Coming In a Few Days: 101 Ancient Genomes from Eurasia.

arvistro said:
About Indo-Uralic theory quoted from relevant wiki:
Alwin Kloekhorst, author of the Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, and student of Frederik Kortlandt, endorses his teacher's Indo-Uralic grouping (2008b). He argues that, when features differ between the Anatolian languages (including Hittite) and the other Indo-European languages, comparisons with Uralic can help to establish which group has the more archaic forms (2008b: 88) and that, conversely, the success of such comparisons helps to establish the Indo-Uralic thesis (2008b: 94). For example, in Anatolian the nominative singular of the second person pronoun comes from *ti(H), whereas in the non-Anatolian languages it comes from *tu(H); in Proto-Uralic it was *ti, which agrees with evidence from internal reconstruction that Anatolian has the more archaic form (2008b: 93).
Click to expand...

So, might this support that the Pre-Proto-Indo-European did develop in the south (and the "Anatolian" languages developed in situ) and then moved to the Steppe where the rest of the Indo-European languages developed?
 
Angela said:
So, might this support that the Pre-Proto-Indo-European did develop in the south (and the "Anatolian" languages developed in situ) and then moved to the Steppe where the rest of the Indo-European languages developed?
Click to expand...
It supports that IE developed from Indo-Uralic. It is ignorant to where this happened.
 
Angela said:
I think there are some problems with this theory of an early arrival of "Anatolian" languages from the west. If the Caucasus mountains were so little of an impediment to travel that the EHG went into and south of them to get women, then why didn't the "Anatolian" languages go directly south? Why did they make that long, tortuous route west and then south and then east instead? Also, I spent some time once combing through Anthony to see if there is any archaeology to back up his claim of a movement from the steppe down the western Black Sea Coast and then into western Anatolia, and he neither claims there is any, nor could I independently find any archaeologically attested such movement at that time. The steppe trail goes cold in the Balkans for that period.
Click to expand...


Good point, I also see a double standard here. On one hand you suppose a "Western route" of Anatolian-IE arrival into Anatolia because it would be so "hard" to cross the Caucasus Mountains (Why actually if Indo Europeans were mountainous people and even Stepe nomds on horseback such as Cimmerians and Scythians could cross it), but on the other hand you favor for the theory that "EHG" went all the way down through the Caucasus mountains for the females and see that as "ultimate explanation" for the ~50% "Armenian/Georgian like" ancestry.

I don't believe in both stories. I see the Hittites arriving through the Caucasus or possibly even directly from Iranian plateau rather than the Balkans. At least we have evidence of early Hittite settlements in Mesopotamia and Iran. But we don't have the same for the Balkans.

Also the bride theory is just ridiculous in my ears and I gave several reasons for why. We would need to assume that EHG COMPLETELY replaced their females with foreign brides. That is so disturbing and so unrealistic in my ears.
 
Angela said:
Yes, well, I don't think it's quite case closed. There's this little problem...the Yamnaya weren't all EHG. They were half "Armenian like" let's not forget. Of course, it's possible that the EHG men on the steppe preferred the women to their south for some reason and went all the way into the mountains and even further south to steal them and bring them back to the steppe. That or traded for them, although in the beginning they were so poor you wonder what they had to trade for them. Well, who knows, maybe they had an unexpected excess of girls in the Caucasus for some reason.

Of course, that isn't a totally satisfactory explanation even if it happened, because that NOT EHG percentage is half MODERN Armenian like, not Mesopotamian like, so somehow those women were already "mixed".
Click to expand...

The ancestry of the immigrant population to Armenia was likely to be predominantly Teal with minor Dark blue (EHG). Yamnaya was roughly half and half but also hundreds of miles to the north. The further south-east you go from Yamnaya, the more Teal it becomes.

I don't know why there is still a debate when the Early European farmers had no Teal in their ancestry. You could be fairly certain the "Teal" arrived in the Middle East with invasions during the late Neolithic/copper age. It's not entirely correct to call "Teal" Middle Eastern, but Central Asian is a closer approximation.
 
Aaron1981 said:
The ancestry of the immigrant population to Armenia was likely to be predominantly Teal with minor Dark blue (EHG). Yamnaya was roughly half and half but also hundreds of miles to the north. The further south-east you go from Yamnaya, the more Teal it becomes.

I don't know why there is still a debate when the Early European farmers had no Teal in their ancestry. You could be fairly certain the "Teal" arrived in the Middle East with invasions during the late Neolithic/copper age. It's not entirely correct to call "Teal" Middle Eastern, but Central Asian is a closer approximation.
Click to expand...

The LBK_EN ( 5000BC to 5600 BC ) where entirely orange. but paper states they initially came from south-caspian area through Anatolia and into germany.

These armenians seemed to arrived where they are AFTER this LBK_EN migration.
 
Aaron1981 said:
The ancestry of the immigrant population to Armenia was likely to be predominantly Teal with minor Dark blue (EHG). Yamnaya was roughly half and half but also hundreds of miles to the north. The further south-east you go from Yamnaya, the more Teal it becomes.

I don't know why there is still a debate when the Early European farmers had no Teal in their ancestry. You could be fairly certain the "Teal" arrived in the Middle East with invasions during the late Neolithic/copper age. It's not entirely correct to call "Teal" Middle Eastern, but Central Asian is a closer approximation.
Click to expand...

I'm not following you at all. Where did I ever say that the EEF had "teal" in their ancestry? Indeed, where did I discuss in this thread anything to the effect of when the "teal" component arrived in the Middle East?

You said that " 2+ populations are involved in the Bronze Age Armenians- 1 is very Mesopotamian, 1 is similar to Yamnaya/EHG. Case closed. The later was intrusive to the region and brought IE languages and some genetic input. Overall they are still predominantly "Near Eastern". They formed around the Bronze Age and haven't changed (much) since."

What I have been trying to point out is that the Yamnaya were not just EHG. They were an admixed people by the time they started migrating and spreading their languages. If Anthony and Ringe are correct, Armenian didn't emerge until 2800 BC in the Balkans, long after the Yamnaya people had admixed with "Armenian like" people, and probably after admixture in the Balkans as well, so it could not have been a case of a pure EHG people bringing Armenian to the Armenians, as it were. If you're talking about the "Anatolian" languages, they're much older, but again are held to have entered Anatolia after having passed through the Balkans. They would hardly have been pure EHG by that time. Unless you're saying that the speakers of Anatolian were pure EHG and moved south from the steppe over the Caucasus around 4500 BC before any Armenian like ancestry appeared on the steppe. Where is your evidence for that? The fact that Anatolian has the least correlation with Uralic would seem to mitigate against that. Plus, we don't know precisely when the "Armenian like" ancestry arrived.

Unless you meant to just say "Yamnaya like" people, without the EHG tag, were intrusive and brought Indo-European languages. That would make logical sense even if there are problems with it, as for example the fact that you would think any appreciable amount of gene flow from the Yamnaya would have left some WHG behind.

Plus, as I pointed out, none of that explains how the Yamnaya became half MODERN "Armenian like", which is what my post was actually about. It was most definitely not about the EEF, or even when the "teal" component arrived in the Near East.
 
Sile said:
The LBK_EN ( 5000BC to 5600 BC ) where entirely orange. but paper states they initially came from south-caspian area through Anatolia and into germany.

These armenians seemed to arrived where they are AFTER this LBK_EN migration.
Click to expand...

Could you please provide a page number and quotations where that is said in the paper?
 
I'm not sure I believe what I wrote myself about raiding and brides, just a thought looking back into myth and roots in the language that show similarities throughout the IE world. David W. Anthony did mention a West Asian culture from Anatolia living in Ukraine that interacted with steppes people that shows clear signs of intermarriage and Maykop culture from south settling in what is now Crimea but I'm not sure if that was more material wealth and elites. I dunno. I wish my time machine wasn't broken so we could find out.
 
Where to see if this paper has been published yet.

http://www.nature.com/nature/research/biological-sciences.html

Locations, cultures, and Time Periods where the samples probably are coming from(besides Armenia) according to Davidski.

"- Late Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age remains from Germany, Poland and/or Scandinavia
- Copper, Bronze and Iron Age remains from Bulgaria
- Bronze and/or Iron Age remains from Hungary
- Sintashta from Kazakhstan
- Maikop from Russia
- Yamnaya from Russia
- Afanasevo from Russia"

Bulgaria and Maikop are the most unknown here, because they(or close relatives) haven't been sampled yet.
 
Can someone remind me please how Yamna looked?
I mean not this phrase of 50% Modern Armenian + 50% EHG, but rather using admixtures such as EEF, ENF, ANE, WHG, EHG.
 
Many thanks. So, Yamna according Davitsky has ANE ~ 35%, ENF ~25%, but I could not find in text what is up with other 40%. WHG?
EHG was what 60/40 WHG/ANE?

If so, and if we believe all 40% whg came with ehg, then arithmetically Yamna is 67% (2/3) EHG + 33% (1/3) of folk with 1:3 ANE to ENF ratio.

Or alternatively Yamna was 3/4 of more ANE rich EHG + 1/4 pure farmer.
 
arvistro said:
Many thanks. So, Yamna according Davitsky has ANE ~ 35%, ENF ~25%, but I could not find in text what is up with other 40%. WHG?
EHG was what 60/40 WHG/ANE?

If so, and if we believe all 40% whg came with ehg, then arithmetically Yamna is 67% (2/3) EHG + 33% (1/3) of folk with 1:3 ANE to ENF ratio.

Or alternatively Yamna was 3/4 of more ANE rich EHG + 1/4 pure farmer.
Click to expand...

Yamnaya scored on average 36% WHG and 34% ANE. So, 55-60% EHG according to ANE K8, unless their Near Eastern side had some WHG.
 
Thanks!
I see one big unknown in ANE, when it arrived to the Near East. Apparently it was not there when ENF went to neolithize Europe.
So, let's wait for new data, that are coming in shortly.
 
arvistro said:
Many thanks. So, Yamna according Davitsky has ANE ~ 35%, ENF ~25%, but I could not find in text what is up with other 40%. WHG?
EHG was what 60/40 WHG/ANE?

If so, and if we believe all 40% whg came with ehg, then arithmetically Yamna is 67% (2/3) EHG + 33% (1/3) of folk with 1:3 ANE to ENF ratio.

Or alternatively Yamna was 3/4 of more ANE rich EHG + 1/4 pure farmer.
Click to expand...



Yamna = 35% ANE, 25% ENF, 5% SE (South Eurasian) and 35% WHG.

It was 50% EHG like and 50% Armenian/Georgian like (which includes a third of ANE).
 
Angela said:
Plus, as I pointed out, none of that explains how the Yamnaya became half MODERN "Armenian like", which is what my post was actually about. It was most definitely not about the EEF, or even when the "teal" component arrived in the Near East.
Click to expand...

Some people throw with terminologies around without actually having a clue about it.

The Teal admixture itself is predominanlty ENF with some ANE in it. And this ANE arrived very early from the Iranian Plateaeu_SouthCentral Asia. It was FAR before the Indo Europeans formed and therefore it doesn't really matter where a part of it "originally came from". Going by that logic, we shouldn't call EHG European since at some point in time it arrived there from the Near East. SOme people will do anything in their power to play down the role of Near Eastern genes in Europe. This double standards are just getting ridiculous.
 
Do you have a source that "this ANE arrived very early..." or is that your educated guess?
 
Fire Haired14 said:
Don't go back. It sucked back then. Trust me. Everyone was miserable, 2 feet tall, and smelled like @#$%.
Click to expand...

Well, the Bronze Age Indo-European was about 5'5 or so I think, (I'd top him by about an inch, not that I have anything against men shorter than I am, mind you, but it's not quite how I pictured them.) Still, I get your point. :grin:

The "smell" factor would be a definite "no go" for me in terms of time travel... until the Greeks at least. Well, let's make it the Romans. They had to smell better, what with going to the baths everyday, soap or no soap! :) That's part of why I have no desire to go back to the Middle Ages: a sad regression in terms of hygiene!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 36996 times.

Back
Top