Central and South Asian DNA Paper

Silesian said:
Another point. ANE{Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE): Upper-Paleolithic genomes from the Lake Baikal region of Siberia, identified as Malta--ydna R* variant, Afontogora 2, and Afontogora 3, dated to 17 to 24 kya, when Mammoths roamed the area, form the ANE cluster.} is higher in certain areas especially those with high concentration of R1b[The Tabasarans are an ethnic group who live mostly in Dagestan,}.

e66a9jgeknb6c5ox.png
Click to expand...

Surveying yfull it looks like one of the regions (other than Turkey) that consistently shows very basal types of R1b is the western coast of the Persian Gulf - Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and so forth. Naturally Iraq & Iran will be underrepresented in commercial tests, but I'm sure we would see the same pattern there.

The map that is often quoted from Hovhannisyan et al. (2014) which shows the highest variance in the Armenian plateau is quite misleading. While the high diversity in Armenia is real enough, the joining network actually shows that most branches there are rather terminal. This suggests to me complex migrations rather than deep presence in the region.

If I had to guess R1b based on what little evidence there is I'd say R1b or its ancestor came to West Eurasia by crossing the Persian Gulf. Diversification of R1 and subsequent expansion in one of the nearby Paleolithic industries of Pakistan (I'm thinking perhaps Karachi) would make much more sense than Siberia in any case.

Edit: The same seems to be true for early branches under R1a, only that their distribution seems to be even more southern. Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia. This is not consistent with the mammoth hunter hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Ygorcs said:
A study on what? Linguistics, genetics, archaeology? I'm afraid I won't be able to cite just one study for you, because I don't base my opinions on the subject on just one study - especially since it is a multidisciplinary effort to write the history of non-literate societies, and in most cases the experts on each field won't make overarching conclusions about other fields that aren't theirs. I don't form my impressions and opinions based on genetics alone, much less on linguistics alone, so there is no "one" study I consider accurate more than any other. Sorry to disappoint you.
Click to expand...

You mentioned glottochronology.

Concerning, European Atlantic Mediterranean Neolithic, I said I have flirted with the idea of them speaking an Early IE language. If you want to open a thread about it, do it. I said, I assume Hallstat is proto-Celtic which was the opinion of the majority of scholars, at least until recently.
 
Ygorcs said:
Where are you reading the word ARAB in the simple geographic term LEVANT? From your posts my impression is that you have some deep-seated racial/ethnic aversion to Arabs, but not even that makes sense because Levant is a term that refers to a certain territory irrespective of who lives there. Ancient Jews, Phoenicians, Philistines are all rightly designated "Levantine peoples" of the past because, well, that's what they were, too.
Click to expand...
You are lost I have never mentioned Levantine nor Arabs please I don't give a crap either way I am only interested in my own result.
No read a book Canaanite Philistines Assyrian Armenians are and always have been native to the Levant Arabs Jews the Semites came during the Iron Age when the Armenoid came about and that actually came from the Caucasus too not the Levant.
I don't have any other thing to say and stop saying I hate Arabs or Jews and I am a racist all I did was do a dna test and upload the,result it's a big deal isn't it? Bye.
 
A. Papadimitriou said:
You mentioned glottochronology.

Concerning, European Atlantic Mediterranean Neolithic, I said I have flirted with the idea of them speaking an Early IE language. If you want to open a thread about it, do it. I said, I assume Hallstat is proto-Celtic which was the opinion of the majority of scholars, at least until recently.
Click to expand...

I think he's nuts honestly, I can't deal with him you carry on I am leaving
 
Ygorcs said:
Levant is a geographic region, it implies no ethnicity, no culture, no language, no genetic makeup at all, just a certain territory. Of course it exists. What certainly is not warranted is to call that diverse area "Graeco-Anatolian" especially when you yourself say this: "Greek people might have controlled Anatolia but certain ethnic groups of Greeks and even then they plot distantly from the Near East and the Levant as a whole.", and, additionally, "that does not mean that people from the Levant are Greek or Greeks are from the Levant". So how on earth would "Graeco-Anatolia", a term that refers inevitably to culture and even genetics, be preferable to a neutral geographic term like Levant if you yourself say that "Greeks plot distantly from the Near East and the Levant as a whole"? Nonsense, your claims don't even lead logically to your conclusions. If the whole actual problem is, deep down, that you don't want to have some of your roots identified as "Levantine" because they can mistaken for "those Arabs" or something like that, rest assured that that's not what geneticists and historians mean when they talk about Levant or Levantine peoples.
Click to expand...

there is mess in terms,

mainly Greaco-Anatolia reach till Kappadokia,
Not Levant,

But |Greek Dna exist inSyrria,
at 1930's Haleppo had such
Lattakeia also. Beirut also

there are 2 categories,
1 is from Seleykids era and Byzantium
2 is from Muslimized mainland Greeks that Ottomans moved there like the ones with Sultan Hammid

Personally I do not consider it a significant to modern Levant population
But exists Greek Dna there

I do not know how it is named,
even in Iran exists,
 
@ Lenab

plz open a thread about your ancestry to be discussed.
Not in this thread,
 
Lenab said:
You are lost I have never mentioned Levantine nor Arabs please I don't give a crap either way I am only interested in my own result.
No read a book Canaanite Philistines Assyrian Armenians are and always have been native to the Levant Arabs Jews the Semites came during the Iron Age when the Armenoid came about and that actually came from the Caucasus too not the Levant.
I don't have any other thing to say and stop saying I hate Arabs or Jews and I am a racist all I did was do a dna test and upload the,result it's a big deal isn't it? Bye.
Click to expand...

Dear, as always we must stress you're deeply confused and ignorant about basic topics necessary to understand these discussions on genetics. You now say another totally incoherent and self-negating argument: No read a book Canaanite Philistines Assyrian Armenians are and always have been native to the Levant Arabs Jews the Semites came during the Iron Age when the Armenoid came about and that actually came from the Caucasus too not the Levant. Of course that is totally wrong, but the most striking mistake is that you of course seem to ignore, among many other things, that Canaanites and Assyrians ARE SEMITIC PEOPLES, too.

Honestly, your level of ignorance on the matter (not just genetics, but even the basic information about the demographic and linguistic makeup of that region) really makes me decide that it's simply not worth discussing with you. I'll have to keep repeating the most basic knowledge that you can already learn for yourself even in any Wikipedia article. And I can be a bit crazy, but I'm certainly not totally nuts to waste my time with clearly confused and misguided people like you seem to be. Bye!
 
Last edited:
After chewing this hard paper... haplos in Turan and Swat Valley seem to be mainly Iranic as 5 J2a(1), 8 L1a, and 9 R2a(3a), maybe 2 G2a2a are Anatolian, and there are possible local ancestry in 2 H1a1 and 3 Q1b2.

The ADMIXTUTE graphs confuse me more than explain visualy ancient admixtures; in whichever case ASI is Iran Neolithic + AASI~Onge... that would mean that Iranian farmers spoke a Dravidian-like language? it's true then the Elamo-Dravidian relation? or Dravidian popped up from local HG?

Iran_Chalco received an Anatolian imput which extended less to other Asians, like Turan_Chalco with 3%. The steppes also received an Anatolian~European Farmer imput, the first noticeable case is an outlier from Poltavka dated by 2700 BC, just the date that CWC was created with "steppe" genes, the farmer genes leave to be labeled outler to become typical for steppe MLBA peoples... in fact MLBA people is modeled as EMBA (aka Yamna) plus European farmer......... the MLBA people expands over all the Eurasian steppe being mainly R1a, incorporating what would be old and local Yamna-Afanisievo clades (R1b-Z2013 and Q).

The BMAC civilization was composed by people 60% Iran + 21% Anatolian + 13% Siberian_HG (posible local ancestry linked to Kelteminar culture) + 5% Onge (Indian subcontinent-related); 5 outliers evidence the presence in the seccond millennium of IE spakers as they carry extra Anatolian and EHG ancestry, in fact are modeled as BMAC + 20% MLBA steppe.

Iron Age Swat Valley dwellers are modeled as Indus Periphery (Iran Farmer + Onge + Siberian_HG) + 22% MLBA_Steppe, a R1a is found in this area, but elites are allways a minority and in the Indian subcontinent such elites incinerated their deceased, leaving much less DNA than the local pop.

Doing a sudoku-like proposition, if Iran farmers would speak Elamite, then IE would be the language carried by EHG or by Anatolian farmers........
 
This map of the spread of farming over the Caucasus mountains correlates reasonably well with the proposed increase of Iran like genetic material onto the steppe.

ddo1loN.png
[/IMG]

I've been trying to find the data or text behind this, but no luck so far.
 
Ygorcs said:
I'm talking about Bronze Age movements, Hallstatt, Celtic expansion and all of that were much later and involved heavily mixed Iron Age European populations (in genetics and culture), not unadmixed steppe peoples. Those were different times, different peoples. By that time any "steppic culture" would've been changed through internal evolution and mixing with other cultures, and that's exactly what we see, but even Celts and Germanic tribes undoubtedly had some cultural traits quite similar to those found in the Bronze Age steppes milennia before their ethnogenesis.

Indo-European is technically just a language family, people may have shifted their language without shifting their entire economy and way of life, it's certainly much easier to adopt another language than another entirely different lifestyle, especially when there was no massive population replacement at all in most of Western Europe, just a new layer in the genetic structure. What is certainly striking is that R1b-M269 clades doesn't exist in Western Europe and steppe-related admixture doesn't, too, until the Bronze Age, right when we know that profound changes, cultural expansions and retreats happened.

It is also extremely unlikely that Celtic (at least Celtic alone) would've been a common Atantic Neolithic language, that would imply that it had diverged even earlier than that from other IE branches, and you can make sure that Celtic would've been MUCH MUCH more divergent from other Indo-European families if it had already been a separate language unconnected with the "eastern" Indo-Europeans as early as the Neolithic era.
Click to expand...

if celtic was a atlantic neolthic language then it would have been only in northern france, because we have vascon in the south and east of them the iberians , next to them the ligurians , then italy

IMO, celtic began in central and southern germany and I agree with Archeologists that Glauberg was the celtic "capital" beginning pre-rossen culture

as for southern france, we have records of gallic invasions from the north to rid themselves of the iberians and ligurians
 
Angela said:
Thanks, Jovialis, but it won't let me access it because I have no institutional e-mail.
Click to expand...
You can't access it? I can for some reason (I tapped the big blue button that says Download full text PDF and I got there right away). I'm using Firefox on iOS btw
 
berun said:
Doing a sudoku-like proposition, if Iran farmers would speak Elamite, then IE would be the language carried by EHG or by Anatolian farmers........
Click to expand...

Or maybe the "Iranian farmer" admixture is too broadly defined and spread through a territory too big to have plausibly spoken just one ancestral lanuage or even just one language family. Elamite and the proposed Elamo-Dravidian are usually supposed to have been a pretty "southern" Iranian branch, along the Persian Gulf and the Indic coast, whereas the possible earliest ancestors of IE were probably a northwestern branch almost on the slopes of the Caucasus. I wouldn't expect all the Iranian Plateau to speak a similar language, and even if all the people that became the Iranian Farmers originally spoke one such language, that would've probably been in the end of the Mesolithic, and by the Bronze Age virtually any sign of that relationship would've been extremely diluted or even disappeared due to further language shifts or merges in contact with other peoples. Just a though. I still think it is at least plausible that PIE was actually a EHG language, maybe even a "koiné", that was deeply subject to Caucasian/Iranian influence and thus possibly became a very distinctive, mixed and innovative steppe language (think of modern English as a good comparison).
 
Ygorcs said:
Or maybe the "Iranian farmer" admixture is too broadly defined and spread through a territory too big to have plausibly spoken just one ancestral lanuage or even just one language family. Elamite and the proposed Elamo-Dravidian are usually supposed to have been a pretty "southern" Iranian branch, along the Persian Gulf and the Indic coast, whereas the possible earliest ancestors of IE were probably a northwestern branch almost on the slopes of the Caucasus. I wouldn't expect all the Iranian Plateau to speak a similar language, and even if all the people that became the Iranian Farmers originally spoke one such language, that would've probably been in the end of the Mesolithic, and by the Bronze Age virtually any sign of that relationship would've been extremely diluted or even disappeared due to further language shifts or merges in contact with other peoples. Just a though. I still think it is at least plausible that PIE was actually a EHG language, maybe even a "koiné", that was deeply subject to Caucasian/Iranian influence and thus possibly became a very distinctive, mixed and innovative steppe language (think of modern English as a good comparison).
Click to expand...

Considering all those populations must have converged at least before 6,000 B.C., it's quite pointless to speculate which of the well-attested language families or isolates was spoken by which population. To put things in perspective, Bomhard proposed an origin for the Nostratic macro-family in the Natufian culture.

This doesn't even take into account that language and genes don't correlate as closely as some might believe. This is an interesting paper which was published just recently that ought to make people wary of overly simplistic models: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29487365
 
Angela said:
Thanks, Jovialis, but it won't let me access it because I have no institutional e-mail.
Click to expand...
The text under the map:

Figure 17.1: Overview of the study area and the archaeologically visible expansionof farming.

Apperently i can't upload pdf here, so here's the conclusion:

17.4 Conclusion
It has been long evident, that the Neolithic “Revolution” is not a single event,but heterogeneous in space and time. Statistical models for understandingthe diffusion processes, however, have so far assumed that a physical model ofFickian diffusion can be applied to the pattern of the emergence of farmingand pastoralism using constant diffusion coefficients. Relaxing this constraint,and reformulating the diffusivity as a function of influence differences betweenregions, demonstrates how diffusivity varies in space and time.When results using this variable correlation coefficient (D) are compared toempirical archaeological data, they represent the dynamics on a continental scaleand on the regional scale for many regions well, but not for all: The impetus ofthe Neolithic in Greece and the Balkans is well represented, also in southeasternCentral Europe. The emergence and the expansion of the Central EuropeanLBK shows, however, a too early expansion in the model, whereas the stagnationfollowing the initial expansion is again very well represented.Divergence between the mathematical model and the empirical findings providedby archaeology is unsurprising and expected, because human societies behavein much more complex ways than are described in the highly aggregated andsimplified model. Individuals may have chosen to act independent of the socialand environmental context and against rational maximization of benefits. Ratherthan perfectly capturing each regional diffusion event, the mathematical modelserves as a null hypothesis which is broadly consistent with the archaeologicallyreconstructed picture, and against which individual decisions can be assessed. Inthis respect, the simple model helps to disentangle in complex histories generalforcing agents and individual choices.
 
markozd said:
Considering all those populations must have converged at least before 6,000 B.C., it's quite pointless to speculate which of the well-attested language families or isolates was spoken by which population. To put things in perspective, Bomhard proposed an origin for the Nostratic macro-family in the Natufian culture.

This doesn't even take into account that language and genes don't correlate as closely as some might believe. This is an interesting paper which was published just recently that ought to make people wary of overly simplistic models: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29487365
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly, that is why one of the reasons why I say that "Iranian Farmer", EHG or other of those population clusters most certainly spoke several languages or even several distinct language families, besides other reasons like the sheer timeframe that definitely allowed for a huge linguistic divergence and intermixing between former language families, as well as the fact that clusters like "Iranian Farmer" are formed by some generic admixtures that didn't necessarily came from the same places nor develop in the same way (they may well have already - even thousands of years back - spoke different languages or even belonged to different language families due to contact with other populations during their differing historic journeys until they arrived in the Iranian Plateau and mixed with other peoples, forming a similar mix).

In the case of PIE, for example, my "hunch" (yes, totally subjective impressions and intuitions based on what I've read until now) is that it just didn't come fully formed from any of those genetic "groups". It was most probably the final result of a complex interaction among many peoples in different historical periods (e.g. hypothetically, Iranian Neolithic + Caucasus Neolithic > Later: Iranian/Caucasian + Anatolian > Later: Iranian/Caucasian/Anatolian + Southern Pontic-Caspian EHG > Later other assimilations of languages, external influences and, of course, internal evolution and so on). Maybe it was even up to some point a kind of mixed language, so that it would be ultimately unrecognizable in comparison with the earliest direct/genetic ancestor language that gave PIE its most fundamental lexicon and basic syntactic structure.


We can see that complexity and lack of strict correspondence between genetics and language evolution in Modern English, which despite being at its core fully Germanic has departed enormously from Proto-Germanic, and in ways that would've been genetically very unexpected, as the HUGE French/Latin influence in the language's vocabulary (up to 60%, though in the core vocabulary it is much less so) despite a (probably) very minor recent French/Romance genetic contribution in the last 1,000 years. Conversely, there was a HUGE genetic contribution from Celtic populations of Britain in the genetic makeup of the native English speakers, BUT there was a much, MUCH smaller Celtic influence in the vocabulary and grammar of English if compared with French.


So, there is certainly a correlation between language and genetics in most cases (I think it's very rare, on a worldwide scale, to find examples of a profound and definitive language shift with NO genetic input at all), but it's at best a very flawed and sometimes weak correlation.
 
For those who want more from South Asia, Salden at Eurogenes shared this:

https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/981882764495654912

9th century CE from Roopkund which includes a group without South Asian ancestry that groups with modern Greeks and have excess Levant BA ancestry...

There a lot of other interesting tweets from him here about the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution adna conference at Brown university, it's worth a look. Reich and Witzel will also be together with others to discuss South Asian genetics and culture on the 23rd it seems.

Vagheesh M Narasimhan has also been answering questions on his twitter about the paper if you go to his tweets and replies
https://twitter.com/vagheesh?lang=en


IronSide said:
@Promenade
If Levant Neolithic groups penetrated the Zagros mountains, could they have influenced some of the languages there ?
This is a linguistic argument for Afro-Asiatic loanwords in Dravidian and Elamite https://archive.org/stream/ElamABri...weenAncientNearEastAndDravidianIndia_djvu.txt
you may have to scroll down a little.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing this IronSide, I do believe there could have been contact between an Afro-Asiatic speaking group and proto-Elamite speakers around the fertile crescent region. We still don't know genetically what was going on with the Halaf, Samarra, Ubaid cultures etc the pivotal region in between Levant_N, Anatolian_N and Iranian_N, but there was likely a very complex exchange of languages and genetics occurring there that we may never fully appreciate.


berun said:
After chewing this hard paper... haplos in Turan and Swat Valley seem to be mainly Iranic as 5 J2a(1), 8 L1a, and 9 R2a(3a), maybe 2 G2a2a are Anatolian, and there are possible local ancestry in 2 H1a1 and 3 Q1b2.

The ADMIXTUTE graphs confuse me more than explain visualy ancient admixtures; in whichever case ASI is Iran Neolithic + AASI~Onge... that would mean that Iranian farmers spoke a Dravidian-like language? it's true then the Elamo-Dravidian relation? or Dravidian popped up from local HG?

Iran_Chalco received an Anatolian imput which extended less to other Asians, like Turan_Chalco with 3%. The steppes also received an Anatolian~European Farmer imput, the first noticeable case is an outlier from Poltavka dated by 2700 BC, just the date that CWC was created with "steppe" genes, the farmer genes leave to be labeled outler to become typical for steppe MLBA peoples... in fact MLBA people is modeled as EMBA (aka Yamna) plus European farmer......... the MLBA people expands over all the Eurasian steppe being mainly R1a, incorporating what would be old and local Yamna-Afanisievo clades (R1b-Z2013 and Q).

The BMAC civilization was composed by people 60% Iran + 21% Anatolian + 13% Siberian_HG (posible local ancestry linked to Kelteminar culture) + 5% Onge (Indian subcontinent-related); 5 outliers evidence the presence in the seccond millennium of IE spakers as they carry extra Anatolian and EHG ancestry, in fact are modeled as BMAC + 20% MLBA steppe.

Iron Age Swat Valley dwellers are modeled as Indus Periphery (Iran Farmer + Onge + Siberian_HG) + 22% MLBA_Steppe, a R1a is found in this area, but elites are allways a minority and in the Indian subcontinent such elites incinerated their deceased, leaving much less DNA than the local pop.

Doing a sudoku-like proposition, if Iran farmers would speak Elamite, then IE would be the language carried by EHG or by Anatolian farmers........
Click to expand...

Proto-Elamite script and elamite seals have been found in Shahr-i-Sokhta and Elamite was probably known to people from the Jiroft to the Helmand culture as well, but its presence completely disappears after 2800bc right before this area entered its most prosperous era. There were likely many more languages spoken by the Iranian farmers, but elamite seems to have been a language from the southwest of Iran that was briefly imposed on settlements further east in the late 4th to early 3rd millennia. Especially in sites with older origins further north like Gonur tepe, they probably spoke something completely unrelated.
 
Promenade said:
9th century CE from Roopkund which includes a group without South Asian ancestry that groups with modern Greeks and have excess Levant BA ancestry...
Click to expand...

What are the implications of this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 287820 times.

Back
Top