David Anthony on the Indo-Europeans-again

That's why I think linguistics without some historical, archaeological and genetic evidence is a lot of mumbo jumbo. Sorry @Moesan :)! There only so many sounds you can make and some of them will be similar.
 
That's why I think linguistics without some historical, archaeological and genetic evidence is a lot of mumbo jumbo. Sorry @Moesan :)! There only so many sounds you can make and some of them will be similar.

I agree. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I find that it's a bit like when I'm dragged to a yoga class: I either start to make a to do list for the remainder of the day or I fall asleep.:)

You know what analogy popped into my mind? I'm a Philistine when it comes to linguistics.

Only a pop gen geek would know why that's funny. :)
 
The CHG that mixed with EHG to form Eneolithic Steppe and later Yamnaya people seems to be pretty diverged in relation to the CHG represented by the South Caucasus DNA samples that we have found to date. It was already mixed with EHG by the Eneolithic ~4500 B.C., and I wouldn't be surprised if it had started moving down the Caucasus well before that date and had already drifted away from the CHG in Georgia and in other more southern lands in their North Caucasus homeland. When I try to model the genetic ancestry of Europeans using CHG (Kotias, Satsurblia) and EHG (Karelia, Samara) separately, I often find that the EHG is picked up by the software algorithm just fine, but the CHG disappears. But as soon as I try substituting Eneolithic Steppe DNA samples for the former CHG+EHG separate combination, it's found in substantial proportions, as Eneolithic Steppe has a lot of CHG-related ancestry. That's of course not the only reason why I think it's possible that the CHG in the steppe arrived there well before PIE is assumed to have been spoken and was already quite drifted apart from other CHG groups that remained in the South Caucasus, but that stroke me as something really intriguing that confirmed my other suspicions.

Yes. Recall that "CHG" is just ANE (drifted) that had moved South during the LGM and mixed with Basal Eurasian populations. So the CHG that ends up on the steppe by 4500BC could very well have been there for a long a$$ time and drifted considerably from the core Caucasian populations, as your models prove. It didn't need to move onto the steppe in or near the PIE time frame.
 
Wasn't Repin a derivation of Khvalynsk at least partially? Maybe Siberian input was only more than negligible in the northern parts (core Khvalynsk territory) and not more to the South, or it was simply low enough that it virtually disappeared (given later bottlenecks and random drift) centuries later.

This. I wouldn't put too much on the dash of Siberian we see in EHG and Eneolithic Steppe samples, and I definitely wouldn't think it's enough to say that populations with samples that have this Siberian could not have been ancestral to populations where it doesn't show up.
 
So, for what it's worth, I decided to play a bit with the aDNA samples available in the Global25 datasheets, and though these are of course flawed and only proximate models I think they're still suggestive and go in the same direction of what the scientific research has been pointing to, which is: 1) Eneolithic Steppe samples from the south near to the Caucasus seem to have been formative for later two presumably IE-speaking culturres(please, don't make me discuss again why Carlos Quiles' "Indo-Uralic" hypothesis is a fanciful attempt at making sense easily of a much more complex history); 2) interestingly, the Early CWC from the Baltic area seems to have more Sredny Stog-related ancestry, whereas the Yamnaya samples have more Progress Eneolithic Steppe ancestry, which I think can have some implications on the origins of the R1a-rich ancestors of the CWC and where they had come from before migrating (orbeing pushed) north; 3) in each and every case, Eneolithic Khvalynsk was only a minor part of the ancestry of the later BA population. Do you think these results are plausible?

[1] "distance%=3.0953 / distance=0.030953"
Corded_Ware_Baltic_early

UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En 43.1
RUS_Progress_En 34.9
RUS_Khvalynsk_En 18.9
Baltic_LTU_Mesolithic 3.1


[1] "distance%=2.6627 / distance=0.026627"
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

RUS_Progress_En 55.40
UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En 23.55
RUS_Khvalynsk_En 17.20
UKR_Dereivka_I_En1 2.10
RUS_Vonyuchka_En 1.75

[1] "distance%=2.8016 / distance=0.028016"
Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia

RUS_Progress_En 53.6
UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En 29.2
RUS_Khvalynsk_En 17.1

Bingo.

This is why I've held that PIE was Pre-yamnaya. I think Yamnaya was some form of proto-Indo-Iranian already as I've beat to death during my history on this site.

Not only that but we see genomes in Sredny Stog, before Yamnaya, that are clearly ancestral to Corded Ware.
 
I don't know how this is speculative.

After this 4300-4200 BC event, AnatolianFarmer ancestry began to pop up in the steppes. The currently oldest sample with Anatolian Farmer ancestry in the steppes inan individual at Aleksandriya, a Sredni Stog cemetery on theDonets in eastern Ukraine. Sredni Stog has often been discussedas a possible Yamnaya ancestor in Ukraine (Anthony 2007: 239-254). The single published grave is dated about 4000 BC (4045–3974 calBC/ 5215±20 BP/ PSUAMS-2832) and shows 20%Anatolian Farmer ancestry and 80% Khvalynsk-type steppeancestry (CHG&EHG). His Y-chromosome haplogroup wasR1a-Z93, similar to the later Sintashta culture and to South Asian Indo-Aryans, and he is the earliest known sample toshow the genetic adaptation to lactase persistence (I3910T).."

And this is not.

"The west-to-east gene flow that began after the 4300-4200 BC collapse could have continued into the Yamnayaperiod. Part of the WHG that Wang et al. (2018) detected inYamnaya genomes could have been picked up in the Dniepervalley, where many Dnieper-Donets individuals had WHGancestry, possibly lessening the necessity for mate exchangeswith Globular Amphorae. Probably, late PIE (Yamnaya) evolved in the same part ofthe steppes—the Volga-Caucasus steppes between the lowerDon, the lower and middle Volga, and the North Caucasuspiedmont—where early PIE evolved, and where appropriateEHG/CHG admixtures and Y-chromosome haplogroups wereseen already in the Eneolithic (without Anatolian Farmer).There have always been archaeologists who argued for anorigin of Yamnaya in the Volga steppes, including Gimbutas(1963), Merpert (1974), and recently Morgunova (2014), whoargued that this was where Repin-type ceramics, an importantearly Yamnaya pottery type, first appeared in dated contextsbefore Yamnaya, about 3600 BC. The genetic evidence isconsistent with Yamnaya EHG/CHG origins in the VolgaCaucasus steppes. Also, if contact with the Maikop culture wasa fundamental cause of the innovations in transport andmetallurgy that defined the Yamnaya culture, then the lowerDon-North Caucasus-lower Volga steppes, closest to the NorthCaucasus, would be where the earliest phase is expected."

" I would still guess that the Darkveti-Meshoko culture andits descendant Maikop culture established the linguisticancestor of the Northwest Caucasian languages inapproximately the region where they remained. I also acceptthe general consensus that the appearance of the hierarchicalMaikop culture about 3600 BC had profound effects on preYamnaya and early Yamnaya steppe cultures. Yamnayametallurgy borrowed from the Maikop culture two-sided molds,tanged daggers, cast shaft hole axes with a single blade, andarsenical copper. Wheeled vehicles might have entered thesteppes through Maikop, revolutionizing steppe economies andmaking Yamnaya pastoral nomadism possible after 3300 BC. So it is still possible that steppe people interacted asraiders and traders and perhaps even political clients of theMaikop people, with interaction intense enough to makeleading political figures in the pre-Yamnaya steppes bilingual inthe Maikop (Northwest Caucasian?) language. Some Maikopwomen might also have become the wives of some preYamnaya men. If their speech was copied by others aroundthem, the linguistic exchanges and interferences suggested byBomhard could have occurred and spread without an equallylarge exchange of mates. But if the interpretations presentedhere are supported, mate exchanges between Maikop and preYamnaya or Yamnaya people were few in number, rare infrequency, and when they did happen, involved primarilyMaikop women, not men. If more mating had occurred, wewould see more EHG among the Maikop genomes and moreAnatolian Farmer among Yamnaya steppe genomes than we dosee. Of course another, final, possibility, consistent with thearchaeological and genetic evidence presented here, is thatthere were two phases of interference from Caucasianlanguages in two periods. The first, perhaps responsible forsome of the basic morphological and phonological traitsBomhard detected, could have occurred in the fifth millenniumBC and involved very archaic eastern Caucasian languages thathad moved to the lower Volga steppes with CHG people, wherethey intermarried with Samara-based EHG pre-Uralic people tocreate early PIE and the Khvalynsk culture and a newEHG/CHG genetic admixture; and the second phase, which left a Northwest Caucasian imprint over late PIE, perhaps moresuperficial (lexical) than the earlier interference, could havebeen during the Maikop period, but without a major geneticexchange between Maikop and Yamnaya."

Doesn't really matter. Still puts PIE in Eneolithic Steppe I guess, but I'm really seeing corded ware and maybe even Bell Beaker ancestry in those samples from Ukraine, which I think is supported in models.
 
You have a strange imagination about the ancient times, this is the map of the world in Babylonian era:

2zp6u0m.jpg


Someone with no clear reason says that Gutians were Tocharian and you believe but when I talk about hundreds evidences which show they were Germanic, you don't believe!
Anyway when Gutians as an IE people lived in Iran from at least the 3rd millennium BC and we know proto-Greek and some other IE people lived in the same area and the same period, so it was IE, not Yamnaya.

Caucasian languages and Caucasian culture show that the Caucasus had almost no role in the spread of IE culture, this Russian map is interesting for me, however I don't know what it says:

3-19.jpg

This as got to be Alan, Goga, or a close associate.
 
Bingo.

This is why I've held that PIE was Pre-yamnaya. I think Yamnaya was some form of proto-Indo-Iranian already as I've beat to death during my history on this site.

Not only that but we see genomes in Sredny Stog, before Yamnaya, that are clearly ancestral to Corded Ware.

Really interesting idea! I agree--it seems like researchers are moving toward a PIE homeland south of the Caucasus (Reich, Damgaard, Wang, Grolle). I still don't understand why the Pre-Proto Indo-Europeans (Indo-Hittites) aren't the Proto-Indo-Europeans and the Yamnaya called something like "Modern Indo-Europeans", "Pontic Indo-Europeans", or "Classic Indo-Europeans" or something along these lines. If Reich and Damgaard are correct, the Anatolians, who are considered Indo-Europeans, split off prior to the Yamnaya. If Laroche, Fournet, and Bomhard are correct, the Hurro-Urartians were Indo-Europeans who split prior to the Anatolians splitting off. Obviously both of these theories are controversial, but the former is more widely accepted than the latter. The point is--how could there be Indo-Europeans languages (at least Anatolians) who split off before Yamnaya if Yamnaya were the PIEs?

I think we are going to start seeing that there were numerous migrations back and forth through the Caucasus (think this is what Wang suggests).

Do you think that Yamyana were only Proto-Indo-Iranians or something like Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranians?
 
Anybody has info on Arslantepe paper by Max Planck Institute? It's gonna be very important.
 
I think Sredny Stog was the main Pre-Indo-European culture, feeding directly into Corded Ware. Yamna, being predominantly R1b-Z2103, most likely influenced the Balkan peoples who have high frequencies of that subclade.
 
I don't think so. No pre-Yamna R1b-Z2103 has been found anywhere.
I guess it is Repin which appeared in the Don-Volga area quite late, some 5.95 ka.
It is not Khvalynsk, of which we have DNA.

Khvalynsk has a touch of Siberian DNA, which is absent in Yamna.
Pré-Yamna Dnjepr DNA has some EEF, which is absent in Yamna too.
 
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5-rvA6Iq...QHuPcipAgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Ancient_samples.jpg

As expected, Reich has lots of unpublished data from Anatolia. This is why i've been thinking there will be no steppe ancestry in Anatolia. I think if there was even a small sign of it, Reich would write different things in his book, Lazaridis would write different things on Twitter etc. Or maybe with the newest data they found something? Hopefully they publish the samples quickly and we find out the answer.
 
As always you know more than all the authors of these genetics papers and than David Anthony as well and in addition are more emphatic and arrogant about it.

By all means write up a paper and see if a reputable journal will publish it. I'm all anticipation.

And has poisoned any discussion of the topic here by continuously citing himself as an authority, while refusing to defend his methods when challenged.
 
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5-rvA6Iq...QHuPcipAgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Ancient_samples.jpg

As expected, Reich has lots of unpublished data from Anatolia. This is why i've been thinking there will be no steppe ancestry in Anatolia. I think if there was even a small sign of it, Reich would write different things in his book, Lazaridis would write different things on Twitter etc. Or maybe with the newest data they found something? Hopefully they publish the samples quickly and we find out the answer.

It probably goes along something like that, at least from the side of Reich. But that's the problem with Vulgarization of huge hypothesis like the I-E one. If you really think about it, taking all the matter on it. Anatolians and in particular their supposed and theorized Archaism, are not the answer of I-E hypothesis, neither is really the Steppe signal or any other admixture or the R1a-R1b relationship, or any archeological materials. It's the association of at least most of those, like " being in the [ supposed ] I-E spectrum ". And as i said, Anatolians are not that important for that matter because in that relationship, we only have the Linguistic part, wich itself is not fully known. We cannot based that entire hypothesis on " it's the most archaic IE language ".
 
Very interesting talk about Indo Europeans in Anatolia by Petra Goedegebuure.

 
On Eurogenes Davidski said he has seen unpublished Steppe Anatolian samples. If correct PIE question may be finally solved.
 

This thread has been viewed 39042 times.

Back
Top