David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

I also think Krause was wrong about medieval Central Italy. The people in the graph I have provided from medieval Lazio and Tuscany, do not look like they were significantly or at all admixed with ChL_IA-Anatolians or Levantines. They do not have any significant Anatolia_BA component that the model would pick up. Rather they look like they are part of the C6 cluster (Mediterranean) which is highly similar to the people adjacent to them in the south, and in Greece, but mixed with more WHG-admixed populations.
 
I am really interested by the new sumerian and mycenean samples, i can't wait to see them.
 
I highly doubt the Anatolian hypothesis holds any water, and I see this as a desperate attempt to account for something that oughtn't be a problem at all: there needn't be a 100% correlation between language and genetics, so indo-european languages could have ended up being spoken in Anatolia thanks to language recruitment and indeed the linguistic evidence also points to a heavy substratum effect on the anatolian languages, which strengthens the idea of a spread due to large number of not anatolian speakers adopting anatolian languages as a second language first.

As for the Myceneans, the samples from Iberia point to massive genetic turnover in south Europe too, with the difference being that the incoming IE speakers were already mixed with EEF so the final steppe admixture got further diluted; further the paper about Iberia showed that the two groups somehow lived roughly for some centuries side by side before merging into one population, and I believe similar dynamics were at work in Greece between 2000-1500 BC, though I believe that in the case of Greece it was almost a complete population replacement (that is proto-Greeks and helladic locals merged to form the bulk of "proto-Myceneans'" ancestry somewhere around north Greece)

I can't explain the emphasis on Natufians since we already have a paper about south east Turkey and it showed that the farmers were modelled with a modest Levant_N-like ancestry(10-20%), which was a very confusing choice imo since Levant_N was around 50% Natufian and 50% Anatolia_N or Iran_N, which made up the rest of the ancestry of the aforesaid farmers, so in the end the true natufian was around 5%-10%.

I had suspected that the bulk of the "east med" foreigners in Rome looked like the Anatolians from the Danubian limes paper, who were modelled as 50% Balkan_IA so Reich forgot to mention some really obvious gene flow from Europe to Anatolia during the IA (Phrygians, Greeks, Thracians and maybe Paeonians/Mysians, and finally Celts). Since in the end Anatolians ended up being not so dissimilar to SE Europeans genetically, I think there ought to be some caution in trying to disentangle the "east med" contribution from the "mediterranean" substratum (that is, thinking that the "mediterraneum" cluster in Antonio et al 2019 was primarily formed by Italics mixing with Anatolians instead of representing an already existing population)
 
Ralphie Boy said:
“The impermeability of Anatolia to exogenous migration contrasts with our finding that the Yamnaya had two distinct gene flows, both from West Asia, suggesting that the Indo-Anatolian language family originated in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc and that the steppe served only as a secondary staging area of Indo-European language dispersal.”

This argument does not seem to be good news for those who’ve invested so much emotional energy and time in the Steppe IE homeland theory.
Click to expand...


[FONT=&quot]Well,Yamnaya had some EEF admixture and was part CHG, thus the reference to West Asia. Sometimes the abstract doesn't tell the whole story. We have to wait for the raw data.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Nothing is clear cut here and Eastern Europe as the PIE homeland still holds water and can't be written off yet.[/FONT]
 
Will be a very interesting study!
 
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. We provide insights into the Mycenaean period of the Aegean by documenting variation in the proportion of steppe ancestry (including some individuals who lack it altogether), and finding no evidence for systematic differences in steppe ancestry among social strata, such as those of the elite buried at the Palace of Nestor in Pylos [Mycenanean Greece starts at 1750 BC, so probably at least 500 years at least from the major penetration of Indo-Europeans, so that’s 20 generations or so. That seems enough time for status-gene correlations to breakdown if there’s no endogamous caste-like structure].
Click to expand...

What about this?

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...ransect-(Mesolithic-to-Medieval)-from-Biomuse
 
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".
 
Moja said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
real expert said:
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.
Click to expand...
In the northwest of Iran (Caucasus and Eastern Anatolia), we know Caucasian and Hurro-Urartian languages existed, in the west of Iran (Iraq), there were Akkadian and Sumerian languages, in the south of Iran there was Elamite, in the east of Iran (Afghanistan and Pakistan), Dravidian and Burushaski languages existed but we know nothing except Indo-European languages in the north of Iran.
 
Pax Augusta said:
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.
Click to expand...

You certainly know about Hotu Cave in the north of Iran and Iranian-related ancestry in Europe, Anatolia, Iran, Central Asia and India, would you please tell me what the language of these people was?
 
Jovialis said:
The majority of Latin and Etruscan autosomal DNA was Anatolia_N, that was attributed by Central Italian neolithic farmers.


I think this lecture also confirms that Minoan-like ancestry plus a smaller steppe component was ubiquitous in Ancient Greece. Which I also agree with academics, may have been common in Southern Italy during this time.


The description seems careful to note it was "Imperial Rome" where Anatolia_ChL-IA ancestry (Eastern Mediterraean C5) was present. As we know, it seemed to fade out of existence in Rome after Late Antiquity.
Click to expand...

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
 
Agree with the statement that language and DNA (autosomes and haplo's) can have some historic links what doesn't mean this link could stay unchanged as time passes.
I have only questions:
Are we sure Mycenian Greek was the first form of the already diversified IE dialect which gave birth to "our" Greek?
Is it not amazing that PIE was born south the Caucasus in regions which saw already a lot of languages families cradles ? Too much would not be too much? And the apparent links with Finnic-Ugric?
Are we sure of the first dates of apparition of the IE Anatolian dialects and of their high antiquity? (question of speak vs writing, but in these regions writings appeared early)
Are not the first apparitions of 'steppic' DNA south the Caucasus sooner than these dialects in Anatolia?

At the opposite, IE shows also some slight convergence with Semitic, which could attract its supposed cradle closer to Near-East (?).
We could be surprised by the sophisticated IE grammar for dialects born in the Steppes among rather nomadic tribes; but when we see the high level of eloquent epic traditions among IE later, a job of appointed professionals in some cases at least...

I know I could pass for a dispairing cold hope killer (or a moron, to speak like Davidsky, whatever his skills and weaknesses) by my posts, but todate I'm still between two thoughts about PIE, so interpretable are the facts we have, according to our "faith".
 
Moja said:
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".
Click to expand...

really interesting, where is the quote from? Is there a more specific link?
 
Palermo Trapani said:
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.
Click to expand...

I like to completely separate admixture from Republican Roman samples from Imperial Roman samples.
 
torzio said:
I like to completely separate admixture from Republican Roman samples from Imperial Roman samples.
Click to expand...

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?
 
MOESAN said:
Is it not amazing that PIE was born south the Caucasus in regions which saw already a lot of languages families cradles ?
Click to expand...

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?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 190810 times.

Back
Top