Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 326 to 350 of 412

Thread: The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers

  1. #326
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    I think the author has a mistake in his thinking or the author missed this statement of the Lazaridis paper, namely that Sub Saharan Africans do not share more with Natufians as they do with any of the other Eurasian groups, which kinda rejects the Idea that Natufians were more African shifted.

    Natufians ironically seem closer/share more to WHG based on fst distances as Levant_neo, Iran_Neo or CHG does. Which kinda means that Natufians were a mix of Basal Eurasian and a H&G group that was ancestral to WHG.

    Natufians do not share drift with North and East Africans. North and East Africans share drift with Natufians. Yes on PCA Natufians are "halfway inbetween" Africans and CHG, so are Saudis and so is also Anatolian_Neo but it doesn't work that way, because the non Basal Eurasian ancestry of Natufians is more WHG akine.
    what we need to note:

    1. the main passage from eastern iran to anatolia was via the north of the Zargos mountains. The mountains in this part are formed in east-west corridors.

    2. the levant and north of Zargos lands were settled before the fertile crescent . the initial populace of Mesopotamia came from people in the north of the zargos mountains.

    3. the Black , Aral and Caspian seas where fresh water "lakes".

    4. the black sea did not penetrate the sea of Marmara ( the aegean ) until 9200 years ago, so people from anatolia could enter europe without a boat.

    5. hatti, hurri, hittite, luwian are not semitic languages.......so the sumerians from north of the Zargos initially did not speak a semitic language, neither did the assyrians or akkadians
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  2. #327
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,084
    Points
    8,680
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,680, Level: 27
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 70
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    @holderlin

    Argumentum ad ignorantiam if you take the worst sense is fighting statement but it is in fact an argument taking as proof our ignorance, in this case if it was or not R1b in western Yamnaya.

    And true, even the IE is against the Yamnayans' steppe, you can check how it's related to a northern forested ecosystem.

  3. #328
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,402
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,402, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    Someone also asked about what the PIE lexicon says about the geography or climate in general.

    The answer is that it is in great support of the steppe model. All of the agricultural products native to Asia are loan words, and conversely none of these items are in PIE e.g. figs, grapes, olives and even the domestic camel. There are some obvious examples in in Hittite, Iranian, Aryan, and Greek. What do all of these regions have in common? They are a warmer climate than the steppe and produce different ecosystems with different flora. I believe there's a ton of evidence suggesting that BMAC and predecessors domesticated the camel, so all of you Iranian homeland proponents explain to me why there's no camel in PIE and why domesticated camel didn't spread across the world with Indo-Europeans, besides that because they're an embarrassing mode of transportation.
    I don't think of myself as an Iranian homeland proponent, but I'll answer anyway. :)

    Domesticated camels seem relatively recent even in the Near East.

    Topics like this, which aren't really political, are covered relatively well in Wiki, I think.

    "Dromedaries may have first been domesticated by humans in Somalia and southern Arabia, around 3,000 BC, the Bactrian in central Asia around 2,500 BC,[13][62][63][64] as at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran.[65]"

    "Martin Heide's 2010 work on the domestication of the camel tentatively concludes that the bactrian camel was domesticated by at least the middle of the third millennium somewhere east of the Zagros Mountains, then moving into Mesopotamia, and suggests that mentions of camels "in the patriarchal narratives may refer, at least in some places, to the Bactrian camel." while noting that the camel is not mentioned in relationship to Canaan.[68]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel

    Another type didn't reach Israel until around 930 BC, probably introduced through Egypt as part of the copper trade.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/sc...n-genesis.html

    If they were domesticated around 2500 BC they were in the area earlier, but do we know they were in the Armenian highlands before that?

    I don't think the choice is between some lowland grain farmers from an area with a Mediterranean climate and steppe foragers. It's whether there's a possibility that the language might have arisen among herders living in places like the Armenian Highlands and/or the Iranian plateau. I asked the original question about what differences there might be between areas just north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus and those other areas in terms of flora and fauna because I'm by no means an expert in this topic and wondered if someone else might have more detailed information.

    Ed. Does anyone know what it's like in adjacent areas of Turkmenistan?
    Last edited by Angela; 29-06-16 at 02:20.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  4. #329
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    763
    Points
    7,464
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,464, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    RK has posted some nMonte results on anthrogenica. They're interesting although of course not dispositive.
    http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...Space-and-Time

    I'd have to check the dates, but I wonder if the increase in terms of European Neolithic intrusion might be because the first wave of steppe like gene flow came, as has been hypothesized, from the steppe through the Balkans, picking up such genes there.

    The operative word is "might".
    Thanks Angela.

    Well anyone wondering about evidence of early steppe in Armenia, there's surely some of it here. Lots of Euro too.

    The Euro is really interesting, but hardly surprising. The Balkans were going off at this time.

  5. #330
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    763
    Points
    7,464
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,464, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I don't think of myself as an Iranian homeland proponent, but I'll answer anyway. :)

    Domesticated camels seem relatively recent even in the Near East.

    Topics like this, which aren't really political, are covered relatively well in Wiki, I think.

    "Dromedaries may have first been domesticated by humans in Somalia and southern Arabia, around 3,000 BC, the Bactrian in central Asia around 2,500 BC,[13][62][63][64] as at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran.[65]"

    "Martin Heide's 2010 work on the domestication of the camel tentatively concludes that the bactrian camel was domesticated by at least the middle of the third millennium somewhere east of the Zagros Mountains, then moving into Mesopotamia, and suggests that mentions of camels "in the patriarchal narratives may refer, at least in some places, to the Bactrian camel." while noting that the camel is not mentioned in relationship to Canaan.[68]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel

    Another type didn't reach Israel until around 930 BC, probably introduced through Egypt as part of the copper trade.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/sc...n-genesis.html

    If they were domesticated around 2500 BC they were in the area earlier, but do we know they were in the Armenian highlands before that?

    I don't think the choice is between some lowland grain farmers from an area with a Mediterranean climate and steppe foragers. It's whether there's a possibility that the language might have arisen among herders living in places like the Armenian Highlands and/or the Iranian plateau. I asked the original question about what differences there might be between areas just north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus and those other areas in terms of flora and fauna because I'm by no means an expert in this topic and wondered if someone else might have more detailed information.

    Ed. Does anyone know what it's like in adjacent areas of Turkmenistan?
    Thanks for the camel information. It was definitely there during BMAC, that's for sure.

    I can say that there's a lot of non-IE loanwords for local items in Aryan and Iranian.

    If you're talking about the Caucuses I don't think there's a reason to reject it based on the lexicon, but right now I would reject it on other grounds. There would probably be a word for sea if that were the case. There's definitely a word for river and boat. You can't get too carried away with this kind of thing, especially with flora. At best we can conclude that there were trees and in the Northern hemisphere : )

    Reconstructions for Fauna is a little more clear with things like bear, elk, lynx, otter, beaver, hare, red deer, mouse, hedgehog, and of course the wolf and horse, so riverine forests must be included along with steppe or grasslands.

    It's when you take all of these as a whole you arrive at a place that was at least seasonally cold and didn't have the aforementioned local products of West Asia and Southern Europe.

  6. #331
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    763
    Points
    7,464
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,464, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by berun View Post
    @holderlin

    Argumentum ad ignorantiam if you take the worst sense is fighting statement but it is in fact an argument taking as proof our ignorance, in this case if it was or not R1b in western Yamnaya.

    And true, even the IE is against the Yamnayans' steppe, you can check how it's related to a northern forested ecosystem.
    I proposed it as a mechanism. I didn't say that it was the case, and it's one part of a larger mechanism that was based on a ton of linguistic, historical, archaeological, and genetic evidence. It wasn't a single logical assertion.

    Riverine forests along with grasslands is what PIE describes.

  7. #332
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,084
    Points
    8,680
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,680, Level: 27
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 70
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    But when you try to make BB indoeuropean only with supposed DNA: the mechanism is going too far, without such tons of data.

    Another thing is that you are happy getting the word "forest" from riverine forests, but you can check youself that the IE ecosystem can't be maintained only with riverine forests as it is limited in speces (adapted to inundations or producing long roots): willows, alders, black poplars, poplars, ashes, elms, tamarix, etc., limitating also the fauna that it can suppoort.

  8. #333
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,765
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,765, Level: 63
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 63.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I don't think of myself as an Iranian homeland proponent, but I'll answer anyway. :)

    Domesticated camels seem relatively recent even in the Near East.

    Topics like this, which aren't really political, are covered relatively well in Wiki, I think.

    "Dromedaries may have first been domesticated by humans in Somalia and southern Arabia, around 3,000 BC, the Bactrian in central Asia around 2,500 BC,[13][62][63][64] as at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran.[65]"

    "Martin Heide's 2010 work on the domestication of the camel tentatively concludes that the bactrian camel was domesticated by at least the middle of the third millennium somewhere east of the Zagros Mountains, then moving into Mesopotamia, and suggests that mentions of camels "in the patriarchal narratives may refer, at least in some places, to the Bactrian camel." while noting that the camel is not mentioned in relationship to Canaan.[68]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel

    Another type didn't reach Israel until around 930 BC, probably introduced through Egypt as part of the copper trade.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/sc...n-genesis.html

    If they were domesticated around 2500 BC they were in the area earlier, but do we know they were in the Armenian highlands before that?

    I don't think the choice is between some lowland grain farmers from an area with a Mediterranean climate and steppe foragers. It's whether there's a possibility that the language might have arisen among herders living in places like the Armenian Highlands and/or the Iranian plateau. I asked the original question about what differences there might be between areas just north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus and those other areas in terms of flora and fauna because I'm by no means an expert in this topic and wondered if someone else might have more detailed information.

    Ed. Does anyone know what it's like in adjacent areas of Turkmenistan?
    the Bactrian camel was probably in use 2500 BC as draught animal, for transportation use
    that was in Bactria, from where the Vedic Aryans migrated to the Indus Valley around 1700 BC
    the dromedary or Arabian camel was first domesticated for meat and milk only
    the Arabian camel was used for transportation through the desert only 1000 BC, that is when first caravans arrived in the southern Levant

    south of Turkmenistan are the Kopet Dag Mountains
    the mountain rivers flow northwards and dry up in the lowland deserts
    and there is the Oxus (Amu Darya) river which flows through the desert, all the way from the Hindu Kush to the Aral Sea

    camels would have brought precious stones and tin ores from this area to the Indus Valley or to Mesopotamia

  9. #334
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    763
    Points
    7,464
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,464, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by berun View Post
    But when you try to make BB indoeuropean only with supposed DNA: the mechanism is going too far, without such tons of data.
    This is your opinion as was my mechanism mine. But you refuted it like it was a logical assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by berun View Post
    Another thing is that you are happy getting the word "forest" from riverine forests, but you can check youself that the IE ecosystem can't be maintained only with riverine forests as it is limited in speces (adapted to inundations or producing long roots): willows, alders, black poplars, poplars, ashes, elms, tamarix, etc., limitating also the fauna that it can suppoort.
    I'm trying to not put too much in any one aspect of the lexicon. Yes, included but not limited to forests, with riverlands and grasslands. Forests are included, to be clear. And actually the mesolithic tradition in the area is from the Northern Forest zone.

  10. #335
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,402
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,402, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    I'm going to try to answer my own question about the genesis of Bedouin A and Bedouin B. I think it might come from this paper:
    http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v1...dy201390a.html

    They studied the Bedouin of the Negev in Israel.

    This is part of what they found:
    "Two main clusters are obvious and are indicated in Figure 2 as A and B. It is evident from Figure 2C that both recent and ancient ancestries contribute to the signals in clusters A and B, as both clusters are clearly indicated in Drecent and Dresidual. Note, however, that cluster A seems to be distinct from the rest of the data, whereas cluster B shows signals of common ancestry with several external tribes around it. "

    " Investigation of surnames identified cluster A as one of the oldest, well established clans in the Negev. On the other hand, cluster B is composed of related tribes, probably from a common founder, that migrated from Gaza to the Negev around 300 years ago. Thus, it seems that clan B, as opposed to clan A, allows interactions with tribes outside the clan."

    Can anyone confirm that this is the source of the two groups and that Group B has no SSA whereas Group A has some?

    Now that would be interesting, as although in the introduction the authors state that the Negev Bedouin are thought to have migrated northward from Saudi Arabia even before the time of the Muslim conquests, Group B is stated to have come from Gaza only 300 years ago. I wonder if some of these tribes, the more SSA admixed ones, came from areas of Saudi Arabia closer to Yemen, for example, than others? Or perhaps Group B, from Gaza, has some amount of ancestry from people with a longer history in the region.

    Some Negev Bedouin:






    Anyway, the famed patriarchal endogamy of these tribes comes at a heavy cost in terms of genetic load and genetic disease. Group A, for example, harbors a mutation for hereditary retardism, and the paper finds and tracks numerous others.

  11. #336
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,320
    Points
    34,830
    Level
    57
    Points: 34,830, Level: 57
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 620
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I'm going to try to answer my own question about the genesis of Bedouin A and Bedouin B. I think it might come from this paper:
    http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v1...dy201390a.html

    They studied the Bedouin of the Negev in Israel.

    This is part of what they found:
    "Two main clusters are obvious and are indicated in Figure 2 as A and B. It is evident from Figure 2C that both recent and ancient ancestries contribute to the signals in clusters A and B, as both clusters are clearly indicated in Drecent and Dresidual. Note, however, that cluster A seems to be distinct from the rest of the data, whereas cluster B shows signals of common ancestry with several external tribes around it. "

    " Investigation of surnames identified cluster A as one of the oldest, well established clans in the Negev. On the other hand, cluster B is composed of related tribes, probably from a common founder, that migrated from Gaza to the Negev around 300 years ago. Thus, it seems that clan B, as opposed to clan A, allows interactions with tribes outside the clan."



    Can anyone confirm that this is the source of the two groups and that Group B has no SSA whereas Group A has some?

    Now that would be interesting, as although in the introduction the authors state that the Negev Bedouin are thought to have migrated northward from Saudi Arabia even before the time of the Muslim conquests, Group B is stated to have come from Gaza only 300 years ago. I wonder if some of these tribes, the more SSA admixed ones, came from areas of Saudi Arabia closer to Yemen, for example, than others? Or perhaps Group B, from Gaza, has some amount of ancestry from people with a longer history in the region.

    Some Negev Bedouin:


    Anyway, the famed patriarchal endogamy of these tribes comes at a heavy cost in terms of genetic load and genetic disease. Group A, for example, harbors a mutation for hereditary retardism, and the paper finds and tracks numerous others.
    I don't know anything about these Bedwins A and B. But I was amazed by the apparently strong differences in SSA DNA,
    very light if present among group B opposite to group A.
    If group A supposed more endogamic came from Yemen, it seems they have had time to mix with SSA. At the contrary, Yemen Jews show very little SSA, spite having very less 'westasian' than other Jews communauties, what could argue for an ancient presence in far South? Religious endogamy before crossings?
    other thing: if Bedwins A have more endogamic created problems than the B, it could prove the genetic diseases have nothing to do with ethnic purity but, whatever the degree of crossings and admixture, are linked only to too small mating circles.
    All tha way, the question of bad mutations conservation in population (non-elimination) is complicated.

  12. #337
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    763
    Points
    7,464
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,464, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    The Steppe in chlk Armenia is actually very supportive very early genetic contact between the steppe and the Caucuses. So this is actually good for anti-steppe theorists. The neolithic on the Volga is also loaded with ovicaprid, which we know originally came from the Zagros. It should be noted the Anatolian languages share certain features with Caucasian languages, which as in Caucasian languages are absent from all other IE languages.

    Nalchik burials and what we have of settlements are very non-steppe, this is the immediate predecessor to Maykop, which is why I say that the cultural package seen earlier on the steppe is not coming from the Caucuses. It could be that we had very early infiltration of PIE that became anatolian, "peaking " in Maykop, then later we have Indic speaking IE's expand over the top of that.

    One thing that people also need to keep in mind is that "Yamnaya" cannot be defined as one culture. It's a broad cultural horizon likely with much linguistic differentiation within itself whereas in my theory this is more Indic in the Southish and more Baltic in the Northish. There is also cord decorated pottery in the area since Sredny Stog and in Yamnaya.

    The Uralic word for pig being in Indo-Iranian is something that I bring up from time to time, which is very strong evidence that the Indic I speak of was in the the Volga-Ural region for a long time. Pigs are coming from the West too, which also make sense because Uralic speaking peoples would be even less familiar with it than Pontic-Caspian peoples. There's pig is Sredny Stog, but not in the east. I would also note the non-IE loanwords in Germanic languages revolving around pig farming.

    So I guess I'm looking for M269 in early Western Steppe, early West Yamnaya, or anywhere in between.

  13. #338
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,084
    Points
    8,680
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,680, Level: 27
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 70
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    Which Steppe is in Armenia_Chalco? As far as I see the difference with old CHG is +Levant_N

    I'm trying to not put too much in any one aspect of the lexicon.
    OK, we are in a forum and we can express our thoughts freely, but triying to do a good scientific analysis, if i would appreciate very much the horse and chariot words but dismissing at the same time those words not supported by the steppe ecosystem I would not work finely. Even with that we have the problem that bears, squirels or firs will not move too far from were they grew up, but chariots and horses can be bought, robbed or shared, they have no clear boundaries.

  14. #339
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    763
    Points
    7,464
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,464, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by berun View Post
    Which Steppe is in Armenia_Chalco? As far as I see the difference with old CHG is +Levant_N



    OK, we are in a forum and we can express our thoughts freely, but triying to do a good scientific analysis, if i would appreciate very much the horse and chariot words but dismissing at the same time those words not supported by the steppe ecosystem I would not work finely. Even with that we have the problem that bears, squirels or firs will not move too far from were they grew up, but chariots and horses can be bought, robbed or shared, they have no clear boundaries.
    There's steppe in chlc_armenia. Read the thread and look at the data. There's also what appear to be Siberian alleles.

    This isn't a hard science, not even close, nor do we have even close to most of the genetic data that's out there. So "good scientific" analysis in this context is completely relative. I've offered a vast array of evidence all of which are in support of what I say. If you want better then you may want to consider physics or chemistry.

    I didn't just say "horses" blah like an idiot. I provided a multitude of details about all of the different kinds of evidence for horse domestication for transport on the steppe. Where did they steal or borrow these already domesticated horses from? Who taught them how to make the horse equipment? which by the way had thousands of years of development on the steppe. Why did they do horse sacrifices for thousands of years? The is because they were the first people to domesticate horses for the purpose of transportation, and I'm not even bothering with the historical evidence in this example.

  15. #340
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    763
    Points
    7,464
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,464, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by berun View Post
    Which Steppe is in Armenia_Chalco? As far as I see the difference with old CHG is +Levant_N
    Yes, specifically there appears to also be contributions from North Eurasian specific Alleles. Although the populations being used are very young in some of the comparisons I've seen.

  16. #341
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,084
    Points
    8,680
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,680, Level: 27
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 70
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    I'm not discussing that chariots and horses were developed by IE... even if carts were already used in Neolithic contexts; I was wondering why more natural lexicon is dismissed when precissely such lexicon is more informative about the IE geography. Chariots, horses and so can be shared, check the Chineses or the Egyptians, they didn't change language.

    Were it is supposed to be the Yamnayan DNA in Armenia_Chalco?

  17. #342
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    763
    Points
    7,464
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,464, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by berun View Post
    I'm not discussing that chariots and horses were developed by IE... even if carts were already used in Neolithic contexts; I was wondering why more natural lexicon is dismissed when precissely such lexicon is more informative about the IE geography. Chariots, horses and so can be shared, check the Chineses or the Egyptians, they didn't change language.

    Were it is supposed to be the Yamnayan DNA in Armenia_Chalco?
    Chariots and horses are used because they provide archaeological and historical evidence as well as linguistic. I'm not using horses and chariots as a linguistic argument. And you can maybe use the lexicon to rule out regions that are completely incompatible, but that's about it. Some reconstructions are disputed. Among the stuff that everyone agrees on we can deduce that their environment included forest, grasslands, lake, rivers, and mountains. It was also seasonally cold. That is about it. I'm limiting this to nature. There's a whole host of technological terms that tell us something about the environment as well, but again, it doesn't provide any precision.

    It's in the autosomal DNA. The haplogroups are L2, I think.

  18. #343
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,084
    Points
    8,680
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,680, Level: 27
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 70
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    I asked where in the paper is that that you say about Yamnayan DNA in Armenian Chalco, I'm not finding it...

  19. #344
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    763
    Points
    7,464
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,464, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by berun View Post
    I asked where in the paper is that that you say about Yamnayan DNA in Armenian Chalco, I'm not finding it...
    It's not really in the paper. In the admixture plots in the paper you just see a pull towards steppe in chlc Armenia compared to Ancient Iranian and CHG. Check it out. Other people noticed this and ran stats to figure out why. This is what I'm drawing on.

  20. #345
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    User with most referrers

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    25,862
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,862, Level: 49
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 688
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    If I'm not mistaken the last Lazaridis paper found out that Proto Indo-Europeans are a mixture of bronze age Iranians and European hunter

    gatherers, I think that proves that the homeland of the Proto Indo-European langauge should be in Iran as this will accounts for the

    mutual Indo-European, Semitic, Kartvelian and North-East Caucasian lexical borrowings, whereas if the homeland of PIE was to be the

    Ukraine we should have had mutual lexical borrowings between PIE and Basque (wich is related to the pre Indo-European languages spoken

    during neolithic Europe)
    As a matter of fact, there are similar words for numerals, tools and plants between PIE, Proto Kartvelian, Proto Semitic and Proto East-

    Caucasian.
    All this fits very well with the West Asian origin (probably even Iranian) of R1b-M269 that was found in the earliest Indo-European

    cultural sites (Yamnaya...)

    The most solidly argued theories about the cradle of the Indo-European (IE) proto-language are 1) the Pontic and 2) the Anatolian. The

    first proposed the steppes north of the Black Sea, in what are today south-Ukraine and south-Russia; the second: some region in central or

    eastern Anatolia. Both theories allow for contacts with the Caucasus and the indigenous Caucasian languages: north for the first, south

    for the second.

    As we will see, the Pontic theory is enfeebled by the total absence of any contact between IE and the North-West Caucasian languages

    (NWC): Cherkess-Kabard-Abkhaz, which should have been their most immediate neighbours. NWC languages like Cherkess, that in historical

    times have occupied the Black Sea coast between Crimea and the Caucasus range, diverge from IE in all respects: typologically, lexically,

    phonologically.

    The Anatolian theory, on the other hand, explains the profound affinities (typologically, lexically, phonologically) with proto-Semitic,

    proto-Kartvelian (South-Caucasian: SC) and proto-Nakh-Daghestani (the North-East Caucasian languages: NEC).

    ...

    The numerals

    Kartvelian and IE languages borrowed in prehistorical times a series of numerals from proto-Semitic, especially the numerals 6 and 7. We

    thus have shesh and sheva in Hebrew, sitta and sab’a in Arabic, shetta and shub’a in Aramaic, etc.

    In the Indo-European family, there is a close parallel: sex and septem in Latin, sechs and sieben in German, sześć and siedem in Polish,

    sheshí and septyni in Lithuanian.

    And in Kartvelian, 6 is ekvsi in Georgian, usgwa in Svan; 7 is švidi in Georgian, išgwid in Svan.

    What is interesting and revealing is that there happened a chassé-croisé of designations of numerals. Thus, in Georgian the Semitic 4

    (arb’a in Hebrew) became 8 (rva), while the Georgian 4 (oti) is identical with the IE 8: octo, ahtau, etc…

    Moreover, 8 in Indo-European was a dual, something which is visible in Sanskrit, Avestan and Gothic: ahtau. A dual means that 8 designated

    “twice 4”, which sends us immediately to the Georgian oti = 4. Oti, if we reconstruct it as *okt– (-i is simply the termination of the

    nominative in Georgian), explains why the IE octo, ahtau is a dual. The same mechanism would explain why the Semitic 4 (arb’a in Hebrew)

    became 8 (rva) in Kartvelian (Georgian).


    ...

    It is thus perfectly coherent that the Georgian oti = 4, while the IE 8 octo (ahtau etc.) is a dual, that is: 4 x 2 . In the same way, the

    Semitic 4 (arb’a in Hebrew) became the Georgian 8 = rva. This also vindicates Gamkrelidze’s theory that the formal identity, in IE

    languages, of the numeral 9 with the adjective “new” is not due to mere coincidence: novum-novem, neu-neun, new-nine etc. 9 was simply

    opening a new series.

    All this indicates that Indo-European must have been formed in the vicinity of Semitic and Kartvelian and possibly other Caucasian

    languages. This excludes the possibility of a cradle north of the Black Sea, and totally excludes the Danube area, the Balkans, or any

    part of Eastern Europe. Those regions are too far from the Caucasus and from the Semitic languages, and we have seen that in the Neolithic

    in today’s Europe the languages might have had a typology similar with today’s Basque, or with the Finnic languages, which have an

    agglutinative typology.

    It is only the Anatolian hypothesis that explains the borrowings and the many lexical common terms between IE, Kartvelian and Semitic. The

    borrowings from Semitic into IE and Kartvelian are too numerous to be listed here. Between IE and Kartvelian we have surprising

    correspondences, such as the verbal root *sed– to sit, to stay, to remain (identical in IE and Kartvelian), ordinal numerals such as the

    Georgian pirveli (first), which cannot come from a Slavic language, with which Georgian had no contact by the time of the first written

    texts in the Vth century.

    Numerous are also the lexical archaic correspondences between IE and the North-East Caucasian languages (Chechen, Avar etc.), while Indo-

    European borrowings into Basque or Finnic are all recent and can be easily traced historically.

    All this shows that proto-Indo-European was formed in Eastern Anatolia, in the vicinity of the Semites and Caucasians.
    https://cabalinkabul.wordpress.com/2...ndo-europeans/

    I don't believe in the Anatolian theory anymore, if the northern Black Sea is not the source for the reason of Basque being different, then Anatolia (that is the homeland of the Basque language) is not either. However I am very pro Iranian_Plateau homeland because this, is the only group there which we don't know about what language they spoke, and who could have had contact to most of the above listed groups + even Uralic if we believe that just like Haplogroup N, Uralic came from South_Central Asia.

    The other theory is of course the Black/Caspian Sea theory in which Iranian Plateau is just a region that build half of the ancestry of Indo Europeans but evolved in the Steppes to what it was. Edit Post Reply Reply With Quote

  21. #346
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    User with most referrers

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    25,862
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,862, Level: 49
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 688
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    Yes I see this, but we have a lot of EBA and MBA samples that shift towards steppe from EBA->MBA. Just means there was even more steppe earlier that we would have expected, and the Late Bronze Age shown in the plot below is the furthest shifted towards the steppe of all ancient Armenian samples. I don't think this is shown in the chart from the paper we're discussing. I did find one such chart but it's hard to read.
    As we already agreed on, the EHG we see in Calcolthic, EBA and MBA Armenia equals that found in CHG. The map doesn't seem to show any CHG samples. This seems rather to be some sort of CHG admixture than real Steppe. Even David admitted that the "EHG" in Calcolthic and EBA Armenia is not Steppe derived but more archaic. It could be that "Steppe" influence increase from EBA to MBA but that isn't important for the question how the EBA Armenia samples turned out with R1b. Because exactly this sample has a decrease of the EHG component in comparison to Calcolthic Armenia. While Calcolthic Armenia looks like a threeway mix of Iran_Calcolthic, Anatolian_Calcolthic and CHG in which CHG is obviously the strongest part. the same does EBA Armenia, with the difference of having more of the Iran_Calcolthic.

    The light pigment is no surprise to me in Chalc Armenia. This also comes with SIBERIAN alleles. Explain that one.
    I fail to see how Siberian alleles explain Steppic ancestry, if there is no Siberian alleles found in Yamna at all. This is a special case and chalcolthic Armenia could have gained it via the Iranian_Plateau route.

    Chalcolithic Armenia is actually starting to look to me like the earliest region of strong steppe influence in West Asia.
    That is indeed the case and logical is it the most active part of the ancient world, of course folks from the less advanced Steppes come down to West Asia for a better living much like immigrants do so today in Europe, and than it was just next door to the Steppes too. However this strong Steppe influence didn't start until the late Bronze Age. As the genetic data proves.

    The earliest and largest influx of WHG/EHG into West Asia is very important for the PIE problem.
    The problem is that you fail to see, or didn't realize that there is no WHG or EHG influx into West Asia at all and the levels of WHG there are consistent from beggining the Neolithic to Bronze Age, in fact we see a decrease of the WHG like ancestry. EHG also existed in Mesolithic Iran. I don't know if you missed it, the authors come to the conclusion that Iran_Meso is basically Iran_Neo+ EHG. And this EHG came obviously from South_Central Asia.

    If you don’t see this, then you don’t understand the problem. Look at Modern Iran, it’s the same as ancient Armenia, and we know exactly how modern Iran came to be populated.



    You don't see allot of things, but I fail to see how ancient Armenia is like modern Iran. ancient Armenia is indeed most similar to North Caucasian and Iranic speakers but the reason for that is not Steppic input, the reason is that Armenia was repopulated in Iron Age by a more EEF and almost non EHG shifted and ironically Indo European population from Phrygia.

    Yeah. It's R2. Stop saying "dubious" it's annoying.
    Allot of things you say are annoying to me and not correct at all. Dubious might be annoying to you but certanly it isn't out of truth.


    I'm sorry but you're retarded.
    Thanks for the compliment I add some uninformed idiot to it and give it back.

    Why would you say such a thing when you don't know what you're talking about.
    you obviously are annoyed because of lack of arguments.


    Assuming we're going to completely forget about the fact that the Avestas themselves are localized geographically in Central Asia/North Eastern Iran. Compare Avestan to Sanskrit. Then compare both of these to West and East Iranian languages. What I say is absolutely correct. It's not a bad thing. Avestan is much, much closer to Indic than it is to the earliest attested West and East Iranian languages. This tells us that Indo-Iranian was likely none other than an ancient Indo-Aryan/Indic. A very base archaic Indic in the Mitanni is the earliest attested Indo-Iranian language. Why would this piss you off? The confidence of your repudiation would actually imply the reverse of what you insist about me, being that you are the one who is truly in a fantasy. And I really don’t know why you ignore all of this evidence. IE is a language and culture, not a haplogroup. If you ignore the language and the culture then you've lost sight of what you're looking for in the first place.

    We have very early written history in Asia. This is something we don’t have in Europe, so actually IE’s intrusive nature to Asia is in many ways even more certain than that in Europe. I know you don’t like to listen to those things, but they’re there none the less. Do you really think that Iranian pre-dated Elam? Do you realize how absurd and retarded this would sound to a historian or archaeologist? Iranian isn’t even attested until like the 8th century BC in Assyrian records. A semitic language mind you. Not Sumerian. Assyrians were expanding into the Zagros and encountered them. Do you really think that Iranian speakers had anything to do with Sumer? That they were involved in the Uruk expansions? Or even less that they were the expanding Sumerians? These notions are truly ridiculous.

    The entire region is plastered with non-IE since pre-history. Urartian, Semetic, Elamite, Hattic, Hurrian, Sumerian blah blah blah. The Indoeuropeans’ intrusive nature to the region is crystal clear in every decipherable document that we have from the period. They attest to Hittite replacing Hattic (and Assyrian), Armenian absorbs the populations and languages of IE Luwains and Urartians, Iranian expands over the earlier territory of Elam, and now there’s no doubt that Indic replaced a vast expanse of what was likely Dravidian speaking people. The problem is that your evidence tends to be very singular, inadequate to explain all the historical outcomes, and sometimes wrong all together. If anyone has their head in the sand it’s surely you. How can you not see that Iranian is clearly what became of steppe Indo-Iranian that did not move into India? This mythical R1b that you’re looking for will not be enough to change all of these conclusions nor the evidence that leads us to them. And guess what? THE GENETICS ARE STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS MODEL AS WELL. This isn’t a white supremacists agenda. Most of the Asian origin theories have been abandoned or defeated so many times that they’re not seriously considered anymore. Do you think this is all nationalism? Because if you really do then you’re surely the only nationalist in the room.
    I repeat again, after calling Iranic tongues a bastardized variant of Indo_Aryan, don't expect me to take you serious in anyway. For that comment you would be considered the laughing stock of linguistics. You don't even realize how idiotic this statement even was. Both Iranic and Indo_Aryan have gone through their own share of loudshift from obviously one common root. However calling one being the descend of the other, that only shows the degree of your knowledge.


    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    I think it's obvious that AG2 and AG3 are mixtures of Villabruna and MA-1. Maybe I'm missing something.
    You are missing allot I assure you that

    Quote Originally Posted by berun View Post
    I asked where in the paper is that that you say about Yamnayan DNA in Armenian Chalco, I'm not finding it...
    There is nothing of that kind in the paper, all he sees is Armenia Calolthic being more shifted towards EHG (actually towards CHG since it is in the same direction) in comparison to Iran_Neo wich makes geographically sense and he interprets wildly things into it.
    Last edited by Alan; 01-07-16 at 14:21.

  22. #347
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    User with most referrers

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    25,862
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,862, Level: 49
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 688
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    And I'm sorry everyone, but this had everything to do with horses. In all of the earliest attested IE languages we have mythical horse driven chariot riders. Not only that, but we have the earliest evidence for chariots in Iranian Sintashta,
    You see and this is the biggest problem with you, you fail to read other peoples comments throughout the thread, therefore miss at least ~50% of the information and come out making bald idiothic statements.

    If you even bothered reading the freakin study for once you would have realized that the authors do not see Sintashta as source of the Iranic languages at all but more like a reflection of an early Indo_Iranian culture that got extinct. They point with the finger to Srubna and related cultures.

    Chariots are basically war wagons driven by horse, nothing more and nothing less. Wagons are known throughout Neolithic as well ancient Bronze Age cultures of Western Asia. Kura Araxes had wagons, so did Maykop, inside of the Kurgans.
    hey are also remarkable for the production of wheeled vehicles (wagons and carts), which were sometimes included in burial kurgans.[
    And about the Horse statement, most of these statements of Sintashta being the first were made in the far past before other cultures were even studied well and the authors of these books made several errors and put even for their time allot of bold lies into it. I made at least several comments about this but since you seem to be too cool to take them into consideration you will always make halfbaked, half informed bold statements.


    But in the hope that you see it this time.

    Before the Kura-Araxes period, horse bones were not found in Transcaucasia. Later, beginning about 3300 BCE, they became widespread, with signs of domestication.
    Sintashta culture
    Period Bronze Age
    Dates 2100–1800 BCE

    And to take any doubts away, that you might have missed it again.

    3300 BCE > 2100 BCE
    Last edited by Alan; 01-07-16 at 19:45.

  23. #348
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,765
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,765, Level: 63
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 63.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    Yes I see this, but we have a lot of EBA and MBA samples that shift towards steppe from EBA->MBA. Just means there was even more steppe earlier that we would have expected, and the Late Bronze Age shown in the plot below is the furthest shifted towards the steppe of all ancient Armenian samples. I don't think this is shown in the chart from the paper we're discussing. I did find one such chart but it's hard to read.


    The light pigment is no surprise to me in Chalc Armenia. This also comes with SIBERIAN alleles. Explain that one.

    Chalcolithic Armenia is actually starting to look to me like the earliest region of strong steppe influence in West Asia. The earliest and largest influx of WHG/EHG into West Asia is very important for the PIE problem. If you don’t see this, then you don’t understand the problem. Look at Modern Iran, it’s the same as ancient Armenia, and we know exactly how modern Iran came to be populated.
    I would guess .. during early Maikop period a movement across the Caucasus south to north .. during late Yamna, early Sintashta a movement across the Caucasus north to south

  24. #349
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    User with most referrers

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    25,862
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,862, Level: 49
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 688
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    I would guess .. during early Maikop period a movement across the Caucasus south to north .. during late Yamna, early Sintashta a movement across the Caucasus north to south
    ^ this

    As said in the past my theory is a network of cultures, there was much more interaction between the Steppes, East Anatolia, Caucasus, Iranian Plateau, South_Central Asia as many people realize. But in archeologic point of view from Neolithic/Calcolthic to Middle Bronze Age the influx from South to North is evident, while towards 2000-1500 BC, not so much from archeologic but historic point of view, more influx from North to South gets evident (Indo_Iranian speakers).

  25. #350
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,402
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,402, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Guys, it's a very interesting discussion, and I, for one, like a lively debate, but please stop with the name calling and insults. There's no need for that, and often it just escalates until complaints are lodged. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about...

    Thanks.

Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •