Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages, Heggarty et al. The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe, Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al.The Heggarty et al. paper is pure fluff. It offers nothing useful or even remotely interesting. For instance, the authors derive some Indo-European languages in Europe from Anatolian farmers and others from Caucasus hunter-gatherers (see here). This is not just exceedingly far fetched, but also obviously forced. Wolfgang Haak and Johannes Krause, you should be deeply ashamed of yourselves. I've already commented extensively about the Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. paper (for example, see here). But the one thing I need to add is that this paper is what it is due to the inherent bias of some of the lead authors to push the Indo-Anatolian homeland into West Asia. I won't even bother mentioning their names, because we all know who they are. See also... Crazy stuff Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let's set the record straight The story of R-V1636
Saturday, August 12, 2023
Indo-European crackpottery
I've now had the chance to read and digest the following two papers in Science about the origin of Indo-European languages:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
408 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 408 Newer› Newest»@Matt “Interestingly to me, the guy who seemed like a Yamnaya-ish outlier is part of the main family, and is Q1b2b. His mother and father though, are not sampled, so possibly his mother was from an autosomally Yamnaya like community living in the Urals. Presuming they have reconstructed his relationship to the others correctly! He's less apparently an outlier in their PCA.”
It could well indicate that CWC in their excursion east have assimilated and integrated warriors and clans from Khvalynsk, Kelteminnar and perhaps Botai Culture, could it?
@LGk “ Agreed, and since M269 came from Latvia-Bulgaria this confirms that Proto-Iberian and Vasconic were intruders to chalcolithic Iberia - So it turns out you have more in common with Yamna than you believe. Welcome Gaska to the invaders of western Europe club!”
No! Iberians and Gasconics were spoken in Spain before Bell Beaker onslaught wiped out all native Y-DNA and 40% of autosomal Dna. Somehow they got assimilated. Gaska is 40% WSH 🙂
@ Gaska
I replied to your request on the link between the Latin language and the pile-dwellers, but unfortunately Davidski did not pass it on. I'll answer you again in a more polite way. The quotation comes from the book "History of the language of Rome" by the great linguist Giacomo Devoto, which was published in the 1930s, but the author, probably being Jewish, the father of Larissa Bonfante, both illustrious Etruscologists, is not to be thought that he was influenced by Italy at the time. Rereading that passage, I saw that he does not deny what was thought at the time, namely that the Latins, like the other Italics, came from Central Europe, from the culture of the urnfields, and therefore contact with pile dwellings could be occurred in Italy, but not be so ancient. I doubted that it could instead be much older, and here I pose my hypothesis again, namely an origin not only of the haplogroup R1 from the Alpine area (we certainly have R1b 17,000 years ago not only for Villabruna but also for haplogroup I2 of Tagliente2, autosomically equal), and that the origin of the Indo-European languages, since you have been discussing it for a long time, but no one has managed to demonstrate its hypothesis, could be precisely in the Alpine area, in the emerged Adriatic and in the Balkans. I have strong arguments for assuming this, not least the Harvardian trick of using the Sea of Marmara autosomal as "Anatolian" and not Southern European Aegean as I believe it to be.
@ Rob
"Which one ? Cant seem to see it"
All the way at the bottom.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-BY14355/tree
On the AADR sheet the furthest read is R.
Vasconic languages are probably not from the Neolithic, or in other terms, their origin is dependent on which hypothesis for PIE will be accepted.
Cf. the work by Juliette Blevins on Indo-European-Euskarian, according to which Pre-Basque might be "coordinate" with PIE, or share a common ancestor with it.
“THe Tarim basin 'natives' might well have been genetically isolated, but it doesn;t mean the had always dwelt in the Tarim basin. They could have lived along a river system somewhere in further north Siberia and then moved into a new niche because of the climactic shifts and arrival of new populations (Andronovans) into southern Siberia.”
I did not intend to give an impression that they were historically restricted to the Tarim basin, far from it. I meant more or less the reverse, that it was the bronze age steppe-derived incomers who did not have the material/cultural kit for a long time to exploit it, and perhaps did not offer the Tarim dwellers any compelling reason to intermarry with them.
The Tarim mummy ancestors could have lately “come from Siberia” but by Ockham’s razor we should “prefer” that the Siberian component the same as the rest of the population around them — that they just were part of the already widespread population that formed in and inhabited the whole region during the paleolithic-mesolithic, with whom they are apparently entirely consistent.
That population was a well-mixed and stable 75/25 mix for such a long time that they formed two “drifted” populations from the same initial mix. There’s no need for the Tarim mummies early brinze age or neolithic, or indeed mesolithic ancestors to have come from any further away than the base of the mountains that surround the arid region. Why wouldn’t the ancestral HG population be using the oases that later serviced a silk-road route? And the fertile river margins extending further into the basin.
There’s no reason to see the “mummy” population as anything other than a pocket of the widespread, extant population which the steppe incomers did not admix with.
Their burials apparently have a boat theme: that’s pretty remarkable in the desert margins where the graveyards are found, I
suggest that’s the key, or the barrier, to admix: their ancestors were a community or network of communities with a specialised lifeway that needed somewhat specialised skills — tricky for outsiders to productively join.
And maybe the incomers felt they had not much to gain from marriage either. What patriarchal alliances are you going to get from in-laws who vanish into a gigantic cul-de-sac wilderness?
The ancestors of the Tarim people may have shifted into new activities like trade during the bronze age as a response to the new economy grown from the farmer-herder package, and by the time they established these graveyards they possibly had substantially adopted that package — but that doesn’t mean it was a new population rather than a subset of the already nearby population.
“ Then why do the mummies look so Europoid and how come their outfits are similar to Celtic and Germanic garments (Tartan)?”
Read the paper in Nature that’s being referred to: The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies 2021
“we modelled the Tarim Basin individuals as a mixture of two ancient autochthonous Asian genetic groups: the ANE, represented by an Upper Palaeolithic individual from the Afontova Gora site in the upper Yenisei River region of Siberia (AG3) (about 72%), and ancient Northeast Asians, represented by Baikal_EBA (about 28%)”
These are the earliest Tarim mummies, between 2100 and 1700 BC. They partly descend from some of the same paleolithic population that your “europoids” partly descend from. (Afontova Gora being related also to Ma’ta Buret culturally and genetically. Described as being “intermediate” between modern west-Eurasian and Native American”, although I don’t see how that anachronism makes sense myself.)
As for their grave goods, they are a huge mix of cultural influences from far and wide. The Tarim people are described as “genetically isolated but culturally cosmopolitan.” This is on what would eventually become a silk road route.
@A Wood
The 2021 paper in Nature (The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies) which looked at the earliest Tarim Basin mummies does not say they are the earliest population there: it says they are the earliest remains *of that culture* found there. With the boat-type graves, the woollen clothes and so on.
@Gaska
"and that you also know that that language was different from the one spoken in Iberia."
Ah yes, the glorious neolithic Ibero Vasconic koine, stretching from Ukraine to Portugal and then the British Isles. How could I forget this very real and proven phenomenon!
@Andrew
My post was in jest, but you can think of it as a mental exercise to get Gaska to recognize his cognitive dissonance about how culture/language relates to Y lines & autosomal DNA, and what it means for Iberia.
I.e. if Iberian or Vasconic or whatever other non-IE language family was associated with M269, then these cultures cannot be considered continuous or indigenous to Iberia but intrusive and originating (at least) on the border of the steppe rather than in western Europe.
On the other hand, if Iberian/Vasconic was already spoken in Iberia before M269- arrived and took over, then his descendants assimilated and his obscure linguistic background may very well have been Indo-European as much as anything else.
The only alternative is the idea that neolithic people spoke the same language from Bulgaria to Iberia, which is obviously copium.
@ weee
Your comments are very interesting but they don’t settle my empirical observations
“Their burials apparently have a boat theme: that’s pretty remarkable in the desert margins where the graveyards are found”
Material culture is dynamically constructed to communicate symbolic meaning
“we modelled the Tarim Basin individuals as a mixture of two ancient autochthonous Asian genetic groups: the ANE, represented by an Upper Palaeolithic individual from the Afontova Gora site in the upper Yenisei River region of Siberia (AG3) (about 72%), and ancient Northeast Asians, represented by Baikal_EBA (about 28%)”
So they can’t be “isolated” if they’re admixed
They’re own models contradict their claims
@ LGK
“The only alternative is the idea that neolithic people spoke the same language from Bulgaria to Iberia, which is obviously copium.”
Yes the glorious Gasko-Vasconic
Whilst IE arrived into a corner of Peloponessus from Nemrik PPN
@Andrzejewski, barring whether they would be called CWC at that time, that seems a reasonable enough possibility. Not aware that there are other sources from which the Q1b2b haplogroup could have originated in for this group.
@Rob “ Material culture is dynamically constructed to communicate symbolic meaning”
Don’t be obtuse. Symbolic boats aren’t going to mean a thing to desert people who’ve never seen a boat.
@ Davidski
Thanks for the clarification!
@ Davidski, A
This data also confirms the "Beaker Highway" that Davidski once posted here. From Hungary, through the Czech Republic and Poland, to the Netherlands, we have Z2103 in BB.
However, this man from France does not have a confirmed Z2103? Its Y bottom was determined only on R-M269...
I don't know if I understood correctly - what connection does Z2103 have with Swedish Battle Ax cultures? We are not aware of any Z2103 from this period in this region of Europe.
Z2103 was found in the company of U106 in both CWC in the Czech Republic and BB in the Netherlands. Following this path, it can be assumed that both Y bottoms followed the same route, together. Does this information and the fact that Z2103 has recently been found in the Wielbark culture with aDNA typically a northern case not further support this?
Davidski mentioned that Z2103 must have reached southern Scandinavia at some point and then moved backwards with the Germanic tribes. We know that BB had influence in Denmark and a small part of Sweden - perhaps it was during this period that this Y DNA got there...
Z2103 from Molenaarsgraaf, if I remember correctly, suffered from vitamin D3 deficiency. A fishing kit was found next to him. Does the lack of vitamin D3 suggest that it came from northern Europe, where there was less sun?
@ Rob
“So they can’t be “isolated” if they’re admixed
They’re own models contradict their claims “
Infantile wordplay — really? Or are you just conflating cultural and genetic mix? Or are you not grasping the timescales and geographical distances here?
The 13 naturally mummified Tarim people examined are the earliest of their culture found so far: their ancestral input dates from the UPPER PALEOLITHIC. The same autosomal mix had churned over a huge, wider region through the mesolithic and seems to have persisted through the neolithic at least in the Dzungar and Tarim basins.
Two TARIM groups found 600km apart were able to be differentiated — by genetic drift. Their ancestral population was the same as each other, and the same as their hunter-gatherer forebears over a much wider area.
Seen in the 5 DZUNGAR BASIN remains, Afanasievo-like herder-farmers were mixing with the population in the Dzungar region by about 3k BCE. But their EBA Tarim neighbours were still GENETICALLY isolated at 1.7k BCE.
These aren’t two Alpine valleys over a ridge from each other. The Tarim alone is bigger than Alaska + Texas + most of California, and there are extensive plains and several huge mountain ranges between the two basins. Yet the timescale had been long enough that the HG populations around the regions encompassing both basins clearly had the same ancestry. And the Tarim people — evidently — remained genetically unadmixed with the herder-farmers for over another thousand years after the Dzungar population admixed with the incoming Afanasievo-like herder-farmers.
Once again: GENETIC isolation ≠ CULTURAL isolation.
LGK & Rob
Anyone who understands a little genetics will quickly understand that the uniparental EEF markers are common to all of Europe with logical regional variations and branches over a period of 3,000 years (6,000-3,000 BC). Moreover, the cultural variations are small, so there is nothing to suggest that neolithic farmers spoke different languages. Here is an example (there are dozens more)-mtDNA-X2b@226
Hungary, Garadna, neolithic, ALPC_N-I1499- (5.151 BC)
Iberia, Fuente Celada, neolíthic-FUC003 (5.033 BC)
France, Gurgy les Noisats, neolithic-GRG028/GRG058/GRG067 (4.705 BC)
Guernsey, Le Déhus, neolithic-I16427 (4.106 BC)
France, Saulager, Michelsberg culture-BERG103-2 (3.826 BC)
Ireland, Parknabinnia, neolíthic-PB186 (3.436 BC)
Iberia, Coveta Emparetá, chalcolithic-I8568/I8567 (3.426 BC)
England, Cissbury, neolithic-I5366 (3.230 BC)
Ireland, Newgrange, neolíthic-NGZ1 (3.126 BC)
Germany, Niedertiefenbach, Wartberg culture-NT002 (3.125 BC)
Switzerland, Aesch, chalcolithic (2.958 BC)
Switzerland, Aesch-Aesch25 (2.682 BC)
France, Le Prieuré, chalcolithic-ISM1 (2.650 BC)
So name the language Hungarian-Britonic, Franco-Germanic, Greco-Bulgarian, Ibero-Vasconic, Swiss-Danish or Pan-European, whatever you want, but don't say that they spoke different languages because you have no idea.
And besides, that language was shared with Asia Minor because the origin of the EEF is in Anatolia, then Renfrew was right in relating the dispersion of a language with the dispersion of agriculture and cattle raising.
My dear Balkan friends, this means that whatever language was spoken by Smyadovo-M269 in the Gumelnita-Karanovo culture, if it was not exactly the same, it would at least share the same origin with the language spoken by the LBK or the western megalithic culture (same uniparental markers, same language), ergo whatever the origin of M269 (Balkan, Baltic, Central-European), its appearance in Iberia did not have to imply any cultural or linguistic change.
LGK's theory is as absurd as his attempt to relate the Mycenaean with Yamnaya, only fairy tales and an attempt to deny the genetic and cultural connection between Greece and Anatolia-Iran.
Hahaha Indo European Origins Beyond the Caucasus cause of Statistical models(that even can't explains all the samples). I guess that some of those "researches" can't understand how Archeology works. Find a Kurgan outside Steppe, find some material evidence, and then try to explain to us how a Farming-based society would evolved into a Semi Nomadic one.
Indo Anatolian was the most distant and mediterranean related group of Indo European Tree, also Mycenaean Greek, Not Helladic, was Indo European , but both has more Non IE DNA, easily to fake some model that neglected steppe DNA when the researchers want it.
Not a single good argument for this bullshit, sounds funny imagine how your J ancestor's were cheated by your females then, you prefer to be cuck-lineage than semitic as Iranian Plateau was before IE.
Now Akkadians and Elamitas were Indo European Hahahaha. Sumerians were true Indo Europeans, then Hebrews, Phoenicians, all Indo Europeans, cause both them shared more Zagros DNA than steppe.
Please stop this and study more history and archeology, credentials weren't arguments, simple bias vision wasn't compatible with serious science.
Go anywhere and return to the reality, study at least a bit of IE cultures and how semitic-related Mesopotamia, Maykop, IVC, Elamitrs, Kassitas, etc.. were .
Hahaha zagros was the Homeland of farming, then simple became Nomadic and got cucked.
Great fantasy scenario , less ego and more science please
Someday people will look to this episode and laugh about your thoughts, will be okbe ridiculous as we considered Lamarck thoughts at now, different cause Lamarck at least was useful.
Just provide a single evidence based on Archeology and cultural relation with the Zagros Mountains, Caucasus or Iranian Plateau before PIE expansion from Steppe , cause we could provide a bunch from Steppe and a bunch of articles with several evidences that agree with Steppe Origins.
Not a single argument was produced except by ego , phalaces and bias-statistical models from a little genetic connect and clearly heavily Neolithic derived source of population . Just take a look about the Hittites history at least and stop being ridiculous.
I think that some researchers should do it before saying this absurdism .
And we'll, those models used little of the real snp that human gene pool have, even considering that you could find some steppe related DNA if you use correct sources
So , in fact, your theory's are clearly ego-oriented.
Stop, you will never be R1 gang , could say what you want but History wouldn't change. Be less chuck and accept your semitic or elamite origins.
Hahahahaha zagros Caucasus, the father's of farming and semitic based pops
@Davidski you tried to explain it several times and those guys couldn't accept , in fact they never wanted it. You made several models, with statistical methods, that could explain it easily than moving one entire consolidated theory from some statistical bias models.
Those people can't understand the PRINCIPLES of scientific method, I guess that some researchers indeed or it came from a western agenda.
Can't understand how people still ignoring that CHG like DNA was on Europe since Mesolithic cause of it came from EHG-ANE+Dzudzuana -Basal rich mix and it wasn't exclusive from Caucasus lol.
People can't understand a simple dendogram and I underestimate the IQ of those or simple assume that they use more feelings than thoughts.
Easily explained by Forest Steppe + Southern Steppe mix(since Early Neolithic) than several events that would disagree with thousands of Material evidences and wouldn't have any logical base(Lol patriarchy pass by females and not a single IE culture on those from Caucasus and Zagros except steppe derived).
Anatolians were more calcolithic than steppe, using a better model their steppe could been see(if the researchers wanted).
You made the correct model's , congratulations, you understand the science. History will Remember those like you.
@Dranoel
DNA of the Bearers Fatyanovo & Abashevo cultures. Migrations on the Russian Plain in the Bronze Age
8:30 into video you can see samples R1b-Z2103 not yet released in the West. In Russian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZqwCSbQ3tA
The mystery of the Sintashta people
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-mystery-of-sintashta-people.html
The Abashevo axe did it (Mednikova et al. 2020)
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-abashevo-axe-did-it-mednikova-et-al.html
Human skeletal remains from excavations of the Pepkino burial mound bear many traumatic wounds on the skulls and postcranial bones (Figure 4). The primary hypothesis is that young men of the Abashevo culture fell at the hands of enemies, which were the representatives of another tribe or culture [14,16]. After their discovery in the XX century, the skulls of killed people of the Abashevo culture were restored using anthropological paste, including beeswax.
Sintashta is arguably one of the coolest ancient cultures ever discovered by archaeologists. It's also generally accepted to be the Proto-Indo-Iranian culture, and thus linguistically ancestral to a myriad of present-day peoples of Asia, including Indo-Aryans and Persians. No wonder then, that its origin, and that of its population, have been hotly debated issues.
The leading hypothesis based on archaeological data is that Sintashta is largely derived from the more westerly and warlike Abashevo culture, which occupied much of the forest steppe north of the Black and Caspian Seas. In turn, Abashevo is usually described as an eastern offshoot of the Late Neolithic Corded Ware Culture (CWC), which is generally seen as the first Indo-European archaeological culture in Northern Europe (see here).
Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) featuring 38 Sintashta individuals from the recent Narasimhan et al. 2018 preprint. Note that the main Sintashta cluster overlaps almost perfectly with the main CWC cluster. The relevant datasheet is available here.
@Wee e “ “we modelled the Tarim Basin individuals as a mixture of two ancient autochthonous Asian genetic groups: the ANE, represented by an Upper Palaeolithic individual from the Afontova Gora site in the upper Yenisei River region of Siberia (AG3) (about 72%), and ancient Northeast Asians, represented by Baikal_EBA (about 28%)”
These are the earliest Tarim mummies, between 2100 and 1700 BC. They partly descend from some of the same paleolithic population that your “europoids” partly descend from. (Afontova Gora being related also to Ma’ta Buret culturally and genetically. Described as being “intermediate” between modern west-Eurasian and Native American”, although I don’t see how that anachronism makes sense myself.)”
It STILL doesn’t settle it: according to @Davidski, there must’ve been lots of founding effects events, genetic drifts and whatnot. ANE is a very very ancient genetic formation, dating back to 25,000 ybp if not earlier. Indo-Europeans were only 50% ANE, thus modern Europeans, let alone, are only 25% ANE. Bear in mind that Tarim mummies were Paleosiberian like Botai, ie both had a considerable ratio of Transbaikal East Asian component (in the study you’ve just cited for Okunevo/Tarim mummies it was 28% East Asian). From all these arguments above it’s hard to see how a partial ANE descent would equal looking almost identical to MODERN Europeans.
So, are Tarim mummies of what used to be called “Okunevo Culture”? Did the Scythians and Cimmerians emerge from an admixture of Tarim and Andronovo, at least on their mtdna side? Who were the Tocharians after all?
@Dranoel
"Z2103 was found in the company of U106 in both CWC in the Czech Republic and BB in the Netherlands."
Sorry, can you refresh my memory? Which Netherlands Bell Beaker sample(s) are Z2103?
Gaska wrote:
". . . My dear Balkan friends, this means that whatever language was spoken by Smyadovo-M269 in the Gumelnita-Karanovo culture, if it was not exactly the same, it would at least share the same origin with the language spoken by the LBK or the western megalithic culture (same uniparental markers, same language), ergo whatever the origin of M269 (Balkan, Baltic, Central-European), its appearance in Iberia did not have to imply any cultural or linguistic change."
My response:
Quit making the false claim that Sample I2181 (Smyadovo) was R1b-M269. As I posted before in the last lengthy thread here at Eurogenes, Smyadovo is a low coverage sample. No one was actually able to confirm his Y-DNA haplogroup beyond F. That's as far as Patterson et al would go with Smyadovo in their recent paper, and that is also what I was told by FTDNA's Göran Runström, which is the reason I2181/Smyadovo does not appear in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections or in its Time Tree.
Aside from the utter bankruptcy of your claims about Smyadovo, and the fact that sample had steppe DNA, your argument makes no sense whatsoever, because R1b-M269 of any kind is conspicuous by its absence from Neolithic Europe west of the steppe.
Drop Smyadovo, because that sample cannot legitimately be assigned a Y-DNA haplogroup. When you know the truth but continue to write things that are not true, that is called lying. So, stop lying.
Matt wrote on August 14, 2023 at 2:41 AM
"the point of their database is to find generally "basic" terms which reflect features of the environment and human experience which are common to human experience generally"
You can look at the Haggarty paper as saying the whole idea of a Proto-Indo-European parent is what is off.
Take a look at the “DensiTree” graph in the part of the paper that’s free (the only part I can see).
You’ll see that all those gray lines don’t start in the same place — there’s all these different starting points.
The classic idea of Proto-Indo-European is that there is only one parent. Asexual reproduction.
So if you are doing strict old school historical linguistics, you ask the algorithm to take different cognate words from different daughter languages And reconstruct the original PIE parent.
Now you would think if people speaking two daughter languages to each other, trying to understand each other, they might agree to use a COMPROMISE word that they both understand. This would be especially true of common words for common everyday things.
"Let’s agree to call this thing a wheel, so we don’t get confused when we are talking about and what you are buying. From now on, officially, this is a wheel, your hand, a bird, etc." This would be especially true in any kind of a market. Everybody agrees to call beans beans.
The trouble is that looks like sexual reproduction. Remember that Proto-Indo-European can only one parent. One word coming from the parent.
So, we have a situation with words where we say, hey, wait, you don’t look like your mother language at all.
Are you sure you haven’t been cross-pollinating?
“ From all these arguments above it’s hard to see how a partial ANE descent would equal looking almost identical to MODERN Europeans.”
I think you have a weirdly narrow, stereotyped vision of the people who currently inhabit (?western) Europe because you haven’t seen enough people elsewhere.
Look at Amazighs, whose vast-majority ancestral component has been in North Africa at least 8k years, before modern Europeans coalesced.
Look at pictures of 19th century Saami and Lapps.
Look at people from the Caucasus, look at people from northern Pakistan.
How would you tell most of them, mummified, in those clothes, from modern Europeans?
Come to think of it, how would you tell mummified modern Arabs or Iranians, dressed in those clothes, from Europeans? Do we even know if the apparent blonds were blind or just bleached by the same conditions that mummified them?
Look at Look at the decades and decades of argument about whether Kennewick Man had European or North American or even Polynesian physiognomy.
Look where Tarim EMBA sit autosomally in the middle of the Europe-N America cline.
So much blablabla for so many years… and in the end, it was the Shulaveri-Shomu all along, weren’t they?
Of course, I wrote a lot of things of the top of my head and probably wrong. – But even when 6-7 years ago I was stating (and being mocked for it) that the KUM6 girl was the Shulaveri -Shomu dispersal of the PIE via north Anatolia it looks like I was also correct.
It’s a matter of time till the South Caucasus becomes Shulaveri-Shomu as it should.
And it’s a matter of time until the Tel Tsaf samples in Israel also become Shulaveri or even that the Merimbe beni salama in Delta Nile were in fact derived from the same population. Let us see. At this point I just observe and smile.
I told you all, what you gonna do when Shulaveri come for you, bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
Bad boys
Whatcha want, watcha want
Whatcha gonna do
When SHULAVERI SHOMU come for you
Tell me
Whatcha wanna do, whatcha gonna dooo
Yeaheah
@ Rob “ Yeah the upper Paleolithic of Siberia , where R1 actually existed, not the unpopulated Tarim basin.”
I TOLD YOU that the population had a preponderantly Siberian origin.
Great that you managed to absorb that one fact without distortion.
THE ANCESTRAL POPULATION FORMED BY START OF THE HOLOCENE. They did not have any substantial new input between then and the bronze age.
This does not mean they had to instantly spread into every single corner of Central Asia the moment the ice retreated, and it does not mean they only just arrived in Tarim as bronze age boat-buriers. What’s your compulsion to invent these scenarios then pretend that other people did?
It means the people who were in the Tarim
(A) Shared the same ancestry as the rest of the population widespread in central Asia before Afanasievo-like people arrived.
(B) Like the Dzungarians — among others — up until that point.
(C) They inhabited the vicinity long enough to have unadmixed EMBA communities buried 600km apart within the Tarim Basin who shared the same culture and ancestry but by now were distinguishable by some drift.
As was pointed out to you by someone else, the Tarim certainly had inhabitants by the neolithic. Are you going to invent another group whose ancestry was uniquely different from everyone around them and different from the “boat” burial people too?
@Rob I was referring to Armenian. The proto-Greek split is used as a time marker since in belongs in the Balkanic groups, which Armenian also does.
"The key is archaeogenetic reconstruction of populations, by competent people"
This is about linguistics, the time proto-Greek split is calculated by virtually all linguists at 2200-2000 BCE. Heggarty's date simply finds the same thing. That's what I was talking about, not Heggarty's claim about aDNA, I haven't actually mentioned these once and simply focus on his dates (which seem to be correct for almost everything).
@EthanR "There is nothing about Fatyanovo's economy that makes it incompatible with it being a source on the way to Indo-Iranic."
It's as agricultural as CWC after it underwent agri shift. We can argue about this though, so I'd probably just point at Fatyanovo's origin which is incompatible with Indo-Iranian. Afanasievo is actually more in line with it (peripheral) but they lack agriculture (required in I-Ir) or any other evidence of being Indo-Iranian speakers. Then there's the other problem of Sintashta (no agriculture). Won't touch into the whole Tocharian thing (for now)
This theory simply constantly bumps into problems. There's no reason to consider it good when there are better alternatives out there. And keep in mind these alternatives didn't really exist a couple of years ago, and Sintashta was the logical explanation for I-Ir.
"You seem to have several odd hangups about this"
Probably didn't explain well what I mean (ESL card here hehe). Fatyanovo isn't "late CWC" in terms of dates. It's in terms of state. It's post-agri CWC stage, separated from early CWC which would be the only stage that would make sense for I-Ir.
"Nordqvist & Heyd also distinguishes in figure 11 Fatyanovo from central European Corded Ware groups"
Well duh Fatyanovo isn't a Central European culture
"Grigoriev links Fatyanovo to southern Poland."
Which is in Central Europe, at most "west Eastern Europe"
"You seem to be fixated with the idea that the more admixture with GAC"
That's an indicator of what stage they separated from the main body of CWC and thus the languages that were spoken in it. It's not early CWC for sure. It's also not about the amount of agricultural words, since I-Ir does have agricultural vocabulary.
"Corded Ware is responsible for the agricultural shift in European IE languages"
The ones that aren't linked to Yamnaya (which is just the Balkanic group) yes. And this includes any language Fatyanovo spoke if we are to assume they spoke IE.
OT: New at ENA:
1) On the Beakers - https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB65118
"Biological and substitute parents in Beaker period adult-child graves"
"Joint inhumations of adults and children are one of the most intriguing aspects of the shift from collective to single burial rites in third millennium BC Western Eurasia.
Here, we revisit two exceptional Beaker period adult-child graves using ancient DNA: Altwies in Luxembourg and Dunstable Downs in Britain. We present evidence that close blood relations, including a biological mother and her son at Altwies, were buried together.
Ancestry modelling and patterns of shared IBD segments between the individuals examined and contemporary genomes from Central and Northwest Europe further highlight the continental connections of Bronze Age Britain. The practice of paired burial indicates the key role played by biological relationships in structuring third millennium BC social systems and burial practices. We propose that extended family, such as a paternal aunt at Dunstable Downs, could act as substitute parents to the child in the grave. Hypotheses are explored to explain the simultaneous inhumation of adults and children.
While violence cannot be excluded, interpretations such as enemy raids fail to account for the pervasiveness of the phenomenon, as evidenced by a representative sample of 117 adult-child graves from 78 sites across Eurasia, all dating to the third and second millennia BC."
No uploaded data yet.
2) Steppe -
"Elevated genetic risk for multiple sclerosis originated in Steppe Pastoralist populations"
"Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a modern neuro-inflammatory and -degenerative disease, which is most prevalent in Northern Europe. Whilst it is known that inherited risk to MS is located within or within close proximity to immune genes, it is unknown when, where and how this genetic risk originated. By using the largest ancient genome dataset from the Stone Age, along with new Medieval and post-Medieval genomes, we show that many of the genetic risk variants for MS rose to higher frequency among pastoralists located on the Pontic Steppe, and were brought into Europe by the Yamnaya-related migration approximately 5,000 years ago. We further show that these MS-associated immunogenetic variants underwent positive selection both within the Steppe population, and later in Europe, likely driven by pathogenic challenges coinciding with dietary, lifestyle, and population density changes. This study highlights the critical importance of this period as a determinant of modern immune responses and its subsequent impact on the risk of developing MS in a changing environment."
Apparently lots of human samples. There are lots of fastq files here anyway.
Seems like positive selection can't be that strong given that Northern Euros with highest steppe ancestry still have highest MS risk.
3) Should anyone wish to convert the high-coverage Otzi - https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB56570 (although I don't think we'd learn too much from him!)
The MS paper on ENA is linked to Willerslev group / Copenhagen (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.23.509097v1.full.pdf - preprint of it)
@archlingo Not sure what you're referring to, that's the common date given for proto-Greek by Drews, Parpola, Anthony etc. If you find any other date it will also be older than this (I've seen an argument for 2400 BCE somewhere but can't remember where), which would make Catacomb even less likely as the origin of Balkanic languages. That's all, I don't see you making a counterargument and in fact you haven't even specified what you're addressing
@Mononokee Celtic and Germanic are calculated to split around 1500 BCE in the paper
@music lover Technically it would be Anatolian farmer/EEF groups. Lifestyle centered around sedentary farming with occasional mobility, combined with animal husbandry (a thing introduced in Europe via Anatolia). I'm always surprised at how basically zero steppe/Yamnaya lifestyle survived in Europe and how they all simply adopted an EEF lifestyle. Some cultural rites can be argued to be from the steppe but the way of life is obviously not already from 3000 BCE, not to mention the more recent history of the Iron Age.
For genetics it would be either ANF+CHG making up most of the genotype or just Dzudzuana.
Although I'm not sure anyone actually cares about all of this besides someone who would like to larp as one of these ancient groups as an attempt to boost his self-perceived prestige (or grift to an audience).
@Ygor C.S. To assume relative proximity = linguistic influence is a logical fallacy, since in the revised steppe theory Sredny is posited as PIA yet they are pretty lacking in agricultural vocabulary despite being literally right next to CTC and interacting with them too.
@music lover To my knowledge there wasn't any and isn't any Sredny sample that resembles Yamnaya in its autosomal mixture. Anthony in the Khvalynsk papers mentions that both Yamnaya and Sredny have CHG and EHG. In fact it's mentioned that Sredny resembles Khvalynsk and Progress in the paper Davidski linked, "Sredni Stog individuals also had genetic ancestry more like Khvalynsk and Progress-2" (the paper also points at an eastern origin for Sredny)
From Lazaridis et al 2022, "Examining individuals from the steppe (Fig. 3), we observe that in the post–5000 BCE period, Caucasus-related ancestry is added to the previous Eastern hunter-gatherer population, forming the Eneolithic populations at Khvalynsk (9) and Progress-2 (17);"
From Mattila et al 2023 we again see this CHG ancestry in Sredny, at something like 10-15%. If Anthony meant that Sredny actually resembles Yamnaya in autosomal composition (%-wise) instead of simply ancestral sources involved, he certainly didn't make it clear and instead made clear that Sredny is more like Khvalynsk, which has low CHG.
@Ygor C.S. Why would they do that when their research points at something else? They simply trust the results they produce instead of the ones you (or me or anyone else) would like to be true, or produce yourself. You can basically publish your own paper, if you want to dispute them you can do it. Or you can wait since sooner or later with more samples getting published the previous theories will be put to the test.
"the huge non-IE substrate in Greek, non-IE prevalence in the toponymy of Greece, non-IE Eteocretan and Eteocypriot inscriptions"
We don't know if they're IE or non-IE. So far I've found more publications claiming they're some Anatolian IE language than not, but they're still undeciphered.
"and ancient accounts of non-Hellenic native Pelasgians, make no sense."
Why would a name that is thrown around for different locations, different people, at different timelines, supposedly existing well into the Archaic age, make any sense? It's mythology and legends untraceable in archaeology or genetics (keep in mind that even the non-steppe admixed Mycenaeans were Mycenaeans, eg Griffin Warrior), you watch too many youtube videos
@Andrze "Europoid" is another term for Caucasoid, it doesn't mean "looks European" (in itself an absurd statement since there are at least three different core phenotypes in Europe).
Bit hard to hard to get a European (roughly half high-WHG EEF half steppe if we're talking about north/central/west) appearance when your genotype is about 80% ANE and 20% East Asian innit?
@Davidski
"Well, obviously, the R1b in northwestern Iran is not linked to Indo-Iranian."
Except it's found in Iranian speakers. About the same strength of indication as R1a, except the R1b could afford to have entered earlier than R1a, which would also be more in line with Heggarty (and even the route he proposes).
"Indo-Iranians entered Iran and India via Central Asia."
No compelling evidence for such a claim given the latest papers. (It was a pretty decent position ~5 years ago though)
"See that's why there's also a lot of evidence of Indo-Iranian presence in Xinjiang and surrounds"
There isn't proto-Iranian presence in Tocharian and Iranian loans are later. (Tremblay, 2005). Got any sources pointing at some proto-Indo-Iranian influence in Tocharian?
Quick summary for the issues Sintashta/Andronovo faces for being I-Ir (I might actually be missing a few too):
-Genetics, since by your own logic the much larger turnover in autosomal and yDna in Xinjiang from Steppe MLBA is associated with Tocharian.
-There's no proto-Indo-Iranian influence in Tocharian to my knowledge despite this massive impact, assuming your logic was incorrect and it didn't cause a language change but merely an influence.
-Chariot (and parts) terminology enters Chinese around 1200 BCE through Tocharian (Blazek, 2008. Also mentioned by Lubotsky 1998), and there were no chariots in Afanasievo but apparently there were in Sintashta/Andronovo.
-No agriculture in Sintashta and Indo-Iranian does have an agricultural vocabulary. (Kroonen)
-Timeline: 2200 BCE for Indo-Iranian at the earliest is too late for the cognacy. There's ~60% cognacy between Early Vedic and Young Avestan at ~1500 BCE, a similar case is also found in the most divergent Romance languages and they diverged over 1500 years ago. Take Spanish and French for example, 65% cognacy (Green, 2009), with a divergence >1000 years ago (also found by Heggarty) and they aren't the most divergent ones. Which would mean that Indo-Iranian would have already split from 2500 BCE (not in line with Sintashta/Andronovo).
-Early split of Indo-Iranian from Kroonen and other linguists, which also means early split of proto-Iranian and proto-Indo-Aryan.
Does this mean Sintashta spoke Tocharian? No. It simply indicates that they were more likely to be Tocharian speakers than Indo-Iranian speakers. There are serious obstacles to assuming Sintashta/Andronovo spoke Indo-Iranian but the alternatives (Southern Arc > Iran > etc, Southern Arc > Steppe > Iran > etc, Steppe > Iran > etc) don't bump onto any of these obstacles so they will by definition be favored, unless some pretty compelling evidence appears aDNA-wise for Sintashta/Andronovo. I find no reason to actually settle in a position before that and before that happens (if it does) Sintashta/Andronovo aren't favored as candidates for Indo-Iranian speakers.
@Orpheus
So Inner Asian Iranians like the Saka and Kangju, who were obviously derived from Sintashta, prove that Sintashta was proto-Tocharian?
Haha.
You suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Dave the Slothtopus said...
@Dranoel
"Z2103 was found in the company of U106 in both CWC in the Czech Republic and BB in the Netherlands."
Sorry, can you refresh my memory? Which Netherlands Bell Beaker sample(s) are Z2103?
Large-scale migration into Britain during the Middle to Late Bronze Age
Nick Patterson et al,
Molenaarsgraaf, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
In 1966 and 1967 a small Late Neolithic–Early Bronze Age settlement was excavated (h 1967/1.) on the Schoonrewoerd stream ridge near Molenaarsgraaf, in the Rhine-Meuse Delta. Apart from one or two possible house plans, three human burials and an ox-burial were found. These burials have become famous in Dutch archaeology because they were well-preserved inhumations and represent clear examples of people buried ‘Bell Beaker style’ in flat graves in a settlement. The layers around the house contained many Bell Beaker and Barbed Wire Beaker potsherds, indicating occupation dating to 2200–1900 BCE.
Petrous bones from three individuals were successfully analysed for aDNA. The first was from an individual aged c. 15 years (Skeleton 1), who was laid on his left side in a crouched position, facing south, in Grave I (dug right next to house I), and yielded sample I13025 (male) R1b-U106+ , dating to 3635±40 BP (GrN-5131; 2136–1892 cal BCE; Louwe Kooijmans 1974). This accords well with a late Veluvian style Bell Beaker positioned at his feet. A fin-ray found in/near his throat may have been the cause of his death. The second was from Grave II, which has become famous because it appears to be the grave of a ‘fisherman’, containing three bone fishhooks, some flint tools and an antler tool, possibly used to lift fish-traps (Louwe Kooijmans 1974). The 18–24 year old individual (Skeleton 2) in this grave lay in a crouched position on the left side, facing west, and yielded sample I13026 (male) R1b-Z2103+ , dating to 3630±40 BP (GrN-5566; 2135–1890 cal BCE). Recent research indicates that both individuals, but especially Skeleton 2 (sample I13026), probably suffered from vitamin D deficiency during childhood (Veselka 2018).
The third individual (Skeleton 3) probably was only 1.5 years old and yielded sample I13027 (female). She was placed on her right side in a pit that was far larger than the body. A small nail-decorated atypical Beaker was added as a grave good (Louwe Kooijmans 1974, 261). One of the legs showed signs of deformation, probably due to vitamin D deficiency (Veselka 2018). The body is dated to 3700±25 BP (PSUAMS-7847; 2197–1983 cal BCE), which is in the same range as the other individuals from Molenaarsgraaf. They all seem to represent an occupation phase between c. 2150 and 1980 cal BCE, in line with the Bell Beaker pottery found in the graves.
December 25, 2021 at 1:09 AM
@andrjewski
It seems to be Rob’s opinion that Tarim-Okunevo is a thing: I didn’t know why Rob brought it up in his blog he linked to, and that’s was what I was curious about. It’s not the impression the 2021 paper gives. It shows Tarim as a tight grouping quite distinct from the (also tight) Okunevo group.
Neolithic west Siberian (and CA Botai) are presented as clearly closer to Tarim than either is to Okunevo. Figure 2 in the paper shows a Europe-N America cline, and Tarim comes right on the line between the two — with Okunevo a little way off it.
“according to @Davidski, there must’ve been lots of founding effects events, genetic drifts and whatnot. ”
Exactly. Like the genetic drift that the study found that makes two EMBA communities buried 600km apart within the Tarim Basin distinguishable. Both the same material / burial culture, both from the same late-paleolithic ancestral source population, now distinguishable from one another by that drift.
“Same ancestral population” surely doesn’t preclude a bit of drift & founder effects: it precludes significant introgression.
Why not just read the paper, it’s open access. It says the widespread central Asian pre-farmer-herder population, including within the Tarim and Dzungir basins, was descended from an ancestor population that had coalesced in the late-paleolithic. I don’t know how thinly spread but yes, they say by the bronze age it formed its own mini/internal cline, though it was generally well churned overall. It had been around long enough, apparently uninterrupted — until this Afanasievo-like crew turn up in the EBA, admixing in Dzungir.
But not with the early Tarim-mummy set.
These Tarim people, by about a millennium after Afanasievo admixture began outside Tarim, had adopted/adapted a variety of material kit to suit themselves. By now what distinguishes these Tarim communities genetically from the wider population beyond their Pakistan-size walled desert … is just their continued lack of Afanasievo-like input.
Which doesn't suggest either community just recently arrived from Siberia as Rob says. If they had, they’d surely have picked up some of that admixture on the way south.
So the Tarim people of these earliest mummy burials — were simply some central-Asian autochthonous locals not admixed yet. Why do people think this is so objectionable? *Someone* was going to be last. Why not the people of the gigantic desert bowl with a few scattered oases at the foot of a fearsome ring of mountains?
Extreme temperatures and frighteningly low rainfall even by central-Asia standards, a trackless cul-de-sac with rivers that vanish annually into the sand. Rumoured oases that you need the locals to locate for you. From an agro-herder perspective, it would sound like hell. Who wants to venture into that interior while they have a warmer, wetter, less hemmed-in basin the size of France, Dzungir, to hack into productivity, and the grasslands of central Asia to fill with their herds? Maybe they thought the locals were welcome to it, the way the Romans felt about the Wadden islands
hah I did indeed forget some
-Uralic substratum in Tocharian but not in Indo-Iranian (Peyrot, 2019) which would point at different routes to get where they were (in line with any of the other three alternatives)
-Iranian (not I-Ir) loans into Tocharian is also noted by Isebaert (1980) and Peyrot (2022)
@Davidski I explicitly mentioned that Sintashta/Andronovo don't really have strong evidence for being the source of Tocharian speakers but you still managed to miss it, oh well lol
@Orpheus
So if Sintashta wasn't Indo-Iranian, can you explain why all the ancient Iranian groups in Central and Inner Asia are derived from Sintashta?
One's got to find it somewhat humorous that Gaska honestly believes that it is reasonable to be confident that all of Neolithic Europe spoke one single language (never mind that linguistic diversity in Mesolithic and Early Neolithic societies notoriously tends to be much bigger than in Metal Ages societies, that there was clearly enough Y-DNA and Mt-DNA diversity among EEFs to be correlated with linguistic diversity - heck, he even seems to think R1b-M269 spread from EEFs -, that there is no reason to believe that the Anatolia_N migration happened in one single pulse from one single location, that having similar prominent upstream clades of Y-DNA lineages does not guarantee language homogeneity - or did historical Basques, Irish, Etruscans and Latins speak the same tongue? -, that the introgression and eventual dominance of WHG paternal lineages may have had linguistic consequences, and that 1000-1200 years alone were enough to create Portuguese, Romanian, Sicilian, French, Romansh, Castillian, Walloon, Catalan, Dalmatian etc. in MUCH more connected and standardisation-prone historical times, let alone the millennia between circa 7000 BCE and the EBA circa 3000 BCE).
BUT, to the very same user, it is an "absurdly unscientific thought" if you at least consider the likelihood that at least 1 branch of a 6000+ YBP language family, among a dozen others, may have spread anomalously in a more complex fashion than a direct large-scale migration from spot A to spot B, especially if it were the earliest to split from the rest and by far the most "exotic" of them (possible, and in a much more populous and socially as well as politically complex context of Chalcolithic/EBA societies in which we have very strong evidences of non-IE and pre-IE languages and polities all over the Aegean, Anatolia and Transcaucasia (Hattic, Linear A, Hurrian, Urartian, Mannean, the widespread pre-Greek substrate, the huge non-IE substrate in Luwian and especially Hittite, Kaskian, almost certainly the ancestors of Northeast Caucasian, Kartvelian and Northwest Caucasian).
@Gaska
So Iberian and Balkan Neolithic cultures at just before 3000BC had the same language despite separate deriving from Med/Balkan pathway streams of founders thousands of years before, followed by millennia of isolation thousands of kilometres from each other, and introgression/assimilation of WHGs giving rise to development of novel cultures.
In West Asia the farming cultures 50km away from to one another spoke a huge variety of unrelated languages forming many of the world's largest families apparently including Indo-European, but in Europe they all spoke the same language from Portugal to Ukraine introduced at >6000BC, it is truly an unparalled miracle of linguistic continuity. Yes, Smyadovo went for a walk one day to sell his cattle and a week later he had arrived in Iberia, where he was welcomed in his native language by great uncle ATP3.
Reconstructing the genetic relationship between ancient and present-day Siberian populations
Human populations across a vast area in northern Eurasia, from Fennoscandia to Chukotka, share a distinct genetic component often referred to as the Siberian ancestry. Most enriched in present-day Samoyedic-speaking populations such as Nganasans, its origins and history still remain elusive despite the growing list of ancient and present-day genomes from Siberia. Here we reanalyze published ancient and present-day Siberian genomes focusing on the Baikal and Yakutia, resolving key questions regarding their genetic history. First, we show a long-term presence of a unique genetic profile in southern Siberia, up to 6,000 years ago, which distinctly shares a deep ancestral connection with Native Americans. Second, in the Baikal we find no direct contribution of the Early Neolithic Kitoi people to Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Serovo-Glazkovo ones. Third, the Middle Neolithic individual from Yakutia, belonging to the Belkachi culture, serves as the best source so far available for the spread of the Siberian ancestry into Fennoscandia and Greenland. These findings shed light on the genetic legacy of the Siberian ancestry and provide insights into the complex interplay between different populations in northern Eurasia throughout history.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.08.21.554074v1
Moreover, the "steppe proponents" do have a PROXIMAL, geographically, genetically and culturally more narrowly determined ethnogeographic context for PIE: the Pontic-Caspian steppe ecosystem, especially its southern portion between the lower Dniester and the Volga, with a Steppe Eneolithic-like cluster contemporaneous to their proposed dating dor PIE, and a set of specific material cultural traits that indicate relative sociocultural homogeneity over that entire area.
Movements and cultural influences from that steppe zone, right during the Chalcolithic and Early BA, have been genetically proven and linked to specific chronologically and materially PROXIMAL cultures and ancestral sources from the Chalcolithic Balkans and Early Bronze Age Western Europe to the Middle Bronze Age Central Asia and Tarim Basin: Suvorovo-Novodanilovka, Cernavoda, Usatovo, Ezero, Yamnaya, Afanasievo, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Lchashen-Metsamor, Trialeti, Sintashta-Andronovo etc. All with clear proximal links within the previous 1,000-2,500 years.
What do the "Southern Arc proponents" and, even worse, suggest instead? A "Southern Arc", somewhere between Eastern Anatolia and North Iran, without a specific biogeographic zone, a specific cultural tradition involved, a specific proximal genetic profile (come on, CHG/Iran_N, not even striving to differentiate them?
What specific culture (or set of closely related cultures), socio-economic structure and relatively uniform genetic ancestry composition contributed simultaneously, in the right timeframe they propose, to Anatolia, the West Eurasian steppe, the Balkans, the Iranian Plateau, Turan and South Asia? But curiously not to the Caucasus, Levant and Mesopotamia nearby --- oh, and let's not forget that Anatolian IE was a Western and (apparently recently by the EMBA) Central Anatolian thing, NOT found in Eastern Anatolia or Transcaucasia as far as is known...
Just a generic "CHG/Iran_N arrived there during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic" (as if it had arrived in "pure" unmixed and undrifted form)?
They seem to think such a cluster probably formed and still reasonably uniform in the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene would still be closely linked to one specific language family, let alone one single EPIE language - and that's IF they derived from one original population, as opposed to being very similar just due to a very similar history of admixture and reciprocal gene flow).
Is there really any significant and proximal archaeological, genetic commonality and chronological concomitance between the Iran_N/CHG-rich in South Asia, Turan, Anatolia, Pontic-Caspian Steppe and Balkans?
Did they have a strong impact in India and Tajikistan, but not right to the south in Mesopotamia and the Levant, precisely 2 regions most transformed by Late Neolithic up to EMBA spread of CHG and Iran_N-rich groups (perhaps source of languages with "mysterious" origins such as Sumerian, Elamite, Kassite and Gutian)? Hmm... It seems that Eastern Anatolia/Zagros/Transcaucasia and CHG/Iran_N were THE real Babel Tower of humankind: several language families came from the same relatively small region.
Or are they just mistaking coincidence for correlation and desperately looking for some easily noticeable pattern linking every IE-speaking area (even if very imprecise and remote), through what Gaska tellingly and unironically names "common sense"?
Intriguingly, that linguistic and cultural spread, if it happened mainly in the Early Chalcolithic or even Late Neolithic, say 4000-5500 B.C., resulted simultaneously in transitional forager-pastoral societies in the steppes and intensive proto-urban farming societies in Anatolia, Turan and South Asia. PIE speakers must've been the fac-totum and all-purpose leaders of Antiquity, everything relied on them to develop (sarcasm)! Also never mind that, in most IE branches, vocabulary related to farming, complex socio-political structures and urban life are particularly prone to be full of non-IE loanwords.
In sum, that's why it makes little sense to analyze genetic data and computational statistical models if you totally ignore or despise the evidences provided by Linguistics, Archaeology, Anthropology etc. that put them into context and allow one to test which perceived correlations are really likely to be present and which hypotheses are at least credible. Ultimately the "PIE question" is a matter of SOCIAL sciences assisted by technologies and mathematical methods. Languages deal with extremely diverse and dynamic social phenomena, and there are inevitably exceptions to the rule.
@Orpheus “ From Mattila et al 2023 we again see this CHG ancestry in Sredny, at something like 10-15%. If Anthony meant that Sredny actually resembles Yamnaya in autosomal composition (%-wise) instead of simply ancestral sources involved, he certainly didn't make it clear and instead made clear that Sredny is more like Khvalynsk, which has low CHG.“
Slam dunk against PIE = Sredny Stog language being a CHG one in origin
@Orpheus “ Europoid" is another term for Caucasoid, it doesn't mean "looks European" (in itself an absurd statement since there are at least three different core phenotypes in Europe).”
Do your 3 different core phenotypes correlate to WHG, EEF and Steppe by chance?
@Wee e “ Neolithic west Siberian (and CA Botai) are presented as clearly closer to Tarim than either is to Okunevo. Figure 2 in the paper shows a Europe-N America cline, and Tarim comes right on the line between the two — with Okunevo a little way off it.”
Does it imply that Botai Culture people looks almost like the Tarim mummies?
Does Vayda/Blažek’s suggestions re: a distant link between Botai and Yenisseyan languages or Kett being a WSHG make sense?
If anything, Kett sounds very close to Innuit, which is clearly an East Asian derived, despite both being covered under the umbrella term “Paleosiberian”…
@Wee e “ It seems to be Rob’s opinion that Tarim-Okunevo is a thing:”
So who were the Okunevo?
@Andrzejewski
Orpheus is full of shit, as usual.
The Sredny Stog samples that are identical to Yamnaya haven't been published yet, but they've been featured in pre-publication online presentations.
I've seen some of them.
@Orpheus
You sound way too confident, not to say downright adversarial and arrogant, but I will keep the discussion objective and impersonal, because maybe this feels different to you, but to me it is nothing but a disinterested and dispassionate curiosity of mine. So let's go on...
--- "We don't know if they're IE or non-IE. So far I've found more publications claiming they're some Anatolian IE language than not, but they're still undeciphered."
It is in and of itself telling that we do have inscriptions and words in those languages, but, with PIE being by far the most and IE languages the most thoroughly described and studied, we have no decipherment nor even a widely accepted identification of their affiliation yet, and no wide acceptance of publications hypothetically linking them to IE (Anatolian or something else). There is also the obvious hint provided by all the vocabulary and toponymy not explainable through IE roots yet in the Aegean zone. Until someone consistently proves those languages were IE, they will be provisionally considered language isolates without any recent link to known families, so my point remains valid until that happens (which I doubt).
---- "Why would a name that is thrown around for different locations, different people, at different timelines, supposedly existing well into the Archaic age, make any sense? It's mythology and legends untraceable in archaeology or genetics (keep in mind that even the non-steppe admixed Mycenaeans were Mycenaeans, eg Griffin Warrior), you watch too many youtube videos."
Are you seriously asking why that can matter and should thus be considered in this discussion? Well, because that obviously might mean that Greeks themselves had arrived in the Aegean "recently" enough for (realistic or legendary, doesn't matter, particularly because many legends aren't outright baseless lies) accounts of the presence of pre-Greek and non-Greek peoples speaking languages totally alien to theirs to have remained in collective memory. That perception is only strengthened by the fact that you reminds us that BA Greeks were sometimes steppe-admixed and sometimes without steppe admixture just like the pre-steppe people, clear indication of a still ongoing process of assimilation and admixture. The Pelasgians thing alone means little or nothing, but in the much wider context of linguistic, archaeological and archaeogenetic evidences it enhances the stance that Hellenic languages were NOT established and spread in Greece and its surroundings since too long before the Mycenaean Palatial Era, and that that the Aegean (Anatolia and southern Balkansl was not a strongly Indo-Europeanized area since many millennia before the attestation of Greek and Hittite there, as Heggarty et al. are clearly wanting us to believe.
@davidski
Do you have links to those videos ?
Nope. I didn't even watch them myself because they were nothing new for me.
@Andrze
“seems to be Rob’s opinion that Tarim-Okunevo is a thing: I didn’t know why Rob brought it up in his blog he linked to, and that’s was what I was curious about. It’s not the impression the 2021 paper gives. It shows Tarim as a tight grouping quite distinct from the ”
Not so . understanding a simple map/ arrow should be easy enough to understand.
Okunevo is a different phenomenon and different founder effect - y hg Q1 male takeover of Afanasievo after partially assimilating into the former . It’s also several huffed years earlier than the Xiahoe horizon
The source Pop are Bazaika type individuals for Okunevo
But these are indeed all broadly interlinked : western steppe pastoralists coming in, catalysing cultural, economic and ideological shifts amongst local south Siberian populations, and triggering a chain reaction of further mobility
@ Ygor
I’d say “Authoritatively ignorant “
Pre-steppe copper age “Europe” (although IE is from Europe anyway) would be highly diverse linguistically , the peak in diversity of all periods
You’d see the
- core LBK layer
- core Impresso
A large number of mixed groups around them mixed with them and partially takeover the old LBK core , some maintaining the LBK cultural norms, others removing it
But then you do see some broader horizons (eg Remedello- Iberian tholoi; Danubian Eneolithic, the GAC sweep) which would have broader language koines
@LGK
You will NEVER be able to prove that the European Neolithic cultures spoke different languages, in fact everything points to the contrary, same origin, same genetic markers, same way of life, only your imagination leads you to think such absurd things as that they spoke dozens of different languages, once again you have no idea of what you are talking about. Try to deal with the fact that Smyadovo and ATP3 were M269 and that they spoke the same language.
@RichS-
You are getting funnier and more desperate, please talk to Harvard and Max PLanck and tell them that neither you nor Runström agree that Smyaodovo is M269, Ha Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha-Once a liar, always a liar Ha Ha Ha Ha
@Matt
"OT: New at ENA:
1) On the Beakers - https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB65118
"Biological and substitute parents in Beaker period adult-child graves"
My response:
Have you seen this article, which provides details about that project?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/investigating-the-prehistory-of-luxembourg-using-ancient-genomes/D9D98CEFD247C07A387DD62505507A2B
Scroll down and look at the level of steppe DNA in the mother and son in that Beaker burial in Altwies, Luxembourg. Looks like Corded Ware level.
Wonder if those two would cluster with Corded Ware.
That paper should be interesting when it finally appears. Hope they get some Y-DNA from that boy.
@ Davidski
It actually doesnt even matter if there is going to be a Yamnaya-like sample from 4000 BC, because populations evolve & mix
All that is required for the 'home-grown' - and correct- model is the "ingredients are there - CHG-rich Piedmont steppe Eneolithic ~ 4300 BC, the male founder lineages to the northwest, some EEF.
That's the thing that people like Orpehus & music Lover dont get, or pretend not to get, so they can push their odd agendas.
And again, in terms of overall steppe genesis it doesn't really matter where the CHG came from -. It could have flown in from Harappa itself.
Also, we need to do away with 'steppe ancestry' as a concept and replace it with 'western steppe cline' as a concept.
@Ygor CS
You haven't answered my questions, that means you have no idea which culture or cultures from the “Pontic-Caspian steppe ecosystem” and which were the male lineages responsible for the spread of Indoeuropean around the world. You don't dare to mention a specific culture? or you just don't have a clue? In any case;
1-How did you reach the conclusion that “linguistic diversity in Mesolithic and Early Neolithic societies notoriously tends to be much bigger than in Metal Ages societies”?
2-Are you aware that the first M269 we have (even officially recognized by Harvard) is a neolithic farmer, you think he came from Mars? or reached Bulgaria by parachute from the glorious Pontic-Caspian steppe ecosystem?
3-You always make the mistake of using recent examples (Iron Age-Iberian, Etruscan, Latin or Medieval-Spanish, French, Dalmatian, Romanian, Sicilian etc) to try to explain prehistoric issues, this is not only incorrect but lacks any logic.
4-Your Indo-Anatolian “more complex fashion” theory is absolutely impossible to prove, so its scientific value is ZERO. You can write an essay or a book to explain this complexity but you will only bore everyone without providing scientific certainties.
@Ygor CS said-"PIE question is a matter of SOCIAL sciences”
Now I understand your way of thinking, i.e. the solution to the dilemma lies in linguistics, anthropology and archaeology, disciplines that alone have not been able to solve the problem in the last 50 years, while certain technologies (I suppose you mean genetics) and mathematical methods only serve to assist the so-called social sciences-
If you do not think that genetics can solve the problem, or if analyzing the genetic data they do not serve to prove the theory of which you are a supporter, then it is normal that you resort to all kinds of “social sciences” and all kinds of "arguments".
In short, you have abandoned scientific thinking and have entered the realm of dogma of faith or ideology and therefore discussing this matter with you is a waste of time.
Elshanka pottery, EEF and Iran pottery.
The trail of pottery-making used by the population of the Volga-Ural region during the Early Neolithic aka Elshanka pottery-- is similar in shape to the Hunter Gatherer Amur river basin pottery? Deriivka phase 2 and Yamnaya/Afanasievo pottery used in wagon transport(R1b-Z2109)also fall into that group, no? Amur river basin is located in the same region as the remains of Upper Palaeolithic Siberian individual, known as the Mal'ta boy.
@Andrjewski. Why are you obsessed by how people “look” after several thousand years mummified?
For one thing, surely you know as well as anyone that the genetics of facial features are the most plastic and changeable?
I notice you never did give any method by which you distinguish the early Tarim mummies from people like Amazigh or Saami, or even from random Uzbeks or Kazakhs.
Or for that matter, Kennewick Man and his Colville Native American relatives.
Go look at a picture of Kinkanaqua or Jim Homas or any number of Colville people — several of these would have been born in the 18th century. Explain, please, your method to would distinguish their mummies by “look” from “Europoids” after a few thousand years. If it isn’t just a completely circular definition.
@ “a”
The pottery of eastern influences is very interesting phenomenon
The earliest ANE in Europe, which brought Y-hg R1*, is much too old to be associated with pottery
Eastern Pottery arrived c 6000 BC probably via Kelteminar and other southwestern WSHG type groups, and we see this in the presence of Y-hg Q1 around Samara
Repin & caspian Yamnaya still used pointed pottery of that tradition, but Cernavoda and western Yamnaya adopted the pottery of their neighbours (Cotofeni, Late Tripolje, Foltesti, etc)
@Rich S; thanks for that, hopefully let's see this paper with more details not too soon. Seems to be a few particularly HG rich Neolithic there as well.
OT: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.08.23.554285v1 - "Admixture as a source for HLA variation in Neolithic European farming communities"
These HLA papers seem kind of good evidence for whether low HLA diversity and vulnerability to pathogens really could have made disease based population shifts more viable (not on their own of course, but the way the Native American one was viable, because it pushed the population lower at the same time as other groups could move in, without which they might have not been likely to displace others).
@Rob
Interesting, any possible connection,
"The lifestyle at all the sites in the Amur region, during the Upper paleolithic, was based on hunting, gathering and foraging, as well as intensive use of local aquatic resources. Their pottery assemblages, as well as methodology, were stylistically separate from one other and are considered to be local inventions. The ancient phase of primitive Paleolithic art (c.14,000-11,000 BCE) was followed by a transitional phase (approx 11,000-6000 BCE), which spanned the short period of Mesolithic art (10,000-8,000 BCE), and the initial period of Neolithic art (8,000-6,000 BCE), during which time pottery-making spread westwards from the Siberian taiga, reaching the East European Plain by about 7000 BCE."
Amur River Basin Pottery (from 14,300 BCE)
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehistoric/amur-river-pottery.htm
Wasn't Narva culture also M73 and similar to M73 branch of hunter gatherer found on Volga, with similar pottery ?
What about the shards from Deriivka? Were they similar to the pointed pottery used in-- Turganic Dom2 Yamnaya?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315547201_New_insights_into
_the_subsistence_economy_of_the_Eneolithic_Dereivka_culture_of_the_Ukrainian_North-Pontic_region_through_lipid_residues_analysis_of_pottery_vessels
New insights into the subsistence economy of the Eneolithic Dereivka culture of the Ukrainian North-Pontic region through lipid residues analysis of pottery vessels
Significantly, the biomolecular and stable carbon isotope results confirmed that Dereivka community consumed horse products predominantly, together with smaller proportions of ruminant and non-ruminant products.
@Rob “ Also, we need to do away with 'steppe ancestry' as a concept and replace it with 'western steppe cline' as a concept.”
I agree. It is the Lower Don Culture horizon aka Sredny Stog who was the very first recognizable speakers of PIE in its earliest form, other than Khvalynsk or Samara etc.
@Rob “ Okunevo is a different phenomenon and different founder effect - y hg Q1 male takeover of Afanasievo after partially assimilating into the former . It’s also several huffed years earlier than the Xiahoe horizon
The source Pop are Bazaika type individuals for Okunevo”
Do basically Tarim are just Q1 WSHG Botai-related ANE rich etc but PRE-Afanasievo
@Ygor C. S. “ there was clearly enough Y-DNA and Mt-DNA diversity among EEFs to be correlated with linguistic diversity - heck, he even seems to think R1b-M269 spread from EEFs”
Exactly! C1, H, G1a (mostly G1a) among y-Dna; even more diverse - X, Z, H, N, T, U, V, and more.
I’m wondering how ANF even came into being: did Pinarbasi HG assimilate so many diverse lineages and founder effects in its path to encompass the entire Anatolian land mass, especially on the female mediated, mtdna side?
Were ANF a 50-50 admixture of a proximal Natufian source with an introgression of a WHG-like, Iron Gate HG-related component?
BTW, I read your Quora posts, they are excellent!
@Ygor C. S. “ but not right to the south in Mesopotamia and the Levant, precisely 2 regions most transformed by Late Neolithic up to EMBA spread of CHG and Iran_N-rich groups (perhaps source of languages with "mysterious" origins such as Sumerian, Elamite, Kassite and Gutian)? Hmm... It seems that Eastern Anatolia/Zagros/Transcaucasia and CHG/Iran_N were THE real Babel Tower of humankind: several language families came from the same relatively small region.”
Would you add Kaskian, Hatti and Minoan to the list of languages whose origins could be linked to introgression of CHG/Iran_N related groups?
@Ygor and @Davidski Where do you suppose did Dravidian languages originate? IIRC, they are mostly Iranic migrants admixing with AASI, the latter essentially being Onge-related distal group. There used to be a now obsolete hypothesis about the Elamite-Dravidian macro-family, which is now discredited. I also read on Narasimian 2019 that the Elamites were Iran_N whereas Iranian migrants to India were Iran_HG (Seb Gabeh?) and therefore spoke unrelated languages. It seems additionally that BMAC were predominantly Iran_N with a considerable amount of Anatolian farmers and even lesser traces of WSHG, thus the BMAC language could’ve been possibly related to Elamite.
What’s your opinion on these matters?
@Rob
“ these are indeed all broadly interlinked : western steppe pastoralists coming in, catalysing cultural, economic and ideological shifts amongst local south Siberian populations”
Yes. Okunevo was one of them, admixed with both western AND eastern migrants (about equal proportions of Afanasievo & Baikal EBA on top of its ANE) — so, too late to have the influence being claimed for it in previous comments.
The “Baikal EBA” component has a very far reaching influence. Not everything was coming from the west.
Gaska wrote:
"@RichS-
You are getting funnier and more desperate, please talk to Harvard and Max PLanck and tell them that neither you nor Runström agree that Smyaodovo is M269, Ha Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha-Once a liar, always a liar Ha Ha Ha Ha"
My Response:
Well, Patterson et al, "Large-scale migration into Britain during the
Middle to Late Bronze Age" (2021) is also a production of Harvard's genetics department, featuring some of the same researchers as the Mathieson et al paper from 2018 in which I2181 (Smyadovo) first appeared, including Nick Patterson himself. Anyway, Patterson et al resequenced Smyadovo, which was always a low coverage sample, and they would not call it for anything beyond Y-DNA haplogroup F.
On top of that, as I mentioned before, FTDNA's Göran Runström told me that FTDNA's team re-examined I2181 (Smyadovo) and found it to be a low coverage sample that they could not call as R1b-M269 or anything useful. That is why I2181 does not appear in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections or in its Time Tree.
Even if one were to throw scientific rigor to the winds and say, without any evidence, that Smyadovo was R1b-M269, you would still be left with the fact that he had steppe DNA.
Any way you slice it, Gaska, Smyadovo is not a winner for your ill-founded effort to derive R1b-M269 from anyplace other than the steppe. It's right up there in quality with ATP3 and recent sightings of Elvis Presley.
Northwestern Iranians are largely non-IE speaking Azeri's. Roughly 20% of Iran is of Azeri descent, to be sure, which makes it a larger minority than Kurds.
@ Andrze
“Do basically Tarim are just Q1 WSHG Botai-related ANE rich etc but PRE-Afanasievo”
No they’re R1b-PH155
This lineage is under R1b-M343 found in western regions
Not a single instance of it has been found in hunter gatherers from china, the Baikal or inner Asian hunter gatherers
Rather than being a Paleolithic native (lmfao) It very clearly represents a recent migration into the Tarim basin, probably precisely at 2200 bc, when a whole series of things happened
@ weee
''Okunevo was one of them, admixed with both western AND eastern migrants (about equal proportions of Afanasievo & Baikal EBA on top of its ANE)''
nonsense.
Okunevo are overwhelmingly Bazaika, from west of Baikal
Tarim EBA are highly drawn to Tyumen- West Siberian HGs
https://ibb.co/Kz2pk0j
@Rich S-
Well, it will also be very important for the international scientific community to know the opinion of Rich Stevens and Göran Runström regarding this LBK outlier. I have not found the archaeological information on these samples but according to the researchers they are all early european farmers.
*NP548 (5.000 BC)-Niederpöring-petrous bone-M-465987 SNPs-mtDNA-U5a1a1b-HapY-R1b1a2a1a
We can place bets on the kurganist answers.
a)-It is really R1b-V88, or CT, or F, or BT
b)-It is wrongly dated
c)-It has a steppe ancestry (I have to admit that I have a predilection for this argument)
Whatever the solution, they could also give their opinion on these other two LBK outliers-And if anyone is interested you can check the BAM files before our friends have a heart attack.
*Brunn1/I6912 (5.500 BC)-HapY-BT-Low Coverage-R1b?-mtDNA-J1-WHG related ancestry-12 ± 3%
>For Individual BRUNN1, we note that we ostensibly observed derived alleles at the diagnostic haplogroup P sites CTS3446 and F212, the R1 site CTS997, and the R1b1a/1a2 sites PF6444 and L749
*XN191 (5.199 BC)-Stuttgart-Mühlhausen I-Male-HapY-R1b-L754-mtDNA-I1
By the way, don't worry even if these three turned out to be HapY-CT, in addition to Smyadovo, we have other samples that no one has dared to discuss.
@Gaska
"You will NEVER be able to prove that the European Neolithic cultures spoke different languages, in fact everything points to the contrary, same origin, same genetic markers, same way of life, only your imagination leads you to think such absurd things as that they spoke dozens of different languages, once again you have no idea of what you are talking about. Try to deal with the fact that Smyadovo and ATP3 were M269 and that they spoke the same language."
Copium describing the Game of Thrones universe, not real life.
Nobody can prove what language an extinct people with no writing spoke, so stop touting this like it proves the existence of the glorious Vasconic Neolithic Empire lmao. On the analogical basis of what is known from more recent arrangements of shared origin, closely genetically related farming groups with similar lifestyle elsewhere, neolithic people from Bulgaria to Iberia absolutely did not speak the same language. In fact it should have been a very diverse linguistic region, as others have already pointed out.
@Gaska
------- "Now I understand your way of thinking, i.e. the solution to the dilemma lies in linguistics, anthropology and archaeology, disciplines that alone have not been able to solve the problem in the last 50 years, while certain technologies (I suppose you mean genetics) and mathematical methods only serve to assist the so-called social sciences-"
So you really think a dilemma about the CULTURES AND SOCIETIES that first spoke and spread a LANGUAGE family is NOT a matter of the sciences that study social subjects like, you know, culture, language, politics, history and social relations between humans and their communities? Is it just a matter of biology or, heck, mathematics? It is simply a matter of hard sciences that need little or none of the sociological, linguistic, archaeological, historical and anthropological evidences and hypotheses produced by social sciences (never mind that the PIE question was already being investigated and gathering evidences more than 100 years before the advent of population genetics??! Ahem, if that makes sense to you...
Ah, that explains a lot about your arbitrary and wishful thinking-based interpretation of the genetic data: you think that genetic data alone explain it all WITHOUT any input from other sciences that do not only put the former into their proper context, but also allow us to test the credibility and likelihood of the several hypotheses proposed through comparison of multiple data from multiple fields, synchronically and diachronically.
Anything goes if you only consider data provided by genetics (or any other science in isolation) and purposefully leaves aside all the evidences provided by other sciences. Problem is: they are exactly what allow one (including scientists) to put a most probable (this scientific object is always a matter of highest likelihood) stamp (i.e. a definite and nominal culture/society/language/migration/historical event) on the "abstract and general" genetic dynamics they find, and to assess if and how exactly the genetics correlate with the socio-cultural phenomena such as the spread of a language family (and there are famously and demonstrably various distict ways whereby those phenomena can occur, no single and totally predictable pattern).
(continuation)
Therefore, since the data themselves can't possibly tell us anything concrete about cultures, languages and social processes, because any data needs to be interpreted and systematically integrated to other data, so proper interpretation relies on prior concepts and data to truly understand what one is seeing, you fill that intellectual void (about History, Linguistics, Sociology, everything except your hard sciences that you ignorantly conflate with the entire concept of science and the scientific method itself) with your own (probably subconscious) biases, wishes, national/ethnic myths and baseless assumptions based on what you tellingly consider plain "common sense" (the usual alibi of every person that willfully neglects the duty to get more and wider scientific knowledge before making too many confident conclusions about some matter).
You end up like a person who buys books full with a lot of maps and graphs, but totally ignores the facts and processes that determine and/or influence why the maps and graphs look like they do. Misinterpretation, incorrect and oversimplified explanations to the way the data are quantified and distributed, and bias overwhelming critical thinking are bound to happen.
That must also explain why you ridiculously believe it is reasonable to hypothesize that it is more likely that all EEFs in Europe from Spain to Bulgaria spoke one single language throughout the Neolithic, and that it is likely that a massive family such as IE spread through one single movement of expansion from one single location and culture limites to a specific and relatively short timeframe (you really did not understand anything that population genetics taught us in the last 15 years): i.e. your background knowledge of how cultures, societies and languages work is extremely insufficient to understand what the genetic information is hinting to us and what interpretations on what they mean (hypotheses) are truly reliable and more probable or not (genetics being, as far as historical matters - such as the IE dilemma - are concerned, just indirect fingerprints of past human interactions, community structures and movements).
@Gaska
Oh, really? The Philosophal Stone Smyadovo that happens to be from around 4500 BCE (Chalcolithic) Eastern Bulgaria (the westernmost extension of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, not too far from the steppe-admixed Cernavoda, Usatovo, Cucuteni-Tripyllia and Ezero not much later) and, with the caveat of its low coverage, to have autosomal steppe -related admixture? That sample from close to the Black Sea and the WHG:EHG transition zone? Ehm, if that's what you got, sorry, you will need a much better narrative that makes more sense than "all EEFs spoke the same language 3000 years after they arrived in Europe".
My response to Gaska:
Sample XN191 is from the 2020 Rivollat et al paper, “Ancient genome-wide DNA from France highlights the complexity of interactions between Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers”. It was not possible to get a Y-DNA call for that sample, as the paper’s spreadsheet makes clear. In the Y-DNA column it has “NA”. For Y-DNA terminal SNP it also says “NA”.
But you knew that already, because a poster calling himself “Anonymous” told you that here at Eurogenes back on July 23, 2020: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-oldest-r1a-to-date.html?showComment=1595510470792#c7488776430286402756
Did you forget, or are you trying to pull a fast one?
Re sample I6912 from the 2019 Nikitin et al paper, “Interactions between earliest Linearbandkeramik farmers and central European hunter gatherers at the dawn of European Neolithization”, I’ll quote you from July 23, 2020:
“Regarding-I6912, Early_LBK, Austria, R1b?, BC:5457 (Nikitin, 2.019)-it is a sample of the LBK in Brunn (Austria), and is positive for some R1b downstream markers but appears contaminated. The case is also doubtful-Derived alleles at the diagnostic hap-P sites CTS3446 and F212, the R1 site CTS997-Ancestral allele at the haplogroup R site L1225 (read length 45, likewise not damaged)”.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-oldest-r1a-to-date.html?showComment=1595513397807#c1500448985536492987
Why bring up a crummy, contaminated, low coverage sample like that, which could not be called for mere R1b, let alone anything else? It just highlights the weakness of your argument. If you were right (you’re obviously not), there would be plenty of good samples to support your position, but there aren’t any, so you are forced to rely on samples that have already been discredited.
Meanwhile, there are loads of good samples that demonstrate the contention that R1b-M269 arrived in peninsular Europe with Indo-European steppe pastoralists - loads of them.
Try as I might, I cannot find any sample “NP548”. When citing a sample, it is customary at the very least to name the scientific paper or papers in which it appears. Please let me know where I can find “NP548”, if such a sample exists. I know full well that if a legitimate R1b-L151 Neolithic farmer sample existed, you would already be trumpeting it to the skies at every opportunity, which tells me your claim in this case is probably bogus, but I’d like to see the data for myself in the paper in which the sample appears.
@epoch
Northwestern Iranians are largely non-IE speaking Azeri's. Roughly 20% of Iran is of Azeri descent, to be sure, which makes it a larger minority than Kurds.
Orpheus doesn't work with facts like this.
He wasn't even aware that Central and Inner Asia were once awash with Iranian speakers directly derived from Sintashta.
He doesn't know who the Saka and Kangju people were.
The Orpheus take on reality is fact free.
@Rich S-
I am delighted that you are still working, so you will not lose the illusion of being the last guardian of the Kurganist orthodoxy. Regarding NP548 (5.000 BC), Matt has given you a hint in this very thread, keep looking. XN191 according to Reich lab is R1b-L754 (don't worry you can always tell them that you and your FTDNA friends disagree) of course an early German farmer and like all his LBK colleagues, with no trace of steppe ancestry and regarding BRUNN1 contamination we have already talked enough, in my opinion it is also R1b, ask your friends at FTDNA.
As long as you do not understand that the Yamnaya culture is not the origin but the sink of R1b (and only a small branch of this lineage-Z2103), you will not understand the history of our lineage. To pretend that an open and passing place like the steppes was a kind of cage where M269 was enclosed has always been stupidity and Smyadovo is the definitive proof of what I am saying.
When Haak dared to propose in 2015 that R1b and R1a brought IE to mainland Europe, there was only one sample of R1b (V88) in Europe (Els Trocs), now we have dozens of samples of this lineage all over Europe, pretending that it arrived here thanks to Yamnaya culture is the biggest scientific stupidity ever published.
@LGK-
Wishful thinking, you thought you had found the Rosetta Stone and you have come across an absurd theory that you will never be able to prove, so you can keep thinking whatever you want, but you will never convince anyone moderately intelligent that you are right. Common sense tells us that European neolithic farmers from Bulgaria to Portugal spoke the same language.
@ Madina E
“ Tarim EBA are highly drawn to Tyumen- West Siberian HGs”
Thanks repeating back to me the point I made a few days ago that Tarim have a lot in common with West Siberia Neolithic and Botai. Glad you noticed.
That does NOT make those groups Tarim ancestors. Tarim 1 EMBA most resemble paleolithic Afontova Gora 3.
Tarim 1, the earliest known of that culture-group, lack an EHG element that west-Siberian neolithic share with Copper Age Botai.
They also lack the Afanasievo-like element present earlier in EBA Dzungarian Basin to the north west of Tarim Basin.
See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04052-7/figures/6
And: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04052-7/figures/3
@Ygor
1-Only genetics will be able to find the Indo-European homeland
Linguistics? in relation to the research of Indo-European languages is an inexact science based on conjectures & more or less credible hypotheses. Linguists do not agree neither on the date (Heggarty is the latest proof), nor on the place where it originated (I know of at least ten theories with ten different locations), nor on the structural relationship between its branches, nor on the periods of divergence. It is the most speculative science I know.
Besides, there is the problem because when you have a preconceived idea (like yours regarding the PC steppe ecosystem), you look for any kind of extra-scientific argument (your Indo-Anatolian “more complex fashion” theory it's definitely nonsense) to try to prove something that is scientifically undemonstrable. So you can waste your time as you please, but don't try to convince us that you are a wise man who knows the answer to all the questions posed-
2-Genetics tells us, thanks to uniparental and autosomal markers, that European neolithic farmers have a common origin and therefore a common language, although with the logical modifications and dialects caused by the passage of time and geographical dispersion. If you ridiculously think they spoke different languages, that's your problem. You can't even dream of getting to prove me wrong
3-The process of Indo-Europeanization of Europe and Asia lasted hundreds and thousands of years. Since you like semi-contemporary examples so much, you can start to think about when this process took place in southern France, Iberia, the Italian peninsula or Sicily because only the Romans were able to impose Latin on indigenous languages. Pretending that some PC steppe culture by itself indo-Europeanized the entire European continent and much of Asia is another great stupidity.
One single movement of expansion from one single location and culture limites to a specific and relatively short timeframe? Don’t make me laugh
You think that the Yamnaya migrations brought the Mycenaean to the Peloponnese, please explain it to me with genetic (or even lingüistic or archaelogical) arguments
4-You still do not answer my question, in your opinion which culture (or cultures) and which uniparental markers carried out the Indo-Europeanization of Europe and Asia. Are you afraid to answer, don't you have an opinion about it?
5-I recommend you to study well the archaeological data we have about Smyadovo, and also learn something about the culture of Gumelnita Karanovo VI. So you will understand that your arguments regarding M269 in Bulgaria are so weak that those you have used to defend the origin of IE in the PC steppe ecosystem.
Low coverage?, steppe-related admixture? Please publish any autosomal model of this sample and we can discuss it whenever you want.
I'm sorry, but you need more than wishful thinking to convince someone with your theories
@Gaska
It is not common sense but your desperate dream to reconcile M269 being a foreign Eastern European intruder to Iberia with desire for Iberian & Vasconic to be indigenous to Iberia, tragically both cannot be true.
All analogies and models point to great diversity, even broadly distributed large families generally contain many unintelligible languages.
Gaska wrote:
"@Rich S-
I am delighted that you are still working, so you will not lose the illusion of being the last guardian of the Kurganist orthodoxy. Regarding NP548 (5.000 BC), Matt has given you a hint in this very thread, keep looking . . ."
My response:
That's what I thought. You cannot provide the name of the paper in which the mysterious sample NP548 appears. So much for that. You should see a doctor, seriously.
XN191 we already discussed. It had no Y-DNA haplogroup listed because one could not be found. I6912, "Brunn1", is a bad, contaminated, low coverage sample that could not be called for R1b.
No one ever claimed V88 was brought to Europe by Yamnaya or any other steppe people. V88 is on the PF6323 line which is L389- and which separated from the L389 line around 15000 BC. Don't let the prefix "R1b" fool you. V88 is not a close relative. It has a history of its own, separate from the rest of R1b.
I noticed you are still claiming there was M269 in Neolithic Bulgaria. Quit doing that. I2181 (Smyadovo) cannot be called for anything beyond Y-DNA haplogroup F. You know that, so drop it. Wait for some decent samples to make your case. If you're right, they should be coming along soon. Well, they should have already come along by now, but they haven't, which is why you desperately clutch at bad samples that have already been discredited.
Here's an interesting Eurogenes post from over three years ago that sums things up pretty well, is still timely, and is almost poetic in its rebuke:
"Michalis Moriopoulos said...
@Gaska
The claim being made is that the vast majority of R1b and R1a in the world today can be PROXIMATELY traced to the expansion of Pontic-Caspian steppe pastoralists, which is true beyond any reasonable doubt. The ULTIMATE origin of the R1 haplogroups is irrelevant to the proximate claim. So why don't you find another hobby already? Your bitterness that things clearly didn't go your way on this topic is beyond embarrassing. You're basically "man yells at cloud" at this point. Find another hobby.
July 21, 2020 at 9:27 AM"
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-oldest-r1a-to-date.html?showComment=1595348872428#c1642679047987281459
I2181 has steppe ancestry, and is not confirmed as M269 via FTDNA. From MathiesonNature2018: “In two directly dated individuals from southeastern Europe, one (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dated to 4711-4550 BCE and one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dated to 4550-4450 BCE, we find far earlier evidence of steppe-related ancestry (Figure 1B,D).” When they modeled him in D stats (Mbuti.DG, CHG, Balkans_Chalcolithic, Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier) they found the following: “Varna_outlier has Steppe ancestry. Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier may have steppe ancestry but has no evidence of CHG component (however number of SNPs is low).” In the paper’s supplement, I2181 has 46.1% Yamnaya in qpAdm, with a standard deviation of 17.4%. In admixture analysis, he picked up EHG, and a larger Yamnaya_Samara component.
(my post from September 2022): Turns out the Harvard/Reich lab resequenced I2181 for the Southern Arc paper. He has better coverage this time around (still low though), versus what Mathieson et al., 2018 had (0.103528 of 113471 SNPs vs 0.063 of 71542 SNPs). I2181 possesses 20.0-20.7% CHG (jackknife std. error 5.2%) in the Harvard paper’s F4 admixture models. The following data below is from Supplementary Materials, Data S1 to S5 of the paper “The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe” (2022). Link: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4247
Sample ID: I2181 (BGR_ChL_outlier)
F4dmix proportions
CHG EHG Levant_PPN SRB_Iron_Gates_HG TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N
0.207 0.090 0.000 0.192 0.511
F4admix proportions (jackknife mean)
0.200 0.099 0.000 0.184 0.518
F4admix proportions (jackknife std. error)
0.052 0.052 0.000 0.034 0.040
Credit to CopperAxe and Ajeje Brazorf for these models of I2181 without Yamnaya, the steppe competent is still necessary and present:
Target: BGR_ChL_outlier:I2181
Distance: 6.2264% / 0.06226415
59.6 AUT_LBK_N
21.0 RUS_Progress_En
19.4 UKR_N
0.0 BGR_C
0.0 BGR_N
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
Target: BGR_ChL_outlier:I2181
Distance: 6.1625% / 0.06162533
73.8 BGR_MP_N
21.0 RUS_Progress_En
5.2 UKR_N
0.0 BGR_C
0.0 BGR_N
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
Target: BGR_C_o_Smyadovo:I2181___BC_4508___Coverage_6.12%
Distance: 0.0443% / 0.04426436
41.9 HUN_Tisza_LN:I2358___BC_4750___Coverage_31.46%
41.4 ROU_Trestiana_BA:I6184___R-M417___BC_5650___Coverage_19.68%
10.9 BGR_MP_N:I1297___BC_5600___Coverage_10.30%
5.7 FRA_Hauts_De_France_MN:Es97-1___BC_4550___Coverage_26.84%
0.1 ROU_N:I17835___G-PF3177___BC_5750___Coverage_14.50%
Target: BGR_C_o_Smyadovo:I2181___BC_4508___Coverage_6.12%
Distance: 0.0481% / 0.04811636
35.4 HUN_Tisza_LN:I2358___BC_4750___Coverage_31.46%
31.3 BGR_MP_N:I1297___BC_5600___Coverage_10.30%
13.2 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0122___BC_4838___Coverage_48.69%
8.0 RUS_Progress_En:PG2001___BC_4900___Coverage_76.47%
6.6 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0434___BC_4975___Coverage_5.31%
5.5 FRA_Hauts_De_France_MN:Es97-1___BC_4550___Coverage_26.84%
XN191 can only be called for R1b-L754 and he only has 20283 SNPs, which is abysmally low coverage. So no link to M269 there either. Furthermore, contemporaneous pre-Steppe R1b males (from Germany and Czechia) all belong to V2219>V88 (sample IDs: I14169, I14176, I14173, I0559, I1593). R1b-L754 formed around 21300-15500 BCE (median: 18400 BCE), and its TMRCA is 16900-13300 BCE (median: 15100 BCE), so XN191 is in no way, shape, or form relevant to the history of L754 or M269, for he lived several thousand years after the first recorded bearers of L754, V2219, L389, and P297:
Villabruna 1, Val Cismon, Belluno, Italy, 12268-11851 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2b, Y-DNA: R1b-L754>L761(xV2219,P297,V1636), FuNature2016
I5235, Padina, Serbia, 9221-8548 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2c*, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88>Y127541, MathiesonNature2018
MN2003, Minino II, Vologda Oblast, Russia, 8654-8413 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2, Y-DNA: R1b-P297 (xM269,Y13202,FTA35755), PosthNature2023
All three are older than:
Germany_EN_LBK XN191, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, 5316-5081 calBCE, mtDNA: I1, Y-DNA: R1b-L754, RivollatSciAdv2020
Target: Bulgaria_C_oSteppe:I2181_enhanced
Distance: 6.1384% / 0.06138368
54.8 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
30.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
15.2 ROU_Iron_Gates_HG
@Gaska
I can gather you are really a confused person... Let's clear some things up for you:
1 - In your notoriously problematic interpretation skills, you clearly did not understand that I DO NOT think nor say that the IE expansion and divergence happened in one single historical process involving the migration and socio-cultural-political spread of one single society and its culture. It is YOU who do, even if perhaps unwittingly. That is clear when you keep asking me to name one specific culture, society and location that was responsible for the spread of IE languages from Europe to South Asia (as if that assumption of yours were even realistic, let alone demonstrated!), and yet you don't understand why I obviously won't give you that answer because I know better than you (especially in the case of Early PIE/Indo-Anatolian, which is basically as if you were trying to find one single location for the earliest homeland of Castillian and Old Latin at the same time, i.e. a question that is nonsensical right from its own premises).
2 - Clearly you desperately want to think that R1b-M268 clades come from EEFs, but all EEFs (never mind their pretty substantial genetic structure and diversity of uniparental markers) only spoke some ultra-hyper-mega-conservative Vasconic language group.
BUT at the same time you are also adamant that PIE could not possibly have been spoken in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. Oh, but all of Neolithic Europe inhabited by EEFs from Iberia to Bulgaria and from Ireland to the Baltic nations spoke one single language that happens to be ancestral to your own traditional language (oh, the "glorious" self-serving coincidences of modern ethnonationalist myths!).
Therefore, PIE could only have come from outside Europe... However, in most areas, the only major autosomal and Y-DNA change between EEFs in the Late Neolithic and post-Bronze Age Europeans was the arrival of Pontic-Caspian-related autosomal admixture plus the boom of R1b-M269. Oops, but R1b-M269 is also EEF according to you.
Since, according to you, PIE was not from the Pontic-Caspian zone nor connected to the boom of R1b-M269 nor spread by steppe agropastoralists, then IE necessarily expanded without any significant genetic impact in many parts of Europe (strangely those that were, back then, by far less populated than Southeastern Europe, let alone Anatolia), which defeats your stance that the spread and divergence of languages are always and necessarily correlated with and explained by genetics.
Hence, there are so many contradictions, gaps and incongruences in your thinking pattern that it isn't even funny anymore.
3 - The very concepts of Indo-European family, Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Anatolian and whatnot only exist and make sense through the research of Historical Linguistics. Nobody had even the slightest clue of those things before and if not for linguists (pre-historical stuff and spoken languages recorded in inscriptions only much later and already in very divergent languages). So just quit the b.llsh.t and be mininally congruent: if you disregard and disbelieve Linguistics altogether, then simply stop participating in the discussion about PIE and the family derived from it.
Besides, you cunningly forget I am also talking about other social sciences that are decisive to interpret, test and put into context the findings of population genetics more reliably: archaeology, anthropology, history, sociology - and, yep, linguistics, too, all of them in a multidisciplinary effort.
This is a topic about SOCIETIES AND CULTURES. Genetics is being used in that specific instance to give us more precise evidences about those historical phenomena and their dynamics, it is NOT a case of genetics for its own sake (which is focused on biological, physiochemical and medical research). Genetic studies without a good interdisciplinary help from linguists, archaeologists and historians are doomed to fail in their interpretations and conclusions.
— Rob said: “they’re R1b-PH155 . This lineage is under R1b-M343 found in western regions”
That’s paltering a little.
Zhang, Ning & Scott recorded it as R1b1c for two Xiaohe males — and say it is not a subclade in Afanasievo or Yamnaya.
The Beifang male (same boat burial & period) had a basal R1 or R1b but “shares no derived allele with R1a or sub-lineage of R1b”.
— Rob said: “Not a single instance of it has been found in hunter gatherers from china, the Baikal or inner Asian hunter gatherers”
What “hunter gatherer from China” contribution are you pointing to in Tarim1 EMBA or Tarim 2 EMBA? Let’s don’t confuse each other with anachronisms. Why pick on a minor component and castigate it for not having what — manifestly — Tarim has?
Baikal neolithic (Shamanka) is, at least a component in some EMBA Tarim 2: the minor one. And not in EMBA Tarim 1.
Is “inner Asian hunter gatherer” a thing? ”Inner Asia” is a humungous stretch of the planet, very under-sampled.
Very remiss of Tarim 1&2 to have only one MtDNA, C4. Quite Siberian-Mongolian-American. If T1&2 had sloshed around the central-Asian gene pool through half the Holocene and hung out getting to know the neighbourhood (giant cul-de-sac desert) for a couple of thousand years already, that wouldn’t be so weird. Bottleneck, cul-de-sac, it's a bit chicken-and-egg.
So far, it’s all looking north / north-east.
I’ve said already (not either original or controversial) that EMBA Tarim 1 & 2 share a big chunk of ANE ancestry with neolithic West Siberians. But WS neolithic as we know it already has another, an EHG-like, component. Chalcolithic Botai has that same extra ingredient…. one that’s absent in both EMBA Tarim groups. Okunevo has a large dollop of Afanasievo-like, which is also earlier than Tarim 1 & 2 — and they model fine without it.
So how did both of these EMBA Tarim 1 & 2 groups so carelessly lose the EHG / steppe injection? They didn’t; they didn’t get it (yet) because they are collateral relatives, not descendants of these groups.
More than just about anyone, Tarim has a huge chunk of ANE input. AG3 to a stunning extent. (AG3 is over 70% Tarim, to put the anachronistic cart before the horse.)
Which reminds me, DCP1, the human dna on the deer pendant at Denisova cave, is also autosomally on the Eurasian-American cline spitting distance to Tarim1. It’s between AG3 & WSHG. The DCP1 date range was 19-26k. At 84 longitude, Denisova is directly north of the middle of the Tarim Basin, which stretches from about 75 at Kashgar to about 89-90 at Loulan & Lop Nur lake.
Tarim didn’t need to send out east or west for its ANE. It may have, but it didn’t need to. It's looking “older” by the minute.
This place on the Euro-Americas cline also makes sense of why Tarim has these South American connections. As much as it has “Chinese” one (that’s everywhere else from Mongolia to Cambodia).
There’s another more recent paper, in Current Biology (Ke Wang, He Yu, Rita Radzevičiute, all from Max Planck) “Middle Holocene Siberian genomes reveal highly connected gene pools throughout North Asia”. From the abstract…
“Here, we report genome-wide data of ten individuals dated to as early as 7,500 years before present from three regions in North Asia, namely Altai-Sayan, Russian Far East, and the Kamchatka Peninsula. Our analysis reveals a previously undescribed Middle Holocene Siberian gene pool in Neolithic Altai-Sayan hunter-gatherers as a genetic mixture between paleo-Siberian and ancient North Eurasian (ANE) ancestries. This distinctive gene pool represents an optimal source for the inferred ANE-related population that contributed to Bronze Age groups from North and Inner Asia, such as Lake Baikal hunter-gatherers, Okunevo-associated pastoralists, and possibly Tarim Basin populations.”
But I don’t know about this, I have not read it. It could potentially explain a lot.
@Simon Stevin
Where did you get the info on XN191? When I checked the Rivollat paper in which it first appeared, there was no call for any Y-DNA haplogroup.
Thanks.
@Andrz
Are you sure you meant to address this to me? But I’ll take a punt.
“ Does it imply that Botai Culture people looks almost like the Tarim mummies?”
— What did Botai a thousand miles away, from some part of Tarim, thousand or two years before them, look like? How would I know? I still don’t know how you can say the Tarim 1 & 2 remains looked “Europoid”, specidically, rather than just long-faced.
“Does Vayda/Blažek’s suggestions re: a distant link between Botai and Yenisseyan languages or Kett being a WSHG make sense?”
— First, I have no idea what language Botai spoke or how anyone could know. An awful lot seems to be hung on just a couple of proposed words.
— Second, ket “being” (neolithic) WSHG The vaguer the wanted villain’s sketch, the more people are convinced it’s that guy they happen to know. Why fasten on people in west Siberia at a point in the neolithic as the fount and source of all things? There’s a gigantic stretch of time and territory that’s had very little work done on it. Asking if Ket “is” a WSHG …. It reminds me of when the big thing was how the Irish were “descended from” Basques. Because Basques was all they had at the time.
— Third , the thinking seems to be that there has been a great deal more to and fro between the Americas and Asia than anyone realised until recently. What if Ket are descendants of an American (or Beringian) backwash? Or by now a large eddy… (just as random an idea that they “are” WSHG rather than “share ancestry with WSHG”.)
There’s a huge expanse across the middle of continent that’s hardly been looked at, with a continual ebb, flow and circulation of the gene pool for a very long time.
“If anything, Kett sounds very close to Innuit, which is clearly an East Asian derived, despite both being covered under the umbrella term “Paleosiberian”….
— Do you mean “sounds like” in the sense that the phonetics of the language seem similar to your ear? Or do you mean you’ve come across this hypothesis?
If it’s the first, then unless you speak one or other language, or something close to one of them, or you have actual technical analysis, “sounds like” is just meaningless.
If it’s the second, I am mystified why you think I’d know any more about Kets or their language than you can google.
I'm new to this discussion/debate. After going through many comments in this blog, i realised that different people need different things. Some only want to talk about everything after migrations from the steppe while some want to go much before that to get an entire history of maybe the last 12k years if possible. And of course they're are some people in between.
@Rich S.
This call was conducted by Kolgeh over at Carlos Quiles’s DNA database (Google Doc). Kolegh is a very reliable call maker when it comes to Y-DNA, but I wonder what others such as Pribislav have to say. Regardless, XN191 being R1b-L754 or not being L754 makes no difference, for he lived way after the relevant subclade formation dates and TMRCAs. Not one M269 sample has been found without steppe autosomal admixture. All of the R1b found in pre-steppe Central/Western/Southern Europe is of the V2219>V88 variety, and the oldest V2219/V88 samples have been found in what is now Serbia, Romania, and Ukraine (in eastern and southeastern Europe). The oldest P297 bearing male we have is an EHG from Minino II, in Vologda Oblast, Russia (sample ID: MN2003).
Wolfgang Haak, et al paper 'Whatever became of the Yamnaya sample I0443,R1b-L23?
Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe.
R1b-M269-R1bL23-R1b-Z2103/z2105?
https://amtdb.org/sample/I0443
These data from DNA-archeology show us that the Yamnaya culture (R1b-Z2103, Z2106 +, Z2108 +, KMS67 +, KMS75 +) are the direct genetic ancestors of Poltavkinians (R1b-KMS75 +), while the Poltavkinians are in turn the direct ancestors of part of the early Sarmatians of Pokrovka (R1b-KMS88 +).
This all sequence of snps Z2103 +> Z2106 +> Z2108 +> KMS67 +> KMS75 +> KMS88 + — is found among Bashkirs, Lezgins and Iraqis. Snps Z2103, Z2106 and Z2108, with separate clusters separated from them, are also found among a part of Germans, Slavs, Indo-Aryans, Iranians.
@Bla Bla Bla Ygor, your words are getting more and more confusing and you are constantly contradicting yourself.
1-In addition to criticizing the southern Arc solution proposed by Lazaridis (and to a certain extent also by Heggarty and many others), Ygor SC said-The "steppe proponents" (I guess you will be one of them, won't you?)
-"Do have a PROXIMAL, geographically, genetically and culturally more narrowly determined ethnogeographic context for PIE: the Pontic-Caspian steppe ecosystem, especially its southern portion between the lower Dniester and the Volga"
That is, you know exactly what the geographical location of the PIE is, don't you?
-"With a Steppe Eneolithic-like cluster contemporaneous to their proposed dating dor PIE"
You know perfectly well what is the genetic composition of those first PIE speakers, don't you?
-And a set of specific material cultural traits that indicate relative sociocultural homogeneity over that entire area"
Ergo you know perfectly well what are the cultural traits of these gentlemen
-"Movements and cultural influences from that steppe zone, right during the Chalcolithic and Early BA, have been genetically proven and linked to specific chronologically and materially PROXIMAL cultures"
Then you consider these migratory movements to be proven and you know perfectly well which cultures were involved (in your words-Suvorovo-Novodanilovka, Cernavoda, Usatovo, Ezero, Yamnaya, Afanasievo, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Lchashen-Metsamor, Trialeti, Sintashta-Andronovo))
-"All with clear proximal links within the previous 1,000-2,500 years"
Ergo, you know exactly the time in which this phenomenon of genetic and cultural dispersion (including language took place)
I mean you know absolutely everything about the PIE origin and yet you cannot answer a simple question
What is the culture (or cultures) and male lineages involved in both the origin of PIE and the spread of this language? Don't know, don't want to or can't answer?
Which cultures existed in that period of time between lower Dniester and the Volga?
Do you really know the genetic make-up of these cultures?
2-Please, I know you are desperate because your arguments are a joke but please don't put words in my mouth that I have never said because that makes you a liar-I have never said that the neolithic farmers spoke Vasconic but that the genetic and cultural data point to them all speaking the same language (which you could call whatever you want) and I have not said either PIE could not possibly have been spoken in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe only that its origin is a controversial and problematic issue. If you were to present your arguments convincingly, you might gain some credibility.
3-I am not desperate for anything and even less for the origin of M269 among the farmers of the Gumelnita culture, it is simply a scientific truth proven by the Harvard laboratory. Try to deal with it
4-Your comments about nationalism, ethnonationalism etc. are typical of people frustrated because they have no convincing arguments to prove their theories.
5-Well this is also a genetic blog isn't it?, after all, we have advanced more in the last 10 years about the IE homeland than in the last hundred years, genetics will have some merit, right?
@LGK said "All analogies and models point to great diversity"
Really? can you explain how you came to this conclusion?
@ weee
''Zhang, Ning & Scott recorded it as R1b1c for two Xiaohe males — and say it is not a subclade in Afanasievo or Yamnaya.
You’re confusing things horribly.
West Siberian hunter-gatherers are different to Afansievo pastoralists from the Don
You lack a basic grasp of basic geography and genetics
“More than just about anyone, Tarim has a huge chunk of ANE input. AG3 to a stunning extent. (AG3 is over 70% Tarim, to put the anachronistic cart before the horse.)
Which reminds me, DCP1, the human dna on the deer pendant at Denisova cave, is also autosomally on the Eurasian-American cline spitting distance to Tarim1. It’s between AG3 & WSHG. The DCP1 date range was 19-26k. At 84 longitude, Denisova is directly north of the middle of the Tarim Basin, which stretches from about 75 at Kashgar to about 89-90 at Loulan & Lop Nur lake. ”
Irrelevant to the discussion
AFG lived over 10000 years before the topic and DCP1 is a low coverage genome which doesn’t support any of your claims, either
The proximal source of the ANE rich populations which invaded the Tarim are from the northwest
“'The Beifang male (same boat burial & period) had a basal R1 or R1b but “shares no derived allele with R1a or sub-lineage of R1b”.''
'
Nonsense, that's just poor coverage
''This place on the Euro-Americas cline also makes sense of why Tarim has these South American connections.''
You’re confusing something you might have read on a pop-sci magazines as something relevant to the discussion , which it’s not
@YgorC.S.
There is not necessarily link between uniparentals and paternal haplogroups. See for example Turks in the Altai region who speak Turkic languages but typically have predominantly Iranian Y-haplogroups, but the reverse pattern for maternals; they have only minority Iranian mtDNA. And this phenomenon was building during the Turkic period.
Simon Stevin wrote:
"@Rich S.
This call was conducted by Kolgeh over at Carlos Quiles’s DNA database (Google Doc). Kolegh is a very reliable call maker when it comes to Y-DNA, but I wonder what others such as Pribislav have to say. Regardless, XN191 being R1b-L754 or not being L754 makes no difference, for he lived way after the relevant subclade formation dates and TMRCAs. Not one M269 sample has been found without steppe autosomal admixture. All of the R1b found in pre-steppe Central/Western/Southern Europe is of the V2219>V88 variety, and the oldest V2219/V88 samples have been found in what is now Serbia, Romania, and Ukraine (in eastern and southeastern Europe). The oldest P297 bearing male we have is an EHG from Minino II, in Vologda Oblast, Russia (sample ID: MN2003)."
Thanks. I agree, of course. I just wondered where you found that, because the original paper had no Y-DNA call for XN191. Evidently FTDNA won't call it either, because it does not appear in their FTDNA Discover Ancient Connections or in the Time Tree.
Also FTDNA won't call Villabruna for L761 but stops with him at L754.
Rob’s latest strawman: : “ confusing things horribly.”
No, you are, deliberately, it seems.
It was OBVIOUSLY a reply to your punt at that Tarim had to get its R YDNA from the steppe.
Rob being didingenuous: “West Siberian hunter-gatherers are different to Afansievo pastoralists from the Don”
And both have been asserted comments as parents of Tarim: and I have explained why neither (nor Okunevo) can be.
Rob resorting to ad hominem: “You lack a basic grasp of basic geography and genetics”
You lack basic reading comprehension or integrity.
“ The proximal source of the ANE rich populations which invaded the Tarim are from the northwest ”
The north, certainly but you have no reason to assert northwest: because it can’t be any of of the sources you proposed.
The genome exemplifed by Tarim 1 group had been recirculating in central Asia through most of the holocene, altered by time but very, little by admixture. There’s no dispute about that.
Tarim, especially Tarim1, is far closer to Afontova Gora and the (related) Baikal than anyone imagined a such a late group could be; but there it is.
It certainly comes from the north. — and its minor affinities are with the east rather the west.
@ Rob
I’m sure you can educate the authors on their “nonsense” view that they had enough coverage to draw their conclusion about the Beifang male
Why don’t you instruct them on other aspects of the Tarim autosome in relation to the western Steppe while you’re at it?
You can start with this. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04052-7/figures/5
I think they deserve a say:
“Notably, our results support no hypothesis involving substantial human migration from steppe or mountain agropastoralists for the origin of the Bronze Age Tarim mummies, but rather we find that the Tarim mummies represent a culturally cosmopolitan but genetically isolated autochthonous population. This finding is consistent with earlier arguments that the IAMC served as a geographic corridor and vector for regional cultural interaction that connected disparate populations from the fourth to the second millennium BC (refs. 24,25). While the arrival and admixture of Afanasievo populations in the Dzungarian Basin of northern Xinjiang around 3000 BC may have plausibly introduced Indo-European languages to the region, the material culture and genetic profile of the Tarim mummies from around 2100 BC onwards call into question simplistic assumptions about the link between genetics, culture and language ”
Wee e: “This place on the Euro-Americas cline also makes sense of why Tarim has these South American connections.''
Rob: “You’re confusing something you might have read on a pop-sci magazines as something relevant to the discussion , which it’s not”
Nature: The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies: Fan Zhang, Chao Ning, Ashley Scott, et al
Extended Data Fig. 3: Unsupervised ADMIXTURE plot for the Bronze Age Xinjiang individuals.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04052-7/figures/6
The dark purple bit.
@ Rob
Do correct my horrible misunderstanding, then, of Zhang Ning & Scott’s “popular science book” in Nature magazine: “The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04052-7/figures/6
1. Explain my silly misunderstanding of the dark purple in Tarim.
2. And how Tarim EMBA cannot possibly be related to anyone whose relicts now live in south America.
3. Point us to the “steppe” or “western” in Tarim. Like Dzungaria shows.
Once again, in terms a silly reader of popular science can manage: Tarim resembles neolithic WSHG, and Botai, and somewhat Okunevo because those have ANE ancestry in common with it.
Tarim have that by the bucketload. A bucket that’s awfully like Afonta Gora 3. (Oh, look, just about due north. And a little east.)
Neither neolithic WSHG nor your pastoralists from the Don are ancestral to Tarim 1 & 2 because
1. Tarim in the early-middle bronze age lack the western fingerprint which both of these (and then Chalcolithic Botai) have .
2. Their R1b subgroup is also not seen in those westerners however hard you squint.
3. But M15-1 (Shirenzigou), M12 (Shirenzigou) DA41(Xiongnu_west) DA81 TianshianHun have versions of it.
As you can see. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04052-7/figures/7
Tarim do show something else that Afanasievo don’t, the intercontinental connection you sneered at. i’m not actually sure why it’s silly to think that the Americas were peopled from Asia. Fairies didn’t magic people out of the ground on that continent, I'm quite sure.
Tarim have that little bit of purple that Eurasia seems to have little left of now. Mostly in in fur jackets — Siberia and towards the Bering Strait. It’s the icing on the cake that makes Tarim look such a chip off the old AG3 block.
Clovis had a fistful of it. Its relict purply population, the people it prospered in (?became a founder effect in?) — they survive in South America. Is that so silly to believe? I don’t think Zhang, Ning & Scott made those people up.
Anyway, Tarim didn’t get THAT from the west, they got it from (or in) north-eastern Asia: not just in the middle bronze age. That WSHG and Botai have it too …suggests — gasp! — they had all acquired it by the neolithic / while they were still one. (It gets a bit philosophical.) I’m such a silly, I can’t work it out. Does that suggest this ingredient was part of the formation of Tarim?
How extraordinarily silly of me for thinking that somewhere in that ANE & north(east)Asian combo could perhaps even be a source of the Tarim’s peculiar little R1 sub branch. I should have known that western Steppe herders invented Ydna R, and are the sole fount and source, even when it’s a branch nobody caught them with.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04052-7#Sec4
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04052-7/figures/5
You can comfort yourself that there are plenty of other places, maybe everywhere, in EMBA central Asia, that have the kinds of mixes you’d expect. Just not these impudently R/R1 guys and C4, C4, C4, C4… women of EMBA Tarim.
I guess those western guys just gave up that exogamy stuff the moment they dropped into the Tarim in the EBA.
@Wee
EHG has mtdna C but the these early EHG samples did not directly contribute to later steppe, since mtdna C is missing in later enolithic steppe and Yamnaya-related samples.
@MaxT
FYI, they have 2 C4a2 samples from an early Yamnaya kurgan in Liubasha, Ukraine on the western steppe.
“The L kurgan is the only kurgan in the current selection with the main burial belonging to the Yamna culture.”
“A distinct inclusion of lineages of east Eurasian origin belonging to mtDNA haplogroup C was observed in the Yamna group of western NPR. The two C-bearing Yamna specimens from the L kurgan appear to possess a similar, albeit different at two nucleotide positions, SNP motif at HVR-1 in the C4a2 lineage of haplogroup C. Specimen L8, the chronologically older of the two C4a2-carrying specimens in our study, is more derived than L15, suggesting, on the one hand, an ex situ diversification of C4a2 lineages before their arrival in western NPR. On the other hand, it is equally likely that these lineages had diversified on the local substrate of the Neolithic builders of Mariupol-type cemeteries of extended burials of the Dnieper–Donets Culture Complex from the Dnieper Rapids in the central part of the NPR, specimens from which featured representatives of the C haplogroup.6 In fact, both EBA lineages of C presented in this study could be viewed as derived from the lineage of the Dnieper–Donets Culture Complex specimen Ya34 from the Mariupol-type cemetery at Yasinovatka6 via the transition at 16218. Sequence matches to the HVR-1 nucleotide motif of Ya34 have been identified in modern Siberian populations from the circum-Baikal area20 as well as Sherpa populations from Tibetan highlands.21 The lack of coding region polymorphism for the C lineages in the NPR limits our understanding of their phylogenetic relationships.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg201712#MOESM431
@Sam Elliott
Thanks for that update, I wasn't aware. That is pretty interesting and unexpected!
@Davidski. I’m not sure what you thought I thought.
My point was that these bottom-layer Tarim don’t have steppe girls OR EHG girls. Just local central Asian mothers. Maybe I put that in a clumsy way.
If Tarim 1 & 2 were some offshoot of one of those western exogamous patriarchal cultures — like the Dzungarians are a millennium before them — then they ought to have decent variety of MtDNA, they should have been getting mates from far and wide on their supposedly recent trip east to settle in Tarim.
But the actual women present, and everybody’s background, is weirdly…monogenous (sorry).
It does make sense if they have a long history in the area.
It does make sense if they have been acquiring incomer cultural but not (yet) genetic wherewithal.
These EMBA Tarim are as close to each other overall as first-degree relatives would be in other groups like Afanasievo, even though these dozen or so individuals are not in fact themselves close kin to one another. They just come from a gene pool that’s been through a bottleneck.
@Wee e
I haven't had the time to follow your discussion here.
MtDna C is found in EHG , so of course it can be in WSHG. Or maybe the Tarim boys picked up some East Asian females en route to the conquest of the Tarim basin from the West ;)
Agent Reeeee Weee doesn’t know what he’s taking about
@ a
Apparently Z2103 accompanied most of the Indo-European migrations to a greater or lesser extent. Southern and Eastern Europe are understandable. Going back to our previous conversation - western and northern too. But we do not have any Z2103 in the Slavic population before the period of statehood - so, for example, on the example of Poland or the Czech Republic, it should rather be considered that these Z2103 people were Slavicized later...
Can I also ask about this sample from France? Why do you think it is also Z2103 if there is no such information anywhere (I think?)?
@Davidski
Oh, wait, I get it. No, I wasn’t thinking about EHG’s own “future” at all, just that they don’t contribute to these early Tarim.
I was just noticing
1. The same autosomal mix that Tarim & 2 are late exemplars of (if that’s the right word) is inherited by some modern Highland Tajiks, westward of Tarim region. These modern people do apparently also have some EEHG too — but I didn’t realise that.
2. The Tarim corner of PH155 Not their exact branch but pretty close. One is ERS2374341, apparently a Tianxian Hun, or found there, anyway. North of the Tarim basin but not all that far north. So it looks like another local descendant.
Rather than this R/R1 of Tarim being an import from the European steppe, it was older than that in Xinjiang, and it hung around for a bit at least.
@ agent weeee reeeee
“https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04052-7/figures/6
1. Explain my silly misunderstanding of the dark purple in Tarim.
2. And how Tarim EMBA cannot possibly be related to anyone whose relicts now live in south America.
silly at least has hope, you’re utter stupid with Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
You’re looking at an ADMIXTURE type output which shows very small segments of “purple” there which might related to shared
aspects of ANE or ENA ancestry which south Americans derive from their ancestral pop in Asia before they left
There is no direct link
“3. Point us to the “steppe” or “western” in Tarim. Like Dzungaria shows.”
You mean you missed the massive red section shared between Tarim , and the WSHG incl Botai and Dali_EBA
Change your spectacles
Look at the direct ancestry admixture of the G25 posted by ME
https://ibb.co/Kz2pk0j
TTK is a local hunter gather from Turkmenistan near the Dzhungar mountains. The preferred source chosen is STILL Tyumen- from western Siberia
TTK belong to ydna Q , totally different to PH155. The Altai hunter-gatherers are Q & C. The Baikal are originally N
There’s no R1b in any pre bronze or copper age individual around the Tarim or Baikal or Altai ; certainly not east or northeast
There is no basal R1 kicking around the region, either
Find one and show it to us
“As you can see. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04052-7/figures/7 “”
ROFL. You’re looking at ROH data, you clown.
The rest of your comment is just meaningless whining from weasel Beta male obsessed with a shite article written by Chinese & Mongolian “scientists “ spreading fake news and propaganda , just like their articles on avars and Huns were also fake news.
@ Davidski
“
I haven't had the time to follow your discussion here.”
It’s meaningless garbage from someone who calls himself Urine
Say no more
@ Davidski
Is there a chance that you will take a closer look and discuss the results of research on the early Middle Ages and the Wielbark culture from Poland and raise this topic on the blog?
What are your overall conclusions? Do R1a - L1029 found in the Wielbark culture testify to the presence of Slavs already in this period, or rather that they are local people from older cultures, which were then Slavicized in the early Middle Ages? Based on these results and earlier ones (Halberstadt, R1a Unetice, etc.) on many Polish forums, "local enthusiasts" are starting to look for Slavism not only throughout Poland, but also in the Czech Republic, central and southern Germany, etc. ... and this since the Bronze Age! :D
@Davidski
Not much of a discussion. Just being talked down to by people who want to argue with a paper they keep not bothering to read.
Summary: bottom layer Tarim c 2.1-1.7 BC are central-Asian all the way down , whatever they look like, whatever culture they have by EMBA.
(Quite an eclectic one.)
According to Rob, the proof they’re of “western” steppe nomad descent &/or EHG is their YDNA. There’s not much of it sampled, but it’s two R-PH155 and one who looks to be R/R1 further up. There’s a later “Tianshan Hun” north of the Basin, (was it this one that here was some uncertainty if he was actually one or killed by them?) and there are others on a nearby PH155 branch.
Apparently it’s silly, the result of misunderstanding popular science books that I haven’t read, to think that this PH155 is anything other than the eastward march of western steppe people &/or EEHG.
But I can’t see how they brought what nobody found in them before they got there.
And also, if these Tarim had got their culture straight from c3-2k BC “western” patriarchs coming from the west, why did they still not get from them what folks in Dzungar had for a thousand years already?
— their wide-ranging exogamous habits
— resulting heterogeneity in their MtDNA
— the “European” autosomal signature that’s a component in EHG & quite marked in Afanasievo, Yamnaya etc.
I think it’s because PH155 was in Xinjiang already.
Am I mistaken? Is PH155 in the neolithic/EBA (or previous) any further west?
“ which south Americans derive from their ancestral pop in Asia before they left
There is no direct link”
AT LAST YOU GET IT!!!!!!!!!!
The mystery is, how did you invent the scenario where I thought anything different?
Oh, I know: by CONTINUALLY, INSISTENTLY, OBTUSELY reading your own preconceptions about me instead of reading WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE.
Jesus christ in a bike.
“ You mean you missed the massive red section shared between Tarim , and the WSHG incl Botai and Dali_EBA
Change your spectacles ”
No, I didn’t miss it.
I think it comes from a common ancestry they all dhare, as I have repeatedly said:
not FROM them TO Tarim
But FROM their COMMIN earlier neolithic or mid Holocene ANCESTRY that they all got from further north
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT I ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG??
How many more times are you going to attribute to me utter tosh that I NEVER ONCE SAID and several times EXPLICITLY rebutted?
“ meaningless whining from weasel Beta male ”
Oh. You’re very young, aren’t you, pet? I shouldn’t have shouted at you.
Perhaps you should go off and improve your reading comprehension.
And remember, just because people don’t share your specific technical specialty, it does nit mean they are stupid people.
You desperately need to stop reading your own stereotyped views of what YOU think they WOULD think.
And when they resort to pretty pictures to help you understand the point THEY ARE making, which is kinda literally the the polar opposite of what you have grabbed at — don't use it to reinforce your adolescent stereotypes.
“ There’s no R1b in any pre bronze or copper age individual around the Tarim or Baikal or Altai ; certainly not east or northeast
There is no basal R1 kicking around the region, either”
Yes, dear — and where is this earlier PH155 in the west in EHG or Yamanaya/Afanasievo?
@Ron. “ Or maybe the Tarim boys picked up some East Asian females en route to the conquest of the Tarim basin from the West”
And they totally forgot to bring any of their heterogenous moms’ western autosomal baggage along with them. How remiss.
And ever picked up women from a single mtDNA group, autosomally very closely related to one another too. Very picky.
So for a couple of thousand years, even before they arrived, they must have abandoned their exogamy. Because culture?
As well as forgetting their dads’ western baggage, they nabbed his PH155 alone, that nobody ever knew he had. Naughty!
That was sarcasm. In case you were about to invent yet another fantasy to attribute to me.
@ Dranoel
Are you another frustrated comedian?
@ Rob “ MtDna C is found in EHG , so of course it can be in WSHG”
And….? Where did anybody say otherwise? (Reading comprehension!)
Yes indeedy, me having Staffordhsire terriers in no way prevents you from bringing yours when you move into my street.
But if I’ve been breeding them for a while with their own relatives from the neighbourhood, my staffy lasses are going to be distinctively clannish compared to yours who ran around freely when you lived out of town.
Seriously, look how you just dun it again: you REALLY need to stop inventing other people's thoughts and then railing against your own invention.
@ pee peee
“Apparently it’s silly, the result of misunderstanding popular science books that I haven’t read, to think that this PH155 is anything other than the eastward march of western steppe people &/or EEHG. “
There’s not much to discuss when you dont know the different between Eastern Europe and western Siberia and are lapping up fairytales of Tarim basin mummies and native Americans; like a gullible fool . Furthermore, you have absolutely no hope of understanding the more nuanced technical modelling.
So multiple levels of inane stupidity , coupled with being a Queen
Ok Pet ?
August 27, 2023 at 4:31 AM Delet
“ fairytales of Tarim basin mummies and native Americans; like a gullible fool ”
Aha, now we have something more specific: so what IS this fairytale you have invented, you attribute to me? Do tell! Be specific.
“ a shite article written by Chinese & Mongolian “scientists “ spreading fake news and propaganda ”
It’s also two or three papers in “Nature”. They seem to be “propagandising” for Kazakhstan and Russia, if anything.
They were surprised to find this little relict group. They’re perfectly happy about finding westerners everywhere else in the neighbourhood in earlier bronze age. They’re also happy to meet BMAC incomers and what-all else.
I seem be too silly to understand what propagandistic point you think they’re making.
Maybe you should go and ask Max Planck if they would employ you and sack these “scientists” who need scare-quotes.
@ Rob
“ All that is required for the 'home-grown' - and correct- model is the "ingredients are there” “
Quite. Like in EMBA Tarim…
@MaxT @Sam Elliott
I’m sorry I did not see your posts on mtDNA C4 at the time. Interesting.
This kind of “ANE Siberia - USA” pseudoscience is rampant amongst American wanna-be genealogists like MaxT and peeepeee
It’s a kind of construction of nativeness by munchausen proxy
@ peee weeee
“I seem be too silly to understand what propagandistic point you think they’re making.
On the other hand, it’s a fetishish amateur Americans like you and MaxT have. Anything about ANE gets your imagination flying
I.e it constructs a pseudoscientific narrative of nativeness by Proxy .
There’s no defined logic and science, just a garbled construct of anything remotely ANE to link between Siberia/ America / Amazonia
They were in Tarim basin, heck they were even in steppe Majkop
Native Americans everywhere !
@ arza
I could try to answer your question - if only it was more substantive :)
@Rob
I guess you win: some Siberians met some EHG and became neolithic WSHG. Then they set off east and presumably lopped off their EHG autosomal chunk as soon as they reached bronze age Tarim. Makes perfect sense…
It is fascinating, that since almost my first posts, I have been asking you to stop ventriloquising, stop distorting, inventing and grossly misrepresenting my views — yet you have a compulsion to do it more and more grotesquely. With added little-kid namecalling.
You can’t even countenance that you jumped in with a wrong assumption based on your social prejudices and intellectual fragility — even when repeatedly told that you’ve been arguing against your own phantoms.
Instead the person you misread must be “a weasel”, so you return to your strawman to elaborate upon it and attack it with even more quixotic fervour, while peppering your posts with personal insults display your own insecurities in psychological vivisection.
You fill up your every post with arguments against your self-invented stream of absurd, perverse caricatures — at times the polar opposite, literally of my actual stance. Rather than admit you got the wrong end of any stick ever.
Now, in an international forum, you’re slandering not just the scientific but the basic human integrity of researchers you don't even correctly identify. People whose papers you evidently didn’t even read anyway. You’re attributing to them views and grotesque political propaganda that you don’t even trouble to define. Because Chinese.
Breathtakingly racist.
You need to stop drinking.
@ Rob “ how you’re going to cope when R1b-PH155 turns up thousand years earlier > 1000km from the Tarim ”
(How utterly extraordinary and rococco your psychological projection is!)
YES — I absolutely think that is what is going to happen. I’M GONNA BE DELIGHTED. I actually thought that was obvious — I just constantly underestimate your astonishing powers of inversion.
I think it is going to turn up 1000km — or more to the north. And a little east.
@Rob
"meaningless garbage from someone who calls himself Urine"
LOL, not sure about that. From what I gathered he's a Scot, and in Scottish English "wee" means small.
@Davidski
The paper “Subdivisions of haplogroups U and C encompass mitochondrial DNA lineages of Eneolithic–Early Bronze Age Kurgan populations of western North Pontic steppe” looks to be a 2017 reposting of a report from 2011. Same samples, some of the same authors (Jean Marco helped the researchers via her old DNA database), same methods by the look of it:
“In this report, we present the maternal genetic lineage composition of kurgan builders in western NPR during the Eneolithic–EBA from a subset of geographically linked stratified kurgans, using the method of low-resolution mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) PCR-SNP (single-nucleotide polymorphism-PCR). While the recently developed sophisticated DNA sequencing techniques like the next-generation DNA sequencing technology greatly expand the resolution of ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis, some basic questions about the connections among various population groups can still be answered by a low-resolution mtDNA screening of representative samples, especially when dealing with samples with potentially low DNA yield.”
Not sure if you agree with me on this, but I wouldn’t rely on the data presented in this paper. By the look of it, they actually re-published in 2017 a paper using low coverage, ancient mtDNA PCR results from 2010-2011. On top of that, C4 and C5 don’t look to be EHG/Yamnaya-CWC mitochondrial lineages. If anything, ANEs and EHGs probably carried rare upstream varieties of C1, like the C1* found in one of the EHGs of Yuzhniy Oleniy Ostrov, Karelia, though I guess C4-C5 lines could be possible. The ENA side of ANE was bound to have left some sort of maternal genomic legacy no? It could also be a case of mistaken identification or dating, it was 2010-2011 after all, perhaps even earlier. Could have been some sort of steppe nomad like a Scythian, Sarmatian, or Cimmerian.
@Arza
Do you have a list handy of all the reliable instances of R1a-M458/L1029 in ancient DNA?
@Simon Stevin
Mtdna C is one of dominant mtdna lineages in native Americans. It's common in Siberians but pretty rare in East Asians.
That can only mean :- Mtdna C in Karelian EHG came with mixed ANE-related migrants heading west (after Native Americans were formed and passed into Bering Strait). That's probably how C ended up in with ANE and later in EHG.
@Rob
Rob said: “This kind of “ANE Siberia - USA” pseudoscience “
— What rococo windmill have you constructed in my name to tilt at now? Do tell.
Rob said: “it’s a fetishish amateur Americans like you and MaxT have.”
— (Do I get to claim that because you typed “fetishish” instead of “fetish” in a moment of inattention, that you don’t know what it means?)
Anyway, how exciting — a fetish! You’re such a tease, though — you never actually state any of these wacky theses you keep inventing to attribute to me. If you’d just engage in good faith, with what people actually do have in mind — ask for clarification instead of resorting to confabulation — you wouldn’t have had to keep deleting posts and concocting naughty new phantoms to do battle with.
The snag with this one is, I’m not American. If you read with any attention instead of constantly skimming to conclusions, you could have noticed three or four different ways.
For days now, you’ve been parading your bigotries, snobbery and deeply personal insecurities here. As one amateur to another — it’s not a good look. Calm yourself, sit down and have a cup of tea.
Arza, your frustration is certainly bigger, as no new article on your Slavic Origins blog so far. You should be in extasy after Stolarek paper;) isn't it? xD
It was a answer to Arza before
@Davidski
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2823%2901035-7
"Fine-scale sampling uncovers the complexity of migrations in 5th–6th century Pannonia"
Do you have the data needed to produce G25 for these samples? Thanks
Dranoel said...
"---Apparently Z2103 accompanied most of the Indo-European migrations to a greater or lesser extent. Southern and Eastern Europe are understandable. Going back to our previous conversation - western and northern too. But we do not have any Z2103 in the Slavic population before the period of statehood - so, for example, on the example of Poland or the Czech Republic, it should rather be considered that these Z2103 people were Slavicized later..."
____________________________________________________
It depends where Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian originated from ?.
You have Z2103 and Z2109 and Z2110. Many samples need to be further examined to see what branch they belong to (?). For example
Modern day Czech -- Polish--Northern Germanic fall under Z2110.
While Netherland Bell Beaker sample (13026) is Kms60? (Z2109)
Bell Beaker Poland sample I14253 is Z2103?. Czech Bohemia Corded Ware I13467 is Z2108/9? Czech Hallstatt sample I14983 is R-Z2110? Hungary LaTene is R-Y14414? Abashevo--Pepkino-Pepkinsky burial mound/and blacksmith sample have not yet been released--- are only shown as Z2103+
Can I also ask about this sample from France? Why do you think it is also Z2103 if there is no such information anywhere (I think?)?
The French Beaker sample CBV95 had quite a bit of Yamnaya component, he may or may not belong to R1b-Z2103.
Bell Beaker Blogger compared him to Hungarian R1b-Z2109 Bell Beakers.
Protruding-Beakonaya (CBV95)
https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2020/06/we.html
https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2017/07/szigetszentmiklos-cemetery-santas-six.html
Szigetszentmiklós Cemetery (Santa's Six Foot Elves)
France, Like the Others (Brunel et al, 2020)
https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2020/06/france-like-others-brunel-et-al-2020.html
@Davidski
Arza is probably busy. I can link a table with Slavic ancient Y-DNA:
https://slawomirambroziak.pl/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5742.0;attach=2968
David, let’s not waste our time over frustrated comedians.
I think it looks like Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno cultures (which are now considered one population by geneticists) were Proto-Slavic. All that is needed autosomally, Y-DNA, mtDNA to make Slavs was there.
From Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno genomes we can make Trzciniec/Komarov and from Trzciniec/Komarov with some addition of Hungary_LBA_Kyjatice.SG:BR2_noUDG, which is linked with Lusatian culture and with modern Polish population, we can make modern Polish population with good fits.
@ weeee
''I think it is going to turn up 1000km '''
OK great, so that's 'local" . Good to know you constantly invert definitions
'' or more to the north. And a little east.''
As explained, but not understood by yourself, we have genomes from exactly from your "prophecized' location - the Bazaika (Siberia_Tenisei) genomes. Look where they plot, and their movement *from the East caused a massive foudner effect of Haplogroup Q into Okunevo.
Still further East than that were the Baikal ENeolithic (here Lokomotiv, theyr Hg N)
Reefer to PCA
Now look where the Xiahoe plot - right with Botai (central Kazakhstan) . Of course, simlpy plotting together needs to be evaluated more carefully, but the other thing is you (& others) dont understand Y -DNA phylogeny. The R1b co-wintered in a defined location during the LGM. So you cant find alll branches of R1b in eastern Europe & West Siberia, but have PH155 in Moongolia, China or eastern Siberia.
I think you're probably confusing the additional East Asian admixture into thinking that means the Xiahoe cam from the East, but that East Asian admixture was already in the VOlga-Urals by 6000 BC, so it is not the clue which you think it to be.
@ Simon_W
''LOL not sure about that. From what I gathered he's a Scot, and in Scottish English "wee" means small'
Yes I am aware of that - I spent several years in the deep south of NZ - very Scottish. Cold but, loved it . (but then again he spells things ridicuously, like "mom'. British people speak propper English, so maybe he's been watching too much Oprah or something)
Yeah, ''small''. Say no more .
@ A
Thank you for the extensive answer. I would like to ask a few more things, but I do not know if it is worth bothering everyone here - is there a chance to contact you by e-mail?
@ weeee
“For days now, you’ve been parading your bigotries, snobbery and deeply personal insecurities here. As one amateur to another — it’s not a good look. Calm yourself, sit down and have a cup of tea.”
Speak for yourself, amateur.
My statements are each based on their own merit and justifiable. In fact I deserve a medal for how patient I am.
I suggest you learn some basic facts instead of lecturing your superiors from your false pedestal of morality
Run along and be a good weee wee
@ EastPole
Two things.
First, I am curious about Davidski's response to your message. Although I believe that a properly asked question can have a different effect and more or less indicate the answer you want to hear.
Secondly, DAVIDSKI may or may not be wasting time, but not you. That's why I write to serious and respected people on professional blogs like this, not to get into conversation with people like you. Even if your forum contains interesting topics and relevant information, it is not substantive. It's a lot of insults, orthodox orientation in one direction and pointless conversations. They're hard to read. I asked about R1a out of curiosity, because it neither cools nor warms me. I just personally don't agree with some of the views and I don't think all of the conclusions are correct. Therefore, I would like to hear the opinion, among others Davidski.
@Davidski "Sredny Stog in Ukraine"
"The sampled Sredni Stog populations included individuals who autosomally resembled Yamnaya a millennium before the Yamnaya culture appeared."
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/10.1515_pz-2022-2034.pdf
Could you clarify that? Do you think that all Yamnaya/Afanasievo groups descend from Sredny Stog in Ukraine specifically, not from the Lower Don culture, i.e. that there was a back-migration from the West towards the original Eneolithic Steppe homeland?
@Marlow
Must be, because there's a lot of Ukraine Neolithic admix in Afanasievo and Yamnaya.
And despite what some "experts" claim, there's also Euro farmer admix in them.
@Davidski
Do you think this might be a plausible (if still imperfect) model genetically one in which Early PIE/Indo-Anatolian was a dialect continuum of various, variably EHG-CHG-EEF mixed Early Sredny Stog groups; Pre-Proto-Anatolian (the "TMRCA" of PA per se seems to date to much after the EPIE x Pre-PA split) was a Sredny Stog-mixed Southeastern European Chalcolithic/EBA society ("Cernavoda-style" genetic makeup); and LPIE (PIE minus Anatolian) was a centuries later "proto-Yamnaya" evolution of Sredny Stog with Lower Don/Repin influence or perhaps even fusion, their amalgam turning into fully formed Yamnaya and "pre-Corded Ware" (perhaps an initially not very distinctive peripheral Yamnaya subtype), after the pre-Afanasievo groups had already moved eastward?
That would neatly explain the most plausible linguistic connections (i.e. sparing us from the Heggarty et al. "let's reinvent the wheel" experiment) and explain the much harder to find steppe signal in much later Anatolian speakers: Proto-Anatolian proper developing in a mostly Chalcolithic Eastern Balkanic or perhaps even Chalcolithic Northwestern Anatolian (Marmara) population; Proto-Graeco-Armenian, Pre-Proto-Albanian and perhaps even Proto-Daco-Thracian-(+Cimmerian?) in Yamnaya/Catacomb; Proto-Tocharian in Afanasievo; and all the rest in an initially fringe Yamnaya-ish forest-steppe group that boomed northward and westward after 3000 BCE.
@Ygor C.S.
Possibly, although it's a somewhat more complicated model than I've been considering.
For instance, as far as I can tell for now, based on the things I've read and the data I've seen, Sredny Stog from Ukraine is the direct genetic ancestor of Afanasievo, Corded Ware and Yamnaya.
The Lower Don culture isn't necessary to get from Sredny Stog to Yamnaya. It seems like the population movement from the east that gave rise to the classic Yamnaya genotype happened during the early Sredny Stog period.
Also, I think there's been too much emphasis on the supposed lack of steppe ancestry in metal ages Anatolia, considering the obviously complicated ethnic history of Anatolia at that time and the lack of relevant samples from Anatolia.
We really only have a few relevant samples from Anatolia, and even in this handful of samples we have the European Y-haplogroup I2a-P78 (from near Troy, of all places). The R-V1636 from Arslantepe might also be important, but if so, then this would probably require a Caucasus route into Anatolia for the proto-Anatolians.
So I think that once we get many more relevant samples from Anatolia, there will be a couple of different ways to explain the appearance of Anatolian speakers there. And then the serious linguists will have to decide which model works best.
@Rob
You’re soooo desperate to keep misconstruing what I’ve been saying since day One.
The parsimonious view is this.
Bottom-layer Tarim are substantially an Afontova Gora / Mal’ta type relict of the mesolithic, just as they appear.
Their R1 subgroup never underwent the huge expansion of other R1 groups because it had never met pastoralists before.
Okunevo pastoralist is too late to be the source for Tarim, much too mixed by the *early* bronze age. These people already left.
This Tarim autosomal type probably formed as a population somewhere between about 85 -110 longitude, anywhere in that corridor between Krasnoyarsk an Bratsk / Abakan-Irkutsk, between about the western banks of the Yenisey and Lake Baikal.
Or further south again — Tuva / western Mongolia or the Great Lakes Basin area. There’s plenty of C4 mtdna.
South Siberians who went further south.
If you find pre-bronze age “pre contact” Dzungarians, they will probably be much the same.
“Yes I am aware of that”
Lol. Clearly not. Just stop digging.
@Rob
“ British people speak propper English.”
Lol.
@ Rob
“ we have genomes from exactly from your "prophecized' location - the Bazaika (Siberia_Tenisei) genomes. Look where they plot, and their movement *from the East caused a massive foudner effect of Haplogroup Q into Okunevo. ”
Aaaaaaaand again: what “Baikal” there is in the MESOLITHIC relict that is Tarim is the MINOR element.
But thanks for confirming that Okunevo is not an ancestor of Tarim1 or 2. As I have been saying since day one.
@Rob
“ I think you're probably confusing the additional East Asian admixture into thinking that means the Xiahoe cam from the East, but that East Asian admixture was already in the VOlga-Urals by 6000 BC, so it is not the clue which you think it to be. ”
How many times have I said they came from the north? Only about a million.
@Rob
“ we have genomes from exactly from your "prophecized' location ”.
Dates, dear boy, dates.
@ David , Ygor
That ~ 2200 bc migration which swept through the Caucasus might have extended along northeast Anatolia as well ,
But a lot of those kurgans were looted and/ or not properly excavated
The western one is in barcin Chl by 3700 bc, but at one of the Troy levels there a steppe like anthropomorphic stelae and a battle axe
@ Marlow
“Could you clarify that? Do you think that all Yamnaya/Afanasievo groups descend from Sredny Stog in Ukraine specifically, not from the Lower Don culture, i.e. that there was a back-migration from the West towards the original Eneolithic Steppe homeland?”
Who says that Yamnaya comes from lower Don culture ? Nobody; apart from randoms on forums and blogs
The LDC site of Rakuscheny Yar has several layers going from ~6000 bc (pottery Neolithic) to Bronze Age. Its chalcolithic phase would be part of the Sredni Stog horizon.
The site attracted a lot of attention because of claims of early evidence domesticate animals , but so far none have appeared before ~ 4000 bc upon further investigation by modern techniques and western archaeologists and archeozoologists
@ little urine
How can one weee Scotsman write so much meaningless crap ? Your discussions are disoriented jn time, person & place. That would qualify you for a Brain CT
@ Ygor
Cernavoda populations contributed to Greek also, maybe other , now lost Balkan IEs as well . We don’t have much proper proto-Illyrian data yet, I’m not 100% sold on the J2b2 = Illyrian claims
Tocharians are still hard until we get more Iron Age data from crucial sites, but it could be a matter of an Afansievo core producing language shifts via cultural integration of non-western steppe groups who got hauled along during the 2200 bc events . I personally see no reason why Andronovo couldnt contribute either, because languogenesis can be polythetic (Ie they were what set the shift arounds c 2200 bc)
@Davidski
Can you get the ancestral Stredny Stog from Dereivka, nearby EEF, and a CHG admixed Khvalynsk?
@Rob
You never explain why you think Tarim is as young as all the mixed-population strawmen you keep touting. “Baikal” mentioned in different contexts is confusing: but I notice that you keep kicking the low-hanging amateur fruit, keep throwing in strawman populations and avoid arguing with the substance of the paper on its own terms.
Since the Tarim 1&2 autosomal content was apparently already rolling along well before these new Yeniseyans dominated ANE actually on the Yenisey, why bring them up? If they got isolated somewhere else on their way south, then suggest where to dig.
So far, we know about the later-paleolithic-mesolithic EMBA 72-28% ANE-ANA population (or relict population) Tarim 1 and even higher ANE T2 that…
1. Afanasievo/Yamnaya types have a bunch of stuff the Tarim 1 & 2 just don’t yet have in the EMBA. So they aren’t parents.
2. WSHG neolithic likewise.
3. Botai Chalcolithic likewise, baggage.
3. EHG, likewise.
4. Okunevo, likewise.
5. Johnny-come-lately Yeniseyans…. Apropos of what?
Pre-WSHG (without the component that’s mostly confined to far east Russia now) would probably be very like Tarim 1 & 2
Maybe we have it and it’s Tarim: it was once a widespread population, if thin, as HGs usually are.
“ The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies”
“For both Tarim groups, admixture models unanimously fail when using the Afanasievo or IAMC/BMAC groups as a western Eurasian source (Supplementary Data 1E), thus rejecting a western Eurasian genetic contribution from nearby groups with herding and/or farming economies. We estimate a deep formation date for the Tarim_EMBA1 genetic profile, consistent with an absence of western Eurasian EBA admixture, placing the origin of this gene pool at 183 generations before the sampled Tarim Basin individuals, or 9,157 ± 986 years ago when assuming an average generation time of 29 years (Fig. 3b).”
Here’s the supplementary data 1E https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-021-04052-7/MediaObjects/41586_2021_4052_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx
And fig 3b https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04052-7/figures/3
There’s more to suggest thebTarim basin itself was occupied prior to Yeniseyan wanderings.
Science Direct: “The earliest well-dated archeological site in the hyper-arid Tarim Basin and its implications for prehistoric human migration and climatic change” (2014)
“ We recently found and dated an archeological site on a terrace along the Keriya River. Our ages indicate that the site was occupied at ~ 7.0–7.6 ka, making it the earliest well-dated archeological site yet identified in the Tarim Basin. This suggests that early human foragers migrated into this region prior to ~ 7.0–7.6 ka during the early to mid-Holocene climatic optimum, which may have provided the impetus for populating the region.“
(This study is from before these mummies were analysed. It discusses some other sites which have only been able to be dated to early and to mid neolithic by artefact types.)
As for your graphic: Which Tarim layers does it represent? Where is it from? What’s its source? What’s your problem with the figures and the more detailed tables in the paper by the people who analysed the mummies?
@Vilmaris
Yeah, you probably can.
Sredny Stog/Yamnaya is basically Khvalynsk plus Ukraine Neolithic.
But the important thing to understand is that the EHG-heavy Khvalynsk samples aren't really Khvalynsk samples. Real Khvalynsk is very CHG heavy.
Rob said: “ @ little urine
How can one weee Scotsman write so much meaningless crap ? Your discussions are disoriented jn time, person & place. That would qualify you for a Brain CT ”
— I’m wee because of genes and childhood malnutrition: bent bones, the lot. And long past being shamed for it.
— But the way you advertise your own pathologies is cringe inducing. Stop digging. If you would curb your tendency to psychological projection, your reading comprehension would also improve.
@ rob said:
“The top of the food chain doesn’t suffer insolence from the defective
You’re the one who started by saying my comments were “obtuse”.
Literally a child’s excuse. “He done a naughty thing, so I get to do it too.”
And… come to think of it, I didn’t. I asked you to NOT TO BE obtuse. (Reading comprehension!)
An act of will was implied, not lack of intelligence — as you were, as you know, being disingenuous. You have taken it for the backhanded compliment it was, if you weren’t so thin skinned.
What victimhood is there in stating facts and refusing to be embarrassed by them? Your puerile and frankly cringeworthy obsession with adolescent tropes of masculinity and oversharing your urolagnia fetish finally drove me to it. It’s yourself you keep embarrassing.
But I tip my hat to the glassy resilience of your self-image. Don’t look in that mirror too long.
@ Rob said “ Even “isolated” Regions experience population flux & turnovers
The burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate continuity ”
It lies with the paper, if only you could see over the giant chip on your shoulder to read. But all you can do is play the man and not the ball. Flux within the population — drift, anyway. But the whole mesolithic without introgression.
None of these bottom-layer Tarim people were each other’s kin, but they shared as much of their genome as first degree relatives in cultures like Afanasievo. They don’t have appreciable introgression for more millennia than anyone else on the planet’s biggest inhabited landmass. This should interest anyone whose knee isn’t constantly jerking.
@Rob said “Because 2200 bc horizon suddenly flourishing , with a different material culture to simple HGs, warrants a different explanation,”
Sigh. Gone are the days when snobbery and cindescension was an art form.
1 Look at Gobelekli Tepe. Look at the calendar of Australian corroborree, or the intellectual discipline of their navigational aids. Feats of memory the ancient Greeks would have respected. The culture of dissemination in places like Torres Strait; each adult a living chapter of a formal technical manual. Sophistication.
2 Gulpilil, steeped in hunter gatherer culture, already multilingual, saw his first white man at age eight, learned English, had a high-end international international cultural career. Fred Begay or Fox raised in his parents Navajo and Ute tradition, also multilingual when went to school at ten not yet speaking English. They taught farming. He became a physicist.
3 Bougainville men, second generation out of the bush went into high tech coppermining, used their technical skills to mount an ingenious & resourceful campaign against the corporate employers polluting their land. The latter waged a literal war on them with government troops and lost.
4 Look at how many HG and neolithic-culture men in Australia and the Americas turned into cowboys in a generation. Economic and cultural inroads, while admixture can be a slow process. Especially when simple technoforeigners are stumped by a tough new environment. Maybe Tarim just had no use for foreigners who didn’t know the ropes. We don’t know for sure if Tarim1 were hunter gatherers.
5 You don’t know if it was “suddenly”. Or how many generations it took to breed livestock and crops that could survive the Tarim’s idiosyncratic conditions. They may have already been merchants of gemstones, fish, timber, game or people, since the neolithic. Many generations of “Tarim1” girls could have married into the foreigners’ families and gone the long-exogamic distances that herders practised. Many generations of “Tarim 1” teenagers could’ve got their bronze-age teenage education on farms or with herds, and returned with cowboy-gotten gains to marry a nice girl. Isotope testing might help bring to light.
Blogpost title increasingly has multiple layers.
@Rob “ Your discussions are disoriented jn time, person & place”
Now you’ve gone and blurted out what your Gish gallop of emotional incontinence is intended to produce, someone is gonna
wonder what it’s all to distract from. They might take a look at your sketchy finger-painting.
@Rob said: “and mine is superior to that offered by Ning, Ding & Wang”. Methinks the laddie doth protest too much. Schoolyard racism, it’s always the insecure kids. Jealous, much?
@Rob said “who painted a simplistic “native” story for obvious Chinese propaganda political purposes, at least in part”
— Which part? Come on, stop being so coy about this propaganda you keeo bleating over. Just repeating “Funny Chinese names = propaganda!” is getting old.
— And anyway, how would you know it's propaganda, since you keep not reading any of these papers?
— Natives whose ANE ancestry was far from China, and who didn’t admix with the Chinese for millennia, is that the part you mean?
—And then when they did mix, they mixed with westerners. The propagandistic value of that is fiendishly convoluted: do you need to be racist to detect it? Or can your intellectual onanism sniff it out independently?
It seems psychological projection and emotional incontinence is also a prerequisite.
@Gaska
Just look at linguistic structure of areas occupied by farming societies in various discrete regions of the world - China, mainland Southeast Asia, New Guinea, Precolumbian North, Meso, South America, the list goes on...
Even where there are large and widely distributed language families with a recognised common (genetic) origin there is high regionalization/localization and most members are unintelligible, in some cases being so different that it is hard to even assign them to the same family. This is more pronounced where there is strong contact with outgroups as would have been the case in Europe with gradual admixture and syncretism of WHG-origin neighbors. The likelihood of a single intelligble language spoken from Portugal to Ukraine is zero, not even in the imperial and information ages has this occurred. but maybe the magical EEFs--> BBC used telepathy to achieve it
@ weeee
Hhhm I wonder why Chinese institution funded “research” would claim autochthonicity about the Xingjiang & Tarim province.
“They may have already been merchants of gemstones, fish, timber, game or people, since the neolithic. Many generations of “Tarim1” girls could have married into the foreigner”
Your stories are ever-shifting & factless : paleolithic or Neolithic ?
In reality, the Xiaohe sites date to MLBA whilst those of their relatives in northern Xingjiang are few hundred years earlier
Obviously a novel migration from northwest to southeast
But hey, numbers/ facts are racist.
The rest of your analogies are - irrelevant & void- because these R1b-PH155 WSHGs were themselves also recent migrants to the Tarim . Papuan coppersmiths are irrelevant
So what you need to do is .
- explain the PCA projection of the Xiaohe with Botai
- explain the admixture models listed by M.E above which show preference & overwhelming affinity for WSHG rather than ESHG or Baikal
- explain away the western origins of R1b
- explain why your “Paleolithic Tarim sites” date to 1700 bc, whilst those further northwest date earlier than 2000 bc and those further still west in the IAMC to ~ 3000 bc
“It seems psychological projection and emotional incontinence is also a prerequisite.”
It’s fairly clear who’s physically & metaphorically incontinent here
“Jealous, much?”
ROFL.
“Toxic masculinity”, “racist”
Cliche tropes from the bitter & weak
@LGK
So your argument to justify the linguistic diversity of European neolithic societies is the diversity of historical (pre-Columbian America) and contemporary agrarian societies? I hope you are joking because otherwise I would think you have lost your mind to use such a stupid argument. And even funnier is that this leads you to think that the probability that all European neolithic farmers spoke the same language is zero.
All you have to do is to study a bit of genetics, check the origin of the neolithic migrations and the uniparental and autosomal markers associated with it, and then if you had a bit of common sense you would come to the only reasonable conclusion, it is absolutely impossible that those early European farmers spoke different languages.
After several days Mr. Ygor has finally started to share his theory with all of us. It is a disappointment that he does not say anything new and just follows the principles of Kurganist dogma-It seems that
early-PIE=Sredni Stog,
the Anatolian Indo-European languages come from a Chalcolithic culture of southeastern Europe (Cernavoda style) derived from Sredni Stog, and this is the reason why there is no trace of steppe ancestry in Asia Minor
Late-PIE (Proto-Yamnaya)=Sredni Stog+Lower Don-Repin influence or fusion.
Proto-Graeco-Armenian, Pre-Proto-Albanian and perhaps even Proto-Daco-Thracian-(+Cimmerian?) developing in Yamnaya/Catacomb
Proto-Tocharian in Afanasievo
and all the rest in an initially fringe Yamnaya-ish forest-steppe group that boomed northward and westward after 3000 BCE.
Congratulations Mr Ygor, you have managed to say a lot of things without saying absolutely nothing.
Since you have been so kind to tell us what is your opinion, maybe you could tell us now, which are, and to which culture belong, the genetic markers involved in the spread of the different Indo-European languages -
I suppose that you have studied the matter in detail and that sooner or later you will try to prove your theory scientifically, right?
@wee
My question is around how do you know earlier Tarim mummies were genetically different (ie: not ANE) or carried a non-R1b signature? Obviously the group exhumed from Zaghunluq are not the first mummies, but if you don't have any older data, how can you prove otherwise? That's as "native" as it gets in my view. If there is older data that proves otherwise, I'd be curious to see it.
@ Gaska
The point of adna is for evaluate pre-existing theories or form new ones
Ygors suggestions make sense, although they might be subject to final edits
That’s not kurganist dogma, as the dna data departs from some important aspects of previously published views
So you’re just brandishing adjectives & superlatives you don’t understand
@Gaska
"So your argument to justify the linguistic diversity of European neolithic societies is the diversity of historical (pre-Columbian America) and contemporary agrarian societies?"
Yes, that's what an analogy is. Unless you want to show us your time machine, any theory concerning linguistic diversity in neolithic Europe will have to be based on inferences from similar settings where language diversity is known
"All you have to do is to study a bit of genetics, check the origin of the neolithic migrations and the uniparental and autosomal markers associated with it, and then if you had a bit of common sense"
No argument, as usual. Go on then, why don't you tell us explicitly how the origin and genetics of these people dictates they spoke a single language? And why exactly that it was a special case different to every other Neolithic region with high linguistic diversity? And while you're at it tell us whether the language of this Holy Vasconic Empire was an ANF or WHG language.
Hmm; re; how many languages of Neolithic Europe, to reiterate a bit, it does seem hard for us to just transfer too much our expectations from other neolithic areas of the world to the European neolithic.
Those areas might have had different natures of an expansion - more by crops diffusing among HG peoples - and they also might have different terrain, features like more mountains in highland PNG or something which would also amplify language break up.
To echo a comment from Rob on a previous blogpost (one he made in less flame war-y mode), the number of language areas in Europe may be better informed by what we find in the structure of autosomal short IBD that tells us where population bottlenecks and low migration rates occured, y-dna markers and archaeological distinction. Maybe there was at some large mutually intelligble language area that reached between Central Europe and the Balkans at certain points? But I doubt very much there was a single mutually intelligble language area across Europe that spoke a language from the same family as Basque.
Likewise for China - did the post-neolithic peoples of the North China plain *really* split up into mutually unintelligble Sino-Tibetan (and perhaps other) languages? I feel like this would be better informed by a version of Ariano's IBD analysis for North China, something that would tell us about how much real ongoing migration and connection there was, rather than simply trying too much to translate expectations of other regions that were encountered by Europeans later in history, which we still neolithic.
@Matt
The genetics of the first European farmers is uniform, at the beginning (6.000-4.500 BC) very similar to the farmers of western Anatolia (90-100%).
The genetic relationship between Balkan, Central European (LBK) and even Western (Cardial pottery) neolithic cultures is a scientific fact that has already been sufficiently demonstrated. There is no reason to think that they spoke different languages (same origin, same male and female markers, same autosomal composition). ç
Subsequently (4,500-3,000 BC), the introgression of HGs uniparental markers in the different European cultures varies with time and place, and in many cases depends not only on the adaptation to the environment but also on the demographic volume of the pre-existing population. It is therefore possible that in some regions the HGs imposed their language (or native languages), but the cultural and demographic superiority of the farmers suggests that they were the ones who triumphed culturally speaking (besides, we do not know, nor will we ever know, the language spoken by the WHGs).
The isolation of neolithic populations is also a fallacy because Iberian and French migrations have been demonstrated throughout the Mediterranean, the British Isles, Germany and Scandinavia, and western megalithic culture supports the existence of these migrations.
This does not mean that the passage of time, the appearance of different subclades, both male and female, and the subsequent partial isolation could not generate different dialects or linguistic branches that over the years became unintelligible to other farming communities, but the practice widespread exogamy, would serve to culturally unify the different European Neolithic cultures.
And please, don't pay attention to LGK's nonsense, he is obsessed with the Basques, from the beginning of this thread I have made it clear that no one here has talked about a pan-European Ibero-Basque language although given that Basque is the only language of European Neolithic origin, that has survived to this day, there are linguists (very much wiser and more intelligent than our Balkan friend) who defend this possibility.
Therefore everyone can call that neolithic farmer language whatever they want (Anatolian, Balkan-Mediterranean, French-German, Hungaro-Scandinavian etc, etc.......
@LGK
Your reasoning is absurd because the genetic uniformity is so evident in the whole European territory that only a knucklehead can think of a great linguistic diversity. For example, does anyone think that HapY-H2-P96 or mtDNA-H1 spoke different languages depending on where they lived?
mtDNA-H1
Zemunica, Cardial culture, neolithic, Croatia-I3433-5.863 BC
Els Trocs, neolíthic, Iberia-TROC8-5.188 BC
Stuttgart-MühlhausenI-LBK, neolithic, Germany-XN171-5.179 BC
Makri Alexandroupolis, middle neolithic, Greece-NS1-5.050 BC
Hostivice-Palouky, neolithic Bohemia-I15650-5.000 BC
Dereivka, neolithic Ukraine-I3719-4.874 BC
Grotte du Gazel Cardial neolithic, France-NEO812/NEO813-4.595 BC
Lingolsheim, neolithic, Switzerland-SX33-4.683 BC
Urziceni, neolíthic, Romania-I15620-4.000 BC
Cohaw Court, neolithic, Ireland-CH448-3.583 BC
Cova De’n Pardo, neolithic, Iberia-PAR7-3.350 BC
Balintore, neolithic, Scotland-Bal4-3.240 BC
Hazleton North, neolithic, England-3.500 BC
Noeddale, neolithic, Sardinia-NOE001-3.307 BC
Kierzkowo, GAC, neolithic, Poland-I2301-2.677 BC
HapY-H2-P96
Barcin, Turkey, Anatolian Farmers-I0709 (6.350 BC)
Alsonyek-Bataszek, Starcevo culture, Hungary-I1878 (5.747 BC)
Vinkovci-Nama, Starcevo culture, Croatia-I28426 (5.650 BC)
Derenburg, neolithic, LBK, Germany-DER032 (5.191 BC)-
Derrière le village-Hauts-de-France, LBK, France-MDV248 (5.065 BC)
Grotta dell Uzzo, eneolithic, Italy-UZZ033 (5.375 BC)
Asparn Schletz, LBK neolithic, Austria-I24275 (5.000 BC)
Yunatsite, Gumelnita culture, neolithic, Bulgaria-YUN048 (4.497 BC)
Polwica, neolithic, Poland-PLW001 (4.500 BC)
Anghelu Ruju, Nuragic-BA, Sardinia-I16168 (3.831 BC)
Les Llometes, neolithic, Iberia-I7643 (3.785 BC)
Jerpoint West, neolithic, Ireland-JP14 (3.531 BC)
Bilina, neolithic Baalberge, Czech Republic -I6677 (3.310 BC)
Xaghra circle, chalcolithic, Malta-XAGHRA5 (2.450 BC)
That is to say, we have the same uniparental markers from the Balkans (Greece, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria), central Europe (Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, Poland), Ukraine, Scandinavia, the most isolated islands of the Mediterranean (Sardinia, Malta) to western Europe (France, Iberia, British Isles), and you want someone to take your analogy with pre-Columbian American cultures seriously?
Dude, take some medicine, your obsession to prove that M269 in the Gumelnita-culture spoke a different language from the rest of the European cultures just to try to prove that when that lineage arrived in Iberia it spoke a foreign language to the Iberian ones is bullshit.
Try to study European genetics and then explain to us about the linguistic diversity of European Neolithic farmers, the laughter will be heard on the moon.
No Rob, Ygor's theory does not make sense until it is scientifically proven and that can only be done using the genetic markers that we know of. Meanwhile, everything is speculation
@ Gaska
I’ll critique your summary
“The genetics of the first European farmers is uniform, at the beginning (6.000-4.500 BC) very similar to the farmers of western Anatolia (90-100%”
More or less correct. LBK is essentially a drifted population from Balkan farmers, who are from Anatolia (but Anatolia has European UP ancestry) . LBK moved all the way to Brittany
There was also a small scale 2nd migration into east Balkans c 5500 bc of Caucasian farmers, but limited & localised
“The genetic relationship between Balkan, Central European (LBK) and even Western (Cardial pottery) neolithic cultures is a scientific fact that has already been sufficiently demonstrated. ”
Not Cardial. The papers are wrong
Impressa colonists from Italy landed only on the coasts of southern France and Iberia, forming outposts. The rest was an adaptation by Iberian/ French HGs of farming, due to population admixture and selective adaptation
So, even not including the more complex Aegean, we already have 3 or 4 main blocks of different languages
“but the cultural and demographic superiority of the farmers suggests that they were the ones who triumphed culturally speaking ”
That’s just your unsubstantiated value judgement.
The Balkan-Anatolian farmers were at home in Italy, Balkans and the loess ecotone of central Europe
They could not move beyond those areas, so how would they be culturally superior ? It was the local HGs->neo Farmers who still hunted & roamed their ancestral lands who formed Cardial & TRB and spoke their own language most likely.
There was even an LBK collapse in Western Europe and an interesting Michelsberg creole emerged from leftover LBK, Cardial and HGs
“but the practice widespread exogamy, would serve to culturally unify the different European Neolithic cultures. ”
Lol you’re just making things up. Which culturally unified Neolithic Europe ? Are you aware of the cacophony of different groups, sometimes conflictive, between 5000 and 3000 bc
How can you not be aware of how culturally different GAC is to LBK, for example.
Where is the genetic / IBD evidence for this wholescale and widespread exogamy ?
“given that Basque is the only language of European Neolithic origin”
PIE is from the east European “Neolithic”. Etruscan (? Central Europe) and Sardinian (? med) also come to mind
But perhaps you mean basque is from Syria ? Welcome to Europe mr Gaska . Make sure you work hard
@ Gaska
I’ll critique your summary
“The genetics of the first European farmers is uniform, at the beginning (6.000-4.500 BC) very similar to the farmers of western Anatolia (90-100%”
More or less correct. LBK is essentially a drifted population from Balkan farmers, who are from Anatolia (but Anatolia has European UP ancestry) . LBK moved all the way to Brittany
There was also a small scale 2nd migration into east Balkans c 5500 bc of Caucasian farmers, but limited & localised
“The genetic relationship between Balkan, Central European (LBK) and even Western (Cardial pottery) neolithic cultures is a scientific fact that has already been sufficiently demonstrated. ”
Not Cardial. The papers are wrong
Impressa colonists from Italy landed only on the coasts of southern France and Iberia, forming outposts. The rest was an adaptation by Iberian/ French HGs of farming, due to population admixture and selective adaptation
So, even not including the more complex Aegean, we already have 3 or 4 main blocks of different languages
“but the cultural and demographic superiority of the farmers suggests that they were the ones who triumphed culturally speaking ”
That’s just your unsubstantiated value judgement.
The Balkan-Anatolian farmers were at home in Italy, Balkans and the loess ecotone of central Europe
They could not move beyond those areas, so how would they be culturally superior ? It was the local HGs->neo Farmers who still hunted & roamed their ancestral lands who formed Cardial & TRB and spoke their own language most likely.
There was even an LBK collapse in Western Europe and an interesting Michelsberg creole emerged from leftover LBK, Cardial and HGs
“but the practice widespread exogamy, would serve to culturally unify the different European Neolithic cultures. ”
Lol you’re just making things up. Which culturally unified Neolithic Europe ? Are you aware of the cacophony of different groups, sometimes conflictive, between 5000 and 3000 bc
How can you not be aware of how culturally different GAC is to LBK, for example.
Where is the genetic / IBD evidence for this wholescale and widespread exogamy ?
“given that Basque is the only language of European Neolithic origin”
PIE is from the east European “Neolithic”. Etruscan (? Central Europe) and Sardinian (? med) also come to mind
But perhaps you mean basque is from Syria ? Welcome to Europe mr Gaska . Make sure you work hard
Gaska wrote:
". . . Dude, take some medicine, your obsession to prove that M269 in the Gumelnita-culture spoke a different language from the rest of the European cultures just to try to prove that when that lineage arrived in Iberia it spoke a foreign language to the Iberian ones is bullshit."
My response:
There is NO evidence there was any M269 in the Gumelnita culture.
You're still harping on the low coverage Smyadovo (I2181) sample, for which no Y-DNA haplogroup downstream of F could be determined. If one throws scientific rigor to the winds and agrees just for fun that Smyadovo might have been M269+, he is still left with the fact that Smyadovo had steppe DNA.
If M269 is a Balkan farmer lineage, it should be turning up among Balkan farmers frequently and without steppe DNA. On the other hand, if it is a steppe-derived lineage, it should be showing up regularly among steppe pastoralists and men of steppe pastoralist-derived cultures and with plenty of steppe DNA. The latter is obviously the case, ergo, M269 is not a Balkan farmer lineage; it is a steppe-derived lineage.
@Rob
1-If you agree with me that the genetics of the first neolithic european farmers (6.000-4.500 BC) was uniform and very similar to that of western Anatolia, then there is no reason to think that they spoke different languages ergo we already have a single pan-European neolithic language. If Renfrew had been right we could call it Indo-Euro-Anatolian and if it were a NON-Indo-European language, we could simply call it Euro-Anatolian.
2-Yes, also the Cardial culture, its uniparental markers are initially identical to the Central European and Balkan ones, then with the passage of time there are obviously different male and female subclades in each European region. There could be 3 or 4 main blocks of languages?, of course, but they would be branchs or dialects of a common ancestral language of Anatolian origin that would have been differentiated over hundreds of years.
3-Farmers were culturally superior because they were economically superior - Their survival strategy was infinitely more effective thanks to agriculture and livestock, this means that demographically the HGs could never compete with them and simply adapted to live in sedentary societies so I don't think they were able to impose their language over the farmers.
4-You know the geographic extension of the western megalithic culture?, doesn't that seem to you a culturally unified neolithic Europe? - The customs, the religion, the burials, the constructions keep a common pattern, and besides the uniparental male and female markers are identical. What more proof do you need?, only a blind man could not see what is evident. You should read the paper on the Neolithic in Malta, there is enough evidence of the IBD segments shared between the different regions, you don't have to doubt what has already been published, you just haven't heard about it.
5-You missed the end of the sentence I wrote-“Given that Basque is the only language of European Neolithic origin, THAT HAS SURVIVED TO THIS DAY”- And don't forget, researchers do not agree on the geographical origin of PIE (North or South Caucasus), so if Harvard and Max Planck are right then the only language of European origin is Euzkera.
@ Gaska
“-Yes, also the Cardial culture, its uniparental markers are initially identical to the Central European and Balkan ones, then with the passage of time there are obviously different male and female subclades in each European region. There could be 3 or 4 main blocks of languages?, of course, but they would be branchs or dialects ..””
No this is a case of takeover and dominance, not some gradual shift. The languages of Ebro and Rhone HGs were dominant, as they were the leading men who conquered the EEF colonies . Mediterranean farmers could never move beyond the coast
“Farmers were culturally superior because they were economically superior ”
Nonsense. Different economies , different regions. Mediterranean farming was useless in Northern Europe or the Atlantic
You don’t understand basics
“The customs, the religion, the burials, the constructions keep a common pattern, and besides the uniparental male and female markers are identical. What more proof do you need?, only a blind man could not see what is evident. You should read the paper on the Neolithic in Malta, there is enough evidence of the IBD segments shared between the different regions, you don't have to doubt what has already been published, you just haven't heard about it.”
Your problem is hallucinating something which does not exist. Yeah, Michelsberg culture people shared IBD segments with some individuals across Western Europe. That just shows what I said, Michelsberg is a mixed culture
It doesn’t mean Neolithic Europe was monolithic
“so if Harvard and Max Planck are right then the only language of European origin is Euzkera.””
Plenty of scholars who actually know what they’re taking about, such as the Sherrats and john Robb, have precisely said that Late Neolithic Europe was linguistically the most diverse stage, and IE emerged from some eastern chain of groups broadly in contact with the Neolithic core
In fact PIE goes back to the paleolithic in Europe !
It’s clear that you’re just cherry picking, otherwise you’d know what Harvard said about R1b and its origins.
But of course, a delusional person dares not accept reality, because the erosion of their platform is mentally catastrophic
At least your compatriot Maju eventually accepted reality and retired with some dignity
Despite what our friend Gaska claims, Iberian archaeologists are getting the picture
“Motillas were built during the 4.2 ka calBP climate event, at a time of environmental stress. This event has been related to the collapse of diverse civilisations around the world. In the Iberian Peninsula, it occurred at the transition between the Copper Age and Bronze Age in La Mancha. At that time, there also was a rapid
disappearance of peninsular men on the occasion of the arrival of settlers from the eastern steppes of Europe, carrying chromosome Y R1b (Olalde et al. 2019; Villalba-Mouco et al. 2021). ” (Climatic Crisis, Socio-Cultural Dynamics and Landscape Monumentalisation during the Bronze Age of La Mancha)
In fact they came 2500 bc, and proximally from the Rhine-Rhone, but they’re getting there ..
@Matt
To be clear, 1) ANF migrants along the two main routes into Europe initially spoke the same or closely related languages
2) people living within a given distinctive Neolithic archaeological culture at any given time most likely spoke a single language, but
3) the novel development and spread of distinctive Neolithic cultures indigenously within Europe, with different economies in different environments following the first horizons of farmer settlement, with varying amounts of WHG involvement - is entirely indicative of the diversification of identities and development of different languages
4) the various displacing and overlaying of these cultures by one another in succession also speaks to language replacement occurring fairly often over those several millennia to the Chalcolithic
@Gaska
"but the practice widespread exogamy, would serve to culturally unify the different European Neolithic cultures."
Absolute fantasy, never did this occur at such a scale. Did they have a rostering system to make sure every household had a mother who taught the children to speak the same language as someone on the other side of the continent? If this is the lynch pin of the argument for a single Neolithic European language, we have all wasted our time reading it
@Rob
Your comments make less and less sense, you should calm down and think well what you say because you only seek to polemicize without having arguments to do so. You sound like an angry and grumpy old man.
1-The quote that mentions the Motillas culture has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about.
2-The European Neolithic spans about 3,000 years (6,000-3000 BC) and even so, it is super homogeneous genetically speaking. I repeat, same origins and same uniparental markers, different languages were never spoken, in any case dialects or branches of a common language.
3-Two phrases are equally stupid because they only demonstrate your ignorance in the matter “No this is a case of takeover and dominance, not some gradual shift” & “Mediterranean farmers could never move beyond the coast” Ha Ha Ha Ha
4-The language of the first neolithic farmers was the same for thousands of years, as genetics has shown, then in the Late Neolithic, communities across mainland Europe experienced a resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry, pointing toward the persistence of different ancestral strands that subsequently admixed.
5-In relation to IBD sharing, three main clusters emerge: Britain-Ireland, France-Iberia (+ Gotland, mainland Sweden, northern France, Sardinia), and Anatolia-Balkans-Central Europe. Maltese, and Sicilian samples, along with Italian individuals, fall between the latter two groups in approximate geographical sequence.
So I am right, three blocks that could speak branches of the common euro-anatolian language.
@LGK
I remind you that this conversation was started by you trying to prove that if M269 had its origin in the Baltic or the Balkans it would have brought a strange language to Iberia. I have already shown you that genetically what you were saying is a big stupidity so I am fine with not talking to you anymore about this subject.
Now I just find it funny that in your reply to Matt you copy exactly what I have been saying in all the posts I have sent
1) ANF migrants along the two main routes into Europe initially spoke the same or closely related languages
2) people living within a given distinctive neolithic archaeological culture at any given time most likely spoke a single language
3) the novel development and spread of distinctive neolithic cultures indigenously within Europe, with different economies in different environments following the first horizons of farmer settlement, with varying amounts of WHG involvement - is entirely indicative of the diversification of identities and development of different language
Different languages or different branches of a common language?
Do you understand knucklehead?
M269 in Gumelnita (4.500 BC) is an early farmer who spoke exactly the same language as the neolithic Iberian, French, Italian, German or Maltese farmers. Only in the late Neolithic could different branches of the language that I have called Euro-Anatolian appear. And regarding exogamy, your ignorance only proves that it is a waste of time to talk to you.
Gaska wrote:
". . . M269 in Gumelnita (4.500 BC) is an early farmer who spoke exactly the same language as the neolithic Iberian, French, Italian, German or Maltese farmers."
My response:
You have been told several times that sample I2181 (Smyadovo) is a low coverage sample and could not be called for R1b-M269 or any other Y-DNA haplogroup beyond F, yet you persist. If you actually had a legitimate argument, you would not have to rely on a single, low coverage sample without a solid Y-DNA call. There would be a number of better samples you could use to make your case. But there aren't any because you are wrong, and it has been painfully obvious that you are wrong for years now. Years.
As for Balkan Neolithic farmers circa 4500 BC speaking "exactly the same language as the neolithic Iberian, French, Italian, German or Maltese farmers", oh, good grief! You don't honestly believe that, do you?
@Gaska
"Different languages or different branches of a common language?
Do you understand knucklehead?"
There it is - you don't know the difference between a language and a language family. LOL
"M269 in Gumelnita (4.500 BC) is an early farmer who spoke exactly the same language as the neolithic Iberian, French, Italian, German or Maltese farmers."
Their remote ancestors 3000+ years earlier may have when they were still in Greece/Anatolia. But to expect that this language stayed the same in all areas when the Gumelnitsa M269 progeny (hypothetically, it was not really men from this society that went west) arrived in Iberia millennia later is nonsense, never could language remain so stable and static under such conditions.
Your exogamy argument is simply special pleading with no evidence to support it
So now we have gone from it was the exact same singular language, to it was blocks and branches of one. In reality these "blocks" existed at a much finer scale than you think. And some, even many of them were not of ANF origin as Rob has already told you, so they aren't even "branches" but not even related
Lets be real: this unlikely scenario was entirely contrived to deal with the uncomfortable fact that M269 is NOT indigenous to western Europe, and either brought a new language or was linguistically assimilated. So - cope away. But nobody here or anywhere believes you.
@LGK
I was ready to end this conversation, but since you insist on continuing to make a fool of yourself, we can continue as long as you want.
Not only you have given me the reason in that the ANF and early EEF spoke the same language, but also in that in spite of the fact that with the passage of time, different cultures were formed, these would speak very similar languages, therefore it is perfectly possible that the EEF of the Balkans and those of England understood each other without problems.
In fact the shared IBD segments demonstrate it, because the genetic distances between the 3 great blocks of European farmers are infimum. I know that you do not understand what I am telling you but try to read some paper about it and you will be able to give your opinion without making a fool of yourself.
Try to assimilate these data-Same origin, same male and female uniparental markers, shared IBD segments and cultural and demographic superiority over the WHGs, what do we have?-Similar cultures speaking the same or very similar languages, the linguistic diversity of the EEFs only exists in your imagination.
Regarding M269 you must first know that Harvard has already recognized ATP3 (Atapuerca, Burgos, 3,500 BC) as M269 and that it autosomically has Balkan blood, then this marker arrived in Iberia 1,000 years earlier than you thought.
And we also have R1b-L754, P297 and M269 all over Europe between 13,000-3,000 BC-Italy, France, Iberia, Norway, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Baltic, & Balkans (Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria). Why would all those R1b (WHGs, Scandinavian HGs, Baltic HGs, Iron Gates HGs or Gumelnita-LBK EEFs) spoke different languages...?
Because you have believed the Kurganist dogma of the origin of these markers in the steppes and their relation with the dispersion of the IE?....Ha Ha Ha
Find yourself another hobby or talk about Greece, maybe, then you will stop talking nonsense.
@RichS
The problem with repeating lies like a parrot is that you end up believing them. That's your problem, you will never understand anything about genetics and you prefer to invent supposedly glorious ancestors rather than find out the truth about our origin. Try to deal with it, you are descended from farmers of the Gumelnite culture not the Yammnaya horsemen.
It is nothing new, it is a common behavior in human beings, I recommend you a good shrink to help you to be at peace with yourself and to ask for forgiveness for your behavior.
@Gaska
"the EEF of the Balkans and those of England understood each other without problems."
This is a golden comedy. The Balkan farmer at 7000 bc could have a perfect conversation with the British 4000bc farmers, no worries. It will be like speaking with his own family, as long as he has the right DNA, it provides a universal translation service!
"Regarding M269 you must first know that Harvard has already recognized ATP3 "
Back to ATP3 already? This is when you know Gaska has made too many concessions and must retreat to familiar ground (contaminated and low coverage dna samples)
"And we also have R1b-L754, P297 and M269 all over Europe between 13,000-3,000 BC-Italy, France, Iberia, Norway, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Baltic, & Balkans (Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria). Why would all those R1b (WHGs, Scandinavian HGs, Baltic HGs, Iron Gates HGs or Gumelnita-LBK EEFs) spoke different languages...?"
You are trying to tell us people spoke the same language for 10000 years because they shared a male ancestor in the Pleistocene? But why do almost all R1b males today not speak the glorious Vasconic anymore, I wonder? Surely this must be strictly a very recent occurrence seeing as it was unbroken for 10000s of years earlier...
Maybe you should give up genealogy and try to help George RR Martin finish the game of thrones series, you have an immense talent for fantasy world building
Gaska wrote:
"@RichS
The problem with repeating lies like a parrot is that you end up believing them. That's your problem . . ."
My response:
Not true, of course. I have never lied here or in any other DNA discussion venue. I won't say I never make mistakes, but I never purposely mislead.
You, on the other hand, have been caught in numerous outright lies. By that I mean you repeat information over and over that you know to be untrue. Witness, most recently, your repeated claims about Smyadovo (I2181) and the Gumelnita Balkan farmer culture. You know I2181 was a low coverage sample that could not be called for M269, yet you continue to claim that it is M269. You also claim that Smyadovo is proof that M269 is a Balkan farmer lineage, when you know that sample had steppe DNA.
Were I2181 really M269+, FTDNA's team would not have rejected it for inclusion in FTDNA Discover's "Ancient Connections" and its "Time Tree", and Patterson et al would have been able to call I2181 for something beyond Y-DNA haplogroup F, but they couldn't.
Even if Smyadovo were M269, and there is no evidence it is, if you were honest (you're not), you would shut up about it, because it has steppe DNA, which is a trait common to every ancient M269 sample thus far. That steppe DNA negates your claims, so you should be quiet and patiently wait for a better sample. You should be used to waiting by now. You've been waiting for ancient samples that support your claims for years now. They haven't materialized and never will, but you're learning to be patient, and patience is a virtue. Too bad you’re woefully short on so many of the other virtues.
Gaska wrote:
"Regarding M269 you must first know that Harvard has already recognized ATP3 (Atapuerca, Burgos, 3,500 BC) as M269 and that it autosomically has Balkan blood, then this marker arrived in Iberia 1,000 years earlier than you thought."
My response:
Whopper alert! I just checked Reich's anno files at the Allen Ancient DNA Resource (AADR), and they have no Y-DNA haplogroup listed for ATP3. They have his mtDNA haplogroup listed as K1a2b, but that's it, and there's nothing about "Balkan blood", although that part probably caught Count Dracula's attention.
Here's the entry:
"ATP3_noUDG.SG ATP3 ATP3 .. 2015 GuntherPNAS2015 Direct: IntCal20 5397 44 3516-3365 calBCE (4650±30 BP, Beta-368281) .. Spain_C.SG El Portalon Cave, Sierra de Atapuerca Spain 42.3525 -3.518333333 Repulldown on 3.2M snpset Shotgun .. 0.031 26455 14723 M n/a (no relatives detected) .. .. .. K1a2b .. .. .. ds.minus .. QUESTIONABLE Z=2.3 contamination based on damage/non-damage comparison"
Anyone see a Y-DNA haplogroup there or some experts' code for "Balkan blood"?
Correct me, please, if I am wrong. No bald assertions. Let's see some proof.
@LGK
Of course, this is a golden comedy and you are the main actor. But actors are usually intelligent and you are an ignoramus who has no idea about genetics and gives nonsense opinions. I'm going to repeat myself again although my hopes that you understand are getting weaker and weaker. Same origin, same male & female uniparental markers, same autosomal composition & shared IBD segments > the evidence for the genetic uniformity of European farmers is overwhelming and therefore so is the evidence that they spoke the same language.
1-I have already sent you the examples-HapY-H2-P96, mtDNA-H1 and mtDNA-X2b@226, anyone would have understood what I am saying, but I am going to make a last effort and send you another mtDNA-K1a4a1-This is an example of genetic uniformity in the EEF, because at an early stage (6,000-4,000 BC) is shared by the Starcevo culture in the Balkans, the Cardial culture in Iberia, the LBK in France, the Greek Neolithic and the Grossgartach culture in Germany. If you think that these women spoke different languages, you have lost your mind.
Furthermore, this marker spread throughout Europe creating other cultures in central europe (FBC-Bohemia, Baden culture-Hungary) & reaching the British Isles with the western megalithic culture, then evidently the Balkan men and women of the Starcevo culture (5,600 BC) spoke the same language as the Irish or the Iberians (4,000 BC) or do you think that the K1a4a1 women of the western megalithic culture in Iberia and Ireland (4,000 BC) spoke different languages. Have you seen the IBD sharings segments between Ireland and Iberia?.
Do you understand???, the neolithic European farmers dominated mainland Europe for 3,000 years and in this time there were no massive migrations that could change their language, only the integration of the WHGs took place with more or less intensity depending on the regions.
mtDNA-K1a4a1
Saraorci-Jezava, Starcevo culture, Serbia-I4918 (5.650 BC)
Neolithic, Italy-R9 (5.546 BC)-M.Antonio, 2.019
Cova de la Sarga, Cardial culture, neolithic Iberia (5.273 BC)
Toumba Kremastis Koiladas Kozani, Macedonia-KRK10 (5.119 BC)
Baume Bourbon, Gard- BBB008 (5.100 BC)
Trebur, Grossgartach culture, Germany-TR117/TR19/TR29a (4.510 BC)
Potocani, neolithic, Croatia-I10299 (4.200 BC)
Campo de Hockey, San Fernando, western megalithic culture, Iberia-I7549 (4.000 BC)
Makotřasy, FBC, neolithic, Bohemia-I14176 (3.650 BC)
Primrose, western megalithic culture-Ireland-Prim16/Prim7 (3.610 BC)
Balatonlelle, Baden culture, neolithic Hungary-BAD002 (3.450 BC)
Guernsey, Vale, Le Déhus-I16425 (2.997 BC)-
Abri Sandron, neolíthic, Belgium-AF015 (2.940 BC)
2-Contaminated samples, you remain ignorant and have no solution
3- And you think that R1b-L754>P297>M296 were mute and that Indo-European was suddenly created one morning in the year 4,500 BC? Nobody knows which was the language of the WHGs and the EEFs, maybe they were different or maybe not, we will never be able to prove it, the only certainty is that in patrilineal societies the language is transmitted by paternal line and therefore genetic continuity = linguistic continuity.
Take my advice, keep trying to prove that the glorious Mycenaeans are directly descended from Yamnaya, you will have better luck than trying to prove the linguistic diversity of European farmers.
@Gaska
You seem to be unable to grasp the simple principle that sharing a common ancestor in 9000bc is far less important to determining the stability or change of a language than developments over the intervening millennia - divergent histories in different geographic regions, differentiating economies, mixing with new people, emergences of new cultural identities.
But its ok, if you are right you will have discovered a genetics-based model of language worthy of the Nobel Prize. My congratulations in advance
"only the integration of the WHGs took place with more or less intensity depending on the regions."
Yes and this is a very important contributor to their linguistic diversity. But you seem to think ANFs were immune to this, unlike every other language group ever known, they were totally static for millennia?
"the only certainty is that in patrilineal societies the language is transmitted by paternal line and therefore genetic continuity = linguistic continuity."
Got it, so many EEF societies spoke WHG languages and others must have spoken ANF ones.
Looks like we can conclude our argument
Post a Comment