized Sanskrit Language and Hindu culture. Zero linguistic impact of scythian language.
Turks and Turkic-Mongol rulers of India were Persianized Turks under whom Persian culture and Language had the same elite status as the sanskrit in ancient India. These 500 years lead to large number of loans from Perso-arabic into Indo-Aryan languages.
There are archaeological evidences for Mitanni, BMAC, Aegean and North Mesopotamia contacts.
Kassites; not much is known. Some of their early kings have Indo-Iranian names like Gandash and Abirattash.
Some later kings/gods have names of suspected II origin like Marutash, Bugash, Suriash, Indash etc
Indo-Iranians hiding among hurrians and kassites is likely. Kassite and Hurrians migrating from Indo-Iranian region is less likely.
BMAC being Hurrian and IVC being kassite is unlikely :)
@Assuwatama
R1a is obviously very closely linked to the spread of Indo-Iranian languages in Asia.
And it's easy to explain the R1a in the Burusho, Dravidian and Turkic speakers with the contacts they had with Indo-Iranians at very specific times.
So you have no argument.
R1a-z93 were centum language speakers. Afnasievo language got replaced by late bronze age migrants from andronovo.
Unless you you want to break the model and argue only Iranian languages came from R1a-z93 :)
Sounds like you're taking too much of your medication, or not enough.
Now I believe you were arguing steppe_mlba + z93 + Iranian language reached THAT part of Iran only in Iron age :)
Iranian languages spread across Iran during the Iron Age. This is the consensus view. They were sitting in Central Asia before that during the Bronze Age.
The attestation of Mittani names and some phrases west of Iran during the Bronze Age has nothing to do with this, just in case you're confused, because Mittani was an Indo-Aryan language.
The fact that an Indo-Aryan language appeared that far west isn't an issue, because R1a also first appeared in West Asia during the Bronze Age.
Ergo, there's nothing that contradicts the opinion that R1a shares a close link with the spread of Indo-Iranian languages across Asia.
Do all of us a favor and make a blog related to Indo-aryan and Iranian populations. And no cherry picking data :)
Iranians have BMAC related ancestry which most Indo-Aryans lack. BMAC related people are in the vicinity of Hurrians in NW Iran in late bronze age. Mitanni II elements are coming from Proto-Iranian language which is yet to go Iranian specif changes that we attest in Iron age.
Hence pretty similar to Indo-Aryan language.
Yeah, no shit Iranians have BMAC ancestry.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/07/an-early-iranian-obviously.html
http://new-indology.blogspot.com/2017/05/were-mitanni-really-indo-aryans.html?m=1
This is a well written article. Might give you and your audience a different perspective, if they haven't read it.
You can also model harappans with nearby central asian groups like Tepe_Anau, Geoksyur_En & Bustan_En.
What I meant was modern populations of Indo-Iranian speakers.
Swat population too carry a good chunk of BMAC ancestry which got displaced or massacred by similar but more steppe shifted z2125 Iranic speaking populations in North Afghanistan during Islamic conquest.
@Davidski
I'm very sorry to tell you that Sintashta or Fatyanovo has nothing to do with indo-iranians.
Target: Iranian_Mazandarani (scaled averages)
Distance: 0.9850% / 0.00984975
45.6 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
22.2 IRN_TepeHissar_C
12.4 IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_A
10.8 ARM_Lchashen_LBA
4.8 PAK_Loebanr_IA
1.6 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity_o1
1.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
0.8 Yamnaya_SRB
0.6 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A
0.2 Yamnaya_BGR
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B
0.0 IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_B
0.0 IRN_Hasanlu_MBA
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN
0.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
0.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N
0.0 KAZ_Dali_EBA
0.0 KAZ_Dali_MLBA
0.0 KAZ_Kangju
0.0 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
0.0 KAZ_Saka_TianShan_IA
0.0 KAZ_Shoendykol_MLBA_Fedorovo
0.0 KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity_1
0.0 KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity_2
0.0 Levant_Abel_IA
0.0 MDA_Catacomb_Dănceni_MBA
0.0 MDA_Catacomb_MBA
0.0 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
0.0 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H
0.0 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H_o
0.0 RUS_Catacomb
0.0 RUS_Fatyanovo_BA
0.0 RUS_Fatyanovo_Ivanovo_BA
0.0 RUS_Fatyanovo_Moscow_BA
0.0 RUS_Fatyanovo_Tver_BA
0.0 RUS_Fatyanovo_Yaroslavl_BA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_contam
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
0.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe
0.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o1
0.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o2
0.0 Saka_Tian_Shan
0.0 Saka_Tian_Shan_o
0.0 TJK_Ksirov_H_Kushan
0.0 TJK_Sarazm_En
0.0 TKM_Geoksyur_En
0.0 TKM_Geoksyur_N
0.0 TKM_IA
0.0 UKR_Catacomb
0.0 UZB_Kashkarchi_BA
0.0 UZB_Kokcha_BA
0.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Karagash
0.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.0 Yamnaya_UKR
0.0 Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o
Iranian Mazandarani =/= Proto=Iranian nor even early Iranian.
This is an early Iranian...
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/07/an-early-iranian-obviously.html
Haha.
@Copper Axe
"So BMAC is Iranian according to you but it also the vector for Mitanni Aryan, an Indic language, travelling to the near east?"
There are other opinions about Mitanni being Iranian as well as Nuristani (Diakonoff) or both Aryan and Iranian elements. Anyway, both BMAC and IVC related ancestry has been found at Hasanlu, so you can pick and choose which gave Iranian languages and which one gave Mitanni indo-iranian. Btw, cool way to gloss over lack of sintashta related ancestry.
@WSH
"PII split off after every other Indo-European lang family,.."
This is of course false.
From Kummel - 'Indo-Iranian does not have a clear next relative. It is rather distinct in some respects, so an early split seems quite possible (Hamp’s scenario), but only under the assumption of continued areal contact.'
From Kroonen - 'On the one hand, Indo-Iranian participated in the initial core Indo-European shift from a pastoralist to an agro-pastoralist economy, of which some elements later were lost. On the other hand, Indo-Iranian was peripheral to the more recent and more radical shift towards a farming economy, as reflected in the vocabularies of the European branches'
@Eastpole
Fedorovo adopted cremation from the 2600bce Dali/Tasbas/Begash culture where cremation in the region is first attested (along with SC asian grain offering).
@Matt
They might have used all the mayykop samples (steppe_maykop, novosbodnaya, late maykop etc.) which is why they get a lower WSHG value of 4% (steppe_maykop has ~50%).
@Davidski
"This is an early Iranian..."
His ancestors were Iranians for long due to the BMAC ancestry.
back to Anatolia.. We've been critiquing 'distal approaches', but after having gone through each Anatolian sample with such an approach, I've found it extremely enlightening
E.g.
TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N
TUR_Pınarbaşı_EpiP
ISR_Natufian_EpiP
IRQ_Nemrik9_PPN
best coefficients: 0.566 0.111 0.323
TP 0.13
Right Pops
CMR_SMA_published
MAR_Taforalt_EpiP
CZE_Vestonice15
RUS_Kostenki14
RUS_MA1_HG
CHN_Tianyuan
RUS_DevilsCave_N
LUX_Loschbour.DG
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
GEO_Kotias
RUS_Tyumen_HG
UKR_N
@vAsisTha
"There are other opinions about Mitanni being Iranian as well as Nuristani (Diakonoff) or both Aryan and Iranian elements. Anyway, both BMAC and IVC related ancestry has been found at Hasanlu, so you can pick and choose which gave Iranian languages and which one gave Mitanni indo-iranian. Btw, cool way to gloss over lack of sintashta related ancestry."
Lack of Sintashta where, Hasanlu? A lack of Sintashta there is no concern of me because they were not Indo-Iranian peoples. I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with the history of the region, you have a tendency not to do that (like with Xinjiang). Since you quoted Diakonoff I'd recommend his works as he is a good source for that. The area around Urmia in the early iron age was inhabited by Mannaeans, which were a Hurrian-related people. According to Diakonoff the actual Iranians were still further east in Iran and the switch in the Urmia region postdated the collapse of Hasanlu (unrelated to it as it was done by Urartians). This is easily seen in Assyrian records and the personal names attested in the region.
Also I'm not sure why the Mitanni are of so much importance here because the Urmia region was not part of the Mitanni state. If you want to talk Mitanni lets look at Megiddo, where for a period Hurrian and Indo-Aryan names pop up consistently in the records, like with one of the rulers Biridiya. No surprise R1a shows up there as well as samples with a steppe/central asian mix. 1+1 = ?
Your case will only strengthen when you can delink sintastha from BMAC and Harappa.
So find a population outside the genetic and cultural sphere of BMAC and Harappa which spoke II. Otherwise steppe + bmac or steppe + harappa means nothing.
BMAC collapsed by 1800-1700bce and a good chunk of bmac population migrated to swat and NW iran as visible in data from BIA dinkha teppe, hasanlu and swat.
"
Location: Hasanlu Tepe
Date: 18 samples dated from 1300BCE to 700BCE.
Out of 13 males, 10 are R1b-M269+ (of the Yamnaya kind). 1 is J2a2a1a1a2, 1 is J2a1a1b1a1a and 1 L1a (specifically L-Y28524). L1a is ISOGG notation and L-Y28524 is YFull notation which is more precise.
Location: Hasanlu Tepe
Date: ~1350BCE.
Male. Y hg J1a2a1b1a~. mtDNA R2.
Location: Dinkha Tepe
Date: 8 samples, of which 1 is dated to ~1800BCE, 5 are dated to between 1400-1000BCE, 1 is dated 1000-850BCE, and 1 is only archaeologically dated.
Out of 3 males, 2 belong to Y hg G1a and 1 to J2a1a1a2a.
Udegram_IA
1200-800bce
M65a1, T2a1b, U8b, R30a1b, U7a, U1a, H2a2, M, U4c, W3a1, U1a1, H14a,
E1a, E1b x8, A0T, CT, H1a1a
Katelai_IA
1000-800bce
U4d, J1d, M35b, Z31a1
J2a1, R2a
Leobanr
1300-1000bce
R30b1
L1a
1000-800bce
W3a1b, U2e, M4, M5, U7a, T2g1, U2c1, U3b
L1a x4, R1b, R2a, C1b, Q1b2
"
So how did Proto-Uralic end up with so much Indo-Iranian influence.
BMAC or Harappan people in the forests of Siberia?
Haha.
There are Arabic and Persian loans in Indian languages via Turks.
Scythians, Kangjus dominated the steppes for a millennium. Indo-Aryan Romas have been in Europe for a millenia now.
And it's one way loaning, that in itself speaks a lot.
Here kanjus ...
https://imgur.com/a/Zs9XuxL
Who knows may be its via proto-balts ;)
"According to Diakonoff the actual Iranians were still further east in Iran and the switch in the Urmia region postdated the collapse of Hasanlu (unrelated to it as it was done by Urartians). This is easily seen in Assyrian records and the personal names attested in the region."
Oh no, and who were travelling east to west during this time? Sintashta folks? Or the BMAC and IVC folks?
Heres your godmother Kuz'mina, from the chapter 'Origin of West Iranians' who after collating views from Diakonoff, Pogrebova, TC Young, Grantovsky, Ghirshman, and others concludes that
"Thus the archaeological materials of Iran analyzed by M. N. Pogrebova and myself correspond well with the historical data on the migration of the Iranianspeaking people to Iran. The contradiction between the hypothesis of E. A. Grantovsky about the Caucasian route and M. D’yakonov’s opinion on the migration through Central Asia is thus eliminated: it is obvious that both routes were used. The beginning of the migration may be believed to have happened in the last
quarter of the 2nd millennium BC."
Next comes the question of horse burials, found at Dinkha Tepe and Hasanlu
"M. N. Pogrebova (1977) acknowledged that one of the important indicators of the appearance of the Iranians is the spread of horse burials and horse images in Iran, which reflected the ideology of the newcomers. Burials of horses have been discovered in the cemetery of Hasanlu IV. In a large grave (4m deep) there lay a warrior in the flexed position on his left side with his head turned to the north-east. Symbols of his status—a pectoral and leaf-shaped arrows—were placed beside him. Four horses were lain near him with their heads to the east. Two of them lay on the left and two on the right side. There was no space for a chariot in the grave. A bit and cheek-pieces were also found (Dyson 1965: 208- 209). R. Dyson emphasized the difference between this and the adjacent ordinary graves. Its date, he suggested, was the 8th or perhaps the 9th century BC. R. Ghirshman (1964: 26, 280) compared this grave with Scythian burials but the Scythian invasions date from a later period. In the neighboring cemetery of Dinka-tepe the skeleton of a horse with legs chopped off has been discovered. Adjacent graves are believed to date from the 10th–9th centuries BC (Muscarella 1962: 187). In the Caspian region in Gilyan there also have been found three ‘horse’ graves in the cemetery of Marlik."
Who brought the horses to these sites? Kuz'mina answers
"Thus horse-breeding, ritual burials of horses and horse images in art could appear in Iran both from the Caucasus and from Central Asia. Media became a centre of horse-breeding. From there, horses were brought to Assyria as a tribute. But one should note that along with the horse alfalfa, the best horse feed, became known in Iran. In the 8th century BC alfalfa was brought to Babylonia where it was named “horse grass”, a word borrowed from Iranian. In Greece alfalfa was known as “Median grass”. But the homeland of this plant was Central Asia, from where it could be brought to west Iran (D’yakonov 1956: 152). (In the 2nd century BC alfalfa seeds, as well as blood-horses, were exported from Fergana to China, cf. Bichurin 1950 II: 150)."
So are appearance of horses suddenly not part of Indo Iranian culture anymore? It becomes clear that the BMAC ancestry corresponds with beginning of horse appearance at these sites. They brought Ferghana horse grass 'alfalfa (iranian)' along with them and gave the loanword to babylonians and greeks.
@copperaxe
"Also I'm not sure why the Mitanni are of so much importance here because the Urmia region was not part of the Mitanni state. If you want to talk Mitanni lets look at Megiddo, where for a period Hurrian and Indo-Aryan names pop up consistently in the records, like with one of the rulers Biridiya. No surprise R1a shows up there as well as samples with a steppe/central asian mix. 1+1 = ?"
The megiddo siblings have no 'sintashta' ancestry, and no central asian ancestry. They are not from central asia, they are from caucasus, as the published paper mentions.
The only plausible rotating qpAdm Models for the megiddo outlier siblings are Israel_mlba + Steppe_catacomb/Lchasen_MLBA (yamnaya steppe). This is covered in my post, and to rebut it you should run rotating models of your own and prove presence of sintashta ancestry. There is no reason to spout ignorance, read my article
Here's G25 for the higher coverage sister, which of course does NOT override the qpAdm rotating models, but still shows that the steppe is from yamnaya.
Target: Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o1:I2200 (scaled averages)
Distance: 1.6836% / 0.01683628
50.0 Levant_Megiddo_MLBA
26.2 Yamnaya_BGR
14.0 ARM_Tavshut_Trialeti_MBA
8.8 TJK_Sarazm_En
1.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke
0.0 ARM_Lchashen_LBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA
0.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Karagash
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.0 Yamnaya_SRB
0.0 Yamnaya_UKR
0.0 Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o
@Davidski
"So how did Proto-Uralic end up with so much Indo-Iranian influence.
BMAC or Harappan people in the forests of Siberia?
Haha."
Hahah, the clue is that there are no p-FU words in indo-iranian. SO they did not develop in close proximity to each other. The borrowing is only one way into FU. Clearly Iranian loanwords came from the south.
You can check the presence of Sarazm ancestry in 3200bce Kumsay, for example. or the presence of BMAC outliers at andronovo sites. These are just loanwords after all, trade is sufficient explanation.
Looks like we have two frustrated comedians here.
But no, Proto-Uralic was actually in direct contact with Indo-Iranian.
And the reason that there's no Uralic influence in any surviving Indo-Iranian languages is because this contact was way up north.
Sarazm or Kumsay won't help you here. They're irrelevant.
@vAsisTHa
I have a feeling you have a hard time separting different time periods from one another. Anyways...
"Oh no, and who were travelling east to west during this time? Sintashta folks? Or the BMAC and IVC folks?"
During the Neo-Assyrian period? Definitely not BMAC and IVC folks because those cultures had stopped existing for many centuries at that point. Neither was Andronovo around anymore at that point either. People with mixed ancestry from both peoples certainly migrated east to west at this time.
"it is obvious that both routes were used. The beginning of the migration may be believed to have happened in the last
quarter of the 2nd millennium BC."
This is the iron age yes, and this does not refer to Hasanlu but the migration from Central Asia into Iran. Iran is a pretty big country after all.
Funnily enough you quoted a whole bunch from that page in Kuzmina's book but left this part out:
"There is one more category of finds that corroborates the Central-Asian path
of the steppe peoples to the Iranian plateau, viz. two vessels found in Tepe Giyan
in the upper part of layer I (Fig. 51: 57, 58; Contenau and Ghirshman 1935: 8,
13, fig. 51: 57, 58). They were apparently made on a potter’s wheel, their base is
conical and it is separated from the swollen trunk by a rib. As will be argued in
the next chapter, such ceramics are characteristic of south Turkmenistan and are the diagnostic feature of the Namazga VI pottery. But the Giyan vessels are dis-
tinguished from those of Namazga by an applied-roller with lowered ‘mustache’, and even with oblique notches on one of them. This is the most characteristic
peculiarity of the applied-roller pottery of the Eurasian steppes of the Alekseevka
type. The combination of rollers with the Namazga form of vessels reflects the
retention of the newcomers of their Central Asian path. The date of these pots is
established according to both steppe and Turkmenian analogies as the 12th–9th
centuries BC..."
By accident I suppose?
"So are appearance of horses suddenly not part of Indo Iranian culture anymore?"
Around this stage? Certainly not. Pay attention to the dates. Everyone in the Near East was charioteering and in some parts horse riding was already being employed militarily. Urartians in the iron age were renown for their horse breeding and chariots. Iranians were in Iran too, Media too even, just not signifcantly around Urmia hence the people at the time not speaking Iranian and not having steppe_mlba per your own accords.
"They brought Ferghana horse grass 'alfalfa (iranian)' along with them and gave the loanword to babylonians and greeks."
Ferghana got inhabited by Andronovo nearly 1000 years before the dates in your quote about alfalfa and around 1300 BC it got inhabited by the Chust culture, which came from the south and materially was very similar to the Yaz culture. And even that far south do we see significant steppe_mlba in the EIA with the TKM_IA sample.
"The megiddo siblings have no 'sintashta' ancestry, and no central asian ancestry. They are not from central asia, they are from caucasus, as the published paper mentions."
Wake me up when the Catacomb-derived Transcaucasian samples show R1a. We have many such samples by now.
@vAsiSTha
"From Kummel - 'Indo-Iranian does not have a clear next relative. It is rather distinct in some respects, so an early split seems quite possible (Hamp’s scenario), but only under the assumption of continued areal contact.'"
You forgot Kummel's other conclusions-
• There is good evidence for early proximity to Eastern Europe – with different developments shared with either the south (Greek, Albanian, Armenian) or the north (Baltic-Slavic, Germanic), or with the east (satem languages).
• An original position at the eastern fringe of Europe is corroborated by contacts with both Western and Eastern Uralic.
Evidence for Indo-Iranians arriving from Eastern Europe to Iranian plateau and Indian subcontinent via Central Asia is overwhelming. Steppe_MLBA indeed is the Indo-Iranian carrier, there are no other solutions. Your theory of IVC being Indo-Aryan due to it's Iran_N is fringe as almost all candidates for Early Vedic settlements are post-Harappan according to Jonathan Mark Kenoyer's chapter in the book 'The Indo-Aryan Controversy'.
@copperaxe
Do you disagree with Kuzmina that Iranians started entering NW Iran (Hasanlu & Dinkha) by the last quarter of the 2nd millenium? What about the horses and cheek pieces etc. found at Hasanlu and dinkhaTepe? Does that mean Iranians were not present? What about the Mitanni and Avestan elements found at Hasanlu? If there was no Indo Iranian presence there, how are all these evidences explained?
It is not just Kuzmina who agrees with entry of Iranians at Hasanlu by start of 1000bce. TC Young, Kurochkin, Parpola, Douglas Adams - all these people believe so too. It is actually consensus. Urartians had nothing to do with Hasanlu till they attacked it around 800bce.
'secondly, because of convincing arguments of J. Curtis (1995) who insisted that the early date is more preferable after analyzing the helmets and taking into account that in Hasanlu there were no traces of influence of Urartu which expanded in the 8th century BC.' - From Kuz'mina
The only people travelling west during this time were the BMAC folks - you will find 0 evidence for the Sintashta folks near Syria during Mitanni times and later Iranian times
"Wake me up when the Catacomb-derived Transcaucasian samples show R1a. We have many such samples by now."
It's there, but you don't want to accept the fact. I17308, 394-208 calBCE (2260±20 BP, PSUAMS-9003), ARM_Keti_Anc. R1a1a1 (R-Z645)
Furthermore, these are the results of the Megiddo outliers with Bulgarian sources added in the rotation. Armenian, Bulgaria_MLBA as well as Bulgaria_Yamnaya work as sources. As you know Bulgaria_MLBA (1700bce) is R1a1a1 (possibly Z93). No central asian/bmac ancestry is needed.
Bulgaria or caucasus are much nearer to Megiddo, than your nonsensical hypothetical route from Sintashta via bmac and iran into Israel. At some point you have to stop your ignorant rambling.
@copperaxe
In which world do you think W Iranians got their language from Sintashta? (G25 using scaled averages, 4x run)
Target: Iranian_Fars
Distance: 0.4511% / 0.00451086
24.8 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
22.0 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
6.8 TKM_Gonur1_BA
6.6 IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_A
5.2 TKM_IA
4.6 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity_o1
4.6 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
4.0 RUS_Catacomb
3.8 IRN_Wezmeh_N
3.4 ARM_Tavshut_Trialeti_MBA
3.0 PAK_Loebanr_IA
2.8 IRQ_Nemrik9_LBA
2.2 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
2.2 Levant_Megiddo_MLBA
1.8 IRN_TepeHissar_C
1.8 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
0.4 IRQ_Nemrik9_PPN
0.0 ARM_Lchashen_LBA
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B
0.0 IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_B
0.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
0.0 KAZ_Dali_EBA
0.0 KAZ_Dali_MLBA
0.0 KAZ_Kangju
0.0 KAZ_Saka_TianShan_IA
0.0 KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity_1
0.0 KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity_2
0.0 Levant_Abel_IA
0.0 Levant_Megiddo_IA
0.0 Levant_Megiddo_IBA
0.0 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H
0.0 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H_o
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
0.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe
0.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o1
0.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o2
0.0 Saka_Tian_Shan
0.0 Saka_Tian_Shan_o
0.0 TJK_Ksirov_H_Kushan
0.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA_o
0.0 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
0.0 UZB_Kashkarchi_BA
0.0 UZB_Kokcha_BA
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Target: Iranian_Mazandarani
Distance: 0.8917% / 0.00891695
24.8 TKM_Gonur1_BA
23.0 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
12.4 ARM_Tavshut_Trialeti_MBA
11.2 IRN_TepeHissar_C
11.0 IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_A
7.2 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
4.4 PAK_Loebanr_IA
2.8 TKM_IA
1.4 IRQ_Nemrik9_LBA
1.2 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity_o1
0.6 Saka_Tian_Shan_o
0.0 ARM_Lchashen_LBA
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A
0.0 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_B
0.0 IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_B
0.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
0.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
0.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N
0.0 IRQ_Nemrik9_PPN
0.0 KAZ_Dali_EBA
0.0 KAZ_Dali_MLBA
0.0 KAZ_Kangju
0.0 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
0.0 KAZ_Saka_TianShan_IA
0.0 KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity_1
0.0 KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity_2
0.0 Levant_Abel_IA
0.0 Levant_Megiddo_IA
0.0 Levant_Megiddo_IBA
0.0 Levant_Megiddo_MLBA
0.0 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
0.0 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H
0.0 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H_o
0.0 RUS_Catacomb
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
0.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe
0.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o1
0.0 Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o2
0.0 Saka_Tian_Shan
0.0 TJK_Ksirov_H_Kushan
0.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA_o
0.0 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
0.0 UZB_Kashkarchi_BA
0.0 UZB_Kokcha_BA
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Collapsed to 5 sources
Target: Iranian_Fars
Distance: 0.5580% / 0.00558012 | R5P
79.6 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
6.2 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
5.8 RUS_Catacomb
5.2 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity_o1
3.2 IRN_Wezmeh_N
Target: Iranian_Mazandarani
Distance: 0.9725% / 0.00972511 | R5P
50.8 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
21.6 IRN_TepeHissar_C
9.8 ARM_Tavshut_Trialeti_MBA
9.0 PAK_Loebanr_IA
8.8 IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_A
I would post the same for Kurdish too, but length doesnt allow. Wheres the sintashta or tkm_ia (proto iranian apparently lol) ancestry here?
@anveshaNam
"You forgot Kummel's other conclusions-
• There is good evidence for early proximity to Eastern Europe – with different developments shared with either the south (Greek, Albanian, Armenian) or the north (Baltic-Slavic, Germanic), or with the east (satem languages).
• An original position at the eastern fringe of Europe is corroborated by contacts with both Western and Eastern Uralic."
Yes, Kummel is wrong about the 'original position at eastern fringe of Europe'. If linguists were so accurate about PIE origins, we would have solved the IE puzzle 100 yrs earlier. His observations have other explanations as well.
He is wrong because clearly Uralic and PIIr did not develop in contact with each other, otherwise there would be a lot of Uralic borrowings into pIIr and then into Aryan and Iranian. There are exactly 0 agreed loans from Uralic into IIr. The loans always go in the other direction (and not from IndoAryan, only from various layers of Iranian languages).
People like Davidski argue that the one way loanwords happened because Uralic only interacted with the northern extremities of this PIIr (lets call it n-PIIr) whereas s-PIIr gave birth to Aryan and Iranian. So does this mean that Uralic was not in contact with the proto form of this north-south PIIr unity? Where was Uralic at this time? Did the later north & south PIIr cultures not interact with each other? This line of questioning just opens up more and more questions which cant be answered.
In fact what Davidski does confirm is that proto-indo-Iranian (the one which actually gave indian and iranian languages, not some made up one) was not in co-existence with Uralic in any way. He just makes up a ghost n-pIIr indo-iranian population which can magically interact with Uralic in any way he wants, because it doesn't exist.
The better solution is that Iranian cultures of the south sent loanwords into Siberia via trade/other mechanisms. We know of the IAMC being used to send grains from SC Asia into steppe, China and Altai. We see Sarazm like ancestry in North Kazakhstan, and BMAC outliers at Andronovo sites. Sarazm was the most advanced copper working site in this region at the time.
Do you know which IE language actually has a lot of impact from Finno-Ugric? Tocharian
Read "The deviant typological profile of the Tocharian branch of Indo-European may be due to Uralic substrate influence" M Peyrot 2019
@vAsiSTha
"He is wrong because clearly Uralic and PIIr did not develop in contact with each other, otherwise there would be a lot of Uralic borrowings into pIIr and then into Aryan and Iranian."
That is not how any of this works.
Finnic and Saami languages have hundreds of loans from Proto-Germanic, yet Pgmc gained zero in return. This is very easy to explain by way of the nature of linguistic contacts between the two populations. One side of the equation are the contacts being peripheral in nature for Germanic speakers as well as Germanic being more of an exporter of cultural influence rather than an importer when it came to Germanic-Uralic contacts. Perfect analogy when it comes to Indo-Iranian and Uralic contacts. With Indo-Iranian you'd actually have a stronger case for why there would be such a unidirectional borrowing because while Finnic and Germanic people had fairly comparable technology levels and economies, Proto-Uralic speakers were effectively small-sized hunter-fisher populations with metallurgy.
By the way quoting Peyrot here negates what you said earlier about a lack of loans into Indo-Iranian. There are no Uralic loans in Tocharian either and not many linguists support Pre-Tocharian loans in Uralic. Yet Samoyedic, Tocharian, and to a lesser degree Yeniseian all have overlap in typological profiles according to Peyrot and this must've occurred due to Tocharian speakers having spent a period in close proximity to "Siberian" languages. However there are some issues with Peyrot's theory here, mainly chronology.
LOL, Persian speakers in Fars have a strong connection with Yaz people and your Bullshitting yourself, especially looking at the history of Achaemenids. 40% of their ancestry is modeled as essentially Central Asian East Iranics, but in the absence of more Iron Age genomes from NE Iran/Turkmenistan, those Otyrar samples are the best proxy, they can even be modelled without Hasanlu. You know nothing of Iran's history and contorting it to fit your retarded narrative.
sample: Iranian Fars:Average
distance: 0.711744122
Otyrar_Antiquity: 40
Levant_Ebla_EMBA: 22.4
Seh_Gabi_C: 23.6
Hasanlu_IA: 14
sample: Iranian Fars:Average
distance: 0.761610878
Otyrar_Antiquity: 44.4
Levant_Ebla_EMBA: 24.6
Seh_Gabi_C: 31
@copperaxe
"Finnic and Saami languages have hundreds of loans from Proto-Germanic,"
That's because finnic languages appeared in west Europe much later than proto Germanic, so of course you won't find finnic loans in proto Germanic lol.
Blue caviar, not that I have done qpAdm yet, but my model clearly has better distance than yours, plus I did include otrar labels in my runs as can be clearly seen, and they're not selected.
Furthermore, otryar is the Kangju capital and Kangjus spoke an east iranian language (sogdian). farsis speak west iranian Persian which does not descend from Sogdian.
LOL , Iranic languages all come from the same family dumb ass, they in turn are related to Indo Iranian languages, and its not from Goojrat or Rakhigarhi or Timbuktu for that matter , they originate with Abashevo, Which btw they already have Z2123 lol, the same kind which can be readily be found in Brahmins, so a cry river or initiate a group therapy session with youe other nutjob OIT incels. You can bullshit your way to infinity but ultimately reality will dawn and you will crawl back under the rock you came out off.
@copperaxe
"There are no Uralic loans in Tocharian either"
Wrong. I think you are just BSing your way through at this point. From 'Tocharian and Ugrian. (1985). Studia Linguistica. Diachronica et Synchronica, 411–420. doi:10.1515/9783110850604-034'
"At the same times one can find some possible Finno-Ugrian borrowings
among non-Indo-European words in Tocharian besides those already discussed earlier; see Van Windekens 1976: 215, 318, 327, 490, 518, 553, 622, 628, 634. Particularly stimulating is the coincidence of Proto-Ugrian *näl- 'nose': Toch. mal- 'nose.' The word occurs also a compound Toch. A ak-mal 'face' < 'eye-nose' that was interpreted long ago as a combination of the type of Hanty (Ostyak) not-sem < 'nose-eye.'"
"To the traces of a possible Ob Ugrian influence on Tocharian one might add Toch. A lyäk, B lyak 'thief: Ob Ugrian *0ül3mak- 'thieving' (Mansi tülmax, Hanty lalmax; the phonetic shape may be seen in North-Tungus *oläk 'lie'
for which the connection with a meaning 'thief was supposed, Illych-Svitych 1971: 329). The above-mentioned word for the 'sun' common to Tocharian and Turk may have connection with Hanty Xunt 'sunrise.'
From Peyrot 2019
"The word akmal is certainly the most striking example of a compound with a basic meaning formed from two elements with a different meaning. Exact parallels are found in Khanty ńot-sēm and Mansi ńol-sam, both ‘face’ from ‘nose’ and ‘eye’, while similar compounds such as mouth nose, nose mouth and mouth eyes, all meaning ‘face’, are likewise found in Finno-Ugric (Schulze 1927; Krause 1951:197–198; Aalto 1964:59; Bednarczuk 2015:61)"
"PSam. *wesä ‘metal’, borrowed into PToch. *ẃəsa ‘gold’ "
Toch--->Samoyedic borrowings
"PSam. *sejt³wə ‘seven’, borrowed from PToch. *s’əptə ‘seven’, reflected in Toch.A ṣpät (Janhunen 1983:5–6)"
"PSam. *we̮n ‘dog’, borrowed from a Pre-Proto-Toch. form of PToch. *kwenə, i.e. Pre-PToch. *kwënə, the obl.sg. of *ku ‘dog’ (Kallio 2004:133–135)"
"PSam. *menüjə̑ (Tundra Nenets ḿeńuj, Tundra Enets menio) ‘full moon’ (Helimski 1978:126), borrowed from PToch. *ḿeńe ‘moon’ (Blažek apud Napol’skikh 2001:371)."
Proto Samodeyic is quite late in time 1000bce or later (Janhunen 1998( Peyrot's chronology issues basically go away if he stops assuming Afanasievo to be pToch.
@vAsiSTha
"That's because finnic languages appeared in west Europe much later than proto Germanic, so of course you won't find finnic loans in proto Germanic lol."
You're a moron, Proto-Germanic developed inbetween 500 BC and 0 AD. You litetally have Latin loanwords in Proto-Germanic. The Finnic speaking Est_IA samples date to that period too FYI. The East Baltic is Eastern Europe by the way, Uralic languages never were present in west Europe.
"Wrong. I think you are just BSing your way through at this point."
I'm bullshitting? You're one to talk when your way of argueing is essentially just rapidly ctrl+fing and then selecting quotes from works about topics you have little understanding of here.
Perfect example here:
""PSam. *wesä ‘metal’, borrowed into PToch. *ẃəsa ‘gold’ "
You didnt even bother checking any dictionary, whether its Uralic, Tocharian lr PIE related to see what the etymologies of *wesä and *ẃəsa are. If you had, you would easily notice how Tocharian has a bunch of cognates in other IE languages coming from a PIE root used for dawn and gold.Check Adams' or Mallory's works. The Uralic equivalents otoh are actually argued to be a loan from IE languages, either in Proto-Uralic or Post-PU.
You're once again doing that sneaky selective quoting thing of yours by the way:
"In the literature, very few Tocharian-Samoyedic etymologies have been pro-
posed, and most of these are in my view not convincing at this point (cf. e.g.
Napol’skikh 2001; Blažek & Schwarz 2008:57–58). The following selected exam-
ples appear to be relatively good to me:"
"Obviously, much more research in this domain is needed. "
You even left out this part in one of the etymologies:
"For this etymology to work, two meta-
theses have to be assumed: Pre-Proto-Toch. *’ə(or *’e, at a very early stage)
to *ej, and *ptto *tw. Kallio (2004:132) is critical of this connection.Indeed,
the adaptation of *’ə or *’e as *ej is difficult to understand. For the latter
metathesis, however, Janhunen (l.c.) adduces a parallel from the Proto-
Samoyedic word for ‘bed, sleeping place’."
Clearly there is a sense of a caution here. None of the Uralic > Tocharian proposals are very secure as other etymologies can easily be attributed to them. I can find cases where Indo-Iranian words are attributed to Uralic too, but the same thing applies there hence why I dont take them too serious.
You can argue false attribution for some Indo-Iranian > Uralic loans too, just like with Germanic, but the sheer amount in the latter two is so large that even if you have a dozens of etymologies wrongly attributed, you still have hundreds that are not.
"The Finnic speaking Est_IA samples date to that period too FYI."
Lol. They're in Estonia, what does that have to do with Germanic? Estonia is BS at that point. Balto slavic drifted z283 baltic_BA and everything?
Stop embarassing yourself
@vAsiSTha
They're in Estonia, what does that have to do with Germanic?
Bwahaha!!!
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/12/on-trail-of-proto-uralic-speakers-work.html
Estonia is BS at that point. Balto slavic drifted z283 baltic_BA and everything?
LMFAO!!!
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/05/fresh-off-sledge.html
@Davidski?
Huh? Are you slow or something?
What does Estonia have to do with proto Germanic?
I know the Estonia_IA samples and the 2-3 haplo Ns. They may or may not be uralic speakers.
What does any of that have to do with proto Germanic?
@vAsiSTha
Estonia is next to Finland. There were early Germanics in this region during the Iron Age.
Isotopes show that these Estonian samples were migrants, so they weren't Balts.
And there's a reason why Estonians speak Uralic not Baltic.
Haha.
So Estonia/Finland is the proto Germanic region. Got it.
Jesus you really are dense. I have no idea why you are being so snarky here when you are genuinely a bit thick in the head, Dunning-Kruger effect I suppose.
Look at a map and see what is on the other side of the Baltic sea. Then imagine Germanic people having boats.
@copperaxe
You guys just make shit up as you go. Estonia/Finland is not the proto-Germanic region lol. "Look and see what's on the other side." Hahaha, is that how you prove your theories? The 3 hg N in Est_IA with 5-10% Nganasan ancestry may be Uralic, but you have no proof of that. Haplogroups don't encode language. They might as well have completely assimilated with BS speakers in Estonia (after all 30-40% of latvia and estonia is y hg N)
And you have shown no proof of Finnic interaction with Germanic other than your 'We told you so and hence it's true, stupid' theories.
Meanwhile, the actual evidence.
"Runic inscriptions in a language that we may label Early Runic appear from the second century onwards, and one inscription on a fourth-century-BCE bronze helmet, the Negau B helmet, has been unearthed in Slovenia. This inscription, which is in a northern Etruscan alphabet and reads hariχastiteiwa, constitutes our earliest evidence of Germanic, at least if we follow Reference Markey (2001) in interpreting it as ‘Harigast the priest’. It thus constitutes a terminus ante quem for some of the linguistic features that define Germanic (Section 10.2)."
Germanic
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 September 2022
By Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen and Guus Jan Kroonen
@vAsiSTha
Estonians are Uralic speakers because Uralic speakers migrated to Estonia during the Iron Age. Yes or no?
Those Iron Age migrants in Estonia with Y-hg N and Siberian admixture are very likely to be the people who introduced Uralic the region. Yes or no?
Or are you claiming that Estonians aren't Uralic speakers? Or maybe that they became Uralic speakers more recently than the Iron Age???
Also, there were Proto-Germanics in Scandinavia. Yes or no?
And Scandinavia is very close to Estonia? Yes or no.
Moreover, there is actually ancient DNA evidence of the presence of Germanic people in Iron Age Finland, and Finland is even closer to Estonia. Yes or no?
The actual samples from Finland which show decent Siberian ancestry, close to Saami, are only from 500CE.(Finland_Levanluhta).
None of the Swedish or Norwegian samples on G25 are shifted towards the Saami like Levanluhta samples except a couple of northern Viking outliers, who are obviously much later in CE. Even the 2 Sweden_IA hap Ns (300ce) dont have any siberian affinity.
So where exactly 'on the other side of Baltic' did the Finnish interact with the Germanics during the proto Germanic period?
"Estonians are Uralic speakers because Uralic speakers migrated to Estonia during the Iron Age. Yes or no?"
Maybe, maybe not. Some Y haplo N and 5-10% Nganasan extra ancestry doesnt prove presence of Uralic speakers (Saami have much more). Even if they were present, the interaction was with Balto-Slavic.
"Those Iron Age migrants in Estonia with Y-hg N and Siberian admixture are very likely to be the people who introduced Uralic the region. Yes or no?"
Maybe, maybe not. Too few ancient samples. Maybe the change happened very lowly post IA. IA adna from the region of karelians, vepsians might help.
"Or are you claiming that Estonians aren't Uralic speakers? Or maybe that they became Uralic speakers more recently than the Iron Age???"
Answered.
"Also, there were Proto-Germanics in Scandinavia. Yes or no?"
By the turn of CE, proto-germanic had already split. Question is of date of interaction with Uralics. Can you prove that uralics interacted with Germanics before pG split?
"Moreover, there is actually ancient DNA evidence of the presence of Germanic people in Iron Age Finland, and Finland is even closer to Estonia. Yes or no?"
I'm not aware of any aDna samples apart from the ones in Lamnidis et al, those are not Germanic. Do share the other paper.
@vAsiSTha
I guess that was too complicated. Let's try this again.
Are Estonians Uralic or not?
Obviously they are, so are you arguing that they only became Uralic speakers during the Middle Ages? If so that would be really dumb.
So since there's no point arguing that there were no Uralic speakers in Estonia during the Iron Age, and Estonia is very close to Scandinavia, where Proto-Germanic was spoken, then what's the problem?
"Obviously they are, so are you arguing that they only became Uralic speakers during the Middle Ages? If so that would be really dumb."
Middle ages? Idk, whatever comes after IA for you. there's no definite proof that EST_IA spoke Uralic. Karelians, Vepsians, Ingrians are much more Siberian shifted, EST_IA is not. Estonia is not Germany or scandinavia.
"So since there's no point arguing that there were no Uralic speakers in Estonia during the Iron Age, and Estonia is very close to Scandinavia, where Proto-Germanic was spoken, then what's the problem?"
I have not seen a single aDna sample before 0CE from Nordic countries with either hg N or Siberian shifted ancestry. The oldest Germanic inscription is from Slovenia, quite far to the SouthEast. Date is 350bce or so. But still, lets say proto Germanic heartland was modern Denmark, and not somewhere in north Germany. There is no Siberian affinity in any of the Danish ancient samples, and not a single Y hg N.
Sweden and Norway were recipients, not donors of the Germanic language.
This actually ties quite nicely with what I have been saying about IIr and Uralic. Proto germanic in germany (500-100bce), travels north via Denmark into the nordic countries, where the north branch interacts with Saami and independently develops into the north germanic branch.
@vAsiSTha
No, Estonians don't have much Siberian ancestry, so the genetic shift in Estonia during the Iron Age explains why Estonians now speak Uralic.
There is no shift in the Middle Ages that would explain this, and no one who is taken seriously has ever made a claim that Uralic speech arrived in Estonia after the Iron Age.
On the other hand, it's widely accepted that there were contacts across the Baltic between early Germanic and Uralic speakers.
So you're a troll, but we all knew that anyway.
"No, Estonians don't have much Siberian ancestry, so the genetic shift in Estonia during the Iron Age explains why Estonians now speak Uralic."
Indeed. There is no Y hg N in Latvia and Lithuania in the BA. But 35% today. That explains why Latvians and Lithuanians speak Finnic. Oh wait they don't, My bad.
This is not me trolling, this is me exposing your stupidity of dealing with a soft science subject like a math problem. That is why you write stupid posts when you find 1 random R1b in 100 samples from Anatolia, for instance, as if it means anything.
@ Vas
Havent been following the debate, but if Hg N arrived with Uralic-speakers in the LBA or IA, it then moved into Latvians & Lithuanians during Roman-Iron Age or Middle Ages due to cross-boder contacts. Where's the issue ?
The issue is that Y Hg N (or any haplogroup) cannot be reliably used to prove large scale shift in language, especially so in the case of the Baltic region. So we have to rely on archaeological data to prove language change.
That's very funny, because it's opposite to the truth that 99% of people understand.
@davidski
This is science, not democracy. If 35% haplo N didn't Finnicize Baltic countries, a few y Hg N samples from Estonia cannot be linked to finnicization of Estonia. Sorry.
@Rob, Ringbauer's paper did actually reconstruct RoH analysis in Pinarbasi, in the supplement .xls - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25289-w
Though here its not particularly different in any class of RoH to Iron Gates HG.
Post a Comment