David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

Er Monnezza said:
"At least two streams of migration transmitted Caucasus and Anatolian/Levantine ancestry northward, contributing to Yamnaya steppe pastoralists"

Yamnaya steppe pastoralists do not have Levantine ancestry.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, they have! If not, why would Reich be claiming they have?
 
Palermo Trapani said:
2) The PIE was in the Steppes and IE languages were brought into Armenia/Northern Iran and were adopted by the Anatolian populations via trade contacts with populations in ancient Armenia/Northern Iran with no genetic interaction.
Click to expand...

As you read it says "the homeland of the Indo-Anatolian language family was in West Asia" and "Anatolia was transformed by intra-West Asian gene flow".
 
Just_a_Common_Guy said:
It seems that sub-Saharan populations also have this "minor steppe influence" (from "POPULATION GENOMICS OF STONE AGE EURASIA" - Allentoft et al. 2022)
Click to expand...

Don't know what they will have used to draw certain conclusions, but in no Doctor Strange universe do Mongols have more EHG than Ukrainians, or Chinese have more WHG than Iberians, or Algerians have more EEF than Bulgarians, or Indians have more CHG-related than Iraqis.

Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia said:
From this, we could plot the distribution of the average ancestry components across Eurasia and within Britain. From top left clockwise: Neolithic farmer, Steppe/Yamnaya, Western H-G, Eastern H-G, Caucasus H-G.



EHG-related ancestry is highest in Mongolia, Finland, Estonia and Central Asia.

CHG-related ancestry is maximised in countries east of the Caucasus, in Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Iran, likely reflecting both Caucasus hunter-gatherer and Iranian Neolithic signals, explaining the relatively high levels in south Asia.

Neolithic farmer ancestry is concentrated around the Mediterranean basin, with high levels in southern Europe, the Near East, and North Africa, including the Horn of Africa.

kAi0PKA.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Just_a_Common_Guy said:
It seems that sub-Saharan populations also have this "minor steppe influence" (from "POPULATION GENOMICS OF STONE AGE EURASIA" - Allentoft et al. 2022):
View attachment 13509
Click to expand...

Related to your post is the findings by Moots et al 2022 (pre-print) "A Genetic History of Continuity and Mobility in the Iron Age Central Mediterranean" shows in the Carthaginian city of Kerkouane during the the mid-Iron Age (650 - 250 BCE), that of 12 ancient Carthiginians analyzed, 6 of them had not insignificant Steppe ancestry.

Since the thread is about Steppe ancestry and IE languages, this I think is related to the thread in that it does show Steppe ancestry in areas way pass Anatolia, which based on the genetic data we have seemed to have been a genetic isolate relative to Steppe ancestry. So it seems what both the Moots et al 2022 and Allencroft et al 2022 pre-prints are showing is that there was interaction and trade contacts with Greece and Italy/Sicily, and likely Iberia as well if samples from the Iron Age Maghreb are at some point analyzed indicating that Steppe ancestry was introduced via those populations and that the Steppe source in Italy, Greece, etc was more related to Yamnaya (which I have always thought) vs. Corded Ware populations, although Angela suggest Bell Beaker types likely also were responsible for some of the Steppe in ancient Italy as well.

But I suspect the Steppe ancestry via Yamnaya is likely sometime after/around the time it first arrived in Iberia circa 2400 BC as Fernandes et al 2020 "The spread of steppe and Iranian-related ancestry
in the islands of the western Mediterranean" documented Steppe ancestry in the Balearis Islands around 2400 BC and Sicily by 2200 BC. The Fernandes et al 2020 paper shows the Steppe admixture in Iberia, Sardinia and Sicily is best maximized using Yamnaya (See discussion related to Figure 1 of the paper).

Anyway, the Fernandes et al 2020 paper I think provides the likely best estimate of the earliest time when Steppe admixture could have first gotten to North Africa and from there via some migration of people from North Africa through the Sahara via trade contacts introduced to areas south of the Sahara Desert. That is my conjecture, maybe someone has another explanation.

Cheers
 
Just_a_Common_Guy said:
Anyway, if Reich is right, and apparently from what I read in the summary of the link firetown gave us (very grateful for that), it could have been the girls who introduced archaic PIE to the steppe. And long live the women! Even though I'm a gay man, I'm proud that my best friends are women. :heart:
Click to expand...

Ed. by Angela,

If you continue to spam those idiotic youtube videos not only will they continue to be removed, but there will be consequences for you here.

Have I made myself clear?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moja said:
As you read it says "the homeland of the Indo-Anatolian language family was in West Asia" and "Anatolia was transformed by intra-West Asian gene flow".
Click to expand...

Yes that is how I read it and I think that is the most logical explanation. My point 2 was only offered as an explanation as to How Riverman can explain the results away. Please read all my posts in context. I have said over, and over, and over again that the Steppe dogmatist who want to claim the Kurgan Hypothesis explains all IE language migrations (it does explain the spread of IE languages from the Steppes to the rest of Europe via Yamnaya and Corded Ware migrations), and it explaining the homeland of PIE languages.

The Anatolian IE branch is the Oldest, again, based on all scholarly estimates (dated to circa 4200 BC) and as of yet, there is no evidence of Steppe admixture into Anatolia, whereas there is gene flow from the South Caucuses into Anatolia dating to the Neolithic (CHG/Iran Neo related ancestry) per Feldman et al 2019 (which I cited above). Reich's team suggest continual gene from from West Asia through the Bronze Age as well from the southern Caucus region.

So I am not disagreeing with Reich is stating. If he is making such claims, I think the Reich team has the evidence to support what they are saying.
 
Palermo Trapani said:
The Steppe source in Italy, Greece, etc was more related to Yamnaya (which I have always thought) vs. Corded Ware populations, although Angela suggest Bell Beaker types likely also were responsible for some of the Steppe in ancient Italy as well.
Click to expand...

In the case of Central Italy, it was the Beaker-related and not Yamnaya-related.

Code: 
0.0085 Italy_Center_IA = 56% England_EIA + 44% ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N
0.0086 Italy_Center_IA = 50% ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N + 50% England_EastYorkshire_MIA
0.0090 Italy_Center_IA = 58% ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N + 42% Bell_Beaker_Scotland
 
Palermo Trapani said:
Related to your post is the findings by Moots et al 2022 (pre-print) "A Genetic History of Continuity and Mobility in the Iron Age Central Mediterranean" shows in the Carthaginian city of Kerkouane during the the mid-Iron Age (650 - 250 BCE), that of 12 ancient Carthiginians analyzed, 6 of them had not insignificant Steppe ancestry.

Since the thread is about Steppe ancestry and IE languages, this I think is related to the thread in that it does show Steppe ancestry in areas way pass Anatolia, which based on the genetic data we have seemed to have been a genetic isolate relative to Steppe ancestry. So it seems what both the Moots et al 2022 and Allencroft et al 2022 pre-prints are showing is that there was interaction and trade contacts with Greece and Italy/Sicily, and likely Iberia as well if samples from the Iron Age Maghreb are at some point analyzed indicating that Steppe ancestry was introduced via those populations and that the Steppe source in Italy, Greece, etc was more related to Yamnaya (which I have always thought) vs. Corded Ware populations, although Angela suggest Bell Beaker types likely also were responsible for some of the Steppe in ancient Italy as well.

But I suspect the Steppe ancestry via Yamnaya is likely sometime after/around the time it first arrived in Iberia circa 2400 BC as Fernandes et al 2020 "The spread of steppe and Iranian-related ancestry
in the islands of the western Mediterranean" documented Steppe ancestry in the Balearis Islands around 2400 BC and Sicily by 2200 BC. The Fernandes et al 2020 paper shows the Steppe admixture in Iberia, Sardinia and Sicily is best maximized using Yamnaya (See discussion related to Figure 1 of the paper).

Anyway, the Fernandes et al 2020 paper I think provides the likely best estimate of the earliest time when Steppe admixture could have first gotten to North Africa and from there via some migration of people from North Africa through the Sahara via trade contacts introduced to areas south of the Sahara Desert. That is my conjecture, maybe someone has another explanation.

Cheers
Click to expand...

You may be right, but my point of view in showing this is that a negligible percentage of steppe ancestry is not valid to support the emergence of Indo-European languages in a given region.

Cheers for you too.
 
Er Monnezza said:
In the case of Central Italy, it was the Beaker-related and not Yamnaya-related.

Code: 
0.0085 Italy_Center_IA = 56% England_EIA + 44% ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N
0.0086 Italy_Center_IA = 50% ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N + 50% England_EastYorkshire_MIA
0.0090 Italy_Center_IA = 58% ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N + 42% Bell_Beaker_Scotland
Click to expand...

Er Monnezza: May very well be. Could be that the Steppe migrations into Italy came in two waves and/or the Steppe population on the Southern Flank/or went into the South of Italy/Sicily might have had more CHG/Iran Neolithic ancestry relative to EHG. I don't know exactly. Raveane et al 2019 offer evidence supporting that interpretation. Figure 2 shows that Sicily and Southern Italy have a combined CHG+Iran Neolithic+EHG in the range of 25-30%. Steppe would probably explain most of that but that there is excess CHG related ancestry

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw3492

Some quotes from the paper

"Genetically, ancient steppe populations have been described as a combination of Eastern and Caucasus hunter-gatherer/Iran Neolithic (EHG and CHG/IN) ancestries (4). However, the analysis of aDNA from Southern East Europe has identified the existence of additional contributions ultimately from the Caucasus (8, 9) and suggests a more complex ancient ancestry
composition for Europeans"

Regarding the North having more EHG and South CHG and some additional Iran Neolithic, they state:


"These observations suggest the existence of different secondary source contributions to the two edges of the peninsula, with the north affected more by EHG-related populations and the south by CHG-related groups. IN ancestry was detected in Europe only in Southern Italy."

Another relevant quote (and one supporting your model and what Angela has stated)

"The analysis of both modern and ancient data suggests that in Italian populations, ancestries related to CHG and EHG derive from at least two sources. One is the well-characterized steppe (SBA) signature associated with nomadic groups from the PonticCaspian steppes. This component reached Italy from mainlandEurope at least as long ago as the Bronze Age, as suggested by its presence in Bell Beaker samples from North Italy (data file S4). The other contribution is ultimately associated with CHG ancestry, as previously suggested (21), and predominantly affected Southern Italy, where it represents a substantial component of the ancestry profile of local modern populations. Although the details of the origins of this signature are still uncharacterized, it may have been present as early as the Bronze Age in Southern Italy"

So the Raveane et al 2019 paper was a year before Fernandes et al 2020 published their paper which documented Steppe IE ancestry in Sicily dating to 2200 BC and in those Bronze Age Sicilian samples, Yamnaya was the best source to capture Steppe migration and the likely spread of IE languages into Sicily. I think their is evidence supporting that the Elymians likely spoke an early IE language, obviously the Sicels spoke one. I would suspect the Sicani did as well.

So the conjecture by Raveane et al 2019 that a heavy CHG population was in Southern Italy by the Bronze Age is supported by the evidence that Yamnaya related population, with significant CHG/Iran Neolithic ancestry was in Sicily and thus likely also in Southern Italy given Figure 2 shows a similar admixture in Sicily and Southern Italy regarding EHG+CHG+Iran_Neo ancestry.
 
Just_a_Common_Guy said:
You may be right, but my point of view in showing this is that a negligible percentage of steppe ancestry is not valid to support the emergence of Indo-European languages in a given region.
Click to expand...

"The Cycladic, the Minoan, and the HeIIadic (Mycenaean) cultures define the Bronze Age of Greece. We sequenced six EarIy to Middle Bronze Age whole genomes, along with 11 mitochondrial genomes, sampled from the three Bronze Age cultures of the Aegean Sea. The Early Bronze Age genomes are homogeneous and derive most of their ancestry from Neolithic Aegeans, contrary to earlier hypotheses that the Neolithic-Early Bronze Age cultural transition was due to massive population turnover. Early Bronze Age Aegeans were shaped by relatively small-scale migration from East of the Aegean, as evidenced by the Caucasus-related ancestry also detected in Anatolians. In contrast, Middle Bronze Age individuals of northern Greece differ from Early Bronze Age populations in showing ∼50% Pontic-Caspian Steppe-related ancestry, dated at ca. 2,600-2,000 BCE. Such gene flow events during the Middle Bronze Age contributed toward shaping present-day Greek genomes. (…) the Helladic-Middle Bronze Age Log04 individual could be directly modelled as 2-way admixture of Anatolia Neolithic (∼38%), and Middle/Late Bronze Age Steppe (∼62%), consistent with a strong genetic contribution from the Steppe. … The timing of such gene flow into the ancestors of the Helladic-Middle Bronze Age ought to have occurred by ∼1,900 BCE.”

- Clemente et al. 2021, The Genomic History of the Aegean palatial civilizations
 
Philjames100 said:
"The Cycladic, the Minoan, and the HeIIadic (Mycenaean) cultures define the Bronze Age of Greece. We sequenced six EarIy to Middle Bronze Age whole genomes, along with 11 mitochondrial genomes, sampled from the three Bronze Age cultures of the Aegean Sea. The Early Bronze Age genomes are homogeneous and derive most of their ancestry from Neolithic Aegeans, contrary to earlier hypotheses that the Neolithic-Early Bronze Age cultural transition was due to massive population turnover. Early Bronze Age Aegeans were shaped by relatively small-scale migration from East of the Aegean, as evidenced by the Caucasus-related ancestry also detected in Anatolians. In contrast, Middle Bronze Age individuals of northern Greece differ from Early Bronze Age populations in showing ∼50% Pontic-Caspian Steppe-related ancestry, dated at ca. 2,600-2,000 BCE. Such gene flow events during the Middle Bronze Age contributed toward shaping present-day Greek genomes. (…) the Helladic-Middle Bronze Age Log04 individual could be directly modelled as 2-way admixture of Anatolia Neolithic (∼38%), and Middle/Late Bronze Age Steppe (∼62%), consistent with a strong genetic contribution from the Steppe. … The timing of such gene flow into the ancestors of the Helladic-Middle Bronze Age ought to have occurred by ∼1,900 BCE.”

- Clemente et al. 2021, The Genomic History of the Aegean palatial civilizations
Click to expand...

And? What does that contradict what I've shown? :unsure:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 206435 times.

Back
Top