Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 257

Thread: News Article on Wang Paper - PIE is Anatolian again?

  1. #76
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    400
    Points
    8,589
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,589, Level: 27
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 161
    Overall activity: 10.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    But the Steppe ancestors of Bell Beaker did not pass through the extant populations without admixing. Their best-fit admixture is wholly with Anatolian and East European EEF.
    So maybe a bit of Trypillia after all? I can concede that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    There is little or no sign of exogamous admixture with West European populations (another myth).
    Of course. All scientists agree that their migration was an extremely sudden and sweeping one. It would have taken them some time to mix with the locals. The earliest samples can't have much "local" in them, for lack of time. On the other hand, emerging - as you contend - in France, thenmoving back east toHungary, without developing any admixture with the locals seems rather improbable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    I don't know where the culture itself came from, but the L51 people who had principally adopted it by the time of the Bell Beaker expansion had been bottlenecked and were almost certainly derived from one small isolated East European population
    I don't know about the bottleneck. Isolated? Maybe. But I very much doubt that a "small population" could have overrun most of western Europe, from Hungary to Spain to Britain within a time frame of three to four generations. East European population? For sure, very much so, considering where they plot on PCAs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    There are signs of a little Ezero-like admixture in them, but none that I can see from Baden, Minoa, Myceanae or LBK.
    That's what I am saying. That's the reason I cited those (counter-)examples. The newcomers didn't stem from the heavily admixed populations that had resulted from the earlier advances of steppe people into the Balkans in the late 4th millenium BC. Their percentage of steppe would have been greatly diluted by 2500 BC. Any PCA you'll look at will show you that Unetice plots far too close to Yamna for the "steppe Bell Beakers" to have been largely admixed before arriving in central Europe. Their steppe ancestry was too high for them to have sojourned among farmers for a very long time. Hence: they came from the steppe.
    It is therefore worth while to search out the bounds between opinion and knowledge; and examine by what measures, in things whereof we have no certain knowledge, we ought to regulate our assent and moderate our persuasion. (John Locke)

  2. #77
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    577
    Points
    2,581
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,581, Level: 14
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 85.0%


    Country: UK - England



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    So maybe a bit of Trypillia after all? I can concede that.
    There is no Trypillia per se in Bell Beaker's autosomal best fit, aside from its indirect contribution to Ezero-Cernavoda.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    Of course. All scientists agree that their migration was an extremely sudden and sweeping one. It would have taken them some time to mix with the locals. The earliest samples can't have much "local" in them, for lack of time. On the other hand, emerging - as you contend - in France, thenmoving back east toHungary, without developing any admixture with the locals seems rather improbable.
    I don't know how scientists can agree that this hypothesised migration was extremely sudden and sweeping, as we cannot track the movements of individual people from 4,500 years ago. Genetic data suggests the expansion of L51 lineages was sudden and sweeping, but we do not know where this expansion took place, aside from the fact that phylogeny shows that most of L51's lineages coalesce to estimated origin points in France.

    It wouldn't have taken much time for Bell Beaker men to mix with local women, if they were that way inclined; but it seems from the data they were generally not.

    There is nothing improbable about people migrating westwards to France, then their descendants migrating back several hundred years later after coming under attack from the East. What is far more improbable is a bottlenecked L51 rapidly invading the whole of Europe from the Volga at a time when it seemed to have had only a couple of lineages in existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    I don't know about the bottleneck.
    There were only two extant L51 lineages in existence at the time the Yamnayan expansions began, per yfull - formational L52 and formational Z2118. I would call this a bottleneck. Two surviving individuals would certainly not represent a mass expansion.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    Isolated? Maybe. But I very much doubt that a "small population" could have overrun most of western Europe, from Hungary to Spain to Britain within a time frame of three to four generations.
    The data suggests more like eleven to twelve generations. Look at the phylogeny on yfull, and you will see the evidence of the rapid expansion in lineages for yourself, which yfull estimates to have occurred hundreds of years after the Yamnayans expanded across the Steppe.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    The newcomers didn't stem from the heavily admixed populations that had resulted from the earlier advances of steppe people into the Balkans in the late 4th millenium BC. Their percentage of steppe would have been greatly diluted by 2500 BC.
    Not at all if they were an endogamous group. Dilution does not occur unless you carry on admixing, nor does it necessarily occur if your admixture is with other Steppe-admixed groups, such as Dereivka or Cernavoda.
    If you are so sure the percentage of Steppe would have been diluted in the earlier advances, why do you not similarly say the percentage of Steppe must also have been diluted in the later advances? Clearly it was not much diluted, as the substantial Steppe component is still evident in Western European populations today.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    Any PCA you'll look at will show you that Unetice plots far too close to Yamna for the "steppe Bell Beakers" to have been largely admixed before arriving in central Europe. Their steppe ancestry was too high for them to have sojourned among farmers for a very long time. Hence: they came from the steppe.
    I'm talking about Bell Beaker, rather than Unetice. Bell Beaker plots far closer to East Balkan/Suvorovo admixes than it does to Yamna. Yamna has far too much CHG to have spawned Bell Beaker; Bell Beaker's Steppe ancestors clearly split off from the Caspian Steppe people before the Yamnayan EHG/CHG combination arose.

    Moreover, the Anatolian component within Bell Beaker is as stable across its population as the EHG component is, indicating that its Anatolian contribution was ancient; unlike its CHG component, which is variable and therefore likely to be a later and patchier addition to the mix. In Yamnaya, exactly the converse is true. Clearly, R1b Bell Beaker is Anatolian/East Central European in origin, and R1a Yamnaya is Caspian in origin.

    If the Steppe ancestors of Bell Beaker admixed with one specific group of farmers and then stayed with the same group, there is no reason why their initial 50:50 componental split should not remain undiluted.

    By the way, you did not reply to my point about how, if L51 populations surged rapidly from the Volga across Central Europe, why the only early samples of L51 that we have all seem to be from the same L2 sub-subclade that is 19 SNPs downstream from L51. Where is the evidence of all the other L51 subclades in early Central Europe? No, they are only found to its West. And even the phylogeny of L2 itself points to an origin along the Upper Rhine and Swiss Alps, rather than anywhere further East.

  3. #78
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    400
    Points
    8,589
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,589, Level: 27
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 161
    Overall activity: 10.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France





    Proportion of Steppe ancestry in Bell Beakers, modelled as Yamnaya_Samara vs Anatolia_Neolithic+WHG.
    Samara is the black chunk.

    From this paper : Olalde et al. - May 9, 2017

    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...rthwest_Europe
    At Szigetszentmiklós in Hungary, we find Beaker Complex associated individuals with very different proportions (from 0% to 74%) of Steppe ancestry but overlapping dates. This genetic heterogeneity is consistent with early stages of mixture between previously established European farmers and migrants with Steppe ancestry.
    For Beaker Complex individuals from Iberia, the best fit was obtained when Middle Neolithic and Copper Age populations from the same region were used as a source for their Neolithic farmer-related ancestry, and we could exclude central and northern
    European populations (P < 4.69E-03) (Fig. 2c). Conversely, the Neolithic farmer-related ancestry in Beaker Complex individuals outside Iberia was most closely related to central and northern European Neolithic populations with relatively high hunter-gatherer admixture (e.g. Globular_Amphora_LN, P = 0.14; TRB_Sweden_MN, P = 0.29)
    As for samples above L2 east of Northern France:

    Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I7041 / M
    Find location: Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor
    Country: Hungary
    Associated label in publication: Hungary_BA
    Date: 2500–2200 BCE
    MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H1b1
    Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
    Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
    Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

    Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I4253 / M
    Find location: Samborzec
    Country: Poland
    Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
    Date: 2456–2207 calBCE (3850±20 BP, PSUAMS-2339)
    MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U5a2c
    Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
    Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
    Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

    Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): RISE564.SG / M
    Find location: Osterhofen-Altenmarkt
    Country: Germany
    Associated label in publication: Bell_Beaker_Germany.SG
    Date: 2500-2000 BCE
    MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H-T16311C
    Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1 (L51)
    Reference: AllentoftNature2015
    Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

    Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I1530 / M
    Find location: Rothenschirmbach
    Country: Germany
    Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
    Date: 2458–2140 calBCE (3818±48 BP, Er-8715)
    MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H3ao
    Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
    Reference: MathiesonNature2015
    Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

    Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I0805 / M
    Find location: Quedlinburg
    Country: Germany
    Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
    Date: 2467–2142 calBCE (3839±55 BP, Er-8558)
    MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H1
    Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
    Reference: MathiesonNature2015
    Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

  4. #79
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,706
    Points
    25,751
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,751, Level: 49
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 799
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Honestly, they are getting a bit too carried away by genetics and totally forgetting the linguistic aspects of this conundrum. Remember, IE is a language family, PIE was a language, not a genetic admixture. To pretend that the opinion of the vast majority of linguists about the cultural and social milieu that was clearly present in PIE, that is, in the last unified dialect continuum of all extant IE subgroups, is a totally unscientific thing. And that "linguistic environment" was not a Neolithic society more intensive in farming than in pastoralism, nor one that had large settlements of a proto-urban proto-civilized nature (if it is assumed to have spread in the Chalcolithic with Old Europe cultures).

    Besides, they will have to explain why IE basically never appeared in any documented way (or hydronyms and toponyms) before evidences of steppe ancestry appeared in the broad region surrounding each of those areas (did steppe IE replace all other IE branches, except Anatolian, in each and every area of Eurasia? Hmm, that is so convenient), whereas a lot of mainly or partially ANF places do not have any indication of having been IE at all. Additionally, they just have to prove that Anatolian is not related at all to PIE in the steppes. Otherwise it does not matter where pre-PIE came from, because PIE would have been a steppe language anyways.

    Besides, one would have to explain rare outliers like Basque/Aquitanian and the curiously Basque-like substrate words found elsewhere in Western Europe... And many other incongruences, like, for example, the fact that curiously the region with more EEF in Europe was exactly the one that had diverse non-IE languages even in the late Iron Age, including Nuragic Sardinia. And that is not considering Etruscan, which, if it were EEF and PIE too, must have diverged extremely early, because it is nothing like it.

    Sorry, but I will not be convinced by rhe fact that they cannot find steppe ancestry in a handful of BA Anatolians and that EEF is found in BA Yamnaya (but actually insignificant in Chalcolithic steppe samples, and Yamnaya probably already spoke a later IE daughter language, PIE was probably Copper Age).

    I could even accept PIE coming from the Caucasus, or rather pre-PIE, but from Anatolian farmers as early as their early Neolithic expansion? Hmm, no.

  5. #80
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    109
    Points
    1,505
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,505, Level: 10
    Level completed: 78%, Points required for next Level: 45
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post

    Besides, they will have to explain why IE basically never appeared in any documented way (or hydronyms and toponyms) before evidences of steppe ancestry appeared in the broad region surrounding each of those areas
    There are Anatolian names from 2500 BC North West Syria (Ebla). So they need to find steppe ancestry in Anatolia before 2500 BC to prove steppes as PIE homeland.

  6. #81
    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



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    As regaards the historical linguistic arguments about the PIE homeland this is IMHO a must read that was recently brought up on another blog:

    https://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...0001/art00003#

  7. #82
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    109
    Points
    1,505
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,505, Level: 10
    Level completed: 78%, Points required for next Level: 45
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    As regaards the historical linguistic arguments about the PIE homeland this is IMHO a must read that was recently brought up on another blog:

    https://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...0001/art00003#
    Thanks Markod, everyone should read it. I have taken a quick look on it and already seen these:

    ''If correct, the evident linguistic conclusion would be that Anatolian languages were already in situ in Anatolia by the 6th millennium BCE.''


    ''Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have also suggested that PIE contained terms for panther,lion and elephant and for southern tree species. These animals and trees could be used to exclude a northern homeland. They also compiled an impressive list of loan words which they said were borrowed from proto-Kartvelian and the Semitic languages into PIE. These relationships suggested to them that PIE had evolved in a place where it was in close contact with both the Semitic languages and the languages of the Southern Caucasus…''

  8. #83
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    etrusco's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-01-17
    Location
    lombardy
    Posts
    66
    Points
    1,434
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,434, Level: 10
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 116
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    Thanks Markod, everyone should read it. I have taken a quick look on it and already seen these:

    ''If correct, the evident linguistic conclusion would be that Anatolian languages were already in situ in Anatolia by the 6th millennium BCE.''





    ''Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have also suggested that PIE contained terms for panther,lion and elephant and for southern tree species. These animals and trees could be used to exclude a northern homeland. They also compiled an impressive list of loan words which they said were borrowed from proto-Kartvelian and the Semitic languages into PIE. These relationships suggested to them that PIE had evolved in a place where it was in close contact with both the Semitic languages and the languages of the Southern Caucasus…''
    I had the idea to post it on Anthrogenica but you can just imagine what the reactions will be. Lewis and Perelstsvaig for many of them are like Jesus and Mary

  9. #84
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    400
    Points
    8,589
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,589, Level: 27
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 161
    Overall activity: 10.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    Post deleted

  10. #85
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    577
    Points
    2,581
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,581, Level: 14
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 85.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post

    Proportion of Steppe ancestry in Bell Beakers, modelled as Yamnaya_Samara vs Anatolia_Neolithic+WHG.
    Samara is the black chunk.
    From this paper : Olalde et al. - May 9, 2017
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...rthwest_Europe
    As for samples above L2 east of Northern France:
    Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I7041 / M
    Find location: Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor
    Country: Hungary
    Associated label in publication: Hungary_BA
    Date: 2500–2200 BCE
    MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H1b1
    Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
    Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
    Colour group: Steppe (R1b)
    Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I4253 / M
    Find location: Samborzec
    Country: Poland
    Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
    Date: 2456–2207 calBCE (3850±20 BP, PSUAMS-2339)
    MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U5a2c
    Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
    Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
    Colour group: Steppe (R1b)
    Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): RISE564.SG / M
    Find location: Osterhofen-Altenmarkt
    Country: Germany
    Associated label in publication: Bell_Beaker_Germany.SG
    Date: 2500-2000 BCE
    MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H-T16311C
    Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1 (L51)
    Reference: AllentoftNature2015
    Colour group: Steppe (R1b)
    Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I1530 / M
    Find location: Rothenschirmbach
    Country: Germany
    Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
    Date: 2458–2140 calBCE (3818±48 BP, Er-8715)
    MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H3ao
    Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
    Reference: MathiesonNature2015
    Colour group: Steppe (R1b)
    Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I0805 / M
    Find location: Quedlinburg
    Country: Germany
    Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
    Date: 2467–2142 calBCE (3839±55 BP, Er-8558)
    MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H1
    Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
    Reference: MathiesonNature2015
    Colour group: Steppe (R1b)
    There are no subclades identified for any of these samples - they could all be L2 for all we know. Where are any of the other scores of L51 branches found in early Central Europe? I don't see any.

    It is unsurprising that Bell Beaker samples look 50% Yamnayan, when they are only analysed into two categories. If they were analysed into Yamnayan vs Bulgarian EHG(Suvorovo)-admixed Chalcolithic, you would find that Bell Beaker would look not much above 0% Yamnayan.

    Again, it is insightful to note how the researchers define Yamnayan as if it were representative of all 'Steppe' ancestry, even though the Yamnayans only flourished on the Steppe for a brief period, how their yDNA shrivelled subsequently, how they only inhabited a part of the Steppe and how they shared that part of the Steppe with other groups bearing very different DNA.

    Added to which, I'm not aware of any evidence to indicate the language or languages that Yamnayans spoke.

  11. #86
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    577
    Points
    2,581
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,581, Level: 14
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 85.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Could Proto-Indo-European have been a composite language of mixed Steppe and Anatolian origin, in the same way that English is a composite of Germanic and French influences?

  12. #87
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Johane Derite's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-06-17
    Posts
    918
    Points
    12,579
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,579, Level: 33
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 71
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U1a1a

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    Thanks Markod, everyone should read it. I have taken a quick look on it and already seen these:

    ''If correct, the evident linguistic conclusion would be that Anatolian languages were already in situ in Anatolia by the 6th millennium BCE.''


    ''Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have also suggested that PIE contained terms for panther,lion and elephant and for southern tree species. These animals and trees could be used to exclude a northern homeland. They also compiled an impressive list of loan words which they said were borrowed from proto-Kartvelian and the Semitic languages into PIE. These relationships suggested to them that PIE had evolved in a place where it was in close contact with both the Semitic languages and the languages of the Southern Caucasus…''
    Very very interesting read. Lots of information and debunks in it.
    "As we have already stressed, the mass evacuation of the Albanians from their triangle is the only effective course we can take. In order to relocate a whole people, the first prerequisite is the creation of a suitable psychosis. This can be done in various ways." - Vaso Cubrilovic

  13. #88
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Ethnic group
    Of the world
    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    As regaards the historical linguistic arguments about the PIE homeland this is IMHO a must read that was recently brought up on another blog:

    https://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...0001/art00003#
    Do you have a DOI? I can't access it.

    Is there any relevance to Hajji Firuz? That Z2103 sample from the 6th mBCE (pushing YFull way back) seems legit even though it hasn't been carbon-dated (various reasons, mainly that it is the same as other dated samples in terms of its admixture).

    Unfortunately this may all be related to Shulaveri-Shomu, as like it Hajji Firuz has some of the oldest evidence for wine-making

  14. #89
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    400
    Points
    8,589
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,589, Level: 27
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 161
    Overall activity: 10.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    There are no subclades identified for any of these samples - they could all be L2 for all we know.
    They could also be what they are reported to be, for all we know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    Again, it is insightful to note how the researchers define Yamnayan as if it were representative of all 'Steppe' ancestry, even though the Yamnayans only flourished on the Steppe for a brief period, how their yDNA shrivelled subsequently, how they only inhabited a part of the Steppe and how they shared that part of the Steppe with other groups bearing very different DNA.
    Sure. Those guys are dimwits who have so much to learn from us amateurs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    It is unsurprising that Bell Beaker samples look 50% Yamnayan, when they are only analysed into two categories. If they were analysed into Yamnayan vs Bulgarian EHG(Suvorovo)-admixed Chalcolithic, you would find that Bell Beaker would look not much above 0% Yamnayan.

  15. #90
    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 Pip View Post
    Could Proto-Indo-European have been a composite language of mixed Steppe and Anatolian origin, in the same way that English is a composite of Germanic and French influences?
    I think if there was a superstrate as strong as the Norman superstrate in English it likely would have come from a language that we have no or only poor records of. There are a few obvious loans of course, but they seem to be limited to Semitic and Kartvelian as far as I know. It's probably more likely that IE constituted a distinct linguistic group for some time before the break-up.

  16. #91
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,852
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,852, Level: 22
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 198
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    The Ivanov and Gamkrelidze point about loan words is irrelevent. It's always the same, we say " PIE have loan words from Semitic " We never say " PIE and Semitic have loan words in common ". It is always the same bias, that whatever the hypothesis is, everything must come from the Near East, because we have this old bias in mind that everything comes from there, the Babel Hypothesis. As far as reality, i'm happy to know what is the Elephant, Lion, Tiger loan word in each IE languages... Probably only Greek, Iranian and Anatolian languages have them, but because they are the oldest following the Indo-Hittite Hypothesis, it's probably linked with PIE and absolutely not with the fact that they neighbor many languages from the Middle-East. And why is there no loan words for the Bear, the Wolf and the Horse, wich are ( a part the farming animal ) words in every IE languages, in Middle-Eastern languages hm? What PIE was not enough Noble to influence other languages? Why 3 words that are the same in each IE languages even Anatolians, are absent from this " debunk " but 3 randoms words such as Lion, Tiger, Elephant that are not related in Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic is right now relevent? A good exemple to found the biased people.

  17. #92
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    577
    Points
    2,581
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,581, Level: 14
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 85.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    They could also be what they are reported to be, for all we know.
    #
    What these samples are reported to be is simply M269 and L51. They could also be L2, or DF27, or U106, or Z2118, or in some cases Z2103 or PF7562, or from any one of scores of other subclades of these two broad SNPs. Nothing further is indicated.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    Sure. Those guys are dimwits who have so much to learn from us amateurs.
    I wouldn't say that. I would guess they are probably intelligent people with careers and livelihoods to think about.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    I haven't analysed Czech Bell Beaker, so cannot comment.
    I have analysed German Bell Beaker - the above autosomal combination diverges from it by almost 16 times more than the following best-fit (74% Bulgarian EHG-admixed Chalcolithic + 14% Bulgarian EBA + 12% Ukraine Late Chalcolithic).

    Just as "At Szigetszentmiklós in Hungary, we find Beaker Complex associated individuals with very different proportions (from 0% to 74%) of Steppe ancestry but overlapping dates. This genetic heterogeneity is consistent with early stages of mixture between previously established European farmers and migrants with Steppe ancestry.", German Beaker samples have largely fixed proportions of EHG and Anatolian ancestry and very different proportions of CHG ancestry, which is consistent with ancient admixture between EHG and Anatolian, and recent admixture of a small amount of CHG. It is not consistent with Yamnayan ancestry.

  18. #93
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Ethnic group
    Of the world
    Country: United Kingdom



    Is it possible that the Yamnaya samples are later than those “early” Yamnaya folk that migrated down the Danube? Yamnaya samples seem to be Sicilian-like in pigmentation, but the Z2103 Hungarian Bell Beaker with tonnes of Yamnaya ancestry has light skin and red hair. Perhaps that would change affinities somewhat, idk

  19. #94
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Ethnic group
    Of the world
    Country: United Kingdom



    On another note, why is Afanasievo affiliated with Tocharian? Given the Tarim basin mummies (R1a, ultimately Corded Ware derived) are not descended from Afanasievo (R1b-Z2103, Yamnaya derived), and the likely link of the Tarim basin mummies to Tocharian, would that actually mean Yamnaya was non-IE? Or just that Tocharian was adopted by the incoming R1a folk?

  20. #95
    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 ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    On another note, why is Afanasievo affiliated with Tocharian? Given the Tarim basin mummies (R1a, ultimately Corded Ware derived) are not descended from Afanasievo (R1b-Z2103, Yamnaya derived), and the likely link of the Tarim basin mummies to Tocharian, would that actually mean Yamnaya was non-IE? Or just that Tocharian was adopted by the incoming R1a folk?
    I think the R1a is from the oldest layer in Xinjiang. Likely Andronovo migrants.

  21. #96
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Ethnic group
    Of the world
    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    I think the R1a is from the oldest layer in Xinjiang. Likely Andronovo migrants.

    Yeah, I guess if Tocharian really did come from Andronovo it would be satem and less archaic. I guess those R1a Tarim basin folk just adopted Tocharian.

  22. #97
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,852
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,852, Level: 22
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 198
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Yeah, I guess if Tocharian really did come from Andronovo it would be satem and less archaic. I guess those R1a Tarim basin folk just adopted Tocharian.
    We dont have Tocharian DNA to be fair, most of the Tarim Mummies are coming from the South of the Tarim Basin, while Tocharian languages were found in the North / North-east, closer than the prehistoric Afanasievo range. Also chinese people are saying that the people related with the Tocharians were also in the Gansu Corridor at some point.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myXDzswKE2M Sounds like something Hittite and weirdness.

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

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,706
    Points
    25,751
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,751, Level: 49
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 799
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    There are Anatolian names from 2500 BC North West Syria (Ebla). So they need to find steppe ancestry in Anatolia before 2500 BC to prove steppes as PIE homeland.
    Yes, I know that claim in the linguistic part of a genetics paper, but I would still like to see further studies focusing on the linguistics about that finding. They claim that the names look Anatolian IE because of certain affixes that look Anatolian, but I would like first to know if they are reconstructable as certainly IE, particularly considering how profoundly influenced by substrates and superstrates Anatolian IE was.

    That said, I think it should still be explained how and when precisely non-Anatolian IE came to be spoken as early as the Chalcolithic in the steppes probably even before Yamnaya, and therefore before any significant even if minor Anatolian Neolithic ancestry existed there).

    Besides, the genetic data and the datings do not fit together: the ANF in Yamnaya can best be modelled as coming from the west, from eastern Europe, and not from the Caucasus and thence from Anatolia directly. Obviously LPIE would not have come to Europe via the Balkans and EPIE >>> Anatolian would not have simply stayed put since the start. That would assume that Anatolian and Yamnaya IE would have been languages apart for more than 3000 years when Yamnaya started, let alone when its language split into many branches. If Anatolian farmers spread PIE, and PIE was still spoken in Anatolia, why was its spread led by European farmers millennia later? The Wang paper itself claims the Anatolian-like ancesty there is EEF, not Neolithic Anatolian or rather the much more mixed Chalcolithic Anatolian. And of course all the data suggest that if Maykop people migrated into the steppes, they were a negligible part of the population, it cannot even be seen. And culturally too the influences in Yamnaya seem to have come more from the west than from the south at that time.

    As for the supposed words for lion, panther and elephant proposed by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, well, if those were names of local animals they had contact with then the homeland could not have been Anatolia either, because elephants were not naturally found there. Maybe we're back to "out of India"? Lol. As for lions, they were found in all of the Balkans and Southern Europe as a whole. The steppe expansion in the west Black Sea (Bulgaria, Romania) most probably had lions. The Balkans supplied lions to the Roman Empire as early as the beginning of the common era.

  24. #99
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,706
    Points
    25,751
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,751, Level: 49
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 799
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    From here: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...ropean-farmers



    Anybody else as confused as I am? I thought there were only two remaining camps - the Southern origin associated with the source of Steppe CHG and the indigenous Northern Steppe origin. But now, it looks like Max Planck is seriously proposing an origin with farmers.





    Some Maykop migration "still happened" (implying it must have been very minor), "occasional migrations"? That has got to be one of the weakest arguments for the origin of PIE I have ever read. Thank God they correctly say "they speculat". It is almost like they wanted so bad to find evidences for an Anatolian origin of PIE that subsequently spread via the steppes, bu they just could not, and now they are clinging to the last faint hope, which is that even though Maykop had almost nothing to do with Yamnaya, and its ANF was almost certainly EEF from Europe and not Anatolian Chalcolithic from Asia Minor, they still managed to lend their language to the steppe peoples via "some occasional migrations" that barely left any genetic impact. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, because if no one finds any non-insignificant genetic impact of Caucasian, let alone Anatolian peoples, in the steppes, then they will just say "but they spread knowledge and technology, so they also spread their language" (as if the steppes did not receive cultural influences from other lands and cultures, too, and as if all such contacts, even without any clear acculturation worthy of this name, led to linguistic shifts "per se").

  25. #100
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,706
    Points
    25,751
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,751, Level: 49
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 799
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    Well Wang's hypothesis is language transfer without admixture I guess.

    Seems to me like something they made up as they went, like the hybrid hypothesis in general. Verging on pseudoscience even.
    If they establish that as a premise, well, then the most honest thing they should say is: "we have come to the conclusion that genetics has no place in this linguistic discussion". And they of course will have to avoid deducing anything touching on the subject of linguistics or even on ethnicity based on genetics, because they will have concluded that genetically untraceable, tiny migrations and cultural contacts might often have triggered language shift, even when there was clearly no acculturation as in the steppes, where despite heavy foreign influences there is a cultural evolution without severe ruptures from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. Sorry, but this is pseudoscience. If they really think a language transfer happened without admixture, but they obviously do not what languages were spoken by Maykop or other Caucasian cultures back then, or even by the EEF farmers, then they should just quit from this discussion as eeal scientists, not "speculators".

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •