Like when? I guess Hurrians sometimes had IE names, but for instance IE Anatolians had Hattian names even more frequently. IEs dont stand out in any way.
Latest Reich talk on ancient Dna
- Thread starter Angela
- Start date
ToBeOrNotToBe
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,110
- Reaction score
- 138
- Points
- 0
It isn't just amongst non-IE societies (which only really include certain Iberians, Italians and West Asians - just think about that), the idea of conquering and imposing your language on e.g. ancient Iran, India, Europe, the Balkans, Anatolia, Central Asia and even parts of East Asia requires elite status. Which other people/cultural complex have done anything even close to the same? This map also obviously includes non-ancient spread of IE, but even if you crop out everything but Eurasia you get the picture:
Steppe warriors always beat the farmers, until the gunpowder. It was a cycle. Even the farmer descendants of Yamnaya later wrecked by Hunnic-Turko/Mongolian steppe warriors.
I don't really see that in the data I have looked at, which indicates that Iberian Bronze Age DNA had a 30-40% contribution from Iberian Neolithic. All we can confidently show was 'replaced' were the main yDNA lineages in the cemeteries. It might be the case that the Iberian Neolithic male lineages were replaced, but the female lineages continued. It might be the case that the Iberian male lineages survived, but these were not the men buried in the cemeteries.
Autosomally, I don't really see signs of 'exchange' of women. I see Eastern (R1b Bell Beaker) DNA moving from West Central Europe into Iberia, but not Iberian Neolithic DNA moving in the opposite direction.
I can see two explanations for the female samples being more heavily 'steppic', while it was actually the female non-steppic DNA that thrived:
1. The dominant male R1b lineages in the Iberian Bronze Age admixed with women from both R1b Bell Beaker ancestry to their North East and Neolithic Iberian ancestry to their South, or
2. The more 'steppic' female samples are unrepresentative of the general Iberian population of the time, perhaps partly for reasons that Crazy Donkey hypothesised (sons of the dominant males were generally given proper burials, whereas only the daughters of 'steppic' mothers were afforded the same privilege).
The samples don't cluster with Minoans and Neolithic samples.
Already tackled:
On Minoans and their Y-DNA:
There are two "loose" Y-DNA/Autosomal-component correlations that were relevant here:
G -- ANF/EEF
J -- CHG/Iran
This seems to apply to the Minoans:
Oldest Minoan samples available from Odigitria, from ~2400 BC has Y-DNA G2a. Just one single Y-DNA available but as expected we also see lower CHG/Iran admixture in those oldest samples.
Youngest Minoan samples from Lasithi ~1850 BC, not much earlier than the Mycenaean era, then start to show J2a together with a higher amount of CHG/Iran admixture. This trend continues with the Mycenaeans with a even higher CHG/Iran admixture and again J2a.
The autosomal CHG/Iran admixture gradient is as low as 7% in earliest Minoan Odigitria and reaches it's maximum with 25% in a Mycenaean sample.
Therefore the notion that potential Pelasgian aboriginals before appearance of IE Greeks were Y-DNA J2a is flawed. G2a/ANF/EFF played a much more significant quantitative role back in the concerned age.
So the dominant role of J2a for proper ancient Greeks is also confirmed by the significant presence of a previous population that could represent the Pelasgians.
This would be also in line with those young ~1850 BC Minoan samples being already significantly Mycenaean influenced and the increasing role of J2a in comparison with G2a.
The framework for all of this is the following at this point of time: late-PIE is associated with Yamnaya and responsible for a northern path if Indoeuropeanization, while CHG/Iran admixture affected at least SE Europe (in European context).
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
This seems rather incoherent to me. It almost seems as if you haven't read the papers and have misunderstood what some of us are saying. There is definitely a difference between the Minoans and the later Mycenaeans, as the Lazaridis paper made clear. That difference is definitely the addition of some steppe like ancestry.
Given that, why would accuse us of proposing that there is no steppe ancestry in the Mycenaeans?
Now, when it arrived in Greece it is highly unlikely that it arrived in undiluted steppe form. Eurogenes is still stuck in adolescence with his fantasies of "blonde steppe cowboys". What probably happened is that as elsewhere they mixed along the way.
As to the question of "rule", it's indeed true that in some cases newcomers rise to become the "elite" of the new society. How rigid those "caste" divisions are and how long they remain intact varies from situation to situation. I can't think of any situation in Europe comparable to the one in India.
In Spain, for example, within a few hundred years of their arrival the Visigoths passed edicts that both the "Romans" and the "Visigoths" were to be treated equally before the law. Does that sound like caste bound India to you?
Indeed, sometimes the newcomers are not even a homogeneous genetic entitiy. That we know was the case with the "Huns", and it appears it may have been the case with the Goths as well. Is it so difficult to understand that groups of marauding men might fill their depleted ranks with strong men from the area through which they are passing? Or that they might elevate their sons by local women? The medieval Irish made no distinction between the children conceived in marriage and those from other "arrangements". Inheritance didn't depend on those distinctions.
Throwing around straw man arguments isn't helpful either. I have no doubt that Indo-European speaking steppe people moved into Europe.
I gather you're veering off into a discussion of the source of the "Anatolian" languages. There are three possibilities: it arose in place in Anatolia, it came from the steppe by a route south through the Caucasus, or it came from the Balkans.
I don't care how it happened, but so far as I can see all the hypotheses have problems.
The answer is not going to come from often uneducated, uninformed people on Eurogenes or Anthrogenica or anywhere else "brainstorming". It's going to come from new DATA competently analyzed.
@Alyan
Good post.
@Pip
It's 60% Iberian. For the steppe component, 40% is the maximum found and that's only in certain areas. In the areas where the language didn't change it goes as low as 10%.
Please go back and read the paper again, people, AND the supplement.
The admixture didn't begin until after the passage of 500 years. For all that time the two groups lived together more or less harmoniously, so all these juvenile male fantasies of Conan the Barbarian types marauding in, killing all the men and taking all the women won't fly.
Carlos
Banned
- Messages
- 2,647
- Reaction score
- 700
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V22/YF66572
- mtDNA haplogroup
- J1c5c1
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pXFhJFBG...b4o78GOmEKb0hplkC40ACLcBGAs/s1600/EB4566.JPEG
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P7EVHKpg...1bqItGc1155ACLcBGAs/s1600/EB4566+%281%29.JPEG
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uXxnmB7M...9TPTbVrJVYNQCLcBGAs/s1600/EB4566+%282%29.JPEG
I have had a kit uploaded from EL Argar and I have compared it with my own kit. I certainly do not know how to interpret it, but with what little I know I seem to see similarities.
Both J2a and CHG were present in the region long before 1,850 BC.
Some J2a had spread into Europe with G2a during the Neolithic expansions, and certain subclades (including the Minoan J-M319) were almost certainly among it. High CHG proportions were also showing up in Greece by at least the early 4th millennium BC.
CrazyDonkey
Regular Member
- Messages
- 339
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 28
- Location
- Seattle, Washington (Ballard)
- Ethnic group
- Irish/Scottish/British/Scandi/C Euro
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I2a-Y31616>FT435332
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U2e1d
100% of the population or the Y-DNA lineages? Survival of non-IE languages would argue against the first.
Also, based on samples from cemeteries from which non-elites might have been excluded.
Yes, after the mixed population had coalesced they replaced everyone. The Iberians/Tartessians were 100% L51 as expected.
I would agree, as it fits best with both Armenian and a more Northerly Balkan-like aDNA which looks to have arrived at the same time.
By the data I have analysed, it is 36% Iberian, although they have access to more data. The difference might have arisen through them using the standard dichotomous approach of trying to analyse a complex mash-up of DNA into only two simple categories (Iberian and Steppe). As you pointed out in relation to Greece, it is highly unlikely that Steppe DNA arrived in Iberia in undiluted form, especially as it was already admixing with Eastern EEF populations by the mid 5th millennium BC. Much of the 'Iberian DNA' in Iberia is instead likely to be Balkanic or French DNA that arrived with R1b and not Iberian at all.
I wonder if this is a bit of an over-simplification:
500 years from when? I don't think the Steppe-infused people all arrived at the same time.
And to qualify, I would say that some admixture would have occurred right from the beginning, and that the rate merely upped at later stage.
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
The only thing we have to go on is the data from the samples. They DO NOT show admixture from the beginning according to the authors. They also show admixture from preceding "local" people. Whether those local people were derived from various movements of farmer people within Europe before 2500 BC is another matter and not relevant to that fact.
We also know from the authors that in some areas the "new" admixture was as low as 10%. In others it was close to 40%.
Now, it may be true that in some sites not sampled there "is" evidence of some "remnant" local Iberian ancestry which may over time have mixed back into the population, lowering the percentage of "new" ancestry even further. Or, it may be that subsequent migrations lowered it. We need more samples from subsequent periods for more certainty.
Perhaps broadly accurate, but I fear this might be a bit of an over-simplification. Would the mixed populations ever really have wholly coalesced over every nook and cranny across the whole of Iberia? I doubt it, especially as other new people (steppic and otherwise) were arriving all the time.
My guess is that the nooks and crannies are irrelevant for metal age demographics. Once the sources of wealth and the best agricultural lands are lost population decline inevitably occurs. An economically successful group capable of feeding their offspring would become demographically dominant very quickly.
Perhaps the data from the samples is insufficiently complete or unrepresentative of the whole Iberian population.
Firstly, the 'beginning' was long before 2500 BC, as ATP3 and ATP7 demonstrate (and ATP7 also appears to demonstrate a degree of admixture between more steppic ATP3 and Iberian Neolithic).
Secondly, whether people were farmers is not exactly the same thing as whether they had steppic DNA.
Thirdly, as is often the case with presentations by academics, the whole thing looks like a suspiciously neat model that has been oversimplified for dramatic effect -
People with any steppic DNA are entirely absent, then pure steppic people all arrive in one go in 2,500 BC.
None of them mix with anyone else for 500 years.
Then in 2,000 BC they all suddenly thoroughly mix together to coalesce to a uniform whole across the entire Iberian peninsula.
Even though they are thoroughly admixed, they all 100% have the same steppic paternal ancestors.
I find it too simplistic to be credible.
Iberia is a varied landscape; what succeeds in one location might not always succeed in another.
If the R1b model had been flawless in all environments, it wouldn't have ceded parts of the North to hgI, the East to R1a and Anatolia to J2.
And all colonial powers ultimately end up overreaching themselves.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...-over-the-past-8000-years&p=555249#post555249
Relevant:
I have included these samples in the following PCA (labeled Empuries_Greek):
Keep in mind that the Mycenaean samples come from different areas of Greece, from Salamis to Messenia, while the founders of Emporion (present-day Empuries) came from Phocaea in Anatolia (present-day Foça). That should tell us something about the amount of substructure among the Greeks, in other words it was clearly minimal, not to say non-existent.
Relevant:
I have included these samples in the following PCA (labeled Empuries_Greek):
Keep in mind that the Mycenaean samples come from different areas of Greece, from Salamis to Messenia, while the founders of Emporion (present-day Empuries) came from Phocaea in Anatolia (present-day Foça). That should tell us something about the amount of substructure among the Greeks, in other words it was clearly minimal, not to say non-existent.
I think it should come as no surprise if the Hellenes were found to have been unusually endogamous compared to other peoples.
This thread has been viewed 98230 times.