David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

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.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.04.490594v2.full
This? it seems it has been published
 
I think the issue is so polarizing because if an Iranian Homeland is indeed proven beyond any shadow of doubt by Reich then that will be the nail on the coffin of the racist ideological discourse of the 18th-19th century and the absolute destruction of modern politics that try to base their narrative on such racial discourse, whether in a disguised manner or out in the open.
Reich will single handedly (in a manner of speech) be responsible for dismantling the foundation of all racial-ladder related politics, once and for all.
Not a small feat.
Will he deliver? That remains to be seen.
huh i think you give reichs findings a bit too much weight. CHG is the reason for european advancements anyway.

i am of northern ancenstry btw.
 
Stefano: No, I have that version. If you click on the link, you will see it is labeled pre-print. So the paper is likely under review at a major Journal and going through the peer review and editorial process. So it has not yet been published in a journal (i.e. Nature, Cell, Science, 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...

You might want to take that up with King John, who started the whole merry-go-round again. I will repeat, since you may have missed it:

"As to the complaints about discussions of pigmentation, those discussions are almost always started or returned to again and again by Northern or Eastern Europeans. It's "their" freaking obsession, so pardon me or others for noticing that. It's like we're supposed to ignore all the bilge that's posted on the internet about it and what it means. Stop whining about it when you're called out for it,and stop pretending."

I will add, also re-introduced by people who want to "stir the pot" and "t-roll".

Also, just on the facts, dark brown hair is not going to photo-bleach to platinum. Get a grip. Also, get rid of the condescending tone. It's not becoming in someone who's predictive abilities are not that much better than Davidski's.
 
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.

When I need your help moderating the forum I'll be sure to let you know.

Am I clear enough, or should I be really blunt?
 
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.

Once again: if you think northern Iran is an unlikely place for archaic PIE to emerge due to the steppe populations "weak" non-EHG ancestry percentage (35%), so by logic it is even more unlikely that the proto-Greek came from the steppe (as the Mycenaeans had approximately half that value in percentage of steppe ancestry).
You have to have a minimum of coherence when you present an idea, otherwise you will lose credibility.
 
Last edited:
Once again: if you think northern Iran is an unlikely place for archaic PIE to emerge due to the steppe populations "weak" non-EHG ancestry percentage (35%), so by logic it is even more unlikely that the proto-Greek came from the steppe (as the Mycenaeans had approximately half that value in percentage of steppe ancestry).
You have to have a minimum of coherence when you present an idea, otherwise you will lose credibility.

No, it is the timing. The steppe package was complete long before the PIE stage.
And again there is no more recent Transcaucasian influence of significance, neither genetically nor archaeologically, towards the steppe after the Lower Don phase.
Archaeologically there is an entry point in the opposite direction into Anatolia.
 
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.

I am turned off by such tunnel vision. It is of great importance to me to connect all dots, not just scientific data. Be it how rare blood groups (including less common subgroups, not just the 8 major ones) reappear in current populations today or what our ancestors of different populations merging into us today looked it.

The only problem kicks in when some believe their "opinions" should be heard again and again. We are here to research facts, whatever they may turn out to be. 10 years ago I joined a different genetics forum where you couldn't even find real information among the cesspool of arguments over race. This is the only place where you can find information and are somewhat able to address related areas of interest which can help lead us into the right directions when researching genetic data.

I usually see the dismissive term "pseudoscience" thrown around by people with tunnel vision. Whatever may lead to better answers, use that. Not just whatever you yourself may have studied that you think needs to be the only thing paid attention to.
 
We‘ll see what was happening in Bronze Age Anatolia in few days, just have patience.

Correct
But i hope there will not be any
Farther delay and it realy going to be published
This Friday
 
Correct
But i hope there will not be any
Farther delay and it realy going to be published
This Friday
[FONT=&quot]Well, isn't there a presentation about the the Reich paper in a dutch university anyway? If I'm not wrong it can also be attended online. Either way, as I have said before many people have set their hopes too high since narrowing the sample size to specifics won't leave a huge amount of samples that will answer all of these questions people have in regards to broader topics. [/FONT]
 
Correct
But i hope there will not be any
Farther delay and it realy going to be published
This Friday

Someone who has these articles said that he will send the pdf files to me via email this Friday.

shot_3ua0.png
 
Oh wow the link to lecture had already been posted. Wonder if it’ll be available to attend online.
 

If that's all he got, its really weak. A minor steppe influence will suffice, anyway. I hope his team delivers samples which really matter, instead of discussing the exact percentage of steppe ancestry in Anatolia. Like uniparental analyses and new samples from crucial sites like Lower Don early Neolithic/R. yar, Sredny Stog/Dereivka, Cernavoda and Troy.
They work on the PIE problem for many years by now, but don't come up with the samples that really matter.
 
If that's all he got, its really weak. A minor steppe influence will suffice, anyway. I hope his team delivers samples which really matter, instead of discussing the exact percentage of steppe ancestry in Anatolia. Like uniparental analyses and new samples from crucial sites like Lower Don early Neolithic/R. yar, Sredny Stog/Dereivka, Cernavoda and Troy.
They work on the PIE problem for many years by now, but don't come up with the samples that really matter.


pdf is nice and stuff
but we need the supplemental tables to see the y haplogroups
and later we need the bam file to be uploaded to ENA site
for farther anlaysis by experts from anthrogenica

p.s
i wonder if my prediction about e-v13 in bulgaria will confirm
and e-m84>pf6751, e-m84>y5435 , e-z841>L791 , e-v22 presence
in the bronze and iron age papers
 
"At least two streams of migration transmitted Caucasus and Anatolian/Levantine ancestry northward, contributing to Yamnaya steppe pastoralists"

Yamnaya steppe pastoralists do not have Levantine ancestry.
 
If that's all he got, its really weak. A minor steppe influence will suffice, anyway. I hope his team delivers samples which really matter, instead of discussing the exact percentage of steppe ancestry in Anatolia. Like uniparental analyses and new samples from crucial sites like Lower Don early Neolithic/R. yar, Sredny Stog/Dereivka, Cernavoda and Troy.
They work on the PIE problem for many years by now, but don't come up with the samples that really matter.



Riverman: From the abstract, read what Reich stated. The evidence suggest that the Indo-Anatolian branch of IE languages came from West Asia, which is either Armenia/Northern Iran given both those areas also speak languages from branches of IE. Again, the Anatolian branch by all current scholarly estimates is the oldest branch of IE language family. There was intra West Asia gene flow with negligible gene flow from the Yamnaya, who would be the closest and most likely Steppe group to migrate into Anatolia via the Southern Caucuses, unless you can show Yamnaya related ancestry came from the Danube from what is modern Romania to Bulgaria then through the Bosporus river region into Anatolia. But for that to be supported, you still are going to need Steppe DNA from some population (Yamnaya would do the trick in my view) given they seemed to be the group on the Southern Flank of the IE migrations. If there is no Steppe DNA in Anatolia during the time period when the Proto-Anatolian IE branch developed (again David Anthony puts it around circa 4200 BC), then you are going to have to acknowledge, in my opinion, the following possibilities:

1) Proto Anatolian IE branch was from what is modern Armenia/Northern Iran and those areas might be the homeland of PIE or 2) The PIE was in the Steppes and IE languages were brought into Armenia/Northern Iran and were adopted by the Anatolian populations via trade contacts with populations in ancient Armenia/Northern Iran with no genetic interaction.

The lack of genetic interaction with the Caucus region though seems questionable since Feldman et al 2019 documented some gene flow from CHG/Iran Neo groups into the first Farmers of Anatolia. In that paper, the Anatolian HG were a group related to the Villabruna NE Italian WHG cluster that became isolated in Anatolia. Those Anatolian HG made up 80-90% of the genetic profile of the Anatolian Farmers with the other 10-20% coming from both Levant Neolithic and CHG/Iran Neolithic. So the interactions between Neolithic Anatolia and Neolithic Southern Caucus Region have genetic evidence supporting it which suggest close interactions with Anatolia and Southern Caucus region, i.e. modern Georgia, Armenia, Northern Iran, etc.

The lack of Steppe in Anatolia, given Proto-Anatolian is again, based on all scholarly estimates, the oldest IE language group is still something that you are going to have to resolve. I suspect what will be argued is that the Steppe ancestry went to Anatolia, passed on IE language and the elite Anatolian IE speakers burned their dead. So the non elites adopted the Anatolian IE branch but those groups did not burn their dead and it is those non elites who make up all the new samples that Reich's team analyzed. But my counter is did these hypothetical elite Anatolian IE speakers with Steppe ancestry bring wives with them? Did they go to Anatolia and live like Classic Catholic Benedictine Monks or Eastern Orthodox Monks from the Mt Athos?

This elite vs. non-elite story to me is sort of getting old and not going anywhere in my view. But we will see I guess Friday.

The Genetic History of the Southern Arc: A Bridge Between West Asia and Europe

Abstract:

By sequencing 727 ancient individuals from the Southern Arc (Anatolia and neighbors in Southeastern Europe and West Asia) over 10,000 years, we contextualize its Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages (~5000-1000 BCE), when extensive gene flow entangled it with the Eurasian steppe. At least two streams of migration transmitted Caucasus and Anatolian/Levantine ancestry northward, contributing to Yamnaya steppe pastoralists who then spread southwards: into the Balkans, and across the Caucasus into Armenia, where they left numerous patrilineal descendants. Anatolia was transformed by intra-West Asian gene flow, with negligible impact of the later Yamnaya migrations. This contrasts with all other regions where Indo-European languages were spoken, suggesting that the homeland of the Indo-Anatolian language family was in West Asia, with only secondary dispersals of non-Anatolian Indo-Europeans from the steppe.



 
If that's all he got, its really weak. A minor steppe influence will suffice, anyway. I hope his team delivers samples which really matter, instead of discussing the exact percentage of steppe ancestry in Anatolia. Like uniparental analyses and new samples from crucial sites like Lower Don early Neolithic/R. yar, Sredny Stog/Dereivka, Cernavoda and Troy.
They work on the PIE problem for many years by now, but don't come up with the samples that really matter.

It seems that sub-Saharan populations also have this "minor steppe influence" (from "POPULATION GENOMICS OF STONE AGE EURASIA" - Allentoft et al. 2022):
yamnayaAncestry2.jpg
 

This thread has been viewed 201743 times.

Back
Top