New conference on Bronze Age mobility in Europe

In addition to these Bronze Age papers on Northern Italy and the OP one, there are lots of others on the Northern Bronze Age etc., and another one on the Caucasus. They're not revealing very much in the abstract. Hope we get it soon.

"Svend Hansen1, Sabine Reinhold1, Wolfgang Haak2, Chuan-Chao Wang21Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Eurasien Abteilung2Max Planck Institut für Menschheitsgeschichte, Department of Archaeogenetics"

"At the interface of culture and biology – First results from a paleogenetic transect through BronzeAge populations of the Caucasus"

"The Caucasus is one of the most important geographical joints in Western Eurasia. Linking Europe, Western Asiaand the Eurasian steppe zone, this region today is one of the genetically and linguistically most diverse spotsof Eurasia. It is easy to imagine that repeated population influx and drain, but similarly compartmentalisationin the remote mountain valley is behind this modern situation.Eneolithic and Bronze Age populations play an important role in this scenario, as they represent thefirst epochs of formations, which can be regarded either as associated ‘cultures’ and/or coherent biologicalpopulations. A first study on the paleogenetic background of 50 individuals from the 5th to the 2nd millenniumBC, which represent all cultural formations of Bronze Age Caucasia, give a first insight into highly complexscenarios of interaction. The paleogenetic perspective could proof the presence of populations with differentgenetic-make ups and different biological vectors of formation among these individuals. Affiliation bymaterial cultural and other archaeological attributes, however, revealed epochs of interaction, where culturaland biological borders were crossed, and those, where no population exchange seemed to have happenedamong the neighbouring inhabitants of one area. This region thus allows to study in detail the mixing andinterdigitation of people, their materiality and cultural systems and challenge many of the too simple modelsdeveloped for another interface of the Eurasian steppe zone those directed towards Europe."


AAAAAAAAAAAA IT'S COMING! IT'S SO OBVIOUS... CAUCASIAN R1B-L23!!!

I can't wait to see Davidski's metaphorical face when they publish R1b-L23 samples from the Caucasus (but I CAN definitely wait to see Olympus Mons misinterpret it lol)

I'm so excited, these results better come out before Christmas.
 
The community is extremely inbred to be honest, don't you think it's odd that all of these guys hold the exact same basic viewpoint despite the lack of current evidence? It reminds of the narrow-mindedness of far-left and far-right circles, or at least it does to me - there really is basically no diversity of opinion, unlike these forums.
Spot on man!
 
So there was an Anatolian migration after the " Yamnaya Package " into mainland Europe, wich i always say. But i'm a little bit confused on many points. How Iran_Neo pass through Anatolian_Neo for it to not be that important in this paper and the genetic makeup of BA Greece? I feel like they want to tell us that Steppe Ancestry brought something like Paleohispanic language or a " Vasconic " group, while Iran_Neo brought IE languages. We can see that their Greece Iran_Neo ancestry is dated for 1500 so Mycenaean, wich is the dream of Lazaridis. Hope they gonna clarify their idea of what they try to say for not being confused. Because you know that even if the paper is absolutely not about IE languages, it is totally about it in every interested person mind, them included.

I do not think they implied in the abstract that the Iranian farmer ancestry arrived alone, in unadmixed form (I wonder if they really did differentiate it clearly from CHG ancestry, this variation and uncertainty between a CHG and an Iranian source is unsettling for me). These "Iranians" were actually probably Anatolian populations of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age people in my opinion, already an intensive mix of Anatolian-Neo with Iranian-Neo (and CHG too maybe). But if they migrated to a place already very rich in Anatolian-Neo ancestry then the real novelty would be Iranian-Neo alone and they would not have changed the Anatolian farmer-like percentages much.

As for Vasconic, I see no reason to not believe, considering how little steppe ancestry they have, that maybe the EEF were not always the defeated and assimilated ones. It would be really strange in my opinion that ansolutely all the languages of Europe of the Iron Age had come from the east, either the steppes or West Asia. EEF ancestry still remained in very high amounts in much of the continent, and I find it hard to believe they just never managed to win this cultural dispute.
 
If what I've been going on about for so long turns out to be the case, you all owe me $5 and Davidski owes me $50 :p
 
Actually just out of pure excitement, if they find either South Caucasian L23 older than Yamnaya or Western European L51 older than Yamnaya, I'll give the first person to quote this $10 via PayPal.

This is so ridiculously pointless, but god I would literally feel so vindicated.
 
Lots and lots of questions, right?

I'm particularly intrigued by the following: " In Sicily, during the Bronze Age and possibly EARLIER, we found evidence for admixture with groups carrying both these ancestries."

Both ancestries were present possibly earlier? Just the Iran related ancestry? One from the north, one from the southeast?

All very exciting.

Yes, indeed. If they are talking about steppe ancestry in Sicily too, I would place my bets on the first forays of clearly steppic cultural impact (and military one, too, given the many signs of conflict) associated with the Novodanilovka-Suvorovo spread of hierarchical pastoralists to the Balkans, leading to Cernavoda and other cultures that already had steppe-like features as early as the Chalcolithic,centuries before Yamnaya. Vinca also had some small percentage of steppe-like ancestry in the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic. Did the Balkanic peoples maybe participate in the navigations and sea migrations at that time? I do not know... There is a lot of food for thought. I hope they release it soon.
 
Yes, indeed. If they are talking about steppe ancestry in Sicily too, I would place my bets on the first forays of clearly steppic cultural impact (and military one, too, given the many signs of conflict) associated with the Novodanilovka-Suvorovo spread of hierarchical pastoralists to the Balkans, leading to Cernavoda and other cultures that already had steppe-like features as early as the Chalcolithic,centuries before Yamnaya. Vinca also had some small percentage of steppe-like ancestry in the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic. Did the Balkanic peoples maybe participate in the navigations and sea migrations at that time? I do not know... There is a lot of food for thought. I hope they release it soon.

Vinca had Steppe? It just keeps getting better.

Balkan M269 -> West Asian L23 -> Western European L51 with the spread of copper smelting technology, I just love it.

I'm getting too Olympus Mons-like, my bad guys.
 
I don't understand the incredulity. We've had paper after paper showing the progressive spread of Iran Neo/CHG like ancestry from south and west into the rest of the Near East. It began early but then became a flood. At some point in the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age it spilled into the Aegean, and from there into at least Greece (and the Balkans), and, apparently, Sicily (and southern Italy?).

Obviously, it was over time admixed with Anatolian Neo. We've always been able to "see" it in the mix, nonetheless. Why would that change now?

It's always been clear it happened. No one has doubted it. The only issue was when. Well, now we know.

Well, we sort of know, given how the abstract is worded. It was at least the early Bronze Age.

I also think it's pretty clear that all the obfuscation of Davidski and his fellow travelers notwithstanding, CHG is just Iran Neo with a little bit of EHG (and maybe a bit of Anatolian Neo). Just take a look at the Fennoscandian paper.

As to Professor Lazaridis, if any of you would care to share any instance of deliberate distortion of fact or mathematics in his work, or that of Patterson, or any of the other academics involved in the Mycenaean paper which so seems to stick in the craw of some of you, please do. Otherwise, desist in the character and professional assassination.
 
didn't ötzi already have an increased amount of west asian ancestry?
 
didn't ötzi already have an increased amount of west asian ancestry?

Indeed, although it was a very small amount, and we know much more now about what those ADMIXTURE results based on modern components mean and what they don't mean. Still, looking at it, I started thinking something different started arriving quite early in Italy when I saw the results of the genetic analysis.

92HsZoU.png
 
it would be nice to find out whether El Argar had Iran ancestry, but we won't, they are talking only 1500 BC
 
I don't understand the incredulity. We've had paper after paper showing the progressive spread of Iran Neo/CHG like ancestry from south and west into the rest of the Near East. It began early but then became a flood. At some point in the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age it spilled into the Aegean, and from there into at least Greece (and the Balkans), and, apparently, Sicily (and southern Italy?).
Obviously, it was over time admixed with Anatolian Neo. We've always been able to "see" it in the mix, nonetheless. Why would that change now?
It's always been clear it happened. No one has doubted it. The only issue was when. Well, now we know.
Well, we sort of know, given how the abstract is worded. It was at least the early Bronze Age.
I also think it's pretty clear that all the obfuscation of Davidski and his fellow travelers notwithstanding, CHG is just Iran Neo with a little bit of EHG (and maybe a bit of Anatolian Neo). Just take a look at the Fennoscandian paper.
As to Professor Lazaridis, if any of you would care to share any instance of deliberate distortion of fact or mathematics in his work, or that of Patterson, or any of the other academics involved in the Mycenaean paper which so seems to stick in the craw of some of you, please do. Otherwise, desist in the character and professional assassination.
for CHG and Iran_neo, check Laziridis 2018, the Dzudzuana paper
the Laziridis 2016 square is outdated
 
for CHG and Iran_neo, check Laziridis 2018, the Dzudzuana paper
Laziridis 2016 is outdated

The people I was addressing don't read papers. What sticks in their craw is what they "think" the Mycenaean paper implies.
 
The people I was addressing don't read papers. What sticks in their craw is what they "think" the Mycenaean paper implies.
in my view, the Iran ancestry moved on further west through the Mediterranean, but not through Central Europe
and steppe arrived in Iberia from the north
I hope these upcoming papers will bring some clarity
 
in my view, the Iran ancestry moved on further west through the Mediterranean, but not through Central Europe
and steppe arrived in Iberia from the north
I hope these upcoming papers will bring some clarity

I reckon that's going to be the conclusion from the conference, but I'd disagree with it. By how they phrased it, it seems like they see this Chalcolithic Sicilian Steppe as being from the North, when it just is much more likely to have come from a source that spread across the Mediterranean.
 
in my view, the Iran ancestry moved on further west through the Mediterranean, but not through Central Europe
and steppe arrived in Iberia from the north
I hope these upcoming papers will bring some clarity

I think that's right, but of what was "steppe" composed?
 
Correct me if i'm wrong but linguistically the Greco-Armenian hypothesis fits quite strongly the ˜1500BC entry of Iran Neo/CHG does it not?
 
I do not think they implied in the abstract that the Iranian farmer ancestry arrived alone, in unadmixed form (I wonder if they really did differentiate it clearly from CHG ancestry, this variation and uncertainty between a CHG and an Iranian source is unsettling for me). These "Iranians" were actually probably Anatolian populations of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age people in my opinion, already an intensive mix of Anatolian-Neo with Iranian-Neo (and CHG too maybe). But if they migrated to a place already very rich in Anatolian-Neo ancestry then the real novelty would be Iranian-Neo alone and they would not have changed the Anatolian farmer-like percentages much.

As for Vasconic, I see no reason to not believe, considering how little steppe ancestry they have, that maybe the EEF were not always the defeated and assimilated ones. It would be really strange in my opinion that ansolutely all the languages of Europe of the Iron Age had come from the east, either the steppes or West Asia. EEF ancestry still remained in very high amounts in much of the continent, and I find it hard to believe they just never managed to win this cultural dispute.

My big problem is just about vulgarisation and clearing. When they say " 1500BC we see Iran related ancestry, it doesn't make sense for me. Like you said, where is the Anatolian ancestry in all this? why would Iranian ancestry be predominant in a contexte where Anatolian ancestry should be? Why would those new people in Greece being more Iranian than Anatolian? As for Vasconic, i dont really care, it just feels they want to put " everything Iran ancestry " as IE. We probably gonna see in later studies the same argument " Iran = PIE " while " Steppe = whatever you want it to be ". I'm just being cautious, no controversy over here.
 
.....................
 

This thread has been viewed 105826 times.

Back
Top