David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

[Cpluskx]

Below are the probable locations of unpublished Anatolian samples:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5-rvA6Iq...QHuPcipAgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Ancient_samples.jpg

Since we learned there were Anatolian names in Armi-Ebla around 2500 BC the chance of Anatolian-Caucasus homeland was higher but i am still not sure how they will connect Southern and Steppe populations genetically. Maybe they found some native R1b subclade in Eastern Anatolia?

 

[johen]

I know that I stick my neck out with this because it is not an academic work, but according to my own SNP combination that I use to determine “Race” Yamnaya is of a large percentage part of the Irano-Indian origin (Eastern Fertile Crescent) and is not much related to European HGs:

1. If so, I think PIE speaker on north Iran migrated to south asia before steppe people entered there.

2. Which kumsay sample is related to afanasievo?
As I mentioned before, Kumsay culture belongs to yamna culture. However, Harvard people separated them from yamna culture as EHG from WSHG.

​

​

 

[Angela]

I tend to agree, but I think you mean from contemporaneous Iron/Republican age Anatolian/Middle East populations. However, I would be cautious with over generalizing since the Antonio et al 2019 paper did document some Iranian Neolithic ancestry in the Republican/Iron Age, which might not be exactly the same as the Iranian ancestry from the Iron Age/Republican age, which is likely the case. In addition, in the Neolithic period, there was a substantial increase in Early European Farmer related DNA (Anatolian Farmers) and Iranian Farmers as well.

Now if you want to argue the 11 Republican/Iron Age Romans are "non elites" like some of the dogmatic Indo-European Steppe blogger/website groupies or the more Nordicist types, then you are back to the same way of thinking that was out there regarding the Mycenean Greeks.

Well, at least one sample was described as coming from a wealthy grave, so, there is an "elite" sample.

 

[Angela]

Where does Reich say that? Not being belligerent, just curious

I said "hinted" to be precise, not stated.

"discover that it was admixture of Natufian-related ancestry from the Levant—mediated by Mesopotamian and Levantine farmers, and marked by at least two expansions associated with dispersal of pre-pottery and pottery cultures—that generated a pan-West Asian Neolithic continuum."

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Well, at least one sample was described as coming from a wealthy grave, so, there is an "elite" sample.

Angela you are correct. I went back looked at Lazaradis et al 2014 and the elite Mycenean was no different in terms of admixture relative to the other Myceneans, and the Steppe for the 4 Myceneans ranged from 4 to 16%. I thought I had posted the cite from the paper in this thread, but maybe not. Anyway, from the Lazaradis et al 2014 paper:

"The Minoans could be modelled as a mixture of the Anatolia Neolithic-related substratum with additional ‘eastern’ ancestry, but the other two groups had additional ancestry: the Mycenaeans had approximately 4–16% ancestry from a ‘northern’ ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia (Table 1), while the Bronze Age southwestern Anatolians may have had ~6% ancestry related to Neolithic Levantine populations. The elitegood_job:emphasis mine) Mycenaean individual from the ‘royal’ tomb at Peristeria in the western Peloponnese did not differ genetically from the other three Mycenaean individuals buried in common graves" [p.216].

 

[Moja]

I think this study clearly says Mycenaean culture didn't relate to a mass migration from the Steppe and it didn't spread in Greece by an elite minority who had steppe ancestry.

 

[blevins13]

I think this study clearly says Mycenaean culture didn't relate to a mass migration from the Steppe and it didn't spread in Greece by an elite minority who had steppe ancestry.

It seem no northern route ( or model) for the Mycenaean after all. Such pity, there were so many people here that defended that model so vigorously.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[blevins13]

Angela you are correct. I went back looked at Lazaradis et al 2014 and the elite Mycenean was no different in terms of admixture relative to the other Myceneans, and the Steppe for the 4 Myceneans ranged from 4 to 16%. I thought I had posted the cite from the paper in this thread, but maybe not. Anyway, from the Lazaradis et al 2014 paper:

"The Minoans could be modelled as a mixture of the Anatolia Neolithic-related substratum with additional ‘eastern’ ancestry, but the other two groups had additional ancestry: the Mycenaeans had approximately 4–16% ancestry from a ‘northern’ ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia (Table 1), while the Bronze Age southwestern Anatolians may have had ~6% ancestry related to Neolithic Levantine populations. The elitegood_job:emphasis mine) Mycenaean individual from the ‘royal’ tomb at Peristeria in the western Peloponnese did not differ genetically from the other three Mycenaean individuals buried in common graves" [p.216].

The open questions in that study was from where the Mycenaean came from. Northern or Eastern model? I believe now will have answer about this.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Jovialis]

I think the northern route is still likely. It is just that it seems steppe and social status didn't exactly go hand-in-hand.

 

[blevins13]

I think the northern route is still likely. It is just that it seems steppe and social status didn't exactly go hand-in-hand.

It chances from likely have become remote.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Riverman]

I think this study clearly says Mycenaean culture didn't relate to a mass migration from the Steppe and it didn't spread in Greece by an elite minority who had steppe ancestry.

There is an upcoming paper which, in the abstract, clearly stated that "Central European" ancestry arrived in Greece in the Late Bronze Age (for the Aegean about 1.600 BC), which would correspond to the chariot complex and MCA/Catacomb intrusion.

Our results indicate multi-phased genetic shifts in the Aegean populations since the early Neolithic that can be traced to populations related to Anatolia and then, during the Late Bronze Age, to Central-Eastern Europe.

https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2021/repository/preview.php?Abstract=2323

As for Anatolia, they need to sample Cernavoda and related West Anatolian formations. Before they have done that, which could relate to a constant decrease of steppe ancestry on the way, we're not talking.

 

[blevins13]

There is an upcoming paper which, in the abstract, clearly stated that "Central European" ancestry arrived in Greece in the Late Bronze Age (for the Aegean about 1.600 BC), which would correspond to the chariot complex and MCA/Catacomb intrusion.



https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2021/repository/preview.php?Abstract=2323

As for Anatolia, they need to sample Cernavoda and related West Anatolian formations. Before they have done that, which could relate to a constant decrease of steppe ancestry on the way, we're not talking.

Mycenaean and Greece are not the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Hawk]

Mycenaean and Greece are not the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

Greece during Middle to Late Bronze Age would be synonymously called Mycenae in archaeological records. I think that it's inevitable that there was an incursion from the North, and those people not neccessarily happen to be 100% Yamnaya, they might have been 30% Yamnaya, 70% EEF themselves hence masking true admixture.

 

[Riverman]

Greece during Middle to Late Bronze Age would be synonymously called Mycenae in archaeological records. I think that it's inevitable that there was an incursion from the North, and those people not neccessarily happen to be 100% Yamnaya, they might have been 30% Yamnaya, 70% EEF themselves hence masking true admixture.

Yes, Mycenaean is synonymous with Greece.

As for the admixture, the migration could have happened in stages and its possible to likely that the chariot complex did just push groups further South, which had already mixed in the North Balkan/Carpathian sphere before. Therefore there is no need for a big steppe-like infusion at that time, but going by the results, it will be really significant and fairly Northern.

Considering the social stratification, Greece was always more special in this respect, as is Anatolia, therefore I expect big differences between communities. Greek tongue just prevailed, as did IE Anatolian, but it was no replacement event, not comparable with Bell Beakers or the like. I guess that ancestry and social class will be correlated, but not everywhere the same way, depending on which founder lineages had a say in which community.

 

[Angela]

Well, at least one sample was described as coming from a wealthy grave, so, there is an "elite" sample.

It is R1016, Castel de Decima, my closest sample from Antonio et al, and to the best of my recollection it's by no means the most "northern" of the samples, despite the fact it's very old.

Castel di DecimaDate range: 900 BCE - 700 BCEIndividuals: R1016

"The excavations at Castel di Decima returned about 400 pit inhumations, dating back to a period of timebetween the beginning of the eighth century BCE and the end of the seventh century BCE.... they have all provided funerary objects ofparticular interest, among which some of considerable wealth emerge, attributable to figures ofaristocratic rank and their family groups which characterize the Lazio and Tyrrhenian societies in generalfrom the Orientalizing period (121)."

The devil is often in the details; it pays to carefully read each bit of factual material before coming to any conclusions.

 

[ihype02]

Imperial Romans were obviously Republican Italians mostly from Central regions admixed with East Med people chiefly from Anatolia and Levant. The tail to Middle East dissapeared because they were mixed out of existence with Native Italians. If it was otherwise Central Italians would not be significantly more southern shifted than Latins.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

It chances from likely have become remote.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

Would you care to explain why? Actually it is already settled, unless the eastern route also brought WSH ancestry into Greece.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Imperial Romans are obviously Republican Italians mostly from Central regions admixed with East Med people chiefly from Anatolia and Levant. The tail to Middle East dissapeared because they were mixed out of existence with Native Italians. If it was otherwise Central Italians would not be significantly more southern shifted than Latins.

As far as modern papers go, modern Italians don't show any excess of Levantine ancestry, despite what people on other fora might blabber, and they get modelled at most with "Minoan" as their pre-IE substratum; of course I do not read it as meaning there is literally Minoan ancestry in Italians,but it betokens just an encrease in CHG compared to IA inhabitants of Italy, which also happened in the Balkans.

Some Anatolian contribution is possible, but let's not forget that half of the Imperial samples were part of the "mediterranean cluster", similar to 437 and 850 that already were found in Italy in the republic, and overall more similar to Greeks than to Anatolians and Levantines.

It is really hard for me to see how even before citizenship was granted to all Roman subjects Italy experienced a genetic turn over due to migration from the east, when most people from there were not citizens. Furthermore we mustn't forget we lack data from south Italy, needed before drawing conclusions.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

The open questions in that study was from where the Mycenaean came from. Northern or Eastern model? I believe now will have answer about this.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

blevins: That is a different question which is more of trying to answer the homeland for PIE, i.e. where did the original PIE speakers come from and how did IE language spread. That is an interesting question but not one that I say interests me as much as the genetic admixture makeup of the Myceneans. As we have seen with the Etruscans and Latins, genetics and language do not always go together perfectly. The key finding in that paper (Lazaradis et al 2014), from my perspective, is that the Myceneans and Minoans were genetically similar and that the 4 Myceneans tested in this paper had 4 to 16% Steppe ancestry. Thus, they were genetically very similar to modern Southern Europeans. They were not similar Northern Europeans in that they had > 50% Steppe ancestry contrary to the longstanding Nordicist narrative nor were they, particularly in the case of the Minoans, genetically the same as Nubians as some of the strident Afro-centrist types were claiming here in the USA back in the 1980's and 1990's and even up to the 2000's.

So the PIE homeland and the route of its expansion into Europe is interesting and one that I follow, the genetics of the peoples in ancient Greece and Rome are of a higher priority in terms of interest for me.

 

[brick]

^^If my memory serves it's different, as I alluded to above. Renfrew believed that the Anatolian language was brought to Europe by Anatolian farmers who went from western Anatolia to Greece and the Balkans.

From what I can tell, the Reich researchers specifically renounce the idea that the Anatolian parent, perhaps? of the Indo-European languages was born in central or western Anatolia; instead they seem to posit it was "born" in the far eastern portion of the Southern Arc in northern Iran.

The second staging ground for them appears to be the steppe, whereas for Renfrew, if memory serves, it was the Balkans.

They don't say how that language got onto the steppe, the "second staging" ground. My hunch, if that is correct, is that perhaps the route was north along the Caucasus Mountains or the Caspian or even perhaps along the Black Sea, and from there onto the steppe.

This latter part about the Reich Lab hypothesis could be wrong, however. It's just my speculation. We'll have to wait and see.

Thank you, it's definitely different.