David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

I still stand by my earlier remark despite agreeing with both you guys. For such extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof is neccesary. Reich and Planck know this... hence lets wait and see. For all we know, given one recently published synopsium timetable, the topics indicate Armenia as a region holds a center stage.

Conference
The Secondary Homelands of the Indo-European Languages (IG-AT2022)
Guus KroonenMichaël Peyrot
DateMonday 5 September 2022 - Wednesday 7 September 2022 Location P.J. Veth
Nonnensteeg 1-3
2311 VJ Leiden
Room1.01We are pleased to announce that the next Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft will be held from 5 to 7 September 2022 at the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics. The event is currently planned to take place on site with the possibility of online attendance. In case travel proves difficult, we may shift to a hybrid or completely online event.


Theme
The field of Indo-European Linguistics currently finds itself at the center of a scientific revolution. Complementing the traditional arguments from archaeology and historical linguistics, advances in the study of ancient DNA and stable isotopes have opened a new line of evidence on the human past. It is the task of Indo-European linguistics to confront the resulting new challenges and opportunities. While the debate on the Proto-Indo-European homeland has been addressed by several large cross-disciplinary studies, key questions remain concerning the movements, settlements and secondary centers of spread of the Indo-European daughter branches. The aim of this conference is to evaluate existing and explore new linguistic hypotheses concerning the routes and secondary homelands of the branches of Indo-European after the split of the proto-language.


Keynote speaker(s)
Prof. David Emil Reich, Harvard Medical School, USA
Prof. em. James P. Mallory, Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Submission


Preliminary Programme
Day 1
8:30-9:00 Registration
9:00-9:30 Guus Kroonen and Michaël Peyrot Opening
9:30-10:00 David Stifter The Celticisation of the Western Archipelago
10:00-10:30 Paulus van Sluis The linguistic paleontology of beekeeping in Indo-European and Celtic
10:30-11:00 Coffee break
11:00-11:30 Andrew Wigman Unde vēnis: Approximating the Proto-Italic homeland using substrate lexemes
11:30-12:00 Paul Widmer Detecting contact events between three Indo-European clades: Germanic, Celtic, Italic
12:00-12:30 Dariusz Piwowarczyk Towards a cladistic approach to the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European roots
12:30-14:00 Lunch break
14:00-14:30 Olav Hackstein Albanian and Balkan Indo-European
14:30-15:00 Katsiaryna Ackermann, Joachim Matzinger and Mario Gavranovic The Indo-Europeanization of the Balkans: Some new insights at the interface of Archaeology, archaeogenetics and historical linguistics
15:00-15:30 Julia Sturm Local weather phenomena in the Indo-European daughter languages: A survey
15:30-16:00 Coffee break
16:00-17:00 Jim Mallory (Keynote lecture) Secondary homelands, primary problems


Day 2
9:00-9:30 Hrach Martirosyan Armenian animal designations
9:30-10:00 Zsolt Simon The migration route of Proto-Armenian speakers in Neo-Hittite Anatolia: the evidence of loan contacts
10:00-10:30 Rasmus Thorsø Armenian and the early Yamnaya migrations
10.30-11.00 Coffee break
11:00-11:30 Petr Kocharov Proto-Armenian phonetic contact phenomena
11:30-12:00 Louise Friis Testing an Indo-Tocharian isogloss: *e/o-presents in Tocharian
12:00-12:30 Stefan Norbruis The position of Tocharian in the Indo-European language family
12:30-14:00 Lunch break
14:00-14:30 Rasmus Bjørn The Goldilocks Zone: Bronze Age Wanderwörter in Central Asia – Linguistic evidence for Indo-European in Afanasievo
14:30-15:00 Abel Warries Contacts between Tocharian and Uralic: when and where?
15:00-15:30 Michaël Peyrot The tertiary homeland of Tocharian: On the drivers and the chronology of the trajectory to the Tarim Basin
15:30-16:00 Coffee break
17:30-18:30 David Reich (Keynote lecture) The genetic history of the Southern Arc: a bridge between West Asia and Europe
19:00 onward Conference dinner


Day 3
9:00-9:30 Harald Bichlmeier On the Slavic settlement of North-Eastern Bavaria
9:30-10:00 Anthony Jakob The West Uralic substrate and the Baltic homeland
10:00-10:30 Eugen Hill Secondary homelands of the Slavs and the evolution of Proto-Slavonic phonology
10.30-11.00 Coffee break
11:00-11:30 Guus Kroonen, Anthony Jakob, Axel Palmér and Paulus van Sluis A Northwest Pontic homeland for the core Indo-European languages
11:30-12:00 Axel Palmér Assessing the value of Indo-Slavic lexical isoglosses as evidence for a Corded Ware origin of Indo-Iranian
12:00-12:30 Thomas Olander and Simon Poulsen Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic
12:30-14:00 Lunch break
14:00-14:30 Chams Bernard and Sampsa Holopainen Iranian migrations: Uralic and Tocharian evidence
14:30-15:00 Roland Pooth Steppe burial rites and the building of a kurgan in the Atharvaveda
15:00-15:30 Martin Kümmel The homelands of Indo-Iranic
15:30-16:00 Coffee break
16:00-16:50 Discussion session
16:50-17:00 Guus Kroonen and Michaël Peyrot Closing remarks
Publication
Conference proceedings will be published with Reichert Verlag. The deadline for final drafts of accepted papers is 30 November 2022.


We look forward to welcoming you in Leiden!


The chairs,


Guus Kroonen & Michaël Peyrot — with the assistance of Axel I. Palmér & Louise S. Friis.


On behalf of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Daniel Kölligan, Agnes Korn & Birgit Olsen.


https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/e...uropean-languages-ig-at2022#day-1,day-2,day-3


So who knows what is in those 730 samples. That's a significant proportion to what's established with well sampled areas, let alone some very undersampled or totally lacking areas. We can not pretend to know, before the data points, what they lead to. Me personally, am more exited about the raw data, and the dust to settle, than any thesis, although I admit the thesis is quite interesting to begin with.
 
I still stand by my earlier remark despite agreeing with both you guys. For such extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof is neccesary. Reich and Planck know this... hence lets wait and see. For all we know, given one recently published synopsium timetable, the topics indicate Armenia as a region holds a center stage.




So who knows what is in those 730 samples. That's a significant proportion to what's established with well sampled areas, let alone some very undersampled or totally lacking areas. We can not pretend to know, before the data points, what they lead to. Me personally, am more exited about the raw data, and the dust to settle, than any thesis, although I admit the thesis is quite interesting to begin with.

Same, more interested in the raw data than the IE homeland theory. Whether it’s the steppe, eastern “Southern Arc” or elsewhere is “all the same.” Reich is soft-walking his conclusion/finding at this point, it seems, gently intruducing it rather than making a stronger declaration. No need for the steppe proponents to get too bent out of shape right now.
 
Same, more interested in the raw data than the IE homeland theory. Whether it’s the steppe, eastern “Southern Arc” or elsewhere is “all the same.” Reich is soft-walking his conclusion/finding at this point, it seems, gently intruducing it rather than making a stronger declaration. No need for the steppe proponents to get too bent out of shape right now.

Yep, good observation. Even the paper itself got postponed by months, broken into three different papers, depending how much validity the rumors hold.

At the end of the day no matter the topic or data, differing opinions and hypotheses are the norm for most scientific fields, let alone ones as vague as anthrogenetics. The day the data will speak for itself, whether we like it or not.
 
The most Eastern source for E-V13 I can think of would be the Neolithic groups on the steppe or close by, especially Tripolye-Cucuteni. If you look at it from another perspective, Michelsberger, Lengyel/Epi-Lengyel, Tiszapolgar/Bodrogkereszt�r and Tripolye-Cucuteni being like pearls on a necklace from West to East and they all seem to have got at least some E1b1b. And some would be enough, because by about 5.000-4.500 BC we probably deal with a single ancestor which formed a clan, and this clan became more successful than other E1b1b/E-L618 clans.

We have some samples from Tiszapolgar/Bodrogkeresztúr from a recent study about skeletal health in the Neolithic-BA transition. These samples are from Harvard and will be presented 'properly' in an upcoming publication. They could be in the Southern Arc, in which case maybe we get additional samples from neighbouring cultures.
 
did davidski ever showed his face to anyone
in his avatar ?
this is wolfgang haak by the way

team22.png


p.s
yes i know e-v13 occure in germany


I have seen davidski photo years ago


Haak was working in Adelaide Australia for many years ...............they are different people
 
I have seen davidski photo years ago
Haak was working in Adelaide Australia for many years ...............they are different people

thanks
thats what i thought also
they can't be the same person either way as haak is e-v13
and davidski is R1a

p.s
as angela said lets not drill this thread
 
Yep, good observation. Even the paper itself got postponed by months, broken into three different papers, depending how much validity the rumors hold.

At the end of the day no matter the topic or data, differing opinions and hypotheses are the norm for most scientific fields, let alone ones as vague as anthrogenetics. The day the data will speak for itself, whether we like it or not.

Reich seems to make good publicitiy for his papers to come.
 
Yes but how e-v13 arrived to cyprus ?
(Modern greek cypriot have 10-13% e-v13)
There were mycenaean settlers to cyprus around
1200 bc or something.:unsure:
Source wikipedia:
During the late Bronze Age, the island experienced two waves of Greek settlement.[54] The first wave consisted of Mycenaean Greek traders who started visiting Cyprus around 1400 BC.[55][56][57] A major wave of Greek settlement is believed to have taken place following the late Bronze Age collapse of Mycenaean Greece from 1100 to 1050 BC, with the island's predominantly Greek character dating from this period.[57][58]
It might not be there dominant lines: like j2a, r1b-z2103
Could e-v13 be present among them just as a minor line ?

I wouldn't exclude E-V13 to by in Mycenaean Greeks, but I rather think it came with Channelled Ware and related cremating groups at the very end of the Late Bronze Age, while Mycenaean Greeks came at the MBA-LBA transition, during the upheavals of the chariot complex, presumably with MCW-related groups.

Cyprus was in the midst of the Sea Peoples storm, and we know from the records that Channelled Ware participated in the Sea Peoples movement. There are also Palestine-Libanese-Syrian E-V13 (primary) and J-L283 (secondary) lineages of interest which look like they arrived about 1.300-1.200 BC. The incoming conquerors, in part, formed warbands with local Mycenaeans too, so a complex mix of people, including Eastern Urnfield/Channelled Ware, Mycenaeans and Urnfielders and West Mediterranean people from around Italy, all moved with Sea Peoples to Cyprus.

However, I think the bulk of E-V13 arrived at Cyprus later, with Doric and later Greek-Thracian movements.

More about the Sea Peoples in this context:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...mp-Europe-quot&p=856167&viewfull=1#post856167

Direct link to the relevant archaeological paper:
https://www.gu.se/en/research/the-c...e-eastern-mediterranean-sea-peoples-in-cyprus

Note again that both the Naue II swords and the "Barbarian Ware" being nearly identical in the Italian Protovillanovan and the G?va sphere. They being so close to each other, that the first researchers which already knew Protovillanovan, but didn't know what they discovered, labelled G?va simply "Protovillanovan" in style. And yes, they are fairly close.
 
I wouldn't exclude E-V13 to by in Mycenaean Greeks, but I rather think it came with Channelled Ware and related cremating groups at the very end of the Late Bronze Age, while Mycenaean Greeks came at the MBA-LBA transition, during the upheavals of the chariot complex, presumably with MCW-related groups............

Do you know whether cremation or inhumation was common among Classical Greeks? Or both?


 

Do you know whether cremation or inhumation was common among Classical Greeks? Or both?



Both, but Athenians practiced it moreso than Spartans.

Weird enough cremation on a pyre was practiced among Hittites as well (i don't know exactly their complete ritual which is essential on determining the origin of the practice instead of just cremation vs inhumation), the burial of horses with chariots indicate some kind of Carpathian basin contacts. I am quite hesitant how Hittites ended up in Anatolia. Bulgarian leaks from Stamov indicated that Reich believes that they came via Bulgaria to Anatolia during Early Bronze Age. Let's see.
 
Both, but Athenians practiced it moreso than Spartans.
Weird enough cremation on a pyre was practiced among Hittites as well (i don't know exactly their complete ritual which is essential on determining the origin of the practice instead of just cremation vs inhumation), the burial of horses with chariots indicate some kind of Carpathian basin contacts. I am quite hesitant how Hittites ended up in Anatolia. Bulgarian leaks from Stamov indicated that Reich believes that they came via Bulgaria to Anatolia during Early Bronze Age. Let's see.

that was David Anthony's theory 15 years ago, but it was rejected by the first major paper on steppe DNA
it was the paper with DNA from southeastern Europe
 
that was David Anthony's theory 15 years ago, but it was rejected by the first major paper on steppe DNA

Y-DNA chromosome subclade mutations will show a more accurate picture than autosomal analysis. If R1b-Z2103 appears among Hittites, and some R1b-Z2103 ancestral to Hittite appears in Ezero Culture or somewhere in a Yamnaya context in Carpathian Basin or inner Balkans then that's a starting point.
 
No, slightly amusing that he's instilled some kind of PTSD because of his obsession with those guys though. I'm Jewish, he isn't.

You probably shouldn't talk down to someone who you have no idea about by the way, because the first instance of true agriculture likely did happen in SE Anatolia (Mureybet, slightly South of here, was the first in a Natufian-related context if memory serves). I'm not claiming agriculture originated in Central Anatolia, but that agriculturalists in Central Anatolia originated in SE Anatolia (I'm aware of the paper claiming agriculture was adopted by Mesolithic Anatolians, but the model better fits a closely related neighbour moving in instead). Consequently you *do* see Anatolian-like DNA spreading around the Fertile Crescent upon the onset of agriculture - both to the Levant and to the Zagros. Compare Levant_N to Natufian Mesolithic samples. I assume these would be G2a carrying peoples for several reasons, and that the G2a in say Georgia is from these first communities: Shulaveri-Shomu was just that local to the Caucasus. I see S-S as Kartvelian and sharing a genetic clade with Indo-Hittite. Levantine and Zagrosian populations appear to have only picked up slight admixture with Anatolian farmers (SE Anatolians properly, modelled using Anatolian farmers by proxy), as compared to the swamping that occurred in Anatolia itself and the Balkans where farmers near-completely replaced.

I don't know who you are or who you think you are, and I don't care. What I do know is that I don't like your tone. You could have made your point without the snarkiness and the arrogance. Change it or go elsewhere.

"Likely", and no citations on point won't even buy you a coffee, especially as your "Anatolian" agricultural site is, as you state, a Natufian one.

I'll stick with the paper, thanks all the same.
 
[/]Eurasian DNA has posted a little more detailed overview of this at https://Eurasiandna.com with a map of the southern arc

At Eurasian DNA we have been using short segment IBD analyses for the past 2 years for fine-scale work and it appears that Reich’s team is also starting to use it as well. We use short segment IBD analyses to distinguish more recent shared drift from more ancient shared genetic drift. For example, performing SNP by SNP comparison of two genomes such as used by many of the tools available to us will not necessarily tell us whether a West Eurasian individual shows a high genetic similarity to Yamnaya due to shared common ancestral components such as ENF, EHG, CHG, or whether this genetic similarity with Yamnaya is due to actual admixture from Yamnaya…….
 
Italian Chalcolithic farmers if I'm not mistaken did not come from Etruria but from the Marche region, which has no much archeological connection with the Prehistoric Etruscan world. The only Villanovan settlement (therefore Etruscan) in the Marche, at Fermo, is considered a colonization from Verucchio in northern Italy that occurred between the late Bronze and early Iron Age and was assimilated quite early by the Picenes (I don't remember whether 5th or 4th century BC.). Samples to prove this are lacking. While it is indeed possible that there is some Iran_N signal dating to Chalcolithic/Neolithic also in Etruria, within the discourse on the origins of the Etruscans to argue to the current state of knowledge too nonchalantly that they had Iran_N is no different than to argue for other fringe or superseded theories.
The Picenes origin is Sabine ( Ver Sacrum ) ...............they moved ( circa 750BC ) from the mountains of middle Italy to the Adriatic coast , living with the Liburnian colonies, one being Tronto, Martininscuro etc .............the Liburnians either merged with the Picene or left italy by 440BC
 

Do you know whether cremation or inhumation was common among Classical Greeks? Or both?



Cremation was regionally concentrated, but:

he Greek and Roman worlds went through cycles of centuries
when cremation or inhumation was the dominant funerary
rite, and at times inhumation and cremation were practiced
simultaneously. So far, no convincing, simple and clear-cut
explanation for this phenomenon has been found. Homer
mentions cremation exclusively as a burial rite in the Iliad and
Odyssey, and the funerals of Patroclos (Il. 23, 161), Hector (Il.
24, 778.), Elpenor (Od. 12, 11?15) and Achilles (Od. 24,
65) are described in detail. Illustrations of cremation can be
viewed on Greek vases from the Geometric Period onwards
(Boardman 1998).

https://www.researchgate.net/public...on_how_burial_practices_are_linked_to_beliefs

The Geometric period succeeded the tumultous period with Barbarian Ware and foreign influences. Some of the invaders seem to have been pushed out by Greeks to the North, while some others stayed and being assimilated. In any case their cultural influences stayed, the new ideas, which included the cremation urn burials, especially common in e.g. Athens. But that might have been more of a later fashion.

The second important Early Iron Age phenomenon is the expansion of the use of secondary crema-
tion. The chronological development of this practice can be documented is the same way as in the rest
of Greece with a first more prominent reappearance around the 12th?11th centuries BCE, especially in
the north, at cemeteries such as Apsalos ?Verpen?39 and Palio Gynaikokastro.40 These structures recall
those of the western Rhodopes near Nevrokopi41 or those found in the cremation cemeteries attribut-
ed to the so-called transitional period (end of the 12th?11th century BCE) identified further in the north
at cemeteries such as Klučka near Hippodrome of Skopje,42 considered as the heir of the Donja Brnjica
culture, which develops from the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE in the south of Serbia and in Kosovo
and which expands from the south Morava toward the southern Balkans.4

The "transitional period" = the main timing for the first and biggest E-V13 expansion down into the Balkans.

In
Greece, the development and origins of cremation after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces have
long been debated, with proponents of the Balkan and eastern origins or the role played by northern
Italy.45 Regarding the data, northern Greece seems to be on the crossroads of several traditions, show-
ing that there is not a single answer to this crucial issue

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02902269/document
 
You're not following, I never claimed Mureybet was Anatolian. It's simply that Anatolian ancestry rises globally in the Fertile Crescent with the spread of agriculture. Archaeologically, this makes more sense as being SE Anatolian rather than Central Anatolian. Mesolithic Anatolian samples do differ from Neolithic Anatolian samples (both Central), so another population - less proximal in the direction of European HGs in PCA plots - mixed in. Neolithic Anatolian samples shift slightly "Eastwards" as compared to Mesolithic Anatolian samples, and this is associated with transition to the Neolithic: put it like that. It could be the case that it follows the same pattern as with the Levant and Zagros populations, ie contact and slight admixture with Anatolian-like farmers -> Neolithic package adopted, but replacement of Central Anatolians by SE Anatolians makes more sense as the Y DNA is transformed to G2a-predominant whereas this isn't the case with the Levantine and Zagrosian farmers. There's very notable stylistic links between Catalhoyuk and Gobekli Tepe, Nevali Cori etc too, see the Tepe Telegrams blog.

We're both argumentative it seems so I won't be petty

What I am is an attorney by trade who has been trained to be allergic to mounds of verbiage unattached to any actual, verifiable facts. I attempt, given the setting, to say in more "diplomatic" language, "I OBJECT: SPECULATION, LACK OF FOUNDATION".

Of course, this isn't a court of law, so you can speculate as much as you want, and I'm free to discount anything untethered to verifiable facts.
 
[/]Eurasian DNA has posted a little more detailed overview of this at https://Eurasiandna.com with a map of the southern arc

They out to be a bit more careful with their definitions. Eneolithic steppe did not have ENF. Later groups coming out of the steppe did.

Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in their work.
 
View attachment 13381

From the same team, 2022 The genomic origins of the world’s first farmers

I could just as well read this as showing what I believe the Reich group hints at: Levantine genetics (including its partial Natufian ancestry) spreading north into Anatolia, and then Anatolian Neolithic people, now carrying some Natufian, spreading eventually into Europe.

The maps also show what may be a presence of "Anatolian HGs" in the Levant, with perhaps Natufian a later intrusive element.

Hopefully, the paper will clarify what the actual data shows, so I have no personal desire to speculate further.
 

This thread has been viewed 203005 times.

Back
Top