Iran_ChL and the Semitic Languages

[Hjiju6]

The origin of the Afroasiatic languages is almost a settled question, with the most likely location being in the Levant with the Natufians due to the high degree of presence of haplogroup E among almost all Afroasiatic populations except in the Middle East, and high proportions of Natufian-like ancestry in all Afroasiatic people.

With the Semitic languages, it’s less clear and straightforward. We have to reconcile several issues. (Note: I am citing my sources as Papers 1, 2, and 3 because I have under 20 posts so I can’t hyperlink, and because I don’t want to break the flow of the text. The names of the papers can be found at the end of the post.)

• The Afroasiatic languages most likely originated in the Levant. The people who spread the Afroasiatic languages most likely carried haplogroup E and a Natufian-like genotype.
• Almost all speakers of Semitic languages carry high frequencies of haplogroup J and have moderate levels of Iran_N ancestry.
• According to Paper 1, which has been cited 186 times as of this writing, proto-Semitic was spoken between 5800 and 5500 years ago.
• According to Paper 2, which has been cited 89 times as of this writing, the admixture between the local Levantine population and Iran_ChL “occurred 6,600–3,550 years ago.”

We might add to these issues/data points one more that is more indirect in its relation to the issue:

• According to Paper 3 by Lazaridis et al., which has been cited over 600 times as of this writing, Levant_N contributed roughly 20% of the genetic makeup of Iran_ChL.

The most predominant theory/explanation today is the Levant hypothesis. I think there is one big problem with this hypothesis: In most iterations I’ve read online, it ignores the fact that most experts believe J had a role in the spread of the Semitic languages.

I think any hypothesis to be seriously considered must explain the strong correlation between Semitic languages and J (and Iranian ancestry), and remember that Afroasiatic languages did not emerge in Iran, but most likely in the Levant.

I think the two best explanations are the following,

-a modification of the Levant hypothesis: Iran_ChL migrated to the Levant, intermixing with a native population that spoke Proto-Semitic. This admixed population spread into Mesopotamia and later into Arabia.

-the Levantine population that admixed to produce Iran_ChL introduced a pre-proto-Semitic language that evolved into Proto-Semitic within the Iranian population. It then later spread to the Levant and Mesopotamia, and either directly, or indirectly through an admixed Levantine population, into Arabia.

I think both of those explanations are almost equally satisfactory and face similar problems. I think the biggest problem facing the modified Levantine hypothesis is that it is unusual for a population to form a dominant caste over a population (as evidenced by the replacement of the local Y-DNA haplogroups) and not make the nondominant group adopt their language. A “counterexample” to this from history is the Basques, who have one of the highest levels of R1b—associated with the spread of Indo-European languages—of any population at 91%, but who kept their pre-Indo-European language.

With the second “Iranian” (because the Iranian component was more directly involved in the spread of the languages) hypothesis, the biggest problem is that the Levant_N migrating population that supposedly would have spoken pre-proto-Semitic didn’t form a dominant caste over the Iranian population (as evidenced by the lack of replacement of the dominant haplogroups in the population), yet the Iranian population adopted Levant_N’s language. A “counterexample” to this are Indo-European-speaking Mycenaean Greeks, where the samples, albeit small in number, suggest that most Mycenaean Greeks had J2 and not R1, which is associated with Indo-European migrations.

Which explanation do you guys think is more likely? Is there relevant evidence I haven’t touched on? I’d love to hear your thoughts about these hypotheses.

Sources:
Paper 1: Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East

Paper 2:
Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences

Paper 3:
Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East

Edit 2/20: I think the modified Levantine hypothesis is slightly more likely to be true, though I am not highly certain. I think a scenario where Y-DNA is replaced but the language is kept is more likely than an immigrant population replacing the language but not the Y-DNA. I mentioned below that my analysis of the Mycenaeans might be false; however, after further reading, it seems to be the immediate pre-IE inhabitants of Greece were closely related to Minoans, and in fact Mycenaeans can be modeled as Minoans+Steppe, which is evidence that the immigrant population replacing the language but not the Y-DNA is not as unlikely as it seems. Nonetheless, we have a dearth of ancient DNA from Mycenaean Greece, so the above analysis is by no means conclusive. A perhaps more firm argument in favor of the Levantine hypothesis is that most linguists consider the Levant to have been the origin of the Semitic languages. So even though the Mycenaean example might not be wrong after all, I still there is slightly more reason to believe in the modified Levantine hypothesis.

Edit 2/23: I deleted a portion saying evidence showing a Canaanite signature in Arabians might provide strong evidence for the modified Levantine hypothesis. However, since the Levant region probably experienced more migration from Iran after the Proto-Semitic era, meaning Canaanites probably differed genetically from Proto-Semites, I don’t think that would hold.

If you guys have thoughts about my edit, don’t hesitate to share them below.

 

[Jovialis]

Makes me think of the book of Noah. Perhaps Haplogroup-J/CHG/IN-rich people spread out in a star formation from around Ararat. The children of "shem" probably just traveled south and mixed with Semitic speakers who were probably Levant_N, adopting their language. While the sons of "Japhiet", went on to become minoan-like people ( Anatolian_N mixing with more CHG rich people).

 

[Jovialis]

^^Nick Patterson said CHG/IN has been coming into Europe for 10,000 years. So maybe the "Sons of Japhiet" is a collective allegory for this phenomenon.

 

[Jovialis]

Maybe the sons of Ham are a collective allegory for the back to Africa migration from the Near east.

 

[Hjiju6]

Thank you for replying Jovialis. Can I ask you why you tend towards the modified Levantine hypothesis as opposed to the “Iranian” hypothesis?

 

[Hjiju6]

Makes me think of the book of Noah. Perhaps Haplogroup-J/CHG/IN-rich people spread out in a star formation from around Ararat. The children of "shem" probably just traveled south and mixed with Semitic speakers who were probably Levant_N, adopting their language. While the sons of "Japhiet", went on to become minoan-like people ( Anatolian_N mixing with more CHG rich people).

Thank you for replying Jovialis. Can I ask you why you tend towards the modified Levantine hypothesis as opposed to the “Iranian” hypothesis?

 

[Jovialis]

Thank you for replying Jovialis. Can I ask you why you tend towards the modified Levantine hypothesis as opposed to the “Iranian” hypothesis?

As far as I know, the most accepted hypothesis by linguists for a possible proto-Semitic Urheimat are the Levant, the Sahara, the Horn of Africa, or the Arabian peninsula.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language

Plus, we really don't see it spoken in Iran.

The middle east 1st century AD:

"Map of Semitic languages and statistically inferred dispersals. One hypothesized location of the divergence of ancestral Semitic from Afroasiatic between the African coast of the Red Sea and the Near East is also indicated."

 

[Hjiju6]

As far as I know, the most accepted hypothesis by linguists for a possible proto-Semitic Urheimat are the Levant, the Sahara, the Horn of Africa, or the Arabian peninsula.

Since you think the modified L. hypothesis is true, do you think that Proto-Semitic was spread by a people with a Canaanite-like signature (~50% Levant_N, 50% Iran_ChL), which would imply, for example, that the original speakers of Arabic were closer to the Canaanites than Peninsulars today (who would have been almost pure Natufians before the arrival of the Arabs).

Are you aware of studies that point to a Canaanite-like signature in modern Arabians? I know of studies that show Anatolian and Iranian signatures in modern Arabians, but I’m interested to see if they could directly detect a Canaanite-like signature.

 

[Jovialis]

Since you think the modified L. hypothesis is true, do you think that Proto-Semitic was spread by a people with a Canaanite-like signature (~50% Levant_N, 50% Iran_ChL), which would imply, for example, that the original speakers of Arabic were closer to the Canaanites than Peninsulars today (who were almost pure Natufians before the arrival of the Arabs).

Are you aware of studies that point to a Canaanite-like signature in modern Arabians? I know of studies that show Anatolian and Iranian signatures in modern Arabians, but I’m interested to see if they could directly detect a Canaanite-like signature.

I am not sure of what is true or not, that's just what I see what most of the linguists believe.

TBH, I am not invested in the topic enough to have any strong sentiments.

However, it should be noted that modern Middle Easterners need Sidon_BA as a baseline for DNA modeling. So I wonder if that lends support to a Levantine dispersal of Semitic languages. idk

 

[Hjiju6]

I am not sure of what is true or not, that's just what I see what most of the linguists believe.

TBH, I am not invested in the topic enough to have any strong sentiments.

However, it should be noted that modern Middle Easterners need Sidon_BA as a baseline for DNA modeling. So I wonder if that lends support to a Levantine dispersal of Semitic languages. idk

You know anyone in the community more invested in the topic to see what they think?

 

[Stuvanè]

I'm not an expert in these matters either, but IMO - for both historical and genetic reasons - the hypothesis of an introgression of ancient Caucasian/Iranian groups onto a broad Levantine substratum that maintained and passed on its original proto-semitic language through local maternal lineages seems more plausible.


Simplifying greatly, the history of the ancient Middle East - especially during the Bronze Age - is a succession of attacks and dominations by peoples who can be traced back to the Kura-Araxes culture or subsequent heirs... see Gutians, Hurrites/Mitanni, Cassites and the Hittites themselves just to name those who were then in that region of the world true warlords and the repositories of some technological innovations in metallurgy and weapons production that gave a considerable advantage over other peoples, disrupting ancient Mesopotamian and Levant empires or kingdoms. I think there is enough to justify the presence and success of haplogroups like J in that region, supplanting or marginalising the original local male lineages.


You have cited Haber's 2017 study, but you can make your own rudimentary and homely comparison by retrieving the coordinates of ancient Levantine samples from Vahaduo oracles (e.g. those from Israel) to compare with the ancestral components and you will see that the oldest are almost entirely Natufian, while from the full Bronze Age individuals - while keeping this component prominent - hybridize with significant later shares of CHG/Iran_N (which should precisely be the ones that mainly conveyed the J haplogroups).


Therefore, if we assume that the original Semitic area was between the Levant and the Horn of Africa/Northeast Africa, as Jovialis pointed out, it is likely that the invaders modified the DNA of the conquered but not their linguistic bases. So, here too, what you mentioned could have happened to the Basques, where a pre-Indo-European language was preserved despite the arrival of Indo-European components (and another similar example could be that of the Etruscans).


Then there is no doubt that in the course of history the Semites spread further when they had already incorporated Caucasian-Iranian components. However, attributing the original Semitic language to the latter then puts you in the difficulty of justifying non-Semitic languages in several people, rich in Caucasian-Iranian autosomal DNA and related haplogroups.
Where do the current Caucasian languages that are neither Indo-European nor Semitic come from?
The Yamnaya themselves are about half of their autosomal CHG, but for sure they are not linguistically "Semitic" despite such a cumbersome genetic inheritance.


(Indeed, just the bizarre cases of the Mycenaeans and Hittites - Indo-Europeans in their own right but with little or no steppic inheritance - makes me hazard the hypothesis that it is precisely among some J genetic lines from the Caucasus that the most archaic Proto-Indo-European originated, before it was then exploded and spread further north and west.)

Eventually, some of the Js became part of the Semitic world, but in the beginning they were not

 

[Archetype0ne]

I'm not an expert in these matters either, but IMO - for both historical and genetic reasons - the hypothesis of an introgression of ancient Caucasian/Iranian groups onto a broad Levantine substratum that maintained and passed on its original proto-semitic language through local maternal lineages seems more plausible.


Simplifying greatly, the history of the ancient Middle East - especially during the Bronze Age - is a succession of attacks and dominations by peoples who can be traced back to the Kura-Araxes culture or subsequent heirs... see Gutians, Hurrites/Mitanni, Cassites and the Hittites themselves just to name those who were then in that region of the world true warlords and the repositories of some technological innovations in metallurgy and weapons production that gave a considerable advantage over other peoples, disrupting ancient Mesopotamian and Levant empires or kingdoms. I think there is enough to justify the presence and success of haplogroups like J in that region, supplanting or marginalising the original local male lineages.


You have cited Haber's 2017 study, but you can make your own rudimentary and homely comparison by retrieving the coordinates of ancient Levantine samples from Vahaduo oracles (e.g. those from Israel) to compare with the ancestral components and you will see that the oldest are almost entirely Natufian, while from the full Bronze Age individuals - while keeping this component prominent - hybridize with significant later shares of CHG/Iran_N (which should precisely be the ones that mainly conveyed the J haplogroups).


Therefore, if we assume that the original Semitic area was between the Levant and the Horn of Africa/Northeast Africa, as Jovialis pointed out, it is likely that the invaders modified the DNA of the conquered but not their linguistic bases. So, here too, what you mentioned could have happened to the Basques, where a pre-Indo-European language was preserved despite the arrival of Indo-European components (and another similar example could be that of the Etruscans).


Then there is no doubt that in the course of history the Semites spread further when they had already incorporated Caucasian-Iranian components. However, attributing the original Semitic language to the latter then puts you in the difficulty of justifying non-Semitic languages in several people, rich in Caucasian-Iranian autosomal DNA and related haplogroups.
Where do the current Caucasian languages that are neither Indo-European nor Semitic come from?
The Yamnaya themselves are about half of their autosomal CHG, but for sure they are not linguistically "Semitic" despite such a cumbersome genetic inheritance.


(Indeed, just the bizarre cases of the Mycenaeans and Hittites - Indo-Europeans in their own right but with little or no steppic inheritance - makes me hazard the hypothesis that it is precisely among some J genetic lines from the Caucasus that the most archaic Proto-Indo-European originated, before it was then exploded and spread further north and west.)

Eventually, some of the Js became part of the Semitic world, but in the beginning they were not

Nice write up. As usual fun reading your analyses.

Interestingly in another thread when I brought up to someone that J2b(L283 in that case) was likely Yamnaya at some point, later in the chain of replies I saw someone interject that rather L283 was Caucasian. I think what many forget is that CHG was as important to Yamnaya as EHG, as the share was 50-50. EHG existed in the region for millenia before and was present far and wide, yet the cultural complex, in this case Yamnaya only sprang once the two peoples were mixed / synthesized.

OFC I am aware that equivalating Yamnaya to proto-IE is controversial depending on whose scholarship one bases their world view on. But I think its fair to say as Yamnaya, even if post-proto-IE, were forged in a similar context by similar forces.

Another thing I find interesting about J, which in a way is the fun of doing personal genetic research, is in how many interesting cultures and peoples it has been found. Given the time of the supposed origin around the Zargos, it is plausible to have been among the first cities and kindgoms such as Uruk - Babylon etc. But at the same time we have confirmed samples from the Eastern Mediterranean and Italy where a quite a few ancient civilizations flourished.

Ps: What is your more specific subclade? Do you think we might find J in Troy? With potential samples coming up, I would wager we find J2a at least in Troy but J2b would be sweet!

 

[Hjiju6]

I'm not an expert in these matters either, but IMO - for both historical and genetic reasons - the hypothesis of an introgression of ancient Caucasian/Iranian groups onto a broad Levantine substratum that maintained and passed on its original proto-semitic language through local maternal lineages seems more plausible.


Simplifying greatly, the history of the ancient Middle East - especially during the Bronze Age - is a succession of attacks and dominations by peoples who can be traced back to the Kura-Araxes culture or subsequent heirs... see Gutians, Hurrites/Mitanni, Cassites and the Hittites themselves just to name those who were then in that region of the world true warlords and the repositories of some technological innovations in metallurgy and weapons production that gave a considerable advantage over other peoples, disrupting ancient Mesopotamian and Levant empires or kingdoms. I think there is enough to justify the presence and success of haplogroups like J in that region, supplanting or marginalising the original local male lineages.


You have cited Haber's 2017 study, but you can make your own rudimentary and homely comparison by retrieving the coordinates of ancient Levantine samples from Vahaduo oracles (e.g. those from Israel) to compare with the ancestral components and you will see that the oldest are almost entirely Natufian, while from the full Bronze Age individuals - while keeping this component prominent - hybridize with significant later shares of CHG/Iran_N (which should precisely be the ones that mainly conveyed the J haplogroups).


Therefore, if we assume that the original Semitic area was between the Levant and the Horn of Africa/Northeast Africa, as Jovialis pointed out, it is likely that the invaders modified the DNA of the conquered but not their linguistic bases. So, here too, what you mentioned could have happened to the Basques, where a pre-Indo-European language was preserved despite the arrival of Indo-European components (and another similar example could be that of the Etruscans).


Then there is no doubt that in the course of history the Semites spread further when they had already incorporated Caucasian-Iranian components. However, attributing the original Semitic language to the latter then puts you in the difficulty of justifying non-Semitic languages in several people, rich in Caucasian-Iranian autosomal DNA and related haplogroups.
Where do the current Caucasian languages that are neither Indo-European nor Semitic come from?
The Yamnaya themselves are about half of their autosomal CHG, but for sure they are not linguistically "Semitic" despite such a cumbersome genetic inheritance.


(Indeed, just the bizarre cases of the Mycenaeans and Hittites - Indo-Europeans in their own right but with little or no steppic inheritance - makes me hazard the hypothesis that it is precisely among some J genetic lines from the Caucasus that the most archaic Proto-Indo-European originated, before it was then exploded and spread further north and west.)

Eventually, some of the Js became part of the Semitic world, but in the beginning they were not

Thank you for replying Stuvanè. I’m not aware of any Hittite samples. Is there a paper that published something on them?

Regarding the main topic, I appreciate your comments. I think I made a mistake in my original post with the Iranian hypothesis about comparing between the hypothetical Levantines that immigrated to Iran and the Mycenaean Greeks. My original point was that it is possible for a migrating population (Indo-Europeans, Levant_N) to migrate to another population and admix with them (Native population of Greece, Iran_N) replacing their language but not their Y-DNA. (In the case of native population of Greece, to Mycenaean Greek; in the case of Iran_ChL, to pre-proto-Semitic. However, if J arrived in Greece after the Indo-Europeans, then that invalidates my example. That would make it like the Basque example actually, because the Y-DNA was replaced but not the language, Mycenaean Greek.

Do you know of any examples where an immigrant population replaced the language but not the Y-DNA?

 

[Archetype0ne]

The origin of the Afroasiatic languages is almost a settled question, with the most likely location being in the Levant with the Natufians due to the high degree of presence of haplogroup E among almost all Afroasiatic populations except in the Middle East, and high proportions of Natufian-like ancestry in all Afroasiatic people.

With the Semitic languages, it’s less clear and straightforward. We have to reconcile several issues. (Note: I am citing my sources as Papers 1, 2, and 3 because I have under 20 posts so I can’t hyperlink, and because I don’t want to break the flow of the text. The names of the papers can be found at the end of the post.)

• The Afroasiatic languages most likely originated in the Levant. The people who spread the Afroasiatic languages most likely carried haplogroup E and a Natufian-like genotype.
• Almost all speakers of Semitic languages carry high frequencies of haplogroup J and have moderate levels of Iran_N ancestry.
• According to Paper 1, which has been cited 186 times as of this writing, proto-Semitic was spoken between 5800 and 5500 years ago.
• According to Paper 2, which has been cited 89 times as of this writing, the admixture between the local Levantine population and Iran_ChL “occurred 6,600–3,550 years ago.”

We might add to these issues/data points one more that is more indirect in its relation to the issue:

• According to Paper 3 by Lazaridis et al., which has been cited over 600 times as of this writing, Levant_N contributed roughly 20% of the genetic makeup of Iran_ChL.

The most predominant theory/explanation today is the Levant hypothesis. I think there is one big problem with this hypothesis: In most iterations I’ve read online, it ignores the fact that most experts believe J had a role in the spread of the Semitic languages.

I think any hypothesis to be seriously considered must explain the strong correlation between Semitic languages and J (and Iranian ancestry), and remember that Afroasiatic languages did not emerge in Iran, but most likely in the Levant.

I think the two best explanations are the following,

-a modification of the Levant hypothesis: Iran_ChL migrated to the Levant, intermixing with a native population that spoke Proto-Semitic. This admixed population spread into Mesopotamia and later into Arabia.

-the Levantine population that admixed to produce Iran_ChL introduced a pre-proto-Semitic language that evolved into Proto-Semitic within the Iranian population. It then later spread to the Levant and Mesopotamia, and either directly, or indirectly through an admixed Levantine population, into Arabia.

I think both of those explanations are almost equally satisfactory and face similar problems. I think the biggest problem facing the modified Levantine hypothesis is that it is unusual for a population to form a dominant caste over a population (as evidenced by the replacement of the local Y-DNA haplogroups) and not make the nondominant group adopt their language. A “counterexample” to this from history is the Basques, who have one of the highest levels of R1b—associated with the spread of Indo-European languages—of any population at 91%, but who kept their pre-Indo-European language.

With the second “Iranian” (because the Iranian component was more directly involved in the spread of the languages) hypothesis, the biggest problem is that the Levant_N migrating population that supposedly would have spoken pre-proto-Semitic didn’t form a dominant caste over the Iranian population (as evidenced by the lack of replacement of the dominant haplogroups in the population), yet the Iranian population adopted Levant_N’s language. A “counterexample” to this are Indo-European-speaking Mycenaean Greeks, where the samples, albeit small in number, suggest that most Mycenaean Greeks had J2 and not R1, which is associated with Indo-European migrations.

Which explanation do you guys think is more likely? Is there relevant evidence I haven’t touched on? I’d love to hear your thoughts about these hypotheses.

Sources:
Paper 1: Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East

Paper 2:
Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences

Paper 3:
Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East

If I am not mistaken, the way it looks to me is that J1 very likely is connected with the Semitic languages, while J2 seems to fit a more IE spread. Why it is hard to say which of those hypotheses is more likely for J I think is the very distant split and TMRCA of the two. The subclades split ~32,000 ya. (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J/)

Looking at things I think the Semitic J might actually have been local to the ME / more specifically around the Arabian peninsula. A point of diffusion from Iran would still make sense, with the former taking a path south, while the other (J2) branching North and being incorporated into what would become later IE.

Hence imo a modified version of this would make sense:

"-the Levantine population that admixed to produce Iran_ChL introduced a pre-proto-Semitic language that evolved into Proto-Semitic within the Iranian population. It then later spread to the Levant and Mesopotamia, and either directly, or indirectly through an admixed Levantine population, into Arabia."

The thing I would change is that such a population was only part or rather had only parts of what would become pre-proto-Semitic, with the local Levant population having the rest.

 

[Hjiju6]

Nice write up. As usual fun reading your analyses.

Interestingly in another thread when I brought up to someone that J2b(L283 in that case) was likely Yamnaya at some point, later in the chain of replies I saw someone interject that rather L283 was Caucasian. I think what many forget is that CHG was as important to Yamnaya as EHG, as the share was 50-50. EHG existed in the region for millenia before and was present far and wide, yet the cultural complex, in this case Yamnaya only sprang once the two peoples were mixed / synthesized.

OFC I am aware that equivalating Yamnaya to proto-IE is controversial depending on whose scholarship one bases their world view on. But I think its fair to say as Yamnaya, even if post-proto-IE, were forged in a similar context by similar forces.

Another thing I find interesting about J, which in a way is the fun of doing personal genetic research, is in how many interesting cultures and peoples it has been found. Given the time of the supposed origin around the Zargos, it is plausible to have been among the first cities and kindgoms such as Uruk - Babylon etc. But at the same time we have confirmed samples from the Eastern Mediterranean and Italy where a quite a few ancient civilizations flourished.

Ps: What is your more specific subclade? Do you think we might find J in Troy? With potential samples coming up, I would wager we find J2a at least in Troy but J2b would be sweet!

I’m assuming you’re getting the 50-50 number from Reich, but isn’t it actually closer to 70 EHG-30 CHG, and CHG didn’t leave Y-DNA, or at least very little. I posted a reply about examples of people who immigrated to a new land and admixed with the local population, didn’t replace their Y-DNA but replaced their language. I can’t think of any examples of that. I thought Mycenaean Greeks were an example of that but I don’t think they are anymore.

 

[Hjiju6]

I’m assuming you’re getting the 50-50 number from Reich, but isn’t it actually closer to 70 EHG-30 CHG, and CHG didn’t leave Y-DNA, or at least very little. I posted a reply about examples of people who immigrated to a new land and admixed with the local population, didn’t replace their Y-DNA but replaced their language. I can’t think of any examples of that. I thought Mycenaean Greeks were an example of that but I don’t think they are anymore.

Usually if the Y-DNA of a component population doesn’t come to predominate in the resultant admixed population but the language does, it’s a native population, like with the Basques. The component population that spoke the ancestor of modern Basque was native. They passed on the language but not the Y-DNA.

 

[Archetype0ne]

I’m assuming you’re getting the 50-50 number from Reich, but isn’t it actually closer to 70 EHG-30 CHG, and CHG didn’t leave Y-DNA, or at least very little. I posted a reply about examples of people who immigrated to a new land and admixed with the local population, didn’t replace their Y-DNA but replaced their language. I can’t think of any examples of that. I thought Mycenaean Greeks were an example of that but I don’t think they are anymore.

Have not read Anthony in a while so my memory might be fussy, but that is where I think I got that number. But IIRC it was 50-50 initially, with the ratio increasing towards EHG(with also further incorporation of EEF) the further west the diffusion progressed as time went on. I will try to find an amateur graphic which I though visualized it well.

As to the question about imposing the language without leaving a mark on the Y-DNA. I am not aware of any such cases. But I am sure it must have happened, but could have left little trace where it would be even possible to begin with.

"people who immigrated to a new land and admixed with the local population, didn’t replace their Y-DNA but replaced their language"

What would have to happen in such scenario? The mothers would have to be the dominant language on the offspring, while at the same time having moved to a new environment? At the same time that maternal population movement would have to be substantial as a ratio to the population they move in, to have such an impact on language. Think the combination of those makes it such a rare occurrence.


Edit: Do not have the Anthony paper on my drive... Not sure which one of his I read the 50-50 thing. But found this with a quick google search:

"North of the Caucasus, Eneolithic and BA individuals from the Samara region (5200–4000 BCE) carry an equal mixture of EHG- and CHG/Iranian ancestry, so-called ‘steppe ancestry’13 that eventually spread further west18,19, where it contributed substantially to present-day Europeans, and east to the Altai region as well as to South Asia9."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08220-8

 

[Stuvanè]

Nice write up. As usual fun reading your analyses.

Interestingly in another thread when I brought up to someone that J2b(L283 in that case) was likely Yamnaya at some point, later in the chain of replies I saw someone interject that rather L283 was Caucasian. I think what many forget is that CHG was as important to Yamnaya as EHG, as the share was 50-50. EHG existed in the region for millenia before and was present far and wide, yet the cultural complex, in this case Yamnaya only sprang once the two peoples were mixed / synthesized.

OFC I am aware that equivalating Yamnaya to proto-IE is controversial depending on whose scholarship one bases their world view on. But I think its fair to say as Yamnaya, even if post-proto-IE, were forged in a similar context by similar forces.

Another thing I find interesting about J, which in a way is the fun of doing personal genetic research, is in how many interesting cultures and peoples it has been found. Given the time of the supposed origin around the Zargos, it is plausible to have been among the first cities and kindgoms such as Uruk - Babylon etc. But at the same time we have confirmed samples from the Eastern Mediterranean and Italy where a quite a few ancient civilizations flourished.

Ps: What is your more specific subclade? Do you think we might find J in Troy? With potential samples coming up, I would wager we find J2a at least in Troy but J2b would be sweet!

Hi Archetype0ne,


unfortunately when I took my test with 23andMe nearly 10 years ago, it didn't return any subclades to me. A laconic J-M172 remains on my file. I have never booked any other test to go in depth with my haplogroup, I do not rule out doing it in the future, only I hope with ever lower costs.
I tried to use Morley's predictor some time ago, which pointed out to me a rather strange and rare subclade like J2a1i (which is also found around J2a1i L198). Only a prediction remains ...


As for Troy if I have to make a bet I am quite certain that it was teeming with J2a and that there was a population substantially similar to the Mycenaeans. But with the J it's always a mess so let's expect other unusual clades too ....

 

[Archetype0ne]

Hi Archetype0ne,


unfortunately when I took my test with 23andMe nearly 10 years ago, it didn't return any subclades to me. A laconic J-M172 remains on my file. I have never booked any other test to go in depth with my haplogroup, I do not rule out doing it in the future, only I hope with ever lower costs.
I tried to use Morley's predictor some time ago, which pointed out to me a rather strange and rare subclade like J2a1i (which is also found around J2a1i L198). Only a prediction remains ...


As for Troy if I have to make a bet I am quite certain that it was teeming with J2a and that there was a population substantially similar to the Mycenaeans. But with the J it's always a mess so let's expect other unusual clades too ....

That is quite an interesting subclade! Think its the first time I come across it.

 

[Hjiju6]

"people who immigrated to a new land and admixed with the local population, didn’t replace their Y-DNA but replaced their language"

What would have to happen in such scenario? The mothers would have to be the dominant language on the offspring, while at the same time having moved to a new environment? At the same time that maternal population movement would have to be substantial as a ratio to the population they move in, to have such an impact on language. Think the combination of those makes it such a rare occurrence.

I agree with you. I can’t think of any examples of the scenario I sketched (immigrant population, replaces language, doesn’t replace native Y-DNA) and I think it would’ve been pretty rare to begin with. What are the implications? I think it greatly reduces the likelihood of the Iranian hypothesis (the theory that proto-Semitic evolved with Iran_ChL, i.e. the hypothesis below the modified Levantine hypothesis in my original post) and I think it also greatly reduces the likelihood of the theory that CHG introduced IE to EHG.

Unless someone can come up with an example, or examples, that such a scenario occurred.