PDA

View Full Version : Central and South Asian DNA Paper



Pages : 1 [2] 3

A. Papadimitriou
04-04-18, 18:41
The term Aryan (Arian) was associated with the Medes.It is doubtful if the people Greeks called 'Scythians' were related to Ossetians. I think not. In post Classical sources it is certain that it was used for people who were speaking languages that belonged to more than 3 language families (up to 6).Ossetians use terms like Ir, Irættæ, Digoræ, DigorænttæTheoretically the terms Alan Aryan and Ir can be related, but I don't know if it can be proven.

Alan
04-04-18, 18:56
or to be fair even commenters as Kurti pushing to south Caspian and others pushing for other further south places didn't really see it.

How was I wrong? I always pushed the idea of North/Northwest (just South of the Caspian) Iran to Southeast Caucasus (West of the Caspian) and than more towards North.

And as we see from this Hajji Firoz sample, he is 5500 BCE and if anything he is more of an ancestor to Leyla Tepe. I always point out Leyla Tepe as the culture where the majority of the PIE package was formed (with Kurgans etc). But I always pointed out that this Leyla Tepe culture also has it's origin further South(east) and many studies actually pointed that out. A Study from few years ago even pointed out that the connection of Maykop to the Iranian Plateau seems stronger than to Mesopotamia.

markozd
04-04-18, 19:01
Maciamo was right when he said certain lines of J2 moved with the IE. How many J samples have been found in the Steppe though? Some G lines probably moved with them too, but hobbyists probably automatically lump all G2a into early farmer movement when some could have come with IE.

I think in this context it's good to remember that we still have no ancient samples from the earliest herding cultures in the northern Black Sea region. I'm sure by now mostly everyone is aware of Maykop. An equally interesting culture with more distinct southern influences would be Kemi Oba, with an epicentre in the Crimean peninsula. It is another Kurgan-building herding culture that, like Maykop, antedates Yamnaya by a few hundred years. The Kemi Oba people were the first to erect the characteristic Kurgan stelae that would become a constituent of later 'steppe cultures' across Eurasia.

We have already seen that Ukraine had quite some genetic sub-structure already in the Chalcolithic, so I consider this region a strong candidate for the origin of some of the other haplogroups that seem to be associated with expansions from the steppe. I think Maciamo pointed out that the distributions of J2b-L283 and E-V13 are consistent with expansions from the steppe. R1b-L51 is also missing from the steppe samples we have thus far.

Alan
04-04-18, 19:01
Another interesting and thoughtful piece on the genomics of Indians.

See:
https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2018/04/01/a-brief-note-on-some-new-developments-regarding-the-genomics-of-indians/

Razib Khan's take on what "Aryan" means.

http://www.brownpundits.com/2018/04/04/not-all-aryans-are-indian-though-most-indians-are-part-aryan-and-most-aryan-ancestry-is-in-india/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I have to say that personally I can't wait until no one gives a damn.

On another topic, does anyone know if groups like the Rajputs and Jats are used in these analyses looking for "steppe" ancestry. I always thought they'd have more than Brahmins.


He is wrong about the Ossetian part though. Ossets call themselves Alan which is basically derived from Aryan and They call themselves Iron which is a loudshifted version of Iran and derives from Aryan too.

Lenab
04-04-18, 19:59
He is wrong about the Ossetian part though. Ossets call themselves Alan which is basically derived from Aryan and They call themselves Iron which is a loudshifted version of Iran and derives from Aryan too.
That is relative Iran has many different ethnic groups. Kurds vary too Kurds and Yazidis in Turkey are different to Kurds in Persia.

Ossetians and Alans are interchangeable and I think they are something to do with Georgians.

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 19:59
See as I wrote above many of these typical "Indo_Aryan" phoenitc developements can be considered as Proto Indo_Iranian. The H loud or today X is actually In Proto Indo_Iranian also S. See as example the H loud in middle iranic for sister that evolved from the S sound.

Proto Indo_Iranic was S too. That is my point.
And about the Eka word. If I am correct this should mean one. You know what? Persian Yak and Kurdish Yek/ek. Indo Aryan substrata in West Iranic or simply a coincidence in developement? Aiva is as far as I know connected to Avesta? (East Iranic) and shouldn't be of allot of importance for the developement in West Iranic tongues.

Things are not as crystal clear as we might thing. Many of these "typical" Indo Aryan loudshifts can be easilly assigned to a language that branched of from proto Indo_Iranian. Neither Iranic nor Indo_Aryan yet. And since Indo_Aryan is more archaic naturally more archaic Indo_Iranian words will appear closer to it. That was my argument above and with the S to H shift you gave me a good example.

That makes sense. You convinced me, Alan! ;-)

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 20:08
There is nothing particular Greek or Anatolian about the Levant...Yes there is and in ancient times during the Hellenic period. My Mum is from the Levant according to her haplogroup which is H a actual ancient Greek haplogroup and according to both her autosomal genetics and mine we both have similarities to Greek people and Anatolian people like Armenians in our K36 Eurogenes cal on GED match Therefore West Asians whether they are from the Levant or not are ''Greco Anatolian'' Western Turks and Armenians too that's the very definition of a West Asian a Near Eastern Southern European mix. The Levant is a technicality I didn't say don't use it I said it's technical.

Actually the Philistines and Armenians were the original people of the Levant not Lebanese Syrian Palestinian Jordanians Arabics and the Israelis apart from the Philistines and Canaanites were Jews. So personally I am not buying it, that all the people today in the Levant are the same as ancient times. Even Ramses III tried to push out the Sea people from North Africa.

People in the Levant today are Arab Middle Easterners in Pre Historic times they were Near Easterners Greco Anatolians.
https://i.imgur.com/DYTxx.jpg

That's the map. The Levant is mapped out as Greco Anatolia although I disagree with them mapping out South Italy and Cyprus in the same spectrum. South Italians are Greco Italics the ones with Greek genetics and Cypriots are just Hellenic.

The ONLY problem with your theory is that virtually ALL ancient DNA from Mesolithic to Iron Age times retrieved from the Levant region DO NOT agree with your hypothesis. Also, you're probably being too "Hellenocentric", in fact it is the Greeks that have a lot of Anatolian-like and a bit of Levantine-like ancestry, the Neolithic spread of farming and mass migrations was from there (Near East) to Southern Europe, not the opposite.

Besides, there is NO way Greeks are the most similar population in comparison with ANY ancient Levantine sample. The Levant may have been Hellenized, may have received some Greek colonists, but it NEVER experienced widespread depopulation during Hellenistic times and was NEVER Greek-majority, not even in language (which is much more flexible and easily shifted than genetics), not even in the height of the Greek-speaking empires of Alexander and the Seleucids.

Instead, we have inscriptions in Semitic languages THOUSANDS OF YEARS (as early as 2,800 BC) before any Greek inscription appears in the historic record, and of course we have huge documentation from Sumerian and Egyptian sources attesting that that region was inhabited by Semitic peoples at least from the Bronze Age on. You're deluding yourself. You won't find any proof that people of the Levant were mostly Greek, nor even Anatolian, not in the Neolithic, not in the Bronze Age, not in the Iron Age, not now.

There is of course some degree of genetic similarity because, to be frank, it is not that those peoples are Greek, but it is that Greeks are historically at least in relevant proportions just a group of the Eastern Mediterranean populations like Anatolians and Levantines. But still there are clear distinctions between those peoples, even though they share a lot of common ancestral admixtures. And I'm pretty sure that not all Levantines are like your mum or yourself. That casuistic example alone is not how you analyze the genetic makeup of an entire and very diverse region.

Silesian
04-04-18, 20:10
How was I wrong? I always pushed the idea of North/Northwest (just South of the Caspian) to Southeast Caucasus (West of the Caspian) and than more towards North.

And as we see from this Hajji Firoz sample, he is 5500 BCE and if anything he is more of an ancestor to Leyla Tepe. I always point out Leyla Tepe as the culture where the majority of the PIE package was formed (with Kurgans etc). But I always pointed out that this Leyla Tepe culture also has it's origin further South(east) and many studies actually pointed that out. A Study from few years ago even pointed out that the connection of Maykop to the Iranian Plateau seems stronger than to Mesopotamia.
How exactly do you know Iranian Hajji Firoz R1b-Z2103 sample(is not just a huge nothing burger?) was not a dead end branch, with no descendants? Alans/Iron/Aryan of Ossetia belong to R1b>Z2110>CTS9219>R5587>F5586. The branch of R1b>Z2110 is not found at all around the Southern Caucasus. Most Kurds for example derive from R1b> L584+

Alan - R1a-L62>YP5664 - Dêrsim, Zaza FTDNA: 461580
Alan - R1a-L62>M417 - Dêrsim, Kurmanji FTDNA: ?
Alan - R1b-M343>M269>P311 - Dêrsim, Zaza FTDNA: E22089
Alxan - R1b-M343>M269>L23>L584>PH2731 - Dêrsim, Zaza FTDNA: 510248
Areyan - J1-M267>PF7263>ZS4440 - Dêrsim, Zaza FTDNA: 454546
Areyan - R1b-M343>M269>L23>L584>PH2731 - Dêrsim, Zaza FTDNA: N102077
Areyan - R1b-M343>M269>L23>L584>PH2731 - Dêrsim, Zaza FTDNA: 366762
Azîzî - G2a2b1a1a-P287>L31>L30>M406>L14 - Agirî, Kurmanjî

There is one Z-2106>>CTS8966 but that is connected to China. Z-2106*(the node above the Dêrsim, Kurmanji sample) is connected to Ireland R-Z2106 * Z2106formed 5700 ybp, TMRCA 5700 ybp
Xiran - R1b-M343>M269>L23>Z2106>CTS8966 - Dêrsim, Kurmanji FTDNA: E22086http://corduene.blogspot.ca/2016/03/kurdish-tribes-y-dna-haplogroups.html
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2106/

A. Papadimitriou
04-04-18, 20:26
I have to say that personally I can't wait until no one gives a damn.You know why I care? [I have chosen not to learn my haplogroup, btw because I consider it largely irrelevant.] But, apart from the Polish blogger and his highly patriarchal warrior pastoralists there were people who were saying things like:

"The survival of the indigenous language would have been the most likely scenario if the IE/R1b invaders were predominantly men. An army of adventurous Celtic men riding horses and equipped with bronze weapons could have butchered a substantial part of the Neolithic Iberian male population and taken their women. As good conquerors they would have taken many wives or concubines each (polygamy), having a great many children each, which helped the spread of R1b Y-DNA lineages (see How did R1b become dominant in Western Europe)"

That person never thought that his haplogroup wasn't originally Celtic or PIE-related and that the Basques could have retained more or less their original language.

Ossetians on the other hand, for example, had to have been 'iranized'.

And the truth is a Neolithic -or earlier- origin for Western European R1b (maybe apart from U-106) is still possible. Certainly they weren't Megalithic builders but how many Cardium Neolithic samples exist? Maybe it moved in Europe with E-V13 and related lineages or was here before the Neolithic. [If you sample Megalithic builders you will find Megalithic builders]

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 20:36
Maciamo (and others),

Thank you for putting in so much work on this site even though you might get nitpicked.

This study is very interesting since the early haplo mistakes were cleared up. If the PIE movement began in the area of this sample, I would think they originally had more J2 and picked up more R1b as they moved north. It makes sense that there would have been a R1b gradient in this area if R1b were found to the north at the time.

If there was no R1b to the north, then wouldn't we expect a very high R1b rate (and lack the sample size to verify)?

Maciamo was right when he said certain lines of J2 moved with the IE. How many J samples have been found in the Steppe though? Some G lines probably moved with them too, but hobbyists probably automatically lump all G2a into early farmer movement when some could have come with IE.

Hajji Firuz is pretty north IMO, in West Azerbaijan, and near the Caucasus area, so I don't think it would be very surprising that R1b could've been very prevalent in that area. I mean, according to the maps on the diversity (not frequency) of R1b clades the cline was always from the South Black Sea Coast to the South Caucasus, as well as other parts of Anatolia (near the Taurus too, I believe), so it seems to me that R1b was once quite widespread in the northern part of West Asia and it possibly was overwhelmed in much of that area by the expansion of agriculturalists and pastoralists who were mostly G2a, J2 and J1 and thus became gradually a bit more restricted to Transcaucasia/Northwest Iran, where possibly "our" main object of interest R1b-M269 developed.

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 20:48
You know why I care? [I have chosen not to learn my haplogroup, btw because I consider it largely irrelevant.] But, apart from the Polish blogger and his highly patriarchal warrior pastoralists there were people who were saying things like:

"The survival of the indigenous language would have been the most likely scenario if the IE/R1b invaders were predominantly men. An army of adventurous Celtic men riding horses and equipped with bronze weapons could have butchered a substantial part of the Neolithic Iberian male population and taken their women. As good conquerors they would have taken many wives or concubines each (polygamy), having a great many children each, which helped the spread of R1b Y-DNA lineages (see How did R1b become dominant in Western Europe)"

That person never thought that his haplogroup wasn't originally Celtic or PIE-related and that the Basques could have retained more or less their original language.

Ossetians on the other hand, for example, had to have been 'iranized'.

And the truth is a Neolithic -or earlier- origin for Western European R1b (maybe apart from U-106) is still possible. Certainly they weren't Megalithic builders but how many Cardium Neolithic samples exist? Maybe it moved in Europe with E-V13 and related lineages or was here before the Neolithic. [If you sample Megalithic builders you will find Megalithic builders]

So this scenario would imply that Indo-Europeanization (not just in language, but in many other aspects of culture) would've happened with virtually no genetic impact all in Neolithic-type populations which most likely had a low population density, where even a few thousands of warriors could make a huge long-term impact (so comparisons with Turkish in Turkey are unwarranted, especially because even there, a hugely populated medieval country, we can detect a genetic impact of at least 20% to 30% if you consider the Turks didn't come directly from Northeast Asia, but from Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan).

I can't find that more plausible and realistic than the opposite, more mainstream hypothesis, especially since we have until now found quite a lot of very ancient R1b-M269 far away from Western Europe (and those we found almost all date from the Middle Bronze Age onwards, when coincidentally or not steppe admixture starts to appear in a lot of Western European places), and no R1b-M269 has been found in Western Europe dating to before the Copper Age (other clades of R1b don't really count here).

We'd have to just imagine the possibility of many R1b-M269 being found eventually, while we totally ignore those that already exist and the fact they exist right where the patterns of spread of steppe-related admixture and star-like expansion of IE languages seem to have happened... I don't know...

I don't say the R1b-L51 came necessarily right from the steppes, but it certainly had something to do with that profound cultural change in the Bronze Age and the subsequent attestation of so many IE languages everywhere in Central/West Europe, even if it were just an Eastern European, maybe Balkanic branch of males that were fully Indo-Europeanized early on.

Lenab
04-04-18, 21:10
The ONLY problem with your theory is that virtually ALL ancient DNA from Mesolithic to Iron Age times retrieved from the Levant region DO NOT agree with your hypothesis. Also, you're probably being too "Hellenocentric", in fact it is the Greeks that have a lot of Anatolian-like and a bit of Levantine-like ancestry, the Neolithic spread of farming and mass migrations was from there (Near East) to Southern Europe, not the opposite.

Besides, there is NO way Greeks are the most similar population in comparison with ANY ancient Levantine sample. The Levant may have been Hellenized, may have received some Greek colonists, but it NEVER experienced widespread depopulation during Hellenistic times and was NEVER Greek-majority, not even in language (which is much more flexible and easily shifted than genetics), not even in the height of the Greek-speaking empires of Alexander and the Seleucids.

Instead, we have inscriptions in Semitic languages THOUSANDS OF YEARS (as early as 2,800 BC) before any Greek inscription appears in the historic record, and of course we have huge documentation from Sumerian and Egyptian sources attesting that that region was inhabited by Semitic peoples at least from the Bronze Age on. You're deluding yourself. You won't find any proof that people of the Levant were mostly Greek, nor even Anatolian, not in the Neolithic, not in the Bronze Age, not in the Iron Age, not now.

There is of course some degree of genetic similarity because, to be frank, it is not that those peoples are Greek, but it is that Greeks are historically at least in relevant proportions just a group of the Eastern Mediterranean populations like Anatolians and Levantines. But still there are clear distinctions between those peoples, even though they share a lot of common ancestral admixtures. And I'm pretty sure that not all Levantines are like your mum or yourself. That casuistic example alone is not how you analyze the genetic makeup of an entire and very diverse region.

No Greek people are not Levantine or more Near Eastern than any other Southern European nation. There is no such thing as a Levantine a Anatolian a Turk a Armenian etc but I can try to simplify it.

That's the problem with using the word Levantine.

The following people came from the Levant physically Armenians and Canaanites.

The Greeks Hellenized the Levant during the Hellenistic period some of their remnants are today and I speak to them and know them. I don't think that reflects the majority of the population though, I know the reason why but I will bite my tongue over that one.

My samples were during K36 admixture Italian and Anatolian Greek and Anatolian Greek and Anatolian/Armenian French etc I have a physical Balkan and Caucasus mix. The fact that they come from the Levant does not make a difference that is my personal mix. I know people from the Levant who don't have that mix and people from the Levant who are more mixed. In fact I have seen it all there.

My family came to the Levant during Ottoman rule, more than anything else Turks as in people pronounced Turkish when they converted not racial Turks or Western Anatolians, can have Greek mixes Armenian mixes Slavic mixes like Serbian and Bulgarian etc.

Also I am Alpine Mediterranean that in it's self speaks about Neolithic migration from the Near East to Europe. If Near Easterners the ones that are ''European'' or European/Caucasus mixed which still technically makes them Caucasian which that's where the Alpine races comes from anyway.

I never used the words Levant being part Levantine or using such gibberish terminologies since the Levant in Pre historic times it's probably the most mixed populated area in Asia. It would be like trying to classify Brazil.

Anyway my mix is unusual but don't worry though in 100 years I will make sure it won't exist at all and only mix with Scandinavians how does that sound.

I don't think that Southern Europeans are from the Levant.

Olympus Mons
04-04-18, 21:17
How was I wrong? I always pushed the idea of North/Northwest (just South of the Caspian) to Southeast Caucasus (West of the Caspian) and than more towards North.

And as we see from this Hajji Firoz sample, he is 5500 BCE and if anything he is more of an ancestor to Leyla Tepe. I always point out Leyla Tepe as the culture where the majority of the PIE package was formed (with Kurgans etc). But I always pointed out that this Leyla Tepe culture also has it's origin further South(east) and many studies actually pointed that out. A Study from few years ago even pointed out that the connection of Maykop to the Iranian Plateau seems stronger than to Mesopotamia.

Alan.
You are wrong (or right it might turnout, one never really knows) . but to me The reason is:


There is a line. A timeline. South Caucasus and broader region above the line (4900bc) and bellow the line.
Even places like Kultepe, Nakchivan etc, and naturally Urmia lake, even Hajji Firuz must obey to the same dividing line. It does not matter that later all of this is places are Dalma ware, or Leylatepe or Kura -araxes if its bellow the line has nothing to do with R1b and PIE. Above that line you would find PIE speakers R1B (Shulaveri where very mobile Pastorals).
That R1b Z2013, along with J2bs, is found in Hajji. So, Shulaveri in Georgia, up there near the Caucasus mountains , making wine by 5800bc and Hajji Firuz making wine by 5500bc. Places north of Urmia lake, like Dava Goz had already been identified as pastoral Transhumance from South Caucasus (Shulaveri).
Bellow that line, that 4900bc date is a completely new world. Ubaid, leylatepe, Uruk, Maikop . Yes the whole enchilada but nothing to do with above the line (above 4900bc) that is where you will find the R1bs PIE speakers that went to north Caucasus, North Anatolia near black sea, even Balkans.

Lenab
04-04-18, 21:21
You know why I care? [I have chosen not to learn my haplogroup, btw because I consider it largely irrelevant.] But, apart from the Polish blogger and his highly patriarchal warrior pastoralists there were people who were saying things like:

"The survival of the indigenous language would have been the most likely scenario if the IE/R1b invaders were predominantly men. An army of adventurous Celtic men riding horses and equipped with bronze weapons could have butchered a substantial part of the Neolithic Iberian male population and taken their women. As good conquerors they would have taken many wives or concubines each (polygamy), having a great many children each, which helped the spread of R1b Y-DNA lineages (see How did R1b become dominant in Western Europe)"

That person never thought that his haplogroup wasn't originally Celtic or PIE-related and that the Basques could have retained more or less their original language.

Ossetians on the other hand, for example, had to have been 'iranized'.

And the truth is a Neolithic -or earlier- origin for Western European R1b (maybe apart from U-106) is still possible. Certainly they weren't Megalithic builders but how many Cardium Neolithic samples exist? Maybe it moved in Europe with E-V13 and related lineages or was here before the Neolithic. [If you sample Megalithic builders you will find Megalithic builders]
Ossetians on the other hand, for example, had to have been 'iranized'. ''Georgian Lazized''

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 21:23
No Greek people are not Levantine or more Near Eastern than any other Southern European nation. There is no such thing as a Levantine a Anatolian a Turk a Armenian etc but I can try to simplify it.

That's the problem with using the word Levantine.

The following people came from the Levant physically Armenians and Canaanites.

The Greeks Hellenized the Levant during the Hellenistic period some of their remnants are today and I speak to them and know them. I don't think that reflects the majority of the population though, I know the reason why but I will bite my tongue over that one.

My samples were during K36 admixture Italian and Anatolian Greek and Anatolian Greek and Anatolian/Armenian French etc I have a physical Balkan and Caucasus mix. The fact that they come from the Levant does not make a difference that is my personal mix. I know people from the Levant who don't have that mix and people from the Levant who are more mixed. In fact I have seen it all there.

My family came to the Levant during Ottoman rule, more than anything else Turks as in people pronounced Turkish when they converted not racial Turks or Western Anatolians, can have Greek mixes Armenian mixes Slavic mixes like Serbian and Bulgarian etc.

Also I am Alpine Mediterranean that in it's self speaks about Neolithic migration from the Near East to Europe. If Near Easterners the ones that are ''European'' or European/Caucasus mixed which still technically makes them Caucasian which that's where the race comes from anyway.

I never used the words Levant being part Levantine or using such gibberish terminologies since the Levant in Pre historic times it's probably the most mixed populated area in Asia. It would be like trying to classify Brazil.

Anyway my mix is unusual but don't worry though in 100 years I will make sure it won't exist at all and only mix with Scandinavians how does that sound.

I don't think that Southern Europeans are from the Levant.

So your family came to the Levant during the MODERN ERA Ottoman Empire and you want to use your and your mum's results to define who is the native people of the Levantine area or not? Is that what you really said? Oh, come on! Also, I didn't say Southern Europeans came from the Levant. I said that, due to the Neolithic migrations into ALL of Europe, but better preserved in the Southern European genetic makeup, there is an obvious degree of genetic similarity of people like Greeks with many Anatolians and, a bit more distantly, with Levantine peoples, especially those of the north, that were less impacted by Red Sea migrations and more affected by Anatolian-related and Caucasus-related admixtures throughout the times.

Also, it baffles me that you think the Levant is the "most mixed populated area in Asia", yet you want us all to call the Levant, which is a neutral, objective term that refers just to a geographic location (there is NO "Levantine ethnicity" nor "Levantine language", unlike Greek), with a name that is obviously ethnocentric and not suggestive of a "most mixed area", i.e. GRAECO-Anatolian, even without any proof at all that either the ancient or modern Levantines were virtually identical to Greeks and even most Anatolians. That's not coherent at all. Again, you sound really confused, and it sometimes seems like you're analyzing the population genetics of such and such people trying to prove a point about you or your lineage, or even your "race". That's not really objective scientific interest.

Lenab
04-04-18, 21:36
So your family came to the Levant during the MODERN ERA Ottoman Empire and you want to use your and your mum's results to define who is the native people of the Levantine area or not? Is that what you really said? Oh, come on! Also, I didn't say Southern Europeans came from the Levant. I said that, due to the Neolithic migrations into ALL of Europe, but better preserved in the Southern European genetic makeup, there is an obvious degree of genetic similarity of people like Greeks with many Anatolians and, a bit more distantly, with Levantine peoples, especially those of the north, that were less impacted by Red Sea migrations and more affected by Anatolian-related and Caucasus-related admixtures throughout the times.

Also, it baffles me that you think the Levant is the "most mixed populated area in Asia", yet you want us all to call the Levant, which is a neutral, objective term that refers just to a geographic location (there is NO "Levantine ethnicity" nor "Levantine language", unlike Greek), with a name that is obviously ethnocentric and not suggestive of a "most mixed area", i.e. GRAECO-Anatolian, even without any proof at all that either the ancient or modern Levantines were virtually identical to Greeks and even most Anatolians. That's not coherent at all. Again, you sound really confused, and it sometimes seems like you're analyzing the population genetics of such and such people trying to prove a point about you or your lineage, or even your "race". That's not really objective scientific interest.


No I don't want to compare my result to the average population others here tried to and when I argued how it's different and beyond the usual it was I got a strike on my account and banned for four months.

Greco Anatolians Are exactly that a Near Eastern Southern European mix Grecos are South Greeks. For the rest yes, Southern Europeans are slightly towards the Near East than other European nations again, because of Neolithic. That's what it means.

I don't trust GED match and that ''Red Sea admixture'' ''West Asian'' admixture it's all relative I use other calculators. I am damn more Near Eastern than your average South European yet according to the Southern Europeans I speak to I am Alpine Mediterranean let's just assume I had both parents with that mix and not just one parent would I still be Alpine Med how distant would I plot then.

Again Greeks controlled the Levant and Anatolia that does not mean that people from the Levant are Greek or Greeks are from the Levant Greek people might have controlled Anatolia but certain ethnic groups of Greeks and even then they plot distantly from the Near East and the Levant as a whole.

I just have a Greek and Caucasus mix that's my result that's her result. There is no such thing as the Levant. Philistines Greeks Persians Assyrians all controlled the area at some point.

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 21:46
No I don't want to compare my result to the average population others here tried to and when I argued how it's different and beyond the usual it was I got a strike on my account and banned for four months.

Greco Anatolians Are exactly that a Near Eastern Southern European mix Grecos are South Greeks. For the rest yes, Southern Europeans are slightly towards the Near East than other European nations again, because of Neolithic. That's what it means.

I don't trust GED match and that ''Red Sea admixture'' ''West Asian'' admixture it's all relative I use other calculators. I am damn more Near Eastern than your average South European yet according to the Southern Europeans I speak to I am Alpine Mediterranean let's just assume I had both parents with that mix and not just one parent would I still be Alpine Med how distant would I plot then.

Again Greeks controlled the Levant and Anatolia that does not mean that people from the Levant are Greek or Greeks are from the Levant Greek people might have controlled Anatolia but certain ethnic groups of Greeks and even then they plot distantly from the Near East and the Levant as a whole.

I just have a Greek and Caucasus mix that's my result that's her result. There is no such thing as the Levant. Philistines Greeks Persians Assyrians all controlled the area at some point.

Levant is a geographic region, it implies no ethnicity, no culture, no language, no genetic makeup at all, just a certain territory. Of course it exists. What certainly is not warranted is to call that diverse area "Graeco-Anatolian" especially when you yourself say this: "Greek people might have controlled Anatolia but certain ethnic groups of Greeks and even then they plot distantly from the Near East and the Levant as a whole.", and, additionally, "that does not mean that people from the Levant are Greek or Greeks are from the Levant". So how on earth would "Graeco-Anatolia", a term that refers inevitably to culture and even genetics, be preferable to a neutral geographic term like Levant if you yourself say that "Greeks plot distantly from the Near East and the Levant as a whole"? Nonsense, your claims don't even lead logically to your conclusions. If the whole actual problem is, deep down, that you don't want to have some of your roots identified as "Levantine" because they can mistaken for "those Arabs" or something like that, rest assured that that's not what geneticists and historians mean when they talk about Levant or Levantine peoples.

Lenab
04-04-18, 21:57
Because it's mapped out during Byzantine rule as Greco Anatolia.

Because the Levant had many different ethnic backgrounds of people and yes Southern Europeans are distant from the Levant. Not as distant from Western Anatolia but yes a Western Anatolian Turk/Armenian/Georgian with a most likely Greco Anatolian mix will have some similarities or partial similarities to South Europeans

The Levant does not belong to Arabs it belongs to many different groups respectively. Arabs exist there physically like Armenians Greeks Assyrians various Caucasus ethnic groups Circassians Persians etc.

I am Alpine Mediterranean you can relate it to whatever you want, it is what it is.

Olympus Mons
04-04-18, 21:58
@Ygorcs

Can't follow you on linguistics.
But I suppose Glottochronological isnt an exact science is it?
I had to have thrown at my face how ridiculous I was because L23 had a TMRCA of 4200BC so could not be 6th milenia shulaveri... And now we have a Z2103 in 6th milenia.

However do please understand what i am saying. Makes sense to me. Might be wrong and linguistics proves it wrong? I dont know.

a. Group of IE speakers (PIE) went to north caucasus and steppe (4900 BC).
b. A group of PIE speakers (same people) crossed north anatolia and moved ( in my opinion back to) to the Balkans (4700Bc) of which the KUM6 girl is an example. Back means most people there might not speak a completely different language i guess.

(Note: nobody ever mentions the archaeological importance of south eastern europe (ie balkans and even a bit north) movements of people INTO steppe and their participation in the formation of archeological groups there. Even yamnaya!)

c. So, there should (or could) be IE speakers in balkans and even thrace that had continuous contacts with group a. all the way from say 4500bc to 3000 bc. Actually they would, if remnants of Shulaveri, be of the same "family". So they share.

d. Hittites, on the other hand, should be IE speakers that stayed behind from say armenia, or Erzurum area, isolated from the others IE speakers we talk about above...

e. On top of this, people seem to have a problem conceiving that in space and time people moved around a lot in period of a milenia at those times when innovation was arising (wheel, bronze, etc). And those names travel far and fast as the craft itself. Its people.

(note: I think that the fact i sometimes wrongly use PIE instead of IE gets you confused, right?)

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 22:31
Because it's mapped out during Byzantine rule as Greco Anatolia.

Because the Levant had many different ethnic backgrounds of people and yes Southern Europeans are distant from the Levant. Not as distant from Western Anatolia but yes a Western Anatolian Turk/Armenian/Georgian with a most likely Greco Anatolian mix will have some similarities or partial similarities to South Europeans

The Levant does not belong to Arabs it belongs to many different groups respectively. Arabs exist there physically like Armenians Greeks Assyrians various Caucasus ethnic groups Circassians Persians etc.

I am Alpine Mediterranean you can relate it to whatever you want, it is what it is.

Where are you reading the word ARAB in the simple geographic term LEVANT? From your posts my impression is that you have some deep-seated racial/ethnic aversion to Arabs, but not even that makes sense because Levant is a term that refers to a certain territory irrespective of who lives there. Ancient Jews, Phoenicians, Philistines are all rightly designated "Levantine peoples" of the past because, well, that's what they were, too.

A. Papadimitriou
04-04-18, 22:38
I can't find that more plausible and realistic than the opposite, more mainstream hypothesis, especially since we have until now found quite a lot of very ancient R1b-M269 far away from Western Europe (and those we found almost all date from the Middle Bronze Age onwards, when coincidentally or not steppe admixture starts to appear in a lot of Western European places), and no R1b-M269 has been found in Western Europe dating to before the Copper Age (other clades of R1b don't really count here). We'd have to just imagine the possibility of many R1b-M269 being found eventually, while we totally ignore those that already exist and the fact they exist right where the patterns of spread of steppe-related admixture and star-like expansion of IE languages seem to have happened... I don't know... Most IE languages are attested late.I don't understand what you are saying. We don't know where Proto-Germanic was spoken and concerning Celtic most scholars were associating it with Hallstatt (circa 800 BC — circa 500 BC) until recently while there are also some who have tried to associate it with Atlantic Mediterranean Neolithic. Those are two very different views. I have flirted with the idea that Atlantic Mediterranean Neolithic Europeans could have spoken an Early IE language, at least close to Celtic and the atypical features Insular Celtic languages have are associated with a non-IE layer.But assuming that this is wrong (we can discuss it some other time), farming was important in Hallstatt culture. They weren't nomads or 'warrior pastoralists'. Their culture wasn't steppic. Which is, as I have said, mostly true about ancient Greeks and Romans too.I wanted samples from Lepontians (from Lugano, Lake Como, Lake Maggiore) who were definitely speaking Celtic or a sister language (We have incscriptions). Some type of R1b existed in Europe 14000 years ago but also there aren't many Cardium Neolithic samples. I take into account what we have found but I also take into account what is likely to be found. That certainly doesn't mean I am correct.

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 22:42
@Ygorcs

Can't follow you on linguistics.
But I suppose Glottochronological isnt an exact science is it?
I had to have thrown at my face how ridiculous I was because L23 had a TMRCA of 4200BC so could not be 6th milenia shulaveri... And now we have a Z2103 in 6th milenia.

However do please understand what i am saying. Makes sense to me. Might be wrong and linguistics proves it wrong? I dont know.

a. Group of IE speakers (PIE) went to north caucasus and steppe (4900 BC).
b. A group of PIE speakers (same people) crossed north anatolia and moved ( in my opinion back to) to the Balkans (4700Bc) of which the KUM6 girl is an example. Back means most people there might not speak a completely different language i guess.

(Note: nobody ever mentions the archaeological importance of south eastern europe (ie balkans and even a bit north) movements of people INTO steppe and their participation in the formation of archeological groups there. Even yamnaya!)

c. So, there should (or could) be IE speakers in balkans and even thrace that had continuous contacts with group a. all the way from say 4500bc to 3000 bc. Actually they would, if remnants of Shulaveri, be of the same "family". So they share.

d. Hittites, on the other hand, should be IE speakers that stayed behind from say armenia, or Erzurum area, isolated from the others IE speakers we talk about above...

e. On top of this, people seem to have a problem conceiving that in space and time people moved around a lot in period of a milenia at those times when innovation was arising (wheel, bronze, etc). And those names travel far and fast as the craft itself. Its people.

(note: I think that the fact i sometimes wrongly use PIE instead of IE gets you confused, right?)

It's not just about glottochronological measures, but about linguistic observations, for example that Greek and Indo-Iranian (which was most probably a northern, steppe branch originally) share WAY TOO MUCH to have been from the start unrelated languages that had a common ancestor just in 4,900 BC West Asia. I mean, for example, that if Mycenaean Greek and Vedic Sanskrit had diverged from each other in 4,900 BC (roughly 3,400 years before their first attestations), and not, say, in 3,000 BC (1,500 years before), we'd naturally expect them to be much more distantly related to each other in everything, unless both languages were extremely conservative (3,400 years is roughly the time separating French from Proto-Italic, imagine that!).

I don't disagree with you that IE-speaking tribes or at least "Para-Indo-European" speakers may have existed in the Balkans even before the Bronze Age steppe migrations. They could even have been speakers of the Anatolian branch, why not? We just don't have enough evidences to know what Hittites and Luwians were like and where they came from. However, what I disagree strongly with you is that any of the later, Bronze Age/Iron Age branches found in the Balkans, like Greek and Thracian, had been there since Neolithic times and had not, at least, shifted to a steppe IE language during the Bronze Age. Those languages were not that distinct from Steppe IE branches to have split from them so early on, unless the 2 branches were both EXTREMELY conservative, but this hypothesis doesn't hold water when you consider that Anatolian IE is very distinctive, so either Anatolian IE was extremely innovative, or all those branches, Anatolian and non-Anatolian, kept evolving significantly after their last common ground.

So, I don't think it is impossible that everything you say is right... I just DO NOT think that those Balkanic IE languages would've survived to be known to us much later as Greek, Thracian,Armenian or Albanian. Those later Balkanic/Anatolian branches were clearly descended, and not only very distantly related, from the same source that gave us Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages. Greek, for instance, is in most respects closer to steppe branches like Iranian than Celtic, Italic or Germanic. Languages don't converge that much by random chance, so either Proto-Greeks came from the steppe and mixed extensively with the locals imposing their language (regardless of what language the natives already spoke, maybe even an unknown and very divergent IE branch, like Anatolian), or then the local populations willfully shifted to the incoming steppe languages for some reason.

But those are events that certainly happened by the early to mid Bronze Age. What happened before, say in 4,500 BC, are much more obscure, but I don't think they had a lot to do with the genesis of the Greek, Daco-Thracian or Albanian IE branches.

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 23:00
Most IE languages are attested late.I don't understand what you are saying. We don't know where Proto-Germanic was spoken and concerning Celtic most scholars were associating it with Hallstatt (circa 800 BC — circa 500 BC) until recently while there are also some who have tried to associate it with Atlantic Mediterranean Neolithic. Those are two very different views. I have flirted with the idea that Atlantic Mediterranean Neolithic Europeans could have spoken an Early IE language, at least close to Celtic and the atypical features Insular Celtic languages have are associated with a non-IE layer.But assuming that this is wrong (we can discuss it some other time), farming was important in Hallstatt culture. They weren't nomads or 'warrior pastoralists'. Their culture wasn't steppic. Which is, as I have said, mostly true about ancient Greeks and Romans too.I wanted samples from Lepontians (from Lugano, Lake Como, Lake Maggiore) who were definitely speaking Celtic or a sister language (We have incscriptions). Some type of R1b existed in Europe 14000 years ago but also there aren't many Cardium Neolithic samples. I take into account what we have found but I also take into account what is likely to be found. That certainly doesn't mean I am correct.

I'm talking about Bronze Age movements, Hallstatt, Celtic expansion and all of that were much later and involved heavily mixed Iron Age European populations (in genetics and culture), not unadmixed steppe peoples. Those were different times, different peoples. By that time any "steppic culture" would've been changed through internal evolution and mixing with other cultures, and that's exactly what we see, but even Celts and Germanic tribes undoubtedly had some cultural traits quite similar to those found in the Bronze Age steppes milennia before their ethnogenesis.

Indo-European is technically just a language family, people may have shifted their language without shifting their entire economy and way of life, it's certainly much easier to adopt another language than another entirely different lifestyle, especially when there was no massive population replacement at all in most of Western Europe, just a new layer in the genetic structure. What is certainly striking is that R1b-M269 clades doesn't exist in Western Europe and steppe-related admixture doesn't, too, until the Bronze Age, right when we know that profound changes, cultural expansions and retreats happened.

It is also extremely unlikely that Celtic (at least Celtic alone) would've been a common Atantic Neolithic language, that would imply that it had diverged even earlier than that from other IE branches, and you can make sure that Celtic would've been MUCH MUCH more divergent from other Indo-European families if it had already been a separate language unconnected with the "eastern" Indo-Europeans as early as the Neolithic era.

A. Papadimitriou
04-04-18, 23:15
I'm talking about Bronze Age movements, Hallstatt, Celtic expansion and all of that were much later and involved heavily mixed Iron Age European populations (in genetics and culture), not unadmixed steppe peoples. Those were different times, different peoples. By that time any "steppic culture" would've been changed through internal evolution and mixing with other cultures, and that's exactly what we see, but even Celts and Germanic tribes undoubtedly had some cultural traits quite similar to those found in the Bronze Age steppes milennia before their ethnogenesis.Indo-European is technically just a language family, people may have shifted their language without shifting their entire economy and way of life, it's certainly much easier to adopt another language than another entirely different lifestyle, especially when there was no massive population replacement at all in most of Western Europe, just a new layer in the genetic structure. What is certainly striking is that R1b-M269 clades doesn't exist in Western Europe and steppe-related admixture doesn't, too, until the Bronze Age, right when we know that profound changes, cultural expansions and retreats happened.You talk about the changes, yet you don't describe them.Either way, I didn't say that your scenario is unlikely but I can say that most IE languages are attested late and that those who caused the changes you talk about weren't necessarily IE-speaking.Concerning the splits, what study you accept as valid? What was the method they had used?

Alpenjager
04-04-18, 23:19
I'm talking about Bronze Age movements, Hallstatt, Celtic expansion and all of that were much later and involved heavily mixed Iron Age European populations (in genetics and culture), not unadmixed steppe peoples. Those were different times, different peoples. By that time any "steppic culture" would've been changed through internal evolution and mixing with other cultures, and that's exactly what we see, but even Celts and Germanic tribes undoubtedly had some cultural traits quite similar to those found in the Bronze Age steppes milennia before their ethnogenesis.

Indo-European is technically just a language family, people may have shifted their language without shifting their entire economy and way of life, it's certainly much easier to adopt another language than another entirely different lifestyle, especially when there was no massive population replacement at all in most of Western Europe, just a new layer in the genetic structure. What is certainly striking is that R1b-M269 clades doesn't exist in Western Europe and steppe-related admixture doesn't, too, until the Bronze Age, right when we know that profound changes, cultural expansions and retreats happened.

It is also extremely unlikely that Celtic (at least Celtic alone) would've been a common Atantic Neolithic language, that would imply that it had diverged even earlier than that from other IE branches, and you can make sure that Celtic would've been MUCH MUCH more divergent from other Indo-European families if it had already been a separate language unconnected with the "eastern" Indo-Europeans as early as the Neolithic era.

There is a 2700 yBP Elite proto-Celtic individual from the Hallstatt Culture tested and he belongs to G2a2

Alan
04-04-18, 23:24
How exactly do you know Iranian Hajji Firoz R1b-Z2103 sample(is not just a huge nothing burger?) was not a dead end branch, with no descendants? Alans/Iron/Aryan of Ossetia belong to R1b>Z2110>CTS9219>R5587>F5586. The branch of R1b>Z2110 is not found at all around the Southern Caucasus. Most Kurds for example derive from R1b> L584+

Alan - R1a-L62>YP5664 - Dêrsim, Zaza FTDNA: 461580
Alan - R1a-L62>M417 - Dêrsim, Kurmanji FTDNA: ?
Alan - R1b-M343>M269>P311 - Dêrsim, Zaza FTDNA: E22089
Alxan - R1b-M343>M269>L23>L584>PH2731 - Dêrsim, Zaza FTDNA: 510248
Areyan - J1-M267>PF7263>ZS4440 - Dêrsim, Zaza FTDNA: 454546
Areyan - R1b-M343>M269>L23>L584>PH2731 - Dêrsim, Zaza FTDNA: N102077
Areyan - R1b-M343>M269>L23>L584>PH2731 - Dêrsim, Zaza FTDNA: 366762
Azîzî - G2a2b1a1a-P287>L31>L30>M406>L14 - Agirî, Kurmanjî

There is one Z-2106>>CTS8966 but that is connected to China. Z-2106*(the node above the Dêrsim, Kurmanji sample) is connected to Ireland R-Z2106 * Z2106formed 5700 ybp, TMRCA 5700 ybp
Xiran - R1b-M343>M269>L23>Z2106>CTS8966 - Dêrsim, Kurmanji FTDNA: E22086http://corduene.blogspot.ca/2016/03/kurdish-tribes-y-dna-haplogroups.html
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2106/

Well actually it is, NW Iran is a hotspot of R1b, especially m269, l23 and some m343 thrown in it.

Silesian
04-04-18, 23:37
Well actually it is, NW Iran is a hotspot of R1b, especially m269, l23 and some m343 thrown in it.
Another point. ANE{Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE): Upper-Paleolithic genomes from the Lake Baikal region of Siberia, identified as Malta--ydna R* variant, Afontogora 2, and Afontogora 3, dated to 17 to 24 kya, when Mammoths roamed the area, form the ANE cluster.} is higher in certain areas especially those with high concentration of R1b[The Tabasarans are an ethnic group who live mostly in Dagestan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagestan),}.

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/e66a9jgeknb6c5ox.png

Ygorcs
05-04-18, 00:05
You talk about the changes, yet you don't describe them.Either way, I didn't say that your scenario is unlikely but I can say that most IE languages are attested late and that those who caused the changes you talk about weren't necessarily IE-speaking.Concerning the splits, what study you accept as valid? What was the method they had used?

Should I really lecture you on the economic, technological, cultural changes of the Bronze Age in Central & Western Europe, regardless of who made or brought them? I don't think so. It's one of those things that are just too easily available and too well known for me to have a duty to described them, honestly. As for your final questions, well, you can pick and choose, the vast majority of linguists, using whatever method and whatever point of view, don't confirm the very fringe hypothesis of an extremely early divergence of Celtic from the other IE branches, certainly not in the Neolithic era, and most agree that reconstructed Proto-Celtic is ultimately too similar to Proto-Italic and on a second level to most other IE branches, unlike Anatolian IE (THAT is what an IE branch that split very early from the rest of the family looks like, extremely distinctive grammar and lexicon changes). As you say, Celtic languages were attested very late. When they were attested in written form by 600 BC, according to your hypothesis, they would've been diverged from other IE language families for more than 4,000 or even 5,000 years.

Yet Celtic looks in most ways clearly "Indo-European-like", and it shared the same Bronze Age vocabulary (for typical features of Steppe Bronze Age society) found in the other branches, but following the typical Celtic sound rules (that rules out the possibility that they were merely loanwords from other IE branches, because loanwords don't follow older sound rules, they come with the sound rules of their foreign origin). Celtic certainly does not look like a rebel and awkward child of a much earlier form of PIE, from well before the existence of wagons, wheel, metallurgy, horse domestication, and so on. But hey, if you think it is more plausible that it simply remained closely related to other IE languages despite its origins deep in the early Neolithic migrations to Europe, that's fine.

It's certainly possible that somehow the peoples that transformed Europe in the Bronze Age and established cultures that then developed organically until later times were entirely non-IE, and somehow, out of the blue, fully developed and distinct branches of IE popped up in the Iron Age with written inscriptions that already point out to lanuages that had been diverging in that region for many many centuries... Unless they all came from elsewhere and swarmed Western & Central Europe, and thus the Iron Age population of Europe should be very (genetically and culturally) very unlike the former Bronze Age peoples. Hmm... Possible, but very improbable too.

I hope we learn much better and more numerous evidences to refine our hypotheses in the near future. ;-)

A. Papadimitriou
05-04-18, 00:24
Should I really lecture you on the economic, technological, cultural changes of the Bronze Age in Central & Western Europe, regardless of who made or brought them? I don't think so. It's one of those things that are just too easily available and too well known for me to have a duty to described them, honestly. As for your final questions, well, you can pick and choose, the vast majority of linguists, using whatever method and whatever point of view, don't confirm the very fringe hypothesis of an extremely early divergence of Celtic from the other IE branches, certainly not in the Neolithic era, and most agree that reconstructed Proto-Celtic is ultimately too similar to Proto-Italic and on a second level to most other IE branches, unlike Anatolian IE (THAT is what an IE branch that split very early from the rest of the family looks like, extremely distinctive grammar and lexicon changes). As you say, Celtic languages were attested very late. When they were attested in written form by 600 BC, according to your hypothesis, they would've been diverged from other IE language families for more than 4,000 or even 5,000 years.
[...]
It's certainly possible that somehow the peoples that transformed Europe in the Bronze Age and established cultures that then developed organically until later times were entirely non-IE, and somehow, out of the blue, fully developed and distinct branches of IE popped up in the Iron Age with written inscriptions that already point out to lanuages that had been diverging in that region for many many centuries... Unless they all came from elsewhere and swarmed Western & Central Europe, and thus the Iron Age population of Europe should be very (genetically and culturally) very unlike the former Bronze Age peoples. Hmm... Possible, but very improbable too.


What you say doesn't make any sense. Just consider the possibility that Bell Beakers wasn't IE speaking.

I assumed that Hallstatt is proto-Celtic which is what the majority of scholars thought at least until recently. If you want to discuss what was the language of Atlantic Mediterranean Neolithic open a thread.

I asked you to say what study you consider accurate. I will use it a reference in our discussions. That means I will consider it correct even if I believe it isn't.

Either way, most of our posts are off topic. If you want answer the last thing only and I will probably continue in a more relevant thread tomorrow.

Ygorcs
05-04-18, 01:20
What you say doesn't make any sense. Just consider the possibility that Bell Beakers wasn't IE speaking.

I assumed that Hallstatt is proto-Celtic which is what the majority of scholars thought at least until recently. If you want to discuss what was the language of Atlantic Mediterranean Neolithic open a thread.

I asked you to say what study you consider accurate. I will use it a reference in our discussions. That means I will consider it correct even if I believe it isn't.

Either way, most of our posts are off topic. If you want answer the last thing only and I will probably continue in a more relevant thread tomorrow.

A study on what? Linguistics, genetics, archaeology? I'm afraid I won't be able to cite just one study for you, because I don't base my opinions on the subject on just one study - especially since it is a multidisciplinary effort to write the history of non-literate societies, and in most cases the experts on each field won't make overarching conclusions about other fields that aren't theirs. I don't form my impressions and opinions based on genetics alone, much less on linguistics alone, so there is no "one" study I consider accurate more than any other. Sorry to disappoint you.

As for your impression that what I said "doesn't make any sense", I'm afraid you didn't understand what I was saying. I didn't dispute that Hallstatt was most probably Celtic, I'm discussing your former assumption that Atlantic Neolithic Europe could already speak a IE language that became Proto-Celtic (already forgot that point?), and that those Bronze Age movements probably had nothing to do with the spread of IE languages; that's what you yourself wrote, so, yes, we'll have to discuss that, not just Hallstatt, especially since everything you're saying refers to pre-Bronze Age events, not Iron Age Europe.

What I'm talking about is the lack of any substantial evidence of a profoundly non-organic, sudden cultural and genetic rupture between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age in Central & Western Europe, so it's a bit hard to simply assume that several totally distinct (and thus, aruably split since many centuries before) IE branches and languages everywhere in Europe (from Lusitanian to Venetic, Germanic to Messapic) just appeared "out of the blue" in Iron Age, post-Urnfield Europe with no genetic nor cultural link at all to the Bronze Age transformations that happened in those regions of Europe. Cultures like

Jastorf and Hallstatt, among several others, weren't "foreign" non-European cultures that spread into Western Europe. They were indigenous developments - and they unquestionably spoke IE languages. As far as I know, even if the Bell Beaker wasn't IE speaking, they weren't the only culture in Central & Western Europe, and evidences don't even point to their being a homogeneous ethnic group.

What matters is not just Bell Beaker, it is that, before the era of written inscriptions in many IE languages (roughly after 700 BC), the last profoundly transformative genetic and cultural changes that happened in Central/Western Europe, rupturing with the previous traditions, and not organic evolutions, took place in the Bronze Age, not just a few centuries earlier.

But, in any case, we'll see it all better very soon, fortunately Europe has and probably will keep having more samples than anywhere else in the world.

markozd
05-04-18, 01:28
Another point. ANE{Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE): Upper-Paleolithic genomes from the Lake Baikal region of Siberia, identified as Malta--ydna R* variant, Afontogora 2, and Afontogora 3, dated to 17 to 24 kya, when Mammoths roamed the area, form the ANE cluster.} is higher in certain areas especially those with high concentration of R1b[The Tabasarans are an ethnic group who live mostly in Dagestan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagestan),}.

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/e66a9jgeknb6c5ox.png

Surveying yfull it looks like one of the regions (other than Turkey) that consistently shows very basal types of R1b is the western coast of the Persian Gulf - Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and so forth. Naturally Iraq & Iran will be underrepresented in commercial tests, but I'm sure we would see the same pattern there.

The map that is often quoted from Hovhannisyan et al. (2014) which shows the highest variance in the Armenian plateau is quite misleading. While the high diversity in Armenia is real enough, the joining network actually shows that most branches there are rather terminal. This suggests to me complex migrations rather than deep presence in the region.

If I had to guess R1b based on what little evidence there is I'd say R1b or its ancestor came to West Eurasia by crossing the Persian Gulf. Diversification of R1 and subsequent expansion in one of the nearby Paleolithic industries of Pakistan (I'm thinking perhaps Karachi) would make much more sense than Siberia in any case.

Edit: The same seems to be true for early branches under R1a, only that their distribution seems to be even more southern. Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia. This is not consistent with the mammoth hunter hypothesis.

A. Papadimitriou
05-04-18, 02:26
A study on what? Linguistics, genetics, archaeology? I'm afraid I won't be able to cite just one study for you, because I don't base my opinions on the subject on just one study - especially since it is a multidisciplinary effort to write the history of non-literate societies, and in most cases the experts on each field won't make overarching conclusions about other fields that aren't theirs. I don't form my impressions and opinions based on genetics alone, much less on linguistics alone, so there is no "one" study I consider accurate more than any other. Sorry to disappoint you.


You mentioned glottochronology.

Concerning, European Atlantic Mediterranean Neolithic, I said I have flirted with the idea of them speaking an Early IE language. If you want to open a thread about it, do it. I said, I assume Hallstat is proto-Celtic which was the opinion of the majority of scholars, at least until recently.

Lenab
05-04-18, 02:58
Where are you reading the word ARAB in the simple geographic term LEVANT? From your posts my impression is that you have some deep-seated racial/ethnic aversion to Arabs, but not even that makes sense because Levant is a term that refers to a certain territory irrespective of who lives there. Ancient Jews, Phoenicians, Philistines are all rightly designated "Levantine peoples" of the past because, well, that's what they were, too.
You are lost I have never mentioned Levantine nor Arabs please I don't give a crap either way I am only interested in my own result.
No read a book Canaanite Philistines Assyrian Armenians are and always have been native to the Levant Arabs Jews the Semites came during the Iron Age when the Armenoid came about and that actually came from the Caucasus too not the Levant.
I don't have any other thing to say and stop saying I hate Arabs or Jews and I am a racist all I did was do a dna test and upload the,result it's a big deal isn't it? Bye.

Lenab
05-04-18, 03:00
You mentioned glottochronology.

Concerning, European Atlantic Mediterranean Neolithic, I said I have flirted with the idea of them speaking an Early IE language. If you want to open a thread about it, do it. I said, I assume Hallstat is proto-Celtic which was the opinion of the majority of scholars, at least until recently.

I think he's nuts honestly, I can't deal with him you carry on I am leaving

Yetos
05-04-18, 03:37
Levant is a geographic region, it implies no ethnicity, no culture, no language, no genetic makeup at all, just a certain territory. Of course it exists. What certainly is not warranted is to call that diverse area "Graeco-Anatolian" especially when you yourself say this: "Greek people might have controlled Anatolia but certain ethnic groups of Greeks and even then they plot distantly from the Near East and the Levant as a whole.", and, additionally, "that does not mean that people from the Levant are Greek or Greeks are from the Levant". So how on earth would "Graeco-Anatolia", a term that refers inevitably to culture and even genetics, be preferable to a neutral geographic term like Levant if you yourself say that "Greeks plot distantly from the Near East and the Levant as a whole"? Nonsense, your claims don't even lead logically to your conclusions. If the whole actual problem is, deep down, that you don't want to have some of your roots identified as "Levantine" because they can mistaken for "those Arabs" or something like that, rest assured that that's not what geneticists and historians mean when they talk about Levant or Levantine peoples.

there is mess in terms,

mainly Greaco-Anatolia reach till Kappadokia,
Not Levant,

But |Greek Dna exist inSyrria,
at 1930's Haleppo had such
Lattakeia also. Beirut also

there are 2 categories,
1 is from Seleykids era and Byzantium
2 is from Muslimized mainland Greeks that Ottomans moved there like the ones with Sultan Hammid

Personally I do not consider it a significant to modern Levant population
But exists Greek Dna there

I do not know how it is named,
even in Iran exists,

Yetos
05-04-18, 03:39
@ Lenab

plz open a thread about your ancestry to be discussed.
Not in this thread,

Jovialis
05-04-18, 03:46
I think he's nuts honestly, I can't deal with him you carry on I am leaving

Here, have two points for insulting another member before you go.

Ygorcs
05-04-18, 05:16
You are lost I have never mentioned Levantine nor Arabs please I don't give a crap either way I am only interested in my own result.
No read a book Canaanite Philistines Assyrian Armenians are and always have been native to the Levant Arabs Jews the Semites came during the Iron Age when the Armenoid came about and that actually came from the Caucasus too not the Levant.
I don't have any other thing to say and stop saying I hate Arabs or Jews and I am a racist all I did was do a dna test and upload the,result it's a big deal isn't it? Bye.

Dear, as always we must stress you're deeply confused and ignorant about basic topics necessary to understand these discussions on genetics. You now say another totally incoherent and self-negating argument: No read a book Canaanite Philistines Assyrian Armenians are and always have been native to the Levant Arabs Jews the Semites came during the Iron Age when the Armenoid came about and that actually came from the Caucasus too not the Levant. Of course that is totally wrong, but the most striking mistake is that you of course seem to ignore, among many other things, that Canaanites and Assyrians ARE SEMITIC PEOPLES, too.

Honestly, your level of ignorance on the matter (not just genetics, but even the basic information about the demographic and linguistic makeup of that region) really makes me decide that it's simply not worth discussing with you. I'll have to keep repeating the most basic knowledge that you can already learn for yourself even in any Wikipedia article. And I can be a bit crazy, but I'm certainly not totally nuts to waste my time with clearly confused and misguided people like you seem to be. Bye!

berun
05-04-18, 15:26
After chewing this hard paper... haplos in Turan and Swat Valley seem to be mainly Iranic as 5 J2a(1), 8 L1a, and 9 R2a(3a), maybe 2 G2a2a are Anatolian, and there are possible local ancestry in 2 H1a1 and 3 Q1b2.

The ADMIXTUTE graphs confuse me more than explain visualy ancient admixtures; in whichever case ASI is Iran Neolithic + AASI~Onge... that would mean that Iranian farmers spoke a Dravidian-like language? it's true then the Elamo-Dravidian relation? or Dravidian popped up from local HG?

Iran_Chalco received an Anatolian imput which extended less to other Asians, like Turan_Chalco with 3%. The steppes also received an Anatolian~European Farmer imput, the first noticeable case is an outlier from Poltavka dated by 2700 BC, just the date that CWC was created with "steppe" genes, the farmer genes leave to be labeled outler to become typical for steppe MLBA peoples... in fact MLBA people is modeled as EMBA (aka Yamna) plus European farmer......... the MLBA people expands over all the Eurasian steppe being mainly R1a, incorporating what would be old and local Yamna-Afanisievo clades (R1b-Z2013 and Q).

The BMAC civilization was composed by people 60% Iran + 21% Anatolian + 13% Siberian_HG (posible local ancestry linked to Kelteminar culture) + 5% Onge (Indian subcontinent-related); 5 outliers evidence the presence in the seccond millennium of IE spakers as they carry extra Anatolian and EHG ancestry, in fact are modeled as BMAC + 20% MLBA steppe.

Iron Age Swat Valley dwellers are modeled as Indus Periphery (Iran Farmer + Onge + Siberian_HG) + 22% MLBA_Steppe, a R1a is found in this area, but elites are allways a minority and in the Indian subcontinent such elites incinerated their deceased, leaving much less DNA than the local pop.

Doing a sudoku-like proposition, if Iran farmers would speak Elamite, then IE would be the language carried by EHG or by Anatolian farmers........

Angela
05-04-18, 17:02
This map of the spread of farming over the Caucasus mountains correlates reasonably well with the proposed increase of Iran like genetic material onto the steppe.

https://i.imgur.com/ddo1loN.png

I've been trying to find the data or text behind this, but no luck so far.

Jovialis
05-04-18, 17:43
This map of the spread of farming over the Caucasus mountains correlates reasonably well with the proposed increase of Iran like genetic material onto the steppe.

https://i.imgur.com/ddo1loN.png

I've been trying to find the data or text behind this, but no luck so far.

I found it, you can download the PDF on this page.

The Diffusion of Humans and Cultures in the Course of the Spread of Farming

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313910636_The_Diffusion_of_Humans_and_Cultures_in_ the_Course_of_the_Spread_of_Farming

Angela
05-04-18, 19:21
I found it, you can download the PDF on this page.

The Diffusion of Humans and Cultures in the Course of the Spread of Farming

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313910636_The_Diffusion_of_Humans_and_Cultures_in_ the_Course_of_the_Spread_of_Farming

Thanks, Jovialis, but it won't let me access it because I have no institutional e-mail.

Sile
05-04-18, 20:16
I'm talking about Bronze Age movements, Hallstatt, Celtic expansion and all of that were much later and involved heavily mixed Iron Age European populations (in genetics and culture), not unadmixed steppe peoples. Those were different times, different peoples. By that time any "steppic culture" would've been changed through internal evolution and mixing with other cultures, and that's exactly what we see, but even Celts and Germanic tribes undoubtedly had some cultural traits quite similar to those found in the Bronze Age steppes milennia before their ethnogenesis.

Indo-European is technically just a language family, people may have shifted their language without shifting their entire economy and way of life, it's certainly much easier to adopt another language than another entirely different lifestyle, especially when there was no massive population replacement at all in most of Western Europe, just a new layer in the genetic structure. What is certainly striking is that R1b-M269 clades doesn't exist in Western Europe and steppe-related admixture doesn't, too, until the Bronze Age, right when we know that profound changes, cultural expansions and retreats happened.

It is also extremely unlikely that Celtic (at least Celtic alone) would've been a common Atantic Neolithic language, that would imply that it had diverged even earlier than that from other IE branches, and you can make sure that Celtic would've been MUCH MUCH more divergent from other Indo-European families if it had already been a separate language unconnected with the "eastern" Indo-Europeans as early as the Neolithic era.

if celtic was a atlantic neolthic language then it would have been only in northern france, because we have vascon in the south and east of them the iberians , next to them the ligurians , then italy

IMO, celtic began in central and southern germany and I agree with Archeologists that Glauberg was the celtic "capital" beginning pre-rossen culture

as for southern france, we have records of gallic invasions from the north to rid themselves of the iberians and ligurians

davef
05-04-18, 20:27
Thanks, Jovialis, but it won't let me access it because I have no institutional e-mail.
You can't access it? I can for some reason (I tapped the big blue button that says Download full text PDF and I got there right away). I'm using Firefox on iOS btw

Ygorcs
05-04-18, 21:04
Doing a sudoku-like proposition, if Iran farmers would speak Elamite, then IE would be the language carried by EHG or by Anatolian farmers........

Or maybe the "Iranian farmer" admixture is too broadly defined and spread through a territory too big to have plausibly spoken just one ancestral lanuage or even just one language family. Elamite and the proposed Elamo-Dravidian are usually supposed to have been a pretty "southern" Iranian branch, along the Persian Gulf and the Indic coast, whereas the possible earliest ancestors of IE were probably a northwestern branch almost on the slopes of the Caucasus. I wouldn't expect all the Iranian Plateau to speak a similar language, and even if all the people that became the Iranian Farmers originally spoke one such language, that would've probably been in the end of the Mesolithic, and by the Bronze Age virtually any sign of that relationship would've been extremely diluted or even disappeared due to further language shifts or merges in contact with other peoples. Just a though. I still think it is at least plausible that PIE was actually a EHG language, maybe even a "koiné", that was deeply subject to Caucasian/Iranian influence and thus possibly became a very distinctive, mixed and innovative steppe language (think of modern English as a good comparison).

markozd
05-04-18, 21:27
Or maybe the "Iranian farmer" admixture is too broadly defined and spread through a territory too big to have plausibly spoken just one ancestral lanuage or even just one language family. Elamite and the proposed Elamo-Dravidian are usually supposed to have been a pretty "southern" Iranian branch, along the Persian Gulf and the Indic coast, whereas the possible earliest ancestors of IE were probably a northwestern branch almost on the slopes of the Caucasus. I wouldn't expect all the Iranian Plateau to speak a similar language, and even if all the people that became the Iranian Farmers originally spoke one such language, that would've probably been in the end of the Mesolithic, and by the Bronze Age virtually any sign of that relationship would've been extremely diluted or even disappeared due to further language shifts or merges in contact with other peoples. Just a though. I still think it is at least plausible that PIE was actually a EHG language, maybe even a "koiné", that was deeply subject to Caucasian/Iranian influence and thus possibly became a very distinctive, mixed and innovative steppe language (think of modern English as a good comparison).

Considering all those populations must have converged at least before 6,000 B.C., it's quite pointless to speculate which of the well-attested language families or isolates was spoken by which population. To put things in perspective, Bomhard proposed an origin for the Nostratic macro-family in the Natufian culture.

This doesn't even take into account that language and genes don't correlate as closely as some might believe. This is an interesting paper which was published just recently that ought to make people wary of overly simplistic models: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29487365

Balkanite
05-04-18, 21:46
Thanks, Jovialis, but it won't let me access it because I have no institutional e-mail.
The text under the map:

Figure 17.1: Overview of the study area and the archaeologically visible expansionof farming.

Apperently i can't upload pdf here, so here's the conclusion:

17.4 Conclusion
It has been long evident, that the Neolithic “Revolution” is not a single event,but heterogeneous in space and time. Statistical models for understandingthe diffusion processes, however, have so far assumed that a physical model ofFickian diffusion can be applied to the pattern of the emergence of farmingand pastoralism using constant diffusion coefficients. Relaxing this constraint,and reformulating the diffusivity as a function of influence differences betweenregions, demonstrates how diffusivity varies in space and time.When results using this variable correlation coefficient (D) are compared toempirical archaeological data, they represent the dynamics on a continental scaleand on the regional scale for many regions well, but not for all: The impetus ofthe Neolithic in Greece and the Balkans is well represented, also in southeasternCentral Europe. The emergence and the expansion of the Central EuropeanLBK shows, however, a too early expansion in the model, whereas the stagnationfollowing the initial expansion is again very well represented.Divergence between the mathematical model and the empirical findings providedby archaeology is unsurprising and expected, because human societies behavein much more complex ways than are described in the highly aggregated andsimplified model. Individuals may have chosen to act independent of the socialand environmental context and against rational maximization of benefits. Ratherthan perfectly capturing each regional diffusion event, the mathematical modelserves as a null hypothesis which is broadly consistent with the archaeologicallyreconstructed picture, and against which individual decisions can be assessed. Inthis respect, the simple model helps to disentangle in complex histories generalforcing agents and individual choices.

Ygorcs
05-04-18, 23:36
Considering all those populations must have converged at least before 6,000 B.C., it's quite pointless to speculate which of the well-attested language families or isolates was spoken by which population. To put things in perspective, Bomhard proposed an origin for the Nostratic macro-family in the Natufian culture.

This doesn't even take into account that language and genes don't correlate as closely as some might believe. This is an interesting paper which was published just recently that ought to make people wary of overly simplistic models: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29487365

Yes, exactly, that is why one of the reasons why I say that "Iranian Farmer", EHG or other of those population clusters most certainly spoke several languages or even several distinct language families, besides other reasons like the sheer timeframe that definitely allowed for a huge linguistic divergence and intermixing between former language families, as well as the fact that clusters like "Iranian Farmer" are formed by some generic admixtures that didn't necessarily came from the same places nor develop in the same way (they may well have already - even thousands of years back - spoke different languages or even belonged to different language families due to contact with other populations during their differing historic journeys until they arrived in the Iranian Plateau and mixed with other peoples, forming a similar mix).

In the case of PIE, for example, my "hunch" (yes, totally subjective impressions and intuitions based on what I've read until now) is that it just didn't come fully formed from any of those genetic "groups". It was most probably the final result of a complex interaction among many peoples in different historical periods (e.g. hypothetically, Iranian Neolithic + Caucasus Neolithic > Later: Iranian/Caucasian + Anatolian > Later: Iranian/Caucasian/Anatolian + Southern Pontic-Caspian EHG > Later other assimilations of languages, external influences and, of course, internal evolution and so on). Maybe it was even up to some point a kind of mixed language, so that it would be ultimately unrecognizable in comparison with the earliest direct/genetic ancestor language that gave PIE its most fundamental lexicon and basic syntactic structure.


We can see that complexity and lack of strict correspondence between genetics and language evolution in Modern English, which despite being at its core fully Germanic has departed enormously from Proto-Germanic, and in ways that would've been genetically very unexpected, as the HUGE French/Latin influence in the language's vocabulary (up to 60%, though in the core vocabulary it is much less so) despite a (probably) very minor recent French/Romance genetic contribution in the last 1,000 years. Conversely, there was a HUGE genetic contribution from Celtic populations of Britain in the genetic makeup of the native English speakers, BUT there was a much, MUCH smaller Celtic influence in the vocabulary and grammar of English if compared with French.


So, there is certainly a correlation between language and genetics in most cases (I think it's very rare, on a worldwide scale, to find examples of a profound and definitive language shift with NO genetic input at all), but it's at best a very flawed and sometimes weak correlation.

Promenade
05-04-18, 23:42
For those who want more from South Asia, Salden at Eurogenes shared this:

https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/981882764495654912

9th century CE from Roopkund which includes a group without South Asian ancestry that groups with modern Greeks and have excess Levant BA ancestry...

There a lot of other interesting tweets from him here about the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution adna conference at Brown university, it's worth a look. Reich and Witzel will also be together with others to discuss South Asian genetics and culture on the 23rd it seems.

Vagheesh M Narasimhan has also been answering questions on his twitter about the paper if you go to his tweets and replies
https://twitter.com/vagheesh?lang=en



@Promenade
If Levant Neolithic groups penetrated the Zagros mountains, could they have influenced some of the languages there ?
This is a linguistic argument for Afro-Asiatic loanwords in Dravidian and Elamite https://archive.org/stream/ElamABridgeBetweenAncientNearEastAndDravidianIndia 1999/Blaek1999ElamABridgeBetweenAncientNearEastAndDravi dianIndia_djvu.txt
you may have to scroll down a little.

Thank you for sharing this IronSide, I do believe there could have been contact between an Afro-Asiatic speaking group and proto-Elamite speakers around the fertile crescent region. We still don't know genetically what was going on with the Halaf, Samarra, Ubaid cultures etc the pivotal region in between Levant_N, Anatolian_N and Iranian_N, but there was likely a very complex exchange of languages and genetics occurring there that we may never fully appreciate.



After chewing this hard paper... haplos in Turan and Swat Valley seem to be mainly Iranic as 5 J2a(1), 8 L1a, and 9 R2a(3a), maybe 2 G2a2a are Anatolian, and there are possible local ancestry in 2 H1a1 and 3 Q1b2.

The ADMIXTUTE graphs confuse me more than explain visualy ancient admixtures; in whichever case ASI is Iran Neolithic + AASI~Onge... that would mean that Iranian farmers spoke a Dravidian-like language? it's true then the Elamo-Dravidian relation? or Dravidian popped up from local HG?

Iran_Chalco received an Anatolian imput which extended less to other Asians, like Turan_Chalco with 3%. The steppes also received an Anatolian~European Farmer imput, the first noticeable case is an outlier from Poltavka dated by 2700 BC, just the date that CWC was created with "steppe" genes, the farmer genes leave to be labeled outler to become typical for steppe MLBA peoples... in fact MLBA people is modeled as EMBA (aka Yamna) plus European farmer......... the MLBA people expands over all the Eurasian steppe being mainly R1a, incorporating what would be old and local Yamna-Afanisievo clades (R1b-Z2013 and Q).

The BMAC civilization was composed by people 60% Iran + 21% Anatolian + 13% Siberian_HG (posible local ancestry linked to Kelteminar culture) + 5% Onge (Indian subcontinent-related); 5 outliers evidence the presence in the seccond millennium of IE spakers as they carry extra Anatolian and EHG ancestry, in fact are modeled as BMAC + 20% MLBA steppe.

Iron Age Swat Valley dwellers are modeled as Indus Periphery (Iran Farmer + Onge + Siberian_HG) + 22% MLBA_Steppe, a R1a is found in this area, but elites are allways a minority and in the Indian subcontinent such elites incinerated their deceased, leaving much less DNA than the local pop.

Doing a sudoku-like proposition, if Iran farmers would speak Elamite, then IE would be the language carried by EHG or by Anatolian farmers........

Proto-Elamite script and elamite seals have been found in Shahr-i-Sokhta and Elamite was probably known to people from the Jiroft to the Helmand culture as well, but its presence completely disappears after 2800bc right before this area entered its most prosperous era. There were likely many more languages spoken by the Iranian farmers, but elamite seems to have been a language from the southwest of Iran that was briefly imposed on settlements further east in the late 4th to early 3rd millennia. Especially in sites with older origins further north like Gonur tepe, they probably spoke something completely unrelated.

Johane Derite
05-04-18, 23:48
9th century CE from Roopkund which includes a group without South Asian ancestry that groups with modern Greeks and have excess Levant BA ancestry...



What are the implications of this?

Alan
06-04-18, 00:24
Iran_Neo being a Elamo_Dravidian language is as much possible as EHG being Finno_Ugric. I doubt this kind of mesolithic old ancestries only belonged to a single language family. Iran_Neo could be as much a Elamo_Dravidian and PIE component as EHG could be Finno_Ugric and PIE. This is no argument imo.

Promenade
06-04-18, 00:26
Some reaction from around the net:

Razib Khan, if you haven't read his piece.
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/03/31/the-maturation-of-the-south-asian-genetic-landscape/

A piece in scroll in:
https://scroll.in/article/874102/aryan-migration-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-study-on-indian-genetics

Some more Indian reaction:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/who-built-the-indus-valley-civilisation/article22261315.ece




"Austro-Asiatic rice culture was superior to western wheat culture because rice is more delicious than wheat, but the Indo-Aryans ultimately established cultural supremacy across South Asia by the Iron Age"

I actually think he is severely marginalizing the importance of Rice agriculture here. The IVC and Turan cultures relied primarily on wheat and barley agriculture and the decline of their civilizations has been linked to climate change, change of river flows and exhaustion of the land. We can see the IVC reacting to this in the beginning of the second millennium in Gujarat where new settlements begin to appear and the population increases in size as the people switch more heavily to the cultivation of drought resistant millets, meanwhile further north former urban centers are abandoned. This is coupled with the core of Indian civilization and population shifting east away from the Indus valley towards the Ganges as the environment and geography of South Asia as a whole is more partial to rice cultivation than it is wheat or barley.

berun
06-04-18, 07:40
The Bantu language expansion in Africa is clearly related to archaeological objects, Y-DNA E and autosomal profile related to Yoruba. Of course HG from Nigeria would had many morr languages, but expansion could be done by a single group or in other cases they provide a lingua franca if diverse groups are involved, as was Arab in Spain even if the majority of Muslims which won the Visigoths were Berbers.

Another clear case is Madagascar, you find there Y-DNA O and Asian autosomal ancestry which is clearly related to the Austronesian languages spoken there.

For english being a 40% old English it is not so, old English is keept but Normands added the 60% of unkown concepts of higher culture, that is vocabulary enrichment, no real admixture of languages.

Ygorcs
06-04-18, 08:07
The Bantu language expansion in Africa is clearly related to archaeological objects, Y-DNA E and autosomal profile related to Yoruba. Of course HG from Nigeria would had many morr languages, but expansion could be done by a single group or in other cases they provide a lingua franca if diverse groups are involved, as was Arab in Spain even if the majority of Muslims which won the Visigoths were Berbers.

Another clear case is Madagascar, you find there Y-DNA O and Asian autosomal ancestry which is clearly related to the Austronesian languages spoken there.

For english being a 40% old English it is not so, old English is keept but Normands added the 60% of unkown concepts of higher culture, that is vocabulary enrichment, no real admixture of languages.

Not just that. English is not technically a "mixed" language, but the Norman/French/Latin influence went well beyond the "unknown concepts of higher culture". Even basic terms that are very used in the formation of sentences, like, well, "very" and also "just", come from French. Other quite fundamental words of the language (many among the 200-300 most frequently used words of the English language) are also Latinate: people, aunt, uncle, place, try, change, move, air, animal, round, country, etc. The language was profoundly altered mainly through internal, organic evolution (another thing that may, with a few thousands of years, create extremely different language families, albeit ultimately related to each other), but also through contact with other languages, like Norse and French in the case of English. Old English is fundamentally another very different language (not just vocabulary, morphology and syntax too), probably closer to modern German than to modern English.

I agree with you, though, that in general there is at least some association between the arrival of a language and a new genetic influx, but that's only true for specific events and locations. I don't think that statement necessarily applies for more wide and general expansions, without taking into consideration the specific history and patterns of migration and cultural shift of one place, and especially involving a very broadly defined admixture like "Iranian Farmer" (there was certainly genetic structure within the Iranian Plateau, I wouldn't expect otherwise), which spans across many centuries and may have involved actually several different ethnicities and regions that simply went through the same economic revolution and expanded. Certainly there were a few language families that became successful due to that expansion, but I think the connections between genetics and languages were much more varied than simply "Iranian Farmer people = one Iranian Farmer language".

They probably were a cluster of related peoples, at least genetically, something like "Modern South European" (and here we have, for many historic reasons, people speaking several language families, from Romance to Slavic and even Semitic Maltese and an isolate like Basque), but not necessarily ONE people with one homogeneous culture, language and ethnic identity.

Also, in ancient times, especially in early Neolithic times before the development of bigger and more centralized states, as well as better transportation means and means of cultural standardisation (e.g. writing), the linguistic diversity and inter-regional language divergence in most places seem to have been much higher than we, moderners after huge "homogeneizing" trends, usually think.

hrvclv
06-04-18, 08:52
Not just that. English is not technically a "mixed" language, but the Norman/French/Latin influence went well beyond the "unknown concepts of higher culture". Even basic terms that are very used in the formation of sentences, like, well, "very" and also "just", come from French. Other quite fundamental words of the language (many among the 200-300 most frequently used words of the English language) are also Latinate: people, aunt, uncle, place, try, change, move, air, animal, round, country, etc. The language was profoundly altered mainly through internal, organic evolution (another thing that may, with a few thousands of years, create extremely different language families, albeit ultimately related to each other), but also through contact with other languages, like Norse and French in the case of English. Old English is fundamentally another very different language (not just vocabulary, morphology and syntax too), probably closer to modern German than to modern English.

I agree with you, though, that in general there is at least some association between the arrival of a language and a new genetic influx, but that's only true for specific events and locations. I don't think that statement necessarily applies for more wide and general expansions, without taking into consideration the specific history and patterns of migration and cultural shift of one place, and especially involving a very broadly defined admixture like "Iranian Farmer" (there was certainly genetic structure within the Iranian Plateau, I wouldn't expect otherwise), which spans across many centuries and may have involved actually several different ethnicities and regions that simply went through the same economic revolution and expanded. Certainly there were a few language families that became successful due to that expansion, but I think the connections between genetics and languages were much more varied than simply "Iranian Farmer people = one Iranian Farmer language".

They probably were a cluster of related peoples, at least genetically, something like "Modern South European" (and here we have, for many historic reasons, people speaking several language families, from Romance to Slavic and even Semitic Maltese and an isolate like Basque), but not necessarily ONE people with one homogeneous culture, language and ethnic identity.

Also, in ancient times, especially in early Neolithic times before the development of bigger and more centralized states, as well as better transportation means and means of cultural standardisation (e.g. writing), the linguistic diversity and inter-regional language divergence in most places seem to have been much higher than we, moderners after huge "homogeneizing" trends, usually think.

Hi, Ygorcs. I agree with you as to the genetic/ethnic complexity of the Middle-East at the time you are talking about. I would disagree, however, on your analysis of what happens when two languages meet.

I think people don't change languages so easily. Only when compelled, somehow, either by conquest or under powerful economic constraint. It took English and Norman French 250 years to really blend after the Conquest. Gaulish is attested in ancient Gaul as still alive in the late 5C by Sidonius Apollinaris, a learned bishop - in spite of Roman military supremacy, economic dominance and cultural prestige. Languages yield only when they can no longer resist.

Besides, what follows the encounter of two languages is usually a drastic simplification of the morphological complexities of either. Latin : six cases. Old Gaulish : probably the same. Old French : two cases. Modern : zero. The cases which survived in German disappeared in English after William's arrival. What we see in PIE is just the opposite : a high degree of morphological complexity. As I see things, it must have taken a very strong linguistic identity to resist simplification from England to India when the language was imposed on new populations.

Lexical borrowings are one thing - you borrow a word when your language has none for a given thing. Phonological changes (kw/p) may have occurred due to the locals' difficulties with the sounds. But the grammar ? I doubt a lingua franca would have retained such a complex system of conjugation and declensions - particularly in a region where so many, and so diverse language families were rubbing elbows. I would plead in favor of a very strong linguistic identity, that resisted erosion under pressure.

Maciamo
06-04-18, 09:27
isn't Swat 'Indus periphery' ?


It is. It was not part of the IVC. I am not sure what archaeological evidence there is of Indo-Aryan settlements there in the MLBA. Here is the location of the Swat Valley culture.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Rigvedic_geography.jpg


In the context of the Indus Valley Civisilation, it is between the Indus Valley itself and the Shortugai colony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortugai) on the Oxus River in northern Afghanistan.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Indus_Valley_Civilization%2C_Mature_Phase_%282600-1900_BCE%29.png

kingjohn
06-04-18, 13:02
but the swat people carry 20 % MBA steppe ancestery
so there must be some migration who brought this element to this people ....

Salento
06-04-18, 13:19
You can't access it? I can for some reason (I tapped the big blue button that says Download full text PDF and I got there right away). I'm using Firefox on iOS btw
Link for the pdf of: The Diffusion of Humans and Cultures in the Course of the Spread of Farming
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.06977.pdf

bicicleur
06-04-18, 13:58
It is. It was not part of the IVC. I am not sure what archaeological evidence there is of Indo-Aryan settlements there in the MLBA. Here is the location of the Swat Valley culture.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Rigvedic_geography.jpg



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara_grave_culture

what archeologists say :

The Gandhara grave culture may be an artifact of the Indo-Aryan migrations, but it may also be explained by regional cultural continuity.

autosomal DNA says Indo_Aryan influences, Y-DNA says regional continuity

Johane Derite
06-04-18, 14:05
For those who want more from South Asia, Salden at Eurogenes shared this:

https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/981882764495654912

9th century CE from Roopkund which includes a group without South Asian ancestry that groups with modern Greeks and have excess Levant BA ancestry...



From the link:

"Roopkund1 closest by various metrics to present-day Greeks but not a clade with them because of excess Near Eastern affinity (Levant BA best proxy)"


What does this part about being close but not on a clade with greeks imply?

Angela
06-04-18, 17:03
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara_grave_culture

what archeologists say :

The Gandhara grave culture may be an artifact of the Indo-Aryan migrations, but it may also be explained by regional cultural continuity.

autosomal DNA says Indo_Aryan influences, Y-DNA says regional continuity

And there's the conundrum. Unless there's pseudo steppe there as the result of Iran like alleles accompanied by ANF from the west and Western Siberian hunter-gatherer. The author says not, but it looks pretty ambiguous to me. We'll see what some relatively objective people come up with when they have the actual samples.

Given they got nothing from the IVC samples, it doesn't bode well for the clear cut answers coming from other places in India.

markozd
06-04-18, 17:27
From the link:

"Roopkund1 closest by various metrics to present-day Greeks but not a clade with them because of excess Near Eastern affinity (Levant BA best proxy)"


What does this part about being close but not on a clade with greeks imply?

Levant_BA shifted Greeks from 900 CE sounds a lot like Eastern Romans to me. I'm at a loss as to what they were doing in those mountains though.

That reminds me that there was a little preview of an upcoming paper on Greek DNA from the neolithic, antiquity and the medieval age a couple of months ago which found oddball R1b1b in ancient Greece. Does anyone know more?

Angela
06-04-18, 17:37
I posted this on another thread, but I think a reference belongs here as well.

" It seems as if the Botai horses might not have had anything to do with the Indo-European migrations. So much for all of the theories built on that.

"That none of the domesticates sampled in the past ~4000 years descend from the horses first herded at Botai entails another major implication. It suggests that during the third millennium BCE, at the latest, another unrelated group of horses became the source of all domestic populations that expanded thereafter.

This is compatible with two scenarios. First, Botai-type horses experienced massive introgression capture (22 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/111.full#ref-22)) from a population of wild horses until the Botai ancestry was almost completely replaced.

Alternatively, horses were successfully domesticated in a second domestication center and incorporated minute amounts of Botai ancestry during their expansion. We cannot identify the locus of this hypothetical center because of a temporal gap in our data set throughout the third millennium BCE. However, that the earliest DOM2 member was excavated in Hungary adds Eastern Europe to other candidates already suggested, including the Pontic-Caspian steppe (2 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/111.full#ref-2)), Eastern Anatolia (23 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/111.full#ref-23)), Iberia (24 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/111.full#ref-24)), Western Iran, and the Levant (25 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/111.full#ref-25)).

Notwithstanding the process underlying the genomic turnover observed, the clustering of ~4023- to 3574-year-old specimens from Russia, Romania, and Georgia within DOM2 suggests that this clade already expanded throughout the steppes and Europe at the transition between the third and second millennia BCE, in line with the demographic expansion at ~4500 years ago recovered in mitochondrial Bayesian Skylines (fig. S14).This study shows that the horses exploited by the Botai people later became the feral PH.

Early domestication most likely followed the “prey pathway,” whereby a hunting relationship was intensified until reaching concern for future progeny through husbandry, exploitation of milk, and harnessing (7 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/111.full#ref-7)). Other horses, however, were the main source of domestic stock over the past ~4000 years or more.

Ancient human genomics (26 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/111.full#ref-26)) has revealed considerable human migrations ~5000 years ago involving Yamnaya culture pastoralists of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. This expansion might be associated with the genomic turnover identified in horses, especially if Botai horses were better suited to localized pastoral activity than to long distance travel and warfare. Future work must focus on identifying the main source of the domestic horse stock and investigating how the multiple human cultures managed the available genetic variation to forge the many horse types known in history."

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/111.full

Angela
06-04-18, 17:56
Finally found sources for this spread of agriculture and animal herding onto the steppe from over the Caucasus, and not just a statistical model.

See:
https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/39.1/1542

Basically, one could read the data as proposing a western spread from Tripolye areas to western Ukraine, but also as a spread from the south for eastern areas.

"According to Telegin (1968), the contacts betweenthe Dnieper-Donets forager cultures and the Tripolyefarmer populations are marked by the appearanceof Tripolye pottery imports, the occurrence of cerealimpressions in pottery, and some domesticated animalremains (Telegin 1968). The further eastwardspread of cereal cultivation to the other half of Ukraine(eastwards from the Dnieper River) as well as tothe south-east did not occur until the 4500–3000 BP(e.g., Velichko et al. 2009.7).

Some researchers, however, have envisaged cropcultivation and the formation of domestic animalhusbandries in Ukraine arriving from the opposite direction. direction – the Caucaso-Caspian corridor (Shnirelman1989; 1992; Jacobs 1993; 1994; Kotova 2003;Levkovskaya et al. 2003; Kotova, Makhortykh 2009).Based on human dental studies from the DnieperRapids, Ukraine Jacobs (1993; 1994) for example,suggested the possibility of an independent andpre-Danubian route of cereal cultivation in centralUkraine, arriving via the corridor between the Blackand Caspian Seas. Some Ukrainian archaeologists,such as Nadezdha Kotova, have envisaged a veryearly Neolithic agriculture in south-eastern Ukraine(starting from end of the 7th millennium calBC) (Kotova2003). Kotova based her arguments on PotteryNeolithic sites in the northern Azov Sea region andLower Don River, where domesticated animal bones,reaping knives, pestles, horn mattocks, grindingstones and cereal pollen have been reported (Belanovskaya1995). The available pollen evidence includes‘20 large grass pollen grains’, presumed tobe of cereal type, from the Neolithic level (attributedto 6350 calBC) at the Matveev Kurgan–I site onthe northwest coast of the Azov Sea."

The animals seem, while they include some cattle, to have mostly been sheep and goats, probably because of more drought in the southern areas of the steppe.

berun
06-04-18, 21:46
Not just that. English is not technically a "mixed" language, but the Norman/French/Latin influence went well beyond the "unknown concepts of higher culture". Even basic terms that are very used in the formation of sentences, like, well, "very" and also "just", come from French. Other quite fundamental words of the language (many among the 200-300 most frequently used words of the English language) are also Latinate: people, aunt, uncle, place, try, change, move, air, animal, round, country, etc. The language was profoundly altered mainly through internal, organic evolution (another thing that may, with a few thousands of years, create extremely different language families, albeit ultimately related to each other), but also through contact with other languages, like Norse and French in the case of English. Old English is fundamentally another very different language (not just vocabulary, morphology and syntax too), probably closer to modern German than to modern English.

I agree with you, though, that in general there is at least some association between the arrival of a language and a new genetic influx, but that's only true for specific events and locations. I don't think that statement necessarily applies for more wide and general expansions, without taking into consideration the specific history and patterns of migration and cultural shift of one place, and especially involving a very broadly defined admixture like "Iranian Farmer" (there was certainly genetic structure within the Iranian Plateau, I wouldn't expect otherwise), which spans across many centuries and may have involved actually several different ethnicities and regions that simply went through the same economic revolution and expanded. Certainly there were a few language families that became successful due to that expansion, but I think the connections between genetics and languages were much more varied than simply "Iranian Farmer people = one Iranian Farmer language".

They probably were a cluster of related peoples, at least genetically, something like "Modern South European" (and here we have, for many historic reasons, people speaking several language families, from Romance to Slavic and even Semitic Maltese and an isolate like Basque), but not necessarily ONE people with one homogeneous culture, language and ethnic identity.

Also, in ancient times, especially in early Neolithic times before the development of bigger and more centralized states, as well as better transportation means and means of cultural standardisation (e.g. writing), the linguistic diversity and inter-regional language divergence in most places seem to have been much higher than we, moderners after huge "homogeneizing" trends, usually think.

You can see that the words you expose are specialized words, abstract words, no core words.

But yeah, I don't think in plane events as suggested, there was surely much more complexity, but the trend is real, the Bantu expansion is more recent and it can be tracked much better; the Bantu is itself a branch of the Niger-Congo family where the other branches had minor expansions. In fact colonizing events are related to a single language, per example Haiti has people of very different origin but Creole French is spoken by everybody.

Promenade
06-04-18, 22:23
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara_grave_culture
what archeologists say :
The Gandhara grave culture may be an artifact of the Indo-Aryan migrations, but it may also be explained by regional cultural continuity.
autosomal DNA says Indo_Aryan influences, Y-DNA says regional continuity

The archeological evidence seems to match with the genetics here, that this was a mixed population. The major surprise is no BMAC ancestry and the odd Y-DNA

"GANDHARA GRAVE COMPLEX:
A second-millennium culture in Swat, with a range of distinctive funerary practices and material reflecting both local and intrusive cultural features, including the presence of horses."


"In the valleys of Swat and the extreme northwest,where long-established routes led through the mountains to northern Iran and
Central Asia, the period after 2000 BCE saw the emergence of distinctive new burial rites associated with settlements such as Ghaligai, Loebanr, and Kalakoderay. Collectively these are known as the Gandhara Grave Complex. The funerary rites are distinguished by their diversity and by their regional and chronological variation. They included cremation and complete and fractional inhumation. Complete bodies were placed on their backs with their knees bent, in pits capped with stone slabs and sometimes lined with drystone walling. People were generally buried singly or in pairs. Children were sometimes interred in small slab cists. Cremated bones were placed in pottery cists or urns, some with pinched and cut-out decoration in the form of a face, or directly in the grave. The associated grave goods included pottery, violin-shaped human figurines, and metal objects, especially pins with elaborate heads. Many of these were closely similar to artifacts from sites in northern Iran, the BMAC, and the Caucasus, and it is thought that this reflects the arrival of numerous small groups of immigrants over the course of the second millennium. This is supported by the presence of horses in a few graves and by depictions of horses on pottery.

"Despite these foreign elements, there was also continuity, with settlements of pit houses whose inhabitants practiced mixed farming, though at some sites rice was now grown as well as wheat and barley, and grapes as well as pulses. Links continued with the Taxila Valley to the south, and with Kashmir where rice cultivation also began and a few copper objects now appeared."

"Horses reached South Asia from steppe cultures north of the Caspian, by way of Turkmenia, Bactria, and perhaps Seistan. The earliest indubitable evidence of the domestic horse in the subcontinent comes from Pirak, well after the Mature Harappan period: There horse bones and horse figurinesare known in period I (from 1700 BCE), while in period II there were also figurines of horse riders. Horses appear at a number of second and early first millennium sites in South Asia, ranging from the Gandhara Graves in the north to the South Indian megaliths. Second millennium sherds from Birkot Ghundai in the Swat valley unmistakably depict horses; in contrast, there are no Harappan depictions of horses."


"In the early second millennium, people from the BMAC in Bactria and Margian expanded into adjacent regions, including Seistan, from where they penetrated the Indus region or traded with its inhabitants. This took place, however, after the Indus decline had begun: BMAC material occurs in Baluchistan, in Pirak and other sites on the Kachi plain, alongside Cemetery H material at Harappa and Jhukar material in Sindh, and in the Gandhara Graves in Swat, as well as much farther south at Gilund in Rajasthan. The physical diversity of the skeletons from the final period at Mohenjo-daro suggests that some were outsiders. Burned settlementsin Baluchistan suggest that the newcomers came as raiders rather than as traders, though there is little evidence that this was also the case in the Indus region."

"Linguistic evidence indicates that Proto-Indo-Iranians, pastoral nomads from the steppe, spent some time in contact with the BMAC. Later groups of their Indo-Aryan-speaking descendants began to appear in the northern part of the subcontinent, including Swat. The most apparent archaeological trace of their arrival is the appearance, for the first time in the subcontinent, of domestic horses. They began to penetrate the Punjab some time between 1700 and 1500 BCE, well after the disintegration of the Harappan state."

Ygorcs
06-04-18, 22:45
You can see that the words you expose are specialized words, abstract words, no core words.

But yeah, I don't think in plane events as suggested, there was surely much more complexity, but the trend is real, the Bantu expansion is more recent and it can be tracked much better; the Bantu is itself a branch of the Niger-Congo family where the other branches had minor expansions. In fact colonizing events are related to a single language, per example Haiti has people of very different origin but Creole French is spoken by everybody.

Well, I certainly can't think of words like "animal, aunt, uncle, river, place, people" as specialized, much less abstract words, actually they refer to quite concrete parts of people's lives, and considering that they are among the 200 most used words of the language I'd argue about their not being part of the "core" vocabulary, but whatever, that's fine...

Yes, but again as you say the relationships are not so straightforward. Which families really should be included as part of Niger-Congo is still an issue that is a controversial in the sense that if the common relationship between ALL Niger-Congo branches do exist they're extremely old and, for some branches, extremely tenuous, ultimately it is more of a macro-family with several language families each one with their own distinct historic journey (and genetic/cultural evolution). Some of those populations with heavy Yoruba-like ancestry also, at least in modern days, speak Afro-Asiatic or Nilo-Saharan languages, or even, increasingly, Indo-European ones.

So, there is definitely some correlation, but it's not a certain one, nor a categorical one. For instance, we can even say that the Yoruba-like (not even a Bantu language itself) admixture is related to a huge expansion throughout Subsaharan Africa, BUT if it were not for the fact that that expansion is relatively recent and clearly demonstrated in the wide distribution of the Bantu language family we would be able just to say that it is probably related to some Niger-Congo language(s), but nothing much more specific than that. We wouldn't be able to know which of those intensely diverged language families was associated with that expansion.

And keep in mind that that is a much more recent phenomenon, post-Bronze Age, and not an expansion of an admixture dating to the early Neolithic period, with much more time of divergence, but also most probably with much higher lingusitic diversity (for some reason, maybe even just much smaller population density, almost all places that were still living in Neolithic-like stages of societal development, until historic times, had a much higher level of diversity than post-Metal Ages societies).

Then there is also the increasing evidence that language shift happened in very unusual ways in some ancient societies, like the aforementioned and very unexpected results on the Melanesian Oceania, where Austronesian languages seem to have lingered on DESPITE a genetic replacement of over 80% or even 90%, possibly due to a slow, piecemeal rate of immigration of Papuan peoples into the Austronesian-speaking islands, using the local languages as a lingua franca and at least initially as a necessary language to get by in the new homeland. There is also the widely known case of Magyar/Hungarian in Hungary and so on.

The correlation is an important one to be investigated, I agree, but I think that, when you talk about very ancient admixtures like Neolithic Iranian farmer, the highest probability is that the expansion took place in different ways, different periods, different homelands and cultural contexts, so it most probably involved several different language families, even if some of them were very distantly related with links that are now unreconstructible because they are way too old for us, modern people (that is, dating back to Palaeolithic times, since they were already diverged in the early-mid Neolithic).

Saetrus
06-04-18, 23:33
It's nonsense to reject the whole R1a branch as Indo-European, as they correlates extremely well with Baltic, Slavic, Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches of IE languages. You know what the R1a branch actually correlates extremely well with? Scythians. https://silkroadtoronto.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/first-century-bce-outline-map.png What Herodotus wrote about Scythians' origins makes more sense now than ever before:

"The wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria."

"From the time of their origin, that is to say from the first king Targitaos, to the passing over of Dareios against them [512 BC], they say that there is a period of a thousand years and no more."

So around 1500BC an Indoeuropean group from Iran moves into the Steppe and becomes the ruling elite of the non-IE R1a locals, within the next 1000 years the locals learn satem IE speech of the ruling class (including Baltoslavic).

Then from the 2nd century BC to the 4th century AD there is the massive Indo-Scythian migration into Pakistan, Afghanistan and India that finally brought R1a into that region. The original Indo-Iranians who were mostly J2 (But also some L, G, R1b) had Indoeuropeanized that region long before the R1a Scythian invasion though.

MOESAN
07-04-18, 00:12
Hi, Ygorcs. I agree with you as to the genetic/ethnic complexity of the Middle-East at the time you are talking about. I would disagree, however, on your analysis of what happens when two languages meet.

I think people don't change languages so easily. Only when compelled, somehow, either by conquest or under powerful economic constraint. It took English and Norman French 250 years to really blend after the Conquest. Gaulish is attested in ancient Gaul as still alive in the late 5C by Sidonius Apollinaris, a learned bishop - in spite of Roman military supremacy, economic dominance and cultural prestige. Languages yield only when they can no longer resist.

Besides, what follows the encounter of two languages is usually a drastic simplification of the morphological complexities of either. Latin : six cases. Old Gaulish : probably the same. Old French : two cases. Modern : zero. The cases which survived in German disappeared in English after William's arrival. What we see in PIE is just the opposite : a high degree of morphological complexity. As I see things, it must have taken a very strong linguistic identity to resist simplification from England to India when the language was imposed on new populations.

Lexical borrowings are one thing - you borrow a word when your language has none for a given thing. Phonological changes (kw/p) may have occurred due to the locals' difficulties with the sounds. But the grammar ? I doubt a lingua franca would have retained such a complex system of conjugation and declensions - particularly in a region where so many, and so diverse language families were rubbing elbows. I would plead in favor of a very strong linguistic identity, that resisted erosion under pressure.

I agree for I-E - if a mix of several very different languages it will have required long time to produce its new apparently coherent grammar, maybe with the help of a class of "bards" attached to warlike gentry - so this mixed origin is still very hypothetical -
aside: concerning English, the penetration of norman/angevin French is linked to high class, descendants of winners for a big part - let's differentiate the today native English from the international academic or high level English; I think the today folk English used more often the short germanic adverbs than the long romance ones, by instance - for nouns, very often, the romance "synonym" has more "greatness" or emphasis than the anglo-saxon one ; as a whole, even if not total: concret picture-full words are Anglo-saxon, abstract meaning words more often Romance - that said, by time, some imperfect fusion occurs, maybe through middle classes and later through school; the syntax shows some Romance and even Brittonic influences, even if light enough -

Ygorcs
07-04-18, 01:31
Hi, Ygorcs. I agree with you as to the genetic/ethnic complexity of the Middle-East at the time you are talking about. I would disagree, however, on your analysis of what happens when two languages meet.

I think people don't change languages so easily. Only when compelled, somehow, either by conquest or under powerful economic constraint. It took English and Norman French 250 years to really blend after the Conquest. Gaulish is attested in ancient Gaul as still alive in the late 5C by Sidonius Apollinaris, a learned bishop - in spite of Roman military supremacy, economic dominance and cultural prestige. Languages yield only when they can no longer resist.

Besides, what follows the encounter of two languages is usually a drastic simplification of the morphological complexities of either. Latin : six cases. Old Gaulish : probably the same. Old French : two cases. Modern : zero. The cases which survived in German disappeared in English after William's arrival. What we see in PIE is just the opposite : a high degree of morphological complexity. As I see things, it must have taken a very strong linguistic identity to resist simplification from England to India when the language was imposed on new populations.

Lexical borrowings are one thing - you borrow a word when your language has none for a given thing. Phonological changes (kw/p) may have occurred due to the locals' difficulties with the sounds. But the grammar ? I doubt a lingua franca would have retained such a complex system of conjugation and declensions - particularly in a region where so many, and so diverse language families were rubbing elbows. I would plead in favor of a very strong linguistic identity, that resisted erosion under pressure.

I don't know, I'd say that during many events in history the vast majority of the people in fat switched their languages quite easily, and only increasingly smaller and scattered pockets resisted until the final extinction... And I'm also really skeptical of this hypothesis (certainly not uncontroversial) that there is necessarily a simplification of morphology and syntax right after the adoption of a language by many originally different peoples, becoming the lingua franca and a bit later the native language of a wide area and large population.

It seems to me to rely too much on what happened in Western Europe and a few other cases, too, but that is certainly not a general trend and maybe the chronological correlation isn't that strong between the assimilation of foreign peoples and the simplification of the language. For instance, the period of really massive adoption of English by foreigners wasn't after the Norman conquest, but before with the assimilation of the Celts and a bit later of the Norse, yet Old English still had a very complex grammar.

Norse, by the way, is an interesting example of an opposite evidence: it went through the same intense simplification of syntax and morphology as English, but it developed organically among people who mostly already spoke a North Germanic language since many generations earlier, not assimilating huge foreign populations.

Another example that demonstrates that this hypothesis of "foreign people adopting the language > they don't speak it properly > the language gets simplified" is a bit too simplistic is that the bulk of the loss of morphological and syntactic complexities in Latin happened mainly after the 4th century and especially after the 6th century AD, when by that time the vast majority of the people had been Romanized for several generations, even centuries, and only small pockets of other languages resisted (yes, including the example you have about the Gaulish language in the 5th century AD, when it was clearly a fringe rural language). The really intense simplification of the grammar, even in Vulgar Latin, seems to have happened when Latin had already stood the test centuries earlier, but then internal processes, like phonological changes that levelled out some previous distinctions in declensions, caused the whole system to crumble.

Besides, people who already speak languages with complex morphology and syntax wouldn't find anything very "alien" in a complex system like that of PIE or, later, Sanskrit or Latin, and eventual simplification could've been, as many linguists assert, simply an internal, systemic evolution that, still according to them, happens in the very long term in most languages forming a pendulum ranging from more analyctical to more syntactic or even agglutatinative.

For example, we can see that Magyar, which is still extremely complex in grammar, was successfully imposed onto the local population by a small elite minority that soon left few genetic and even cultural impacts. Another example is the expansion of Russian in North Asia, Turkish in Anatolia (Turkish is in fact more conservative - and complex - than some other Turkic languages still located in/near the steppes), Vedic Sanskrit in India (only much later in some old Prakrits the morphology and syntax would start to simplify a lot), etc.

But just to finish this post let me just state that that whole hypothesis about "mixed" origins of PIE does not refer to the period of Late PIE when it began to expand, so I'm not assuming that those who spread PIE didn't form a "strong linguistic identity". They certainly did, but we can't say the same about their ancestors when the earliest forms of PIE appeared.

That hypothesis is actually about the origins of the early PIE, or maybe even its direct ancestor, in order to account for the seeming typological and lexical connections of PIE with some Caucasian language families, mainly Northwestern Caucasian and Kartvelian. "Mixed" wouldn't be the most technical term, for I think the assumption was that a Caucasian (or maybe Iranian?) language was imposed onto a local North Eurasian population, with its native language becoming a relevant substrate in the vocabulary and maybe also grammar. The core structure of the language of course wouldn't "mix", unless PIE were a creole, but it definitely has no characteristics of a true creole.

But all that process would've happened thousands of years BEFORE the PIE expansion, in the very beginning, so there was more than enough time for growing complexity and innovations in PIE - and in fact if you consider the Anatolian IE branch "archaic", that is, more conservative and not full of simplifying innovations, it does seem like the language of Indo-Europeans became increasingly complex and inflected along the time, because Anatolian IE lacks the later masculine/feminine genders and especially it lacks the much more complicated and sophisticated system of verbal tenses and aspects of non-Anatolian Late PIE.

Mark
07-04-18, 01:54
The core structure of the language of course wouldn't "mix", unless PIE were a creole, but it definitely has no characteristics of a true creole.

But all that process would've happened thousands of years BEFORE the PIE expansion, in the very beginning, so there was more than enough time for growing complexity and innovations in PIE - and in fact if you consider the Anatolian IE branch "archaic", that is, more conservative and not full of simplifying innovations, it does seem like the language of Indo-Europeans became increasingly complex and inflected along the time, because Anatolian IE lacks the later masculine/feminine genders and especially it lacks the much more complicated and sophisticated system of verbal tenses and aspects of non-Anatolian Late PIE.

Wow, just awesome post here. Couple questions:

How would one identify if a reconstructed language were an ancient creole if said creole were constructed of unknown proto-languages?

Later PIE appears to have innovated a lot more than is usual, would this be attributed to greater number of external interactions with other languages generally or the quality/significance of the interactions? It seems to me that innovations would come along with major shifts in behavior, for instance, greater preponderance and complexity of trades and industries, not to mention intermarriage between cultural groups.

Ygorcs
07-04-18, 02:05
You know what the R1a branch actually correlates extremely well with? Scythians.

https://silkroadtoronto.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/first-century-bce-outline-map.png

What Herodotus wrote about Scythians' origins makes more sense now than ever before:

"The wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria."

"From the time of their origin, that is to say from the first king Targitaos, to the passing over of Dareios against them [512 BC], they say that there is a period of a thousand years and no more."

So around 1500BC an Indoeuropean group from Iran moves into the Steppe and becomes the ruling elite of the non-IE R1a locals, within the next 1000 years the locals learn satem IE speech of the ruling class (including Baltoslavic).

Then from the 2nd century BC to the 4th century AD there is the massive Indo-Scythian migration into Pakistan, Afghanistan and India that finally brought R1a into that region. The original Indo-Iranians who were mostly J2 had Indoeuropeanized that region long before the R1a Scythian invasion though.

Well, but it doesn't really correlate well with the R1a in Central-East and Northern Europe, unless we're going to believe the old Polish nationalists and agree with them that the true origins of their ancestral Slavic tribes were mainly in the Scythians and Sarmatians (until now, at least, that's still very doubtful). Nor do I think that that "massive" (is there really strong evidence that it happened this way?) immigration of Scythians could've overwhelmed the extremely populated Late Iron Age India (quite probably, according to many historians, the most populous region in the entire world 2,000 years ago), at least not the point that R1a would became one of the main haplogroups of the male population even in Eastern India and Central/Central-Southern India, which is a bit too far away from the areas where their invasions were felt most intensely.

Angela
07-04-18, 02:36
Given the reduced percentages of "steppe" in these samples once the Siberian hunter-gatherer ancestry is incorporated, and how it is predicted it might affect Central Asian samples (i.e. Kalash and Pashtuns going perhaps from 50% "steppe" to maybe 26-27%, which are levels similar to those in a lot of southern Europe), I don't think there was a "massive" effect of the steppe on even northwestern upper caste Indians.

I also think it's quite possible that we will find samples showing that Scythians with smaller amounts of "East Asian" could indeed account for a good chunk of that now reduced "steppe" element.

There's certainly nothing so far indicating a big gene flow from eastern European related R1a in the period around 2000 to 1000 BCE.

markozd
07-04-18, 02:54
That hypothesis is actually about the origins of the early PIE, or maybe even its direct ancestor, in order to account for the seeming typological and lexical connections of PIE with some Caucasian language families, mainly Northwestern Caucasian and Kartvelian. "Mixed" wouldn't be the most technical term, for I think the assumption was that a Caucasian (or maybe Iranian?) language was imposed onto a local North Eurasian population, with its native language becoming a relevant substrate in the vocabulary and maybe also grammar. The core structure of the language of course wouldn't "mix", unless PIE were a creole, but it definitely has no characteristics of a true creole.


Are you referring to Bomhard's and Nicholl's work on the origin of PIE? If so I think they claimed that a North-West Caucasian language provided the substrate in the formation of PIE rather than the superstrate.

Ygorcs
07-04-18, 05:01
Are you referring to Bomhard's and Nicholl's work on the origin of PIE? If so I think they claimed that a North-West Caucasian language provided the substrate in the formation of PIE rather than the superstrate.

Oh, you're right, I inverted the order of the language shift. LOL! The rest of the argument, though, still remains. ;-)

Yetos
07-04-18, 06:53
That hypothesis is actually about the origins of the early PIE, or maybe even its direct ancestor, in order to account for the seeming typological and lexical connections of PIE with some Caucasian language families, mainly Northwestern Caucasian and Kartvelian. "Mixed" wouldn't be the most technical term, for I think the assumption was that a Caucasian (or maybe Iranian?) language was imposed onto a local North Eurasian population, with its native language becoming a relevant substrate in the vocabulary and maybe also grammar. The core structure of the language of course wouldn't "mix", unless PIE were a creole, but it definitely has no characteristics of a true creole.

But all that process would've happened thousands of years BEFORE the PIE expansion, in the very beginning, so there was more than enough time for growing complexity and innovations in PIE - and in fact if you consider the Anatolian IE branch "archaic", that is, more conservative and not full of simplifying innovations, it does seem like the language of Indo-Europeans became increasingly complex and inflected along the time, because Anatolian IE lacks the later masculine/feminine genders and especially it lacks the much more complicated and sophisticated system of verbal tenses and aspects of non-Anatolian Late PIE.

That is Question No #1 the Hettit primitive language
Question #2 is Tocharian

bicicleur
07-04-18, 08:30
That is Question No #1 the Hettit primitive language
Question #2 is Tocharian

is there any reason why Tocharian shouldn't be linked with Afanasievo?

Maciamo
07-04-18, 10:03
You know what the R1a branch actually correlates extremely well with? Scythians. https://silkroadtoronto.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/first-century-bce-outline-map.png What Herodotus wrote about Scythians' origins makes more sense now than ever before:

"The wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria."

"From the time of their origin, that is to say from the first king Targitaos, to the passing over of Dareios against them [512 BC], they say that there is a period of a thousand years and no more."

So around 1500BC an Indoeuropean group from Iran moves into the Steppe and becomes the ruling elite of the non-IE R1a locals, within the next 1000 years the locals learn satem IE speech of the ruling class (including Baltoslavic).

Then from the 2nd century BC to the 4th century AD there is the massive Indo-Scythian migration into Pakistan, Afghanistan and India that finally brought R1a into that region. The original Indo-Iranians who were mostly J2 (But also some L, G, R1b) had Indoeuropeanized that region long before the R1a Scythian invasion though.


Actually the extent of Scythia only correlates with one of many R1a branches, namely R1a-Z93, and even then only a part of Z93, as that haplogroup is also found throughout the Middle East and South Asia. Within Central Asia, regions like Turkmenistan, western Uzbekistan and northern Afghanistan (Hazaras) have more R1b than R1a. So quite frankly I wonder why you even bring it up.

Balkanite
07-04-18, 11:20
You know what the R1a branch actually correlates extremely well with? Scythians. https://silkroadtoronto.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/first-century-bce-outline-map.png What Herodotus wrote about Scythians' origins makes more sense now than ever before:

"The wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria."

"From the time of their origin, that is to say from the first king Targitaos, to the passing over of Dareios against them [512 BC], they say that there is a period of a thousand years and no more."

So around 1500BC an Indoeuropean group from Iran moves into the Steppe and becomes the ruling elite of the non-IE R1a locals, within the next 1000 years the locals learn satem IE speech of the ruling class (including Baltoslavic).

Then from the 2nd century BC to the 4th century AD there is the massive Indo-Scythian migration into Pakistan, Afghanistan and India that finally brought R1a into that region. The original Indo-Iranians who were mostly J2 (But also some L, G, R1b) had Indoeuropeanized that region long before the R1a Scythian invasion though.

This would actually make sense for some branches of R1a. From what i have read in history books, most scholars place the early baltoslavs somewhere near indo-iranian tribes. So it correlates well.

Although if i remember correct a lot of baltoslavs Y dna is CWC related, so don't know how that fits.
I think the steppe and eastern europe has changed Y landscape several times since roman times, so its kinda a hard area to reconstruct without ancient dna from all periods and all places there.

bicicleur
07-04-18, 11:41
"The wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria."

"From the time of their origin, that is to say from the first king Targitaos, to the passing over of Dareios against them [512 BC], they say that there is a period of a thousand years and no more."

So around 1500BC an Indoeuropean group from Iran moves into the Steppe and becomes the ruling elite of the non-IE R1a locals, within the next 1000 years the locals learn satem IE speech of the ruling class (including Baltoslavic).

would the origin of the Scyths not rather be the Altaï Mountains?

Milan.M
07-04-18, 12:36
The "original" Scythians,probably came from central Asia in Iron age and were nomadic tribes,they ruled the area for period of time in Ukraine where Cimmerians have been,similar story told by Herodotus.Later the name Scythians was applied to many tribes of various languages including Thracians,Goths,Bulgarians.The region was known as Scythia also,even thought they dissapeared,the region retained it's name.

In my oppion those "original" Scythians that came from Central Asia and their descendants are mostly today Tatars,like Volga Tatars,they have lineages associated with them including R1a-Z93.
They were "Turkified".

A. Papadimitriou
07-04-18, 12:43
You know what the R1a branch actually correlates extremely well with? Scythians. What Herodotus wrote about Scythians' origins makes more sense now than ever before:

"The wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria."

"From the time of their origin, that is to say from the first king Targitaos, to the passing over of Dareios against them [512 BC], they say that there is a period of a thousand years and no more."

So around 1500BC an Indoeuropean group from Iran moves into the Steppe and becomes the ruling elite of the non-IE R1a locals, within the next 1000 years the locals learn satem IE speech of the ruling class (including Baltoslavic).



In order to interpret what he says properly, you first have to place the Massagetae. 'Massagetae' are often placed East of Caspian (I don't know based on what) but this text, apparently places them in Caucasus. Also, the term Asia was originally used just for the West coasts of Turkey. Here it probably means something close to the modern term 'West Asia'. So, the 'wandering Scythians' dwelt in the regions south of Caucasus before the conflict with the Massagetae, according to the text.

(Later sources identified the Massagetae with the Alans or the Huns. Today, some people may try to connect them to the Goths, or the Getae in Balkans or the Gutians in Iran. I think, Georgian scholars have supported they were the Moschoi of other sources, who are often thought to have been a Kartvelian tribe)

Concerning, the language Scythians were speaking, no text survives. That means they could have spoken anything. Most etymologies given to personal names etc. are speculative. If they really came from Iran though their language could have had Iranian elements even if they didn't have anything to do with the proto-Iranians in the first place. The identification of the language as 'Eastern Iranian' is based on the work of Abaev who was an Ossetian nationalist who wanted to make Ossetians descendants of the Scythians which is something most likely not true.

Milan.M
07-04-18, 13:04
Well the queen Tomyris of the Massagetae build the town of Tomis according to Jordanes present day Constanta in Romania.

She in many accounts was known to defeated Cyrus the Great.

"After achieving this victory (against Cyrus the Great (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great)) and winning so much booty from her enemies, Queen Tomyris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomyris) crossed over into that part of Moesia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moesia) which is now called Lesser Scythia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia_Minor) - a name borrowed from Great Scythia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia) -, and built on the Moesian shore of the Black Sea the city of Tomi, named after herself."


I do not know how they from east of Caspian could have come in Romania,however Thracian Getae and Massagetae could be related,even only culturaly.

Milan.M
07-04-18, 13:23
The identification of the language as 'Eastern Iranian' is based on the work of Abaev who was an Ossetian nationalist who wanted to make Ossetians descendants of the Scythians which is something most likely not true.
Concerning Ossetians in my opinion they are probably descendant of the Alans (Aryans).Who in turn to some later historians were known as Massagetae prior.It is confusing mostly because of contacts between this ancient people like Getae,Massagetae,Alans or "Goths",some authors call the Huns as former Massagetae.

Silesian
07-04-18, 15:34
Samara-R1b-M73 hunter gatherer and R1b-Z2103 kurgans fit reasonably well in Elshanka pottery region. 7000 BC+/-
http://images.devs-on.net/Image/VgoV8tHiqerD9RYv-Region.png

http://images.devs-on.net/Image/MeHcnwBKM690HN9A-Region.png


Component ANE also fits reasonably well in the same region.---Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE): Upper-Paleolithic genomes from the Lake Baikal region of Siberia, identified as Malta, Afontogora 2, and Afontogora 3, dated to 17 to 24 kya, when Mammoths roamed the area, form the ANE cluster.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tKgMr5w_FIs/VfWL_Dk0d0I/AAAAAAAADb4/x67i8I5mWNw/s1600/ANE_K8.png

MOESAN
07-04-18, 19:25
I don't know, I'd say that during many events in history the vast majority of the people in fat switched their languages quite easily, and only increasingly smaller and scattered pockets resisted until the final extinction... And I'm also really skeptical of this hypothesis (certainly not uncontroversial) that there is necessarily a simplification of morphology and syntax right after the adoption of a language by many originally different peoples, becoming the lingua franca and a bit later the native language of a wide area and large population.

It seems to me to rely too much on what happened in Western Europe and a few other cases, too, but that is certainly not a general trend and maybe the chronological correlation isn't that strong between the assimilation of foreign peoples and the simplification of the language. For instance, the period of really massive adoption of English by foreigners wasn't after the Norman conquest, but before with the assimilation of the Celts and a bit later of the Norse, yet Old English still had a very complex grammar.

Norse, by the way, is an interesting example of an opposite evidence: it went through the same intense simplification of syntax and morphology as English, but it developed organically among people who mostly already spoke a North Germanic language since many generations earlier, not assimilating huge foreign populations.

Another example that demonstrates that this hypothesis of "foreign people adopting the language > they don't speak it properly > the language gets simplified" is a bit too simplistic is that the bulk of the loss of morphological and syntactic complexities in Latin happened mainly after the 4th century and especially after the 6th century AD, when by that time the vast majority of the people had been Romanized for several generations, even centuries, and only small pockets of other languages resisted (yes, including the example you have about the Gaulish language in the 5th century AD, when it was clearly a fringe rural language). The really intense simplification of the grammar, even in Vulgar Latin, seems to have happened when Latin had already stood the test centuries earlier, but then internal processes, like phonological changes that levelled out some previous distinctions in declensions, caused the whole system to crumble.

Besides, people who already speak languages with complex morphology and syntax wouldn't find anything very "alien" in a complex system like that of PIE or, later, Sanskrit or Latin, and eventual simplification could've been, as many linguists assert, simply an internal, systemic evolution that, still according to them, happens in the very long term in most languages forming a pendulum ranging from more analyctical to more syntactic or even agglutatinative.

For example, we can see that Magyar, which is still extremely complex in grammar, was successfully imposed onto the local population by a small elite minority that soon left few genetic and even cultural impacts. Another example is the expansion of Russian in North Asia, Turkish in Anatolia (Turkish is in fact more conservative - and complex - than some other Turkic languages still located in/near the steppes), Vedic Sanskrit in India (only much later in some old Prakrits the morphology and syntax would start to simplify a lot), etc.

But just to finish this post let me just state that that whole hypothesis about "mixed" origins of PIE does not refer to the period of Late PIE when it began to expand, so I'm not assuming that those who spread PIE didn't form a "strong linguistic identity". They certainly did, but we can't say the same about their ancestors when the earliest forms of PIE appeared.

That hypothesis is actually about the origins of the early PIE, or maybe even its direct ancestor, in order to account for the seeming typological and lexical connections of PIE with some Caucasian language families, mainly Northwestern Caucasian and Kartvelian. "Mixed" wouldn't be the most technical term, for I think the assumption was that a Caucasian (or maybe Iranian?) language was imposed onto a local North Eurasian population, with its native language becoming a relevant substrate in the vocabulary and maybe also grammar. The core structure of the language of course wouldn't "mix", unless PIE were a creole, but it definitely has no characteristics of a true creole.

But all that process would've happened thousands of years BEFORE the PIE expansion, in the very beginning, so there was more than enough time for growing complexity and innovations in PIE - and in fact if you consider the Anatolian IE branch "archaic", that is, more conservative and not full of simplifying innovations, it does seem like the language of Indo-Europeans became increasingly complex and inflected along the time, because Anatolian IE lacks the later masculine/feminine genders and especially it lacks the much more complicated and sophisticated system of verbal tenses and aspects of non-Anatolian Late PIE.

All of us and even specialists make assumptions more than anything -
So I do:
- ancient times without schools cannot be compared to strictly to modern times -
- even today people don't change easily of language, even with leasons -
- the colonial "great" languages have been taught by some parts of the pops for practical reasons (trade, job); very often the result is rather a lower level of language, as well for lexicon than for grammar - the level is good in high classes formed in school and "cooperating" with the "winners" -
- the most of the time the language shift passes through a bilingual stage, with some porosity between both languages -

- concerning Germanic, it has been proposed it was a badly transmitted form of I-E since its origin (perhaps it began "germanic" because of this transmission or kind of unbalanced osmosis -
- concerning Celtic in the Isles, we have to be prudent: I'm not sure the Anglo-saxon was spoken by the whole not-Welsh not-Cornish not-Irish speaking regions of Britain before the Normans (BTW what often confuse Normans with later French people, and I think the romance influence and spread whih produced English was stronger with these last ones than before) -
If I judge on the Icelandic Norse were by far more conservative than English concerning some aspects of morphology/ syntax - Even the continental Scandinavian languages are a bit more conservative than English
- Magyar is maybe not a so clear example: I think the languages was learned generation after generation by transmission to a low % of new aggregated people, already long before reaching today Carpathian Basin where they assimilated the last ones - progressive integration (social promotion) does not produce the same result as massive brutal shift (to be proved anywhere) or as only militar service or superficial trade contacts -
- but I agree certain changes in languages are not always the result of transmission/shift, but internal evolutions - that said these innovations are not always simplifications, but changes in grammatical strategies -
ATW I avow I don't master completely these shifts questions - it would require a long study of every sort of cases -

Ygorcs
07-04-18, 19:40
In order to interpret what he says properly, you first have to place the Massagetae. 'Massagetae' are often placed East of Caspian (I don't know based on what) but this text, apparently places them in Caucasus. Also, the term Asia was originally used just for the West coasts of Turkey. Here it probably means something close to the modern term 'West Asia'. So, the 'wandering Scythians' dwelt in the regions south of Caucasus before the conflict with the Massagetae, according to the text.

(Later sources identified the Massagetae with the Alans or the Huns. Today, some people may try to connect them to the Goths, or the Getae in Balkans or the Gutians in Iran. I think, Georgian scholars have supported they were the Moschoi of other sources, who are often thought to have been a Kartvelian tribe)

Concerning, the language Scythians were speaking, no text survives. That means they could have spoken anything. Most etymologies given to personal names etc. are speculative. If they really came from Iran though their language could have had Iranian elements even if they didn't have anything to do with the proto-Iranians in the first place. The identification of the language as 'Eastern Iranian' is based on the work of Abaev who was an Ossetian nationalist who wanted to make Ossetians descendants of the Scythians which is something most likely not true.

I won't say that Ossetians' main ancestry is still purely from Iron Age Scythians, but the evidences do reinforce the possibility that they are, in some relevant proportion, descendants of ancient Iron Age steppe (broadly Scytho-Sarmatian) populations of the steppes. There is also little evidence that, even if the earliest origin of the Scythian culture/language had come from Iran, they were still very "Iranian" (as in from the Iranian Plateau) by the later Iron Age, and actually had admixtures that we can broadly define as "North Eurasian" (Bronze Age steppe-like + Northeast Asian introgression). Even if Ossetians do not descend from "the" Scythians, they certainly are at the very least cultural descendants of an ancient Indo-European steppe culture, and that part of their ancestry does seem to have links to Bronze Age steppe cultures even now associated with the spread of Indo-Iranian.

Some Caucasian people - and this study I refer below didn't even sample proper Ossetians, but just some neighboring Caucasian peoples - look like partial heirs to Scythians (or more technically speaking Iranic steppe peoples), and I'd certainly expect an Indo-European-speaking, Indo-Iranian-shifted population (in language) to be even more so. Other populations of Central Asia and the Caucasus, in the case of western Scythians, are probably descendants of those ancient nomads as this study concluded last year (that of course doesn't mean they derive entirely from them): https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14615

From the western part of the Eurasian Steppe, samples discovered in the North Caucasus dating to the initial Scythian period (eighth to sixth century BCE), classical Scythians from the Don-Volga region (third century BCE), and Early Sarmatians from Pokrovka, southwest of the Ural (fifth to second century BCE), were included.

we used ABC to fit a sample of Middle Bronze Age nomadic groups from western Siberia, most of them associated with the Andronovo culture, onto the preferred demographic model for the origin of Scythians. For this purpose—and based on low FST values between these groups—we combined 40 samples related to the Andronovo culture in the west Siberian forest steppe30 (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14615#ref30) and nine samples from the same culture in the Krasnoyarsk region31 (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14615#ref31), all of which were dated to the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE. The results provided very strong support for a linkage between these Middle Bronze Age groups and eastern Scythians (Supplementary Tables 16 and 17 (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14615#s1)). However, these simulations were not able to fully capture the patterns of genetic diversity observed in the Bronze Age populations, suggesting that the true demographic history of the ancestry of Iron Age populations may have been more complex than considered here

"Concerning the legacy of the Iron Age nomads, we find that modern human populations with a close genetic relationship to the Scythian groups are predominantly located in close geographic proximity to the sampled burial sites, suggesting a degree of population continuity through historical times. Contemporary descendants of western Scythian groups are found among various groups in the Caucasus and Central Asia, while similarities to eastern Scythian are found to be more widespread, but almost exclusively among Turkic language speaking (formerly) nomadic groups, particularly from the Kipchak branch of Turkic languages (Supplementary Note 1)."

Ygorcs
07-04-18, 19:47
- but I agree certain changes in languages are not always the result of transmission/shift, but internal evolutions - that said these innovations are not always simplifications, but changes in grammatical strategies -
ATW I avow I don't master completely these shifts questions - it would require a long study of every sort of cases -

Yes, that is what I believe. In some cases, the languages gains, instead of losing, complexity in some aspects while at the same time it loses in others (some linguists say that's been happening in Modern English in some interesting and usually neglected points of the grammar), and the general direction of the language's evolution may well be of slowly increasing complexity instead of simplification, provided that those are organic developments gradually sophisticated and learned progressively by the native speakers. So, I don't think that, except for the very specific case of creole languages, which are mostly a very modern phenomenon under very specific (and not so common) social circumstances, there is a necessary correlation between language shift and assimilation of many non-native speakers and a language's grammatical simplification, that is, that may happen, and it probably indeed happened in some cases, but not in all of them, and I'd say it is a much more likely outcome only if the languages of those assimilated people were already pretty much analyctical and without intricate morphology/syntax, otherwise they wouldn't find their new language very "alien" as it would in fact work using pretty much similar "grammatical strategies", as you say.

Saetrus
07-04-18, 20:13
Although if i remember correct a lot of baltoslavs Y dna is CWC related, so don't know how that fits.


Actually the extent of Scythia only correlates with one of many R1a branches, namely R1a-Z93


Well, but it doesn't really correlate well with the R1a in Central-East and Northern Europe

No, not really, after Corded Ware was kicked out of central Europe R1a does not come back until after 1000AD. No R1a in iron age and medieval Poland:

KO_55, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626
KO_45, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I2a2a1b2a-L801
KO_22, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
KO_57, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
ME_7, Markowice (1000-1200 AD), I1a2a2a5-Y5384
NA_13, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), I2a1b2-L621
NA_18, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), J2a1a-L26
etc.

So all R1a, not just R1a-Z93, was contained in Scythian territory until after the Slavic expansion made inroads back to central Europe.

The importance of the 1500BC time Herodotus say Scythians invade the Steppe is that most estimates put Proto-Balto-Slavic branching out 3500 year ago, or at 1500BC, the exact same time. If Proto-Balto-Slavic descended from Corded Ware it would be 5000 years old instead.

A. Papadimitriou
07-04-18, 20:26
I won't say that Ossetians' main ancestry is still purely from Iron Age Scythians, but the evidences do reinforce the possibility that they are, in some relevant proportion, descendants of ancient Iron Age steppe (broadly Scytho-Sarmatian) populations of the steppes. There is also little evidence that, even if the earliest origin of the Scythian culture/language had come from Iran, they were still very "Iranian" (as in from the Iranian Plateau) by the later Iron Age, and actually had admixtures that we can broadly define as "North Eurasian" (Bronze Age steppe-like + Northeast Asian introgression). Even if Ossetians do not descend from "the" Scythians, they certainly are at the very least cultural descendants of an ancient Indo-European steppe culture, and that part of their ancestry does seem to have links to Bronze Age steppe cultures even now associated with the spread of Indo-Iranian.Some Caucasian people - and this study I refer below didn't even sample proper Ossetians, but just some neighboring Caucasian peoples - look like partial heirs to Scythians (or more technically speaking Iranic steppe peoples), and I'd certainly expect an Indo-European-speaking, Indo-Iranian-shifted population (in language) to be even more so. Other populations of Central Asia and the Caucasus, in the case of western Scythians, are probably descendants of those ancient nomads as this study concluded last year (that of course doesn't mean they derive entirely from them): https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14615[B]From the western part of the Eurasian Steppe, samples discovered in the North Caucasus dating to the initial Scythian period (eighth to sixth century BCE), classical Scythians from the Don-Volga region (third century BCE), and Early Sarmatians from Pokrovka, southwest of the Ural (fifth to second century BCE), were included.The term Scythian today is used for cultures that probably were speaking multiple languages. The population Greeks called Scythians self-identified as 'Skoloti', according to the sources. People in the past have used that to connect them to Scots or to Slavs etc.The Sarmatians are more strongly associated with Iranic people, especially Medes. Diodorus mentions a colony of the Medes in Don.Sarmatians, Scythians, Massagetae etc. look like distinct groups in the sources, even though that depends on the author.Giving an Iranian identity to all Iron Age steppic groups is an ideological position, imo.

Boreas
07-04-18, 20:34
Also, the term Asia was originally used just for the West coasts of Turkey. Here it probably means something close to the modern term 'West Asia'.


Is it? Wasn't the term for West Coats of Turkey "Anatolia"? Even the the first world maps shows Asia as a massive continent till India

But if your reference is Roman Asia, you are right.

markozd
07-04-18, 21:23
Is it? Wasn't the term for West Coats of Turkey "Anatolia"? Even the the first world maps shows Asia as a massive continent till India

But if your reference is Roman Asia, you are right.

I believe that for Herodotus Asia was more or less synonymous with the Persian empire at its maximum extent, plus the Arabian peninsula perhaps and sans the the parts west of the Bosporus. Siberia would have been Europe more likely.

A. Papadimitriou
07-04-18, 21:35
Is it? Wasn't the term for West Coats of Turkey "Anatolia"? Even the the first world maps shows Asia as a massive continent till India

But if your reference is Roman Asia, you are right.

Originally it was used probably for the Assuwa League in West Anatolia.

The term didn't have any negative connotations and it wasn't associated with race, for example Ionians were called occasionaly 'Asiatic Hellenes'.

The term 'Anatolia' wasn't used in Antiquity.

Ygorcs
07-04-18, 22:08
No, not really, after Corded Ware was kicked out of central Europe R1a does not come back until after 1000AD. No R1a in iron age and medieval Poland:

KO_55, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626
KO_45, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I2a2a1b2a-L801
KO_22, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
KO_57, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
ME_7, Markowice (1000-1200 AD), I1a2a2a5-Y5384
NA_13, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), I2a1b2-L621
NA_18, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), J2a1a-L26
etc.

So all R1a, not just R1a-Z93, was contained in Scythian territory until after the Slavic expansion made inroads back to central Europe.

The importance of the 1500BC time Herodotus say Scythians invade the Steppe is that most estimates put Proto-Balto-Slavic branching out 3500 year ago, or at 1500BC, the exact same time. If Proto-Balto-Slavic descended from Corded Ware it would be 5000 years old instead.

I agree with your first points, not your last observation. 5,000 years would be the very beginning of the expansion of the CWC horizon, and it would be still a completely undivided "Northern IE" that could've given birth not just to undivided Proto-Balto-Slavic but also - not immediately, I'm talking about descendants of CWC many centuries later - perhaps to Indo-Iranian. The dating of 1500 BC is for the split of Slavic and Baltic from their previous common ancestor, NOT from PIE directly.

There is no reason for us to believe that Baltic and Slavic would've necessarily split from their common ancestor immediately before CWC expanded, the process of diversification of languages is a bit longer, and also Balto-Slavic could be and probably was just one among many similar languages, like Latin was one among many Italic languages, and La Tène Celtic one among many former Celtic languages, so for some historical reason Balto-Slavic prevailed over others and erased part of the "linguistic structure", it didn't have to be there as the common language of the entire territory since the beginning (as in fact an expansion of "Balto-Slavic Scythian" would've done, too). In fact, Baltic "proper" (the extant tongues, at least) and Slavic seem to have developed originally in a quite eastern location, roughly to the east/southeast of the present Baltic states, so it certainly didn't represent "the CWC language" even if it were a language derived from the CWC horizon.

We can't simply assume that in the centuries of existence of CWC there was no language differentiation and no superseding of some weaker languages by more successful and expansive languages that, as such, would necessarily split further only much later, like Balto-Slavic by 1500 BC (actually, if Balto-Slavic indeed diverged into 2 different languages by 1500 BC we can reasonably presume that an early form of Balto-Slavic existed well into the CWC times, at least around 2500 BC, because languages don't appear, diverge and dissolve so fast).

Ygorcs
07-04-18, 22:13
The term Scythian today is used for cultures that probably were speaking multiple languages. The population Greeks called Scythians self-identified as 'Skoloti', according to the sources. People in the past have used that to connect them to Scots or to Slavs etc.The Sarmatians are more strongly associated with Iranic people, especially Medes. Diodorus mentions a colony of the Medes in Don.Sarmatians, Scythians, Massagetae etc. look like distinct groups in the sources, even though that depends on the author.Giving an Iranian identity to all Iron Age steppic groups is an ideological position, imo.

They may well have been distinct ethnic and tribal groups, but still mostly Indo-Iranian (that certainly happened later when most of them became Turkic speakers, but still divided into many different groups), because there is, especially not in pre-civilized and semi-nomad cultures, a strict correlation between one's language and one's sentiment of belonging to a certain ethnic identity or cultural group. Those peoples could speak related but quite dissimilar languages (when we say they were Iranic, we're talking about a language family that by the Middle Ages had more than 2,500 years old) and still, despite that linguistic connection, have distinct origins, even slightly distinct cultural traits (not much, because there is indeed a remarkably high, at least higher than expected, cultural homogeneity in the Iron Age steppe cultures for such a huge area). Besides, I'm pretty sure that for most of them, when they established their identity, their tribal affiliations and alliances were muuuuch more important than culture-based feelings of belonging to a common national community just because they spoke similar languages or prayed to the same gods, and so on.

By the way: I haven't seen, if there are any, results for Y-DNA of Iron Age people of the "core" region of the most possible earliest origins of Baltic and particularly Slavic tribes, that is, roughly the forest-steppe & forest zones of Belarus and Western Russia (which were also part of the CWC horizon, too)? I'd find that more interesting than results for Poland, since in any case nor Slavic nor Baltic seem to have come from there.

LeBrok
07-04-18, 23:09
The "original" Scythians,probably came from central Asia in Iron age and were nomadic tribes,they ruled the area for period of time in Ukraine where Cimmerians have been,similar story told by Herodotus.Later the name Scythians was applied to many tribes of various languages including Thracians,Goths,Bulgarians.The region was known as Scythia also,even thought they dissapeared,the region retained it's name.

In my oppion those "original" Scythians that came from Central Asia and their descendants are mostly today Tatars,like Volga Tatars,they have lineages associated with them including R1a-Z93.
They were "Turkified".

Actually, Scythians and Sarmatians were related to Eastern Europeans, though they had very high Baloch. Anyway, nothing like Turkic or Mongolian tribes.



Modern


M348213
i0247

M084152
PR3_I0575
Moder


Moder


Moder


Moder


Ukrainian


scythian


EarlySarmatian, Pokrovka, Russia
5th–2nd c. BCE
Mongolian

Turkmen


Uzbek


Uyghur


Run time


Run time
11

Run time
6

Run time


Run time


Run time


Run time


S-Indian
1

S-Indian
1

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
1

S-Indian
5

S-Indian
5

S-Indian
5


Baloch
4

Baloch
25

Baloch
25

Baloch
5

Baloch
26

Baloch
18

Baloch
16


Caucasian
13

Caucasian
8

Caucasian
6

Caucasian
5

Caucasian
30

Caucasian
17

Caucasian
13


NE-Euro
64

NE-Euro
45

NE-Euro
51

NE-Euro
6

NE-Euro
10

NE-Euro
14

NE-Euro
12


SE-Asian


SE-Asian
1

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
3

Siberian
6

Siberian
4

Siberian
38

Siberian
7

Siberian
17

Siberian
15


NE-Asian


NE-Asian
1

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
39

NE-Asian
8

NE-Asian
20

NE-Asian
30


Papuan


Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
1

American
3

American
2

American
1

American
1

American
1

American
1


Beringian
1

Beringian
1

Beringian
1

Beringian
2

Beringian
1

Beringian
2

Beringian
2


Mediterranean
13

Mediterranean
9

Mediterranean
11

Mediterranean
2

Mediterranean
4

Mediterranean
4

Mediterranean
2


SW-Asian


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
7

SW-Asian
2

SW-Asian
-


San


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African

W-African
-

W-African
-

W-African
-

W-African
-

W-African
-

W-African
-



But were very related, and continuation of original Bronze Age Steppe inhabitants:


M828815
Rise552

M217196
I0430, R1a Z93
M608028
RISE505

M348213
i0247

M084152
PR3_I0575


Ulan iV, Yamnaya
4.5 kya

Srubna
3.5kya

Andronovo

scythian


EarlySarmatian, Pokrovka, Russia
5th–2nd c. BCE


Run time
9.08

Run time
8.02

Run time
13.24

Run time
11.07

Run time
5.84


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
0.54

S-Indian
0.67

S-Indian
-


Baloch
33.24

Baloch
19.86

Baloch
21.23

Baloch
24.99

Baloch
25.4


Caucasian
6.58

Caucasian
2.35

Caucasian
2.4

Caucasian
7.68

Caucasian
5.72


NE-Euro
56.02

NE-Euro
55.13

NE-Euro
56.39

NE-Euro
45.27

NE-Euro
50.53


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0.83

SE-Asian
0.28


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
1.93

Siberian
6.39

Siberian
4.24


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
1.31

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
2.46

American
0.91

American
1.05

American
2.85

American
1.94


Beringian
0.75

Beringian
-

Beringian
1.22

Beringian
1.4

Beringian
1.06


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
21.67

Mediterranean
14.37

Mediterranean
8.62

Mediterranean
10.81


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
0.07

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.06

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.95

W-African
-

W-African
0.81

W-African
-

W-African
-

Yetos
07-04-18, 23:17
Is it? Wasn't the term for West Coats of Turkey "Anatolia"? Even the the first world maps shows Asia as a massive continent till India

But if your reference is Roman Asia, you are right.


1.
Asia is the true correct form of Sunrise,
Ανατολη Ανατολια means re-work from Ανα + τελω
so Anatolia is a pure Greek word, meaning Sun is again in his 'job'
while Asia is proto-form of Sunrise more ancient closer to LPIE
maybe the Homeric Εως ???


2.
the first who mention the word Ασιη is Hesiodos
IN HOMER THE WORD DOES NOT EXIST
But the first who use it is Herodotos to describe the what is known as Asia minor of the time,
NOTICE THE ARZAWA - ASSUWA LEAGE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assuwa

http://www.proyectosalonhogar.com/images/mapa_hitita.jpg

The yellow to the Left


3.
Homeric Aσις
but it means mud, Ασια Γη = clay mud land,
only for the areas around NW minor Asia can be used, around Troas 9Troy)


The Assuwa leage
http://www.freeenglishsite.com/empires/empires/hittite/Assuwa.jpg




The term Anatolia was used mainly by East Romans
and ment the land on the other side of Vosporos

So the first term was Asia and ment the West coach to Aegean Pelagos,
Then that become minor Asia and Asia was including the Plateu
When Asia become huge and continent, Anatolia was used to describe minor Asia and Anatolian Plateau

A. Papadimitriou
07-04-18, 23:26
They may well have been distinct ethnic and tribal groups, but still mostly Indo-Iranian.

I don't know what proves that. They use things like toponyms, which could have been pre-Scythian, for example 'Cimmerian', or alternatively Sarmatian. Later there is also Greek presence in the coasts, possibly Thracian, maybe proto-Slavs were nearby etc.

The following article describes more or less the situation. He describes things which are apparent to those familiar with the primary sources:
https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/was-scythian-an-iranian-language/

(I may not agree with him on other things)

Ygorcs
08-04-18, 00:04
I don't know what proves that. They use things like toponyms, which could have been pre-Scythian, for example 'Cimmerian', or alternatively Sarmatian. Later there is also Greek presence in the coasts, possibly Thracian, maybe proto-Slavs were nearby etc.

The following article describes more or less the situation. He describes things which are apparent to those familiar with the primary sources:
https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/was-scythian-an-iranian-language/

(I may not agree with him on other things)

I don't understand your point well. Sarmatians and even, according to some linguists, Cimmerians (though others would say they were an intermediary branch, possibly between Daco-Thracian and Indo-Iranian) ARE REGARDED as Indo-Iranian peoples, and the genetic evidence is that Western Scythians were clearly distinct from Eastern Scythians, so in any case they may even have become "Scythianized" (assuming Scythians weren't an Indo-Iranian branch), but their genetics would remain in the local population, they weren't just annihilated and completely replaced, as that study also suggests. Indo-Iranian is just a very general branch, it even subdivides into 3 extant language families, Indo-Aryan, Iranic and Nuristani.

Also, I didn't say that anything PROVES that, but, yes, there are definitely reasonable indications. I mean, if basing a hypothesis at the very least on toponyms, hydronyms and people's names (which are at least linguistic "fossils", not just speculations) is not the best path to find the truth, what would be enough? If those things that suggest an Indo-Iranian origin of their language are insufficient or misleading, then what proves that they WERE NOT Indo-Iranian? Is there anything better than those evidences from a linguistic point of view? I mean, it's not enough to state that there are no proofs that they were Indo-Iranian, that's well known, it's necessary to have at least a few better evidences to rennder that hypothesis not just unproved (all of them are), but in fact less plausible than others. Otherwise, we just get stuck in a zero-sum game.

A. Papadimitriou
08-04-18, 00:18
I don't understand your point well. Sarmatians and even, according to some linguists, Cimmerians (though others would say they were an intermediary branch, possibly between Daco-Thracian and Indo-Iranian) ARE REGARDED as Indo-Iranian peoples, and the genetic evidence is that Western Scythians were clearly distinct from Eastern Scythians, so in any case they may even have become "Scythianized" (assuming Scythians weren't an Indo-Iranian branch), but their genetics would remain in the local population, they weren't just annihilated and completely replaced, as that study also suggests.

They don't say it is 'Indo-Iranian' or at least some short of an Indo-European dialect but 'Eastern Iranian'. Can you mention 5 examples of etymologies you accept? If those are etymologies of personal names or toponyms are they linked to Scythians in the sources or to other groups (like Massagetae or Sarmatians) or maybe to no group at all?

Ygorcs
08-04-18, 00:26
They don't say it is 'Indo-Iranian' or at least some short of an Indo-European dialect but 'Eastern Iranian'. Can you mention 5 examples of etymologies you accept? If those are etymologies of personal names or toponyms are they linked to Scythians in the sources or to other groups (like Massagetae or Sarmatians) or maybe to no group at all?

I still don't see how that ultimately is relevant to Ossetian not being "Iranic" or "Eastern Iranian" at all, since the Caucasian populations seem to derive mostly from the broad label "Western Scythian" which includes the Sarmatian samples, so if anything that would just reinforce that, Scythians' being Iranic or not, Sarmatians were and it really makes sense that, as per that study on ancient Western AND Eastern "Scytho-Sarmatian" Iron Age populations, the Caucasus and some Central Asian areas received influx mainly from the Western tribes (that included Sarmatians), whereas the Turkic tribes (certainly Turkified steppe peoples in a large part) are the ones that inherited most directly ancestry from the Eastern Scythians.

Also, what is your main point of contention with those reconstructions? The etymologies per se or the fact that those ancient terms are supposedly linked not to Scythians, but to peoples that you think were not just another ethnic group, but also another language family with totally different linguistic origins? Could you give us one example of why those proposed etymologies made by linguists are false or weakly supported, and/or a more plausible explanation (linguistic identity) for them? In ancient linguistics we're stepping onto uncertain, barely known land, so I think that at least a higher degree of plausibility is already a big thing to get rid of earlier but weaker proposals.

A. Papadimitriou
08-04-18, 00:54
Also, what is your main point of contention with those reconstructions? The etymologies per se or the fact that those ancient terms are supposedly linked not to Scythians, but to peoples that you think were not just another ethnic group, but also another language family with totally different linguistic origins? Could you give us one example of why those proposed etymologies made by linguists are false or weakly supported, and/or a more plausible explanation (linguistic identity) for them? In ancient linguistics we're stepping onto uncertain, barely known land, so I think that at least a higher degree of plausibility is already a big thing to get rid of earlier but weaker proposals.

Ossetians speak an Indo-Iranian language, certainly. And I am not one of those who were saying they were Iranized Caucasians.

The problem with Abaev's work is described reasonably well in the link. He made a dictionary in which he included everything he looked 'Scythian' enough to him.

Concerning personal names, if for example, the name of the queen of the Massageatae 'Tomyris' has an Indo-European, or specifically Indo-Iranian etymology doesn't mean anything for Scythians. Because Scythians weren't Massagetae.

The river names can be pre-Scythian or related to later movements. Basically in Greek sources, alternative names are used which are likely not Greek. Some people in the region may have used them. For example Dnieper is called Borysthenes.

Ygorcs
08-04-18, 01:12
Ossetians speak an Indo-Iranian language, certainly. And I am not one of those who were saying they were Iranized Caucasians.

The problem with Abaev's work is described reasonably well in the link. He made a dictionary in which he included everything he looked 'Scythian' enough to him.

Concerning personal names, if for example, the name of the queen of the Massageatae 'Tomyris' has an Indo-European, or specifically Indo-Iranian etymology doesn't mean anything for Scythians. Because Scythians weren't Massagetae.

The river names can be pre-Scythian or related to later movements. Basically in Greek sources, alternative names are used which are likely not Greek. Some people in the region may have used them. For example Dnieper is called Borysthenes.

I see. So your hypothesis is that, firstly, Ossetians are Iranic but have nothing to do with the Scythians (but still would they be related to Sarmatians?), and secondly that Scythians were not Indo-Europeans at all (or just not Indo-Iranian)?

If there are slight evidences (toponyms, personal names, hydronyms, even a few inscriptions at least tentatively associated with Scythian archaeological sites) about the Indo-Iranian nature of the languages of Sarmatians and Massagetae, and definite written evidences of the Indo-Iranian quality of South Scythian (or "Sub-Scythian", this is better) languages like Sogdian and Bactrian, what would Scythian, right in the middle of those population groups, most possibly speak?

The supposedly Scythian names cited by Herodotus arguably sound at least Indo-European, most probably closer to Indo-Iranian than to other branches, though certainly not firmly within Indo-Iranian either in lexicon or in phonology. Do you think they were just non-IE, part of another existing IE branch (Balto-Slavic???) or another now extinct, branch of IE, like many - I don't know if most - linguists also hold that Cimmerians must've been?

Boreas
08-04-18, 05:39
I believe that for Herodotus Asia was more or less synonymous with the Persian empire at its maximum extent, plus the Arabian peninsula perhaps and sans the the parts west of the Bosporus. Siberia would have been Europe more likely.Without Siberia statement, I agree with you. Even North Caucausia (Russian Part) was part of Asia in many maps

http://www.wiki-zero.com/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxvYWQud2lraW1lZGlhLm9yZy 93aWtpcGVkaWEvY29tbW9ucy9mL2ZmLzE3OTRfU2FtdWVsX0R1 bm5fV2FsbF9NYXBfb2ZfdGhlX1dvcmxkX2luX0hlbWlzcGhlcm VzXy1fR2VvZ3JhcGhpY3VzXy1fV29ybGQyLWR1bm4tMTc5NC5q cGc

A. Papadimitriou & Yetos

Yes, it seems you are right. Thanks for the info. :grin:

Boreas
08-04-18, 08:12
Actually, Scythians and Sarmatians were related to Eastern Europeans, though they had very high Baloch.


If the early Scythians and Sarmatians earned that much high Baloch admixture later, yes they would be related with Eastern Europeans. Otherwise I mean if they had Baloch structure from the begining, Eastern Europeans would be related with them



*About results of Turkics, why Uzbeks and Uygur have that much high NE-Euro result?

*I don't think any European nation have that much Baloch structure, but I am curious about Ossetians. Do you have any samples?

berun
08-04-18, 10:55
No, not really, after Corded Ware was kicked out of central Europe R1a does not come back until after 1000AD. No R1a in iron age and medieval Poland:
KO_55, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626
KO_45, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I2a2a1b2a-L801
KO_22, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
KO_57, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
ME_7, Markowice (1000-1200 AD), I1a2a2a5-Y5384
NA_13, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), I2a1b2-L621
NA_18, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), J2a1a-L26
etc.
So all R1a, not just R1a-Z93, was contained in Scythian territory until after the Slavic expansion made inroads back to central Europe.
The importance of the 1500BC time Herodotus say Scythians invade the Steppe is that most estimates put Proto-Balto-Slavic branching out 3500 year ago, or at 1500BC, the exact same time. If Proto-Balto-Slavic descended from Corded Ware it would be 5000 years old instead.
Such samples werent that related to the I-dont-know-which-long-Polish-name culture related to Goths?

Alan
08-04-18, 15:49
The "original" Scythians,probably came from central Asia in Iron age and were nomadic tribes,they ruled the area for period of time in Ukraine where Cimmerians have been,similar story told by Herodotus.Later the name Scythians was applied to many tribes of various languages including Thracians,Goths,Bulgarians.The region was known as Scythia also,even thought they dissapeared,the region retained it's name.

In my oppion those "original" Scythians that came from Central Asia and their descendants are mostly today Tatars,like Volga Tatars,they have lineages associated with them including R1a-Z93.
They were "Turkified".

"various "languages that all belonged to the same branch of the same family. Never heard that Thracians were included among Scythians. Only that some tribes within the Thracian are considered to be descend of Scythian or Scythian like groups. Such as the Getae being derived from the Massagetae. Bulgar were most likely turkified Scythians not vica versa. From your sentence it sounds like Scythians assimilated Bulgars.

And to be fair these non Scythians actually were never considered Scythians. Sarmatians-Alans, Massagetae, Cimmerians Dahae were clearly distinguished from Scythians. Instead of calling them "Scythians" it would be much more appropriate to talk about "People of Scythia".

Alan
08-04-18, 16:00
(Later sources identified the Massagetae with the Alans or the Huns. Today, some people may try to connect them to the Goths, or the Getae in Balkans or the Gutians in Iran. I think, Georgian scholars have supported they were the Moschoi of other sources, who are often thought to have been a Kartvelian tribe)

Concerning, the language Scythians were speaking, no text survives. That means they could have spoken anything. Most etymologies given to personal names etc. are speculative. If they really came from Iran though their language could have had Iranian elements even if they didn't have anything to do with the proto-Iranians in the first place. The identification of the language as 'Eastern Iranian' is based on the work of Abaev who was an Ossetian nationalist who wanted to make Ossetians descendants of the Scythians which is something most likely not true.

That is some real nonsense here, especially considering the fact that this was all well discussed already.

There are surviving texts from Khotanese Scythian in West China. They were identified as East Iranic. It is historically well documented that Sogdhian is descend of Scythian and that Sarmatians are relatives of Scythians. Soghdian inscriptions are some of the best preserved in Central Asia and they have been identified as East Iranic. Ossetian being an East Iranic language that is descend of Alanic is not something made up by "Ossetian nationalists". Also Alans all the way up to Rostov turning up with yDNA G2a is also a well known fact, and until few years the yDNA G2a among Ossetians being used by Georgian nationalists to discredit Ossetian claims of Alan ancestry is also well known.

In short
1. Khotanese Scythian texts => East Iranic
2. Sogdhian historically documented descend of Scythians => East Iranic
3. Sarmatian, Ossetic and Jasz, close relatives of Scythians => East Iranic

So you have samples from all corners of Scythia

All you have to do is put 1 and 1 together. It is not that hard.

About the Massagetae. Them being identified with the Alans shouldn't be anything hard to understand considering that Alans came from the very same region East of the Caspian. Huns were a confederation of East Iranic, Mongol and Turkic tribes.

Milan.M
08-04-18, 17:40
"various "languages that all belonged to the same branch of the same family. Never heard that Thracians were included among Scythians. Only that some tribes within the Thracian are considered to be descend of Scythian or Scythian like groups. Such as the Getae being derived from the Massagetae. Bulgar were most likely turkified Scythians not vica versa. From your sentence it sounds like Scythians assimilated Bulgars.
And to be fair these non Scythians actually were never considered Scythians. Sarmatians-Alans, Massagetae, Cimmerians Dahae were clearly distinguished from Scythians. Instead of calling them "Scythians" it would be much more appropriate to talk about "People of Scythia".
Getae were Thracians and by no means are " derived " from Scythians, neither from Massagetae and their ancestry and language by all authors ancient and modern is considered Thracian.If you read my comment well I exactly say that Tatars perhaps not all of them,include for example Volga Tatars or call them Bulgar if you like were later on Turkified originally they were Scythians,perhaps of those that ancient authors firstly reffered as Scythians before applying that to other people that were or became nomadic or came from the region Scythia.I think the majority of their ancestry is Scythian with later Turkic gene flow,and yes Goths were called Scythians that is another example of "various" languages under label Scythian. That was most likely the nomadic culture ancient authors referred to as Scythian not specifically to certain language group.If "Sarmato-Alans" and Massagetae were also speaking Indo-Iranic why would they distinguished from Scythians,because you say is "language" label.

markozd
08-04-18, 18:04
Without Siberia statement, I agree with you. Even North Caucausia (Russian Part) was part of Asia in many maps

http://www.wiki-zero.com/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxvYWQud2lraW1lZGlhLm9yZy 93aWtpcGVkaWEvY29tbW9ucy9mL2ZmLzE3OTRfU2FtdWVsX0R1 bm5fV2FsbF9NYXBfb2ZfdGhlX1dvcmxkX2luX0hlbWlzcGhlcm VzXy1fR2VvZ3JhcGhpY3VzXy1fV29ybGQyLWR1bm4tMTc5NC5q cGc

A. Papadimitriou & Yetos

Yes, it seems you are right. Thanks for the info. :grin:

But that is an Anglo-Saxon map from 1800 C. E. . I thought we were talking about Herodotus:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Herodotus_World_Map.jpg

Angela
08-04-18, 18:47
Please get back to discussing the paper and South Asian genetics. This thread is wandering more and more off topic. Anyone seeking to understand or contribute to an understanding of the paper has to wade through pages of posts which belong elsewhere.

LeBrok
09-04-18, 02:40
If the early Scythians and Sarmatians earned that much high Baloch admixture later, yes they would be related with Eastern Europeans. Otherwise I mean if they had Baloch structure from the begining, Eastern Europeans would be related with them Actually, Baloch is much ancient than that, pre Neolithic in this area. The center of Baloch admixture must have been somewhere in Central Asia and had spread into Iranian HG, CHG and EHG way before they all started mixing together.




*About results of Turkics, why Uzbeks and Uygur have that much high NE-Euro result? The deeper they invaded the Steppe the more NE Euro they got from Steppe people like Scythians. Mixing with Steppe peeps.


*I don't think any European nation have that much Baloch structure, but I am curious about Ossetians. Do you have any samples?






S Indian
Baloch
Caucasian
NE Euro
SE Asian
Siberian
NE Asian
Papuan
American
Beringian
Mediterranean
SW Asian
San
E African
Pygmy
W African


stalskoe, Dagestan
xing
5
0%
24%
41%
21%
2%
3%
1%
1%
2%
1%
4%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%


north-ossetian
harappa
1
0%
19%
45%
14%
1%
5%
3%
1%
1%
1%
4%
3%
1%
0%
1%
0%


kumyk
yunusbayev
14
0%
21%
47%
16%
1%
4%
3%
0%
1%
1%
3%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%


chechen
yunusbayev
20
0%
22%
51%
20%
0%
2%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%


adygei
hgdp
17
1%
18%
57%
16%
1%
3%
1%
0%
1%
1%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%


abhkasian
yunusbayev
20
0%
18%
69%
8%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%


georgian
harappa
4
0%
20%
62%
6%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
2%
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%


armenian
harappa
2
2%
18%
46%
3%
0%
1%
1%
2%
0%
1%
10%
15%
1%
0%
0%
0%


azeri
harappa
3
3%
19%
43%
7%
0%
4%
3%
1%
1%
1%
7%
10%
0%
0%
0%
0%




See, all Caucasus peoples have Caucasian to 40 to 70%. The deeper into Steppe, the less Caucasus admixture and more NE Euro. It is understandable from all the mixing with neighbours through millennia. Baloch is steady around 20%, because it is ancient well mixed admixture since paleolithic. There is nothing special about Ossetians. They look like they really belong in this Caucasian family.

Here are again genoms of Scatian and Sarmatian. They are quite different than the Caucasian family. They are extremely close to Bronze Age Steppe, Yamnaya included, with increasing Siberian admixture.



M828815
Rise552

M217196
I0430, R1a Z93
M608028
RISE505

M348213
i0247

M084152
PR3_I0575


Ulan iV, Yamnaya
4.5 kya

Srubna
3.5kya

Andronovo

scythian


EarlySarmatian, Pokrovka, Russia
5th–2nd c. BCE


Run time
9.08

Run time
8.02

Run time
13.24

Run time
11.07

Run time
5.84


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
0.54

S-Indian
0.67

S-Indian
-


Baloch
33.24

Baloch
19.86

Baloch
21.23

Baloch
24.99

Baloch
25.4


Caucasian
6.58

Caucasian
2.35

Caucasian
2.4

Caucasian
7.68

Caucasian
5.72


NE-Euro
56.02

NE-Euro
55.13

NE-Euro
56.39

NE-Euro
45.27

NE-Euro
50.53


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0.83

SE-Asian
0.28


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
1.93

Siberian
6.39

Siberian
4.24


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
1.31

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
2.46

American
0.91

American
1.05

American
2.85

American
1.94


Beringian
0.75

Beringian
-

Beringian
1.22

Beringian
1.4

Beringian
1.06


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
21.67

Mediterranean
14.37

Mediterranean
8.62

Mediterranean
10.81


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
0.07

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.06

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.95

W-African
-

W-African
0.81

W-African
-

W-African
-



Look how low Caucasian admixture is and how high NE Euro. There is nothing remotely like this in modern Caucasian nations.

A. Papadimitriou
09-04-18, 03:41
That is some real nonsense here, especially considering the fact that this was all well discussed already.

There are surviving texts from Khotanese Scythian in West China. They were identified as East Iranic. It is historically well documented that Sogdhian is descend of Scythian and that Sarmatians are relatives of Scythians. Soghdian inscriptions are some of the best preserved in Central Asia and they have been identified as East Iranic. Ossetian being an East Iranic language that is descend of Alanic is not something made up by "Ossetian nationalists". Also Alans all the way up to Rostov turning up with yDNA G2a is also a well known fact, and until few years the yDNA G2a among Ossetians being used by Georgian nationalists to discredit Ossetian claims of Alan ancestry is also well known.

In short
1. Khotanese Scythian texts => East Iranic
2. Sogdhian historically documented descend of Scythians => East Iranic
3. Sarmatian, Ossetic and Jasz, close relatives of Scythians => East Iranic

So you have samples from all corners of Scythia

All you have to do is put 1 and 1 together. It is not that hard.

About the Massagetae. Them being identified with the Alans shouldn't be anything hard to understand considering that Alans came from the very same region East of the Caspian. Huns were a confederation of East Iranic, Mongol and Turkic tribes.

I know how the term Scythian was used in Greek sources and especially in post-Classical sources it was used in a very vague way (Ι have said that people who were called Scythian in post-classical sources were speaking languages that belonged to at least 3 language families, probably more) and the term was used predominately for 'Western Scythians'.

Scythia was never a specific region. It is a term Greeks used (irrespective of its origins).

Khotenese texts prove an Eastern Iranian language was spoken in Khotan. It can't prove anything about Iron Age Ukraine or South Russia.

Now, concerning Sogdian, maybe it is documented that it descends from Scythian but I don't know where.

Concerning Ossetians, I never claimed they didn't descend from an ancient Iranian population or that they weren't Alans. (Others have done that for their own reasons. Abaev though had a fixation with Scythians.).

Now, I don't make any claims about the language 'Scythians' were speaking and I don't care much. What annoys me is how the Greek sources are misused by various groups or individuals (markozd (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/56981-markozd), for example doesn't understand that Herodotus didn't make any maps)

I won't make another post on this.

Boreas
09-04-18, 19:36
@LeBrok

Thanks, it seems that no one will had Scythians ancestry alone. :laughing:

Ygorcs
09-04-18, 21:17
That is some real nonsense here, especially considering the fact that this was all well discussed already.

There are surviving texts from Khotanese Scythian in West China. They were identified as East Iranic. It is historically well documented that Sogdhian is descend of Scythian and that Sarmatians are relatives of Scythians. Soghdian inscriptions are some of the best preserved in Central Asia and they have been identified as East Iranic. Ossetian being an East Iranic language that is descend of Alanic is not something made up by "Ossetian nationalists". Also Alans all the way up to Rostov turning up with yDNA G2a is also a well known fact, and until few years the yDNA G2a among Ossetians being used by Georgian nationalists to discredit Ossetian claims of Alan ancestry is also well known.

In short
1. Khotanese Scythian texts => East Iranic
2. Sogdhian historically documented descend of Scythians => East Iranic
3. Sarmatian, Ossetic and Jasz, close relatives of Scythians => East Iranic

So you have samples from all corners of Scythia

All you have to do is put 1 and 1 together. It is not that hard.

About the Massagetae. Them being identified with the Alans shouldn't be anything hard to understand considering that Alans came from the very same region East of the Caspian. Huns were a confederation of East Iranic, Mongol and Turkic tribes.

That was part of my previous comment's questions: if we can reasonably assert (of course we'll never have 100% certainty) that Sarmatians, the ancestors of Ossetes, Sogdians, Bactrians and Khotanese people were speaking Iranic languages, ranging from Ukraine to China and Uzbekistan, then WHAT non-Iranic or perhaps even non-IE Scythian language group was between those two groups of Iranic speakers, not leaving one little trace of itself not even in placenames and personal or tribal names? That looks possible, not most improbable to me.

halfalp
10-04-18, 00:31
Well, here we go back to the all R1a, R1b, PIE came from Kurdistan. Just with a single sample.

holderlin
10-04-18, 00:35
This thread is like witnessing a mass hallucination.

holderlin
10-04-18, 01:18
Well, here we go back to the all R1a, R1b, PIE came from Kurdistan. Just with a single sample.

Bro, bro. A single Z2103 in Northern Iran in 5500BC. Done.

berun
10-04-18, 07:14
where is now the 2015 phrase "we are following the evidence about where the oldest R1b appears"?

ah, if it's Kurdistan it's not used, too swarty people there, uh?

Olympus Mons
10-04-18, 08:42
where is now the 2015 phrase "we are following the evidence about where the oldest R1b appears"?
ah, if it's Kurdistan it's not used, too swarty people there, uh?
Exactly. Whole narratives and hundreds of comments were made on single samples and "outliers".... But not with this one. Wrong place.

bicicleur
10-04-18, 10:51
Exactly. Whole narratives and hundreds of comments were made on single samples and "outliers".... But not with this one. Wrong place.

he has different Y-DNA but is he an outlier, autosomaly?

halfalp
10-04-18, 14:21
where is now the 2015 phrase "we are following the evidence about where the oldest R1b appears"?
ah, if it's Kurdistan it's not used, too swarty people there, uh?
The oldest R1b is definitely not this one. And i just found this sample pretty circumstantial, the exact subclade, for the exact timeframe. This is actually pretty unique if you think about it, middle-east is not the less search part of the world for ancient dna, actually it's absolutely not and we never found any ancient R1b a part in a steppic migration context like the Kura-Araxe one, but we found multiple R1b in ancient europe from very diverse and ancient subclades and all you people where continually arguing about it and now that single sample appears and fit the perfect subclade and timeframe for the anatolian / armenian hypothesis and everybody is like. done. we win. So that put apart, what is funny is that back in 2015, the real deal was to prove that R1a and iranic language came from Kurdistan, i'm now very interested for the R1a-M417 of 3500BC from Kurdistan. :grin:

IronSide
10-04-18, 14:34
Well, because of the Hajji Fairoz sample, I now believe the Caucasus/Iran admixture in the Yamnaya culture was mediated by a migration of both men and women, it wasn't female-mediated as some were saying.

Whether they spoke PIE or adopted it from the substrate population, is an open question, until we find good samples from Hittites and other Anatolians.

Angela
10-04-18, 15:09
he has different Y-DNA but is he an outlier, autosomaly?

Autosomally he is Anatolian and Iranian farmer (although I'm sure days will be spent, once the raw data is available, trying to squeeze some EHG out of him), and from a period too young for "steppe" movements south, and actually from a date earlier than predicted for his subclade.

The calls seem to be correct. He wasn't carbon dated because he was right next to and in the same grave with two samples, also Iranian and Anatolian farmer, who were dated. Now, because of all the controversy on the net, they are going to carbon date him.

Let's see what it says, although it would be odd for him to come from a different era given the circumstances and especially that the grave is undisturbed.

The point for me is that I doubt that David Reich would go out on a limb about a putative movement of a group of "Iranian" farmers, not a bunch of women, north onto the steppe beginning in 5000 BC based on one sample, particularly given that we know they have a lot of samples from this area. Of course, maybe the samples carried another yDna, like G2a or J and they just disappeared due to drift.

(That "raiding" for huge numbers of women from the Caucasus like American Indians or Conan the Barbarian was always juvenile male nonsense, and I said so. The only problem was that no "probable" y dna was found. Well, Maciamo had always said some R1b was south of the Caucasus, and now maybe there is proof of that.)

We'll see. I have no horse in this race, and to tell the truth I'm beyond bored with this whole Indo-European "thing", but I always thought it was possible, and posted about it a lot. People on the net just never gave any credence to either older archaeological findings like those from Ivanov and Grigoriev or newer papers either. David Anthony, from their own "Anglo-sphere", was the Bible, and everything he said was right in every particular. Well, maybe not.

berun
10-04-18, 15:14
R1a from Kurdistan was argued by goga, and he is the unique to think so, ask to him.

Of course the Hajji Firuz dude is not the oldest R1b, but I was imitating the mantra provided in 2015 by those with steppitis: "Oldest R1b is found in steppe so we come from his unknown bro settled somewhere in the west steppe, now provide incense to goddess Gimbutas".

I was providing diverse red alarms as such logics had few if any sure supports. Now I bet for R1a as IE HG but I'm open for EEF and Iran_Neo.

Angela
10-04-18, 15:20
I always said that R1b was "the" Indo-European clade and R1a was steadily "Indo-Europeanized" by them in a "cultural" sense. I haven't changed my mind about that, and if this dating holds up and there are other of these men moving onto the steppe, it would "seal the deal".

Angela
10-04-18, 16:47
Some posters on the net seem to think the following quote from the paper calls into question the findings of Lazaridis et al. I don't think that's necessarily so.

""We show that there was a west-to-east cline of decreasing Anatolian agriculturalist-related admixture ranging from ~70% in Chalcolithic Anatolia to ~33% in eastern Iran, to ~3% in far eastern Turan (Fig.1; Supplementary Materials). The timing of the establishment of this cline is consistent with the dates of spread of wheat and barley agriculture from west to east (in the 7th to 6th millennia BCE), suggesting the possibility that individuals of Anatolian ancestry may have contributed to spreading agriculturalist economies not only westward to Europe, but also eastward to Iran."

This is not how we were told before, as the general idea seemed to be that agriculture arose pretty much independently in Anatolia and the Zagros area. Also, I'm not sure you actually can go as far as they do in drawing this conclusion. But if true it would basically depose the Fertile Crescent as place of origin of agriculture."


As we've discussed a lot on this thread, what seems to have been particular to the Zagros was animal domestication and the "farming" of pulses.

The quote from the paper speaks specifically about wheat and barley agriculture, and makes perfect sense. I do think that the movement of Anatolian genetic flow tracks with that and extends to the limits of BMAC at least.

halfalp
10-04-18, 17:03
In my personal view, what i found irritating is how the whole indo-european package change in a whole whetever the hypothesis. Steppe was the mainstream theory for the horse-raider R1b thing for a while, whatever it was exactly that scenario, if R1b now is fought coming from Kurdistan so both PIE and Horses also come from Kurdistan and et caetera. Sometimes i feel that for some people it's juste a prejudice if some ancient thing come from europe and not from the middle-east. Back to the topic, this R1b sample is definitely an outlier for the actual datas and a big one, but he is not very an answer to any questions. If we put all the archeologic dates together, there is huge flow. It would mean modern R1b-z2103 distribution that is primarly located in anatolia is not steppe R1b but transcaucasus native, but at the same time the archeological mainstream view of IE's start in Samara and Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog without Z2103, it would mean all R1b without any specific subclades would came at different times from south caucasus.

halfalp
10-04-18, 17:09
R1a from Kurdistan was argued by goga, and he is the unique to think so, ask to him.
Of course the Hajji Firuz dude is not the oldest R1b, but I was imitating the mantra provided in 2015 by those with steppitis: "Oldest R1b is found in steppe so we come from his unknown bro settled somewhere in the west steppe, now provide incense to goddess Gimbutas".
I was providing diverse red alarms as such logics had few if any sure supports. Now I bet for R1a as IE HG but I'm open for EEF and Iran_Neo.
Without citing anyone, i'm pretty sur Goga was not the only one who fought Iranic languages and so R1a originate in Kurdistan. People took Mascarenhas and Underhill papers from granted back in 2015 and not just Goga.

Angela
10-04-18, 19:45
In my personal view, what i found irritating is how the whole indo-european package change in a whole whetever the hypothesis. Steppe was the mainstream theory for the horse-raider R1b thing for a while, whatever it was exactly that scenario, if R1b now is fought coming from Kurdistan so both PIE and Horses also come from Kurdistan and et caetera. Sometimes i feel that for some people it's juste a prejudice if some ancient thing come from europe and not from the middle-east. Back to the topic, this R1b sample is definitely an outlier for the actual datas and a big one, but he is not very an answer to any questions. If we put all the archeologic dates together, there is huge flow. It would mean modern R1b-z2103 distribution that is primarly located in anatolia is not steppe R1b but transcaucasus native, but at the same time the archeological mainstream view of IE's start in Samara and Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog without Z2103, it would mean all R1b without any specific subclades would came at different times from south caucasus.

No, it wouldn't.

I'm not saying this is necessarily what happened, but it is certainly more than possible that a more upstream clade of R1b moved south of the Caucasus and through successive inter-marriage became autosomally Iran Neo and Anatolian Neo and then moved back onto the steppe.

Surely we can see from just the samples we previously had that these groups traveled huge distances. Look at R1b V88, which got from Europe all the way to west central Africa and became completely SSA in the process before probably some of them moved elsewhere and changed autosomally once again.

People have to stop thinking that a ydna lineage correlates once and forever with a certain "ethnic" make-up. It doesn't.

bicicleur
10-04-18, 19:56
Autosomally he is Anatolian and Iranian farmer (although I'm sure days will be spent, once the raw data is available, trying to squeeze some EHG out of him), and from a period too young for "steppe" movements south, and actually from a date earlier than predicted for his subclade.

The calls seem to be correct. He wasn't carbon dated because he was right next to and in the same grave with two samples, also Iranian and Anatolian farmer, who were dated. Now, because of all the controversy on the net, they are going to carbon date him.

Let's see what it says, although it would be odd for him to come from a different era given the circumstances and especially that the grave is undisturbed.

The point for me is that I doubt that David Reich would go out on a limb about a putative movement of a group of "Iranian" farmers, not a bunch of women, north onto the steppe beginning in 5000 BC based on one sample, particularly given that we know they have a lot of samples from this area. Of course, maybe the samples carried another yDna, like G2a or J and they just disappeared due to drift.

(That "raiding" for huge numbers of women from the Caucasus like American Indians or Conan the Barbarian was always juvenile male nonsense, and I said so. The only problem was that no "probable" y dna was found. Well, Maciamo had always said some R1b was south of the Caucasus, and now maybe there is proof of that.)

We'll see. I have no horse in this race, and to tell the truth I'm beyond bored with this whole Indo-European "thing", but I always thought it was possible, and posted about it a lot. People on the net just never gave any credence to either older archaeological findings like those from Ivanov and Grigoriev or newer papers either. David Anthony, from their own "Anglo-sphere", was the Bible, and everything he said was right in every particular. Well, maybe not.

so, I have another question
if this haji firuz R1b-Z2103 is ancestral to Yamna, why was he alone, and J2b didn't join?
Yamna was a new way of life and it was very succesfull, it must have atracted others

bicicleur
10-04-18, 20:06
Some posters on the net seem to think the following quote from the paper calls into question the findings of Lazaridis et al. I don't think that's necessarily so.

""We show that there was a west-to-east cline of decreasing Anatolian agriculturalist-related admixture ranging from ~70% in Chalcolithic Anatolia to ~33% in eastern Iran, to ~3% in far eastern Turan (Fig.1; Supplementary Materials). The timing of the establishment of this cline is consistent with the dates of spread of wheat and barley agriculture from west to east (in the 7th to 6th millennia BCE), suggesting the possibility that individuals of Anatolian ancestry may have contributed to spreading agriculturalist economies not only westward to Europe, but also eastward to Iran."

This is not how we were told before, as the general idea seemed to be that agriculture arose pretty much independently in Anatolia and the Zagros area. Also, I'm not sure you actually can go as far as they do in drawing this conclusion. But if true it would basically depose the Fertile Crescent as place of origin of agriculture."


As we've discussed a lot on this thread, what seems to have been particular to the Zagros was animal domestication and the "farming" of pulses.

The quote from the paper speaks specifically about wheat and barley agriculture, and makes perfect sense. I do think that the movement of Anatolian genetic flow tracks with that and extends to the limits of BMAC at least.

it has been discussed indeed

during PPNA wheat farming and herding were still 2 seperate communities
during PPNB they merged, that is starting 10.7 ka , even earlier than the paper says
herders merging with agriculturalists west :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Aswad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Ain_Ghazal :

Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b1b2 has been found in 75% of the 'Ain Ghazal population, along with 60% of PPNB populations (and is present in all three stages of PPNB) and in most Natufians.

T1a (T-M70) is found among the later Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (MPPNB) inhabitants from 'Ain Ghazal, but was not found among the early and middle MPPNB populations. As was previously found in the early Neolithic settlement from Karsdorf (Germany) a subclade of mtDNA R0 was found with Y-DNA T at 'Ain Ghazal.
It is thought, therefore, that the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B population is mostly composed of two different populations: members of early Natufian civilisation and a population resulting from immigration from the north, i.e. north-eastern Anatolia.

They forget to mention also H2 was there and in nearby Motza, Israel

agriculturalists merging with herders east :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chogha_Golan

Sile
10-04-18, 20:30
T1a (T-M70) is found among the later Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (MPPNB) inhabitants from 'Ain Ghazal, but was not found among the early and middle MPPNB populations. As was previously found in the early Neolithic settlement from Karsdorf (Germany) a subclade of mtDNA R0 was found with Y-DNA T at 'Ain Ghazal.
It is thought, therefore, that the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B population is mostly composed of two different populations: members of early Natufian civilisation and a population resulting from immigration from the north, i.e. north-eastern Anatolia.



you sure that Ghazal T x1 is "related" to Karsdorf T x 2 .........or is it that Karsdorf T x 2 is 'related " to Wallacian plain ( Malak , cris culture ) T x 2 who is also early neolithic but has steppe and 35% of WHG admixtures

Ghazal T is noted to have come from basic modern Turkish Kurd lands

Angela
10-04-18, 20:52
so, I have another question
if this haji firuz R1b-Z2103 is ancestral to Yamna, why was he alone, and J2b didn't join?
Yamna was a new way of life and it was very succesfull, it must have atracted others

I think J2b might have. From what I can see the distribution of J2b and R1b Z2103 is pretty similar in Europe.

That needn't be the case, however. What has struck me about so much of this is how related y clades sort of took different and very distinct routes. It happened with downstream R1b, yes? One to Iberia(DF27), one in Germany and other parts of northern Europe (U-106), one to the Isles(the clade which led to L21), one in southern Germany, Italy, eastern France (U-152).

The only way I can explain it is that it must have been an initially small group of men all or perhaps at least mostly descended from one perhaps successful leader.

I don't necessarily agree about Yamnaya being so "successful" that it was a draw. You don't usually leave on a folk migration if everything is just great at home. This group might have been pushed out of their area in the south Caucasus. In the beginning there was no one and nothing on the steppe except some hunter-gatherers living in crude shelters, and it wasn't the most hospitable terrain and climate in the world. Of course, as time passed, things would have gotten more attractive. From Reich's book what they're seeing is sort of steady movement for 2000 years, much like the movement of the Neolithic into Europe, I think, which was, however, initially perhaps more welcoming? It's only at the end of that period that this hybrid culture became so successful and expansive.

halfalp
10-04-18, 21:32
No, it wouldn't.

I'm not saying this is necessarily what happened, but it is certainly more than possible that a more upstream clade of R1b moved south of the Caucasus and through successive inter-marriage became autosomally Iran Neo and Anatolian Neo and then moved back onto the steppe.

Surely we can see from just the samples we previously had that these groups traveled huge distances. Look at R1b V88, which got from Europe all the way to west central Africa and became completely SSA in the process before probably some of them moved elsewhere and changed autosomally once again.

People have to stop thinking that a ydna lineage correlates once and forever with a certain "ethnic" make-up. It doesn't.
This was the first thing that i fought when i saw the study, but i think it's too much a complicate scenario for making it a mainstream hypothesis, we would need to see some WHG or EHG in those early people coming from north in south caucasus, then they would lost mainly that component to become a CHG-Anatolian-Iranian farmers like. But we have multiple downstream of R1b-Z2105 in Eastern Europe that already shows some CHG... All this is complicate.

berun
10-04-18, 21:40
If R1b would be the IE carrier coming from let's say Azerbaidjan I would expect some IE non Iranian trace in the area and lots of Caucasian valleys with exotic IE langagues; moreover, R1b-V88 was taking another route and no IE is proposed for them.

bicicleur
10-04-18, 21:54
I think J2b might have. From what I can see the distribution of J2b and R1b Z2103 is pretty similar in Europe.

That needn't be the case, however. What has struck me about so much of this is how related y clades sort of took different and very distinct routes. It happened with downstream R1b, yes? One to Iberia(DF27), one in Germany and other parts of northern Europe (U-106), one to the Isles(the clade which led to L21), one in southern Germany, Italy, eastern France (U-152).

The only way I can explain it is that it must have been an initially small group of men all or perhaps at least mostly descended from one perhaps successful leader.

I don't necessarily agree about Yamnaya being so "successful" that it was a draw. You don't usually leave on a folk migration if everything is just great at home. This group might have been pushed out of their area in the south Caucasus. In the beginning there was no one and nothing on the steppe except some hunter-gatherers living in crude shelters, and it wasn't the most hospitable terrain and climate in the world. Of course, as time passed, things would have gotten more attractive. From Reich's book what they're seeing is sort of steady movement for 2000 years, much like the movement of the Neolithic into Europe, I think, which was, however, initially perhaps more welcoming? It's only at the end of that period that this hybrid culture became so successful and expansive.

well, there is no J2b sampled in Yamna, Afanasievo, Poltavka, Catacomb ..

and it was succesfull at that time, the first cattle and oxen drawn wagons occupying the whole Pontic steppe by a single clade, while original HG had to confine themselves to the river valleys, and later on also expanding east through the Kazakh steppe upto the Altaï Mts
it was something which was impossible prior to the invention of the wheel
and appearantly the Pontic steppe was the ideal terrain for this, not Transcaucasia or Iran

and what you say about related y clades spreading is true
that is why I'm not sure about the connection between haji firuz and yamna

Angela
10-04-18, 21:55
If R1b would be the IE carrier coming from let's say Azerbaidjan I would expect some IE non Iranian trace in the area and lots of Caucasian valleys with exotic IE langagues; moreover, R1b-V88 was taking another route and no IE is proposed for them.

It was an example of the incredible distances these ancient groups traveled: the specific route was not the point.

I also think that as yDna need not mean a certain autosomal make up for ever, it doesn't mean a certain language for ever. The Caucasian languages might have arrived in the Caucasus later and with yDna groups which supplanted the existing yDna and language.

I don't know, but these things are not immutable.

Look at the Levant. J2 and J1 came from the north, imo, from near the Caucasus, but again, imo, might have adopted Afro-Asiatic languages from prior inhabitants.

I don't believe in making hard and fast rules for these kinds of things.

Angela
10-04-18, 21:58
well, there is no J2b sampled in Yamna, Afanasievo, Poltavka, Catacomb ..

and it was succesfull at that time, the first cattle and oxen drawn wagons occupying the whole Pontic steppe by a single clade, while original HG had to confine themselves to the river valleys, and later on also expanding east through the Kazakh steppe upto the Altaï Mts
it was something which was impossible prior to the invention of the wheel
and appearantly the Pontic steppe was the ideal terrain for this, not Transcaucasia or Iran

and what you say about related y clades spreading is true
that is why I'm not sure about the connection between haji firuz and yamna

Neither am I, yet. We don't even have the carbon dating.

I'm not much for leaping way ahead of the evidence and getting emotionally attached to certain theories or ancient groups. If I were going to write a book about it and had to state a theory, no doubt I would. :)

Again, you're talking about 3000 BC, and the first spread into the steppe would have been 5000 BC: very different periods.

markozd
10-04-18, 22:42
well, there is no J2b sampled in Yamna, Afanasievo, Poltavka, Catacomb ..
and it was succesfull at that time, the first cattle and oxen drawn wagons occupying the whole Pontic steppe by a single clade, while original HG had to confine themselves to the river valleys, and later on also expanding east through the Kazakh steppe upto the Altaï Mts
it was something which was impossible prior to the invention of the wheel
and appearantly the Pontic steppe was the ideal terrain for this, not Transcaucasia or Iran
and what you say about related y clades spreading is true
that is why I'm not sure about the connection between haji firuz and yamna

There's also no L51 yet afaik - this would pose a significant problem if the date of Hajji Firuz Tepe can be substantiated, which would push the bifurcation of M269 way back. There seems to have been a strong selection on the Y-chromosome in those bronze age cultures in any case, since every expansion seems to be associated with a different Y-DNA founder event.

To get an idea what happened we'd have to see the samples from the oldest steppe herders (Maykop, Kemi Oba) and the steppe cultures that show higher diversity and social stratification (Catacomb especially). I'm quite sure the David Reich and colleagues already have those.

Olympus Mons
10-04-18, 23:52
so, I have another question
if this haji firuz R1b-Z2103 is ancestral to Yamna, why was he alone, and J2b didn't join?
Yamna was a new way of life and it was very succesfull, it must have atracted others

Interesting Question.
Answer: J2b was mostly south. Kultepe, southward into Iran(?) - In transcaucasia proper, mostly Georgia and western Azerbaijan, as well as Armenia in a small spot, we will find R1b-L23 above any clade(as well as just M269).
It troubles me the fact that its not mentioned that neolithic Wine making is found in only two places and dates thus far. GadaChrilli Gora by 5800bc and in Hajji Firuz by 5500bc is not a coincidence.
As it is not the fact that the sudden and abrupt disappearance of a specific culture (also noted by the amount of different cereals they cultivated), sees the arrival of agriculture (at least the explosion of) to north caucasus as well as the arrival of the same Z2103, L23 and Iran_N or CHG admix. Shulaveri was not a couple of tells. Shulaveri was a culture with a vast amount of people whose sudden spread into north, south and western region (notice no eastern) would have a big impact for the 5th milenia.

J2b will have an interesting story as well I suppose. I have this persistent felling that Halaf and Samarra-Hussana will turn out J2b and following Ubaid/Uruk spread will show arrival of J1 to transcaucasus, or Leilatepe and Maykop a mix of L1a and J1. or something similar. Its just a feeling.

This is not saying that J2b didn't "walked" the same route as the L23. they "met" in 5800bc and I figure there was a natural empathy between them. :)

Ygorcs
11-04-18, 00:08
It was an example of the incredible distances these ancient groups traveled: the specific route was not the point.

I also think that as yDna need not mean a certain autosomal make up for ever, it doesn't mean a certain language for ever. The Caucasian languages might have arrived in the Caucasus later and with yDna groups which supplanted the existing yDna and language.

I don't know, but these things are not immutable.

Look at the Levant. J2 and J1 came from the north, imo, from near the Caucasus, but again, imo, might have adopted Afro-Asiatic languages from prior inhabitants.

I don't believe in making hard and fast rules for these kinds of things.

And also a long-distance migration, especially if it is done by a semi-nomad people, don't necessarily spread in a cline that leaves significant pockets of descendants all along the way until their final destination. They may and in fact usually involve huge leaps where the vast majority of the people don't stay put in the intervening places for more than 1 generation, sometimes - as we saw in the migration period and with the latest results on those artificially shaped skulls - even spanning many hundreds of kilometers in their own lifetime. They may have gone from point A to point B, hundreds and hundreds of kilometers away, in just a few decades or even years until they found a safer and preferably more underpopulated land, that scenario wouldn't be unheard of (actually it was pretty common in ancient times).

So, they may just have not left much genetic evidence of their passage through Caucasian territory and not established any long-term community there (and if they did, these were such a tiny minority that they were easily absorbed along the time, the larger part of them continuing on their migration routes), especially if their optimal environment was not a patchwork of narrow high valleys already inhabited by other peoples.

Ailchu
11-04-18, 00:33
I think J2b might have. From what I can see the distribution of J2b and R1b Z2103 is pretty similar in Europe.



is the distribution of j2 really homogenous in europe? it highly depends on what graphics you look but most of those maps show a gradient from south east to northern europe. this might be because the south east already had higher amounts of j2 together with j1 before yamnas invaded europe and yamnas then brought only little amounts of j2 to the rest of europe.
the iranian r1b-z2105 sample we have is probably not coming from the population that moved north,ancestral to yamnaya, if there ever was one. it was rather a more southern neighbour with a higher amount of j2's. armenia or georgia might be places to look for this population ancestral to yamna.

halfalp
11-04-18, 00:46
Interesting Question. Answer: J2b was mostly south. Kultepe, southward into Iran(?) - In transcaucasia proper, mostly Georgia and western Azerbaijan, as well as Armenia in a small spot, we will find R1b-L23 above any clade(as well as just M269). It troubles me the fact that its not mentioned that neolithic Wine making is found in only two places and dates thus far. GadaChrilli Gora by 5800bc and in Hajji Firuz by 5500bc is not a coincidence. As it is not the fact that the sudden and abrupt disappearance of a specific culture (also noted by the amount of different cereals they cultivated), sees the arrival of agriculture (at least the explosion of) to north caucasus as well as the arrival of the same Z2103, L23 and Iran_N or CHG admix. Shulaveri was not a couple of tells. Shulaveri was a culture with a vast amount of people whose sudden spread into north, south and western region (notice no eastern) would have a big impact for the 5th milenia. J2b will have an interesting story as well I suppose. I have this persistent felling that Halaf and Samarra-Hussana will turn out J2b and following Ubaid/Uruk spread will show arrival of J1 to transcaucasus, or Leilatepe and Maykop a mix of L1a and J1. or something similar. Its just a feeling. This is not saying that J2b didn't "walked" the same route as the L23. they "met" in 5800bc and I figure there was a natural empathy between them. :) It's always difficult to follow cultural package in time, Rye was actually one of the first cereal domesticated in the Natufian and use in southern levant and egypt back in 10'000 BC if i recall, then disappear in mostly every neolithic and metal culture, to make a reappearance in antiquity. Maybe wine is a more centralized culture in the ancient times dont know, but it might pops more ancient in future studies.

Ygorcs
11-04-18, 00:52
Besides all that was written and discussed above, are there really many people that think that Yamna people became 40% or even 50% related to Iranian_Neolithic (increasingly a likelier source than simply CHG) entirely through female exogamy? That ALWAYS sounded extremely improbable and even a bit confusing to me and it sounds more and more unrealistic especially considering that the "southern" influences were quite probably more technologically advanced and prestigious at least until the early Bronze Age.

Olympus Mons
11-04-18, 01:02
It's always difficult to follow cultural package in time, Rye was actually one of the first cereal domesticated in the Natufian and use in southern levant and egypt back in 10'000 BC if i recall, then disappear in mostly every neolithic and metal culture, to make a reappearance in antiquity. Maybe wine is a more centralized culture in the ancient times dont know, but it might pops more ancient in future studies.

Don't exactly know if I follow you. But, what I meant is: Up until yesterday Z2013 was steppe steppe steppe. Now, having an Iranian one in 5000bc, and if one is looking for a better place where they could have originated and migrated to steppe, nothing better than the place near the caucasus mountains, CHG homeland, and where wine making links that Z2013. Actually the culture we already know had mtdna I1, H15a1a and H2a that is sometimes called Steppe Mtdna. Right?

And I figure Reich lab has that samples from Margaryan and Derenko and have Ydna for it. They didn't change their minds wth just that sample...

Johane Derite
11-04-18, 01:10
I missed this but there is U1 in the Hajji Firuz grave which has the R1b Z2103 and the 2 J2b's. The U1 that is found is U1a4 (also known as U1a1d) in one of the J2b males.



https://i.imgur.com/R7qaAB6.png



https://i.imgur.com/QUjFYZw.png

halfalp
11-04-18, 01:40
Don't exactly know if I follow you. But, what I meant is: Up until yesterday Z2013 was steppe steppe steppe. Now, having an Iranian one in 5000bc, and if one is looking for a better place where they could have originated and migrated to steppe, nothing better than the place near the caucasus mountains, CHG homeland, and where wine making links that Z2013. Actually the culture we already know had mtdna I1, H15a1a and H2a that is sometimes called Steppe Mtdna. Right? And I figure Reich lab has that samples from Margaryan and Derenko and have Ydna for it. They didn't change their minds wth just that sample... I was talking about your statement saying we should follow the wine maker to found the origin of the Yamnayans.

halfalp
11-04-18, 01:44
I missed this but there is U1 in the Hajji Firuz grave which has the R1b Z2103 and the 2 J2b's. The U1 that is found is U1a4 (also known as U1a1d) in one of the J2b males.



https://i.imgur.com/R7qaAB6.png



https://i.imgur.com/QUjFYZw.pngWow ! is it not the first ancient U1 that we have ? so we have all, apart U9, U subclades in ancient context now no ?

markozd
11-04-18, 01:55
is the distribution of j2 really homogenous in europe? it highly depends on what graphics you look but most of those maps show a gradient from south east to northern europe. this might be because the south east already had higher amounts of j2 together with j1 before yamnas invaded europe and yamnas then brought only little amounts of j2 to the rest of europe.
the iranian r1b-z2105 sample we have is probably not coming from the population that moved north,ancestral to yamnaya, if there ever was one. it was rather a more southern neighbour with a higher amount of j2's. armenia or georgia might be places to look for this population ancestral to yamna.

J2b-L283, E-V13 & R1b-Z2103 are still very frequent Y-DNA in the Altaic & Uralic groups of the European steppe and the forest zone to the north where neolithic farmers probably didn't play a very important role or never reached at all. I find this a good reason to believe that these Y-DNA haplogroups expanded from the steppe at one point, with their westward expansions being more concentrated in the Balkans rather than Central Europe perhaps. Thracians, Illyrians? Your guess is as good as mine.

Johane Derite
11-04-18, 02:13
Wow ! is it not the first ancient U1 that we have ? so we have all, apart U9, U subclades in ancient context now no ?

What's your timeframe for ancient : )? This is definitely the oldest one in this paper (7756 YBP).

There are 8 other U1s that showed up in this paper but they hover around 3000-5500 YBP on average.

The oldest european sample of U1 I've seen showed up recently in the Genomic History of Southeast Europe paper in a 5100 year old I2a2a1b male in Bulgaria. (close to Varna-Black sea coast).

What is bizarre to me is that U1 is quite rare yet shows up in deep south of india in Kerala and still shows up in trace amounts spreadout through europe also. The steppe area doesn't have it that much. (i'm basing
this on public studies I've been saving in a folder, so its very possible I've missed crucial info and am mistaken).



This is a map of FTDNA's U1 project:

https://i.imgur.com/grglNmB.png

Alpenjager
11-04-18, 03:23
it has been discussed indeed

during PPNA wheat farming and herding were still 2 seperate communities
during PPNB they merged, that is starting 10.7 ka , even earlier than the paper says
herders merging with agriculturalists west :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Aswad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Ain_Ghazal :

Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b1b2 has been found in 75% of the 'Ain Ghazal population, along with 60% of PPNB populations (and is present in all three stages of PPNB) and in most Natufians.

T1a (T-M70) is found among the later Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (MPPNB) inhabitants from 'Ain Ghazal, but was not found among the early and middle MPPNB populations. As was previously found in the early Neolithic settlement from Karsdorf (Germany) a subclade of mtDNA R0 was found with Y-DNA T at 'Ain Ghazal.
It is thought, therefore, that the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B population is mostly composed of two different populations: members of early Natufian civilisation and a population resulting from immigration from the north, i.e. north-eastern Anatolia.

They forget to mention also H2 was there and in nearby Motza, Israel

agriculturalists merging with herders east :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chogha_Golan

T1a-M70 is never found in MPPNB but T1-L206 with several ancestral snps for T1a subclades. So it should belong to a branch of the T1b subclade which is still found in Lebanon.

halfalp
11-04-18, 03:52
What's your timeframe for ancient : )? This is definitely the oldest one in this paper (7756 YBP).There are 8 other U1s that showed up in this paper but they hover around 3000-5500 YBP on average.The oldest european sample of U1 I've seen showed up recently in the Genomic History of Southeast Europe paper in a 5100 year old I2a2a1b male in Bulgaria. (close to Varna-Black sea coast).What is bizarre to me is that U1 is quite rare yet shows up in deep south of india in Kerala and still shows up in trace amounts spreadout through europe also. The steppe area doesn't have it that much. (i'm basingthis on public studies I've been saving in a folder, so its very possible I've missed crucial info and am mistaken).This is a map of FTDNA's U1 project:https://i.imgur.com/grglNmB.pngBy ancient i mean prehistoric, before antiquity at least. And i didnt know that there was a U1 in the Mathiesen paper ! If i recall U1 is an independant lineage in the U groupe like U5 and U6. So it could be very old, and have multiple ethnic history or it might be hide for a long time, before migrating in various directions. The region of its origin might be poorly study, i dont think it gonna pop in paleolithic europe for sur, but like U6 poping in paleolithic Romania and its modern distribution we never know.

Johane Derite
11-04-18, 04:13
By ancient i mean prehistoric, before antiquity at least. And i didnt know that there was a U1 in the Mathiesen paper ! If i recall U1 is an independant lineage in the U groupe like U5 and U6. So it could be very old, and have multiple ethnic history or it might be hide for a long time, before migrating in various directions. The region of its origin might be poorly study, i dont think it gonna pop in paleolithic europe for sur, but like U6 poping in paleolithic Romania and its modern distribution we never know.

Check out my U1 thread where I dump samples that pop up. The Mathieson U1 for example: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34849-mtdna-Haplogroup-U1-General?p=533173&viewfull=1#post533173

halfalp
11-04-18, 04:31
Check out my U1 thread where I dump samples that pop up. The Mathieson U1 for example: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34849-mtdna-Haplogroup-U1-General?p=533173&viewfull=1#post533173 Yes i already see your topic a few times ago. Somehow the link between Varna and Hajji Firuz seems to be somehow a related Anatolian-Iranian link. I dont really understand everything in the paper, they seems to say that EEF is more related to iran neolithic than anatolia mesolithic and that anatolia neolithic is linked with iran neolithic and EEF. U1 might be one of the maternal lineage to such a link. But do we have any anatolia mesolithic haplogroups ? Or U1 could really be a lineage that never really explode and was staying quite for much of history.

johen
11-04-18, 05:31
How genetically to explain the following facts by this Harvard research?



The Sintashta fortified settlements (Arkaim and Sintashta) have round walls and moats [8; 9]. The houses are blocked together. Direct analogies with them are known only in Anatolia (Demirchiuyuk, Pulur, Mercin), Syro-Palestine (Rogem Hiri) and the Transcaucasus (Uzerlic-Tepe) [10 – 13]. Sintashta burial traditions are identical to ones in this region too. Other artefacts (metal, ceramics etc.) have parallels there [14].
A technology of metal production is very specific. Metallurgists alloyed copper with arsenic on an oresmelting stage. In Eastern Europe such way of bronze production was not known. However, it was known in the Transcaucasus and, perhaps, in Near East. A correlation of weapons, tools, ornaments and other artefacts is similar to those in the Transcaucasus and Asia Minor.


* THE SINTASHTA CULTURE AND SOME QUESTIONS OF INDO-EUROPEANS ORIGINS. S.A.Grigoryev


I think we can solve the problems of andronovo cremation culture and maybe altal tin bronze technique also by Dali gene. Considering CHG gene in Dali early bronze in east kazark, cremation culture seems to be transferred from Dali to Andronovo.



A new wave of newcomers left F’odorovo culture sites. Some include usually this culture, together with Alakul culture, in Andronovo culture. However, all attempts to find its local roots had no success. But these roots are in North-Western Iran and South Azerbaijan: cremation in stone boxes and cysts under mounds, clay props for hearth, oval dishes, polished ware. Complex of metal have analogies in Circumpontic area, but first of all, in Sumbar culture in South-Western Turkmenistan. Potteries from Central Asia have been found in some F’odorovo sites.



Before 3000 BC, societies of western Asia were cultivating wheat and societies of China were cultivating broomcorn millet; these are early nodes of the world's agriculture. The authors are searching for early cereals in the vast lands that separate the two, and report a breakthrough at Begash in south-east Kazakhstan. Here, high precision recovery and dating have revealed the presence of both wheat and millet in the later third millennium BC. Moreover the context, a cremation burial, raises the suggestion that these grains might signal a ritual rather than a subsistence commodity

Ygorcs
11-04-18, 08:19
In my personal view, what i found irritating is how the whole indo-european package change in a whole whetever the hypothesis. Steppe was the mainstream theory for the horse-raider R1b thing for a while, whatever it was exactly that scenario, if R1b now is fought coming from Kurdistan so both PIE and Horses also come from Kurdistan and et caetera. Sometimes i feel that for some people it's juste a prejudice if some ancient thing come from europe and not from the middle-east. Back to the topic, this R1b sample is definitely an outlier for the actual datas and a big one, but he is not very an answer to any questions. If we put all the archeologic dates together, there is huge flow. It would mean modern R1b-z2103 distribution that is primarly located in anatolia is not steppe R1b but transcaucasus native, but at the same time the archeological mainstream view of IE's start in Samara and Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog without Z2103, it would mean all R1b without any specific subclades would came at different times from south caucasus.

Actually, it is not "classical" Late PIE with its traditional "package" of horse, wheel and so on that we're talking about IF the CHG/Iranian-related part of the PIE speaking peoples came from around Lake Urmia. PIE is in any case dated to well after 5,000 BC, especially if you're talking about the PIE-minus-Anatolian, LPIE stage. These would be just a significant part of the genetic and most probably also cultural ancestry of the LPIE speakers and also quite possibly the carriers of the language that was the direct ancestor of PIE, but not ALREADY PIE by 5,500 BC in Iran.

We can't lump these ancient languages and cultures together regardless of whether you're talking about 5,500 BC, 4,000 BC or 3,000 BC. I think nobody - at least nobody who has a good grasp of the chronology of those cultures - is asserting that PIE as the latest common dialect of all the extant IE branches was already being spoken in Early Neolithic Kurdistan. That's not the hypothesis that's being discussed as at least plausible according to the latest evidences.

To give you a more recent, historic example, if we're investigating the spread of Spanish in Latin America we'd find an expansion around 1500-1600, an origin of the language in the northern part of Iberia (not from where the bulk of the immigrants came), but an immediate ancestor of the language in a very different region and with a very distinct people (genetically and also in many ways culturally), the Latin speakers of Central Italy. That's how dynamic, mobile and changing languages (as cultures) are.

holderlin
11-04-18, 08:52
I think you're not giving the huge Caucasian, "southern" influence onto the Late Neolithic/Copper Age steppe cultures, not just genetically (as much as 50%, that could never be done by a migration of just a "small group of males"), but also culturally, with the very spread of agriculture and particularly pastoralism in a region that was previously inhabited just by hunter-gatherers. This new finding does not point to a fully formed PIE, ready to be split into many slices of IE daughter families, still in Transcaucasia/Iran, but the more distant, ultimate source of much of the eventual PIE-speaking people in the steppe and quite possibly also of the language itself. Also, that does not mean that most PIE branches weren't in the end derived from the languages spoken by people who derived a large part of their ancestry from "indigenous" steppe (former) hunter gatherers.

Anyway, something really transformative and profound connected the Neolithic Steppe with the Caucasus region and caused the steppe cultures to change significantly, and I can't see any good reason why that couldn't have been done through migration of people as many others that we've seen in the same historic period marked by the expansion of agriculture and animal domestication.

PIE and the IE "package" didn't appear fully formed with Yamna and so on.....

This just isn't true, or at least the evidence doesn't support it at this time. Steppe was practicing stock breeding well before Yamnaya. The PIE package is present in Steppe Eneolithic cultures especially Sredny Stog and Lower Mikhaylovka levels/Kemi Oba. The Iranian_neo had already started to increase at this time well before Yamnaya. What we actually see very early is obvious and significant influence from the Balkans, not the Caucuses, or rather the proposed early evidence of influence from the Caucuses is inferred rather than proven directly. The Corded Ware genotype predates Yamnaya, and it's also different with less CHG/Iranian_Neo. It's missing some sort of Caucasian component that Yamnaya has. So if we agree that Corded Ware types spoke IE, then we have to reject Yamnaya PIE, which I do and I always have. I think Yamnaya was already speaking Indo-Iranian and this is supported by Iranian and North Indian being predominantly descended from Yamnaya, not LBA steppe.

There was no "profound" transformation. An example of that would be farmers moving into the Balkans. On the steppe we see very much the opposite. It’s a vast swath of closely related cultures that show undisputed continuity from the Neolithic to Yamnaya. As the cultures develop you don’t see much difference from the Dnieper to the Volga. There is nothing disruptive happening that would suggest a cultural superimposition like we see in the Balkans, so there’s nothing to make us thing that there must have been a language imposition from the South.

We do have the increase Iranian_neo/CHG admixture, we have Caucuses influenced metallurgical styles emerging in Yamnaya, and what appears to be a freakishly early neolithic on the Volga (6000BC) that most have deduced must have come from the South Caspian via the Caucuses because the eastern steppe is so far away from the Balkans. The evidence consists only of domestic animal bones and maybe egg shaped pots that look South Caspianesque. This deduction is bolstered by the paper showing that farming/stock breeding arrived in the Baltic upon the appearance of CHG/Iranian_neo without Anatolian admixture. That's really about it. We don't have any clear trail of Iranian_neo stock breeders moving onto the steppe and bringing pots with them, much less some sort of neolithic invasion like we see in the Balkans.
I’m not saying something like this couldn’t have happened, I’m saying that the evidence doesn’t show this and we have a very good example of what this would have looked like in the Balkans.

And what then do we do with the Caucasian languages that appear to have extended into Anatolia in the Bronze Age?
Anatolian is the IE language group that most reveals the influence of Caucasian, which is why many prefer a route through the Caucuses to explain the arrival of the Anatolian speakers in Anatolia. But if PIE is in the Caucuses, then where are the Caucasian speakers and how exactly are they influencing early indoeuropean if not from their seat in the Caucuses?

Nalchik and Maykop genomes will likely be telling along with Eneolithic Mikhaylovka and Kemi oba. It’s hard to imagine Caucasian influences not being Maykop mediated, so the interface must be in the Southern Ukraine.

Ygorcs
11-04-18, 09:00
This just isn't true, or at least the evidence doesn't support it at this time. Steppe was practicing stock breeding well before Yamnaya. The PIE package is present in Steppe Eneolithic cultures especially Sredny Stog and Lower Mikhaylovka levels/Kemi Oba. The Iranian_neo had already started to increase at this time well before Yamnaya. What we actually see very early is obvious and significant influence from the Balkans, not the Caucuses, or rather the proposed early evidence of influence from the Caucuses is inferred rather than proven directly. The Corded Ware genotype predates Yamnaya, and it's also different with less CHG/Iranian_Neo. It's missing some sort of Caucasian component that Yamnaya has. So if we agree that Corded Ware types spoke IE, then we have to reject Yamnaya PIE, which I do and I always have. I think Yamnaya was already speaking Indo-Iranian and this is supported by Iranian and North Indian being predominantly descended from Yamnaya, not LBA steppe.

There was no "profound" transformation. An example of that would be farmers moving into the Balkans. On the steppe we see very much the opposite. It’s a vast swath of closely related cultures that show undisputed continuity from the Neolithic to Yamnaya. As the cultures develop you don’t see much difference from the Dnieper to the Volga. There is nothing disruptive happening that would suggest a cultural superimposition like we see in the Balkans, so there’s nothing to make us thing that there must have been a language imposition from the South.

We do have the increase Iranian_neo/CHG admixture, we have Caucuses influenced metallurgical styles emerging in Yamnaya, and what appears to be a freakishly early neolithic on the Volga (6000BC) that most have deduced must have come from the South Caspian via the Caucuses because the eastern steppe is so far away from the Balkans. The evidence consists only of domestic animal bones and maybe egg shaped pots that look South Caspianesque. This deduction is bolstered by the paper showing that farming/stock breeding arrived in the Baltic upon the appearance of CHG/Iranian_neo without Anatolian admixture. That's really about it. We don't have any clear trail of Iranian_neo stock breeders moving onto the steppe and bringing pots with them, much less some sort of neolithic invasion like we see in the Balkans.
I’m not saying something like this couldn’t have happened, I’m saying that the evidence doesn’t show this and we have a very good example of what this would have looked like in the Balkans.

And what then do we do with the Caucasian languages that appear to have extended into Anatolia in the Bronze Age?
Anatolian is the IE language group that most reveals the influence of Caucasian, which is why many prefer a route through the Caucuses to explain the arrival of the Anatolian speakers in Anatolia. But if PIE is in the Caucuses, then where are the Caucasian speakers and how exactly are they influencing early indoeuropean if not from their seat in the Caucuses?

Nalchik and Maykop genomes will likely be telling along with Eneolithic Mikhaylovka and Kemi oba. It’s hard to imagine Caucasian influences not being Maykop mediated, so the interface must be in the Southern Ukraine.

Well, you yourself said it: "The Iranian_neo had already started to increase at this time well before Yamnaya." The Iranian/Caucasian genetic - and certainly cultural - influence in the Pontic-Caspian steppe clearly arrived well before Yamnaya, so I don't really understand much of your comment. That's in fact what I was talking about: not about Yamna, but about the increasing Iranian_Neo affinity before it and right when the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic ways of life occurs, with CHG/Iranian_Neo already increasing well before Yamna, in Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk/Repin. That's the era where "profound transformations" did happen - and with them or right after them came also an increasing % of Iranian_Neo-like admixture. I don't think that's a coincidence or a small detail.

If it hasn't become clear already, I don't believe that PIE appeared out of thin air as a language and a culture in Yamna, without any links to previous cultures of the same Pontic-Caspian region and, in the longer term, elsewhere.

I also don't believe that there was always just 1 PIE dialect that somehow managed to remain homogeneous and unified for thousands of years and survived all alone to give birth to dozens of language subfamilies. I think there were certainly some missing links, extinct languages, either superseded by non-IE languages and, particularly, replaced by a more prestigious and expansive form of LPIE that was close enough to make linguistic shift very easy and handy for them.

As for the origins of PIE, the hypothesis being discussed now AFAIK is not about its origins in the Caucasus mountains and valleys, but SOUTH of the Caucasus, and as for why there is "no" Caucasian influence actually many linguists have proposed that there is a still noticeable Caucasian influence and mutual connection (loanwords, typological similarities, and so on) between PIE and Caucasian language families, mainly Northwestern Caucasian and Kartvelian. Besides that, there is always the possibility, no, the likelihood that languages have been replaced, moved to other places, become extinct and so on, so the language distribution we see now in the Caucasus does not necessarily - nor even probably - the same linguistic makeup of the Caucasus 7,000 years ago.

Finally, of course we're talking here about some sort of pre-PIE or maybe even "pre-pre-PIE", thus allowing for at least 2,000 years of evolution and heavier influence from other language groups until we have "classic" LPIE, especially after a supposed long-distance migration and extensive mixing with other peoples (EHG-related mainly, but also others). With all that being considered, it wouldn't be any wonder why any "areal features" or loanwords from Neolithic Caucasian - or, more correctly, Transcaucasian languages would be hardly discernible nowadays.

I have no issue with reconciling both an (not "the") origin of the earliest form of PIE, or actually its mother language, south of the Caucasus, but the appearance of the PIE as we know, just before the split of Anatolian, in the north, with steppe cultures. Or even the possibility that those Iranian_Neo people who mixed with others north of the Caucasus simply adopted the local language without imposing their. The genetics don't always correlate perfectly with the dynamics of language, especially languages in varied forms of interaction with each other. But at least in theory, I don't think those linguistic objections you present are very relevant, considering that in Hajji Firuz we're definitely not seeing, not even hypothetically, a PIE speaker, but at best an early ancestor of it who lived in in a linguistic/cultural scenario much different from that of the Yamna period,

As a sidenote, I think CWC only appears north of the steppes when the Yamna were already advanced in its expansion into Sredny Stog territory, so I wouldn't be too certain that the Sredny Stog-like elements that contributed to CWC weren't already linguistically assimilated to a "common LPIE", maybe even some sort of koiné, though in my opinion Sredny Stog may have already spoken a IE language, but not necessarily - and IMO probably not - "the" LPIE that really left living descendants in many Bronze/Iron Age language branches.

Milan.M
11-04-18, 11:41
J2b-L283, E-V13 & R1b-Z2103 are still very frequent Y-DNA in the Altaic & Uralic groups of the European steppe and the forest zone to the north where neolithic farmers probably didn't play a very important role or never reached at all. I find this a good reason to believe that these Y-DNA haplogroups expanded from the steppe at one point, with their westward expansions being more concentrated in the Balkans rather than Central Europe perhaps. Thracians, Illyrians? Your guess is as good as mine.
This lineages were probably brought by the Greeks there in my opinion, see Gelonians for example,they are mentioned by Herodotus as former Hellenes. They settled among the Budini probably Finno-Ugric or related people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelonians

Salento
11-04-18, 13:23
BBC - How ancient DNA is transforming our view of the past

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43701630

berun
11-04-18, 14:31
Yamna, Yamna, Yamna... until you leave this carousel you will do laps eternaly, Yamnayans are a dead end. Look at Andronovo, probably Indo-Iranian, Sintashta, and CWC (Baltoslavic and Germanic?) have in commong a profile made by EEF, CHG, EHG and some WHG. So much now to choose from where PIE popped up... but Mycaeneans had as novelty EHG.

Ailchu
11-04-18, 15:06
This just isn't true, or at least the evidence doesn't support it at this time. Steppe was practicing stock breeding well before Yamnaya. The PIE package is present in Steppe Eneolithic cultures especially Sredny Stog and Lower Mikhaylovka levels/Kemi Oba. The Iranian_neo had already started to increase at this time well before Yamnaya. What we actually see very early is obvious and significant influence from the Balkans, not the Caucuses, or rather the proposed early evidence of influence from the Caucuses is inferred rather than proven directly. The Corded Ware genotype predates Yamnaya, and it's also different with less CHG/Iranian_Neo. It's missing some sort of Caucasian component that Yamnaya has. So if we agree that Corded Ware types spoke IE, then we have to reject Yamnaya PIE, which I do and I always have. I think Yamnaya was already speaking Indo-Iranian and this is supported by Iranian and North Indian being predominantly descended from Yamnaya, not LBA steppe.

There was no "profound" transformation. An example of that would be farmers moving into the Balkans. On the steppe we see very much the opposite. It’s a vast swath of closely related cultures that show undisputed continuity from the Neolithic to Yamnaya. As the cultures develop you don’t see much difference from the Dnieper to the Volga. There is nothing disruptive happening that would suggest a cultural superimposition like we see in the Balkans, so there’s nothing to make us thing that there must have been a language imposition from the South.

We do have the increase Iranian_neo/CHG admixture, we have Caucuses influenced metallurgical styles emerging in Yamnaya, and what appears to be a freakishly early neolithic on the Volga (6000BC) that most have deduced must have come from the South Caspian via the Caucuses because the eastern steppe is so far away from the Balkans. The evidence consists only of domestic animal bones and maybe egg shaped pots that look South Caspianesque. This deduction is bolstered by the paper showing that farming/stock breeding arrived in the Baltic upon the appearance of CHG/Iranian_neo without Anatolian admixture. That's really about it. We don't have any clear trail of Iranian_neo stock breeders moving onto the steppe and bringing pots with them, much less some sort of neolithic invasion like we see in the Balkans.
I’m not saying something like this couldn’t have happened, I’m saying that the evidence doesn’t show this and we have a very good example of what this would have looked like in the Balkans.

And what then do we do with the Caucasian languages that appear to have extended into Anatolia in the Bronze Age?
Anatolian is the IE language group that most reveals the influence of Caucasian, which is why many prefer a route through the Caucuses to explain the arrival of the Anatolian speakers in Anatolia. But if PIE is in the Caucuses, then where are the Caucasian speakers and how exactly are they influencing early indoeuropean if not from their seat in the Caucuses?

Nalchik and Maykop genomes will likely be telling along with Eneolithic Mikhaylovka and Kemi oba. It’s hard to imagine Caucasian influences not being Maykop mediated, so the interface must be in the Southern Ukraine.


if the corded ware has less CHG in it's steppe package than contemporary eastern yamna samples this actually seems more plausible to me. i was wondering if we actually know the exact proportions of CHG and EHG when we speak about "steppe" admixture in different populations.
so far the studies who looked at the genome of corded ware concluded that it could be modeled as coming from eastern yamnas but that it also could come from a population more west.
but can we really exclude the possibility that yamnas to the east spoke no pie? what if PIE was broght by caucasus people and then a populaion of yamnas to the west with less CHG moved west?

halfalp
11-04-18, 15:26
Yamna, Yamna, Yamna... until you leave this carousel you will do laps eternaly, Yamnayans are a dead end. Look at Andronovo, probably Indo-Iranian, Sintashta, and CWC (Baltoslavic and Germanic?) have in commong a profile made by EEF, CHG, EHG and some WHG. So much now to choose from where PIE popped up... but Mycaeneans had as novelty EHG. I dont want to make ad hominem attack but you should put PIE somewhere in your mind and focus on the actual study and it's not a critic you seem obsessed with PIE.

Angela
11-04-18, 15:31
How genetically to explain the following facts by this Harvard research?





* THE SINTASHTA CULTURE AND SOME QUESTIONS OF INDO-EUROPEANS ORIGINS. S.A.Grigoryev


I think we can solve the problems of andronovo cremation culture and maybe altal tin bronze technique also by Dali gene. Considering CHG gene in Dali early bronze in east kazark, cremation culture seems to be transferred from Dali to Andronovo.

We discussed this extensively in the past, and I just referenced it recently on this thread when I said that it was clear from the archaeology that the metallurgy in Sintashta couldn't have come from the west with the migration of the steppe people east because the metallurgy in Sintashta was far advanced of what was in the western steppe at that time. When we were discussing it I had just read the Frachetti papers and speculated that the technology might have come up the Inner Asian corridor from the Caucasus. The same goes for the architecture. There was nothing like it in the west.

It's also Frachetti who extensively analyzed the first appearance of grains in certain parts of the east and how it had a ritual significance and did a lot of work on how important the Inner Asian Corridor was for technological exchange.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=LMGXZ9cAAAAJ&hl=en

holderlin
11-04-18, 19:48
if the corded ware has less CHG in it's steppe package than contemporary eastern yamna samples this actually seems more plausible to me. i was wondering if we actually know the exact proportions of CHG and EHG when we speak about "steppe" admixture in different populations.
so far the studies who looked at the genome of corded ware concluded that it could be modeled as coming from eastern yamnas but that it also could come from a population more west.
but can we really exclude the possibility that yamnas to the east spoke no pie? what if PIE was broght by caucasus people and then a populaion of yamnas to the west with less CHG moved west?

PIE was being spoken on the steppe, and perhaps in the Northern Caucuses before Yamnaya, in my best estimation. The Corded Ware genotype emerges in the Ukraine before Yamnaya, which is why CWC can't simply be a Yamnaya descendant, but that doesn't mean that the steppe component of CWC isn't very similar to Yamnaya nor does it mean that Yamnaya genotypes didn't admix with CWC culture during it's development. This all surely happened. It's just one of the several deductions that support a pre-yamnaya PIE in the Ukraine and probably on the Volga as well.

Ygorcs
11-04-18, 20:56
Yamna, Yamna, Yamna... until you leave this carousel you will do laps eternaly, Yamnayans are a dead end. Look at Andronovo, probably Indo-Iranian, Sintashta, and CWC (Baltoslavic and Germanic?) have in commong a profile made by EEF, CHG, EHG and some WHG. So much now to choose from where PIE popped up... but Mycaeneans had as novelty EHG.

Well, what we DO KNOW for sure is exactly that the EEF, CHG, EHG or WHG that we use as proxies for those ancient Mesolithic & Early Neolithic admixtures DID NOT speak PIE at all. We can discuss where the ancestor language family from where PIE sprung up came from, what was the main genetic makeup of their speakers, but PIE is most definitely a Chalcolithic/Bronze Age language, so it can and should be associated with some culture or neighboring cluster of cultures of that period. And we just can't deny the fact that that combination you talk about was found right in Yamna territory in its heyday, which had a makeup that ranged also exactly from mix of mainly EHG-CHG and, in its western end where it clearly absorbed the former Sredny Stog after 3,500-3,300 BC, to that same EHG-CHG with a bit of EEF and WHG.

Ygorcs
11-04-18, 21:07
PIE was being spoken on the steppe, and perhaps in the Northern Caucuses before Yamnaya, in my best estimation. The Corded Ware genotype emerges in the Ukraine before Yamnaya, which is why CWC can't simply be a Yamnaya descendant, but that doesn't mean that the steppe component of CWC isn't very similar to Yamnaya nor does it mean that Yamnaya genotypes didn't admix with CWC culture during it's development. This all surely happened. It's just one of the several deductions that support a pre-yamnaya PIE in the Ukraine and probably on the Volga as well.

The "CWC" or rather "CWC-related" genotype may have emerged before Yamna in Western Ukraine, but the actual appearance of CWC north of the Ukrainian steppe is much, much later than that, especially after 3,000-2,900 BC. The colonization that would've become the CWC horizon does not predate Yamna, nor does it even predate the wide expansion of the Yamna culture in the entire Pontic-Caspian steppe, even in the "heart" of Ukraine. By the time CWC pops up in 2900 BC, the pre-Yamna Sredny Stog culture had virtually disappeared from the area or rather been absorbed by Yamna, but I don't know if we can already establish that that cultural shift was accompanied by immediate and wholesale population replacement to from the Western Yamna structure.

holderlin
12-04-18, 01:34
The "CWC" or rather "CWC-related" genotype may have emerged before Yamna in Western Ukraine, but the actual appearance of CWC north of the Ukrainian steppe is much, much later than that, especially after 3,000-2,900 BC. The colonization that would've become the CWC horizon does not predate Yamna, nor does it even predate the wide expansion of the Yamna culture in the entire Pontic-Caspian steppe, even in the "heart" of Ukraine. By the time CWC pops up in 2900 BC, the pre-Yamna Sredny Stog culture had virtually disappeared from the area or rather been absorbed by Yamna, but I don't know if we can already establish that that cultural shift was accompanied by immediate and wholesale population replacement to from the Western Yamna structure.

Most people see latter Sredny Stog layers as the origin of CWC and the genetics support this. Going on that I would have to say that this R1a-M417, the oldest yet to date, carrying a CWC genotype, in fact the genotype which by the LMBA covers the entire steppe and Northeast Europe, is speaking IE already.

I think the Southern Ukraine Eneolithic and Maykop should reveal the interface between EHG and Iranian_neo, which will show up as the earliest "bronze age steppe" genotypes along with Maykop samples that show more than 50% CHG in EHG. That's what I really want to see in Maykop for everything to make sense. This has to exist somewhere if pure Caucasians are having sex with EHGs.

Ygorcs
12-04-18, 02:37
Most people see latter Sredny Stog layers as the origin of CWC and the genetics support this. Going on that I would have to say that this R1a-M417, the oldest yet to date, carrying a CWC genotype, in fact the genotype which by the LMBA covers the entire steppe and Northeast Europe, is speaking IE already.

I think the Southern Ukraine Eneolithic and Maykop should reveal the interface between EHG and Iranian_neo, which will show up as the earliest "bronze age steppe" genotypes along with Maykop samples that show more than 50% CHG in EHG. That's what I really want to see in Maykop for everything to make sense. This has to exist somewhere if pure Caucasians are having sex with EHGs.

Genetics do point out to an origin of CWC in populations very similar to late Sredny Stog, but still there is a gap of 500-600 years between the latest Sredny Stog and the expansion of CWC in Northeast Europe (2900 BC). CWC certainly did not come directly from a "classic" Sredny Stog population in its heyday, but at best from a late Sredny Stog right during the transition to Western Yamna.

That gap is a LOT of time, more than enough for linguistic shift even in the absence of much genetic replacement, especially because in that exact same period (3500-3000 BC) Yamna was encroaching on and absorbing the Sredny Stog culture, extending its reach as far as Western Ukraine - but we can't yet affirm for sure that that Yamna expansion also meant a wholesale population replacement in Ukraine, annihilating all the groups, with their distinctive genetic makeup, that could've become the ancestor emigrants who formed CWC after 3000 BC.

Just think of how Turkic language was absorbed by Western Steppe peoples that are still genetically overwhelmingly West Eurasian and actually, most probably, overwhelmingly Scythian-like, so much that the spread of Turkic-speaking peoples to the west wasn't necessarily accompanied by much if any "Proto-Turkic admixture". The cultural expansion of Yamna, like Turks, didn't necessarily mean that all the tribes they absorbed ceased to exist even if they changed part of their traditional culture and shifted to another language. That would've been especially easy to Late Sredny Stog >>> Early Yamna people, who may have already spoken similar languages.

We need to make a distinction between Sredny Stog-related autosomal makeup and Y-DNA (Sredny Stog genetic structure, let's say it) and fully fledged Sredny Stog culture, presumably still before intense Yamna influence/gradual acculturation.

I don't think it is unlikely at all, actually quite the opposite, very probable that Sredny Stog spoke some kind of PIE dialect or even language, but due to those chronological reasons I'm not so sure that "the" Late Common PIE, that gave us modern descendants like Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian (and any possible CWC-derived IE branch), was already spoken in Sredny Stog, not just one of the early dialects of PIE (or even a small IE language family that was superseded by the expansion of latter daughter branches).

holderlin
12-04-18, 19:06
Genetics do point out to an origin of CWC in populations very similar to late Sredny Stog, but still there is a gap of 500-600 years between the latest Sredny Stog and the expansion of CWC in Northeast Europe (2900 BC). CWC certainly did not come directly from a "classic" Sredny Stog population in its heyday, but at best from a late Sredny Stog right during the transition to Western Yamna.

Yes, but still having ancestors who were distinct from Yamnaya.


That gap is a LOT of time, more than enough for linguistic shift even in the absence of much genetic replacement, especially because in that exact same period (3500-3000 BC) Yamna was encroaching on and absorbing the Sredny Stog culture, extending its reach as far as Western Ukraine - but we can't yet affirm for sure that that Yamna expansion also meant a wholesale population replacement in Ukraine, annihilating all the groups, with their distinctive genetic makeup, that could've become the ancestor emigrants who formed CWC after 3000 BC.

Just think of how Turkic language was absorbed by Western Steppe peoples that are still genetically overwhelmingly West Eurasian and actually, most probably, overwhelmingly Scythian-like, so much that the spread of Turkic-speaking peoples to the west wasn't necessarily accompanied by much if any "Proto-Turkic admixture". The cultural expansion of Yamna, like Turks, didn't necessarily mean that all the tribes they absorbed ceased to exist even if they changed part of their traditional culture and shifted to another language. That would've been especially easy to Late Sredny Stog >>> Early Yamna people, who may have already spoken similar languages.

We need to make a distinction between Sredny Stog-related autosomal makeup and Y-DNA (Sredny Stog genetic structure, let's say it) and fully fledged Sredny Stog culture, presumably still before intense Yamna influence/gradual acculturation.

I don't think it is unlikely at all, actually quite the opposite, very probable that Sredny Stog spoke some kind of PIE dialect or even language, but due to those chronological reasons I'm not so sure that "the" Late Common PIE, that gave us modern descendants like Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian (and any possible CWC-derived IE branch), was already spoken in Sredny Stog, not just one of the early dialects of PIE (or even a small IE language family that was superseded by the expansion of latter daughter branches).

I'm not saying that whatever Yamnaya was speaking didn't at least influence the resulting language of CWC.

To be clear I think that early forms of PIE were spoken from the Ukraine to the Volga (Urals?) during the Eneolithic if not the Neolithic given the continuity. Probably from the Neolithic honestly. The cultures maintain very close relationships with each other over a vast swath of land since from the Neolithic (Dneiper Donets and Samara) to the late bronze age. The notion of them sharing a common language is likely, in fact this is supported by looking at the steppe in late bronze age/early Iron age where they all likely spoke Iranian.

Something unique was happening on the steppe with horse domestication and stock breeding and I don't think it's a coincidence that V88 (from neolithic Ukraine) is associated with cattle herders. Perhaps the spread of V88 out of Ukraine were IE speakers initially.

Whatever, I'm over it.

halfalp
13-04-18, 10:28
Actually, it is not "classical" Late PIE with its traditional "package" of horse, wheel and so on that we're talking about IF the CHG/Iranian-related part of the PIE speaking peoples came from around Lake Urmia. PIE is in any case dated to well after 5,000 BC, especially if you're talking about the PIE-minus-Anatolian, LPIE stage. These would be just a significant part of the genetic and most probably also cultural ancestry of the LPIE speakers and also quite possibly the carriers of the language that was the direct ancestor of PIE, but not ALREADY PIE by 5,500 BC in Iran. We can't lump these ancient languages and cultures together regardless of whether you're talking about 5,500 BC, 4,000 BC or 3,000 BC. I think nobody - at least nobody who has a good grasp of the chronology of those cultures - is asserting that PIE as the latest common dialect of all the extant IE branches was already being spoken in Early Neolithic Kurdistan. That's not the hypothesis that's being discussed as at least plausible according to the latest evidences. To give you a more recent, historic example, if we're investigating the spread of Spanish in Latin America we'd find an expansion around 1500-1600, an origin of the language in the northern part of Iberia (not from where the bulk of the immigrants came), but an immediate ancestor of the language in a very different region and with a very distinct people (genetically and also in many ways culturally), the Latin speakers of Central Italy. That's how dynamic, mobile and changing languages (as cultures) are. I'm just saying what i read here and there on this forum. There was a concensus that Horses where domesticated in the eurasian steppe for some time, but according to the hypothesis put forward by some only about PIE origin, now horse can come from Armenia or Iberia or even East Iran depending on. Same with the wheel, we have physical proof that wheel was already in central europe at the time of yamnaya, but because of the CHG component in yamna, some people saying that the wheel came from the Uruk immigrants and not from neolithic europe ( wich might be true if we look at the date of the central european first wheel that could fit with an early yamnaya migration ). A lot of people push their view according to where they thinks PIE came from. Apart of that i'm ok with all what you said.

halfalp
13-04-18, 14:17
That's because R1b-V88 is found all over the Levant and spread from there to Africa, and because the highest diversity of old R1b clades was reported to be in the Middle East. Both African R1b-V88 and Steppe R1b-M269 are/were cattle herders and cattle were domesticated halfway between the Levant (V88) and South Caucasus (M269), so my logic is that they must have a common origin there.

What I did not see coming was that there would be R1b-P297 and R1b-V88 in the Balkans (Iron Gates), Ukraine and Latvia in the Mesolithic. For me R1b was only in the Middle East in the Mesolithic and domesticated cattle around the modern border of Syria and Turkey, then moved to the South Caucasus, then crossed to the Steppe. I underestimated the propensity of Mesolithic HG to travel long distances and settled a bit everywhere. If the West African E1b1a in Mesolithic Iran in this paper isn't a mistake, that is another remarkable example.
But let's be fair, it's difficult to imagine that L754, L388, V88 and P297 all ancestral to M269 and all found in epipaleolithic and mesolithic europe all migrate from western asia into europe and that some of the V-88 and P297 staying in west asia has become M269 wich himself has migrate into europe it's not fair to say " who think M269 would be north of the caucasus " I'm start to rethink about the all R1b steppe but cant really think to any pattern. This south caucasus sample is actually pretty irrelevant if you think about it, and as holderlin said, it's gives more problem than resolve questions. Do we have any anatolian mesolithic y-dna sample ? If epipaleolithic or mesolithic anatolia turns to not be R1b the only proposition is that some early M269 have migrate from the pontic steppe to the south caucasus, but we also need to see if that sample is really 5900-5000 bc wich is actually a weird date for an south caucasus Z2013.

Olympus Mons
13-04-18, 16:28
Regarding Hajji Firuz I2327 (R1b1a1a2a2/K1a17a).

There is a sample, called OC1_Meso (r1b/K1) from G González-Fortes 2017, and another I4081 (R1b1a/H13), another girl I4582 (K1) from Mathieson 2017. All of them ar e Iron gates, Mesolithic HG from a Romania culture called Ostrovul Corbului. -- 1000 years later their stock shows in Hajji Firuz as individual I2327, R1B-L23-Z2103....

So, what is the story?
Most of the proliferous r1b Stock ready to mutate was in Lower Danube, in Iron gates, but specially in the lower Danube separating Romania and Bulgaria by 7000-6300bc.
Places like Ostrobul Corbului, Schela Cladovei (south Romania bordering Bulgaria) a bit north are it. right there. The region seems to have suffered heavily with the 8.2 kiloyear event, so archaeologically there is a gap in Habitation in the broader region from the period 6300-6000bc. Just Lepenski Vir seems to have missed that gap of three Hundred years. When the region is repopulated, and its noticeable in the Mathieson 2017 supplement excel, the region is full of G2a and a more typical Mtdna. Most probably the arrival of Starčevo-Körös-Criş. But the just previous samples are really mostly R (and R1b proper).

By 6300bc, agriculture was just arriving to this area also coming from the south. So contacts with farmers were happening. Samples even show these cline, as Schela Cladovei show a very Hunter Gatherer Mtdna U5a and U5b… but Ostrobul, to the south, shows mainly K, a more farmer Mtdna.

I believe one sees their pathway into north Anatolia of these Hunter-gatheres that while moving south throughout the 7th millennium mixed with farmers and learned a lot about taming agriculture specimens where they mixed with Fikirtepe culture so that arriving to south Caucasus, by 6000bc, they where that fascinating thing called Shulaveri-Shomu.

markozd
13-04-18, 16:36
The first appearance of R1b in Europe is concomitant with an increased affinity towards the Near East. I wouldn't get my hopes up for an European origin of the M269. Macrogroup P1 wasn't really around before the Late Upper Paleolithic, it came from the east at some point.

Angela
13-04-18, 17:43
Modeling mania is in full swing. :)

From what I can tell, the actual amount of "steppe" in South Asia is much lower than had been predicted. Northwestern Brahmins have between 10-20%. It goes down to about 14% in the warrior caste, and then drops off a cliff. Most Indians have none. Even in Central Asia, the reality seems to be about 25% to a max of about 30% in Tajiks, way off the predictive modeling of 50%.

So, is it Greece redux?

Not implying, by the way, that it didn't bring language change and cultural changes. I'm just saying any talk of massive replacement in India as in Southern Europe was probably way off base.

We'll see what happens with the Z2103 sample. I want to see what the carbon dating says. More importantly, I want to see if there's a trail north onto the steppe by R1b or if it was another y dna that just drifted out. I'm assuming that will be in the Caucasus paper.

Olympus Mons
13-04-18, 19:24
...I'm assuming that will be in the Caucasus paper.

What Caucasus paper?

Ygorcs
13-04-18, 22:00
But let's be fair, it's difficult to imagine that L754, L388, V88 and P297 all ancestral to M269 and all found in epipaleolithic and mesolithic europe all migrate from western asia into europe and that some of the V-88 and P297 staying in west asia has become M269 wich himself has migrate into europe it's not fair to say " who think M269 would be north of the caucasus " I'm start to rethink about the all R1b steppe but cant really think to any pattern. This south caucasus sample is actually pretty irrelevant if you think about it, and as holderlin said, it's gives more problem than resolve questions. Do we have any anatolian mesolithic y-dna sample ? If epipaleolithic or mesolithic anatolia turns to not be R1b the only proposition is that some early M269 have migrate from the pontic steppe to the south caucasus, but we also need to see if that sample is really 5900-5000 bc wich is actually a weird date for an south caucasus Z2013.

I don't understand why you say that "If epipaleolithic or mesolithic anatolia turns to not be R1b the only proposition is that some early M269 have migrate from the pontic steppe to the south caucasus". This R1b-M269 sample is not from Anatolia proper, it's much closer to the Caucasus, the Caspian coast of Iran and the Zagros mountains than to Anatolia. Especially considering that it is autosomally mostly related to Iranian_Neolithic and certainly closer to CHG than to Anatolia_Neolithic, then I definitely wouldn't look (well, I actually would, but it wouldn't be me priority) for its antecedents in Anatolia_Mesolithic, but in the Iranian Plateau, Caucasus or even, who knows, ultimately, well before this mid/late Neolithic sample, Central Asia as Johanna Nichols proposed for the earliest origin of pre-PIE communities. Also, R1b-V88 is not directly ancestral to M269, so it didn't need to have been part of this history at all, it could've set apart and gone to have its own historic journey well before R1b-M269 existed. All it takes is that some R1b-P297, many centuries after V88 first appeared, diverged from the others. It don't see why that couldn't have happened in the northern part of West Asia, which is in any case very close to Europe especially if you consider that until ~7000-6000 BC the Black Sea was probably smaller and crossing to Europe was even easier than it is now.

MOESAN
13-04-18, 22:12
old extracts I picked from other foruma or blogs - alas I did not write the origin of the former paragraph - it speaks of links between Indus and Mesopotamia -

Based on this distribution of values, it would appear from our preliminary analysis that almost half of the individuals sampled from the Harappa cemetery have isotope values outside the local baseline (0.7158-0.7189). Most of these individuals have values below the Harappa range. In addition, there are at least three non-local individuals with higher values, including one with an extremely isotope ratio that cannot be from the Harappa region. A more detailed discussion of the Harappa samples will be presented in a future publication on the Harappa cemetery, but it is clear that many of what appear to be local individuals at Harappa are females and they are associated in burial with nearby males who are clearly not local. These preliminary patterns require further testing before major conclusions can be proposed, but it does suggest that they represent a unique population of people from multiple regions of the Indus valley or beyond.

Journal of Archaeological Science
Volume 40, Issue 5, May 2013, Pages 2286–2297

A new approach to tracking connections between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia: initial results of strontium isotope analyses from Harappa and Ur

J. Mark Kenoyer et al.

Exchange and interaction between early state-level societies in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley during the 3rd millennium BC has been documented for some time. The study of this interaction has been dominated by the analysis of artifacts such as carnelian beads and marine shell, along with limited textual evidence. With the aid of strontium, carbon, and oxygen isotopes, it is now possible to develop more direct means for determining the presence of non-local people in both regions. This preliminary study of tooth enamel from individuals buried at Harappa and at the Royal Cemetery of Ur, indicates that it should be feasible to identify Harappans in Mesopotamia. It is also possible to examine the mobility of individuals from communities within the greater Indus Valley region.

johen
13-04-18, 23:20
old extracts I picked from other foruma or blogs - alas I did not write the origin of the former paragraph - it speaks of links between Indus and Mesopotamia -
Based on this distribution of values, it would appear from our preliminary analysis that almost half of the individuals sampled from the Harappa cemetery have isotope values outside the local baseline (0.7158-0.7189). Most of these individuals have values below the Harappa range. In addition, there are at least three non-local individuals with higher values, including one with an extremely isotope ratio that cannot be from the Harappa region. A more detailed discussion of the Harappa samples will be presented in a future publication on the Harappa cemetery, but it is clear that many of what appear to be local individuals at Harappa are females and they are associated in burial with nearby males who are clearly not local. These preliminary patterns require further testing before major conclusions can be proposed, but it does suggest that they represent a unique population of people from multiple regions of the Indus valley or beyond.

Journal of Archaeological Science
Volume 40, Issue 5, May 2013, Pages 2286–2297

A new approach to tracking connections between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia: initial results of strontium isotope analyses from Harappa and Ur

J. Mark Kenoyer et al.

Exchange and interaction between early state-level societies in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley during the 3rd millennium BC has been documented for some time. The study of this interaction has been dominated by the analysis of artifacts such as carnelian beads and marine shell, along with limited textual evidence. With the aid of strontium, carbon, and oxygen isotopes, it is now possible to develop more direct means for determining the presence of non-local people in both regions. This preliminary study of tooth enamel from individuals buried at Harappa and at the Royal Cemetery of Ur, indicates that it should be feasible to identify Harappans in Mesopotamia. It is also possible to examine the mobility of individuals from communities within the greater Indus Valley region.

Problem is burial type: lots of supine burials. And I don't know where prone-positioned burials came from. Anyway, I think the supine burial type originated in west siberian HG. And their language seemed to be mixed to make some ural/altai people to be confused to think dravidian language is related with the ural/altai. Moreover, it seems to me that the west siberian gene factor made old world civilization to have some similarity of mesoamerican civilization. maybe sumer also or maybe a main cause of Nostratic languages.


"The excavation yielded 53 burials, six of which were unearthed in 2014-15; the remaining in the 2015-16 digging season. The necropolis, dated to between 2,500 BC and 2,000 BC, or the Mature Harappan Period, sprawls under a 1 hectare patch of land that has long been under cultivation by present-day residents of Rakhigarhi ...

Typical cases — single bodies buried in supine position inside a plain pit — outnumber atypical ones, which have brick-lined graves, multiple bodies, or prone-positioned burials... Of the 46 sets of skeletal remains, 37 were subjected to anthropological examination and DNA tests. Seventeen were determined to be over 18 years of age (adults); eight were “sub-adults”, that is, younger than 18; and the ages of 12 could not be determined.
Two of the sub-adults were children aged between 2 and 5 years. Of the 17 whose sex could be determined, seven were found to be males, and 10 were females... The DNA was extracted using a new technique that involves rupturing the petrous bone ... the investigation involved, “1) gross anthropological study (determination of sex and age, identification of any pathological signs in bones, forensic investigation for race determination, etc.); 2) paleoparasitological study (analysis of soil sediments on hipbones, determination of any presence of parasite eggs, drawing of tentative conclusions on parasitic infection of Harappan people); 3) aDNA mitochondrial, Y-chromosomal, autosomal and stable-isotope analyses (obtainment of information on maternal and paternal lineages); 4) first-ever facial reconstruction of approximately 4,500-year-old Harappan person (based on DNA and forensic data…).” ... the remains bore no signs of charring, thus ruling out cremation as a practice ...
Brick-lined burials (as opposed to plain pits) were among the most elaborately constructed graves, and possibly implied a high social or ritual status ... Significantly, every individual found in a brick-lined pit was determined to be female, leading the study authors to ask whether these women played a special role in the community ...

Prone-position bodies, a rarity in archaelogical finds, are usually held to be those that the community did not like. However, in Rakhigarhi, these individuals seem to have got elaborate burials with numerous grave goods. Two burials had been done on a bed of pottery, which may be indicative of high social status"

halfalp
14-04-18, 00:47
The first appearance of R1b in Europe is concomitant with an increased affinity towards the Near East. I wouldn't get my hopes up for an European origin of the M269. Macrogroup P1 wasn't really around before the Late Upper Paleolithic, it came from the east at some point.
Yes, but what you say is litteraly that the M269 fro this paper evolved with his ancestor without any of the R1b earlier from europe. Wich would be funny that just one sample being relative to so much history.

halfalp
14-04-18, 00:51
You people think too much, indo-european languages is a reality, wathever the amount of scythians R1a in antic north indian or not. We have the perspective to have europe mostly completely sample, so we know that indo-european language doesn't came from India for exemple. That said it doesn't mean that we already know what exact population participate to the indo-aryan formation. What we know for sur, is that indo-aryan languages are intrusive in their respective territory.

johen
14-04-18, 03:47
Shulaveri-Shomu culture

The first appearance of R1b in Europe is concomitant with an increased affinity towards the Near East. I wouldn't get my hopes up for an European origin of the M269. Macrogroup P1 wasn't really around before the Late Upper Paleolithic, it came from the east at some point.

Do you know whether any kurgan of ancient west asian culture like Shulaveri-Shomu culture or kura alex has the following yamna burial structure? It looks different from what I has thought til now.


Yamnaya groups and tumuli west of the Black Sea V
olker Heyd *

Abstract
Ten thousand round tumuli characterize the plains around the lower Danube, its tributaries and the central Carpathian basin. The very origin of their erection goes often back to the 4th and the 3rd millennium B.C. About 500 excavated tumuli from the present countries of Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary testify to their constructors: populations of the “Yamnaya Culture”, known also under the terms “Pit Grave Culture” or “Ochre Grave Culture”. Typical are primary single graves in rectangular pits dug into the underground before the erection of the tumuli, and secondary single graves in the tumulus filling often accompanied by a further tumulus heightening. The position of the body is either supine with flexed legs or a crouched position on the side; in any case, usually orientated in a west-east direction. Intensive strewing of ochre powder, textiles, furs and mats for the pit walls and floors, and wooden beams to cover it, are further characteristics, along with a general lack of accompanying grave gifts.

As far as I know, this kind of burial layers is related with central asia ANE culture.) I think even maykop kurgab would not have this kind of structure, considering that archaeologist does not connect steppe culture to maykop culture.

looks like one mound kurgan has two layers of this, but more deeper pit:

http://siberiantimes.com/PICTURES/SCIENCE/Okunevo-burial-ground-Itkol/inside_burials.jpg
http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0252-found-grave-of-siberian-noblewoman-up-to-4500-years-old-with-links-to-native-americans/

Angela
14-04-18, 21:56
Dienekes has posted on the paper. He's still a "kurganist" of the conventional variety, but at least he doesn't ignore the elephant in the room like the usual suspects:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2018/04/r1ans-still-at-large-or-story-of-india.html

"Yet, proponents of AIT (who have a non-trivial overlap with R1an enthusiasts) are also scratching their heads because of the 27 ancient South Asian males from South Asia studied in the preprint there is exactly one R1a, who also happened to live after the time of the Buddha and not during the Bronze Age."


The amounts of "steppe" ancestry in them is also unimpressive, to say the least, not only in the Bronze Age, but even in the Iron Age. Heck, as I mentioned above it's rather unimpressive even in modern Indians, much less than predicted. (Why on earth was the Jat sample removed? That would be a great one to check for additional Scythian.")

He goes on to say:
"Perhaps the R1a Indo-Aryans did come to South Asia in a conventional AIT time frame and they haven't been sampled. Or, maybe they were, indeed, there, but were not R1ans. Or, maybe both sides missed the bigger story which is that the Indo-Aryans (so closely associated with India today) were simply not there as early as people have thought. "

What he doesn't mention is that perhaps this wasn't the route, which I proposed above, but on further reflection, I think this is highly unlikely. The Swat valley is exactly what the "kurgan" theory, most recently and famously as proposed by David Anthony, has always posited to be IE central.

Dienekes adds that perhaps they arrived much earlier, in the time period that used to be proposed, which I didn't consider, but still, why then so few of them in the Swat Valley?

We've raised the possibility that Indo-Aryans arrived much later. There seems to be a rumor that the authors of the paper are going to release more samples. Perhaps he got wind of it. Given the furor over the fact that their conclusions don't really seem to flow from the published data, perhaps they are going to release samples which they were saving for a later date?

The other possibility that Dienekes raises is that perhaps another y lineage brought some "steppe" to the Bronze Age period from which the samples come, separate from whatever later R1a brought. The obvious question then is, which y lineage? One present in the sample or not? From where did they come?

The only thing of which I'm certain is that the story is much more complicated that we have been led to believe.

I also wonder if Reich, in order not to rock too many boats, is being too deferential to Anthony, so as to not have him pull out.

I find very little interesting at anthrogenica on this or anything else lately. There are still a few, very few, good posters at Eurogenes. This is one post that I think is interesting:

"We already have a pretty large amount of samples from the steppe with R1a-Z93, but all of them (AFAIK) belong to Z2123 subclade, not the sister L657, which is the big one in India.

If Andronovo was 99% R1a-Z2123, it's pretty much impossible that a big impact in the Y-chromosome (a la Western Europe) happened, or we should see Z2123 as the main lineage in India. So if L657 came along with Z2123 (which looks reasonable), it was a very minor lineage that couldn't have much impact initially. It just happened to grow within India during teh last 3500 years. That could have happened in any way, including in a population that was 90% IVC derived, both autosomally and in the Y-chromosome."

Of course, these new samples may carry the right y Dna lineage. It just arrived later than anyone thought.

Given that it's so late, might it in fact have been brought by Scythians?

I have lots of questions, but no answers.

LeBrok
14-04-18, 22:35
Looking to all of this, perhaps IE invasions into Iran/Persia happened at the beginning of Iron Age and were done by Scythian tribes. Hens, similarity of languages. After all, after BA collapse there was perfect time to invade and conquer. Movement of Steppe Nations down south (and also west) is often caused by harsh cold weather periods in central Asia. This happened at BA collapse event. These economic collapses also causes informational blackouts, known as Dark Ages, and extremely little information survives of whatever happened at this time. However, it doesn't mean that nothing happened then. Actually on contre, lots is happening at these periods, more than ever, and new maps of nations and languages have to be made afterwards.

Having said that, there is still a possibility that proto IE language was a language of Iranian Farmers, who went to the Steppe to teach farming and new language to locals there.

halfalp
14-04-18, 22:59
Might be that Andronovo ( wich is an amazingly big territory ) was a yamna-like culture with multiple regional culture and that one R1a-Z93 elite in that culture explode to become the major indo-aryan lineage but it's not necessarily the case for iran and indo-iranian languages. Just imagine Andronovo like yamna with R1b-Z2103 and L-23, P297, or even other clades. The story for the indo-europeanization of iran and india might be more complicate and narrow that we previously thought.

A. Papadimitriou
15-04-18, 01:18
I find very little interesting at anthrogenica on this or anything else lately. There are still a few, very few, good posters at Eurogenes. This is one post that I think is interesting:"We already have a pretty large amount of samples from the steppe with R1a-Z93, but all of them (AFAIK) belong to Z2123 subclade, not the sister L657, which is the big one in India.If Andronovo was 99% R1a-Z2123, it's pretty much impossible that a big impact in the Y-chromosome (a la Western Europe) happened, or we should see Z2123 as the main lineage in India. So if L657 came along with Z2123 (which looks reasonable), it was a very minor lineage that couldn't have much impact initially. It just happened to grow within India during teh last 3500 years. That could have happened in any way, including in a population that was 90% IVC derived, both autosomally and in the Y-chromosome."Of course, these new samples may carry the right y Dna lineage. It just arrived later than anyone thought.Given that it's so late, might it in fact have been brought by Scythians?I have lots of questions, but no answers. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y3/
I believe R-Y3 could have originated somewhere between Caucasus and NE Iran and expanded mostly with Iranic speakers from 'West Asia'. Herodotus says that there were six Median tribes, one of them were the Magi.

The existence of a priestly tribe among the 'Arians' probably played a role. That doesn't have to mean that this haplogroup existed in the PIE homeland, wherever it was. The existence in a priestly tribe is probably good enough to explain what we see with Brahmins.

Concerning, the date Indo-Iranians arrived in India I asked once for a terminus ante quem in Davidski's blog but he avoided to answer. He has made many posts about where R1a1 originated, but no posts about what it would mean if it appears too late in South Asia.

(I stated my opinion but Underhill seemed to have believed that it could have existed in IVC. If it was already there that early it would be easier to explain why it appears also in Indian tribals)

halfalp
15-04-18, 01:45
But nobody bring back into question the origin of R1a-Z93 into the steppe here or i miss something from the study ?

halfalp
15-04-18, 02:06
I know that people and myself included ( i dont like to play the conspiracist ) gonna hate what i just say but even if the paper doesn't contradicte the steppe hypothesis for some reason it create a controversy over amateur archeogeneticsts. First that one R1b-Z2103 sample ( exactly the major one of yamnaya while all of his parent are in europe ) hypothetically date in the perfect range of time ( 5900-5500 BC ) for an south entering into the steppe and secondly the lake of R1a in iron age indian sub-continent and the clear voluntee from Reich to push both agenda that R1b-Z2103 and R1a-Z93 where respectivally in north-east iran and north-west iran before their propagation seems weird and inclined. It seems pretty clear that R1a is the major haplogroup from Steppe_MLBA and this paper shows Steppe_MLBA in Central Asia. A lot of rambling for a pre-print, people that was staying quit with the Southeastern europe paper and Baltic one resurface because they see an opportunity or lack. Very controversial, i hope Harvard Med didn't put some political stance into this paper, seems unlikely but still.

Edit: If i understand completely Reich's point he thinks that R1b-Z2103 sample bring PIE in the steppe from a previous iran neolithic language. So Satem languages came in Iran and India by Iran Neolithic and Steppe pastoralists of the R1a groupe but with a centum language replace most of the paleolithic and neolithic male lineage at some time. So do he consider Balto-Slavic as an importation from R1a scythians keeping satem language in India and going north to the land of their ancestor ?

Reich seems a very compliant guy he first says that CWC and Yamnaya where very violent and dramatic for the previous male demographic and finish by saying " stay open " to immigration. I wonder if in the futur, some people gonna actually study the bronze age history and the modern one, and taking the conclusion that " if races exists well women doesn't have any race ".

Olympus Mons
15-04-18, 14:39
I know that people and myself included ( i dont like to play the conspiracist ) gonna hate what i just say but even if the paper doesn't contradicte the steppe hypothesis for some reason it create a controversy over amateur archeogeneticsts........ women doesn't have any race ".


Halfalp,
A couple comments on your comments.
Rambling is because of a couple facts:


Finally, after a long period of simplistic views, every new paper with new samples gives a twist to the story…. as expected. Many of us have warned that the narratives were being made with only a couple dots to make the lines, so a more complex one would arise.
The new narrative from Krauses, Haak and Reich“s” of this academia world , is in the direction of a more mature view of space and time. There was a lot of people. And that Lots of people with time (plenty of time) moved around. So, there will be a large amount of clines -- like the new Western Siberia cline that might be making some of the Yamnaya to be fake).
Examples: hypothetical. we need to have samples from kelteminar culture and if there wasn’t plenty of EHG “look a like” component and later mixing with more CHG /Iran N in the south shores of Caspian and have influences in the populations of places like Azerbaijan that might not be exactly the same as the population in Hajji Firuz or other more southern regions. Its these clines that might change the story… remember the Caspian and the black sea were smaller. There are plains that today are under water, circumferences by mountains on the other side. So, population might be slightly different ?
Are we sure, Shulaveri didn’t have, when migrating to Steppe in 4900 bc a “steppe” component because some of the people they mixed in Azrbaijan side already showed EHG or something similar? – Interesting times coming soon, now that the “gods” of Adna discovered south Caucasus.
Or exactly the same in places that are black spots or black holes, like Bulgaria, Romania and moldova where due to probably economic conditions in the last century, archeology never really went that far. So there is lots to learn from those. We know that places around had lots of R1b and we know nothing of what happened there in the 5th , 4th millennia. And it might turnout very important for the understanding of population in space and time. – Like, who is to say we wont find R1b L23 (Xall) there?

halfalp
15-04-18, 14:54
Halfalp,
A couple comments on your comments.
Rambling is because of a couple facts:


Finally, after a long period of simplistic views, every new paper with new samples gives a twist to the story…. as expected. Many of us have warned that the narratives were being made with only a couple dots to make the lines, so a more complex one would arise.
The new narrative from Krauses, Haak and Reich“s” of this academia world , is in the direction of a more mature view of space and time. There was a lot of people. And that Lots of people with time (plenty of time) moved around. So, there will be a large amount of clines -- like the new Western Siberia cline that might be making some of the Yamnaya to be fake).
Examples: hypothetical. we need to have samples from kelteminar culture and if there wasn’t plenty of EHG “look a like” component and later mixing with more CHG /Iran N in the south shores of Caspian and have influences in the populations of places like Azerbaijan that might not be exactly the same as the population in Hajji Firuz or other more southern regions. Its these clines that might change the story… remember the Caspian and the black sea were smaller. There are plains that today are under water, circumferences by mountains on the other side. So, population might be slightly different ?
Are we sure, Shulaveri didn’t have, when migrating to Steppe in 4900 bc a “steppe” component because some of the people they mixed in Azrbaijan side already showed EHG or something similar? – Interesting times coming soon, now that the “gods” of Adna discovered south Caucasus.
Or exactly the same in places that are black spots or black holes, like Bulgaria, Romania and moldova where due to probably economic conditions in the last century, archeology never really went that far. So there is lots to learn from those. We know that places around had lots of R1b and we know nothing of what happened there in the 5th , 4th millennia. And it might turnout very important for the understanding of population in space and time. – Like, who is to say we wont find R1b L23 (Xall) there?

You have an high confidence for your thoughts, but you should not say that those are simplistic hypothesis when your hypothesis focus on hypothetic first world wine-makers.

markozd
15-04-18, 15:42
Do you know whether any kurgan of ancient west asian culture like Shulaveri-Shomu culture or kura alex has the following yamna burial structure? It looks different from what I has thought til now.



As far as I know, this kind of burial layers is related with central asia ANE culture.) I think even maykop kurgab would not have this kind of structure, considering that archaeologist does not connect steppe culture to maykop culture.

looks like one mound kurgan has two layers of this, but more deeper pit:

http://siberiantimes.com/PICTURES/SCIENCE/Okunevo-burial-ground-Itkol/inside_burials.jpg
http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0252-found-grave-of-siberian-noblewoman-up-to-4500-years-old-with-links-to-native-americans/


The papers that first described the Chalcolithic kurgans south of the Cacausus are Lyonnet et al. (2008) & Museyibli (2008a). I do think however that Yamnaya kurgans are modelled after those of Kemi Oba & Maikop. Seems unlikely they came up with the practice on their own at the same time and in the same place.

markozd
15-04-18, 15:44
I know that people and myself included ( i dont like to play the conspiracist ) gonna hate what i just say but even if the paper doesn't contradicte the steppe hypothesis for some reason it create a controversy over amateur archeogeneticsts. First that one R1b-Z2103 sample ( exactly the major one of yamnaya while all of his parent are in europe ) hypothetically date in the perfect range of time ( 5900-5500 BC ) for an south entering into the steppe and secondly the lake of R1a in iron age indian sub-continent and the clear voluntee from Reich to push both agenda that R1b-Z2103 and R1a-Z93 where respectivally in north-east iran and north-west iran before their propagation seems weird and inclined. It seems pretty clear that R1a is the major haplogroup from Steppe_MLBA and this paper shows Steppe_MLBA in Central Asia. A lot of rambling for a pre-print, people that was staying quit with the Southeastern europe paper and Baltic one resurface because they see an opportunity or lack. Very controversial, i hope Harvard Med didn't put some political stance into this paper, seems unlikely but still.

Edit: If i understand completely Reich's point he thinks that R1b-Z2103 sample bring PIE in the steppe from a previous iran neolithic language. So Satem languages came in Iran and India by Iran Neolithic and Steppe pastoralists of the R1a groupe but with a centum language replace most of the paleolithic and neolithic male lineage at some time. So do he consider Balto-Slavic as an importation from R1a scythians keeping satem language in India and going north to the land of their ancestor ?

Reich seems a very compliant guy he first says that CWC and Yamnaya where very violent and dramatic for the previous male demographic and finish by saying " stay open " to immigration. I wonder if in the futur, some people gonna actually study the bronze age history and the modern one, and taking the conclusion that " if races exists well women doesn't have any race ".

We don't know what David Reich's point is. The paper was published after the release of his book I think.

You need to calm down and ignore what the amateur community thinks. Until recently, amateurs would have you believe that R1b came from some imagined Hyperborea in Siberia. Those who pointed out that based on basal diversity R1b must have had a long presence in the Balkans were ridiculed. Then after the South-Eastern Europe paper was published R1b suddenly became 'native European'. This will turn out to be equally misguided.

Silesian
15-04-18, 16:15
This December, this article will be 4 years old.
1)ANE was used as the original model component; antiquity.
2)Yamnaya was ruled out through genetic evidence.
3)Maikop samples were collected proposals pending.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/

Olympus Mons
15-04-18, 16:16
You have an high confidence for your thoughts, but you should not say that those are simplistic hypothesis when your hypothesis focus on hypothetic first world wine-makers.

Have no idea what you are talking about.

johen
15-04-18, 16:59
The papers that first described the Chalcolithic kurgans south of the Cacausus are Lyonnet et al. (2008) & Museyibli (2008a). I do think however that Yamnaya kurgans are modelled after those of Kemi Oba & Maikop. Seems unlikely they came up with the practice on their own at the same time and in the same place.

Looks like you don’t know their structure.
I think oldest mound kurgan was found in west siberia on 2015. So I believed that archaeologists said that mound kurgan origianted in pit-house.
https://www.newhistorian.com/stone-age-burial-mound-discovered-in-siberia/5082/

Marija Gimbutas also said that yamna culture is similar to modern vola-ural culture, which originated in south-east (corded-ware culture) and east.
Moreover, we can find this kind of two layer burial mounds in american Indian, but w/o pits.

halfalp
15-04-18, 17:08
We don't know what David Reich's point is. The paper was published after the release of his book I think.

You need to calm down and ignore what the amateur community thinks. Until recently, amateurs would have you believe that R1b came from some imagined Hyperborea in Siberia. Those who pointed out that based on basal diversity R1b must have had a long presence in the Balkans were ridiculed. Then after the South-Eastern Europe paper was published R1b suddenly became 'native European'. This will turn out to be equally misguided.I dont think any archeogenetic amateurs thinks R1b itself is native to europe, but the fact that ancestral R1b clades are found in prehistoric europe and that people still argue for an south caucasus origin of R1b, because of the CHG component in yamnaya and late neolithic / chalcolithic eastern europe goes over me. Yamnaya have actually a lot of different R1b subclades and also I2a2 and R1a subclades, we dont know who bring what to the pontic steppe whatever R1b-Z2103 is the major subclades of yamnaya. With the actual datas, you cant be overconfident that R1b and PIE are native from middle-east or you dont look at the big picture. When you say Hyperborea in Siberia, you are actually mean that you try to debunk some master-race bias no ? Political correctness are not an argument whatsoever. If we follow your argument on basal diversity, so Underhill was right when he said that R1a came from South Caucasus sometimes 5000 BC. But are we really arguing here that R1a and R1b where all in epipaleolithic and mesolithic europe but that they are both coming from Kurdistan ? And yes, all the prehistoric R1a or R1b found in europe might not be the direct ancestors of the modern people and might be dead ends, but this is actually only a personal opinion dont follow by any real datas. When you are overconfident about what you say, you dont just ally to facts but you also have an ideoligical stance that you admit it or not.

halfalp
15-04-18, 17:12
Have no idea what you are talking about.You've said yourself that you believe that Shulaveri Shomu and R1b where the first wine makers and you said you rely on that to know what regional south caucasus culture was related with Shulaveri Shomo, thats on this thread few pages ago.

johen
15-04-18, 17:15
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y3/
I believe R-Y3 could have originated somewhere between Caucasus and NE Iran and expanded mostly with Iranic speakers from 'West Asia'. Herodotus says that there were six Median tribes, one of them were the Magi.


If so, how can we explain that mayan culture is extremely similar to Hindu culture originated in Rigveda?


a former ambassador of the United States to Mexico, in his two-volume 1930's treatise The Ayar-Incas called the Mayan Civilization 'unquestionably Hindu'
Ithihaasa: The Mystery of His Story Is My Story of History

Plz see this picture
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/03/bf/e3/03bfe35a1b897afbdd3ae4d395a75bae.jpg

okunevo third eye culture:
http://elbilge.ucoz.com/_ph/25/2/961271527.jpg
https://displacedgodsc1.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/hindu-bindi.jpeg


A bindi (Hindi: बिंदी, from Sanskrit bindu, meaning "point, drop, dot or small particle") is a colored dot worn on the centre of the forehead, commonly by Hindu and Jain women. The word bindu dates back to the hymn of creation known as Nasadiya Sukta in the Rigveda.[1] Bindu is considered the point at which creation begins and may become unity. It is also described as "the sacred symbol of the cosmos in its unmanifested state".[2][3] A bindi is a bright dot of some colour applied in the centre of the forehead close to the eyebrows worn in South Asia (particularly amongst Hindus in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka)[2] and Southeast Asia among Bali and Javanese Hindus. A similar marking is also worn by babies and children in China and, like in South and Southeast Asia, represents the opening of the third eye.[4] Bindi in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism is associated with ajna chakra, and Bindu[5] is known as the third eye chakra.

In the northern fringes of the steppe belt, I stressed the extreme importance of the Okunev Culture which had on the one hand connections with the Far East and, on the other, definite links with the south of Central Asia. Meanwhile I discovered a group of petroglyphs in the Indus Valley, near Chilas, that is connected with the engravings of the Okunev Culture by the main motifs and stylistic peculiarities. In addition to one report on my findings (Jettmar 1982: 298-302), others are forthcoming. It is not improbable that during the third and early second millemmia B.C. there were relations over thousands of kilometers, perhaps due to migrations of cattle-keeping Early Nomads. Other connections leading in the same direction were observed by Stacul (1977:251-252) and the Allchins (1982:111-116).

markozd
15-04-18, 17:37
Looks like you don’t know their structure.
I think oldest mound kurgan was found in west siberia on 2015. So I believed that archaeologists said that mound kurgan origianted in pit-house.
https://www.newhistorian.com/stone-age-burial-mound-discovered-in-siberia/5082/

Marija Gimbutas also said that yamna culture is similar to modern vola-ural culture, which originated in south-east (corded-ware culture) and east.
Moreover, we can find this kind of two layer burial mounds in american Indian, but w/o pits.

When talking about Bronze Age Kurgans what's usually meant is single-grave mounds, often associated with high-status males. Collective burial mounds seem to exist almost everywhere.

johen
15-04-18, 17:42
When talking about Bronze Age Kurgans what's usually meant is single-grave mounds, often associated with high-status males. Collective burial mounds seem to exist almost everywhere.

That is what I always thought.
Problem is typical yamna kurgans do not apply both case, sorry.
It is correct of archaeologists not to connect steppe culture even to maykop.

markozd
15-04-18, 17:47
I dont think any archeogenetic amateurs thinks R1b itself is native to europe, but the fact that ancestral R1b clades are found in prehistoric europe and that people still argue for an south caucasus origin of R1b, because of the CHG component in yamnaya and late neolithic / chalcolithic eastern europe goes over me. Yamnaya have actually a lot of different R1b subclades and also I2a2 and R1a subclades, we dont know who bring what to the pontic steppe whatever R1b-Z2103 is the major subclades of yamnaya. With the actual datas, you cant be overconfident that R1b and PIE are native from middle-east or you dont look at the big picture. When you say Hyperborea in Siberia, you are actually mean that you try to debunk some master-race bias no ? Political correctness are not an argument whatsoever. If we follow your argument on basal diversity, so Underhill was right when he said that R1a came from South Caucasus sometimes 5000 BC. But are we really arguing here that R1a and R1b where all in epipaleolithic and mesolithic europe but that they are both coming from Kurdistan ? And yes, all the prehistoric R1a or R1b found in europe might not be the direct ancestors of the modern people and might be dead ends, but this is actually only a personal opinion dont follow by any real datas. When you are overconfident about what you say, you dont just ally to facts but you also have an ideoligical stance that you admit it or not.

There are no ancestral haplotypes, just clades that branched off earlier. That's the point. We have many so many samples from Europe and it seems to be R1b-M269 wasteland. I had thought that M269 could have originated in the vicinity of present day Romania or Bulgaria, but the R1b there is too far removed - it makes no sense whatsoever.

I do not find the case for an origin of R1b-M269 on the Iranian plateau very strong either, to be honest. These places are rather overstudied compared to other regions in the Middle East. But to get an idea we'd need a decent amount of pre-neolithic samples.

halfalp
15-04-18, 17:59
There are no ancestral haplotypes, just clades that branched off earlier. That's the point. We have many so many samples from Europe and it seems to be R1b-M269 wasteland. I had thought that M269 could have originated in the vicinity of present day Romania or Bulgaria, but the R1b there is too far removed - it makes no sense whatsoever.I do not find the case for an origin of R1b-M269 on the Iranian plateau very strong either, to be honest. These places are rather overstudied compared to other regions in the Middle East. But to get an idea we'd need a decent amount of pre-neolithic samples.My first ever post on this forum concist of an immature theory that at a certain time when the black sea could be a lake, R1a would be situated north of this one and R1b in south. Funny things the only thing i was rely on is that a noticed that in modern R1b population a lot of physical Dinarid or Armenid features where especially in irland so i thought R1b was somehow linked with balkans and or anatolia / armenia. At this time, we didn't know that yamnaya was mostly R1b so i forget the idea, but the history of southeastern europe shows us that balkans where actually way more regional that the very centralized neolithic europe previously thoughts so. A few monthes ago some genetist renamed Villabruna 1 R1b-M269 instead of L754 what is the actual thoughts on that ? M269 ancestor P297 is a high prehistoric Baltic and maybe Steppe marker, so it would be weird that M269 originate in Armenia or Western Iran. But history of southeastern europe also shows us that a region that we previously thought being overwhelming G2a had R1b pockets in and there so your idea about a romanian or bulgarian R1b-M269 origin is not flawed, might be even north anatolia or georgia, even if a contradicte previous recent thoughts by saying that.

Angela
15-04-18, 18:05
People should stop creating straw man arguments. I think it's certainly possible the group which Reich proposes might have brought not only culture and genes but the perhaps proto-Indo-European language to the steppe carried an R1b lineage. That absolutely does not mean that I think R1b necessarily originated south of the Caucasus, and even if it did, clearly there was not necessarily continuity there.

I don't know why it's so difficult to visualize certain yDna bearing groups wandering long distances, since we know R1b V88 did just that. The area around the Caucasus seems to have been an area with lots of south/north and north/south back and forth movement. I see no difficulty in proposing that an R1b clade might have moved south, become autosomally "southern", and then moved back onto the steppe.

halfalp
15-04-18, 18:18
People should stop creating straw man arguments. I think it's certainly possible the group which Reich proposes might have brought not only culture and genes but the perhaps proto-Indo-European language to the steppe carried an R1b lineage. That absolutely does not mean that I think R1b necessarily originated south of the Caucasus, and even if it did, clearly there was not necessarily continuity there.

I don't know why it's so difficult to visualize certain yDna bearing groups wandering long distances, since we know R1b V88 did just that. The area around the Caucasus seems to have been an area with lots of south/north and north/south back and forth movement. I see no difficulty in proposing that an R1b clade might have moved south, become autosomally "southern", and then moved back onto the steppe.Because when we make assumptions about europe history people argue that the reality might be more complicated, but when it's about something else, everything is so much fast accepted. M269 direct ancestor is in prehistoric europe and we dont have any mesolithic anatolia dna or even prehistoric caucasus dna to draw a continuum of haplogroups patern. I agree that prehistoric people, especially women have travel very far of their grand-parent homeland, but we cant be for sure. What i'm personnaly standing against is the idea that there was 2 pockets of R1b one in prehistoric europe and one in prehistoric south caucasus that evolved independently and so became two different population after the years. If we take ancient dna and modern dna, if we follow that trail it would mean same subgroups evolved at thousand of miles to each other. You would assume that there was R1b-L754, V-88 and P-297 at the same time in prehistoric europe and prehistoric south caucasus but that only the latter would be relevent for modern ancestry, wich is very very doubtful.

markozd
15-04-18, 18:28
My first ever post on this forum concist of an immature theory that at a certain time when the black sea could be a lake, R1a would be situated north of this one and R1b in south. Funny things the only thing i was rely on is that a noticed that in modern R1b population a lot of physical Dinarid or Armenid features where especially in irland so i thought R1b was somehow linked with balkans and or anatolia / armenia. At this time, we didn't know that yamnaya was mostly R1b so i forget the idea, but the history of southeastern europe shows us that balkans where actually way more regional that the very centralized neolithic europe previously thoughts so. A few monthes ago some genetist renamed Villabruna 1 R1b-M269 instead of L754 what is the actual thoughts on that ? M269 ancestor P297 is a high prehistoric Baltic and maybe Steppe marker, so it would be weird that M269 originate in Armenia or Western Iran. But history of southeastern europe also shows us that a region that we previously thought being overwhelming G2a had R1b pockets in and there so your idea about a romanian or bulgarian R1b-M269 origin is not flawed, might be even north anatolia or georgia, even if a contradicte previous recent thoughts by saying that.

Yes, P297 in Latvia is interesting, but it's far too late and the first human settlements seem to be associated with the Kunda culture. To test a northern origin, one would have to look at samples from LUP Ukraine and Russia. Mezine culture is interesting in that regards. There are some lesser known LUP sites in Russia too, but human settlements after LGM seem to be scarce, generally speaking.

However, M269 is at least 13000 years old, and basal diversity is heavily concentrated in the Near East, the Caucasus and around Persian Gulf. R1b* is exclusive to Kurdish & Iranian groups from Iran & Kazakhstan. That makes a probability of an ultimate northern orign rather low, IMHO.

All of that has nothing to do with the PIE question though. We have seen several cases of Y-DNA replacement despite high likelihood for language continuity, so these things shouldn't be conflated.

halfalp
15-04-18, 18:39
Yes, P297 in Latvia is interesting, but it's far too late and the first human settlements seem to be associated with the Kunda culture. To test a northern origin, one would have to look at samples from LUP Ukraine and Russia. Mezine culture is interesting in that regards. There are some lesser known LUP sites in Russia too, but human settlements after LGM seem to be scarce, generally speaking.

However, M269 is at least 13000 years old, and basal diversity is heavily concentrated in the Near East, the Caucasus and around Persian Gulf. R1b* is exclusive to Kurdish & Iranian groups from Iran & Kazakhstan. That makes a probability of an ultimate northern orign rather low, IMHO.

All of that should has nothing to do with the PIE question though. We have seen several cases of Y-DNA replacement despite high likelihood for language continuity, so these things shouldn't be conflated.Yes, but Near East have very basal and diverse variety from a lot of different haplogroups, so like neolithic europe, we can also argue if the prehistoric R1b from europe came from near east they would bring other haplogroups with them, or we just have missed them in the sampling of prehistoric europe. I'm always unconfortable with the dating of subgroups, if M269 is 13'000 old, how much is P-297 ? with that long time range, it can virtually makes R1b being from everywhere in eurasia and lost previous component to others. Also i'm pretty sur there is basal R1b* in europe we could actually also see to a very ancient migration from a R1b* like population from somewhere into middle-east. One of the oldest R1a clade is found mostly in Arabia, does it make R1a an middle-eastern lineage ? i dont think so. If nothing is static for the holocene so nothing is static for all the history. Oldest R* so far is from Mal'ta as we know, but basal lineage are found in southeastern asia if i remember correctly. So we assume that those basal R1b* from middle-east never migrate between more than 15'000 years ? Personnally, i get tired of PIE hypothesis.

markozd
15-04-18, 18:55
Yes, but Near East have very basal and diverse variety from a lot of different haplogroups, so like neolithic europe, we can also argue if the prehistoric R1b from europe came from near east they would bring other haplogroups with them, or we just have missed them in the sampling of prehistoric europe. I'm always unconfortable with the dating of subgroups, if M269 is 13'000 old, how much is P-297 ? with that long time range, it can virtually makes R1b being from everywhere in eurasia and lost previous component to others. Also i'm pretty sur there is basal R1b* in europe we could actually also see to a very ancient migration from a R1b* like population from somewhere into middle-east. One of the oldest R1a clade is found mostly in Arabia, does it make R1a an middle-eastern lineage ? i dont think so. If nothing is static for the holocene so nothing is static for all the history. Oldest R* so far is from Mal'ta as we know, but basal lineage are found in southeastern asia if i remember correctly. So we assume that those basal R1b* from middle-east never migrate between more than 15'000 years ? Personnally, i get tired of PIE hypothesis.

You are absolutely right that a single basal haplgroup is not a strong argument, but when the weight of the basal types points towards a specific region I think that can be considered at least indicative of a long presence in the region, since it reduces the possibility of an origin in another location where stochastic processes could have simply pruned all those basal types. If the date of the R1b-Z2103 in the paper can be confirmed, that would be quite itneresting since the basal types seem to be distributed in the range from the northern Persian Gulf to Dagestan. But I'd reserve judgement until then.

As for R1a, the very basal types seem to be in Iraq, the Gulf and North Africa. I don't find that very surprising if one presupposes an origin of R1 in Central Asia or vicinity. If you get above R, everything seems to point east. P1 in South & Central Asia and an almost unambiguous diversification of K2 in southeast Asia.

halfalp
15-04-18, 19:13
You are absolutely right that a single basal haplgroup is not a strong argument, but when the weight of the basal types points towards a specific region I think that can be considered at least indicative of a long presence in the region, since it reduces the possibility of an origin in another location where stochastic processes could have simply pruned all those basal types. If the date of the R1b-Z2103 in the paper can be confirmed, that would be quite itneresting since the basal types seem to be distributed in the range from the northern Persian Gulf to Dagestan. But I'd reserve judgement until then.

As for R1a, the very basal types seem to be in Iraq, the Gulf and North Africa. I don't find that very surprising if one presupposes an origin of R1 in Central Asia or vicinity. If you get above R, everything seems to point east. P1 in South & Central Asia and an almost unambiguous diversification of K2 in southeast Asia.
I dont think but could be very wrong that those basal R1b* are significiant if they are all related for exemple with iranian ethnic, they could be for exemple being stationed for millenia in modern Turkmenistan and migrate at a certain point because of population movement but at the same time, being culturally integrated to stay in a certain geographic and cultural-ethnic continuum. About the Z2103 sample, i'm actually try to compute in my head how P297 - M269 - L23 and Z2103 could be distribute in those time, without coumpting every little subclades downstream from P297 that mostly nobody knows about aside of modern samples. I'm not enough cultivate in population movement and not at all at sampling computing, but for those very related subclades i hope to think that their geographic distance can not be so dramatic. Satsurblia and Kotias somehow kill the idea that some R1b subclades could be native to the southern part of the caucasus mountains, but we dont have dna from the northern side. There is J1 in Satsurblia totally CHG and J1 in Karelia totally EHG. So we might also think to the idea of a first movement from the north to the south of the caucasus by some R1b, and a remigration with southern genetic and cultural package. Thing is, this story as no end because multiple theoric important places for explain the migration pattern are not sampled if they are one day, it might not be the good time range.

holderlin
15-04-18, 20:39
Everyone repeat after me:

"Indo-Iranian languages came from bronze age steppe populations"

This is as factual of a statement as we can get with this "science". There's been 3 papers now showing significant EBA_Steppe and LMBA_steppe ancestry in Indic and Iranian speakers, one of which is using known ancient Scythian genomes. And some of these samples were almost completely steppe genotypes. So we have archaeology, historical record, linguistics, and genetics all aligning. This is an important fact that people are dismissing in their attempts to disprove steppe PIE and/or Sanskrit steppe origins.

Not being able to find a bunch of R1a at a certain time and certain place doesn't undo the ancient autosomal data, modern autosomal data, the R1a seen in ancient Iranian speakers, or the historical attestation of Avestan and Sanskrit.

halfalp
15-04-18, 21:08
Everyone repeat after me:

"Indo-Iranian languages came from bronze age steppe populations"

This is as factual of a statement as we can get with this "science". There's been 3 papers now showing significant EBA_Steppe and LMBA_steppe ancestry in Indic and Iranian speakers, one of which is using known ancient Scythian genomes. And some of these samples were almost completely steppe genotypes. So we have archaeology, historical record, linguistics, and genetics all aligning. This is an important fact that people are dismissing in their attempts to disprove steppe PIE and/or Sanskrit steppe origins.

Not being able to find a bunch of R1a at a certain time and certain place doesn't undo the ancient autosomal data, modern autosomal data, the R1a seen in ancient Iranian speakers, or the historical attestation of Avestan and Sanskrit.

I think what people against what your say thinks is that R1a-Z93 and its indian downstream even if it was found in a Srubnaya context etc and because those indian sample doesn't have any R1a, R1a might be just a recent explosion into the highest indian class and because they where always wealthier, they become the predominant male lineage. A very communist story for the least. I dont know how this disprove the steppe origin of II languages because going from a clade related to modern population that could be out of the time frame for the steppe hypothesis doesn't all of a sudden rethink the all idea and place for exemple the origin of Indo-Iranian in Iran Neolithic related people. This is so over complicated, this just shows that people dont want those languages come from the steppe. To put a new hypothesis on the table, new datas must simplify history not complicate it, if it complicate it, it means people try to wright a story against a simple proved theory.

markozd
15-04-18, 21:56
Still interesting that Indians at the time of the composition of the Vedas (I think the most famous AIT proponent Witzel put the location of the Rig-Veda in Punjab around 1400 - 1000 B. C. E., right between those samples) and during the lifetime of Buddha should have had an Y-DNA composition totally unlike today.

I believe there is a real possibility that cremation was more associated with certain Y-DNA, or that there might have been isles of R1a already in the subcontinent at that time. But that doesn't explain the high frequency of R1a-L657 in non-priestly groups of northern India.

Also interesting that the steppe influence in the samples we have is obvious on the maternal side.

halfalp
15-04-18, 22:09
Still interesting that Indians at the time of the composition of the Vedas (I think the most famous AIT proponent Witzel put the location of the Rig-Veda in Punjab around 1400 - 1000 B. C. E., right between those samples) and during the lifetime of Buddha should have had an Y-DNA composition totally unlike today.

I believe there is a real possibility that cremation was more associated with certain Y-DNA, or that there might have been isles of R1a already in the subcontinent at that time. But that doesn't explain the high frequency of R1a-L657 in non-priestly groups of northern India.

Also interesting that the steppe influence in the samples we have is obvious on the maternal side.Not really sure if its relevent but, in antiquity, there was an Indo-Scythian Kingdom rulling some part of the northern part of the indian subcontinent. Another possibility might be more regional, with R1a related tribes from maybe modern Afghanistan raiding multiple times throught the khyber pass pakistan and norther india. I think there was a tribe named the Kambojas in actual afghanistan known for their very pastoral and martial lifestyle. Interesting that they only have steppe dna coming from woman, might be a trail for cremation. Do we know the R1a subclades for ethne like for exemple Nuristani or Dardic people and are they rulling into the cast system ?

markozd
15-04-18, 22:19
Not really sure if its relevent but, in antiquity, there was an Indo-Scythian Kingdom rulling some part of the northern part of the indian subcontinent. Another possibility might be more regional, with R1a related tribes from maybe modern Afghanistan raiding multiple times throught the khyber pass pakistan and norther india. I think there was a tribe named the Kambojas in actual afghanistan known for their very pastoral and martial lifestyle. Interesting that they only have steppe dna coming from woman, might be a trail for cremation. Do we know the R1a subclades for ethne like for exemple Nuristani or Dardic people and are they rulling into the cast system ?

I might be missing some, but as far as I know the only Indo-Aryan group that isn't predominantly L657 are the Chitral speaking Kalasha, who carry the Iranian variety Z2124.

I've also thought about the Scythians, but how would they have been able to spread their Y-DNA so thoroughly throughout the subcontinent?

halfalp
15-04-18, 22:47
I might be missing some, but as far as I know the only Indo-Aryan group that isn't predominantly L657 are the Chitral speaking Kalasha, who carry the Iranian variety Z2124.I've also thought about the Scythians, but how would they have been able to spread their Y-DNA so thoroughly throughout the subcontinent?Well we should first assume Scythian kingdoms doesn't where precarious kingdoms. If we take for exemple the Kushan Empire that lead North India for 300 years, i dont think they had a substantial genetic input, or do they ? I was more thinking about the fact that maybe in the " great india " including pakistan and afghanistan or even iran there might be more mobility than we previously thought and that the L657 could be come in antiquity from those place it wouldn't have a huge impact on culture because for two reasons, 1. they would all be primarly indo-iranian culturally and 2. the language might not shift because the priest order or caste was not removed whatever wich Indo-Iranian tribe would govern at a time. Avestic and Vedic shows strong link, we can imagine that all the Irano-Indian ethnocultural state autoinfluence itself with inner migrations. Certainly, scythians and ancestors of iranians and indians where already shifted in late iron age and that it takes time for the actual clades to emerge in numbers without any specific tribe.

markozd
15-04-18, 23:20
Well we should first assume Scythian kingdoms doesn't where precarious kingdoms. If we take for exemple the Kushan Empire that lead North India for 300 years, i dont think they had a substantial genetic input, or do they ? I was more thinking about the fact that maybe in the " great india " including pakistan and afghanistan or even iran there might be more mobility than we previously thought and that the L657 could be come in antiquity from those place it wouldn't have a huge impact on culture because for two reasons, 1. they would all be primarly indo-iranian culturally and 2. the language might not shift because the priest order or caste was not removed whatever wich Indo-Iranian tribe would govern at a time. Avestic and Vedic shows strong link, we can imagine that all the Irano-Indian ethnocultural state autoinfluence itself with inner migrations. Certainly, scythians and ancestors of iranians and indians where already shifted in late iron age and that it takes time for the actual clades to emerge in numbers without any specific tribe.

I consider this a distinct possbility to be honest. The caste system was only instated in the Gupta period, so perhaps it exaggerated this kind of stratification and expecting lots and lots of R1a already in proto-historic times was really misguided.

halfalp
15-04-18, 23:33
I consider this a distinct possbility to be honest. The caste system was only instated in the Gupta period, so perhaps it exaggerated this kind of stratification and expecting lots and lots of R1a already in proto-historic times was really misguided.I was not referring to the Brahmin cast system but more in the general priest order that every indo-european culture had. When bell beaker invaded western europe, the native didnt have any relation both culturally and linguistically with the newcomers, so at long indo-europeans overrun the natifs. Indo-Iranian is a different story, we can imagine that Proto-Indo-Iranians outpassed BMAC and happenned to arrived and run a giant territory going from modern iran, at least eastern iran for the beginning, afghanistan, pakistan, north indian, maybe even up to the ferghana valley. From there, Proto-Indo-Iranians slightly shift with their northern scythian counterpart, but following the centuries, they little by little lost their proximity each other by mixing with the regional locals but keep their cultural relationship. So we could see an elite coming from exemple for afghanistan, rule some north india chieftains, give some genetic input ( different R1a clades, even maybe others ) but keep the local culture and language because it was not very different from their original one.

markozd
15-04-18, 23:41
By the way, I went through the mtDNA again because something about the overall composition struck me as odd, but I couldn't put my finger on it. There is something that connects those Indians to the Black Sea and Eastern Europe area that is unlikely to have come from Anatolia or Iran. I then noticed that those Indians provide the first rough matches in ancient DNA with Maikop:

Krasnodar Krai, Maikop burial, 4000-3000 BCE, mtdna U8b1a2

Krasnodar Krai, Maikop burial, 3700-3300 BCE mtdna U8b1a2

V1.1.1, , Cucuteni, Ukraine, 3,700–3,500 cal BCE, mtdna U8b1a2

Republic of Adygea, Maikop burial, Russia, 3700-3300 BCE mtdna M52
-----

S8195.E1.L1, Udegram, mt-hg U8b1a2b, y-dna E1b1b1b2

S7719.E1.L1, Shaidu Sharif, mt-hg M52a


I wonder what the connection is, since the former is rather western, while the latter has a distribution on the subcontinent. More very specific matches:

I6547, Barikot, 1000-800 BCE, mtdna U8b1a1

I6194, Udegram, 1376-1041 cal BCE, mtdna U8b1a1, y-DNA CT

-----

I2755, Hungary, 3600-2850 BCE, mtdna U8b1a1, y-DNA I

halfalp
15-04-18, 23:52
By the way, I went through the mtDNA again because something about the overall composition struck me as odd, but I couldn't put my finger on it. There is something that connects those Indians to the Black Sea and Eastern Europe area that is unlikely to have come from Anatolia or Iran. I then noticed that those Indians provide the first rough matches in ancient DNA with Maikop:

Krasnodar Krai, Maikop burial, 4000-3000 BCE, mtdna U8b1a2

Krasnodar Krai, Maikop burial, 3700-3300 BCE mtdna U8b1a2

Republic of Adygea, Maikop burial, Russia, 3700-3300 BCE mtdna M52

-----

S8195.E1.L1, Udegram, mt-hg U8b1a2b, y-dna E1b1b1b2

S7719.E1.L1, Shaidu Sharif, mt-hg M52a


I wonder what the connection is, since the former is rather western, while the latter has a distribution on the subcontinent.Wow U8b1a2 and E1b1b1b2 in swat valley, that's a pretty weird but very interesting call. So why do you believe those maikop mtdna didn't came from south caucasus ?

markozd
16-04-18, 00:01
Wow U8b1a2 and E1b1b1b2 in swat valley, that's a pretty weird but very interesting call. So why do you believe those maikop mtdna didn't came from south caucasus ?

It looks like U8b1 is heavily associated with the northern Black Sea: it's in Mesolithic Ukraine, Iron Gates & Baden Culture.

halfalp
16-04-18, 00:08
It looks like U8b1 is heavily associated with the northern Black Sea: it's in Mesolithic Ukraine, Iron Gates & Baden Culture.What ? i have completely miss those sample. I think i remember the Iron Gates one and fought it would be an early anatolian migration, but mesolithic ukraine ?

Olympus Mons
16-04-18, 00:55
What ? i have completely miss those sample. I think i remember the Iron Gates one and fought it would be an early anatolian migration, but mesolithic ukraine ?

We have a U8b1a1 4486-4320 BC in Armenia as reported by Margaryan et al.
Like I keep saying. Something came from the east (east of Azerbaijan)/south after 4900 bc and rule the region.

But, where are the U8b1a1 in Iron gates and the places you mentioned? - I know of U8b1B1...not a.

halfalp
16-04-18, 01:08
We have a U8b1a1 4486-4320 BC in Armenia as reported by Margaryan et al.
Like I keep saying. Something came from the east (east of Azerbaijan)/south after 4900 bc and rule the region.

But, where are the U8b1a1 in Iron gates and the places you mentioned? - I know of U8b1B1...not a.MarkoZ didn't say any specific downstream apart that it belongs to U8b1

Olympus Mons
16-04-18, 01:23
MarkoZ didn't say any specific downstream apart that it belongs to U8b1

Ok.
I know of first in iron gates, a bit later in barcin anatolia, then armenia pre kura araxes, then Tripolye in balkans.... But not mesolithic ukraine.

markozd
16-04-18, 01:24
What ? i have completely miss those sample. I think i remember the Iron Gates one and fought it would be an early anatolian migration, but mesolithic ukraine ?

I misremembered - it's not Mesolithic but Tripolye already! So theoretically an origin in the southern Cacausus can't be excluded.

Another interesting mtDNA match between South Asia & Europe: U4d, which has a high frequency in Dereivka and associated cultures of Ukrainian HGs.

What is confusing however is the complete lack of U5 in the South Asian samples. Anyone got an idea? There are western mtDNA lineages not found in Iranian farmers, but despite steppe admixture U5 and R1a seem to be missing or scarce. Puzzling, almost as if the steppe group that admixed into South Asia was differentiated from Andronovo & associated cultures.

halfalp
16-04-18, 01:37
I misremembered - it's not Mesolithic but Tripolye already! So theoretically an origin in the southern Cacausus can't be excluded.

Another interesting mtDNA match between South Asia & Europe: U4d, which has a high frequency in Dereivka and associated cultures of Ukrainian HGs.

What is confusing however is the complete lack of U5 in the South Asian samples. Anyone got an idea? There are western mtDNA lineages not found in Iranian farmers, but despite steppe admixture U5 and R1a seem to be missing or scarce. Puzzling, almost as if the steppe group that admixed into South Asia was differentiated from Andronovo & associated cultures.I remember to have saw on Jean Manco site some Mari, sumerian time sample being U4, not really remember wich clade of U4. U5a was very dominant in eastern europe cultures, might just be that U4d was more popular at contrario of U5a. I dont know the prevalence of U5 in modern India, but if there is U5 in modern india it's definitely of steppic origin. Pretty sur for exemple that U5a was found in Afanasevo sample, and even before in neolithic baikal, so they do have roam through the steppe. Seems like this asian study misslead us by her dna sample.

markozd
16-04-18, 02:05
I remember to have saw on Jean Manco site some Mari, sumerian time sample being U4, not really remember wich clade of U4. U5a was very dominant in eastern europe cultures, might just be that U4d was more popular at contrario of U5a. I dont know the prevalence of U5 in modern India, but if there is U5 in modern india it's definitely of steppic origin. Pretty sur for exemple that U5a was found in Afanasevo sample, and even before in neolithic baikal, so they do have roam through the steppe. Seems like this asian study misslead us by her dna sample.

According to Firasat (2007) there's no U5 in the most steppe admixed South Asians, the Kalash. Lots and lots of U4 however:

pre-HV = 22.7%
HV* = 4.5%
H (354, CRS)= 4.5%
U2e = 15.9%
U4 = 34.1%
U7 = 2.3%,
J2 = 9.1%
J1 = 2.3%
T (xT1) = 4.5%

Tbh, considering all this I find it extremely unlikely that Andronovo admixed into these South Asians. I have no alternative explanation however.

By the way, I found another ancient U8b1a2 in Ukraine, CT: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172952&type=printable

halfalp
16-04-18, 02:21
According to Firasat (2007) there's no U5 in the most steppe admixed South Asians, the Kalash. Lots and lots of U4 however:

pre-HV = 22.7%
HV* = 4.5%
H (354, CRS)= 4.5%
U2e = 15.9%
U4 = 34.1%
U7 = 2.3%,
J2 = 9.1%
J1 = 2.3%
T (xT1) = 4.5%

Tbh, considering all this I find it extremely unlikely that Andronovo admixed into these South Asians. I have no alternative explanation however.

By the way, I found another ancient U8b1a2 in Ukraine, CT: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172952&type=printable

Andronovo is just a broad term of related sites like Yamnayas where, we dont know actually at what extend andronovos where shifted between them. For exemple, if we take yamnaya, the eastern part as migrate in east and create afanasevo and the western part as migrate in west and create tisza kurgans. But how those two where really related ? we know they came from the same source but we dont know the exact similarity in there genetic, we know afanasevo was almost indistinguishable from yamaya, but what part of yamnaya ? same from andronovo, what the study said is that BMAC or other eastern iranian neolithic dont have directly participate to indian gene pools, but it's doesn't mean that andronovo was all similar, northern part was more likely to be siberian shifted and southern part to be iranian shifted, so the results can be missleading if we look at andronovo as a genetic coherent whole, more the century have gone, more the steppe component was diluted into regional gene pools. I'm pretty sure we could found some heavy MLBA Steppe in Central Asia, we just have to found them.

markozd
16-04-18, 02:44
Andronovo is just a broad term of related sites like Yamnayas where, we dont know actually at what extend andronovos where shifted between them. For exemple, if we take yamnaya, the eastern part as migrate in east and create afanasevo and the western part as migrate in west and create tisza kurgans. But how those two where really related ? we know they came from the same source but we dont know the exact similarity in there genetic, we know afanasevo was almost indistinguishable from yamaya, but what part of yamnaya ? same from andronovo, what the study said is that BMAC or other eastern iranian neolithic dont have directly participate to indian gene pools, but it's doesn't mean that andronovo was all similar, northern part was more likely to be siberian shifted and southern part to be iranian shifted, so the results can be missleading if we look at andronovo as a genetic coherent whole, more the century have gone, more the steppe component was diluted into regional gene pools. I'm pretty sure we could found some heavy MLBA Steppe in Central Asia, we just have to found them.

I'm sure the right population will be found eventually. But I still find the findings in the paper very strange to say the least.

johen
17-04-18, 16:42
In Eurogenes, it was said that west HG and Dali early bronze seemed to be connected to northern Pakistan Burusho people.
So I think siberian HG would be light eyes, light hair (and just maybe light skin also). It has already proved that red hair came from EHG being connected to AG 2 last year. The scythian also has red hairs. The highest frequency of red hair is in udmurt people.

http://m1.ablwang.com/uploadfile/2014/1120/20141120031935118.jpg
http://www.aboluowang.com/2014/1120/474691.html

Angela
17-04-18, 16:47
In Eurogenes, it was said that west HG and Dali early bronze seemed to be connected to northern Pakistan Burusho people.
So I think siberian HG would be light eyes, light hair (and just maybe light skin also). It has already proved that red hair came from EHG being connected to AG 2 last year. The scythian also has red hairs. The highest frequency of red hair is in udmurt people.

http://m1.ablwang.com/uploadfile/2014/1120/20141120031935118.jpg
http://www.aboluowang.com/2014/1120/474691.html


No need to speculate. We have the samples and they'll be able to check.

Angela
17-04-18, 16:50
I'm sure a good number of Indians would still disagree, but it seems clear to me that they can't blame caste distinctions on the British or other Europeans.

It is definitely ancestry based and protected by strict endogamy.

See:
http://www.brownpundits.com/2018/04/16/south-asians-and-communalism/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

For the record, the sexual victimization of lower caste women by higher caste men is not a "trivial" matter, of course, not even in pop gen terms. I think it could have spread R1a and "steppe" ancestry into lower castes.

halfalp
18-04-18, 11:41
I'm sure a good number of Indians would still disagree, but it seems clear to me that they can't blame caste distinctions on the British or other Europeans.

It is definitely ancestry based and protected by strict endogamy.

See:
http://www.brownpundits.com/2018/04/16/south-asians-and-communalism/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

For the record, the sexual victimization of lower caste women by higher caste men is not a "trivial" matter, of course, not even in pop gen terms. I think it could have spread R1a and "steppe" ancestry into lower castes.Assume that indian men have been strictly faithul to their spouses is an utopic ideal. Like all civilizations in history and present, men and women sometimes are unfaithful. Without speaking about all the eventual rape that Khsatriyas could have perpetrate in periods of war. You can descend from kings and be a simple hobo in your life, this is our reality.

Alan
19-04-18, 11:13
Well, here we go back to the all R1a, R1b, PIE came from Kurdistan. Just with a single sample.

No one was talking about the origin of R1b and R1a as a whole. R1b being in West Asia pre Bronze Age is only important for the dispersal and origin of PIE family not R1b as a whole.

R1b and R1a could have evolved somewhere in Central Asia sometime during the mesolithic or paleolithic. It doesn't matter for the origin of PIE 10-20000 years later.

Alan
19-04-18, 11:23
Without citing anyone, i'm pretty sur Goga was not the only one who fought Iranic languages and so R1a originate in Kurdistan. People took Mascarenhas and Underhill papers from granted back in 2015 and not just Goga.
Underhill pointed out based on samples collected, that the oldest R1b and R1a clades are found there. And based on this the conclusion of the paper was that both Haplogroups originated at this place. And Goga the biggest defender of this idea was also one of the rare cases who belonged to R1a m420 with no downstream mutations. The upstream ancestor of all modern R1a1.

It is quite possible that this high diversity of R1b and R1a in Kurdistan and the Iranian Plateau is the result of "migration". But I somehow don't see how this could be the Baltic area during a timeline (mesolithic) where there would be absolutely no reason or trace for H&G migrating all the way back into Kurdistan. If this diversity comes from outside. The only regions I see in a reasonable distance where they might have come from is A: South_Central Asia (Afghanistan to Kazakhstan). B: the Caucasus C: the Balkans.

But once again the origin of R1b and R1a has no connection to the dispersal of Indo European languages, let alone the Indo-Iranic branch.

Alan
19-04-18, 11:37
well, there is no J2b sampled in Yamna, Afanasievo, Poltavka, Catacomb ..

and it was succesfull at that time, the first cattle and oxen drawn wagons occupying the whole Pontic steppe by a single clade, while original HG had to confine themselves to the river valleys, and later on also expanding east through the Kazakh steppe upto the Altaï Mts
it was something which was impossible prior to the invention of the wheel
and appearantly the Pontic steppe was the ideal terrain for this, not Transcaucasia or Iran

and what you say about related y clades spreading is true
that is why I'm not sure about the connection between haji firuz and yamna
I would be cautios with that, what hasn't been found can still pop up. Remember that J1 EHG sample from mesolithic Keralia? I still argue if we find J1 during the mesolithic in the North and J samples south of Yamnaya I would honestly be suprised to not find any in Yamnaya or surroundings. But since all these Steppe cultures like Poltavka Catacomb Afanasievo seem to be Elite orientated and dominated by one or very few Haplogroups. I don't think it is far fetched to assume that other Haplogroups have been driven out.

Alan
19-04-18, 12:00
BBC - How ancient DNA is transforming our view of the past

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43701630



Asked about the criticisms, the Harvard professor told me: "I'm actually very pleased to be part of introducing this discussion. I think that scientists have been anxious about discussing differences among populations in public fora, even though all the work that we do is about differences among populations and learning about their history. The anxiety is about possible misuse of that data - for good reason."
He stressed the need for scientists to take charge of the narrative, lest they hand the initiative to those with less benign intentions. "The thing I have felt very strongly, increasingly over time, is that the fact that scientists are too afraid to speak up about these topics means that the vacuum… gets filled by people who don't really know the scientific facts," he explains.

I like that part.

Alan
19-04-18, 12:27
I do not find the case for an origin of R1b-M269 on the Iranian plateau very strong either, to be honest. These places are rather overstudied compared to other regions in the Middle East. But to get an idea we'd need a decent amount of pre-neolithic samples.

tbf if anything the Iranian Plateau is understudied. Europe is the most overstudied part. And withing West Asia /Near East the Iranian Plateau is one of the most understudied.

Olympus Mons
19-04-18, 17:17
....But once again the origin of R1b and R1a has no connection to the dispersal of Indo European languages, let alone the Indo-Iranic branch.
Alan,
The Origin of R1b/R1a is epochs ane eons earlier than PIE. so, agree.
Now... dos M269 and L23 have anything to do with PIE? - I think so. I can run in a story, because stories have Time, something people here seem so often to forget.

in your view (so have all the liberty) what would be wrong with the following statements:


Pre-pre- PIE (lets say 30% of PIE) , if anything similar to, was spoken by M269, somewhere in south Balkans. Let’s say Romania, Bulgaria even parts of Serbia, say 6500BC.
We know that by 6500bc onwards, the contacts between this Iron gates people and Anatolian farmers was booming. So much that by 6300bc-6000bc, this former highly pastoral/no agriculture populations disappeared (except in Lepenski Vir) for that period of time, being replaced by Starcevo populations.
However, by that time, 6300bc, we also see the rise of agricultural but atypical high big cattle pastoral population in Fikirtepe North of Anatolia. Related to Barcin but separated. Here, that previous population is learning lots of names from agriculture (lets say PIE is 60% formed).
By 6000BC, we see the rise of a population that are master of domestication in south Caucasus, people saying that, because the amount of types of cereal they cultivate is so, diverse, so diverse, that is strange. All types and even having Spelt, coming from the Balkans. As if collecting species on route. They kept however having a strange large amount of Pastoral live and an even strange doubt in everyone’s mind because were very transhumance like people -These is L23 was born (5500bc?). As was PIE (70%)
Later stages, 5500 bc onwards, sees increase contacts of Shulaveri with parts of Nortwestern Iran and Azerbaijan. There is where one sees that hajji Firuz Z2103 (5400bc?) By then, after so long contacts with Pure CHG in georgia and some Iran_neolithic they have a very composed language, very rich and a good admix for that matter.
By 4900 BC! – Shulaveri was gone, altogether. 100% PiE Perfectly speaking PIE of R1b-M269 and L23 and Z2103 moved several places. Scatter. Some to the hills (north and south) just miles way. Some back to the east cost of black sea into Kuban river (Mesokho and so forth) and later up samara river to be part of Khvalynsk and later Yamnaya. Here thy might become LPie or whatever.
The same PIE speakers, moved back to Balkans. Maybe L51 was born there and disseminate with Bell beakers (I still doubt it). But my problem is. If Yamanya spoke PIE and let’s call it Shulaveri-Balkans also spoke a similar language by 4000 bc. And for sure not long they were in contact again… it just roughs the story of Steppe a little bit because Lpie might not be just steppe, does it not? But surely ties it very well for R1b-L23 and PIE, does it not?

markozd
19-04-18, 20:37
tbf if anything the Iranian Plateau is understudied. Europe is the most overstudied part. And withing West Asia /Near East the Iranian Plateau is one of the most understudied.

Compared to Europe every place is undersampled I guess. My thinking was that R1b-M269 would most likely not have been among the earliest adopters of agriculture due to its structure which implies expansion closer to the chalcolithic. In some parts of the Middle East that aren't very suited to agriculture like Saudi Arabia & Oman there were hunting & finishing cultures until 3000-2000 B.C. It would be interesting to get some samples from those places.

But perhaps the date estimates are completely wrong, and M269 is just a minor lineage of the neolithic, idk. We'll see when more samples are published.

markozd
19-04-18, 20:38
Alan,
The Origin of R1b/R1a is epochs ane eons earlier than PIE. so, agree.
Now... dos M269 and L23 have anything to do with PIE? - I think so. I can run in a story, because stories have Time, something people here seem so often to forget.

in your view (so have all the liberty) what would be wrong with the following statements:


Pre-pre- PIE (lets say 30% of PIE) , if anything similar to, was spoken by M269, somewhere in south Balkans. Let’s say Romania, Bulgaria even parts of Serbia, say 6500BC.
We know that by 6500bc onwards, the contacts between this Iron gates people and Anatolian farmers was booming. So much that by 6300bc-6000bc, this former highly pastoral/no agriculture populations disappeared (except in Lepenski Vir) for that period of time, being replaced by Starcevo populations.
However, by that time, 6300bc, we also see the rise of agricultural but atypical high big cattle pastoral population in Fikirtepe North of Anatolia. Related to Barcin but separated. Here, that previous population is learning lots of names from agriculture (lets say PIE is 60% formed).
By 6000BC, we see the rise of a population that are master of domestication in south Caucasus, people saying that, because the amount of types of cereal they cultivate is so, diverse, so diverse, that is strange. All types and even having Spelt, coming from the Balkans. As if collecting species on route. They kept however having a strange large amount of Pastoral live and an even strange doubt in everyone’s mind because were very transhumance like people -These is L23 was born (5500bc?). As was PIE (70%)
Later stages, 5500 bc onwards, sees increase contacts of Shulaveri with parts of Nortwestern Iran and Azerbaijan. There is where one sees that hajji Firuz Z2103 (5400bc?) By then, after so long contacts with Pure CHG in georgia and some Iran_neolithic they have a very composed language, very rich and a good admix for that matter.
By 4900 BC! – Shulaveri was gone, altogether. 100% PiE Perfectly speaking PIE of R1b-M269 and L23 and Z2103 moved several places. Scatter. Some to the hills (north and south) just miles way. Some back to the east cost of black sea into Kuban river (Mesokho and so forth) and later up samara river to be part of Khvalynsk and later Yamnaya. Here thy might become LPie or whatever.
The same PIE speakers, moved back to Balkans. Maybe L51 was born there and disseminate with Bell beakers (I still doubt it). But my problem is. If Yamanya spoke PIE and let’s call it Shulaveri-Balkans also spoke a similar language by 4000 bc. And for sure not long they were in contact again… it just roughs the story of Steppe a little bit because Lpie might not be just steppe, does it not? But surely ties it very well for R1b-L23 and PIE, does it not?



Where do you even get this from? This is complete fantasy.

holderlin
19-04-18, 21:19
Where do you even get this from? This is complete fantasy.

Thank you

.
.
.
.
.

holderlin
19-04-18, 21:20
"overstudied" has to be my favorite so far in this thread.

Olympus Mons
20-04-18, 10:58
Where do you even get this from? This is complete fantasy.

...you need to explain why is a fantasy. otherwise you are just triggered by something you didn't like to read. buh buh. snif snif.

Olympus Mons
20-04-18, 12:18
Thank you

.

The text is a challenge to anyone to show whats wrong with it...
"in your view (so have all the liberty) what would be wrong with the following statements:"
and both replies I had were by all standards extremely poor.

... oh and by the way, in the end I will be correct. Correct along side with all others that then will "knew all along".
I just need for Johannes Krause and now David Reich to show the results of south Caucasus and say at that point, what I have been saying all along so that everybody can start saying also they "knew all along." Its a matter of time.

halfalp
21-04-18, 00:24
The text is a challenge to anyone to show whats wrong with it...
"in your view (so have all the liberty) what would be wrong with the following statements:"
and both replies I had were by all standards extremely poor.

... oh and by the way, in the end I will be correct. Correct along side with all others that then will "knew all along".
I just need for Johannes Krause and now David Reich to show the results of south Caucasus and say at that point, what I have been saying all along so that everybody can start saying also they "knew all along." Its a matter of time.You have the right to create your own hypothesis or story, i'm pretty sur we all do that to some extent, but what challenge do you want ? we dont even have an high rate sampling from western asia to try to wright a story about prehistory yet. At this point it doesn't make sense to talk about basal PIE origin.

Olympus Mons
21-04-18, 00:44
You have the right to create your own hypothesis or story, i'm pretty sur we all do that to some extent, but what challenge do you want ? we dont even have an high rate sampling from western asia to try to wright a story about prehistory yet. At this point it doesn't make sense to talk about basal PIE origin.

I am looking for someone saying "this part is impossible/erroneous/improbable because..."

holderlin
21-04-18, 03:38
The text is a challenge to anyone to show whats wrong with it...
"in your view (so have all the liberty) what would be wrong with the following statements:"
and both replies I had were by all standards extremely poor.

... oh and by the way, in the end I will be correct. Correct along side with all others that then will "knew all along".
I just need for Johannes Krause and now David Reich to show the results of south Caucasus and say at that point, what I have been saying all along so that everybody can start saying also they "knew all along." Its a matter of time.

Help me understand your wine trade theory. From what I know of this early wine evidence it's a circum-Black Sea thing. Is this what you think PIE was?

It is interesting that the earliest evidence of wine is in that dispersal pattern regardless of PIE.

Saetrus
21-04-18, 04:07
Help me understand your wine trade theory. From what I know of this early wine evidence it's a circum-Black Sea thing. Is this what you think PIE was?

It is interesting that the earliest evidence of wine is in that dispersal pattern regardless of PIE.

It's simple, Shulaveri-Shomu is the PIE culture and it's where wine is first found, they loved their creation so much they got constantly drunk, became huge troublemakers, thought they could conquer the world.

Then the story of wine spreading is like the story of Indoeuropean spreading itself Georgia (c. 6000 BC), Iran (c. 5000 BC), Greece (c. 4500 BC), and Sicily (c. 4000 BC).

berun
21-04-18, 08:12
It was not in such way, IEs went to villages with their wine pretending to sell it, so they gave free samples, thereafter all locals got drunk and once they were sleeping on the floor the IEs delivered them, is by that that England came to be depleted of local EEF by Bell Beakers, the difference is that Bell Beakers served beers in their fashion pots. It's everything so clear.