David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

Well, this isn't confirmed but many scholars do believe Italic and Celtic have a substrate from a very early IE language, resembling Hittite or Tocharian. This would line up with Hittite coming from the Steppe and spreading not only into Anatolia, but also into Steppe enclaves in the Balkans and Hungary before being replaced by later waves of Bell Beakers, Proto-Greeks, Scythians, etc.

If there was an Anatolian substrate, we rather have to look to Greek, Thracian, Paeonian and Brygi-Phrygian, instead of the Tumulus derived groups like Celtic and Italic. But we won't know anyway, with our best bet being ancient DNA to solve that riddle.
 
810xoutfctL._AC_SL1500_.jpg

You know that this topic triggers a lot of people for a variety of reasons. Don't pour fuel on the fire by showing these guys here. Let sleeping dogs lie. Just saying.
 
I think Maciamo wrote years ago that some famous Romans looked pretty Central European but not North European or Slavic.

Augustus, for instance, on several portrait busts and statues doesn't look Northern European, but he rather has a Slavic/Eastern European vibe. Nonetheless, he was autosomally speaking most certainly a regular Italic/Latin man. To me (when going by some portrait busts) Caesar looks pretty much Italian.
 
You know that this topic triggers a lot of people for a variety of reasons. Don't pour fuel on the fire by showing these guys here. Let sleeping dogs lie. Just saying.



ignoring reality (which does exist wether we like it or not) is also not good
its there
those guys looks are in the minds of many people
who push there own agenda in dna forums ( including davidski )
but in the end of the day you are correct i shoudn't wake them up ;)
 
I don't get this reference...

I was speaking a bit hyperbolic. The thing is that discussions about appearance and/or phenotype in the Indo-European context always turn into a hot and heated argument.
 
ignoring reality (which does exist wether we like it or not) is also not good
its there
those guys looks are in the minds of many people
who push there own agenda in dna forums ( including davidski )
but in the end of the day you are correct i shoudn't wake them up ;)

I'm not ignoring reality and I understand where you're coming from. However, I know from experience that this kind of conversation can escalate quickly and derail a thread. We managed, after Angela's interference, to discuss topics related to Reich's paper.
 
I certainly know what I am going to do this weekend when I have free time.


I already have a supply of beer/spirits and pop-corn/snacks ready.

I hope the paper delivers and the drama blows up the internet.

I will be severely disappointed otherwise.
 
I'm not ignoring reality and I understand where you're coming from. However, I know from experience that this kind of conversation can escalate quickly and derail a thread. We managed, after Angela's interference, to discuss topics related to Reich's paper.

Then maybe there should be a subforum called "race wars" so the rest of us do not have to read any of the garbage. It beats having to live in fear of "triggering". I am interested in what ancient tribes looked like, but not in agenda-driven theories.
 
I already have a supply of beer/spirits and pop-corn/snacks ready.
I hope the paper delivers and the drama blows up the internet.
I will be severely disappointed otherwise.

Very true! Hopefully it delivers what it promised.
 
Then maybe there should be a subforum called "race wars" so the rest of us do not have to read any of the garbage. It beats having to live in fear of "triggering". I am interested in what ancient tribes looked like, but not in agenda-driven theories.

That's exactly how I feel. In my opinion, people should be able to express their opinion without holding back or feeling intimated. That said, anyone who dishes it out must also be able to take it.
 
You know that this topic triggers a lot of people for a variety of reasons. Don't pour fuel on the fire by showing these guys here. Let sleeping dogs lie. Just saying.

My dear man, don't you know that he does it for specifically that reason? Every once in a while he just can't contain himself.

Do you really think that after reading posts for a dozen years I can't recognize someone's "voice" no matter what sock name he adopts or how he tries to disguise it? Do you think I don't know who sends pms to whom or who upvotes whom? Please.

People just seem to forget everything they know about pre-history when they want to "trigger" someone. The steppe admixed people who came down into Italy weren't Corded Ware types; they were Bell Beaker types. There's a big difference in cranial types etc.

Baltic types never came to Italy, nor Slavs.

As for Augustus, my favorite young cook for traditional foods when I go home could be Augustus' son, and as for Caesar, he can be found everywhere. As a matter of fact, my maternal grandfather looked a lot like him, but with a smaller nose thank goodness for my mother's sake, as she looked a lot like him.

22-1536x1258.jpg


Lunigiana-ragazzo=Bergameschi.jpg


You northerners seem to think the Alps are an impenetrable wall, and no fair haired people live south of it.

644944.jpg


The local squadra of boys in our little town, and their coach.

Lunigiana-La Spezia Azzurri Magra Pianazza.jpg
 
I am sorry if this is offtopic but can you clarify if mods read people's PMs to each other on this board? The above sentence is a bit worrying.

No, we can't.
 
I would be most surprised if the majority of early IE-speaking Greeks and Italics looked much like these characters.

In fact most East Europeans look more like Putin than these athletes.

In addition, it seems that the people who feel compelled to bring their blonde obsession onto the site constantly can't distinguish between blonde hair and what is obviously bleached hair.

Well, maybe it's a man versus woman thing in part. Look at the ROOTS, gentlemen, and the layers UNDER the bleached layers. That guy has dark brown hair.
Heck, nowadays women (and men) get their roots done more often than they go to church.

Some men must have a really rude awakening when they move in with a woman and learn about fake eye lashes, foundation face make up and contour creams, spanx, push-up bras, silicone bra inserts, or actual breast surgery scars etc. :)
 
In addition, it seems that the people who feel compelled to bring their blonde obsession onto the site constantly can't distinguish between blonde hair and what is obviously bleached hair.

Well, maybe it's a man versus woman thing in part. Look at the ROOTS, gentlemen, and the layers UNDER the bleached layers. That guy has dark brown hair.
Heck, nowadays women (and men) get their roots done more often than they go to church.

Some men must have a really rude awakening when they move in with a woman and learn about fake eye lashes, foundation face make up and contour creams, spanx, push-up bras, silicone bra inserts, or actual breast surgery scars etc. :)

I knew a guy which had light blond hair, but his roots were darker, yet it was natural. My kids have it too, yet not as much as he had, and its mostly caused by photo-bleaching. This means its not artificial, but kind of natural and genetic, yet it strongly affects the hair especially summer vs. winter. Funnily he even has brown eyes, so you could have argued for an artificial moment, yet it was all "natural".
And from the anthropological perspective, many systems primarily distinguished between "light" and "dark" - the question is just which tone of brown you consider too dark for being in the light category. We see in many instances that the hair color transitions in families and individuals shifts between shades of light brown and blond, so this being basically close to one single category in the European context. Because among adults, there are not that many populations, and probably never were, which were all light blondes.

Since we have cleared that up, we can now go back on track. After all, this won't be that big of a thing for the upcoming paper, unless they present a lot of genetic-phenotypical data for the Greeks in particular, which they might be, but who knows what they present...
 
This "looks" shit is really some pseudo-science b.s. that should have no place in these forums. It's one thing to mention phenotypes of ancient samples, but another to start comparing random pics of people today.
 
This Friday three papers about the southern arc will be published, so we have a full weekend to analyze the results and data. I certainly know what I am going to do this weekend when I have free time.

Anfanger: Are all 3 papers from the Reich team? If not, does anyone know the status of the Allencroft et al 2022 paper "POPULATION GENOMICS OF STONE AGE EURASIA" which was posted on biovrx on 6 May 2022 (Pre-Print version). I went back and took a look at it given the Reich Southern Arc abstract and subsequent comments and they have some results indicating. Here are 2 quotes from that paper:


"Interestingly, two herein reported ~7,300-year-old imputedgenomes from the Middle Don River region in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Golubaya Krinitsa,NEO113 & NEO212) derive ~20-30% of their ancestry from a source cluster of hunter-gatherersfrom the Caucasus (Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) (Fig. 3). Additional lower coverage (nonimputed) genomes from the same site project in the same PCA space (Fig. 1D), shifted away fromthe European hunter-gatherer cline towards Iran and the Caucasus. Our results thus documentgenetic contact between populations from the Caucasus and the Steppe region as early as 7,300years ago, providing documentation of continuous admixture prior to the advent of later nomadic Steppe cultures, in contrast to recent hypotheses, and also further to the west than previouslyreported"

"From approximately 5,000 BP, an ancestry component appears on the eastern European plains inEarly Bronze Age Steppe pastoralists associated with the Yamnaya culture and it rapidly spreadsacross Europe through the expansion of the Corded Ware complex (CWC) and related cultures20,21.We demonstrate that this “steppe” ancestry (Steppe_5000BP_4300BP) can be modelled as amixture of ~65% ancestry related to herein reported hunter-gatherer genomes from the Middle DonRiver region (MiddleDon_7500BP) and ~35% ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from Caucasus(Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) (Extended Data Fig. 4). Thus, Middle Don hunter-gatherers, whoalready carry ancestry related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Fig. 2), serve as a hitherto unknownproximal source for the majority ancestry contribution into Yamnaya genomes"

So this CHG related ancestry (20-30%) dating back to roughly 5300 BC. Now how this impacts the origin of the Proto-Indo European Language homeland, I am not sure, but it does point to CHG ancestry being present well before the earliest PIE languages are thought to have first appeared. So perhaps Reich's team is aware of these samples (I am sure they are) and they might impact the conclusions in the Southern Arc papers. From a quick reading, this is the first paper to document CHG related ancestry in the Middle Don region and it appears to me, much earlier than what has been documented in other papers on the Steppes (I could be wrong here).

I admit I have not read this paper carefully and only skimmed it when I first saw it at biovrx, but it does seem potentially to be a paper that can potentially further clarify the Proto-Indo European Language homeland.
 
Rakushechny Yar

Anfanger: Are all 3 papers from the Reich team? If not, does anyone know the status of the Allencroft et al 2022 paper "POPULATION GENOMICS OF STONE AGE EURASIA" which was posted on biovrx on 6 May 2022 (Pre-Print version). I went back and took a look at it given the Reich Southern Arc abstract and subsequent comments and they have some results indicating. Here are 2 quotes from that paper:


"Interestingly, two herein reported ~7,300-year-old imputedgenomes from the Middle Don River region in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Golubaya Krinitsa,NEO113 & NEO212) derive ~20-30% of their ancestry from a source cluster of hunter-gatherersfrom the Caucasus (Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) (Fig. 3). Additional lower coverage (nonimputed) genomes from the same site project in the same PCA space (Fig. 1D), shifted away fromthe European hunter-gatherer cline towards Iran and the Caucasus. Our results thus documentgenetic contact between populations from the Caucasus and the Steppe region as early as 7,300years ago, providing documentation of continuous admixture prior to the advent of later nomadic Steppe cultures, in contrast to recent hypotheses, and also further to the west than previouslyreported"

"From approximately 5,000 BP, an ancestry component appears on the eastern European plains inEarly Bronze Age Steppe pastoralists associated with the Yamnaya culture and it rapidly spreadsacross Europe through the expansion of the Corded Ware complex (CWC) and related cultures20,21.We demonstrate that this “steppe” ancestry (Steppe_5000BP_4300BP) can be modelled as amixture of ~65% ancestry related to herein reported hunter-gatherer genomes from the Middle DonRiver region (MiddleDon_7500BP) and ~35% ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from Caucasus(Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) (Extended Data Fig. 4). Thus, Middle Don hunter-gatherers, whoalready carry ancestry related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Fig. 2), serve as a hitherto unknownproximal source for the majority ancestry contribution into Yamnaya genomes"

So this CHG related ancestry (20-30%) dating back to roughly 5300 BC. Now how this impacts the origin of the Proto-Indo European Language homeland, I am not sure, but it does point to CHG ancestry being present well before the earliest PIE languages are thought to have first appeared. So perhaps Reich's team is aware of these samples (I am sure they are) and they might impact the conclusions in the Southern Arc papers. From a quick reading, this is the first paper to document CHG related ancestry in the Middle Don region and it appears to me, much earlier than what has been documented in other papers on the Steppes (I could be wrong here).

I admit I have not read this paper carefully and only skimmed it when I first saw it at biovrx, but it does seem potentially to be a paper that can potentially further clarify the Proto-Indo European Language homeland.

The main problem they got is that they have at the Middle Don a non-fitting ratio. Simple put, CHG is still too low in these samples. If they would go to the Lower Don, we will find the complete steppe package, most likely the majority of PIE lineages, around the Sea of Azow and that 6.000-5.000 BC the latest, which means before the branching of any IE lineage. That was the point I'm making and its what I have saying now for quite some time: Sample the Lower Don/Sea of Azow region, its just too obvious that the mixing occured there, because we have actual, archaeological evidence of Southerners coming in, probably along the Black Sea coast. I guess a lot of sites being now underwater, because the sea level was lower back then.
Rakushechny Yar is an absolutely key site:
https://www.academia.edu/31137880/A_Gorelik_A_Tsybrij_and_V_Tsybrij_Neolithisation_in_the_NE_Sea_of_Azov_region_one_step_forward_two_steps_back_The_puzzle_of_Neolithisation_in_the_Sea_of_Azov_area



https://www.academia.edu/18163442/R...t_point_of_the_Near_Eastern_Neolithic_package

That's the only instance in which we might assume an actual stronger Caucasian-Transcaucasian influence on the formation of the steppe cultures out of which PIE developed. It's way earlier than any Proto-Anatolian, even the oldest estimates.

How can they investigate IE and miss all the key cultures for so long?

- Lower Don cultural formations, R. Yar.
- Sredny Stog (proper), Dereivka (Sredny Stog and later phase)
- Corded decorated Balkan groups, Cernavoda and Troy

To even talk about PIE and early IE without those samples is futile. Khvalynsk was always likely a dead end, nothing but an early side branch, which mixed with locals and was later replaced. But some of them wanted desperately to find the roots outside of the confines of Europe in the narrower sense I guess, first in the East, now in the South. Kind of strange to sample everything around first, instead of the core zone.
 
The main problem they got is that they have at the Middle Don a non-fitting ratio. Simple put, CHG is still too low in these samples. If they would go to the Lower Don, we will find the complete steppe package, most likely the majority of PIE lineages, around the Sea of Azow and that 6.000-5.000 BC the latest, which means before the branching of any IE lineage. That was the point I'm making and its what I have saying now for quite some time: Sample the Lower Don/Sea of Azow region, its just too obvious that the mixing occured there, because we have actual, archaeological evidence of Southerners coming in, probably along the Black Sea coast. I guess a lot of sites being now underwater, because the sea level was lower back then.
Rakushechny Yar is an absolutely key site:
https://www.academia.edu/31137880/A...zle_of_Neolithisation_in_the_Sea_of_Azov_area

How can they investigate IE and miss all the key cultures for so long?

- Lower Don cultural formations, R. Yar.
- Sredny Stog (proper), Dereivka (Sredny Stog and later phase)
- Corded decorated Balkan groups, Cernavoda and Troy

To even talk about PIE and early IE without those samples is futile. Khvalynsk was always likely a dead end, nothing but an early side branch, which mixed with locals and was later replaced. But some of them wanted desperately to find the roots outside of the confines of Europe in the narrower sense I guess, first in the East, now in the South. Kind of strange to sample everything around first, instead of the core zone.

Riverman: The Middle Don population from what they are saying was a major contributor to the Yamnaya. I don't see 35% as low, remember they are talking about these Middle Don samples from around 5300-5000 BC. It is lower than the 45-50% that Jones et al 2015 documented in the Yamnaya, true, but the Yamnaya could have gotten additional continuous gene flow from CHG related folks from the Southern Caucus region (i.e. modern Georgia) or Iran_Neo related folks from Armenia/Northern Iran.


So the Lazaridis et al 2016 paper "Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East" Figure 3 which documented that interaction zone between EHG (Steppes) and Iran Neolithic (Armenia/Northern Iran) seems to extend further back in time and into regions further into the Steppes and not just into the Yamnaya territory just to the other side of the Caucus Mountains but much further into what was/would become Yamnaya territory.

I just think those Allencroft et al 2022 samples are interesting and to me might another piece, not complete piece, of the puzzle.
 

This thread has been viewed 201673 times.

Back
Top