The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers

It doesn'tmean sea. It's seems to actually mean like "marsh" or "swampland", or "Lake" rather than large body of open water, and it's only in European IE, not Indo-Iranian.

I'm not at all sure this is the case. The North, Black or Mediterranean seas, for example, don't strike me as marshes or swamps. I'll grant that it seems localized to non-Indo-Aryan languages, though, so maybe the substrate theory has legs.

I hardly consider the reconstruction outlandish, though.
 
So no proof at all, only an argumentum ad ignorantiam, so weak is the yamnayist theory?

Science is not working like that except for the steppe theory.

Wtf are you talking about? This is a steppe theory. Proof? I have proof of the evidence I'm drawing on, which you will find if you read.

Yamnaya isn't weak is just doesn't explain everything. It's quite strong actually given models that use Yamnaya admixture.

argumentum ad ignorantiam

These are fighting words.

If we had proof there would be no reason discuss this, or make all of these predictions that people on here seem to be so proud of. We still haven't found European R1b subclades (M269) prior to Bell Beaker associated burials. If you're a proponent of the steppe model then there should be something in between Samara and Europe. Corded ware is basically all R1a with one R1b so far and I think it's an older subclade. The M269 subclades we're looking for are likely on the Western Steppe from layers that have not been sampled. Explain to me how this is a theory based on ignorance. Sredny Stog is a candidate, and in support of this model.
 
I'm not at all sure this is the case. The North, Black or Mediterranean seas, for example, don't strike me as marshes or swamps. I'll grant that it seems localized to non-Indo-Aryan languages, though, so maybe the substrate theory has legs.

I hardly consider the reconstruction outlandish, though.

It's one of the weirder facts about PIE, but think about what it was like being a steppe peoples. You live in a grass sea with rivers and lakes.
 
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.
 
By the way all of the reconstructed flora, fauna, and agricultural products in PIE are consistent with a more Northern latitude.
 
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
 
@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.
 
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/science/camels-had-no-business-in-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:
RK has posted some nMonte results on anthrogenica. They're interesting although of course not dispositive.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7614-nMonte-tour-of-the-Middle-East-across-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.
 
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/science/camels-had-no-business-in-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.
 
@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.
 
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.
 
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/science/camels-had-no-business-in-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
 
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.

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.
 
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/v112/n2/full/hdy201390a.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 D[SUB]recent[/SUB] and D[SUB]residual[/SUB]. 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:
kids%20at%20the%20Bedouin%20Umm%20Batin%20elementary%20school%20-%20where%20a%20demo%20setup%20created%20by%20HomeBioGas%20is%20part%20of%20the%20educational%20sustainability%20courseware.JPG.824x0_q85.jpg


hadaj1.jpg


bedouin_demo.activestills.org_.6.jpg


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'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/v112/n2/full/hdy201390a.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 D[SUB]recent[/SUB] and D[SUB]residual[/SUB]. 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 217677 times.

Back
Top