David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

Er Monnezza said:

I1584, West Anatolia sample dating to 3820 BC may have Steppe ancestry derived from the Southern Arc (around Armenia), which in turn was derived from the Steppes to the north.

Target: TUR_Barcin_C:I1584___BC_3820___Coverage_83.74%
Distance: 0.0277% / 0.02765814 | R2P
56.2 TUR_Buyukkaya_EC:CBT018___BC_5566___Coverage_52.45%
43.8 ARM_Areni_C:I1407___BC_3925___Coverage_67.46%

Target: TUR_Barcin_C:I1584___BC_3820___Coverage_83.74%
Distance: 0.0226% / 0.02262274 | R3P
39.0 ARM_Areni_C:I1407___BC_3925___Coverage_67.46%
36.2 HRV_Cardial_N:I3948___BC_5913___Coverage_65.54%
24.8 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2056___BC_4516___Coverage_59.59%

Target: TUR_Barcin_C:I1584___BC_3820___Coverage_83.74%
Distance: 0.0198% / 0.01977544 | R4P
47.1 HRV_Sopot_MN:I5077___BC_5051___Coverage_72.20%
25.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C:I1674___BC_3881___Coverage_53.35%
20.1 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2056___BC_4516___Coverage_59.59%
7.8 RUS_Progress_En: PG2001___BC_4900___Coverage_75.05%

Click to expand...

Citation of Reich himself from the Israel Institute for Advance Studies: "Our comprehensive sampling shows that Anatolia received hardly any genetic input from Europe or the Eurasian steppe from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age [...] The IMPERMEABILITY of Anatolia to exogenous migration contrasts with our finding that the Yamnaya had two distinct gene flows"

1st - Indo-European Hittites lived in the Bronze Age.
2nd - You know what "impermeability" means, don't you?
3rd - Conclusion: these calculations are wrong.

Just_a_Common_Guy said:

Citation of Reich himself from the Israel Institute for Advance Studies: "Our comprehensive sampling shows that Anatolia received hardly any genetic input from Europe or the Eurasian steppe from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age [...] The IMPERMEABILITY of Anatolia to exogenous migration contrasts with our finding that the Yamnaya had two distinct gene flows"

1st - Indo-European Hittites lived in the Bronze Age.
2nd - You know what "impermeability" means, don't you?
3rd - Conclusion: these calculations are wrong.

Click to expand...

I am talking about a specific sample that is I1584, not all of Anatolia, and I am well aware that samples that lived 2000 years after I1584 lack Steppe ancestry.

Gilan is a very important region for the history and development of Indo-European languages.
The Persian word for son is pur/purika, almost the same in Latin - puer, we have the same word in Portuguese like pueril, puericultura.
We have Gilaki matches in our Iranian-Portuguese J1-FGC6024/Y19467 Iron Age cluster, I saw several matches also in YHRD and SMGF databases, they had a good number of Iranian samples, but nobody allowed an article about the Iranian full Y-DNA sequences and SNPs in the last ten years.
In Viola Grugni's article from 2012, Ancient Migratory Events in the Middle East: New Clues from the Y-Chromosome Variation of Modern Iranians, the last one about general Iranian Y-DNA, Gilan had a good balance between basal J1, J2, R1a, R1b, G2 haplogroups, so a very ancient population without any Bronze Age invader, no new hegemonic monopoly of only one Y-DNA clade just like the concentration in Bronze Age conquered Europe.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041252
And let's remember the local native Marlik Indo-European and Iranian native treasures are from the Caspian region of Gilan, so we have etymology, basal haplogroups and diversity as the source or a very adjacent PIE region.

Moja said:

The closest language to Armenian is Celtic, for example debuccalization of PIE *p just happened in Armenian and Celtic, the main reason is that Armenians are neighbors of Gilaki people.

The Persian word for son is pur/purika, it is cognate with Armenian ordi, in Gilaki rika/roki has the same meaning, it can be compared to Welsh rhocyn: https://www.gweiadur.com/cy/welsh-dictionary/rhocyn

Almost all non-Iranian words in Gilaki language have Celtic origin, just look at them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilaki_language The Gilaki word for girl is kilka/kilak, you can't find any similar word in the Iranian languages, compare it to Scottish Gaelic caileag, or Gilaki word for hen is kerk, compare it to Scottish Gaelic cearc, I have found more than 800 similar words in Gilaki and Gaelic languages.

Click to expand...

Er Monnezza said:

I am talking about a specific sample that is I1584, not all of Anatolia, and I am well aware that samples that lived 2000 years after I1584 lack Steppe ancestry.

Click to expand...

Linking g25 results is hardly a convincing argument though, mate. That project is closed source and unverifiable.

Ricardo said:

Gilan is a very important region for the history and development of Indo-European languages.
The Persian word for son is pur/purika, almost the same in Latin - puer, we have the same word in Portuguese like pueril, puericultura.
We have Gilaki matches in our Iranian-Portuguese J1-FGC6024/Y19467 Iron Age cluster, I saw several matches also in YHRD and SMGF databases, they had a good number of Iranian samples, but nobody allowed an article about the Iranian full Y-DNA sequences and SNPs in the last ten years.
In Viola Grugni's article from 2012, Ancient Migratory Events in the Middle East: New Clues from the Y-Chromosome Variation of Modern Iranians, the last one about general Iranian Y-DNA, Gilan had a good balance between basal J1, J2, R1a, R1b, G2 haplogroups, so a very ancient population without any Bronze Age invader, no new hegemonic monopoly of only one Y-DNA clade just like the concentration in Bronze Age conquered Europe.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041252
And let's remember the local native Marlik Indo-European and Iranian native treasures are from the Caspian region of Gilan, so we have etymology, basal haplogroups and diversity as the source or a very adjacent PIE region.

Click to expand...

North of Iran was also the ancient land of Tapuri/Tapori people, as you read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapoli "Tapori were an ancient Celtic tribe of Lusitania, akin to the Lusitanians, to whom they were a dependent tribe, living just north of the river Tagus, around the border area of modern-day Portugal and Spain." (The longest river in Tapori region in the north of Iran was also Tagus, modern Tajan, g>j sound change happened in Arabic).

Angela said:

Yes, well, problem is that IBD analyses doesn't show Italian or Iberian ancestry in Ashkenazim. What shows up is a nice dose of Slavic.
Don't think it's ever been done with Sephardic Jews or Moroccan Jews. I would think perhaps some Iberian would show up, at least. Would be interesting to see someone attempt it.

Click to expand...

Does IBD analyses show high Greek admixture in Western Jews?
I am aware that Slavic ancestry in Ashkanazi Jews is around 15-20%.

Angela said:

They actually overlap, Moesan, although some Askenazim are north of them.

What pulls Moroccan Jews away a bit is that they have some Berber and a bit of SSA, although much less than the Muslim North Africans as to the latter.

As to how they picked up their 10-15% "Slavic" in some cases, the speculation is that when they fled to the Kingdom of Lithuania from the pogroms of the Crusader Era in eastern France and Germany, some of the tribes in the area were still pagans, and therefore the women were converted and married. That was a crime punishable by death according to Christian authorities, so it does seem like a plausible idea.

The R1a present among Jews, and particularly among Levites, is the "Asian" type, and therefore probably absorbed in the Middle East imo.

The relative scarcity of "Slavic" markers among the Ashkenazim surprised me a bit given what we know happened to Jewish women during pogroms, including Cossack raids. However, I believe Jewish law permits termination of the pregnancy until the child "quickens", so perhaps that was a response to those pogroms. It happened a lot in Europe during the Nazi era and afterwards, even though it was prohibited by the Church and State.

Click to expand...

Thanks for precisions. I wasn't a "connoisseur" concerning Jews. WHat I only stated is that Jews stayed in around Middle East among genetically close enough Muslims had a bit more 'Caucasus' and "preserved" themselves as a whole from SSA admixture.
I don't know the samples sizes. What I see on the PCA you provided is that Askhenazes seems less homogenous than Shepharades, and some of them stayed close when others went away a bit. More contacts with more diverse neighbours?

MOESAN said:

Thanks for precisions. I wasn't a "connoisseur" concerning Jews. WHat I only stated is that Jews stayed in around Middle East among genetically close enough Muslims had a bit more 'Caucasus' and "preserved" themselves as a whole from SSA admixture.
I don't know the samples sizes. What I see on the PCA you provided is that Askhenazes seems less homogenous than Shepharades, and some of them stayed close when others went away a bit. More contacts with more diverse neighbours?

Click to expand...

Sephardics didn't pick up the Slavic ancestry because they were in Spain, then some in North Africa, others in Turkey and other places in the Ottoman Empire.

They have a distinct "language" of their own called Ladino, based on Spanish, whereas the Askenazi spoke Yiddish, a dialect of German which they kept even through long centuries in eastern Europe. Even their liturgical rites, foods, etc. are very different.

Despite the fact that the Ashenazim have more variety, they are still all 4th to 5th cousins on sites like 23andme (IBD sharing), because the millions of them all descend from a very small group of survivors from Germany who fled to the east. The difference may just be varying levels of Germanic, Slavic etc., in addition to a big chunk of Southern European.

As you can see from the PCA, most of them are quite removed from the Muslims of the Near East.

It's the same story everywhere. They have picked up local ancestry in every locale in which they sheltered, almost always through the incorporation of women, although it wasn't known by later generations. They practiced strict endogamy, and thought they always had.

I suppose it's somewhat similar to situations like that of the Afrikaners, although they have less "local" ancestry. Some African and Asian women were incorporated very early and then conveniently forgotten. Those not incorporated became the "Coloureds" of Cape Town.

Palermo Trapani said:

I don't think so, I think Celtic is closer to both Germanic and Italic. Armenian is closer to Iranian to its immediate Southeast and Anatolian branches to its immediate West. It would be closer to both Albanian and Greek vs. Celtic. But there are lots of different flowcharts/trees out there.

I for the most part have tended to not wade into these PIE homeland debates. But after re-reading Prof. Reichs "Who we are.." (2018) and his pointing to the Armenian Hypothesis to explain the PIE, I have done some reading up on some journal papers regarding Armenian and it from what I read is its own branch of IE language and as I stated, closer to Indo-Iranian and Greek.

Anyway this paper by Martirosyan who is an Armenian Linguist and teaches Language and Armenian culture at UCLA clearly shows just by reading the text that Armenian closer with Indo-Iranian and Greek.

https://www.jolr.ru/files/(128)jlr2013-10(85-138).pdf

I took a look at his wiki page and all of his research is on the Armenian language. Perhaps you can email him and tell him he is wrong.

Click to expand...

I read the paper that you mentioned: The place of Armenian in the Indo-European language family: the relationship with Greek and Indo-Iranian

"Armenian, Greek and Indo-Iranian are unified by the *­r/n- heteroclitic declination (seen also in Celtic) and the semantics. ... A commonly cited morphological feature found in Armenian, Greek and Indo-Iranian (and also Celtic) is the instrumental marker *­bi(s). ..."

He is not wrong.

Moja said:

North of Iran was also the ancient land of Tapuri/Tapori people, as you read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapoli "Tapori were an ancient Celtic tribe of Lusitania, akin to the Lusitanians, to whom they were a dependent tribe, living just north of the river Tagus, around the border area of modern-day Portugal and Spain." (The longest river in Tapori region in the north of Iran was also Tagus, modern Tajan, g>j sound change happened in Arabic).

Click to expand...

Are there any cultural (archaeological) similarity between ancient/modern north Iran and the celts?

I think PIE speakers including the celts appeared around 1,600 bc with vajra(or thunderbolt = snake) for the first time. Before that, there seems to be no evidence of any people to speak PIE in ancient Europe. I always think that PIE words carriers are totally different from PIE speakers.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EENEN_LWsAIzuj4?format=jpg&name=small

Actually, the closeness between PIE and american Indian language is claimed, however no archaeological connection:


FrankN said...Since I mentionned possible relations between the PIE and the Proto Nivkh-Algic-Wakashan (PAW) vocabulary in my previous comment, and remember someone having asked about it not too long ago, here follow several examples.
Sources: S. Nikolev 2017 http://www.jolr.ru/files/(232)jlr201...4(250-278).pdf
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appen...n_Swadesh_list

"belly": PAW *ʔVta:gA, PIE *úderos
"big": PA *meʔł (Miami-Peoria mehš-i), PIE *méǵh₂s
"burn": PNA *tu)ʁwV, PIE dʰegʷʰ-
"come": PW *Gi:, PIE *gʷeh₂-
"die": PNA *mo:ryV, PIE *mer-
"dog": PAW *q’änV, PIE *ḱwṓ [a Wanderwort]
„drink“: PAW *hək’ʷE (also „water“), PIE *h₁egʷʰ-
"egg": PNA *ʔə:wV, PIE *h₂ōwyóm
"fish": PAW *ǯu: , PIE *dʰǵʰu- (->Balto-Slav. *źū́ˀs)
"good": PA *wal-, *wel- [comp. Engl. "well"]
"hair": PAW *həpV(-lV), PIE *pulh₂-
"I": PAW *ńV, PIE *me (a paleo-word)
"kill" PAW *χVlV ≈ *ʔVlχV (compare to English!)
"to lie": PAW *łi:hV, PIE *légʰyeti
"long": PAW *gɨl’V, PIE *dl̥h₁gʰós (metathesis?)
"man, male": PWN *wi:s-, PIE *wiHrós
"meat": PAW *mi:-, PIE *mḗms (a paleo-word, c.f. Malay makan "to eat)
"moon": PAW *l’u:ŋ’ʒV, PIE *lowksneh₂
"night" PAW *ńä:gʷE ~ *ńä:gʷTV, PIE *nókʷts
"nose": PWS *nic-, PIE *Hnéh₂s
"one": PAW *ń’ə, PIE *(H)óynos
"round" PAW *kOlxV ~ *k’Olk’V [No PIE root given, but compare to "wheel" terminology]
"say": PW *wa:-, PIE *wéwket
"see": PWN *du:qʷ-, PIE *derḱ-
"small": PNi *məc-ki-, PIE *mey-
"this": PAW *gV ~ *gʷV, PIE *koh₂ (a paleo-word)
"warm": PWN *kʷu:xʷ-, PIE *gʷʰer-
"water": PAW *hək’ʷE ≈ *ʔəhk’ʷE, PIE *h₂ekʷeh₂
"what, who": PAW *qV, *gʷV; PIE *kʷis (a paleo-root, equally present in PU)
"Woman": PWN *Gən- ; PIE *gʷḗn
"far (away)": PAlg *wa:ɣl-aw, PIE *wi
„heavy“: PWN *Gʷi:- , PIE *gʷréh₂us

For the record, I believe the Reich Lab will find that the branches like Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Celtic-Italic, spread from the steppe westwards. That's also the hypothesis I've always thought the evidence favored.

Clearly there are people hear who think otherwise. That's fine. However, to post and re-post certain hypotheses when there is no engagement or discussion with others is spamming, an activity for which there are consequences.

That is power I do have, while others I do not.

Did I read somewhere on this thread that the Southern Arc paper will actually be three papers, proceeding chronologically from the oldest period to perhaps the Classical Era?

If that's the case, then with such old samples and their paucity of numbers and limited mobility, the Reich Lab in this first paper will not be tested as to whether they, like other population geneticists, fall prey to the error that every sample in a location means that sample had a significant impact of the genetics of that locale.

I "am" interested to see how much "Natufian" the first farmers of the Levant passed to, say, Anatolian farmers and Iranian farmers. and how much, therefore, went into Europe. Seems a strange thing to try to quantify, however. What does it add in place of using Anatolian Neolithic or Iran Neo as we always have? I mean, we get it, this group contributed a lot to the development of civilization in the Near East, but so did the others, and it was, after all, the Anatolian Neolithic farmers who transformed Europe, along with the Iran Neolithic, or CHG people, later on.

Angela said:

Did I read somewhere on this thread that the Southern Arc paper will actually be three papers, proceeding chronologically from the oldest period to perhaps the Classical Era?
If that's the case, then with such old samples and their paucity of numbers and limited mobility, the Reich Lab in this first paper will not be tested as to whether they, like other population geneticists, fall prey to the error that every sample in a location means that sample had a significant impact of the genetics of that locale.
I "am" interested to see how much "Natufian" the first farmers of the Levant passed to, say, Anatolian farmers and Iranian farmers. and how much, therefore, went into Europe. Seems a strange thing to try to quantify, however. What does it add in place of using Anatolian Neolithic or Iran Neo as we always have? I mean, we get it, this group contributed a lot to the development of civilization in the Near East, but so did the others, and it was, after all, the Anatolian Neolithic farmers who transformed Europe, along with the Iran Neolithic, or CHG people, later on.

Click to expand...

It also seems to me that this completely discards the Lazaridis et al. 2018 pre-print. I don't get it, didn't two other papers verify the existence of the Dzudzuana population?
From my recollection it argued that the Paleolithic Caucasus (Dzudzuana) was Anatolian_N-like. Moreover that the Natufians were mostly Dzudzuana plus about a quarter Iberomaurisian. While CHG was ANE enriched Dzudzuana.
Maybe the Reich paper will address that too, and give an explanation, I hope.

That being said, I assumed Anatolian_N was simply a holdover from the Paleolithic Caucasus, rather than a mix of WHG and Levantine sources.

^^Reich is also a co-author of the Lazaridis pre-print so maybe there is something in the new paper that will explain it. Maybe we will finally get to see those samples too.

johen said:

Are there any cultural (archaeological) similarity between ancient/modern north Iran and the celts?

Click to expand...

There are actually huge similarities between them, for example look at this book:



What you see on the cover of this book is a golden Celtic torc which has been found in Gilan and dates back to the second millennium BC (Bronze age).

Moja said:

What you see on the cover of this book is a golden Celtic torc which has been found in Gilan and dates back to the second millennium BC (Bronze age).

Click to expand...

- Sintashata contacted that area, however, it is a problem to connect sintashta culture to ancient celts:

"The Sintashta fortified settlements (Arkaim and Sintashta) have round walls and moats [8; 9]. The housesare blocked together. Direct analogies with them are known only in Anatolia (Demirchiuyuk, Pulur, Mercin),Syro-Palestine (Rogem Hiri) and the Transcaucasus (Uzerlic-Tepe) [10 – 13]. Sintashta burial traditions areidentical to ones in this region too. Other artefacts (metal, ceramics etc.) have parallels there [14]"

- South caucasus culture reached china bronze where torharian language, celtic symbol and sintashta culture were found. However, seima turbino and karashuk people went down there:

"This horse-drawn chariot is ·a technically sophisticated. artifact requiring special skills and resources for its construction, use, and maintenance. Two specific features of Anyang chariots are the large number of wheel spokes (from eighteen to twenty-six. as compared with four, six, or eight in the Near East) and the mounting of the axle not at the rear edge of the box, but midway between front and back. In western Asia both features are known only from mid second-millennium chariots buried at Lchashen in the Caucasus, and for the moment these are the closest relatives of Anyang chariots, indicating a strong influence from those areas.

- So is there any possibility for scythian to bring the ancient iran culture to ancient celtic people?

"One main line of enquiry is the relationship between the central European Celts and their nomadic Eurasian neighbours (often referred to as Scythians or Sarmatians), who inhabited the European end of a grassland (steppe) corridor that stretched east towards Central Asia and China. Longstanding routes of communication across these semi-deserts and steppes, which later formed part of the Silk Road, are known to have played a significant role in earlier artistic and cultural exchanges between East and West."

eupator said:

Linking g25 results is hardly a convincing argument though, mate. That project is closed source and unverifiable.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's unbelievable that there are still people using the g25.

Angela said:

For the record, I believe the Reich Lab will find that the branches like Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Celtic-Italic, spread from the steppe westwards. That's also the hypothesis I've always thought the evidence favored.

Clearly there are people hear who think otherwise. That's fine. However, to post and re-post certain hypotheses when there is no engagement or discussion with others is spamming, an activity for which there are consequences.

That is power I do have, while others I do not.

Click to expand...

But this is nothing new, that's basically what he said in the lecture at the israeli Institute: "the steppe served only as a secondary staging area of Indo-European language dispersal".

Angela said:

These are the cycles of civilization. There's a civilized core, and the "barbarians beyond the gates", in a nod to St. Augustine. I wouldn't call those people of the periphery "flexible"; I'd call them predatory. They prowl the perimeter to see what they can scrounge. So long as the core, an agricultural core, is strong, the barbarians are held off and civilization continues to advance. When the core starts to decay, as seems to be their fate in all situations, the people of the periphery come to pick at the carcass, telling themselves how superior they are, and a new Dark Age begins. Bronze Age Greece, with all its advancements, fell so far they even forgot how to read and write, and at the hands of people who are probably somewhere in my own blood line. Do you think that makes it all right with me? Think where we'd be today if we hadn't had to start all over again from scratch so many times.

No matter the cultures involved, it's always the "civilized core" for which I'm rooting.

Click to expand...

I'm a descendant of the so-called "Barbarians" and root for advancement and civilization too. However, being the civilized core doesn't always translate into being more humane, peaceful, and less violent or cruel.


It would be a very narrow approach to see only the predators in the "Barbarians" and not also in the "civilized ones". In that regard, it must be pointed out that Roman expansionism was predatory to its core. The Roman Empire was predatory in nature, meaning that it believed in military-based practices and growth. In addition, like many empires in the ancient world, was, at least partially, a system of the predatory type, with an economy widely based on slave labor.

Of course, living under the Romans was way better than living under the Hun, Mongol, Assyrian, or Aztec rule. Nonetheless, the Romans viewed and prided themselves on being Apex predators so to speak: It's for a reason that in Rome several icons such as the Eagle, Wolf, Bear, Minotaur, and later Lion were carried as the symbols of Roman Legions.

Furthermore one of the defining symbols of ancient Rome is a remarkable piece of animal folklore. The image of it is still to be seen everywhere in Rome: The twins Romulus and Remus crouching beneath a she-wolf and suckling her milk. Mythology is a way of understanding the world. It is not always right in all aspects.
The stories people tell about themselves are most revealing. The parts of folklore which appeal to us are deeply revealing. For the Romans wolves played a vital part in their myths, about the world and about themselves.

For the Romans what did they see when they looked at the babies and the she-wolf? The sons of a warlike god and a mortal imbibing animal strength from their adopted mother. Their descendents, those who looked on the statue, would know that they had the best of all worlds – human wit, animal power, and that divine spark which would give them Imperium sine fine – An Empire without end!

Think of all the suffering which could have been avoided.

Click to expand...

Civilization and Advancement came along with lots of suffering and sacrifices. Think of all the millions of slaves who under inhumane conditions worked in mines, in agriculture, or who were forced to build all these impressive huge monuments and buildings. The blood, sweat, and tears of past generations throughout Europe are what gave us the advanced Western societies we enjoy today.