David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

mount123 said:
ABO blood type frequencies are the result of natural selection due to various circumstances. Their origins are much much older, so no need to make some dubious affiliations with ancient ethnic groups and claim it has origins here or there.
Click to expand...

I agree that ABO system does not give us too much clues about our recent ancestry.
 
I'm seeing off topic posts again. I will give everyone until tomorrow morning to remove and repost their content in the appropriate threads and then I will delete all off-topic material posted since my warning.
 
firetown said:
No one is asking for too much...
Click to expand...
I'll speculate that the Southern Arc>steppe migration may end up being somewhat of a paradox. If I remember correctly, the genetic samples from Levant and Iran(Southern Arc) showed basically 0% Neaderthal. At the same time it was speculated that Levant was where the first contact and interbreeding occurred.

Silvana Condemi et al paper may shed some light on Southern Arc and steppe migrations, using rare alleles from ancient samples that predate migrations.
Blood groups of Neandertals and Denisova decrypted
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254175

Blood group systems were the first phenotypic markers used in anthropology to decipher the origin of populations, their migratory movements, and their admixture. The recent emergence of new technologies based on the decoding of nucleic acids from an individual’s entire genome has relegated them to their primary application, blood transfusion. Thus, despite the finer mapping of the modern human genome in relation to Neanderthal and Denisova populations, little is known about red cell blood groups in these archaic populations
Click to expand...
 
I absolutely hate being the enforcer here, but you give me no choice.

I gave everyone due warning. This thread is about the upcoming Reich paper. KEEP TO THE TOPIC.

There are threads dedicated to your favorite topics. Find them and post there. It's easy enough using the search engine.
 
A talk about the Proto-Indo-European homeland according to David Reich’s proposed 'Southern Arc': https://www.theapricity.com/forum/s...tion-of-David-Reich%92s-proposed-Southern-Arc

southern-arc.jpg
 
Philjames100 said:
So this thread died huh.
Click to expand...

It will get more interesting once the actual paper and samples got published. I don't see the Southern homeland theory for PIE working out at all, but I want to hear the arguments and see the data which might or might not support those sufficiently.
 
Riverman said:
It will get more interesting once the actual paper and samples got published. I don't see the Southern homeland theory for PIE working out at all, but I want to hear the arguments and see the data which might or might not support those sufficiently.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that all 3 papers (it is 3 right) could be published by as early as this coming Friday.
 
Riverman said:
I don't see the Southern homeland theory for PIE working out at all, but I want to hear the arguments and see the data which might or might not support those sufficiently.
Click to expand...

I am also very amazed that it is Reich who is advocating such things. It does not explain why pre-BA and pre-IA Iranians lack the Steppe component while the later ones have it.

Target: IRN_Seh_Gabi_C___BC_4740-3869
Distance: 3.3966% / 0.03396566
51.8 IRN_Wezmeh_N:WC1___BC_7264
18.2 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004___BC_7950
15.8 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728
7.4 Levant_Natufian_contam:I1072___BC_10750
6.8 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014___BC_7950

Target: IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA:I4243___BC_2362
Distance: 4.4642% / 0.04464168
28.8 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728
26.2 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004___BC_7950
25.4 UKR_Meso:I1763___BC_8131
15.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954___BC_8212
4.2 RUS_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3___BC_16086
0.4 Levant_Natufian_contam:I1072___BC_10750

Target: IRN_Hajji_Firuz_IA:I2327___BC_1100
Distance: 4.1528% / 0.04152812
42.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954___BC_8212
26.8 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004___BC_7950
15.4 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728
10.0 Levant_Natufian_contam:I1072___BC_10750
2.6 RUS_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3___BC_16086
1.8 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG:ZBC_IPB001___BC_13461
1.2 RUS_Veretye_Meso:pES001___BC_10761
0.2 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP:CP18___BC_7560

Target: IRN_Hasanlu_IA:F38___BC_883
Distance: 3.6677% / 0.03667738
34.0 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014___BC_7950
29.2 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N:AH4___BC_7968
16.4 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728
10.4 Levant_Natufian_contam:I1072___BC_10750
8.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954___BC_8212
1.2 RUS_Veretye_Meso:pES001___BC_10761
0.8 RUS_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3___BC_16086

Target: IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Historic:I1955___AD_1561
Distance: 3.8272% / 0.03827169
34.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954___BC_8212
30.0 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZHAG_BON004___BC_7950
16.0 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728
11.6 Levant_Natufian_contam:I1072___BC_10750
4.4 RUS_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3___BC_16086
3.0 RUS_Veretye_Meso:pES001___BC_10761
0.2 CHN_Amur_River_10600BP:NE-3___BC_8678
 
Yeah, nothing fits with a more Southern origin outside of the steppe. Because by the time the PIE formation was happening, everything was on the steppe. There was no big enough influence from the Transcaucasian areas. Only Maykop might count but its not big enough and didn't even affect all steppe groups. Anything else but Maykop makes even less sense. The CHG/Iranian influence was in the North Pontic region for hundreds and thousands of years when the PIE emerged and their paternal lineage being local HG derived ones, so is a large fraction of their cultural tradition in the earliest phase. I just don't get it, but probably he can pull of a magical hat trick...
 
Last edited:
I've been following this issue for weeks in silence and as a spectator.

I, too, prefer to wait for the official results from Reich and his staff before jumping into the fray, but I find it amusing to see how many anxieties arise regarding this blessed CHG/Iran and what and how many attempts are being made to 'domesticate' it and make it practically indigenous to the steppe context, to anticipate its dates, just to loosen its ties with everything south of the Caucasus.


Someone help me understand, at this point of two things:


1) either one has the courage to assert that the model proposed by Haak and others for the Yamnaya (EHG + CHG) is a gross nonsense to be trashed, because everything was born in the steppe: I suppose this would be the real dream, not even the most secret one, of many. It would remain to be seen why keep that term if that component has basically always been there: 'there is that CHG, but it's Caucasus for a manner of speaking, we call it that for fun';


2) or we take a breath and admit that the Yamnaya were also a "creole" population. Surely that CHG Dna wasn't dropped there by aliens, and even if one were to backdate it to the origins of the Earth, it is still 'Caucasus', with all the possible linguistic/cultural connections with that world further south on the steppes...

[But we wait confidently for Reich :) ]
 
Riverman said:
It will get more interesting once the actual paper and samples got published. I don't see the Southern homeland theory for PIE working out at all, but I want to hear the arguments and see the data which might or might not support those sufficiently.
Click to expand...

You should read other works, for example look at this book: A Short History of Humanity, page 186:

"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."

No language is closer to the original Indo-European language than Mazandarani language in the north of Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazanderani_language

Spoken in a territory sheltered by the high Alborz mountains, Mazanderani preserves many ancient Indo-European words no longer in common use in modern Iranian languages such as Persian.
Mazandarani is rich in synonyms, some such nouns also retaining the gender they possessed in Indo-European times: for instance the words miš, gal, gerz all have the meaning of mouse, although they are not all of the same gender. While many Indo-Iranian languages use a masculine noun taking such related forms as muš or muska or mušk, in Mazandarani the most commonly used name for the mouse is the feminine noun gal.
Click to expand...

Latin glis "dormouse" is from Proto-Indo-European *galh₁- "female mouse".
 
Stuvanè said:
I've been following this issue for weeks in silence and as a spectator.

I, too, prefer to wait for the official results from Reich and his staff before jumping into the fray, but I find it amusing to see how many anxieties arise regarding this blessed CHG/Iran and what and how many attempts are being made to 'domesticate' it and make it practically indigenous to the steppe context, to anticipate its dates, just to loosen its ties with everything south of the Caucasus.
Click to expand...

Who exactly is doing that? One only has to look at Samara_HG and then at Yamnaya_Samara to see that the CHG percentage of the latter is not "native" at all and is the result of migration from the south. The point is that if there really was this massive migration not from the Caucasus or North Caucasus, but just from south of it, the percentage of Iran_N would be much higher than 3%.

Target: RUS_Samara_HG___BC_5594
Distance: 3.5296% / 0.03529580
40.8 RUS_Veretye_Meso:pES001___BC_10761
19.4 RUS_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3___BC_16086
16.2 UKR_Meso:I1763___BC_8131
10.2 RUS_Sidelkino_HG:Sidelkino___BC_9371
8.2 NOR_Meso:Hum1___BC_7414
5.2 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara___BC_3124-2835
Distance: 5.9363% / 0.05936292
34.2 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728
28.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG:Sidelkino___BC_9371
25.0 UKR_Meso:I1763___BC_8131
5.8 RUS_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3___BC_16086
3.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954___BC_8212
3.4 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014___BC_7950
 
Er Monnezza said:
Who exactly is doing that? One only has to look at Samara_HG and then at Yamnaya_Samara to see that the CHG percentage of the latter is not "native" at all and is the result of migration from the south. The point is that if there really was this massive migration not from the Caucasus or North Caucasus, but just from south of it, the percentage of Iran_N would be much higher than 3%.

Target: RUS_Samara_HG___BC_5594
Distance: 3.5296% / 0.03529580
40.8 RUS_Veretye_Meso:pES001___BC_10761
19.4 RUS_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3___BC_16086
16.2 UKR_Meso:I1763___BC_8131
10.2 RUS_Sidelkino_HG:Sidelkino___BC_9371
8.2 NOR_Meso:Hum1___BC_7414
5.2 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara___BC_3124-2835
Distance: 5.9363% / 0.05936292
34.2 GEO_CHG:KK1___BC_7728
28.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG:Sidelkino___BC_9371
25.0 UKR_Meso:I1763___BC_8131
5.8 RUS_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3___BC_16086
3.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954___BC_8212
3.4 TUR_Boncuklu_N:ZMOJ_BON014___BC_7950
Click to expand...


@Er Monnezza,


obviously my intervention was deliberately rhetorical and quite provocative. It's clear that CHG with its more or less substantial appendix of Iran_N - if we have established that such components really exist and however archaic they may be - are not native to the steppe.
But take a look at all the posts in this thread (we've bothered with warrior values, the wheel, the language...) and you'll realise how poorly this concept is digested in certain circles and narratives. The actual share of Iran in relation to the CHG or how far south of the Caucasus there is of origin is a minutiae in such a debate: rest assured that, for some, one or the other will always provide sleepless nights (i.e. = We're outside the steppe anyway, so that's pain).


But - as I have already written - let's wait and see how Reich will piece together this strange and enigmatic puzzle. After that we can talk more about it and assess whether it is nonsense or whether there is valid material for new reasoning
 
What is your imagination about aboriginal people of Iran?

People of a small poor village in Kuhrang county in the south of Iran:

img_20220817_010304_kxto.jpg


img_20220427_211643_006_stjn.jpg


img_20220817_010953_315t.jpg
 
Stuvanè said:
@Er Monnezza,


obviously my intervention was deliberately rhetorical and quite provocative. It's clear that CHG with its more or less substantial appendix of Iran_N - if we have established that such components really exist and however archaic they may be - are not native to the steppe.
But take a look at all the posts in this thread (we've bothered with warrior values, the wheel, the language...) and you'll realise how poorly this concept is digested in certain circles and narratives. The actual share of Iran in relation to the CHG or how far south of the Caucasus there is of origin is a minutiae in such a debate: rest assured that, for some, one or the other will always provide sleepless nights (i.e. = We're outside the steppe anyway, so that's pain).


But - as I have already written - let's wait and see how Reich will piece together this strange and enigmatic puzzle. After that we can talk more about it and assess whether it is nonsense or whether there is valid material for new reasoning
Click to expand...

That’s a valid point, and I understand what you're saying. However, the discussion about the PIE homeland is usually polarizing,



In my observation, there is a tendency in the archaeogenetic community, to react with shaming tactics to shut down those who don't believe in the Anatolian or Iran's origin of PIE. So according to some, anyone that doesn't believe that the pesky- Indo-Europeans, a bunch of unskilled savages as some call them, were from Anatolia or Iran, is a racist or white supremacist: This is SJW or Twitter niveau. I'm not saying that there aren't people who for ideological reasons or because of bias reject the Anatolian hypothesis (they definitely do exist), but to put every "Kurganist" or Steppe proponent under general suspicion it's a poor reflection of the debate culture. Shame-based conservation should have no room in a rational, nuanced, and scientific-based discourse.


What bugs about the discourse on the IE homeland is the double standard. Apparently, it's perfectly fine when people question or accuse the proponents of the Kurgan or Steppe origin of PIE of bias, political motivation, or worse racism. In contrast, when you're skeptical or critical of the camp that promotes the Anatolian(or Iran) hypothesis you risk getting branded as having underlining racist or Eurocentric motives. So according to some, the scholars that argue for the Anatolian theory are the good and noble anti-racist guys with no bias, no motives that only go by the data and the evidence. In contrast, those who firmly believe that Indo-Europeans were Eastern European pastoralists are the bad guys that are on a nefarious shit to keep racism alive. Sorry but his double standard and tribalism don't fly with me. This is not a rational debate. A debate means voicing pros and cons without being treated like a heretic. Either you can question all camps regardless of whether they believe in Iran, Russia, or Anatolia as the original PIE home or none.


Nevertheless, I personally have no strong opinion on where the original Indo-Europeans came from. That's why I keep an open mind. Besides, in Germany, we are taught and educated in schools, universities, or by historical documentaries that Indo-Europeans or "Aryans" were actually people from Iran. The word "Aryan" has roots in the world that Iranians called themselves Aryia, meaning free, noble, and steady. The word Iran is derived from this very root, having been transformed from Aryan to Iran, meaning the land of the Aryans. So it's not surprising that the German scholar Krause believes that Iran is the Urheimat of PIE.

 
Moja said:
What is your imagination about aboriginal people of Iran?

People of a small poor village in Kuhrang county in the south of Iran:
Click to expand...


I personally don't have a bad impression of the Iranian people in spite of the image of Iran that has been painted by the media. Besides, I'm well aware of Iran's rich history, heritage and culture.
 
Stuvanè said:
I've been following this issue for weeks in silence and as a spectator.

I, too, prefer to wait for the official results from Reich and his staff before jumping into the fray, but I find it amusing to see how many anxieties arise regarding this blessed CHG/Iran and what and how many attempts are being made to 'domesticate' it and make it practically indigenous to the steppe context, to anticipate its dates, just to loosen its ties with everything south of the Caucasus.


Someone help me understand, at this point of two things:


1) either one has the courage to assert that the model proposed by Haak and others for the Yamnaya (EHG + CHG) is a gross nonsense to be trashed, because everything was born in the steppe: I suppose this would be the real dream, not even the most secret one, of many. It would remain to be seen why keep that term if that component has basically always been there: 'there is that CHG, but it's Caucasus for a manner of speaking, we call it that for fun';


2) or we take a breath and admit that the Yamnaya were also a "creole" population. Surely that CHG Dna wasn't dropped there by aliens, and even if one were to backdate it to the origins of the Earth, it is still 'Caucasus', with all the possible linguistic/cultural connections with that world further south on the steppes...

[But we wait confidently for Reich :) ]
Click to expand...

The point is the admixture with CHG was likely done in the Lower Don culture already and even that's too early for PIE. It would already make the North Pontic steppe the PIE homeland, because actual PIE emerged later. And we got the "problem" of local HG patrilineages, primarily R1+ as we all know. The early IE were agnatic and patrilinear people. If there would have been a recent more Southern origin, we would have to expect a lot of J, even more on the steppe than vice versa, because we know that the steppe people mixed heavily on the way South, but the bulk was not admixed with significant Southern admixture. So to imagine a watered down and diluted steppe group from the Balkans reaching Western Anatolia, e.g. from Cernavoda related formations from the Western steppe, the Corded decorated groups, is easy to imagine.
But which Southern influx should have shaped the core of the IE, Sredny Stog? There was one, I'd say, but a lot earlier in R. yar and the Lower Don cultures around the Sea of Azow. But that's just too early for PIE and the CHG lineages didn't even prevail...

Its purely on logical and factual grounds I don't see how this works out.

On the other hand I still don't know what happened with the Aquitanians/Basques, what language the Bell Beakers spoke and how the Basques ended up with so much R1b while speaking a non-IE language. In the Etruscan case, its different, because we have a potential path, and we have haplogroup G in the Rhaeto-Etruscans. Was another time though, in which elites could already play a bigger role in tribal groups and the mystery is not really fully solved yet either.
 
Moja said:
What is your imagination about aboriginal people of Iran?
People of a small poor village in Kuhrang county in the south of Iran:
img_20220817_010304_kxto.jpg

img_20220427_211643_006_stjn.jpg

img_20220817_010953_315t.jpg
Click to expand...

Well, now that you've shown us that there are very fair people in some parts of Iran (unless this is the usual theapricity misappropriation of pictures to support an agenda) I'm sure all the Kurganists will reverse themselves and not find it disgusting that the first speakers of Indo-European languages came from south of the Caucasus.

I personally have no strong opinion as to where the language was first spoken. I find it beyond bizarre that it's such an emotional issue for so many people.

I can quite patiently wait for the paper and the attendant samples. My only hope is that people will then stop talking about it for the next 100 years. I think it's gotten quite as much attention as it deserves already. Linguistics papers give me a head ache, and a desire to refresh my mind with a paper on one of the "hard" sciences. I can't even get exercised over the development of my own language, much less one so far in the ancient past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 205054 times.

Back
Top