PDA

View Full Version : Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate?



Pages : 1 [2]

berun
22-06-18, 18:53
It's a posdibility that archaeologists involved in such area might take into account, but also it's true that some have pointed an expansion of Maykop or Leilatepe kurganists... typology could tell more as the western rocky kurgans are older than those in the Caucasus.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312496354_The_grave_monuments_and_burial_customs_o f_the_Leilatepe_culture

Angela
22-06-18, 18:54
yes it should be obvious that EEF and CHG are very different but since I always red on blog from experts that Steppe Yamnaya was a combination of 60% EHG and 40% CHG then why they confused EEF with CHG....hence my question about the chance of it being an even bigger mistake. As for metallurgical stuff I think that the main influence is from the Carpath-balkan metallurgical complex.

I said "bronze" metallurgy, not copper.

Ygorcs
22-06-18, 21:34
I could have written your post myself....I agree 100% above all in the fact that kurgan are a distant imitation of atalantic ( spain portugal, france) megalithism. In this culture we can find the raising of the WHG signal among the EEF post-cardial farmers that matches exactly the western input into Yamanaya ( in sredni stog the EEF +WHG is even higher).....the tide is turning?

If Megalithism is associated with a "comeback" increase of WHG into EEF (EEF = ANF + more or less WHG), and it is supposed now to be associated with Indo-Europeanization of the steppes, then is it really demonstrable that there was a significant WHG-rich EEF (not just any EEF signal, but one showing that sudden increase of WHG in some Late Neolithic populatons) into the steppes before the Bronze Age (because it's increasingly clear that PIE is not as late as Yamnaya)? I really don't know, that's why I'm asking it. AFAIK the EEF signal found until now in the earlier steppe samples is very minor (except a few western Sredny Stog very near to Cucuteni-Tripolye) and, more importantly, not particularly high in WHG...

etrusco
22-06-18, 22:13
If Megalithism is associated with a "comeback" increase of WHG into EEF (EEF = ANF + more or less WHG), and it is supposed now to be associated with Indo-Europeanization of the steppes, then is it really demonstrable that there was a significant WHG-rich EEF (not just any EEF signal, but one showing that sudden increase of WHG in some Late Neolithic populatons) into the steppes before the Bronze Age (because it's increasingly clear that PIE is not as late as Yamnaya)? I really don't know, that's why I'm asking it. AFAIK the EEF signal found until now in the earlier steppe samples is very minor (except a few western Sredny Stog very near to Cucuteni-Tripolye) and, more importantly, not particularly high in WHG...

The mixing of EEF+WHG is the genetic component from the west that is precisely found in Yamnaya....but that means that also EEF itself could be PIE.... EEF +WHG just the genetic component that IEize the steppe.

Angela
22-06-18, 22:19
If Megalithism is associated with a "comeback" increase of WHG into EEF (EEF = ANF + more or less WHG), and it is supposed now to be associated with Indo-Europeanization of the steppes, then is it really demonstrable that there was a significant WHG-rich EEF (not just any EEF signal, but one showing that sudden increase of WHG in some Late Neolithic populatons) into the steppes before the Bronze Age (because it's increasingly clear that PIE is not as late as Yamnaya)? I really don't know, that's why I'm asking it. AFAIK the EEF signal found until now in the earlier steppe samples is very minor (except a few western Sredny Stog very near to Cucuteni-Tripolye) and, more importantly, not particularly high in WHG...

That's exactly correct.

halfalp
22-06-18, 22:48
It's a general statement not linked to this only thread but yes, I spoke about South Caucasus and my aim was to say that a current pop which presents haplo's stayed under old forms is not by force and everytime the source pop of other pops presenting derived haplo's, and as a whole presenting far more numerous downstream haplo's than the supposed source pop.
harmonious chain of downstream SNP's among modern pops (when ancient DNA lacks of course) is a better basis to determine the track(s) taken by the source pop in its expansion(s). Same problem with L51 in Southwest Europe and the dychotomy between Southern and Northern Italy SNP's for Y-R1b. I consider the bulk of the down-L23 (-> L51) in Europe took the Central and Northern Europe routes, when only a less numerous group took a Southern (coastal?) route.
Of course, ancient DNA will resolve the question and maybe falsify my thoughts...
Concerning the present thread, I consider we need more data, and sure data in ancient Anatolia.

Well i guess you are pretty much right. The best exemple is R1b-V88, all ancient R1b-V88 founds are from Europe and if some like the Spanish one sounds very neolithic like, most of theme are in an eastern / south eastern european HG or HG / Farming transition context. But how many R1b-V88 in modern eastern and south eastern europe ? We cannot take modern distribution of basal forms of an haplogroup like a " oh so R1b* is found in modern Iran, so R1b came from Iran ". Obviously the lack of SNP's in ancient samples, especially in the paleolithic like those BT* CT* wich likely just are C1a2 doesn't tell us a lot, but using modern SNP's for explaining ancient migrations patterns doesn't tell us a lot neither.

Govan
23-06-18, 00:57
The mixing of EEF+WHG is the genetic component from the west that is precisely found in Yamnaya....but that means that also EEF itself could be PIE.... EEF +WHG just the genetic component that IEize the steppe.
No. IE show link with Uralic languages, and imputative influences from Caucausian languages. The EEF in Yamnaya is just via trading or kidnapped women from Balkans.

Govan
23-06-18, 01:01
But elite languages can replace indigenous languages, so speaking about this "some" EEF "recently discovered" contribution is creating even more mess about the IE urheimat. Even more, as more kurgans I see the more I figure out that it would be the product of megalithic people in a region without big rocks. But well, I'm not with Sir Renfrew.
lol Southeuropean Buthurted.

Ygorcs
23-06-18, 03:01
The mixing of EEF+WHG is the genetic component from the west that is precisely found in Yamnaya....but that means that also EEF itself could be PIE.... EEF +WHG just the genetic component that IEize the steppe.

EEF already includes WHG. EEF itself means "a lot of ANF + some WHG". The specific composition varies according to the place and origin. I think it's still way too early (and insufficient data) to associate IE with the WHG-enriched EEF of Megalithic cultures of Atlantic Europe thousands of kilometers away from the steppe. EEF (ANF+WHG) is already pretty minor in most of the Pontic-Caspian samples (including its eastern part, Khvalynsk/Yamnaya), but the frequency of WHG is even lower, virtually negligible in comparison with CHG and EHG.

I myself doubt there was a high probability of language shift exclusively through the dominance of a tiny elite in uncivilized, tribal and clannish (thus decentralized) societies like those of the Chalcolithic Steppe, especially when you consider that typical EEF Y-DNA haplogroups aren't found there in even moderate frequency (what, a tiny but powerful elite whose males failed to leave many descendants? How likely is that?).

Yes, EEF "could be IE", but CHG and EHG "could" too, and in fact (AFAIK) there are many more direct associations between the chronological and geographical spread of CHG and EHG admixtures and the expansion of IE than between EEF and the Indo-Europeanization of societies. Where IE appears, it is mostly CHG and - except from Anatolia until now - EHG that really rise significantly in frequency.

berun
23-06-18, 07:24
lol Southeuropean Buthurted.
You never discuss the issue of the post but you are trying allways to expose my supposed failures, but as ever you even don't understand nothing, you don't know who is Renfrew even. You are trying to trollling me: go and have a life mosca collonera.

etrusco
23-06-18, 11:46
http://www.academia.edu/35556491/The..._to_Eneolithic (http://www.academia.edu/35556491/The_contacts_of_the_Eastern_European_steppe_people _with_the_Balkan_population_during_the_transition_ period_from_Neolithic_to_Eneolithic)

Quote:
We have fixed very important changes in the burial rites of the steppe population. Stretched Neolithic inhumations were replaced by flexed skeletons and some graves with groups of stones above them or burials in stone boxes. I. Manzura was right when he connected those changes with western infuence.The people of new Sredniy Stog culture,which was formed on the basis of the local Neolithic, could contrast new burial rites with old traditions (Manzura 1997). It is possible to assume that those radical changes in the burial rite, which was a part of conservative religious sphere, were connected with changes in cults. The most important innovation was the appearance of the metal working borrowed from the Balkan region. Metal working in the Prehistory was closed connected with the religious sphere of life and adoption of new technology in everyday life had to be accompanied by adoption of new cults. We can observe the consequences as changes in the burial rites. The time of formation of the Sredniy Stog culture was synchronous with the Hamangia culture and exactly its influence caused the transformation of the steppe burial rite, because flexed skeletons and using of stones were typical for this culture (Todorova 2002a, 35–




The transition from the Neolithic to Eneolithic in the Eastern European steppe was connected with the inten-sive contacts of people of the Azov-Dnieper, Low Don, Pricaspiy, Samara, Orlovka and Sredniy Stog cultures with the Balkan population and first with the Hamangia culture. The results of these contacts were some im
- ports: adornments from copper, cornelian, marine shells and pots in the steppe sites and plates from the bone
and nacre, pendants from teeth of red deer in the Hamangia graves. The Hamangia infuence in the burial rites
of the steppe population was very important and caused to use stone in graves and above them, pits with alcove,
new adornments of burial clothes. The strongest impact we have fixed for the population in northern area of the
Sea of Azov, where the radical changes in the burial rite and the formation of a new Sredniy Stog culture took place. It was connected with the adoption of new religious element.

Angela
23-06-18, 15:33
http://www.academia.edu/35556491/The..._to_Eneolithic (http://www.academia.edu/35556491/The_contacts_of_the_Eastern_European_steppe_people _with_the_Balkan_population_during_the_transition_ period_from_Neolithic_to_Eneolithic)

Quote:
We have fixed very important changes in the burial rites of the steppe population. Stretched Neolithic inhumations were replaced by flexed skeletons and some graves with groups of stones above them or burials in stone boxes. I. Manzura was right when he connected those changes with western infuence.The people of new Sredniy Stog culture,which was formed on the basis of the local Neolithic, could contrast new burial rites with old traditions (Manzura 1997). It is possible to assume that those radical changes in the burial rite, which was a part of conservative religious sphere, were connected with changes in cults. The most important innovation was the appearance of the metal working borrowed from the Balkan region. Metal working in the Prehistory was closed connected with the religious sphere of life and adoption of new technology in everyday life had to be accompanied by adoption of new cults. We can observe the consequences as changes in the burial rites. The time of formation of the Sredniy Stog culture was synchronous with the Hamangia culture and exactly its influence caused the transformation of the steppe burial rite, because flexed skeletons and using of stones were typical for this culture (Todorova 2002a, 35–




The transition from the Neolithic to Eneolithic in the Eastern European steppe was connected with the inten-sive contacts of people of the Azov-Dnieper, Low Don, Pricaspiy, Samara, Orlovka and Sredniy Stog cultures with the Balkan population and first with the Hamangia culture. The results of these contacts were some im
- ports: adornments from copper, cornelian, marine shells and pots in the steppe sites and plates from the bone
and nacre, pendants from teeth of red deer in the Hamangia graves. The Hamangia infuence in the burial rites
of the steppe population was very important and caused to use stone in graves and above them, pits with alcove,
new adornments of burial clothes. The strongest impact we have fixed for the population in northern area of the
Sea of Azov, where the radical changes in the burial rite and the formation of a new Sredniy Stog culture took place. It was connected with the adoption of new religious element.

You're aware that a lot of scholars believe Hamangia was settled by people from Anatolia, yes?

etrusco
23-06-18, 16:14
You're aware that a lot of scholars believe Hamangia was settled by people from Anatolia, yes?

I was not talking about the origin of Hamangia ( anatolian origin? just as likely as an autochthonous one).....just try to remind everybody of the deep cultural influence of Old europe on the steppe cultural ethnogenesis.....every time I posted quoting Manzura on various blogs that was often met with mockery and derision.
By the way you are aware that WHG had a deep impact in Anatolia to form the ANF?

Angela
23-06-18, 17:31
I was not talking about the origin of Hamangia ( anatolian origin? just as likely as an autochthonous one).....just try to remind everybody of the deep cultural influence of Old europe on the steppe cultural ethnogenesis.....every time I posted quoting Manzura on various blogs that was often met with mockery and derision.
By the way you are aware that WHG had a deep impact in Anatolia to form the ANF?

I didn't say it was a certainty that Hamangia was very influenced by Anatolia, but there are certainly very good indications of it.

No, WHG didn't have a deep impact in Anatolia. First of all, it wasn't precisely WHG, but an UHG similar to WHG, and second of all, it was a minor part of their ancestry. The technology also spread from Anatolia into Europe, not the other way around.

These things are all well known.

You are, however, making my point for me. You can trace parts of every culture back to other cultures. So what? It is the particulars of each separate case which must be examined as objectively as possible.

You're talking about a very specific time and place.

The archaeology and genetics are clear. Yes, steppe people borrowed a great deal culturally from the cultures around them, both those in "Old Europe" and those from south of the Caucasus.

Yes, there are indications from archaeology of the movement of people from "Old Europe" onto the western steppe. However, we know from genetics that the autosomal impact was small. We also know the yline impact was small.

The question then becomes, how likely is it that such a small movement of people, even if they were an elite group, could effectuate language change. The answer is that it's possible but rather unlikely.

It becomes even more unlikely because the earliest reconstructed Indo-European vocabulary doesn't contain words for agriculture, and the people of Old Europe were totally dependent on it, and their ancestors, in fact, brought it to Europe.

Given all of this, I'm not surprised that your "theory" has not been accepted by other people. Of course, that doesn't excuse any incivility that you were shown.

Olympus Mons
23-06-18, 17:59
You never discuss the issue of the post but you are trying allways to expose my supposed failures, but as ever you even don't understand nothing, you don't know who is Renfrew even. You are trying to trollling me: go and have a life mosca collonera.

Berun, no, no, no.
Govan is most welcome here. All of those that are feeling lonely at EUROGENES, tired of it being a pure ECHOChamber, are most welcome here.
Lets just make sure there is no DAVIDSKI here to ban everyone that does affront the dominating view.

MOESAN
23-06-18, 19:33
Angela your post #264 makes good points IMO; to put back facts in their places and proportions is a good thing;
more than one survey show an increase of 'Old Europe' in far Steppes (DNA, metrics and others) but it's in fact no more 'Old Europe' but the result of LN/BA first Steppes introgressions into western Europe and kind of a "rebound" .

etrusco
23-06-18, 19:48
Angela your post #264 makes good points IMO; to put back facts in their places and proportions is a good thing;
more than one survey show an increase of 'Old Europe' in far Steppes (DNA, metrics and others) but it's in fact no more 'Old Europe' but the result of LN/BA first Steppes introgressions into western Europe and kind of a "rebound" .


No this is an EEF+WHG in Yamnaya Samara.....at that time no steppe people had already entered in central western europe. This is before CWC and BBC which are 3th millennium.

Angela
23-06-18, 20:32
Angela your post #264 makes good points IMO; to put back facts in their places and proportions is a good thing;
more than one survey show an increase of 'Old Europe' in far Steppes (DNA, metrics and others) but it's in fact no more 'Old Europe' but the result of LN/BA first Steppes introgressions into western Europe and kind of a "rebound" .

Exactly right. There is a tendency to forget the chronology of events and a conflation of several different time periods.

Yes, there was a small impact early on of people from Old Europe onto the steppe. The much higher percentages stem from later periods after the intrusion by steppe people west, absorption of "Old Europe" genetic material, and then a rebound to the east.

It's helpful when people date the admixtures and percentages by referring to specific samples with specific dates.

Ygorcs
23-06-18, 20:34
http://www.academia.edu/35556491/The..._to_Eneolithic (http://www.academia.edu/35556491/The_contacts_of_the_Eastern_European_steppe_people _with_the_Balkan_population_during_the_transition_ period_from_Neolithic_to_Eneolithic)

Quote:
We have fixed very important changes in the burial rites of the steppe population. Stretched Neolithic inhumations were replaced by flexed skeletons and some graves with groups of stones above them or burials in stone boxes. I. Manzura was right when he connected those changes with western infuence.The people of new Sredniy Stog culture,which was formed on the basis of the local Neolithic, could contrast new burial rites with old traditions (Manzura 1997). It is possible to assume that those radical changes in the burial rite, which was a part of conservative religious sphere, were connected with changes in cults. The most important innovation was the appearance of the metal working borrowed from the Balkan region. Metal working in the Prehistory was closed connected with the religious sphere of life and adoption of new technology in everyday life had to be accompanied by adoption of new cults. We can observe the consequences as changes in the burial rites. The time of formation of the Sredniy Stog culture was synchronous with the Hamangia culture and exactly its influence caused the transformation of the steppe burial rite, because flexed skeletons and using of stones were typical for this culture (Todorova 2002a, 35–




The transition from the Neolithic to Eneolithic in the Eastern European steppe was connected with the inten-sive contacts of people of the Azov-Dnieper, Low Don, Pricaspiy, Samara, Orlovka and Sredniy Stog cultures with the Balkan population and first with the Hamangia culture. The results of these contacts were some im
- ports: adornments from copper, cornelian, marine shells and pots in the steppe sites and plates from the bone
and nacre, pendants from teeth of red deer in the Hamangia graves. The Hamangia infuence in the burial rites
of the steppe population was very important and caused to use stone in graves and above them, pits with alcove,
new adornments of burial clothes. The strongest impact we have fixed for the population in northern area of the
Sea of Azov, where the radical changes in the burial rite and the formation of a new Sredniy Stog culture took place. It was connected with the adoption of new religious element.

I think you're speculating too vaguely. Hamangia culture in Dobruja, near Ukraine, is not the same as "Megalithic Europe", let alone the megalithic cultures spreading from Atlantic Europe, which you apparently was referring to earlier. AFAIK the genetics of the eastern Balkans even in the Late Neolithic/Copper Age had a lot to do with elements from the Pontic-Caspian steppe (CHG/EHG), Anatolia (ANF) and the Eastern Anatolia/Caucasus (CHG). Unless you want to imply that most unlikely of hypotheses which is that all of Europe and Anatolia were still speaking the same language or similar dialects even after 2500-3000 years since the Neolithic colonization of the continent...

Also ,in the text they clearly talk only of a religious influence. Nobody denies that the steppes received western (and also southern) influence. Religions are much more abstract and fluid than languages and genes, they can be easily transmitted (did Christianization make Europeans Middle Eastern? Did the spread of the cult of Isis in Roman Italy make them Egyptian? Did the spread of Buddhism in China correlate with some considerable genetic andl linguistic Indian input?). We have no indication that that religious influence translated into a sizeable genetic contribution, much less into a new cultural and political elite in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, especially when the Steppe Y-DNA makeup is totally unlike that of the Neolithic EEF Europe, and EEF admixture is so minor in most of it (the only and very few Sredny Stog individuals with much - but still less than 1/3 - of EEF-related ancestry were those near the Dnieper, neighbors to Cucuteni-Tripolye).

Ygorcs
23-06-18, 20:43
I was not talking about the origin of Hamangia ( anatolian origin? just as likely as an autochthonous one).....just try to remind everybody of the deep cultural influence of Old europe on the steppe cultural ethnogenesis.....every time I posted quoting Manzura on various blogs that was often met with mockery and derision.
By the way you are aware that WHG had a deep impact in Anatolia to form the ANF?

You're mixing the chronology all over. "WHG", which was in fact a minor contribution from an UHG source closely related to WHG, contributed to form ANF maaaany thousands of yars before this supposed "Old Europe PIE" being transferred to the steppes. Even if it were "real WHG" contributing to ANF still in the Mesolithic, by the time we're talking about here (Copper Age/Early Bronze Age) that fact would have virtually no relevance to the linguistic question that is being discussed here. Even if somehow (very improbably) the WHG-like UHG had prevailed in Anatolia, you can be sure that the language family spoken by Late Neolithic ANF or EEF wouldn't be even recognizably related to that spoken by remnants of WHG in the same period.

Ygorcs
23-06-18, 20:49
No this is an EEF+WHG in Yamnaya Samara.....at that time no steppe people had already entered in central western europe. This is before CWC and BBC which are 3th millennium.

Incorrect. They had entered Old Europe since the Late Neolithic in the Balkans, especially its central/eastern area. Vinca Culture samples in the Balkans already show steppe-derived ancestry. The fact that there was EEF (as I already told you, WHG is absorbed by EEF already) in Yamnaya Samara doesn't mean there was no steppe genetic contribution in the Balkans, because if the steppe EHG/CHG ancestry got back to the steppes it would of course be simply added to the local steppe ancestry, only EEF becoming distinguishable. Besides, by the time of Yamnaya the incursions of steppe peoples into Southeastern Europe (with Yamnaya and even before it) had already started centuries earlier.

etrusco
23-06-18, 21:35
@Ygorcs

it is moesan that mentioned in his post that steppe had already entered western europe....he said clearly western europe now in your reply you mention southeastern europe....I did not mention that region. So it is off the mark. No steppe in western europe till BBC.
Also I did not confuse the megalith stuff with Hamangia. I was only talking of different stages of european farms influence on the steppe: the cultural one: religion , burial custom ( earlier) and the genetic input ( later ). The farmer component that we find in central and south central asia ( andronovo, sintashta, srubnaya, ) is a consequence of a back migration of corded ware from eastern central europe after another mixing with the farmers independently of the one that happened in south eastern europe before.

Also your example of diffusion of religion is a good one if you talk about historical times and relationship between strongly structured culture Rome, Egypt, China India. Of course in "historical" time religion and language often do not match ( with the notable exception of islam ) Here we are talking about prehistory and the formative stage of the cultural ethnogenesis of the steppe. We are not talking about the relationship between Israel and Rome. Different age, different dynamics. So the religious influence from the west at that time with the steppe in its formative age was more likely to have triggered a language shift.

For the WHG Anatolia stuff....your reaction is psycho-like. Again ......did I mention the IE problem? Did I say that WHG in Anatolia created a PIE? Did I say that?

The first farmers, with a focus on Anatolia (https://populationgenomics.blog/2018/06/04/the-first-farmers-with-a-focus-on-anatolia/) on populationgenomics.blog

Quote:

When it came to actually looking at the ancestral breakdown of Anatolians, Lazaridis et al. (2016) came up with a very solid model where Anatolians were a mix of lineages related to Ganj Dareh, Levant Neolithic, and WHG, with mixture proportions of 0.387, 0.339, and 0.274, respectively.

Ygorcs
23-06-18, 23:14
...and the genetic input ( later ). The farmer component that we find in central and south central asia ( andronovo, sintashta, srubnaya, ) is a consequence of a back migration of corded ware from eastern central europe after another mixing with the farmers independently of the one that happened in south eastern europe before.

That historic period (Andronovo, Srubnaya etc.) is way too late to account for the appearance and expansion of PIE. When PIE probably first started to expand as a still undifferentiated common language (Copper Age), the genetic movement was much more from the steppes to the Balkans, Central-North Europe and Central Asia than from elsewhere into it. We already know EEF is found in only tiny proportions in most of the steppes until well into the Bronze Age, and the Y-DNA of Old Europe farmers is virtually absent (what, a language shift by elite dominance with no significant male input from the foreign elite men? Very unlikely), and that CHG was already present in very high proportion in the steppes by the early Chalcolithic (circa 4300 BC). Again you seem to be mixing different chronologies upside down.


For the WHG Anatolia stuff....your reaction is psycho-like. Again ......did I mention the IE problem? Did I say that WHG in Anatolia created a PIE? Did I say that?

Psycho-like? What do you mean? No, never mind, I'll just say that you'd better avoid using offensive terms like that again except if you are strongly provoked. Otherwise next time you'll get an infraction. Keep calm and choose your words better.

You mentioned WHG-enriched EEF of Megalithic Europe could've been the source of PIE and the IEization of the steppes. You also mentioned WHG contributed to ANF. All of that is not demonstrated or factually wrong. Those are the facts until now. You seem to be getting too angered by the simple fact that your hypothesis lies on very thin and unstable ground and doesn't fit in well with what we all know from ancient DNA.

MOESAN
23-06-18, 23:17
No this is an EEF+WHG in Yamnaya Samara.....at that time no steppe people had already entered in central western europe. This is before CWC and BBC which are 3th millennium.

Sincerely you 're intriguing me. Could you cite me the part of the scientific work where these " tastes" (or "huge dosis") of WHG+EEF, linked between them or not, appear? Because I'm not aware; it's true that I read less quickly than others.
By the way, it seems you ignore (?) that some thoeries speak of three intrusions of Steppic people in Europe, the first as soon as 4200 BCE, South Carpathians-Balkans, along Danube/Danau until Hungary, and North the Carpathians; introgression without too much demic input it's true; another around 3300 BCE, more important and which, supposedly, reached Germany, Poland, Central Europe-Balkans and Macedonia, with some incursions into Western Anatolia; it's true too that the demic input of these Steppic people can be discussed and debated... were they true IE speakers all of them? Could be debated too... but it seems they came from Steppes for a part.

Ygorcs
23-06-18, 23:32
it is moesan that mentioned in his post that steppe had already entered western europe....he said clearly western europe now in your reply you mention southeastern europe....I did not mention that region. So it is off the mark. No steppe in western europe till BBC.
Also I did not confuse the megalith stuff with Hamangia. I was only talking of different stages of european farms influence on the steppe: the cultural one: religion , burial custom ( earlier) and the genetic input ( later ). The farmer component that we find in central and south central asia ( andronovo, sintashta, srubnaya, ) is a consequence of a back migration of corded ware from eastern central europe after another mixing with the farmers independently of the one that happened in south eastern europe before.

I see, I missed the specific word "western" in Moesan's post, but in any case I wonder why you both - not just in these latter posts - made mentions to Western Europe or even Central Europe. If hypothetically PIE or IE culture came mostly from EEF people of Old Europe, it's almost certain that it would've come from Southeastern/Eastern Europe, not Megalithic Western Europe, Central Europe or whatever. If an EEF >> Steppe route must be found, it is there, not in Western or Central Europe. What's most probable, though, is that the "Steppe expansion" apparently started during the Late Neolithic (e.g. Vinca), and the bulk of its genetic makeup was more or less defined by the Copper Age. No big EEF input until then east of the Dniester.

Besides, the PIE vocabulary doesn't point to any heavily agricultural society, as Angela already pointed out. And despite all evidences of cultural influences on the steppe, the fact remains that there was a very clear cultural and genetic boundary separating EEF Old Europe from the mainly EHG+CHG cultures of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Their Y-DNA and even much of their Mt-DNA makeup were not alike.

It's weird that people who supposedly adopted the same language and most of the same culture of their EEF neighbors to the west (Balkans/Carpathians) kept themselves very distinctive for thousands of years until they were the ones invading them, not the other way around.

What I found difficult to accept is that there was a lot of native and Caucasian elements in the Pontic-Caspian cultures of the historic period when PIE apparently expanded, and at least since the Copper Age one sees a lot of EHG (40-50%), a lot of CHG (40-50% too) everywhere... but then one finds a much smaller proportion of EEF here and there, most of it appearing only from the early Bronze Age onwards, and immediately cries "Eureka! Never mind the 40-50% for EHG and CHG, never mind the linguistic evidences of PIE and the probable ancient relations to Uralic and Caucasian language families: the EEF of Old Europe are the true source of PIE and its associated culture!" It sounds like there is some wishful thinking or bias in that position. It is not that it is impossible or totally implausible that EEF was the ultimate, first source of PIE, but it's way way down in the list of possibilities.

etrusco
23-06-18, 23:38
@ygorcs

Did I say that Andronovo, Sintashta, Srubnaya were PIE. Did I say that? I simply divided two different type of mixing between steppe and old europe farmers one old: the first contact in south east europe where the steppe people were more on the receiving side on a cultural level. The second is the big demic impact that steppe people had with the farmers in the BBC CWC during the third millennium. I NEVER mentioned the PIE problem. Anyway I stand with my opinion of a possible neolithic origin of IE languages among the european farmers ( in europe because I'm not a fan of Renefrew too). Genetics as for now do not support much this theory but we'll see what happens. We need more data from Anatolia ( hittites) and southern europe.

@moesan

I never heard ( even by the most extremist "steppist") that there were incursions from the steppe deep into europe before CWC and BBC. There was the theory of Gimabutas of many "kurgan waves" but genetics ruled them out. GAC and Funnelbeaker and Baden and Remedello were all genetically european farmers.

Ygorcs
24-06-18, 00:21
@ygorcs

Did I say that Andronovo, Sintashta, Srubnaya were PIE. Did I say that? I simply divided two different type of mixing between steppe and old europe farmers one old: the first contact in south east europe where the steppe people were more on the receiving side on a cultural level. The second is the big demic impact that steppe people had with the farmers in the BBC CWC during the third millennium.


I got your point now. You're right on that. ;-)


I NEVER mentioned the PIE problem. Anyway I stand with my opinion of a possible neolithic origin of IE languages among the european farmers ( in europe because I'm not a fan of Renefrew too). Genetics as for now do not support much this theory but we'll see what happens. We need more data from Anatolia ( hittites) and southern europe.

Well, I'm not sure I understood what you really meant, since it seems to me that not only did you comment on the "PIE problem" before, but you also did it again now, right after you denied it. But I agree with you that everything is possible (possible, not probable), so EEF could be associated with the earliest PIE speakers... however there are very few (if any) solid evidences to back it up, whereas there are solid reasons to support other scenarios.

etrusco
24-06-18, 00:26
I got your point now. You're right on that. ;-)



Well, I'm not sure I understood what you really meant, since it seems to me that not only did you comment on the "PIE problem" before, but you also did it again now, right after you denied it. But I agree with you that everything is possible (possible, not probable), so EEF could be associated with the earliest PIE speakers... however there are very few (if any) solid evidences to back it up, whereas there are solid reasons to support other scenarios.

All in all I think you are right that the big problem for an old europe theory is the lack of a big farming vocabulary.....that is even more problematic than genetic and archeology.....but what is your take on the IE homeland issue. At first you didn't seem steppist....

MOESAN
24-06-18, 16:43
@Ygorcs

it is moesan that mentioned in his post that steppe had already entered western europe....he said clearly western europe now in your reply you mention southeastern europe....I did not mention that region. So it is off the mark. No steppe in western europe till BBC.
Also I did not confuse the megalith stuff with Hamangia. I was only talking of different stages of european farms influence on the steppe: the cultural one: religion , burial custom ( earlier) and the genetic input ( later ). The farmer component that we find in central and south central asia ( andronovo, sintashta, srubnaya, ) is a consequence of a back migration of corded ware from eastern central europe after another mixing with the farmers independently of the one that happened in south eastern europe before.

Also your example of diffusion of religion is a good one if you talk about historical times and relationship between strongly structured culture Rome, Egypt, China India. Of course in "historical" time religion and language often do not match ( with the notable exception of islam ) Here we are talking about prehistory and the formative stage of the cultural ethnogenesis of the steppe. We are not talking about the relationship between Israel and Rome. Different age, different dynamics. So the religious influence from the west at that time with the steppe in its formative age was more likely to have triggered a language shift.

For the WHG Anatolia stuff....your reaction is psycho-like. Again ......did I mention the IE problem? Did I say that WHG in Anatolia created a PIE? Did I say that?

The first farmers, with a focus on Anatolia (https://populationgenomics.blog/2018/06/04/the-first-farmers-with-a-focus-on-anatolia/) on populationgenomics.blog

Quote:

When it came to actually looking at the ancestral breakdown of Anatolians, Lazaridis et al. (2016) came up with a very solid model where Anatolians were a mix of lineages related to Ganj Dareh, Levant Neolithic, and WHG, with mixture proportions of 0.387, 0.339, and 0.274, respectively.

Etrusco, please, give back to Caesar what pertains to him and to Moesan what pertains to him (what an honour to be in so good a company). Where did you read I wrote "Western Europe", clearly? I spoke of Western Anatolia! I cited rather mainstream theories and in them there was question of Central Europe, Germany, Italy (mergins) and others, so western Europe in someway, not Atlantic Europe. The dates concerning this very more occidental supposed moves (re-read my post) are around 3300 and so roughly contemporary with Yamna;in fact we can suppose there is question here among others of the CWC concerning Germany, reached around the 2900 BCE (3300 is a travel beginning date) -
It's not my theory, it is not so absurd yet. I mentioned this but above all the 4400 BCE moves into S-E and C-Europe because you seemed unaware of the earliest introgressions of Steppic people there.
No personal theory. BTW you seem too having misunderstood the Ygorcs answer which came in contradiction to your post #267. Late Neolithic is a bit before Yamna full development, even if all these periods overlap one over another.
to date I don't believe in a EEF famers IE hypothesis. My posts to you had as aim to temperate your bold affirmations about a non-negligible demic input of EEF+CHG among Yamna people.
TO date, I'm almost sure the most of early post-PIE languages have been spred around and far by Steppic people: we have an/auDNA? an-haplo's Y+mt and archeology. For first PIE I 'm still in expectation, because PIE doesn't seem to me a pidgin or creole, so I would be thinking in a well evolved culture rather classical, but it seems in recent works it keeps on showing links with Finno-Ugric languages; so haplo's and other things seem putting the Sth-Caucasus theory in doubt.
I have no answer. Maybe the first Finno-Ugric languages reached region more southern that we think? I think in the progressive (or not) introgression(s) of SW-Siberian auDNA in Central Asia; ... links??? Here precise dates of first presence could help. It could attract us again towards N and NE Caspian? the famous 'gedrosia' question?
As I already said, a grammaticaly evolved language can flourish among warlike barbarian societies with professional bards and so on. Poetry exist among them too. Only spirit rambling of mine.

Ygorcs
24-06-18, 19:28
All in all I think you are right that the big problem for an old europe theory is the lack of a big farming vocabulary.....that is even more problematic than genetic and archeology.....but what is your take on the IE homeland issue. At first you didn't seem steppist....

I have no horse in this race. LOL I mean, I just go along with the best and most numerous evidences I find, but as far as I have read and learned I don't feel it's already safe to bet on just one hypothesis as clearly better than any other.

In my opinion, though, we have enough evidence to establish a (evidently falsifiable, as everything in science) concensus that it is most likely that the overwhelming bulk of IE families came from the expansion of a Late PIE spoken natively in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and that the ultimate source of that steppe language may have been either indigenous (related to the heavy EHG component in CA/EMBA steppe people) or brought to them much earlier (Neolithic) from a CHG-rich source near the Caucasus.

I don't have any strong preference for one over the other (some evidences point to EHG, e.g. the noticeably closer and chronologically deep connections to North Eurasian Uralic, and some to CHG)... But I think both of them are clearly much more probable than any other guessed "background of PIE" (e.g. EEF in Old Europe, EHG/SHG in North Europe, Levantine/Mesopotamiian origin).

Despite that controversy about the earlier roots of PIE, I think what we have now is more than enough to at least be very confident that the IE expansion really came virtually entirely from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and, when it didn't, it came directly (and probably indirectly from the Pontic-Caspian too) from its offshoots in immediately adjacent areas (Eastern Balkans, Caucasus, north Central Asia, Northeastern European forest-steppe). At least one thing is undeniable except for fringe ultra-nationalists and other people with a strong ideological agenda: the split and expansion of PIE has everything to do with that region between the Carpathians and the Caspian.

MOESAN
28-06-18, 19:30
If EEF's are involved in PIE formation, it does not mean all ancient EEF's from ANF were speaking the same language or that one the languages they spoke was the only ancestor of PIE; this does not discard some of the most eastern ones as one possible element in the formation of PIE. That said, It's not my favourite hypothesis because I suppose the first introgressions of EEF rich people in the very Steppes is rather late. That said too (a verbal tic of mine), what if the non-Uralic element in the language genesis had been carried by a pop rich in Y-R1b + some I2a2 having been themselves in a long contact with Y-G2a early "masters" in Central-Eastern Europe? The lost of agriculture terms could have been lost later, when the new language served for the most to Steppic herders. Just to say a genesis can be complicated sometimes, and the latest percentages between different components of the Steppic people can mistake us concerning origins of language. At this stage we even don't know how far West the Uralic languages could have pushed. Where could have been the contact zone? I would prefer a North Caspian region, but how to be sure?
&: The evident CTC males introgression in Sredny Stog is maybe not without sense? Have they passed a linguistic element of importance to more eastern pops? All that is rather elements of reasoning than true hypothesis. Sorry if I'm boring sometimes.

halfalp
29-06-18, 12:37
Hm, the thing is, i feel they dont give enough vulgarization into their calculators. Exemple: in middle-eastern neolithic we have 3 different genetic groups. 1) Anatolian Neolithic, related with Levantine Neolithic and WHG. 2) Neolithic Levantine, related with Natufian and a little of WHG. 3) Iranian Neolithic not related with the too previous but related with CHG and ANE. Now, CHG is modeled as a mix between something WHG and something related with later Iranian Farmers ( we obviously miss some pops here ). So, how, Iranian Farmers are not related with Anatolian and Levantine Farmers? The only answer is, Iranian Farmers doesn't have the WHG that is in CHG, therefore Iranian Farmers > CHG and not CHG > Iranian Farmers. So Iranian Farmers were ANE + a population with an ultimate source related to CHG but not CHG because CHG have WHG related. It means both caucasus hunter gatherer and iranian farmers are related but not with CHG proper but an ancestral component that was part of the creation of CHG. Now, prehistoric Pontic Steppe have CHG but not Iranian Farmers, so Iranian Farmers only make it in the Indian sub-con and Transcaucasia. But, recent papers shows that Transcaucasia neolithic was Anatolian Farmers / Iranian Farmers up to Maikop. Question is, in that equation what is the place of CHG? I explain myself, in Transcaucasia neolithic you have Anatolian and Iranian Farmers ancestry, Iranian Farmers having CHG, how do you separate what should be " Proper CHG " with " Iranian Farmers CHG "? How do you know if Iranian Farmers ancestry didn't pushed Proper CHG into the North in Mesolithic/Neolithic transition? How do you know for exemple that the CHG population of Pontic Steppe is not EHG/Iranian Farmers looking like Satsurblia-CHG because of the related ancestry? How a calculator can separate all those populations only by using modern genetic datas?

MOESAN
29-06-18, 19:07
@Halftap your #282 (to make short)
I agree all that is complicated and often enough we see studies which don't analyse the same pops the same way. We cannot compare them accurately. IBD would be one of the pertinent replies.

Ygorcs
30-06-18, 00:28
If EEF's are involved in PIE formation, it does not mean all ancient EEF's from ANF were speaking the same language or that one the languages they spoke was the only ancestor of PIE; this does not discard some of the most eastern ones as one possible element in the formation of PIE. That said, It's not my favourite hypothesis because I suppose the first introgressions of EEF rich people in the very Steppes is rather late. That said too (a verbal tic of mine), what if the non-Uralic element in the language genesis had been carried by a pop rich in Y-R1b + some I2a2 having been themselves in a long contact with Y-G2a early "masters" in Central-Eastern Europe? The lost of agriculture terms could have been lost later, when the new language served for the most to Steppic herders. Just to say a genesis can be complicated sometimes, and the latest percentages between different components of the Steppic people can mistake us concerning origins of language. At this stage we even don't know how far West the Uralic languages could have pushed. Where could have been the contact zone? I would prefer a North Caspian region, but how to be sure?
&: The evident CTC males introgression in Sredny Stog is maybe not without sense? Have they passed a linguistic element of importance to more eastern pops? All that is rather elements of reasoning than true hypothesis. Sorry if I'm boring sometimes.

The main quibble I have with this is not even that it is kind of based on too many "ifs", but that languages rarely do indeed "become mixed". When we talk about the earliest origins of PIE, we're assuming the source of the fundamentals that made PIE different from other language groups. Japanese didn't stop being Japonic, English didn't stop being Germanic just because they literally absorbed more than half of their language from other language groups. The roots, the vast majority of the core vocabulary, the way the syntax and morphology functions, all of them is much more resilient against foreign influences and linguistic borrowings, despite the existence of Sprachbund, areal features and all of that. The "core" usually remains and distinguishes it from other language families, so we would still be able to point out the origin of the language despite all later superstrates. I doubt PIE was a sort of total "hybrid" (that's really a rare phenomenon in linguistics), but I think it's very likely that it was a bit like Japanese or Vietnamese absorbing a huge amount of vocabulary from the more advanced cultures nearby, especially if it was originally a hunter-gatherer language that managed to survive because its people shifted early enough to more intensive food production (agriculture/animal husbandry)

Ygorcs
30-06-18, 00:44
I explain myself, in Transcaucasia neolithic you have Anatolian and Iranian Farmers ancestry, Iranian Farmers having CHG, how do you separate what should be " Proper CHG " with " Iranian Farmers CHG "? How do you know if Iranian Farmers ancestry didn't pushed Proper CHG into the North in Mesolithic/Neolithic transition? How do you know for exemple that the CHG population of Pontic Steppe is not EHG/Iranian Farmers looking like Satsurblia-CHG because of the related ancestry? How a calculator can separate all those populations only by using modern genetic datas?

I have made these questions myself, too. Maybe that's because I'm completely amateur in the subject, so it gets even more confusing than it already is by its very nature (trying to solve an incomplete puzzle, with several pieces missing). In the case of Transcaucasia, my only idea is that if Iranian Farmers did replace the CHG significantly then we should see a significant decrease in the WHG-related part of CHG (not present or negligible in Iran_Neolithic) in the calculators as the Neolithization process became more consolidated as far as the Early Bronze Age. Does that happen? I don't know.


As for the EHG/Iranian Farmer assumption isn't that exactly what David Reich seems to think is more probable in his recent book? I didn't read that point myself, but I was told so by some guy last week, who also showed me the print of pictures from his book. He seems to lean toward explaining the non-EHG part of the CA/BA Pontic-Caspian Steppe people as an admixture related to Iranian Farmers, not CHG proper.

MOESAN
30-06-18, 21:01
The main quibble I have with this is not even that it is kind of based on too many "ifs", but that languages rarely do indeed "become mixed". When we talk about the earliest origins of PIE, we're assuming the source of the fundamentals that made PIE different from other language groups. Japanese didn't stop being Japonic, English didn't stop being Germanic just because they literally absorbed more than half of their language from other language groups. The roots, the vast majority of the core vocabulary, the way the syntax and morphology functions, all of them is much more resilient against foreign influences and linguistic borrowings, despite the existence of Sprachbund, areal features and all of that. The "core" usually remains and distinguishes it from other language families, so we would still be able to point out the origin of the language despite all later superstrates. I doubt PIE was a sort of total "hybrid" (that's really a rare phenomenon in linguistics), but I think it's very likely that it was a bit like Japanese or Vietnamese absorbing a huge amount of vocabulary from the more advanced cultures nearby, especially if it was originally a hunter-gatherer language that managed to survive because its people shifted early enough to more intensive food production (agriculture/animal husbandry)

I agree concerning the language at a certain stage of its history -
- firstable my aim was not to criticize any precise theory here; but speaking of the EEF (DNA) and Old Europe (cult.) possible input in purely theorical PIE genesis , I was saying I dont swallowed the Renfrew hypothesis of an IE allover-europe neolithic language;
- in a long time language history, I'm not sure a mix of different languages cannot produce finally a new grammar, and not only a mix of lexicons; if we take the English, I think it's grammar has suffered more influences from Celtic and French that what is commonly affirmed; it's arrived very different from pure Germanic languages; just a point, it does not predict my personal thoughts about PIE formation because I'm still in the darkness. Personally I don't see too much where the PIE could have find place between S-E Europe and S-W Asia groups of languages, spite I was looking for a rather well evolved culture for the language; but we have some prejudices sometimes concerning levels of culture and levels of language. My aim was also to try to explain the weak but surely real influence of Old Europe upon the ancient Cultures of the westernmost parts of the Steppes, at least on the auDNA level. Yamna is an other thing: but was Yamna the first element in the PIE genesis?: I don't know, even I would prefer a rather eastern place for PIE; Did not Yamna learn PIE at an early enough stage, spite it was maybe not the first promotor of i?t. To date I have no solid ground to predict the very place of PIE birth helas, even if your opinion could make sense and I could agree with it. So my hesitating posts are not in contradiction to your points.

etrusco
30-06-18, 22:14
I agree concerning the language at a certain stage of its history -
- firstable my aim was not to criticize any precise theory here; but speaking of the EEF (DNA) and Old Europe (cult.) possible input in purely theorical PIE genesis , I was saying I dont swallowed the Renfrew hypothesis of an IE allover-europe neolithic language;
- in a long time language history, I'm not sure a mix of different languages cannot produce finally a new grammar, and not only a mix of lexicons; if we take the English, I think it's grammar has suffered more influences from Celtic and French that what is commonly affirmed; it's arrived very different from pure Germanic languages; just a point, it does not predict my personal thoughts about PIE formation because I'm still in the darkness. Personally I don't see too much where the PIE could have find place between S-E Europe and S-W Asia groups of languages, spite I was looking for a rather well evolved culture for the language; but we have some prejudices sometimes concerning levels of culture and levels of language. My aim was also to try to explain the weak but surely real influence of Old Europe upon the ancient Cultures of the westernmost parts of the Steppes, at least on the auDNA level. Yamna is an other thing: but was Yamna the first element in the PIE genesis?: I don't know, even I would prefer a rather eastern place for PIE; Did not Yamna learn PIE at an early enough stage, spite it was maybe not the first promotor of i?t. To date I have no solid ground to predict the very place of PIE birth helas, even if your opinion could make sense and I could agree with it. So my hesitating posts are not in contradiction to your points.

I do not agree with Renefrew because if PIE spreaded with agricolture we would have more traces of it in western asia and middle east so his theory is not built on solid ground. But there's an aspect in which Renefrew is right. IE proto-historical culture in the bronze age manifest a very structured kind of mind set ( sun cult, cremation, a refined philosophy like the ones we have in Greece and India) since these philosophies share a lot of traits they cannot have been borrowed from locals but they came from IE mindset. But it is impossible they derived from the steppe itself because we know they were basically war bands and nothing more than that. From whom did they borrow these refined cultural traits? IVC is to be ruled out because it cannot explain IE cultural traits in Europe. Also west asia for the same reasons. The only explanation possible is they borrow it from central western europe were it is not a coincidence that we find early manifestations of sun cult and cremation. above all now that we clearly know that aside from the cultural influences we can detect also a genetic input of farmers into Sredni Stog and Yamnaya. The question remains if the farmers managed to trigger a language change in the steppe in the time window of 4500-3500 or they just influenced in some fields the formation of PIE ( metallurgy and religion maybe). A strange and striking fact is that we cannot detect a linguistic influence from the west using other family languages. we know that PIE had relationship with caucasian and uralic but we can with absolute certainty rule out that the farmers spoke uralic or caucasian languages. but then the mystery deepens. Which kind of languages spoke the farmers? The absence of a third family language on PIE is striking. So apparently the only explanation is that despite mixing with them ( EEF+ WHG is present in ALL the historical IE speaking peoples) they left no traces whatsoever. Or ( as I believe) they left no traces of a third family language because the farmers too spoke IE.

halfalp
01-07-18, 09:02
I have made these questions myself, too. Maybe that's because I'm completely amateur in the subject, so it gets even more confusing than it already is by its very nature (trying to solve an incomplete puzzle, with several pieces missing). In the case of Transcaucasia, my only idea is that if Iranian Farmers did replace the CHG significantly then we should see a significant decrease in the WHG-related part of CHG (not present or negligible in Iran_Neolithic) in the calculators as the Neolithization process became more consolidated as far as the Early Bronze Age. Does that happen? I don't know.


As for the EHG/Iranian Farmer assumption isn't that exactly what David Reich seems to think is more probable in his recent book? I didn't read that point myself, but I was told so by some guy last week, who also showed me the print of pictures from his book. He seems to lean toward explaining the non-EHG part of the CA/BA Pontic-Caspian Steppe people as an admixture related to Iranian Farmers, not CHG proper.

I'am a complete amateur too, this is why i'm asking for vulgarization or transparence, explaining why and how they conclued their analysis. For what i understand from the Caucasus paper, all the sample doesn't have any CHG, in Transcaucasia it's Anatolia_Neo and Iran_Neo and in North Caucasia, the CHG/Iran_Neo tend to lean to an Iran_Neo terminology, why's that? CHG is older than Iran_Neo, so where those CHG went? Is Reich trying to say that the CHG signal in the recent paper is for him a Iran_Neo signal to prove a second migration? All this is shadowing, sometimes its CHG, sometimes Iran_Neo, but what are they using to differentiate the two? North Caucasus gonna always have WHG/EHG signals, so are they separating that signal from the Iran_Neo (wich is supposed to not have any WHG)? In my mind, if you have Iran_Neo and EHG it gives CHG, so why Reich is insisting that this CHG is Iran_Neo without any Archeological proofs that could be happlied to such pattern? The Iran_Neo samples like Ganj Dareh also have others admixtures in all graphics, like maybe ASI? that are not found in samples north of the caucasus, so how hypothetic Iranian Farmers in North Caucasus would look more like CHG than Ganj Dareh?

Ailchu
01-07-18, 15:09
I'am a complete amateur too, this is why i'm asking for vulgarization or transparence, explaining why and how they conclued their analysis. For what i understand from the Caucasus paper, all the sample doesn't have any CHG, in Transcaucasia it's Anatolia_Neo and Iran_Neo and in North Caucasia, the CHG/Iran_Neo tend to lean to an Iran_Neo terminology, why's that? CHG is older than Iran_Neo, so where those CHG went? Is Reich trying to say that the CHG signal in the recent paper is for him a Iran_Neo signal to prove a second migration? All this is shadowing, sometimes its CHG, sometimes Iran_Neo, but what are they using to differentiate the two? North Caucasus gonna always have WHG/EHG signals, so are they separating that signal from the Iran_Neo (wich is supposed to not have any WHG)? In my mind, if you have Iran_Neo and EHG it gives CHG, so why Reich is insisting that this CHG is Iran_Neo without any Archeological proofs that could be happlied to such pattern? The Iran_Neo samples like Ganj Dareh also have others admixtures in all graphics, like maybe ASI? that are not found in samples north of the caucasus, so how hypothetic Iranian Farmers in North Caucasus would look more like CHG than Ganj Dareh?

maybe it's because it's hard to know what is CHG and what is iran neo? someone who knows how the calculators asign ancestry to these ancient groups could probably give you an answer. the CHG is based on a few(does anyone know which ones and how many?) ancient CHG samples. maybe these ancient samples have overlapping parts with iran neo and also EHG that are similar to each other and then its difficult to say what is what in modern samples.

halfalp
01-07-18, 23:03
maybe it's because it's hard to know what is CHG and what is iran neo? someone who knows how the calculators asign ancestry to these ancient groups could probably give you an answer. the CHG is based on a few(does anyone know which ones and how many?) ancient CHG samples. maybe these ancient samples have overlapping parts with iran neo and also EHG that are similar to each other and then its difficult to say what is what in modern samples.

CHG or Teal was defined taking by two prehistoric samples from actual Georgia in Transcaucasia, Satsurblia and Kotias, the first being a paleolithic one and the second a mesolithic one. Represented by, from Satsurblia y-dna haplogroup J1* and for Kotias J2a. I'm not sure who came first between CHG and Iran_Neo, but Iran_Neo are represented by Ganj Dareh individuals from neolithic Zagros mountains. Roughly at the beginning it was like this: Iran_Neo = CHG + ANE | CHG = Iran_Neo + WHG/EHG. But those proxy probably have changed by now. And yes, i definitely need somebody who knows how the calculators works to understand how you seperate for exemple Proper WHG with Proper CHG in a same population. Exemple: A given population is modeled EHG + CHG with a 50/50 ratio, both EHG and CHG have WHG and ANE in different proportions. How then, do you know it is CHG and not Iran_Neo? How do you seperate the WHG from EHG and the WHG from CHG to know they are different?

Ygorcs
02-07-18, 08:30
I do not agree with Renefrew because if PIE spreaded with agricolture we would have more traces of it in western asia and middle east so his theory is not built on solid ground. But there's an aspect in which Renefrew is right. IE proto-historical culture in the bronze age manifest a very structured kind of mind set ( sun cult, cremation, a refined philosophy like the ones we have in Greece and India) since these philosophies share a lot of traits they cannot have been borrowed from locals but they came from IE mindset. But it is impossible they derived from the steppe itself because we know they were basically war bands and nothing more than that. From whom did they borrow these refined cultural traits? IVC is to be ruled out because it cannot explain IE cultural traits in Europe. Also west asia for the same reasons. The only explanation possible is they borrow it from central western europe were it is not a coincidence that we find early manifestations of sun cult and cremation. above all now that we clearly know that aside from the cultural influences we can detect also a genetic input of farmers into Sredni Stog and Yamnaya. The question remains if the farmers managed to trigger a language change in the steppe in the time window of 4500-3500 or they just influenced in some fields the formation of PIE ( metallurgy and religion maybe). A strange and striking fact is that we cannot detect a linguistic influence from the west using other family languages. we know that PIE had relationship with caucasian and uralic but we can with absolute certainty rule out that the farmers spoke uralic or caucasian languages. but then the mystery deepens. Which kind of languages spoke the farmers? The absence of a third family language on PIE is striking. So apparently the only explanation is that despite mixing with them ( EEF+ WHG is present in ALL the historical IE speaking peoples) they left no traces whatsoever. Or ( as I believe) they left no traces of a third family language because the farmers too spoke IE.

That last point is not very strong, because its premise (that they left no linguistic traces) is still very debatable. There were several non-IE languages in Europe until the Roman Era (and those were the few that were written down or talked about in written documents of other peoples, there were certainly several others), as well as clearly non-IE substrates in all IE branches that settled in Europe. If the farmers already spoke IE languages, we wouldn't expect such significant substrate influences from unknown but certainly non-IE language families, especially in Germanic and Greek. And of course there is still Basque being spoken nowadays exactly in one of the areas of modern Europe with a higher proportion of EEF ancestry. The paucity of pre-IE languages in Europe is quite easily explained by the virtually ubiquitouse presence (within Europe) of steppe-derived ancestry (suggestive of the expansion of Indo-Europeanized mixed populations) at least since the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age, which is when most of Europe started to have a modicum of literacy to leave written evidences of its languages.

IronSide
02-07-18, 13:39
class Biased{

public void weakExcuse(BA_Anatolian sample){

while(numberOfSamples != infinity)
{
if(sample.steppe > 0)
{
sample.culture = "invisible AnatolianIE elite";
}
else
{
sample.culture = "could be anything, who cares ?";
}
++numberOfSamples;
}

}

}

IronSide
04-07-18, 18:13
This post of mine is relevant to this topic

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36421-3000-years-old-Anatolian-personal-names-in-Ebla/page2?p=548081&viewfull=1#post548081

IronSide
05-07-18, 20:32
from the linguistic supplement of Daamgard et al 2018:



First, the lack of genetic indications for an intrusion into Anatoliarefutes the classical notion of a Yamnaya-derived mass invasion or conquest. However, it does fit the recently developed consensus among linguists and historians that the speakers of the Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation. Second, the attestation of Anatolian Indo-European personal names in 25thcenturyBCEdecisively falsifies the Yamnaya culture as a possible archaeological horizon for PIE-speakers prior to the Anatolian Indo-European split. The period of Proto-Anatolian linguistic unity can now be placed in the 4thmillennium BCE and may have been contemporaneous with e.g. the Maykop culture (3700–3000 BCE), which influenced the formation and apparent westward migration of the Yamnaya and maintained commercial and cultural contact with the Anatolian highlands (Kristiansen et al. 2018). Our findings corroborate the Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis, which claims that Anatolian Indo-European split off from Proto-Indo-European first and that Anatolian Indo-European represents a sister rather than a daughter language. Our findings call for the identification of the speakers of Proto-Indo-Anatolian as a population earlier than the Yamnaya and late Maykop cultures


Ok people, I'll take that bolded statment as true, Proto-Indo-Anatolian is earlier than Yamnaya and Late Maykop, what cultural sequnces lead to Anatolian speakers in Anatolia ? without having any EHG admixture ?

What Steppe culture pre Yamnaya could have lead to Anatolians ? but without EHG admixture ? convince me

Yetos
05-07-18, 22:38
I still must open athread about Tocharians, and Hettites,

what steppe culture that evolute to satem, could give the centum tocharian?

BMAC although genetically connected to Athanasevo (if remember correct)
gave centum language (tocharian)
while all steppe gave satem.

Ygorcs
05-07-18, 22:48
from the linguistic supplement of Daamgard et al 2018:



Ok people, I'll take that bolded statment as true, Proto-Indo-Anatolian is earlier than Yamnaya and Late Maykop, what cultural sequnces lead to Anatolian speakers in Anatolia ? without having any EHG admixture ?

What Steppe culture pre Yamnaya could have lead to Anatolians ? but without EHG admixture ? convince me

That's the million dollar question that not even the geneticisists and archaeologists are venturing too much into trying to give a definite answer. I myself don't know. However, if Proto-Indo-Anatolian also preceded Maykop, so Indo-European in the steppes probably existed even before Yamnaya too (still in the Copper Age possibly), I also don't know what non-EHG but heavily CHG (and minimally ANF) culture is a perfect fit and the best candidate for this sequence of events, with a split between 2 divergent languages in two distinct and distant ecosystems. Do you know some pre-Maykop culture that was demonstrably found in both the steppes and Transcaucasia? (not just some vague influences, it should necessarily be something transformative indicating a totally new ethnic element and material & abstract culture). This Anatolian situation is really a conundrum, especially if we're supposed to find the common source of Early PIE (Indo-Hittite) earlier, in the Neolithic or the beginning of the Chalcolithic.

IronSide
05-07-18, 23:07
That's the million dollar question that not even the geneticisists and archaeologists are venturing too much into trying to give a definite answer. I myself don't know. However, if Proto-Indo-Anatolian also preceded Maykop, so Indo-European in the steppes probably existed even before Yamnaya too (still in the Copper Age possibly), I also don't know what non-EHG but heavily CHG (and minimally ANF) culture is a perfect fit and the best candidate for this sequence of events, with a split between 2 divergent languages in two distinct and distant ecosystems. Do you know some pre-Maykop culture that was demonstrably found in both the steppes and Transcaucasia? (not just some vague influences, it should necessarily be something transformative indicating a totally new ethnic element and material & abstract culture). This Anatolian situation is really a conundrum, especially if we're supposed to find the common source of Early PIE (Indo-Hittite) earlier, in the Neolithic or the beginning of the Chalcolithic.

Well, Maykop Kurgans are similar to the earlier Leyla-Tepe culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture), the culture has also been linked to the north Ubaid period monuments, in particular, with the settlements in the Eastern Anatolia Region (Arslantepe, Coruchu-tepe, Tepechik, etc.), these might have been a source of migration to West Anatolia.

Hahaha that's of course in the alternate reality of Indo-Anatolian actually emerging from Northern Mesopotamia.

Ygorcs
06-07-18, 00:43
Well, Maykop Kurgans are similar to the earlier Leyla-Tepe culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture), the culture has also been linked to the north Ubaid period monuments, in particular, with the settlements in the Eastern Anatolia Region (Arslantepe, Coruchu-tepe, Tepechik, etc.), these might have been a source of migration to West Anatolia.

Hahaha that's of course in the alternate reality of Indo-Anatolian actually emerging from Northern Mesopotamia.

Yes, you're right, Leyla-Tepe or, if Early PIE is even more remote/archaic than we thought, even Shulaveri-Shomu are good candidates for now... BUT I really ask you (I don't know in fact): is there a solid cultural and economic trail in the archaeological record linking Leyla-Tepe to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, especially more northerly places not adjacent to the Caucasus, which were eventually associated with Yamnaya and apparently already had a lot of CHG in the Eneolithic (pre-Yamnaya)? Did Leyla-Tepe visibly expand to the steppes?

Angela
06-07-18, 01:00
This is all complicated by the fact that if it is true that the "CHG like/Iran Neo like" component on the steppe is very, very old, I don't see how it could have brought even proto-PIE. Is pre-proto-IE a possibility?

That doesn't mean there aren't problems with the Balkan hypothesis. I don't see any actual archaeological trail from Ezero to Anatolia. It goes the other way. An abstract in the ICAANE thread makes the case for that east to west spread of technology even stronger.

Plus, there's the missing EHG signal. The Mycenaeans didn't have much, but they had some.

You can't have a hypothesis supported by phantom, untraceable, elites.

IronSide
06-07-18, 01:41
Yes, you're right, Leyla-Tepe or, if Early PIE is even more remote/archaic than we thought, even Shulaveri-Shomu are good candidates for now... BUT I really ask you (I don't know in fact): is there a solid cultural and economic trail in the archaeological record linking Leyla-Tepe to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, especially more northerly places not adjacent to the Caucasus, which were eventually associated with Yamnaya and apparently already had a lot of CHG in the Eneolithic (pre-Yamnaya)? Did Leyla-Tepe visibly expand to the steppes?

Leyla-Tepe are thoerized to be the ancestors of Maykop, Maykop transmitted to Yamnaya their carts, their bronze, and their kurgans, you could argue that if they transmit that then their religion also.

As for their genetics, I'd refer to my post on the last thread we spoke https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36421-3000-years-old-Anatolian-personal-names-in-Ebla/page2?p=548131&viewfull=1#post548131

Modelling Yamnaya Samara from Eneolithic Samara is the correct way, not from Progress and Vonjuchka. people tried to do that in the past, they also needed two ancestries: 1-more CHG 2-more ANF, Maykop_Steppe outliers have these two.

some links from Davidski and Anthrogenica:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/08/genetic-and-archaeological-continuity.html
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6163-Dstats-and-qpAdm-with-EHG-Samara-Eneolithic-and-Yamnaya

Davidski uses Kotias and Hungary Neolithic in his modelling, as additional required ancestry to Yamnaya, CHG does not rise alone anymore, Chad rohlefsen in Anthrogeneica naturaly says that's geneflow from Maykop.

ToBeOrNotToBe
06-07-18, 03:30
Can't wait for this question to be resolved - I'm backing a West Asian origin of the pre-proto-Indo-Europeans, with Anatolians being either those who didn't cross into the Steppe, or simply a relatively early reflux. West Asian origin of PPIE will, in my opinion, be ultimately related to the first proto-urban settlements of the Copper Age - whether or not these settlements, such as those from the Halaf and Starčevo-Körös cultures, were principally founded by, say, R1b-folk (which is my belief), or some other tribe, remains to be seen. There might be a lot of fighting over this, as people will undoubtably argue that whoever it turns out to be are some kind of civilisational race. There has to be one though, so hopefully all parties will be open to the truth - not like, for example, Zahi Hawass, who censored certain Y DNA results of ancient Egyptians, while releasing others. Given his hatred of the West, it's screamingly obvious what those censored results probably showed, but anyway.

People seem to forget about those pale, red-haired Chalcolithic Armenians sequenced a while back, and happily ignore evidence of people with such pigmentation having had an ancient presence in the Middle East - despite a highly endogamous and extremely urbanised Middle Eastern group still possessing those qualities in relative abundance today far in excess of what could be explained by European admixture (Ashkenazi Jews). These same people also ignore smoking-gun evidence of lighter pigmentation present from antiquity (e.g. with Ramses II), and make it out that the entire region was uniformly olive-brown skinned Orientalid types, from time immemorial - suggesting otherwise would be "racist", and that's "evil". The level of cognitive dissonance can be simply astounding - from both sides though, not just those who are rabid anti-Nordicists.

If only they could bloody get a move on though, it shouldn't take that long to do all this!

ToBeOrNotToBe
06-07-18, 04:00
Anybody want to share their thoughts?

raspberry
06-07-18, 15:39
"People seem to forget about those pale, red-haired Chalcolithic Armenians sequenced a while back, and happily ignore evidence of people with such pigmentation having had an ancient presence in the Middle East - despite a highly endogamous and extremely urbanised Middle Eastern group still possessing those qualities in relative abundance today far in excess of what could be explained by European admixture (Ashkenazi Jews)."
- what nonsense is this? What has this to do with the question where the PIE homeland was? Stop with this R1b-red hair nonsense (Maciamo should delete his map where he made a non existent correlation between these two things, people who have no clue always get mislead by that map). You mix unrelated things together (haplogroups have no relevance on your appearance, it is all in your autosomal DNA which is clearly not exclusively Near Eastern, so a European origin for your ginger hair is likely). I agree that the PIE homeland was south of the Caucasus but with nothing more of what you said. Interesting what complexes some people have.

Olympus Mons
06-07-18, 16:43
Anybody want to share their thoughts?

Yes.
Grow up.

ToBeOrNotToBe
06-07-18, 18:59
"People seem to forget about those pale, red-haired Chalcolithic Armenians sequenced a while back, and happily ignore evidence of people with such pigmentation having had an ancient presence in the Middle East - despite a highly endogamous and extremely urbanised Middle Eastern group still possessing those qualities in relative abundance today far in excess of what could be explained by European admixture (Ashkenazi Jews)."
- what nonsense is this? What has this to do with the question where the PIE homeland was? Stop with this R1b-red hair nonsense (Maciamo should delete his map where he made a non existent correlation between these two things, people who have no clue always get mislead by that map). You mix unrelated things together (haplogroups have no relevance on your appearance, it is all in your autosomal DNA which is clearly not exclusively Near Eastern, so a European origin for your ginger hair is likely). I agree that the PIE homeland was south of the Caucasus but with nothing more of what you said. Interesting what complexes some people have.

So basically, you don’t get why looking at haplogroups is important. I understand that being R1b won’t give you red hair, but it’s important to look at migrations - it’s far more complicated to do so with autosomal DNA.

Areas with high levels of rufosity tend to have higher levels of R1b, and this correlation is definitely statistically significant. How can people downplay the R1b-rufosity connection, it’s clear as day. If we link the two, and say that this mutation originated with or at least was primarily spread by R1b, now we can have a fingerprint for the historical presence of tribes with R1b-like admixture. And this applies to all red hair, except those in Australia, which is caused by a different mutation.

But you’re skipping the obvious point - those pale-skinned, red-haired Armenians from the Copper Age(!) fit very nicely with an immediate South Caucasus origin. And I’m saying, that looking at the archeological evidence and extrapolating, there’s a clear connection between R1b-like admixture (note - this wouldn’t be like R1b today in all probability) and the spread of early Copper Age settlements. Which nicely maps out PPIE ethnogenesis, and gives twin plausible solutions to the Anatolian problem.

ToBeOrNotToBe
06-07-18, 19:02
Do people just ignore facts when it doesn’t suit them? How can people be downplaying examples like the ginger chalcolithic Armenians?! They didn’t spring out of the ground...

Ygorcs
06-07-18, 23:25
Leyla-Tepe are thoerized to be the ancestors of Maykop, Maykop transmitted to Yamnaya their carts, their bronze, and their kurgans, you could argue that if they transmit that then their religion also.

As for their genetics, I'd refer to my post on the last thread we spoke https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36421-3000-years-old-Anatolian-personal-names-in-Ebla/page2?p=548131&viewfull=1#post548131

Modelling Yamnaya Samara from Eneolithic Samara is the correct way, not from Progress and Vonjuchka. people tried to do that in the past, they also needed two ancestries: 1-more CHG 2-more ANF, Maykop_Steppe outliers have these two.

some links from Davidski and Anthrogenica:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/08/genetic-and-archaeological-continuity.html
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6163-Dstats-and-qpAdm-with-EHG-Samara-Eneolithic-and-Yamnaya

Davidski uses Kotias and Hungary Neolithic in his modelling, as additional required ancestry to Yamnaya, CHG does not rise alone anymore, Chad rohlefsen in Anthrogeneica naturaly says that's geneflow from Maykop.

But that's exactly why I said that, if the linguistic evidences point out to a pre-Maykop Chalcolithic PIE (not Late PIE minus Anatolian, which is almost certainly a Pontic-Caspian language), then we should find an archaeological and genetic trail from the South Caucasus before Maykop. That is, in Shulaveri-Shomu, in Leyla Tepe, whatever, but before Maykop, because by that time around 3700-3500 BCE it is very likely that PIE didn't even exist any longer as one common language, there were already at least 2 distinct languages diverging increasingly. Also, I'm in doubt that the gene flow from Maykop, considering the really minor increase in ANF (and that's already considering that at least some of that ANF came within EEF, not directly from the Caucasus), was significant enough to be presumed to have changed (not just influenced) the whole culture and language of the entire long range of the Pontic-Caspian cultures, especially without any noticeable (until now) impact in the Y-DNA makeup of the steppe people. Was Sredny Stog II or Repin (pre-Yamnaya) even advanced enough to be offshoots of Maykop? I'm not sure... Another point is that Yamnaya does not look like the first culture where Late PIE was spoken. By the early stages of Yamnaya Afanasievo was already in the Altai mountains, possibly bringing a pre-Tocharian LPIE to Central-Eastern Asia.

Ygorcs
06-07-18, 23:32
Do people just ignore facts when it doesn’t suit them? How can people be downplaying examples like the ginger chalcolithic Armenians?! They didn’t spring out of the ground...

Still that? I would really like to know where on earth did you find this definite information that the expansion of Early Bronze Age Indo-Europeans is particularly associated with red hair, or even that red hair was particularly more common in the Pontic-Caspian and Anatolian early IEs than in other populations. Indo-Europeans weren't the only people moving around, expanding and mixing with others in the Copper Age and Bronze Age. It all sounds like speculation, as if it was simply a given that Indo-Europeans were very pale and ginger. None of that is indicated by the data we have until now, approximated though as they are (definitely not for red hair, but in fact not even the pale skin thing; light, yes, really very pale like modern North Europeans? No way). But it's better to have approximated, imperfect evidences than hypothetical assumptions, apparently based on what you think they should've looked like.

Angela
07-07-18, 02:32
I guess someone hasn't read the papers with pigmentation data for Yamnaya.

epoch
08-07-18, 09:41
from the linguistic supplement of Daamgard et al 2018:



Ok people, I'll take that bolded statment as true, Proto-Indo-Anatolian is earlier than Yamnaya and Late Maykop, what cultural sequnces lead to Anatolian speakers in Anatolia ? without having any EHG admixture ?

What Steppe culture pre Yamnaya could have lead to Anatolians ? but without EHG admixture ? convince me

A candidate would be: Sredny Stog -> Uzorovo -> Ezero. Considering that there are two Chalcolithic samples in Mathiesons South-Eastern paper are in the area where Uzorovo was situated, and both others are confirmed to have steppe ancestry, there you have your pre-Yamnaya steppe trail. But as ffoucart on AG keeps pointing out: Bulgarian Yamnaya isn't too young to be an ancestor for Anatolian.

Another thing is this. You completely misinterpret the lack of steppe in the Anatolian samples up to date. I will make a bold statement: If all the Bronze Age Anatolian samples were packed with steppe the Kurgan hypothesis was in trouble. It would mean that people of whom we know that they spoke a non-IE language, people that preceded the introduction of Anatolian languages, would have steppe ancestry. What would then be the reason to refute a hypothetical claim Yamnaya spoke a Hattic language?

Angela
08-07-18, 17:04
A candidate would be: Sredny Stog -> Uzorovo -> Ezero. Considering that there are two Chalcolithic samples in Mathiesons South-Eastern paper are in the area where Uzorovo was situated, and both others are confirmed to have steppe ancestry, there you have your pre-Yamnaya steppe trail. But as ffoucart on AG keeps pointing out: Bulgarian Yamnaya isn't too young to be an ancestor for Anatolian.

Another thing is this. You completely misinterpret the lack of steppe in the Anatolian samples up to date. I will make a bold statement: If all the Bronze Age Anatolian samples were packed with steppe the Kurgan hypothesis was in trouble. It would mean that people of whom we know that they spoke a non-IE language, people that preceded the introduction of Anatolian languages, would have steppe ancestry. What would then be the reason to refute a hypothetical claim Yamnaya spoke a Hattic language?

The problem is that unless you have access to papers of which I'm not aware, other than a few pots there is no archaeological trail from Ezero to Anatolia. The archaeological trail goes in the other direction, from Anatolia to the Balkans. There's an upcoming paper that makes that case even stronger than it was before if the abstract is correct.

Also, you need the steppe on both ends.

I don't understand the relevance of your second point. No one is "demanding" samples packed with steppe. It would be impossible given how little is in the Balkans at the appropriate time. Something like the Mycenaeans would do very nicely. :)

IronSide
08-07-18, 17:50
This wouldn't have carried a lot of sensitivity if it was another language family.

I have been accused of political and ethnic bias or agenda because I'm saying Anatolians may not have come from the Steppe, due to many samples now lacking EHG from different periods and locations where Anatolian should have been spoken, but at the beginning I did believe in the usual notion of Steppe migration (I even believed the ideas of eurogenes, of EHG abducting CHG women at some point), if I had anything against the good old EHG folks I would have argued against it before.

I mean, the least is to express doubt that they come from the Steppe, to think that it's really peculiar that they don't have EHG ancestry, but what I saw was complete faith and belief in elite ghosts, against evidence, amazing.

halfalp
08-07-18, 18:41
Bronze Age Anatolia doesn't have EHG, but Bronze Age Eastern Europe doesn't have ANF. The only link in the Bronze Age of both Anatolia and Eastern Europe is CHG, wich predate Bronze Age. Maikop and related north caucasus chalcolithic cultures have some ANF, but their paternal lineages are absent of steppe. Now we have an interesting conclusion, both Anatolia wich we would assume are natively ANF and Eastern Europe wich we would assume are natively EHG are both Indo-European speakers at some point in history. But there's more, both Eastern Europe and Indian Sub-continent and Iran are in Iron Age - Early Antiquity, Indo-Iranian speakers without Eastern Europe having ANI/ASI or Iran/Indian having EHG. Those pattern can only have one conclusion ( apart of the conclusion that I-E languages have been transmitted with mothers ). The conclusion is that I-E languages had both a demic and cultural diffusion, some people in western europe have becomed I-E speakers with direct ancestors of Yamnaya, some others like India-Iran and Anatolia have become I-E speakers with cultural diffusion and male lineage founder effects. Everything contradicte everything in I-E studies, even the researchers in the papers they feel something is fishy with only steppe hypothesis but at the same time the others hypothesis cant explain everything. But just imagine whats the actual consensus from anti-steppist people. Maikop bring PIE to steppe and because they were culturally superior they imposed language and bring female lineage but not male lineage in the pontic steppe. So a semi cultural-demic diffusion. Now we can apply the same pattern to Anatolia and Iran-India. India have gotten a gigantic founder effect with R1a-Z93 wich is clearly a northern lineage related with Iron Age eurasian steppe, but they dont have EHG properly, so they are still autosomally ASI/Iran_Neolithic = ANI? Iran but Anatolia are different stories, Iran didn't have the founder effect of Indians with R1a and are near the middle east, so they constantly had mashing with other populations. For Anatolia its way more complicate, I-E languages disappear 3'200BC of that place, apart from a big scale sampling of those ancient times, we cannot make a conclusion whatsoever. But lets take back to the genetic link between Bronze Age Anatolia and Bronze Age Pontic Steppe. BA Anatolia is mostly 50/50 ANF and Iran_Chalcolithic, while BA Pontic Steppe is mostly 50/50 EHG and CHG. Now what differentiate CHG/Iran_Neolithic/Iran_Chalcolithic? There is any genetic link between all this that i'm pretty sure Harvard gonna change the terminology of CHG in the Pontic Steppe for Iran_Chalcolithic to fit their hypothesis, maybe in future samples, maybe even in a simple revision of terminology.

epoch
08-07-18, 20:25
The problem is that unless you have access to papers of which I'm not aware, other than a few pots there is no archaeological trail from Ezero to Anatolia. The archaeological trail goes in the other direction, from Anatolia to the Balkans. There's an upcoming paper that makes that case even stronger than it was before if the abstract is correct.

Also, you need the steppe on both ends.

I don't understand the relevance of your second point. No one is "demanding" samples packed with steppe. It would be impossible given how little is in the Balkans at the appropriate time. Something like the Mycenaeans would do very nicely. :)

The archaeological trail goes both ways IIRC [1]. If you look at the burial types jar burials enter the Balkan from Anatolia, it goes from Anatolia to the Balkans. However, the only real possible predecessor to the cremation ritual of the Hittites seems to be in.. You guessed it: Ezero or Bulgarian Yamnaya, where it occurs alongside burials, sometimes in the same barrow.

[1] http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1478344/43/Massa_Thesis_combined.pdf


Overall, the evidence brought forward here seems to suggest that, even though contacts between north-western Anatolia and Thrace/Macedonia can be detected at least from the 5th millennium (Steadman 1995; Thissen 1993), they seem to become more intense in the EBA, and are characterised by a mutual, bi-directional exchange of products, technologies and behaviours spread across time.


A striking point of connection is for example provided by three anthropomorphic stone stelae (fig.7.41), one found in secondary context within the fortification wall of Troy Id (c.2800-2700 cal BC), another found in a much later (Troy VI) context, but also of possible early EBA date (Blegen et al.1950:155-157, figs.93, 189), and the third a chance find near the mound of Helvacıköy-Höyücek (Doğer 1995).


At the close of the 3rd millennium, small numbers of cremation burials (essentially unknown in earlier prehistoric Anatolia) appear at Poliochni Yellow, Troy IIg, Çeşme-Boyalık, Aphrodisas and Kaklık Mevkii (fig.7.42, Massa and Şahoğlu in prep.).

epoch
08-07-18, 20:30
I mean, the least is to express doubt that they come from the Steppe, to think that it's really peculiar that they don't have EHG ancestry, but what I saw was complete faith and belief in elite ghosts, against evidence, amazing.

I am going to repeat this: The history of the Hittites is very clear. We are *bound* to find a lot of non-steppe people among Hittites. To refute a theory that goes against linguistic evidence on the basis of a few non-steppe Hittite samples is not only acceptable, it is common sense. We *know* that large parts of Anatolia weren't IE speaking, let alone of steppe ancestry.

PS: In the Hittite empire there were many vassal kings. Considering the history of the Hittites, which explicitly describes the conquering of a Hattic kingdom and consequently making the Hattic king a vassal, we are even *bound* to find 100% non-steppe elite burials.

IronSide
08-07-18, 21:21
@epoch

People with Steppe ancestry can have sex with people who do not, because Steppe people like to have sex, resulting in the mixed child to have some amount of that ancestry, there is a non-zero probability of that happening. You don't need to bring "Vassal kings" into it, it's just Biology.

Trololololololol :laughing:

Unless the Hittites were like the Unsullied in Game of Thrones ?

epoch
08-07-18, 21:40
@epoch

People with Steppe ancestry can have sex with people who do not, because Steppe people like to have sex, resulting in the mixed child to have some amount of that ancestry, there is a non-zero probability of that happening. You don't need to bring "Vassal kings" into it, it's just Biology.

Trololololololol :laughing:

Unless the Hittites were like the Unsullied in Game of Thrones ?

Shall we remain serious? Would be greatly appreciated.

Mind you, there is a Hittite text available regarding early kings disallowing their own offspring to become their heirs but *adopting* [1] or choosing nephews as heirs. This was during times of great internal feuds.

[1] Cf. Telipinu.

IronSide
08-07-18, 21:54
Shall we remain serious? Would be greatly appreciated.

Mind you, there is a Hittite text available regarding early kings disallowing his own offspring to become his heir but *adopting* or choosing nephews as heirs. This was during times of great internal feuds.

I am dead serious, its the called the argument of how many samples do you need to know if people of different ethnicities had sex?

take the Minoans and Mycenaeans for example, how many samples from the Myceneans did not have EHG ? not a single one.

How many samples from the Minoans did not have CHG ? not a single one.

In the damgaard et al paper, all BA Anatolian samples, were similar to the 3700BC Chalcolithic individual, the first in Anatolia to have CHG. all didn't have EHG.

There is no conspiracy, the first Anatolian sample from the Iron Age immediately had EHG ancestry, I think we have two, both had it. notice a pattern?

seriously if there is Steppe ancestry undiscovered in BA Anatolia then God is a joker.

IronSide
08-07-18, 21:58
https://d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/sci/early/2018/05/08/science.aar7711/F2.large.jpg

epoch
08-07-18, 22:33
I am dead serious, its the called the argument of how many samples do you need to know if people of different ethnicities had sex?

take the Minoans and Mycenaeans for example, how many samples from the Myceneans did not have EHG ? not a single one.

Take the Abusir mummies. How many samples had Greek admixture? None. So, according to your logic the Ptolemeids cannot have been of Greek origin.

IronSide
08-07-18, 23:29
Take the Abusir mummies. How many samples had Greek admixture? None. So, according to your logic the Ptolemeids cannot have been of Greek origin.

Therefore Anatolians must have come from the Steppe. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

It is known, when Greek pastoralists, led by their chief Alexander the Great, invaded Egypt and settled the land, stayed strong for millennia until their language diversified and was spoken by a large portion of Lower Egypt, and half of Upper Egypt, the two main subfamilies of the Graeco-Egyptian language family.

Persian pastoralists invaded Egypt before them and the whole Middle East, diversified their languages, the Indo-Iranian branch of Egyptian-Aryan, Levantine-Aryan, and Anatolian-Aryan developed, sustained by the long presence of a Persian population that Iranianized the native Egyptians.

Italians today speak a Germanic language, it's called Lombardic, and they have a substantial proportion of ancestry from them.

Yetos
08-07-18, 23:46
Take the Abusir mummies. How many samples had Greek admixture? None. So, according to your logic the Ptolemeids cannot have been of Greek origin.


I copy paste,

I declare I have no rights,

''Geneticist Iosif Lazaridis of Harvard Medical School in Boston, who studies how and when ancient populations mixed, calls the new results “a big accomplishment.” But he wonders how representative Abusir el-Meleq is of ancient Egypt as a whole. “Egypt is a big place,” he says. Other regions may have experienced its conquests in different ways, some perhaps with more genetic mixing. But Lazaridis hopes for more revelations to come. “Now that it’s been proven that it’s possible to sample from mummies—well, there are literally thousands of mummies.”''

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/scientists-thought-ancient-egyptian-mummies-didn-t-have-any-dna-left-they-were-wrong

What Krause found, possibly is the Hyksos people,
Fayum is the area of Greek and Roman settlements,
Abusir although grew the Ptolemaic era, might been due to movement of Hyksos there.

Ygorcs
08-07-18, 23:47
People seem to forget about those pale, red-haired Chalcolithic Armenians sequenced a while back, and happily ignore evidence of people with such pigmentation having had an ancient presence in the Middle East - despite a highly endogamous and extremely urbanised Middle Eastern group still possessing those qualities in relative abundance today far in excess of what could be explained by European admixture (Ashkenazi Jews).

Yes, it can't be explained by European admixture, but it can easily be explained by a combination of genetic bottleneck, genetic drift and high endogamy. Ashkenazi Jews notoriously have a very low genetic diversity. A relative abundance of many genetic traits, in comparison with more admixed populations descending from a larger effective population size, is to be expected in any group similar to them, like many Indian castes.

Angela
08-07-18, 23:58
I am going to repeat this: The history of the Hittites is very clear. We are *bound* to find a lot of non-steppe people among Hittites. To refute a theory that goes against linguistic evidence on the basis of a few non-steppe Hittite samples is not only acceptable, it is common sense. We *know* that large parts of Anatolia weren't IE speaking, let alone of steppe ancestry.

PS: In the Hittite empire there were many vassal kings. Considering the history of the Hittites, which explicitly describes the conquering of a Hattic kingdom and consequently making the Hattic king a vassal, we are even *bound* to find 100% non-steppe elite burials.

On the contrary, the largest parts of Anatolia were IE speaking. They were also not the parts anywhere near the Balkans. You people just ignore everything that doesn't fit on your side of the ledger. There's nothing scholarly about your approach whatsoever.

http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ancient-Anatolian-Languages-Map.png

Why focus only on the Hittites?

I'm sorry, but only people with an agenda are going to believe this if not one sample in this whole area ever shows EHG. There's still time for the samples to show up, of course, but as I said, if none show up it's a real problem.

As for the mummies, come on. If you want Egyptian mummies with some "Greek" ancestry in them this is not the place to look. Look in Alexandria, for goodness' sakes, or at least somewhere near the Delta. That's where the vast majority of the Greek citizens lived. It's like looking for Lombard ancestry not in Lombardia or the Veneto but in Calabria.

Also, what about the chronology here? When did this supposed movement take place? How does that fit with the development of the language? How could the Anatolian languages, with no word for wheel, have entered Anatolia for the first time at such late dates?

Angela
09-07-18, 00:24
On the contrary, the largest parts of Anatolia were IE speaking. They were also not the parts anywhere near the Balkans. You people just ignore everything that doesn't fit on your side of the ledger. There's nothing scholarly about your approach whatsoever.

http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ancient-Anatolian-Languages-Map.png

Why focus only on the Hittites?

I'm sorry, but only people with an agenda are going to believe this if not one sample in this whole area shows EHG. There's still time for the samples to show up, of course, but as I said, if none show up it's a real problem.

As for the mummies, come on. If you want Egyptian mummies with some "Greek" ancestry in them this is not the place to look. Look in Alexandria, for goodness' sakes. That's where the vast majority of the Greek citizens lived. It's like looking for Lombard ancestry not in Lombardia or the Veneto, but in Calabria.

Also, what about the chronology here? When did this supposed movement take place? How does that fit with the development of the language? How could the Anatolian languages, with no word for wheel, have entered Anatolia for the first time at such late dates?

@ToBeOrNotToBe:

Does no one remember prior papers? Please for goodness' sakes read the Sandra Wilde et al and the Mathiesen et al papers. The Yamnaya people were DARK, darker than most Europeans today. As for light hair, and eyes for that matter, it already existed in NEOLITHIC ANATOLIA. It didn't need to get introduced by the steppe people. It's just that over the years, since these are recessive traits, they don't pop up as much.

Sandra Wilde et al:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/13/4832



http://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/17148_ENG_HTML.php

Iain Mathiesen et al
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/

Pigmentation in ancient Anatolians is in numerous papers, but Hofmanova et al is one of them.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4922144/

It should also be kept in mind, of course, that predictions for color of hair don't have very high reliability.

Ygorcs
09-07-18, 01:59
Bronze Age Anatolia doesn't have EHG, but Bronze Age Eastern Europe doesn't have ANF. The only link in the Bronze Age of both Anatolia and Eastern Europe is CHG, wich predate Bronze Age. Maikop and related north caucasus chalcolithic cultures have some ANF, but their paternal lineages are absent of steppe. Now we have an interesting conclusion, both Anatolia wich we would assume are natively ANF and Eastern Europe wich we would assume are natively EHG are both Indo-European speakers at some point in history. But there's more, both Eastern Europe and Indian Sub-continent and Iran are in Iron Age - Early Antiquity, Indo-Iranian speakers without Eastern Europe having ANI/ASI or Iran/Indian having EHG. Those pattern can only have one conclusion ( apart of the conclusion that I-E languages have been transmitted with mothers ). The conclusion is that I-E languages had both a demic and cultural diffusion, some people in western europe have becomed I-E speakers with direct ancestors of Yamnaya, some others like India-Iran and Anatolia have become I-E speakers with cultural diffusion and male lineage founder effects. Everything contradicte everything in I-E studies, even the researchers in the papers they feel something is fishy with only steppe hypothesis but at the same time the others hypothesis cant explain everything. But just imagine whats the actual consensus from anti-steppist people. Maikop bring PIE to steppe and because they were culturally superior they imposed language and bring female lineage but not male lineage in the pontic steppe. So a semi cultural-demic diffusion. Now we can apply the same pattern to Anatolia and Iran-India. India have gotten a gigantic founder effect with R1a-Z93 wich is clearly a northern lineage related with Iron Age eurasian steppe, but they dont have EHG properly, so they are still autosomally ASI/Iran_Neolithic = ANI? Iran but Anatolia are different stories, Iran didn't have the founder effect of Indians with R1a and are near the middle east, so they constantly had mashing with other populations. For Anatolia its way more complicate, I-E languages disappear 3'200BC of that place, apart from a big scale sampling of those ancient times, we cannot make a conclusion whatsoever. But lets take back to the genetic link between Bronze Age Anatolia and Bronze Age Pontic Steppe. BA Anatolia is mostly 50/50 ANF and Iran_Chalcolithic, while BA Pontic Steppe is mostly 50/50 EHG and CHG. Now what differentiate CHG/Iran_Neolithic/Iran_Chalcolithic? There is any genetic link between all this that i'm pretty sure Harvard gonna change the terminology of CHG in the Pontic Steppe for Iran_Chalcolithic to fit their hypothesis, maybe in future samples, maybe even in a simple revision of terminology.

Iran/India did have EHG ancestry, including according to the latest papers EHG-derived ancestry independent of and before Yamnaya. The South Asian/South Central Asian papers definitely suggested a relatively small demic impact from the steppe pastoralists, but it did confirm that the EHG+CHG package of the BA Pontic-Caspian steppe did reach those modern Indo-Iranian territories - just not directly from Yamnaya, but rather from some populatio before Yamnaya and especially, in much higher proportions, after Yamnaya in the MLBA Andronovo horizon.

_________________________

I don't feel confident to affirm where the Early PIE (Indo-Hittite, Indo-Anatolian) was first spoken, because I think that with the data we have until now we're basically in a stalemate, at least if we keep in mind that Anatolian is almost universally considered by linguists to have split earlier than all other branches, and the split of these residual IE branches had already begun at the very least by the early/mid Yamnaya period (~3000 BC). By 1500 BC Hittite, Old Indic and Mycenaean Greek (these two actually demonstrably much closer to each other than other IE languages, so assumed to latecomers of the PIE expansion), were already so different that it's really hard to assume that their divergence happened a mere 1000-1500 years before. So, in the period immediately preceding the Yamnaya horizon we probably had this situation, which is hard to reconcile completely with "South Caucasus origin" or "Anatolian origin" or "Steppe origin":

* CA/EBA Pontic-Caspian steppe: Chalcolithic "old" EHG/CHG mix + a little extra CHG + a really tiny amount of ANF which only appears in non-negligible amounts by the time of Yamnaya + near complete dominance of local Y-DNA, very few signs of Anatolian & Caucasus influence + a Mt-DNA makeup that is much more similar to that of the North Caucasus females

* Caucasus (not its steppe slopes): Regional CHG + A lot of ANF + negligible or no EHG + Y-DNA makeup that is totally unlike that of the Pontic-Caspian steppe males + A Mt-DNA makeup that is much more similar to that of the Pontic-Caspian females

* Anatolia: Regional ANF + Increasingly more CHG/Iran_Neo + negligible or no EHG + predominantly local and some Caucasian-like Y-DNA

So, the pieces don't fit yet, unless we'll make a huge leap and assume that, to the surprise of most people, Caucasian women exchanged by Caucasus populations in exogamic arrangements were much more influential and powerful than we thought, having been able to produce a wholesale linguistic shift in the huge expanse of the Ukrainian/Russian steppes. One could argue that Y-DNA haplogroups can suffer dramatic expansions or retractions in some generations, but in that case we'd at least expect Caucasian-like Y-DNA haplogroups to be found in the "Indo-Europeanization phase" of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in much higher frequencies than in later periods (post-Yamnaya, for instance), which would suggest a later "comeback" of the native males winning over the Caucasian males who had become culturally dominant in an earlier age. But we see nothing like that in the ancient DNA database.

Silesian
09-07-18, 03:36
@ToBeOrNotToBe:

Does no one remember prior papers? Please for goodness' sakes read the Sandra Wilde et al and the Mathiesen et al papers. The Yamnaya people were DARK, darker than most Europeans today. As for light hair, and eyes for that matter, it already existed in NEOLITHIC ANATOLIA. It didn't need to get introduced by the steppe people. It's just that over the years, since these are recessive traits, they don't pop up as much.

So far almost all the Yamnaya tested were ynda-R1b[Z-2109]. The same ydna R1b found in 14000YBP+/- Villabruna Italy[with more downstream mutations]. Their pigmentation was not that much different than the ancient Europeans like R1b found at Villabruna and R1b found at Iron Gates 8000-12000YBP+/-, perhaps shade/s lighter . The earliest light/hair/eye pigmentation around Yamnaya kurgan turned up in Hunter Gatherer R1b Samara 7500YBP+/- a branching/M73-M269.

Ygorcs
09-07-18, 03:48
I am dead serious, its the called the argument of how many samples do you need to know if people of different ethnicities had sex?

take the Minoans and Mycenaeans for example, how many samples from the Myceneans did not have EHG ? not a single one.

How many samples from the Minoans did not have CHG ? not a single one.

In the damgaard et al paper, all BA Anatolian samples, were similar to the 3700BC Chalcolithic individual, the first in Anatolia to have CHG. all didn't have EHG.

There is no conspiracy, the first Anatolian sample from the Iron Age immediately had EHG ancestry, I think we have two, both had it. notice a pattern?

seriously if there is Steppe ancestry undiscovered in BA Anatolia then God is a joker.

I'm not saying this necessarily happened, but that kind of situation is perfectly possible if there had not been enough time for a large-scale homogeneization of the population yet (especially if the populations initially remained averse to inter-ethnic exogamy). Some generations after the immigration of a "new" population (which, if they came from the Balkans or the Caucasus, and not from the steppes directly, must've already been themselves pretty low on EHG), I think it's totally expected that if you had e.g. 100 samples some would come off nearly 100% immigrant, some others more or less mixed, and a vast majority would still be totally unmixed, 100% indigenous. If all you have is 3 or 5 samples, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up having some bias or fail to demonstrate the true genetic diversity that existed in a non-homogeneized population. That's what I'd expect in any scenario where the immigration was not absurdly massive and/or there was not a huge population replacement in the region, anyway. The widespread mixing process, even when it is not socially disencouraged, takes many generations to consolidate. Anatolian IA is clearly many centuries after the introgression of IE peoples in the region, and ditto for Mycenaeans and, switching to CHG instead of EHG, the Minoans.

Silesian
09-07-18, 04:10
Can't wait for this question to be resolved - I'm backing a West Asian origin of the pre-proto-Indo-Europeans, with Anatolians being either those who didn't cross into the Steppe, or simply a relatively early reflux. West Asian origin of PPIE will, in my opinion, be ultimately related to the first proto-urban settlements of the Copper Age - ................
If only they could bloody get a move on though, it shouldn't take that long to do all this!


​Hittite (natively ���������������� � nešili " of Neša (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCltepe)"), also known as Nesite and Neshite, is an Indo-European-language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages) that was spoken by the Hittites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites), a people of Bronze Age Anatolia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_Anatolia) who created an empire, centred on Hattusa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattusa). The language, long extinct now, is attested in cuneiform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_cuneiform), in records dating from the 16th (Anitta text (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anitta_text)) to the 13th century BC, with isolated Hittite loanwords and numerous personal names appearing in an Old Assyrian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_language) context from as early as the 20th century BC.

The Hittite city was called Hattusa.
Proto Indo European has no word for city/town,roof,floor,brick

The oldest discovered bricks, originally made from shaped mud and dating before[I] 7500 BC, were found at Tell Aswad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Aswad), in the upper Tigris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigris) region and in southeast Anatolia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia) close to Diyarbakir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyarbakir).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick#cite_note-1)
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/51/Ling512011MaterialCulture.pdf

Ygorcs
09-07-18, 04:28
The Hittite city was called Hattusa.
Proto Indo European has no word for city/town,roof,floor,brick

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/51/Ling512011MaterialCulture.pdf

That's a really troublesome (among many others) points against ToBeOrNotToBe's "advanced West Asian gingers" hypothesis. How come the bulk of the IE linguistic expansion (Anatolian notwithstanding, it's just the outlier) is clearly tied to a supposedly Indo-Europeanized Pontic-Caspian steppe full of "red-haired pale people" who, unlike their immediate ancestors, had no "proto-urban" society, barely practiced agriculture and were clearly less developed technologically and in terms of social organization than the Near Eastern populations they came from? Did they go through some huge cultural/economic regression as they expanded northward, yet somehow that happened just as they were expanding their language most widely? In this as in other matters, the hypothesis is full of holes.

epoch
09-07-18, 07:11
As for the mummies, come on. If you want Egyptian mummies with some "Greek" ancestry in them this is not the place to look. Look in Alexandria, for goodness' sakes, or at least somewhere near the Delta. That's where the vast majority of the Greek citizens lived. It's like looking for Lombard ancestry not in Lombardia or the Veneto but in Calabria.

Bingo. Now, if that applies to Lombards and Ptolemeids, why not for Anatolians?

Yetos
09-07-18, 09:20
The Hittite city was called Hattusa.
Proto Indo European has no word for city/town,roof,floor,brick

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/51/Ling512011MaterialCulture.pdf

hm

ending in - issa ossa ussa -assa etc is considered pure PIE ending.

Yetos
09-07-18, 09:30
Bingo. Now, if that applies to Lombards and Ptolemeids, why not for Anatolians?

because Hellenistic Aigypt does not mean all Egypt spoke Greek Makedonian, Neither Koine,

But conserning Fayum we have evidences,,


As for Italy, and Lombards, cause Lombards were Germanic, does not mean Italy was all speaking Germanic or Italian,
in Fact consider when Lombards enter Italy, consider where Normans enter S Italy
and when S Italy tottaly turn to modern Italian,

just think Normans enter S Italy, Lombards enter N Italy,
and before Italian unicification movements (Garibaldi Mazzini etc)
how much of Italy spoke these languages?


in fact day by day I have the thinking that languages spread at the time of peace, not at the time of war,


Notice BMAC and Afanasevo, they are about same genetical, but not Linguistic, why?

Angela
09-07-18, 15:32
Bingo. Now, if that applies to Lombards and Ptolemeids, why not for Anatolians?

Sorry, you've lost me. Should I post the map of the IE language areas of Anatolia again? What I said was that IF, given sufficient time, NO samples turn up in this area with EHG, then this hypothesis is in trouble.

You're in effect saying that EHG doesn't have to turn up anywhere in the IE SPEAKING areas of Anatolia.

MY example was not even exactly apropos. The signal of the Lombard genetics is definitely there in northern and perhaps down to central Italy, even if it is a minority one. Yet, they didn't even manage to change the language.

You're proposing that a group so tiny that it's genetic footprint is totally gone changed the language of an extensive, densely populated area of more advanced people.

The two situations are not at all similar.

There are also problems with the crossing the Caucasus scenario, as Ygorcs pointed out. Just as it makes no sense that people who spent all that time in the Balkans had no word for wheel, it doesn't make sense that people from a culture with mudbrick houses has no word for it. Indeed, it makes no sense that the steppe people were so primitive if half their genetics came from a more advanced area.

If the ancestry came mostly from women, women who weren't able to effect the culture as much, it might be possible, but that would require the women, with no power, changing the language.

The only other possibility I see is that it was much earlier, but I don't know how that fits with the timing for pre-proto-IE.

Angela
09-07-18, 15:42
So far almost all the Yamnaya tested were ynda-R1b[Z-2109]. The same ydna R1b found in 14000YBP+/- Villabruna Italy[with more downstream mutations]. Their pigmentation was not that much different than the ancient Europeans like R1b found at Villabruna and R1b found at Iron Gates 8000-12000YBP+/-, perhaps shade/s lighter . The earliest light/hair/eye pigmentation around Yamnaya kurgan turned up in Hunter Gatherer R1b Samara 7500YBP+/- a branching/M73-M269.

Sorry, Silesian, maybe it's too early yet for me. What is the point you're trying to make?

There were light haired light eyed people in Neolithic Europe. (See Sandra Wilde et al for Hungary just for starters, then all the later samples that turned up) There were some light haired light eyed people in Neolithic Anatolia before any movement to Europe. There was no R1b of any kind in any of these cases.

IronSide
09-07-18, 16:05
The Shang dynasty of China were Steppe people.

The first Japanese emperors were very much high in Steppe.

The Pharoahs of Egypt ? Dr.Eugenics told us about their red hair, they are descended from the Steppe pastoralists.

God ? he lives in the open Steppe, his throne is upon the waters of Lake Baikal.

The Roman Patrician families were high in Steppe, the plebians are not.

The Inca and Mayan elite were Steppe people who crossed the Bering Strait, alternatively, they may have crossed the Atlantic.

you will never find their DNA, they are the elites, Steppe people founded all major civilizations.

davef
09-07-18, 16:33
The Shang dynasty of China were Steppe people.

The first Japanese emperors were very much high in Steppe.

The Pharoahs of Egypt ? Dr.Eugenics told us about their red hair, they are descended from the Steppe pastoralists.

God ? he lives in the open Steppe, his throne is upon the waters of Lake Baikal.

The Roman Patrician families were high in Steppe, the plebians are not.

The Inca and Mayan elite were Steppe people who crossed the Bering Strait, alternatively, they may have crossed the Atlantic.

you will never find their DNA, they are the elites, Steppe people founded all major civilizations.
Bow to me, my non steppe underlings. WE HAZ TEH HORZES

IronSide
09-07-18, 17:32
The abducted women of the weaker Maykop transmitted so much culture for the Steppe, metals and carts, hehe even how they buried their dead.

davef
09-07-18, 17:52
If the steppe people did conquer Anatolia without changing it genetically, how can we explain the fact that Europe has so much steppe ancestry?

Angela
09-07-18, 19:10
The Shang dynasty of China were Steppe people.
The first Japanese emperors were very much high in Steppe.
The Pharoahs of Egypt ? Dr.Eugenics told us about their red hair, they are descended from the Steppe pastoralists.
God ? he lives in the open Steppe, his throne is upon the waters of Lake Baikal.
The Roman Patrician families were high in Steppe, the plebians are not.
The Inca and Mayan elite were Steppe people who crossed the Bering Strait, alternatively, they may have crossed the Atlantic.
you will never find their DNA, they are the elites, Steppe people founded all major civilizations.

You do realize there are lots of idiots out there who really do believe this nonsense, right? :)

Sarcasm is lost on such people.

Ailchu
09-07-18, 20:13
The abducted women of the weaker Maykop transmitted so much culture for the Steppe, metals and carts, hehe even how they buried their dead.

was there more than just metals and carts? the romans also adopted iron after beeing defeated by armies with iron weapons without changing their culture. carts were probably also spread in cultures south of the caucasus without becoming indo european. i'm definitly no steppist and i'm open for a more southern origin. butas far as i understood it there is no male haplogroup from maykop in yamnas. that would be one of the problems if not the main problem we would have to address.
@Angela
what is the chronological order of these languages? were they all spread by hittites?

Taranis
09-07-18, 20:18
On the contrary, the largest parts of Anatolia were IE speaking. They were also not the parts anywhere near the Balkans. You people just ignore everything that doesn't fit on your side of the ledger. There's nothing scholarly about your approach whatsoever.

http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ancient-Anatolian-Languages-Map.png

Why focus only on the Hittites?

I'm sorry, but only people with an agenda are going to believe this if not one sample in this whole area ever shows EHG. There's still time for the samples to show up, of course, but as I said, if none show up it's a real problem.

One point I'd like to make: this discussion has been focusing a lot on genetics, whereas we're actually talking (or should be talking) about a language family. One important point to make is that the Luwic group of languages possessed a type of palatalization that can* be compared to Satemization, while Hittite was basically a "Centum" language (in the sense that the "palato-velars" and "plain velars" of PIE are merged). In essence this means you may (or may not) need to reconstruct the three series of consonants (plain velars, palato-velars and labio-velars) as distinct for Proto-Anatolian (in contrast to the other IE branches):

This leaves us with two possible scenarios:

1) either that Proto-Anatolian diverged before the Centum/Satem split (this certainly allows for variants of the old "Indo-Hittite" model, where you had a split between Proto-Anatolian and a type of Late PIE in the steppe, which was the ancestor language of the other branches).

2) or that Proto-Anatolian was in fact a centum language and the palatalization in the Luwic branch is secondary (French is another good example of a Centum language that has quite extensive secondary palatalization).

Either way, the Anatolian languages have a few peculiar features, in particular that there's no male/female/neuter genders (which you could reconstruct for late PIE) but an animate/inanimate gender.

*EDIT: I missed something here, sorry. :embarassed:

Ygorcs
09-07-18, 22:19
because Hellenistic Aigypt does not mean all Egypt spoke Greek Makedonian, Neither Koine,

But conserning Fayum we have evidences,,


As for Italy, and Lombards, cause Lombards were Germanic, does not mean Italy was all speaking Germanic or Italian,
in Fact consider when Lombards enter Italy, consider where Normans enter S Italy
and when S Italy tottaly turn to modern Italian,

just think Normans enter S Italy, Lombards enter N Italy,
and before Italian unicification movements (Garibaldi Mazzini etc)
how much of Italy spoke these languages?


in fact day by day I have the thinking that languages spread at the time of peace, not at the time of war,


Notice BMAC and Afanasevo, they are about same genetical, but not Linguistic, why?


BMAC and Afanasievo? No, they aren't. The Y-DNA haplogroups and the autosomal makeup are very different, and BMAC didn't have nearly as much Yamnaya-like / EMBA Steppe-like ancestry. The (assumed, not proven) lack of linguistic similariti is easily explained in that case.

epoch
10-07-18, 14:55
Sorry, you've lost me. Should I post the map of the IE language areas of Anatolia again? What I said was that IF, given sufficient time, NO samples turn up in this area with EHG, then this hypothesis is in trouble.

You're in effect saying that EHG doesn't have to turn up anywhere in the IE SPEAKING areas of Anatolia.

MY example was not even exactly apropos. The signal of the Lombard genetics is definitely there in northern and perhaps down to central Italy, even if it is a minority one. Yet, they didn't even manage to change the language.

You're proposing that a group so tiny that it's genetic footprint is totally gone changed the language of an extensive, densely populated area of more advanced people.

The two situations are not at all similar.

There are also problems with the crossing the Caucasus scenario, as Ygorcs pointed out. Just as it makes no sense that people who spent all that time in the Balkans had no word for wheel, it doesn't make sense that people from a culture with mudbrick houses has no word for it. Indeed, it makes no sense that the steppe people were so primitive if half their genetics came from a more advanced area.

If the ancestry came mostly from women, women who weren't able to effect the culture as much, it might be possible, but that would require the women, with no power, changing the language.

The only other possibility I see is that it was much earlier, but I don't know how that fits with the timing for pre-proto-IE.

Then I'll let Damsgaard explain it:


“We are pretty sure Indo-European languages were introduced to Anatolia – either through the Balkans or the Caucasus, by a minority,” Damgaard says. The languages would then have been sustained in Anatolia through cultural processes, he adds.

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-backing-the-wrong-wild-horse-1.6196288
(https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-backing-the-wrong-wild-horse-1.6196288)

Angela
10-07-18, 15:15
Then I'll let Damsgaard explain it:



https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-backing-the-wrong-wild-horse-1.6196288
(https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-backing-the-wrong-wild-horse-1.6196288)

That is totally unresponsive to my point, and meant to misrepresent my point as well. Is this how you conduct intellectual discussions?

NOWHERE have I ever said or implied that it is impossible for an elite, minority group to impose their language. Only someone totally ignorant of this discipline would do such a thing.

What you are proposing, however, is that a densely populated, advanced culture (in relation to these new arrivals) had its language changed by a group so small that absolutely no trace of it remains genetically. I don't know of any other such situation. The Mycenaeans, for example, do show some steppe ancestry, even if it is relatively small. We find the same thing in India, and certainly in Europe, where it is much larger. In the case of the Romans, you had a small group's language eventually predominating in most conquered areas, but this was by a literate, advanced culture conquering less advanced, illiterate people. Even then, traces of the Roman genetic presence can be found.

Oh, and as to the article to which you linked for a trail from the Balkans to Anatolia, I read the entire article very carefully. It deals with trade networks not at all with population movement, in case anyone wondered.

Look, you clearly don't have an open mind about any of this, so this discussion is pointless. Believe what you wish.

IronSide
10-07-18, 16:57
I'm convinced:



Furthermore, our genetic data cannot confirm a scenario in which the introduction of the Anatolian Indo-European languages into Anatolia was associated with the spread of EBA Yamnaya West Eurasian ancestry. The Anatolian samples contain no discernible trace of steppe ancestry at present. The combined linguistic and genetic evidence, therefore, have important implications for the “Steppe Hypothesis”in Southwest Asia.

First, the lack of genetic indications for an intrusion into Anatolia refutes the classical notion of a Yamnaya-derived mass invasion or conquest. However, it does fit the recently developed consensus among linguists and historians that the speakers of the Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation.

Second, the attestation of Anatolian Indo-European personal names in 25th century BCE decisively falsifies the Yamnaya culture as a possible archaeological horizon for PIE-speakers prior to the Anatolian Indo-European split. The period of Proto-Anatolian linguistic unity can now be placed in the 4thmillennium BCE and may have been contemporaneous with e.g. the Maykop culture (3700–3000 BCE), which influenced the formation and apparent westward migration of the Yamnaya and maintained commercial and cultural contact with the Anatolian highlands (Kristiansen et al. 2018). Our findings corroborate the Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis, which claims that Anatolian Indo-European split off from Proto-Indo-European first and that Anatolian Indo-European represents a sister rather than a daughter language. Our findings call for the identification of the speakers of Proto-Indo-Anatolian as a population earlier that the Yamnaya and late Maykop cultures


and this


Indeed, our data are also consistent with the first speakers of Anatolian IE coming to the region
by way of commercial contacts and small-scale movement during the Bronze Age. Among
comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered
more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE
presence and language diversity in the west

historians and linguists reached a consensus, the speakers of the Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation, and of course, commercial contacts.

Want a region to speak your language (and become a language family) ? well it's easy, you gradually infiltrate, and culturally assimilate.

Your tribe will cross the Bosphorus, one by one, gradually, or else they'll discover your autosomes, and then you spread yourselves thin across Anatolia, to begin the process of cultural assimilation.

How you do that you may ask ? well, you can ask them nicely, impressing them by how nice you are, they'll be impressed.

Or you can trade with them, trading with them so much and so hard until they submit.

Or you can tell them stories, on how you migrated from the Pontic Caspian Steppe, without horses or wheels, barely speaking or having sex with anyone in the Balkans.

they'll be impressed, and in the next day, the sun will shine and everyone will start speaking your language, leaving their trash languages behind for good, this situation will last for centuries, until your language grows and becomes a large happy family.

Ygorcs
10-07-18, 20:54
Sorry, you've lost me. Should I post the map of the IE language areas of Anatolia again? What I said was that IF, given sufficient time, NO samples turn up in this area with EHG, then this hypothesis is in trouble.

You're in effect saying that EHG doesn't have to turn up anywhere in the IE SPEAKING areas of Anatolia.

MY example was not even exactly apropos. The signal of the Lombard genetics is definitely there in northern and perhaps down to central Italy, even if it is a minority one. Yet, they didn't even manage to change the language.

You're proposing that a group so tiny that it's genetic footprint is totally gone changed the language of an extensive, densely populated area of more advanced people.

The two situations are not at all similar.

There are also problems with the crossing the Caucasus scenario, as Ygorcs pointed out. Just as it makes no sense that people who spent all that time in the Balkans had no word for wheel, it doesn't make sense that people from a culture with mudbrick houses has no word for it. Indeed, it makes no sense that the steppe people were so primitive if half their genetics came from a more advanced area.

If the ancestry came mostly from women, women who weren't able to effect the culture as much, it might be possible, but that would require the women, with no power, changing the language.

The only other possibility I see is that it was much earlier, but I don't know how that fits with the timing for pre-proto-IE.

You said exactly what I think and meant to say, but in much clearer and concise words. Thanks!; -)

halfalp
10-07-18, 20:57
Iran/India did have EHG ancestry, including according to the latest papers EHG-derived ancestry independent of and before Yamnaya. The South Asian/South Central Asian papers definitely suggested a relatively small demic impact from the steppe pastoralists, but it did confirm that the EHG+CHG package of the BA Pontic-Caspian steppe did reach those modern Indo-Iranian territories - just not directly from Yamnaya, but rather from some populatio before Yamnaya and especially, in much higher proportions, after Yamnaya in the MLBA Andronovo horizon.

_________________________

I don't feel confident to affirm where the Early PIE (Indo-Hittite, Indo-Anatolian) was first spoken, because I think that with the data we have until now we're basically in a stalemate, at least if we keep in mind that Anatolian is almost universally considered by linguists to have split earlier than all other branches, and the split of these residual IE branches had already begun at the very least by the early/mid Yamnaya period (~3000 BC). By 1500 BC Hittite, Old Indic and Mycenaean Greek (these two actually demonstrably much closer to each other than other IE languages, so assumed to latecomers of the PIE expansion), were already so different that it's really hard to assume that their divergence happened a mere 1000-1500 years before. So, in the period immediately preceding the Yamnaya horizon we probably had this situation, which is hard to reconcile completely with "South Caucasus origin" or "Anatolian origin" or "Steppe origin":

* CA/EBA Pontic-Caspian steppe: Chalcolithic "old" EHG/CHG mix + a little extra CHG + a really tiny amount of ANF which only appears in non-negligible amounts by the time of Yamnaya + near complete dominance of local Y-DNA, very few signs of Anatolian & Caucasus influence + a Mt-DNA makeup that is much more similar to that of the North Caucasus females

* Caucasus (not its steppe slopes): Regional CHG + A lot of ANF + negligible or no EHG + Y-DNA makeup that is totally unlike that of the Pontic-Caspian steppe males + A Mt-DNA makeup that is much more similar to that of the Pontic-Caspian females

* Anatolia: Regional ANF + Increasingly more CHG/Iran_Neo + negligible or no EHG + predominantly local and some Caucasian-like Y-DNA

So, the pieces don't fit yet, unless we'll make a huge leap and assume that, to the surprise of most people, Caucasian women exchanged by Caucasus populations in exogamic arrangements were much more influential and powerful than we thought, having been able to produce a wholesale linguistic shift in the huge expanse of the Ukrainian/Russian steppes. One could argue that Y-DNA haplogroups can suffer dramatic expansions or retractions in some generations, but in that case we'd at least expect Caucasian-like Y-DNA haplogroups to be found in the "Indo-Europeanization phase" of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in much higher frequencies than in later periods (post-Yamnaya, for instance), which would suggest a later "comeback" of the native males winning over the Caucasian males who had become culturally dominant in an earlier age. But we see nothing like that in the ancient DNA database.

Give me mesolithic / neolithic caucasus-north caucasus samples of R1b-M269 and all this story is over.

Silesian
11-07-18, 00:18
Sorry, Silesian, maybe it's too early yet for me. What is the point you're trying to make?

There were light haired light eyed people in Neolithic Europe. (See Sandra Wilde et al for Hungary just for starters, then all the later samples that turned up) There were some light haired light eyed people in Neolithic Anatolia before any movement to Europe. There was no R1b of any kind in any of these cases.
preprint see Mathieson 2017--Afontova Gora might have the same ydna as Malta1[R*][Samarra was R1b branch]
"The derived allele of the KITLG SNP rs12821256 that is associated with – and likely causal for – blond hair in Europeans [4,5] is present in one hunter-gatherer from each of Samara, Motala and Ukraine (I0124, I0014 and I1763), as well as several later individuals with Steppe ancestry. Since the allele is found in populations with EHG but not WHG ancestry, it suggests that its origin is in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population. Consistent with this, we observe that earliest known individual with the derived allele is the [Siberian] ANE individual Afontova Gora 3 which is directly dated to 16130-15749 cal BCE (14710±60 BP, MAMS-27186: a previously unpublished date that we newly report here)."


2016 paper. see Qiaomei Fu et al

​Blue-eyed, dark-skinned man from Villabruna Cave 1, directly dated to about 14,000 years ago and belonging to paternal haplogroup R1b1.

Even though R1b Hunter Gatherer is 2000+/- older than Yamnaya kurgan burials in same region/ of Volga; they were darker phenotype than Samarra R1b. Below are the results of analyses of the hunter-gatherer sample I0124 from Samara, near the Volga River in Russia. The sample is dated to 5650–5555 BC.I0124 belonged to Y haplogroup R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2) and mitochondrial haplogroup U5a1d.
see genetiker 2015/03/07 phenotype prehistoric Europe snps
OCA2/HERC2, rs12913832, blue eyes
SLC24A5, rs1426654, Caucasoid light skin
SLC45A2, rs16891982, Caucasoid light skin
KITLG, rs12821256, blond hair


Please see genetiker/2018/02/25/pigmentation-of-the-bell-beaker-people/
R1b-Z2109+ same R1b branch[R1b-Z2109+] as Yamnaya Kurgan culture burials but different phenotype Blue/Brown eyes/ Red/Blonde Hair/Light skin.


I7044
Bell Beaker
Hungary
2500–2200
Light
Blond/ D-blond
Blue





I2787
Bell Beaker
Hungary
2457–2201
Light
Red
Brown

Angela
11-07-18, 02:09
preprint see Mathieson 2017--Afontova Gora might have the same ydna as Malta1[R*][Samarra was R1b branch]
"The derived allele of the KITLG SNP rs12821256 that is associated with – and likely causal for – blond hair in Europeans [4,5] is present in one hunter-gatherer from each of Samara, Motala and Ukraine (I0124, I0014 and I1763), as well as several later individuals with Steppe ancestry. Since the allele is found in populations with EHG but not WHG ancestry, it suggests that its origin is in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population. Consistent with this, we observe that earliest known individual with the derived allele is the [Siberian] ANE individual Afontova Gora 3 which is directly dated to 16130-15749 cal BCE (14710±60 BP, MAMS-27186: a previously unpublished date that we newly report here)."


2016 paper. see Qiaomei Fu et al

​Blue-eyed, dark-skinned man from Villabruna Cave 1, directly dated to about 14,000 years ago and belonging to paternal haplogroup R1b1.

Even though R1b Hunter Gatherer is 2000+/- older than Yamnaya kurgan burials in same region/ of Volga; they were darker phenotype than Samarra R1b. Below are the results of analyses of the hunter-gatherer sample I0124 from Samara, near the Volga River in Russia. The sample is dated to 5650–5555 BC.I0124 belonged to Y haplogroup R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2) and mitochondrial haplogroup U5a1d.
see genetiker 2015/03/07 phenotype prehistoric Europe snps
OCA2/HERC2, rs12913832, blue eyes
SLC24A5, rs1426654, Caucasoid light skin
SLC45A2, rs16891982, Caucasoid light skin
KITLG, rs12821256, blond hair


Please see genetiker/2018/02/25/pigmentation-of-the-bell-beaker-people/
R1b-Z2109+ same R1b branch[R1b-Z2109+] as Yamnaya Kurgan culture burials but different phenotype Blue/Brown eyes/ Red/Blonde Hair/Light skin.


I7044
Bell Beaker
Hungary
2500–2200
Light
Blond/ D-blond
Blue





I2787
Bell Beaker
Hungary
2457–2201
Light
Red
Brown




So what? I already told you. Go to Sandra Wilde et al. There are blonde light eyed people in Neolithic Hungary. There are light haired light eyed people in Neolithic Anatolia. NONE OF THEM HAD R1b.

It's not tied to ydna. PERIOD.

I don't get what you don't get.

halfalp
11-07-18, 02:38
So what? I already told you. Go to Sandra Wilde et al. There are blonde light eyed people in Neolithic Hungary. There are light haired light eyed people in Neolithic Anatolia. NONE OF THEM HAD R1b.

It's not tied to ydna. PERIOD.

I don't get what you don't get.

There is any Neolithic Anatolian individual that is either light skinned or fair haired / blue eyed. You just assume because EEF is ultimately in origin from Anatolia that those people had the same ( but earlier ) physical features than neolithic europeans. LBK or Hungary is not Barcin, Catalhoyuk or Anatolia.

That would be funny actually. Anatolian Farmers just had one on two genes that gives fair skin, EHG had the second, over all the hypothetic gene that gives all those mutations. If we are intellectually rigide we gonna believe that every single WHG individual was black with blue eyes even the Iron Gates ones and the Baltic ones. So an olive skinned anatolian tribe made sex over generations with black blue eyed people and with the power of wheat and temperate climate they became aryans! This is a betseller i tell y'all (Joke)

Angela
11-07-18, 03:55
There is any Neolithic Anatolian individual that is either light skinned or fair haired / blue eyed. You just assume because EEF is ultimately in origin from Anatolia that those people had the same ( but earlier ) physical features than neolithic europeans. LBK or Hungary is not Barcin, Catalhoyuk or Anatolia.

That would be funny actually. Anatolian Farmers just had one on two genes that gives fair skin, EHG had the second, over all the hypothetic gene that gives all those mutations. If we are intellectually rigide we gonna believe that every single WHG individual was black with blue eyes even the Iron Gates ones and the Baltic ones. So an olive skinned anatolian tribe made sex over generations with black blue eyed people and with the power of wheat and temperate climate they became aryans! This is a betseller i tell y'all (Joke)

We had the exact same discussion almost one year ago. At that time I provided you with the links to the papers with the samples. I even quoted from the papers.

It is incontrovertible that there were Anatolian Neolithic individuals who carried the derived versions for both the "European" light skin alleles, and some also carried the mutation for blue eyes.

My God, even Fire-Haired took you to task for blindly denying what is in the data.

I am not going to go over all of it again.

READ and COMPREHEND what you are reading. No one is interested in opinions which are in contravention of fact.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34174-On-the-skin-color-of-ancient-Europeans/page2?highlight=pigmentation+Anatolia

halfalp
11-07-18, 04:14
We had the exact same discussion almost one year ago. At that time I provided you with the links to the papers with the samples. I even quoted from the papers.

It is incontrovertible that there were Anatolian Neolithic individuals who carried the derived versions for both the "European" light skin alleles, and some also carried the mutation for blue eyes.

My God, even Fire-Haired took you to task for blindly denying what is in the data.

I am not going to go over all of it again.

READ and COMPREHEND what you are reading. No one is interested in opinions which are in contravention of fact.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34174-On-the-skin-color-of-ancient-Europeans/page2?highlight=pigmentation+Anatolia

You're shadowing, your Sandra Wilde et Al paper dont talk about fair haired, fair skinned and blue eyed Anatolia Farmers. Any ANF individuals are fair haired or have blue eyes. Some EEF individuals have light hair, light skin genes, EEF is not Anatolian Farmers, comprehend that. Only EEF had both SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. Anatolian Farmers like CHG individuals would only have the SLC24A5 variant for light skin. In modern times, SLC24A5, SLC45A2, OCA2, HERC2 are found in populations without any light features at all like Ethiopians.

Angela
11-07-18, 05:45
You're shadowing, your Sandra Wilde et Al paper dont talk about fair haired, fair skinned and blue eyed Anatolia Farmers. Any ANF individuals are fair haired or have blue eyes. Some EEF individuals have light hair, light skin genes, EEF is not Anatolian Farmers, comprehend that. Only EEF had both SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. Anatolian Farmers like CHG individuals would only have the SLC24A5 variant for light skin. In modern times, SLC24A5, SLC45A2, OCA2, HERC2 are found in populations without any light features at all like Ethiopians.

You are delusional or illiterate, I don't know which. The derived snps for some Anatolian samples are clearly listed in the appropriate papers.

READ THE FREAKING PAPERS. Follow the discussion to which I linked.


You post another lie on this site and I will not only delete it, you get an infraction.

Angela
11-07-18, 06:17
This is posted only for people who know how to read a graph:

From Mathiesen et al:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/10/10/016477.full.pdf

https://i.imgur.com/uReh2BF.png

We already knew from prior papers that Anatolian Neolithic farmers carried derived SLC24A5. The hunter-gatherer group here includes Motala.

Ygorcs
11-07-18, 08:10
Please see genetiker/2018/02/25/pigmentation-of-the-bell-beaker-people/
R1b-Z2109+ same R1b branch[R1b-Z2109+] as Yamnaya Kurgan culture burials but different phenotype Blue/Brown eyes/ Red/Blonde Hair/Light skin.


I7044
Bell Beaker
Hungary
2500–2200
Light
Blond/ D-blond
Blue





I2787
Bell Beaker
Hungary
2457–2201
Light
Red
Brown




Bell Beaker is not a good example to infer the phenotype of the PIE-speaking Pontic-Caspian cultures centuries earlier. They were already heavily EEF-shifted (IIRC some of the samples appear to be ~50% BA steppe at most) and were not optimal proxies for Yamnaya, much less earlier Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog, either in genetics or in looks, despite the obvious genetic relation. I think (though I'm not sure) the frequency of light hair and light eyes in the Bell Beaker and CWC samples is much higher than in their common source, the Pontic-Caspian steppe cultures of the Chalcolithic & Early Bronze Age.

Cpluskx
11-07-18, 11:52
I did not know that there were blonde/blue eyed Neolithic Anatolians. Where do you think they come from? (or originated in Anatolia?)

Angela
11-07-18, 14:24
I did not know that there were blonde/blue eyed Neolithic Anatolians. Where do you think they come from? (or originated in Anatolia?)

Blonde is a different issue. To the best of my recollection there was a prediction for light hair in only one or two samples. Plus, the reliability percentages of predictions for hair color are quite low. Blue eyes and skin pigmentation predictions are much more reliable.

According to Lazaridis et al, Neolithic Anatolians of this period are approximately 1/3 Levant Neolithic, 1/3 Iran Neolithic, and 1/3 local. That "local" component is partly UHG related to the hunter-gatherers of Europe.

This is hashed out to some extent in the Eupedia thread to which I linked above. You can also use the search engine to find other discussions.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34174-On-the-skin-color-of-ancient-Europeans/page2?highlight=pigmentation+Anatolia

Regio X
11-07-18, 17:21
According to Lazaridis et al, Neolithic Anatolians of this period are approximately 1/3 Levant Neolithic, 1/3 Iran Neolithic, and 1/3 local. That "local" component is partly UHG related to the hunter-gatherers of Europe.Angela, it seems that things may change after an upcoming paper*, if I understand it right. See the abstract (emphasis is mine):
*You mentioned it here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36503-Upcoming-Papers-ISBA-2018


The first Epipaleolithic Genome from Anatolia suggests a limited role of demic diffusion in the Advent of Farming in Anatolia

Feldman et al.

Anatolia was home to some of the earliest farming communities, which in the following millennia expanded into Europe and largely replaced local hunter-gatherers. The lack of genetic data from pre-farming Anatolians has so far limited demographic investigations of the Anatolian Neolithisation process. In particular, it has been unclear whether farming was adopted by indigenous hunter-gatherers in Central Anatolia or imported by settlers from earlier farming centers. Here we present the first genome-wide data from an Anatolian Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherer who lived ~15,000 years ago, as well as from Early Neolithic individuals from Anatolia and the Levant. By using a comparative dataset of modern and ancient genomes, we estimate that the earliest Anatolian farmers derive over 90 percent of their ancestry from the local Epipaleolithic population, indicating a high degree of genetic continuity throughout the Neolithic transition. In addition, we detect two distinct waves of gene flow during the Neolithic transition: an earlier one related to Iranian/Caucasus ancestry and a later one linked to the Levant. Finally, we observe a genetic link between Epipaleolithic Near-Easterners and post-glacial European hunter-gatherers that suggests a bidirectional genetic exchange between Europe and the Near East predating 15,000 years ago. Our results suggest that the Neolithisation model in Central Anatolia was demographically similar to the one previously observed in the southern Levant and in the southern Caucasus-Iran highlands, further supporting the limited role of demic diffusion during the early spread of agriculture in the Near East, in contrast to the later Neolithisation of Europe.So, the remaining 10% of the ancestry of "earliest" Anatolian farmers would be related to Iran and Levant. I wonder if the J2a in Anatolian farmers is associated with the first wave - from Iran/Caucasus -, and if the E and H are associated with the second wave - from Levant -, since these three were also identified in Neolithic Europe. I also wonder if this Iranian/Caucasus wave in Neolithic transition in Anatolia helps to explain the little CHG in Ötzi.

Angela
11-07-18, 18:06
Angela, it seems that things may change after an upcoming paper*, if I understand it right. See the abstract (emphasis is mine):
*You mentioned it here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36503-Upcoming-Papers-ISBA-2018

So, the remaining 10% of the ancestry of "earliest" Anatolian farmers would be related to Iran and Levant. I wonder if the J2a in Anatolian farmers is associated with the first wave - from Iran/Caucasus -, and if the E and H are associated with the second wave - from Levant -, since these three were also identified in Neolithic Europe. I also wonder if this Iranian/Caucasus wave in Neolithic transition in Anatolia helps to explain the little CHG in Ötzi.

I don’t find that surprising at all, or in contradiction to what Lazaridis proposed in that paper. These are far separated time periods.

As as for your speculations, makes sense to me.

ToBeOrNotToBe
11-07-18, 18:11
I guess someone hasn't read the papers with pigmentation data for Yamnaya.

I know you ignore me, but something is wrong with their pigmentation predictors. If we look at the British Beaker folk, they are predicted to be by a large majority dark-haired, with basically no rufosity. If the Beaker folk make up the bulk of British DNA, this is incorrect.

Saying that, they clearly weren’t unambiguously blonde like some Baltic finds, which roughly puts to bed the idea of Nordic tribes in the Scandinavian sense - for Yamnaya. Corded Ware is another story altogether.

Angela
11-07-18, 18:44
I know you ignore me, but something is wrong with their pigmentation predictors. If we look at the British Beaker folk, they are predicted to be by a large majority dark-haired, with basically no rufosity. If the Beaker folk make up the bulk of British DNA, this is incorrect.

Saying that, they clearly weren’t unambiguously blonde like some Baltic finds, which roughly puts to bed the idea of Nordic tribes in the Scandinavian sense - for Yamnaya. Corded Ware is another story altogether.

The Irish, who have much less ancestry from the Anglo-Saxon invasions than the English, are a predominantly brown haired people, and that includes dark brown haired people.

As for “rufosity” that is closer to brunette hair coloring than to blondness. I’ve never checked, but I wonder if there is more of it in areas settled by Vikings. Otherwise, it may just have drifted to higher levels because they’ve been so isolated on the periphery of Europe for so long.

Salento
11-07-18, 19:13
Sean Hannity (Irish Roots)

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CvmPFgDKKMM/maxresdefault.jpg

Regio X
11-07-18, 20:43
I don’t find that surprising at all, or in contradiction to what Lazaridis proposed in that paper. These are far separated time periods.

As as for your speculations, makes sense to me.Angela, not sure I got it right. Why “far separated time periods” ? It says “earliest Anatolian farmers derive over 90 percent of their ancestry from the local Epipaleolithic population”, based on this 15000 years old sample and on Early Neolithic samples from Anatolia. So, 10% of the earliest Anatolian farmers ancestry would have come from Iran/Caucasus Neolithic and Levant Neolithic. The oldest Neolithic settlement in Anatolia would be 9250-8750 years old, and the earliest samples from Lazaridis et. al. are 8500-8200 years old, right?
As for my speculations, well, I'm assuming the Epipaleolithic pop from Anatolia were G2a mainly, but we never know! :)

Ygorcs
11-07-18, 22:06
Angela, it seems that things may change after an upcoming paper*, if I understand it right. See the abstract (emphasis is mine):
*You mentioned it here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36503-Upcoming-Papers-ISBA-2018

So, the remaining 10% of the ancestry of "earliest" Anatolian farmers would be related to Iran and Levant. I wonder if the J2a in Anatolian farmers is associated with the first wave - from Iran/Caucasus -, and if the E and H are associated with the second wave - from Levant -, since these three were also identified in Neolithic Europe. I also wonder if this Iranian/Caucasus wave in Neolithic transition in Anatolia helps to explain the little CHG in Ötzi.

Maybe the Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers of Anatolia already had long-gone connections with the eventual populations of both Iranian and Levant farmers. That would confirm that those populations were indeed separated for a long time, but they still had minor affinities due to Paleolithic movements, not early Neolithic ones.

Angela
12-07-18, 00:24
Angela, not sure I got it right. Why “far separated time periods” ? It says “earliest Anatolian farmers derive over 90 percent of their ancestry from the local Epipaleolithic population”, based on this 15000 years old sample and on Early Neolithic samples from Anatolia. So, 10% of the earliest Anatolian farmers ancestry would have come from Iran/Caucasus Neolithic and Levant Neolithic. The oldest Neolithic settlement in Anatolia would be 9250-8750 years old, and the earliest samples from Lazaridis et. al. are 8500-8200 years old, right?
As for my speculations, well, I'm assuming the Epipaleolithic pop from Anatolia were G2a mainly, but we never know! :)

The paper from which the graph came is Lazaridis et al 2016.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdf

"The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros91 Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from92 local hunter-gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and93 Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of94 Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern95 farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread96 westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into97 East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian98 steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of99 the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia."


"Continuity between pre-farming hunter-gatherers and early farmers of the Near East225 Our data document continuity across the hunter-gatherer / farming transition, separately in226 the southern Levant and in the southern Caucasus-Iran highlands. The qualitative evidence227 for this is that PCA, ADMIXTURE, and outgroup f3 analysis cluster Levantine hunter228gatherers (Natufians) with Levantine farmers, and Iranian and Caucasus Hunter Gatherers229 with Iranian farmers (Fig. 1b; Extended Data Fig. 1; Extended Data Fig. 2). We confirm this230 in the Levant by showing that its early farmers share significantly more alleles with Natufians231 than with the early farmers of Iran: the statistic f4(Levant_N, Chimp; Natufian, Iran_N) is232 significantly positive (Z=13.6). The early farmers of the Caucasus-Iran highlands similarly233 share significantly more alleles with the hunter-gatherers of this region than with the early234 farmers from the Levant: the statistic f4(Iran_N, Chimp; Caucasus or Iran highland hunter235gatherers, Levant_N) is significantly positive (Z>6)."

As for Anatolian farmers, they propose, as per the graphic above, that they are about 27% UHG, 39% Iran Neolithic, and 34% Levant Neolithic. The samples are dated much later, however, than the Epipaleolithic samples, i.e. they are radio carbon dated to 6500 to 6250 BCE. They also all come from northwest Anatolia. (Extended Data Sample 1 in the Supplementary Data)

So, as I said, I see no conflict here.

We'll have to see if this new Central Anatolian sample already had Natufian like and CHG like ancestry back in the Paleolithic, and if it did have it, if it was at the high levels present later in the Neolithic. It shouldn't be long now before we now.

Angela
12-07-18, 00:39
Sean Hannity (Irish Roots)

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CvmPFgDKKMM/maxresdefault.jpg

Another example:
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan:
https://www.usnews.com/cmsmedia/15/b6/f00844254731881099c11733225d/151221-paulryan-editorial.jpg

Gene Kelly:
http://www.classicmoviehub.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/gene-kelly-protrait.jpg

George Clooney-Irish/German: Wow, he definitely improved with age!

http://bbmlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/george_clooney_young.jpg

I could go on and on.

It's not a good idea to base one's opinions on this sort of thing on travel through pictures on anthrofora. Nothing beats living with people from all different ethnic groups.

Silesian
12-07-18, 01:00
Bell Beaker is not a good example to infer the phenotype of the PIE-speaking Pontic-Caspian cultures centuries earlier. They were already heavily EEF-shifted (IIRC some of the samples appear to be ~50% BA steppe at most) and were not optimal proxies for Yamnaya, much less earlier Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog, either in genetics or in looks, despite the obvious genetic relation. I think (though I'm not sure) the frequency of light hair and light eyes in the Bell Beaker and CWC samples is much higher than in their common source, the Pontic-Caspian steppe cultures of the Chalcolithic & Early Bronze Age.

There are thousands of untested Kurgans. Phenotype profiling an entire group of people on the Steppe [ 20/30+/- samples] really borders on a racist type mentality. I have noticed a real push Levant-centrist/Afro-centrists supremacists as of late-just my personal take on some of the comments.

Salento
12-07-18, 01:31
Off-Topic. George Clooney had a motorcycle accident yesterday in Sardinia, his Look has probably changed again.


....Terrifying George Clooney Crash Footage Shows Moment Actor Was Flung Into The Air...

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b45f797e4b0c523e264d7a6

davef
12-07-18, 01:48
There are thousands of untested Kurgans. Phenotype profiling an entire group of people on the Steppe [ 20/30+/- samples] really borders on a racist type mentality. I have noticed a real push Levant-centrist/Afro-centrists supremacists as of late-just my personal take on some of the comments.
where did the scientists who found the steppe people to be of darker complexion than most of Europe go wrong?

Angela
12-07-18, 02:26
There are thousands of untested Kurgans. Phenotype profiling an entire group of people on the Steppe [ 20/30+/- samples] really borders on a racist type mentality. I have noticed a real push Levant-centrist/Afro-centrists supremacists as of late-just my personal take on some of the comments.

If 30 isn't enough for the steppe, then we don't have enough for SHG or EHG or any ancient group. That's as much or more than we have for a lot of them.

The only people who would see Levant centrist supremacy in pointing out what the data shows in terms of the relatively light pigmentation of Anatolian Neolithic farmers are people who think light pigmentation somehow makes someone more worthwhile or superior.

Such people can't understand that some people don't see anything "superior" about a random mutation selected for based on available sunlight. For a lot of us it's not a big deal: nothing to either celebrate or deride.

Ygorcs
12-07-18, 02:31
There are thousands of untested Kurgans. Phenotype profiling an entire group of people on the Steppe [ 20/30+/- samples] really borders on a racist type mentality. I have noticed a real push Levant-centrist/Afro-centrists supremacists as of late-just my personal take on some of the comments.

That's not a profiling of an "entire group of people", but certainly a responsible and sensible statement about the samples available, striving to affirm just what can be backed up. It's fine if you say "Bell Beaker people had high frequencies of light eyes and hair", but that doesn't objectively substantiate any claim about how earlier people of the steppe were like. I really hope you're not implying that we can just assume things and speculate wildly in the absence of samples even though we have a few dozens of them already (for the Pontic-Caspian steppe and forest-steppe populations), instead of relying on what we have now. If these results change in the future, with more samples or better techniques, we'll all adjust our opinions and conclusions. That's how science works: we will judge the data we have, even if tentatively, and not speculate on what we think or wish were true. If that is eventually proven wrong, fine - but only when we have more and beter data to make a different statement.

For now, we can be sure that among the Yamnaya and other Pontic-Caspian cultures very light features were in the minority. If you sampled 30 Norwegians randomly, you may bet that the odds that you'd find some blonde and blue-eyed people would be really high.

There is nothing "Levant-centrists" far less "Afro-centrist" (do you really think those two terms are even related to each other? If you do, you're very wrong) in affirming that Yamnaya people were moderately LIGHT-SKINNED with a predominance of BROWN HAIR and BROWN EYES. Nor is there any "Levant-centrism" in affirming that EEF, with most of their ancestry deriving from Anatolia (Anatolia, you know, Turkey - not Palestine or Arabia, far less Africa), were light-skinned and sometimes had light eyes or hair. Are light features some kind of prize to be disputed somehow? You know, the overwhelming majority of modern European people are heavily rich in EEF and (less so) CHG, you're not all a mere transplanted people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. ANF > EEF is an inherent (and very relevant) part of being a European population, don't forget that.

If you think those statements are "Levant/Afro-centrism", then I really fear about what's your opinion about most Europeans south of central-southern Germany, as well as a very sizeable proportion of people of northern Europe, since they are light-skinned with brown hair and brown eyes. Maybe there is something really "Levantine" or even, God forbid, "African-like" in them... LOL

Regio X
12-07-18, 15:41
The paper from which the graph came is Lazaridis et al 2016.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdf

"The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros91 Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from92 local hunter-gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and93 Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of94 Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern95 farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread96 westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into97 East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian98 steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of99 the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia."


"Continuity between pre-farming hunter-gatherers and early farmers of the Near East225 Our data document continuity across the hunter-gatherer / farming transition, separately in226 the southern Levant and in the southern Caucasus-Iran highlands. The qualitative evidence227 for this is that PCA, ADMIXTURE, and outgroup f3 analysis cluster Levantine hunter228gatherers (Natufians) with Levantine farmers, and Iranian and Caucasus Hunter Gatherers229 with Iranian farmers (Fig. 1b; Extended Data Fig. 1; Extended Data Fig. 2). We confirm this230 in the Levant by showing that its early farmers share significantly more alleles with Natufians231 than with the early farmers of Iran: the statistic f4(Levant_N, Chimp; Natufian, Iran_N) is232 significantly positive (Z=13.6). The early farmers of the Caucasus-Iran highlands similarly233 share significantly more alleles with the hunter-gatherers of this region than with the early234 farmers from the Levant: the statistic f4(Iran_N, Chimp; Caucasus or Iran highland hunter235gatherers, Levant_N) is significantly positive (Z>6)."

As for Anatolian farmers, they propose, as per the graphic above, that they are about 27% UHG, 39% Iran Neolithic, and 34% Levant Neolithic. The samples are dated much later, however, than the Epipaleolithic samples, i.e. they are radio carbon dated to 6500 to 6250 BCE. They also all come from northwest Anatolia. (Extended Data Sample 1 in the Supplementary Data)

So, as I said, I see no conflict here.

We'll have to see if this new Central Anatolian sample already had Natufian like and CHG like ancestry back in the Paleolithic, and if it did have it, if it was at the high levels present later in the Neolithic. It shouldn't be long now before we now.Thanks for the text. I think I got what you mean now. Independently of the new paper, Anatolian farmers could still be modeled as Iran and Levant Neolithic and UHG, in the proportions presented by Lazaradis et al. In other words, they would have substantial Iran Neolithic like, Levant Neolithic like ancestry etc., which would point to a possible Paleo connection, as Ygorcs suggested (see below), rather than a direct genetic influence by them over Anatolians in Early Neolithic.
What the new paper seems to say is that Early Anatolian farmers had about 10% direct ancestry from Iran/Caucasus and Levant Neolithic, whereas the other 90% would be directly connected to the local HG from Epipaleolithic. We'll see soon. Anyway, the source(s) of the traits you mentioned (this is the initial context) could still be any of the populations in question, indeed.
(Yes, 6500-6250 BCE equals 8500-8250 BP.)


Maybe the Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers of Anatolia already had long-gone connections with the eventual populations of both Iranian and Levant farmers. That would confirm that those populations were indeed separated for a long time, but they still had minor affinities due to Paleolithic movements, not early Neolithic ones.Perfect.

Angela
12-07-18, 16:20
a
Thanks for the text. I think I got what you mean now. Independently of the new paper, Anatolian farmers could still be modeled as Iran and Levant Neolithic and UHG, in the proportions presented by Lazaradis et al. In other words, they would have substantial Iran Neolithic like, Levant Neolithic like ancestry etc., which would point to a possible Paleo connection, as Ygorcs suggested (see below), rather than a direct genetic influence by them over Anatolians in Early Neolithic.
What the new paper seems to say is that Early Anatolian farmers had about 10% direct ancestry from Iran/Caucasus and Levant Neolithic, whereas the other 90% would be directly connected to the local HG from Epipaleolithic. We'll see soon. Anyway, the source(s) of the traits you mentioned (this is the initial context) could still be any of the populations in question, indeed.
(Yes, 6500-6250 BCE equals 8500-8250 BP.)

Perfect.

If the new paper is correct, and only 10% of the Epipaleolithic sample comes from Levant Neolithic and Iran Neolithic stock, and if the Lazaridis paper is correct with the much higher percentages, then there was additional mixing as the Neolithic progressed, which would make sense.

As to the "traits" involved, my "guess", and that's all it is, is that they don't come from the Levant Neolithic. We know that derived SLC24A5 was present extremely early in the Caucasus, but we didn't find SLC42A5 derived there, or the mutation for blue eyes, so perhaps that was more a UHG (related to WHG) thing. For blue eyes that would make sense given the ubiquity of blues eyes in the WHG. However, the WHG were mostly ancestral for both of the derived skin lightening snps. They were the darkest of all of them. SHG, which is a mixture of WHG and EHG did have them (also picking up the blue eyes from the WHG perhaps).

So, perhaps the mutations for skin depigmentation first appeared in some hunter-gatherers with ANE? Perhaps that happened in the Caucasus and spread in all directions from there, i.e. north to north-east Europe and south west into Anatolia? We do have J in northeastern Europe very, very, early, after all. We have very, very few old samples from the Caucasus, so perhaps it was there originally, and an old paper did trace the spread from that general area.

I honestly don't know, and neither, I think, does anyone else. We'll just have to wait and see.

What is also clear is that as time passed, even without migration from other areas, the percentages increased, so selection does indeed have a part to play in all of this.

Regio X
13-07-18, 03:37
a
If the new paper is correct, and only 10% of the Epipaleolithic sample comes from Levant Neolithic and Iran Neolithic stock, and if the Lazaridis paper is correct with the much higher percentages, then there was additional mixing as the Neolithic progressed, which would make sense.
As to the "traits" involved, my "guess", and that's all it is, is that they don't come from the Levant Neolithic. We know that derived SLC24A5 was present extremely early in the Caucasus, but we didn't find SLC42A5 derived there, or the mutation for blue eyes, so perhaps that was more a UHG (related to WHG) thing. For blue eyes that would make sense given the ubiquity of blues eyes in the WHG. However, the WHG were mostly ancestral for both of the derived skin lightening snps. They were the darkest of all of them. SHG, which is a mixture of WHG and EHG did have them (also picking up the blue eyes from the WHG perhaps).
So, perhaps the mutations for skin depigmentation first appeared in some hunter-gatherers with ANE? Perhaps that happened in the Caucasus and spread in all directions from there, i.e. north to north-east Europe and south west into Anatolia? We do have J in northeastern Europe very, very, early, after all. We have very, very few old samples from the Caucasus, so perhaps it was there originally, and an old paper did trace the spread from that general area.
I honestly don't know, and neither, I think, does anyone else. We'll just have to wait and see.
What is also clear is that as time passed, even without migration from other areas, the percentages increased, so selection does indeed have a part to play in all of this.In fact, the abstract doesn't suggest that 10% of the Epipaleolithic sample come from Levant Neolithic and Iran Neolithic stock. See what it says:

By using a comparative dataset of modern and ancient genomes, we estimate that the earliest Anatolian farmers derive over 90 percent of their ancestry from the local Epipaleolithic population, indicating a high degree of genetic continuity throughout the Neolithic transition. In addition, we detect two distinct waves of gene flow during the Neolithic transition: an earlier one related to Iranian/Caucasus ancestry and a later one linked to the Levant.
I just thought the other 10% in early Anatolian farmers (not Epipaleo HGs), in Neolithic transition, come from Iran/Caucasus and Levant Neo.
As for the origin of the mutations for skin depigmentarion, your hypothesis makes sense to me. I assume they haven't originated independently in different places; there must be a common source to both Anatolian and Steppe/EHG people, then it makes sense this source was in the Caucasus or close.

Ygorcs
13-07-18, 07:44
So, perhaps the mutations for skin depigmentation first appeared in some hunter-gatherers with ANE? Perhaps that happened in the Caucasus and spread in all directions from there, i.e. north to north-east Europe and south west into Anatolia? We do have J in northeastern Europe very, very, early, after all. We have very, very few old samples from the Caucasus, so perhaps it was there originally, and an old paper did trace the spread from that general area.

I honestly don't know, and neither, I think, does anyone else. We'll just have to wait and see.

What is also clear is that as time passed, even without migration from other areas, the percentages increased, so selection does indeed have a part to play in all of this.

Have scientists investigated the genetic architecture of skin pigmentation in Native Americans? Do they have only the "East Asian" derived genes that made them much lighter (despite later intra-America selection for darker skin many tropical places under very high sun exposure), or do they also have (originally, pre-Columbian) some of the main West Eurasian derived alleles? That kind of information could tell us something about the role of ANE in the origin of light skin in Eurasia, or at least point out that that genetic mutation probably happened (or spread from its initially small locus) only after the First Amerindians, who were rich in ANE, had departed first to Beringia ("Beringian still") and later to the Americas.

epoch
13-07-18, 14:30
a

If the new paper is correct, and only 10% of the Epipaleolithic sample comes from Levant Neolithic and Iran Neolithic stock, and if the Lazaridis paper is correct with the much higher percentages, then there was additional mixing as the Neolithic progressed, which would make sense.

As to the "traits" involved, my "guess", and that's all it is, is that they don't come from the Levant Neolithic. We know that derived SLC24A5 was present extremely early in the Caucasus, but we didn't find SLC42A5 derived there, or the mutation for blue eyes, so perhaps that was more a UHG (related to WHG) thing. For blue eyes that would make sense given the ubiquity of blues eyes in the WHG. However, the WHG were mostly ancestral for both of the derived skin lightening snps. They were the darkest of all of them. SHG, which is a mixture of WHG and EHG did have them (also picking up the blue eyes from the WHG perhaps).

So, perhaps the mutations for skin depigmentation first appeared in some hunter-gatherers with ANE? Perhaps that happened in the Caucasus and spread in all directions from there, i.e. north to north-east Europe and south west into Anatolia? We do have J in northeastern Europe very, very, early, after all. We have very, very few old samples from the Caucasus, so perhaps it was there originally, and an old paper did trace the spread from that general area.

I honestly don't know, and neither, I think, does anyone else. We'll just have to wait and see.

What is also clear is that as time passed, even without migration from other areas, the percentages increased, so selection does indeed have a part to play in all of this.

There was also a Iberian Mesolithic sample, Canes1_Meso, with one derived SLC42A5.

Ailchu
13-07-18, 15:09
so here is what i think would make sense in temrs of of skin pigmentation from most light to darkest.
SHG>EHG>Yamnas>EEF>WHG
not sure about EEF and Yamnas since i dont know how much of derived SLC42A5 was in yamnas but i would say it was as much or more as in EEF. but the yamnas had more of derived SLC45A2. in the end all of them were probably darker than most modern europeans on average.

Regio X
13-07-18, 16:19
Have scientists investigated the genetic architecture of skin pigmentation in Native Americans? Do they have only the "East Asian" derived genes that made them much lighter (despite later intra-America selection for darker skin many tropical places under very high sun exposure), or do they also have (originally, pre-Columbian) some of the main West Eurasian derived alleles? That kind of information could tell us something about the role of ANE in the origin of light skin in Eurasia, or at least point out that that genetic mutation probably happened (or spread from its initially small locus) only after the First Amerindians, who were rich in ANE, had departed first to Beringia ("Beringian still") and later to the Americas.Angela can correct me if I'm wrong: If I got it right, her idea is that an ANE rich pop was the original source 'cause SHG folks already had among them the derived alleles at the same time they lacked CHG ancestry. So, the EHG would be their direct source, while the CHG would be their direct source in Anatolians. EHG and CHG had ANE ancestry, right? However, to spread the alleles to both of them and not to the East (assuming most of Eastern and Southern Asians have the ancestral alleles; I don't know if it's the case), the supposed ANE rich group in whom the mutations (or at least one of the two) first happened must have lived close to the Caucasus, and later than the ANE flow to America.
But if SLC45A2 was indeed already present in Mesolithic Iberia...

There was also a Iberian Mesolithic sample, Canes1_Meso, with one derived SLC42A5.

Angela
13-07-18, 17:14
Have scientists investigated the genetic architecture of skin pigmentation in Native Americans? Do they have only the "East Asian" derived genes that made them much lighter (despite later intra-America selection for darker skin many tropical places under very high sun exposure), or do they also have (originally, pre-Columbian) some of the main West Eurasian derived alleles? That kind of information could tell us something about the role of ANE in the origin of light skin in Eurasia, or at least point out that that genetic mutation probably happened (or spread from its initially small locus) only after the First Amerindians, who were rich in ANE, had departed first to Beringia ("Beringian still") and later to the Americas.

When this kind of discussion was very intense, I looked hard to find data on North American Indians, for example, but was unable to find any.

I want to emphasize I was just musing about the ANE as a source. I have no strong opinion as to where the mutations first appeared. There was one paper which suggested that perhaps the depigmentation snps for skin pigmentation were in the background of the WHG, but then why are they the ones with the lowest percentages? Or perhaps it was just for SLC42A5 in the WHG and for whatever reason there was no selection for it? I think SLC24A5 looks Caucasus centered. The blue eyes are definitely a WHG thing, but a paper found even it radiating from around the Black Sea. As for the blonde hair mutation, another paper suggested it was ANE centered, yet it shows up in Europe among farming people who wouldn't have had much ANE.

It's still a mystery.

What isn't a mystery is that wherever it first appeared, the frequencies increased through selection. Of course, if people within whom it was selected for then migrate, they'll bring it with them and increase the percentages in their new home. The Sandra Wilde paper is very interesting in that regard. Yamnaya people had 43% of derived SLC42A5, while modern Ukrainians have 93%. For TYR it's 2% versus 28%. For blue eyes it's 16% versus 65%.

To the best of my recollection the EHG were dark haired and dark eyed, but had both SLC42A5 and SLC24A5 derived. So, did the "Caucasus" element cut into the SLC42A5 derived?

@Epoch,
That may be part of the reason why that paper proposed that at least SLC42A5 arose in the WHG. For whatever reason, however, it didn't rise to any significant degree at all in them.

@Ailchu,
If genetiker's analysis of the depigmentation snps present in the Globular Amphora people is correct, the European farmers adjacent to the steppe were much lighter than steppe people. Yamnaya people were predominantly dark haired, dark eyed, and not very fair skinned. Things change constantly in this field. That's why David Reich is already revising his book. :)

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018/02/24/pigmentation-of-ancient-southeastern-europeans/


Perhaps there's something to the suggestion I've seen bandied about that Andronovo type people picked up their fair pigmentation, although even they weren't Scandinavian fair, from these farmers

Also, last I heard, SHG didn't have a big impact on modern European genetics.

Ailchu
13-07-18, 18:36
@Angela
"Yamnaya people had 43% of derived SLC42A5"
i couldn't find a number for derived SLC24A5 but i assume that it had the same frequency as in EEF or higher. it seems like wilde and mathieson did not look at this allele. wilde from 2014 has 0.43 for SLC45A2.
mathieson from 2016 has something around 0.6-0.7 for the derived SLC45A2 in yamnas, if i look at this graphic here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/figure/F9/
the numbers in this graphic are quite interessting. first i thought that central european farmers could have less than anatolian farmers because they mixed with darker WHG's or because the derived SLC45A2 came from the east, north of caucasus. but then i realized that WHG's, if that's what HG stands for, actually have a higher frequency of it than all early farmers. so that can't be it.
this site here has some modern allele frequencies from different studies listet.
https://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/mvograph.asp?siteuid=SI003963V
if its true that yamnas had 0.6-0.7 they might be comparable to modern adygei people. but the numbers on that site are very variable and inconsistent between different studies. maybe because some of them did not primarily focus on population lvl allele frequencies. and because the samples are biased. i don't believe that berbers have such a high amount of the derived SLC45A2 allele on average. that was probably a highly european admixed population.
there is also this graphic on this site here that should be based on alfred values
https://anthropology.net/2008/10/09/slc45a2matp-the-genetics-of-human-hair-color/
but i don't know how they made this since it doesn't fit with all the values on alfred.

Angela
13-07-18, 21:40
@Angela
"Yamnaya people had 43% of derived SLC42A5"
i couldn't find a number for derived SLC42A5 but i assume that it had the same frequency as in EEF or higher. it seems like wilde and mathieson did not look at this allele. wilde from 2014 has 0.43 for SLC45A2.
mathieson from 2016 has something around 0.6-0.7 for the derived SLC45A2 in yamnas, if i look at this graphic here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/figure/F9/
the numbers in this graphic are quite interessting. first i thought that central european farmers could have less than anatolian farmers because they mixed with darker WHG's or because the derived SLC45A2 came from the east, north of caucasus. but then i realized that WHG's, if that's what HG stands for, actually have a higher frequency of it than all early farmers. so that can't be it.
this site here has some modern allele frequencies from different studies listet.
https://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/mvograph.asp?siteuid=SI003963V
if its true that yamnas had 0.6-0.7 they might be comparable to modern adygei people. but the numbers on that site are very variable and inconsistent between different studies. maybe because some of them did not primarily focus on population lvl allele frequencies. and because the samples are biased. i don't believe that berbers have such a high amount of the derived SLC45A2 allele on average. that was probably a highly european admixed population.
there is also this graphic on this site here that should be based on alfred values
https://anthropology.net/2008/10/09/slc45a2matp-the-genetics-of-human-hair-color/
but i don't know how they made this since it doesn't fit with all the values on alfred.

It was a typo. There is no SLC45A5.

The data as to the percentages I quoted for Yamnaya steppe people are from this Sandra Wilde et al paper. All you had to do was go to Table I and click for the graphic.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/13/4832#T1

https://i.imgur.com/BWez6D4.png


I don't know where you're getting that WHG had derived snps for either of the major skin depigmentation snps. They have neither except for that one outlier. Use the search engine for the papers and samples. I can't go hunting for things which are so accepted nobody should be questioning them anymore.

Iberian farmers did get darker after mixing with WHG, which thus makes sense.

That didn't happen in Central or Eastern Europe.

There's a very early predicted light haired, light eyed and light skinned farmer in Hungary.
https://media.nature.com/m685/nature-assets/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images_hires/ncomms6257-f3.jpg

Also, as I said above, take a look at Genetiker's results for GAC or Globular Amphora. They are European farmers genetically, contrary to all the speculation before we got their genomes. That link also has predicted pigmentation for mesolithic and farming groups in Europe.

As to modern populations, this is the frequency percentages for derived SLC42A2

https://i.imgur.com/90Krliv.png

https://i.imgur.com/y99gylD.png

This is from Norton et al: Convergent Evolution. It's for all the HapMap populations and can be found in the supplement:
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/24/3/710/1240790#supplementary-data
https://i.imgur.com/I7W45qj.png
https://i.imgur.com/A182Egf.png

What do you know? Seek and ye shall find. :) Native Americans. It seems the lighter pigmentation may come from their East Asian ancestry. These percentages look like they're probably post contact with Europeans.

There are European percentages for a few countries as well:
https://i.imgur.com/h2p4MGn.png


See also:
https://i.imgur.com/mQVZ8Dt.png

Regio X
13-07-18, 22:21
@Epoch,
That may be part of the reason why that paper proposed that at least SLC42A5 arose in the WHG. For whatever reason, however, it didn't rise to any significant degree at all in them.In theory, I guess WHG or related pop would work as first source too. It could also explain the presence of the mutation in Anatolian early farmers and EHG. Perhaps we'll never know exactly where it casualy happened, anyway, what matters is that it would have been firstly spread more randomly, well before the Neolithic, and then positively - and strongly - selected in certain areas, with the advent of farming and change of the lifestyle.

Ailchu
13-07-18, 22:26
"It was a typo. There is no SLC45A5."
and i got a bit confused im my last post too. i swaped the 2 and 4 so instead of SLC42A5 it should be SLC24A5. this does exist and i think it was fixated in SHG and also very common if not also fixated in EEF.
from wikipedia one of the sources is a mathieson paper from 2015:"Neolithic farmers entering Europe at around the same time were intermediate, being nearly fixed for the derived SLC24A5 variant but only having the derived SLC45A2 allele in low frequencies. The SLC24A5 variant spread very rapidly throughout central and southern Europe from about 8,000 years ago, whereas the light skin variant of SLC45A2 spread throughout Europe after 5,800 years ago.[48] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-48)[49]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-49)
wilde and mathison look at SLC45A2. wilde 2014 gets 0.43 for the derived version in steppe while mathieson 2016 gets 0.6-0.7 according to this graphic from his paper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/bin/nihms734926f9.jpg
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/figure/F9/
and he also somehow gets a higher frequency of the derived SLC45A2 in HG's(i suppose WHG's since these HG's are fixated on the derived HERC allele) than in any early farmer population. EEF's instead had more of the derived HERC2 allele

"The data as to the percentages I quoted for Yamnaya steppe people are from this Sandra Wilde et al paper. All you had to do was go to Table I and click for the graphic."
i did do that believe me.
https://i.imgur.com/BWez6D4.png
also i'm not so sure if the derived TYR is a major skin depigmentation allele. when i look on the distribution of this allele on ALFRED greeks score higher values of the derived version than fins. also in the table you gave
https://i.imgur.com/h2p4MGn.png
it is in higher frequency in southern europeans than in northern and eastern europe. so my guess is that it does have an effect but it is not needed for light skin. or maybe the values are just incomplete. there is only one value from northern europe.

"s to modern populations, this is the frequency percentages for derived SLC42A2"
its SLC45A2 ;)
so the frequency in portugal and sardinia is comparable to the one of yamnas if the graphic from mathieson is correct.
MG]https://i.imgur.com/90Krliv.png[/IMG]

https://i.imgur.com/y99gylD.png
its interessting how marocco and algeria have similar values to portugal and sardinia. but my guess is that algier has a strong european influence. there are many maroccans and algerians who score above 20-30% european.

"Also, as I said above, take a look at Genetiker's results for GAC or Globular Amphora. They are European farmers genetically, contrary to all the speculation before we got their genomes. That link also has predicted pigmentation for mesolithic and farming groups in Europe."
that's interessting and i do not want to dispute the fact that EEF's could have been light skinned. but the people in contemporary ukraine also do not seem to be dark skinned.

How is 63% similar to 73% or 80%? That's why the authors said they were probably darker than any modern Europeans.

Nobody said or implied that Ukrainians are dark skinned. The comparison was to show how much darker the Yamnaya were than the present inhabitants of Ukraine.

It is not that the EEF COULD HAVE BEEN LIGHT SKINNED. If we're going to use depigmentation snps as the benchmark, which is all we have, they were lighter skinned than the WHG. Period. So were the NEOLITHIC ANATOLIANS. Also, period, whether you like it or not.

In the future please put the comments to which you are responding in quotes. It's very confusing.

I've just realized how far off topic we've gone. Any further pigmentation discussions should go on the dedicated threads.

Ailchu
14-07-18, 00:34
my last post in this depigmentation discussion

"Nobody said or implied that Ukrainians are dark skinned. The comparison was to show how much darker the Yamnaya were than the present inhabitants of Ukraine."
what i ment was that ancient ukrainian samples on the site of genetiker were not dark too.

"If genetiker's analysis of the depigmentation snps present in the Globular Amphora people is correct, the European farmers adjacent to the steppe were much lighter than steppe people. Yamnaya people were predominantly dark haired, dark eyed, and not very fair skinned."

can you give me a direct link where he compares the depigmentation snps of both of these people? EEFs adjacent to steppe and steppe adjacent to EEF's.

Angela
14-07-18, 00:37
my last post in this depigmentation discussion

"Nobody said or implied that Ukrainians are dark skinned. The comparison was to show how much darker the Yamnaya were than the present inhabitants of Ukraine."
what i ment was that ancient ukrainian samples on the site of genetiker were not dark too.

"If genetiker's analysis of the depigmentation snps present in the Globular Amphora people is correct, the European farmers adjacent to the steppe were much lighter than steppe people. Yamnaya people were predominantly dark haired, dark eyed, and not very fair skinned."

can you give me a direct link where he compares the depigmentation snps of both of these people?

Just put pigmentation on the search bar in Genetiker.

Ailchu
14-07-18, 00:42
Just put pigmentation on the search bar in Genetiker.

then i don't see evidence why EEF's adjacent to steppe were lighter than steppe people. genetiker wrote this however
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/phenotype-snps-from-prehistoric-europe/

"But the paper didn’t report any results for the light skin mutation in SLC24A5, and as the results below show, that mutation was fixed in the Yamna population of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. One wonders if the authors of the paper actually did test for the SLC24A5 mutation, but withheld the results because they didn’t create the desired impression."

"The fact that the mutations for light hair and light eyes were rare or absent in the Yamna samples leads me to believe that the Thracians and the Greeks were derived from some other R1b-Z2103 population..."

"I think that the Thracians and Greeks were instead derived from a more western R1b-Z2103 population, located somewhere directly to the north of the Balkan peninsula. I think that these people moved south into the Balkans and Greece at the start of the Bronze Age"

so probably from the region that is now ukraine. and these people were probably not darker than south eastern european farmers.
and as a response to your last comment about WHGs beeing darker than EEF's. it was never my intention to make south eastern EEF's darker than they were. they were quite light it seems. but i see no reason to believe that steppe populations should have been darker.

Silesian
14-07-18, 01:13
where did the scientists who found the steppe people to be of darker complexion than most of Europe go wrong?
At one time science papers were coming out with the conclusion- R1b-V88 originated in Central-West-Africa.
I don't want any hurt feelings. Some of the posters are so anti-European biased and or pro African and or pro-Middle Eastern bias, they don't even see it. Ironic since the forum is labeled as a Eupedia -forum. At a minimum should be neutral-just my two cents.

Angela
14-07-18, 01:16
then i don't see evidence why EEF's adjacent to steppe were lighter than steppe people. genetiker wrote this however
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/phenotype-snps-from-prehistoric-europe/

"But the paper didn’t report any results for the light skin mutation in SLC24A5, and as the results below show, that mutation was fixed in the Yamna population of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. One wonders if the authors of the paper actually did test for the SLC24A5 mutation, but withheld the results because they didn’t create the desired impression."

"The fact that the mutations for light hair and light eyes were rare or absent in the Yamna samples leads me to believe that the Thracians and the Greeks were derived from some other R1b-Z2103 population..."

"I think that the Thracians and Greeks were instead derived from a more western R1b-Z2103 population, located somewhere directly to the north of the Balkan peninsula. I think that these people moved south into the Balkans and Greece at the start of the Bronze Age"

so probably from the region that is now ukraine. and these people were probably not darker than south eastern european farmers.
and as a response to your last comment about WHGs beeing darker than EEF's. it was never my intention to make south eastern EEF's darker than they were. they were quite light it seems. but i see no reason to believe that steppe populations should have been darker.

It's immaterial to me whether you can understand scientific material or what you believe. The GAC, who are NEOLITHIC farmer people, are LIGHTER than the Yamnaya IF Genetiker's calls and predictions are correct for GAC.

Go back and read the material again, and look at the data on the actual snps, at least the three major ones, the snps for GAC and the snps for Yamnaya, not the rantings of Genetiker.

As for the Mycenaeans, where have you been? They were DARK! Find the paper. This portrait of the Mycenaean Griffin Warrior is probably close to the reality.
https://www.realmofhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/mycenaean-griffin-warrior-face-reconstructed_1-770x437.jpg


Opinions unsupported by scientific data aren't worth a tinker's damn. That goes for you, too, Silesian. DATA, not idiotic conspiracy theories, no matter the topic. If the data was ever on your side in these discussions you'd post it. It isn't, so you resort to these silly comments. This has nothing to do with old theories about paleolithic Europeans: it has to do with SNPS found in Yamnaya and GAC specimens, among others.

However, don't post on here about it again. It's off-topic, and I was wrong to let the discussion go on as long as it did. There's a lot of threads on pigmentation, including steppe pigmentation. Does no one know how to use the search engine here?

Silesian
14-07-18, 04:34
my last post in this depigmentation discussion

"Nobody said or implied that Ukrainians are dark skinned. The comparison was to show how much darker the Yamnaya were than the present inhabitants of Ukraine."
what i ment was that ancient ukrainian samples on the site of genetiker were not dark too.

"If genetiker's analysis of the depigmentation snps present in the Globular Amphora people is correct, the European farmers adjacent to the steppe were much lighter than steppe people. Yamnaya people were predominantly dark haired, dark eyed, and not very fair skinned."

can you give me a direct link where he compares the depigmentation snps of both of these people? EEFs adjacent to steppe and steppe adjacent to EEF's.

Some points of interest.
Beaker_Hungary

Barcin_N,49
Yamnaya_Samara,31.8
Narva_Lithuania,11.4
Blatterhole_HG,6
Ukraine_Mesolithic,1.8

[1] distance%=4.9659

Beaker_Hungary_no_steppe

Barcin_N,76.2
Blatterhole_HG,23.8

[1] distance%=2.4992

Beaker_Hungary_outlier

Yamnaya_Samara,76
Barcin_N,19
Koros_HG,4.4
Blatterhole_HG,0.6

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2017/07/szigetszentmiklos-cemetery-santas-six.html
Yamnaya/Bell Beaker samples;Santa's Six Foot Elves

I2787+I7044 are the R1b-Z2103>9samples above with Steppe ancestry. I2741 ydna-I2- same as Globular Amphora- is the sample with nearly 0% Steppe[modeled Blatterhole-R1b and Barcin]. I think the ginger Bell Beaker is the one with the really high Steppe-Samarra score.Urdmurts have red hair-see link-https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29950844

http://images.devs-on.net/Image/TaANBDP8K1pIt3EB-Region.png.
Here is an excellent tool/link interactive map to get an idea the range and distance between Yamnaya-Afanasievo-Bell Beaker.
http://homeland.ku.dk/

Angela
15-07-18, 15:17
Some points of interest.
Beaker_Hungary

Barcin_N,49
Yamnaya_Samara,31.8
Narva_Lithuania,11.4
Blatterhole_HG,6
Ukraine_Mesolithic,1.8

[1] distance%=4.9659

Beaker_Hungary_no_steppe

Barcin_N,76.2
Blatterhole_HG,23.8

[1] distance%=2.4992

Beaker_Hungary_outlier

Yamnaya_Samara,76
Barcin_N,19
Koros_HG,4.4
Blatterhole_HG,0.6

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2017/07/szigetszentmiklos-cemetery-santas-six.html
Yamnaya/Bell Beaker samples;Santa's Six Foot Elves

I2787+I7044 are the R1b-Z2103>9samples above with Steppe ancestry. I2741 ydna-I2- same as Globular Amphora- is the sample with nearly 0% Steppe[modeled Blatterhole-R1b and Barcin]. I think the ginger Bell Beaker is the one with the really high Steppe-Samarra score.Urdmurts have red hair-see link-https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29950844

http://images.devs-on.net/Image/TaANBDP8K1pIt3EB-Region.png.
Here is an excellent tool/link interactive map to get an idea the range and distance between Yamnaya-Afanasievo-Bell Beaker.
http://homeland.ku.dk/

How many times does it have to be said that Bell Beaker DOES NOT EQUAL Yamnaya. They are two different groups. Bell Beaker is about half EEF.

Therefore, this data is IRRELEVANT.

If you can show a side by side comparison of Globular Amphora snps vs. YAMNAYA depigmentation snps, then great. Please provide sample numbers and links to where you found the data.

halfalp
15-07-18, 15:48
What autosomal dna have to do with GAC people pigmentation, GAC is 100% EEF yes, but if a recall they are all y-dna I2a, so they are clearly a mix between WHG and EEF whatever their autosomal dna were a this point. Autosomal DNA dont give you any clue about pigmentation genes whatsoever.

halfalp
15-07-18, 16:04
That's why this discussion is all wrong, Angela you keep saying that EEF is ANF, but if Bell Beaker is half EEF half Steppe, well EEF is ANF and at least a good amount of WHG related. This relation is more older than the migration from Anatolia to Balkans, related people from like saying Iron_Gates HG probably already exchange genes with HG or early farmers from Anatolia, this is proved by the fact that Anatolian_Neolithic and also Levant_Neolithic have some WHG genes. Therefore we cannot predict where light features genes are coming from, apart that they are centered in circum Black Sea pattern. Saying that some Blonde Haired people are found in multiple EEF contexte = Blonde Hair is coming from Anatolia doesn't make any sense. In a recent Genetiker article about Iberomaurusian predicted pigmentation one individual shows some genes for red hair, just a few so the individual probably didn't have red hairs but it just shows that the gene was in humans for some time, just not fixed. About Yamnaya, yes the studies says they were pretty much dark haired, dark eyed and light skinned, probably a Caucasus like skinned, not an Irish like skinned, but looking at modern distribution of red hairs, poping in pretty much all people from the Samara region wich are today Finno-ugrians speaking people and the pattern to modern R1b countries like Norway, Netherlands or the British Isles + that some early Samara/Khvalynsk individuals had genes for Blonde or Red hairs, its fair to say that some part of the Yamnaya horizon were already some keeper of those genes. Yamnaya horizon is an uterly big territory at the time of saying 5000 BC probably more than 100'000 people ( and its a fair number ) would live here, thats one of the reason for migration, we have less than 200 yamnaya samples and they are all centered into specific places.

halfalp
15-07-18, 16:19
See Angela it clearly shows that you are biased thoward with Middle-East or Neolithic. You said Bell Beaker is autosomally half Yamnaya and half EEF, so therefore saying Yamnaya had light genes is irrelevent and fair enough i'm alright with that point. But you talk about GAC being autosomally EEF and you know they are all y-dna I2a wich is a WHG paternal markers and you dont take that into account, like autosomal dna doesn't say anything, GAC could be mostly of WHG descent but because of founder effect being 100% EEF, therefore they could be physically like their WHG ancestors and still be EEF. I think you want to be somebody fair in your views about thing, but at the same time you are so obsessed by racism or nazism that if people would constantly talking about " those blonde haired Yamnaya cavalier " you could not handle it.

Angela
15-07-18, 16:39
Can you for the love of Christ please learn some genetics! I'm extremely tempted to just delete every post where you completely screw up the discussion and might confuse newbies. It would be a freaking public service.

You're all obsessed with pigmentation. Pigmentation is determined by your autosomes, NOT THE Y CHROMOSOME. The latter is irrelevant. Otherwise, for God's sake, how could West African R1b carriers be BLACK AS THE ACE OF SPADES? Can you not understand this?

These same posters are desperate to prove that Yamnaya people were fairer than any farming groups. Why, I have no freaking idea. WHO CARES? I certainly never start these discussions. I just can't let people post alleged "facts" which they can't prove.

If you're going to maintain that Yamnaya people were "fairer" than any farming group in Europe AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TIME, you're going to have to PROVE IT! Get it?

Given the tools we have that means you have to provide, as I said, samples from populations like GAC, but not only GAC, especially because I don't know how much faith to put in Genetiker's snp calls for pigmentation, and samples from YAMNAYA, not later Bell Beaker so that a comparison can be made. The argument that was made was that YAMNAYA people were fairer than European farming groups, not that BELL BEAKER was fairer. Do you understand the distinction?

I'm going to say it again. GAC is a farmer population. WHG is their minority component, about 20% to the best of my recollection. Plus, since you seem to have forgotten it, WHG were the DARKEST people in Europe. GAC couldn't have gotten their major SKIN depigmentation snps from them, although they got the blue eyes from them. GET IT?

(This is why I would have been absolute crap as a teacher. You can't tell sixteen year old kids they can't think their way out of a paper bag, the way I'm freely able to do in my chosen profession. I just have no patience for this crap.)

I'm going to delete any post of yours on this specific topic that continues to spam false information. Come back when you have the data.

davef
15-07-18, 16:51
The EEF were Anatolian N + western hunter gatherer. Since the WHG's were dark, we have no other choice but to say that the origin of light skin came from the Anatolian

Ailchu
15-07-18, 18:07
These same posters are desperate to prove that Yamnaya people were fairer than any farming groups. Why, I have no freaking idea. WHO CARES? I certainly never start these discussions. I just can't let people post alleged "facts" which they can't prove.



thats exactly why i came into this discussion.

"If genetiker's analysis of the depigmentation snps present in the Globular Amphora people is correct, the European farmers adjacent to the steppe were much lighter than steppe people. Yamnaya people were predominantly dark haired, dark eyed, and not very fair skinned."

i don't want to proof that steppe people were fairer but i see no evidence why they should have been darker.

Angela
15-07-18, 18:13
thats exactly why i came into this discussion. i don't want to proof that yamnas were fairer but i see no evidence why they should have been darker.

How about you do some of the work. Find the samples for GAC, as just one example, and post the results for the depigmentation snps. Then, do the same for the Yamnaya samples. That's the only objective method we have to give us any FACTS, not just subjective opinions like "I just believe it must have been that way."

I'm not the one trying to prove they were more fair, and in fact I don't give a tinker's damn which group was more fair. I'm just tired of stupid, a-scientific nonsense being posted by people who don't understand anything about genetics, or just deliberately post irrelevant comparisons.

Silesian
15-07-18, 19:21
See Angela it clearly shows that you are biased thoward with Middle-East or Neolithic. You said Bell Beaker is autosomally half Yamnaya and half EEF, so therefore saying Yamnaya had light genes is irrelevent and fair enough i'm alright with that point. But you talk about GAC being autosomally EEF and you know they are all y-dna I2a wich is a WHG paternal markers and you dont take that into account, like autosomal dna doesn't say anything, GAC could be mostly of WHG descent but because of founder effect being 100% EEF, therefore they could be physically like their WHG ancestors and still be EEF. I think you want to be somebody fair in your views about thing, but at the same time you are so obsessed by racism or nazism that if people would constantly talking about " those blonde haired Yamnaya cavalier " you could not handle it.

When Hungary Yamnaya samples are released we will be able to get an even better picture, hopefully they can test a good number among the thousands-tens/thousands kurgans. The samples I posted[I0744+I2787 very little Middle East admix if any] above/ R1b-Z2103-Z2109--from actual Bell Beaker Burial Grounds in Hungary][pigmentation/eye/hair] samples are the exact same branch as Yamnaya[R1b-Z2103-2109, with slightly different pigmentation. There are two branches of R1b within Eastern Bell Beakers Z2103/09[identical to Yamnaya]and brother kurgan cladeL51+. Another point of interest-their blood type, many were type A rh negative, very uncommon in the middle East-Afro-Asiatic speaking people.

Not to forget R1b-14000YBP+/- Italian-Villabruna[no doubt related to R1b men in Italy and Europe] he has very high score[WHG]almost no EEF--- and blue eyes.
Using Ancient Eurasia K6 Admixture Proportions





Population



Ancestral_North_Eurasian
-


Ancestral_South_Eurasian
0.81


East_Asian
1.74


West_European_Hunter_Gartherer
94.39


Natufian
1.22


Sub_Saharan
1.84

Silesian
15-07-18, 19:41
How many times does it have to be said that Bell Beaker DOES NOT EQUAL Yamnaya. They are two different groups. Bell Beaker is about half EEF.

Therefore, this data is IRRELEVANT.

If you can show a side by side comparison of Globular Amphora snps vs. YAMNAYA depigmentation snps, then great. Please provide sample numbers and links to where you found the data.

Thank you for your input/views on the Bell Beakers.

halfalp
15-07-18, 20:04
When Hungary Yamnaya samples are released we will be able to get an even better picture, hopefully they can test a good number among the thousands-tens/thousands kurgans. The samples I posted[I0744+I2787 very little Middle East admix if any] above/ R1b-Z2103-Z2109--from actual Bell Beaker Burial Grounds in Hungary][pigmentation/eye/hair] samples are the exact same branch as Yamnaya[R1b-Z2103-2109, with slightly different pigmentation. There are two branches of R1b within Eastern Bell Beakers Z2103/09[identical to Yamnaya]and brother kurgan cladeL51+. Another point of interest-their blood type, many were type A rh negative, very uncommon in the middle East-Afro-Asiatic speaking people.

Not to forget R1b-14000YBP+/- Italian-Villabruna[no doubt related to R1b men in Italy and Europe] he has very high score[WHG]almost no EEF--- and blue eyes.
Using Ancient Eurasia K6 Admixture Proportions





Population



Ancestral_North_Eurasian
-


Ancestral_South_Eurasian
0.81


East_Asian
1.74


West_European_Hunter_Gartherer
94.39


Natufian
1.22


Sub_Saharan
1.84











There is very low chances that Hungary Yamnaya dont have any EEF autosomal dna, especially taking into account that Yamnaya was a male-biased migration, over the generations EEF would become dominant in every western europe indo-european society, this is why in today times, indo-european paternal markers like R1b and R1a are ultra dominant in europe but neolithic autosomal dna is more dominant than steppe autosomal dna in their modern signature. For the Villabruna sample, the fact that he has East Asian markers but not ANE markers seems to show that he came from the south and was related to a population that give birth to the east asian component.

Silesian
15-07-18, 20:45
There is very low chances that Hungary Yamnaya dont have any EEF autosomal dna, especially taking into account that Yamnaya was a male-biased migration, over the generations EEF would become dominant in every western europe indo-european society, this is why in today times, indo-european paternal markers like R1b and R1a are ultra dominant in europe but neolithic autosomal dna is more dominant than steppe autosomal dna in their modern signature. For the Villabruna sample, the fact that he has East Asian markers but not ANE markers seems to show that he came from the south and was related to a population that give birth to the east asian component.

If you go by ydna is Bell Beaker sample I2741[Brown/Black/Brown pigmentation hair/eye] from the same branch of ydna as GA? While Bell Beaker I2787 belongs to the same ydna branch as Bell Beaker I7044 + R1b Yamnaya/Afanasievo + R1b Sarmatians?[4000-4500YBP+/-]
Despite being classed as Bell Beaker both I2741 and I2787 have different ancestry/possible cultural?
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6LUj_Cz1Oc8/WVgB1nvoMII/AAAAAAAAYhA/0grmi401R_EFCd4t8dYOavT4kSWB_4xTQCLcBGAs/s1600/2017-07-01%2Bat%2B3.00.08%2BPM.png

http://images.devs-on.net/Image/TaANBDP8K1pIt3EB-Region.png

halfalp
15-07-18, 21:22
If you go by ydna is Bell Beaker sample I2741[Brown/Black/Brown pigmentation hair/eye] from the same branch of ydna as GA? While Bell Beaker I2787 belongs to the same ydna branch as Bell Beaker I7044 + R1b Yamnaya/Afanasievo + R1b Sarmatians?[4000-4500YBP+/-]
Despite being classed as Bell Beaker both I2741 and I2787 have different ancestry/possible cultural?
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6LUj_Cz1Oc8/WVgB1nvoMII/AAAAAAAAYhA/0grmi401R_EFCd4t8dYOavT4kSWB_4xTQCLcBGAs/s1600/2017-07-01%2Bat%2B3.00.08%2BPM.png

http://images.devs-on.net/Image/TaANBDP8K1pIt3EB-Region.png

I didn't really understand your post, but you need a big picture. Assuming before Yamnaya Hungary, Hungary was populated by 20'000 individuals 50/50 male and female all 100% EEF. Then you have in lets saying, 500 years of a migration of 5'000 Yamnaya males with few Yamnaya women saying a 3 to 10 woman/man in Hungary. Of 5000 autosomally steppe individuals you have 3'500 men and 1'500 women. Saying for the first, four generations Yamnaya males gonna married and make babies with related Yamnaya woman, at least the elite, that would be maybe 10% of the all yamnaya related 5000 peoples. Over the generation you gonna have a decrease of local EEF males signatures and an increase of EEF woman signature to compensate. Now 500 years after so, 1000 years after in total. You gonna have something like a 90% autosomally EEF and 10% Steppe population with 90% of Steppe paternal lineages and something like 70% of EEF maternal lineages. So let's saying that in 2000 before christ, actual Hungary would be culturally related to steppe and genetically be overwhelmingly EEF. Of course, this is a just made equations, every geographical context gives a different result.

Angela
15-07-18, 21:51
I didn't really understand your post, but you need a big picture. Assuming before Yamnaya Hungary, Hungary was populated by 20'000 individuals 50/50 male and female all 100% EEF. Then you have in lets saying, 500 years of a migration of 5'000 Yamnaya males with few Yamnaya women saying a 3 to 10 woman/man in Hungary. Of 5000 autosomally steppe individuals you have 3'500 men and 1'500 women. Saying for the first, four generations Yamnaya males gonna married and make babies with related Yamnaya woman, at least the elite, that would be maybe 10% of the all yamnaya related 5000 peoples. Over the generation you gonna have a decrease of local EEF males signatures and an increase of EEF woman signature to compensate. Now 500 years after so, 1000 years after in total. You gonna have something like a 90% autosomally EEF and 10% Steppe population with 90% of Steppe paternal lineages and something like 70% of EEF maternal lineages. So let's saying that in 2000 before christ, actual Hungary would be culturally related to steppe and genetically be overwhelmingly EEF. Of course, this is a just made equations, every geographical context gives a different result.

OK. That's it. This is a thread about the Anatolian branch of Indo-European.

Not only are you woefully confused (ie GAC had WHG admixture, why are you talking about the steppe), you continue to post off topic. If you continue I will give you infractions as well as delete the posts.

davef
17-07-18, 05:32
class Biased{

public void weakExcuse(BA_Anatolian sample){

while(numberOfSamples != infinity)
{
if(sample.steppe > 0)
{
sample.culture = "invisible AnatolianIE elite";
}
else
{
sample.culture = "could be anything, who cares ?";
}
++numberOfSamples;
}

}

}

+1 for Java and pre incrementing

Ailchu
24-07-18, 01:52
deleted since not usefull for this discussion.