PDA

View Full Version : The kurgan was empty



berun
15-05-17, 23:13
In an scientific level, the steppe theory proposed by Gimbutas and thereafter reloaded by David Anthony is dead (the kurgan theory 2.0 was about Yamnayans delivering the Germainc languages to the CW culture through the Usatovo culture by a kind of cultural fashion).

The many red and orange alarms were never heard much, but now the final problem was settled by ancient genetics: a sure IE culture as the CW, from where it could split Germanic and Balto-Slavic, had a different Y-DNA than that found in Yamnaya (R1b-Z2105); moreover the steppe cultures possibly linked to the Indo-Iranian branch (Andronovo, Sintashta, Srubnaya) appear to be CW copies in the autosomal and Y-DNA level. The followers of the steppe theory had by some time the hope to find out the CW Y-DNA in the west steppes, along with the right Y-DNA of the Bell Beakers in West Europe, and all speaking the same language ...

Now with the new paper "The genomic history of southeastern Europe" the hope to find and confirm such hopes and theories vanishes. I think it is quite hard to read there:


One version of the Steppe Hypothesis of Indo-European language origins suggests that Proto-Indo European languages developed in the steppe north of the Black and Caspian seas ... our genetic data do not support this scenario

and


An alternative hypothesis is that the ultimate homeland of Proto-Indo European languages was in the Caucasus or in Iran. In this scenario, westward movement contributed to the dispersal of Anatolian languages, and northward movement and mixture with EHG was responsible for the formation of the population associated with the Yamnaya complex. These steppe pastoralists plausibly spoke a “Late Proto-Indo European” language that is ancestral to many of the non-Anatolian branches of the Indo-European language family

At the Y-DNA level the paper confirms that Yamna was R1b-Z2013 (along ancestor clades) in Samara (x7), Kalmukya (x4), and derived cultures of Staliningrad, Vucedol and Poltavka (x5). The case about Ukranian HGs speaking a form of proto-IE to become Yamnayans is not tenable: the paper states that Ukranian HGs had diverse origins (in Vasilevka there were R1b1a2, I2a1, R1a, I2a2) and had a 31% of WHG in autosomals, such 31% lowered to 1% in Yamnayans, so that only a strong colonization from elsewhere could explain this: even if Yamnayans were true IE speakers, the previous HG population could not be so... and then IE comes from elsewhere. Even in Samara the change is quite obvious: the HG was R1b1a1a (the most eastern R1b), but the Eneolithic samples were Q1a, R1a1 and R1a1a.

The paper suggest to follow the CHG component to Anatolia to find the IE urheimat, but this case is quite difficult to accept: Anatolian imposed over Hatti, Armenian was not local (Urartian placenames have not followed in such language it's own evolutions), and the Caucasus, a catch-all net, is not conserving some unique IE branch (Ossetian is derived from Scythian). The case would be to look further, to the Zagros (as the paper itself also points)... or even in Medieval Russia, if it's the Y-DNA what matters most.

So what is really IE at the end? by now the sure cultures related to such language family display high amounts of R1a and EHG ancestry. The other option left would be to follow the CHG ancestry, its spread, and the clades associated (by now J1, J2). What place would have the R1b-L51 clades is now more difficult to ascertain.

Apsurdistan
16-05-17, 00:18
How Ironic that kurgan isn't even a "Indo-European" word lmao... it's Turkish or something. It's too easy to make fun of this stuff.

raspberry
16-05-17, 00:33
People supporting the Kurgan theory are ignorants. The Eurogenes blogger seriously believes his non-sense. But what can you expect from a guy, who claims that R1b-V88 entered the Near East with pottery during the Bronze Age from Siberia.

Angela
16-05-17, 00:44
I think Krause and the Max Planck Institute, and Pagani and Cambridge, along with Harvard-Broad, seem to be getting on the CHG bandwagon. Future papers will tell us.

None of this, even if true, changes the fact that Indo-European speakers from the steppe brought most if not all of these languages to Europe.

Olympus Mons
16-05-17, 00:54
I think Krause ....None of this, even if true, changes the fact that Indo-European speakers from the steppe brought most if not all of these languages to Europe.

How do you know that?

Angela
16-05-17, 01:03
How do you know that?

It's emerging as the academic consensus for Balto-Slavic, Germanic, and probably Italo- Celtic, and makes sense.

We'll see about the others.

A. Papadimitriou
16-05-17, 01:10
I
The many red and orange alarms were never heard much, but now the final problem was settled by ancient genetics: a sure IE culture as the CW, from where it could split Germanic and Balto-Slavic, had a different Y-DNA than that found in Yamnaya (R1b-Z2105); moreover the steppe cultures possibly linked to the Indo-Iranian branch (Andronovo, Sintashta, Srubnaya) appear to be CW copies in the autosomal and Y-DNA level. The followers of the steppe theory had by some time the hope to find out the CW Y-DNA in the west steppes, along with the right Y-DNA of the Bell Beakers in West Europe, and all speaking the same language ...


Personally I never accepted the 'kurgan theory' but I don't think I would agree with you either or with what that paper says exactly. Either way, my opinion is not very important but I want to ask something about the bold part. What makes a culture sure to be IE?
First of all I'm asking just to see what the criteria are in your opinion and to check how they can be applied to other cultures. But also, to me it's just an assertion by itself. Personally I wouldn't take even that for granted.

I would dare to argue (for the sake of argument first of all) that CW was not 'IE' but Globular Amphora Culture was. What argument can you/they use againist that?

MarkoZ
16-05-17, 03:25
The one thing I'd like to see resolved is the origin of L-51. If the pattern detected in the Martiniano & Cassidy paper holds, and S116 came to Iberia with an influx of eastern-shifted Mesolithic aDNA sans CHG at pre-Celtic times I'd think that would point to the lineage being non-Indo-European in its early affiliation. I'm reminded of Vennemann, Mailhammer & Trask insisting that Basque is a Mesolithic remnant language and emphatically not a language spoken by Neolithic farmers. This would make Eastern Europe and not Franco-Cantabria the most likely homeland of Proto-Basque :grin:

Apsurdistan
16-05-17, 03:27
Even if these people are right about origin of modern European languages, why do they keep using "steppes" as a name for the geographical area? These steppes are in eastern Europe so why they keep avoiding using the term eastern Europe or even less Russia? It's a little suspicious to me.

Angela
16-05-17, 03:45
The one thing I'd like to see resolved is the origin of L-51. If the pattern detected in the Martiniano & Cassidy paper holds, and S116 came to Iberia with an influx of eastern-shifted Mesolithic aDNA sans CHG at pre-Celtic times I'd think that would point to the lineage being non-Indo-European in its early affiliation. I'm reminded of Vennemann, Mailhammer & Trask insisting that Basque is a Mesolithic language and emphatically not a language spoken by Neolithic farmers. This would make Eastern Europe and not Franco-Cantabria the most likely homeland of Proto-Basque :grin: I want popcorn and a front row seat if that's ever seriously proposed. :)

I hate to be obnoxious, but I did also say that Corded Ware, and M417, might be Indo-Europeanized, not Indo- European. What if it were to turn out that even Yamnaya was Indo- Europeanized? The internet world might shift on it's axis.: )

Good Lord, if CHG is the real IE marker, do I suddenly get a lot more IE? Would I be suddenly expected to like militarized, highly unequal, patriarchal, societies? I'm telling you right now it won't happen. :)

Seriously, if that were the case, Celtic would arrive very late to Iberia, and without bringing very much change genetically. Oh, to be a fly on the wall at Drac's if this is ever seriously proposed!

bix
16-05-17, 04:04
hmmm...

There was this lately:

The Anthropological Context of Euskaro-Caucasian,
John D. Bengtson
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/1573384x-90000008

The idea still keeps coming up. Maybe Colin Refrew's idea could apply to how Basque spread?

LeBrok
16-05-17, 05:47
It's emerging as the academic consensus for Balto-Slavic, Germanic, and probably Italo- Celtic, and makes sense.

We'll see about the others.
Exactly how I see it too.

LeBrok
16-05-17, 05:59
I want popcorn and a front row seat if that's ever seriously proposed. :)

I hate to be obnoxious, but I did also say that Corded Ware, and M417, might be Indo-Europeanized, not Indo- European. What if it were to turn out that even Yamnaya was Indo- Europeanized? The internet world might shift on it's axis.: )

Good Lord, if CHG is the real IE marker, do I suddenly get a lot more IE? Would I be suddenly expected to like militarized, highly unequal, patriarchal, societies? I'm telling you right now it won't happen. :)

Seriously, if that were the case, Celtic would arrive very late to Iberia, and without bringing very much change genetically. Oh, to be a fly on the wall at Drac's if this is ever seriously proposed!
We also should mention that today's nations with highest Caucasian/CHG admixtures, Georgia and many others, don't speak IE. IE language in Caucasus is a minority language. It is quite different story when it comes to gedrosia/baloch/NE Euro/Steppe admixtures. Just on this ground it is more probable that proto IE language came with spread of Iranian Farmers, or was one of languages of steppe h-gs.

Apsurdistan
16-05-17, 06:53
I just thought of how Japanese could be an IE language!
Example: the word Samurai
in Bosnian Sam(alone) u (into, inside) rai or raj pronounced the same (heaven) Sam-u-raj = Alone-to-Heaven
Telling you, Japanese might be an IE language too.

berun
16-05-17, 08:14
I think Krause and the Max Planck Institute, and Pagani and Cambridge, along with Harvard-Broad, seem to be getting on the CHG bandwagon. Future papers will tell us.

None of this, even if true, changes the fact that Indo-European speakers from the steppe brought most if not all of these languages to Europe.

Could be so, but now we know that the CHG component roamed in the Balkans before Yamnaya popped up, so there is the possibility to have a band of such people taking control over much of Europe (somehow as the Rus in Russia) directly from there. Of course the route could be through the steppes, but you might realize that the difference within Yamnaya start and CW start (in Russia I think it was older) is some two or three centuries, so to think that IE branches came from the steppes would be similar to say that English in Oregon comes from New England, true but the real origin is not taken into account then.

berun
16-05-17, 08:25
Personally I never accepted the 'kurgan theory' but I don't think I would agree with you either or with what that paper says exactly. Either way, my opinion is not very important but I want to ask something about the bold part. What makes a culture sure to be IE?
First of all I'm asking just to see what the criteria are in your opinion and to check how they can be applied to other cultures. But also, to me it's just an assertion by itself. Personally I wouldn't take even that for granted.

I would dare to argue (for the sake of argument first of all) that CW was not 'IE' but Globular Amphora Culture was. What argument can you/they use againist that?

The Y-DNA and autosomal profile of CW and posterior steppe cultures display the demic and territorial expansion that would allow to recognize there the expansion of the IE family, as the area covered keeps the origin if Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Indoiranian, Celtic... or the posterior cultures attached to such branches. Only it's left the Balkan languages (Greek, Illyrian, Thracian, Armenian/Phrygian, Italic?), the Anatolian Branch and Tocharian. It could be developed further but no time for that.

Diomedes
16-05-17, 08:40
I am not a geneticist, linguist etc, therefore what I may say below might sound very ignorant. Angela, why do you argue that languages in Europe came from the steppes of Asia? Weren't there are any people in the European continent? If people existed in Europe, I expect them to have been speaking some kind of language.


None of this, even if true, changes the fact that Indo-European speakers from the steppe brought most if not all of these languages to Europe.

Apsurdistan
16-05-17, 09:36
I am not a geneticist, linguist etc, therefore what I may say below might sound very ignorant. Angela, why do you argue that languages in Europe came from the steppes of Asia? Weren't there are any people in the European continent? If people existed in Europe, I expect them to have been speaking some kind of language.

Because they just know, ok? It's a sexy theory. Although nothing new, it's been around since the 19th century. The arguments are far-fetched and downright laughable but they'll work hard on spinning it every which way possible to make it seem like it makes some kind of sense. It's good entertainment :good_job:

bicicleur
16-05-17, 09:38
you're very victourious but it is not so that the whole theory is destroyed

the fact that PIE ex Anatolian was on the steppe 5.5 ka still stands
and that Poltavka and Sintashta were not Yamna-derived but Fatyanovo-Bulyanovo CW, it was already suggested by Anthony

how the languages spread from the steppe to Europe, there was no consensus, only some short suggestions in a conditional way

now for Anatolian many options remain open
I'm eager to find the truth, but I'll read a lot of theories and nonsense till then

oh, and about the horses, I'd like to know also
I think Anthony sometimes exaggerated in the riding skills
those steppe folks had something with horses from early on, that is certain
but it isn't clear what it was exactly

the whole thing was a theory, not the truth
will we ever get beyond theories on these subjects?

P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if the Anatolians would turn out not to be R1.

Dov
16-05-17, 14:48
berun
I agree with many of your theses. Yes, you were the first to notice that the eastern Yamnaya is quite strange and is not ancestral for existing IE.

Nevertheless,


Or even in Medieval Russia, if it's the Y-DNA what matters most.
It's hard to imagine. Yes, in those places probably were PIE, but it was in the Mesolithic and early Neolithic. Then a part of that population descended to the south and formed the Dniepro-Donetsk - Sredniy Stog. The remaining PIE/Paleo-Europeans in north-east were swept/assimilated by the population of pit-comb ceramics. Thus, besides Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk, nothing remains as a source of Corded Ware. All that is more North - is the Pit-Comb ceramic.

Also, someone had to bring autosomal Corded Ware makeup and light pigmentation genes to Western Europe. R1a is obviously not enough for this, if we consider, for example, Britain.

Most likely, all Europeans come from one small source, such as, for example, the Sredniy Stog settlements.
http://s019.radikal.ru/i630/1705/60/a8a0647f7063.jpg

http://s018.radikal.ru/i528/1705/83/561b8d29d6e3.jpg

Olympus Mons
16-05-17, 16:50
There is no such thing as CHG was the IE!
There is Shulavei Shomu was the IE!

So all, cut it out! - We don't say EHG was IE, or WHG was IE, why the hell use CHG.
4900bc saw the dispersal of the Shulaveri Shomu from south caucasus, and they were PIE!

Angela
16-05-17, 17:37
I am not a geneticist, linguist etc, therefore what I may say below might sound very ignorant. Angela, why do you argue that languages in Europe came from the steppes of Asia? Weren't there are any people in the European continent? If people existed in Europe, I expect them to have been speaking some kind of language.Diomedes, the steppes run from what is now far-eastern "Europe" into "Asia". We're talking about the landmass known as Eurasia, yes? The division into "Europe" versus "Asia" is part of later often political developments. Today, in that part of the world, the Urals are usually seen as the "border".
lhttps://davidderrick.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/eurasian-steppe.gif

When the only people in Europe were the WHG, they spoke their own language(s). Then the farmers arrived with their own language(s).
Finally, IE, no matter where it originated, spread over Europe. Modern Europeans descend from people who spoke all these languages. People change languages. Look at the Amerindians in the New World. It's not tied to your dna.

Angela
16-05-17, 17:43
berun
I agree with many of your theses. Yes, you were the first to notice that the eastern Yamnaya is quite strange and is not ancestral for existing IE.

Nevertheless,


It's hard to imagine. Yes, in those places probably were PIE, but it was in the Mesolithic and early Neolithic. Then a part of that population descended to the south and formed the Dniepro-Donetsk - Sredniy Stog. The remaining PIE/Paleo-Europeans in north-east were swept/assimilated by the population of pit-comb ceramics. Thus, besides Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk, nothing remains as a source of Corded Ware. All that is more North - is the Pit-Comb ceramic.

Also, someone had to bring autosomal Corded Ware makeup and light pigmentation genes to Western Europe. R1a is obviously not enough for this, if we consider, for example, Britain.

Most likely, all Europeans come from one small source, such as, for example, the Sredniy Stog settlements.
http://s019.radikal.ru/i630/1705/60/a8a0647f7063.jpg

http://s018.radikal.ru/i528/1705/83/561b8d29d6e3.jpg
There is so much wrong with this post it would take forever to refute everything and I don't have the time.

Dov
16-05-17, 17:57
There is so much wrong with this post it would take forever to refute everything and I don't have the time.
He-he, sure.

berun
16-05-17, 18:44
@ Dov, the case would be to know exact dates for the Russian CW (lato sensu) and its origin.

@ Olympus Mons: PIE in the Caucasus? where is the IE toponymy left and the variety of IE languages there? they left the region en masse ?

Dov
16-05-17, 19:02
berun
Not so long ago, I saw data that the very first layers of corded ware are of age as an early yamnaya. But without special details and location. Early mainstream is considered that they are much younger.

added:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Dnieper_culture
Middle Dnieper corded ware culture can be from the Sredniy Stog burials. Territorially they are close. Then the distribution of corded ceramics began to the north, east and west .
It is problematic to send CW from more northern locations, there is a continuous Pit-Comb ceramics in those times there.

berun
16-05-17, 21:43
From Mallory's IE Encyclopedy:


The Middle Dnieper culture is an eastern variant of the
Corded Ware cultural horizon (c 3200-2300 BC) and was
situated primarily in the north Ukraine between the other
Corded Ware regional groups and the forest-steppe and steppe
zone cultures. The culture is known from over two hundred
sites, primarily tumulus barrows, some of which have been
inserted into earlier Yamna burials and the cultural substrate
is seen to be both Yamna and late Tripolye. Settlements are
poorly known but would appear to have been small villages
with surface dwellings. Burials were within kurgans with the
deceased usually in the extended, more rarely in the flexed,
position; there is also evidence of cremation from sites in
Belarus. The burials were accompanied by pottery (amphora
and beakers), stone battle-axes and possibly ornaments. Metal
imports appear in the late stages along with ornaments of
amber.

This CW culture is almost older as Yamnaya, but has two interesting issues: an EEF (Tripolye) substrate, and a possible CHG admixture (through Yamnaya, present already in Tripolyans, or coming from the Balkans or the Caucasus). More questions... but it would be great to have Y-DNA from this culture.

Aaron1981
17-05-17, 02:46
In an scientific level, the steppe theory proposed by Gimbutas and thereafter reloaded by David Anthony is dead (the kurgan theory 2.0 was about Yamnayans delivering the Germainc languages to the CW culture through the Usatovo culture by a kind of cultural fashion).

The many red and orange alarms were never heard much, but now the final problem was settled by ancient genetics: a sure IE culture as the CW, from where it could split Germanic and Balto-Slavic, had a different Y-DNA than that found in Yamnaya (R1b-Z2105); moreover the steppe cultures possibly linked to the Indo-Iranian branch (Andronovo, Sintashta, Srubnaya) appear to be CW copies in the autosomal and Y-DNA level. The followers of the steppe theory had by some time the hope to find out the CW Y-DNA in the west steppes, along with the right Y-DNA of the Bell Beakers in West Europe, and all speaking the same language ...

Now with the new paper "The genomic history of southeastern Europe" the hope to find and confirm such hopes and theories vanishes. I think it is quite hard to read there:



and



At the Y-DNA level the paper confirms that Yamna was R1b-Z2013 (along ancestor clades) in Samara (x7), Kalmukya (x4), and derived cultures of Staliningrad, Vucedol and Poltavka (x5). The case about Ukranian HGs speaking a form of proto-IE to become Yamnayans is not tenable: the paper states that Ukranian HGs had diverse origins (in Vasilevka there were R1b1a2, I2a1, R1a, I2a2) and had a 31% of WHG in autosomals, such 31% lowered to 1% in Yamnayans, so that only a strong colonization from elsewhere could explain this: even if Yamnayans were true IE speakers, the previous HG population could not be so... and then IE comes from elsewhere. Even in Samara the change is quite obvious: the HG was R1b1a1a (the most eastern R1b), but the Eneolithic samples were Q1a, R1a1 and R1a1a.

The paper suggest to follow the CHG component to Anatolia to find the IE urheimat, but this case is quite difficult to accept: Anatolian imposed over Hatti, Armenian was not local (Urartian placenames have not followed in such language it's own evolutions), and the Caucasus, a catch-all net, is not conserving some unique IE branch (Ossetian is derived from Scythian). The case would be to look further, to the Zagros (as the paper itself also points)... or even in Medieval Russia, if it's the Y-DNA what matters most.

So what is really IE at the end? by now the sure cultures related to such language family display high amounts of R1a and EHG ancestry. The other option left would be to follow the CHG ancestry, its spread, and the clades associated (by now J1, J2). What place would have the R1b-L51 clades is now more difficult to ascertain.

Not exactly. Dereivka and the successor cultures Yamnaya, and Corded Ware are largely R1a, R1b, and I2-M223. What exactly is dead of Anthony or Gimbutas' theory? You're putting far too much emphasis on differences between WHG-EHG when they are largely the same thing. If we aren't differentiating between CHG and Iran_Neolithic, we shouldn't be making a big deal over clinal change over a west to east distribution of very similar hunter-gatherers, because that's all it really is. So after the inhabitants of the steppes absorbed people from the Caucasus they spread as far east as China, but also rebounded west to Corded Ware and Yamnaya south of the Carpathians. That's about all you can really say. It says nothing about language.

berun
17-05-17, 08:28
I strongly recommend you to look at what makes diffent WHG from EHG and its dates, otherwise any discussion will have not much sense.

bicicleur
17-05-17, 09:23
I strongly recommend you to look at what makes diffent WHG from EHG and its dates, otherwise any discussion will have not much sense.

tribes were mingling at the Dnjepr Rapids 10 ka, probably WHG + EHG, way before PIE

the PIE were just a few subclades out of the whole HG population, those who had made contacts with CHG

berun
17-05-17, 10:40
The autosomal implies that the Ukranian steppe suffered with the appearance of Yamnaya a similar population replacement as that seen in CW but with a different Y-DNA (the carrier of the CHG share from my point of view). If it's necessary to look to a HG pop with IE it's not in the steppes, now seems rathet clear this point (for me much more than two weeks ago).

Olympus Mons
17-05-17, 13:38
@ Dov, the case would be to know exact dates for the Russian CW (lato sensu) and its origin.

@ Olympus Mons: PIE in the Caucasus? where is the IE toponymy left and the variety of IE languages there? they left the region en masse ?

Yes. They left the region em masse. The replacement of the shulaveri by 4900Bc was colossal. Every year we figure they were in bigger numbers. And the replacement happen fast and very deep. Either killed or moved way. I say moved way mostrly to west, southwest and north. What arrived came from South southeast.

berun
17-05-17, 17:10
Oh, in this way I could propose that PIE originated in Olympus Mons (the Martian one)
(:

Olympus Mons
17-05-17, 18:56
@ Dov, the case would be to know exact dates for the Russian CW (lato sensu) and its origin.

@ Olympus Mons: PIE in the Caucasus? where is the IE toponymy left and the variety of IE languages there? they left the region en masse ?


Oh, in this way I could propose that PIE originated in Olympus Mons (the Martian one)
(:

Ahahahaj. Yes. Great place.

MOESAN
20-05-17, 00:12
I just thought of how Japanese could be an IE language!
Example: the word Samurai
in Bosnian Sam(alone) u (into, inside) rai or raj pronounced the same (heaven) Sam-u-raj = Alone-to-Heaven
Telling you, Japanese might be an IE language too.

it's the problem of etymologies; they suffer the cut-off question in analyzed words (syllabes), and so, we need a big enough corpus of words and even sentances before we can believe in the reconstructions - thanks God, it exist some serious rules to apply (among them homogeneity of phonetic evolution) -

Alan
21-05-17, 15:57
hmmm...

There was this lately:

The Anthropological Context of Euskaro-Caucasian,
John D. Bengtson
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/1573384x-90000008

The idea still keeps coming up. Maybe Colin Refrew's idea could apply to how Basque spread?
The Basque language is most likely Anatolian_Neo derived. the reason why there is allot of similarities between Kartvelian and Basque is not because it shares ancestry from the Caucasus or CHG spoke Kartvelian like language. Contrary Georgian language seems to be a post Neolithic arrival in the region and descend from their Anatolian_Neo like ancestry. Georgian is around ~30% Anatolian_Neo derived. Their main Haplogroup is G2a (likely Anatolian_Neo derived) which makes me assume that they got their language from their ~30% Anatolian_Neo ancestry. This is why Georgians and the Kartvelian language family in general is dominated by G2a and not J or R.

In fact it could even be(and likely) that there were still Anatolian_Farmer languages spoken on the Anatolian Plateau by Late Neolithic, when Anatolia had already absorbed some CHG/Iran_Neo ancestry.

So Georgians can be modeled as ~50% Late Anatolian Neolithic (Kumptepe like as far as I remember) and their language comes most likely from these ancestors. While the Proto Basque speaker left earlier during the early Neolithic.

Imo there is no doubt about the Basques Neolithic origin. They pretty much look like a Middle Neolithic population with very little Steppe Indo European (or CHG/Iran_Neo) Indo European related ancestry. Sardinians seem to stem from exactly the same group, with the difference that they speak a Italic language (which they adopted most likely during Roman Period I can immagine them to have spoken a different language still by Bronze Age, this is why their signature is so quite different from the rest of Italic speakers who have allot more CHG ancestry and some EHG ancestry).

That still makes Basques one of the oldest (if not the oldest) still living European group. Cause I can't think of any European population that derives it's language from Western or Scandinavian H&G.

A. Papadimitriou
21-05-17, 17:33
Sardinians and Basques are not as similar as some people think

Sardinians
S. Indian 0
Baloch 0
Caucasian 20
NE Euro 12
SE Asian 0
Siberian 0
NE Asian 0
Papuan 0
American 0
Beringian 0
Mediterranean 60
SW Asian 7
San 0
E African 0
Pygmy 0
W African 0

Basques
S. Indian 0
Baloch 8
Caucasian 1
NE Euro 33
SE Asian 0
Siberian 0
NE Asian 0
Papuan 0
American 0
Beringian 0
Mediterranean 58
SW Asian 0
San 0
E African 0
Pygmy 0
W African 0

Important differences:
Sardinians
Caucasian +19
SW Asian +7

Basques
NE Euro +21
Baloch +8

We don't know definetely anything about Paleo-Sardinian

A. Papadimitriou
21-05-17, 18:23
By the way, this is what Pausanias writes about Sardinia


Not far distant from Sardinia (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/entityvote?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0160:book=10:c hapter=17&auth=tgn,7003121&n=9&type=place) is an island, called Cyrnus by the Greeks, but Corsica (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/entityvote?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0160:book=10:c hapter=17&auth=tgn,7001093&n=1&type=place) by the Libyans who inhabit it. A large part of the population, oppressed by civil strife, left it and came to Sardinia (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/entityvote?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0160:book=10:c hapter=17&auth=tgn,7003121&n=10&type=place); there they took up their abode, confining themselves to the highlands. The Sardinians, however, call them by the name of Corsicans, which they brought with them from home.
[9] When the Carthaginians were at the height of their sea power, they overcame all in Sardinia (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/entityvote?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0160:book=10:c hapter=17&auth=tgn,7003121&n=11&type=place) except the Ilians and Corsicans, who were kept from slavery by the strength of the mountains. These Carthaginians, like those who preceded them, founded cities in the island, namely, Caralis (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/entityvote?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0160:book=10:c hapter=17&auth=perseus,Caralis&n=1&type=place) and Sulci. Some of the Carthaginian mercenaries, either Libyans or Iberians, quarrelled about the booty, mutinied in a passion, and added to the number of the highland settlers. Their name in the Cyrnian language is Balari, which is the Cyrnian word for fugitives.


The most confusing part is when he says that Libyans inhabited Corsica. We could assume:
Carthaginians = Semetic (in the south, for example Cagliari, non-native) but their merceneries = Iberian and Libyan, see Balares
Libyans = Berber?*
Iberians = Iberian (possibly related to Basques)
Balares = Iberian + Libyan

The question for me would be what the Ilians could have been.

*I thought about that. If we say that copying mistakes are possible, we can cosider that it was originally *Ligyan (so we're talking about Ligures). I don't know, though, how possible a mistake like that would have been.

Yetos
21-05-17, 19:27
@ Dov, the case would be to know exact dates for the Russian CW (lato sensu) and its origin.

@ Olympus Mons: PIE in the Caucasus? where is the IE toponymy left and the variety of IE languages there? they left the region en masse ?

berun
my personal believes, always with no evidence,
were 3 major points,

primary was SW Caucasian lands,
the area of Colhis,

second was Zagros mountains
and 3rd was the North Iranian plataeu

Angela
21-05-17, 23:25
The major difference is that the Basques experienced a Bronze Age gene flow from R1b bearing people who have traditionally been held to be steppe Indo-Europeans who were a mix of EHG and CHG. Of course, they probably picked up MN ancestry along the way (EEF and WHG) The latest paper proposes the controversial view that it was a mainly EHG population which brought the R1b. Whatever the case, that migration is imperfectly captured by the modern NE Euro number, imperfect because the calculator is using modern clusters and NE Euro contains CHG and EEF of its own. That's why the percentages are all going to be off. The Baloch number would indicate that a "Caucasus/Iranian like component" did arrive at some point.

As for Sardinia, there is the large Caucasus number and the SW Asian number. Now, the only publically available Sardinian sample is, to my knowledge, the HGDP sample which subsequent and recent papers have shown was drawn mostly from the isolated and remote area which was apparently the refuge of these very EEF looking people. So, it's a bit unlikely that they carry much if any North African or Carthaginian ancestry, whatever the case in other parts of the island.

So, what of the SW Asian? That is easily explained since although Gok samples had none, Oetzi did, and equal to or more than many modern North Italians and Tuscans. He also had 22% Caucasus. Now, Gok's additional WHG might have diluted the Caucasus and West Asian and the same could have happened to the EEF ancestors of the Basques. (It was sometimes suggested that perhaps it was more Cardial in the Sardinians. However, the Mathiesen paper makes clear that I was right to find Paschou at all persuasive, and that Cardial and Danubian EEF split in Europe.)

8712

So,where did the additional Caucasus in the Sardinians and Otzi come from? One possibility is the Peloponnesus farmers, who although speculated to be part of the PPNB by way of Cyprus, lean slightly Caucasus. They might have trickled into other waves that went into various parts of Europe. However, they don't seem to have enough Caucasus to account for it.

I think the answer might be that as time went on and CHG/Iranian "Caucasus like" ancestry seeped west and south into Anatolia and the Levant it also made its way into Europe, primarily the Balkans.

I speculated for a number of years that perhaps when the Balkans experienced its population crashes, there was an exit of people west, and they brought their copper metallurgy with them. They brought their genes with them too. That would be a possible source for all that I2a. Only a suggestion, mind you.

berun
22-05-17, 00:00
It's necessary to take into account the Sea Peoples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples) to count about a Caucasian plus. Denyen, Peleset (Philistines), Shekelesh (Sikules), Sherden (Sardinian), Teresh (Tursa / Etruscan), Tjekker, Weshesh, Lukka (Lycians), Eqwesh (Achaeans), which seem to have a nucleus in the Aegean.

Angela
22-05-17, 00:19
It's necessary to take into account the Sea Peoples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples) to count about a Caucasian plus. Denyen, Peleset (Philistines), Shekelesh (Sikules), Sherden (Sardinian), Teresh (Tursa / Etruscan), Tjekker, Weshesh, Lukka (Lycians), Eqwesh (Achaeans), which seem to have a nucleus in the Aegean.I guess I didn't explain myself clearly. Whatever effect these peoples might have had on coastal Sardinians or Italians has nothing to do with the sample from the mountainous, remote region of Sardinia chosen by Cavalli Sforza, who obviously knew what he was doing. There's also the fact that many scholars believe the Sardinians were actually part of the Sea Peoples. Plus, that would in no way explain the 22% Caucasus in 3300 BC Oetzi, which is more than the relic Sardinian group has.

Sorry, that explanation won't fly.

LeBrok
22-05-17, 06:36
Sardinians and Basques are not as similar as some people think

Sardinians
S. Indian 0
Baloch 0
Caucasian 20
NE Euro 12
SE Asian 0
Siberian 0
NE Asian 0
Papuan 0
American 0
Beringian 0
Mediterranean 60
SW Asian 7
San 0
E African 0
Pygmy 0
W African 0

Basques
S. Indian 0
Baloch 8
Caucasian 1
NE Euro 33
SE Asian 0
Siberian 0
NE Asian 0
Papuan 0
American 0
Beringian 0
Mediterranean 58
SW Asian 0
San 0
E African 0
Pygmy 0
W African 0

Important differences:
Sardinians
Caucasian +19
SW Asian +7

Basques
NE Euro +21
Baloch +8

We don't know definetely anything about Paleo-Sardinian It is true, there are substantial differences, however in both cases their genome is mostly made of European Neolithic.

Cato
22-05-17, 21:56
It's necessary to take into account the Sea Peoples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples) to count about a Caucasian plus. Denyen, Peleset (Philistines), Shekelesh (Sikules), Sherden (Sardinian), Teresh (Tursa / Etruscan), Tjekker, Weshesh, Lukka (Lycians), Eqwesh (Achaeans), which seem to have a nucleus in the Aegean.

There are not traces of migration from the East in the Italian Late Bronze Age (including the Islands), rather the contrary (Ceramics, weapons etc. from Italy in Greece and Cyprus)

berun
22-05-17, 22:22
some paper supporting it or just bad memory ?

Cato
23-05-17, 23:35
some paper supporting it or just bad memory ?

Renato Peroni, L'Italia alle soglie della storia p.285-286 (snipet here: https://books.google.it/books?redir_esc=y&hl=it&id=oS2BAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=popoli+del+mare, He said that some items were imported, some produced locally in Greece by "Italian" immigrants)

Handmade or Barbarian Ware in the Eastern Mediterranean area
8717

Angela
23-05-17, 23:56
Renato Peroni, L'Italia alle soglie della storia p.285-286 (snipet here: https://books.google.it/books?redir_esc=y&hl=it&id=oS2BAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=popoli+del+mare, He said that some items were imported, some produced locally in Greece by "Italian" immigrants)I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Many scholars have concluded that there were extensive trade contacts between Mycenaean Greece and Italy, and some indications of contact with Crete and Malta. Whether that translates into gene flow we'll have to wait and see when we get ancient DNA.

Cato
24-05-17, 00:07
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Many scholars have concluded that there were extensive trade contacts between Mycenaean Greece and Italy, and some indications of contact with Crete and Malta. Whether that translates into gene flow we'll have to wait and see when we get ancient DNA.

The point is that some items were imported by the Myceneans, some produced locally in Greece by Italian or Italic immigrants (warriors-artisans...words of Renato Peroni), maybe they did not leave any genes because they were few, however they were there in the East at the time of the Sea Peoples invasions, coincidence ? maybe, but who knows?

The main point however was that during the Late Bronze Age Italy was not affected by migrations from the Eastern Mediterranean (no archaeological traces), so the extra CHG must be older (Chalcolithic IMO)

Angela
24-05-17, 00:17
The point is that some items were imported by the Myceneans, some produced locally by Italian or Italic immigrants (warriors-artisans) in Greece (words of Renato Peroni), maybe they did not leave any genes because they were few, however they were there in the East at the time of the Sea Peoples invasions, coincidence ? maybe, but who knows?

The gene flow might very well have gone both ways if there was any, as Italian wares were also found in Greece. We just don't know. What I've had brought home to me very strongly recently is that sometimes pots are people, and sometimes they're just pots.

So, I would say all we can do is see what the DNA shows.

Cato
24-05-17, 00:34
The gene flow might very well have gone both ways if there was any, as Italian wares were also found in Greece. We just don't know. What I've had brought home to me very strongly recently is that sometimes pots are people, and sometimes they're just pots.

Not just pots, also weapons, swords (Naue II type) in particular :)


So, I would say all we can do is see what the DNA shows.

I agree

berun
24-05-17, 20:45
Renato Peroni, L'Italia alle soglie della storia p.285-286 (snipet here: https://books.google.it/books?redir_esc=y&hl=it&id=oS2BAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=popoli+del+mare, He said that some items were imported, some produced locally in Greece by "Italian" immigrants)

Handmade or Barbarian Ware in the Eastern Mediterranean area
8717

Mycenaeans were trading goods all along the Mediterranean sea, so it's not necessary to have Italians in the Aegean to have objects from abroad; by the way, when primitivism or emporishment is a proof of origin? people using paper in the XXII Century will be taken as migrants from elsewhere?

Angela
24-05-17, 21:30
Mycenaeans were trading goods all along the Mediterranean sea, so it's not necessary to have Italians in the Aegean to have objects from abroad; by the way, when primitivism or emporishment is a proof of origin? people using paper in the XXII Century will be taken as migrants from elsewhere?Before the advent of ancient DNA analysis, how have scholars traced possible population movements,Berun? Hasn't it been through analyzing physical remains, like pottery or swords? (as well as life style changes etc.) It's been imperfect, to be sure, but it's all we had, yes? Plus, what else were you using if not physical remains to support your contention of movement from the east into Italy? It seems a little odd to suddenly be saying now that it shouldn't be used.

As I said up thread, only ancient DNA will help us figure out if the pots are just pots or if they also represent people.

berun
25-05-17, 00:33
The proof presented was hand-made pottery vs wheel pottery!

Angela
25-05-17, 00:51
The proof presented was hand-made pottery vs wheel pottery!Perhaps you should reread my post and try thinking about it a little more abstractly. i''m sure you'll then see the irony.

A. Papadimitriou
25-05-17, 00:59
Greeks probably believed that 'Scythians' invented the potter's wheel. I am not sure what the term 'Scythian' originally meant.

I like the following text by the way: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0258%3Abook%3D1% 3Achapter%3D8

Most 'Mycenean' pottery outside Greece and Cyprus is usually attirbuted to trade, not 'warrior-artisans'. I don't know if 'warrior artisans' ever existed.

Cato
27-05-17, 01:53
Renato Peroni was one of the most important italian archaeologists of the XX century, i won't dismiss his conclusions so easily


The proof presented was hand-made pottery vs wheel pottery!

No, they are actually very similar (shape, decorations etc.)...

see also: http://smea.isma.cnr.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Bettelli_Handmade-Burnished-Ware-e-ceramica-grigia-tornita-in-Egeo.pdf

(http://smea.isma.cnr.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Bettelli_Handmade-Burnished-Ware-e-ceramica-grigia-tornita-in-Egeo.pdf)

Cato
27-05-17, 02:12
Greeks probably believed that 'Scythians' invented the potter's wheel. I am not sure what the term 'Scythian' originally meant.

I like the following text by the way: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0258%3Abook%3D1% 3Achapter%3D8

Most 'Mycenean' pottery outside Greece and Cyprus is usually attirbuted to trade, not 'warrior-artisans'. I don't know if 'warrior artisans' ever existed.

Handmade ware is very coarse, it was not made for export..

not all Handamade ware is Italian, it was also produced by Balkanic peoples. We know that in Troy the Handmade Knobbed Ware was brought by a barbaric folk from the Danube that settled in the ruins of the city in the LBA.

Angela
27-05-17, 02:23
Can someone explain to me why this is important on a thread about the accuracy of the P-C steppe theory for the spread of the IndoEuropean languages?

Cato
27-05-17, 02:26
Can someone explain to me why this is important on a thread about the accuracy of the P-C steppe theory for the spread of the IndoEuropean languages?
I'm OT, sorry


Returning to the topic, i find interesting that from the point of view of the physical anthropology in Turkey there isn't nothing "Nordic" or Steppic till the Phrygian period, so an association between CHG and Hittites make sense to me

http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/26/1049/12664.pdf

Angela
27-05-17, 02:37
I'm OT, sorry


Returning to the topic, i find interesting that from the point of view of the physical anthropology in Turkey there isn't nothing "Nordic" or Steppic till the Phrygian period, so an association between CHG and Hittites make sense to me

http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/26/1049/12664.pdf Unfortunately, I won't be able to link anything until I get my laptop back tomorrow, but there's a new paper on ancient Canaanite DNA which dates "steppe" admixture in the Middle East to pretty late indeed, to the Persians and the Macedonians. That paper deserves its own thread. I read it, but can't get this tablet to let me access the Supplementary Info. So, we'll see. Unlike the usual suspects, I'll let the data speak without twisting or cherry picking it.