Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 7 of 25 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 605

Thread: Ancient genomes from Caucasus inc. Maykop

  1. #151
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    It's then pretty confusing to see south caucasus 30% ANF and Yamnaya ANF too. if yamnaya is ANF and not EEF it means Anatolian_Neolithic came from south caucasus. EEF is anatolian_farmer + WHG = european farmer. ANF is just anatolian_neolithic, so if anatolian_neolithic is in steppe without WHG, why are they saying ANF with something WHG and not EEF ? And the green is CHG it's says in the graphics, i didn't understand first because iran_chalcolithic is like 80% CHG, but it says in the graph that this is CHG.
    Possibly because using the abbrevation EEF you'd suggest an European origin and ANF + WHG is more neutral. However, considering the fact that some of the first signs of pastoralism on the Pontic steppe is by a culture - Usatovo - associated with Cucuteni-Tripoli you can make the guess where it came from.

    https://www.academia.edu/11290674/De...chwarzmeerraum

  2. #152
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,734
    Points
    27,708
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,708, Level: 51
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 942
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    I think we can all agree that this era in the Caucasus/South Steppe was not one of great migrations of people, but rather of great ideas. Novel technologies such as wagons and knowledge of sophisticated metallurgy were being transported quite rapidly by intrepid individuals, but they were few and did not influence the genetic composition of the steppe as we can see in Steppe and Caucasus samples who do not even share a single y-dna haplogroup and the stability of the autosomal admixture in the steppe. Different cultures of close proximity were also interpreting this technology through separate lenses with steppe people focusing on the wagons and Maykop focusing on the animals that pulled them, interestingly enough neither saw them as status markers at first. We can assume this migration of ideas did not usurp the original language of the steppe either as this technology was spread over the middle east and we still see a rich diversity of languages there centuries later. Maykop has been hypothesized to be both Kartvelian and Northwest Caucasian, considering the NW Caucasians supposed relationship with IE and the distribution of modern NW Caucasian speakers I'd say the latter is more likely. Everyone here has the right idea and looking further back in time to the original source of CHG (and cattle) in the steppe as the progenitors of what would eventually become PIE/LPIE or whatever term you wish to call it, this also gives more time for Anatolian languages if the Indo-Hittite theory is correct.
    This is also what I'm seeing and concluding from the data of this coupled with previous recent studies. No doubt Pre-PIE could've (possibility, no hard proof until now) come from the Caucasus of Transcaucasia with CHG-majority people, but it looks like the IE expansion, probably even including the Anatolian branch, would've begun not with this CHG northward migration, but only with a language already firmly consolidated in the Pontic-Caspian region (in the steppe or in the since centuries earlier (and possibly significantly changed by an EHG substrate and phonological influence, as well as simple internal dynamics - remember the Kortlandt hypothesis of a "mixed" Eurasian language imposed onto a Caucasian one?).

    If the scientists managed to find a profound CHG vs. EHG cline in the steppes, with some region concentrating much more CHG and less EHG than others, then I think the apparent lack of EHG in the few samples of arguably Hittite-dominated lands in BA Anatolia can be explained (as I demonstrated above, even an original Pre-Anatolian PIE tribe with a full 40% EHG could easily yield just 2.5% of EHG in BA Anatolia), without needing to resort to an unlikely scenario where PIE was spoken south and north of the Caucasus in the Copper Age circa 4000-3500 BC, but there was no significant autosomal and Y-DNA exchange between the two regions in the same period.

  3. #153
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,734
    Points
    27,708
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,708, Level: 51
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 942
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    It's then pretty confusing to see south caucasus 30% ANF and Yamnaya ANF too. if yamnaya is ANF and not EEF it means Anatolian_Neolithic came from south caucasus. EEF is anatolian_farmer + WHG = european farmer. ANF is just anatolian_neolithic, so if anatolian_neolithic is in steppe without WHG, why are they saying ANF with something WHG and not EEF ? And the green is CHG it's says in the graphics, i didn't understand first because iran_chalcolithic is like 80% CHG, but it says in the graph that this is CHG.
    I had missed those labels, but then I agree it's really confusing, because even their samples labeled "CHG" are not completely green. And Iran_Neolithic and CHG are usually considered to be related, not one descending from the other. Weird terminology, indeed.

  4. #154
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,734
    Points
    27,708
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,708, Level: 51
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 942
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    What about a second wave though, from Maykop, bringing Z2103 and metallurgy? Why couldn’t it have happened around the time of Maykop? What about that Copper Age Iranian Z2103 that was mostly Anatolian + Iranian Neolithic (correct me if I’m wrong)? And what about other things to note, such as the clear parallels in things like Chalcolithic pottery between Mesopotamia and the Balkans, and also Swastikas found in both areas?
    Well, it COULD, but we can't say that it is LIKELY that that happened until we find an appreciable amount of Z2103 in Maykop, and if later studies prove that there was indeed a 2nd heavy genetic impact from CHG-majority Caucasian populations onto the steppes. That isn't clear in this study, what we see is actually that by the Copper Age and afterwards, in Yamnaya, there was no sign of any major change either in the Y-DNA distribution or in the autosomal admixtures mainly found in the steppe populations. An important migration of a more advanced and powerful people, but leaving very few genetic impact? Not very likely. But you could still be right. We just need more data that fit this hypothesis.

    As for that Chalcolithic Iranian Z2103, I think we should wait the final publication, because the Y-DNA in that preprint were all over the place, including some very obvious and virtually unbelievable mistakes. In any case, if that Z2103 in Hajji Firuz had a lot of Anatolian and Iranian Neolithic, then they can't be the best source of Z2103, because by the Chalcolithic there were already a lot of R1b-Z2103 in the steppes and they were associated with an almost entirely EHG+CHG autosomal ancestry.

    As for swastikas, as I already told you in another topic I don't think we can connect the spread of a symbol with a genetic expansion, especially when we know that that symbol was found in EEF-majority Balkans, ANF/Levant-majority Mesopotamia, EHG/CHG-majority steppes and so on. It doesn't look like it came inside a coherent and exclusive package together with just one specific expansive population.

  5. #155
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,734
    Points
    27,708
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,708, Level: 51
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 942
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Olympus Mons View Post
    Johane, agree.
    And most people do not seem to "get it" (mostly in other forums). this paper is about setting straight the record of who Maykop were. Nothing else. Now we know.

    So, the paper has nothing to do with PIE, or R1B, etc. Just look at the staggering number of Y dna L in there. Like the ones found in Kura araxes and pretty clear the NEW component that made the south caucasus mix AFTER 4.900B.C. , after the disappearance of the Shulaveri. - Its obvious, that the last chapter will be about the Shulaveri and their dispersal to Steppe and Southeastern Balkans.
    What Balkanic culture do you think was associated with this later dispersal to Southeastern Balkans contemporary to the dispersal to Steppe? Your hypothesis at least has the big advantage of having a credible dating to before the Eneolithic ~4500 BC, so probably when CHG was still entering massively into the steppes and when PIE was still (probably) one common, undivided language.

  6. #156
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,847
    Points
    310,429
    Level
    100
    Points: 310,429, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    To the one who found my post unhelpful, you can elaborate about what you found unhelpful and we can deliberate and have a conversation about it that we may both find helpful in the end.
    Yes, I'd like to see an explanation. It was a good post which I would have given an upvote if I had any "juice" left.


    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

  7. #157
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    129
    Points
    2,436
    Level
    13
    Points: 2,436, Level: 13
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 14
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    It's interesting that some of our commenters here are reaching a different conclusion than the authors of the paper. I think we will have to wait for more papers and data.

  8. #158
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,734
    Points
    27,708
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,708, Level: 51
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 942
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by berun View Post
    It would be convenient to take into account the ecosystem as to understand old migrations: EEF or ANF would'nt be much interested in bare lands with no possibility to grow crops, for farmers the steppe was a desert, instead, for herders the steppe was a wide land free to colonize. The line dividing steppe and Caucasus in the map is telling well what I'm suggesting, it was an invisible frontier.
    I agree as a whole, but can we really make it a sort of "historical rule"? Weren't the Cucuteni-Tripolye very successful occupying a large part of the westernmost Pontic-Casian steppe and forest-steppe between the Bug and Dniester?



  9. #159
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,411
    Points
    6,524
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,524, Level: 23
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 26
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    I might be wrong at end of the day but looking at the graphic, orange is ANF, blue is EHG and green is CHG. I might read the graphic completely wrong but even EHG have substantial part of CHG, even Mal'ta have CHG, so has a said in previous post, CHG have now to be defined because it looks really like a combination of a lot of origin and not just Iran_Neolithic and CHG.

  10. #160
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,411
    Points
    6,524
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,524, Level: 23
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 26
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    Possibly because using the abbrevation EEF you'd suggest an European origin and ANF + WHG is more neutral. However, considering the fact that some of the first signs of pastoralism on the Pontic steppe is by a culture - Usatovo - associated with Cucuteni-Tripoli you can make the guess where it came from.

    https://www.academia.edu/11290674/De...chwarzmeerraum
    I dont feel it's the case, nobody a part amateur interested in those studies are aware of all we are talking here, there is no mass sensitivity applied, there is no need to be neutral. I think they know exactly what they are saying, but that's the point what are they saying ? It's an amazing paper, the Caucasus paper, i waited it for so many months, but the semi-conclusion and the fact that this study let more questions than answers about the genetic history of europe is frustrating. Like a lot of people have said, i think they have way more samples and they have constructed a story about PIE before publishing this paper and certainly many other papers. I feel they should give their analysis to how they percieve CHG and genetic interactions, because this study is very different than the previous in their results, i mean CHG in Motala, this is not random, this is not nothing, i believe the result, but i can't believe some guys from south caucasus roaming into scandinavia in mesolithic, so CHG have to have more secrets, what are those secrets ?

  11. #161
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    well we have 2 different genetic entities living next to each other without a barrier that seperates them (frontiers are even shifting), but no substantial admixture between both for at least 3000 years

    isn't that amazing?
    Almost like WHG and farmers, although those admixted far more. And what's even more amazing is that they are considered to be part of the same culture/horizon.

  12. #162
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I dont feel it's the case, nobody a part amateur interested in those studies are aware of all we are talking here, there is no mass sensitivity applied, there is no need to be neutral.
    But a large part of their audience are archaeologist and linguists, who have long standing fierce discussions. As archaeogenetics is delivering data these geneticists may feel it their task to be as neutral as possible. If you'd had a lab specialized in C14 dating you'd also be bloody careful not to present your data with a verdict attached.

    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I think they know exactly what they are saying, but that's the point what are they saying ? It's an amazing paper, the Caucasus paper, i waited it for so many months, but the semi-conclusion and the fact that this study let more questions than answers about the genetic history of europe is frustrating. Like a lot of people have said, i think they have way more samples and they have constructed a story about PIE before publishing this paper and certainly many other papers. I feel they should give their analysis to how they percieve CHG and genetic interactions, because this study is very different than the previous in their results, i mean CHG in Motala, this is not random, this is not nothing, i believe the result, but i can't believe some guys from south caucasus roaming into scandinavia in mesolithic, so CHG have to have more secrets, what are those secrets ?
    I think the Reich lab makes a big mistake in mingling in the Urheimat discussion the way they do. For two reasons, the first being what I said about being neutral. The second is that they don't call it and point to a culture. I think that is because that need for neutrality remains being felt, but it now becomes a constant hinting. This way nobody can counter or take apart their proposal because it's too vague. And yet we are constantly prodded in one direction.

  13. #163
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    28,134
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,134, Level: 51
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 516
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    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.
    They possibly got their hands on some samples from the Caucasus that show some of the genes previously thought to be EHG are actually CHG like.

  14. #164
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    1 members found this post helpful.
    @halfalp

    ADMIXTURE does not show percentages of real admixture but percentages of how far several samples are from each other in Fst and f3 stats (IIRC). That is a subtle difference which will allow for artifacts. The value of ADMIXTURE is the first raw interpretation of the data. You therefore can state that this or that sample clearly has this or that affinity if it has a clear difference. However, it does show strange artifacts, or describes unadmixted samples as unexpected admixtures, as you noticed.

    EDIT: BTW, ADMIXTURE comes in K levels, meaning it forces the data in a limited number of populations, expressed in K=[number]. The runs that are done come with a P value, a statistical value related to the reliability. The way to run it is increasing K with one, run it, and then check the value of P. The best value of P is than taken as the best representation of reality. Very often, though, several adjacent K-level have P values that hardly differ. Still, the best is presented. That gives you an idea on how to interpret its results.

  15. #165
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    28,134
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,134, Level: 51
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 516
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Ailchu View Post
    seems like these admixture % are varying from study to study. first it was 50-60% EHG in yamnas. now its more like 30%. or the 50-60% were not saying how much was "actual" EHG admixture but how much was contributed by EHG populations including CHG like ancestry already present in these EHG's.
    ^this
    That is the most likely scenario in some samples form the Caucasus they found DNA formerly attributed to younger EHG samples.

    CHG admixture in the Steppes must be from several waves. The eariest reaching the region during early Neolithic or maybe Mesolithic. All the way into Chalcolthic/Bronze Age and even Iron Age.

  16. #166
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    ^this
    That is the most likely scenario in some samples form the Caucasus they found DNA formerly attributed to younger EHG samples.

    CHG admixture in the Steppes must be from several waves. The eariest reaching the region during early Neolithic or maybe Mesolithic. All the way into Chalcolthic/Bronze Age and even Iron Age.
    Why is that the most likely scenario? And which samples are those? And why wouldn't the added CHG populations pick up their part of the admixture, yet the EHG part would?

  17. #167
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Please, without rambling, why do you think Shulaveri went to the Balkans?
    With a warning. I give you one chance. I have Little time for certain phenotypes:

    so, ... which part of Zuzana Hofmanová et al 2016, telling us KUM6 (4600bc) belongs to a new and different anatolian population for having CHG, unlike previous Anatolia populations and EEF and which part of her , Hofmanova, telling us that, confirming Archeology, KUM6 (Kumtepe) shared ancestry with shortly later North Greece samples from late Neolithic, Klei10 , Pal7,and all sharing CHG, did you not get?.
    Which part of GM Kılınç - ‎2016, writing about her, again about her CHG, but also the shared ancestry with Remedello culture in North Italy, 1000 year later. Actually, telling us how remarkably close she was to Otzi the Iceman, that is thought to be a Remedello man did you not get?

    What is the part about Laziridis 2017 paper about Minoans and Mycenaeans that got you lost?


    So, the expansion of EEF/CHG into Balkans in the 5th millennium via North Anatolia is a reality. Boian, Gumelniţa–Karanovo VI, moving north into Varna and Cucuteni-trypolie, moving south into North Greece (yes later Mycenean), moving west until north Italy as Remedello. Like so many, others in other places, give it time and they will mix with other people.

  18. #168
    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 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    But a large part of their audience are archaeologist and linguists, who have long standing fierce discussions. As archaeogenetics is delivering data these geneticists may feel it their task to be as neutral as possible. If you'd had a lab specialized in C14 dating you'd also be bloody careful not to present your data with a verdict attached.



    I think the Reich lab makes a big mistake in mingling in the Urheimat discussion the way they do. For two reasons, the first being what I said about being neutral. The second is that they don't call it and point to a culture. I think that is because that need for neutrality remains being felt, but it now becomes a constant hinting. This way nobody can counter or take apart their proposal because it's too vague. And yet we are constantly prodded in one direction.
    Epoch, you are not a newbie. So show us where you were in the past voicing such concerns when these labs for over 5 years pretty much voice Steppe as the urheimat of PIE?

  19. #169
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Olympus Mons View Post
    With a warning. I give you one chance. I have Little time for certain phenotypes:

    so, ... which part of Zuzana Hofmanová et al 2016, telling us KUM6 (4600bc) belongs to a new and different anatolian population for having CHG, unlike previous Anatolia populations and EEF and which part of her , Hofmanova, telling us that, confirming Archeology, KUM6 (Kumtepe) shared ancestry with shortly later North Greece samples from late Neolithic, Klei10 , Pal7,and all sharing CHG, did you not get?.
    Which part of GM Kılınç - ‎2016, writing about her, again about her CHG, but also the shared ancestry with Remedello culture in North Italy, 1000 year later. Actually, telling us how remarkably close she was to Otzi the Iceman, that is thought to be a Remedello man did you not get?

    What is the part about Laziridis 2017 paper about Minoans and Mycenaeans that got you lost?


    So, the expansion of EEF/CHG into Balkans in the 5th millennium via North Anatolia is a reality. Boian, Gumelniţa–Karanovo VI, moving north into Varna and Cucuteni-trypolie, moving south into North Greece (yes later Mycenean), moving west until north Italy as Remedello. Like so many, others in other places, give it time and they will mix with other people.
    Didn't Varna have Steppe, or am I mistaking it for WHG? Also, what you are describing is basically the Caucasian component on Dodecad K12b, and your story seems to match the distribution.

    However, Maciamo seems to link it's spread in Europe to the Western farmers, and the CHG that was observed in the Minoan paper is surely from the Kura-Araxes expansion.

    What does this have to do with anything Indo-European?

  20. #170
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    Did you bother to read it? Because this paper doesn't even remotely bury the steppe theory. If anything, it buries the south of the Caucasus theory. Because, if the PIE homeland is there, how did late PIE get in the steppe? Not by males. And that is what this paper's data says.
    Did you really didn't understand what this paper is all about?

    This paper is about settling the record straight about Maykop origin and their role in the spread of PIE. So, Zero! People that thought that they were R1b/PIE origin can give up (like I always said and fought) and move on. which is good.

    Maykop is the extension of the two (now apparently two) components that made the Chalcolithic transcaucasia. The period from 4900bc onwards, as we are learning now should be described as the ultimate move of Ubaid into northern part of transcaucasia and the arrival of a another component that might have come from the Kopet Dag mountains, something linked to Jeitun culture/Keltiminar culture.

    So, leave ethnogenesis of you beloved Yamnaya out of these paper. That, happened in 4900bc. Why do you think any sample older than 4500bc was left out?

  21. #171
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Didn't Varna have Steppe, or am I mistaking it for WHG? Also, what you are describing is basically the Caucasian component on Dodecad K12b, and your story seems to match the distribution.
    Varna with steppe? maybe. But I want to know what happen to the Mathieson inconvenient Romania HG individual, 7000bc, that was 80% EHG?
    Varna should have elements from that pop, elements from LBK and from what I call sons of Shulaveri (Boian, Gulmenita, etc).

    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    However, Maciamo seems to link it's spread in Europe to the Western farmers, and the CHG that was observed in the Minoan paper is surely from the Kura-Araxes expansion.
    hummm, too much credit to Kura-araxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    What does this have to do with anything Indo-European?
    Proto Indo-European, as Krause, Reich and all the rest are now saying was transcaucasia 5500bc formed.
    the same population taking IE to Steppe also took the same language to balkans. ie KUM girl spoke PIE. therefore so did many thrace, greece populations in chalc and bronze age.

  22. #172
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,734
    Points
    27,708
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,708, Level: 51
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 942
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Olympus Mons View Post
    Varna with steppe? maybe. But I want to know what happen to the Mathieson inconvenient Romania HG individual, 7000bc, that was 80% EHG?
    Varna should have elements from that pop, elements from LBK and from what I call sons of Shulaveri (Boian, Gulmenita, etc).



    hummm, too much credit to Kura-araxes.



    Proto Indo-European, as Krause, Reich and all the rest are now saying was transcaucasia 6500bc formed.
    the same population taking IE to Steppe also took the same language to balkans. ie KUM girl spoke PIE. therefore so did many thrace, greece populations in chalc and bronze age.
    6500 BC? According to your hypothesis, didn't that spread to the steppe and the Balkans happen around 4900 BC? Would you assume that the language remained the same across 1600 years and it was already fully formed as the last common ancestor of all IE branches? As with all languages, it is obvious that there was a continuous chain of linguistic evolution going back thousands and dozens of thousands of years, but "the" PIE we all talk about is just the dialect from which all IE branches directly sprung, not its mother language(s).

    Also, according to what you think, would the Anatolian IE branch have separated from the rest in that first dispersal (4900 BC) or only later as a secondary - but still related - effect of their consolidation and expansion in other regions, their new homelands? A date as early as 4000-4200 BC or maybe even a bit earlier has been estimated by some linguists, but 4900 BC looks a bit less credible.

  23. #173
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    6500 BC?
    Sorry. typo. changed (5500bc more likely)

  24. #174
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post

    ...Also, according to what you think, would the Anatolian IE branch have separated from the rest in that first dispersal (4900 BC) or only later as a secondary - but still related - effect of their consolidation and expansion in other regions, their new homelands? A date as early as 4000-4200 BC or maybe even a bit earlier has been estimated by some linguists, but 4900 BC looks a bit less credible.
    Interesting - I don't know.

    What is the relation between Mycenaean and Hittite?
    *If any relation, then separation could happen later (meaning Hittite ancestor was Balkan "Shulaveri" IE).
    *If no relation, but Hittite related to Armenian then separation happened immediately (meaning local "shulaveri" IE stood in Erzurum region and became Hittite).

    Note: I find it strange, to say the least, that linguistics can pretend to ascertain the split of two 7000 year old languages measured by centuries, I truly don't get it. Instinct is to called it Bullshit.

  25. #175
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,734
    Points
    27,708
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,708, Level: 51
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 942
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Olympus Mons View Post
    Interesting - I don't know.

    What is the relation between Mycenaean and Hittite?
    *If any relation, then separation could happen later (meaning Hittite ancestor was Balkan "Shulaveri" IE).
    *If no relation, but Hittite related to Armenian then separation happened immediately (meaning local "shulaveri" IE stood in Erzurum region and became Hittite).
    That's the main problem (except for the Anatolian languages, which would fit an earlier Early PIE dispersal before the later Steppe PIE expansion): as far as I have read from the works of linguists, Anatolian and Hittite more specifically does not look particularly more related to Greek or Armenian at all and, in fact, IIRC some have argued that, among non-Anatolian IE branches, Anatolian could be assumed to be a bit (not much) closer to some Italo-Celtic features. Also, there is the fact that a Hittite-Armenian or Hittite-Greek, or then a tripartite Hittite-Armenian-Greek connection is not very supported by mainstream linguistics. Greek and Armenians are, much more even than Italo-Celtic, noticeably closer to arguably "steppe" IE branches, particularly Indo-Iranian, and in fact an appreciable number of linguists entertained the possibility of a Graeco-Armenian-Aryan dialect continuum in the early development of those subfamilies. Indo-Iranian also has clear connections with Balto-Slavic. So, it doesn't look like Greek and Armenian are "that" ancient - not as much as Anatolian - in terms of divergence form the rest of the PIE family, which would've developed in the steppes.

Page 7 of 25 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •