Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 25 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 603

Thread: Ancient genomes from Caucasus inc. Maykop

  1. #76
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    The haplogroups in this set of Chalcolithic/Bronze Age South Caucasus correspond to the haplogroups that I have associated with the Kura-Araxes expansion (J2a, J1-Z1828, L1b, T1a-P77 and G2a-L293) except that they didn't find any T1a among those 12 samples (but it's not surprisingly considering the low frequency of this haplogroup in any region today).

    The Bronze Age admixture from the South Caucasus that they detect in Greece is obviously from the Kura-Araxes expansion (just look at the haplogroups found in Minoan Greece or modern Crete), not from the Anatolian branch of IE. I completely agree that Proto-Indo-European descend from a language spoken by R1b-L23 in the South Caucasus, but that group of R1b-L23 wasn't related to Kura-Araxes (Georgia, Armenia), but to a distinct population apparently more concentrated around Azerbaijan and NW Iran, where R1b-L23 is still found today at reasonable frequencies.

    I have only very briefly browsed the paper, but from the admixtures posted above it is startling to see just how different Steppe Maykop (almost pure EHG) is from core Maykop (CHG + Anatolian Chalcolithic).
    there are many y haplogroups missing when you compare with this paper below....figure 2................
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2011192
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  2. #77
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-03-11
    Posts
    249
    Points
    9,934
    Level
    29
    Points: 9,934, Level: 29
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 16
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Country: Spain - Asturias



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Yes, if most of it was relatively late in the day.



    So, are we looking at a very early movement of a "CHG" heavy population north onto the steppe which is responsible for the majority of the "CHG" signal?

    This might tie in with their speculation of a mixed EHG/CHG cline running north to south through the Caucasus, which ties in with how they model EHG in that Admixture chart. Of course, Admixture is not the be all and end all. I'm still going through the Supplement results for the other analyses.

    The fact remains that the mtDna in this new cluster of samples shows mtDna usually associated with northern groups in the Caucasus and vice versa.

    You might want to read the Razib Khan opinion piece I just posted.

    @halfalp,

    I know. That ONE sample was 100% EHG. The point is that "J", an unambiguously "Caucasus" clade, made it all the way up there, so SOME samples might have retained a trace of CHG, although that one sample did not.

    Yes?
    My thoughts are that EHG and CHG are mostly linked to J in origin. J is very diverse in the Caucasus, So CHG doesn't needs to belong to only one J or to the whole J lineages.

    When R1a arrived to the western steppes, this should be populated mostly with J and I individuals (not necessarily only IJ lineages but not P(xV88) lineages).

    Also CHG doesn't need to be made only of J-linked components but also could be involved other lineages like LT (as could work for some EHG components)
    Last edited by Alpenjager; 18-05-18 at 22:18.

  3. #78
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I think that Eneolithic steppe sample is 4300 BC, so that's about right. However, it's already there in really big percentages by that time, so it must have come earlier. The other hint, as you said, is lack of ANF at that point.

    Maykop is just too young for most of it.

    This is why they're saying they can't be more definitive. They don't have, or don't want to publish samples old enough to know for certain whether it's really old on the steppe, or a bit more recent but from an as yet unsampled population.

    Since I've always thought that Basal may have moved in from the Mesopotamia region, I'd love to see some ancient genomes from there.
    This is one thing that is bothering me in this whole "Transcaucasia vs. Steppes" discussion. I mean, if the bulk of the CHG in the Pontic-Caspian steppe populations is very ancient, having being absorbed in high proportions before 5000 BC (the lack of ANF in the steppes also indicate that early introgression), then it is, from a linguistic point of view, very hard to accept the possibility that Early PIE was a "CHG language" from the southern slopes of the Caucasus, because that would imply that Anatolian IE (or also possibly, according to this study, even much less diverged languages like Armenian and especially Greek) and the Pontic-Caspian steppe IE would've split in the 6th millennium BC. Either scientists assumed a much faster pace of linguistic evolution, or it is just impossible that the initial split of PIE happened so early.

    Now, if we could demonstrate that there was a significant amount of extra CHG in the Chalcolithic Pontic-Caspian region, that could suggest a new demographic and presumably linguistic layer onto the older ethnic makeup.

    As for the lack of EHG in those few "Hittite" (or at least "near to the Hittite") samples, I was thinking (okay, speculating) a bit about it from the assumption (pretty much mainstream among linguists) that Anatolian IE split much earlier than the others and probably in a very different historic context (certainly not the mobile horse-driven pastoralism of Yamnaya and descendants). It also seems from this paper that the North Caucasus, right next to the steppes, had a very different genetic structure with a much higher CHG and ANF, so I'd think it is plausible that the southernmost portions of Sredny-Stog and/or Khvalynsk in direct contact with the North Caucasus could have some substructure in a transition zone to the steppes. We know now that Maykop had EHG, which is not found further to the south, so there was some cline. If the ancestors Hittites came from this region and expanded more or less in the fashion of later IE branches into regions that were already very populated (like Greece and South Asia), then they could've migrated south becoming a relevant and dominant minority with an increasingly diluted DNA makeup, and given their very early separation from the steppe or North Caucasus populations it's probable that by the time they established in former Hattic-speaking lands to form their kingdom and empire their EHG portion was just too small to make a significant presence in the genomic makeup of the region's average inhabitant. Mere genetic drift and regional substructure could make EHG virtually invisible after a few centuries unless we had many more samples. Doesn't this type of thing happen when migrations were not that powerful to trigger an appreciable population replacement? Just playing a bit with this speculation, let's imagine this totally hypothetical (and admittedly baseless for now) scenario:

    From CHG-enriched southern steppes just north of the North Caucasus (South_Steppe): 40% EHG, 55% CHG, 5% ANF
    Admixture with (north or south?) Caucasians during the Proto-Anatolian phase: 25% South_Steppe + 75% Local Caucasians (5% EHG, 70% CHG, 25% ANF) >>> 13% EHG, 66% CHG, 8% ANF.
    Admixture with North-Central Anatolians during the Hittite phase: 20% Proto-Anatolian + 80% Hatti and other natives (0% EHG, 30% CHG, 70% ANF) >>> 2.5% EHG, 37% CHG, 60.5% (2.5% EHG - and that's assuming that the Caucasians already had some EHG even before Maykop and that the Proto-Anatolians still made a reasonable demographic impact of ~25% and the Hittites one of ~20%, not too shabby)

    I'm just entertaining all the possibilities, especially considering that apparently the CHG component in the steppes is MUCH older than even the 1st Indo-European split around ~4000 BC, and not just some Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic influx bringing not just a new (presumably more advanced) people but potentially a new language family.

  4. #79
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Promenade's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-16
    Posts
    288
    Points
    4,459
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,459, Level: 19
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 191
    Overall activity: 2.0%

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

    Country: USA - New York



    4 out of 5 members found this post helpful.
    Considering Sabine Reinhold et al, the results we have are actually not surprising.

    Have a read, I think it will do a lot to clear confusion and focus things:

    "At the community level, bioarchaeological investigations seriously challenge the hypothesis of large-scale mobility both in piedmont and in steppe environments. Given this background, intensification of contact through a greater volume of trade promoted by wheeled transport (Sherratt 1981) is rather unlikely. Other mechanisms for the transfer of knowledge need to be considered (Frachetti 2012). The small number of non-local individuals in the North Caucasian sample suggest an isolated exchange of individuals and the knowledge they brought with them."

    "If strontium and carbon or nitrogen isotope data are combined, sufficiently variegated data clusters emerge for the sites in the steppe zone and the piedmont areas. This is an argument against highly mobile groups with home ranges covering a number of environmental and geological zones. However, each site also featured a few individuals whose stable isotope data were more similar to those of the majority of one of the other burial communities. Some burials, e.g. the oldest of the North Caucasian culture in mound Mar’inskaya 5 including grave 23 with a pair of bucrania, revealed noteworthy differences between early and late-developing teeth. These findings suggest deviant dietary habits and/or origin from another area and community. As we have seen earlier, such individuals may have been driving forces in the exchange of knowledge and a precondition for the spread of innovations. The home ranges of the local communities were spatially distinct, so frequent contacts did not occur naturally between the investigated groups. Accordingly, these individuals were certainly of special relevance."

    There was no large influx of Maykop people into the steppe or vice versa, hence why they do not share any y-haplogroups or much EEF/Anatolia_N ancestry until contact with Cucuteni–Trypillia. Wagons did not help facilitate transportation on a macro-level scale and were rather a novel invention that was quickly adopted over much of the old world. As we already know CHG ancestry entered the steppe much earlier than Maykop and if one believes this was a male dominated migration the same is then true for R1b as well. By this period in time though there was no massive genetic exchange occuring between the Caucusus and the steppe (it if occured it was centuries before this period) and knowledge was instead being transported by only a small number of individuals whose lineages may have gone extinct millenia ago. What this all means for the genesis and spread of IE is up for debate.

    "Burials and the transportation involved need not necessarily imply mobile individuals or mobile communities. While the usefulness of wheeled transport for pastoral communities living in steppe environments is indisputable, this need not entail large-scale mobility or long-distance migrations. In fact, the bioarchaeological data currently available from the North Caucasus suggest that the opposite was the case. We should thus focus our attention on the symbolism of the objects related to early transport or animal labour. The appropriation of traction discussed here as a social act in two different symbolic traditions did not tremendously change the normal lifestyle of the communities involved. However, it does reveal a sharp difference between the communities that emphasised social difference and power relations in their societies, e.g. Maikop, and those that did not, e.g. Yamnaya. It is most probably the symbolic aspect of the activities for which draught animals were employed that prompt different representations of traction in the two symbolic systems."

    What were some of these sharp cultural differences between the Maykop and Steppe communities? Both societies performed kurgan burials, but whereas Maykop burials focused on the engine of this new invention, the cattle, the Steppe communities focused on the actual vehicles, the wagons themselves. The study also mentions that burial with a cart was not stratified among gender or age with infants and women frequently being buried with carts and that there didn't seem to be any ritualization to the process yet. What is also interesting is that neither being buried with cattle nor a cart in Maykop or Steppe communities was a symbol of status. If we can infer from dietary consumption and physical stress those buried with cattle or carts had the same levels of physical stress and no better diets.

    "All isotope data on the individuals buried with wagons or pairs of cattle skulls plot among those buried without. As indicated by the physical anthropological analyses, the stable isotope data displayed no evidence that inhumation with a wagon or with cattle offerings marks a distinct social group with access to certain kinds of higher-quality food (Knipper et al. 2015). These observations also apply to the Maikop individuals, who lived in a society that used grave goods to emphasise social status. Moreover, the strontium isotope data from the wagon burials were indistinguishable from those of the other individuals and do not indicate any differences in mobility. Overall, the isotope data of the skeletal remains did not provide any evidence that the presence of wagons or cattle offerings as grave goods indicates membership of some kind of social elite characterised by regular access to certain types of food or by special mobility patterns...Only in the following late 3rd and early 2nd millennia BC in the South Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia and Mesopotamia did wagon burials become formalised status markers for elite burials (Sagona 2013)."

    Btw this study is directly referencing specimens we now have genetic data for, including Sharakhalsun 6, kurgan 2, grave 23 who is mentioned here in Sabine Reinhold et al:
    "It would indeed be tempting to see the male from Sharakhalsun 2/6, grave 18 not only as the driver of the oldest wooden vehicle dated so far but also as the trainer and master of the animals that once pulled his cart. Despite his frequent serious fractures, an anthropological examination cannot confirm or refute this hypothesis beyond all doubt. At the time, all individuals were very muscular due to constant heavy work and walking long distances."
    And also in the supplements of this study:
    "The second mound-shell was also built by early Steppe Maykop groups and graves 12 and 15 date to this period40. The third Maykop cluster dates to the second half of the 4th millennium BC. It includes grave 6, 11 and the atypical grave 18, which are among those that produced genome-wide data. This grave belongs to a specific group, with influences from Maykop and Yamnaya traditions3. During the 3rd millennium, Yamnaya groups used the Maykop mound and added several graves in central positions and on the periphery as well as at least one new mound-shell. The last interments (graves 1, 2, 7,8 and wagon grave 9) belong to the late Bronze Age Catacomb period. Empty grave 10 can only roughly be dated to the Middle Bronze Age. Mound 6 in Sharakhalsun revealed four complexes with remains of wooden wagons belonging to different cultural formations. It is one of few places with a concentration of wagon burials among the hundreds of excavated mounds in the vicinity and yielded the oldest dated wooden wagon so far in grave 186. This individual probably was one of the first that adopted this new technology in the North Caucasian and Caspian steppe41. The complexes of Sharakhalsun are part of a larger bioarchaeological study and are scheduled for full publication in 2019."


    They also have dna from Marinskaya 5, but unfortunately it doesn't look like it includes grave 23... one of the individuals thought to be an "innovator" who helped spread the technology/knowledge and originated from someplace foreign.

  5. #80
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    408
    Points
    9,237
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,237, Level: 28
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-DF103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1bm

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    This is one thing that is bothering me in this whole "Transcaucasia vs. Steppes" discussion. I mean, if the bulk of the CHG in the Pontic-Caspian steppe populations is very ancient, having being absorbed in high proportions before 5000 BC (the lack of ANF in the steppes also indicate that early introgression), then it is, from a linguistic point of view, very hard to accept the possibility that Early PIE was a "CHG language" from the southern slopes of the Caucasus, because that would imply that Anatolian IE (or also possibly, according to this study, even much less diverged languages like Armenian and especially Greek) and the Pontic-Caspian steppe IE would've split in the 6th millennium BC. Either scientists assumed a much faster pace of linguistic evolution, or it is just impossible that the initial split of PIE happened so early.

    Now, if we could demonstrate that there was a significant amount of extra CHG in the Chalcolithic Pontic-Caspian region, that could suggest a new demographic and presumably linguistic layer onto the older ethnic makeup.

    As for the lack of EHG in those few "Hittite" (or at least "near to the Hittite") samples, I was thinking (okay, speculating) a bit about it from the assumption (pretty much mainstream among linguists) that Anatolian IE split much earlier than the others and probably in a very different historic context (certainly not the mobile horse-driven pastoralism of Yamnaya and descendants). It also seems from this paper that the North Caucasus, right next to the steppes, had a very different genetic structure with a much higher CHG and ANF, so I'd think it is plausible that the southernmost portions of Sredny-Stog and/or Khvalynsk in direct contact with the North Caucasus could have some substructure in a transition zone to the steppes. We know now that Maykop had EHG, which is not found further to the south, so there was some cline. If the ancestors Hittites came from this region and expanded more or less in the fashion of later IE branches into regions that were already very populated (like Greece and South Asia), then they could've migrated south becoming a relevant and dominant minority with an increasingly diluted DNA makeup, and given their very early separation from the steppe or North Caucasus populations it's probable that by the time they established in former Hattic-speaking lands to form their kingdom and empire their EHG portion was just too small to make a significant presence in the genomic makeup of the region's average inhabitant. Mere genetic drift and regional substructure could make EHG virtually invisible after a few centuries unless we had many more samples. Doesn't this type of thing happen when migrations were not that powerful to trigger an appreciable population replacement? Just playing a bit with this speculation, let's imagine this totally hypothetical (and admittedly baseless for now) scenario:

    From CHG-enriched southern steppes just north of the North Caucasus (South_Steppe): 40% EHG, 55% CHG, 5% ANF
    Admixture with (north or south?) Caucasians during the Proto-Anatolian phase: 25% South_Steppe + 75% Local Caucasians (5% EHG, 70% CHG, 25% ANF) >>> 13% EHG, 66% CHG, 8% ANF.
    Admixture with North-Central Anatolians during the Hittite phase: 20% Proto-Anatolian + 80% Hatti and other natives (0% EHG, 30% CHG, 70% ANF) >>> 2.5% EHG, 37% CHG, 60.5% (2.5% EHG - and that's assuming that the Caucasians already had some EHG even before Maykop and that the Proto-Anatolians still made a reasonable demographic impact of ~25% and the Hittites one of ~20%, not too shabby)

    I'm just entertaining all the possibilities, especially considering that apparently the CHG component in the steppes is MUCH older than even the 1st Indo-European split around ~4000 BC, and not just some Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic influx bringing not just a new (presumably more advanced) people but potentially a new language family.
    Two questions : Do you mean, as I seem to understand, that the Proto-IE/Anatolian ancestor language was initially EHG ? What is your estimate of the time span between the departure of the Anatolians and the emergence of Yamna ?
    It is therefore worth while to search out the bounds between opinion and knowledge; and examine by what measures, in things whereof we have no certain knowledge, we ought to regulate our assent and moderate our persuasion. (John Locke)

  6. #81
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    119
    Points
    1,697
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,697, Level: 11
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    This is one thing that is bothering me in this whole "Transcaucasia vs. Steppes" discussion. I mean, if the bulk of the CHG in the Pontic-Caspian steppe populations is very ancient, having being absorbed in high proportions before 5000 BC (the lack of ANF in the steppes also indicate that early introgression), then it is, from a linguistic point of view, very hard to accept the possibility that Early PIE was a "CHG language" from the southern slopes of the Caucasus, because that would imply that Anatolian IE (or also possibly, according to this study, even much less diverged languages like Armenian and especially Greek) and the Pontic-Caspian steppe IE would've split in the 6th millennium BC. Either scientists assumed a much faster pace of linguistic evolution, or it is just impossible that the initial split of PIE happened so early.

  7. #82
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    Two questions : Do you mean, as I seem to understand, that the Proto-IE/Anatolian ancestor language was initially EHG ? What is your estimate of the time span between the departure of the Anatolians and the emergence of Yamna ?
    No, I don't mean that, I don't think any of us should be too sure about it. I'm entertaining the possibilities of both scenarios: that it originally (actually not PIE per se, but the distant ancestors of it) came from a EHG-majority population or from a CHG-majority population, and on a separate note that it came from north of the Caucasus or from the Caucasus itself (South Caucasus mainly). See, it's even perfectly possible that, if a large % of CHG arrived in the steppes very early on (Early Neolithic), PIE could've been BOTH a CHG language AND also a steppe language. It would've been brought so long ago to the Pontic-Caspian region that its IE descendants couldn't realistically have split in the beginning of the Neolithic, so the language would've moved to the steppes before it started to diverge. There are several possibilities.

    I myself believe that a Caucasian origin among originally CHG-majority tribes followed by a consolidation of the language (at least non-Anatolian PIE) in the steppes is very likely, however I can clearly see that there is no way I can pretend that the data already allow me to discard any other hypothesis, especially if one doesn't focus only on the genetics, but also - as we all should, we're talking about a language family here - on the linguistic perspective on this matter.

    I think that the data, including these latest data from this Caucasus paper, are not conclusive at all, so both hypotheses sound plausible and worth investigating at least as of now. Those who claim that all the evidences are pointing to a "game over" either for the Steppe hypothesis or for the South Caucasus hypothesis are deluding themselves. There are still a lot of missing links and unclear stuff in this narrative, and there is certainly no "game over" (the authors themselves are extremely cautious, talking about "possibilities", "could have happened" and so on). Beginning, of course, from the fact that the CHG in the steppes looks like it's very old, and not some Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic influx that would fit perfectly well with a South Caucasian expansion in two directions, one to Anatolia (Anatolin) and the other to the Pontic-Caspian region (Residual Late PIE).

    Well, as for the dating of the split of Anatolian PIE I personally estimate that it certainly happened before 3500 BC (so, before Yamnaya) and most probably around 4000 BC, so some 500-700 years before the start of the Yamnaya expansion. That's basically the conclusion given by comparisons of the technological vocabulary in the IE branches and also by glottochronological methods, and also a safe date to explain why Hittite already was so very divergent from Mycenaean Greek and the few attestations of Old Indic by 1600 BC.

    Therefore, I think steppe IE and Anatolian derived from the language of a pre-Yamnaya culture either in the steppes or in the Caucasus (regardless of whether it was originally more EHG or more CHG), but we definitely still need to explain how on earth the steppes could have absorbed that Caucasian language without any major Caucasian-shifted Y-DNA makeup transformation, and when there are signs that even before 4300 BC (the Eneolithic Ukraine sample) the EHG+CHG was already there in the steppes. If that CHG mix with EHG is too old, that could mean that even if the pre-PIE language had come with CHG people it would've been established in the Pontic-Caspian steppes for so long that it's really hard to imagine that Anatolian PIE and Steppe/Late PIE would've split in the Caucasus, possibly before 5000 BC. That's just too early, as most linguists AFAIK would agree.

  8. #83
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    What is the source? Without that information we can conclude basically nothing. If this is extracted from Bouckaert et al. or Renfrew, honestly the vast majority of linguists found so many mistakes in their data (including using wrong words and wrong assignments of some languages to an IE branch, actually the mistakes of Bouckaert et al. were so many that they inspired an entire book about them by linguist Asya Pereltsvaig) that I wouldn't consider these graphs at all. There was massive criticism from real experts against the models of those two studies, and not just because of methodological disagreements, but simply because there were lots of wrong premises leading to wrong conclusions.

    Some of those dates look extremely suspicious to me: Anatolian splitting in 6700 BC, when not even agriculture and pastoralism had been spread to the whole Caucasus region (so what was the expansion about?). Tocharian splitting in the steppes as early as 5900 BCE even before Khvalynsk existed, and even before any pastoralism had developed there. Northwestern/European branches splitting at 4500 BC, before any major CHG or EHG expansion into Europe and before Sredny Stog, Yamnaya, Maykop, Kura-Araxes and virtually any other major culture possibly associated with the dynamics of CHG or more specifically PIE expansion. The dates just don't fit the archaeological evidences, unless they want us to believe that, without any major migration an/or acculturation, EEF people in Europe spoke IE, CHG people in Caucasus spoke IE, EHG people in the steppes spoke IE, and so on.

  9. #84
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    119
    Points
    1,697
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,697, Level: 11
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: United States


  10. #85
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    408
    Points
    9,237
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,237, Level: 28
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-DF103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1bm

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    The ancient presence of CHG north of the Caucasus does indeed complicate the pattern. I wish that team of geneticists would conduct a similar scrutiny of ancient genomes from Northern Mesopotamia and the Lake Van area.
    Their kind of rather impermeable genetic frontier between Maikop and Steppe runs counter to an R1b link between NW Iran and the Steppe. What of that R1b guy in Hajji Firuz ? A stray lone wanderer ?

  11. #86
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    Oh this is from 2011, the times when Dienekes still staunchly supported the Anatolian Neolithic expansion hypothesis for PIE, and when biology-inspired glottochronological methods were still beginning to be more widely used and, honestly, being believed somewhat naively as if languages function exactly like biological entities. Also, we know so much more about the genetics part of this equation now, just imagine how little we knew in 2011 about ancient populations.

    This Bayesian glottochronological results given by Gray & Atkinson were very criticized in later years by several linguists, and they really yield some strange results especially as you go for more ancient language connections, because of the higher likelihood of accumulated borrowings and less well known lexicon (but there are weird datings even some of the later branches, like estimating that Latin split into its distinct daughter languages as early as 300 AD). There are also heavily controversial classifications, like Celtic being much further from Italic than Germanic, Romani splitting off very soon from other Indo-Aryan languages, and Polish and Belarusian being more related between themselves than they are due to prolonged contact. The method seemed to be prone to several mistakes caused by borrowings, different rates of phonetic and morphological evolution, presence of significant non-IE substrate, and so on.

    There are studies that suggest there is a serious over-estimation of the dates using that Bayesian method, as the aforementioned linguist Asya Pereltsvaig pointed out in her book (see below, I really recommend reading her professional criticism of these supposedly "revolutionary" and "conclusive" methods). So, all these extremely old dates should be, probably, pushed forward significantly to be more credible and fit the archaeological and linguistic evidence better. Very few serious linguists today even entertain the possibility that, if Anatolian IE supposedly split from the rest in 6700 BC, PIE was spoken in Mesolithic 7000-8000 BC and spread even before the Caucasian and Pontic-Caspian Neolithic.

    https://books.google.com.br/books?id...page&q&f=false

    https://imgur.com/a/KpwgW4p
    Attached Images Attached Images

  12. #87
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    I have only very briefly browsed the paper, but from the admixtures posted above it is startling to see just how different Steppe Maykop (almost pure EHG) is from core Maykop (CHG + Anatolian Chalcolithic).
    I wonder if the so-called "Caucasian influence" (substrate or superstrate? I don't know) assumed by some linguists to have impacted the early development of PIE came from such a situation of strong "Caucasianization" of acculturated Southern Steppe tribes even in the absence of major immigration/population replacement, maybe even starting before Maykop. As per this paper, there seems to have been a long and hard genetic boundary between the steppe and the North Caucasus, but what if some of the steppe populations themselves had adopted Caucasian culture and language and thus become an intermediary vehicle for Caucasian influence to the more northern parts of the steppe away from the slopes of the Caucasus?

  13. #88
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    Maybe more advanced civilization with much more population in the south forced the steppe population to assimilate into them? Steppe population need to know the language to communicate, trade, work etc. with them.
    Maybe, but I don't think a people in a huge pre-modern region, much of which located hundreds of kilometers away from the Caucasus societies, would shift their everyday language just to be able to trade with them. They were mostly subsistence hunter-gatherers and later pastoralists, not export-driven societies. According to the study, they seem to have had "occasional contacts" with each other and maintained a strongly differentiated genetic border for centuries. That doesn't look like the situation where an entire population would shift to the more prestigious language to communicate, work and exchange ideas and goods with the foreigners who live far away and seldom mix with them. AFAIK in the past there is virtually no attested evidence of a people that forsook their language and adopted a foreign one just because they had occasional trade with them (if someone among you remembrs one such a case, please tell me), but probably lived apart from each other most of the time (see the aforementioned centuries-long genetic border with few influences from each side), so apparently there was no need to have inter-ethnic communnication on a daily basis. Multilingualism in the distant past was also no rare stuff, but linguistic shift usually requires much more than being neighbored by a more advanced society.

  14. #89
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,382
    Points
    38,681
    Level
    60
    Points: 38,681, Level: 60
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 369
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    This is getting muddy in terms of the genetics.

    "An interesting observation is that steppe zone individuals directly north of the592 Caucasus (Eneolithic Samara and Eneolithic steppe) had initially not received any593 gene flow from Anatolian farmers. Instead, the ancestry profile in Eneolithic steppe594 individuals shows an even mixture of EHG and CHG ancestry, which argues for an595 effective cultural and genetic border between the contemporaneous Eneolithic populations in the North Caucasus, notably Steppe and Caucasus. Due to the temporal597 limitations of our dataset, we currently cannot determine whether this ancestry is598 stemming from an existing natural genetic gradient running from EHG far to the north599 to CHG/Iran in the south or whether this is the result of farmers with Iranian farmer/600 CHG-related ancestry reaching the steppe zone independent of and prior to a stream601 of Anatolian farmer-like ancestry, where they mixed with local hunter-gatherers that602 carried only EHG ancestry."

    Well, if it wasn't there before, and then it was there, wouldn't you lean toward it moving in, especially as it's showing up in steppe Maykop?

    Anyway, this is helpful to keeping it straight:
    [IMG][/IMG]

    [IMG][/IMG]
    I find strange some admixtures tries, above: GAC input without any WHG??? so their HG's would have been only EHG from Ukraine? in Eurogenes I think I red the Steppes Maykop had some 'siberian' or 'american' input, so something from far East?
    aside of this, I don't know it these people did IBD approaches?
    concerning Mycenia, they show in some admixtures (GENERETIKER, amateur it's true) slight but maybe significative differences with Minoans (BTW these last ones would show some far East auDNA too, spite very light); Mycenia appears with less 'westasian', more 'HG' but this 'HG' is not 'WHG' for the most, but 'EHG'; more 'EHG' with less 'westasian', this doesn't point to a South Caucasus/Anatolia route...
    I found confusing the three last studies about Caucasus Steppes and SCAsia -
    I 'm still about R1b-L23 born in Armenia or Azebaidjan and have not made my thought about steppe or no steppe in metals ages Armenia; I red in Wiki Kura-Araxes had been kind of regression compared to Leila Tepe, and maybe multicultural; some flood from North?
    South-Caucasus seems attractive for PIE but spite my ancientopinions about Renfrew I begin to wonder if Tripolye could not have played an important role in IE genesis?
    So for me, "game is not over"

  15. #90
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,338
    Points
    46,152
    Level
    66
    Points: 46,152, Level: 66
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 798
    Overall activity: 14.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    I must see, after this study, PIE origin didn't become much clearer.
    The solution seems more complicated now.

  16. #91
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    04-09-16
    Posts
    491
    Points
    1,935
    Level
    12
    Points: 1,935, Level: 12
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 215
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Portugal



    1 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    The ancient presence of CHG north of the Caucasus does indeed complicate the pattern. I wish that team of geneticists would conduct a similar scrutiny of ancient genomes from Northern Mesopotamia and the Lake Van area.
    Their kind of rather impermeable genetic frontier between Maikop and Steppe runs counter to an R1b link between NW Iran and the Steppe. What of that R1b guy in Hajji Firuz ? A stray lone wanderer ?
    Hi. You might find the answers here:
    https://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo...ra-araxes-8426

    Remember... there is a reason Lab rats are avoiding publishing Shulaveri. Everyone surrounding Shulaveri , earlier and later, have already been published. Not them tough.

  17. #92
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    05-03-16
    Posts
    385
    Points
    3,326
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,326, Level: 16
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 124
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    CHG route went probably from "Iran,Kurdistan or Armenia" from around Caspian sea into steppe rather than through Caucasus mountains into steppe.

  18. #93
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,357
    Points
    282,490
    Level
    100
    Points: 282,490, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    I find strange some admixtures tries, above: GAC input without any WHG??? so their HG's would have been only EHG from Ukraine? in Eurogenes I think I red the Steppes Maykop had some 'siberian' or 'american' input, so something from far East?
    aside of this, I don't know it these people did IBD approaches?
    concerning Mycenia, they show in some admixtures (GENERETIKER, amateur it's true) slight but maybe significative differences with Minoans (BTW these last ones would show some far East auDNA too, spite very light); Mycenia appears with less 'westasian', more 'HG' but this 'HG' is not 'WHG' for the most, but 'EHG'; more 'EHG' with less 'westasian', this doesn't point to a South Caucasus/Anatolia route...
    I found confusing the three last studies about Caucasus Steppes and SCAsia -
    I 'm still about R1b-L23 born in Armenia or Azebaidjan and have not made my thought about steppe or no steppe in metals ages Armenia; I red in Wiki Kura-Araxes had been kind of regression compared to Leila Tepe, and maybe multicultural; some flood from North?
    South-Caucasus seems attractive for PIE but spite my ancientopinions about Renfrew I begin to wonder if Tripolye could not have played an important role in IE genesis?
    So for me, "game is not over"

    After finally getting through all the supplementary material, I think this paper, like the one on South Asia, doesn't really provide the genetic data to completely support the conclusions, even if in this paper the conclusions are called "possibilities".

    At this point, I have more questions than answers.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  19. #94
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    If European farmers were speaking a language related to Etruscan there would have been an Etruscan-related substrate in all European IE languages.
    I associate early Etruscans with Central European pile dwellers.'
    If you think that for Etruscans to be descended from Anatolian farmers we'd have to see an Etruscan-like substrate in all European IE languages, then who do you think those pre-Etruscan CE pile dwellers were if not descendants of at least one branch of Anatolian-derived EEF? I honestly don't think we can presume that the Anatolian Neolithic colonization of Europe happened with just one language group involved in it. Why should we think that the entire European continent spoke just 1 language family (the same directly ancestral to Etruscan) when IEs arrived, especially given that the Anatolian immigration had happened more than 3000 years earlier?

  20. #95
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympus Mons View Post
    Hi. You might find the answers here:
    https://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo...ra-araxes-8426

    Remember... there is a reason Lab rats are avoiding publishing Shulaveri. Everyone surrounding Shulaveri , earlier and later, have already been published. Not them tough.
    Why would they conspire against the Shulaveri-Shomu if it would even help them advance the very hypothesis they seam to lean to and have been finding more worth investigating, which is the South Caucasus homeland? I think you're fantasizing too much on this specific point.

  21. #96
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    After finally getting through all the supplementary material, I think this paper, like the one on South Asia, doesn't really provide the genetic data to completely support the conclusions, even if in this paper the conclusions are called "possibilities".

    At this point, I have more questions than answers.
    My thoughts. I think those who have read these results and are now claiming victory for one of their "homeland" models, which are now looking increasingly simplistic, must have not read very carefully or are too blinded by wishful thinking. This study, while fascinating, only made everything even more confusing and uncertain. LOL

  22. #97
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,357
    Points
    282,490
    Level
    100
    Points: 282,490, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    I find strange some admixtures tries, above: GAC input without any WHG??? so their HG's would have been only EHG from Ukraine? in Eurogenes I think I red the Steppes Maykop had some 'siberian' or 'american' input, so something from far East?
    aside of this, I don't know it these people did IBD approaches?
    concerning Mycenia, they show in some admixtures (GENERETIKER, amateur it's true) slight but maybe significative differences with Minoans (BTW these last ones would show some far East auDNA too, spite very light); Mycenia appears with less 'westasian', more 'HG' but this 'HG' is not 'WHG' for the most, but 'EHG'; more 'EHG' with less 'westasian', this doesn't point to a South Caucasus/Anatolia route...
    I found confusing the three last studies about Caucasus Steppes and SCAsia -
    I 'm still about R1b-L23 born in Armenia or Azebaidjan and have not made my thought about steppe or no steppe in metals ages Armenia; I red in Wiki Kura-Araxes had been kind of regression compared to Leila Tepe, and maybe multicultural; some flood from North?
    South-Caucasus seems attractive for PIE but spite my ancientopinions about Renfrew I begin to wonder if Tripolye could not have played an important role in IE genesis?
    So for me, "game is not over"
    You can see it upthread in the Admixture chart.

    Maybe you'd find this helpful from the Razib Khan link I posted:

    "Another curious nugget in their results is that there was early detection of both Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE) ancestry and, some East Eurasian gene flow (related to Han Chinese). One of their individuals carries the East Eurasian variant of EDAR, which today is only found in Finns, though it was found in reasonable frequencies among the Motala hunter-gatherers of Scandinavia. Additionally, Fu et al. 2016 found that the ancestors of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers received some gene flow from Eastern Eurasians as well (also in the supplements of Lazaridis et al. 2016)."

  23. #98
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Lol their chart shows CHG in Motala, CWC more CHG than EHG please... here we going away of PIE, we are reconstructd the genetic prehistory of europe with CHG in is core.
    Well, that wouldn't be completely surprising if the Yamnaya-like source of the vast majority of the autosomal ancestry of CWC was already heavily CHG (and it's been a long time since we first knew that the steppe population was ~50% CHG), and if some of the CHG-related influx into Southeastern Europe also reached Central Europe bringing even more CHG via EEF-majority populations. Even before the CWC horizon started, much (most?) of the CWC territory had already been "cleaned" from heavy WHG and EHG presence by EEF, anyway.

  24. #99
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    If you think that for Etruscans to be descended from Anatolian farmers we'd have to see an Etruscan-like substrate in all European IE languages, then who do you think those pre-Etruscan CE pile dwellers were if not descendants of at least one branch of Anatolian-derived EEF? I honestly don't think we can presume that the Anatolian Neolithic colonization of Europe happened with just one language group involved in it. Why should we think that the entire European continent spoke just 1 language family (the same directly ancestral to Etruscan) when IEs arrived, especially given that the Anatolian immigration had happened more than 3000 years earlier?
    I don't know what their genetic profile would have been. They could have descended from 'native' (pre-Neolithic) 'hunter gatherers' who could have acquired admixture from LBK and then expanded in a region which was genetically Mycenaean-like (Tuscany), if I interpret the ancient sources correctly.

    Concerning the substrate my comment was about those who believe that EEFs/ANFs were speaking Etruscan-related languages. I don't believe that is something that can be supported.

    Those who expanded from the same source (wherever that was) in the Neolithic could have spoken languages that belonged to the same language family.

  25. #100
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,357
    Points
    282,490
    Level
    100
    Points: 282,490, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Razib Khan is also grappling with the timing questions:

    "The close relationship of Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages is obvious to any speaker of either of these languages (I can speak some Bengali). A divergence in the range of 4 to 5 thousand years before the present seems most likely to me. But the relationship of the other Indo-European languages is much less clear.
    One of the arguments in Peter Bellwood’s First Farmers is that the Indo-European languages exhibit a “rake-like” topology with the exception of Indo-Iranian, which forms a clear clade. To him and others in his camp, this argues for deep divergences very early in time.
    It is hard to deny that the steppe migrations between 4 and 5 thousand years ago had something to do with the distribution of modern Indo-European languages. But, it is harder to falsify the model that there were earlier Indo-European migrations, perhaps out of the Near East, that preceded these. Only a deeper understanding of linguistic evolution, and multidisciplinary analysis of regional substrates will generate the clarity we need."


    On the relevance of steppe in Hittites:

    "More interesting are the results in West Asia, and the linguistic supplement. In the authors note that tablets now indicate an Indo-Aryan presence in Syria ~1750 BC. Second, Assyrian merchants record Indo-European Hittite, or Nesili(the people of Nesa), as early as ~2500 BC.

    "
    The main aspect I’d bring up with this is that in other areas steppe ancestry has spread deeply and widely into the population, including non-Indo-European ones. It is certainly possible that the sample is not needed enough to pick up the genuinely Hittite elite, but I probably lean to the likelihood that the steppe signal won’t be found. It seems that the Anatolian languages were already diversified by ~2000 BC, and perhaps earlier. Linguists have long suggested that they are the outgroup to other Indo-European languages, though this could just be a function of their isolation among highly settled and socially complex populations."

Page 4 of 25 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •