The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers

[berun]

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?

 

[holderlin]

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.

 

[berun]

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

 

[holderlin]

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.

 

[Alan]

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/...he-caucasus-the-cradle-of-the-indo-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

 

[Alan]

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 8^th 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.

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

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.

 

[Alan]

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

 

[bicicleur 2]

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

 

[Alan]

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).

 

[Angela]

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.

 

[MOESAN]

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.

These three men were in the same place, so the survey did not extrapolate too much concerning the whole Armenian ChL. But it seems this makes a link with the Indus Valley, at first sight. The 'steppic' supposed auDNA could have been picked in Central Asia? Or Armenia was at these times a crossing point of a lot of culture, linked to material "industrial" progresses? It seems at this time there begun to be a lot of cultural exchanges and autosomes exchanges too, on every direction concerning elite burials! I keep in mined the few Maykop men studied by metrics were drifted towards old pops of today Turkmenistan southern Caspian area. Archeology seems in accord for exchanges between BMAC and Harappa too.

 

[MOESAN]

Some archeologists would link Catacombs to early I-Ians, and their mtDNA seems very "russian" or "steppic" at least: an eastern Caspian trail? Their metrics seemed mixed enough. But I'm not sure of the link with previous Maykop. All the way it seems to me South Caspian shores and promontories saw a lot of traffic between Uruk and Kura-Araxes and maybe later! Xhat is not to simplify our "work"...

 

[berun]

OK I understand now the pursue for Armenian_Chalco being a Yamnayan: they must be steppic otherwise what the R1b guy of Kura-Araxes would imply...? that maybe R1b in the steppes came with the CHG/Iran_Calcho?... so the exclusivity of IE R1b would be lost? opening even new doors to wild theories anti-Yamnaya?

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

OK I understand now the pursue for Armenian_Chalco being a Yamnayan: they must be steppic otherwise what the R1b guy of Kura-Araxes would imply...? that maybe R1b in the steppes came with the CHG/Iran_Calcho?... so the exclusivity of IE R1b would be lost? opening even new doors to wild theories anti-Yamnaya?

Did they notice that he was.. black?

 

[holderlin]

These three men were in the same place, so the survey did not extrapolate too much concerning the whole Armenian ChL. But it seems this makes a link with the Indus Valley, at first sight. The 'steppic' supposed auDNA could have been picked in Central Asia? Or Armenia was at these times a crossing point of a lot of culture, linked to material "industrial" progresses? It seems at this time there begun to be a lot of cultural exchanges and autosomes exchanges too, on every direction concerning elite burials! I keep in mined the few Maykop men studied by metrics were drifted towards old pops of today Turkmenistan southern Caspian area. Archeology seems in accord for exchanges between BMAC and Harappa too.

I agree about Harappa and Iran. In fact I'm betting they're both inhabited by genetically very similar people. I think I said R2 for IRV Y-HGs.

Yes, ancient Armenia could be explained in other ways than steppe, but I think steppe is the most likely given everything else we know.

 

[holderlin]

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.

In the admixture chart in Fig. 1, there is no EHG in ancient Iran, but there's EHG in CHG, which makes sense because it's closest to the EHG homeland. In Fig. 4, which looks like different admixture software, we do see EHG in chl and Neo Iran. We also see EHG in more recent Iranian samples, but MLBA Armenia has the most EHG between CHG, all of Ancient Iran, Chl Armenia, and EBA Armenia. The EHG in Armenia could not have come from CHG alone even if it was a complete replacement, which didn't happen because we also see neo Levant in ancient Armenia. It's only your opinion that this had nothing to do with R1b, and in fact, with what we currently know it is most likely that this had everything to do with the appearance of R1b in Armenia. Anatolian chl actually moves from Neo Anatolian towards Armenia and Iran. This looks to me more like Armenia moving into Anatolia in between neo and chl.

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.

I'm not sure that we don't see this signal in Yamnaya, but we likely see it in ancient steppe populations in general. Yes there are other ways to explain this, but they are far less likely given everything we know.

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 genetic data shows the highest steppe earliest in Armenia. For you to say that this could only have been during the late bronze age is your opinion, and not supported by a vast swath of additional data. The rest of this post is nonsense.

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.

There appears to be some conflicting or vague data with regard to EHG in chl and neo Iran. And I believe in data that shows EHG in neo and chl Iran they are making more assumptions in an effort to conform a more complex model.

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.

No, I mean literally on the admixture chart. Recent Iranians are the same as ancient Armenians. This has nothing to do with Modern Armenia. You're not even making sense now.

you obviously are annoyed because of lack of arguments.

I think the situation is actually the opposite.

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.

This was a thought experiment. I was thinking out loud and I already said that I regretted my word choice. The point was that Indo-Iranian must have been closer to Indic that anything else, and I’m not the only one who says this. This also helps to explain the apparent lack of euro genes from Sintashta and Andronovo in ANI. I’m sorry I hurt your feelings. Please compare Old Persian to Sanskrit, then look at the Mitanni Indic words.

You get so weird about this stuff. If someone were to tell me that Baltic was less bastardized than English compared to PIE I would be interested, not offended.

You are missing allot I assure you that

How am I the one missing things when I practically explained all of the evidence that you’re ignoring vs. the small minuscule amount of evidence that you take into consideration?

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.

The first part is right, the second is not.

 

[holderlin]

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.

Sintashta certainly spoke at the very least an Indo-Iranian language. They are genetically very similar (nearly identical) to Scythians and there is archaeological continuity all the way to what we know were Scythian remains. The main genetic variations we're dealing with in this context are levels of euro farmer signals, which can easily be explained by invoking earlier steppe cultures like Abashevo.

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.

I don't agree that the spoked wheeled chariot is the same thing as a wagon. Yes, wagons were everywhere by this time, but the spoked wheeled horse drawn chariot is something unique. The ritual and mythology of Iron Age IE speaking peoples attests to this as does the middle bronze age historical record. Not to mention the chariot burials in Sintashta itself.

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.




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

3300 BCE > 2100 BCE

I really try to use only the evidence that isn't hotly disputed as you can see in my posts about the reconstructed language.

Sintashta is the first evidence of spoked wheeld horse drawn chariots. This is a fact. For the origin of horse domestication we go to the Pontic steppe. Until we get new evidence, this isn't disputed in circles of experts.

 

[holderlin]

@Alan

I’m looking at the PCA and admixture chart in Figure 1. In the PCA chart I’m looking at ancient Iran, then I’m looking at ancient Armenia. Ancient Armenia looked to me like Ancient Iranian peoples who had mixed with Euro-steppe. I understand that this may not be the case, but remember I’m trying to reconcile this with all of the other evidence that I know exists, in the real world. We also see Chalcolithic Anatolia move towards Armenia/Iran, which appears to be resulting from movements from Armenia. So I’m seeing proto-Anatolian moving to its seat in Anatolian whence it pops up in the historic record in around 2000BC on the nose. Then I see that there are favorable D stat comparisons to younger steppe populations with the accompanying euro along with Siberian teeth and hair characteristics alleles or allele frequencies.

We then see an R1b. Where do we find a ton of very ancient R1b? The steppe and Europe.

So I’m saying that the most likely explanation is steppe with a proto-Anatolian language, and I think even you would have to agree, but you don’t, which I think is strange. Anatolian also appears to have evolved alongside a Caucasian language. It just so happens that in the Armenian region, and where IE’s may have passed through in the Caucuses, sits the earliest attested Caucasian languages.

This makes perfect sense to me, and I'm sure to others. I then ask myself how would this change the Yamnaya=PIE model? The most parsimonious is to move PIE back and create a differentiation scheme that’s also consistent.

At the very least you should understand and accept my reasoning because these are all facts that I’m merely conforming a model to. And I believe this model makes the most sense.

 

[MarkoZ]

We then see an R1b. Where do we find a ton of very ancient R1b? The steppe and Europe.

However, one still has to account for R-M343* in Kurdish and Iranian groups which cannot have come from the Eneolithic Ponto-Caspian. This has a significant implications concerning the vector of R1b's dispersal, linguistic matters aside.

 

[holderlin]

However, one still has to account for R-M343* in Kurdish and Iranian groups which cannot have come from the Eneolithic Ponto-Caspian. This has a significant implications concerning the vector of R1b's dispersal, linguistic matters aside.

Yes, I know. It's an old subclade. Although we still have the fact that the oldest R1b samples are being found on the steppe and in Europe and we also have an R* in ancient Siberia. So the current data is still hinting at the steppe or europe, bronze age expansions aside.