PDA

View Full Version : Central and South Asian DNA Paper



Pages : 1 2 [3]

berun
21-04-18, 08:47
Now seriously, looking at Indus Valley Civilization I found this interesting map:

10037

if it's correct the pre-Indus sites were all west of the Indus, in the mountains, and that would make sense to me: the Indus basin was mainly desertical, not allowing rainfed agriculture, moreover in its east you find the Thar desert; so it was a major obstacle for an eastward colonization of Zagros' farmers.

In fact colonizing Asia was not like colonizing Europe, in Europe you can have a farming plot almost everywhere getting anual crops from it, but from Kurdistan to the south early farmers only had two big rivers and a big desert impossible to farm except if you have much people as to open irrigation channels geting water from the main rivers. To the east farmers had some better conditions: Iran, Pakistan, Afganistan and Central Asia are arid regions with anual precipitation below 300 mm (wheat and barley need 400 mm in its growing period), so farmers only had the possibility to colonize the wettest places in the piedmonts as well as oasis.

10038

10039

10040

I like to thing that major domestications (wheat, barley, cows, sheeps, goats) are related to specific haplos (R1b, L, J1, J2, E...); also it would be possible that under the conditions seen there would be three main colonizations: pioneer herders (goat herders as can eat everything), dry farmers, and irrigation system farmers, being the last wave the most numerous, coming provably from an experienced and populous culture of Iraq (Uruk, Ubaid). Also as the farming land is scattered, a lot of genetic drift and bottlenecks are expected.

The first map contains an interesting image: the neolithic sites are in actual Iranian languages zone, the Indus and more recent sites are in Indic languages zone.

The BMAC culture and Indus Valey Culture thrived by creating irrigation channels, expanding farming land and population. The IVC died after a series of droughts, so that people went east, and maybe in such migration the Indic languages spread east also; maybe there were steppe/cow herders profiting the available new grazing land by irrigation system, or they were a military elite that profited the slow diying process of the IVC. Another point would be to thing that the farmers mastering irrigation were already IE, but even such idea clashes in my mind.

Olympus Mons
21-04-18, 12:20
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.
Humm. Never said anything about wine trade. Don't even know how that would be possible. There was no long term preservants so how would that be possible? Only in places where vitis vinsfera existed they could make wine.
Connection i made was about people that knew how to make wine where vitis vinisfera existed...However subsequent wine making cast were mostly not local but imported casts from caucasus.
The connection I always follow is spelt (spelta) ....there. Spelt is the most resistant species of cereal, speciallly to climatic conditions and disease.
There was only spelt in Vinca and shulaveri by 5600bc and we today know that Shulaveri spelt was a local hybridization. Not imported. So they knew how to do it.
Then by 4000bc spelt is found in Merimde beni salama in egypt, the people that brought agriculture, pigs, dogs...and spelt. Actually very arguably the ones that started to try to tame ...donkeys.
At that same time spelt shows up (or hexasploid hybrid) in north caucasus.
Note ... Spelt was later connected by some (read bellbeakerblogger) to Bell beakers in central europe.
...Spelt is found in a bell beaker north Portugal and it was predominately found in north caucasus and russia up until 18th century and today is predominat only in....north spain!

Now wine?...tricky. And a very long story.
As is with horses and dogs. Especially mtdna in eastern anatolia kangal dog, south caucasus dog and portuguese serra da estrela. All look alike. All same rare mtdna. All imemorial races.

halfalp
21-04-18, 13:57
Now seriously, looking at Indus Valley Civilization I found this interesting map:

10037

if it's correct the pre-Indus sites were all west of the Indus, in the mountains, and that would make sense to me: the Indus basin was mainly desertical, not allowing rainfed agriculture, moreover in its east you find the Thar desert; so it was a major obstacle for an eastward colonization of Zagros' farmers.

In fact colonizing Asia was not like colonizing Europe, in Europe you can have a farming plot almost everywhere getting anual crops from it, but from Kurdistan to the south early farmers only had two big rivers and a big desert impossible to farm except if you have much people as to open irrigation channels geting water from the main rivers. To the east farmers had some better conditions: Iran, Pakistan, Afganistan and Central Asia are arid regions with anual precipitation below 300 mm (wheat and barley need 400 mm in its growing period), so farmers only had the possibility to colonize the wettest places in the piedmonts as well as oasis.

10038

10039

10040

I like to thing that major domestications (wheat, barley, cows, sheeps, goats) are related to specific haplos (R1b, L, J1, J2, E...); also it would be possible that under the conditions seen there would be three main colonizations: pioneer herders (goat herders as can eat everything), dry farmers, and irrigation system farmers, being the last wave the most numerous, coming provably from an experienced and populous culture of Iraq (Uruk, Ubaid). Also as the farming land is scattered, a lot of genetic drift and bottlenecks are expected.

The first map contains an interesting image: the neolithic sites are in actual Iranian languages zone, the Indus and more recent sites are in Indic languages zone.

The BMAC culture and Indus Valey Culture thrived by creating irrigation channels, expanding farming land and population. The IVC died after a series of droughts, so that people went east, and maybe in such migration the Indic languages spread east also; maybe there were steppe/cow herders profiting the available new grazing land by irrigation system, or they were a military elite that profited the slow diying process of the IVC. Another point would be to thing that the farmers mastering irrigation were already IE, but even such idea clashes in my mind.But isn't the Thar Desert way more young than that ? i recall some searcher thinking the place became arid only in late antiquity by the evaporation of the legendary Sarasvati River.

halfalp
21-04-18, 14:01
Humm. Never said anything about wine trade. Don't even know how that would be possible. There was no long term preservants so how would that be possible? Only in places where vitis vinsfera existed they could make wine.
Connection i made was about people that knew how to make wine where vitis vinisfera existed...However subsequent wine making cast were mostly not local but imported casts from caucasus.
The connection I always follow is spelt (spelta) ....there. Spelt is the most resistant species of cereal, speciallly to climatic conditions and disease.
There was only spelt in Vinca and shulaveri by 5600bc and we today know that Shulaveri spelt was a local hybridization. Not imported. So they knew how to do it.
Then by 4000bc spelt is found in Merimde beni salama in egypt, the people that brought agriculture, pigs, dogs...and spelt. Actually very arguably the ones that started to try to tame ...donkeys.
At that same time spelt shows up (or hexasploid hybrid) in north caucasus.
Note ... Spelt was later connected by some (read bellbeakerblogger) to Bell beakers in central europe.
...Spelt is found in a bell beaker north Portugal and it was predominately found in north caucasus and russia up until 18th century and today is predominat only in....north spain!
Now wine?...tricky. And a very long story.
As is with horses and dogs. Especially mtdna in eastern anatolia kangal dog, south caucasus dog and portuguese serra da estrela. All look alike. All same rare mtdna. All imemorial races.But Vinca is a melting by previous Lepenski Vir and EEF, what is the link with South Caucasus and Shulaveri-Shomu ?

Olympus Mons
21-04-18, 15:49
But Vinca is a melting by previous Lepenski Vir and EEF, what is the link with South Caucasus and Shulaveri-Shomu ?
...exactly.
And yet the two earliest cultures that had spelt ( being that shulaveri invented their own) was those two.
As for the fact that those were the two ones showing copper at those dates (6000bc - 5500bc)...

Lepenski were taken over by starcevo cris by 6300bc... But the ones further east, full of R1b , moved south and to the caucasus.
Connolly et al 2012 makes the point that large cattle links iron gates , and Ovocora gorata and schelei in romania_bulgaria to places like Fikirtepe and even as southeast as hagoshrim in israel. I just add Shulaveri.

Se what I wrote in april 2017
https://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo.pt/hagoshrim-6121

Bearing in mind the sample of Hajji Firuz pay attention to this paragraph. "By 6000BC they reached south Caucasus. Already with influences of Barcin agriculturalists and probably with contact with Iran_Neolithic and (Kultepe culture)s and somehow that is where PIE originated"
"

Olympus Mons
21-04-18, 16:17
halfAlp,
This is an anwser I gave to a guy in eurogenes (rob) that I particularly like and think is most time right.

@Rob
Never answer the question of SSC people from Balkans.
No, no papers that I’ve seen. But up until recently archeo papers were always very local.
Shulaveri always had more domestic cattle (Bos) than the rest of the region (as well as horses). That separate them from the rest. And they clearly share traits with Fikirtepe (which had a staggering volume of Cattle (35%).
reading conoly 2012 et al it’s clear that there was a corridor of people from that went from Iron gates to places like Ho
It really looks like some of the people at Iron gates (the ones liking Oval huts) shared traits with Ovocora gorata (Bulgaria) , cultures in Romania and fikirtepe at south shores of black sea. Follow the map and you end up in Shulaveri. Not a big leap.
Anyway conoly et al 2012 connects cattle context from Ovčarovo Gorata, to fikirtepe to Halula even to north Israel (Hogoshim) by domestic cattle volume as a trait. I just added SSC.
Anyway, just follow Obsidian fanatics and you also have the same connections.
And most important. Follow Spelt! By 5600bc, which were the two only cultures where Spelt as found? – Shulaveri and Vinca.
www.researchgate.net/publication/232701410_Species_distribution_modelling_of_ancien t_cattle_from_early_Neolithic_sites_in_SW_Asia_and _Europe

holderlin
21-04-18, 17:08
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.

Lol, you know I did think of this for Bell Beaker. Sweeping in getting girls drunk and laying down the L23 seed. Getting everyone drunk to keep them complacent.

But you don't have to be orchestrating some complex chemical warfare scheme for wine to be a significant factor in trade/expansion.

It's a fun theory

holderlin
21-04-18, 17:49
halfAlp,
This is an anwser I gave to a guy in eurogenes (rob) that I particularly like and think is most time right.

@Rob
Never answer the question of SSC people from Balkans.
No, no papers that I’ve seen. But up until recently archeo papers were always very local.
Shulaveri always had more domestic cattle (Bos) than the rest of the region (as well as horses). That separate them from the rest. And they clearly share traits with Fikirtepe (which had a staggering volume of Cattle (35%).
reading conoly 2012 et al it’s clear that there was a corridor of people from that went from Iron gates to places like Ho
It really looks like some of the people at Iron gates (the ones liking Oval huts) shared traits with Ovocora gorata (Bulgaria) , cultures in Romania and fikirtepe at south shores of black sea. Follow the map and you end up in Shulaveri. Not a big leap.
Anyway conoly et al 2012 connects cattle context from Ovčarovo Gorata, to fikirtepe to Halula even to north Israel (Hogoshim) by domestic cattle volume as a trait. I just added SSC.
Anyway, just follow Obsidian fanatics and you also have the same connections.
And most important. Follow Spelt! By 5600bc, which were the two only cultures where Spelt as found? – Shulaveri and Vinca.
www.researchgate.net/publication/232701410_Species_distribution_modelling_of_ancien t_cattle_from_early_Neolithic_sites_in_SW_Asia_and _Europe (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232701410_Species_distribution_modelling_of_ancien t_cattle_from_early_Neolithic_sites_in_SW_Asia_and _Europe)

OK, but we know that these Balkan farming cultures are descended from Anatolian farmers from like 9000BC. Way earlier than any SSC, and these Anatolians likely domesticated the Taurine line. I don't know if the farmed spelt, but given the location it seems likely. So we don't really need SSC for Balkan farming cultures.

Promenade
21-04-18, 17:52
But isn't the Thar Desert way more young than that ? i recall some searcher thinking the place became arid only in late antiquity by the evaporation of the legendary Sarasvati River.
In any event the limits of the IVC do not seem to have been the Thar desert but rather the Ganges and the Deccan Platue. I find it curious that the Ganges wasn't exploited until after the fall of the IVCs but perhaps this area is not conducive to wheat farming and could only be used effectively after the transition to rice as the major crop of South Asia? I've read it's because they didn't have the tools to clear the forests efficiently in the area until the Iron Age but I don't buy that.

Olympus Mons
21-04-18, 18:49
OK, but we know that these Balkan farming cultures are descended from Anatolian farmers from like 9000BC. Way earlier than any SSC, and these Anatolians likely domesticated the Taurine line. I don't know if the farmed spelt, but given the location it seems likely. So we don't really need SSC for Balkan farming cultures.
You get me confused.
SSC were ( or could may well be) a mix of mesolithic HG and fishers from bulgaria, Romania and iron gates and farmers. Either late anatolian farmers or northwest european farmers going southeastern, into or back to, thrace and north anatolia. I dont know.
What we know is that initial farmers avoided, altogether, thrace and Balkans, which only got agriculture much later.
What we know is that the original HG, which we knew were full of R1b, by 6300bc vanished and there was a hiatus of 300 years until replaced there, balkans, by starcevo-Cris like people. We also know that it was at the exact time agriculture also was approaching from the south.
And we don't know what they looked like. What we know is that fikirtepe is not typical barcin.

holderlin
21-04-18, 18:54
In any event the limits of the IVC do not seem to have been the Thar desert but rather the Ganges and the Deccan Platue. I find it curious that the Ganges wasn't exploited until after the fall of the IVCs but perhaps this area is not conducive to wheat farming and could only be used effectively after the transition to rice as the major crop of South Asia? I've read it's because they didn't have the tools to clear the forests efficiently in the area until the Iron Age but I don't buy that.

Sometimes people come up with unlikely reasons for things. The Ganges probably wasn't exploited simply because the Indus was closer to the farming epicenter. Being embedded in dense jungle would have only been an obstacle for a limited time if populations were expanding and needed more food production. And I'm pretty sure IVC was cultivating both rice and wheat.

holderlin
21-04-18, 18:58
You get me confused.
SSC were ( or could may well be) a mix of mesolithic HG and fishers from bulgaria, Romania and iron gates and farmers. Either late anatolian farmers or northwest european farmers going southeastern, into or back to, thrace and north anatolia. I dont know.
What we know is that initial farmers avoided, altogether, thrace and Balkans, which only got agriculture much later.
What we know is that the original HG, which we knew were full of R1b, by 6300bc vanished and there was a hiatus of 300 years until replaced there, balkans, by starcevo-Cris like people. We also know that it was at the exact time agriculture also was approaching from the south.
And we don't know what they looked like. What we know is that fikirtepe is not typical barcin.

OK, so you're seeing Iron Gates as the origin of these R1b clades? You know, looking at V88 coming from the Ukraine, this isn't an unlikely scenario.

Olympus Mons
21-04-18, 19:11
OK, so you're seeing Iron Gates as the origin of these R1b clades? You know, looking at V88 coming from the Ukraine, this isn't an unlikely scenario.

Yes. Shulaveri was exogenous to south Caucasus. So came from somewhere. Most likely and probable is near Iron Gates but more into the southeastern towards thrace. That is where M269 could be. And that means that M269 was the reason why agriculture avoided thrace and south balkans.
SSC was nothing else but the neolithization of that population as they moved into Anatolia and aouth Caucasus.

berun
21-04-18, 19:19
But isn't the Thar Desert way more young than that ? i recall some searcher thinking the place became arid only in late antiquity by the evaporation of the legendary Sarasvati River.

That doesn't matter, the area is under the 400 mm regime, an unproductive regions for extensive crops.

berun
21-04-18, 19:21
Lol, you know I did think of this for Bell Beaker. Sweeping in getting girls drunk and laying down the L23 seed. Getting everyone drunk to keep them complacent.

But you don't have to be orchestrating some complex chemical warfare scheme for wine to be a significant factor in trade/expansion.

It's a fun theory

The serious issue with such beer is that they added Hysciamus niger, which is toxic and causes allucinations... the BB were interred with such pots, I suppose that it was their haoma/soma in their religion.

berun
21-04-18, 19:23
In any event the limits of the IVC do not seem to have been the Thar desert but rather the Ganges and the Deccan Platue. I find it curious that the Ganges wasn't exploited until after the fall of the IVCs but perhaps this area is not conducive to wheat farming and could only be used effectively after the transition to rice as the major crop of South Asia? I've read it's because they didn't have the tools to clear the forests efficiently in the area until the Iron Age but I don't buy that.

It seems that the monsoon was more intense in such regions by then, and barley/wheat can't deal with so much humidity, but rice can.

holderlin
21-04-18, 19:24
The serious issue with such beer is that they added Hysciamus niger, which is toxic and causes allucinations... the BB were interred with such pots, I suppose that it was their haoma/soma in their religion.

That makes sense. Alot of debate as to what the Indic Soma is, but it's definitely something that you drink, so it's unlikley to be Cannabis, although you can make Cannabis drinks. There was definitely pot smoking among Steppe Iranians.

halfalp
22-04-18, 01:12
halfAlp,
This is an anwser I gave to a guy in eurogenes (rob) that I particularly like and think is most time right.

@Rob
Never answer the question of SSC people from Balkans.
No, no papers that I’ve seen. But up until recently archeo papers were always very local.
Shulaveri always had more domestic cattle (Bos) than the rest of the region (as well as horses). That separate them from the rest. And they clearly share traits with Fikirtepe (which had a staggering volume of Cattle (35%).
reading conoly 2012 et al it’s clear that there was a corridor of people from that went from Iron gates to places like Ho
It really looks like some of the people at Iron gates (the ones liking Oval huts) shared traits with Ovocora gorata (Bulgaria) , cultures in Romania and fikirtepe at south shores of black sea. Follow the map and you end up in Shulaveri. Not a big leap.
Anyway conoly et al 2012 connects cattle context from Ovčarovo Gorata, to fikirtepe to Halula even to north Israel (Hogoshim) by domestic cattle volume as a trait. I just added SSC.
Anyway, just follow Obsidian fanatics and you also have the same connections.
And most important. Follow Spelt! By 5600bc, which were the two only cultures where Spelt as found? – Shulaveri and Vinca.
www.researchgate.net/publication/232701410_Species_distribution_modelling_of_ancien t_cattle_from_early_Neolithic_sites_in_SW_Asia_and _Europe (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232701410_Species_distribution_modelling_of_ancien t_cattle_from_early_Neolithic_sites_in_SW_Asia_and _Europe)
Well, i start to get your point and as Markoz mention few times ago, an origin for R1b-M269 somwhere near Romania or Bulgaria is always possible, but it stays assumptions for know and there is no consensus for where spelt are coming from.

Olympus Mons
22-04-18, 12:03
This things are really delicious.
I was reading Anthrogenicas thread
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14065-PIE-Homeland-after-David-Reich-MPI-SHH-supports-the-quot-southern-Caucasus-hypothesis-quot&p=382413&viewfull=1#post382413

Apparently in a german documentary Johannes krauser is reiterating what he already said before Reich and what reich is publishing these days...south Caucasus definitly home of PIE.
Its worthwhile reading it. Because clearly is said that homeland is south caucasus, armenia and eastern anatolia, EVEN POSSIBLE western iran.
So clearly they know are "my Shulaveri". And if so, its irritatingly vague. Yamanaya yamanaya yamnaya...but when it comes to Shulaveri its always south Caucasus....there was only them there so its not rocket science to name them....

Olympus Mons
22-04-18, 12:11
This things are really delicious.
I was reading Anthrogenicas thread
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14065-PIE-Homeland-after-David-Reich-MPI-SHH-supports-the-quot-southern-Caucasus-hypothesis-quot&p=382413&viewfull=1#post382413

Apparently in a german documentary Johannes krauser is reiterating what he already said before Reich and what reich is publishing these days...south Caucasus definitly home of PIE.
Its worthwhile reading it. Because clearly is said that homeland is south caucasus, armenia and eastern anatolia, EVEN POSSIBLE western iran.
So clearly they know are "my Shulaveri". And if so, its irritatingly vague. Yamanaya yamanaya yamnaya...but when it comes to Shulaveri its always south Caucasus....there was only them there so its not rocket science to name them....

.... And the denial in those forums is just delicious. Its really enjoyable to see how reich and Krause are on their way to be stupid and pathetic idiots that know nothing about the subject.
Indeed , Like we say in portugal, "there are more tides than sailors". And I sure took loads of bullshit in those forums. I am starting to feel vindicated.

markozd
22-04-18, 12:50
.... And the denial in those forums is just delicious. Its really enjoyable to see how reich and Krause are on their way to be stupid and pathetic idiots that know nothing about the subject.
Indeed , Like we say in portugal, "there are more tides than sailors". And I sure took loads of bullshit in those forums. I am starting to feel vindicated.

It's sad that the whole debated has such a strong ideological tinge. I'd always maintained that there was a strong attachement to a northern homeland that had little to do with pure science and more with ego & ethnic chauvinism. But you're no better insulting people like that.

Hopefully the data Reich & Krause have will be unambiguous and all this isn't merely their best guess.

Olympus Mons
22-04-18, 13:05
It's sad that the whole debated has such a strong ideological tinge. I'd always maintained that there was a strong attachement to a northern homeland that had little to do with pure science and more with ego & ethnic chauvinism. But you're no better insulting people like that.

Hopefully the data Reich & Krause have will be unambiguous and all this isn't merely their best guess.
...you did get that its not me insulting reich and Krauser, right?
That its at those forums that once revered those guys but know are starting to say they know nothing about linguistics and they are going against the data, and so forth.

So, who was I insulting?

halfalp
22-04-18, 15:07
This things are really delicious. I was reading Anthrogenicas thread https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14065-PIE-Homeland-after-David-Reich-MPI-SHH-supports-the-quot-southern-Caucasus-hypothesis-quot&p=382413&viewfull=1#post382413Apparently in a german documentary Johannes krauser is reiterating what he already said before Reich and what reich is publishing these days...south Caucasus definitly home of PIE. Its worthwhile reading it. Because clearly is said that homeland is south caucasus, armenia and eastern anatolia, EVEN POSSIBLE western iran. So clearly they know are "my Shulaveri". And if so, its irritatingly vague. Yamanaya yamanaya yamnaya...but when it comes to Shulaveri its always south Caucasus....there was only them there so its not rocket science to name them....In that matter, South Caucasus could only be home of PPIE. If you assume South Caucasus is the home of PIE, you also assume that his expansion in Eurasia is from South Caucasus. And how they would actually knows, Reich has said many times that Yamnaya was the origin of indo-european languages in western europe and south asia, why they even boring change their mind all the time.

halfalp
22-04-18, 15:27
It's sad that the whole debated has such a strong ideological tinge. I'd always maintained that there was a strong attachement to a northern homeland that had little to do with pure science and more with ego & ethnic chauvinism. But you're no better insulting people like that.Hopefully the data Reich & Krause have will be unambiguous and all this isn't merely their best guess.You know, if PIE was postulated to come from India, we would have to deal with indian ego & ethnic chauvinism. Why applied in europeans it changes the deal ? The backlash with the reconstructed cheddar men and some afrocentrists claiming white people might have to worship them as their master ancestor. I'm always surprised how people in europe can easily criticise themselves and their environnement but lack the critic to understand that every humans are racist or chauvinist in their matter.

Ailchu
22-04-18, 15:39
"Genetic evidence ruled out one likely related group in the region, the Yamnaya, because their DNA showed the group had hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is inconsistent with the fact that two Indo-European groups, Armenians and Indians, don’t share it, Patterson said. That made Patterson look south, to the Maikop civilization, which likely had significant contact with the Yamnaya, as a plausible culture where Indo-European languages originated. Samples have been obtained from Maikop burial sites, but the DNA work to test that proposal is pending, Patterson said."

is this actually true? i thought armenians did have EHG.

Olympus Mons
22-04-18, 16:19
In that matter, South Caucasus could only be home of PPIE. If you assume South Caucasus is the home of PIE, you also assume that his expansion in Eurasia is from South Caucasus. And how they would actually knows, Reich has said many times that Yamnaya was the origin of indo-european languages in western europe and south asia, why they even boring change their mind all the time.

I am not a linguistic. So PIE and PPIE or.PPPPPIE is meaningless. And if we are finding out by aDna that archaeology was full of it (bullshit) of sorts in the last 50 years, so much more the linguistics will be so on specifics for the movements of people in space and time.

What i know is that the shulaveri and south caucasus had the right mix to be the origin of PIE. Agriculture, cattle, metals, horses, etc. ...now apparently also have the right y-dna and genetic admix to be the urhmeit of what we see just following later in steppe that everybody has been shouting as the origin of Pie. And naturally solves the problem of Hittite.

Cpluskx
22-04-18, 16:24
Some of those commenters on Anthrogenica are really insane. What kind of qualifications, research and data they have to call Reich & Krause ignorant?

LeBrok
22-04-18, 16:25
"Genetic evidence ruled out one likely related group in the region, the Yamnaya, because their DNA showed the group had hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is inconsistent with the fact that two Indo-European groups, Armenians and Indians, don’t share it, Patterson said. That made Patterson look south, to the Maikop civilization, which likely had significant contact with the Yamnaya, as a plausible culture where Indo-European languages originated. Samples have been obtained from Maikop burial sites, but the DNA work to test that proposal is pending, Patterson said."

is this actually true? i thought armenians did have EHG.

See, Armenia had pretty violent history. Here is the chart telling it. First is CHG, the second one is Armenian Farmer of Early Bronze Age. We can see it he is very similar to CHG but with additional admixtures of Iranian and Anatolian Farmers.
Next two point to drastic changes Armenia went through during Bronze Age. The telling sign is sharp rise of North East Euro admixture. The closest source was Bronze Age Steppe, therefore Steppe invasion through Caucase.
The big surprise is that Modern Armenians don't have much of NE Euro left. They look surprisingly like EBA Armenian before Steppe invasion. It looks like the all the late BA Armenians, possibly the communities extensively mixed with IEs, left the area or were wiped out, and "original" Armenians took over once again.



M603839

M536324
I1658

M691697
RISE407

Modern



Kotias CHG
8 KYA

Armenia EBA

Armenia LBA

Armenian


Run time
13.98

Run time
8.22

Run time
3.92

Run time


S-Indian
0.62

S-Indian
0.27

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
1


Baloch
36.63

Baloch
25.53

Baloch
28.22

Baloch
20


Caucasian
54.15

Caucasian
56.75

Caucasian
30.75

Caucasian
52


NE-Euro
3.84

NE-Euro
4.79

NE-Euro
24.77

NE-Euro
3


SE-Asian
0.59

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
0.77

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.15

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
-

American
-

American
1.54

American


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
5.88

Mediterranean
6.98

Mediterranean
10


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
6.45

SW-Asian
6.38

SW-Asian
13


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
0.25

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
3.01

W-African
0.33

W-African
1.36

W-African

Olympus Mons
22-04-18, 16:29
"Genetic evidence ruled out one likely related group in the region, the Yamnaya, because their DNA showed the group had hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is inconsistent with the fact that two Indo-European groups, Armenians and Indians, don’t share it, Patterson said. That made Patterson look south, to the Maikop civilization, which likely had significant contact with the Yamnaya, as a plausible culture where Indo-European languages originated. Samples have been obtained from Maikop burial sites, but the DNA work to test that proposal is pending, Patterson said."

is this actually true? i thought armenians did have EHG.


Hi. When would have patterson said that?

markozd
22-04-18, 16:54
...you did get that its not me insulting reich and Krauser, right?
That its at those forums that once revered those guys but know are starting to say they know nothing about linguistics and they are going against the data, and so forth.

So, who was I insulting?

I did get that. But scratch it, I just read the thread on anthrogenica and saw comments insinuating that David Reich would push for a southern homeland because he's Jewish. Those anthrogenica guys actually are pathetic :embarassed:

Angela
22-04-18, 17:26
I did get that. But scratch it, I just read the thread on anthrogenica and saw comments insinuating that David Reich would push for a southern homeland because he's Jewish. Those anthrogenica guys actually are pathetic :embarassed:

I guess Johannes Krause is as well? :)

After I read the link I took a look at the "General" section. It's theapricity 2. How sad that they ban informed posters and these nitwits have the run of the forum. Sikeliot, of course, is back talking to himself about Southern Italians via one or more socks. It's really funny in a black humor sort of way. :)

The Ancient dna section still seems reputable from what I can tell, although there are some "out there", unchallenged posts there as well.

epoch
22-04-18, 17:37
I did get that. But scratch it, I just read the thread on anthrogenica and saw comments insinuating that David Reich would push for a southern homeland because he's Jewish. Those anthrogenica guys actually are pathetic :embarassed:

That was me, and that's not what I said. Reread it, and then try to understand it.

epoch
22-04-18, 17:42
I guess Johannes Krause is as well? :)

After I read the link I took a look at the "General" section. It's theapricity 2. How sad that they ban informed posters and these nitwits have the run of the forum. Sikeliot, of course, is back talking to himself about Southern Italians via one or more socks. It's really funny in a black humor sort of way. :)

The Ancient dna section still seems reputable from what I can tell, although there are some "out there", unchallenged posts there as well.

Same for you. Read the actual postings and then comment on it.

epoch
22-04-18, 17:58
Same for you. Read the actual postings and then comment on it.

The actual postings. First user Patarames claims:


So I wonder who's opinion is worth more... more so because their bilateral conclusion has no kind of benefits for personal agendas...

To which I respond:


The son of the former president U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and a German (!) academic proving that the "Aryan Invasions" weren't done by Europeans might be a very strong incentive. I can imagine the idea of an European population doing that may sound a bit too much like proving Hitler right, even if the irony that this homeland was in Ukraine probably isn't entirely lost on them.

EDIT: I don't say this actually is the case, because I don't know either gentlemen, but you simply cannot state the highlighted text.

And:


Exactly my point. I like to stress that I have no idea weather of not this plays. It is just that you cannot claim political bias is undeniably absent and use that undeniability to strengthen your point.

Pasted with all its errors.

EDIT: with relevant link: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14065-PIE-Homeland-after-David-Reich-MPI-SHH-supports-the-quot-southern-Caucasus-hypothesis-quot/page5&p=382567#post382567

Angela
22-04-18, 18:11
Same for you. Read the actual postings and then comment on it.

I'm not a mind reader. I don't know what the heck you're on about.

I READ the threads in the general section on Southern Italians. There are two active ones at the present time.

I READ the threads on South Asia and the steppe. I'm not interested in the others. I didn't read every post, but I went back a bit. Whether I agree with them or not, they're mostly not at all t-roll posts.

Who the heck are you defending? Yourself? I don't even recall seeing your name.

A little hyper-sensitive it seems.

Balkanite
22-04-18, 18:11
Some of those commenters on Anthrogenica are really insane. What kind of qualifications, research and data they have to call Reich & Krause ignorant?

I think some of those commenters suffer from something.
Im not a psychologist, but terms like 'denial' and 'delusional' would undoubtedly be present in their files at their shrinks office.

Olympus Mons
22-04-18, 18:16
The actual postings. First user Patarames claims:To which I respond:And:Pasted with all its errors.EDIT: with relevant link: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14065-PIE-Homeland-after-David-Reich-MPI-SHH-supports-the-quot-southern-Caucasus-hypothesis-quot/page5&p=382567#post382567And the Irony must not be lost on you that a forum that pushed out (banned) so many for posting dissonante opinions to the "forums oficial" mantra (political/socio/inferiority complex/.... pick whatever) which was based on papers and opinions of these same Labs, now its challenging the motivations of that same people. I, for one, was lured into heat exchanged with particular posters there, and assume that the tone was allowed because it was what was being thrown back at me by people like Richard Rocca, Just to be immediately banned. Isn't it ironic that both of the powerhouses of aDna (MPI and Harvard Reich) are now basicly stating the exact, the exact, mantra I was trying to explain from the get go in there. On my part, nothing changes. I keep on saying the same I was saying in 2015.

Angela
22-04-18, 18:24
I'm not a mind reader. I don't know what the heck you're on about.

I READ the threads in the general section on Southern Italians. There are two active ones at the present time.

I READ the threads on South Asia and the steppe. I'm not interested in the others. I didn't read every post, but I went back a bit. Whether I agree with them or not, they're mostly not at all t-roll posts.

Who the heck are you defending? Yourself? I don't even recall seeing your name.

A little hyper-sensitive it seems.

Ed. Ah, now I get it: You're talking about the original link. I did read it.

What possible difference does it make if Reich's father is the director of the Holocaust museum? Does that make him more Jewish or something, more apt to be biased?

My point actually was about Krause. Now all German academics are suspect too, I guess.

Former frequent Eastern European posters on Skadi and Stormfront who posted the most abominable anti-Semitic and anti-Southern European slurs, and who have spent the better part of a decade trying to prove how "Aryan" and therefore superior they are, like your buddy Polako, are unimpeachably objective are they?

Please, give us all a break. Your agenda is apparent in almost everything you write.

It's ok for half the ancestry to be "Caucasus like" but not the beginnings of the language? Or are you going to try to deny that as well? Oh, I remember, as long as it came via women it's ok, because they don't really matter.

I know you find it difficult to believe, but most people, normal people, don't give a ***** *** where the Indo-European language or pre-Indo-European language was first spoken. What freaking difference does it make other than as a matter of intellectual curiosity?

epoch
22-04-18, 19:25
Ed. Ah, now I get it: You're talking about the original link. I did read it.

What possible difference does it make if Reich's father is the director of the Holocaust museum? Does that make him more Jewish or something, more apt to be biased?

My point actually was about Krause. Now all German academics are suspect too, I guess.

Former frequent Eastern European posters on Skadi and Stormfront who posted the most abominable anti-Semitic and anti-Southern European slurs, and who have spent the better part of a decade trying to prove how "Aryan" and therefore superior they are, like your buddy Polako, are unimpeachably objective are they?

Please, give us all a break. Your agenda is apparent in almost everything you write.

It's ok for half the ancestry to be "Caucasus like" but not the beginnings of the language? Or are you going to try to deny that as well? Oh, I remember, as long as it came via women it's ok, because they don't really matter.

I know you find it difficult to believe, but most people, normal people, don't give a ***** *** where the Indo-European language or pre-Indo-European language was first spoken. What freaking difference does it make other than as a matter of intellectual curiosity?

I have no idea what this response boils down to. Reread the exchange I pasted, maybe you get what it meant.

epoch
22-04-18, 19:26
Im not a psychologist

That is quite clear.

Ernekar
22-04-18, 19:54
Its a fun day at AG.

Lets see how long that anthrogenica thread can keep on until the moderators threaten to close it.(those threats happen every time someone mentions any kind of CHG PIE correlation.)

Cpluskx
22-04-18, 20:13
Hi. When would have patterson said that?

He said it in 2014.

''That made Patterson look south, to the Maikop civilization, which likely had significant contact with the Yamnaya, as a plausible culture where Indo-European languages originated. Samples have been obtained from Maikop burial sites, but the DNA work to test that proposal is pending, Patterson said.''

Now they know about the Maykop data.

Angela
22-04-18, 20:24
I have no idea what this response boils down to. Reread the exchange I pasted, maybe you get what it meant.

What it means is that you're an anti-Semite and a Nordicist, just like your buddy, with whom it is useless having a discussion, which is why I'm out.

halfalp
22-04-18, 20:27
I am not a linguistic. So PIE and PPIE or.PPPPPIE is meaningless. And if we are finding out by aDna that archaeology was full of it (bullshit) of sorts in the last 50 years, so much more the linguistics will be so on specifics for the movements of people in space and time.
What i know is that the shulaveri and south caucasus had the right mix to be the origin of PIE. Agriculture, cattle, metals, horses, etc. ...now apparently also have the right y-dna and genetic admix to be the urhmeit of what we see just following later in steppe that everybody has been shouting as the origin of Pie. And naturally solves the problem of Hittite.Lol, you descend scientifics from the past, only because you are too much arrogant with your own ideas, even that you are not a scientific yourself and that your theories where made up only by intuition looking at different correlations. I can't discuss with somebody so self-absorbed.

Olympus Mons
22-04-18, 21:21
Lol, you descend scientifics from the past, only because you are too much arrogant with your own ideas, even that you are not a scientific yourself and that your theories where made up only by intuition looking at different correlations. I can't discuss with somebody so self-absorbed.
Yes. Then we shouldn't.

Olympus Mons
22-04-18, 21:25
He said it in 2014.
''That made Patterson look south, to the Maikop civilization, which likely had significant contact with the Yamnaya, as a plausible culture where Indo-European languages originated. Samples have been obtained from Maikop burial sites, but the DNA work to test that proposal is pending, Patterson said.''
Now they know about the Maykop data.
There was maykop aDna after that date and returned only mtdna was it not? Even had somethimg like M and U8....or i dream it?

A. Papadimitriou
22-04-18, 21:55
I believed and still believe that PIEans were mostly EEF related but I haven't invested anything on it.I think 'Greco-Aryans' or even Late PIEans had some CHG admixture but proto-Aryans in 'West Asia' had acquired even more before the expansion towards India.I don't connect CHG or Iran N. admixture with PIE because multiple non-IE languages can be associated with it (from Elamite to Hurrian & Uratian]. Even proto-Dravidians could have had Iran N. admixture (it depends on where the homeland is)Counter arguments can be used.

Ygorcs
22-04-18, 22:45
This things are really delicious.
I was reading Anthrogenicas thread
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14065-PIE-Homeland-after-David-Reich-MPI-SHH-supports-the-quot-southern-Caucasus-hypothesis-quot&p=382413&viewfull=1#post382413

Apparently in a german documentary Johannes krauser is reiterating what he already said before Reich and what reich is publishing these days...south Caucasus definitly home of PIE.
Its worthwhile reading it. Because clearly is said that homeland is south caucasus, armenia and eastern anatolia, EVEN POSSIBLE western iran.
So clearly they know are "my Shulaveri". And if so, its irritatingly vague. Yamanaya yamanaya yamnaya...but when it comes to Shulaveri its always south Caucasus....there was only them there so its not rocket science to name them....

There was only Shuvaleri-Shmu in the broad region of South Caucasus, from Eastern Anatolia to the Caspian coast of Iran? I think that position is very doubtful, there were several other cultures there in the Neolithic, some even superseding the others in the same land. Even if we can agree that Shulaveri-Shomu would fit the evidences they've been finding lately, in fact virtually any South Caucasian or even Northwestern Iranian (which is in fact just a southern extension of Transcaucasia), that existed there up to around 4200 BC (roughly when Sredny Stog appears and when Proto-Anatolian split has been dated in the earliest - but still not over-the-top - assumptions made by linguists), would be at least a plausible candidate.

There is no way PIE, even at the Indo-Hittite stage, dates to before 5000 BC. Its mother language, a sort of pre-PIE, certainly did, but the expansion of a certain language (which we call PIE) that was originally unified was most definitely a later event, from the Late Neolithic onwards - and it is quite likely it did not happen straight from the first Urheimat of that language (much like the expansion of Romance languages to Latin America didn't come from Italy).

It is all very nice that you are so confident about your hypothesis, but I would not expect Krause and Reich, scientists with a reputation to preserve in their scientific field, to be that confident and name the specific culture from where those pre-PIE speakers would've originally come, certainly not until they have hundreds or even thousands of new samples to analyze and correlate in a very specific, high-resolution way.

Olympus Mons
22-04-18, 22:59
There was only Shuvaleri-Shmu in the broad region of South Caucasus, from Eastern Anatolia to the Caspian coast of Iran? I think that position is very doubtful, there were several other cultures there in the Neolithic, some even superseding the others in the same land. Even if we can agree that Shulaveri-Shomu would fit the evidences they've been finding lately, in fact virtually any South Caucasian or even Northwestern Iranian (which is in fact just a southern extension of Transcaucasia), that existed there up to around 4200 BC (roughly when Sredny Stog appears and when Proto-Anatolian split has been dated in the earliest - but still not over-the-top - assumptions made by linguists), would be at least a plausible candidate.
There is no way PIE, even at the Indo-Hittite stage, dates to before 5000 BC. Its mother language, a sort of pre-PIE, certainly did, but the expansion of a certain language (which we call PIE) that was originally unified was most definitely a later event, from the Late Neolithic onwards - and it is quite likely it did not happen straight from the first Urheimat of that language (much like the expansion of Romance languages to Latin America didn't come from Italy).
It is all very nice that you are so confident about your hypothesis, but I would not expect Krause and Reich, scientists with a reputation to preserve in their scientific field, to be that confident and name the specific culture from where those pre-PIE speakers would've originally come, certainly not until they have hundreds or even thousands of new samples to analyze and correlate in a very specific, high-resolution way.
Name those cultures.

Ygorcs
23-04-18, 00:55
In that matter, South Caucasus could only be home of PPIE. If you assume South Caucasus is the home of PIE, you also assume that his expansion in Eurasia is from South Caucasus. And how they would actually knows, Reich has said many times that Yamnaya was the origin of indo-european languages in western europe and south asia, why they even boring change their mind all the time.

Not necessarily. I can definitely see as a most plausible scenario a certain way to reconcile BOTH South Caucasus and Pontic-Caspian Steppe hypothesis. PIE like any other language didn't get born fully formed in any particular date. It evolved, split into dialects, some of those dialects went extinct, some others expanded into the areas of other sister dialects and absorbed them, some others were dead ends while others left daughter languages, etc. PIE probably went at least to 3 pre-expansion stages: Pre-PIE, the mother language of the common Early PIE (Indo-Hittite); Early PIE, basically Indo-Hittie; and Late PIE, or PIE minus Anatolian.

It is compatible with the evidences we have now ("now" is they keyword, we'll know much more in 5 or 10 years) that those languages or versions of IE first developed and gained their distinctive form in different places, just like American English evolved in the USA, descending from Modern English in Britain, which descended from a North Sea chain of Anglo-Saxon (Germany/Netherlands) dialects, which then probably descended from a Scandinavian Proto-Germanic dialect that eventually expanded and replaced all other more or less similar languages. What people usually have called Early PIE and Late PIE in many comments refers to a VERY long historical gap, certainly not even the same language. It would be roughly like calling Vulgar Latin and Brazilian Portuguese "Early Latin" vs. "Late Latin".

In my opinion, it's very possible that the history of PIE was similar (I have no strong opinion until now whether this is really "the truth" or not, I think we need much more evidences): pre-PIE in Transcaucasia or even Northwestern Iran, before 4500 BC; Indo-Hittie PIE when those South Caucasian people first split expanding to the north and other directions (west?), around 4000-4200 BC; Late non-Anatolian PIE as the Early PIE-descendant language developed in the Pontic-Caspian language around 3500 BC, became a lingua franca and later a mother tongue in a huge and mobile steppe horizon, and from there the biggest part of the IE expansion happened eventually, in the Bronze Age.

holderlin
23-04-18, 02:51
I believed and still believe that PIEans were mostly EEF related but I haven't invested anything on it.I think 'Greco-Aryans' or even Late PIEans had some CHG admixture but proto-Aryans in 'West Asia' had acquired even more before the expansion towards India.I don't connect CHG or Iran N. admixture with PIE because multiple non-IE languages can be associated with it (from Elamite to Hurrian & Uratian]. Even proto-Dravidians could have had Iran N. admixture (it depends on where the homeland is)Counter arguments can be used.

I'm usually firmly rooted in this notion as well, seeing early PIE in Balkan-Ukraine as I'm always going on about. Actually, opening myself up to Olympus Mons' speculation makes me wonder if Iron Gates was Mesolithic IE. Based on genetics alone it's becoming harder to hang onto this, but all the other data, with genetics, still points towards Ukraine at the very least. If not in the North West, then South East.

The important thing that people should realize is that we do seem to be narrowing things down, which looks to me like the IEs were situated between the most advanced cultures of the Ancient Old World, which helps explain their pragmatic ascendancy.

Promenade
23-04-18, 05:24
Sometimes people come up with unlikely reasons for things. The Ganges probably wasn't exploited simply because the Indus was closer to the farming epicenter. Being embedded in dense jungle would have only been an obstacle for a limited time if populations were expanding and needed more food production. And I'm pretty sure IVC was cultivating both rice and wheat.

For the majority of their existence they relied on wheat/barley since this is what the agriculturists from the west brought with them. Wild rice grew in Gujarat, but domestication wasn't widespread until after the collapse of the IVC in the Second millennium. I think there is an obvious connection between the rise of rice as the major cereal crop in India and population movement to the Ganges, I just find it curious that the region was rather neglected before then. Maybe the Indus was enough and there was simply no need to expand into the Ganges until climate change and other factors forced people too.

epoch
23-04-18, 07:11
My point actually was about Krause. Now all German academics are suspect too, I guess.

This is what David Reich himself states about the sensitivities of German academics. It's from Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/824635cc-2c60-11e8-a34a-7e7563b0b0f4):


Some discoveries made through ancient DNA have unwelcome political resonance, which Reich is not shy to discuss. For example, in 2015 German authors threatened to withdraw from a scientific paper about the spread of Corded Ware people associated with Yamnaya culture, until the text was revised to make clear the distinction between the new genetic findings and the way the Nazis had used Corded Ware as a basis for German national identity. “The Nazis’ interest in migrations and the spread of Indo-European languages has made it difficult for serious scholars in Europe to discuss the possibility of migrations spreading Indo-European languages,” Reich laments. “In India the possibility that the Indus Valley Civilisation fell at the hands of migrating Indo-European speakers from the north is also fraught, as it suggests that important elements of South Asian culture might have been influenced from the outside.”



Former frequent Eastern European posters on Skadi and Stormfront who posted the most abominable anti-Semitic and anti-Southern European slurs, and who have spent the better part of a decade trying to prove how "Aryan" and therefore superior they are, like your buddy Polako, are unimpeachably objective are they?

What on earth are you on about?


Please, give us all a break. Your agenda is apparent in almost everything you write.


What it means is that you're an anti-Semite and a Nordicist, just like your buddy, with whom it is useless having a discussion, which is why I'm out.

One of the silliest things one can do on the internet is thinking one can perceive someones intent. You have no idea how wrong you are.

PS: The interview with Reich makes me actually think he doesn't have the bias I mentioned was conceivable (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conceivable). Because that is what we discussed: Is a presumed bias conceivable?

halfalp
23-04-18, 07:15
Not necessarily. I can definitely see as a most plausible scenario a certain way to reconcile BOTH South Caucasus and Pontic-Caspian Steppe hypothesis. PIE like any other language didn't get born fully formed in any particular date. It evolved, split into dialects, some of those dialects went extinct, some others expanded into the areas of other sister dialects and absorbed them, some others were dead ends while others left daughter languages, etc. PIE probably went at least to 3 pre-expansion stages: Pre-PIE, the mother language of the common Early PIE (Indo-Hittite); Early PIE, basically Indo-Hittie; and Late PIE, or PIE minus Anatolian. It is compatible with the evidences we have now ("now" is they keyword, we'll know much more in 5 or 10 years) that those languages or versions of IE first developed and gained their distinctive form in different places, just like American English evolved in the USA, descending from Modern English in Britain, which descended from a North Sea chain of Anglo-Saxon (Germany/Netherlands) dialects, which then probably descended from a Scandinavian Proto-Germanic dialect that eventually expanded and replaced all other more or less similar languages. What people usually have called Early PIE and Late PIE in many comments refers to a VERY long historical gap, certainly not even the same language. It would be roughly like calling Vulgar Latin and Brazilian Portuguese "Early Latin" vs. "Late Latin". In my opinion, it's very possible that the history of PIE was similar (I have no strong opinion until now whether this is really "the truth" or not, I think we need much more evidences): pre-PIE in Transcaucasia or even Northwestern Iran, before 4500 BC; Indo-Hittie PIE when those South Caucasian people first split expanding to the north and other directions (west?), around 4000-4200 BC; Late non-Anatolian PIE as the Early PIE-descendant language developed in the Pontic-Caspian language around 3500 BC, became a lingua franca and later a mother tongue in a huge and mobile steppe horizon, and from there the biggest part of the IE expansion happened eventually, in the Bronze Age.Well you just made an enormous message to say what i say. We know for pretty much sure that modern indo-european languages came with a steppe migration in western europe and south asia, so why bothering the origin of its core ? because of bigotry. Stay aware of what everybody says actually on Eupedia and in the future, if there is a compromise about a southern origin of PIE, look who push an actual cultural agenda. So many users here make like they follow the datas, but they cant hide their emotions when something goes against or with their will. Those same people gonna talk about bigotry, neonazi, etc. On the subject, Krause is for an armenian alternative to the anatolian hypothesis, meaning PIE came to europe and south asia with neolithic, Reich, we dont really know, it's like he makes like he is following the datas, but he really want that PIE came from the south ( like a lot of user here ). That sad that actually genetic and archeology are now once again corrupted by people with an agenda, but those people are not the neonazis, but the other side, and they put every of their own mistakes onto an hypothetic white supremacy agenda of hypothetic other people.

Cpluskx
23-04-18, 16:08
Well you just made an enormous message to say what i say. We know for pretty much sure that modern indo-european languages came with a steppe migration in western europe and south asia, so why bothering the origin of its core ? because of bigotry. Stay aware of what everybody says actually on Eupedia and in the future, if there is a compromise about a southern origin of PIE, look who push an actual cultural agenda. So many users here make like they follow the datas, but they cant hide their emotions when something goes against or with their will. Those same people gonna talk about bigotry, neonazi, etc. On the subject, Krause is for an armenian alternative to the anatolian hypothesis, meaning PIE came to europe and south asia with neolithic, Reich, we dont really know, it's like he makes like he is following the datas, but he really want that PIE came from the south ( like a lot of user here ). That sad that actually genetic and archeology are now once again corrupted by people with an agenda, but those people are not the neonazis, but the other side, and they put every of their own mistakes onto an hypothetic white supremacy agenda of hypothetic other people.

This is one of the funniest post i've seen here, especially the bold part. Do you and your insane friends on Anthrogenica realize that it's actually David Reich who is proving the Kurgan expansion and Aryan Invasion of India with his research? It is clearly you who can't accept even a mere idea of Near Eastern origin for PIE, even when it's coming from the guy who proved AIT and steppe migrations to Europe. I wonder how did you recover from the fact that Yamnaya is 50% Near Eastern.

Ygorcs
23-04-18, 17:25
This is one of the funniest post i've seen here, especially the bold part. Do you and your insane friends on Anthrogenica realize that it's actually David Reich who is proving the Kurgan expansion and Aryan Invasion of India with his research? It is clearly you who can't accept even a mere idea of Near Eastern origin for PIE, even when it's coming from the guy who proved AIT and steppe migrations to Europe. I wonder how did you recover from the fact that Yamnaya is 50% Near Eastern.

I'm still at a loss to understand precisely why a Near Eastern origin of the earliest form of PIE (maybe even pre-PIE) is so difficult for some to even contemplate as possible. It isn't as if we didn't already know that a very big part of the Yamna population's autosomal makeup had links with either the Caucasus or Iran, or that there was some profound "southward" change in the genetic makeup of the Pontic-Caspian steppe between the Mesolithic and the Bronze Age. So why should we presume that PIE did necessarily - almost compulsorily, in fact - come from the 50-55% EHG, and not from the 45-50% Neolithic Iranian-like? If not for some agenda or personal aversion or something of the sort, I can't see why there is so much resistance to that idea, even if it is eventually proven wrong. It's at least quite worth investigating. Just a few months ago my main guess was that PIE's earliest/ancestral origins was really in the steppe, probably with Sredny Stog, but with heavy Balkanic/Carpathian influence, but I simply can accept the directions the new evidences suggest and also other equally or preferably even more plausible hypothesis. Why not? Is there any "hidden" reason why we should just stop "digging" the past as soon as we find an expansion from Northeastern Europe? Are they afraid that if we go much back in the chronology of those cultures we'll find inconveniently Near Eastern connections? This is all so irrational.

Ygorcs
23-04-18, 17:35
Well you just made an enormous message to say what i say. We know for pretty much sure that modern indo-european languages came with a steppe migration in western europe and south asia, so why bothering the origin of its core ? because of bigotry. Stay aware of what everybody says actually on Eupedia and in the future, if there is a compromise about a southern origin of PIE, look who push an actual cultural agenda. So many users here make like they follow the datas, but they cant hide their emotions when something goes against or with their will. Those same people gonna talk about bigotry, neonazi, etc. On the subject, Krause is for an armenian alternative to the anatolian hypothesis, meaning PIE came to europe and south asia with neolithic, Reich, we dont really know, it's like he makes like he is following the datas, but he really want that PIE came from the south ( like a lot of user here ). That sad that actually genetic and archeology are now once again corrupted by people with an agenda, but those people are not the neonazis, but the other side, and they put every of their own mistakes onto an hypothetic white supremacy agenda of hypothetic other people.

Oh, give me a break: why should any geneticist, historian or anthropologist finish his job once and for all on the date and place where the Indo-European to Europe and South Asia (perhaps not even including Anatolia) happened? Why should they steer clear from one of the most obvious points of interest of any scientist who studies a certain phenomenon, which is what its ultimate origin is, as well as how precisely it got fully formed? Just because that is somehow inconvenient for you or because it fits the perceived "cultural agenda" and "bigotry" of some other people? Nobody has opposed all the genetic and archaeological evidence pointing to a huge Indo-European expansion just because it fit some of the wildly exaggerated narratives of Nazis and other racist pseudo-scientists. The scientific evidences just pointed out that, yes, some European conquerors migrated to and conquered many other territories in a very wide range, that's all that science can say, the rest is just ideological nonsense that some people may try to attach to ancient history. It's a bit funny that you accuse other people, some of whom are much more knowledgeable and professionally qualified than you (Reich, Krause, seriously?), of politicizing these possibly "inconvenient" results, yet you are using an extreme political and ideology-driven language, but you can't even notice the irony as far as I can see.

halfalp
23-04-18, 17:44
Yamnaya is not 50% West Asia, CHG is a mix between Iran_Neolithic and / or Iran_Chalcolithic and some EHG / WHG related ancestry and 50% pure EHG. You turn the agenda argument in the other direction. Most people always had a problem with a pontic steppe origin about PIE, it would be so much related about Nazi or eugenist / social darwinism ideas, even Reich has mention a lot of times, that they had to be very precautious about explaining to the skepticals that indo-european migrations =/= master race hypothesis. The problem here is pretty evident. There is no discussion that the ancestral migrations from the pontic steppe and the ancient and modern Indo-European languages are related. If one, even bother to reput that into question, nobody can help him. Now, Yamnaya is a very wide culture of related sites, it has multiple mtdna and y-dna markers, multiple genetic inputs, it is virtually impossible to say, PIE or PPIE originate here or there before Yamnaya, so why people bother ? Hajji Firuz sample is Anatolian and Iranian farmer, what is relation with CHG and Yamnaya ? It would be like say the R1a from neolithic baikal at Kitoi are ancestral for the R1a in europe. Because they dont like the idea of a steppe origin, that's all, you have multiple reasons for why, Creationism, Politic, Ethnic...

halfalp
23-04-18, 17:49
Oh, give me a break: why should any geneticist, historian or anthropologist finish his job once and for all on the date and place where the Indo-European to Europe and South Asia (perhaps not even including Anatolia) happened? Why should they steer clear from one of the most obvious points of interest of any scientist who studies a certain phenomenon, which is what its ultimate origin is, as well as how precisely it got fully formed? Just because that is somehow inconvenient for you or because it fits the perceived "cultural agenda" and "bigotry" of some other people? Nobody has opposed all the genetic and archaeological evidence pointing to a huge Indo-European expansion just because it fit some of the wildly exaggerated narratives of Nazis and other racist pseudo-scientists. The scientific evidences just pointed out that, yes, some European conquerors migrated to and conquered many other territories in a very wide range, that's all that science can say, the rest is just ideological nonsense that some people may try to attach to ancient history. It's a bit funny that you accuse other people, some of whom are much more knowledgeable and professionally qualified than you (Reich, Krause, seriously?), of politicizing these possibly "inconvenient" results, yet you are using an extreme political and ideology-driven language, but you can't even notice the irony as far as I can see.When i say bigotry, i talk about Eupedia users not Reich or Krause... And you past the last months fighting with Olympus Mons about why a steppe origin is more likely than his south caucasus hypothesis. So dont turn like a hero, with the argument that a single sample from a single study, completely open your eyes about your previous mistakes.

Ygorcs
23-04-18, 18:02
Yamnaya is not 50% West Asia, CHG is a mix between Iran_Neolithic and / or Iran_Chalcolithic and some EHG / WHG related ancestry and 50% pure EHG. You turn the agenda argument in the other direction. Most people always had a problem with a pontic steppe origin about PIE, it would be so much related about Nazi or eugenist / social darwinism ideas, even Reich has mention a lot of times, that they had to be very precautious about explaining to the skepticals that indo-european migrations =/= master race hypothesis. The problem here is pretty evident. There is no discussion that the ancestral migrations from the pontic steppe and the ancient and modern Indo-European languages are related. If one, even bother to reput that into question, nobody can help him. Now, Yamnaya is a very wide culture of related sites, it has multiple mtdna and y-dna markers, multiple genetic inputs, it is virtually impossible to say, PIE or PPIE originate here or there before Yamnaya, so why people bother ? Hajji Firuz sample is Anatolian and Iranian farmer, what is relation with CHG and Yamnaya ? It would be like say the R1a from neolithic baikal at Kitoi are ancestral for the R1a in europe. Because they dont like the idea of a steppe origin, that's all, you have multiple reasons for why, Creationism, Politic, Ethnic...

The thing is that the source of "southern" ancestry in Yamnaya is not proved to be directly from CHG. Lazaridis for example thought it was closely related to, but distinctive from CHG, and probably more something Neolithic Iranian-like. Besides, whether you like it or not, people pointing a psosible South Caucasus origin of the earliest PIE are discussing the geographic roots, the genetic part of this conundrum is much more complex and mixed, and, well, CHG did exist south of the Caucasus.We don't even know if the EHG/WHG-like part of CHG came really from the north, considering that the ancestors of WHG/EHG originally came, very possibly, from Anatolia, too, and in fact ANF also had WHG-related ancestry probably dating to the Mesolithic.

So pretty much we can say CHG was a West Asian mix since many thousands of years before the early Bronze Age.

Your point is more or less like "the Iran_Neo admixture is not Iranian at all, because much of it had affinity with ANE, so deep down it was a North Asian admixture" or "EEF in Europeans must be considered Middle Eastern, it isn't a typical European admixture" (maybe you think that, they were "tainted" by their Anatolian origins with ancestral links even to Levantines, or something like that). That's just unreasonable.

In any case those possible mixtures that led to those Neolithic admixtures (CHG in fact dates back to the Mesolithic AFAIK) had happened many thousands of years earlier, so they were pretty much part of the socio-cultural milieu of the Near Eastern social milieu and incipient Near Eastern civilizations.

If we deny that CHG is fully Near Eastern because it has some EHG-related ancestry would be like denying that the IE expansion came from the steppes just because much of the ancestry of Yamna/Sredny Stog came from the south (CHG-like Caucasus/Northwest Iranian- that's geography, no "offense intended" in pointing out their relative geographic location with this dreaded "southern" word. LOL)

Ygorcs
23-04-18, 18:07
When i say bigotry, i talk about Eupedia users not Reich or Krause... And you past the last months fighting with Olympus Mons about why a steppe origin is more likely than his south caucasus hypothesis. So dont turn like a hero, with the argument that a single sample from a single study, completely open your eyes about your previous mistakes.

Well, I didn't. I still disagree with him that the dispersal of IE languages happened as he proposes. I always said Olympus Mons' hypothesis was likely but ONLY as a source for the pre-PIE stage, because all evidences point to the fact that the expansion of IE languages happened much later than "his" Shulaveri-Shomu culture and is a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age phenomenon. So at best Shulaveri Shomu were the Proto-Italic of PIE's Spanish. I just opened my mind to the possibility that PIE didn't just get heavy genetic admixture from the South Caucasus, but also maybe its language. You probably missed what I was really saying.

Besides, I'm totally open to making mistakes, so that's why I prefer to follow what the evidences suggest and, particularly, I take what real scientists who have much more knowledge and more access to data than me are proposing. I have no problem at all believing this and then changing my opinion if and when I'm starting to be proven wrong. Why not? I'm not attached to any geographic direction, genetic admixture or culture that existed many thousands of years ago. I don't even care that much to know about what MY OWN ancient origins are. My interest is in the history of peoples and the origins of cultures anywhere, from Chile to Japan, there is nothing personal about that.

Cpluskx
23-04-18, 18:13
Yamnaya is not 50% West Asia, CHG is a mix between Iran_Neolithic and / or Iran_Chalcolithic and some EHG / WHG related ancestry and 50% pure EHG. You turn the agenda argument in the other direction. Most people always had a problem with a pontic steppe origin about PIE, it would be so much related about Nazi or eugenist / social darwinism ideas, even Reich has mention a lot of times, that they had to be very precautious about explaining to the skepticals that indo-european migrations =/= master race hypothesis. The problem here is pretty evident. There is no discussion that the ancestral migrations from the pontic steppe and the ancient and modern Indo-European languages are related. If one, even bother to reput that into question, nobody can help him. Now, Yamnaya is a very wide culture of related sites, it has multiple mtdna and y-dna markers, multiple genetic inputs, it is virtually impossible to say, PIE or PPIE originate here or there before Yamnaya, so why people bother ? Hajji Firuz sample is Anatolian and Iranian farmer, what is relation with CHG and Yamnaya ? It would be like say the R1a from neolithic baikal at Kitoi are ancestral for the R1a in europe. Because they dont like the idea of a steppe origin, that's all, you have multiple reasons for why, Creationism, Politic, Ethnic...

It seems you didn't recover from it at all.

halfalp
23-04-18, 18:27
The thing is that the source of "southern" ancestry in Yamnaya is not proved to be directly from CHG. Lazaridis for example thought it was closely related to, but distinctive from CHG, and probably more something Neolithic Iranian-like. Besides, whether you like it or not, people pointing a psosible South Caucasus origin of the earliest PIE are discussing the geographic roots, the genetic part of this conundrum is much more complex and mixed, and, well, CHG did exist south of the Caucasus, so pretty much it was a West Asian mix since many thousands before the early Bronze Age. Your point is more or less like "the Iran_Neo admixture is not Iranian at all, because much of it had affinity with ANE, so deep down it was a North Asian admixture" or "EEF in Europeans must be considered Middle Eastern, it isn't a typical European admixture" (maybe you think that, they were "tainted" by their Anatolian origins with ancestral links even to Levantines, or something like that). That's just unreasonable. In any case those possible mixtures that led to those Neolithic admixtures (CHG in fact dates back to the Mesolithic AFAIK) had happened many thousands of years earlier, so they were pretty much part of the socio-cultural milieu of the Near Eastern social milieu and incipient Near Eastern civilizations. If we deny that CHG is fully Near Eastern because it has some EHG-related ancestry (which we don't even know if it came really from the north, considering that the ancestors of WHG/EHG originally came possibly from Anatolia, too) would be like denying that the IE expansion came from the steppes just because much of the ancestry of Yamna/Sredny Stog came from the south (CHG - that's geography, no "offense intended" in pointing out their relative geographic location with this dreaded "southern" word. LOL)Your post somehow make the point that i want to make with Lazaridis assumptions, just say that R1b-Z2013 came from south caucasus ( we have plenty of data to explain the migration ) and we accept that PIE came from south caucasus, are people trying to search where it came from before of that ? No. They gonna elude for exemple the high proporsion of ANE in iran neolithic. This is my problem, how i see all this. If you follow the datas, like the Myennaeans and Anatolians datas or the southern caucasus from bronze age, we can see that they have Steppe, so why Lazaridis is so sure about a southern origin ? And that idea start way before all those datas. And you mistake about my views, i dont have any beef or so with middle-east, natufians had WHG, anatolian farmers had WHG, iranian farmers had ANE, CHG had WHG / EHG, i completely understand that humanity have migrate in history and i pretty dont care about the origin of IEans and PIE, if we had to discuss about politics or so, i would only say that modern europeans are far far far from those idealized warriors.

halfalp
23-04-18, 18:28
It seems you didn't recover from it at all.Are you actually a fake account ?

Ygorcs
23-04-18, 18:44
Your post somehow make the point that i want to make with Lazaridis assumptions, just say that R1b-Z2013 came from south caucasus ( we have plenty of data to explain the migration ) and we accept that PIE came from south caucasus, are people trying to search where it came from before of that ? No. They gonna elude for exemple the high proporsion of ANE in iran neolithic. This is my problem, how i see all this. If you follow the datas, like the Myennaeans and Anatolians datas or the southern caucasus from bronze age, we can see that they have Steppe, so why Lazaridis is so sure about a southern origin ? And that idea start way before all those datas. And you mistake about my views, i dont have any beef or so with middle-east, natufians had WHG, anatolian farmers had WHG, iranian farmers had ANE, CHG had WHG / EHG, i completely understand that humanity have migrate in history and i pretty dont care about the origin of IEans and PIE, if we had to discuss about politics or so, i would only say that modern europeans are far far far from those idealized warriors.

I don't think any of those relevant scientists who have studied the population genetics of arguably IE peoples will stop looking for earlier connections, even way back into the Mesolithic. Now, how people will use their findings and data is another matter, nor do I think scientists should stop doing their job just because some people may misuse or misinterpret it to deceive gullible people with strong confirmation bias. I think you're overestimating all this "agenda", it's starting to sound even a bit paranoid. Virtually all scientists are still publishing research confirming the Indo-European expansion from the steppes. They are now looking for the earlier origins of that steppe people, why shouldn't they? And what's the problem if in the much longer term it happened to be south, and not north of the Caucasus? It isn't as if (north)West Asians are that different from Europeans at all, anyway, and it's not like we already didn't know that in the very ancient term there are profound links between West Asia and Europe (ANF, CHG, even possibly WHG) - especially if you think there is some kind of "racial" agenda behind it all.

https://www.advantour.com/img/georgia/population/georgian-people1.jpg

halfalp
23-04-18, 19:01
I don't think any of those relevant scientists who have studied the population genetics of arguably IE peoples will stop looking for earlier connections, even way back into the Mesolithic. Now, how people will use their findings and data is another matter, nor do I think scientists should stop doing their job just because some people may misuse or misinterpret it to deceive gullible people with strong confirmation bias. I think you're overestimating all this "agenda", it's starting to sound even a bit paranoid. Virtually all scientists are still publishing research confirming the Indo-European expansion from the steppes. They are now looking for the earlier origins of that steppe people, why shouldn't they? And what's the problem if in the much longer term it happened to be south, and not north of the Caucasus? It isn't as if (north)West Asians are that different from Europeans at all, anyway, and it's not like we already didn't know that in the very ancient term there are profound links between West Asia and Europe (ANF, CHG, even possibly WHG) - especially if you think there is some kind of "racial" agenda behind it all.

https://www.advantour.com/img/georgia/population/georgian-people1.jpgI'm paranoid ( in a mainstream way ) about it, just look at Cpluskx posts, this is not about science, this about individual ideas. This is constantly, and everywhere nowadays. Do you think this is about individuals ideas ? No this is about the perception that the mass have. If PIE is from the north, it doesn't change anything, if it's from the south, you gonna see some migrations, acceptations of the foreigner agenda. The difference is, if a guy is a black supremacist it doesn't change anyhting, if a guy is a white supremacist, it changes everything. In Europe, there is some Communists / Socialists / Anarchists, that doesn't care about history, but if history can help them to push a certain agenda, they gonna use it. Yes Caucasus seems very beautiful, a lot of different cultures, languages, religions and a lot of wars and ethnic conflicts.

Ygorcs
23-04-18, 19:38
I'm paranoid ( in a mainstream way ) about it, just look at Cpluskx posts, this is not about science, this about individual ideas. This is constantly, and everywhere nowadays. Do you think this is about individuals ideas ? No this is about the perception that the mass have. If PIE is from the north, it doesn't change anything, if it's from the south, you gonna see some migrations, acceptations of the foreigner agenda. The difference is, if a guy is a black supremacist it doesn't change anyhting, if a guy is a white supremacist, it changes everything. In Europe, there is some Communists / Socialists / Anarchists, that doesn't care about history, but if history can help them to push a certain agenda, they gonna use it. Yes Caucasus seems very beautiful, a lot of different cultures, languages, religions and a lot of wars and ethnic conflicts.

I don't know, I think you (and possibly also the left-wing people who also politicize ancient history) are projecting modern conceptions into the past, especially a supposed pan-European racial/cultural unity which wasn't necessarily perceived as such along history. Until very recently, Russia/Ukraine were considered "fundamentally different" from the European (mainly Western European) mindset and culture. They were certainly not perceived as natural brothers, and in fact still aren't by many people. I wonder if people became a bit paranoid about the Russian/Soviet imperialism because of the fact that, actually, the evidences started to suggest that IE expansion was not a phenomenon happening from the "core" of Europe, but from a rather fringe, very eastern part of Europe from those "primitive" lands (to many Western Europeans up to the 20th century) Slavs and Turks, e.g. Ukraine and Russia? People seem to read the events of long gone history through the lens of their modern perceptions. This was always like that. Regardless of that, what is the truth must be investigated and found, no matter if it will please the leftists, rightists or whatever.

Promenade
23-04-18, 21:27
For anyone who would like to get back on topic, some more tweets from Mr. Alexander Kim

The estimated arrival of Iranian and Steppe ancestry to India is given as well as the estimated arrival of Steppe ancestry in Swat and the age of the formation of ASI (But it seems like they are actually referring to Indus_Periphery)

https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/984885772879847434

Swat clearly deviates from the Indian Cline and just as it does not have enough R1a it appears to be lacking the necessary amount of Steppe ancestry we would expect as well.


This is from a yet to be published study on Y-Dna in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/984913652460544011

The Tonali, Jadoon and Yousafzai are all ethnic Pashtun tribes from the same region, yet each is dominated by a different haplogroup which is not completely unexpected in such a mountainous area. Unsurprisingly the Yousafzai are over 3/4's R1a, yet more curiously the Tonali are over 80 percent R1b and the Jadoon appear to be over 80 percent O3. Kim raises the possibility that the O3 in the Jadoon are actually ancestral to that in east and south east Asia, but we will have to wait until the study is published. My knowledge of these tribes are nil, so if anyone is informed about the known or suspected history of these groups feel free to share.

Ygorcs
24-04-18, 00:45
For anyone who would like to get back on topic, some more tweets from Mr. Alexander Kim

The estimated arrival of Iranian and Steppe ancestry to India is given as well as the estimated arrival of Steppe ancestry in Swat and the age of formation of the ASI component found in Indus Periphery.

Didn't ASI already include a lot of Iran_Neo-related admixture, as opposed to what they now call AASI? If so, why are the estimated dates for Iranian, around ~2000-400 BCE, so late and so similar to the entrance of Steppe ancestry in India? Are they differentiating the earlier West Eurasian pulse into ASI from later Iranian arrivals with the distinct Iran_Chalc or Iran_BA admixtures? I think I'm misunderstanding their labels there...



Swat clearly deviates from the Indian Cline and just as it does not have enough R1a it appears to be lacking the necessary amount of Steppe ancestry we would expect as well.

It seems increasingly likely to me that they just didn't get "the" regional population that would become decisive to the future of India from the Late Bronze Age onwards. If ancient South Asia was anything even remotely similar to present-dayy South Asia, it should have a significant genetic structure and thus the autosomal and Y-DNA makeup would change a lot from one region to the other.

Promenade
24-04-18, 01:46
Didn't ASI already include a lot of Iran_Neo-related admixture, as opposed to what they now call AASI? If so, why are the estimated dates for Iranian, around ~2000-400 BCE, so late and so similar to the entrance of Steppe ancestry in India? Are they differentiating the earlier West Eurasian pulse into ASI from later Iranian arrivals with the distinct Iran_Chalc or Iran_BA admixtures? I think I'm misunderstanding their labels there...




It seems increasingly likely to me that they just didn't get "the" regional population that would become decisive to the future of India from the Late Bronze Age onwards. If ancient South Asia was anything even remotely similar to present-dayy South Asia, it should have a significant genetic structure and thus the autosomal and Y-DNA makeup would change a lot from one region to the other.

ASI is a mixture of AASI and Indus_Periphery, and Indus_Periphery itself is a mix of AASI and Iran_Neo. I guess what they're hypothesizing is the core of IVC being mostly AASI, with Iran_Neo admixed Indus_Periphery existing in some kind of cline and not fully spreading to the rest of South Asia until the collapse of the IVC, right before steppe intrusion as populations began to shift west due to climate change and other factors. So the IVC would have been a heterogeneous population with Indus_Periphery forming somewhere within it's boundaries and not expanding to the rest of the sub continent until right before its "collapse" to create what we know as ASI.

Also I agree with you about not finding the right population yet, in the South Asia Genetics talk today they mentioned many South Asian populations having founder effects more extreme than those experienced by both Finns and Jews. The maps also show myriad trade networks across the Hindu Kush so there are still a large number of possibilities of where they may have entered from. It's still entirely possible they were around the same area as Swat too.

Edit: Looking at the top left graph they seem to be using Indus_Periphery as a stand in for ASI, but as far as I understand they are not the same. I think they are actually trying to show when AASI and Iran_Neo mixed to form Indus_Periphery here.

Ygorcs
24-04-18, 03:09
ASI is a mixture of AASI and Indus_Periphery, and Indus_Periphery itself is a mix of AASI and Iran_Neo. I guess what they're hypothesizing is the core of IVC being mostly AASI, with Iran_Neo admixed Indus_Periphery existing in some kind of cline and not fully spreading to the rest of South Asia until the collapse of the IVC, right before steppe intrusion as populations began to shift west due to climate change and other factors. So the IVC would have been a heterogeneous population with Indus_Periphery forming somewhere within it's boundaries and not expanding to the rest of the sub continent until right before its "collapse" to create what we know as ASI.

Also I agree with you about not finding the right population yet, in the South Asia Genetics talk today they mentioned many South Asian populations having founder effects more extreme than those experienced by both Finns and Jews. The maps also show myriad trade networks across the Hindu Kush so there are still a large number of possibilities of where they may have entered from. It's still entirely possible they were around the same area as Swat too.

Edit: Looking at the top left graph they seem to be using Indus_Periphery as a stand in for ASI, but as far as I understand they are not the same. I think they are actually trying to show when AASI and Iran_Neo mixed to form Indus_Periphery here.

That's clearer for me now. But IVC being mostly AASI, really? That would be a big surprise for me, because this was as developed an agricultural civilization as it could get in that part of the world (or any other, in fact), and would it be mostly of native hunter-gatherer stock, with no parallel with the fate of hunter-gatherers in most of Europe? I can't help but find that unlikely. I think it's possible that the source of Iran_Neo in IVC was slightly different (there must've been genetic structure in such a big area as Iran, which is more than 1.5 million sq kilometers, right?) from the Iranian-related admixtures in Indus_Periphery. I still think they haven't been most clear about what really differentiates the IVC (what they suppose it was) from the new "Indus_Periphery" admixture. Or maybe it is all so entangled and intricate that it's really difficult to understand at first.

holderlin
24-04-18, 03:57
There is no way PIE, even at the Indo-Hittite stage, dates to before 5000 BC. Its mother language, a sort of pre-PIE, certainly did, but the expansion of a certain language (which we call PIE) that was originally unified was most definitely a later event, from the Late Neolithic onwards - and it is quite likely it did not happen straight from the first Urheimat of that language (much like the expansion of Romance languages to Latin America didn't come from Italy).

This is something I didn't bring up but it's another solid point. 5000BC is definitely possible, but it's a the very bottom end of the range for PIE.

Maybe I'm just a Sredny stog, Mikhaylovka fan boi

holderlin
24-04-18, 04:19
https://www.advantour.com/img/georgia/population/georgian-people1.jpg

Dayaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn

I think I might just go train some submission grappling in Azerbaijian.


https://i.imgur.com/FmFq3Vp.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/nuzFXJ4.jpg

Ygorcs
24-04-18, 05:14
I think this piece in Science Magazine clarifies what exactly the researches meant. So basically Indus_Periphery is seen as probably very similar to IVC, ASI is a later mix of the "Mesolithic relics" AASI in South India with the Indus_Periphery people, ANI is a mix of the steppe herders with Indus_Periphery, and later still, finally, ANI and ASI mixed extensively.


Between 4700 and 3000 B.C.E., farmers from Iran mixed with hunter-gatherers indigenous to South Asia, Moorjani said. This combination of ancestries was found in the DNA of skeletal remains from sites in Turkmenistan and Iran known to have been in contact with the Indus Valley civilization, which thrived in Pakistan and northwest India starting around 3300 B.C.E. (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5881/1276) The researchers dub this population “Indus periphery.” The 65 ancient people from Pakistan also show this combination, although they all lived after the Indus civilization declined. The researchers suspect that “Indus periphery” people actually may have been the founders of Indus society, although without ancient DNA from Indus Valley burials, they can’t be sure.

Still, Moorjani’s team sees this ancient mixture of Iranian farmers and South Asian hunter-gatherers all over South Asia today. As the Indus Valley civilization declined after 1300 B.C.E., some Indus periphery individuals moved south to mix with indigenous populations there, forming the Ancestral South Indian population, which today is more prominent in people who speak Dravidian languages such as Tamil and Kannada, and in those belonging to lower castes.

Meanwhile, herders from the Eurasian steppe moved into the northern part of the subcontinent and mixed with Indus periphery people still there, forming the Ancestral North Indian population. Today, people who belong to higher castes and those who speak Indo-European languages such as Hindi and Urdu tend to have more of this ancestry. Shortly after, these two already mixed groups mixed with each other, giving rise to the populations living in India today.

Ygorcs
24-04-18, 05:22
https://i.imgur.com/nuzFXJ4.jpg

LOL! This girl really looks like she is someone you shouldn't mess up with without some unforgettable consequences! :-D

holderlin
24-04-18, 05:35
LOL! This girl really looks like she is someone you shouldn't mess up with without some unforgettable consequences! :-D


https://i.imgur.com/iSgue9L.jpg

holderlin
24-04-18, 05:45
I think this piece in Science Magazine clarifies what exactly the researches meant. So basically Indus_Periphery is seen as probably very similar to IVC, ASI is a later mix of the "Mesolithic relics" AASI in South India with the Indus_Periphery people, ANI is a mix of the steppe herders with Indus_Periphery, and later still, finally, ANI and ASI mixed extensively.

Yes, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

johen
24-04-18, 15:46
How do we think about discussions in eurogenes and anthrogenica?


Vara said...
Where do you think the Indo-Iranian homeland is? It needs to have fire worship and many other Indo-Iranian features Sintashta and early Andronovo lack.


There is no backbone to these discussions.


A year back all these discussions centered around R1a and how it came from steppe. Now that it is evident all the malta boys and poltavka's turn out to be not relevant to the south asian R1a (L657) the discussions are turning into a autosomal discussion.


Ofcourse it goes without saying the leaders on the steppe studies are themselves to blame for the turn.


L657 is 5500 to 6000 years old. Show L657 in large numbers and entering into South Asia and the discussion is closed, but that seems impossible because after combing through all the samples in the north none has been found. So what does this say about where L657 originated is unknown as of now.




Regarding autosomal studies if they are honest they should estimate the effective population size of the so called MLBA_East and also estimate the population size of IVC and then proceed to show how there is steppe found even in Mala and some tribals.


JUst saying "oh we found steppe in MLBA_East which is the closest and the right fit based on our statistics" and all south asians also have it. So steppe came here. That just sound nuts. This makes one think are there guys really biologists or just statisticians.




Personally i feel the autosomal based conclusion which is again based on just 3 outliers is going to be untenable. Even if the IPE outliers are the real represenation of IVC which spanned half of modern India they have been UNABLE to show how it spread through the whole of the population and the percentage of the steppe component is more or less the same (factoring in strict or loose endogamy depending on their caste).


Sooner or later the conclusion of this paper is going to fall.


However, I am pretty sure that the L657 brought mayan and okunevo culture down there.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35776-Central-and-South-Asian-DNA-Paper/page18?p=538890#post538890 (post 448)

even fire worship culture also:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=jr8SglurL90C&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=introducing+the+mythological+crescent+okunevo+f ire-worship&source=bl&ots=yTiGrmyxwM&sig=wMmSd5tHx8MolVGt-fTzBtqcYKk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc7rWQ0szaAhVB_WMKHQitCuAQ6AEIJzAA#v=on epage&q=introducing%20the%20mythological%20crescent%20ok unevo%20fire-worship&f=false

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5f/24/75/5f2475b66efce578514a9113ff7ee531.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Agni_18th_century_miniature.jpg

And the following things have same concept, maybe connected to inside shape of mushroom (like soma) also.
multi-armed god: each hand seems to be the symbol of regeneration like sunrays. So they can be replaced by snakes.
https://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/as/web-large/DT5236.jpg
https://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/2356.jpg?v=1485680619

https://www.metmuseum.org/es/art/collection/search/38341
https://www.ancient.eu/image/2356/

Likewise indo aryan hair mode,sikha also " knotted lock of hair on the crown of the head and the rest of the hair shaved off." Of course scyhtian also had the hair style according to Hippocrates, which I quoted lots of times.

The sikha or shikha (Sanskrit: शिखा; IAST: śikhā; "crest"; Hindi चोटी (choTi)) means flame, powerful, ray of light, peak of a mountain. It is a name of Hindu / Indian origin, and is commonly used for females.

Angela
24-04-18, 17:20
This is what David Reich himself states about the sensitivities of German academics. It's from Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/824635cc-2c60-11e8-a34a-7e7563b0b0f4):




What on earth are you on about?





One of the silliest things one can do on the internet is thinking one can perceive someones intent. You have no idea how wrong you are.

PS: The interview with Reich makes me actually think he doesn't have the bias I mentioned was conceivable (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conceivable). Because that is what we discussed: Is a presumed bias conceivable?

Virtually anything and everything is conceivable. The question is whether it is probable or likely.

You obviously don't understand Jews or anyone, indeed, other than Germans and Eastern Europeans, and even a minority of them.

I've never in my life met a Jewish person who gives a damn about the Indo-Europeans or wants to be descended from them. If anything, they want to be 100% Middle Eastern, identical to the Jews of the first millenium BC. Regardless, the academics among them who study population genetics acknowledge that there is "European" ancestry in the Ashkenazim, although I pick up a faint preference for admixture to be with Southern Europeans rather than Poles. I've never seen any "playing" with the data to make it look that way, however, unlike in your favorite blog. That's also certainly what I get from the Jews I know personally and I know a LOT.

I'll go further. I also don't give a damn about being descended from Indo-Europeans, whatever their autosomal make-up. In fact, I'd prefer not to be descended from them, although I know I am to some degree. It has nothing to do with their genetics. I strongly dislike their culture. As to language, I honestly can't believe that people are emotionally invested in where the first forms of the language were present. WHO CARES? It's hard for me to think of a less important thing about which to feel proprietary. I mean, I don't know, should I start an internet war over who first domesticated olives or something? I'm sure David Reich and any other normal person feels the same way. If anything he would probably be more interested in the development of Semitic. I think there are topics in population genetics about which Jewish researchers might have to tamp down and ignore any minor biases they might have, but this isn't one of them. This is your obsession, not theirs.

People have to stop assuming that everyone looks at the world in the same way.

Ygorcs
24-04-18, 17:25
How do we think about discussions in eurogenes and anthrogenica?






However, I am pretty sure that the L657 brought mayan and okunevo culture down there.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35776-Central-and-South-Asian-DNA-Paper/page18?p=538890#post538890 (post 448)

even fire worship culture also:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=jr8SglurL90C&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=introducing+the+mythological+crescent+okunevo+f ire-worship&source=bl&ots=yTiGrmyxwM&sig=wMmSd5tHx8MolVGt-fTzBtqcYKk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc7rWQ0szaAhVB_WMKHQitCuAQ6AEIJzAA#v=on epage&q=introducing%20the%20mythological%20crescent%20ok unevo%20fire-worship&f=false

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5f/24/75/5f2475b66efce578514a9113ff7ee531.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Agni_18th_century_miniature.jpg

And the following things have same concept, maybe connected to inside shape of mushroom (like soma) also.
multi-armed god: each hand seems to be the symbol of regeneration like sunrays. So they can be replaced by snakes.
https://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/as/web-large/DT5236.jpg
https://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/2356.jpg?v=1485680619

https://www.metmuseum.org/es/art/collection/search/38341
https://www.ancient.eu/image/2356/

Likewise indo aryan hair mode,sikha also " knotted lock of hair on the crown of the head and the rest of the hair shaved off." Of course scyhtian also had the hair style according to Hippocrates, which I quoted lots of times.

I can only say that IMO these people are all confusing language, culture and genetics way too much, maybe for ethnic/national reasons (I've noticed that those most resisting to rely on the evidences provided by genetics are, coincidentally or not, South Asians). There is no reason for us to believe that typical features of Iranian and Indo-Aryan religion SHOULD be present in the earliest homeland of the people who spoke the undivided Proto-Indo-Iranian language, especially if, as it increasingly seems possible, both languages effectively matured in a Turan-Northwest India corridor with much cultural, economic and even genetic exchange.

As for Mayan culture being derived from a steppe culture in Mesoamerica, several thousands of kilometers away from even Kamchatka, no comments... I'll just say that cultural and, in fact, merely aesthetic similarities and cherry-picking and extremely vague (multi-armed god = sun god's rays, really?) comparisons aren't the stuff science is made of. I also find it, honestly, a bit disrespectful towards the complexity of the development of indigenous cultures and nations within America for many thousands of years. Also, of course, there is simply no genetic sign at all of such an influx of a new culture and, supposedly, population after ~15000 YBP in Mesoamerica (Paleo-Eskimos and Modern Eskimos never went beyond the US Southwest, and they weren't anything like Central Siberians, anyway). I won't even, for obvious reasons, entertain the possibility that two very similar and genetically related cultures would've been preserved for dozens of thousands of years. But hey, that'd actually be a good subject for ANOTHER thread.

Angela
24-04-18, 17:26
I don't completely agree with this post from Anthrogenica, but it's thought provoking:
"https://anthrogenica.com/images/BittenFruit_fluid/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by homosapien https://anthrogenica.com/images/BittenFruit_fluid/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?p=383442#post383442)There is no backbone to these discussions.

A year back all these discussions centered around R1a and how it came from steppe. Now that it is evident all the malta boys and poltavka's turn out to be not relevant to the south asian R1a (L657) the discussions are turning into a autosomal discussion.

Ofcourse it goes without saying the leaders on the steppe studies are themselves to blame for the turn.

L657 is 5500 to 6000 years old. Show L657 in large numbers and entering into South Asia and the discussion is closed, but that seems impossible because after combing through all the samples in the north none has been found. So what does this say about where L657 originated is unknown as of now.


Regarding autosomal studies if they are honest they should estimate the effective population size of the so called MLBA_East and also estimate the population size of IVC and then proceed to show how there is steppe found even in Mala and some tribals.

JUst saying "oh we found steppe in MLBA_East which is the closest and the right fit based on our statistics" and all south asians also have it. So steppe came here. That just sound nuts. This makes one think are there guys really biologists or just statisticians.


Personally i feel the autosomal based conclusion which is again based on just 3 outliers is going to be untenable. Even if the IPE outliers are the real represenation of IVC which spanned half of modern India they have been UNABLE to show how it spread through the whole of the population and the percentage of the steppe component is more or less the same (factoring in strict or loose endogamy depending on their caste).

Sooner or later the conclusion of this paper is going to fall."

Where indeed is the proper clade of R1a?

bicicleur
24-04-18, 18:42
I don't completely agree with this post from Anthrogenica, but it's thought provoking:
"https://anthrogenica.com/images/BittenFruit_fluid/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by homosapien https://anthrogenica.com/images/BittenFruit_fluid/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?p=383442#post383442)There is no backbone to these discussions.

A year back all these discussions centered around R1a and how it came from steppe. Now that it is evident all the malta boys and poltavka's turn out to be not relevant to the south asian R1a (L657) the discussions are turning into a autosomal discussion.

Ofcourse it goes without saying the leaders on the steppe studies are themselves to blame for the turn.

L657 is 5500 to 6000 years old. Show L657 in large numbers and entering into South Asia and the discussion is closed, but that seems impossible because after combing through all the samples in the north none has been found. So what does this say about where L657 originated is unknown as of now.


Regarding autosomal studies if they are honest they should estimate the effective population size of the so called MLBA_East and also estimate the population size of IVC and then proceed to show how there is steppe found even in Mala and some tribals.

JUst saying "oh we found steppe in MLBA_East which is the closest and the right fit based on our statistics" and all south asians also have it. So steppe came here. That just sound nuts. This makes one think are there guys really biologists or just statisticians.


Personally i feel the autosomal based conclusion which is again based on just 3 outliers is going to be untenable. Even if the IPE outliers are the real represenation of IVC which spanned half of modern India they have been UNABLE to show how it spread through the whole of the population and the percentage of the steppe component is more or less the same (factoring in strict or loose endogamy depending on their caste).

Sooner or later the conclusion of this paper is going to fall."

Where indeed is the proper clade of R1a?

L657 is indeed an almost exclusive South Asian subclade of R1a-Z93
but according to YFull both R1a-Z93 and R1a-L657 have TMRCA 4.7 ka
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/

the South Asian samples are from a very small area, some 15 km in radius
nevertheless it is very curious not to have found the R1a there

the authors said they tried to get proper IVC DNA, but they failed
hopefully better techniques will allow to retrieve some in the future

Ygorcs
24-04-18, 18:46
Regarding autosomal studies if they are honest they should estimate the effective population size of the so called MLBA_East and also estimate the population size of IVC and then proceed to show how there is steppe found even in Mala and some tribals.

My main quibble with this - very common, as I've seen - argument about South Asian tribal populations is that they seem to assume that tribals are just some sort of completely isolated, primordial "relic" of a population as if it'd been transplated right from thousands of years ago to the present age. I doubt a lot that ancestors of those tribes managed to avoid any intermixing with other surrounding peoples during thousands of years in an absurdly populated region like South Asia (as a whole the world's most populated region, and even in the Antiquity most estimates also confirm that was already the case). These tribal populations aren't simply a "window into the past", they also are historical agents.

markozd
25-04-18, 22:08
L657 is indeed an almost exclusive South Asian subclade of R1a-Z93
but according to YFull both R1a-Z93 and R1a-L657 have TMRCA 4.7 ka
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/

the South Asian samples are from a very small area, some 15 km in radius
nevertheless it is very curious not to have found the R1a there

the authors said they tried to get proper IVC DNA, but they failed
hopefully better techniques will allow to retrieve some in the future

I wonder if steppe-admixed groups with R1a-L657 could have come to India-Pakistan from Afghanistan via a more southern route after coming down from the steppe, explaining the lack of L657 further north until the Iron Age. Could Indo-Aryan & Dardic speakers have arrived in their respective regions independently of each other? In such a scenario those Swat samples could still have spoken a non-IE language.

This is a bit off-topic, but it's a bit frustrating how many of the recent papers tend to be rather inconclusive with regionally confined samples. I have been reading David Reich's book over the last couple of days, and some of his conclusions seem rather preliminary based only on published data. I am sure by now he has many more samples from Anatolians, the metal age Caucasus, Mycenae. But did he take those into consideration when writing his book? If not, why publish a book at this point in time?

Angela
25-04-18, 22:17
I wonder if steppe-admixed groups with R1a-L657 could have come to India-Pakistan from Afghanistan via a more southern route after coming down from the steppe, explaining the lack of L657 further north until the Iron Age. Could Indo-Aryan & Dardic speakers have arrived in their respective regions independently of each other? In such a scenario those Swat samples could still have spoken a non-IE language.

This is a bit off-topic, but it's a bit frustrating how many of the recent papers tend to be rather inconclusive with regionally confined samples. I have been reading David Reich's book over the last couple of days, and some of his conclusions seem rather preliminary based only on published data. I am sure by now he has many more samples from Anatolians, the metal age Caucasus, Mycenae. But did he take those into consideration when writing his book? If not, why publish a book at this point in time?

I can't really answer that, but I highly doubt he'd speculate in contradiction to data of which he's aware.

markozd
27-04-18, 20:49
Someone on athrogenica dug this up from Lazaridis et al. . I had never noticed this:


Extended Data Table 2: Admixture f3-statistics. We show the lowest Z-score of the statistic f3(Test; Reference1, Refrence2) for every ancient Test population with at least 2 individuals and every pair (Reference1, Refrence2) of ancient or present-day source populations. Z-scores lower than -3 are highlighted and indicate that the Test population is admixed from sources related to (but not identical to) the reference populations. Z-scores greater than -3 are consistent with the population either being admixed or not.

f3(WHG; Switzerland_HG, Saudi) = -0.01562 Z-score = -7.7

I had said earlier in the thread that it is my belief that basal diversity under R1 is concentrated in the populations west of the Persian Gulf. This suggests that the best proxy for the near eastern admixture that is observed in Europe with beginning with the emergence of the Villabruna cluster is most closely related to Saudi Arabs, not to Iranians, Caucasians or Levantines.

There must in any case be complex layers of ancestry in the Middle East, that we cannot make sense of yet due to a lack of UP/Mesolithic samples.

IronSide
28-04-18, 17:41
Someone on athrogenica dug this up from Lazaridis et al. . I had never noticed this:



I had said earlier in the thread that it is my belief that basal diversity under R1 is concentrated in the populations west of the Persian Gulf. This suggests that the best proxy for the near eastern admixture that is observed in Europe with beginning with the emergence of the Villabruna cluster is most closely related to Saudi Arabs, not to Iranians, Caucasians or Levantines.

There must in any case be complex layers of ancestry in the Middle East, that we cannot make sense of yet due to a lack of UP/Mesolithic samples.

Some say that "someone" is a really talented individual ... full of charisma and intellect.

I posted something similar here in Eupedia, he must have copied me

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32371-The-genetic-structure-of-the-world%E2%80%99s-first-farmers/page16?p=538682&viewfull=1#post538682

johen
29-04-18, 17:40
Modern north west people in china have tons of R1a-m17. I think they knew lake baikal R1a, even if they didnot know the west siberian HG gene is closed related with lake baikal pottery. I really don't understand why they didnot use the sample, but west siberian women.

In Eurogenes:

Open Genomes (https://www.blogger.com/profile/11207443325849433636) said...
Here's a total shocker for one of the "coolest" pre-Sintashta Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranians ... if you think the Manchusare "totally cool!"

DA39: Y: R-L645 mtDNA: N9a2'4'5'11 Gedmatch: Z780597

1240k SNPs in 23andMe format:
http://www.open-genomes.org/genomes/Eurasian%20Steppe/DA39/genome_DA39_1240k.zip
SNPs read: 927452 percent covered: 77.39%

Yes, R-L645 is the immediate parent of R-Z93. DA39 has no reads for the two R-Z93 SNPs, bue's not either R-Z283 or R-Z94, and is ancestral for most of the R-Z93 subclades.

His mtDNA is N9a2'4'5'11, which is found in Japan and China. (http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/n9a_genbank_sequences.htm)

What's really unbelievable is his K15 Oracle4 results:

He's a Jurchen, from the ancestors of the Manchus! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurchens)


Y'all do know that there's plenty of "R1a1*" all over Northern China, among Han Chinese, right?
Zhong et al. (2010) R1a-M17 in China (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vurag4FaljENmdBNQ9D7_LtYntmNpg9Ikl126YnDLzE/edit?usp=sharing)

Basically, if these were Proto Balto-Slavic Indo-Iranians descended from the Corded Ware, they just got on their horses and rode east till they hit the Pacific Ocean! :D

markozd
29-04-18, 23:16
Some say that "someone" is a really talented individual ... full of charisma and intellect.
I posted something similar here in Eupedia, he must have copied me
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32371-The-genetic-structure-of-the-world%E2%80%99s-first-farmers/page16?p=538682&viewfull=1#post538682

Now that you mention it, the usernames are quite similar too. I totally didn't make the connection :D

Good analysis by the way, I was thinking along those lines as well. I wonder if the Swiss HG population extended into Anatolia & surroundings as well before mixing with those other HGs, whatever they were.

The point about the 'North African' morphology is interesting.

IronSide
29-04-18, 23:25
Now that you mention it, the usernames are quite similar too. I totally didn't make the connection :D

Good analysis by the way, I was thinking along those lines as well. I wonder if the Swiss HG population extended into Anatolia & surroundings as well before mixing with those other HGs, whatever they were.

The point about the 'North African' morphology is interesting.

The North African morphology, if taken as a sign of an adaptation to a warm climate, would mean the Villabruna had ancestry from some part in the Middle East, objection to this points to the fact that there is no Basal Eurasian in Villabruna.

But what if it happened before Basal Eurasians appeared? what do you think, who appeared first in the Middle East, Basal or the non-Basal ancestry?

Alan
03-05-18, 14:52
As Angela predicted, a certain blogger "managed" to squeeze some Steppe admixture from Hajji Firuz sample and declared him as Yamnaya individual. If he tries hard enough he might be able to squeeze some Steppe admixture out of the Hausa People with their dubious R1b-V88.

If I remember correctly there has been no sample from that region from which this certain blogger wasn't able to squeeze any "Steppe" admixture. This blogger should re-think his ideas and take into consideration the possibility that this "Steppe" affinity might be something that existed in the very region for longer than the Bronze Age.

Alan
03-05-18, 15:02
And I sure took loads of bullshit in those forums. I am starting to feel vindicated.
Not only you.... keep in mind I was banned from there for calling out a blogger as "biased" and nothing more.

MOESAN
04-05-18, 00:14
I wonder if steppe-admixed groups with R1a-L657 could have come to India-Pakistan from Afghanistan via a more southern route after coming down from the steppe, explaining the lack of L657 further north until the Iron Age. Could Indo-Aryan & Dardic speakers have arrived in their respective regions independently of each other? In such a scenario those Swat samples could still have spoken a non-IE language.



This is a bit off-topic, but it's a bit frustrating how many of the recent papers tend to be rather inconclusive with regionally confined samples. I have been reading David Reich's book over the last couple of days, and some of his conclusions seem rather preliminary based only on published data. I am sure by now he has many more samples from Anatolians, the metal age Caucasus, Mycenae. But did he take those into consideration when writing his book? If not, why publish a book at this point in time?

I red somewhere a theory which proposes the R1a-L657 bearers come with ancestors of Goud Sarawat Brahmins (found in North Punjab about 1000 BC) through the mythic Sarasvati River (proposed today Helmand river in S-E Afghanistan) around the end of the Fourth Millenarium, bearing whelled transports, agriculture, metallurgy, from somewhere between Transcaucasy and BMAC region (supposed akin to ura-Araxes!).
I don't know what credit to accord to this indeed, and I have to find the full abstract; just to answer to the geographic aspect of your post (the route)

Olympus Mons
04-05-18, 00:18
Not only you.... keep in mind I was banned from there for calling out a blogger as "biased" and nothing more.

Its fascinating how gang up, group thinking, motivational reasoning, etc., forms so fast and well structured. We humans seem designed to it.

Silesian
04-05-18, 01:16
As Angela predicted, a certain blogger "managed" to squeeze some Steppe admixture from Hajji Firuz sample and declared him as Yamnaya individual. If he tries hard enough he might be able to squeeze some Steppe admixture out of the Hausa People with their dubious R1b-V88.

If I remember correctly there has been no sample from that region from which this certain blogger wasn't able to squeeze any "Steppe" admixture. This blogger should re-think his ideas and take into consideration the possibility that this "Steppe" affinity might be something that existed in the very region for longer than the Bronze Age.

There are two sides to a coin; and prediction depending on context. Do you know what real genetic affinity sets the "Steppe" apart from other populations[Olympus Mons might know :thinking:]?

Alan
04-05-18, 01:24
There are two sides to a coin; and prediction depending on context. Do you know what real genetic affinity sets the "Steppe" apart from other populations[Olympus Mons might know :thinking:]?

If all samples from Bronze Age to Calcolthic from certain area can be modeled to have "some Steppe" admixture. And you find "Steppe" admixture in form of EHG in CHG samples and even some Iran_Mesolithic samples. As well some EHG individuals showing signs of CHG affinity you should start looking for other explanations than "Steppe" admixture. A explanation for that could be ANE or WHG affinity shared between two groups. Or possibly (and even more likely) CHG admixture in early EHG groups. Since archeological that makes more sense.

Silesian
04-05-18, 01:47
If all samples from Bronze Age to Calcolthic from certain area can be modeled to have "some Steppe" admixture. And you find "Steppe" admixture in form of EHG in CHG samples and even some Iran_Mesolithic samples. As well some EHG individuals showing signs of CHG affinity you should start looking for other explanations than "Steppe" admixture. A explanation for that could be ANE or WHG affinity shared between two groups. Or possibly (and even more likely) CHG admixture in early EHG groups. Since archeological that makes more sense.

Nice try. However before we had all those fancy names we used blood group mutations.
For example. One of the very first ancient samples that people took an interest in was King Tut[whose official ydna results from2011 were never made public]. Way back in 1969 a couple of bright guys took some samples and -- came up with this connection between family[A1 versus A2 mn and rh values].

https://www.nature.com/articles/224325b0
"Kinship of Smenkhkare and Tutankhamen affirmed by Serological Micromethod :
Kinship of Smenkhkare and Tutankhamen demonstrated Serologically.


Now you are probably wondering what this has to do with the " Steppe". Well 48+/- years later another bright chap compared specific mutation component found in "Steppe" people compared to Farmers who migrated from various regions.

Iain Mathieson used the same principle mutations used by Cavalli-Sforza-and colleagues; to deduce the origin of European populations[although this time he had ancient populations genomes to compare with .
http://mathii.github.io/2017/09/21/blood-groups-in-ancient-europe

Cpluskx
04-05-18, 15:36
https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/992384766799380480

Lazaridis' view on PIE origin:

MOESAN
04-05-18, 23:25
In Europe, there is some Communists / Socialists / Anarchists, that doesn't care about history, but if history can help them to push a certain agenda, they gonna use it.

Sorry, but could you seriously think that 'rightsiders' don't? Seriously? And all politically oriented people would be as you describe it, really? A lot do, in every kind of political side -
personnaly, I think knowing/science has no side.

halfalp
04-05-18, 23:55
In Europe, there is some Communists / Socialists / Anarchists, that doesn't care about history, but if history can help them to push a certain agenda, they gonna use it.

Sorry, but could you seriously think that 'rightsiders' don't? Seriously? And all politically oriented people would be as you describe it, really? A lot do, in every kind of political side -
personnaly, I think knowing/science has no side.
Yes they do, but rightwingers are generally taken for nostalgics of an idealized past, when lefts no.

johen
07-05-18, 23:42
Andronovo origin to be challenged in Eurogenes according to 2017 achaeology paper.



“Bronze Age social and cultural interconnections across the Eurasian steppe are the subject of much current debate. A particularly significant place is occupied by the Andronovo Culture or family of cultures. Important new data document the most easterly extension of Eurasian Bronze Age sites of Andronovo affinity into western China. Findings from the site of Adunqiaolu in Xinjiang and a new series of radiocarbon dates challenge existing models of eastward cultural dispersion, and demonstrate the need to reconsider the older chronologies and migration theories. The site is well preserved and offers robust potential for deeper study of the Andronovo culture complex, pparticularly in the eastern mountain regions.”

"The Begash settlement (at the south-eastern edge of Kazakhstan) in particular was occupied over several chronological phases. Phase Ib is associated with the Fedorovo period, with radiocarbon dates placing it from c. 1890–1690 cal BC." (p.625)

"Twelve AMS 14C dates have been obtained from house F1 and the burials at Adunqiaolu. These show that the start of the early period at Adunqiaolu falls in the nineteenth century cal BC. In the traditional chronology, this is earlier than Petrovka, or even earlier than the late period of Sintashta. A number of radiocarbon dates are now available for sites of Andronovo type in western China, generally showing the same early ranges." (p.632)

I already mentioned that non- local creamation culture of andronovo seems to be originated in the creamation culture of Bagash around 2,000bc. Also 2013 anthro paper mentions that andronovo proper seems to be in Karzakstan’s origin, even if it cannnot be proved now. Of course, andronovo expansion was closey related to powerful tin bronze of east altai or east karzakstan.

Actually east karzakstan Andronovo culture has something to do with Ferodova culture, being related with Indo aryan. Probelm is the culture started in 1,500bc. More problem is andronvo culture merged in late Krotovo culture of seima turbino for 300 years. How did it pappened? Can tiger and wolf sleep together?

This new Harvard paper also has early sample of east andronovo, zevakinskiey, BA around 2,000BC. But they did not mention how it is connected to the other andronovo.

However, if the andronovo samples do not satisfy L657, we need to have the Okunevo Tuva samples in near future. Their skull type of caucasoid is totally different from Okunevo Munsk basin. As I already quoted, scythian animal art culture originated in okunevo.
Russian anthroplogist A G Kozintsev claimed that Scythian groups had the closest affinities to the Okunev of Tuva, even strongly denying in 2017 2 page paper that Okunevo brachy flat skull in Munsk basin was connected to caucasoid scythian skull.

Additionally, andronov and okunevo cultural connection was also found..

Based on that as well as on the object`s chronology in accordance to the observations of Arkturus on the First Sunduk we came to the conclusion that the First Sunduk is the monument of Okunev and Andronovo cultures. We are also sure that should archeological excavations be conducted Okunev, Karasuk, Andronovo and Afanas`ev ceramics are found. Seraphim Stone was attributed to the Okunev culture because of two images placed in situ on the Stone that are certainly attributed to the Okunev culture. Judging by the Arcturus and Betelgeuse observation, we can attribute Seraphim Stone to the Okunev-Andronovo culture. The presence of the two atypical images that define astronomically significant directions and cannot be attributed to any other known culture of Khakassia allow us to assume that these images may have created by Andronovo culture bearers in Khakassia After studying the sves, A. I. Gotlib, D. A. Kirillova and M.A. Podol`skaya came to the conclusion that these building were the places of seasonal residence and periodical ritual actions, not of permanent residence. At the same time, a clear stratigraphy of cultural layers in the studied objects could not be detected. The researchers proved that monumental swell structures of sandstone slabs can be unambiguously attributed to the Okunev culture.

The Important thing is okunevo petroglyphs were found near Indus valley and their artifacts clearly imply their connection to modern Hindu culture as I posted lots of time. Most Important thing is modern Hindu culture can not be separate from Mayan culture.

ToBeOrNotToBe
12-05-18, 22:51
Not Iran. Actually irritatingly wrong by everyone. Enough. Its in Georgia Neolithic because that is where 90% of the shulaveri lived.
That is why oldest wine making was first in georgia and a couple centuries later it shows here in Hajji.
Btw, hajji firuz was clearly a Shulaveri Shomu offshoot in lake Urmia. Then, around 5400/5200bc some others arrive, the Dalma people.
But these dates they were the Shulaveri.

What do you think about the links of Shulaveri Shomu (SS) to Halaf? Descended or influenced?

Also, according to Wikipedia at least, Leyla Tepe, which has strong links to Maykop, was itself founded by Ubaid settlers. A clear path can be seen from Halaf to Ubaid. Assuming the Halaf-Ubaid transition wasn’t from replacement, can it be said that Halaf is the actual pre-proto-IE home and not SS? Does Leyla Tepe bear more resemblance to SS or Ubaid?

RAWALP
16-05-18, 14:28
New member. Just a thought we don't say khybur Pas .I know it as Habur Ra.It is a river in the land of the Mattanni.This is the way Indians went to get to FELLOW Indians.

Sent from my MIX 2 using Tapatalk

Parafarne
29-08-18, 16:24
The most important thing is the Neolithic farmers and Steppe peoples immigration to s.asia were separated by several millenia.

Parafarne
29-08-18, 16:37
which ydna hg is from ANE or W.Siberian hunter gatherers? this paper shows more influence from these groups too.

MOESAN
30-08-18, 18:11
@Papadriitriou-
I was ready to answer your surprising post #259 but Ygorcs made a good balanced answer in my place;

holderlin
30-08-18, 21:20
Did that R1b-Z2103 Hajji Firuz sample ever get radio carbon dated and did the results get posted anywhere?

halfalp
04-09-18, 22:52
Did that R1b-Z2103 Hajji Firuz sample ever get radio carbon dated and did the results get posted anywhere?

Do you know in general how many times it gets? I feel that's the kind of thing that we only gonna know in 8 months or so.

holderlin
05-09-18, 00:38
Do you know in general how many times it gets? I feel that's the kind of thing that we only gonna know in 8 months or so.

This could have been done overnight. It's only matter of someone getting to doing the work, unless someone is hoarding the samples.

Sample size is usually limited by how rare the sample material is because it's a destructive test. No one's in a hurry to grind up a bunch of 10k year old human bone, especially given that technological advancements will enables us to get way more data from the sample in the near future. You can verify the suitability of the sample throughout the prep, in this case getting nitrogen content to verify that the callogen concentration will be high enough to get a good measurement, ensuring that the sample quantity is high enough, and qualitatively ensuring that everything looks normal during the procedure. If you screw up a C14 test the results are almost always so out of whack that there is no question that the measurement was bad, especially in this case when the context is pretty clear.

***EDIT***

So yeah, given the significance that they're trying to ascribe to this sample, they should have gotten right to this. It's annoying.

halfalp
06-09-18, 16:05
This could have been done overnight. It's only matter of someone getting to doing the work, unless someone is hoarding the samples.

Sample size is usually limited by how rare the sample material is because it's a destructive test. No one's in a hurry to grind up a bunch of 10k year old human bone, especially given that technological advancements will enables us to get way more data from the sample in the near future. You can verify the suitability of the sample throughout the prep, in this case getting nitrogen content to verify that the callogen concentration will be high enough to get a good measurement, ensuring that the sample quantity is high enough, and qualitatively ensuring that everything looks normal during the procedure. If you screw up a C14 test the results are almost always so out of whack that there is no question that the measurement was bad, especially in this case when the context is pretty clear.

***EDIT***

So yeah, given the significance that they're trying to ascribe to this sample, they should have gotten right to this. It's annoying.

They probably dont really care about the age of the sample. They are professionnal researchers with an hypothesis in line, they dont care that the amateur community have some requests.

Saetrus
06-09-18, 16:41
This could have been done overnight. It's only matter of someone getting to doing the work, unless someone is hoarding the samples.

Reich is probably hoarding lots of samples that suit him because he wants to author the epic paper that will settle the Indo-European question and get tens of thousands of citations. Meanwhile we have to wait for his convenience.

Angela
06-09-18, 17:53
^^Obviously, the curiosity of amateurs, and particularly amateurs who are desperate to prove their own agenda, should take precedence over his own career, the careers of all those post doctoral and doctoral students, and any desire to put the results from one sample in proper context both genetically and archaeologically, and to present a well reasoned and complete analysis.

holderlin
06-09-18, 22:39
Why does everything on here degenerate into these types of arguments now?

THEY SAID THEY WERE RUNNING A C14. IT CAME FROM THEM. It has nothing to do with amateur anything. They understood that they should probably verify the date and so they announced that they were doing that.

They're just taking forever so I wanted to know if anyone knew anything about the progress. This was months ago. Anyone who was interested in that data is allowed to be annoyed.

Jovialis
27-09-18, 21:16
Here's a podcast from the Insight that came out today on this pre-print:

ANI, ASI, IVC and The Genetics of India

http://insitome.libsyn.com/ani-asi-ivc-and-the-gentics-ofindia

MOESAN
29-09-18, 14:12
Andronovo origin to be challenged in Eurogenes according to 2017 achaeology paper.


[...
I already mentioned that non- local creamation culture of andronovo seems to be originated in the creamation culture of Bagash around 2,000bc. Also 2013 anthro paper mentions that andronovo proper seems to be in Karzakstan’s origin, even if it cannnot be proved now. Of course, andronovo expansion was closey related to powerful tin bronze of east altai or east karzakstan.

...
Russian anthroplogist A G Kozintsev claimed that Scythian groups had the closest affinities to the Okunev of Tuva, even strongly denying in 2017 2 page paper that Okunevo brachy flat skull in Munsk basin was connected to caucasoid scythian skull.


.

I think Konitsev did a detailed work - and if I remember well, he distinguished some sites of every culture of the other sites, what shows if globally there are ties between cultures and ethnies, it's not always the case for some sites -
and some common tndancies does not prevent small differencies which can be teh result of a specific historical contact with other very different pops -
the sites of Tuva and close surroundings in general, for I red, spite they are very far in East, show often a less 'proto-uralic' input found in other Okunevo sites (in every case almost no typical 'east-asian' input, if any), and a very strong 'europoid' input, whatever the kind of 'europoid' mix - the same or even stronger input of 'europoids' (Central-West Europe and Kura-Araxes ties) in Jelunino sites close to Tuva...

and Konitsev doesn't put all Scythians in the same bag; with good reason, because ancient auDNA showed these differences, even if relatively slight -
I wrote (out work Konitsev) "Spite of their within tribe variances, Kozintsev thinks there were noticeable anthropological difference even if not too strong between Forrest-Steppes groups of Scythians and Steppes groups of Scythians; according to Kozintsev a common element would have been the Srubna people and maybe other ones of same IE origin; but has the distinction between two kinds of Steppes something in common with the distinction between their longitude ?" (thread in Anthropology, you red it I think)

halfalp
20-10-18, 13:43
So still nothing about Hajji Firuz?

Silesian
20-10-18, 15:03
Any idea when some of the informative dates/samples get past the political review process?

epoch
26-10-18, 11:59
This could have been done overnight. It's only matter of someone getting to doing the work, unless someone is hoarding the samples.

Sample size is usually limited by how rare the sample material is because it's a destructive test. No one's in a hurry to grind up a bunch of 10k year old human bone, especially given that technological advancements will enables us to get way more data from the sample in the near future. You can verify the suitability of the sample throughout the prep, in this case getting nitrogen content to verify that the callogen concentration will be high enough to get a good measurement, ensuring that the sample quantity is high enough, and qualitatively ensuring that everything looks normal during the procedure. If you screw up a C14 test the results are almost always so out of whack that there is no question that the measurement was bad, especially in this case when the context is pretty clear.

***EDIT***

So yeah, given the significance that they're trying to ascribe to this sample, they should have gotten right to this. It's annoying.

Maybe it's already done but will be due in the next update.

Angela
26-10-18, 16:22
^^Finally, a voice of reason.

halfalp
16-12-18, 15:51
Maybe it's already done but will be due in the next update.

What do you mean by next update? You mean they gonna publish a new paper saying " sorry for the previous paper, lots of wrong calls and everything "?

halfalp
16-12-18, 15:56
What do you mean by next update? You mean they gonna publish a new paper saying " sorry for the previous paper, lots of wrong calls and everything "?

It's very unlikely.

I personnally think that this quietness is suspicious. After the pre-print was put public, neither Narasimhan or Lazaridis have commented into the incoherences, wich would be the decency? Are they hoping for new samples coming corroborate this paper so they dont have to explain themselves?

ToBeOrNotToBe
16-12-18, 17:47
There's been an embargo with the Bronze Age conference, we'll see when they release everything. I hate waiting though...

halfalp
23-12-18, 12:27
There's been an embargo with the Bronze Age conference, we'll see when they release everything. I hate waiting though...

I just read on Eurogenes from Davidski that apparently already two C14 tests failed... We might never have a conclusion to this.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-01-19, 05:47
I just read on Eurogenes from Davidski that apparently already two C14 tests failed... We might never have a conclusion to this.

I don't believe that. The early date is very surprising though, I could understand it being 2000 years later though.

halfalp
02-01-19, 07:21
I don't believe that. The early date is very surprising though, I could understand it being 2000 years later though.

Isn't crazy that we can have 30'000 years old individuals or a 45'000 years old femur found in a river and get C14, y-dna, mtdna. While more recent samples from proper burials cannot have enough material to get a C14 test... Sidelkino is the oldest dated EHG individuals, he is a man, he have enough material to have both y-dna and mtdna, but they only tested for mtdna... And it's just an exemple from a lot of others, most obvious ones, Romans or Greeks, Egyptians... They apparently can test properly a lot of HG's from around the world that doesn't really matter for history, but the important ones. Nada.

Cpluskx
11-03-19, 08:35
https://twitter.com/vagheesh/status/1103456664324395008

Hajji Firuz R1b sample is from Bronze Age. If it is around from 2500 BC this will increase the possibility of steppe origin for Anatolian languages.

ToBeOrNotToBe
11-03-19, 12:43
https://twitter.com/vagheesh/status/1103456664324395008

Hajji Firuz R1b sample is from Bronze Age. If it is around from 2500 BC this will increase the possibility of steppe origin for Anatolian languages.

Nah, more like Armenian

halfalp
13-03-19, 21:48
I've actually seen here 'n' there on the internet that apparently Hajji Firuz was re-dated to the late bronze age. Multiple individualities have let the hint out, but it's not sure until the definitive paper is out. Also very weird that after 2 attempt of dating failed, the 3rd worked?


Edit: said early instead of late bronze age.

Cpluskx
15-03-19, 11:29
I've actually seen here 'n' there on the internet that apparently Hajji Firuz was re-dated to the late bronze age. Multiple individualities have let the hint out, but it's not sure until the definitive paper is out. Also very weird that after 2 attempt of dating failed, the 3rd worked?


Edit: said early instead of late bronze age.

Yes looks like it won't be an old enough sample although there is Hajji_Firuz_BA I4243 female with probably around 50% steppe ancestry from 2400-2200 BC. Is there any archaeological sign of an invasion by steppe people to Northern Iran? This female can be a part of an elite group (conqueror) or a daughter of mercenary or slave etc.

halfalp
15-03-19, 11:43
Yes looks like it won't be an old enough sample although there is Hajji_Firuz_BA I4243 female with probably around 50% steppe ancestry from 2400-2200 BC. Is there any archaeological sign of an invasion by steppe people to Northern Iran? This female can be a part of an elite group (conqueror) or a daughter of mercenary or slave etc.

There is the fact that the Late Kura-Araxes samples was your lineage V1636 found 1000 years earlier in the Pontic Steppe, while Early Kura-Araxes had G2b, a very Iran_Neolithic lineage and multiple Steppe ancestry and R1b-Z2103 in Hajji Firuz Late Bronze Age, wich coincides with the Late Kura-Araxes one. Both lineage found earlier in the Pontic Steppe. I also think Eurogenes is working on showing that Armenia_MLBA was influenced by Steppe.

We never gonna found any Transcaucasia_Yamnaya if this is what you are thinking about. They probably expand from North and became the elite of already established connections. And they are more likely to be representing very old populations as Anatolians or Gutians shows in early texts, than people like Armenians.

Cpluskx
15-03-19, 12:45
There is the fact that the Late Kura-Araxes samples was your lineage V1636 found 1000 years earlier in the Pontic Steppe, while Early Kura-Araxes had G2b, a very Iran_Neolithic lineage and multiple Steppe ancestry and R1b-Z2103 in Hajji Firuz Late Bronze Age, wich coincides with the Late Kura-Araxes one. Both lineage found earlier in the Pontic Steppe. I also think Eurogenes is working on showing that Armenia_MLBA was influenced by Steppe.

We never gonna found any Transcaucasia_Yamnaya if this is what you are thinking about. They probably expand from North and became the elite of already established connections. And they are more likely to be representing very old populations as Anatolians or Gutians shows in early texts, than people like Armenians.

I mean you can't be elite from nowhere, there needs to be some archaeological signs, cultural connections to the Pontic-Caspian if you are part of an elite expansion. (like Sintashta -> Aryan Invasion of India ) East Anatolia-around was a developed place with state-like structures.

halfalp
15-03-19, 13:55
I mean you can't be elite from nowhere, there needs to be some archaeological signs, cultural connections to the Pontic-Caspian if you are part of an elite expansion. (like Sintashta -> Aryan Invasion of India ) East Anatolia-around was a developed place with state-like structures.

Not necessary, because your exemple of Sintashta is related with the local Steppe Cultures, wich weren't local in South of the Caucasus. When Steppe people happened in the Middle-East they encounter already well established cultures, trade roads, economic links. They just had to rip off the local elite and that's it. About the archeological sign, i guess Horses is the strongest sign of Eurasian Steppe Migrations. It's way easier to conquer already established kingdoms than just empty lands. When Hyksos came into Egypt, they didn't came with a particular archeological link, they just had package not found in Egypt like Horses and Chariots, but it didn't change much for the local peoples.

Cpluskx
16-03-19, 15:01
Not necessary, because your exemple of Sintashta is related with the local Steppe Cultures, wich weren't local in South of the Caucasus. When Steppe people happened in the Middle-East they encounter already well established cultures, trade roads, economic links. They just had to rip off the local elite and that's it. About the archeological sign, i guess Horses is the strongest sign of Eurasian Steppe Migrations. It's way easier to conquer already established kingdoms than just empty lands. When Hyksos came into Egypt, they didn't came with a particular archeological link, they just had package not found in Egypt like Horses and Chariots, but it didn't change much for the local peoples.
Any reason why V1636 is extremely rare today if it brought Anatolian languages? There were multiple different Anatolian languages distributed in a large area. Y-DNA/language expansion seems correlated.

ToBeOrNotToBe
16-03-19, 15:19
Surely it makes most sense for these Z2103s (as well as the typical West Asian lineages ofc) to be Kura-Araxes right, I mean what else can it be. They're not too late either. Some of them are before 2000 BC right? Even so the Steppe in Hajji Firuz before 2000 BC is enough. That date is also consistent with a migration from Catacomb though, so I'm not sure what it would represent.

ToBeOrNotToBe
16-03-19, 15:26
Any reason why V1636 is extremely rare today if it brought Anatolian languages? There were multiple different Anatolian languages distributed in a large area. Y-DNA/language expansion seems correlated.

Whatever brought Anatolian, imo at least, won't be as simple as essentially one single haplogroup like tends to be the case in Europe, so I doubt you can just say V1636 brought Anatolian. That said, I do think it spread with K-A.

halfalp
16-03-19, 16:12
The history of V1636 is clearly not well known at this point. Inb4 we have multiple case or revised case of it in a prehistoric context. It was in Progress, in Khvalynsk and in Late Kura-Araxes.

But the fact is, that we take R1b-Z2103 or R1b-V1636, and Late KA, or Hajji Firuz, or even Armi hypothesis, or Gutians / Anatolians, all from approximately the same time. It makes a lot of correlation with Steppe and Late Bronze Age South Caucasus. Did anybody compared the Armi Anatolian Names with the Gutian ones?

I also think and said it multiple times that Yamnaya is maybe not the exact proxy for Anatolians or even Tocharians, but maybe Catacombs and Poltavka respectively, are.

Cpluskx
16-03-19, 16:31
The history of V1636 is clearly not well known at this point. Inb4 we have multiple case or revised case of it in a prehistoric context. It was in Progress, in Khvalynsk and in Late Kura-Araxes.
But the fact is, that we take R1b-Z2103 or R1b-V1636, and Late KA, or Hajji Firuz, or even Armi hypothesis, or Gutians / Anatolians, all from approximately the same time. It makes a lot of correlation with Steppe and Late Bronze Age South Caucasus. Did anybody compared the Armi Anatolian Names with the Gutian ones?
I also think and said it multiple times that Yamnaya is maybe not the exact proxy for Anatolians or even Tocharians, but maybe Catacombs and Poltavka respectively, are.
Catacomb is younger than Yamnaya so it can't be the origin of Anatolian languages if European IE's came with Yamnaya descendants.

Cpluskx
16-03-19, 17:41
Whatever brought Anatolian, imo at least, won't be as simple as essentially one single haplogroup like tends to be the case in Europe, so I doubt you can just say V1636 brought Anatolian. That said, I do think it spread with K-A.
What Y-dna can it be? Except R1a and R1b maybe J2?

halfalp
16-03-19, 21:39
Catacomb is younger than Yamnaya so it can't be the origin of Anatolian languages if European IE's came with Yamnaya descendants.

Well that's not important. There is 2000 years between Yamnaya / Catacomb and the first attested European IE scripts. The language could have evolved a lot in continental europe.

holderlin
18-03-19, 19:45
https://twitter.com/vagheesh/status/1103456664324395008

Hajji Firuz R1b sample is from Bronze Age. If it is around from 2500 BC this will increase the possibility of steppe origin for Anatolian languages.


Finally. Well looks like it can be traced right back to Yamnaya then. Less interesting, but less confusing too I guess.

halfalp
19-03-19, 09:55
Still weird tho. He said previously ( Narasimhan ) that this sample was from an archeological layer and autosomally exactly the same as the other and older samples. Now this sample was redated so it fit exactly a Steppe expansion, but then he is still autosomally and archeologically related with the older and local individuals. Can this even match?

holderlin
19-03-19, 22:54
Still weird tho. He said previously ( Narasimhan ) that this sample was from an archeological layer and autosomally exactly the same as the other and older samples. Now this sample was redated so it fit exactly a Steppe expansion, but then he is still autosomally and archeologically related with the older and local individuals. Can this even match?

Well it's not necessarily descended from the Yamnaya subclades. It's still possible that there was another non-steppe earlier source ancestral to both, but at this juncture it really looks like like R1 was a North Eurasian thing before the bronze age. It doesn't take many generations to completely dilute out any "steppe" genotype that was there initially.

halfalp
19-03-19, 23:52
Well it's not necessarily descended from the Yamnaya subclades. It's still possible that there was another non-steppe earlier source ancestral to both, but at this juncture it really looks like like R1 was a North Eurasian thing before the bronze age. It doesn't take many generations to completely dilute out any "steppe" genotype that was there initially.

I'm not necessary referencing the Steppe origin, but the methodology they used. Tested the J2b sample but not the R1b one even tho the latter is the most exotic one to found here if you look at modern and previous prehistoric datas ( or did they tested it but it failed from the beginning and they assume it was contemporary with the J2b one? ) But if so, that's an interesting coincidence that THE important samples C14 failed, but now it's ok, it was redated, how? Did the C14 magically succeeded? Claiming that both are from the same archeological layers, and have the same ancestry, while they have almost 2'000 years of difference, it's the first R1b sample that actually would not show noticable Steppe ancestry comparing to contemporary other samples around the world ( Afanasievo, BB, etc ). Also with the Late Kura-Araxes one. While other samples from the same period do show some Steppe ancestry. I feel this is the perfect scenario to misslead or confirmed one's hypothesis if the community or other scientists didn't press to C14 the R1b samples, because it didn't make sense, the sublade and the age, but why didn't they deduce that themselves tho?

holderlin
25-03-19, 23:40
I'm not necessary referencing the Steppe origin, but the methodology they used. Tested the J2b sample but not the R1b one even tho the latter is the most exotic one to found here if you look at modern and previous prehistoric datas ( or did they tested it but it failed from the beginning and they assume it was contemporary with the J2b one? ) But if so, that's an interesting coincidence that THE important samples C14 failed, but now it's ok, it was redated, how? Did the C14 magically succeeded? Claiming that both are from the same archeological layers, and have the same ancestry, while they have almost 2'000 years of difference, it's the first R1b sample that actually would not show noticable Steppe ancestry comparing to contemporary other samples around the world ( Afanasievo, BB, etc ). Also with the Late Kura-Araxes one. While other samples from the same period do show some Steppe ancestry. I feel this is the perfect scenario to misslead or confirmed one's hypothesis if the community or other scientists didn't press to C14 the R1b samples, because it didn't make sense, the sublade and the age, but why didn't they deduce that themselves tho?

Perhaps at this point it's hard not to view these reports through such a lens of skepticism for ideological/nationalistic motivations.

The most simple answer is that the archaeological context was mistakenly identified and they weren't doing C14s of every sample, but rather of each identifiable layer in the dig, and they randomly chose the J2b sample for C14 spec. I dunno.