Wednesday, December 4, 2024
The PIE homeland controversy: December 2024 open thread
It seems like we're getting close to the moment when Iosif Lazaridis has to finally admit that the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland was located in Eastern Europe, and also that the ancestors of the Hittites and other Anatolian speakers entered Anatolia via the Balkans.
Let's discuss.
However, please note that comments from total morons, trolls and/or mentally unstable people will not be approved.
See also...
Indo-European crackpottery
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
482 comments:
1 – 200 of 482 Newer› Newest»It's difficult to overstate the significance of the Kulluoba finding:
From Deniz Sari:
https://i.gyazo.com/c810c5a18010854ec2e58f82f9a65134.jpg
"Important changes occur in the cultural and possibly political structure of
western Anatolia during the Transitional period into the Middle Bronze Age
(Übergangsperiode): the Aegean coastline was in more intense relations with the Aegean world, while inland north-western Anatolia, culturally and most
probably politically, was aligned with Central Anatolia, which would last for
the rest of the 2nd millennium BC. This unification is especially evidenced by
the pottery of the Transitional period, which spread from inland north-western
Anatolia into the Kızılırmak/Halys Bend in the east and the central Black Sea
coastline to the north. At the same time, the earliest examples of this pottery,
which is accepted as the predecessor of the Hittite pottery, seem to have
occurred in the Eskişehir region. This is proven stratigraphically in the exca-
vations of Küllüoba (Fig. 7a)."
Eastern Europe, where more specifically, Ukraine? Or the steppe between the Volga and the Don, or the lower reaches of the Don, or maybe the Nalchik region? And who would be its original carrier, Ukrainian farmers of the Neolithic, including Trypillians, or was the language already used by cattle breeders in Khvalynsk clin?
“Ancient genomics support deep divergence between Eastern and Western Mediterranean Indo-European languages”
In “Linguistic Supplementary Information” they write:
5. Conclusion
Italy and Spain received a significant amount of their Steppe ancestry from Bell Beaker-derived populations. Greeks and Armenians, on the other hand, derive their Steppe ancestry directly from a western Yamnaya subpopulation. Previous studies have revealed Corded Ware ancestry among Balts, Slavs and Indo-Iranians82,134,135. It is now increasingly feasible to hypothesize the demographic channels through which Indo-European spread and split. The precursors of Italic and Celtic, as well as Lusitanian, were possibly mediated by the Bell Beaker population that genetically formed in Central Europe. A shared ancestor of Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (i.e. “Indo-Slavic”) evolved among populations of the Corded Ware in East Europe. Both of these populations were formed by admixture with European farmers. In contrast, the predecessor of Armenian and Greek evolved among Yamnaya populations that had remained on the Steppe until the Middle Bronze Age. Finally, however, it does not yet seem feasible to identify an archaeologically defined vector for a Steppe intrusion of Anatolian into Anatolia.
Their diagram shows Corded Ware linked with Indo-Slavic:
https://i.postimg.cc/tJ6Q87MZ/screenshot-410.png
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2024/12/02/2024.12.02.626332/DC2/embed/media-2.docx?download=true
It is in line with Axel Palmér research:
https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2024/07/how-did-proto-indo-european-reach-asia?utm_source=pocket_shared
Fatyanovo-Balanovo was Indo-Slavic and Abashevo was probably also Indo-Slavic and Indo-Iranian originated as a result of interaction of Indo-Slavic with Greco-Armenian Catacomb culture.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gd91R31WYAAkWHh?format=jpg&name=900x900
At the moment I have only seen the uniparental markers from Spain and France and there are two surprises that I did not expect and that show population movements from France to Iberia during the Bronze Age.
We only have one male genome from El Argar site (the one that gave the name to the culture in the province of Almeria, excavated by the Siret brothers in the 19th century) and unlike the rest of the Argarians it is not DF27 but U152.
We also have U106 in an Argaric site in the province of Granada (1.496 BCE) and in an emblematic site of the Motillas culture, Motilla del Azuer (1,895 BCE).
Regarding western Europe, Kroonen continues to maintain that the BB culture spoke Italo-Celtic, but he is not able to explain what happened with the Iberians and Etruscans, at this point, I think it will never cease to be a matter of faith.
The deep genetic divergence between the eastern, central and western Mediterranean is nothing new.
We'll talk about Greece and Anatolia later
where there are three question marks (???) in your diagram screenshot, there should be, judging by everything, the Chernovod culture of southwestern Ukraine and Moldova
@ Gaska We have R-U106 in iron age Balkans, Etruscans, bronze and iron age Gaul, iron age Britain. What's your point? It was part of wave of PIE speakers from corded ware and widespread early. How does this disprove the IE speaking identity of the BB culture? It and R-P312 must have been in late PIE speaking communities originally.
@Ethan
Those maps are way too late for anything Proto-Anatolian related. We need to go into the Neolithic, not post-3000 BC which is Core-PIE time. It's very unlikely Proto-Anatolian was spread by kurgans. We're talking about a 4500-4000 BC split.
The Balkan theory made sense when it was assumed PIE was somewhere in western Ukraine, but later we found out that that's only Core/Late PIE. The original Proto-Indo-Anatolian is clearly just north of the Caucasus around ~Progress-2 which is way out east. We have I2, R1b, etc. in this area. Geographically, this massively favors eastern Anatolia as a route, since it's only a short mountain crossing into eastern Anatolia.
@ EastPole posted:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gd91R31WYAAkWHh?format=jpg&name=900x900
That diagram/model is 80% incorrect.
- Catcomb is irrelevant for balkan languages. It's not even the source of Armenian strictu sensu
- Uralic didnt vaporise into existence in the middle Urals from 'Seima-Turbino, despite what one 'linguist' claims :)
- even the migration path for Indo-Iranian is wrong
Team cope has started to chime in.
We have 100% Lower Volga individuals in the eneolithic Balkans.
I-L699 Indo-Europeans went from Eastern Europe to the Balkans and into Anatolia.
It's over.
@EthanR the original source of I-L699 is absolutely one hundred percent connected with Scandinavian hunters, and the same goes for R1b-M269, they came from somewhere in the north to Ukraine and then to the Caucasus, and became cattle breeders, right?
Interesting points guys
Old news; the north Caucasus steppe groups are dead ends. Maybe a few migrated to non-IE parts of western Asia, such as Amuq plain of Syria. The north Caucasus then came part of Maykop dominance until Catacomb & KMK conquered it after 2500 BC
Extant IE lineages spread from areas to the northwest.
pre-proto-Anatolian might have entered Anatolia as early as 3800 BC, a/p Barchin_CHL individual, this is the earliest individual with steppe ancestry in Anatolia , obviously in the northwest.
And by 2200 BC we see a line from NW to central Anatolia.
There's little to debate about. The question moves to how they impacted language change and what was their social position amongst the mass of other ethni-lingusitic groups.
Steppe ancestry is a mixture of hunter gatherers from Russia and the Caucasus. Do you think that mixture happened in Lviv or Moldova? Progress-2 is a few hundred km from eastern Anatolia, while it's thousands of kms from western Anatolia. Which one is the more likely?
I don't understand these arguments about post-Yamnaya era kurgans in Anatolia and whatnot. This has nothing to do with Proto-Indo-Anatolian. It's >1,000 years way too late. We know post-Yamnaya groups settled in western Anatolia. That's who the Phrygians were. Considering Proto-Greek is assumed ~2200-2000 BC, the Phrygians split from the Greeks even earlier than that, and they are the descendants of the mixture of Yamnaya/IE-speaking people that colonized western Anatolia.
Here is one of the IBD mixture models from the supplement of Late ChL and BA Anatolians with enough data for analysis:
https://i.gyazo.com/dc2f88b8699e19e99f8fd95e21cef247.png
It's more conservative with respect to Steppe ancestry than the simpler three source qpadm models from Lazaridis 2024, but the picture is pretty clear.
Kulluoba is a settlement with continuous occupation from 3200 BC, thereby preceding Balkan Yamnaya. It hasnothing to do with Phrygians, and nobody even mentioned them. I have zero clue what you are even trying to articulate.
Unadmixed Steppe Eneolithic samples have been found 2000km west of the Volga. And now we have a persistent trickle of a Steppe haplogroup making its way directly to the heart of Indo-European speaking Anatolia.
None of this should be surprising to anyone familiar with the excellent historical and linguistic work recently done on bronze age Anatolia.
@Ethan hmm, ART018 has nothing steppe-like in IDB, it just has higher caucasus_c, whatever that means. Is it Novosvobodnenskaya or early Kura Araks or Mesheko?
Caucasus_c in the analysis is just Meshoko.
Given the date, my weakly held guess is that this ancestry in ART018 was mediated by Maikop.
@ Dragon Hermit
''Steppe ancestry is a mixture of hunter gatherers from Russia and the Caucasus. Do you think that mixture happened in Lviv or Moldova? Progress-2 is a few hundred km from eastern Anatolia, while it's thousands of kms from western Anatolia. Which one is the more likely?'
Firstly, your description of steppe ancestry is too basic. Secondly, what you personally deem to be likely is irrelevant.
''I don't understand these arguments about post-Yamnaya era kurgans in Anatolia and whatnot. This has nothing to do with Proto-Indo-Anatolian. It's >1,000 years way too late. ''
You are confusing the TMRCA of languages in the same way you and some of your haplo-buddies dont understand uniparental TMRCAs. Linguists estimate that proto-Anatoian split from 'nuclear' IE 4500 BC. That doesn;t mean Hittites and Luwians were Anatolia in 4500 BC. And we know that between 4500 and 3500, there was enough 'structure' on the western steppe to account for the splits lingusits proposed. This has been explained to you before.
And what Phrygians and Greeks existed in Bronz Age Kaman-Kalehoyuk ? Even by your standards, you are just spinning BS.
We have Anatolian samples that share IBD with CLV people. Some of them are modelled as 30% CLV. You need to re-read literature if you think genetics is on your side.
Proto-Greek is 2500 BC (entered mainland Greece ~2200 BC). So Proto-Greco-Phrygian, an earlier ancestor, must predate that by at least a few hundred years. So yes we are talking BA. Whether other IE groups inhabited Anatolia even before that, is up for debate, but anything kurgan related has nothing to do with Proto-Anatolian speakers. They had a different culture and we can see that from vocab from farming to wheel technology.
and iran_c in their article is sekh gebi?
@Dimitri
My point is that all the Bronze Age cultures in Iberia, the Iberians, Tartessians and Etruscans were overwhelmingly P312, yet they spoke non-Indo-European languages. How is this obvious genetic continuity compatible with the fact that they stopped speaking their mother tongues?
It makes no sense, neither Kroonen nor any of you have a reasonable explanation. Perhaps you do not know that in Iberia and the south of France in many of the sites of the BB culture we find different clades of I2a, these men also spoke Italo-Celtic?
Come on, Celtiberian came here with the urnfield culture and Lusitanian is more related to Latin than to Celtic, they are Iron Age issues, nothing to do with Chalcolithic or Bronze Age.
Besides all the Yamnaya male markers have their ultimate origin in the WHGs, or if you prefer in the Balkan and Baltic HGs, this means that they also spoke IE?
@All
Need a huge favor.
Can someone upload a text file with all of the relevant G25 coords and Y-haplogroup calls from the last 6 months?
Wow about the the I1 in Cyprus. But the authors seems doubtful. Hopefully they have some materail over to C14 date it. My maternal clan are I1, maybe I1 in parts of Europe pre-date Goths ? Cool either way
@ Dragon Hermit
LOL, you lot are even sadder than the OIT boys, althugh evidently related
@CordedSlav
'Additionally, there is genetic evidence of long-distance interaction with Northern Europe, as seen in a Scandinavian genetic outlier (CGG_2_022535) from a rock-cut tomb at Vounous Bellapais, excavated by the Swedish-Cyprus expedition and dated to c. 4,000–3,800 BP. (Genetics and Strontium Supplementary Fig. S6.45, Archaeology Supplementary 2.2.7). This outlier clusters with Scandinavian Bronze Age individuals and, intriguingly, this origin is also supported by the Y-haplogroup I1 and by a non-local highly radiogenic strontium isotope signature compatible with some parts of Scandinavia (Genetics and Strontium Supplementary S10; Supplementary Table S8). The implications of this observation are not conclusive, since we do not have radiocarbon dating from this individual.'
Misdated or legit sample? Wild if real
@ Ethan
Interesingly, the middle (Sveti Kirilovo) phase of the Ezero period saw 'Anatolian' towns arriving in eastern Thrace. I think this might actually have facilitated a pulse of Balkan groups moving east into Anatolia, although some moved much earlier.
@ Dragon Hermit
to Ethan ; ''We have Anatolian samples that share IBD with CLV people. Some of them are modelled as 30% CLV. You need to re-read literature if you think genetics is on your side.''
That doesn't support any of your contentions, because (predomninantly female mediated) CLV anestry is found in any steppe group west of the Kuban. And where is the R1b-V1636 & J2b2 in Luwia & Hattite land ?
'proto-Greek is 2500 BC''
No actually Proto-Greek is purple.
genetic history of indo-europeans:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AGZmL9L1zbgiPr3m3XWN5CVicXuvy3yf/view?usp=drivesdk
and bronze age of caucasus:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AHQQjvPGNPzGSQN4hywB9ZO9YAZaky1f/view?usp=drivesdk
i didn't download the rest
South Central Asian ancestry in srubnaya via Aygirdjal_BA like population...Haplogroup Q also originating from there...
Target: Russia_BA_SrubnayaAlakul:b28-2__BC_1790__Cov_unknown
Distance: 1.5490% / 0.01548992
58.4 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
27.2 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
8.6 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
5.8 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Target: Russia_BA_SrubnayaAlakul:b10-2__BC_1781__Cov_unknown
Distance: 1.2806% / 0.01280583
66.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
22.8 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
10.6 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
Here is the full updated Individuals/Averages:-
https://rentry.co/G25_v62
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3wgjtij9el9iq926w6tej/G25-Ancients-New.txt?rlkey=2o3csgbjxrz6f55drjxqtdo7g&st=mzpua1zr&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ldldm8g9v5gd1ikzj3hbh/G25-Ancients-New-Average.txt?rlkey=8zmhp5eqad93hwemaiets26kr&st=rgfy7gd1&dl=0
@CordedSlave, Artaxerxers,
This Scandinavian sample is intriguing and surprising, yet it's entirely plausible that the Greeks had interactions with Northern Europeans. However, what truly astonishes me is the discovery of two Bronze Age Cypriots who plot like Bronze Age Scandinavians.
"To model individuals from Cyprus, we used East_Set6 and Yamnaya (East_steppe_Set1; Supplementary Table S4) and CWC (East_steppe_Set3; Supplementary Table S4). The model with Iran and Caucasus populations revealed that the earliest individual from Cyprus dated to 4,300 BP showed farmer ancestry while the rest of the individuals showed multiple population structures. One group is similar to Anatolia and Levant Bronze Age populations (Tepecik+Caucasus/Iran), while the second group shows the same pattern with Western Anatolian Iron Age individuals (Tepecik+Caucasus+Barçın+Yamnaya), and a few individuals carry a higher proportion of Ukraine Meso/Neolithic, which indicates steppe-related ancestry potentially from Europe (Fig. S6.45). When we added two steppe sources, Yamnaya and CWC respectively, this variation became clearer, showing two steppe outliers (CGG_2_022534; CGG_2_022535) carrying CWC ancestry (Fig. S6.45; Supplementary Table S5). These individuals are also clustered with Scandinavian Bronze Age individuals. Another group shows the Aegean/Balkan signature by showing a mixed pattern of both steppe sources, and the other group resembles Eastern Anatolian/Levantine Bronze Age, showing increased Iran ancestry. Among two outliers with the highest steppe proportion, we cautiously report that one of them (CGG_2_022534) has no reliable context information, and might be from somewhere else. The other one has no direct carbon dating (Archaeology Supplementary 2.2). Interestingly, the Bronze Age individuals from Hala Sultan Tekke show three different admixture patterns; similar to Balkan/Greece, Anatolia Bronze Age, and Lebanon Bronze Age (Fig. S6.42). Further, we investigated Anatolian contribution to Cyprus and Levant Bronze/Iron Age by applying Anatolia Chalcolithic/Bronze sources populations (Fig. S6.46; S6.47). The model with Arslantepe individuals completely modelled Levant populations except the Iron Age and later period individuals who received steppe proportion (Fig. S6.47; Supplementary Table S5). The model with Central and Western Anatolian Chalcolithic/Bronze modelled Cyprus Bronze Age individuals better than Arslantepe and Çamlibel sources (Fig. S6.46; Supplementary Table S5). The individuals with steppe ancestry modelled both with Yamnaya and Bell Beaker. Whereas two Scandinavian outliers are modelled with Bell Beaker, the rest are modelled with Yamnaya, similarly Greece Bronze Age individuals (Fig. S6.46; Supplementary Table S5)."
Russia_BA_SrubnayaAlakul.SGb28,10-2
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta.AG Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA.AG
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur.AG
IVC_medium.AG
p-value 0.394
0.484 0.031 15.2
0.288 0.028 10.2
0.118 0.049 2.38
0.110 0.040 2.68
Chisq 11.6
More data we have in future...More refined will be our understanding...for now its clear that in SC Asians were trading with Steppe_MLBA and ppl were migrating into each other's territory...
Not the nonsensical Chad aryans invading ppl when most of the pops in Steppe_MLBA were dying young...
There are Q outliers in sintashta too...
@Ash
in the main, the Srubnaya are the same Sintashta + remnants of earlier Yamnaya populations, but there are some among them with influence from Central Asia through Kazakhstan, there are outliers among them
Can somebody explain to me (who studied Linguistics and Social Anthropology many years ago at University) how the Balkan trek option works?
There are three routes for the spread of languages across generations:
a) grandparent-parent-offspring: the traditional route which will ensure that a genetic marker is passed on through generations.
b) incomers, male or female, are welcomed into a group whether by marriage, immigration or capture. This will mean that the genetic marker of the host community is diluted and over time can be lost.
c) adoption of a high-profile language either for ease of communication or to improve one’s status.
The Indo-anatolian split.
The split between the Anatolian languages and the Late Indo-european languages is generally held to be before 4000BC to allow for enough generations before other splits happened in Indo-european. At the time of the split the population did not know wheeled vehicles, wool (early sheep only had hair) nor wine (although they knew the vine).
Option A ‘The Anatolian Trek’
The Indo-anatolians lived on the Pontic-Caspian steppe and one group (the future Anatolians) moved south bringing the Anatolian language with them.
This option is backed by Kloekhorst however it is worth considering:
a) at the time of the split the people of the steppe lived in small kin-groups, stuck to riverbanks where they had settlements and had a hunter-gatherer technology supplemented by animal flocks.
b) even if a trace of steppe genetic ancestry exists in Anatolia there is no significant steppe ancestry. At some point during their ‘trek’ there must have been significant language adoption by another group yet it is hard to think of a vector to enable this.
c) the route proposed by most proponents is through the Balkans and into Anatolia from the West, a route of some 1,800 kilometers through populations of increasingly higher technological development and increasingly greater population density. An alternative route through the Caucasus is shorter (1,000 kilometers) but has the same issues to do with technological development and population density. At the end of the journey these Anatolian speakers then had to expand through the pre-existing populations to enable their language to dominate.
Option B ‘A South Caucasian Homeland’
The Indo-anatolians lived in the South Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia or Kurdistan. One group (the future Anatolians), spread a few hundred miles south and west whilst the other (the future late Indo-europeans moved north across the caucasus).
As in the other option there must have been language transfer at some point and this (or if there were multiple language transfers the last) must have happened at the transfer to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. There is a likely vector: either the adoption of the waggon or of the wheel itself. However it should be borne in mind that given the higher level of technological development as we look south there may be a number of other possible vectors.
However one thing to consider is that Hittite mythology has a memory of the sun rising from the sea. In Option B this memory suggests a homeland in the Southern Caucasus, the sea being the Caspian - in the first option it would be the Black Sea.
Summary
Given the genetic mismatch between the Anatolians and Late Indo-europeans a reason for language transfer needs to be shown. This is far easier if the original homeland of the Indo-anatolians is located south of the Caucasus rather than on the Pontic-Caspian steppeland.
@Rob
It might take a lot more data to sort out the particulars yeah. Could be directly from Ezero or could be a parallel cultural horizon (in which case Ezero is a dead-end).
Could also be something weird where some groups enter through the Bosphorus and different groups through the Dardanelles. I'm not sure how plausible that is.
In western Anatolia we seem to have individuals who look like they did carry a good chunk of "local" Balkan ancestry (EEF and IronGates HG) and others like the Kulluoba individual who seemingly just has a sizeable amount of direct Lower-Volga ancestry. I'm not sure what to make of it.
@ EthanR
''It might take a lot more data to sort out the particulars yeah. Could be directly from Ezero or could be a parallel cultural horizon (in which case Ezero is a dead-end).
Could also be something weird where some groups enter through the Bosphorus and different groups through the Dardanelles. I'm not sure how plausible that is.
In western Anatolia we seem to have individuals who look like they did carry a good chunk of "local" Balkan ancestry (EEF and IronGates HG) and others like the Kulluoba individual who seemingly just has a sizeable amount of direct Lower-Volga ancestry. I'm not sure what to make of it.''
It's expectedly heterogeneous, as was Cernavoda (despite relative uniparental homogeneity) and Bulgarian B.A. in general.
I don't think groups moving into Anatolia movement was Ezero propper, they seemed to have been settled; as the groups which ventured deep into central Anatolia are Dnieper-Don lineages.
My comment was more about the opening of the 'Anatolian highway' ~ 2500 BC, which is middle Ezero period.
@Gabru
Quit acting like a moron or I'll start deleting all of your posts here.
The fact is that qpAdm isn't as good as you think it is. It often produces garbage results, especially in distal tests.
There's no need for your meme models.
8 of 12 ChL/BA West Anatolians have Steppe ancestry under IBD mixture modelling.
Virtually none of the (more densely sampled) ChL/BA East Anatolians have Steppe ancestry under the same analysis. The ones who do are mostly at Alalakh, several of which have IBD segment hits that seem to be linked to Sintashta (I've previously reviewed every Anatolian sample from the Ringbauer IBD paper).
@Gabru
because of this in the middle bronze age Ginchi GIN006 shows areni, then that it is apparently a descendant of the Ginchi Eneolithic, which is part of the Eneolithic community of the sioni tsopi ginchi
later it is additionally mixed with the catacomb culture
@ Artaxerxes
Thanks for the info my friend
EthanR
Do let me know how "IBD modeling" itself even works, do you just magically find IBD relation of two people separated by 1-2K years without breaking down their components? How does that help with anything? Muh IBD modeling lol what a joke
Davidski
qpAdm only produces garbage out if you give garbage in, as you do with your models, otherwise it's the only "academic" tool right now apart from ADMIXTURE which doesn't exactly compare, G25 is not an academic tool
@Niko Bellic
Lazaridis has been arguing for a decade that the PIE homeland wasn't in Eastern Europe in large part because of crap qpAdm models.
And the Reich Lab finally released a preprint discussing the shortcomings of qpAdm. You should read it.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.25.538339v3
If you are actually curious you could read the supplements of this and the McColl preprints yourself.
This is not the same thing as the IBD methodology from the Ringbauer paper.
Target: Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1_o1:I1783__BC_2118__Cov_17.80%
Distance: 1.9656% / 0.01965553
42.6 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
30.6 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
18.4 China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA
8.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Target: Kyrgyzstan_MLBA_Andronovo:I11527__BC_1993__Cov_66.31%
Distance: 1.7007% / 0.01700724
45.6 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
28.4 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
16.2 China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA
9.8 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Target: Kyrgyzstan_MLBA_Andronovo:I11526__BC_2129__Cov_45.99%
Distance: 1.7246% / 0.01724629
42.2 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
27.0 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
19.4 China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA
11.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Anyone wants to guess what language Aygirdjal_BA ppl were speaking...since ppl are in the habit of seeing steppe ancestry and claiming them to be Indo Europeans....These could very well be Tocharians and fit in with Steppe_En being Anatolian-Tocharian...under the steppe hypothesis...because Yamnaya-Afanasievo being Greco-Armenian-Albanian-Tocharian doesn't fit with what we know of Tocharian and its relationship with Greco-Armenian-Albanian..
Not Aygirdjal_BA but Kumsay...It isn't like every person with steppe ancestry has to speak an Indo European language...
Kumsay may or may not have transmitted the language to Geokysur folks...as these 2 groups mixed...
Genes are outcome of geographic proximity of populations...Languages and cultures are more complex...
That's why you have Baltics with high N but not speaking Uralic but Udmurts with 65% Steppe_MLBA and 20% R1a are speaking Uralic...
Both qpAdm and G25 are getting older. I would like them to be improved or replaced with something brand new.
Wellcome you all, at last!
@Radiosource
they will definitely be replaced, I am sure that soon artificial intelligence will participate in this, and they will make an ideal calculator with 100 percent accuracy. David could also participate in this, but it seems to me that he has cooled off from creating calculators, he is having a creative crisis.
The Yediay study has two haplogroup I2a samples from plausibly Anatolian-speaking areas of Asia Minor: Kulluoba 4300 BP and Kaman-Kalehoyuk 3840 BP. I guess that's not too early to have been brought via a Caucasus route through intrepid Caucasus Yamnaya or Catacomb pioneers but they would've had to go an awfully long way into Asia Minor through a lot of non-IE people to get there. It seems much more likely to me that that this ancestry got there through the Balkans. And since I1584 from LCA Barcin already has steppe ancestry I don't know why Harvard doesn't give more credence to the idea of a Balkan route for Anatolian. We have steppe cultures like Suvorovo hugging the western shore of the Black Sea already in the Eneolithic. The Dardanelles are a hop, skip, and a jump away from that. I think early over-the-Caucasus steppe travellers whose DNA ended up in places like CA Areni are cultural dead-ends. Wouldn't Anthony tell them that?
And that Scandinavian outlier in BA Cyprus isn't even close to plausible. Bets that somebody on the Swedish-Cypriot team accidentally sampled themselves.
@Michalis
Yep.
David Anthony should've been telling David Reich and Iosif Lazaridis to sit down and listen about 10 years ago.
Gio has arrived and we can now talk about Italy
Unlike Sicily and Sardinia, the BB culture on the Italian peninsula was a residual phenomenon, so the entry of the U152 marker was the result of population movements from Unetice and the tumulus culture that crossed the Alps in the early Bronze Age (2,000-1,800 BCE).
This last paper is the definitive demonstration that the Etruscans come entirely from the Terramare culture-All the Etruscan uniparental markers of the archaic and classic period are in Terramare (Olmo di Nogara). Regarding the males, the balance (50% approx between G2a2b-L497 and R1b-M269 (U152, Z2118 etc) that existed in the Bronze Age moves in favor of M269 in the Iron Age.
Everyone knows that the Etruscans and Raethians spoke non-Indo-European languages, so as in Iberia, how is it possible that if there is genetic continuity between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, the hypothetical Indo-Europeans R1b-P312>U152 changed their language? Why should they do so?
Western Europe has always been a nightmare for the supporters of the Kurgan theory because during the Iron Age the problem of the existence of non-Indo-European languages did not only affect Iberia, Italy and Sicily, since Basque was spoken in Aquitaine, and in certain areas of Occitania Iberian was spoken.
So, since CWC and the Indo-European uniparental markers, R1a-M417, Z2103, R1b-V1636, I2a-L699 etc, did not arrive here, they have to desperately resort to the BB culture just as Gus Groonen does, ignoring the origin and the genetic composition of this culture. Mental gymnastics to try to prove the unprovable
@Michalis Moriopoulos
"And that Scandinavian outlier in BA Cyprus isn't even close to plausible". Why? There were Baltic people in the Classic Greek army from Himera. And what do you say to the two BA Cypriots who plot like Scandinavians? People continue to ignore this finding as if it were a nothing-burger.
Many people are discussing about these I2a1b samples which were found in Anatolia. This haplogroup of course expanded from Palaeolithic Italy
Tagliente 2 Veneto (Italy) 16980-16510 BCE
San Teodoro 3, Sicily, (Italy) 14000-12000 BCE
Continenza 7, Italy, 9107-8634 BCE
Continenza 5 (Italy) 7284-7065 BCE
I-S12195 already was in Northern Caucasus 2849-2146 BCE, but certainly it didn’t come from elsewhere than Europe.
Is the Scandi outlier really that implausible? The Mycenaeans were known to trade with the Nordic bronze agers. Both cultures were skilled at seafaring. The Greeks needed Baltic Sea amber which the Nordic bronze agers had damn near secured a monopoly on, the Nordic bronze agers needed copper which Greece and especially Cyprus had lots of.
@Michalis
"that Scandinavian outlier in BA Cyprus isn't even close to plausible"
Why not? Cypriot copper was used in Scandinavia at this time and there are other archaeological links between Cyprus/eastern Mediterranean and northern Europe. Various archaeologists have suggested that northern Europeans travelled to the region in this period.
@Michalis
To be fair the skeleton of CGG_2_022535 was noted to be an outlier in physical features (although the basis on which this was determined was not specified), and also displayed non-local isotopes, which is less likely to occur from contamination as DNA is (but has a myriad of other issues). The odd thing is that there is another female sample in the Northern European cluster but this one had a different mtdna from the male with I1, which then would mean two separate contamination events. I would not be too quick to simply write this off as a lab error.
Its also interesting to note that the other I1 sample out of place, from bronze age western Ukraine, also had I-Z61 so perhaps there is a connection between the two?
@Michalis
Wise Dragon left a comment in the other thread informing me that it is actually 2 samples similar to Scandinavia BA from this site not just one. I believe their quality control methods are competent enough to catch a researchers DNA, if there is an issue it is with the dating.
fascist rusia blocked the Internet in my homeland (as well as neighboring Chechnya and Ingushetia), for some reason for its "experiments in sovereign Internet" it chose national regions, now I can't even access many foreign sites with a VPN, including Genarchivist, Twitter, Facebook and weather sites.
Those who defend rusia should know what it is.
It's good that Eurogens is still available
@Gabru
“What do you people think about this?
Graph to show formation of CWC
https://files.catbox.moe/9cq6k1.png”
CWC males were not from Yamnaya_Core. David Reich says that CWC mostly male communities absorbed Yamnaya and EEF women:
https://youtu.be/Uj6skZIxPuI?t=4282
He also says that Yamnaya people actually lose out in the interaction with the CWC people. This probably means that CWC was stronger and more advanced than Yamnaya. This would suggest that CWC and Sredny Stog from which CWC was derived were true PIE. Yamanaya was not PIE IMO.
@ RadioSource
''Both qpAdm and G25 are getting older. I would like them to be improved or replaced with something brand new.''
Theyre perfect for what they do. A lot of people just dont appreciate their limits, and have often bever picked up a history book to qualify their claims, sometime dont bother to check basic facts. What is needed is cognitive improvement and more honesty in the genetic academica, which exists in a bit of a hubriditic bubble
@ Davidski
''David Anthony should've been telling David Reich and Iosif Lazaridis to sit down and listen about 10 years ago.''
But DA is overrated & biased,; and Michalis' suggestion about Suvorovo is a couple hundred years too early
@ Gabru
''https://files.catbox.moe/9cq6k1.png''
Well, its wrong for a start. Catacomb is irirelevant for the Balkans, and there is no singular 'Balkan BA".
Where are the drift edges, admixture values, worse Z score ?
You really dont need qpGraph for CWC, its overkill. qpGraph is great for evaluating the deeper ancestry of Paleo & early Neolithic samples
I can't even look at the link that Gabru shared here
@Gaska
I have been writing about these arguments on the blogs from 2007, elsewhere for all my life. Did you remember when on these blogs pretty much all denied that the Sea Peoples had something to do with Italy? Even Shklsh, Twrs and Sherden? Even the great linguist Woudhuizen (a citizen scientist like us, but who dedicated all his life to this deep research) had some doubt. I remember you when I demonstrated on the "Dienekes' Anthropology blog" that a language found in Old Crete could be explained through Italic. We have now this post, that suggests that the great part of the Sea Peoples could have come from Italy, not only the third above and the Wksh, probably the Oskans of Crete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL5GDXq1acE
some words in Slavic languages, in Bulgarian and Macedonian I see Turkic influence
https://youtube.com/shorts/6u_RtyNd9qs?si=FEigwSYikzF7XWAA
@Gaska
"So, since CWC and the Indo-European uniparental markers, R1a-M417, Z2103, R1b-V1636, I2a-L699 etc, did not arrive here, they have to desperately resort to the BB culture just as Gus Groonen does, ignoring the origin and the genetic composition of this culture. Mental gymnastics to try to prove the unprovable".
Indo-European uniparental markers? For what we know so far only R1a-M417 is deeply rooted in eastern Europe. I2a, as I wrote above, expanded from Palaeolithic Italy and we find it in all Europe after the Younger Dryas and only I2a-L699 had something to do with eastern Europe and the supposed origin of the Indo-European languages. R-Z2103 (that is my hg) is in Yamnaya but many centuries after its origin and that R1b1 may have expanded like I2a from Italy since Villabruna (my hypothesis) has still to be demonstrated but also disproved. About R1b-V1636 you know that I found all the 5 haplotytpes known some Years ago in Italy and not elsewhere. So far the oldest aDNA are out of Italy, but many thousands of Years after its origin. Of course I am waiting for other results. About the origin of the languages the question is even more complex.
@Davidski
What is that awful diagram? Proto-Anatolians were pre-Kurgan. I don't know why this is hard for some to understand. Looking for tumuluses, barrows, kurgans, or whatever you want to call them, in the search for Proto-Anatolians, is like looking for IKEA furniture in Norse settlement sites.
We know the Yamnaya colonized the Balkans and Western Anatolia. In that region, you have Dacians, Thracians, Greek, Phrygians, and whatever other dead Indo-European peoples. This has absolutely nothing to do with PIA.
We have seen this in Narasimhan et al too where a sample genetically similar to modern day Iranian shows up in 1800bce Uzbekistan...
Target: Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA_o:I7493__BC_1800__Cov_28.79%
Distance: 1.1386% / 0.01138559
35.6 Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA
28.8 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
22.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
8.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
4.4 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
Q2b2a1a-Y28562 and U2e2a1d
Most likely wrong dating....
The idea of the Nordic bronze age having this special relationship with Mycenaean Greece, or it being a Scandinavian emulation of Aegean society, via journies along the Atlantic and into the Mediterranean through the Gibraltar strait, bypassing the Central European trade routes and thus forming a special connection, seems a bit of a fanfic tale by Kristiansen and fellow archaeologists if you'd ask me. It is not based on signs such as Mediterranean trade goods showing up in Scandinavia to the exclusion of other regions. It's moreso argued on things like very loose parallels such as similarities between the Tholos tombs and the Kivik grave, which I think was even interpreted as the burial of some Aegean traveller (or Wanax?) before iirc.
I dont think these samples, which either predate or are right at the start of the NBA and predate the prime period of Mycenaean Greece should be seen as confirmation of the above. That said it does show that when it comes to "trade" and "diffusion" there probably was more human movement involved than people would initially assume. Cyprus for example was a source region of at least some of the copper in Northern Europe, and despite no actual finds being uncovered oxhide ingots typical of Cyprus seem to be depicted on petroglyphs. All this could explain why contacts with and human movement from Scandinavia occured in the 2nd millenium BC and why we got these samples in Cyprus of all places.
This map was definitely made by Rob
Provenance map of Sandinavian metal ores
Cyprus is of the place
Kurgans (Suvorovo) and barrows (Gonova Mogila) are both found before Indo-Europeans are thought to have entered Anatolia (~3100BC as per Kloekhorst).
@ Gabru
''Balkans_BA (Albania_EBA, Greece_North_EBA, Romania_BA_Arman, type) is a pretty uniform cline roughly 30-40% Catacomb and rest Balkans_EEF''
Nope, they derive from Yamnaya & pre-Yamanaya groups like Cernavoda, 'the culture with extended ingumations', etc , Catcomb is chronologically & historically nosnese. And this is confirmed with the uniparental markers in Balkan IE which belong to R1b-PF7562 and I2a-L699. The only relevance Catacomb has is a a post-Catacomb (KMK) impact in Thrace.
Plus the Balkan cline is actually a 3D one between WHG/Iron Gates, Steppe, EEF, and there are multiple different sources of EEF. Your cartoon doesn;t capture any of thee facts.
@ Dragon Hermit
''What is that awful diagram? Proto-Anatolians were pre-Kurgan. I don't know why this is hard for some to understand. Looking for tumuluses, barrows, kurgans, or whatever you want to call them, in the search for Proto-Anatolians, is like looking for IKEA furniture in Norse settlement sites.
We know the Yamnaya colonized the Balkans and Western Anatolia. In that region, you have Dacians, Thracians, Greek, Phrygians, and whatever other dead Indo-European peoples. This has absolutely nothing to do with PIA.''
Man, you love your pretensions. Your statement that 'proto-Anatolians' were
'pre-kurgan' and pre-agriculture has no linguistic bearing and is nonsense from inside your head. It doesn;t mean that they entered Anatolia in 6000 BC. You've clearly misunderstood a host of facts, and as explained to you, it all relates to pre-existing diversity in steppe groups and different adstrate contacts.
Kurgans began to be erected in the eneolithic steppe soon after 5000 BC, but often flat grave inhumations were also utilised, e.g. in Cernavoda. Kurgans were discontinued east of Turkish Thrace (although modern farming might have destroyed many of them), as the modest but definite stream of IEs rapidly integrated into Anatolian cultural models. But still, there are IE like cist graves with battle axes around NW Anatolia.
Future studies wont bring you relief from your coping.
There is the so-called kurgan grave in Arslantepe, but that is of Majkop -Uruk tradition and non-IE.
perhaps they started building burial mounds in the Caucasus, imitating the Caucasian mountains like Kazbek and Elbrus, something probably happened that people were inspired by these mountains, perhaps Elbrus or Kazbek erupted then, ancient people saw this and began to build homemade catacombs similar to mountains 🤔 maybe they took this as a sign
@Romulus
Actually, 3 samples cluster with BA Scandis. The one Scandi sample came from a foreigner. However, the other two BA samples were locals. Read here:
"and a few individuals carry a higher proportion of Ukraine Meso/Neolithic, which indicates steppe-related ancestry potentially from Europe (Fig. S6.45). When we added two steppe sources, Yamnaya and CWC respectively, this variation became clearer, showing two steppe outliers (CGG_2_022534; CGG_2_022535) carrying CWC ancestry (Fig. S6.45; Supplementary Table S5). These individuals are also clustered with Scandinavian Bronze Age individuals"
.
let's discuss this picture, what about R1b-M269, where did it come from in the steppe and quickly began to dominate other men? why did it become so popular with women?
and what are the two yellow dotted lines going from Maikop, one to the west in Ukraine to Sredny Stog, and the other to the southern Caucasus? what migrations are we talking about?
so, @Gabru, while the Russian special services turned on the Internet for me, and I saw your diagram, pretty good, many logical points
but here are two questions
1) What is Armenia _M in your diagram, is it Mesolithic armenia or armenia mesis blur?
2)What is the chg/ehg ratio in the steppe_LM population? 50/50 ? and judging by the diagram, there hasn't been any Tutkaul admixture in it yet?
LDon_LM is apparently Golubaya Krinitsa, wouldn't it be more logical that Steppe_LM would also participate in its ethnogenesis along with UHG? and not like in your diagram - chg +ehg +uhg
I've read on a the GOIE thread at GeneArchivist everyone is saying that R1b-M269 should be from LCV
It's amusing how little people know about the ancient world. King Tut 3-4 thousand years ago was wearing Baltic amber. The Amber Road was the Silk Road of its day. The Baltic samples in Himera, proved that Northern Europeans in the Bronze Age Med was a reality.
@Rob
"It doesn;t mean that they entered Anatolia in 6000 BC."
Lol, again with this? I never said they entered Anatolia in 6000 BC. I just said looking for kurgans in the search for Proto-Anatolians is a waste of time. Kurganites are clearly Yamnaya-related groups, and consequently Core PIE, not PIA. And yes, Yamnaya colonised the Balkans and Western Anatolia. But these are the ancestors of Greek, Phrygians, Thracians, etc.
Proto-Anatolians, whoever they are, have nothing to do with kurgans or barrows.
When the fuck did Yamnaya colonize Western Anatolia, and what evidence is there for any significant intrusions? The earliest Yamnaya-derived group have anything to do with anything in Anatolia with surety is with Mycenaeans in the LBA, and Phrygians/Mysians/Thracians etc likely shortly afterward.
You should try to educate yourself about the subject matter. It might help remedy some of your hallucinations.
@ Mr Funk
Maybe kurgans were inspired by mountains, but they're not ethnospecific. Just markers of status and territory, not too different to post-LBK barrows and megaliths in northern and western Europe, which appear at about the same time. They were first built by ponto-caspian steppe people, rather modest, then Majkop adopted the idea and built rather large ones for some of their chiefs.
@ Corded
''I've read on a the GOIE thread at GeneArchivist everyone is saying that R1b-M269 should be from LCV''
lol that thread is looking more like a Group Therapy session
Nope, R1b-M269 is certainly not from LCV.
Firstly, R1b-M269 is missing in the early LCV network, spanning from Khvalynsk to the Caucsian piedmont steppe, its dominated by R1b-V1636 + a few J1.
2- the R1b-M269 appears only during the Majkop era ~ 3850BC. Im not sure if NV3003 is even confirmed as R1b-M269, but KST001 apparently is.
They are buried in new kurgans first built during the Majkop era with no continuity with the earlier Eneolithic steppe ones.
Not only this, but the entire region was inundated by other lineages, J2a-M67, a couple of J2b, and the west Siberian Q1. I think there's n R1b-V1636 left over in a steppe Majkop individual.
So, calling the 4500-4000 and the post 3800 clusters as the same "LCV" is just nonsense.
3. Even then, KST001 do not seem to be L23+, thus not directly ancestral to the main yamnaya line. But its the closest clue we have so far.
4. KST has ~ 15% Ukraine N type ancestry , as a further clue
5. Just a guess, but i still would think that M269 expanded with a Repin like group (hence tentative location proto-CW-Ym in the lower-niddle Don region) which eventually took over the Majkop territory and expanded over the steppe after the Cernavoda group moved depper into the balkans and Anatolia. This would be a rational location for M269's participation in Afansievo and later Corded Ware
@ Dragon Hermit
''Proto-Anatolians, whoever they are, have nothing to do with kurgans or barrows.''
As per above, this is a figment of your imagination, an unqualified blanket statement this has no meaning.
''And yes, Yamnaya colonised the Balkans and Western Anatolia. But these are the ancestors of Greek, Phrygians, Thracians, etc.''
You seem unaware of the several pre-Yamnaya steppe groups and diversity within 'Balkan Yamnaya'. proto-Greeks are strongly associated with R1b-PF7562, which moved down the Morava, whilst the East Balkans/ Thrace are quite different & inherently diverse (with barrows, flat graves, pithoi, etc). They clearly moved into Anatolia, this is beyond debate and your uneducated trolling has no case.
@ Mr Funk
“ and what are the two yellow dotted lines going from Maikop, one to the west in Ukraine to Sredny Stog, and the other to the southern Caucasus? what migrations are we talking about?”
The focus of the map isn’t a detailed treatment of CLV, but it depicts instances of gene flow from CLV-like ancestry.
Those might include
- early csongrad and Suvorovo toward the carpathian B (dead ends)
- to Areni (dead end) + a couple of individuals surviving after the KAx takeover
- main spread occurred after, mostly female mediated and with the R1b-M269 conquest of the Majkop sphere
@ Rob
''Not only this, but the entire region was inundated by other lineages, J2a-M67, a couple of J2b, and the west Siberian Q1. I think there's n R1b-V1636 left over in a steppe Majkop individual.
So, calling the 4500-4000 and the post 3800 clusters as the same "LCV" is just nonsense.''
And T1, L, G2a. A complete turnover by 'southern lineages', which were then pushed back toward their mountain core zone by Yamnaya a few hundred years later. No continuity at all, just broad autosomal sharing.
@ Dragom Hermit
How are we meant to take you seriously after you peddling the Corded Ware underclass theory. You clearly have a complex and an agenda
Small details that don't really change things but KST001 is definitely R-M269 without reads for R-L23 or downstream SNPs due to coverage not being good enough. NV3003 has good coverage, not as good as pcw362, and is ancestral for R-L23 and R-PF7562. So the source population of R-L23 hasn't been found yet.
@Dospaises
Do you have a list of all the Y-haplogroup calls for the relevant new samples from Anatolia and Eastern Europe from the last 6 months?
@Gabru
and in your diagram, in the ethnogenesis of the Khvalynsk and Yekaterinivsk clines, does the population steppe_en or steppe_late mesplitic participate?
@DragonHermit
Those "Baltic" mercenaries, just like the other exotic foreigners, were probably just exported from a market on the North Pontic rather than being related to amber roadtrips. Hence why all the foreigners hailed from regions adjacent to the Scythian Kingdom and I'd imagine there being two of each group was not a coincidence either.
Idk what these samples have to do with the bronze age northern Europe though, they are from the 5th century BC.
Finally, we have a lot of genomes from the Bronze Age in Greece and finally R1b-Z2103 has appeared so that, finally Lazaridis and company have the possibility to defend an origin of the Mycenaean language in the Yamnaya culture with credible arguments. However, it is evident that they are a minority within other Mycenaean lineages of clear Anatolian and local origin, so that, according to the logic of the supporters of the Kurgan theory, my first question is for Mr Kroonen and company. If we are to believe that a minority of markers of steppe origin were the ones who introduced the Indo-European languages into the Balkans during the Bronze Age, why we are not to believe that these same markers introduced the Italic languages in the Italian peninsula where they are also (for the moment) a minority? Note that Z2103 appears at the beginning of the Iron Age in all tribes speaking Indo-European languages from the south to the north of Italy
R1016 (800 BCE)-Castel Di decima, Latini_Iron Age, Italy-R1b-Z2103
PN62 (725 BCE)-Novilara, picenes, IA_Italy-R1b-Z2103>M12149>Z2106>Z2108>Z2110>CTS7556
SGR002 (498 BCE)-S.Giovanni Rotondo, daunians, IA_Apulia, Italy-R1b-Z2103>Z2105-M12149
-The second important fact is that R1b-L51>L151 never participated in the Indo-Europeanization of the Balkans, because it has not appeared in Greece either, so it seems evident that it never shared culture with the rest of the R1b markers that appear in both steppe and Balkan cultures - R1b-Z2103, R1b-V1636, R1b-L51>Z2118, R1b-M269>PF7562 and even R1b-M73. I suppose the Kurganists would argue that since L151 was of low social class, not only were they not buried in the Kurgans but also unlike their relatives R1b they were not granted visas to travel to the Balkans. However, common sense leads us to think that R1b-L151 is not buried in Yamnaya nor in the Balkans simply because he was never there.
"Wise dragon said...
@Romulus
Actually, 3 samples cluster with BA Scandis. The one Scandi sample came from a foreigner. However, the other two BA samples were locals. Read here:
"and a few individuals carry a higher proportion of Ukraine Meso/Neolithic, which indicates steppe-related ancestry potentially from Europe (Fig. S6.45). When we added two steppe sources, Yamnaya and CWC respectively, this variation became clearer, showing two steppe outliers (CGG_2_022534; CGG_2_022535) carrying CWC ancestry (Fig. S6.45; Supplementary Table S5). These individuals are also clustered with Scandinavian Bronze Age individuals""
I'm sure it's just a big coincidence that all these "Cypriot" skeletons that turned out genetically Scandinavian were kept in a museum in Stockholm for 100 years. The lack of critical thinking in these comments is incredible. People will believe what they want to believe I guess.
@Davidski I haven't had time to get them. Hopefully someone else has them or can get them soon.
One of the papers I mentioned earlier actually was released in late November:
"A New Language within the Hittite Empire"
Elisabeth Rieken – Ilya Yakubovich – Daniel Schwemer
"The lower half of a single-column clay tablet was found in Boğazköy-Ḫattuša during the 2023 excavation campaign near Ambarlıkaya. The Hittite introduction contains a ritual instruction that refers to the following recitation: »in the town of Kalašma« or »in (the language of) the town of Kalašma«. On this basis the short text can be as- signed to this city in the north-west of Ḫattuša. The combined application of different decoding methods allows a preliminary understanding of the text passage, which is written in a previously unknown Anatolian language. The speaker invites the deity addressed, presumably the »Storm-god of Striking (down)«, to accept the offerings and asks him for benevolence and abundance in return. The characteristics of the language suggest that it belongs to the Luwic subgroup of the Anatolian language group, but rule out an identification with Luwian, its most important member."
A few new Yamnaya ancient J2b L283 samples:
From the Ghalichi/Reinhold final publication “The rise and transformation of Bronze Age pastoralists in the Caucasus”:
-ZO1002 Zolotarevka, Russia J2b L283 3900 BCE Early/Pre Yamnaya
From “Ancient genomics support deep divergence between Eastern and Western Mediterranean Indo-European languages”:
-CGG_2_103750 Constantinovca, Moldova J2b L283 2500 BCE Late Yamnaya
-CGG_2_103750 Constantinovca, Moldova. J2b L283 2500 BCE Late Yamnaya
And another ancient J2b L283 found amongst the Mycenaeans:
CGG_2_022411 Kirrha, Greece J2b L283 1600 BCE Mycenaean/Late Helladic
The samples from Constantinovca, Moldova are underneath the Z597 branch (3000 BCE) and are related to the Budzhak Yamnaya in western Ukraine and Moldova.
The new Mycenaean sample from Kirrha (there are now 5 ancient J2b L283 Mycenaean samples) belongs to the Z600 branch. The other samples from Mygdalia (previous study), the Z615 branch. Formed 3500 and 3100 BCE, respectively.
I just noticed the early medieval samples from Lauchheim in Baden-Württemberg. It's weird, on average they are closest to Italian_Northeast among modern pops. The individuals vary from Italian_Northeast over Italian_Emilia and Italian_Liguria to French_Provence. Only one individual is faintly Swiss_German-like. How can we explain this? The samples are dated to around 750 AD, so at the border from the Merovingian to the Karolingian age. Italy hadn't yet been incorporated into the Frankish empire. My guess: They are leftovers from the Roman age. Lauchheim is located south of the Upper Germanic-Rhaetic limes.
Also surprising the late antique samples from Basel, which happens to be my home town. They date to around 400 AD and are closest to modern Danes. Not exactly what I would have guessed! OK, they are just two individuals, but separated by several decades. Seen in this light, my yDNA haplogroup R1a-FT156794, which is a variant of the Germanic R1a-YP405, with a TMRCA of around 150 AD, probably just 25 km east of Basel, and with a French subvariant with a TMRCA of 450 AD, all of a sudden makes more sense.
If you read between the lines of the Harvard papers released with David Anthony's name on them, it is apparent that he has tried to advocate for the steppe PIE hypothesis which now has plenty of genomic evidence to go with the linguistics and archaeology. It's just that he has needed to negotiate with other authors who want it to be elsewhere and as the primary investigators their influence tends to dominate. Nevertheless, based on the recent Harvard paper he seems to be finally making progress.
@Gabru
then it is more logical to assume that kst001 is a mixture of Steppe_LM + UHG + something like aknashen or mesis blur 🤔
why not steppe_en, because it already has an admixture of ttk
@Gasaka
Yes I agree with everything you wrote, my thoughts exactly. It is a terrible argument that a tiny autosomal contribution and these outlier Y chromosomes caused a language turnover and introduced Greek.
With LPIE and Corded Ware the situation is mostly clear but Harvard's early PIE hypotheses are ridiculous.
@ Gaska & Romulus
Why are you perseverating the same falsehoods? There is more than “Iron Age Z2103” and a few tiny percent autosomal percentage.
The steppe connection of protoGreeks have been proposed around longer than the scholars you mentioned
Are these gentlemen really steppe people?
{G25 Calculatrice standard Global25 par Davidski}
Target: Hungary_LateC_EBA_Baden_Yamnaya:I5119
Distance: 2.9691% / 0.02969081
87.6 TUR_Barcin_N
11.0 WHG
1.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Target: Hungary_LateC_EBA_Baden_Yamnaya:I5118
Distance: 3.0052% / 0.03005209
84.0 TUR_Barcin_N
14.4 WHG
1.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I8728
Target: Hungary_LateC_EBA_Baden_Yamnaya:I5117
Distance: 4.4873% / 0.04487296
84.2 TUR_Barcin_N
12.6 WHG
2.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
1.2 Han
Target: Serbia_Mokrin_EBA_Maros:I23207
Distance: 2.9795% / 0.02979496
54.4 TUR_Barcin_N
29.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
16.0 WHG
Dear Rob, you know I appreciate you, but when we read your comments and see that you think you were right because you found an I2a-L699 or 3 R1b-V1636 in Turkey I can only smile and think that your desires are ahead of your intelligence. Try to be a little unbiased and think that any impartial observer can only think that with the genetic data at our disposal the Indo-Europeanization of Anatolia from Europe is (following the Balkan route or the Caucasian route) is just a joke. Wait a while, and when you see a massive invasion of steppe or Balkan markers in Anatolia you can defend a change of language, meanwhile your theories (although respectable) are only fairy tales similar to those told by Harvard.
By the way, regarding R1b-m269 in Majkop, I see that you continue to advocate the origin of this marker in the Don or in Ukraine, you should know that we have accurate data and it is neither in Ukraine nor in Russia. Wait and see, the ridicule of some prestigious scientists is going to be sidereal.
@Gaska
More than a cause may give way to language shifts. It can be a number superiority, a militar one, isolation of a low number of conquerors among a foreign cultural environment, a better politic, commercial and administrative network (cultural superiority) and so on…
In Iberia the steppic component came with weight only at BA, and this component decreased from North to South. BI in Argaric places it was at the lowest and there was also a supplementary touch of ‘Iranian’ component. The culture even after the shift towards individual buryings accepted different ways of burying which could show an incomplete domination of the new « masters ». One sepulture practice reminds of Aegean cultures, fact that may explain the excess of ‘iranian’ component. The turnover with a complete supremacy of Y-R1b-P312 descendants concerns uniquely males and this striking situation has not been immediately obtained but rather was the result of a relatively long infiltration from north to south (what doesn’t exclude some early « bridges heads ») IMO, otherwise I don’t see why would have caused these differences.
This possible steps advance is not per se a cause of language loss for the winners since they acculturate foreign females step by step, what could explain in Greece the IE language in a population with poor steppic DNA remnants* (*this last statement of steppic DNA paucity could even be debated concerning Greek genesis). But a stage of partial bilinguism can also result for some generations and after a good bit of time with more and more contacts with a culturally strong and evolved foreign environment some of the conquerors can choose the language of the vanquished majority (it could be a key concerning the Italic/Etruscan “paradox”. Franks were dominant but they lost their language after some generations after their politic separation from other Germanic cousins spite a rather well structured society.
Let’s not forget that some water ran under the bridges between first stages of BA and the 5th Cy when we see the first Iberian writings. In southern France (Gaul) they were rather coastal and in commercial sites (we spoke already of this), in eastern Iberia they came into sight r than IE toponymy/hydronymy (except maybe Ebro River which evoks as well Basquic as Iebrian) and more than one linguist think Iberian is a language (or a bunch of close dialects) remotely akin to Vasconic (proto-Basquic) but presenting a lot of peculiarities which could make of it a commercial koine adopted by more than an ethny.
Concerning Vasconic, it seems its first core land south the Pyrenees was more eastern than to date Basquic, and that more westernly in today Basque lands it shared the spaces with Celtic languages at IE at least, what complicates the interpretations. The Y-R1b post-P312 there seem the result of a founder effect based on a rather limited number of first male bearers.
Concerning Tartessian, the language has been used in lands shared with other languages, among which Celtic!
So, we have a big time hole in Iberia between 2000 and 400 BC with uncertainty concerning the number of first steppic DNA bearers relative to the CA pop’, and a lot of possibilities concerning language shift. I think we are far from your straight-on conclusions, even if I think that others on fora and blogs are also too sure of their own interpretations concerning the IE story.
No certainties, only thinks without agenda nor blindness.
Hi @Davidski,
Could we have G25 for these Kenyan:
https://ufile.io/0nahmvkh (extracted from V62.HO .
Same data is available also here: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xh...DVN/NC28XW
)
Thanks,
@ Gaska
''Try to be a little unbiased and think that any impartial observer can only think that with the genetic data at our disposal the Indo-Europeanization of Anatolia from Europe is ''
But we all know you're not an impartial observer. That is why you are always gaslighting the evidence about R1b, its greater Vasconic origins, and your everything else is a distorted knock-on Cope.
As for Anatolia, your line about massive migrations into is your personal strawman . In fact, the evidence is farily simple, there were multiple movements into Anatolia after 5000 BC, and one of them was, as expected, via the western Black sea region which brought IE.
''By the way, regarding R1b-m269 in Majkop, I see that you continue to advocate the origin of this marker in the Don or in Ukraine, you should know that we have accurate data and it is neither in Ukraine nor in Russia. Wait and see, the ridicule of some prestigious scientists is going to be sidereal.''
You cant bluff with promises you can't deliver.
BTW the KST
left pops:
KST001
Golubaya_Krinitsa
Tutkaul1
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
best coefficients: 0.724 0.152 0.124
tail prob 0.2729
Middle-lower Don is looking good, Basue country....not so much
@ Moesan
Interesting points. Etruscans are somewhat lucid - there is clear cultural difference north and south of the Po since the MLBA
I still cant decide on the issue of Iberian. However, I do not think it is about a 'slower takeover' of SE iberia or 'Iranian components'. The turnover in Iberia was fairly uniform, beginning 2500 in the north, by 2400 in the central-south, and complete by 2200 BC. I think this has more to do with a severe draught which forced the new BB folk to hold out behind defended water -bearing strongholds and only accept female locals as 'refugees'. Yes, there is some 'exotic' individual or 2 appearing in El Argar as well. But i think the langauge shift might have been in the reverse - and more to do with the (violent) collapse of El Argar c. 1500 BC. Vasconic might have been the language of the 'common class' of P312 males born to non-consort Females, or perhaps a language adopted from a neighbouring society for the pruposes of trade and commercial exchange, could be some west Mediterranean Island close to Sardinia or a west Alpine region near southern France, where the BB takever was 'softer'.
@Rob
Sredny Stog is a pre-Kurgan culture. I don't know what you're going on about with your imaginary "pre steppe" populations.
As I explained to you, if Proto-Greek was formed in 2500 BC, and entered the territory of Greece ~2200 BC, Proto-Greco-Phrygians predates 2500 BC, i.e. Yamnaya culture era.
@Moesan
Regarding the Argaric culture, it is true that it presents cultural novelties and a few mitochondrial markers of oriental origin (Sicilian-Italian & Greek). Exogamy was practiced throughout Europe until historical times and for example in El Argar there are also some central european and french markers. Similarly, there are Iberian mtDNA markers in France, England and even in the Mycenaean culture. But this never produced language changes because in patriarchal societies women did not have the possibility of passing on their mother tongue to their descendants.
The strange thing about this situation is that 99% of the men were P312 (those with sufficient coverage, DF27) and that in the sites where there is clear social stratification (burials, grave goods...) both the rich and the poor peasants are DF27. So we are talking about societies in which there are no external reasons to change their language (no invasions, conquests, elites of different lineages, etc) simply a massive founder effect of a male lineage. After the collapse of the late Bronze Age it turns out that all the Iberian peoples of the Iron Age continue to be Df27 (who, by the way, continued to bury their children under the floor of their houses just as their ancestors did 1000 years before) and then we already know that they spoke and wrote Iberian in most of the peninsula. So this genetic continuity through the male line makes us think that the Argarians and their beaker ancestors spoke a NON indo-european language. It is a matter of common sense.
In Etruria the situation is very similar to Iberia, because all the male lineages descend from the Terramare culture so there is also genetic continuity, they will be mostly P312 and they did not speak IE either. And yet, the situation in Greece is paradoxical because 75% of the Mycenaean male markers during the palatial period (1.400-1.200 BCE) were of local or Anatolian origin and yet they spoke an IE language. Years ago, everyone expected that the Iberians and Etruscans would be overwhelmingly I2a & G2a and the Mycenaeans overwhelmingly M269, don't you find it funny?.
Now you can look for all kinds of explanations and all sorts of gymnastic mental exercises (wars, conquests, elites, physical or technological superiority, lingua franca etc..) to explain this situation.
I have come to the conclusion that genetics is not useful to explain the linguistic situation in Europe during the Bronze and Iron Age and finally I have to accept that (almost) everyone thinks I am wrong when I point out the obvious contradictions between what should have been and what we actually find in the sites studied.
The Kurgan develops during the Sredni Stog cultural horizon.
The Piedmont "Steppe Eneolithic" burials are mostly found in small mounds about .5 to 1.0m in height. There are also some examples of barrow graves in this region. These are ultimately dead-ends, replaced by Steppe Maikop. The ones who crossed the caucasus are quickly absorbed by early Kura-Araxes.
Larger Kurgans develop in the NW Pontic at the same time, with the same basic burial postures and assemblages as the Piedmont individuals (supine, knees bent, heading facing the east, with red ochre covering, flint blades). Novodanilovka in Ukraine also feature these same traits.
Cernavoda I is thought to derive from SuNo, and Cernavoda III is thought to derive from influences of it and Usatovo. Cernavoda III sees the emergence of late fourth millennium barrows in Thrace. There's both autosomal and uniparental support for all of this as well.
There is no archeological difficulty, so your distinction re: "pre-kurgan" is baseless. All of this information can be accessed in easily available literature.
@PCA_010
Here...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AYFiI1HMGpgc6_z7upHsj1r38CgPmevo/view?usp=sharing
I wouldn't trust the new article so much, regarding the new Anatolian I2 samples, especially in the question regarding adsixtures, I didn't read it, but I came across graphs, where in the Armenian_mlba IDB graph, in addition to the "pit" component, the CWC component is also drawn within 10-5%...
Some even have GAC embedded there...
That's the funny calculator they have
But I didn't read the article, so I can't say what they themselves write about it
@Rob
No one denies that there were population movements from the Balkans to Anatolia but there were much more important population movements from Anatolia to the Balkans so IMO it is better to wait for more Hittite genomes to be analyzed.
Fair enough, no one is thinking of an origin of KST001 south of the Caucasus. Try to model it using distal components. This sample does not have reads for L23 or PF7562 so we do not know if it is R1b-M269*.
Regarding NEV3003, there is more than 100 phylogenetic SNPs at the M269 level, and this sample is positive for 40 of them, so it is the "most M269" we have, but we don't know for sure if it is M269*.
Smyadovo (4,500 BC)-M269
0.511-Barcin_Neolithic
0.207-Caucasus_HG
0.192-Western_HG
0.090-Eastern_HG
0.000-Levant
-Bulgaria_Chalcolithic
Smyadovo-R1b-M269
0.570-Bulgaria-ChL
0.430-UKR_Dereiivka_Eneolithic
p.value: 0.4837892
@ Gaska
There were no post-Neolithic movements from Anatolia into the Balkans , until what - the iron age , and then Hellenistic and Roman era of course.
Southern Greece and the Aegean is a different matter, but that doesn’t have anything to do with IE. And you’ve been informed before not to lump all Yhg J2 together
I wouldn't view a preference for CWC vs Yamnaya vs Steppe Eneolithic literally, especially as CWC shows up for pre-Yamnaya populations like Ilipinar and Barcin_C.
In the case of Anatolia, I do wonder if a preference for CWC is a stand-in for additional IBD sharing with Sredni Stog.
The larger question of whether there is actually Steppe ancestry isn't a concern, given that with the samples we already have we can more or less replicate it in qpadm/G25 (if not actually find a little bit more).
There is the krepost_N individual (I0679_d) which has significant 'CHG/Iran' shift but she dates to ~ 5700 BC which is early- Neolithic and very much an 'outlier'.
Gumelnita = passes with one-way model from preceding Vinca_MN
No extra "Anatolia-CH"' which it in any case pre-dates
Italy looks to be R1b + G2a, vs Greece as R1b + J2-L27. The former is clearly EEF signal with J2-L27 being the Bronze Age Iran Neolithic signal that engulfed the Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age. I think it's too diverse to be from the Indo-European speakers. R1b -M269+ is undoubtedly the Steppe in both cases of Greece and Italy. Still not very much data in Turkey to really say anything, and the Levantine look of Cyprus isn't unexpected.
That's exactly what it is.
@Rob
I do not agree with you, all the great European cultures of the Bronze Age were cosmopolitan and all received technological and genetic influences from other cultures even from those that because of their remoteness seem impossible. The Atlantic Bronze Age culture united western Iberia with the French Atlantic coast and the British Isles, the Argar culture adopted the custom of burying the dead in pithoi from the eastern Mediterranean and the Mycenaean culture had a strong influence from Anatolia and the Levant. In addition, exogamy continued to be commonly practiced among all these cultures.
Therefore it is clear that Greece continued to receive Anatolian genetics during the Bronze Age in the same way that it received steppe genetics that had been roaming the rest of the Balkans for 1,000 years. By this I do not mean that Indo-European languages entered Greece during the Bronze Age, because I have no idea what the geographical origin of Mycenaean is, the linguistic debate has always seemed to me boring and sterile.
What is the geographical origin of this marker, what language did it speak?, when it arrived in Greece and Italy?
-Marker-J1b-Y6313
*SHA004 (3.294 BCE)-Shahtepe, Caspian sea, Iran-J1b-Y6313>Y6304>Y19093>pre-ZS50
*BOE003 (2.749 BCE)-Bozroodpey Tepe, early BA_Iran-J1b-F1614-Y6304-Ghalichi, 2.024
*LAZ017 (2.787 BCE)-Lazarides, Aegina, Greece-J1b-Y6313>Y6304>Y19093>ZS50>ZS5071
*G31 (2.450 BCE)-Perachora, Greece-J1b-Y6313>Y6304>Y19093>ZS50
*NST012 (2.413 BCE)-Nea Styra, early Helladic, Euboea island-J1b-Y6313>Y6304>Y19093>ZS50
*KUK002 (1.163 BCE)-Koukounaries, Paros, Mycenean, Greece-J1b-Y6313>F1614-Y6304
*PN172 (800 BCE)-Novilara, Picenes, IA_Italy-J1b-M267>Y6313>Y6304>ZS3642>Z2223-Y19093
"Proto-Indo-European populations developed around the Zagros-Alborz mountains and the continuity of the same words related to mountains in Iranian languages. The Semitic/Indo-European frontier is demarcated by mountains where the Indo-European languages developed in the North and Semitic arrived from the South-West. Zagros-Alborz are the Indo-European mountainous bulwark and the frontier between Iranian J1 clades and Semitic J1 clades."
RCO on GenArchivist is right.
@Hayek
Hilarious.
RCO is a clown.
@ Davidski
These were the argumets of David Reich, in his presentation from April this year, to defend the eastern arrival to Anatolia:
"Result 4: Genetics provides strong evidence for an eastern route for the expansion of Indo-European languages into Anatolia, challenging prevailing views
(1)Kloekhorst argues for a western route, with the strongest arguments being an entirely western distribution for deeply splitting Anatolian languages
(2) But the likely Anatolian-speakers from Kalehoyuk and Ovaoren who represent a local population replacement and have 10-30% CLV ancestry, have none of the European farmer or Anatolian Chalcolithic/Bronze Age ancestry one would expect from a western trek
(3) And even if we assume for the sake of argument a westward migration without mixture like that which led to Csongrad or Giurgiulesti, the major component of Kalehoyuk/Ovaoren ancestry is 70-90% Mesopotamian, pointing to an EASTERN route
(4) The absence of Anatolian in the east could be explained by the Kura-Araxes expansion around 3000 BCE, which was archaeologically momentous and eliminated steppe admixture in the south Caucasus (Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. Science 2022). This was a hard population replacement that would have driven a Hattic or Hurrian wedge between Indo-Anatolian languages north & south of Caucasus.
(5) This does not disprove a western route but biases us to it. If odds on a western route before these data was 5:1, the genetic data increase eastern route probability by maybe 25-fold so now the odds might be 1:5 for an eastern route."
You can find it in youtube, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLNRGGWpOmA&t
Any comment?
@Rob or anyone else really - could you explain why you find this paper so persuasive on a Balkan route for Anatolian languages? I'll confess my biases lie in the opposite direction.
Is it the Barçın ancestry in Kalehöyük? I would agree that should be pretty good evidence, but it seems to get replaced by CWC once CWC is added to the analysis (which seems bizarre to me).
@Carlos Aramayo
David Reich's approach to looking for the PIE homeland is fundamentally flawed.
That's why it took him a decade to finally admit that the PIE homeland might actually be in Eastern Europe as opposed to West Asia.
But I can't explain everything here and now. I'll do it in a series of blog entries as soon as I can.
@Hayek no, he's wrong, he's always talking this nonsense about Iranian J1 and Indo-Europeans from Zagros
Neither PIA, PIE nor Anatolian are from the Caucasus.
It might be shocking for some to realize that people like Reich, Lazaridis and Patterson have been talking nonsense for a decade, but that's exactly what's been happening.
And David Anthony has been idly standing by smiling to himself.
if I'm not mistaken you localized PIE along the Dnieper River (where PIA is), Sredne-Stogovskaya culture, etc., or I misunderstood you🤔
I-l701 enters Western and Central Anatolia (where IE was spoken and more importantly where Anatolian must have diversified - see Kloekworst tree) in the bronze age. It continues to show up in such samples all the way to the present. It also frequently shows up in Anatolian-rich Roman imperial samples.
R-V1636 has never shown up in Western or Central Anatolia. It has never shown up in Roman imperial samples.
So, conversely, it's an eastern route that has to jocky with baseless speculation (in addition to zero archeological corollary after Areni shortly dies out, zero Steppe ancestry in Eastern Anatolia from the ChL to EBA that can't be explained by Kura-Araxes or Maikop).
@ Ryan
'could you explain why you find this paper so persuasive on a Balkan route for Anatolian languages? I'll confess my biases lie in the opposite direction.
Is it the Barçın ancestry in Kalehöyük? I would agree that should be pretty good evidence, but it seems to get replaced by CWC once CWC is added to the analysis (which seems bizarre to me)''
It doesn't matter what the paper itself suggests, I have been skeptical of the IBD clustering analysis by this team for some time (some of their claims about Scandic/ Gothic ancestry seem a bit contrived). What the paper brings is unequivocal Y-DNA evidence for a western route migration of IE speakers into Anatolia, right into Kuloba & Kalehoyuk ca. 2200 BC, just before the Hittite Empire expands.
I dont understand your question about Barcin ancestry, the point is that Barcin _CH (c. 3700 BC) is so far the earliest individual in Anatolia with steppe ancestry, somewhat contrived to claim it came via the Caucasus. There is of course the 'lingiustic topography' of IE in Anatolia itself focussed in the west, Luwian toponyms in Thrace & the Aegean, etc etc. I dont care what Kroonen might or might not have implied in his linguistic tea-leaf reading.
The patchy steppe ancestry in the southern Caucasus is not related to Hittites & Luwians entering Anatolia.
@ Gabru
Yeah mate it's just semantics, the Dnieper-Don or Gujarat, Same diff.
At best, pre-proto-IE is associated with some CHG-/ Iran N group, but unlikely, it's north Eurasian .
I will however clarify that Ive thought about all other various possible paradigms for IE, even before they were published. I was advocating for understanding the important role of Caucasian groups such as Majkop since before most people were around, but now we can understand their impact with clarity. It's just that some people are taking it too far due their own haplo-daddy biases, just like beofre that some people were going crazy with steppe-tardism.
Nobody supporting the Balkan Trek has explained how small groups of hunter-gatherers and shepherds achieved what they did amongst technologically more advanced and more populous farmers before the invention of the waggon and ability to travel overland between rivers.
why do all these EHG reconstructions look so Asian, do they determine the shape of the eyes by the shape of the skull?
@Ned
Fortunately, this precise issue has been written on in chapter's 3 and 4 of Federico Giusfredi, Valerio Pisaniello, and Alvise Matessi's collaborative volume released in 2023.
Note that they also weren't hunter-gatherers.
And of course, we do have strong linguistic evidence that Anatolians were in certain ways less "sophisticated" (to the extent this is appropriate framing) than the Hattians and Assyrians they came into contact with.
That book is open access.
https://brill.com/display/title/65056?language=en
Anatolia was an open land in 5000 and 4000 BC, there were no 'highly developed' natives. The IE could have walked in naked and barefoot. In any case, there were wagons in Plachidol, horse bones in Thrace, etc.
The Near East was not really “more developed' , not sure how great it would be squatting as an agricultural serf in an Uruk town
I don't see how Y-chromosomes prove a western route?
Re: the Barcin ancestry, my reading is that there is one lone Barcin sample with EHG ancestry, which may be more Iron-Gates related than actual steppe-related. I'd consider "steppe" to mean the combination of both EHG and CHG, not either on its own. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
Again, just my cursory reading, but I think the point they are making is that Barcin-related ancestry arriving with steppe ancestry points to European farmer ancestry. If the Balkans route is correct, you would expect exactly something like this - a combination of Balkans farmer and steppe ancestry arriving together.
But the steppe (and European farmer) ancestry seems to be from the Corded Ware Culture, which I find difficult to explain if this is an actual Hittite. Proto-Anatolian should have split from other steppe languages far earlier than the Corded Ware Culture, no?
The one sample in question I dug into seems to be dated to around 1,800 BC though, +/- a few hundred years. So maybe an early Mittani in a Hittite settlement? Wierd.
@Ryan
" ...my reading is that there is one lone Barcin sample with EHG ancestry, which may be more Iron-Gates related than actual steppe-related...The one sample in question I dug into seems to be dated to around 1,800 BC though, +/- a few hundred years. So maybe an early Mittani in a Hittite settlement? Weird."
Are you referinf to this sample?:
I1584_v43.5_al, EHG-0,023, TUR_Marmara_Barcin_ChL, not available Yhg.
How can it be from c. 1800 BC?
@Davidski
"Renfrew’s theory was not widely accepted by historical linguists. Most consider it unlikely that the strong similarities encountered among Indo-European languages could be preserved during the long period (ca. 5000 years) between the Neolithic and the earliest relevant attestations and then down to the latest attestations (first millennium ce), which would require an additional 3000 years of conservatism.54 Moreover, a substantial vocabulary that was shared by several Indo-European languages, including Anatolian ones—such as, for example, the words for ‘wool,’ ‘yoke,’ and ‘hitch-pole’—reflects technological innovations that occurred during the fourth and third millennia bce and could hardly have been part of a Neolithic language.55 For these and other reasons,56 therefore, Renfrew’s ‘language/ farming dispersal’ model will not be pursued further here" (p 43).
"Adjusted through Anthony’s model, the hypothesis of a Pontic-Caspian Urheimat of Indo-Europeans seems, therefore, the most viable or, at any rate, the least problematic of those proposed so far" (p 43)
"During much of the LCh and EBA, central, Northern and western Anatolia participated in a wide network of exchange that joined these regions to the Carpatho-Balkan area, Russian steppe belt, and Caucasus. This network, termed the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province by the archaeologist Černyh, was a “system of rather closely interrelated centers of metalworking and metallurgy.”67 In Anatolia, as elsewhere, Circumpontic connections are manifest in technological transfers, imported goods, and shared stylistic conventions. These connections encompassed metal products as well as other material categories, and, presumably, they also involved an equally intense circulation of people and ideas.68 The sheer scale and the geography involved make this system of contacts the most promising scenario for the Indo-Europeanization of Anatolia, leading us to focus on two possible trajectories: one through the Caucasus and the other through the Balkans (p 46).
No. How could a Barcin sample have extra Barcin ancestry? I was referring to the later Kalehöyük sample that had both extra Barcin ancestry and steppe ancestry. Sorry if that wasn't clear...
Target: Iran_DinkhaTepe_BA_IA_2:I3912__BC_1793__Cov_84.84%
Distance: 1.4147% / 0.01414652
51.2 Iran_DinkhaTepe_BA_IA_1
40.6 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
8.2 Iran_HajjiFiruz_BA
This sample is downstream of G-PH2643 and mtdna is J1d6....
Modern male descendants under G-PH2643....
Saudi Arabia: 7
Yemen: 3
Germany: 2
Pakistan: 2
India: 1
Hasanlu_IA has lot of R1b...but autosomally is is quite rich in Alalakh_MLBA like ancestry which is kinda Semitic...
Target: Assyrian_Mardin
Distance: 0.9052% / 0.00905163
66.8 Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA
32.4 Armenia_Lchashen_LBA
0.8 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
Target: Assyrian
Distance: 0.2315% / 0.00231474
72.4 Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA
13.8 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
12.0 Armenia_Lchashen_LBA
1.0 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
0.8 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
Target: Iran_Hasanlu_IA
Distance: 0.0222% / 0.00022243
51.0 Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA
22.6 Armenia_Lchashen_LBA
21.8 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
2.4 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
2.2 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
@Ethan; @Davidski thanks for the pointer
@Gio: The word for 'wool' probably isn't Proto-Indo-Anatolian. See
Kloekhorst, Alwin "Wool and the Indo Anatolian Hypothesis" (Presentation) (Uppsala: 2023)
Available from Author on Academia.edu at https://www.academia.edu/123968955/Wool_and_the_Indo_Anatolian_Hypothesis (Accessed: 19/9/2024)
The route for PIA was from Seh Gabi (western end of Zagros-Alborz mountains, Iran) to Aknashen (Armenia), where the bifurcation point was to Anatolia and the Steppe.
No western route for Anatolian, Lazaridis (2022) has proven with Southern Arc lack of Steppe ancestry in Anatolia. PIA was an Iran N language who came in contact with CHG-Levantine mix in Aknashen. This Southern Arc mixture conquered both Anatolia and EHG in the Steppe.
Anyone claiming Steppe origin for PIA is coping. Lazaridis is right.
PIA has nothing to do with the Zagros.
This is just a very strange early interpretation of broad autosomal affinities by Iosif Lazaridis and Nick Patterson.
They didn't really understand the topic when they came up with these ideas. They were basically just copying nutcase blogger Dienekes Pontikos.
I'm guessing Lazaridis and Patterson are a lot more realistic now, and I can't see them putting PIA in the Zagros unless they're totally out of touch with reality.
You can e-mail them and ask.
@Davidski
Nalchik is the light. They have the right proportions of Seh Gabi and Aknashen ancestry (Iran N-CHG-Levantine mix).
Nalchik has nothing to do with PIA.
https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042%2824%2902188-6
PIA agro-pastoralists conquered the Steppe. Nalchik is a Steppe and Southern Arc (PIA) mix.
Target: Iran_Hasanlu_IA_o:I4097__BC_1354__Cov_86.75%
Distance: 1.1154% / 0.01115405
63.2 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
19.4 Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA
9.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
4.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
3.2 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
Hasanlu_IA_o is basically a BMAC rich population with local parental origins...
R2+13500 mtdna is found in south asia and J1a2a1-Z2360 is local Geokysur related lineage...
@ Davidski
"They were basically just copying nutcase blogger Dienekes Pontikos".
Many people say that Lazaridis is "Dienekes Pontikos". I exchanged tons of letters with him. I thought that another correspondent of mine was a nickname of him, but he denied because he said that Dienekes did come from the "Pontos" and he was from Cerigo island, in fact he was named Costa Tsirigakis and his Y was a J2a from the Venetian Chioggia. Interesting that when Lazaridis went to Harvard the blog was out… Are you perhaps going to Harvard too? But you should change your mind!
Here Hasanlu_IA_o on PCA
https://imgur.com/a/7to3spl
@Davidski Those Kenyan samples you converted seem off? Were they processed correctly? I thought I accidentally used raw coords but even the scaled coordinates give completely illogical results (10% WHG, 20% EA, etc)
@Istakhr
I'll have a look tomorrow. But if anything's wrong, then there's probably an issue with the Kenyan data.
@Hayk
Stop acting crazy. Everyone with a brain is moving on from the autosomal=languaues fixation.
Proto-Anatolian came from Ukraine, and it arrived in Anatolia via the Balkans.
@Davidski
When will you prove it? Me, Lazaridis, RCO and Gabru, among others, are preparing a revised Southern Arc with the new data from the Caucasus and the Steppe to put a nail in the coffin to the Steppe hypothesis. Seh Gabi will finally get it's rightly reserved location as PIA homeland.
So the original Southern Arc paper was garbage, and the new Southern Arc paper is going to be even worse.
There's zero evidence that Seh Gabi has anything to do with PIA.
Trying to put the PIA homeland in the Zagros is very low IQ.
Yes, X. Our time will come. Davidski will have to shut down his blog when we publish the paper.
Half baked-incomplete model...
Stop copy pasting random reddit posts...
Target: Pakistan_Butkara_IA:I12450__BC_801__Cov_50.77%
Distance: 1.8507% / 0.01850686
51.0 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
35.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
7.2 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
6.2 TibetanPlateau_Zongri
This male is R1a-Z93 BTW....
Model for Butkara_IA
Target: Pakistan_Butkara_IA
Distance: 0.9765% / 0.00976548
42.4 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
37.2 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
15.4 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
4.6 TibetanPlateau_Zongri
0.4 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
Whether one likes it or not...be it southern arc or steppe...The earliest Indo-Iranian population both in NW Iran and Swat....are BMAC enriched population...
There is no Yaz sample....800bce TKM_IA is the only sample....
OK...I have reported you for cyber harassment...
@Ned
"@Gio: The word for 'wool' probably isn't Proto-Indo-Anatolian".
this root *ḫul- could well be a borrowing, perhaps from Hurrian?
(Kronasser 1967: 45)
Perhaps. Words have the same destiny of the DNA and the Kloekhorst's book presupposes that Hittites did come from the Balkans and not from the Southern Arc.
@PCA_010
@Davidski
Hi! If I remember correctly, those samples were already converted some time ago. Try to see if this version works.
https://pastebin.com/raw/CP6UnQCF
Other links which may be useful
G25 Ancients
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0q39lrsynq7prjc7mm8gq/G25-Ancients.txt?rlkey=33i5tycf3nd6glv1w7z6dleco&st=tz5ppp6c&dl=0
G25 Ancients Undated
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gyeqmlps14bk1w2uz1tdc/G25-Ancients-Undated.txt?rlkey=lycfukqvaodlqta02wivxmt3g&st=ab3ji6nx&dl=0
Iosif Lazaridis uses his position to peddle "Southern Arc’"nonsense because he’s insecure about his own eastern Anatolian origins. Deep down inside he feels like he’s not a real Greek because he lacks a significant genetic connection to the Balkans/Aegean/Europe and his ancestors arrived in the territory of modern Greece as refugees with an incomprehensible dialect, many just speaking plain Turkish and being viewed in a suspicious manner. He hates all of this and it’s left a lasting impact on him psychologically, likely because of stories passed down through family and, to be frank, because he just looks like a regular Turkish/Armenian/Assyrian (MENA) uncle.
In his mind, the fix to this identity crisis is to normalise the idea that basal PIE came from around his homeland of Pontus, modern Turkey, which is part of the greater South Caucasus region. He believes this will finally bring catharsis, allowing reconciliation between his genetics and Greek ethno-linguistic heritage, whilst also spiting both the dastardly mainland Greeks and Europeans as a whole, by moving the ultimate homeland of IE languages not only outside the continent, but to where his family came from.
This is why R1 EHG being pre-PIE and PIA emerging and expanding from the Ukrainian steppes is completely unacceptable to him. He will never accept the steppe hypothesis, no matter how much evidence is presented.
And before people attack me, I'm not making fun of Lazaridis’ mind-state. Anatolian Greeks did actually go through a lot of xenophobia in the early 20th century and everyone struggles with their own insecurities. But he’s allowed these personal issues to get in the way of settling the PIE debate, which is unacceptable. He should deal with that stuff outside of the lab, not through it.
@Tom
Everyone at Harvard gets his agenda. I'm old in the matter. Already Underhill et al thought that hg R1a did come from Iran and I broke in pieces his papers (pretty much 20 Years ago), for not speaking about Reich and similar, who have to justifie not only 3000 Years of history, that Ex Oriente lux, and even Netanyahu…
@Gaska :
Iberic language – at least in some places, among them Languedoc/Roussillon – has been a commercial koine on some coastal areas, where it is the denser attested. This is not to deny it’s true and maybe « autochtonous » presence here and there in Iberia. Its partial ties with Basquic seem showing kind of a continuum of dialects more or less akin in a lot of places of Iberia. All the way Iberic appeared in texts or writings only since the 6/5th Cy what doesn’t exclude it’s presence long ago before. The writing skills came from elsewhere more than a time, and didn’t concern some other pop’s in Iberia at those times, among these last ones, the Celtic speaking ones only some exceptions, always with borrowed alphabets. At IA the surface seemingly occupied by Iberic dialects and others akin to them was between 1/5 and ¼ of Iberia, in east and south-east. When Julius Caesar invaded Gaul, the writings in Latin were overwhelming more numerous than the ones in Gaulish, but the most of the pop was Gaulish nevertheless: differences in some cultural aspects levels. So the written traces (not too much before Roman colonisation !) found here and there in Iberia are not always the proof of an Iberic everyday use in these places. It’s important.
It stays still the question of elites or dominant pop’s and the bilinguism before definitive shift. Your conceptions (your aren’t alone) about this question seems to me a bit simplistic. And you don’t answer the question of Toponymy and hydronymy.
Olalde’s paper contains some curious wordings: “… and by ~2000 BCE the replacement of 40% of Iberia’s ancestry and nearly 100% of its Y-chromosomes by people with Steppe ancestry.”
In fact it has not been so brutal. Concerning BA - the focus of the period of transition - the complementary materiel at hand shows dates from 2000 to 1200 BCE for he most of BA sample as well as does the picture showing the dates in the paper. I add that your statement about ‘peasants compared with ‘elite’ is based on very few & little: the sample doesn’t permit IMO such radical conclusion, unless you find a cemetery with tens of people in the same place, with strict archeological arguments.
Concerning Y-R1b-L51 I don’t disagree totally with you. It could very well be borned in central-eastern Europe, between eastern Baltic and Carpathes, but this fact don’t erase its ancestry in L269… A possible – because I’m open minded – explanation for language could be that a part of L51>P312 bearers separated from ancestors - yet to be find - before the indo-europeanisation of their brethren stayed longer behind by some CWC group, say, around Poland??? The ancestors of southern DF27??? - But I’m not very convinced...
Concerning Terramare, it’s complicated too. It seems this settlement organisation hid divers cultures and ethnies. With our today knowledge I don’t see how we may be sure Terramare = Etruscans? ATW it’s an other question.
@Davidski
Have you sold the G25 dataset to IllustrativeDNA?
Re:
https://old.reddit.com/r/illustrativeDNA/comments/1hdcgyx/about_the_new_deepancestry_update/
"So I reached out to admins and appearently this "new" system is not exactly a new thing. It is still based on PCA with 25 vectors. They mainly did this to decrease waiting times for the results, meaning results will be ready in 24 hours instead of days. They also claim they did some improvements with the system to provide better models. On top of all, there will be a major update with lots new samples in a few months as well."
@Moesan What is L269? you probably meant M269
@Tom
Interesting comment.
I'm extremely disappointed with Iosif Lazaridis, David Reich, Nick Patterson, and David Anthony.
I initially, naturally assumed they were a high IQ group.
Anglo coping.
I am working with Lazaridis on a paper to put a nail in the coffin to the Steppe hypothesis. Ergo, Seh Gabi will show to be the PIA homeland with pre-proto PIA being early agriculturalists similar to Tepe Abdul Hosein.
All this talk about Lower Don, Ukraine etc is all in jest. You will all shit your pants in humiliation when the paper comes out.
Seh Gabi (PIA) > Aknashen (bifurcation Anatolian & nuclear PIE) > Nalchik (PIE) > Remontnoye > Sredny Stog > Yamnaya/CW/Afanisievo (Late PIE).
This is the basic premise. Wait for the rest of the details.
@Xiongnu
It'll take a little while yet, maybe a few months.
Not sure yet how it might be available to the general public.
@Gio
No doubt they understand Lazaridis is "ideologically compromised," but the real question is: Does Harvard even care? My impression is that the likes of David Anthony are trying to work around his issues, but there's only so long that can be done. Eventually the genomic and archaeological data will be so overwhelming that they will have to concede, (recent paper was a half concession) and that will include Lazaridis doing going along for the sake of the teams credibility.
As for Reich, he's an interesting case. He has his own reasons to dislike the traditional kurgan hypothesis and all it entails, we don't have to go into that. But whilst he's flirted with Lazaridis' lies, he's also shown a willingness to verbalise controversial truths and was also willing to say PIA is from north of the Caucasus. Maybe this is because he doesn’t have quite the same skin in the game, since his ancestral language is Hebrew.
I do believe the religious context of the "Southern Arc" isn't spoken about... the idea of Noah's ark in Armenia, of Mesopotamia being the birth-place of mankind, etc. The West may have moved on from the Judeo-Christian structure in a political sense (secularism) but the echoes of that religious narrative still permeate every level of our society, including academia. Many post-enlightenment “intellectuals” struggle with the idea that the IE languages that dominate the modern worlds linguistic landscape as well as ancient Asian civilizations like Persia and India, have their deepest origins among “barbaric” EHG’s and steppe herders of the historically “backwards” Europe as opposed to the sophisticated agricultural societies of the Near East. it’s quite comical how wrong their Ex Oriente lux theories were in the end.
Does anyone here think that Burshaski is perhaps ANE derived language via population like Tutkaul....There is like 20% TTk ancestry in them...which is like 75%ANE and 20% IranN related...
Or perhaps we are looking at a Hungarian like case for Burushaski...as they can be modeled as Indo aryan speaking population + Sino-Tibetians...
Because 3 prominent Y haplo of Burusho are R1a 28%, L 17% and R2 14%...
@Davidski
They are a high IQ group.
The problem is when you combine high IQ people with an unhealthy zeitgeist, you get crackpottery. This has often been the case because high IQ people are the ones most interested in “how things should be”, as opposed to how things just are. How do you think we got the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany?
It’s clear there are important people at Harvard that believe the earliest PIE speakers *should* be from somewhere — anywhere, really — that is not located within the geographic confines of the European continent.
Not everyone values truth, or even believes in it as a concept. In fact, most people, both high and low IQ, don’t. They are completely irrational just in different ways.
@ Tom
thanks for this insight, I would not have thought that Lazaridis' psyche would gnaw at him so much because of his Pontus descent, visually slight resemblance to Kaya Yanar
@Moesan
Regarding the Iberian language there is not much to discuss, Spanish linguists continue to investigate and everything points to a consensus of the theory of Basque-Iberianism, i.e. a common origin of Basque and Iberian. As you know, the main proto-Basque inscriptions are in Aquitaine, so Basque-French linguists are also involved in the research.
Regarding toponymy and hydronymy, in Spain there are linguists who support the Indo-European substratum and others who do not and there is no consensus on the antiquity of the different linguistic substrates. As I am not a linguist I have no idea which of them is right.
And regarding the elites and peasants "theory", we have a paper (Genomic transformation and social organization during the Copper Age–Bronze Age transition in southern Iberia-V.Villalba-Mouco, 2.021), that exhaustively analyzed one of the best preserved Argaric sites, namely the Almoloya hillfort where there are tombs of elites with rich grave goods, and tombs without grave goods attributed by archaeologists to the lower social classes, in different areas of the necropolis. 29 male genomes were obtained and the result is crazy even for a region like Iberia which we know was overwhelmingly R1b-P312, because we have R1b-L151 (1), R1b-P310 (3), R1b-P312 (6), and R1b-DF27>Z195 (19). In other words, all of them, rich and poor, belonged to the same lineage. The richest tomb of a man showing in his skeleton the practice of horseback riding buried in the same pithoi with a woman with a silver diadem was Df27>Z195. So no radical conclusions, the results are simply amazing. We have eliminated the possibility that some poor DF27 changed their language by serving Iberian lineages of neolithic or mesolithic origin and we can only think of a massive founder effect of this lineage in Iberia. If to this you add that we have many Iberians (and Vascones) DF27>Z195, does it not seem reasonable to think that the Iberian Bronze Age cultures spoke a Non-IE language?
Hasanlu_IA_o
Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
Wt. SE Z
0.620 0.046 13.3
0.269 0.037 7.10
0.111 0.022 4.92
Chisq 9.10
p-value 0.522
right>('Mbuti.DG', 'Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.AG', 'Russia_Tyumen_HG.DG', 'Italy_Tagliente_Epigravettian.SG', 'Steppe_Eneolithic_BPgroup.AG', 'Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG', 'Russia_Shamanka_Eneolithic.SG', 'China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG', 'Israel_Natufian.AG', 'Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG', 'Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.AG', 'Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG', 'Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic.AG')
Sintashta model has the least p-value, higher SE and less than 1 z value...
Source: @liebert
On G25 without overfit
Target: Iran_Hasanlu_IA_o:I4097__BC_1354__Cov_86.75%
Distance: 1.2478% / 0.01247843
64.0 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
26.6 Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA
9.4 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
Gives same result as QPADM....
G25 is an excellent tool...though it has some limitations but then even qpadm has its issues...
@Davidski How are we going to get real G25 coords now, as illustrative is no longer a viable option?
@Chollima
Please wait. We'll see what happens early next year.
@Hayk said
"Seh Gabi (PIA) > Aknashen (bifurcation Anatolian & nuclear PIE) > Nalchik (PIE) > Remontnoye > Sredny Stog > Yamnaya/CW/Afanisievo (Late PIE).
This is the basic premise. Wait for the rest of the details."
in my opinion, i don't think Seh gabi is related to proto-PIE, i think Sehgabi is related directly to kura araks culture (at least genetically), kura araks is CHG (or population rich in CHG - Darkveti Meshoko, neolithic chokh culture), areni (Sioni culture?) and Sehgebi, which in this case serves as an iranian or rich iranian source in kura araks
@Arsen I agree wholeheartedly regarding Kura–Araxes.
Seh Gabi has the earliest evidence of agro-pastoralism which was introduced to Aknashen (Southern Arc) and Nalchik (Steppe/Northern Caucasus). This would make Nalchik (Shulaveri-Shomu derived) the source for PIE through Aknashen ( core Shulaveri-Shomu).
@Olympus Mons was right understandably. I have great correspondence with him on X.
@Davidski, here is a user with the nickname HurrianFam in GA published a table of early samples of I-L699 in chronological order, and their approximate locations on the map, you can see how they go around the Black Sea from the western side to the Balkans and then the latest samples in western and central Anatolia.
https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=742&pid=41964#pid41964
@Hayk said
"Seh Gabi has the earliest evidence of agro-pastoralism which was introduced to Aknashen (Southern Arc) and Nalchik (Steppe/Northern Caucasus). This would make Nalchik (Shulaveri-Shomu derived) the source for PIE through Aknashen ( core Shulaveri-Shomu).
"
It seems that Sekh Gebi is thousands of years younger than Aknashen and Shomu Tepe. I am talking about the Copper Age of Iran Sekh Gebi, and you are perhaps talking about the Neolithic sample?
@Lister Funk
Yes, I mistook, it's one of my great age effects! M269 and later L23
Dienekes is probably Lazaridis. Someone of this comments seem optimistic about the Greek antiquity, I hope he means well. But he already shifted to "back and forth contact with Anatolia" in Twitter, regarding the Roman (and maybe partially Hellenistic) Anatolian-dominant ancestry of the Greeks prior to Slavic migration.
One thing I noticed is that Cretans show an equal amount of affinity to MBA Canaanites compared to Minoans and far more with EBA Anatolians. In fact they are closer to EBA geographically distant Anatolians (?BEFORE the arrival of steppe ancestry which is really a huge deal) than to Mycenaeans of 1200BC, both of groups who were revealed in the 2017 Lazaridis paper. And don't get me started on Cypriots, how did Laz really miss this one in his PAPER?
Also Mycenaeans being kin with Sicilians has been a really awful stereotype enforced partially by that horrible 2017 PCA and some other scientists. I have presented numerous sources about the depopulation of the Greek colonists by wars who were around 10-20% in region of Campania at their peak and people are still on about "hellenized Anatolians" flooding the Hellenic cities and bringing this ancestry to Rome.
I wish we had a "Hellenes really do have mythological roots" moment as the upcoming paper rejected Anatolians and "Doric" northern alleles arriving in Classical antiquity. He was hoping for hellenized Anatolians to pop out, how tables have turned that strong BA continuity in Athens would be seen as disappointing.
Greece according to Strabo was heavily deserted, so the influx of Anatolians (like in Corinth and Patras) outside of East-Med slave trade was heavily driven by depopulation.
The Greek geographer and historian Strabo (63 BCE-21 CE) described Greece as "a land entirely deserted; the depopulation begun since long continues. Roman soldiers camp in abandoned houses; Athens is populated by statues."
Plutarch observed that "one would no longer find in Greece 3,000 hoplites [infantrymen]."
Did anybody see R1b-M269 is present in Hasanlu_IA?
And there are 11 samples with SNPs from R1b, in IRN_Hasanlu_IA:
R-Y23838 (2 samples), R-M12149 (2), R-Y88647 (1), R-FGC14590 (3), R-Y4364 (1), R-Y19434 (1), and R-M269
@mister funk
I can't see the I-L699 map.
Can you uploaded it somewhere and post a link here?
@ Hayk
''I am working with Lazaridis on a paper to put a nail in the coffin to the Steppe hypothesis. Ergo, Seh Gabi will show to be the PIA homeland with pre-proto PIA being early agriculturalists similar to Tepe Abdul Hosein.
All this talk about Lower Don, Ukraine etc is all in jest. You will all shit your pants in humiliation when the paper comes out.'''
Lazarides already shat himself 5 years ago, he doesn't additional help from you.
You Un-Indo-Europeans are unhappy in your own skin and call the rest of us chauvanists and racists simply for observing the Truth. Nothing but lie after lie, poor creatures
@Rob
Can you make a map like that showing the trail of I-L699 from the North Pontic into Anatolia?
@davidski
I think the user responsible for the one linked is making a revised version with all of the relevant samples.
But yeah, as Rob pointed out, we have two I-L699 samples in EBA Thrace with pre-yamnaya archeological contexts (Bul4 was for some reason labeled Yamnaya but several more recent surveys have been explicit in distinguishing it), and two I-P78 in EBA Thrace.
@Ethan
Do you have a list handy of the relevant samples?
If you like and use my tools, please help me gain traction on socials and forums.
IllustrativeDNA must purchase a license for commercial use of Vahaduo tools.
https://vahaduo.github.io/legal/
@Gabru and Ash
Please take your discussion to email.
Post a Comment