Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 812
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
Bronze Age Anatolia doesn't have EHG, but Bronze Age Eastern Europe doesn't have ANF. The only link in the Bronze Age of both Anatolia and Eastern Europe is CHG, wich predate Bronze Age. Maikop and related north caucasus chalcolithic cultures have some ANF, but their paternal lineages are absent of steppe. Now we have an interesting conclusion, both Anatolia wich we would assume are natively ANF and Eastern Europe wich we would assume are natively EHG are both Indo-European speakers at some point in history. But there's more, both Eastern Europe and Indian Sub-continent and Iran are in Iron Age - Early Antiquity, Indo-Iranian speakers without Eastern Europe having ANI/ASI or Iran/Indian having EHG. Those pattern can only have one conclusion ( apart of the conclusion that I-E languages have been transmitted with mothers ). The conclusion is that I-E languages had both a demic and cultural diffusion, some people in western europe have becomed I-E speakers with direct ancestors of Yamnaya, some others like India-Iran and Anatolia have become I-E speakers with cultural diffusion and male lineage founder effects. Everything contradicte everything in I-E studies, even the researchers in the papers they feel something is fishy with only steppe hypothesis but at the same time the others hypothesis cant explain everything. But just imagine whats the actual consensus from anti-steppist people. Maikop bring PIE to steppe and because they were culturally superior they imposed language and bring female lineage but not male lineage in the pontic steppe. So a semi cultural-demic diffusion. Now we can apply the same pattern to Anatolia and Iran-India. India have gotten a gigantic founder effect with R1a-Z93 wich is clearly a northern lineage related with Iron Age eurasian steppe, but they dont have EHG properly, so they are still autosomally ASI/Iran_Neolithic = ANI? Iran but Anatolia are different stories, Iran didn't have the founder effect of Indians with R1a and are near the middle east, so they constantly had mashing with other populations. For Anatolia its way more complicate, I-E languages disappear 3'200BC of that place, apart from a big scale sampling of those ancient times, we cannot make a conclusion whatsoever. But lets take back to the genetic link between Bronze Age Anatolia and Bronze Age Pontic Steppe. BA Anatolia is mostly 50/50 ANF and Iran_Chalcolithic, while BA Pontic Steppe is mostly 50/50 EHG and CHG. Now what differentiate CHG/Iran_Neolithic/Iran_Chalcolithic? There is any genetic link between all this that i'm pretty sure Harvard gonna change the terminology of CHG in the Pontic Steppe for Iran_Chalcolithic to fit their hypothesis, maybe in future samples, maybe even in a simple revision of terminology.
Iran/India did have EHG ancestry, including according to the latest papers EHG-derived ancestry independent of and before Yamnaya. The South Asian/South Central Asian papers definitely suggested a relatively small demic impact from the steppe pastoralists, but it did confirm that the EHG+CHG package of the BA Pontic-Caspian steppe did reach those modern Indo-Iranian territories - just not directly from Yamnaya, but rather from some populatio before Yamnaya and especially, in much higher proportions, after Yamnaya in the MLBA Andronovo horizon.
_________________________
I don't feel confident to affirm where the Early PIE (Indo-Hittite, Indo-Anatolian) was first spoken, because I think that with the data we have until now we're basically in a stalemate, at least if we keep in mind that Anatolian is almost universally considered by linguists to have split earlier than all other branches, and the split of these residual IE branches had already begun at the very least by the early/mid Yamnaya period (~3000 BC). By 1500 BC Hittite, Old Indic and Mycenaean Greek (these two actually demonstrably much closer to each other than other IE languages, so assumed to latecomers of the PIE expansion), were already so different that it's really hard to assume that their divergence happened a mere 1000-1500 years before. So, in the period immediately preceding the Yamnaya horizon we probably had this situation, which is hard to reconcile completely with "South Caucasus origin" or "Anatolian origin" or "Steppe origin":
* CA/EBA Pontic-Caspian steppe: Chalcolithic "old" EHG/CHG mix + a little extra CHG + a really tiny amount of ANF which only appears in non-negligible amounts by the time of Yamnaya + near complete dominance of local Y-DNA, very few signs of Anatolian & Caucasus influence + a Mt-DNA makeup that is much more similar to that of the North Caucasus females
* Caucasus (not its steppe slopes): Regional CHG + A lot of ANF + negligible or no EHG + Y-DNA makeup that is totally unlike that of the Pontic-Caspian steppe males + A Mt-DNA makeup that is much more similar to that of the Pontic-Caspian females
* Anatolia: Regional ANF + Increasingly more CHG/Iran_Neo + negligible or no EHG + predominantly local and some Caucasian-like Y-DNA
So, the pieces don't fit yet, unless we'll make a huge leap and assume that, to the surprise of most people, Caucasian women exchanged by Caucasus populations in exogamic arrangements were much more influential and powerful than we thought, having been able to produce a wholesale linguistic shift in the huge expanse of the Ukrainian/Russian steppes. One could argue that Y-DNA haplogroups can suffer dramatic expansions or retractions in some generations, but in that case we'd at least expect Caucasian-like Y-DNA haplogroups to be found in the "Indo-Europeanization phase" of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in much higher frequencies than in later periods (post-Yamnaya, for instance), which would suggest a later "comeback" of the native males winning over the Caucasian males who had become culturally dominant in an earlier age. But we see nothing like that in the ancient DNA database.