Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 575 of 647

Thread: Central and South Asian DNA Paper

  1. #551
    Elite member holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    770


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    I believed and still believe that PIEans were mostly EEF related but I haven't invested anything on it.I think 'Greco-Aryans' or even Late PIEans had some CHG admixture but proto-Aryans in 'West Asia' had acquired even more before the expansion towards India.I don't connect CHG or Iran N. admixture with PIE because multiple non-IE languages can be associated with it (from Elamite to Hurrian & Uratian]. Even proto-Dravidians could have had Iran N. admixture (it depends on where the homeland is)Counter arguments can be used.
    I'm usually firmly rooted in this notion as well, seeing early PIE in Balkan-Ukraine as I'm always going on about. Actually, opening myself up to Olympus Mons' speculation makes me wonder if Iron Gates was Mesolithic IE. Based on genetics alone it's becoming harder to hang onto this, but all the other data, with genetics, still points towards Ukraine at the very least. If not in the North West, then South East.

    The important thing that people should realize is that we do seem to be narrowing things down, which looks to me like the IEs were situated between the most advanced cultures of the Ancient Old World, which helps explain their pragmatic ascendancy.

  2. #552
    Regular Member Promenade's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-16
    Posts
    288

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U106 R-L1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1e

    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    Sometimes people come up with unlikely reasons for things. The Ganges probably wasn't exploited simply because the Indus was closer to the farming epicenter. Being embedded in dense jungle would have only been an obstacle for a limited time if populations were expanding and needed more food production. And I'm pretty sure IVC was cultivating both rice and wheat.
    For the majority of their existence they relied on wheat/barley since this is what the agriculturists from the west brought with them. Wild rice grew in Gujarat, but domestication wasn't widespread until after the collapse of the IVC in the Second millennium. I think there is an obvious connection between the rise of rice as the major cereal crop in India and population movement to the Ganges, I just find it curious that the region was rather neglected before then. Maybe the Indus was enough and there was simply no need to expand into the Ganges until climate change and other factors forced people too.

  3. #553
    Elite member epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post

    My point actually was about Krause. Now all German academics are suspect too, I guess.
    This is what David Reich himself states about the sensitivities of German academics. It's from Financial Times:
    Quote Originally Posted by David Reich
    Some discoveries made through ancient DNA have unwelcome political resonance, which Reich is not shy to discuss. For example, in 2015 German authors threatened to withdraw from a scientific paper about the spread of Corded Ware people associated with Yamnaya culture, until the text was revised to make clear the distinction between the new genetic findings and the way the Nazis had used Corded Ware as a basis for German national identity. “The Nazis’ interest in migrations and the spread of Indo-European languages has made it difficult for serious scholars in Europe to discuss the possibility of migrations spreading Indo-European languages,” Reich laments. “In India the possibility that the Indus Valley Civilisation fell at the hands of migrating Indo-European speakers from the north is also fraught, as it suggests that important elements of South Asian culture might have been influenced from the outside.”
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Former frequent Eastern European posters on Skadi and Stormfront who posted the most abominable anti-Semitic and anti-Southern European slurs, and who have spent the better part of a decade trying to prove how "Aryan" and therefore superior they are, like your buddy Polako, are unimpeachably objective are they?
    What on earth are you on about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Please, give us all a break. Your agenda is apparent in almost everything you write.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    What it means is that you're an anti-Semite and a Nordicist, just like your buddy, with whom it is useless having a discussion, which is why I'm out.
    One of the silliest things one can do on the internet is thinking one can perceive someones intent. You have no idea how wrong you are.

    PS: The interview with Reich makes me actually think he doesn't have the bias I mentioned was conceivable. Because that is what we discussed: Is a presumed bias conceivable?

  4. #554
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Not necessarily. I can definitely see as a most plausible scenario a certain way to reconcile BOTH South Caucasus and Pontic-Caspian Steppe hypothesis. PIE like any other language didn't get born fully formed in any particular date. It evolved, split into dialects, some of those dialects went extinct, some others expanded into the areas of other sister dialects and absorbed them, some others were dead ends while others left daughter languages, etc. PIE probably went at least to 3 pre-expansion stages: Pre-PIE, the mother language of the common Early PIE (Indo-Hittite); Early PIE, basically Indo-Hittie; and Late PIE, or PIE minus Anatolian. It is compatible with the evidences we have now ("now" is they keyword, we'll know much more in 5 or 10 years) that those languages or versions of IE first developed and gained their distinctive form in different places, just like American English evolved in the USA, descending from Modern English in Britain, which descended from a North Sea chain of Anglo-Saxon (Germany/Netherlands) dialects, which then probably descended from a Scandinavian Proto-Germanic dialect that eventually expanded and replaced all other more or less similar languages. What people usually have called Early PIE and Late PIE in many comments refers to a VERY long historical gap, certainly not even the same language. It would be roughly like calling Vulgar Latin and Brazilian Portuguese "Early Latin" vs. "Late Latin". In my opinion, it's very possible that the history of PIE was similar (I have no strong opinion until now whether this is really "the truth" or not, I think we need much more evidences): pre-PIE in Transcaucasia or even Northwestern Iran, before 4500 BC; Indo-Hittie PIE when those South Caucasian people first split expanding to the north and other directions (west?), around 4000-4200 BC; Late non-Anatolian PIE as the Early PIE-descendant language developed in the Pontic-Caspian language around 3500 BC, became a lingua franca and later a mother tongue in a huge and mobile steppe horizon, and from there the biggest part of the IE expansion happened eventually, in the Bronze Age.
    Well you just made an enormous message to say what i say. We know for pretty much sure that modern indo-european languages came with a steppe migration in western europe and south asia, so why bothering the origin of its core ? because of bigotry. Stay aware of what everybody says actually on Eupedia and in the future, if there is a compromise about a southern origin of PIE, look who push an actual cultural agenda. So many users here make like they follow the datas, but they cant hide their emotions when something goes against or with their will. Those same people gonna talk about bigotry, neonazi, etc. On the subject, Krause is for an armenian alternative to the anatolian hypothesis, meaning PIE came to europe and south asia with neolithic, Reich, we dont really know, it's like he makes like he is following the datas, but he really want that PIE came from the south ( like a lot of user here ). That sad that actually genetic and archeology are now once again corrupted by people with an agenda, but those people are not the neonazis, but the other side, and they put every of their own mistakes onto an hypothetic white supremacy agenda of hypothetic other people.

  5. #555
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    138


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Well you just made an enormous message to say what i say. We know for pretty much sure that modern indo-european languages came with a steppe migration in western europe and south asia, so why bothering the origin of its core ? because of bigotry. Stay aware of what everybody says actually on Eupedia and in the future, if there is a compromise about a southern origin of PIE, look who push an actual cultural agenda. So many users here make like they follow the datas, but they cant hide their emotions when something goes against or with their will. Those same people gonna talk about bigotry, neonazi, etc. On the subject, Krause is for an armenian alternative to the anatolian hypothesis, meaning PIE came to europe and south asia with neolithic, Reich, we dont really know, it's like he makes like he is following the datas, but he really want that PIE came from the south ( like a lot of user here ). That sad that actually genetic and archeology are now once again corrupted by people with an agenda, but those people are not the neonazis, but the other side, and they put every of their own mistakes onto an hypothetic white supremacy agenda of hypothetic other people.
    This is one of the funniest post i've seen here, especially the bold part. Do you and your insane friends on Anthrogenica realize that it's actually David Reich who is proving the Kurgan expansion and Aryan Invasion of India with his research? It is clearly you who can't accept even a mere idea of Near Eastern origin for PIE, even when it's coming from the guy who proved AIT and steppe migrations to Europe. I wonder how did you recover from the fact that Yamnaya is 50% Near Eastern.

  6. #556
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    This is one of the funniest post i've seen here, especially the bold part. Do you and your insane friends on Anthrogenica realize that it's actually David Reich who is proving the Kurgan expansion and Aryan Invasion of India with his research? It is clearly you who can't accept even a mere idea of Near Eastern origin for PIE, even when it's coming from the guy who proved AIT and steppe migrations to Europe. I wonder how did you recover from the fact that Yamnaya is 50% Near Eastern.
    I'm still at a loss to understand precisely why a Near Eastern origin of the earliest form of PIE (maybe even pre-PIE) is so difficult for some to even contemplate as possible. It isn't as if we didn't already know that a very big part of the Yamna population's autosomal makeup had links with either the Caucasus or Iran, or that there was some profound "southward" change in the genetic makeup of the Pontic-Caspian steppe between the Mesolithic and the Bronze Age. So why should we presume that PIE did necessarily - almost compulsorily, in fact - come from the 50-55% EHG, and not from the 45-50% Neolithic Iranian-like? If not for some agenda or personal aversion or something of the sort, I can't see why there is so much resistance to that idea, even if it is eventually proven wrong. It's at least quite worth investigating. Just a few months ago my main guess was that PIE's earliest/ancestral origins was really in the steppe, probably with Sredny Stog, but with heavy Balkanic/Carpathian influence, but I simply can accept the directions the new evidences suggest and also other equally or preferably even more plausible hypothesis. Why not? Is there any "hidden" reason why we should just stop "digging" the past as soon as we find an expansion from Northeastern Europe? Are they afraid that if we go much back in the chronology of those cultures we'll find inconveniently Near Eastern connections? This is all so irrational.

  7. #557
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Well you just made an enormous message to say what i say. We know for pretty much sure that modern indo-european languages came with a steppe migration in western europe and south asia, so why bothering the origin of its core ? because of bigotry. Stay aware of what everybody says actually on Eupedia and in the future, if there is a compromise about a southern origin of PIE, look who push an actual cultural agenda. So many users here make like they follow the datas, but they cant hide their emotions when something goes against or with their will. Those same people gonna talk about bigotry, neonazi, etc. On the subject, Krause is for an armenian alternative to the anatolian hypothesis, meaning PIE came to europe and south asia with neolithic, Reich, we dont really know, it's like he makes like he is following the datas, but he really want that PIE came from the south ( like a lot of user here ). That sad that actually genetic and archeology are now once again corrupted by people with an agenda, but those people are not the neonazis, but the other side, and they put every of their own mistakes onto an hypothetic white supremacy agenda of hypothetic other people.
    Oh, give me a break: why should any geneticist, historian or anthropologist finish his job once and for all on the date and place where the Indo-European to Europe and South Asia (perhaps not even including Anatolia) happened? Why should they steer clear from one of the most obvious points of interest of any scientist who studies a certain phenomenon, which is what its ultimate origin is, as well as how precisely it got fully formed? Just because that is somehow inconvenient for you or because it fits the perceived "cultural agenda" and "bigotry" of some other people? Nobody has opposed all the genetic and archaeological evidence pointing to a huge Indo-European expansion just because it fit some of the wildly exaggerated narratives of Nazis and other racist pseudo-scientists. The scientific evidences just pointed out that, yes, some European conquerors migrated to and conquered many other territories in a very wide range, that's all that science can say, the rest is just ideological nonsense that some people may try to attach to ancient history. It's a bit funny that you accuse other people, some of whom are much more knowledgeable and professionally qualified than you (Reich, Krause, seriously?), of politicizing these possibly "inconvenient" results, yet you are using an extreme political and ideology-driven language, but you can't even notice the irony as far as I can see.

  8. #558
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Yamnaya is not 50% West Asia, CHG is a mix between Iran_Neolithic and / or Iran_Chalcolithic and some EHG / WHG related ancestry and 50% pure EHG. You turn the agenda argument in the other direction. Most people always had a problem with a pontic steppe origin about PIE, it would be so much related about Nazi or eugenist / social darwinism ideas, even Reich has mention a lot of times, that they had to be very precautious about explaining to the skepticals that indo-european migrations =/= master race hypothesis. The problem here is pretty evident. There is no discussion that the ancestral migrations from the pontic steppe and the ancient and modern Indo-European languages are related. If one, even bother to reput that into question, nobody can help him. Now, Yamnaya is a very wide culture of related sites, it has multiple mtdna and y-dna markers, multiple genetic inputs, it is virtually impossible to say, PIE or PPIE originate here or there before Yamnaya, so why people bother ? Hajji Firuz sample is Anatolian and Iranian farmer, what is relation with CHG and Yamnaya ? It would be like say the R1a from neolithic baikal at Kitoi are ancestral for the R1a in europe. Because they dont like the idea of a steppe origin, that's all, you have multiple reasons for why, Creationism, Politic, Ethnic...

  9. #559
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Oh, give me a break: why should any geneticist, historian or anthropologist finish his job once and for all on the date and place where the Indo-European to Europe and South Asia (perhaps not even including Anatolia) happened? Why should they steer clear from one of the most obvious points of interest of any scientist who studies a certain phenomenon, which is what its ultimate origin is, as well as how precisely it got fully formed? Just because that is somehow inconvenient for you or because it fits the perceived "cultural agenda" and "bigotry" of some other people? Nobody has opposed all the genetic and archaeological evidence pointing to a huge Indo-European expansion just because it fit some of the wildly exaggerated narratives of Nazis and other racist pseudo-scientists. The scientific evidences just pointed out that, yes, some European conquerors migrated to and conquered many other territories in a very wide range, that's all that science can say, the rest is just ideological nonsense that some people may try to attach to ancient history. It's a bit funny that you accuse other people, some of whom are much more knowledgeable and professionally qualified than you (Reich, Krause, seriously?), of politicizing these possibly "inconvenient" results, yet you are using an extreme political and ideology-driven language, but you can't even notice the irony as far as I can see.
    When i say bigotry, i talk about Eupedia users not Reich or Krause... And you past the last months fighting with Olympus Mons about why a steppe origin is more likely than his south caucasus hypothesis. So dont turn like a hero, with the argument that a single sample from a single study, completely open your eyes about your previous mistakes.

  10. #560
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Yamnaya is not 50% West Asia, CHG is a mix between Iran_Neolithic and / or Iran_Chalcolithic and some EHG / WHG related ancestry and 50% pure EHG. You turn the agenda argument in the other direction. Most people always had a problem with a pontic steppe origin about PIE, it would be so much related about Nazi or eugenist / social darwinism ideas, even Reich has mention a lot of times, that they had to be very precautious about explaining to the skepticals that indo-european migrations =/= master race hypothesis. The problem here is pretty evident. There is no discussion that the ancestral migrations from the pontic steppe and the ancient and modern Indo-European languages are related. If one, even bother to reput that into question, nobody can help him. Now, Yamnaya is a very wide culture of related sites, it has multiple mtdna and y-dna markers, multiple genetic inputs, it is virtually impossible to say, PIE or PPIE originate here or there before Yamnaya, so why people bother ? Hajji Firuz sample is Anatolian and Iranian farmer, what is relation with CHG and Yamnaya ? It would be like say the R1a from neolithic baikal at Kitoi are ancestral for the R1a in europe. Because they dont like the idea of a steppe origin, that's all, you have multiple reasons for why, Creationism, Politic, Ethnic...
    The thing is that the source of "southern" ancestry in Yamnaya is not proved to be directly from CHG. Lazaridis for example thought it was closely related to, but distinctive from CHG, and probably more something Neolithic Iranian-like. Besides, whether you like it or not, people pointing a psosible South Caucasus origin of the earliest PIE are discussing the geographic roots, the genetic part of this conundrum is much more complex and mixed, and, well, CHG did exist south of the Caucasus.We don't even know if the EHG/WHG-like part of CHG came really from the north, considering that the ancestors of WHG/EHG originally came, very possibly, from Anatolia, too, and in fact ANF also had WHG-related ancestry probably dating to the Mesolithic.

    So pretty much we can say CHG was a West Asian mix since many thousands of years before the early Bronze Age.

    Your point is more or less like "the Iran_Neo admixture is not Iranian at all, because much of it had affinity with ANE, so deep down it was a North Asian admixture" or "EEF in Europeans must be considered Middle Eastern, it isn't a typical European admixture" (maybe you think that, they were "tainted" by their Anatolian origins with ancestral links even to Levantines, or something like that). That's just unreasonable.

    In any case those possible mixtures that led to those Neolithic admixtures (CHG in fact dates back to the Mesolithic AFAIK) had happened many thousands of years earlier, so they were pretty much part of the socio-cultural milieu of the Near Eastern social milieu and incipient Near Eastern civilizations.

    If we deny that CHG is fully Near Eastern because it has some EHG-related ancestry would be like denying that the IE expansion came from the steppes just because much of the ancestry of Yamna/Sredny Stog came from the south (CHG-like Caucasus/Northwest Iranian- that's geography, no "offense intended" in pointing out their relative geographic location with this dreaded "southern" word. LOL)

  11. #561
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    When i say bigotry, i talk about Eupedia users not Reich or Krause... And you past the last months fighting with Olympus Mons about why a steppe origin is more likely than his south caucasus hypothesis. So dont turn like a hero, with the argument that a single sample from a single study, completely open your eyes about your previous mistakes.
    Well, I didn't. I still disagree with him that the dispersal of IE languages happened as he proposes. I always said Olympus Mons' hypothesis was likely but ONLY as a source for the pre-PIE stage, because all evidences point to the fact that the expansion of IE languages happened much later than "his" Shulaveri-Shomu culture and is a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age phenomenon. So at best Shulaveri Shomu were the Proto-Italic of PIE's Spanish. I just opened my mind to the possibility that PIE didn't just get heavy genetic admixture from the South Caucasus, but also maybe its language. You probably missed what I was really saying.

    Besides, I'm totally open to making mistakes, so that's why I prefer to follow what the evidences suggest and, particularly, I take what real scientists who have much more knowledge and more access to data than me are proposing. I have no problem at all believing this and then changing my opinion if and when I'm starting to be proven wrong. Why not? I'm not attached to any geographic direction, genetic admixture or culture that existed many thousands of years ago. I don't even care that much to know about what MY OWN ancient origins are. My interest is in the history of peoples and the origins of cultures anywhere, from Chile to Japan, there is nothing personal about that.

  12. #562
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    138


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Yamnaya is not 50% West Asia, CHG is a mix between Iran_Neolithic and / or Iran_Chalcolithic and some EHG / WHG related ancestry and 50% pure EHG. You turn the agenda argument in the other direction. Most people always had a problem with a pontic steppe origin about PIE, it would be so much related about Nazi or eugenist / social darwinism ideas, even Reich has mention a lot of times, that they had to be very precautious about explaining to the skepticals that indo-european migrations =/= master race hypothesis. The problem here is pretty evident. There is no discussion that the ancestral migrations from the pontic steppe and the ancient and modern Indo-European languages are related. If one, even bother to reput that into question, nobody can help him. Now, Yamnaya is a very wide culture of related sites, it has multiple mtdna and y-dna markers, multiple genetic inputs, it is virtually impossible to say, PIE or PPIE originate here or there before Yamnaya, so why people bother ? Hajji Firuz sample is Anatolian and Iranian farmer, what is relation with CHG and Yamnaya ? It would be like say the R1a from neolithic baikal at Kitoi are ancestral for the R1a in europe. Because they dont like the idea of a steppe origin, that's all, you have multiple reasons for why, Creationism, Politic, Ethnic...
    It seems you didn't recover from it at all.

  13. #563
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    The thing is that the source of "southern" ancestry in Yamnaya is not proved to be directly from CHG. Lazaridis for example thought it was closely related to, but distinctive from CHG, and probably more something Neolithic Iranian-like. Besides, whether you like it or not, people pointing a psosible South Caucasus origin of the earliest PIE are discussing the geographic roots, the genetic part of this conundrum is much more complex and mixed, and, well, CHG did exist south of the Caucasus, so pretty much it was a West Asian mix since many thousands before the early Bronze Age. Your point is more or less like "the Iran_Neo admixture is not Iranian at all, because much of it had affinity with ANE, so deep down it was a North Asian admixture" or "EEF in Europeans must be considered Middle Eastern, it isn't a typical European admixture" (maybe you think that, they were "tainted" by their Anatolian origins with ancestral links even to Levantines, or something like that). That's just unreasonable. In any case those possible mixtures that led to those Neolithic admixtures (CHG in fact dates back to the Mesolithic AFAIK) had happened many thousands of years earlier, so they were pretty much part of the socio-cultural milieu of the Near Eastern social milieu and incipient Near Eastern civilizations. If we deny that CHG is fully Near Eastern because it has some EHG-related ancestry (which we don't even know if it came really from the north, considering that the ancestors of WHG/EHG originally came possibly from Anatolia, too) would be like denying that the IE expansion came from the steppes just because much of the ancestry of Yamna/Sredny Stog came from the south (CHG - that's geography, no "offense intended" in pointing out their relative geographic location with this dreaded "southern" word. LOL)
    Your post somehow make the point that i want to make with Lazaridis assumptions, just say that R1b-Z2013 came from south caucasus ( we have plenty of data to explain the migration ) and we accept that PIE came from south caucasus, are people trying to search where it came from before of that ? No. They gonna elude for exemple the high proporsion of ANE in iran neolithic. This is my problem, how i see all this. If you follow the datas, like the Myennaeans and Anatolians datas or the southern caucasus from bronze age, we can see that they have Steppe, so why Lazaridis is so sure about a southern origin ? And that idea start way before all those datas. And you mistake about my views, i dont have any beef or so with middle-east, natufians had WHG, anatolian farmers had WHG, iranian farmers had ANE, CHG had WHG / EHG, i completely understand that humanity have migrate in history and i pretty dont care about the origin of IEans and PIE, if we had to discuss about politics or so, i would only say that modern europeans are far far far from those idealized warriors.

  14. #564
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    It seems you didn't recover from it at all.
    Are you actually a fake account ?

  15. #565
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Your post somehow make the point that i want to make with Lazaridis assumptions, just say that R1b-Z2013 came from south caucasus ( we have plenty of data to explain the migration ) and we accept that PIE came from south caucasus, are people trying to search where it came from before of that ? No. They gonna elude for exemple the high proporsion of ANE in iran neolithic. This is my problem, how i see all this. If you follow the datas, like the Myennaeans and Anatolians datas or the southern caucasus from bronze age, we can see that they have Steppe, so why Lazaridis is so sure about a southern origin ? And that idea start way before all those datas. And you mistake about my views, i dont have any beef or so with middle-east, natufians had WHG, anatolian farmers had WHG, iranian farmers had ANE, CHG had WHG / EHG, i completely understand that humanity have migrate in history and i pretty dont care about the origin of IEans and PIE, if we had to discuss about politics or so, i would only say that modern europeans are far far far from those idealized warriors.
    I don't think any of those relevant scientists who have studied the population genetics of arguably IE peoples will stop looking for earlier connections, even way back into the Mesolithic. Now, how people will use their findings and data is another matter, nor do I think scientists should stop doing their job just because some people may misuse or misinterpret it to deceive gullible people with strong confirmation bias. I think you're overestimating all this "agenda", it's starting to sound even a bit paranoid. Virtually all scientists are still publishing research confirming the Indo-European expansion from the steppes. They are now looking for the earlier origins of that steppe people, why shouldn't they? And what's the problem if in the much longer term it happened to be south, and not north of the Caucasus? It isn't as if (north)West Asians are that different from Europeans at all, anyway, and it's not like we already didn't know that in the very ancient term there are profound links between West Asia and Europe (ANF, CHG, even possibly WHG) - especially if you think there is some kind of "racial" agenda behind it all.


  16. #566
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I don't think any of those relevant scientists who have studied the population genetics of arguably IE peoples will stop looking for earlier connections, even way back into the Mesolithic. Now, how people will use their findings and data is another matter, nor do I think scientists should stop doing their job just because some people may misuse or misinterpret it to deceive gullible people with strong confirmation bias. I think you're overestimating all this "agenda", it's starting to sound even a bit paranoid. Virtually all scientists are still publishing research confirming the Indo-European expansion from the steppes. They are now looking for the earlier origins of that steppe people, why shouldn't they? And what's the problem if in the much longer term it happened to be south, and not north of the Caucasus? It isn't as if (north)West Asians are that different from Europeans at all, anyway, and it's not like we already didn't know that in the very ancient term there are profound links between West Asia and Europe (ANF, CHG, even possibly WHG) - especially if you think there is some kind of "racial" agenda behind it all.

    I'm paranoid ( in a mainstream way ) about it, just look at Cpluskx posts, this is not about science, this about individual ideas. This is constantly, and everywhere nowadays. Do you think this is about individuals ideas ? No this is about the perception that the mass have. If PIE is from the north, it doesn't change anything, if it's from the south, you gonna see some migrations, acceptations of the foreigner agenda. The difference is, if a guy is a black supremacist it doesn't change anyhting, if a guy is a white supremacist, it changes everything. In Europe, there is some Communists / Socialists / Anarchists, that doesn't care about history, but if history can help them to push a certain agenda, they gonna use it. Yes Caucasus seems very beautiful, a lot of different cultures, languages, religions and a lot of wars and ethnic conflicts.

  17. #567
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I'm paranoid ( in a mainstream way ) about it, just look at Cpluskx posts, this is not about science, this about individual ideas. This is constantly, and everywhere nowadays. Do you think this is about individuals ideas ? No this is about the perception that the mass have. If PIE is from the north, it doesn't change anything, if it's from the south, you gonna see some migrations, acceptations of the foreigner agenda. The difference is, if a guy is a black supremacist it doesn't change anyhting, if a guy is a white supremacist, it changes everything. In Europe, there is some Communists / Socialists / Anarchists, that doesn't care about history, but if history can help them to push a certain agenda, they gonna use it. Yes Caucasus seems very beautiful, a lot of different cultures, languages, religions and a lot of wars and ethnic conflicts.
    I don't know, I think you (and possibly also the left-wing people who also politicize ancient history) are projecting modern conceptions into the past, especially a supposed pan-European racial/cultural unity which wasn't necessarily perceived as such along history. Until very recently, Russia/Ukraine were considered "fundamentally different" from the European (mainly Western European) mindset and culture. They were certainly not perceived as natural brothers, and in fact still aren't by many people. I wonder if people became a bit paranoid about the Russian/Soviet imperialism because of the fact that, actually, the evidences started to suggest that IE expansion was not a phenomenon happening from the "core" of Europe, but from a rather fringe, very eastern part of Europe from those "primitive" lands (to many Western Europeans up to the 20th century) Slavs and Turks, e.g. Ukraine and Russia? People seem to read the events of long gone history through the lens of their modern perceptions. This was always like that. Regardless of that, what is the truth must be investigated and found, no matter if it will please the leftists, rightists or whatever.

  18. #568
    Regular Member Promenade's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-16
    Posts
    288

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U106 R-L1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1e

    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    For anyone who would like to get back on topic, some more tweets from Mr. Alexander Kim

    The estimated arrival of Iranian and Steppe ancestry to India is given as well as the estimated arrival of Steppe ancestry in Swat and the age of the formation of ASI (But it seems like they are actually referring to Indus_Periphery)

    https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/984885772879847434

    Swat clearly deviates from the Indian Cline and just as it does not have enough R1a it appears to be lacking the necessary amount of Steppe ancestry we would expect as well.


    This is from a yet to be published study on Y-Dna in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

    https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/984913652460544011

    The Tonali, Jadoon and Yousafzai are all ethnic Pashtun tribes from the same region, yet each is dominated by a different haplogroup which is not completely unexpected in such a mountainous area. Unsurprisingly the Yousafzai are over 3/4's R1a, yet more curiously the Tonali are over 80 percent R1b and the Jadoon appear to be over 80 percent O3. Kim raises the possibility that the O3 in the Jadoon are actually ancestral to that in east and south east Asia, but we will have to wait until the study is published. My knowledge of these tribes are nil, so if anyone is informed about the known or suspected history of these groups feel free to share.
    Last edited by Promenade; 24-04-18 at 02:12.

  19. #569
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    For anyone who would like to get back on topic, some more tweets from Mr. Alexander Kim

    The estimated arrival of Iranian and Steppe ancestry to India is given as well as the estimated arrival of Steppe ancestry in Swat and the age of formation of the ASI component found in Indus Periphery.
    Didn't ASI already include a lot of Iran_Neo-related admixture, as opposed to what they now call AASI? If so, why are the estimated dates for Iranian, around ~2000-400 BCE, so late and so similar to the entrance of Steppe ancestry in India? Are they differentiating the earlier West Eurasian pulse into ASI from later Iranian arrivals with the distinct Iran_Chalc or Iran_BA admixtures? I think I'm misunderstanding their labels there...


    Swat clearly deviates from the Indian Cline and just as it does not have enough R1a it appears to be lacking the necessary amount of Steppe ancestry we would expect as well.
    It seems increasingly likely to me that they just didn't get "the" regional population that would become decisive to the future of India from the Late Bronze Age onwards. If ancient South Asia was anything even remotely similar to present-dayy South Asia, it should have a significant genetic structure and thus the autosomal and Y-DNA makeup would change a lot from one region to the other.

  20. #570
    Regular Member Promenade's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-16
    Posts
    288

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U106 R-L1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1e

    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Didn't ASI already include a lot of Iran_Neo-related admixture, as opposed to what they now call AASI? If so, why are the estimated dates for Iranian, around ~2000-400 BCE, so late and so similar to the entrance of Steppe ancestry in India? Are they differentiating the earlier West Eurasian pulse into ASI from later Iranian arrivals with the distinct Iran_Chalc or Iran_BA admixtures? I think I'm misunderstanding their labels there...




    It seems increasingly likely to me that they just didn't get "the" regional population that would become decisive to the future of India from the Late Bronze Age onwards. If ancient South Asia was anything even remotely similar to present-dayy South Asia, it should have a significant genetic structure and thus the autosomal and Y-DNA makeup would change a lot from one region to the other.
    ASI is a mixture of AASI and Indus_Periphery, and Indus_Periphery itself is a mix of AASI and Iran_Neo. I guess what they're hypothesizing is the core of IVC being mostly AASI, with Iran_Neo admixed Indus_Periphery existing in some kind of cline and not fully spreading to the rest of South Asia until the collapse of the IVC, right before steppe intrusion as populations began to shift west due to climate change and other factors. So the IVC would have been a heterogeneous population with Indus_Periphery forming somewhere within it's boundaries and not expanding to the rest of the sub continent until right before its "collapse" to create what we know as ASI.

    Also I agree with you about not finding the right population yet, in the South Asia Genetics talk today they mentioned many South Asian populations having founder effects more extreme than those experienced by both Finns and Jews. The maps also show myriad trade networks across the Hindu Kush so there are still a large number of possibilities of where they may have entered from. It's still entirely possible they were around the same area as Swat too.

    Edit: Looking at the top left graph they seem to be using Indus_Periphery as a stand in for ASI, but as far as I understand they are not the same. I think they are actually trying to show when AASI and Iran_Neo mixed to form Indus_Periphery here.

  21. #571
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    ASI is a mixture of AASI and Indus_Periphery, and Indus_Periphery itself is a mix of AASI and Iran_Neo. I guess what they're hypothesizing is the core of IVC being mostly AASI, with Iran_Neo admixed Indus_Periphery existing in some kind of cline and not fully spreading to the rest of South Asia until the collapse of the IVC, right before steppe intrusion as populations began to shift west due to climate change and other factors. So the IVC would have been a heterogeneous population with Indus_Periphery forming somewhere within it's boundaries and not expanding to the rest of the sub continent until right before its "collapse" to create what we know as ASI.

    Also I agree with you about not finding the right population yet, in the South Asia Genetics talk today they mentioned many South Asian populations having founder effects more extreme than those experienced by both Finns and Jews. The maps also show myriad trade networks across the Hindu Kush so there are still a large number of possibilities of where they may have entered from. It's still entirely possible they were around the same area as Swat too.

    Edit: Looking at the top left graph they seem to be using Indus_Periphery as a stand in for ASI, but as far as I understand they are not the same. I think they are actually trying to show when AASI and Iran_Neo mixed to form Indus_Periphery here.
    That's clearer for me now. But IVC being mostly AASI, really? That would be a big surprise for me, because this was as developed an agricultural civilization as it could get in that part of the world (or any other, in fact), and would it be mostly of native hunter-gatherer stock, with no parallel with the fate of hunter-gatherers in most of Europe? I can't help but find that unlikely. I think it's possible that the source of Iran_Neo in IVC was slightly different (there must've been genetic structure in such a big area as Iran, which is more than 1.5 million sq kilometers, right?) from the Iranian-related admixtures in Indus_Periphery. I still think they haven't been most clear about what really differentiates the IVC (what they suppose it was) from the new "Indus_Periphery" admixture. Or maybe it is all so entangled and intricate that it's really difficult to understand at first.

  22. #572
    Elite member holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    770


    Country: USA - Washington



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    There is no way PIE, even at the Indo-Hittite stage, dates to before 5000 BC. Its mother language, a sort of pre-PIE, certainly did, but the expansion of a certain language (which we call PIE) that was originally unified was most definitely a later event, from the Late Neolithic onwards - and it is quite likely it did not happen straight from the first Urheimat of that language (much like the expansion of Romance languages to Latin America didn't come from Italy).
    This is something I didn't bring up but it's another solid point. 5000BC is definitely possible, but it's a the very bottom end of the range for PIE.

    Maybe I'm just a Sredny stog, Mikhaylovka fan boi

  23. #573
    Elite member holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    770


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post

    Dayaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn

    I think I might just go train some submission grappling in Azerbaijian.





  24. #574
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    I think this piece in Science Magazine clarifies what exactly the researches meant. So basically Indus_Periphery is seen as probably very similar to IVC, ASI is a later mix of the "Mesolithic relics" AASI in South India with the Indus_Periphery people, ANI is a mix of the steppe herders with Indus_Periphery, and later still, finally, ANI and ASI mixed extensively.

    Between 4700 and 3000 B.C.E., farmers from Iran mixed with hunter-gatherers indigenous to South Asia, Moorjani said. This combination of ancestries was found in the DNA of skeletal remains from sites in Turkmenistan and Iran known to have been in contact with the Indus Valley civilization, which thrived in Pakistan and northwest India starting around 3300 B.C.E. The researchers dub this population “Indus periphery.” The 65 ancient people from Pakistan also show this combination, although they all lived after the Indus civilization declined. The researchers suspect that “Indus periphery” people actually may have been the founders of Indus society, although without ancient DNA from Indus Valley burials, they can’t be sure.

    Still, Moorjani’s team sees this ancient mixture of Iranian farmers and South Asian hunter-gatherers all over South Asia today. As the Indus Valley civilization declined after 1300 B.C.E., some Indus periphery individuals moved south to mix with indigenous populations there, forming the Ancestral South Indian population, which today is more prominent in people who speak Dravidian languages such as Tamil and Kannada, and in those belonging to lower castes.

    Meanwhile, herders from the Eurasian steppe moved into the northern part of the subcontinent and mixed with Indus periphery people still there, forming the Ancestral North Indian population. Today, people who belong to higher castes and those who speak Indo-European languages such as Hindi and Urdu tend to have more of this ancestry. Shortly after, these two already mixed groups mixed with each other, giving rise to the populations living in India today.

  25. #575
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post

    LOL! This girl really looks like she is someone you shouldn't mess up with without some unforgettable consequences! :-D

Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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