David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

[torzio]

I think what Jovialis was referring to, not that I am speaking for him, is Anatolian_N equals Neolithic Anatolian Early European Farmer type ancestry being predominate in the Central Italian Neolithic Farmers. It does not mean Anatolian North I suspect. Furthermore, Thracian and Phygian are "Late Bronze Age" civilizations/peoples. The Thracians, based on Modi et al 2019 "Ancient human mitochondrial genomes from Bronze Age Bulgaria: new insights into the genetic history of Thracians" document that the Thracians were genetically largely a 2-way admixture of Anatolian Early European Farmers and Steppe Herder source populations. From the paper

"In particular, within the ancient Eurasian genetic landscape, Thracians locate in an intermediate position between Early Neolithic farmers and Late Neolithic-Bronze Age steppe pastoralists, supporting the scenario that the Balkan region has been a link between Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean since the prehistoric time. "


I am unaware of any Genetic study in the literature regarding the Phygians. My ex ante priors would be that it is very, very, very, likely, they would also harbor significant Anatolian Neolithic Early European Farmer type ancestry as well, along with other source ancestries from Southern Caucuses/Iran given their geography and some Steppe DNA given they spoke an early Indo-European language. But again, regarding the Phygians, my guesses are only speculation based on their geography as I am unaware of any DNA studies regarding them.

ok on Anatolian_N equals Neolithic Anatolian Early European Farmer

Phygians where in 2 places......Modern Albania ( north ) and in middle Anatolia ( western area ) bordering with Lydians ( they actually went to war against the Lydians circa 500BC )

[Angela]

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2022/06/19/new-david-reich-talk/

Razib Khan makes some comments.

I don't find his way of commenting on the abstract very clear, do you? I also disagree with his phrasing of certain things.

I think he's confused about what the "it" means. I think it's pretty clear it's the "Southern Arc", and I believe perhaps it's saying that both the Levantine farmers and the Mesopotamian farmers had a significant amount of Natufian, and they spread that ancestry when they moved into Anatolia and beyond, and into Iran etc.

I also don't get why he "commented" about the Balkans/Armenia areas. This is just an abstract. I'm sure they're aware the admixture was spotty in the Balkans and Armenia was different, although it changed later.

What, also, is this "Yamnaya" and then later the Indo-Europeans" language? The Yamnaya WERE the Indo-Europeans. Calling people like Corded Ware the Indo-Europeans is a real stretch imo. More like Indo-Europeanized neighbors. Much better to refer to them as steppe admixed peoples or steppe people as academicians do. I think he spends too much time talking to Eurogenes. What, he ignores the things he used to say about Indians/Pakistanis etc.?

As to the lack of caste differences for steppe ancestry being the result of the passage of 500 years, first of all we have to look at the precise dates of the samples. Second of all, 500 years is really not that long for the maintenance of a caste system. As a Bengali, he should know that. Look how long it's been since steppe ancestry arrived and yet how rigid the caste differences remain. Or, look at Ireland: English settlement began in the 1500s. The English, Scottish aristocracy and even middle classes were still a separate and discrete ruling class until the middle of the 20th century. This is true in the Mediterranean countries as well. There's a reason the genealogy of the aristocracy and royalty was called the Almanac de Gotha. The populace in France, at least, felt they had to chop their heads off to get rid of them. Not, I hasten to add, how I would have handled it. I would have settled for exile for all of them, starting in Italy with our own "robber barons"; a useless, bunch of leeches imo. As you can see I can't shake the anarchist and socialist propaganda which permeated the culture of the Lunigiana. :)

[Archetype0ne]

Scholars of the Max Planck Institute also say: "we are quite certain that the Indo-European languages ultimately originated in the Fertile Crescent, as proponents of the Anatolian theory suppose, but not, as they suggest, in western and central Anatolia; rather, it emerged from northern Iran."

Almost all ancient toponyms in the north of Iran have Proto-Indo-European origins, for example the highest mountain in Gilan is Somamoos from Proto-Indo-European *súm̥mos "highest, summit".

So if I got this right... Planck and Reich now agree with Anthony? North Iran / Eastern Caucasus / South-West Caspian are synonymous, whether referred differently or not.
So if IE language started around where CHG was key, and now having a few CHG samples? How come the vast divergence with pre-proto-IE YDNA.
I thought for a minute about this. And given that from what I gather this might have like 700 new samples, its not out of the realm of possibility that they found CHG+EHG with no/minimal EEF in the Northern Fertile Crescent / South Caucasus / North East Iran. Cause otherwise, I can't think of any other scenario for Reich, Plank, Anthony, and who is who in this field to have landed on the very same conclusion / albeit different definition for the region (since they are not sharing homework obviously , are they? ). But who knows among these few hundred samples, what other sort of scenarios could be possible, for the claim that IE *originated* in that region. This throws the long running academic consensus on its head.

Having started my time on this forum/ anthrogenetics as a hobby backing the Anatolia hypothesis, later looking at the facts I found it hard to disagree that the data fit the Steppe hypothesis much better. But the boon of fitting ones theory to facts, as opposed to trying to fit the facts to ones theory, namely the boon of science, is that such surprises are always welcome, should the data dictate it.

[Archetype0ne]

With regards to:

In the Balkans, we reveal a patchwork of Bronze Age populations with diverse proportions of steppe ancestry in the aftermath of the ~3000 BCE Yamnaya migrations, paralleling the linguistic diversity of Paleo-Balkan speakers.

I am really holding my breath for some long rumored J2b from Eneolithic Moldova to be part of this study. If it turns out L283 and has connection to the later Maros/Croatia finds in regards to autosomal makeup/cultural affinity, I think it could fit this particular hypothesis.

[Angela]

Where did you read "south the Caucasus"? It says "We present an integrative genetic history of the Southern Arc, an area divided geographically between West Asia and Europe, but which we define as spanning the culturally entangled regions of Anatolia and its neighbors, in both Europe (Aegean and the Balkans), and in West Asia (Cyprus, Armenia, the Levant, Iraq and Iran)." and then" the Indo-Anatolian language family originated in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc", it means north of Iran. What languages families existed there?!

By the eastern part of the "Southern Arc", I think they mean precisely Iran".

[real expert]

It will really be quite extraordinary if populations high in Natufian ancestry turn out not only to have "invented" farming, but writing, irrigation, and the first large city-states and empires, as well as monotheistic religions.............

I was suspecting Mesopotamians/Sumerians to turn out to be very rich in Iran Neo or Zagros farmer ancestry. But it is possible that Northern Mesopotamians were more Natufian-rich than Southerners. Who knows? Besides, it was long believed that Natufians were the first or oldest farmers. Nevertheless, according to more recent research, it seems that the Natufians were not the world’s oldest farmers.However, they were likely the earliest domesticators of dogs and other animals.

Upon closer inspection however, it is clear that the Natufians were not fully developed agriculturalists.It is true they domesticated and cultivated species of grass and cereal, but this was due to environmental shifts. Evidence from their social structure and anatomy suggest they practiced subsistence patterns other than only farming.

http://www.academia.edu/9358532/Natufians_A_proto_agriculturalist_society_from_th

No clear evidence that the Natufians cultivated or domesticated cereals in the Southern Levant Natufians were hunter-gatherers,not farmers…….

https://www.chegg.com/flashcards/natufians-and-agricultural-origins-in-the-east-4c2ff5ad-101d-4b40-800b-f3dc2bb66b42/deck

Anyway, the Middle East was one of the earliest cultural powerhouses.

[Angela]

To me, it appears that Krause and Reich, when it comes to the PIE origin, are rather driven by research bias and pet theories than by hard data. But that's just my two cents.

Yes, well, "hard data" is hard to come by as support for ANY hypothesis, given that writing hadn't been invented yet, so it's all conjecture and supposition, imo. Hence, why I stay away from discussions about it.

[Angela]

Ok fair enough. Are there any Republican Roman Samples that you would like to separate from other Republican Roman Samples? So for example, if you wanted to separate only 1, perhaps it would be R475?, if it is 2, then R475 along with R850 perhaps?, and I would think if the number is 3, lets throw in say, hmmmmmmm, R437 maybe?

I think you've gotten the picture very, very clearly. :)

[Archetype0ne]

Yes, well, "hard data" is hard to come by as support for ANY hypothesis, given that writing hadn't been invented yet, so it's all conjecture and supposition, imo. Hence, why I stay away from discussions about it.

Especially, when

731 of which are newly reported and address major gaps in the archaeogenetic record.

I am sure with so many data points people could draw an elephant if they wanted.
But I still am very exited at what appears the largest ancient DNA study! "addressing major gaps in archeological record" alone will provide food for thought for the future of the field. The analysis part, while it could turn out really interesting, is only of second interest, at least for me.

[Angela]

I was suspecting Mesopotamians/Sumerians to turn out to be very rich in Iran Neo or Zagros farmer ancestry. But it is possible that Northern Mesopotamians were more Natufian-rich than Southerners. Who knows? Besides, it was long believed that Natufians were the first or oldest farmers. Nevertheless, according to more recent research, it seems that the Natufians were not the world’s oldest farmers.However, they were likely the earliest domesticators of dogs and other animals.




http://www.academia.edu/9358532/Natufians_A_proto_agriculturalist_society_from_th




https://www.chegg.com/flashcards/natufians-and-agricultural-origins-in-the-east-4c2ff5ad-101d-4b40-800b-f3dc2bb66b42/deck

Anyway, the Middle East was one of the earliest cultural powerhouses.

I wasn't thinking that Mesopotamians were "higher" in Natufian than Levant Neo, although I've learned never to say something is impossible. :)

So, they might be higher in it, or similar to Levant Neo, or movement from Levant Neo brought some Natufian with it to Mesopotamia. We've known for a while that in pre-history Iranian ancestry moved south and east and west, and Levant ancestry moved north, so that the three farming groups in West Asia, Anatolian farmers, Iranian farmers, and Levantine farmers were no longer disparate, genetically segregated groups. That may be part of what the Reich paper will discuss. Admixture everywhere, from the time of Neanderthals and before.

All the concrete answers await the samples, of course, and the paper itself.

As to the relationship of Natufians to farming, it had to start somewhere, and I don't think it was just the abundance of flora and fauna and the climate, the combination of which, according to Hawks, created a Garden of Eden of sorts.

I won't go into detail because I don't want to offend people of certain ethnicities or "races", but I see videos all the time of groups farming similar crops to those grown in Europe or Anatolia, and yet their cuisine is incredibly simple. It's as if they found one way to cook something and stopped there; no experimentation with new ways or combinations at all. I think the same is true with different venues as well, like technology. It's easy to copy; it's a much different thing to innovate. It requires a vision, an imagination of a new reality, which seems to come easier to some groups than to others.

There's an old book by James Michener called "The Source". I read it when I was in my 20s. My children were assigned it for summer reading between Junior and Senior Year of High School. It's still not that out of date despite all the archaeological studies since then. I highly recommend it.

[Angela]

I think what Jovialis was referring to, not that I am speaking for him, is Anatolian_N equals Neolithic Anatolian Early European Farmer type ancestry being predominate in the Central Italian Neolithic Farmers. It does not mean Anatolian North I suspect. Furthermore, Thracian and Phygian are "Late Bronze Age" civilizations/peoples. The Thracians, based on Modi et al 2019 "Ancient human mitochondrial genomes from Bronze Age Bulgaria: new insights into the genetic history of Thracians" document that the Thracians were genetically largely a 2-way admixture of Anatolian Early European Farmers and Steppe Herder source populations. From the paper

"In particular, within the ancient Eurasian genetic landscape, Thracians locate in an intermediate position between Early Neolithic farmers and Late Neolithic-Bronze Age steppe pastoralists, supporting the scenario that the Balkan region has been a link between Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean since the prehistoric time. "


I am unaware of any Genetic study in the literature regarding the Phygians. My ex ante priors would be that it is very, very, very, likely, they would also harbor significant Anatolian Neolithic Early European Farmer type ancestry as well, along with other source ancestries from Southern Caucuses/Iran given their geography and some Steppe DNA given they spoke an early Indo-European language. But again, regarding the Phygians, my guesses are only speculation based on their geography as I am unaware of any DNA studies regarding them.

I'm out of juice, but thank you for your response.

And particularly for your patience. I never had much, and what I had I spent on my husband and children. I have none left for most other adults.

[Palermo Trapani]

I'm out of juice, but thank you for your response.

And particularly for your patience. I never had much, and what I had I spent on my husband and children. I have none left for most other adults.

Thanks Angela.

[enter_tain]

Palermo, to the best of my recollection, the Mycenaean samples which Lazaridis analyzed did have steppe ancestry, ranging from 7% to some number in the teens. The problem was that a week before the paper came out Eurogenes went on record saying that the "ELITE" Mycenaeans would be just like Polish Corded Ware. When they clearly weren't, the fall back position was that they were commoners. In actuality, one of the samples was of an elite woman, and she also didn't have high percentages of steppe.

I've said for about ten years now that it was a mistake to expect the people in the Southern European countries to have the same kind of percentages of steppe as did those of northwestern, northern, central and eastern Europe. The farmers of Britain were almost wiped out, those in Central Europe had their numbers dwindle because of crop failures and the newly introduced plague. Much of northern Europe and eastern Europe were empty of settlers. The admixed steppe/farmer groups (almost 50% steppe), became the dominant group.

This was not the case in the south, which seems to always have been more densely populated. If the findings for Greece hold true elsewhere, it may have been that steppe men, in particular, filtered in, perhaps as mercenaries, perhaps as guards, etc. It's all speculation, but it does not seem to have been a folk migration taking the reins of power and subjugating the locals, as was the case, for example, with the Langobards.

At any rate, until we have the samples, it's difficult to be certain of anything.

I too, btw, can't wait to see what the Sumerians were like. From the clues in the article, they may have been high in Natufian, like Levant Neolithic.

Alas not.

Mercenaries don't change the languages/cultures of the native population. The population density thing is true, but it's because it happened in multiple waves and not one fell swoop.

From Y-DNA we can tell the EEF paternal lineages were almost completely wiped out, even in Southern Europe. The hope that J2B2/EV13 were farmer lineages has all but disappeared. Their TMRCA is in early Bronze Age just like other IE lineages, and they are entirely absent from EEF communities. We have hundreds, if not thousands, of samples so far from Neolithic Europe and even the "EV-13" in Spain turned out to be fake. So there is subjugation of the locals 100%. The only holdout that we know of were the Minoans, who eventually fell as well.

There is nothing new here however. You go to Central/South America and you see the same thing. In some places you have more European DNA, in some other more Native American DNA. But they all speak Spanish.

[enter_tain]

With regards to:



I am really holding my breath for some long rumored J2b from Eneolithic Moldova to be part of this study. If it turns out L283 and has connection to the later Maros/Croatia finds in regards to autosomal makeup/cultural affinity, I think it could fit this particular hypothesis.

Nothing to hold out for. J2B is clearly a CHG or southern steppe related Y-DNA. It's non-existent in Neolithic Europe.

[Moja]

" We provide insights into the Mycenaean period of the Aegean by documenting variation in the proportion of steppe ancestry (including some individuals who lack it altogether), and finding no evidence for systematic differences in steppe ancestry among social strata, such as those of the elite buried at the Palace of Nestor in Pylos."

It has some important points, we know about the lack of Iranian-related ancestry among the Etruscans who had a very high amount of steppe related ancestry, Etruscans had some relatives in Greece, like Lemnians.

[Jovialis]

" We provide insights into the Mycenaean period of the Aegean by documenting variation in the proportion of steppe ancestry (including some individuals who lack it altogether), and finding no evidence for systematic differences in steppe ancestry among social strata, such as those of the elite buried at the Palace of Nestor in Pylos."
It has some important points, we know about the lack of Iranian-related ancestry among the Etruscans who had a very high amount of steppe related ancestry, Etruscans had some relatives in Greece, like Lemnians.

Etruscans did not lack the Iranian-related ancestry, they are actually part of the Mediterranean continuum (minoans to Republican era Romans) who are distinguished by having Anatolian_N + CHG. The steppe component is a minority component, albeit an important one. But also, the Etruscans are not related to Lemnians, the Etruscans were shown to be autochthonous.

[kingjohn]

The lecture is in the hebrew university jerusalem
Erikl86 from anthrogenica
Going to this lecture so he will
Give some notes
(Michalis, @Ariel, @Ahuwarhd: Reich in his Southern Arc drop: I'm going to attend this, so will report with my own notes on this )

[Moja]

Etruscans did not lack the Iranian-related ancestry, they are actually part of the Mediterranean continuum (minoans to Republican era Romans) who are distinguished by having Anatolian_N + CHG. The steppe component is a minority component, albeit an important one. But also, the Etruscans are not related to Lemnians, the Etruscans were shown to be autochthonous.

Look at this genetic study: "The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect"

C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu carries a higher proportion of “steppe-related ancestry”.

Etruscan seems to be linked to both Rhaetic, a language documented in the eastern Alps in a population that ancient historians claim to have migrated from the Po valley, and to Lemnian, a language putatively spoken on ancient Lemnos in the Aegean Sea.

The lack of Iranian-related ancestry in C.Italy_Etruscan might also suggest that the close linguistic affinity across the Mediterranean Sea could represent population movements departing from the Italian peninsula.

[Archetype0ne]

The lecture is in the hebrew university jerusalem
Erikl86 from anthrogenica
Going to this lecture so he will
Give some notes
(Michalis, @Ariel, @Ahuwarhd: Reich in his Southern Arc drop: I'm going to attend this, so will report with my own notes on this )

Gotta love to community! If one is willing to listen, they can get wind of so many interesting rumors and presentations ahead of major publications.

[Archetype0ne]

Nothing to hold out for. J2B is clearly a CHG or southern steppe related Y-DNA. It's non-existent in Neolithic Europe.

That is certainly one way to look at it. In my mind it does not hurt to have a proper verifiable trail in a blockbuster scientific study, so even the staunchest doubters know what's up. I think we can agree on this.

[Jovialis]

Look at this genetic study: "The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect"

Take a look at admixture proportions, there is indeed Iran-related ancestry. In fact it is comparable to their Eneolithic steppe ancestry. From the study Antonio et al. 2019.

[Jovialis]

Together with Minoans and Roman Republicans, this component can be broadly modeled as a Pan-Mediterranean population (constituted by AN and IN/CHG components) with the addition of WHG and Steppe-related ancestry in Roman Republicans. When modeled also with Minoans and Amhara_NAF, which roughly proxies the same ancestral signature, the majority of the samples required an additional CHG/IN contribution (two-way admixtures in supplementary fig. 7B and C, Supplementary Material online) as well as Steppe-related and WHG. We further observed that, as previously seen, the WHG contribution is less clear in those samples stretching downward in the PCA. Although the CHG/IN additional contribution may simply proxy the presence of Steppe-related ancestry in IAA, the absence of which in Minoans has already been reported (Lazaridis et al. 2017), the same cannot be said about Roman Republicans (two-way admixtures in supplementary fig. 7D, Supplementary Material online), which harbored a considerable amount of Steppe component (Antonio et al. 2019). However, this signature is not confirmed with f4 analyses (supplementary fig. 8B and C, Supplementary Material online), where just Mycenaean groups report less CHG ancestry than our samples.

Genetic Origin of Daunians and the Pan-Mediterranean Southern Italian Iron Age Context | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Another study confirming what I said.

Etruscans and Latins require additional CHG to be modeled properly. That is because the Central Italian Neolithic samples were a bit higher in CHG compared to people like LBK.

Also, the language claim makes no sense when you consider the Etruscans were similar to the Latin, yet they spoke a completely different language. Frankly, language is somewhat arbitrary in this case.

[Jovialis]

Look at this genetic study: "The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect"

I see what happened here, that is Etruscan.CEU, though is not representative of the majority of Etruscan samples, which are modeled similar to the graphic I presented. Nevertheless, these Etruscans.CEU do indeed have more steppe.

Also, the Etruscan influence going to Lemnos, rather than the other way around, does make sense with the data we have. I mistakenly thought you meant it the other way around.

[Jovialis]

Gotta love to community! If one is willing to listen, they can get wind of so many interesting rumors and presentations ahead of major publications.

That's somewhat of a double-edged sword. Though it is intriguing to get a peak.

[Archetype0ne]

That's somewhat of a double-edged sword. Though it is intriguing to get a peak.

Indeed, people tend to sandwich their worldviews, in between the facts of symposia/presentations (which might also have their inherent biases), so it gets really muddy. Subjectivity is part of human nature.