David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

Why do you think that? It would fit nicely with Greek mythology, Danaus etc.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...presents_in_the_tomb_of_Rekhmire_(actual).jpg

They have horses and the chariot, rhyta (not zoomorphic ones found later among Greeks and Iranics), more like the steatite "Minoan" ones in shape, amphorae etc

I also think they have a male dress more similar to the continental Greek one (but longer) and a cap which is similar to Greek pilos, Modern Albanian plis etc (two, three variations of the cap including one with a more shield like shape).

By the way, the name Retjenu can theoretically be related to Kreta, Kretania (ki-re-ta-na is attested in Linear A) etc while the name Keftiu which is associated to Minoans by some is more likely to have meant Cappadocians or be related to that term, so maybe it had nothing to do with Crete itself.

It is actually very clear that Greeks associated Epaphus with Hyksos Apepi. The myth is consistent with a movement of Hyksos related people to Greece after being expelled from Egypt but it could have been a back migration of an Aegean related group.
 
It is actually very clear that Greeks associated Epaphus with Hyksos Apepi.

And Epaphus is the son of Io who is the daughter of Inachus, the king of Argos, who is the son of Oceanus (or Okeanus). (1)

Ba3XmJv.jpg

What do you think about this:

Oceanus = oh-KAY-an-us (2)

Ὠκεανός (Oceanus): "Of uncertain origin. Beekes suggests a proto-form *-kay-an‎-" (3),(4, p.xxxv)

----

'Khyan (also Khayan) ... was a Hyksos king of the Fifteenth Dynasty of Egypt, ruling over Lower Egypt in the second half of the 17th century BCE. ... objects with his name have been found at Knossos and Hattusha indicating diplomatic contacts with Crete and the Hittites. ... Khyan's rule marks the peak of the Hyksos kingdom power.' (4)

"Khayan's Horus name is Anak-Idbu, meaning 'Embracer of the coastlands'." (5)

Khayan = Oceanus?
 
We will see what he bases that on.
If it's conclussive evidence or only superficial conclussions.
He seems a bit biased to put the origin of IndoEuropeans in a very specific location.
 
And Epaphus is the son of Io who is the daughter of Inachus, the king of Argos, who is the son of Oceanus (or Okeanus). (1)

View attachment 13396

What do you think about this:

Oceanus = oh-KAY-an-us (2)

Ὠκεανός (Oceanus): "Of uncertain origin. Beekes suggests a proto-form *-kay-an‎-" (3),(4, p.xxxv)

----

'Khyan (also Khayan) ... was a Hyksos king of the Fifteenth Dynasty of Egypt, ruling over Lower Egypt in the second half of the 17th century BCE. ... objects with his name have been found at Knossos and Hattusha indicating diplomatic contacts with Crete and the Hittites. ... Khyan's rule marks the peak of the Hyksos kingdom power.' (4)

"Khayan's Horus name is Anak-Idbu, meaning 'Embracer of the coastlands'." (5)

Khayan = Oceanus?

I cannot accept it or reject it. I think though that the word okeanos should be related to proto-Greek *ku(w)aneos 'blue'. There seem to be related words in Hittite and Sumerian but I think the meaning attested in Greek should be the primary meaning but it should be from a language different from PIE (but not necessarily completely unrelated). Not from Sumerian though in my opinion.
 
The lecture was scheduled for today. Yesterday in Israel.

wendys-wheres-the-beef.jpg


Where's the beef?
 
No,
But erikl86 from anthrogenica
Was there if i understand his post
The southern arc paper will be splitt to 3 different papers each with specific period

Erikl86:
I will just elaborate what periods the three papers will be:
First paper - Neolithic.
Second paper - Chalcolithic to Bronze Age.
Third paper - Historical period.
There are going to be more than 700 new samples from all over the Southern Arc region, I don't know how many per period as Reich didn't go into that kind of details.
Also a lot of samples from locations we waited a long time to see.
And also samples from already covered locations but of periods we didn't have before.
All in all very exciting papers.
He didn't mention a specific date but seeing how entire slides were from the already written papers, and how it was mentioned as they will be out "soon", it is good estimation that the papers will be out in a few weeks.
David Reich requested at the opening of the lecture not to take pictures and not to write down any notes as these are soon to be published and just be patient. Perhaps he was requested to do so by the peer review committee who reviewed the papers - I don't know. I'm going to respect his request though and we should all be patient, hopefully everything will be out soon.
I don't think what I "revealed" here in any way breaches that request, btw.
 
700 new samples from all over the Southern Arc region.

Beautiful,

How the hell can people say with confidence that it "doesn't match" the data, when they haven't even seen the data presented? Did they think Reich was just basing it off of what was already available?

People accuse me of being too orthodox when it comes to genetic papers, and in the same breath think they know it all based on already published data. Nevertheless, I said all along that I am sure Reich will be presenting new data to support his views.

Human behavior online constantly reminds me of this fact:


PkfKWWv.jpg
 
I think David Reich will prove:

1. Ancient people of Mugan plain in the northwest of Iran and south of Azerbaijan (Akkadian Mukania) were Mycenaean Greeks.

2. Ancient people of Gilan province in the northwest of Iran (Pliny Gaeli) were Gaelic/Celtic people.

3. Ancient people Luristan province in the west of Iran (Akkadian Alluria/Elluria) were Illyrian people.

4. Ancient people of Fars province in the south of Iran (Akkadian/Sumerian Parhasi) were Persian/Iranian people.

5. Ancient people Kerman and Kermanshah provinces (Herodotus Germanii were Germanic people.

6. Ancient peoole of Hidali in Akkadian and Elamite sources (Old Persian Idali/Itali were Italic people.

7. Ancient people of Qazvin province (Akkadian Kashu, ancient Greek Caspian) were Kashubian Slavic people.

8. Ancient people Tehran (Tukharan) province (Akkadian Tukri) were Tocharian people.

Armenians and Indians lived almost in their modern lands.
 
It is also no surprise to me that Anatolia was genetically impregnable throughout the ChL and Bronze Age. This was apparent to me from the findings of damgaard et al. 2018


I have maintained that Anatolia_ChL and Anatolia_BA the basically the same, and mostly just Anatolia_N and CHG. I have said it here, and on anthrogenica, and have been ridiculed for it. I am ecstatic to see the undisputable confirmation.



JqAIQaR.jpg
 
No,
But erikl86 from anthrogenica
Was there if i understand his post
The southern arc paper will be splitt to 3 different papers each with specific period
Erikl86:
I will just elaborate what periods the three papers will be:
First paper - Neolithic.
Second paper - Chalcolithic to Bronze Age.
Third paper - Historical period.
There are going to be more than 700 new samples from all over the Southern Arc region, I don't know how many per period as Reich didn't go into that kind of details.
Also a lot of samples from locations we waited a long time to see.
And also samples from already covered locations but of periods we didn't have before.
.

Thanks kingjohn for showing us this interesting info. These 3 massive papers will be a new subject of a hot debate among the archaeogenetic community. However, I just hope the whole thing was not just much ado about nothing.
 
It is also no surprise to me that Anatolia was genetically impregnable throughout the ChL and Bronze Age. This was apparent to me from the findings of damgaard et al. 2018


I have maintained that Anatolia_ChL and Anatolia_BA the basically the same, and mostly just Anatolia_N and CHG. I have said it here, and on anthrogenica, and have been ridiculed for it. I am ecstatic to see the undisputable confirmation.

If your theory gets validated then the AG Mods owe you an apology. But I doubt they'll admit their "defeat" and un-ban you.
 
Have they ever admitted they were wrong about the Etruscans? They claimed they were 1st millennium B.C. migrants from Anatolia, and Middle Eastern; a LOT of people did, no matter how much archaeological and historical evidence we threw at them.

Lots of people banned over that, too, so there's your answer.
 
Have they ever admitted they were wrong about the Etruscans? They claimed they were 1st millennium B.C. migrants from Anatolia, and Middle Eastern; a LOT of people did, no matter how much archaeological and historical evidence we threw at them.

Lots of people banned over that, too, so there's your answer.


Well, that’s why I wrote that I doubt that this time the AG Mods will have the decency to admit that they got it wrong and unban Jovialis and others. Banning Jovialis because of this topic was actually ridiculous in the first place.
 
They actually had accused me of sophistry, ironically. I guess sophistry means quoting academic papers to support my argument, and not deferring to G25. It's all good, even if they unbanned me, I would never post there again.
 
I want to see what Reich means about Natufian going into other groups. I thought we knew ages ago that after a certain point Anatolian Neolithic included Levant Neolithic and Iran Neo/CHG.

I hope it's not going to be "much ado about nothing".
 
I want to see what Reich means about Natufian going into other groups. I thought we knew ages ago that after a certain point Anatolian Neolithic included Levant Neolithic and Iran Neo/CHG.

I hope it's not going to be "much ado about nothing".

Perhaps Reich has solved the link between the Iberomaurasians and Natufians from the Levant who date to around the same time. The DNA evidence suggest per Van de Loosdrecht et al 2016 that these ancient North Africans can be modeled as having 2/3 West Asian/Levant source "best represented by Levantine Natufians" and 1/3 SSA with half from a West African related Source and half from a East African Source, both of which I think no longer exist in unadmixed form but are both preserved in those 2 populations.

Just thinking out the box here, what if some Ancient North African population older than both, but clustering with ancient West Eurasians was the source of the Natufians and admixture in the Iberomaurasians. Alternatively, maybe and older Levantine population that is related to both and actually arrived in North Africa much more earlier? Maybe he has an actual sample to clear that association up.

I have been re-reading Reich's Who We are and the section on how Reich proposed a Ghost population that was the link between Northern Europeans and Native Americans, calling this population Ancient North Eurasians. When his team was able to sequence Mal'ta Boy genome from 24K years ago in Siberia, that link was clarified.

So as you noted Angela, Feldman et al 2019 documented the Anatolian Neolithic Farmers were 80-90% from Anatolian HG a divergent population likely formed from a cluster related to Villabruna Italian HG and then become isolated in that region, with 2 incoming sources to explain the remaining sources of ancestry, Levant Neolithic + Iran_Neolithic/CHG. So I am not sure if anything related to the Early European Farmers new is likely to be published (EEF's have been extensively researched).

Cheers, PT
 
Perhaps Reich has solved the link between the Iberomaurasians and Natufians from the Levant who date to around the same time. The DNA evidence suggest per Van de Loosdrecht et al 2016 that these ancient North Africans can be modeled as having 2/3 West Asian/Levant source "best represented by Levantine Natufians" and 1/3 SSA with half from a West African related Source and half from a East African Source, both of which I think no longer exist in unadmixed form but are both preserved in those 2 populations.

Just thinking out the box here, what if some Ancient North African population older than both, but clustering with ancient West Eurasians was the source of the Natufians and admixture in the Iberomaurasians. Alternatively, maybe and older Levantine population that is related to both and actually arrived in North Africa much more earlier? Maybe he has an actual sample to clear that association up.

I have been re-reading Reich's Who We are and the section on how Reich proposed a Ghost population that was the link between Northern Europeans and Native Americans, calling this population Ancient North Eurasians. When his team was able to sequence Mal'ta Boy genome from 24K years ago in Siberia, that link was clarified.

So as you noted Angela, Feldman et al 2019 documented the Anatolian Neolithic Farmers were 80-90% from Anatolian HG a divergent population likely formed from a cluster related to Villabruna Italian HG and then become isolated in that region, with 2 incoming sources to explain the remaining sources of ancestry, Levant Neolithic + Iran_Neolithic/CHG. So I am not sure if anything related to the Early European Farmers new is likely to be published (EEF's have been extensively researched).

Cheers, PT

That's what Lazaridis concluded, ANA shouldn't be treated as 1/3 SSA, rather as a source toward Natufians and a source toward SSA who in addition also have far more deeper autosomal like Shum-Laka and Central-Eastern African admixture.
 
That's what Lazaridis concluded, ANA shouldn't be treated as 1/3 SSA, rather as a source toward Natufians and a source toward SSA who in addition also have far more deeper autosomal like Shum-Laka and Central-Eastern African admixture.

Hawk: Ok, interesting. Lazaridis trained under Reich at the Harvard Lab. I went back and looked at Lazaridis et al 2016 in the Nature publication of The First Farmers and it did suggest that the origins of the Natufians could be better understood with ancient data from North Africa. I agree. The Iberomaurusian DNA analysis wasn't done to 2018 by van de Loosdrecht et al. No doubt connection but the Natufian and Iberomaurusians samples are really from the same period. So to confirm Laz's hypothesis I would think we need data that predates both the Natufians and Iberomaurusians
 
Hawk: Ok, interesting. Lazaridis trained under Reich at the Harvard Lab. I went back and looked at Lazaridis et al 2016 in the Nature publication of The First Farmers and it did suggest that the origins of the Natufians could be better understood with ancient data from North Africa. I agree. The Iberomaurusian DNA analysis wasn't done to 2018 by van de Loosdrecht et al. No doubt connection but the Natufian and Iberomaurusians samples are really from the same period. So to confirm Laz's hypothesis I would think we need data that predates both the Natufians and Iberomaurusians

Yeah, i agree. For instance, this skeleton is in Cairo museum, i think he was a hunter-gatherer from Paleolithic Egypt, 20,000 - 22,000 B.C. I assume he would be a good proxy of the shared Iberomaurusian/Natufian origin.

th38jVK.jpg
 

This thread has been viewed 203249 times.

Back
Top