Central and South Asian DNA Paper

Its a fun day at AG.

Lets see how long that anthrogenica thread can keep on until the moderators threaten to close it.(those threats happen every time someone mentions any kind of CHG PIE correlation.)
 
Hi. When would have patterson said that?

He said it in 2014.

''That made Patterson look south, to the Maikop civilization, which likely had significant contact with the Yamnaya, as a plausible culture where Indo-European languages originated. Samples have been obtained from Maikop burial sites, but the DNA work to test that proposal is pending, Patterson said.''

Now they know about the Maykop data.
 
I have no idea what this response boils down to. Reread the exchange I pasted, maybe you get what it meant.

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.
 
I am not a linguistic. So PIE and PPIE or.PPPPPIE is meaningless. And if we are finding out by aDna that archaeology was full of it (bullshit) of sorts in the last 50 years, so much more the linguistics will be so on specifics for the movements of people in space and time.
What i know is that the shulaveri and south caucasus had the right mix to be the origin of PIE. Agriculture, cattle, metals, horses, etc. ...now apparently also have the right y-dna and genetic admix to be the urhmeit of what we see just following later in steppe that everybody has been shouting as the origin of Pie. And naturally solves the problem of Hittite.
Lol, you descend scientifics from the past, only because you are too much arrogant with your own ideas, even that you are not a scientific yourself and that your theories where made up only by intuition looking at different correlations. I can't discuss with somebody so self-absorbed.
 
Lol, you descend scientifics from the past, only because you are too much arrogant with your own ideas, even that you are not a scientific yourself and that your theories where made up only by intuition looking at different correlations. I can't discuss with somebody so self-absorbed.
Yes. Then we shouldn't.
 
He said it in 2014.
''That made Patterson look south, to the Maikop civilization, which likely had significant contact with the Yamnaya, as a plausible culture where Indo-European languages originated. Samples have been obtained from Maikop burial sites, but the DNA work to test that proposal is pending, Patterson said.''
Now they know about the Maykop data.
There was maykop aDna after that date and returned only mtdna was it not? Even had somethimg like M and U8....or i dream it?
 
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.
 
This things are really delicious.
I was reading Anthrogenicas thread
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...ypothesis-quot&p=382413&viewfull=1#post382413

Apparently in a german documentary Johannes krauser is reiterating what he already said before Reich and what reich is publishing these days...south Caucasus definitly home of PIE.
Its worthwhile reading it. Because clearly is said that homeland is south caucasus, armenia and eastern anatolia, EVEN POSSIBLE western iran.
So clearly they know are "my Shulaveri". And if so, its irritatingly vague. Yamanaya yamanaya yamnaya...but when it comes to Shulaveri its always south Caucasus....there was only them there so its not rocket science to name them....

There was only Shuvaleri-Shmu in the broad region of South Caucasus, from Eastern Anatolia to the Caspian coast of Iran? I think that position is very doubtful, there were several other cultures there in the Neolithic, some even superseding the others in the same land. Even if we can agree that Shulaveri-Shomu would fit the evidences they've been finding lately, in fact virtually any South Caucasian or even Northwestern Iranian (which is in fact just a southern extension of Transcaucasia), that existed there up to around 4200 BC (roughly when Sredny Stog appears and when Proto-Anatolian split has been dated in the earliest - but still not over-the-top - assumptions made by linguists), would be at least a plausible candidate.

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).

It is all very nice that you are so confident about your hypothesis, but I would not expect Krause and Reich, scientists with a reputation to preserve in their scientific field, to be that confident and name the specific culture from where those pre-PIE speakers would've originally come, certainly not until they have hundreds or even thousands of new samples to analyze and correlate in a very specific, high-resolution way.
 
There was only Shuvaleri-Shmu in the broad region of South Caucasus, from Eastern Anatolia to the Caspian coast of Iran? I think that position is very doubtful, there were several other cultures there in the Neolithic, some even superseding the others in the same land. Even if we can agree that Shulaveri-Shomu would fit the evidences they've been finding lately, in fact virtually any South Caucasian or even Northwestern Iranian (which is in fact just a southern extension of Transcaucasia), that existed there up to around 4200 BC (roughly when Sredny Stog appears and when Proto-Anatolian split has been dated in the earliest - but still not over-the-top - assumptions made by linguists), would be at least a plausible candidate.
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).
It is all very nice that you are so confident about your hypothesis, but I would not expect Krause and Reich, scientists with a reputation to preserve in their scientific field, to be that confident and name the specific culture from where those pre-PIE speakers would've originally come, certainly not until they have hundreds or even thousands of new samples to analyze and correlate in a very specific, high-resolution way.
Name those cultures.
 
In that matter, South Caucasus could only be home of PPIE. If you assume South Caucasus is the home of PIE, you also assume that his expansion in Eurasia is from South Caucasus. And how they would actually knows, Reich has said many times that Yamnaya was the origin of indo-european languages in western europe and south asia, why they even boring change their mind all the time.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
David Reich said:
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.”

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?

Please, give us all a break. Your agenda is apparent in almost everything you write.

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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)
 

This thread has been viewed 286687 times.

Back
Top