Lazaridis summary of Europe population genetics

i read a bit more into the topic with etruscan. there are many different studies that look at the genome of etruscans and some of them think they are not autochonous while others think they are. let's assume they were autochtonous then we could also assume that the pre-steppe-indo-european italic people spoke a similar language. since there was lemnian on lemnos it could be possible that those languages were spoken in whole southern and south eastern europe. what if those languages are connected to the increase of CHG ancestry in south eastern europe, starting 3800 bc., that did not come together with steppe? and that then later the steppe people conquered the south coming from the north.the problem would be that lemnian and etruscan are a bit too similar for beeing seperated that long.
it would also be interessting to know what language the minoans were speaking. some people think that minoan could have been related to etruscan. the same is the case with the pelasgians who probably were inhabiting greece before the indo europeans entered it from the north. greek has certain characteristics that could come from anatolian languages or it could come from the language that pelasgians were speaking which could mean that they spoke a form of anatolian or something related to anatolian languages.

Actually the studies based on ancient Etruscan samples are very few. And generally speaking Etruscans can't be the primary source of an increase of CHG in Italy, because CHG in Italy is higher in non-Etruscan areas.

One of the few paper (Ghirotto et al, Origins and evolution of the Etruscans' mtDNA, 2013) based on Etruscan samples states that


Comparing ancient (30 Etruscans, 27 Medieval individuals from Tuscany) and modern DNA sequences (370 Tuscans), with the results of millions of computer simulations, we show that the Etruscans can be considered ancestral, with a high degree of confidence, to the current inhabitants of Casentino and Volterra, but not to the general contemporary population of the former Etruscan homeland.

By further considering two Anatolian samples (35 and 123 individuals) we could estimate that the genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia date back to at least 5,000 years ago, strongly suggesting that the Etruscan culture developed locally, and not as an immediate consequence of immigration from the Eastern Mediterranean shores.

More specifically:

Assuming an average generation time of 25 years [16], [21] and no migration after the split from the common ancestors, the most likely separation time between Tuscany and Western Anatolia falls around 7,600 years ago, with a 95% credible interval between 5,000 and 10,000 (Figure 5). These results are robust to changes in the proportion of members of the initial population being ancestral to the two modern populations (Figure S7B). We also considered an expanded Anatolian sample (total sample size = 123 [11], [22]) coming from all over Turkey, to test whether a founder effect might have enhanced the role of the genetic drift in the previous analysis, inflating the divergence time estimates; the resulting distributions of separation times completely overlapped with those previously estimated, with a lower bound of the 95% credible interval never smaller than 5,300 years ago (Figure 5).


Close similarity between Etruscan and Central European Neolithic mtDNA.

However, even under the unrealistic assumption of complete reciprocal isolation for millennia, the likely separation of the Tuscan and Anatolian gene pools must be placed long before the onset of the Etruscan culture, at least in Neolithic times; if isolation was incomplete, the estimated separation must be placed further back in time. Consistent with this view is the observation that Etruscan and Neolithic mtDNAs are close to each other in the two-dimensional plot of Figure S4C


etr_anc.jpg



1oCTU2n.png



Another study that analyzed Etruscan genome (Tassi et al, Genetic evidence does not support an etruscan origin in Anatolia, 2013)


Ancient DNA evidence shows that only some isolates, and not the bulk of the modern Tuscan population, are genetically related to the Etruscans. (...)

For the time being, it seems safe to say that, based on the best available data as analyzed by the most advanced biostatistical methods, ancient and modern DNA evidence converges in not suggesting a biological origin of the Etruscans outside Italy. The existing similarities between the Anatolian and Tuscan genepools (Achilli et al., 2007) can simply be accounted for by the effects of older, or much older, prehistoric contacts, unrelated to the later development of the Etruscan culture.


Then we have a PCA with three Etruscan samples: ETR2, ETR5, ETR9. Probably not enough yet, but better than none.


etruscans.jpg
 
the problem would be that lemnian and etruscan are a bit too similar for beeing seperated that long.
it would also be interessting to know what language the minoans were speaking. some people think that minoan could have been related to etruscan. the same is the case with the pelasgians who probably were inhabiting greece before the indo europeans entered it from the north. greek has certain characteristics that could come from anatolian languages or it could come from the language that pelasgians were speaking which could mean that they spoke a form of anatolian or something related to anatolian languages.


Lemnian and Etruscan are part of a linguistic family that also includes the Rhaetian language. This linguistic family is called Tyrrhenian. Without the Rhaetian language, the picture can not be complete.

According to a recent study, analysis and comprehension of the Demlfeld plate found in Austria, Etruscan and Reatic descend from a very old Tyrsenian language, called "Common Tyrrhenic" ("Tirrenico comune"). The Raetic was the first to separate itself from this common linguistic ancestor, later the Etruscan. Then from the Etruscan derived the Lemnian (which in the figure is called Tirrenico).

The major problem to fully understand the framework of non-Indo-European or Proto-Indo-European languages ​​is that we miss the inscriptions of many languages ​​that have become extinct before the introduction of the alphabet. And many other languages have not left written inscriptions because those inscriptions have simply been lost. So to get the whole picture is not easy.


OC2JO7W.png



Source: Carlo de Simone, Simona Marchesini, La lamina di Demlfeld (2013)
 
Lemnian and Etruscan are part of a linguistic family that also includes the Rhaetian language. This linguistic family is called Tyrrhenian. Without the Rhaetian language, the picture can not be complete.

According to a recent study, analysis and comprehension of the Demlfeld plate found in Austria, Etruscan and Reatic descend from a very old Tyrsenian language, called "Common Tyrrhenic" ("Tirrenico comune"). The Raetic was the first to separate itself from this common linguistic ancestor, later the Etruscan. Then from the Etruscan derived the Lemnian (which in the figure is called Tirrenico).

The major problem to fully understand the framework of non-Indo-European or Proto-Indo-European languages ​​is that we miss the inscriptions of many languages ​​that have become extinct before the introduction of the alphabet. And many other languages have not left written inscriptions because those inscriptions have simply been lost. So to get the whole picture is not easy.


OC2JO7W.png



Source: Carlo de Simone, Simona Marchesini, La lamina di Demlfeld (2013)

need to move on

http://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/wiki/Script
 
Lemnian and Etruscan are part of a linguistic family that also includes the Rhaetian language. This linguistic family is called Tyrrhenian. Without the Rhaetian language, the picture can not be complete.

According to a recent study, analysis and comprehension of the Demlfeld plate found in Austria, Etruscan and Reatic descend from a very old Tyrsenian language, called "Common Tyrrhenic" ("Tirrenico comune"). The Raetic was the first to separate itself from this common linguistic ancestor, later the Etruscan. Then from the Etruscan derived the Lemnian (which in the figure is called Tirrenico).

The major problem to fully understand the framework of non-Indo-European or Proto-Indo-European languages ​​is that we miss the inscriptions of many languages ​​that have become extinct before the introduction of the alphabet. And many other languages have not left written inscriptions because those inscriptions have simply been lost. So to get the whole picture is not easy.


OC2JO7W.png



Source: Carlo de Simone, Simona Marchesini, La lamina di Demlfeld (2013)

The noticeably closer relationship between Etruscan and Lemnian lends some credence to the hypothesis that Lemnian was actually an offshoot from older Etruscans or Etruscan-related tribes that somehow participated in the troubles of the Bronze Age collapse as one of the Sea Peoples. That would explain the late divergence, possibly only from as late as the beginning of the 1st milennium BC, and the fact that Lemnian was an isolated language in an Aegean island very far away from Italy. If Lemnian had something to do with the pre-Greek Pelasgians of the Aegean area, and Pelasgian languages were related to Etruscan due to a much earlier colonization, its inscriptions would most surely be very different from Etruscan, and not virtually a daughter language.
 
Didn't they find Etruscan livestock to be Near Eastern? I think Herodotus' story makes more sense.
 
Actually the studies based on ancient Etruscan samples are very few. And generally speaking Etruscans can't be the primary source of an increase of CHG in Italy, because CHG in Italy is higher in non-Etruscan areas.

One of the few paper (Ghirotto et al, Origins and evolution of the Etruscans' mtDNA, 2013) based on Etruscan samples states that




More specifically:




Close similarity between Etruscan and Central European Neolithic mtDNA.




etr_anc.jpg



1oCTU2n.png



Another study that analyzed Etruscan genome (Tassi et al, Genetic evidence does not support an etruscan origin in Anatolia, 2013)





Then we have a PCA with three Etruscan samples: ETR2, ETR5, ETR9. Probably not enough yet, but better than none.


etruscans.jpg

so this lets us assume they were autochtonous to italy. that doesn't have to disprove the theory that the proto etruscan language was brought with the CHG admixture starting 3800 BC. it means that the italic people prior to the indo european invasian probably spoke etruscan like languages since according to your comment the etruscans did not come recently to italy and their genome fits into the people around them. that etruscan regions have less CHG than the other regions could be explained by the fact that there was already a gradient from south to north. it doesn't have to show up in mtdna either if the migration was male dominated. someone mentioned they were metalworkers,smiths. who says they only produced the weapons and didn't use them?
i think those studies all assume a recent migration from anatolia and not something dating back to late neolithic early bronce age. if you asked the question if there was an increase in CHG during this period then the answer is probably yes. and since this was this long ago and all of italy including central europe was effected you wont see a difference between etruscans and other contemporary pre-steppe italic people.

it's just a theory for me. i actually do not believe in this more than in other theories. but i think its worth thinking about it especially when anatolia or southern caucasus could be the homeland of PIE.
that the etruscans were autochtonous doesn't prove it but it would fit in this theory. if they were not it would disprove it.

where did you get the last pca and what are the labels ibs and tsi?
 
Last edited:


Sile, thank you very much that you have posted this link. You need to understand that's about the script. The origin of a script doesn't tell you anything about the origin of a language. The site you posted is the Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum, an online edition of the Raetic inscriptions conducted at the Department for Linguistics of the University of Vienna. Austrian professor Stefan Schumacher is their project leader and he is one of the supporter of an Etruscan/Rhaetian connection.


The Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum project states that:

Relationship to Etruscan and the Tyrsenian language family

So far as the limited documentation of Raetic allows conclusions, it appears to be close to the Etruscan of the oldest inscriptions.

http://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/wiki/The_Raetic_language


"According to archaeological and linguistic data, the split (between Etruscan and Rhaetic language) must have taken place prehistorically, certainly before the Bronze Age."

Together with Etruscan and the language of the Island of Lemnos (in Northern Aegaeis, “Tyrsenic”), the Rhaetic language belongs to a non Indo-European language family called Common Tyrrhenic, identified in 1998 by H. Rix, confirmed in 1999 by S. Schumacher and recently outlined by de Simone 2009, de Simone, Marchesini 2013 and Marchesini 2014. Common features of the three languages have been observed in phonology, morphology and syntax. Lexical correspondences are rarely attested, due not only to the limited number of well-conserved Rhaetic and Tyrsenic texts, but also to the very early date at which the languages split. According to archaeological and linguistic data, the split must have taken place prehistorically, certainly before the Bronze Age.

Source: http://mnamon.sns.it/index.php?page=Lingua&id=41&lang=en


The noticeably closer relationship between Etruscan and Lemnian lends some credence to the hypothesis that Lemnian was actually an offshoot from older Etruscans or Etruscan-related tribes that somehow participated in the troubles of the Bronze Age collapse as one of the Sea Peoples. That would explain the late divergence, possibly only from as late as the beginning of the 1st milennium BC, and the fact that Lemnian was an isolated language in an Aegean island very far away from Italy. If Lemnian had something to do with the pre-Greek Pelasgians of the Aegean area, and Pelasgian languages were related to Etruscan due to a much earlier colonization, its inscriptions would most surely be very different from Etruscan, and not virtually a daughter language.

I agree with you. Unfortunately we don't have any "Pelasgian" inscription, and Pelasgian itself is a very broad term.

At present the pre-Greek substrate is only studied through hypothetical linguistic loans. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Didn't they find Etruscan livestock to be Near Eastern? I think Herodotus' story makes more sense.

Only problem is that the authors didn't consider that the livestock strain is the same as that which came with the Neolithic farmers. We understand a lot more now than we did when that original paper was written.



There was an increase in "CHG" like alleles all over southeastern Europe, more of it, in fact. Did the Etruscans invade Albania, Romania, and on and on, as well?

Do we really have to go back and explain the differences between a script and a language? Again?

Pelasgian is an obsolete term which has no place in discussions about genetics.

I'm an agnostic about this issue, but most of the arguments for it have big, fat, holes in them.
 
Only problem is that the authors didn't consider that the livestock strain is the same as that which came with the Neolithic farmers. We understand a lot more now than we did when that original paper was written.



There was an increase in "CHG" like alleles all over southeastern Europe, more of it, in fact. Did the Etruscans invade Albania, Romania, and on and on, as well?

not the etruscans but maybe the proto etruscans, who could have come from the south east and moved north. i mean if it was true that PIE originated from the south caucasus why couldn't this be possible? pre anatolian might have existed before 3500 bc and we see an increase in CHG ancestry in europe starting at around this time so it could be possible that there were people who spoke this language moving into europe. genetically there probably isn't much more to find here. i'm no linguit so i also don't know if there is much more to find in linguistics. if someone could prove that anatolian and tyrsenian languages have a common root or not it would be clear. but it probably remains an open question. maybe the similarities between anatolian languages and tyrsenian could be there because the expanding PIE's adopted things from the people they conquered in anatolia and who spoke some kind of EEF language that was similar to proto etruscan.
 
Aegean Sea Peoples attacked Egypt, destroyed Myceanians, Hittites and Semitic kingdoms. They were very capable to reach Italy as did Greeks and Illyrians in south Italy. Greeks counted Lemnians as Pelasgians, they said nothing about Etruscan colony.
 
There is a romania HG (romania!) that is 50%WHG and 50% EHG. ---- 6000bc. Several Iron Gates HG, 7000bc, where 20% EHG.
So, when we find EHG that existed there for millennia, mixed with CHG/EEF that we know was flowing heavily into the region for millennia, we say its "steppe" coming from ukraine?

There is nothing that sounds an alarm in your brain?

Since both the Minoans and Mycenaeans had CHG ancestry, it is likely it was primarily from the same source (Anatolia and the Near East). If it came in the Chalcolithic (generally considered as part of the Neolithic), that was more of a technology, than population, diffusion, so wasn't likely to have overturned the population or imposed new ruling castes. Since Indo-European steppe tribes also had CHG ancestry, the Mycenaeans could have also got it from that source.
 
Sile, thank you very much that you have posted this link. You need to understand that's about the script. The origin of a script doesn't tell you anything about the origin of a language. The site you posted is the Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum, an online edition of the Raetic inscriptions conducted at the Department for Linguistics of the University of Vienna. Austrian professor Stefan Schumacher is their project leader and he is one of the supporter of an Etruscan/Rhaetian connection.


The Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum project states that:



http://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/wiki/The_Raetic_language


"According to archaeological and linguistic data, the split (between Etruscan and Rhaetic language) must have taken place prehistorically, certainly before the Bronze Age."



Source: http://mnamon.sns.it/index.php?page=Lingua&id=41&lang=en




I agree with you. Unfortunately we don't have any "Pelasgian" inscription, and Pelasgian itself is a very broad term.

At present the pre-Greek substrate is only studied through hypothetical linguistic loans. Correct me if I'm wrong.

here is the next
http://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/wiki/Modern_research_on_the_Raeti_and_Raetic

In the end, there is no asia minor migration for the bulk of Etruscans, they came from north of the alps like some italian scholars state, the same northern area from where where umbrians came into Italy.......this is why umbrians and etruscans are cousins.
The lemnian business is what I stated a few years ago.......that is etruscan traders setting up a colony to trade in that area .........the lemnian stelae was scribed by these etruscan traders/colonists
 
"Pelasgian" was simply a general term that the Greeks (Herodotus, etc.) used to refer to the pre-Greek population of Greece. If I use it, it is always in quotes, denoting it as literary "shorthand" for the indigenous Neolithic population of Greece, prior to the initial incursion of Greek-speaking tribes from the Balkans (2,000 BCE?).

The Athenians considered themselves to have been "Pelasgians" or autochthonous ("earth-born"), in that they weren't overrun by the Dorians (c. 1,200 BC). Interestingly, in Greek myth, Belus was the father of Danaus, the heroic patronym of the "Danaans" (or Greeks, in Homer). The "B" to "P" switch is an etymological/linguistic commonplace.
 
"Pelasgian" was simply a general term that the Greeks (Herodotus, etc.) used to refer to the pre-Greek population of Greece. If I use it, it is always in quotes, denoting it as literary "shorthand" for the indigenous Neolithic population of Greece, prior to the initial incursion of Greek-speaking tribes from the Balkans (2,000 BCE?).

The Athenians considered themselves to have been "Pelasgians" or autochthonous ("earth-born"), in that they weren't overrun by the Dorians (c. 1,200 BC). Interestingly, in Greek myth, Belus was the father of Danaus, the heroic patronym of the "Danaans" (or Greeks, in Homer). The "B" to "P" switch is an etymological/linguistic commonplace.

This is a commonly held thought but not right in my opinion. I have gone through all of Harvards classics texts and this is not
the conclusion I came to.

1. It's true the term is used somewhat loosely in cases. This is mostly true the later in time the specific source is from. Romans from 3rd century AD use it differently than ancient greeks.

2. That it's used for different peoples doesn't negate the possible existence of an actual original Pelasgian people or tribe from which the term originates (Columbus calling Native Americans Indians doesn't negate the existence of Indians proper).

3. The way pelasgians are referred to in ancient texts are very specific. That is, they aren't a general term for indigeneity. They describe a different people or ethnicity situated in a territory and time, in a conflict or relation with another people or tribe, etc.

Here is an index of all referrals to them in the Harvard Classics catalogue:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...arvard-Classics-Catalogue?p=538475#post538475
 
The term 'Pelasgian' is used in different ways by different authors. Sometimes apparently it was used for speakers of non-Doric 'Greek', possibly for people whom we label today 'Bronze Age Greeks'.

The statement that this term refers to 'pre-Greek inhabitants of Greece' is false. First of all that is a modern concept. There no such concept in ancient sources.

Also, another statement which is false is that 'the Greeks generally equated Pelasgians with Etruscans'
 
Thoukidides
is clear

Attika before Hellenised(Dorian descent) spoke Thyrrenian simmilar lemnean,
generally the overall gives an After Mycenean, before Dorian(Temenides) population
that camefrom minor Asia to Aegean to Etruria.
It is not only in Lemnos,
but also in other islands,
the pigeon godess. (if remember correct ATUN) as also the snake/dolphin people, etc etc

DO NOT MIX PELASGIANS WITH PELAGONIANS,

PELAGONIA IS A REAGON OF MAKEDONIA,
PELASGIAN ARGOS AND PELASGIOTIS HAVE NOTHING TO DO PELAGONIA

PELAGONIA MEANS ONCE WAS A PELAGO, A SEA, the land that once was sea,
PELASGIAN ARGOS MEANS THE VALLEY OF PELASGIANS
PELASGIOTIS MEANS COUNTRY OF PELASGIANS.

BTW
search the tombs and the Y-DNA of Thyrrenians,

it has nothing to do with stupid claims, of some 'scholars'


word Attica might be Pelasgian
and probably means Hatti-ko notice -ko- is used also in other Greek cities,
most possible is that pelasgians were Hattian (not Hettit) speakers
 
it's just a theory for me. i actually do not believe in this more than in other theories. but i think its worth thinking about it especially when anatolia or southern caucasus could be the homeland of PIE.
that the etruscans were autochtonous doesn't prove it but it would fit in this theory. if they were not it would disprove it.
I do not understand why you think that the question of whether the Etruscans were autochthonous or not has any bearing on the theory that Anatolia or Southern Caucasus could be the ultimate homeland of PIE. Surely the arrival of the ancestors of Etruscans, whether it was in the Late Neolithic/EBA or in the LBA/Early Iron Age, was an indepenent and unrelated development, and there is no reason to believe that the two (IE and Tyrrhenian) expansions must've been linked to each other or even come from the same place (Anatolia+South Caucasus is a huge territory, and those who believe Etruscan came directly from Anatolia talk about Western Anatolia, many hundreds of km away from the postulated and hypothesized homeland for Early PIE in Transcaucasia, much closer to Azerbaijan and Armenia than to the Aegean islands).
 
Thoukidides
is clear

Attika before Hellenised(Dorian descent) spoke Thyrrenian simmilar lemnean,
generally the overall gives an After Mycenean, before Dorian(Temenides) population
that camefrom minor Asia to Aegean to Etruria.
It is not only in Lemnos,
but also in other islands,
the pigeon godess. (if remember correct ATUN) as also the snake/dolphin people, etc etc

DO NOT MIX PELASGIANS WITH PELAGONIANS,

PELAGONIA IS A REAGON OF MAKEDONIA,
PELASGIAN ARGOS AND PELASGIOTIS HAVE NOTHING TO DO PELAGONIA

PELAGONIA MEANS ONCE WAS A PELAGO, A SEA, the land that once was sea,
PELASGIAN ARGOS MEANS THE VALLEY OF PELASGIANS
PELASGIOTIS MEANS COUNTRY OF PELASGIANS.

BTW
search the tombs and the Y-DNA of Thyrrenians,

it has nothing to do with stupid claims, of some 'scholars'


word Attica might be Pelasgian
and probably means Hatti-ko notice -ko- is used also in other Greek cities,
most possible is that pelasgians were Hattian (not Hettit) speakers

Your post is contradicting itself, because if Attica does derive from "Hatti" indicating its population was Hattic then it logically couldn't have been Tyrrhenian, since Etruscan and Lemnian have no apparent - i.e. not so remote that it's virtually impossible to attest - ancestral connection with what linguists know of the Hattic language. So, either that population was Hattic, or it was Tyrrhenian. Those two language families can even, theoretically, have had some long gone common ancestor, but by the Bronze Age they were most certainly not just different languages, but independent language families.
 
not the etruscans but maybe the proto etruscans, who could have come from the south east and moved north. i mean if it was true that PIE originated from the south caucasus why couldn't this be possible? pre anatolian might have existed before 3500 bc and we see an increase in CHG ancestry in europe starting at around this time so it could be possible that there were people who spoke this language moving into europe. genetically there probably isn't much more to find here. i'm no linguit so i also don't know if there is much more to find in linguistics. if someone could prove that anatolian and tyrsenian languages have a common root or not it would be clear. but it probably remains an open question. maybe the similarities between anatolian languages and tyrsenian could be there because the expanding PIE's adopted things from the people they conquered in anatolia and who spoke some kind of EEF language that was similar to proto etruscan.

There is no significant support from serious linguists to this assumption that Tyrrhenian and Anatolian IE have a common root or even had substantial mutual influence. AFAIK that's a pretty fringe hypothesis without much wider acceptance. There aren't any significant morphological or syntactic (i.e. in the core of the language's structure) between Etruscan and Luwian or Hittite, and what I've read once mentioned only a supposedly large number of apparent cognates/loanwords, which doesn't really prove any genetic-linguistic relationship at all.

Also, the usual date estimated for the split of Anatolian IE (that wasn't even the earliest form of PIE, but the first significant branching off from PIE) ranges from 3500 to 4200 BCE.

That means that Common PIE, with Anatolian included, must've existed more or less siimilar to its reconstructed form by at least 4000 BCE. The CHG spread into Europe dates to the Copper Age and Early Bronze Age, that is, basically contemporaneous with a time when PIE was already fully formed and beginning to split into different IE branches. That spread of CHG would've necessarily involved "full PIE", not some kind of Tyrrhenian-IE ancestor.

There is no way to explain, within such chronological constraints, how Tyrrhenian was so extremely more diverged from PIE (including its post-4000/3500 BCE Proto-Anatolian daughter) if it had supposedly participated in those same demographic and cultural expansions. It was, even as early as the Copper Age, at best a "cousin" language family with a common ancestor with PIE several thousands of years earlier (back in the Early Neolithic or even Mesolithic) - and even that is very uncertain according to most linguists.
 
Didn't EHG and CHG have any substructure to allow differentiating a much earlier Mesolithic EHG admixture in the Balkans from a much later Pontic-Caspian EHG extensively mixed with a CHG that also did not necessarily come from the exact same genetic substructure from where the CHG admixture may have come independently to the Balkans in the Copper Age/Bronze Age? I think that with increasingly numerous samples scientists can distinguish such subgroups of these very broad (geographically and genetically) labels and test, in their calculators, what scenario fits the available data better.

That is what I am asking. :)

Its just I get confounded if that steppe signal has different alleles than the ones combining the CHG/IranN and EHG, say for instance in Romania/Bulgaria/Thrace. Very undersampled region in timespan for that matter.
However if the EHG component in those Hunter gatherers was the same as in Ukraine and CHG combination with farmer is the same seen arriving to Steppe in 5th milenium, I still have to be convinced that the steppe signal is all "steppe" or we have "steppe" signal from people that have nothing to do with steppe.

Example: How do we know that the "steppe signal" in Mycenaean is definitely from Steppe populations from Ukraine and not from the next door much closer, lets called Romania "fake Yamnaya"?
Or the alleles are the same and there is no way of distinguishing it?
 

This thread has been viewed 40810 times.

Back
Top