Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 257

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

  1. #201
    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
    Yes, I, too. I think Tocharian is clearly pre-satemization, which in my opinion was a mid-late Yamnaya phonetic innovation that probably swept, in different degrees and ways, all lands that were in or near to the PIE core territory. I still think the association between Tocharian and Afanasevo may have sense. Anyway, I don't think it's right to say Tocharians were "genetically Andronovo" until we have probable early Tocharians (that will be hard to establish, as Indo-Iranian and Tocharian were presumably in close contact for a long time, the Tarim Basin also had lots of Iranic speakers).
    How would one identify a Tocharian though? I think the first attestation is dated to 300-500 CE.

  2. #202
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,084
    Points
    8,680
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,680, Level: 27
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 70
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    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

  3. #203
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,836
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,836, Level: 22
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 214
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Yes, I, too. I think Tocharian is clearly pre-satemization, which in my opinion was a mid-late Yamnaya phonetic innovation that probably swept, in different degrees and ways, all lands that were in or near to the PIE core territory. I still think the association between Tocharian and Afanasevo may have sense. Anyway, I don't think it's right to say Tocharians were "genetically Andronovo" until we have probable early Tocharians (that will be hard to establish, as Indo-Iranian and Tocharian were presumably in close contact for a long time, the Tarim Basin also had lots of Iranic speakers).
    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.

  4. #204
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    564
    Points
    2,538
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,538, Level: 14
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 212
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: UK - England



    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.

  5. #205
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,836
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,836, Level: 22
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 214
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    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.

  6. #206
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    564
    Points
    2,538
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,538, Level: 14
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 212
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    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.

  7. #207
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,836
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,836, Level: 22
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 214
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    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.

  8. #208
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by etrusco View Post
    the funny thing is that these scholars are not credible when they root for the Anatolian or South of Caucasus thesis ( personally I do not believe in both by the way ) but they are credible to many "keyboard warrior" when they speak about 90% replacement in britain or the "iberian massacre".....seems that here some kind of a racial bias is involved.......
    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.

  9. #209
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    Given its I2, it's odd I can find no Central European Neolithic or North European Mesolithic in it.
    No it's not, your method is flawed.

  10. #210
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    564
    Points
    2,538
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,538, Level: 14
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 212
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    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?

  11. #211
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    564
    Points
    2,538
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,538, Level: 14
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 212
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    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.
    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 10:40.

  12. #212
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,702
    Points
    25,472
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,472, Level: 48
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 78
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    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 48%.

    Correlation coefficient between WHG and CHG within Unetice samples = +0.2.

    I'll leave the interpretations to you.
    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).

  13. #213
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    These seven words hardly constitute a persuasive post. Why is my method flawed? What is the superior method?
    We discussed this before, I'm not going to repeat myself.

  14. #214
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    564
    Points
    2,538
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,538, Level: 14
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 212
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    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.

  15. #215
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    564
    Points
    2,538
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,538, Level: 14
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 212
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: UK - England



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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).
    I tried GAC, CWC and other nearby populations, but they did not fit so well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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).
    Yes, possible, although if the I2 were North European EEF in origin, I would expect some small contribution to the best fit, at least.

  16. #216
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    564
    Points
    2,538
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,538, Level: 14
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 212
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: UK - England



    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.

  17. #217
    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.


    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)

  18. #218
    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 hrvclv View Post


    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)?

  19. #219
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    564
    Points
    2,538
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,538, Level: 14
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 212
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    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).

  20. #220
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-03-19
    Posts
    18
    Points
    162
    Level
    2
    Points: 162, Level: 2
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 88
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - California



    That's so unreasonable!

  21. #221
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-03-19
    Posts
    18
    Points
    162
    Level
    2
    Points: 162, Level: 2
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 88
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - California



    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.

  22. #222
    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



    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.

  23. #223
    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 Cpluskx View Post
    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?

  24. #224
    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
    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.

  25. #225
    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 Cpluskx View Post
    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

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 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
  •