Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 189

Thread: 6.5 ka Levantine chalcolithic DNA

  1. #51
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,750
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,750, Level: 22
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 300
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by berun View Post
    wait! nobody is suggesting that T and the Iranian farmer is the responsible of the introduction of Indoeuropean into Israel? wait... no IE there? what a fun we can have with genetics uh?
    Typically what this means? What IE have to do with the actual context? It not even make any ironical sense. Can we stop to put PIE in every context like this is the graal?

  2. #52
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,716
    Points
    241,587
    Level
    100
    Points: 241,587, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    50% blue eye frequency is a lot. In NE Europe blue eyes became common from much lower percentages, i wonder why the reverse happened in Levant.
    I think it may have something to do with the movement of J1 and J2 bearing groups from the southern Caucasus. These Levant Chalcolithic people had about 17% Iran Chalcolithic, but they had a lot of Anatolian Neolithic, where we know that people had about 25% of this blue eyed gene. Drift, bottleneck, etc. might have increased it, or it's just a coincidence in this one collection of people, but Anatolia Neolithic was quite a bit fairer than Iran Neolithic.

    The Bronze Age Sidon and Jordan samples are almost 50% Iran Chalcolithic, with the rest Levant Neolithic, and are quite a bit darker, so that would fit.

    The question I have is whether there were any people in the Levant, i.e. Syria perhaps, or among ancient Jews, in the Bronze and Iron Ages who did descend from them, or are they a total dead end. One reason I wonder that is because isolated Syrian populations, i.e. Assad's group, Samaritans, and even Palestinian Christians can have a few people with a relatively "lighter" phenotype. This could, however, be a result of endogamy and thus a barrier to continuing gene flow from the direction of the Arabian peninsula.


    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

  3. #53
    Princess Achievements:
    Overdrive10000 Experience PointsVeteranThree Friends
    davef's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-06-16
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,186
    Points
    10,284
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,284, Level: 30
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 266
    Overall activity: 31.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian, Irish, Jewish
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    What all this have to do with what i said. You and me obviously knows the meaning of Aryan, of CHG, Anatolia_Nhl, but not everyone. You never fought that people could use it as a political recuperation not to valorize european culture or genetic like Nazis, but to devalorize it instead? I know exactly what i'm fighting for, i'm not interested in PIE for some ancient ethnic pride, but for history, but not every people are like this. Just look at Kurdish people who says " PIE came from Kurdistan ". If you let them have this reality, they gonna after that come with " everything europe as came from Kurdistan, so we have better, we can devalorize them ". Did you remember that Vladimir Putin in 2004 was going to Arkaim ( archeological site of Sintashta Culture ) and talked about it like a " russian pride ". Just imagine the same is do about PIE coming from Kurdistan or Turkey only because some Genetists have to virtue signaling.
    These people had Anatolian farmer ancestry which includes whg-like ancestry. That whg-like ancestry is likely where the blue eyes came from.
    mmmmmmmmmm doughnuuuuutz

  4. #54
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,750
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,750, Level: 22
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 300
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    These people had Anatolian farmer ancestry which includes whg-like ancestry. That whg-like ancestry is likely where the blue eyes came from.
    I mean i probably have hard time to explain the point. It's not about Blue Eyes, it's about how you use this information. " Chalcolithic Levantines were probably more blue-eyed than Bronze Age people from Russia " What does that mean? To use Bronze Age Russia as an analogy for you?

  5. #55
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,695
    Points
    25,247
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,247, Level: 48
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 303
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Exactly what's the point? It's Lazaridis who said, Hey look Levant Chalcolithic have more Blue Eyes than Chalcolithic Eastern Europe. Then he start to talk about how some Anatolian Farmers from the Gamba and Mathiesen papers and his study about Minoan also had Blue Eyes, then he even mention CHG for whatever reason. Why? What's the analogy between Levant Chl and Eastern Europe Chl a part of saying something like " hey look near-easterners where more aryans than PIE people ". Obviously my use of the term Aryan here is purely provocative. He could have just said: Wow ancient near-easterners had blue eyes, cool. But no, he talks about eastern europe with a somehow analogy with PIE, like an attack to people believing Eastern Europe and PIE people were Blonde haired and Blue eyed. That's typically people who hide ideas or agenda, and those ideas and agenda resurface at certain points for random reasons.
    Well, but if some people in 2018 still believe that PIE people were all Nordic types with blonde hair and blue eyes then I can see why a geneticist may have thought it'd be nice (or funny?) to call them out ("attack" is too strong a word frankly). I don't think the point of this comparison has two interesting observations: 1) things can change a lot in 5,000-6,000 years, so that the frequency of blue eyes in the Levant and in Eastern Europe are now almost the reverse of what they were in ~4000 BCE; 2) the traditional anthropologists and the pseudo-scientific or simply amateur/deluded racists of older generations were indeed very wrong when they believed that blue eyes and blonde hair were directly and mostly correlated with Indo-European ancestry, because there were other clearly non-IE sources for those traits. Unless blue eyes, light skin and blonde hair are somehow "more special" if they came only from Eastern Europe rather than at least partly from West Asia and from Western/Central Europe itself, I don't get what's the "big problem" in that provocation. The racists were again dead wrong. I can see why someone would find it worth commenting about.

  6. #56
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,750
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,750, Level: 22
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 300
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Lazaridis twitted this " I don't think it's directly relevant, as no one AFAIK proposed PIE had anything to do with Chalcolithic Israel, but certainly a piece of the larger puzzle. " So what is he trying to say?

  7. #57
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,750
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,750, Level: 22
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 300
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Well, but if some people in 2018 still believe that PIE people were all Nordic types with blonde hair and blue eyes then I can see why a geneticist may have thought it'd be nice (or funny?) to call them out ("attack" is too strong a word frankly). I don't think the point of this comparison has two interesting observations: 1) things can change a lot in 5,000-6,000 years, so that the frequency of blue eyes in the Levant and in Eastern Europe are now almost the reverse of what they were in ~4000 BCE; 2) the traditional anthropologists and the pseudo-scientific or simply amateur/deluded racists of older generations were indeed very wrong when they believed that blue eyes and blonde hair were directly and mostly correlated with Indo-European ancestry, because there were other clearly non-IE sources for those traits. Unless blue eyes, light skin and blonde hair are somehow "more special" if they came only from Eastern Europe rather than at least partly from West Asia and from Western/Central Europe itself, I don't get what's the "big problem" in that provocation. The racists were again dead wrong. I can see why someone would find it worth commenting about.
    Because it's not to others, especially people who dont have blue eyes ( wich i'am part of ) to call people with blue eyes out like they are shit. Racial bias and sexual bias are real things, wich i personnally dont care about, but a lot of people want to deconstruct those things. It's bad if you are a white guy having sexual bias over blonde blue eyed girl, but it's not if having over an african or a racial minority. It should be pretty obvious that fair features doesn't gives you any power, i dont understand your comment against racism here. So you cannot considering somebody special if he as blue eyes and blonde hair? its against every people that doesn't have those features? It's sad that such targeted shaming is happenning to Europe. And finally, what the heck have indo-european cultures to do with all this crap? Do you see warriors around you? Is Sweden a pride viking country? If you know actuality, then you know thats not. What IE was 4000 years ago, is not what it is today, this is for this reason i believe things like nationalism are bullshit, because those are federative ideas, you are willing to believe that everyone from your ethnic thinks the same, if it was the case, there would not be any other humans than europeans in europe.

  8. #58
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,297
    Points
    34,236
    Level
    56
    Points: 34,236, Level: 56
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 14
    Overall activity: 20.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I find it quite possible, even likely that the Afro-Asiatic linguistic component was originally absorbed by (or imposed onto) the Anatolian & Iranian ("northern") population that probably merged with Levant_Neolithic ones, hypothetically because they were highland immigrants in a more technologically advanced region or something like that. But that would've happened before the consolidation of a Proto-Semitic language and culture, before its expansion to other areas, probably still during the Late Neolithic,, and during that "gestation period" it's possible that the foreign elements eventually became dominant even before Proto-Semitic was spread elsewhere in the Fertile Crescent. I say that because I find it hard to believe that Afro-Asiatic came originally from too much north or east of the Levant, considering the distribution of the rest of the family (all other branches in Africa, some of them with possible older links to Southwest Asia, like Cushitic) and the heavy Natufian affinities in other heavily AA regions like North Africa and Egypt.
    with some fancy we could suppose the definite break of Semitic off other AA languages could have occurred when somme AA language came northwards and was adopted by more northern populations in ancient times, if I follow your suggestion or what I believe it is. After that, linguistically acculturated northern pops could have reversed the flood and passed a completely developped Semitic language to southern pops, their old "teachers" of more archaic AA... Not impossible at all. Latins were not the first basic IE speakers but after some time, when their culture and forces flourished they passed their locally evolved IE to other IE pops whose languages were maybe closer to the origins...

  9. #59
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,297
    Points
    34,236
    Level
    56
    Points: 34,236, Level: 56
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 14
    Overall activity: 20.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    the Chamitic languages are even, maybe, the more basic AA heirs? Or at least a more southern evolution of basic AA in situ (closer to the cradle).

  10. #60
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,750
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,750, Level: 22
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 300
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    I feel like, in linguistic afro-asiatic hypothesis are too conservative to try to debunk the actual hypothesis with some genetic facts. What's actually the real relationship between Afro-Asiatic languages? Some people have actual problem to consider even IE languages family as a thing, so imagine A/A?

  11. #61
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,695
    Points
    25,247
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,247, Level: 48
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 303
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Because it's not to others, especially people who dont have blue eyes ( wich i'am part of ) to call people with blue eyes out like they are shit. Racial bias and sexual bias are real things, wich i personnally dont care about, but a lot of people want to deconstruct those things. It's bad if you are a white guy having sexual bias over blonde blue eyed girl, but it's not if having over an african or a racial minority. It should be pretty obvious that fair features doesn't gives you any power, i dont understand your comment against racism here. So you cannot considering somebody special if he as blue eyes and blonde hair? its against every people that doesn't have those features? It's sad that such targeted shaming is happenning to Europe. And finally, what the heck have indo-european cultures to do with all this crap? Do you see warriors around you? Is Sweden a pride viking country? If you know actuality, then you know thats not. What IE was 4000 years ago, is not what it is today, this is for this reason i believe things like nationalism are bullshit, because those are federative ideas, you are willing to believe that everyone from your ethnic thinks the same, if it was the case, there would not be any other humans than europeans in europe.
    Dude, you're a bit obsessed about this. It's no shaming and no attack (like they are shit, what?) to say that blue-eyed people may not have inherited these traits from Eastern European steppe peoples, and that Middle Eastern populations may have had some contribution in the spread of that traits. Unless, of course, you think that there is something especially superior about Eastern Europe or steppe Indo-Europeans, and simultaneously something really shameful and. No self-aware blue-eyed person would feel offended by the mere suggestion (even if it end up being totally wrong) that the high frequencies of blue eyes in their nations may be a relatively recent situation and that blue eyes may have already existed in high frequency in parts of the Middle East before it achieved high frequency in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Most blue-eyed people won't even know what the Pontic-Caspian steppe is, to be honest.

    No, I don't think there's anything "special" about someone having blue eyes or blonde hair - not brown hair, red hair. It may be interesting, beautiful, exotic, fascinating, rare in some regions, but why woud some human being be "special" or "better" because of that? That statement is not just naive, but it's also problematic if you don't choose to ignore the very ugly and dangerous history of racism and white supremacism (particularly of the kind obsessed with "North European looks" - blonde, blue-eyed, very pale) in the very recent past, just decades ago. Statements have a history and a context that either justifies it or makes it even worse. You can't ignore historic and social context. Black pride usually means, in practice, something very different in society than white/blue eyes pride, let alone an even stronger assertion which is people with blue eyes are "special".

  12. #62
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Well, but if some people in 2018 still believe that PIE people were all Nordic types with blonde hair and blue eyes then I can see why a geneticist may have thought it'd be nice (or funny?) to call them out ("attack" is too strong a word frankly). I don't think the point of this comparison has two interesting observations: 1) things can change a lot in 5,000-6,000 years, so that the frequency of blue eyes in the Levant and in Eastern Europe are now almost the reverse of what they were in ~4000 BCE; 2) the traditional anthropologists and the pseudo-scientific or simply amateur/deluded racists of older generations were indeed very wrong when they believed that blue eyes and blonde hair were directly and mostly correlated with Indo-European ancestry, because there were other clearly non-IE sources for those traits. Unless blue eyes, light skin and blonde hair are somehow "more special" if they came only from Eastern Europe rather than at least partly from West Asia and from Western/Central Europe itself, I don't get what's the "big problem" in that provocation. The racists were again dead wrong. I can see why someone would find it worth commenting about.
    I think the hypothesis was more than just a racist fantasy, since modern frequencies of light pigmentation correlate very well with the extent of Corded Ware culture. Coon was very careful in his wording when he described that skeletally the steppe people were of a type that today is associated with blue eyes & blondism. He cites notable exceptions to this in Iran, East Africa etc. .

  13. #63
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,297
    Points
    34,236
    Level
    56
    Points: 34,236, Level: 56
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 14
    Overall activity: 20.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I feel like, in linguistic afro-asiatic hypothesis are too conservative to try to debunk the actual hypothesis with some genetic facts. What's actually the real relationship between Afro-Asiatic languages? Some people have actual problem to consider even IE languages family as a thing, so imagine A/A?
    It's only suppositions here, concerning AA. Concerning reality of IE, I think sincerely things are clear enough and well shored;

  14. #64
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,695
    Points
    25,247
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,247, Level: 48
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 303
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    with some fancy we could suppose the definite break of Semitic off other AA languages could have occurred when somme AA language came northwards and was adopted by more northern populations in ancient times, if I follow your suggestion or what I believe it is. After that, linguistically acculturated northern pops could have reversed the flood and passed a completely developped Semitic language to southern pops, their old "teachers" of more archaic AA... Not impossible at all. Latins were not the first basic IE speakers but after some time, when their culture and forces flourished they passed their locally evolved IE to other IE pops whose languages were maybe closer to the origins...
    That's a very possible scenario. My personal hunch though is that there was a confluence in the region between the "highland West Asia" and the "lowland West Asia" (northern Syria & Iraq - southern Turkey), during the Neolithic, between Iranian_Neolithic, Anatolian_Neolithic and Levant_Neolithic (speaking an earlier Afro-Asiatic branch out of which Proto-Semitic eventually arose, much like Latin from an earlier Northwestern IE that was mostly absorbed by it in a large territory). The Levant_Neolithic was possibly there first and was initially dominant during the Neolithic, absorbing the "northern" elements around its territory, until these northern elements, as you say, reversed the flood and started to expand onto the Levant_Neolithic and became dominant by the Chalcolithic, consolidating this mixed Proto-Semitic population. Then this heavily Iranian/Anatolian-shifted, very changed "Levant_Neolithic" population descended to the rest of "lowland West Asia" during the Late Chalcolithic or right after the Chalcolithic.

  15. #65
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,750
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,750, Level: 22
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 300
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Dude, you're a bit obsessed about this. It's no shaming and no attack (like they are shit, what?) to say that blue-eyed people may not have inherited these traits from Eastern European steppe peoples, and that Middle Eastern populations may have had some contribution in the spread of that traits. Unless, of course, you think that there is something especially superior about Eastern Europe or steppe Indo-Europeans, and simultaneously something really shameful and. No self-aware blue-eyed person would feel offended by the mere suggestion (even if it end up being totally wrong) that the high frequencies of blue eyes in their nations may be a relatively recent situation and that blue eyes may have already existed in high frequency in parts of the Middle East before it achieved high frequency in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Most blue-eyed people won't even know what the Pontic-Caspian steppe is, to be honest.

    No, I don't think there's anything "special" about someone having blue eyes or blonde hair - not brown hair, red hair. It may be interesting, beautiful, exotic, fascinating, rare in some regions, but why woud some human being be "special" or "better" because of that? That statement is not just naive, but it's also problematic if you don't choose to ignore the very ugly and dangerous history of racism and white supremacism (particularly of the kind obsessed with "North European looks" - blonde, blue-eyed, very pale) in the very recent past, just decades ago. Statements have a history and a context that either justifies it or makes it even worse. You can't ignore historic and social context. Black pride usually means, in practice, something very different in society than white/blue eyes pride, let alone an even stronger assertion which is people with blue eyes are "special".
    I mean, you are probably a little too much obsessed with racism history, because this is actually how humanity is thinking. As i said, people have sexual bias, they could found some physical characteristics special. I dont get the Eastern European / Steppe People superiority because as far as i remember, classic racists despise eastern europe and steppe peoples. The fact that those 6000 years old Levante people isn't even a question in Virtue Signaling europeans because Villabruna and Cheddar Man are 3 times older and had Blue Eyes ( if we want to start talking about facts ).

  16. #66
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,297
    Points
    34,236
    Level
    56
    Points: 34,236, Level: 56
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 14
    Overall activity: 20.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Concerning pigmentation, always the same old thing and oppositions!
    But statistically speaking, the ancient samples we have everywhere are very too small as a whole to built solid hypothesis. THese traits are based upon too few SNP's compared to complete auDNA, when a sample of 10 persons in a little region is quite sufficiant for auDNA to have a valuable sketch. For pigmentation we need a far bigger number of persons by region than what we have to date for ancient pops.

  17. #67
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,695
    Points
    25,247
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,247, Level: 48
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 303
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I mean, you are probably a little too much obsessed with racism history, because this is actually how humanity is thinking. As i said, people have sexual bias, they could found some physical characteristics special. I dont get the Eastern European / Steppe People superiority because as far as i remember, classic racists despise eastern europe and steppe peoples. .
    We're talking about supposedly special people, not special physical features. You're getting a bit confused about what we're talking about here. As for "classic racists", they've long been reconciled with the increasing evidence of Indo-Europeans coming from Eastern Europe and just consider that modern Eastern Europeans and steppe peoples would've become inferior due to extensive racial mixing with "inferior peoples", especially East Asians and Central Asians/Middle Easterners (e.g. Turks). They consider them disparagingly mongrels and half-breeds who lost their racial purity supposedly better preserved by Northern Europeans. I think you missed that part, it's everywhere on the internet.

  18. #68
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,695
    Points
    25,247
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,247, Level: 48
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 303
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    I think the hypothesis was more than just a racist fantasy, since modern frequencies of light pigmentation correlate very well with the extent of Corded Ware culture. Coon was very careful in his wording when he described that skeletally the steppe people were of a type that today is associated with blue eyes & blondism. He cites notable exceptions to this in Iran, East Africa etc. .
    Yes, but only partially. Those cultures were not PIE and not the original source of Indo-European expansion, though, but just descendants of the PIE-speaking culture(s) already mixed to varying levels with other regional populations. The very light phenotype of CWC or Sintashta people did not exist in near fixation frequencies in earlier cultures that are much more likely to be representative of the original, still undivided PIE. Besides, SHG, GAC and now Chalcolithic Levant and increasingly many other cultures also show that light skin, blue eyes and blonde hair - either cumulatively or only some of those traits - were already widespread in many other regions even before the Indo-European incursions in those areas, so they could've been one among several contributors to the spread of those phenotypic features, but they were certainly not pioneers nor the epicenter of that change.

  19. #69
    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 Ygorcs View Post
    The issue is not that. It is that Chalcolithic Levant was already northern-shifted (much more Anatolian_Neo and, a bit less so, Iranian_Neo) than Neolithic Levant, but this study also shows that Chalcolithic Levant was still less northern-shifted than Bronze Age Levant, particulary Bronze Age Levant_North (that's especially clear when you look at the PCA, with Chalcolithic Levant closer to Neolithic Levant, and Bronze Age Levant, especially Bronze Age Levant North, even closer to the ancient Caucasian and Iranian samples). That shows that, if Chalcolithic Levant can be modeled as ~43% non-Levantine (Anatolian + Iranian), then Bronze Age Levant were even more affected by these West Asia, but non-Levantine sources of ancestry. In my opinion that came from a second wave from northerners, probably this time more influenced by Iranians/South Caucasians than by Anatolians (maybe the wave that brought a huge percentage of J1 and J2?) - and in my opinion probably more "northeasterly" than the earlier wave and possibly coming roughly from Northern Mesopotamia.
    Seems like you are avoiding the question.........semitic language began after these people left the levant ( disappeared ) in the early bronze-age .
    these people could never have brought semetic to the levant and mixed with the existing populace because semetic had not even begun.
    The migrants brought another language with them from NE Anatolia/South caucasus or beyond lands
    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.

  20. #70
    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



    the best of the ancient samples so far............results mean more accurate analysis
    The data extracted from the skeletal remains, taken from 22 individuals, “is of exceptional quality given the typically poor preservation of DNA in the warm Near East,” wrote the scientists.
    According to Tel Aviv University’s Hershkovitz, “human DNA was preserved in the bones of the buried people in Peki’in cave, likely due to the cool conditions within the cave and the limestone crust that covered the bones and preserved the DNA.”
    As a result, the researchers were able to do a whole genome analysis of 22 of the skeletons.
    “This study of 22 individuals is one of the largest ancient DNA studies carried out from a single archaeological site, and by far the largest ever reported in the Near East,” said Tel Aviv University researcher May.
    The scientists uncovered some recessive genetic traits not usually expected in human remains from the Levant.

  21. #71
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,695
    Points
    25,247
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,247, Level: 48
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 303
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    Seems like you are avoiding the question.........semitic language began after these people left the levant ( disappeared ) in the early bronze-age .
    these people could never have brought semetic to the levant and mixed with the existing populace because semetic had not even begun.
    The migrants brought another language with them from NE Anatolia/South caucasus or beyond lands
    I think you just did not understand my point. Nobody said that Levant_Chalcolithic is necessarily the Proto-Semitic people, but that these findings confirm that the cultural and genetic transformation of the Levant from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (when it had become clearly Semitic in its vast majority) was marked by northern (Anatolian + Iranian/Caucasian) influx, not by massive south-to-north movements as some proponents of a "southern" Proto-Semitic language had proposed. That's all.

    Actually, Proto-Semitic is a Chalcolithic language, it's estimated to have started splitting as early as 3750 BCE (latest common, completely unified stage of the language), so it's reasonable to expect that by 4000 BCE some early form of Proto-Semitic was already in use. By 2400 BCE Semitic daughter languages, Eblaite and a little later Akkadian, were already present at least in Syria and Iraq, possibly also elsewhere further south, and those East Semitic languages had already acquired some characteristics that made them distinct from West & South Semitic languages.

    As a matter of fact, Bronze Age_Levant, both Levant_North and Levant_South, are even more northern-shifted than Levant_Chalcolithic and obviously much more than Levant_Neolithic, so what happened from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age clearly brought a population that was even more heavy in Chalcolithic Iranian-like admixture... and exactly because of that, that population most probably came from the north(east). And what also happened during that period was the widespread expansion of Proto-Semitic-derived languages.

    Also, Levantine Chalcolithic people were clearly ancestral to Bronze Age Semitic population of the Levant (Levant_Bronze Age_North is best modeled as a mixture of Levant_Chalcolithic + Iran_Chalcolithic), and (yet unsampled) parts of the Chalcolithic Levant may have simply missed the Anatolian_Neolithic introgression seen in the Peqi'in Cave remains but also lingered on and contributed to Levant_Bronze Age_South. That's what the scholars of this study concluded themselves.

    So you clearly misinterpreted the paper (or maybe didn't read it entirely). The Chalcolithic Levantines did not just vanish, they certainly contributed genetically and culturally to the future of the region, even if they were not the original Proto-Semites, which is actually my point since the beginning, since I think Proto-Semitic arose in Northern Mesopotamia and spread from there during the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.

    Read:

    The presence of Iran_ChL-related ancestry in both populations – but not in the earlier Levant_N – suggests a history of spread into the Levant of peoples related to Iranian agriculturalists, which must have occurred at least by the time of the Chalcolithic. The Anatolian_N component present in the Levant_ChL but not in the Levant_BA_South sample suggests that there was also a separate spread of Anatolian-related people into the region. The Levant_BA_South population may thus represent a remnant of a population that formed after an initial spread of Iran_ChL-related ancestry into the Levant that was not affected by the spread of an Anatolia_N-related population, or perhaps a reintroduction of a population without Anatolia_N-related ancestry to the region.
    We observe a qualitatively different pattern in the Levant_BA_North samples from Sidon, Lebanon, where models including Levant_ChL paired with either Iran_N, Iran_LN, or Iran_HotuIIIb populations appear to be a significantly better fit than those including Levant_N + Iran_ChL. We largely confirm this result using the “Right” population outgroups defined in26. (abb. Haber: Ust_Ishim, Kostenki14, MA1, Han, Papuan, Ami, Chuckhi, Karitiana, Mbuti, Switzerland_HG, EHG, WHG, and CHG), although we find that the specific model involving Iran_HotuIIIb no longer works with this “Right” set of populations. Investigating this further, we find that the addition of Anatolia_N in the “Right” outgroup set excludes the model of Levant_N + Iran_ChL favored by26. These results imply that a population that harbored ancestry more closely related to Levant_ChL than to Levant_N contributed to the Levant_BA_North population, even if it did not contribute detectably to the Levant_BA_South population.
    The addition of the Levant_ChL causes the model to fail, indicating that Levant_BA_South and Levant_ChL share ancestry following the separation of both of them from the ancestors of Levant_N and Iran_ChL. Thus, in the past there existed an unsampled population that contributed both to Levant_ChL and to Levant_BA_South, even though Levant_ChL cannot be the direct ancestor of Levant_BA_South because, as described above, it harbors Anatolia_N-related ancestry not present in Levant_BA_South.

  22. #72
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,230
    Points
    41,054
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,054, Level: 62
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 596
    Overall activity: 40.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    26 % Anatolia N, blue eyes and copper metallurgie
    could there be some connection with Vinca?

  23. #73
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,089


    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    26 % Anatolia N, blue eyes and copper metallurgie
    could there be some connection with Vinca?
    Interesting idea - I'd buy into that.

  24. #74
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,230
    Points
    41,054
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,054, Level: 62
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 596
    Overall activity: 40.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    there would have been 2 different succesive chalcolithic cultures in the Levant :

    Chalcolithic
    (4500 BCE – 3300 BCE)
    Early Chalcolithic 4500 BCE – 4000 BCE
    Late Chalcolithic (Ghassulian) 4000 BCE – 3300 BCE

    So this would have been early chalcolithic, not the Ghassulian.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassulian

    Settlements belonging to the Ghassulian culture have been identified at numerous other sites in what is today southern Israel, especially in the region of Beersheba, where elaborate underground dwellings have been excavated. The Ghassulian culture correlates closely with the Amratian of Egypt and also seems to have affinities (e.g., the distinctive churns, or “bird vases”) with early Minoan culture in Crete.[3][6]

  25. #75
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,716
    Points
    241,587
    Level
    100
    Points: 241,587, 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 Ygorcs View Post
    I think you just did not understand my point. Nobody said that Levant_Chalcolithic is necessarily the Proto-Semitic people, but that these findings confirm that the cultural and genetic transformation of the Levant from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (when it had become clearly Semitic in its vast majority) was marked by northern (Anatolian + Iranian/Caucasian) influx, not by massive south-to-north movements as some proponents of a "southern" Proto-Semitic language had proposed. That's all.

    Actually, Proto-Semitic is a Chalcolithic language, it's estimated to have started splitting as early as 3750 BCE (latest common, completely unified stage of the language), so it's reasonable to expect that by 4000 BCE some early form of Proto-Semitic was already in use. By 2400 BCE Semitic daughter languages, Eblaite and a little later Akkadian, were already present at least in Syria and Iraq, possibly also elsewhere further south, and those East Semitic languages had already acquired some characteristics that made them distinct from West & South Semitic languages.

    As a matter of fact, Bronze Age_Levant, both Levant_North and Levant_South, are even more northern-shifted than Levant_Chalcolithic and obviously much more than Levant_Neolithic, so what happened from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age clearly brought a population that was even more heavy in Chalcolithic Iranian-like admixture... and exactly because of that, that population most probably came from the north(east). And what also happened during that period was the widespread expansion of Proto-Semitic-derived languages.

    Also, Levantine Chalcolithic people were clearly ancestral to Bronze Age Semitic population of the Levant (Levant_Bronze Age_North is best modeled as a mixture of Levant_Chalcolithic + Iran_Chalcolithic), and (yet unsampled) parts of the Chalcolithic Levant may have simply missed the Anatolian_Neolithic introgression seen in the Peqi'in Cave remains but also lingered on and contributed to Levant_Bronze Age_South. That's what the scholars of this study concluded themselves.

    So you clearly misinterpreted the paper (or maybe didn't read it entirely). The Chalcolithic Levantines did not just vanish, they certainly contributed genetically and culturally to the future of the region, even if they were not the original Proto-Semites, which is actually my point since the beginning, since I think Proto-Semitic arose in Northern Mesopotamia and spread from there during the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.

    Read:
    Iran Chalcolithic definitely is part of Bronze Age Levant. However, aren't the authors saying that Levant Chalcolithic did not genetically impact either North or South Bronze Age?

    @Bicicleur,
    So what is the culture of the early Chalcolithic in the Levant, what is its origin and spread?

    Are you aware of any attested archaeological traces from Europe to Anatolia or the Levant from Vinca in the appropriate time frame? Also, there were blue eyes in the Anatolia Neolithic and even one in Levant Neolithic if I remember correctly, so no need for the snps to be reintroduced from Europe.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •