Coming In a Few Days: 101 Ancient Genomes from Eurasia.

Fire Haired14

Banned
Messages
2,185
Reaction score
582
Points
0
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b DF27*
mtDNA haplogroup
U5b2a2b1
6VJS_1ct4-hVqN33zkAx0VVvTVNrE6Y1PJ0qlpb-S8hgFhM4-kEpYULSOXDn99-gMbjQc8_sulawHQg=w1259-h590-rw

Above is a map Davidski posted at Eurogenes in March, it came from this Russian PowerPoint. I think it may be based on these new Eurasian genomes, but not sure. Davidski said the new paper is a "Allentoft paper".

Quote from a Blogger Poster made Several hours ago.

Ok, so I've found this news article, in Russian: http://novostink.ru/science-technol...shih-territoriyu-armenii-5-tys-let-nazad.html

The name of the article: "Modern Armenians are descendents of the people who lived on the territory of Armenia 5 thousand years ago".

- 101 sample from different parts of Eurasia were analyzed
- 8 samples from Armenia, from Bronze and Iron Age
- Bronze Age samples are "virtually identical" to modern inhabitansts of Armenia
- 44 authors from 13 countries
- Paper will be published in a few days

Here are some Google Translated Quotes from the article she linked.
Genetic analysis of 101 DNA samples from different parts of Eurasia was made to clarify the genetic portrait of a man of the Bronze Age.
Most samples are from the Bronze age?

Today Armenians are descendants of people who lived in the territory of Armenia 5 thousand. Years ago
So, contemporary to the Samara Yamnaya genomes.

In turn, the director of the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences Pavel Avetisyan added that the results of this study, conducted at Copenhagen University, will be published a few days later(Article is from 6/5 Friday) in a scientific paper, authored by 44 experts from 13 countries. "Armenia for the first time take part in this kind of program, and the results we got were quite interesting," - said Avetisyan.

5,000 years of continuation in Armenia probably means there's been continuation in much of North West Asia, not just Armenia. If Armenian-type people existed a few thousand years earlier, they're certainly the source of Samara Yamanaya's Armenian-like side. If IE languages came to Armenia and Anatolia(Hittites, etc.) from Yamnaya-types, the genetic impact by those IEs must be very small. Instead of gene flow from Bronze age Russia/Ukraine into West Asia we're seeing gene flow from Bronze age West Asia into Russia/Ukraine. What that reveals about origins of IE languages is debatable.
 
It seems a lot of new stuff coming in next days. Who knows what surprises or confirmations await us.
 
6VJS_1ct4-hVqN33zkAx0VVvTVNrE6Y1PJ0qlpb-S8hgFhM4-kEpYULSOXDn99-gMbjQc8_sulawHQg=w1259-h590-rw

Above is a map Davidski posted at Eurogenes in March, it came from this Russian PowerPoint. I think it may be based on these new Eurasian genomes, but not sure. Davidski said the new paper is a "Allentoft paper".

Quote from a Blogger Poster made Several hours ago.



Here are some Google Translated Quotes from the article she linked.

Most samples are from the Bronze age?


So, contemporary to the Samara Yamnaya genomes.



5,000 years of continuation in Armenia probably means there's been continuation in much of North West Asia, not just Armenia. If Armenian-type people existed a few thousand years earlier, they're certainly the source of Samara Yamanaya's Armenian-like side. If IE languages came to Armenia and Anatolia(Hittites, etc.) from Yamnaya-types, the genetic impact by those IEs must be very small. Instead of gene flow from Bronze age Russia/Ukraine into West Asia we're seeing gene flow from Bronze age West Asia into Russia/Ukraine. What that reveals about origins of IE languages is debatable.

Thanks, Fire Haired.

Maybe that's getting a bit ahead of the facts, however. We'd have to see the precise dates of the samples and precisely what yDna they carried. Perhaps there was gene flow from the steppe into Armenia sometime between 4,000 and 3,000 BC?

However, if the trees we have for Indo-European are correct, presumably that would have been by speakers of "Anatolian", the most archaic branch of Indo-European, not "Armenian" as such?

Or, perhaps "Anatolian" did develop south of the Caucasus, and the rest of the Indo-European languages developed on the steppe? Are there any linguists reading this? Does "Anatolian" have less of a connection to Uralic languages than the rest of the Indo-European languages?

When is "Armenian" as a language held to have arrived in "Armenia" if it came via the Balkans and the Black Sea?

Strictly on the genetics, and generalizing very broadly it's starting to look to me as if the genetic signature in a lot of places was pretty much set in the Bronze Age and later migrations just tinkered around the edges, accounting for maybe ten percent or less in some areas.
 
6VJS_1ct4-hVqN33zkAx0VVvTVNrE6Y1PJ0qlpb-S8hgFhM4-kEpYULSOXDn99-gMbjQc8_sulawHQg=w1259-h590-rw

Above is a map Davidski posted at Eurogenes in March, it came from this Russian PowerPoint. I think it may be based on these new Eurasian genomes, but not sure. Davidski said the new paper is a "Allentoft paper".

Quote from a Blogger Poster made Several hours ago.



Here are some Google Translated Quotes from the article she linked.

Most samples are from the Bronze age?


So, contemporary to the Samara Yamnaya genomes.



5,000 years of continuation in Armenia probably means there's been continuation in much of North West Asia, not just Armenia. If Armenian-type people existed a few thousand years earlier, they're certainly the source of Samara Yamanaya's Armenian-like side. If IE languages came to Armenia and Anatolia(Hittites, etc.) from Yamnaya-types, the genetic impact by those IEs must be very small. Instead of gene flow from Bronze age Russia/Ukraine into West Asia we're seeing gene flow from Bronze age West Asia into Russia/Ukraine. What that reveals about origins of IE languages is debatable.

I think it's very straightforward actually. 2+ populations are involved in the Bronze Age Armenians- 1 is very Mesopotamian, 1 is similar to Yamnaya/EHG. Case closed. The later was intrusive to the region and brought IE languages and some genetic input. Overall they are still predominantly "Near Eastern". They formed around the Bronze Age and haven't changed (much) since.
 
I think it's very straightforward actually. 2+ populations are involved in the Bronze Age Armenians- 1 is very Mesopotamian, 1 is similar to Yamnaya/EHG. Case closed. The later was intrusive to the region and brought IE languages and some genetic input. Overall they are still predominantly "Near Eastern". They formed around the Bronze Age and haven't changed (much) since.


Yes, well, I don't think it's quite case closed. There's this little problem...the Yamnaya weren't all EHG. They were half "Armenian like" let's not forget. Of course, it's possible that the EHG men on the steppe preferred the women to their south for some reason and went all the way into the mountains and even further south to steal them and bring them back to the steppe. That or traded for them, although in the beginning they were so poor you wonder what they had to trade for them. Well, who knows, maybe they had an unexpected excess of girls in the Caucasus for some reason.

Of course, that isn't a totally satisfactory explanation even if it happened, because that NOT EHG percentage is half MODERN Armenian like, not Mesopotamian like, so somehow those women were already "mixed".
 
I think it's very straightforward actually. 2+ populations are involved in the Bronze Age Armenians- 1 is very Mesopotamian, 1 is similar to Yamnaya/EHG. Case closed. The later was intrusive to the region and brought IE languages and some genetic input. Overall they are still predominantly "Near Eastern". They formed around the Bronze Age and haven't changed (much) since.

Using tools provided by Reich's lab I've seen people use EHG, Yamnaya, and MA1 as Eastern(ANE) references for West and South-Central Asians. They all work fine, from the results I've seen. But based on other data it doesn't seem anyone in West Asia has significant EHG ancestry, or even Yamnaya.
 
I think that guy is confused. I highly doubt Armenians have 30% anything European. Their WHG-affinity is just too low.

Also, here's another leak about the upcoming Ancient DNA paper with 101 Ancient Eurasians.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...ans-quot-Lecture&p=87850&viewfull=1#post87850

He's saying Armenians are the best living representative of Near Eastern ancestors of Euros. He obviously isn't talking about EEF, he's talking about the Near Eastern ancestors of Yamnaya. That's surprising. This new study seems to confirm Modern Euros have ancestors in the last 6,000 years who were just like Modern Armenians(and therefore similar to other Northern West Asians).
 
This is from April 1st 2015.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2120-quot-DNA-and-the-Origins-of-Peoples-The-Armenians-quot-Lecture&p=77235&viewfull=1#post77235


Someone with inside information says Armenians have European hunter gatherer ancestry(30%), with hardly any "ANE", and the rest being "Near Eastern". It's getting complicated, there will probably be new terminology. I'm not sure what he means by European hunter gatherer.


do you mean with European H&G ancestry, EHG? If yes than "hardly" any ANE is misleading because EHG is ~40% ANE. In this case it would mean 13% ANE and 17% WHG. But if he means mostly WHG with "hardly any ANE" than this might mean less of it.

And if 30% EHG is right than as many people have speculated it can't be a 100% continuum.


If there was indeed 20% WHG in the area, than this means the WHG was deluded over time from incoming waves ENF from the Levant with the Semites. I preached many times that the Assyrians and other Semites probably changed the genetic demographics of Mesopotamia and Transcaucasus more than some people expect. And there was probably an slight increase of ANE with later movements of Hurrians and Indo_Iranians.

But the guy seems very confused is he talking about modern Armenians or the ancient inhabidents of the region when he says they have barely any ANE.
 
He's talking about Bronze age and Modern Armenians. They're exactly the same as each other. There's no way Armenians are 30% European hunter gatherer(didn't specfiy what type, EHG, SHG, etc.). That guy must have miss interpreted something. IMO, no reason to discuss his statement.
 
Ok I see. Yamna men liked Armenian-like women.
Later some of their children moved to the South and brought IE. :)
 
Ok I see. Yamna men liked Armenian-like women.
Later some of their children moved to the South and brought IE. :)

It would be Mesolithic Russia/Ukraine men. Yamnaya are about 50/50 Mesolithic East European/Armenian-like. That's a possible scenario. Yamnaya and Corded Ware mtDNA is mostly Near Eastern, and their Y DNA was (probably)mostly Mesolithic Russia/Ukraine. Although R1b-Z2105 in Yamnaya may be from the Caucasus.

I don't know anything about archaeology but that scenario kind of seems crazy to me. In my opinion there had to of been a movement of people from the Caucasus into Russia/Ukraine for Yamnaya to have such a large amount of Armenian-like ancestry. If not, EHG men must have been constantly moving south to find female-mates in the Caucasus, and bringing them back home(instead of moving in with their Caucasus wife's family). They would have to of hated their own women, because Yamnaya mtDNA was mostly Near Eastern.

As unlikely as that scenario sounds, something similar might have happened in Finland recently. Finnish are most similar to North Europeans, not to Saami and other Finno-Urgics in Russia. Finnish Y DNA though is mostly N1c, and their mtDNA is very similar to North Europeans. What might have happened is over many centuries Finnish men continuously married Baltic, Slavic, Germanic women, and gradually Finnish became more and more Baltic/Slavic/Germanic/etc.
 
He's talking about Bronze age and Modern Armenians. They're exactly the same as each other. There's no way Armenians are 30% European hunter gatherer(didn't specfiy what type, EHG, SHG, etc.). That guy must have miss interpreted something. IMO, no reason to discuss his statement.

I have learned that the samples are from 1500 Bc can we really consider that Bronze Age? Also I doubt there would be a 100 percent continuity for 3500 years. I have heard many contradicting stories until now. Some speaking of allot of continuity other even saying identical. I think I will wait for the actual results
 
Ok I see. Yamna men liked Armenian-like women.
Later some of their children moved to the South and brought IE. :)

Well, if it happened that way, i.e. they moved directly south, then what I.E. language were they speaking? So far as I know, they're supposed to have been speaking Hurrian or Hattian or something at those early dates.

One current theory is that Armenian is related to Balkan languages (Greek, Albanian, Phrigian) and is supposed to have moved from the Balkans into Anatolia from the west. The dates I've seen say it "emerged" around 2800 BC. How long it would have taken to get to eastern Anatolia, I don't know.

If the route and the dates are correct, yet the genetics of the Armenians are still the same as they were in 3,000 BC or thereabouts, then the late arrival of that particular Indo-European language might have had virtually no effect on their genetics. (Is that 3,000 BC a firm date, btw?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_language

Of course, there's also the older movement of the "Anatolian" languages, which are the "first" and most archaic Indo-European languages (proto Anatolian dating to around 4200 BC), but according to the proposals by Anthony and Ringe, they also came by way of the Black Sea supposedly, and entered from the west. Mallory also favors that route but doesn't close down the possibility that it came directly from north of the Caucasus.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Et6SS_bTF.../s1600/annurev-linguist-030514-124812.f2.jpeg

I think there are some problems with this theory of an early arrival of "Anatolian" languages from the west. If the Caucasus mountains were so little of an impediment to travel that the EHG went into and south of them to get women, then why didn't the "Anatolian" languages go directly south? Why did they make that long, tortuous route west and then south and then east instead? Also, I spent some time once combing through Anthony to see if there is any archaeology to back up his claim of a movement from the steppe down the western Black Sea Coast and then into western Anatolia, and he neither claims there is any, nor could I independently find any archaeologically attested such movement at that time. The steppe trail goes cold in the Balkans for that period.

Doesn't it seem as if something is wrong either with the dates or the routes, and maybe even with analysis of the language itself? Maybe some of the older proposals for the genesis of Armenian were more accurate.

There's also controversy about the Anatolian language root itself. Some linguists felt that "Anatolian" was so different from the other "Indo-European" languages, that perhaps it did not develop from Proto-Indo European at all, but rather evolved from a Pre-Proto-Indo-European ancestor. David Anthony mentions it in his magnum opus.
https://books.google.com/books?id=n...e&q=Anatolian languages David Anthony&f=false

If that's the case, then is it possible that this Pre-Proto-Indo-European ancestor language to Anatolian was spoken in the Armenian Highlands? Furthermore, could "Anatolian" then actually have developed in situ in Anatolia? Is it perhaps even possible that the pre-proto-Indo-European language moved to the steppe from there, and it was there that Proto-Indo-European developed while coming into contact with the Proto-Uralic languages? Or does the Central Asian hypothesis have any merit, with "Anatolian" moving into Anatolia and the remainder going onto the steppe.

I know linguists get out their garlic and and make signs to ward off evil whenever Grey and Atchinson are mentioned, but might this not go a little way toward incorporating their findings?

Ed. It seems that I took too long to post. :) This reminds me of the fiasco with the Hinxton abstract. I think we'd better wait to see the paper and the precise dates and the actual make up of these ancient samples.

Fire-Haired, it's not all that unusual for the yDna of an incoming group to become disconnected from its original autosomal signature when you have an elite male population moving into a densely populated area, yes? In this case, though, we have men whom many would hold stayed put and yet the autsomal dna changed, although not totally. That's what I find strange.
 
Maybe they traded their horses for foreign women? There are stories and myths in multiple Indo-European societies about bride prices for horses. Then there is the guest/ghosti connection with guest and host found in all PIE languages where there are reciprocal duties of hospitality and where mutual exchange relationship is very important to their society. Steppes peoples imposed this hierarchy on those they were in contact with or conquered. All strangers or foreigners were expected to give gifts to a lord in exchange for hospitality. It made assimilation less burdensome to both groups.

Maybe they stole women? There are many stories where the men steal women including the rape of the Sabine women and references to raids with cattle and raids with women like the Brown Cow of Cooley. A lack of women in a society where they favored men might not be out of the question.
 
About Indo-Uralic theory quoted from relevant wiki:
Alwin Kloekhorst, author of the Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, and student of Frederik Kortlandt, endorses his teacher's Indo-Uralic grouping (2008b). He argues that, when features differ between the Anatolian languages (including Hittite) and the other Indo-European languages, comparisons with Uralic can help to establish which group has the more archaic forms (2008b: 88) and that, conversely, the success of such comparisons helps to establish the Indo-Uralic thesis (2008b: 94). For example, in Anatolian the nominative singular of the second person pronoun comes from *ti(H), whereas in the non-Anatolian languages it comes from *tu(H); in Proto-Uralic it was *ti, which agrees with evidence from internal reconstruction that Anatolian has the more archaic form (2008b: 93).
 
Maybe they traded their horses for foreign women? There are stories and myths in multiple Indo-European societies about bride prices for horses. Then there is the guest/ghosti connection with guest and host found in all PIE languages where there are reciprocal duties of hospitality and where mutual exchange relationship is very important to their society. Steppes peoples imposed this hierarchy on those they were in contact with or conquered. All strangers or foreigners were expected to give gifts to a lord in exchange for hospitality. It made assimilation less burdensome to both groups.

Maybe they stole women? There are many stories where the men steal women including the rape of the Sabine women and references to raids with cattle and raids with women like the Brown Cow of Cooley. A lack of women in a society where they favored men might not be out of the question.

I don't think we can be talking about mutual trading of women here, because we don't have the EHG mtDna lines showing up in the south. In terms of stealing the women or trading horses for them, I'm sure some of that could have gone on.

However, we're not talking about some introgression of Near Eastern mtDna; this is an almost total replacement of the mtDna lineages. Elite men can come into a less advanced culture and kill or otherwise prohibit the "native" men from mating, and therefore come to represent even 50-75% of the yDna, a la the Latin American model, but what would cause imported foreign women to come to be the dominant mtDna source? The native women didn't all die off, did they? Why are their offspring so un-represented? The ratio of foreign "Near Eastern" women to "EHG" women must have been very high. Why did they keep importing so many of them? Unless, perhaps, the Near Eastern women had some sort of advantage in terms of number of offspring, or number who survived?

I don't know. It's a bit of a puzzle.
 

This thread has been viewed 36745 times.

Back
Top