| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
How would one identify a Tocharian though? I think the first attestation is dated to 300-500 CE.Originally Posted by Ygorcs
I think it's allways better to split between herders and farmers, Andronovo were clearly (Indo-Iranic) herders in Central Asia where Tocharians were oasis irrigation farmers. Such change and know how can be done with BMAC farmers... but then one can think that it was their Iran_Neo what provided IE there.
"What I've seen so far after my entire career chasing Indoeuropeans is that our solutions look tissue thin and our problems still look monumental" J.P.Mallory
"The ultimate homeland of the group [PIE] that also spread Anatolian languages is less clear." D. Reich
Another likely candidate could be Poltavka, wich was virtually the same ancestry as Yamnaya, full Z2103 and with some Z93. But yes Afanasievo range has the power to be just a little bit north-west of the northern confirmed Tocharian city-states so. But some people dont believe anymore to the Centum-Satem R1b/R1a distinction, so it's not gonna be easy to confirm.
How about Unetice? Any ideas on whether it would have been Indo-European - and if so, centum or satem?
Its DNA is surprising - German Bell Beaker with a splash of Yamnaya, but a mix of distant I2 yDNA lineages instead of R1b.
Probably a mix with something Steppe and Globular Amphora.
Given its I2, it's odd I can find no Central European Neolithic or North European Mesolithic in it.
Steppe/South Eastern GA derivatives fit better than GA itself.
The I2 subclades are distant from each other - and one is a Western Caucasus SNP (I2c2).
With its very strong autosomal similarity to R1b populations, I think you would have to suppose its bearers spoke similar languages (lE?) and had similar origins.
If it was I2c2, we then gonna found him in other cultures. Maybe Repin or Suvorovo who knows.
The South of the Caucasus homeland is an interpretation but the 90% replacement is an observation. One of the reasons these people should be lauded as very good scientists is that they separate interpretations and data in their papers well enough for us to develop our own opinion about their data.
No it's not, your method is flawed.
These seven words hardly constitute a persuasive post. Why is my method flawed? What is the superior method? What do you say the superior method tells us differently? Where are the signs of significant Central European Neolithic or North European Mesolithic autosomal DNA in Unetice? Where is the data to the contrary?
Autosomally, Unetice looks just like Bell Beaker, with slightly higher Steppe. The data suggests to me that the population ancestral to R1b Bell Beaker was most likely substantially the same population that was ancestral to Unetice. The only slight difference is a small amount (6-12%) of Yamnayan-like DNA added into it (I suppose not so surprising, as Yamnaya was previously on its Eastern doorstep).
Unetice also has very similar componental statistics to Bell Beaker. Its core is EHG + Anatolian, which are both even more uniform than in Bell Beaker - unsurprisingly, as the younger Unetice had more time for these core components to drift towards the average mix. Also similarly, the closest correlation in its samples is between WHG and CHG, suggesting (as in Bell Beaker) that they were most likely substantially admixed into the core population at the same time - some time later than EHG and Anatolian were.
Do we have any information to indicate whether they were Indo-European speakers?
OK, here is some data:
Autosomal componental divergence between (i) Unetice and (ii) 81% German Bell Beaker + 7% Bulgaria Steppe-admixed late Chalcolithic + 6% Russian Yamnaya + 6% R1a Khvalynsk = 0.5%.
Autosomal componental divergence between (i) Unetice and (ii) 50% Swedish Mesolithic + 50% Baalberge Neolithic = 75%.
Relative standard deviations of components within Unetice - Anatolian 0.11, EHG 0.13, WHG 0.35, CHG 0.48.
Correlation coefficient between WHG and CHG within Unetice samples = +0.2.
I'll leave the interpretations to you.
Last edited by Pip; 22-02-19 at 11:40.
I don't think Swedish Mesolithic + Baalberge Neolithic mix should even be tested, as it does not look plausible for the time of Unetice, long after the Mesolithic and even many centuries after the Neolithic. It's not surprising that more proximate population sources in and around the Unetice territory will have much less divergence with it. I think a really good test would be German BB + other Chalcolithic and EBA samples of Central/East Europe (maybe the late phase of GAC and/or some CWC group).
As for their being mostly BB-like, but with I2, hasn't I2 been found in the Pontic-Caspian steppes even well before the MBA? Also, it is possible that even a small ammount of the EEF in its BB-like admixture and late Yamnaya-like admixture might be enough to account for a huge amount of I2 in the Unetice population, provided there was strong social selecton favoring it probably due to heavy disparity in the reproductive success of males in the formative period of the culture (as I think was much more common in the past than we'd like to admit).
We discussed this before, I'm not going to repeat myself.
You've already repeated yourself by claiming the method is flawed without responding usefully to my other questions - What does your supposedly better method tell us differently? Where are the signs of any North European Mesolithic or Central European Neolithic autosomal DNA in Unetice? Where is the data to the contrary?
Clearly no method can predict perfectly where people lived and exactly who they mated with several thousand years ago. The point is to identify what fits as a best explanation, given the data we have available. If you want to make a useful contribution, show us what you think fits better, and why.
Yes, I only demonstrated it, because of its likely links to I2, and because my assertion that it didn't show any fit was questioned.
I tried GAC, CWC and other nearby populations, but they did not fit so well.
Yes, both kinds (I2a2 and I2c2) in the Pontic Steppe, I think. That's another reason why I suspect that R1b Bell Beaker and Unetice I2 had ancestral roots in the same or similar populations.
Yes, possible, although if the I2 were North European EEF in origin, I would expect some small contribution to the best fit, at least.
The point is that, regardless of their dominant paternal haplogroups, Bell Beaker and Unetice would probably have spoken similar/related languages,whether Indo-European or otherwise.
It still looks unclear to me whether the core of PIE was introduced by a predominantly EHG, Anatolian, CHG or WHG population.
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)
Unetice has to be related to Bell Beaker though, this just demonstrates the limits of autosomal fitting. Can a better fit be achieved with minority Bell Beaker and majority Corded Ware (which would have Globular Amphora perhaps already mixed in)?
hrvclv's mixes give the following matches with Unetice on my calculator:
GA mix - 86.14%
CWC Baltic* mix - 88.62%
The best fit can be achieved with German Bell Beaker 80% + Bulgarian Steppe-admixed late Chalcolithic 8% + Southern Steppe Yamnaya 6% + Khvalynsk R1a 6% (99.64% match)
Autosomal fitting is not perfect, but it is clear enough in this respect. German BB and Unetice populations were almost certainly closely-related, and very likely spoke similar languages.
* CW Baltic is a problematic comparator, as it comprises two different populations (one heavily Yamnayan-admixed, one not).
That's so unreasonable!
I mean, the text of the article is illogical. Since little or NO connection between Yamnaya and Maykop then it would appear logically Anatolian/Caucasus would NOT be PIE homeland.
What i don't understand is if there are already IE Anatolian names from Northwest Syria from 2500 BC, then who are the brachycephal invaders of Anatolia from 2000 BC?
% of brachycephal people went suddenly from %16 to %42 - %50 so these invaders were very numerous and until now the samples from their period doesn't show steppe admixture too. At the same time, Anatolian languages started to expand with these invaders.
Hattians perhaps?
How is this possible? I read that Hattian language seems related to Caucasian languages but Hattians are known to be the local population and Hittites are known to be the intruders. In this case Hattians would be the intruders.
Has this really been demonstrated convincingly? I've been wondering myself. Caucasus admixture as Hattian signal seems to make sense.
Related: https://colchianstudies.files.wordpr...asis_20071.pdf
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
