These inscriptions date back to hundreds years before the formation of Andronovo culture.
Genetic study The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans
- Thread starter Archetype0ne
- Start date
-
- Tags
- genetics indo-europeans origin
If so, only one of hypothesis A or C is possible, isn't it?
Alexander Kozintsev believes this one:
APO276
Regular member
I have seen red ochre even in Paleolithic Cyclades. But they should consider it was used as body paint. There are neolithic figurines with red painted patterns. I assume scholars think they were decorative but in my opinion they may point to the use of body paint.
CrazyDonkey
Regular Member
- Messages
- 355
- Reaction score
- 77
- Points
- 28
- Location
- Seattle, Washington (Ballard)
- Ethnic group
- Irish/Scottish/British/Scandi/C Euro
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I2a-Y31616>FT435332
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U2e1d
I-L699 is included in the I-L703 Haplogroup.
I2a-M223 > P222 > CTS616 > CTS10057 > L702 > S22311 > L703/L699 > PF6902 > L704 > FT384999 (I12471 - Swat Valley, Katelai and I12149 - Swat Valley, Katelai)
I2a-M223 > P222 > CTS616 > CTS10057 > L702 > S22311 > L703/L699 > PF6902 > L704 > FT384999 (I12471 - Swat Valley, Katelai and I12149 - Swat Valley, Katelai)
APO276
Regular member
I wasn't paying attention when they published it. I'm posting a comment I made on the 'CLV cline' on YT:
Ridiculous
Some of the linguists, anthropologists and whatnot they cite have speculated that Maykop could have been NW Caucasian.
Even if Yamnaya and Sredny Stog were PIE a movement from the 'CLV cline' could have brought non-IE languages to Anatolia like unkown EHG related languages or NW Caucasian at least. The Mesopotamian component makes the possibility of Kalehoyuk etc speaking non-IE languages even higher.
The samples are within the HATTIAN speaking area.
From Wikipedia:
"According to Alexey Kassian, there are also possible lexical correspondences between Hattic and Yeniseian languages, as well as Burushaski language; for instance, "tongue" is alef in Hattic and alup in Kott, "moon" is kap in Hattic and qīp in Ket, "mountain" is ziš in Hattic and ćhiṣ in Burushaski (compare also with *čɨʔs – a Proto-Yeniseian word for "stone")."
And it is said the Hittites (Nesites) conquered Hattusa around 1650 BC.
>>>
I may add that I have said in the past that in Northern Anatolia there would have been people different from the famers.
For example the older inhabitants of Kumtepe were NOT (culturally at least) ANF/EEF like.
And Xenophon had described some populations like the Mossynoeci which had cultures that did not seem ANF derived.
Ridiculous
Some of the linguists, anthropologists and whatnot they cite have speculated that Maykop could have been NW Caucasian.
Even if Yamnaya and Sredny Stog were PIE a movement from the 'CLV cline' could have brought non-IE languages to Anatolia like unkown EHG related languages or NW Caucasian at least. The Mesopotamian component makes the possibility of Kalehoyuk etc speaking non-IE languages even higher.
The samples are within the HATTIAN speaking area.
From Wikipedia:
"According to Alexey Kassian, there are also possible lexical correspondences between Hattic and Yeniseian languages, as well as Burushaski language; for instance, "tongue" is alef in Hattic and alup in Kott, "moon" is kap in Hattic and qīp in Ket, "mountain" is ziš in Hattic and ćhiṣ in Burushaski (compare also with *čɨʔs – a Proto-Yeniseian word for "stone")."
And it is said the Hittites (Nesites) conquered Hattusa around 1650 BC.
>>>
I may add that I have said in the past that in Northern Anatolia there would have been people different from the famers.
For example the older inhabitants of Kumtepe were NOT (culturally at least) ANF/EEF like.
And Xenophon had described some populations like the Mossynoeci which had cultures that did not seem ANF derived.
HA! It’s good to see things never change. Still arguing about the same stuff although it seems that most of my team has long left this place. I haven’t had much time to fight the good fight these days but I’ll take a stab since this paper is epic and vindicates all of my years of ranting about Sredny Stog on here when at the time I only had Archeological evidence to work with.
Amazing that the archeologists were right all along in seeing Sredny Stog as a clear ancestor of Yamnaya based on material culture and skeletal structure alone. They were saying this almost 200 years ago and it was absolutely correct.
Ultimately I think it might be Dneiper Donets who drove a stake in the ground in that region and accelerated their advancement through contact with the sophisticated Balkan farming complexes. In-fact, throughout the formation of Yamnaya you see more cultural influence from the West and South West than from Caucasus.
This paper is clearly walking back on the “Southern Arc” paper if not completely disproving the theories made in the latter. Although I can see why many of you are confused since the statements made in the abstract don’t really convey this fact. I think Lazaridis’ denial was corrupting an unbiased interpretation of the data in much of the main text along with a graphic representation of the populations that at times clearly presupposes his theory. Because if you read the whole paper and the supplement, it’s very clear that the Southern Arc is black swan impossible. The only reason they tried to hang onto this was because they modeled Hittites as having no steppe. This one little exception to the rule catalyzed a sweeping schizophrenic fringe theory that I’m still recovering from to be honest. But now we see that Hittite does have steppe and it predates Yamnaya and is likely Sredny Stog AS I’VE SAID ALL ALONG
Amazing that the archeologists were right all along in seeing Sredny Stog as a clear ancestor of Yamnaya based on material culture and skeletal structure alone. They were saying this almost 200 years ago and it was absolutely correct.
Ultimately I think it might be Dneiper Donets who drove a stake in the ground in that region and accelerated their advancement through contact with the sophisticated Balkan farming complexes. In-fact, throughout the formation of Yamnaya you see more cultural influence from the West and South West than from Caucasus.
This paper is clearly walking back on the “Southern Arc” paper if not completely disproving the theories made in the latter. Although I can see why many of you are confused since the statements made in the abstract don’t really convey this fact. I think Lazaridis’ denial was corrupting an unbiased interpretation of the data in much of the main text along with a graphic representation of the populations that at times clearly presupposes his theory. Because if you read the whole paper and the supplement, it’s very clear that the Southern Arc is black swan impossible. The only reason they tried to hang onto this was because they modeled Hittites as having no steppe. This one little exception to the rule catalyzed a sweeping schizophrenic fringe theory that I’m still recovering from to be honest. But now we see that Hittite does have steppe and it predates Yamnaya and is likely Sredny Stog AS I’VE SAID ALL ALONG
OK I’m open to chat for a time. Here me out below and tell me why I’m wrong. I will listen.- North South gene flow through the Caucasus was always necessary. This has never been debated. The question was how it happened, and what does it mean, especially in the cast of gene flow into the steppe
- The paternal lines in Yamnaya come from the pre-yamnaya steppe. There are no foreign male lines, definitely no male lines from the Caucasus/Mesopotamia in early Yamnaya or core Yamnaya
- Maternal lines on the other hand show a significant redistribution of lineages as well as a ton of added lineages considering that
- The steppe prior to Yamnaya was over 80% U2, U4, and U5.
- Yamnaya Steppe is less than 50% U2, U4, and U5
- This doesn’t just happen without new female lines moving into the population
- You guys mock the “solen wives” theory, but women are the ONLY possible source of the Caucasus/Mesopotamian genes
- It's probably daughter trading which has been the norm since pre-history
- Core Yamnaya is approx. 70% Stredny Stog
- The archeology from Sredny Stog -> Yamnaya is shockingly continuous.
- Steppe admixture in Hittite is pre-yamnaya, likely Sredny Stog
- What about the R1b V-1636 in Arslanteperino! And….and the R1b V-1274 Kura Araxeserino!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- These clades originate on the Eneolithic steppe thousands of years before showing up in Turkey which is clearly evidence of paternal gene flow from North to South rather than the opposite
- But....but what about he J haplogrouperinos!!!!!!!!!!
- They’re either steppe lineages from way back or one-offs that can otherwise be explained
It's amazing that this topic continues to fascinate.
One thing that struck me. Now that we KNOW that even Corded Ware offshoots were still speaking Sanskrit, which is very close to the PIE, relatively speaking. It makes me think that these IE populations were likely speaking languages that were very close to PIE deep into the bronze age in Europe.
Look at Lithuanian being crazy conservative to the reconstructed PIE. I see this as a Corded Ware relic.
My point is that usually the models suggest that we have something like Italo-Celtic in Bell Beaker and something headed towards Proto-Slavic in Corded Ware and with all the data to date this seems highly unlikely.
Most of the significant differentiation likely happened through the Bronze Age Collapse, which aligns perfectly with the collapse of trade lines that would accelerate the changes.
One thing that struck me. Now that we KNOW that even Corded Ware offshoots were still speaking Sanskrit, which is very close to the PIE, relatively speaking. It makes me think that these IE populations were likely speaking languages that were very close to PIE deep into the bronze age in Europe.
Look at Lithuanian being crazy conservative to the reconstructed PIE. I see this as a Corded Ware relic.
My point is that usually the models suggest that we have something like Italo-Celtic in Bell Beaker and something headed towards Proto-Slavic in Corded Ware and with all the data to date this seems highly unlikely.
Most of the significant differentiation likely happened through the Bronze Age Collapse, which aligns perfectly with the collapse of trade lines that would accelerate the changes.
This is a great point. Siberian in the mix would make perfect sense. why not?
This is how I see it
Tautalus
Active member
- Messages
- 346
- Reaction score
- 645
- Points
- 93
- Ethnic group
- Portuguese
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I2-M223 / I-FTB15368
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H6a1b2
This paper has already been discussed in this thread, for those who haven't read it in full here is a lecture from David Reich recapping his main points.
Last edited:
Ricardo
Elite member
- Messages
- 51
- Reaction score
- 28
- Points
- 18
- Ethnic group
- Brazilian Portuguese Founder
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J1-FGC6035
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H1ao1
Who is "Ugra" and since when are anonymous, irrelevant twittering crackpots credible sources? What "other studies" is this individual referring to? Who says that David Reich is the ultimate reference in regards to PIE origins or any population's origins? Farming spread to the steppe aaaaall the way from Ganj Dareh, when Anatolia is just around the corner? Besides, were Ganj Dareh/Zagros even real farmers or just pastoralists? Not to mention that looking for PIE roots in West Asia doesn't make any sense from a linguistic point of view. The PIE language is a legacy of the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers of Eastern Europe. Farming, especially in the case of Sredny Stog, could have arrived from only one source, its immediate neighbours: the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture.
Let me entertain you with a quote from "Ugra":
"No cognates for a burial mound in Greek and Indo-Iranian. The word Kurgan is Turkic and was a cultural accumulation downstream of PIE."
Someone should remind this person that "kurgan" is just a word that Marija Gimbutas introduced into her theory. It's not like the PIEs called their grave mounds "kurgans."
From neolithic pottery to modern crackpottery.
Let me entertain you with a quote from "Ugra":
"No cognates for a burial mound in Greek and Indo-Iranian. The word Kurgan is Turkic and was a cultural accumulation downstream of PIE."
Someone should remind this person that "kurgan" is just a word that Marija Gimbutas introduced into her theory. It's not like the PIEs called their grave mounds "kurgans."
From neolithic pottery to modern crackpottery.
Who is "Iosif Lazaridis"?!
Wool and the Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis: A Linguistic and Archaeological Approach
Linguistic research on the Indo-European language family has been a cornerstone of historical and archaeological studies, allowing researchers to connect ancient languages with migration and cultural patterns. Within this expansive language family, the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis emerges as a critical
www.thearchaeologist.org
From Ganj Dareh in Iran to the North Mesopotamia and then the Lower Volga Steppes.
Of course you know, not an international team of over 80 language specialists who strongly believe Indo-European languages originated in the south of the Caucasus and the West Asia: https://www.mpg.de/20666229/0725-evan-origin-of-the-indo-european-languages-150495-x
bicicleur 2
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,407
- Reaction score
- 1,438
- Points
- 113
there were multiple migrations into the northern Caucasus and beyond, but they don't all match the first indo-europeans
MOESAN
Elite member
- Messages
- 6,038
- Reaction score
- 1,414
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Brittany
- Ethnic group
- more celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b - L21/S145*
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3c
concerning the term 'kurgan', it would be interesting to know if other words exist (synonyms) in Slavic languages for this kind of artificial mounds; I suppose an IE root *k-r-g or something close existed for this kind of things (maybe circular mounds with stones circles?) - in breton we have 'krug', 'krugell' = tumulus