Lazaridis summary of Europe population genetics

Angela said:
The Neolithic Anatolian farmer portion may have been added in Europe.

I doubt love was often involved.
Click to expand...

Until know the results of Mesolithic and Paleolithic samples from Anatolia and eastern Balkans, we cant discard any hypothesis (I dont mean the love part :D). There is still a hole of knowledge
 
halfalp said:
The problem with anatolian languages, is that ( well i'm not linguist of course ) it not looks so much as an archaic language for me, typically, the word for horse " asuwa / ashuwa " looks like a borrowing from iranian languages, maybe the Mitanni and not so much as an archaism. Others words have direct link with the centum languages and also direct metaphoric link like " taru " the tree, wich seems to be the term for the tree but also the god of thunder " tarhunt " that relate to the lithuanian and slavic " Perkunas and Perun ", both meaning a sort of tree but also the god of thunder. Anatolian languages, hittite looks like a centum language that have been intensively influenced by a non-indo-european language, maybe related to Hurrian language.
Click to expand...

The Anatolian noun genders, some of its declension and most of the verb conjugation are very distinctive and unlike that of all non-Anatolian IE branches. Those are not just a few words that look "out of place", but the core structure that determines how the languages works and builds up into coherent sentences. I think most linguists consider Anatolian probably "archaic", in the sense of having undergone a very ancient divergence, because of syntactic matters, not because of its lexicon. The non-IE influence would have had to be extremely, actually unprecedentedly strong to change a lot of relevant parts of the very core of the language (the way its nouns and verbs work), and not just its vocabulary or phonetics.

I find that unlikely. I mean, the least complicated explanation is that, instead of Anatolian being an extremely non-IE-shifted Late PIE dialect, it simply branched off first when PIE was still very different and then had its own isolated evolution. No other IE language changed so profoundly just because of heavy foreign influence, not even those that most clearly seem to have suffered a lot of non-IE influence, like Greek, Germanic and Indo-Aryan.
 
bicicleur said:
actualy, they made up their own word for computer, it is 'ordinateur'
but so many new words are formed in IT, the french can't keep up any more inventing their own words
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, I was just giving an example of how it is usually perfectly possible to differentiate a recent loanword from a very ancient loanword or a core word of the language's lexicon. And, yes, I think the French should just give up trying to control something nobody ever could control for a lot of time, the linguistic evolution of languages. :-D
 
Ygorcs said:
The Anatolian noun genders, some of its declension and most of the verb conjugation are very distinctive and unlike that of all non-Anatolian IE branches. Those are not just a few words that look "out of place", but the core structure that determines how the languages works and builds up into coherent sentences. I think most linguists consider Anatolian probably "archaic", in the sense of having undergone a very ancient divergence, because of syntactic matters, not because of its lexicon. The non-IE influence would have had to be extremely, actually unprecedentedly strong to change a lot of relevant parts of the very core of the language (the way its nouns and verbs work), and not just its vocabulary or phonetics. I find that unlikely. No other IE language changed so profoundly just because of heavy foreign influence, not even those that most clearly seem to have suffered a lot of non-IE influence, like Greek, Germanic and Indo-Aryan.
Click to expand...


Ba,te mananca-n cur?Stai dracu cuminte.
 
Ygorcs said:
The Anatolian noun genders, some of its declension and most of the verb conjugation are very distinctive and unlike that of all non-Anatolian IE branches. Those are not just a few words that look "out of place", but the core structure that determines how the languages works and builds up into coherent sentences. I think most linguists consider Anatolian probably "archaic", in the sense of having undergone a very ancient divergence, because of syntactic matters, not because of its lexicon. The non-IE influence would have had to be extremely, actually unprecedentedly strong to change a lot of relevant parts of the very core of the language (the way its nouns and verbs work), and not just its vocabulary or phonetics.

I find that unlikely. I mean, the least complicated explanation is that, instead of Anatolian being an extremely non-IE-shifted Late PIE dialect, it simply branched off first when PIE was still very different and then had its own isolated evolution. No other IE language changed so profoundly just because of heavy foreign influence, not even those that most clearly seem to have suffered a lot of non-IE influence, like Greek, Germanic and Indo-Aryan.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, the thing is, if you listen to Hittite reconstruction, it sounds like a very middle-eastern language. Also, middle-eastern like assyrians and babylonians must have been somehow an intellectual and economic center for hittites and maybe also for their language, that could explain why anatolian languages are so divergent from other IE languages. The same for Tocharians, there is no way the Lazaridis idea of an Anatilian / Tocharian shift pre-late-ie is correct, tocharian looks totally influenced by borrowing altaic languages, it has more grammatical cases than other IE languages and the sound are very different from other IE languages.
 
Cpluskx said:
It looks possible that CHG might have brought PIE (Hittite) to Anatolia but somehow David Reich's whiteboard seems to have no movements towards Anatolia.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/03/20/science/20SCI-REICH2/20SCI-REICH2-superJumbo.jpg
Click to expand...

maybe they even went further to southeastern europe. i thought that maybe lemnian and ethruscan are a relic from this migration since there seem to be connections between lemnian language and anatolian luwian languages.
 
Anthony: Hittite (2,000-1,600 BCE) -> Troy I (3,000 BCE) -> Suvorova-Novodanilovka migration into the Lower Danube/Balkans ("Old Europe" collapse, 4,200-4,000 BC) -> Seredny Stog (5,200-5,000 BCE). The Horse Wheel and Language, p. 240-262.
 
It is only by ~39-36kya that the first sample that clearly shares ancestry with Europeans but not East Asians is evident (Kostenki14 in European Russia [9]), with the earliest known such sample from western Europe at ~35-34kya (GoyetQ116 - 1 from Belgium) [10]). Did these and other early Europeans [10, 11] represent a migration into Europe post the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) volcanic eruption [12] ~39kya, or are they survivors of this event which set off a short period of intense cooling? The ~42-37kya sample from Oase1 in Romania is the earliest known modern human from Europe, and may predate this event. Oase1 has an excess of 6-9% Neandertal ancestry within a genealogical timeframe of 4-6 generations and no specific affinity to Europeans [13], suggesting that at least some of the pre-CI Europeans were replaced after this event. It may be that both the modern human and Neandertal inhabitants of Europe suffered a common demise ~39kya.
Click to expand...

First the Toba volcano, then this one (near Naples).
 
What's actually amazing in that Lazaridis summary it's that i feel he is listening to the amateurish community and take into account their brainstorming about populations migrations and IE languages. He's not so confident, he put two extreme of a same question into account. Typically, when the recent paper of central asia and south asia was out, he says something like " those results gonna surely be debated ", it certainly make reference to the amateurish community and people like genetiker or davidski. It's amazing that there is some sort of mutual passion between a professionnal from harvard and an amateurish community, i hope i'm right.
 
Steppe populations during the Eneolithic to Bronze Age were a mix of at least two elements, the EHG who lived in eastern Europe ~8kya and a southern population element related to present-day Armenians, and ancient Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and farmers from Iran. Steppe migrants made a massive impact in Central and Northern Europe post-5kya. Some of them expanded eastward, founding the Afanasievo culture and also eventually reached India. These expansions are probable vectors for the spread of Late Proto-Indo-European languages from eastern Europe into both mainland Europe and parts of Asia, but the lack of steppe ancestry in the few known samples from Bronze Age Anatolia raises the possibility that the steppe was not the ultimate origin of Proto-Indo-European (PIE), the common ancestral language of Anatolian speakers, Tocharians, and Late Proto-Indo-Europeans.

In the next few years this lingering mystery will be solved: either Anatolian speakers will be shown to possess steppe-related ancestry absent in earlier Anatolians (largely proving the steppe PIE hypothesis), or they will not (largely falsifying it, and pointing to a Near Eastern PIE homeland).
Click to expand...

For Lazaridis, the Steppe Hypothesis is "probable", while the Anatolian Hypothesis is a "possibility" that cannot yet be eliminated.

On the other hand, a Maikop source for Anatolian might only show that it was a cousin to, rather than a sister language within, PIE.
 
Ygorcs said:
Isn't that just a reference to the birth of EHG, i.e. something related to WHG + something very ANE?
Click to expand...
I dont know, 15'000 kya is very old, i dont know what he makes reference about.
 
halfalp said:
Hmmm, the thing is, if you listen to Hittite reconstruction, it sounds like a very middle-eastern language. Also, middle-eastern like assyrians and babylonians must have been somehow an intellectual and economic center for hittites and maybe also for their language, that could explain why anatolian languages are so divergent from other IE languages. The same for Tocharians, there is no way the Lazaridis idea of an Anatilian / Tocharian shift pre-late-ie is correct, tocharian looks totally influenced by borrowing altaic languages, it has more grammatical cases than other IE languages and the sound are very different from other IE languages.
Click to expand...

Tocharian languages are actually attested only as Early Medieval languages. We don't really know how and if that significant external influence already existed in the early Proto-Tocharian branch, dated to have split from the rest at least by 3000 BCE, some 3,500 years before the attestation of the languages that we know.

As for Hittite, yes, the reconstructions perhaps sound like a very "middle-eastern" language even though the Middle East actually had lots of totally unrelated language families (e.g. Semitic vs. Hattic), but that's still in the field of phonetics, and not the core of the language, the way its nouns, verbs and other basic units work, which is, as I said, the main reason why the Anatolian branch is considered to have split first and very early on. It does not really matter if the Early PIE was more like Hittite or more like Late PIE, what matters is that the divergence must've been very remote to account for the development of so profound differences in things as basic as the noun genders and verb conjugations.

If Anatolian had diverged as late as other branches, the first attestations of Hittite would be a mere ~1500 years after the time of its divergence, so we'd be assuming unrealistically profound influences, probably in less than 1000 years, which not only affected vocabulary or phonetics, which are the most fleeting parts of a language, but not just one, rather several points of basic syntax of the language, making it "function" in a way quite unlike all other attested IE branches (including even Tocharian). That can't be just a coincidence, especially because Anatolian wasn't the only IE branch to have undergone profound foreign, non-IE influence.
 
i read a bit more into the topic with etruscan. there are many different studies that look at the genome of etruscans and some of them think they are not autochonous while others think they are. let's assume they were autochtonous then we could also assume that the pre-steppe-indo-european italic people spoke a similar language. since there was lemnian on lemnos it could be possible that those languages were spoken in whole southern and south eastern europe. what if those languages are connected to the increase of CHG ancestry in south eastern europe, starting 3800 bc., that did not come together with steppe? and that then later the steppe people conquered the south coming from the north.
the problem would be that lemnian and etruscan are a bit too similar for beeing seperated that long.
it would also be interessting to know what language the minoans were speaking. some people think that minoan could have been related to etruscan. the same is the case with the pelasgians who probably were inhabiting greece before the indo europeans entered it from the north. greek has certain characteristics that could come from anatolian languages or it could come from the language that pelasgians were speaking which could mean that they spoke a form of anatolian or something related to anatolian languages.
 
Southeastern Europe received steppe-related ancestry before any other population in Europe outside the steppe itself, with sporadic appearance of individuals with steppe ancestry in Bulgaria as early as ~6.7-6.5kya and a general low-level presence of ~30% during the Bronze Age, ~5.4-3.1kya. This [steppe-related] ancestry was also present in the Aegean during the Mycenaean period ~3.5kya at ~15%, but was absent from the otherwise genetically similar Minoan culture of Crete who represents the most recent sampled European population without any such ancestry. Both Minoans and Mycenaeans, and to a much lesser extent Neolithic samples from the Peloponnese and Bulgaria also had ancestry related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers, suggesting that this ancestry did not come to Europe only via migrations from the steppe, but also independently, perhaps reflecting ancestry from different Anatolian source populations.
Click to expand...

Mycenaeans were a hybrid population composed of 1) an Indo-European ruling/palace class (R1a) from the steppes via the Balkans and 2) originally "Pelasgian" non-Indo-European "ruled" classes (G2a artisans/peasants?) who came with the neolithic expansion from Anatolia and the Near East. The Minoans lacked the first (steppe-related ancestry), but shared the second (neolithic-related ancestry) with the Mycenaeans. Both have CHG ancestry, which likely came with the neolithic expansion, it seems to me, although the Mycenaeans (but not the Minoans) could have got it from the steppes.
 
CrazyDonkey said:
Mycenaeans were a hybrid population composed of 1) an Indo-European ruling/palace class (R1a) from the steppes via the Balkans and 2) originally "Pelasgian" non-Indo-European "ruled" classes (G2a artisans/peasants?) who came with the neolithic expansion from Anatolia and the Near East. The Minoans lacked the first (steppe-related ancestry), but shared the second (neolithic-related ancestry) with the Mycenaeans. Both have CHG ancestry, which likely came with the neolithic expansion, it seems to me, although the Mycenaeans (but not the Minoans) could have got it from the steppes.
Click to expand...

That CHG component is not found in any appreciable proportion in earlier Neolithic populations of Southeastern Europe. It may have come with a certain Late Neolithic or more probably Copper Age expansion, but most certainly not the same that milennia earlier colonized all of Europe from Portugal to Scandinavia. I don't think it's fair to say it came with the Neolithic expansion. It may have come together with ANF or EEF-related ancestry with a mixed Anatolian CHG+ANF/EEF population, but it was certainly a later migration/expansion that imposed over the previous "pure" EEF layer in Greece.
 
CrazyDonkey said:
Mycenaeans were a hybrid population composed of 1) an Indo-European ruling/palace class (R1a) from the steppes via the Balkans and 2) originally "Pelasgian" non-Indo-European "ruled" classes (G2a artisans/peasants?) who came with the neolithic expansion from Anatolia and the Near East. The Minoans lacked the first (steppe-related ancestry), but shared the second (neolithic-related ancestry) with the Mycenaeans. Both have CHG ancestry, which likely came with the neolithic expansion, it seems to me, although the Mycenaeans (but not the Minoans) could have got it from the steppes.
Click to expand...

There is a romania HG (romania!) that is 50%WHG and 50% EHG. ---- 6000bc. Several Iron Gates HG, 7000bc, where 20% EHG.
So, when we find EHG that existed there for millennia, mixed with CHG/EEF that we know was flowing heavily into the region for millennia, we say its "steppe" coming from ukraine?

There is nothing that sounds an alarm in your brain?
 
So, CHG: Caucasus/NW Iran -> Near East -> Cyprus -> Crete -> Greece. Smiths/metal workers. 2,000 BCE? Could "Zagros farmers" have brought CHG genes west? Read a report that they (or their genes) were participants in the neolithic expansion.
 
Olympus Mons said:
There is a romania HG (romania!) that is 50%WHG and 50% EHG. ---- 6000bc. Several Iron Gates HG, 7000bc, where 20% EHG.
So, when we find EHG that existed there for millennia, mixed with CHG/EEF that we know was flowing heavily into the region for millennia, we say its "steppe" coming from ukraine?

There is nothing that sounds an alarm in your brain?
Click to expand...

Didn't EHG and CHG have any substructure to allow differentiating a much earlier Mesolithic EHG admixture in the Balkans from a much later Pontic-Caspian EHG extensively mixed with a CHG that also did not necessarily come from the exact same genetic substructure from where the CHG admixture may have come independently to the Balkans in the Copper Age/Bronze Age? I think that with increasingly numerous samples scientists can distinguish such subgroups of these very broad (geographically and genetically) labels and test, in their calculators, what scenario fits the available data better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 41062 times.

Back
Top