David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

[firetown]

The ralation between Basque and the Caucasian languages has been mentioned in Encyclopedia Britannica too: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Basque-language
It is certainly possible that some people who lived in the northwest of Iran in the ancient times, related to these people.

Isn't there the y-DNA G2a connection to begin with?

And then there is this:

As Bengtson (2008) himself notes, an ergative ending -/s/, which may be compared to the ending that has instrumental function in Basque, occurs in some Sino-Tibetan languages, and the Yeniseian language Ket has an instrumental/comitative in -/s/, -/as/, -/aɕ/. This suffix may therefore be shared among a larger group, possibly Dené–Caucasian as a whole. On the other hand, comparison of noun morphology among Dené–Caucasian families other than Basque, Burushaski and Caucasian is usually not possible: little morphology can so far be reconstructed for Proto-Sino-Tibetan at all; "Yeniseian has case marking, but it seems to have little in common with the western DC families" except for the abovementioned suffix (Bengtson 2008:footnote 182, emphasis added); and Na-Dené languages usually express case relations as prefixes on the polysynthetic verb. It can therefore not be excluded that some or all of the noun morphology presented here was present in Proto-Dené–Caucasian and lost in Sino-Tibetan, Yeniseian and Na-Dené; in this case it cannot be considered evidence for the Macro-Caucasian hypothesis. That said, as mentioned above, Basque, Caucasian and Burushaski also share words that do not occur in other families.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dené–Caucasian_languages

 

[Philjames100]

No offense, but I read the abstract which you put the link here, and this site doesn't seem to me too serious, not at all. and odten HLA is strongly under natural selection, I think, not the best for ancient co-ancestry?

The author Arnaiz-Villena is notorious for writing imaginary nonsense.

 

[Anfänger]

Maybe I don't understand anything?]

It doesn't concern only the admixture you posted but a lot (too much for me) of other surveys about ancient pop's.
Age of ancient pop's choosen as references is important, the homogeneity of these ages too, and with time running, the tide of peopling can change more than a time of direction, IMO.
But this chart cannot say too much to us.
I loose my Latin and even my Celtic when I see charts showing more than 33% of Malta in Villabruna an 45% of Caucasus: sure it's populations-like sharing but I prefer the ANE naming... It can wring the understanding of someones, and the antiquity of those pop's and components doesn't help us to figure out the directions of flows in very later times. I was not tackling other reasonings, only the value of these admixture charts as useful tools, IMO. Every "pure" component can be broken down into more than other components, and according to works and criteria, the pure ones become the composed ones and the composed ones become the pure ones! But even taking this chart as reliable, it seems to me I see HG Caucasus of the 13000/10000 (# HG Caucasus of 23000) had already a strong 'Iran-neol' component, so why to decide this component came to Steppes thanks to later Iranian people and not with previous Caucasus people having it already? These critics don't mean I 'm for or against the southern hypothesis for IE... I'm still puzzled helas.
What a mess. Pop's can be dated, not their components. Plus sometime a whole pop is considered as a component!
BTW I never thought Iran N. had EHG. Late Iran???
I'm steel interested as a whole by what you post here, no problem.

I am not sure if I understand you correctly, but yes it is a little confusing that Villabrunna is modeled that way. Caucasus_25000BP is the same az Dzudzuana, so maybe it is possible that Villabrunna had a good chunk of it, both were related at least according to Lazaridis. Still, I agree every "pure" population can be broken down to different ancestral components. I just wanted to show that CHG is mostly Iran_N, not referring to the position of the PIE Urheimat or something else.

I recall the ancient Philistines DNA paper where they found a strong European genetic input among some Philistine samples. 200 years later, this European signal almost completely disappeared. The authors suggest that after arriving in the Levant, the people who had this European signature intermarried with a local population, which led to the genetic signature getting diluted in the Levantine population, to a point where it wasn't detectable anymore. According to the scholars, the Philistine influence was a drop of migration that had a very short-term genetic effect, but a long term cultural effect. A similar scenario like in the Philistines case could've been unfolding in Iran with the Steppe migration.

Absolutely agree on the dilution part. In the case of Iran there were at least to two migrations stemming from steppe-related sources. This one we are talking about in the moment was in the Bronze Age and probably brought something like Pre-Proto-Armenian and was maybe exclusively R1b-Z2103 and it didn't had a long-term impact on the autosomal DNA, it's cultural impact was also rather small since Armenians usually see Uratu (not IE) as their origin. The second migration was the Iranic migration coming in from Central Asia where the Yaz-culture was situated. The second migration was mainly R1a-Z93 with probably a minor amount of R1b-Z2103. The Iranic migration brought also a minor steppe ancestry component that lives on in modern western Iranics (Kurds,Lurs,Persians,..), ranging from 15% to 20% overall.

What I find strange is that modern Armenians have roughly 5% steppe ancestry. With the new evidence from Hasanlu, i wonder where they got that tiny amount from.

 

[Angela]

I'm really curious to know why Reich seems to favor the Anatolian instead of the NW Iran/Armenian hypothesis. Doesn't the Iranian hypothesis make more sense, given the fact that there is no Ancient Anatolian but Ancient Iranian genetic influence in India?

I don't know if he's going to wind up backing the Gamkrelidze/Ivanov Armenian hypothesis or not. Perhaps he sees the "homeland" there, but then a split off where everyone but those who remained behind in the homeland went immediately north onto the steppe, and the differentiation and different routes taken occurred there.

I'm sure you know it, but for those who don't remember:

"According to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, the Indo-European languages derive from a language originally spoken in the wide area of Armenian Highlands, the southern Caucasus, and northern Mesopotamia. The Anatolian languages, including Hittite, split off before 4000 BCE, and migrated into Anatolia at around 2000 BCE. Around 4000 BCE, the proto-Indo-European community split into Greek-Armenian-Indo-Iranians, Celto-Italo-Tocharians, and Balto-Slavo-Germanics. At around 3000–2500 BCE, Greek moved to the west, while the Indo-Aryans, the Celto-Italo-Tocharians and the Balto-Slavo-Germanics moved east, and then northwards along the eastern slope of the Caspian Sea. The Tocharians split from the Italo-Celtics before 2000 BCE and moved further east, while the Italo-Celtics and the Balto-Slavo-Germanics turned west again towards the northern slopes of the Black Sea. From there, they expanded further into Europe between around 2000 and 1000 BCE.<sup>[25][23]

The phonological peculiarities of the consonants proposed in the glottalic theory would be best preserved in Armenian and the Germanic languages. Proto-Greek would be practically equivalent to Mycenaean Greek from the 17th century BC and closely associate Greek migration to Greece with the Indo-Aryan migration to India at about the same time (the Indo-European expansion at the transition to the Late Bronze Age, including the possibility of Indo-European Kassites)."


I used to have rather heated debates with LeBrok about this because after reading as much of Gamkrelidze as I could get through, I thought his arguments didn't deserve to be so cavalierly dismissed. I think I said something to the effect that Anthony was just a clearer, easier to understand writer who didn't delve so deeply into the linguistics analysis.

I didn't care personally either way, but I have to admit I found Anthony far too glib, and his conclusions based on very scant evidence at times, so I was open to at least considering the G/I hypothesis, whereas everyone else seemed to think Anthony's work was like the 10 Commandments handed to Moses engraved in stone, and beyond criticism..</sup>

 

[Moja]

Isn't there the y-DNA G2a connection to begin with?

And then there is this:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dené–Caucasian_languages

Why G2a?! Hasanlu samples are R1b.

 

[kingjohn]

Why G2a?! Hasanlu samples are R1b.

can you ask your friend who works with david reich
if they found some E at all in those paper ?
i can't hang on till friday

 

[Just_a_Common_Guy]

I think it is a problem that EHG is directly connected to CHG, even if two admixtures happened at Pontic steppe.
EHG carried mtDNA C, Baikal burial type and Baikal type pottery. J was found in EHG. Hotu people carried EHG admixture and Baikal type pottery. That is why I always say that PIE seems to appear in the triangle zone of neolithic Baikal, Karelia and Hotu cave.
Ural south east culture had contacted Caspian sea south east from Mesolithic to eneolithic. With gene data, WSHG migrated to Caspian sea south east and IVC. As I posted several times, sky God concept on altai petroglyph spread to yamna, ancient greek, china bronze, Hindu and whole America continent. (Representing mongol empire is only one Adna Gengiskan has. Do we need more?)

yamna also:

Around 1,600bc, chariot army dominated whole Eurasia including ancient Europe. As I posted in below, altai and neolithic Baikal culture also spread together.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...ained-without-mentioning-Seima-Turbino/page6?

We don’t know how ancient people classified themselves and how they thought. Scholars say logically that yamna people migrated to altai for mining and animal husbandry. Moreover harsh weather made Scythian migrate. However, I learned from one greek member that ancient greek people left home when they became teens.
Scholars think that mound grave culture on pontic steppe originated from south Caucasus. However, new evidence was found 5 years ago. Altai and west Siberia is too huge, but sparsely populated, hence, we don’t know what are buried in there.

"]A burial mound accommodating the remains of nine individuals dated to the Stone Age has been unearthed in western Siberia. The discovery’s significance lies primarily in the fact that this kind of burial site was believed to have emerged later, in the Bronze Age, Russian media report.
The discovery was made by archaeologists and students from the Kemerovo State University. The head of the archaeology department at the university, Vladimir Bobrov, told Interfax that common opinion in archaeological circles is that these kinds of burial mound, called kurgans and associated mostly with the Scythians, appeared in the Bronze Age, “after the discovery of the alloy.” The mound in Vengerovsky region, however, has been dated to between the sixth or fifth millennium BCE, in the Neolithic. Earlier finds have suggested that Neolithic people buried their dead in individual graves or at most buried two people in the same grave, which was no more than a hole in the ground, Bobrov explained.
This mound, however, was completely different. For one thing, it resembles a house rather than a grave. For another, it contains the remains of no less than nine people: men, women, and children, plus a stone axe and a horn-tipped arrow. To make things even more fascinating, the researchers working at the site found that the people had not all been buried in the kurgan simultaneously. Some of the occupants were laid to rest there originally, but others were initially buried elsewhere and only later moved to the mound."

I don't see any direct genetic relationship between Yamnaya, EHG and WSHG on the one hand and Native Americans on the other hand.
The only genetic relationship that exists is indirect and refers to the ANE (Afontova Gora 3 and Mal'ta) which is common to these four peoples. That's probably where the "Sky God" comes from. When East Asian populations mixed with ANE populations giving rise to Native American ancestors, Yamnaya, EHG and WSHG did not yet exist.
But that's what I said in a previous comment: CHG and Iran_N had ANE admixture, which makes sense when we see Reich mention that the Yamanya had two West Asian genetic inputs.

 

[Moja]

are these the 16 samples with R1b or is this something else just to clarify?

Yes, it seems those 16 samples are very similar to each other.

Of course he says there are also new samples from Ganj Dareh and Hotu Cave too.

 

[real expert]

I don't know if he's going to wind up backing the Gamkrelidze/Ivanov Armenian hypothesis or not. Perhaps he sees the "homeland" there, but then a split off where everyone but those who remained behind in the homeland went immediately north onto the steppe, and the differentiation and different routes taken occurred there.

I'm sure you know it, but for those who don't remember:

"According to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, the Indo-European languages derive from a language originally spoken in the wide area of Armenian Highlands, the southern Caucasus, and northern Mesopotamia. The Anatolian languages, including Hittite, split off before 4000 BCE, and migrated into Anatolia at around 2000 BCE. Around 4000 BCE, the proto-Indo-European community split into Greek-Armenian-Indo-Iranians, Celto-Italo-Tocharians, and Balto-Slavo-Germanics. At around 3000–2500 BCE, Greek moved to the west, while the Indo-Aryans, the Celto-Italo-Tocharians and the Balto-Slavo-Germanics moved east, and then northwards along the eastern slope of the Caspian Sea. The Tocharians split from the Italo-Celtics before 2000 BCE and moved further east, while the Italo-Celtics and the Balto-Slavo-Germanics turned west again towards the northern slopes of the Black Sea. From there, they expanded further into Europe between around 2000 and 1000 BCE.<sup>[25][23]

The phonological peculiarities of the consonants proposed in the glottalic theory would be best preserved in Armenian and the Germanic languages. Proto-Greek would be practically equivalent to Mycenaean Greek from the 17th century BC and closely associate Greek migration to Greece with the Indo-Aryan migration to India at about the same time (the Indo-European expansion at the transition to the Late Bronze Age, including the possibility of Indo-European Kassites)."


I used to have rather heated debates with LeBrok about this because after reading as much of Gamkrelidze as I could get through, I thought his arguments didn't deserve to be so cavalierly dismissed. I think I said something to the effect that Anthony was just a clearer, easier to understand writer who didn't delve so deeply into the linguistics analysis.

I didn't care personally either way, but I have to admit I found Anthony far too glib, and his conclusions based on very scant evidence at times, so I was open to at least considering the G/I hypothesis, whereas everyone else seemed to think Anthony's work was like the 10 Commandments handed to Moses engraved in stone, and beyond criticism..</sup>

I think you are totally right about that.

 

[Moja]

He says in the Bronze/Iron Age, there were two different people in Iran, a group who lived in Tepe Hissar and other ancient sites in the east who are called Eastern Iranian Farmers and another group who lived in Hasanlu and Hajji Firuz who are called Western Iranian Farmers, about the eastern group, more than 70 percent of their ancestry came from Neolithic site of Ganj Dareh but about the western one it is just 41 percent.

 

[MOESAN]

The ralation between Basque and the Caucasian languages has been mentioned in Encyclopedia Britannica too: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Basque-language

It is certainly possible that some people who lived in the northwest of Iran in the ancient times, related to these people.

Some links between some Caucasus "autochtonous" languages with Veaconic has been evoked since long ago, even if in debate. OK.
My answer was that it is not on this site that I would try to find serious clues. That said, Basques (Euskaldunak?) are for the most Anatolian neo + WHG + low 'Steppe' but with a 'gedrosia-like' component which evoks to me an old component in 'Steppe' (rich in ANE?) not too close to the cousin 'Caucasus' (more recent more mixed?) component. It could prove a ancient element in 'steppe', not the more recent 'iranianlike' component more common in Eastern Mediterranea without 'steppe' and come surely about BA and IA;
I exclude nothing, but, if passed through South (not my bet) it passed very soon to western Mediterranea, at Neolithic. But we are not exactly on the topic here. On another side, a proto-Vasconic people in Iran increase again the non IE languages number in South Caucasus/Caspian and restrains the possible proto-IE space to find birth.

 

[venustas]

Yes, it seems those 16 samples are very similar to each other.



Of course he says there are also new samples from Ganj Dareh and Hotu Cave too.

Hello if this Hasanlu samples are so young than I must ask"
If they were from 970BC, why do they have no EHG unlike the present Iron Age samples in Hasanlu and Hajji Firuz"

 

[MOESAN]

More than a family tree has been proposed even recently for IE sub-families. I 've nothing against the south-Caucasus hypothesis of Gambelidze; just the route taken by these families is still to be precised; I find curious the concept of anciently well formed Germanic group concerning language. I see rather Germanic as a convergence language. But I avow that a S >> N route East the Caspian had my favours sometime ago. I'm more in the dark now.

 

[Hawk]

I'm really curious to know why Reich seems to favor the Anatolian instead of the NW Iran/Armenian hypothesis. Doesn't the Iranian hypothesis make more sense, given the fact that there is no Ancient Anatolian but Ancient Iranian genetic influence in India?

To me it looks like he favors the Dienekes Pontikos theory which is an area approximately surrounded by South Caucasus in the North, Anatolia in the West, Iran in the East, and Middle East in the South. In the location so called by Dienekes the Womb of Nations. Sandwiched between Proto-Kartvelians in the North and Proto-Semitics in the South.

Don't take the above encircled area too literally, i think if we shift somewhat more to North-East then we might get Reich's vision.

 

[real expert]

To me it looks like he favors the Dienekes Pontikos theory which is an area approximately surrounded by South Caucasus in the North, Anatolia in the West, Iran in the East, and Middle East in the South. In the location so called by Dienekes the Womb of Nations. Sandwiched between Proto-Kartvelians in the North and Proto-Semitics in the South.

Don't take the above encircled area too literally, i think if we shift somewhat more to North-East then we might get Reich's vision.

Yes, that sounds likely.

 

[johen]

The only genetic relationship that exists is indirect and refers to the ANE (Afontova Gora 3 and Mal'ta) which is common to these four peoples. That's probably where the "Sky God" comes from.

So I think PIE culture including PIE language seems to originate in ANE altai/baikal, not south caucasus. Especially sky God concept, sunhead and thunderbolt(snake) god, could originate in malta artifact of sun spiral deity and snake below:

In some indian's blog:

It is worth mentioning that the eminent scholar, Miles Poindexter, a former ambassador of the United States to Mexico, in his two-volume 1930s treatise “The Ayar-Incas” called the Maya civilization "unquestionably Hindu."

origin of hindu third eye culture(?)
okunevo culture:

mayan rain god:

As mentioned before, yamna z2103 has mound grave/supine flexed culture same as american indian culture. That is totally different from EHG culture. Catacomb shaft and side chamber culture is same as ancient mexican tomb. Flat grave circled by stone of afanasievo is typical east steppe culture. Thoese z2103 people cannot be directly connected each other even if they have same Hg and admixture. Moreover it has nothing to do with caucasus culture. So it is a problem that CHG FROM CAUCASUS is connected directly to EHG FROM EAST EUROPE.

 

[Ghani]

Hello if this Hasanlu samples are so young than I must ask"
If they were from 970BC, why do they have no EHG unlike the present Iron Age samples in Hasanlu and Hajji Firuz"

They’re Chalcolithic Hasanlu samples because the Iron Age Mede era samples were shown to have about 30% Turkmenistan-IA related and Turkmenistan-IA was shown to have about 60% Andronovo related https://eurasiandna.com/2659-2/

If you do the math 0.6x30%= 18% Andronovo Steppe related for Hasanlu-IA. Therefore must have EHG.I have full faith that Eurasian DNA’s numbers will be the most accurate just judging on how much more technical that site is than the other blogs

 

[Just_a_Common_Guy]

To me it looks like he favors the Dienekes Pontikos theory which is an area approximately surrounded by South Caucasus in the North, Anatolia in the West, Iran in the East, and Middle East in the South. In the location so called by Dienekes the Womb of Nations. Sandwiched between Proto-Kartvelians in the North and Proto-Semitics in the South.

Don't take the above encircled area too literally, i think if we shift somewhat more to North-East then we might get Reich's vision.

In addition to Reich's new genetic research, speaking of Proto-Semitic, I am now reminded of the similarities that exist between the word "seven" in most Indo-European languages and the corresponding word in Semitic languages, for example "seven" in English, "saba" in Arabic, " Shabbat" in Hebrew and "Sebati" in Amharic.
Not to mention of the question of the Hamito-Semitic Substratum in Insular Celtic.
Could this help to geographically locate the origin of archaic PIE?

 

[Just_a_Common_Guy]

So I think PIE culture including PIE language seems to originate in ANE altai/baikal, not south caucasus. Especially sky God concept, sunhead and thunderbolt(snake) god, could originate in malta artifact of sun spiral deity and snake below:

In some indian's blog:


origin of hindu third eye culture(?)
okunevo culture:

mayan rain god:

As mentioned before, yamna z2103 has mound grave/supine flexed culture same as american indian culture. That is totally different from EHG culture. Catacomb shaft and side chamber culture is same as ancient mexican tomb. Flat grave circled by stone of afanasievo is typical east steppe culture. Thoese z2103 people cannot be directly connected each other even if they have same Hg and admixture. Moreover it has nothing to do with caucasus culture. So it is a problem that CHG FROM CAUCASUS is connected directly to EHG FROM EAST EUROPE.

"So I think PIE culture including PIE language seems to originate in ANE altai/baikal" - Well, culture is not necessarily the same as language. An example of this is that the Finns have an unmistakably European culture and their language is not Indo-European.
I didn't say CHG/Iran_N were directly related to EHG of East Europe, I said they had ANE admixture. Don't forget that ANE is not the same as EHG (ANE made a strong genetic contribution to EHG, but they were not the same people).
ANE = Upper Paleolithic Siberians.
CHG/Iran_N = Dzudzuana + ANE.
In any case, ANE could have made an initial linguistic contribution (in terms of vocabulary) to what would become archaic PIE in the future.

Link "Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry":
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1

 

[kingjohn]

Why did i ask moja if he can check if this paper found E cases
Thats because modern kurds do carry branches of E and they live in the exact areas which
Are the focus of this southern Arc paper.
So i expect some :
E-m84> pf6751, e-m84>y5435 and even e-v13
To show up to some extent at least in the most recent period chronologicaly ( iron age/ historical paper)