David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

One needs to see what is Anatolian North ...........is it Barcin area ( where Europe meets Asia).......was it a mix of Thracian and Phygian ?
it would be the same difference as South Caucasus is to North Caucasus

I think what Jovialis was referring to, not that I am speaking for him, is Anatolian_N equals Neolithic Anatolian Early European Farmer type ancestry being predominate in the Central Italian Neolithic Farmers. It does not mean Anatolian North I suspect. Furthermore, Thracian and Phygian are "Late Bronze Age" civilizations/peoples. The Thracians, based on Modi et al 2019 "Ancient human mitochondrial genomes from Bronze Age Bulgaria: new insights into the genetic history of Thracians" document that the Thracians were genetically largely a 2-way admixture of Anatolian Early European Farmers and Steppe Herder source populations. From the paper

"In particular, within the ancient Eurasian genetic landscape, Thracians locate in an intermediate position between Early Neolithic farmers and Late Neolithic-Bronze Age steppe pastoralists, supporting the scenario that the Balkan region has been a link between Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean since the prehistoric time. "


I am unaware of any Genetic study in the literature regarding the Phygians. My ex ante priors would be that it is very, very, very, likely, they would also harbor significant Anatolian Neolithic Early European Farmer type ancestry as well, along with other source ancestries from Southern Caucuses/Iran given their geography and some Steppe DNA given they spoke an early Indo-European language. But again, regarding the Phygians, my guesses are only speculation based on their geography as I am unaware of any DNA studies regarding them.
 
People here mention the sumerians
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer
More than likely the samples are from north mesopotamia so i don't think they would
Have any connection to sumerians
We probably going to see : G,j,H,C, and maybe some type of R if those remains are farmers from south east anatolia + northern mesopotamia:unsure:

P.s
I forgot L1b y haplogroup and maybe some T
But not as the dominant haplogroups in this region
 
People here mention the sumerians
More than likely the samples are from north mesopotamia so i don't think they would
Have any connection to sumerians
We probably going to see : G,j,H,C, and maybe some type of R if those remains are farmers from south east anatolia + northern mesopotamia:unsure:
P.s
I forgot L1b y haplogroup and maybe some T
But not as the dominant haplogroups in this region

Kingjohn: So you think the samples are only from Northern Mesopotamia. Hopefully they have some from Southern Mesopotamia as well.
 
I hold David Reich in high esteem, but when geneticists want to completely replace historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and linguists it is never a good sign and conclusions can also be very inconclusive. We have seen this happen many times before.

Genetics and linguistics are not always coincident.
 
Kingjohn: So you think the samples are only from Northern Mesopotamia. Hopefully they have some from Southern Mesopotamia as well.
Yes i do
I hope i am wrong
Because to know the y haplogroups
Of sumerians would be amazing ( great civilization);)
 
From the book "A Short History of Humanity: A New History of Old Europe" (page 186), it was published last year.

Thanks. I screenshotted it here for future reference. His phylogeny places Albanian, Greek, and Armenian as one branch that broke up after Tocharian.

FVoXF33WQAUF-gR
 
Yes i do
I hope i am wrong
Because to know the y haplogroups
Of sumerians would be amazing ( great civilization);)

Yes, there have been excavations in Southern Iraq (Southern Mesopotamia) over the last century. Just earlier this year, they found a boat near Ur I think which suggest a waterway linking the ancient city once existed. There are ancient Temples that have been discovered and are being excavated, ports have been found, evidence of trading with South Asia (India) via the sea, etc. The ancient Sumerian Temples had skeletal remains of human in them. So I guess no successful DNA has been sequenced from those ancient remains found in the Royal urial sites in those Temples.
 
Where did you read "south the Caucasus"? It says "We present an integrative genetic history of the Southern Arc, an area divided geographically between West Asia and Europe, but which we define as spanning the culturally entangled regions of Anatolia and its neighbors, in both Europe (Aegean and the Balkans), and in West Asia (Cyprus, Armenia, the Levant, Iraq and Iran)." and then" the Indo-Anatolian language family originated in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc", it means north of Iran. What languages families existed there?!

I was speaking of the big region mentioned, which is settled south the Caucasus as a whole, when speaking of the opposition north (so Steppes)/south (a lot of regions associated traditionally with mankind progress) of this well known mountainous barrier. I was not speaking of the only Southern Caucasus. Sorry if I seemed speaking of the only regions just under these mountains.
 
I was speaking of the big region mentioned, which is settled south the Caucasus as a whole, when speaking of the opposition north (so Steppes)/south (a lot of regions associated traditionally with mankind progress) of this well known mountainous barrier. I was not speaking of the only Southern Caucasus. Sorry if I seemed speaking of the only regions just under these mountains.

You are actually right that there were different non-IE languages in the south of Caucasus (Armenia and northwest Iran) from the 3rd millennium BCE but we read in this abstract: "A striking signal of steppe migration into the Southern Arc is evident in Armenia and northwest Iran where admixture with Yamnaya patrilineal descendants occurred, coinciding with their 3rd millennium BCE displacement from the steppe itself." So Yamnaya couldn't be PIE homeland.
 
Angela, yes your memory is correct (it usually is). Yes, the Myceneans in the Laz et al 2014 paper were not high Steppe in admixture, which as you note some over at the Eurogenes blog (I have read some of the stuff there in the past) but other sites as well, based on comments I have seen here (Anthrogenica) and that I have read myself, attributed to the samples likely being from non-elites. Going by the new Reich research project and based on the abstract, I was admittedly drawn to the statement of the no significant difference in Steppe admixture between the elites and non-elites. However, you are correct 100% to be cautious. It could be these new Mycenean samples may have > Steppe admixture than the ones in the Lazaridis paper and still the differences between the Mycenean elites and non-elites are statistically not significant. So I sort of have a assumption built in that the Myceneans in this new Reich project have similar admixture as the ones in the Lazaradis et al 2014 paper, which of course might be an incorrect assumption.

So thanks again for suggesting caution on my part.

Yes, the ancient Mesopotamian samples is really going to be interesting. In fact, there has been some really interesting discussions here regarding them just recently, of which I think I chimed in with a few of my own thoughts.

It will really be quite extraordinary if populations high in Natufian ancestry turn out not only to have "invented" farming, but writing, irrigation, and the first large city-states and empires, as well as monotheistic religions.

Yet Nazism held that a population believed to largely derive from those Levantines was "inferior", i.e. untermenchen, to those of "Aryan" Northern European ancestry heavy with steppe ancestry.

The ironies of history never, ever, end.
 
I think what Jovialis was referring to, not that I am speaking for him, is Anatolian_N equals Neolithic Anatolian Early European Farmer type ancestry being predominate in the Central Italian Neolithic Farmers. It does not mean Anatolian North I suspect. Furthermore, Thracian and Phygian are "Late Bronze Age" civilizations/peoples. The Thracians, based on Modi et al 2019 "Ancient human mitochondrial genomes from Bronze Age Bulgaria: new insights into the genetic history of Thracians" document that the Thracians were genetically largely a 2-way admixture of Anatolian Early European Farmers and Steppe Herder source populations. From the paper

"In particular, within the ancient Eurasian genetic landscape, Thracians locate in an intermediate position between Early Neolithic farmers and Late Neolithic-Bronze Age steppe pastoralists, supporting the scenario that the Balkan region has been a link between Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean since the prehistoric time. "


I am unaware of any Genetic study in the literature regarding the Phygians. My ex ante priors would be that it is very, very, very, likely, they would also harbor significant Anatolian Neolithic Early European Farmer type ancestry as well, along with other source ancestries from Southern Caucuses/Iran given their geography and some Steppe DNA given they spoke an early Indo-European language. But again, regarding the Phygians, my guesses are only speculation based on their geography as I am unaware of any DNA studies regarding them.


ok on Anatolian_N equals Neolithic Anatolian Early European Farmer

Phygians where in 2 places......Modern Albania ( north ) and in middle Anatolia ( western area ) bordering with Lydians ( they actually went to war against the Lydians circa 500BC )
 

I don't find his way of commenting on the abstract very clear, do you? I also disagree with his phrasing of certain things.

I think he's confused about what the "it" means. I think it's pretty clear it's the "Southern Arc", and I believe perhaps it's saying that both the Levantine farmers and the Mesopotamian farmers had a significant amount of Natufian, and they spread that ancestry when they moved into Anatolia and beyond, and into Iran etc.

I also don't get why he "commented" about the Balkans/Armenia areas. This is just an abstract. I'm sure they're aware the admixture was spotty in the Balkans and Armenia was different, although it changed later.

What, also, is this "Yamnaya" and then later the Indo-Europeans" language? The Yamnaya WERE the Indo-Europeans. Calling people like Corded Ware the Indo-Europeans is a real stretch imo. More like Indo-Europeanized neighbors. Much better to refer to them as steppe admixed peoples or steppe people as academicians do. I think he spends too much time talking to Eurogenes. What, he ignores the things he used to say about Indians/Pakistanis etc.?

As to the lack of caste differences for steppe ancestry being the result of the passage of 500 years, first of all we have to look at the precise dates of the samples. Second of all, 500 years is really not that long for the maintenance of a caste system. As a Bengali, he should know that. Look how long it's been since steppe ancestry arrived and yet how rigid the caste differences remain. Or, look at Ireland: English settlement began in the 1500s. The English, Scottish aristocracy and even middle classes were still a separate and discrete ruling class until the middle of the 20th century. This is true in the Mediterranean countries as well. There's a reason the genealogy of the aristocracy and royalty was called the Almanac de Gotha. The populace in France, at least, felt they had to chop their heads off to get rid of them. Not, I hasten to add, how I would have handled it. I would have settled for exile for all of them, starting in Italy with our own "robber barons"; a useless, bunch of leeches imo. As you can see I can't shake the anarchist and socialist propaganda which permeated the culture of the Lunigiana. :)
 
Scholars of the Max Planck Institute also say: "we are quite certain that the Indo-European languages ultimately originated in the Fertile Crescent, as proponents of the Anatolian theory suppose, but not, as they suggest, in western and central Anatolia; rather, it emerged from northern Iran."

Almost all ancient toponyms in the north of Iran have Proto-Indo-European origins, for example the highest mountain in Gilan is Somamoos from Proto-Indo-European *súm̥mos "highest, summit".

So if I got this right... Planck and Reich now agree with Anthony? North Iran / Eastern Caucasus / South-West Caspian are synonymous, whether referred differently or not.
So if IE language started around where CHG was key, and now having a few CHG samples? How come the vast divergence with pre-proto-IE YDNA.
I thought for a minute about this. And given that from what I gather this might have like 700 new samples, its not out of the realm of possibility that they found CHG+EHG with no/minimal EEF in the Northern Fertile Crescent / South Caucasus / North East Iran. Cause otherwise, I can't think of any other scenario for Reich, Plank, Anthony, and who is who in this field to have landed on the very same conclusion / albeit different definition for the region (since they are not sharing homework obviously :D, are they? ). But who knows among these few hundred samples, what other sort of scenarios could be possible, for the claim that IE *originated* in that region. This throws the long running academic consensus on its head.

Having started my time on this forum/ anthrogenetics as a hobby backing the Anatolia hypothesis, later looking at the facts I found it hard to disagree that the data fit the Steppe hypothesis much better. But the boon of fitting ones theory to facts, as opposed to trying to fit the facts to ones theory, namely the boon of science, is that such surprises are always welcome, should the data dictate it.
 
With regards to:

In the Balkans, we reveal a patchwork of Bronze Age populations with diverse proportions of steppe ancestry in the aftermath of the ~3000 BCE Yamnaya migrations, paralleling the linguistic diversity of Paleo-Balkan speakers.

I am really holding my breath for some long rumored J2b from Eneolithic Moldova to be part of this study. If it turns out L283 and has connection to the later Maros/Croatia finds in regards to autosomal makeup/cultural affinity, I think it could fit this particular hypothesis.
 
Where did you read "south the Caucasus"? It says "We present an integrative genetic history of the Southern Arc, an area divided geographically between West Asia and Europe, but which we define as spanning the culturally entangled regions of Anatolia and its neighbors, in both Europe (Aegean and the Balkans), and in West Asia (Cyprus, Armenia, the Levant, Iraq and Iran)." and then" the Indo-Anatolian language family originated in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc", it means north of Iran. What languages families existed there?!

By the eastern part of the "Southern Arc", I think they mean precisely Iran".
 
It will really be quite extraordinary if populations high in Natufian ancestry turn out not only to have "invented" farming, but writing, irrigation, and the first large city-states and empires, as well as monotheistic religions.............

I was suspecting Mesopotamians/Sumerians to turn out to be very rich in Iran Neo or Zagros farmer ancestry. But it is possible that Northern Mesopotamians were more Natufian-rich than Southerners. Who knows? Besides, it was long believed that Natufians were the first or oldest farmers. Nevertheless, according to more recent research, it seems that the Natufians were not the world’s oldest farmers.However, they were likely the earliest domesticators of dogs and other animals.


Upon closer inspection however, it is clear that the Natufians were not fully developed agriculturalists.It is true they domesticated and cultivated species of grass and cereal, but this was due to environmental shifts. Evidence from their social structure and anatomy suggest they practiced subsistence patterns other than only farming.

http://www.academia.edu/9358532/Natufians_A_proto_agriculturalist_society_from_th



No clear evidence that the Natufians cultivated or domesticated cereals in the Southern Levant Natufians were hunter-gatherers,not farmers…….


https://www.chegg.com/flashcards/natufians-and-agricultural-origins-in-the-east-4c2ff5ad-101d-4b40-800b-f3dc2bb66b42/deck


Anyway, the Middle East was one of the earliest cultural powerhouses.
 
To me, it appears that Krause and Reich, when it comes to the PIE origin, are rather driven by research bias and pet theories than by hard data. But that's just my two cents.

Yes, well, "hard data" is hard to come by as support for ANY hypothesis, given that writing hadn't been invented yet, so it's all conjecture and supposition, imo. Hence, why I stay away from discussions about it.
 
Ok fair enough. Are there any Republican Roman Samples that you would like to separate from other Republican Roman Samples? So for example, if you wanted to separate only 1, perhaps it would be R475?, if it is 2, then R475 along with R850 perhaps?, and I would think if the number is 3, lets throw in say, hmmmmmmm, R437 maybe?

I think you've gotten the picture very, very clearly. :)
 
Yes, well, "hard data" is hard to come by as support for ANY hypothesis, given that writing hadn't been invented yet, so it's all conjecture and supposition, imo. Hence, why I stay away from discussions about it.

Especially, when
731 of which are newly reported and address major gaps in the archaeogenetic record.
I am sure with so many data points people could draw an elephant if they wanted.
But I still am very exited at what appears the largest ancient DNA study! "addressing major gaps in archeological record" alone will provide food for thought for the future of the field. The analysis part, while it could turn out really interesting, is only of second interest, at least for me.
 
I was suspecting Mesopotamians/Sumerians to turn out to be very rich in Iran Neo or Zagros farmer ancestry. But it is possible that Northern Mesopotamians were more Natufian-rich than Southerners. Who knows? Besides, it was long believed that Natufians were the first or oldest farmers. Nevertheless, according to more recent research, it seems that the Natufians were not the world’s oldest farmers.However, they were likely the earliest domesticators of dogs and other animals.




http://www.academia.edu/9358532/Natufians_A_proto_agriculturalist_society_from_th





https://www.chegg.com/flashcards/natufians-and-agricultural-origins-in-the-east-4c2ff5ad-101d-4b40-800b-f3dc2bb66b42/deck


Anyway, the Middle East was one of the earliest cultural powerhouses.

I wasn't thinking that Mesopotamians were "higher" in Natufian than Levant Neo, although I've learned never to say something is impossible. :)

So, they might be higher in it, or similar to Levant Neo, or movement from Levant Neo brought some Natufian with it to Mesopotamia. We've known for a while that in pre-history Iranian ancestry moved south and east and west, and Levant ancestry moved north, so that the three farming groups in West Asia, Anatolian farmers, Iranian farmers, and Levantine farmers were no longer disparate, genetically segregated groups. That may be part of what the Reich paper will discuss. Admixture everywhere, from the time of Neanderthals and before.

All the concrete answers await the samples, of course, and the paper itself.

As to the relationship of Natufians to farming, it had to start somewhere, and I don't think it was just the abundance of flora and fauna and the climate, the combination of which, according to Hawks, created a Garden of Eden of sorts.

I won't go into detail because I don't want to offend people of certain ethnicities or "races", but I see videos all the time of groups farming similar crops to those grown in Europe or Anatolia, and yet their cuisine is incredibly simple. It's as if they found one way to cook something and stopped there; no experimentation with new ways or combinations at all. I think the same is true with different venues as well, like technology. It's easy to copy; it's a much different thing to innovate. It requires a vision, an imagination of a new reality, which seems to come easier to some groups than to others.

There's an old book by James Michener called "The Source". I read it when I was in my 20s. My children were assigned it for summer reading between Junior and Senior Year of High School. It's still not that out of date despite all the archaeological studies since then. I highly recommend it.
 

This thread has been viewed 203056 times.

Back
Top