Central and South Asian DNA Paper

Angela said:
@Saetrus


Yes, I notice that both J2 and the upstream clades of R1b moved from east to west. That's the easy part. The question is with whom did various subclades move? Which ones spoke "IE" languages and which didn't?
Click to expand...

It moved from east to west? Yes, but more importantly both have the exact same pattern of distribution, meaning they were carried by the same people, Indoeuropeans. All Centum languages are related to that expansion.
5OtNutc.png

We have a founder effect in northern Italy/southern France with R1b-L51 that would later become Bell Beaker, and spread R1b and Centum languages to central/northern Europe. Remedello II and Fontbouisse Culture will have the R1b ancestral to Bell Beaker.
 
Saetrus said:
It moved from east to west? Yes, but more importantly both have the exact same pattern of distribution, meaning they were carried by the same people, Indoeuropeans. All Centum languages are related to that expansion.
5OtNutc.png

We have a founder effect in northern Italy/southern France with R1b-L51 that would later become Bell Beaker, and spread R1b and Centum languages to central/northern Europe. Remedello II and Fontbouisse Culture will have the R1b ancestral to Bell Beaker.
Click to expand...

This map keeps showing up... Does anyone know the source data for it?
 
Wow R1b-L151 from 2500 BC in Afghanistan and R1b-M269 from 5500 BC in Kurdistan. Good Luck trying to explain the new pattern for a population movement. How do we know if those R1b are native saying for a long time of period in those region ? Nice paper btw, the E in Central Asia is pretty disconcerting.
 
suyindik said:
I think that most of the A, BT, CT, A0-T, DE data are incorrect and should belong to other haplogroups, i hope they can fix this too. And what do you guys think about the prediction of Leyla-Tepe, Maikop and Early Kura-Araxes(before 3500 BCE) cultures? Could they have the same kind of haplogroups(J, J2a1h2, L2, T, T1a, H3) like in the "Tepe Hissar" which is also the basis of the Ubaid/Uruk/Sumerians? All these cultures are archaeologically and anthropologically proven to be close. Maybe the results will indeed show a migration of Mesopotamia into the South-North Caucasus + Eastern Anatolia?
Click to expand...


When i spoke
and present connectivity of IE with Summerian vocabulary,
Nobody tried at least to search,
EVERY-body was relaxed, and try to connex the Uralic languages with IE,

BUT THAT IS THE SECRET OF LINGUISTIC,

IF IE HAS SUMMERIAN VOCABULARY,
HOW COME GET IT FROM STEPPE?
How come Slavic have word Gor-anje since not pass from around Summerian lands?

Notice Urals Urartu Sumerian Kur etc etc.
and much much more,
 
Checking Y-DNA there are patterns like Yamna being Z2103 as its eastern expansion of Afanisievo, and from 2000 BC everything is R1a in Central Asia, Sintashta, Andronovo... The Indian subcontinent don't receive R1b/R1a till Alexander the Great... so... Indic languages spread from Central Asia profiting the Greek victories. Just kidding.

A lot of info would be lost if IE coming to India would be incinerated as suggested in another forum, so leaving evidence for local cultural resistencies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cemetery_H_culture

by the way when Indo-Iranians changed kurgans for cremation urns?
 
@Angela @Alpenjager

What I am proposing is an eastward movement of Levant Neolithic ancestry or related people (Mesopotamian neolithic?) into the Turan from the fertile crescent region (and later on possibly via Oman) rather than a movement directly from Anatolia of primarily Anatolian neolithic ancestry. We've already seen that there was a large and far reaching movement of Natufian ancestry into both North and East Africa. (Notably without any Anatolian Neolithic admixture. A Levant Neolithic related group is the primary candidate here though and of course would include Anatolian Neolithic.) The PPNB culture straddled the immediate south western periphery of Iran and it's more likely successor groups in this area penetrated into the Turan than a group centered around North-west Anatolia and the Aegean sea. The curious y-dna (CT, T1a, E1b1b) we find in the "Turan" also appears more closely associated with Natufians than it does with the ANF/EEF who probably acquired such haplogroups from Natufians.

As noted before the paper explicitly mentions that they aren't sure which group mediated the ancestry, just that it was a "western near eastern neolithic population." They also comment on the unfortunate absence of Mesopotamian dna, a possible source of this ancestry. Anatolia Neolithic was chosen pragmatically because of the large and high quality samples:

(106) "Following this period, samples from the late Neolithic and Copper Age are shifted away from these Neolithic populations in two directions: towards agriculturalists from Neolithic Anatolia and towards HGs from West Siberia"

"An important caveat is that we do not consider here Levantine agriculturalists who were closely related to those of Anatolia with some uncertainty as the direction of gene flow between Anatolia and the Levant [Laz16]. Relatedly, the distribution of Anatolian/Levantine/Iranian-Neolithic related populations in the ancient Near East is only sparsely known [Cite Laz/Broushaki/Boncuklupaper], with an important lacuna in Mesopotamia. Our results do not imply that the shift related to populations sampled in northwestern Anatolia [Mathieson] implies admixture from that area, but we use this set because of its large sample size and high quality as representatives of Neolithic populations of the western Near East. "

Or does an Anatolian Neolithic origin via Anatolia make more sense in your opinion?
 
Last edited:
IronSide said:
I actually think proto Semitic speakers lived in Iran and Caucasus, while also holding that Levant Neolithic is the ancestral Afro-Asiatic component, some reasons for this:

-haplogroup J1 doesn't appear until the Bronze Age, accompanying the Iran/Caucasus admixture, J1-P58 has a clear association to Semitic speakers.

-a linguistic argument in favor of this is: Proto Semitic; dating and locating it

-if Semitic speakers originated in the East, is that the origin of Afro-Asiatic ? no, Levant Neolithic ancestry did migrate to Iran and Caucasus, merging with them to become like the Iran Chalcolithic population, I'm not claiming all Iran Chal groups spoke Semitic but certainly a subset of them did, this hypothetical group then back-migrated to the Levant bringing with it CHG ancestry and haplogroup J1.
Click to expand...

Actually
Both Semitic and IE are Caucasian languages.
only difference Semitic passed the Zagros mountains,
probably from Chaldea
IE split at Zagros mountains
 
Promenade said:
@Angela @Alpenjager
What I am proposing is a westward movement of Levant Neolithic ancestry or related people (Mesopotamian neolithic?) into the Turan from the fertile crescent region (and later on possibly via Oman) rather than a movement directly from Anatolia of primarily Anatolian neolithic ancestry. We've already seen that there was a large and far reaching movement of Natufian ancestry into both North and East Africa. (Notably without any Anatolian Neolithic admixture. A Levant Neolithic related group is the primary candidate here though and of course would include Anatolian Neolithic.) The PPNB culture straddled the immediate south western periphery of Iran and it's more likely successor groups in this area penetrated into the Turan than a group centered around North-west Anatolia and the Aegean sea. The curious y-dna (CT, T1a, E1b1b) we find in the "Turan" also appears more closely associated with Natufians than it does with the ANF/EEF who probably acquired such haplogroups from Natufians.
As noted before the paper explicitly mentions that they aren't sure which group mediated the ancestry, just that it was a "western near eastern neolithic population." They also comment on the unfortunate absence of Mesopotamian dna, a possible source of this ancestry. Anatolia Neolithic was chosen pragmatically because of the large and high quality samples:
(106) "Following this period, samples from the late Neolithic and Copper Age are shifted away from these Neolithic populations in two directions: towards agriculturalists from Neolithic Anatolia and towards HGs from West Siberia"
"An important caveat is that we do not consider here Levantine agriculturalists who were closely related to those of Anatolia with some uncertainty as the direction of gene flow between Anatolia and the Levant [Laz16]. Relatedly, the distribution of Anatolian/Levantine/Iranian-Neolithic related populations in the ancient Near East is only sparsely known [Cite Laz/Broushaki/Boncuklupaper], with an important lacuna in Mesopotamia. Our results do not imply that the shift related to populations sampled in northwestern Anatolia [Mathieson] implies admixture from that area, but we use this set because of its large sample size and high quality as representatives of Neolithic populations of the western Near East. "
Or does an Anatolian Neolithic origin via Anatolia make more sense in your opinion?
Click to expand...
According to Viktor Sarianidi the archeologist at gonur-tepe ........the site was first inhabited ~7000BC from Pamir people.........next came Bactrian area people and lastly in the bronze age from migration from eastern anatolia ( lake van, kurdish area ) ...........the area was part of the silk road joining with western siberia
https://www.uam.es/otros/cupauam/pdf/Cupauam39/3902.pdf
Unsure how old Tepe-hissar is but it seems younger than Gonur-tepe since Gonur began ~7000BC by people from the Pamir

Migration of people was not always east to west , but also west to east
 
Yetos said:
Actually
Both Semitic and IE are Caucasian languages.
only difference Semitic passed the Zagros mountains,
probably from Chaldea
IE split at Zagros mountains
Click to expand...

Semetic never crossed the zargos mountains unless via invasion ..........we also see this today Persians, turks and kurds are not semetic people
 
Sile said:
Semetic never crossed the zargos mountains unless via invasion ..........we also see this today Persians, turks and kurds are not semetic people
Click to expand...

yes it did,

how come then moved from Caucasus to South of Zagros.
 
Yetos said:
yes it did,

how come then moved from Caucasus to South of Zagros.
Click to expand...

sources please ..........you will find that the people I noted are not referred to as semetic, neither are armenians or yazidis
 
Sile said:
sources please ..........you will find that the people I noted are not referred to as semetic, neither are armenians or yazidis
Click to expand...


No need,

from Caucasus to Arabian peninsula,
you must pass the Zagros,
except if you fly!!!!!
 
(Bicicleur) so, in your opinion, Mycenian Greek is also MLBA steppe in origin, and not Anatolian
the same for Armenian? >>>>
Yes, but heavily diluted MLBA steppe and the Proto-Greek language per se, not just a dialectal offshoot of Late PIE, in my opinion was born already in a heavily EEF-shifted population, very unlike their "ancestral" IE speakers, due to the extensive mixing of a (south)western Steppe population that, in fact, may already have been genetically and culturally influenced by EEF Old European cultures since centuries earlier. In sum, I think Mycenaean Greek, with its quite profound changes even in vocabulary, was the language of a mixed people, brought by a minority of MLBA steppe conquerors to a majority of local EEF Balkanic people (the exact same process seem to have happened in Late Bronze Age Armenia), maybe descending from a branch of Ezero or Cernavoda cultures. They wouldn't have come from the steppes directly, but rather to the North(east) Balkans and only centuries later, already belonging to a different language and culture, migrated southwards to Greece to form Mycenaean Greek and Mycenaean culture. That explains the small but still existing affinity with the MLBA steppe in the Mycenaean samples. But an origin like that of the Anatolian branch? Most unlikely. Their language was MUCH more akin to Indo-Iranian than to Hittite or Luwian.
 
Alan said:
See this is the problem I have. It is actually not clearly Indo_Aryan substrata. The "clearly" Indo Aryan substrata you are speaking about are basically the names of few deities that some of them are actually not clearly Indo_Aryan to begin with and some other that simply disappeared among Iranic tribes and are today only known among the Indo_Aryans. We know from Avesta that far more Indo_Iranic deities existed before Zoroastrians made it a monotheistic religion. These are basically things that disappeared in documented Iranic but still exist in Indo_Aryan.

And as I mentioned above the "Indo_Aryan" argument is not really clear. Far from it.

Let me give you just one example of an argument used by the "Indo_Aryan" camp. The Deities Mitra and Varuna. But both are actually quite commonly mentioned in Iranic documents and Mithra was among many even the highest Deity.

There are actually two theories and only one scientist for each. Kammenhuber argues for still undivided Indo_Iranian. And Mayrhofer for Indo_Aryan.

Mayrhofer's methodology quite frankly reminds me of David Anthony in the horse, the wheel and the language. Far too simplistic arguments based on small historic knowledge and very thin evidences.
I mean whoever uses Mithra as evidence for the argument of Indo_Aryan can't have allot of knowledge of history or linguistics imo.
Click to expand...

Those were not actually the arguments I had read for the Indo-Aryan identification of the Mitanni language, but actually phonetic developments that are specific to Indo-Aryan and not to Indo-Iranian (Mitanni like Indo-Aryan and unlike Iranic [h], Mitanni "aika" like Vedic "eka" < Indo-Aryan "aika", unlike Iranic "aiva"), as well as the fact that by 2,000 BC Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian (proper) would probably already have split into two different languages. However, I absolutely agree that the proposition that it wasn't Indo-Aryan nor Iranic, but still a later dialect of a still undivided Indo-Iranian, starting to develop its own characteristics, also makes sense. Geographically the appearance of Mitanni would also be even more explainable if they were just some of the earliest Iranic tribes migrating west.
 
We discussed this cultural flow into the steppe from Iran, Majkop and south of the Caucasus back in 2015.

This is with regard specifically to Kurgans:

" Originally Posted by Angela This is the paper which proposed that the kurgans were first developed by the Maykop culture via influence from the Uruk expansion. It's from 2012. I don't know if there's anything more recent. http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2...tskhelauri.pdf

Maciamo discussed it here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...hlight=kurgans



This is the abstract of the paper:
"At the end of the 5 and in the 4 millennia B.C. large masses of Uruk migrants had settled in the South, and later in the North Caucasus. Assimilation of cultures of the newcomers and residents, as a result, caused their "explosive" development paving the way to the formation of the Maikop culture in the North Caucasus and the Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus."

The Uruk culture is a Mesopotamian culture from the area of Sumer.
He bases his conclusions largely on the sudden appearance of metal and ceramics artifacts of high quality showing signs of Mesopotamian origin and then Maykop artifacts which derive from them.

The author posits that the impetus for the migration, which he claims was not an elite one but a mass movement of people, while it probably had to do with overpopulation and other factors, was also motivated by the demand of these Mesopotamian cultures for metals.

Interestingly, he proposes two routes for the migration, one of which is from eastern Anatolia toward the northwest future center of Maykop, and one from Iran toward the northeast Caucasus.

He then reviews the position held by some that although there was Uruk influence flowing north, there was then a reverse movement south bringing with it the "kurgan" type of burial.

However, he maintains that, " At present the situation has changed drastically. On the basis of a whole series of radiocarbon analyses, it has been proved [15, 82] that burial mounds of the ancient pit-grave culture are of a significantly later period in comparison with Maikop archaeological sites."

I don't know if this duel over dating has continued. I don't know if it matters, really. The custom grew out of the increasing social stratification which arose from the possession first of agricultural surplus, and then of metals, both of which took place in Mesopotamia (and in Neolithic southeast Europe). The mound burials arose in this context and under this influence from Maikop."

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31383-Indo-European-package?highlight=kurgans
 
suyindik said:
I think that most of the A, BT, CT, A0-T, DE data are incorrect and should belong to other haplogroups, i hope they can fix this too. And what do you guys think about the prediction of Leyla-Tepe, Maikop and Early Kura-Araxes(before 3500 BCE) cultures? Could they have the same kind of haplogroups(J, J2a1h2, L2, T, T1a, H3) like in the "Tepe Hissar" which is also the basis of the Ubaid/Uruk/Sumerians? All these cultures are archaeologically and anthropologically proven to be close. Maybe the results will indeed show a migration of Mesopotamia into the South-North Caucasus + Eastern Anatolia?
Click to expand...
Archaeologically and economically, the direction seems to have been exactly the opposite: irrigation agriculture and some other aspects of the farming economy and material culture in the unquestionably Sumerian Uruk period seem to have clear similarities with the former Samarra culture from Northern Mesopotamian. Besides, before ~5,500 BC there was virtually no intensive agriculture in Southern Mesopotamia (Sumer), so AFAIK to most archaeologists the direction of the Mesopotamian spread of farming and migrations (that eventually, when writing appears, we see that were related to Sumerians) seems to have been from north to south, from North Iraq to South Iraq. In my opinion, exactly the same process formed the Proto-Semitic peoples, with J1/J2 people from the north (Caucasus/Armenian Highlands/West Iran) merging with the natives of the Levant and, unlike the former [proto-]Sumerians, adopting the local language while also changing their genetic and cultural makeup.
 
Ygorcs said:
Archaeologically and economically, the direction seems to have been exactly the opposite: irrigation agriculture and some other aspects of the farming economy and material culture in the unquestionably Sumerian Uruk period seem to have clear similarities with the former Samarra culture from Northern Mesopotamian. Besides, before ~5,500 BC there was virtually no intensive agriculture in Southern Mesopotamia (Sumer), so AFAIK to most archaeologists the direction of the Mesopotamian spread of farming and migrations (that eventually, when writing appears, we see that were related to Sumerians) seems to have been from north to south, from North Iraq to South Iraq. In my opinion, exactly the same process formed the Proto-Semitic peoples, with J1/J2 people from the north (Caucasus/Armenian Highlands/West Iran) merging with the natives of the Levant and, unlike the former [proto-]Sumerians, adopting the local language while also changing their genetic and cultural makeup.
Click to expand...
North Iran not West Iran. The Levant term is outdated please rename it Greco Anatolia respectfully.

Also, the Alpine races came from the Near East to the Mediterranean coastline and even outer Germania this was due to Neolithic migration also. Just goes to show how hybrid people are. Also don't get confused with haplogroups J2 is Fertile Cresent Anatolia J1 is usually Semite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 287808 times.

Back
Top