PDA

View Full Version : Were Myceneans lineages R1b or R1a



Pages : 1 [2]

ms85
07-05-2018, 02:32 PM
Glad to see you acknowledge the scientific fact that the one and only Mycenaean y-dna result we have thus far belonged to J2a-Z6057, the same subclade of J2a as that non-IE Old European Neolithic farmer from the Sopot/Proto-Lengyel culture in Hungary (5000-4910 BC).

See post 149 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4729-Were-Myceneans-lineages-R1b-or-R1a&p=429676&viewfull=1#post429676).What matters is that, that J2a1 samples was a TRUE Mycenaean from a Mycenaean Civilizaton and Mycenaean homeland! This is a REAL fact! He and his buddies spread their Y-DNA all over the Aegeans.


And I don't accept ifs or buts.

rms2
07-05-2018, 02:37 PM
. . .


And I don't accept ifs or buts.

Or pesky facts either, evidently.

ms85
07-05-2018, 02:43 PM
Or pesky facts either, evidently.I'm proto-R1a* and I do belong to a culture A, because I inherited my native culture and my native language from my ancestors. It doesn't even matter where R1a* is originally from or from which culture X it is of thousands of years ago. The fact is that I'm R1a* TODAY and I do belong to a culture A. So, my R1a* is already connected to my culture/language A. When I pass down my R1a* to my children they get my culture A and they get my R1a*.


Same with the Mycenaeans. It doesn't matter where J2a1 in the Mycenaeans is from. The fact is that they were J2a1 people and they spread their J2a1 Y-DNA to other people. This are the facts I'm talking about!

rms2
07-05-2018, 02:50 PM
Before this sudden switch you were claiming Indo-European was spread to mainland Greece from Anatolia and from south of the Caucasus to the steppe via Maikop.

You used that one Mycenaean y-dna result to bolster your argument.

Since it has been shown to have belonged to the same subclade, J2a-Z6057, as a European Neolithic farmer, that aspect of your argument has fallen apart.

ms85
07-05-2018, 03:06 PM
Before this sudden switch you were claiming Indo-European was spread to mainland Greece from Anatolia and from south of the Caucasus to the steppe via Maikop.

You used that one Mycenaean y-dna result to bolster your argument.

Since it has been shown to have belonged to the same subclade of J2a-Z6057 as a European Neolithic farmer, that aspect of your argument has fallen apart.Who is saying that J2a-Z6057 was only spread into Europe by the Neolithic Anatolian Farmers? There were many migration waves from NorthWest Asia into Europe. J2a arrived into Europe with MANY multiple waves!

It is one of the OLDEST downstreams. It can be from everywhere. They found it in Hungary, they found it in Greece and I'm sure it will be in NorthWest Asia, since J2a is originally from that place. J2a1 in Mycenaean can be from Greece or it could be arrived much later! Europe doesn't have any monopoly on J2a, lol. There is a lot J2a1 in NorthWest Asia too. J2a was just a very widespread and successful Y-DNA, like it is now. It was present from Central Asia up to Europe in the ancient world, RESPECT!

Furhtermore Mycenaean were for a huge part, more than 90%, NorthWest Asian people (Anatolian_N + CHG/Iranian_N) and only at MAX 6.5% EHG. Their auDNA is West Asian. That's why it is evidence that they arrived from NorthWest Asia. auDNA is more important than Y-DNA. I do strength my arguments mostly with auDNA


Btw, can you show me in which academic paper it is stated that J2a-Z6057 has been found in the Sopot/Proto-Lengyel culture in Hungary (5000-4910 BC). It seems I missed this part of the puzzle.

jdean
07-05-2018, 03:53 PM
Lazaridis's new paper is out, which is a run down

The evolutionary history of human populations in Europe (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959437X18300583)

Fairly predictably he mention PIE as possibly being from Bronze age Anatolia but also says this isn't proven by aDNA.

However I thought the bit on Greece interesting


Southeastern Europe received steppe-related ancestry before any other population in Europe outside the steppe itself, with sporadic appearance of individuals with steppe ancestry in Bulgaria as early as ~6.7–6.5 kya and a general low-level presence of ~30% during the Bronze Age, ~5.4–3.1 kya. This ancestry was also present in the Aegean during the Mycenaean period ~3.5 kya at ~15%, but was absent from the otherwise genetically similar Minoan culture of Crete who represents the most recent sampled European population without any such ancestry. Both Minoans and Mycenaeans, and to a much lesser extent Neolithic samples from the Peloponnese and Bulgaria also had ancestry related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers, suggesting that this ancestry did not come to Europe only via migrations from the steppe, but also independently, perhaps reflecting ancestry from different Anatolian source populations

Having Anatolian CHG in none IE Minoans would make that a difficult source for PIE in the Steppes

ms85
07-05-2018, 04:05 PM
Lazaridis's new paper is out, which is a run down

The evolutionary history of human populations in Europe (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959437X18300583)

Fairly predictably he mention PIE as possibly being from Bronze age Anatolia but also says this isn't proven by aDNA.

However I thought the bit on Greece interesting



Having Anatolian CHG in none IE Minoans would make that a difficult source for PIE in the Steppes
Here is his model:

Iran/Caucasus being a MAJOR source of ancestry for Steppe Eneolithic AND Bronze Age
Iran/Caucasus being a MINOR source of ancestry for Late Neolithic AND Bronze Age Europeans


https://s15.postimg.cc/uhqn3twjv/Naamloos.jpg

https://s15.postimg.cc/9xlt5mbqj/Naamloos.jpg

jdean
07-05-2018, 04:15 PM
Iran/Caucasus being a MINOR source of ancestry for Late Neolithic AND Bronze Age Europeans

Four thousand yrs older than anybody dates PIE : )

ms85
07-05-2018, 04:17 PM
European Neolithic population was for a HUGE part from Anatolia (Anatolian Neolithic Farmers).
Steppe Eneolithic & Bronze Age population was for a HUGE part from Iran/Caucasus (CHG/Iranian Neolithic Farmers).


Modern Europeans are a mixture of European Neolithic (WHG & Anatolia_N) + Steppe Eneolithic & Bronze Age (EHG & CHG/Iran_N) + minor more recent Iran/Caucasus (CHG/Iran_N). That makes them for a huge part West Asian, Anatolia_N + CHG/Iran_N. I think more than 50% !!!

ms85
07-05-2018, 04:18 PM
Four thousand yrs older than anybody dates PIE : )It also says BRONZE Age. During the early diffusion of PIEan. Early PIEan were even Copper Age people.

Patarames
07-05-2018, 04:48 PM
ms85 is certainly right to call that video amateurish. I would call it unprofessional.
The woman talking there got a point, yes, the model is not perfect yet. But making jokes about statistical/Mathematical methods like Monte Carlo in front of the layman audience is just unprofessional.
The simulation model was far from perfect and still needed much refinement but at least at one point she admits that the model already benchmarked itself correctly by finding the macro tree.

She may not be incompetent but that presentation was sadly very unprofessional and certainly not up to academic standards.
Btw. Yes the Anatolian neolithic spread of IE is dead and MPI is adjusting and improving their model. Today after the years it has switched to supporting post-neolithic south Caucasus/Iran.


What lack?

Yamnaya and Kurgan Bell Beaker thus far are chock full of R1b-L23, and both Vucedol and Proto-Nagyrev have R1b-L23, as well.


My methodic requires a population that has been unambiguously and directly been proven to speak a IE language and Hittite and Mycean Greek are such cases. The Pontic steppe is not such a case, no written records. I personally think that Maykop and later Yamnaya were IE speaking but for now it just remains that "thinking".

We expect to find R1b in Hittites and Mycenaean and its lack up until now is what I called surprising.



Well, J2 has shown up among Old European Neolithic farmers. It apparently was nowhere near as big among them as G2a, but there it was, predating the arrival of Indo-European in Europe west of the Dniester.

Nive1526 already said it. It's hardly surprising if a insignificant amount of J2a expanded along with Neolithic G2 since they should have been direct neighbors in the region since very old times.
Lets not spend time on negligible details



To what are you referring? The very dubious so-called "Hittites"?

We cannot be sure those weren't Hatti or "Hittites" from among the Hattic substrate.

It is pretty certain that the Hittite culture, which took its name from the non-Indo-European Hatti, was the product of a small Indo-European (Nes) elite superimposing itself on a much vaster non-IE native population.

I try to be professional by taking the words from the paper, they are more professional than me in that field and certainly can judge whether calling the sample Hittite is up to the standard of such a peer reviewed paper.



The oldest IE population with ancient y-dna test results thus far is Yamnaya. It's possible that Late Khvalynsk and Late Sredni Stog were already IE speaking, as well.

You do special pleading and call those Hittite labeled samples non-Hittite while taking IE of Yamnaya as a given even though it is not directly attested?
(I also think Yamnaya was IE speaking)



It seems to me some J2 clades became Indo-Europeanized fairly early and took part in the spread of IE speech and culture, but right now there is no evidence they were part of the original PIE population.

We know the most IE-like items and traits were given by Maykop to Yamnaya. Honestly I was expecting a mixture of R1b and J2a before the results. The clear Y- and mt-DNA border between those two and equal amount of CHG/Iran admix was quite unexpected. I see two scenarios: CHG/Iran heavy R1b went earlier to the steppe and were just influenced by J2a Maykop people with both speaking some form if PIE. Or R1b had CHG/Iran admixture due to some kind of founder effect and was culturally IE-zied by J2a Maykop

Painting older yet more advanced Maykop non-IE and Yamnaya IE will never work. The constellation is rather ideal for a elite dominance model considering the lack of mixing.



Maybe that will change, but if IE spread into the steppe from south of the Caucasus, we should be seeing the y-dna haplogroups of Wang's Caucasian cluster, G, J, and L, on the steppe in Yamnaya, but we don't.

If we ever find the non-EHG, CHG/Iran-heavy R1b south of the Caucasus it could well have been a leading IE tribe that exclusively expanded to the steppe, mixed with local females and IE-zied J2a & L and later G while south the Caucasus.
For the moment I stick with R1b having got CHG/Iran admixture in a mysterious way and IE-zied via J2a Maykop, just for the sake to retain a conservative approach and remain professional. Only hard data talks.



1. Since Indo-European is a language family, its origin is actually primarily a linguistic question. That has to be kept foremost in the mind.

I prefer genetics and after it archaeology. General relationships in linguistic is good but many details require to much interpretation to be unambiguous.

[/quote]2. So, the first requirement is to recognize that the field of historical linguistics places the Indo-European Urheimat on the Pontic-Caspian steppe beginning round about 4500 BC but definitely in place by 3300 BC.

3. Once that is established and understood it eliminates all other geographic and temporal contenders.
[/quote]

Thats up for debate and aDNA will answer that question. I recognize that it is very likely that a late PIE dialect was spoken by Yamnaya but not that its the urheimat.



4. Arguments from genetics in this case are subservient and secondary to the primary linguistic argument, because we are talking about a language family.

Linguistics gave us a hint that a culture and a people spread a language that we call PIE. For all the rest genetics and archaeology is what is important to identify the urheimat. We start with the oldest attested IE speaking people, Hittites and try to dig deeper from there. Loanwords between Uralic and IE is quite low on our datapoint list.


5. Once we know where the IE Urheimat was and when (and we do know both of those things), then and only then can genetics be brought to bear on the ancient people living there at that time.

I prefer to identify the genetics of early attested IE people such as Mycenaean, Hittite and Mitanni and then see where they come from and what they have in common. This is a direct approach made possible recently that avoids linguistic constructs by specific scholars.


Regions south of the Caucasus are not seriously in contention. They do not share the border with Proto-Uralic that early Indo-European must have had, and they require Indo-European to be much older than it possibly could be. We also do not see Caucasus y-dna spreading into the steppe the way it should have had early Indo-European spread from there. In addition, the regions south of the Caucasus were too loaded with non-IE populations to be the Urheimat of IE.

At this point I identify EHG with proto-Uralic and hence they were neighbors of proto-IE people living north of them in the steppe.

As for Y-DNA --> elite dominance. Look at steppe cultures at the exact same place later in history, the Scythians, the so called royal tribe had basically a caste system in place in which they were at the top ruling over "all" other tribes, even viewing them as slaves, not mixing with them... Yes IE cultures created such strange, complex and extreme cultural models that easily cause "special pleading" cases.

ms85
07-05-2018, 05:04 PM
To be honest it is not about style, but substance. And her substance is very amateurish. Her arguments has been disproved big time. She talks almost all the time about the word 'wheel', lol. She tries to prove and build a whole theory on 1 word. What she forgets to mention is that it can be incorporated into any culture as a 'loan' word. Like the 'loan' word computer, or automobile.

This whole thing is staged and fake. They simply gave her a few buckw for something to put in her bottle. Look how she drink something out of it like a 1 year old baby.


No academic is ever buying this stupidity.

Nive1526
07-05-2018, 10:04 PM
Who gave the whole J2 haplogroup the title "Neolithic"? Read the rest of my posts in this thread, not just the one in which I responded to Patarames.

But the fact remains that J2 was found in a Neolithic farmer culture in Hungary. Subsequently, the one, single Mycenaean y-dna result we have thus far belonged to the same subclade of J2a (J2a-Z6057) as that earlier Neolithic farmer. See post 149 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4729-Were-Myceneans-lineages-R1b-or-R1a&p=429676&viewfull=1#post429676).

Thanks for the thorough explanation how you see it, I thought you were referring to the whole of European J2 in this post.

Well, J2 has shown up among Old European Neolithic farmers. It apparently was nowhere near as big among them as G2a, but there it was, predating the arrival of Indo-European in Europe west of the Dniester.

As I said before, J2a-Z6057 is very old. The ENF and the Mycenaean sample could be related in direct male lineage or share a common ancestor in the late paleolithic. It is a solid hint for the Mycenaeans origin from Neolithic Europe, but not a proof. Z6057 is found from Sri Lanka to Great Britain and Morocco in areas that had any kind of Neolithic input, so it is quite open who spread its subclades.
A good candidate for an indoeuropeanized subclade is Y13128, which spread around western Europe around 3000 B.C. and afterwards. I don't know if any of those samples were tested on this position, but to tell whether the Mycenaean is connected to the farmer or derives its Y-chromosome from later West Asian peoples is ultimatively determined by markers that lie within the Neolithic and Bronze Age period.

jdean
07-05-2018, 10:19 PM
To be honest it is not about style, but substance. And her substance is very amateurish. Her arguments has been disproved big time. She talks almost all the time about the word 'wheel', lol. She tries to prove and build a whole theory on 1 word. What she forgets to mention is that it can be incorporated into any culture as a 'loan' word. Like the 'loan' word computer, or automobile.

This whole thing is staged and fake. They simply gave her a few buckw for something to put in her bottle. Look how she drink something out of it like a 1 year old baby.


No academic is ever buying this stupidity.

Frankly you're the one who doesn't know what you’re talking about and with respects to your two examples in English motorised vehicles are referred to as cars which came from cart which came from an Irish Gallic word for chariot.


ME. carre, a. ONF. carre:—late L. carra, a parallel form to carrus, carrum (whence It., Sp. carro, Pr. car, char, ONF. car, F. char, ME. char), a kind of 2-wheeled wagon for transporting burdens. The L. was a. OCelt. *karr-os, *karr-om, whence Olr. (also mod.Ir. and Gael.) carr masc. ‘wagon, chariot,’ OWelsh carr, Welsh càr, Manx carr, Bret. karr.

ms85
07-05-2018, 10:33 PM
Frankly you're the one who doesn't know what you’re talking about and with respects to your two examples in English motorised vehicles are referred to as cars which came from cart which came from an Irish Gallic word for chariot.What? Today the word 'computer' is used all over the world, from Africa to Japan.

'Computer' has LATIN roots comes from the Latin "putare" which means both to think and to prune.


So, does it mean that Japanese and Afrcian languages also have LATIN roots, because all those languages have a common word for computer, lol?


Same can be said about the word 'wheel', 'automobile' and many other 'loan' words.

ms85
07-05-2018, 10:47 PM
What? Today the word 'computer' is used all over the world, from Africa to Japan.

'Computer' has LATIN roots comes from the Latin "putare" which means both to think and to prune.


So, does it mean that Japanese and Afrcian languages also have LATIN roots, because all those languages have a common word for computer, lol?


Same can be said about the word 'wheel', 'automobile' and many other 'loan' words.Computer is a new invention, but the word has ancient LATIN roots. Does it mean that computer is an ancient invention? Of course not. The word for computer is just borrowed from a more ancient LATIN 'word'. There was no computer during the Latin Era at all.

jdean
07-05-2018, 10:47 PM
What? Today the word 'computer' is used all over the world, from Africa to Japan.

'Computer' has LATIN roots comes from the Latin "putare" which means both to think and to prune.


So, does it mean that Japanese and Afrcian languages also have LATIN roots, because all those languages have a common word for computer, lol?


Same can be said about the word 'wheel', 'automobile' and many other 'loan' words.

Really can't remember bringing up computers which are a very modern invention anyway with no real ancient prelude, perhaps you could remind me ?

I did bring up cars though but the conversation is pretty much irrelevant since I seriously doubt you know any more about loan words than me, ie not much : )

Titane
07-05-2018, 10:50 PM
Frankly you're the one who doesn't know what you’re talking about and with respects to your two examples in English motorised vehicles are referred to as cars which came from cart which came from an Irish Gallic word for chariot.

Ah mais non! It is from the Latin...
ÉTYMOLOGIE
Picard, car, chariot ; wallon, châr ; namurois, chaur ; provenç. car, char, carre ; espagn. et ital. carro ; du latin carrus
Références: https://www.littre.org/definition/char

Whereas automobile is a hybrid word from Greek and Latin - more often used in - Canada?

Le terme « automobile » est à l'origine un adjectif issu de la concaténation d'un préfixe grec, αὐτός (soi-même), et d'un suffixe latin, mobilis (mobile). ... Le terme très majoritairement utilisé en France pour désigner une automobile est « voiture », nettement plus rarement « auto ».
Because according to this the French prefer voiture.

jdean
07-05-2018, 10:53 PM
It also says BRONZE Age. During the early diffusion of PIEan. Early PIEan were even Copper Age people.

Perhapes you would like to review the chart you posted ? It's a progression through time that starts 1,000,000 yrs ago and end is the Bronze age (the bit you managed to spot, well done : ) but in between there are things called branches.

This is what he has to say about the Steppes


Steppe populations during the Eneolithic to Bronze Age were a mix of at least two elements, the EHG who lived in eastern Europe 8 kya and a southern population element related to present-day Armenians, and ancient Caucasus hunter-gatherers, and farmers from Iran. Steppe migrants made a massive impact in Central and Northern Europe post-5 kya. Some of them expanded eastward, founding the Afanasievo culture and also eventually reached India. These expansions are probable vectors for the spread of Late Proto-Indo-European languages from eastern Europe into both mainland Europe and parts of Asia, but the lack of steppe ancestry in the few known samples from Bronze Age Anatolia raises the possibility that the steppe was not the ultimate origin of Proto-Indo-European (PIE), the common ancestral language of Anatolian speakers, Tocharians, and Late Proto-Indo Europeans. In the next few years this lingering mystery will be solved: either Anatolian speakers will be shown to possess steppe-related ancestry absent in earlier Anatolians (largely proving the steppe PIE hypothesis), or they will not (largely falsifying it, and pointing to a Near Eastern PIE homeland).

surbakhunWeesste
07-05-2018, 10:55 PM
Computer is a new invention, but the word has ancient LATIN roots. Does it mean that computer is an ancient invention? Of course not. The word for computer is just borrowed from a more ancient LATIN 'word'. There was no computer during the Latin Era at all.

Computer. Com and pute as in putare: bring together and settle.
The computer should have bene called 'whoopii de poop' or something cz new invention.

ms85
07-05-2018, 10:55 PM
Really can't remember bringing up computers which are a very modern invention anyway with no real ancient prelude, perhaps you could remind me ?

I did bring up cars though but the conversation is pretty much irrelevant since I seriously doubt you know any more about loan words than me, ie not much : )You are faster than me. I already tried to clarify me with this:


Computer is a new invention, but the word has ancient LATIN roots. Does it mean that computer is an ancient invention? Of course not. The word for computer is just borrowed from a more ancient LATIN 'word'. There was no computer during the Latin Era at all.


Same with the word 'automobile'. Also 'automobile' has LATIN roots. From Latin mobilis ("movable") and from Ancient Greek αὐτόματον (autómaton) (self-moving, moving of oneself, self-acting, spontaneou).

Does it mean that automobile was invented in ancient Greece. LOL!

Also, many non-Indo-European languages use that word for car. Does it mean all those non-IEan language share the same roots as Latin or Greek, hahaha.


You see, some of your so called linguists don't understand this very simple fact.

etrusco
07-05-2018, 11:01 PM
Ah mais non! It is from the Latin...
Références: https://www.littre.org/definition/char

Whereas automobile is a hybrid word from Greek and Latin - more often used in - Canada?

Because according to this the French prefer voiture.

No Titane latin carrus is from celtic what jdean has posted is right. Trust me. Even if my name is etrusco I am a cisalpine gaul.

jdean
07-05-2018, 11:04 PM
Ah mais non! It is from the Latin...

I'm not a linguist by any stretch of the imagination and on this occasion I'm deferring to the wisdom of a poster on this forum who knows a lot about Gallic who has said a few times that this is a rare example of a word that went from Gallic into Latin.

rms2
07-05-2018, 11:05 PM
ms85 is certainly right to call that video amateurish. I would call it unprofessional . . .

You only indict yourself by such pronouncements.

Amazing.

ms85 isn't right about much, except maybe his own screen name.



My methodic requires a population that has been unambiguously and directly been proven to speak a IE language and Hittite and Mycean Greek are such cases. The Pontic steppe is not such a case, no written records. I personally think that Maykop and later Yamnaya were IE speaking but for now it just remains that "thinking".

We expect to find R1b in Hittites and Mycenaean and its lack up until now is what I called surprising.

First we need some actual Hittite y-dna and a few actual Hittite genomes. We don't have those yet.

We have some results that are likely to be Hatti or "Hittites" whose ancestors were Hatti.



Nive1526 already said it. It's hardly surprising if a insignificant amount of J2a expanded along with Neolithic G2 since they should have been direct neighbors in the region since very old times.
Lets not spend time on negligible details.

The "negligible details" are negligible only because they totally derail your argument. The one, single Mycenaean y-dna result belonged to a subclade, J2a-Z6057, that was already found in a Neolithic farmer of the Sopot/Proto-Lengyel culture in Hungary (5000-4910 BC).

J2 has not turned up in any of the identifiable early Indo-European cultures or in any of the cultures that spread early Indo-European.




I try to be professional by taking the words from the paper, they are more professional than me in that field and certainly can judge whether calling the sample Hittite is up to the standard of such a peer reviewed paper.

You do special pleading and call those Hittite labeled samples non-Hittite while taking IE of Yamnaya as a given even though it is not directly attested?

Read the paper. There is no special pleading involved. There is nothing undeniably Indo-European Nes about those samples. They fairly scream Hatti.



(I also think Yamnaya was IE speaking)

That you got right.





We know the most IE-like items and traits were given by Maykop to Yamnaya. Honestly I was expecting a mixture of R1b and J2a before the results. The clear Y- and mt-DNA border between those two and equal amount of CHG/Iran admix was quite unexpected. I see two scenarios: CHG/Iran heavy R1b went earlier to the steppe and were just influenced by J2a Maykop people with both speaking some form if PIE. Or R1b had CHG/Iran admixture due to some kind of founder effect and was culturally IE-zied by J2a Maykop

Painting older yet more advanced Maykop non-IE and Yamnaya IE will never work. The constellation is rather ideal for a elite dominance model considering the lack of mixing.

There is no evidence R1b went to the steppe from Iran or that Maikop people spoke PIE. Probably they spoke a Caucasian language akin to Proto-Kartvelian.

If PIE spread to the steppe from south of the Caucasus, the Caucasian cluster y-dna haplogroups of Wang et al, G, J, and L, should be showing up there, but they're not.




If we ever find the non-EHG, CHG/Iran-heavy R1b south of the Caucasus it could well have been a leading IE tribe that exclusively expanded to the steppe, mixed with local females and IE-zied J2a & L and later G while south the Caucasus.
For the moment I stick with R1b having got CHG/Iran admixture in a mysterious way and IE-zied via J2a Maykop, just for the sake to retain a conservative approach and remain professional. Only hard data talks.

We have the hard data already, and it contradicts your point of view.



I prefer genetics and after it archaeology. General relationships in linguistic is good but many details require to much interpretation to be unambiguous.

Translation: you prefer whatever you think favors your opinions.




2. So, the first requirement is to recognize that the field of historical linguistics places the Indo-European Urheimat on the Pontic-Caspian steppe beginning round about 4500 BC but definitely in place by 3300 BC.

3. Once that is established and understood it eliminates all other geographic and temporal contenders.




Thats up for debate and aDNA will answer that question. I recognize that it is very likely that a late PIE dialect was spoken by Yamnaya but not that its the urheimat.

No. Historical linguistics has already answered the question of where and when Indo-European originated. You are really missing the boat if you think a linguistic question is primarily a genetic question.

Indo-European could not have and did not begin south of the Caucasus.



Linguistics gave us a hint that a culture and a people spread a language that we call PIE. For all the rest genetics and archaeology is what is important to identify the urheimat. We start with the oldest attested IE speaking people, Hittites and try to dig deeper from there. Loanwords between Uralic and IE is quite low on our datapoint list.

You are seriously mistaken, no doubt driven to be wrong by ethno-nationalistic pride.




I prefer to identify the genetics of early attested IE people such as Mycenaean, Hittite and Mitanni and then see where they come from and what they have in common. This is a direct approach made possible recently that avoids linguistic constructs by specific scholars.

What irony. You have a single Mycenaean y-dna result belonging a Neolithic farmer subclade of J2a (J2a-Z6057) and very dubious "Hittite" results belonging probably to Hatti.

No one thinks the Hittites were Proto-Indo-European anyway, and most scholars recognize that the Hittite culture was formed by small bands of Nes Indo-Europeans who superimposed themselves on a much vaster Hatti substrate population.

But what we are dealing with here is the wish being father to the thought.



At this point I identify EHG with proto-Uralic and hence they were neighbors of proto-IE people living north of them in the steppe . . .

Good for you. There is no good reason to connect CHG to PIE. It should be connected to the Proto-Kartvelian influence on PIE.

etrusco
07-05-2018, 11:07 PM
Also embassador is from celtic ( ambactus) i.e. Going around

ms85
07-05-2018, 11:07 PM
Perhapes you would like to review the chart you posted ? It's a progression through time that starts 1,000,000 yrs ago and end is the Bronze age (the bit you managed to spot, well done : ) but in between there are things called branches.

This is what he has to say about the SteppesAs you can see Iran/Caucasus auDNA is 13000 years old.

It was a direct MAJOR source of ancestry for 'Steppe Eneolithic & Bronze Age' between 7000 - 3000 years ago and direct MINOR source of ancestry for 'Late Neolithic & Bronze Age Europeans' between 4500 - 3000 years ago


Why should I explain this simple thing to you. Can't you use your eyes an brains, for DIEU sake!

https://s15.postimg.cc/f0upaf61n/CHG.png

jdean
07-05-2018, 11:24 PM
As you can see Iran/Caucasus auDNA is 13000 years old.

As I pointed out (hinted at) a few posts back : )

Now, can you find anybody who thinks PIE is anywhere near that old ?

ms85
07-05-2018, 11:26 PM
As I pointed out (hinted at) a few posts back : )

Now, can you find anybody who thinks PIE is anywhere near that old ?EHG is 8000 years old, also EHG is older than early PIEan!

Early PIEan is for about only for about 6000 - 6500 years old. About the same age as Leyla-Tepe.


Early PIEan = CHG/Iran_N + Anatolian_N

jdean
07-05-2018, 11:28 PM
It was a direct MAJOR source of ancestry for 'Steppe Eneolithic & Bronze Age' between 7000 - 3000 years ago and]

No missed that bit, maybe you could zoom in on it for me ?

jdean
07-05-2018, 11:31 PM
EHG is 8000 years old, also EHG is older than early PIEan!

Early PIEan is for about only for about 6000 - 6500 years old. About the same age as Leyla-Tepe.


Early PIEan = CHG/Iran_N + Anatolian_N

Love to know how you know how old EHG is : )

And still waiting for your reference to PIE being 13 thousand years old ?

ms85
07-05-2018, 11:38 PM
Love to know how you know how old EHG is : )

And still waiting for your reference to PIE being 13 thousand years old ?Why are you tr0lling? Act like a normal person, my friend.


Early PIEan is only for about 6000 - 6500 years old, the same age as Leyla-Tepe. Proto-Indo-Anatolian was according to the academics about the same age as Maykop, so between 5500 - 6000 years old. Both are older than Yamnaya.


Early PIEan has been born in West Asia as a product of Anatolian_N + CHG/Iranian_N. Early PIEan was most likely a mixed language.


Do you have any questions?

jdean
07-05-2018, 11:42 PM
Early PIEan is for about only for about 6000 - 6500 years old.

So you've lost your argument : )

Titane
07-05-2018, 11:55 PM
I'm not a linguist by any stretch of the imagination and on this occasion I'm deferring to the wisdom of a poster on this forum who knows a lot about Gallic who has said a few times that this is a rare example of a word that went from Gallic into Latin.
Neither am I. It would be unlikely that a French dictionary would go beyond French or Greek for roots. The word probably came with those who brought the device (cart) to western Europe.

Looking for evidence I found (Wiki)

The first évidence of wheeled vehicles appears in the second half of the 4th millennium BCE, near-simultaneously in Mesopotamia (Sumerian civilization), the Northern Caucasus (Maykop culture) and Eastern Europe (Cucuteni-Trypillian culture), so the question of which culture originally invented the wheeled vehicle is still unsolved.

Why does this sound familiar?

jdean
07-06-2018, 10:33 AM
Neither am I. It would be unlikely that a French dictionary would go beyond French or Greek for roots.

The quote I gave earlier was from the Oxford English Dictionary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary) which is a monumental work and the ultimate authority on the English Language.

24455


ME. carre, a. ONF. carre:—late L. carra, a parallel form to carrus, carrum (whence It., Sp. carro, Pr. car, char, ONF. car, F. char, ME. char), a kind of 2-wheeled wagon for transporting burdens. The L. was a. OCelt. *karr-os, *karr-om, whence Olr. (also mod.Ir. and Gael.) carr masc. ‘wagon, chariot,’ OWelsh carr, Welsh càr, Manx carr, Bret. karr.

(Late L. carra also gave WGer. carra fem., in OHG. charra, Ger. karre, MDu. carre, Du. kar fem., Sw. karra, Da. karre.)

Titane
07-06-2018, 11:16 AM
The quote I gave earlier was from the Oxford English Dictionary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary) which is a monumental work and the ultimate authority on the English Language.

24455

Mine was from Le Littré, the French equivalent to the Oxford. A most respected dictionary published since 1894.

Here is the full quote:
https://www.littre.org/definition/char

:P

Principe
07-06-2018, 01:50 PM
Who is saying that J2a-Z6057 was only spread into Europe by the Neolithic Anatolian Farmers? There were many migration waves from NorthWest Asia into Europe. J2a arrived into Europe with MANY multiple waves!

It is one of the OLDEST downstreams. It can be from everywhere. They found it in Hungary, they found it in Greece and I'm sure it will be in NorthWest Asia, since J2a is originally from that place. J2a1 in Mycenaean can be from Greece or it could be arrived much later! Europe doesn't have any monopoly on J2a, lol. There is a lot J2a1 in NorthWest Asia too. J2a was just a very widespread and successful Y-DNA, like it is now. It was present from Central Asia up to Europe in the ancient world, RESPECT!

Furhtermore Mycenaean were for a huge part, more than 90%, NorthWest Asian people (Anatolian_N + CHG/Iranian_N) and only at MAX 6.5% EHG. Their auDNA is West Asian. That's why it is evidence that they arrived from NorthWest Asia. auDNA is more important than Y-DNA. I do strength my arguments mostly with auDNA


Btw, can you show me in which academic paper it is stated that J2a-Z6057 has been found in the Sopot/Proto-Lengyel culture in Hungary (5000-4910 BC). It seems I missed this part of the puzzle.

J2a-Z6057 was tested by 2 people who have snp testing software, in his Y calls the Mycenaean sample is negative for all other downstreams of J2a, he has 3 positive calls for Z6057 (which is the only subclade he can belong too based on him being negative for the rest). Also J2a-Z6057 is not tested in any scentific papers as they use the old tree, you need a Y snp testing software to get further subclade knowledge.

Also btw Z6057 is still pretty common in modern Greeks and has been found in Southern Italy, so this result makes sense.

https://j2-m172.info/links/scientific-papers/#ancient

ms85
07-06-2018, 06:21 PM
So you've lost your argument : )1 advise. Study Armenian Model of Ivanov.

Kopfjäger
07-06-2018, 09:34 PM
Mine was from Le Littré, the French equivalent to the Oxford. A most respected dictionary published since 1894.

Here is the full quote:
https://www.littre.org/definition/char

:P

English vs. French... The battle continues! :beerchug:

jdean
07-06-2018, 10:38 PM
1 advise. Study Armenian Model of Ivanov.

Cling to fringe theories, it's all you have.

Michalis Moriopoulos
07-07-2018, 01:09 AM
Also btw Z6057 is still pretty common in modern Greeks and has been found in Southern Italy, so this result makes sense.

I might even be one of them, but L26 is as deep as 23andme will go for me unfortunately.

Titane
07-07-2018, 02:26 AM
English vs. French... The battle continues! :beerchug:

Anglesqueville had a better reference:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8384-SPLIT-Le-souk-gaulois&p=432018&viewfull=1#post432018

So all the answers are valid since in fact it comes from the PIE...

Principe
07-07-2018, 02:37 AM
I might even be one of them, but L26 is as deep as 23andme will go for me unfortunately.

Yes in fact you very much are because that is the only subclade you can belong too, 23&me doesn’t go deep but they have all the basal subclades under L26 except Z6057, so yeah you are a direct Y descendant of the Mycenaeans, congrats man B) :)

Michalis Moriopoulos
07-07-2018, 03:08 AM
Yes in fact you very much are because that is the only subclade you can belong too, 23&me doesn’t go deep but they have all the basal subclades under L26 except Z6057, so yeah you are a direct Y descendant of the Mycenaeans, congrats man B) :)

Don't be kidnappin' any Spartan bitches. Just sayin'. ;)

Patarames
07-10-2018, 08:25 PM
@rms2



The "negligible details" are negligible only because they totally derail your argument. The one, single Mycenaean y-dna result belonged to a subclade, J2a-Z6057, that was already found in a Neolithic farmer of the Sopot/Proto-Lengyel culture in Hungary (5000-4910 BC).

J2 has not turned up in any of the identifiable early Indo-European cultures or in any of the cultures that spread early Indo-European.

As said a negligible detail, nothing solid to be derived from it. Nive1526 said it well a page back:

As I said before, J2a-Z6057 is very old. The ENF and the Mycenaean sample could be related in direct male lineage or share a common ancestor in the late paleolithic. It is a solid hint for the Mycenaeans origin from Neolithic Europe, but not a proof. Z6057 is found from Sri Lanka to Great Britain and Morocco in areas that had any kind of Neolithic input, so it is quite open who spread its subclades.
A good candidate for an indoeuropeanized subclade is Y13128, which spread around western Europe around 3000 B.C. and afterwards. I don't know if any of those samples were tested on this position, but to tell whether the Mycenaean is connected to the farmer or derives its Y-chromosome from later West Asian peoples is ultimatively determined by markers that lie within the Neolithic and Bronze Age period.



First we need some actual Hittite y-dna and a few actual Hittite genomes. We don't have those yet.

We have some results that are likely to be Hatti or "Hittites" whose ancestors were Hatti.

Read the paper. There is no special pleading involved. There is nothing undeniably Indo-European Nes about those samples. They fairly scream Hatti.

I wont start to question the labeling of the paper because you believe something about elusiveness of Hittites. Wait for more samples but as Harvard, Jena and Kopenhagen, all go for it, I stick with them and their unpublished samples. There were so many IE groups in Anatolia that it won't take long to be certain about it.



There is no evidence R1b went to the steppe from Iran or that Maikop people spoke PIE. Probably they spoke a Caucasian language akin to Proto-Kartvelian.

Yes there is no evidence yet that Iranian R1b was the carrier of CHG admixture into Yamnya. But Maykop surely is a better candidate for PIE than Yamnaya based on archaeology.


If PIE spread to the steppe from south of the Caucasus, the Caucasian cluster y-dna haplogroups of Wang et al, G, J, and L, should be showing up there, but they're not.

Not necessary. The same way you claim elite dominance for Hittite the lack of those could be due to elite/cultural dominance. But I think we will find some, mainly J2 (as found low in Steppe MLBA and later in Saka samples). For Anatolia we have an easier case and can also use auDNA beside Y-DNA: If no significant levels of EHG appears there, the admittedly shaky elite dominance model (for both cases) begins to crumble.



Translation: you prefer whatever you think favors your opinions.

No. Historical linguistics has already answered the question of where and when Indo-European originated. You are really missing the boat if you think a linguistic question is primarily a genetic question.

I prefer numbers, graphs and photos which I can see with my own eyes than a interpretation or a model set up by a scholar.

This all is an ethnic and cultural question for me, not a linguistic one. Linguistic is welcome to support that as far as the conclusions are unambiguous.

So no; without material evidence (archaeology) or numbers/graphs (genetics), linguistics can never unambiguously tell where PIE urheimat was.


Indo-European could not have and did not begin south of the Caucasus.

Leading folks at Harvard, Jena and Kopenhagen disagree.



You are seriously mistaken, no doubt driven to be wrong by ethno-nationalistic pride.

I feel the same with you.



What irony. You have a single Mycenaean y-dna result belonging a Neolithic farmer subclade of J2a (J2a-Z6057) and very dubious "Hittite" results belonging probably to Hatti.

Quite poor yes. But that is how objectiveness is created. We all just got those two samples for potential oldest IE people? So I must draw my conclusion based on their data.
Fortunately it will become better, maybe more complex but those two samples won't be the last ones.

It's really great to have a direct and unambiguous approach via aDNA of attested IE people and locating their ethnic origin.



Good for you. There is no good reason to connect CHG to PIE. It should be connected to the Proto-Kartvelian influence on PIE.

Just look at its admixture levels. For Europe CHG/Iran is always lower or absent in non-IE people, check these out:

Lapp vs. Finnish vs. Norwegian

Basque vs. Spanish

Estonian vs. Pole

Sardinian vs South Italian

Usbek vs. Tajik

Burusho vs. Brahui vs. Makrani

Tamil vs. Gujarati



CHG/Iran admixture is consistent with two major deviations:
- The level at its Caucasus/Iran homeland are high in non-IE people such as Georgians and Chechens.
- As J1 (Caucasus origin) was almost certainly also a Y-DNA carrier of CHG/Iran, it is present among Semitic people.

But you are welcome to explain EHG ambiguities/problems/anomalies such as:

Estonian, Latvian EHG > Pole

Lapp EHG ~= Swede

Basque EHG > Spanish

etc.

rms2
07-13-2018, 02:50 PM
. . .

Leading folks at Harvard, Jena and Kopenhagen disagree . . .


Who are those "folks"?

Russell Gray (http://www.shh.mpg.de/2923/russellgray)?

Gray is a bright guy, but he is not a linguist. The cladistic approach borrowed from biology (Gray is a biologist) that he and colleague Quentin Atkinson applied to Indo-European has been roundly criticized and refuted by historical linguists.

Historical linguistics is strongly on the side of the Pontic-Caspian steppe as the PIE Urheimat. Since that issue is primarily a linguistic question, that must be the answer.

In the meantime, no amount of genetic data can overturn it, and right now the data favor the Pontic-Caspian steppe, as well, anyway.

Generalissimo
07-13-2018, 02:57 PM
But I think we will find some, mainly J2 (as found low in Steppe MLBA and later in Saka samples).

There's no J2 in Steppe_MLBA.

And Saka are too late and too Asian to say anything useful about the PIE homeland.

rms2
07-13-2018, 03:08 PM
. . .


You are seriously mistaken, no doubt driven to be wrong by ethno-nationalistic pride.

I feel the same with you . . .


Except you have no justification for that feeling.

Most of my ancestry has its source in the British Isles and Ireland. My y-dna line is Welsh.

Last time I checked, none of those places is in the running for PIE Urheimat. None of those places is the absolute point of origin for much: not the wheel, not horse domestication, not metallurgy, not agriculture, etc., etc.

So, I have no ethno-nationalist pride invested in the PIE Urheimat game.

ADW_1981
07-13-2018, 03:31 PM
Yes there is no evidence yet that Iranian R1b was the carrier of CHG admixture into Yamnya. But Maykop surely is a better candidate for PIE than Yamnaya based on archaeology.

.

In what sense?

tipirneni
07-13-2018, 03:44 PM
Except you have no justification for that feeling.

Most of my ancestry has its source in the British Isles and Ireland. My y-dna line is Welsh.

Last time I checked, none of those places is in the running for PIE Urheimat. None of those places is the absolute point of origin for much: not the wheel, not horse domestication, not metallurgy, not agriculture, etc., etc.

So, I have no ethno-nationalist pride invested in the PIE Urheimat game.

PIE Urheimat is majorly supposed to be supported by a big chunk of South Asian 1.5Billion people. There are more fantasy stories created around it to make folklore out of non-existent connection. The mixing of population in Eurasia was going on for last 30k years whereas these guys show some old mix when no one remembers and make tall claims.

ffoucart
07-13-2018, 04:04 PM
There were so many IE groups in Anatolia that it won't take long to be certain about it.


Huh? Many IE groups in Anatolia? Please name them!

In the IId millenium, I know Hittites, Luwians ans Palians. Palians were invaded by Kaskas in the XVth century, and disappeared after the invasion. We have no archeological traces of Palians.

Ethnical Hittites were relatively numerous at Kanesh, where they formed a large minority. But outside Kanesh, we don't know. They were probaby small Hittites communities in some other Hattian cities, but this is purely conjectural. With the birth of the Kingdom, ehtnical Hittites were probably present in a larger zone, but with more mixing with local populations.

Luwians were probably the larger IE group, and probably controlled the Konyan Steppe. They were present in the Kizzuwatna relatively early (before the XVIth century), and could be the ruling elite in Arzawa in the XVIth century or after.

That's all. And that's not "many".




Yes there is no evidence yet that Iranian R1b was the carrier of CHG admixture into Yamnya. But Maykop surely is a better candidate for PIE than Yamnaya based on archaeology.


No. Based on archeology alone, Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk are better candidates that Maykop. And as you noted there is no evidence at all, that R1b came from Iran or was carried by the CHG-like admixture. In fact, we have evidence of the reverse: R1b was carried by the WHG/EHG part. And definitely, there was no Iranian admixture in Yamnaya.



Not necessary. The same way you claim elite dominance for Hittite the lack of those could be due to elite/cultural dominance. But I think we will find some, mainly J2 (as found low in Steppe MLBA and later in Saka samples). For Anatolia we have an easier case and can also use auDNA beside Y-DNA: If no significant levels of EHG appears there, the admittedly shaky elite dominance model (for both cases) begins to crumble.


Nope. Hittites dominance and language diffusion was securised by admistration and writting. Maykop didn't use writting. So, it's completely different.

By the way, we have evidence of some dominance of Maykop on some Steppe populations: Maykop Steppe. And they were R1b. Problem for you: no trace of Maykop Steppe admixture in Yamnaya. And obviously, no trace of "classical" Maykop admixture in Yamnaya either.

Then again: most "Hittites" were not ethnical "Hittites". If we want to know, we need specific samples, either from EBA, or from aristocraty (with enough samples). Not an easy task given the scarcity of adult burials in Anatolia EBA.



This all is an ethnic and cultural question for me, not a linguistic one. Linguistic is welcome to support that as far as the conclusions are unambiguous.

So no; without material evidence (archaeology) or numbers/graphs (genetics), linguistics can never unambiguously tell where PIE urheimat was.



It is essentially a linguistic question, and there is no pride to gain or to lose with the Urheimat. If you are biased (as you seem to be), the answers will never satisfy you.

Patarames
07-13-2018, 05:34 PM
@rms2


Who are those "folks"?

Russell Gray?

Well those folks are the main driving streams in aDNA. You think they (Harvard, Jena, Copenhagen) now go for south Caucasus PIE origin for no good reason? I'd say they are all forced to go for it because aDNA is unambiguous in comparison to historical linguistics.
If you want to discredit them all one by one, do it and then also tell me which institutions have better authority.

@Generalissimo


There's no J2 in Steppe_MLBA.

And Saka are too late and too Asian to say anything useful about the PIE homeland.

Saka are quite useful and the direct descendants of steppe IE people.

As for J2a in steppe MLBA check Taldysay_BA2 sample of Narasimhan paper.

@ADW_1981


In what sense?

Earlier culture, earlier Kurgans, more advanced metallurgy and all the rest of IE-like features, pastorial lifestyle, carts, long swords and hole-shaft battle axes. What does Yamnaya has to offer that is more IE?


@ffoucart


Huh? Many IE groups in Anatolia? Please name them!

In the IId millenium, I know Hittites, Luwians ans Palians. Palians were invaded by Kaskas in the XVth century, and disappeared after the invasion. We have no archeological traces of Palians.

Ethnical Hittites were relatively numerous at Kanesh, where they formed a large minority. But outside Kanesh, we don't know. They were probaby small Hittites communities in some other Hattian cities, but this is purely conjectural. With the birth of the Kingdom, ehtnical Hittites were probably present in a larger zone, but with more mixing with local populations.

Luwians were probably the larger IE group, and probably controlled the Konyan Steppe. They were present in the Kizzuwatna relatively early (before the XVIth century), and could be the ruling elite in Arzawa in the XVIth century or after.

That's all. And that's not "many".

Sufficient to find non-negligible amounts of EHG


No. Based on archeology alone, Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk are better candidates that Maykop. And as you noted there is no evidence at all, that R1b came from Iran or was carried by the CHG-like admixture. In fact, we have evidence of the reverse: R1b was carried by the WHG/EHG part. And definitely, there was no Iranian admixture in Yamnaya.

I listest some typical IE features for Maykop above, what has Sredny Stog to offer? As for admixture: Yamnaya is a EHG/CHG-Iran hybrid population. Don't you like the name Iranian or where is the problem there? Iran_N and CHG have the same origin.
I agree with you about the R1b-EHG link.
I expect a PIE expansion of CHG-Iran people into the steppe where the hybrid Yamnaya population was created via mixing with R1b people. However the Y-DNA component of this population did not survive and was replaced by R1b (similar to how R1b in steppe EMBA was replaced by R1a in steppe MLBA).


By the way, we have evidence of some dominance of Maykop on some Steppe populations: Maykop Steppe. And they were R1b. Problem for you: no trace of Maykop Steppe admixture in Yamnaya. And obviously, no trace of "classical" Maykop admixture in Yamnaya either.

A minor problem. Anatolian farmer admixture probably changed Maykop population via admixing with them. So they minus ANF might still have been the CHG/Iran source or a earlier wave of basically the same very early IE people brought it to the steppe.
You have a similar problem too: Ukraine_Neolithic was still low on CHG-Iran admix but by the time of Yamnya its about half of it. What did happen? Caucasian brides?


Then again: most "Hittites" were not ethnical "Hittites". If we want to know, we need specific samples, either from EBA, or from aristocraty (with enough samples). Not an easy given the scarcity of adult burials in Anatolia EBA.

You repeat this often but there is no way for justification of lack of EHG in BA Anatolia. At one point some serious EHG admixture must be found, if not from the Hittites then from ancestors of Luwians, Carians, Lycians etc. .... At some point they must show some EHG.
This case is a indicator, you can't justify no EHG... Eneolithic BMAC had already some non-IE EHG, Maykop has some EHG, if for some coincidence Anatolia is completely EHG free, then EHG becomes a direct indicator of steppe influence.


It is essentially a linguistic question, and there is no pride to gain or to loss with the Urheimat. If you are biased (as you seem to be), the answers will never satisfy you.

aDNA is perfect to prove something to biased people (as you seem to be). I may can fight interpretations and conclusions but I can't fight numbers: Admixture component or Y-DNA #12 was somewhere at the right time and right place while Admixture component or Y-DNA #7 is lacking. No one can contest this or change it. It's a fact and 100 such facts give us a picture, an unambiguous one.

Compared to this Archaeology leaves space for interpretation and linguistics much more (both are welcome to support and necessary).

jdean
07-13-2018, 05:42 PM
Well those folks are the main driving streams in aDNA.

Which is why they include provisos in their statements, can you provide a recent quote by any of these people stating something along the lines of 'the PIE urheimat was south of the Caucasus' ?

rms2
07-13-2018, 05:52 PM
. . .

Well those folks are the main driving streams in aDNA. You think they (Harvard, Jena, Copenhagen) now go for south Caucasus PIE origin for no good reason? I'd say they are all forced to go for it because aDNA is unambiguous in comparison to historical linguistics.
If you want to discredit them all one by one, do it and then also tell me which institutions have better authority.

I don't believe they all agree that the PIE Urheimat was south of the Caucasus.

Besides, the ancient dna data don't indicate that anyway. The dna "evidence" for a PIE Urheimat south of the Caucasus is worse than weak.

We don't have any ancient dna from remains that can clearly be shown to be Indo-European Nes Hittites. Instead, we have ancient dna from remains that are likely to be those of non-IE Hatti.

We have one Mycenaean y-dna result, and he belonged to a J2 subclade already found in an Old European Neolithic farmer.

Meanwhile, y-dna from what Wang et al called their Caucasian cluster does not show up among steppe pastoralists. If early Indo-European was spread north to the steppe from south of the Caucasus, we should be seeing Caucasian y-dna, since the Indo-Europeans were patriarchal and patrilocal.

It's likely Maykop people spoke a non-Indo-European, early Caucasian language.

rms2
07-13-2018, 06:02 PM
Which is why they include provisos in their statements, can you provide a recent quote by any of these people stating something along the lines of 'the PIE urheimat was south of the Caucasus' ?

I could be wrong, but my impression is that the force behind the south-of-the-Caucasus stuff is Russell Gray. He has been a supporter of Renfrew's Neolithic farmer hypothesis, in one form or another, for a long time.

Patarames
07-13-2018, 06:18 PM
They, all three institutes, are not yet ready to fully confirm south Caucasus for PIE but it's what they think is most likely by now.

So now some people here think they are smarter than those three centers of paleogenetics, that they make obvious mistakes... They don't realize what great shift it is for Copenhagen to drop their old steppe theory and move to south Caucasus. They don't realize that MPI at Jena dropped its neolithic Anatolia theory in favor for the south Caucasus theory.

No, that's too much to be politically driven or something, this is a case where something has become obvious and those not accepting it will become loosers in their field. So the sooner they shift the better.

Just avoid to be arrogant in a scale that labels whole groups of professional scientist, multi-disciplinary of multiple institutes as fools who have missed to see the obvious that you magically have.

jdean
07-13-2018, 06:31 PM
I could be wrong, but my impression is that the force behind the south-of-the-Caucasus stuff is Russell Gray. He has been a supporter of Renfrew's Neolithic farmer hypothesis, in one form or another, for a long time.

I agree and this also makes him a rare bird amongst linguists : ) really it's a case of if you want to fly the Max Planck flag you can't be seen to contradict head of languages.

Anyway I'd still like to see an example of a statement by a leading geneticist along the lines of 'PIE from S. of the Caucasus' without 'could have ', 'possibly', 'might have' included somewhere : )

jdean
07-13-2018, 06:32 PM
They, all three institutes, are not yet ready to fully confirm south Caucasus for PIE but it's what they think is most likely by now.

And you know this how ?

Generalissimo
07-13-2018, 11:02 PM
As for J2a in steppe MLBA check Taldysay_BA2 sample of Narasimhan paper.

That's a Central Asian outlier from the Steppe_MLBA cluster.

Do you have anything without obvious BMAC ancestry from Europe?

ffoucart
07-14-2018, 01:37 AM
Don't you like the name Iranian or where is the problem there? Iran_N and CHG have the same origin.

CHG and Iran_N have the same origin, more than 20ky ago!

By the way, the non EHG admixture in Steppe Eneolithic (so in Yamnaya, which are mainly Steppe Eneolithic) is not CHG, it's a different "CHG-like" population, which deverged thousands of years before Kotias. Damgaard et al. are saying something like 20kya. But since they didn't take into account the European Farmers admixture in Yamnaya, it's probably more recent, perhaps something between 15kya and 10kya.

I have no difficulty with Iran, but using this label is only bluring things as we are speaking of different population which diverged between the LGM and the YoungerDryas, well before Neolithic and Bronze Age.


I agree with you about the R1b-EHG link.
I expect a PIE expansion of CHG-Iran people into the steppe where the hybrid Yamnaya population was created via mixing with R1b people. However the Y-DNA component of this population did not survive and was replaced by R1b (similar to how R1b in steppe EMBA was replaced by R1a in steppe MLBA).

First: no CHG-like expansion to form Yamnaya. The CHG component was already in the Steppe Enelithic. The difference between Steppe Eneolithic and Yamnaya is caused by an admixture event with European Farmers (with an increase in WHG). So from the West, not the South.

Second: can you clarify your point about R1b? It's extremely unclear. The R1b subclades found in Yamnaya are directly related to those found in Eneolithic Steppe. So?



A minor problem. Anatolian farmer admixture probably changed Maykop population via admixing with them. So they minus ANF might still have been the CHG/Iran source or a earlier wave of basically the same very early IE people brought it to the steppe.

"Anatolian farmer" admixture is not "minus" in Maykop Caucasus. Maykop are very similar to Kura Araxes and Caucasus Eneolithic and are a mix of mainly Anatolian_ChL + CHG (Neolithisation of South Caucasus was the result of migration from the South). Anatolian_ChL is Anatolian_N + minor CHG.

So again, no Maykop or Eneolithic Caucasus admixture in Yamnaya. The CHG-like admixture in Yamnaya is a complete different population. Easy to spot on this figure by Wang et al.
24612

Maykop have CHG ancestry, not Steppe Eneolithic nor Yamnaya.

So, it's not only the "Anatolian farmers" ancestry which is different between Maykop and Yamnaya, it's also the "Iran/CHG" ancestry which is different.




You repeat this often but there is no way for justification of lack of EHG in BA Anatolia. At one point some serious EHG admixture must be found, if not from the Hittites then from ancestors of Luwians, Carians, Lycians etc. .... At some point they must show some EHG.
This case is a indicator, you can't justify no EHG... Eneolithic BMAC had already some non-IE EHG, Maykop has some EHG, if for some coincidence Anatolia is completely EHG free, then EHG becomes a direct indicator of steppe influence.ppe.

Carian, Lycian, Milyan,... are only attested in the last millenium BC. They are useless to settle the question of Anatolian IE, as other migrations from Europe occured in LBA and IA.

Anatolia will not be EHG free. That's obvious, because we already know that EHG is present in the East (Hajji Firuz Tepe) so at some point we will find some EHG in samples from Anatolia. But it will not solve the question of Anatolian IE.

By the way, the main difficulty nowadays, is the fact that searchers from Harvard are trying to date the Anatolian IE entry in Anatolia around 4000BC, which is ridiculous (Hittitologists have deduced for years that Anatolian IE were intrusive in Anatolia, and dated their arrival in the IIId millenium, not before). With a consequence: they are not searching in the good places or the right time.




aDNA is perfect to prove something to biased people (as you seem to be). I may can fight interpretations and conclusions but I can't fight numbers: Admixture component or Y-DNA #12 was somewhere at the right time and right place while Admixture component or Y-DNA #7 is lacking. No one can contest this or change it. It's a fact and 100 such facts give us a picture, an unambiguous one.

Compared to this Archaeology leaves space for interpretation and linguistics much more (both are welcome to support and necessary).

Demic diffusion is not the only possibility, cultural diffusion is a real option.

Patarames
07-14-2018, 05:55 AM
@jdean


Anyway I'd still like to see an example of a statement by a leading geneticist along the lines of 'PIE from S. of the Caucasus' without 'could have ', 'possibly', 'might have' included somewhere : )

Those are professionals, they don't make such definite statements with the available data but they see a trend. Not only trend but also based on their superior overall knowledge, the big picture and access to unpublished samples. Wait for some years, with sufficient data they will make definite statements at some point.


And you know this how ?

Because of their books (Reich), magazine articles and charts (Kopenhagen) and powerpoint presentations captured in documentaries (Jena). You missed all of those?


That's a Central Asian outlier from the Steppe_MLBA cluster.

Do you have anything without obvious BMAC ancestry from Europe?

No and I didn't claim I have. This J2a sample could be either from BMAC or from pontic steppe R1b-heavy Yamnaya before R1a became so dominant there. It just shows that J2a had some role, maybe that of the replaced linage (together with R1b there) or a BMAC arrival. Later in Saka period its footprint is once more better visible and I have my doubts on a direct BMAC origin given the conservativness of BMAC (not a single R1a migrant in the same paper). Steppe MLBA at that point was also conservative with a single indigenous Eurasian steppe C2 and a old Yamnaya origin I2 the only other Y-DNA lineages beside R1a/R1b in 65 samples.


@ffoucart


CHG and Iran_N have the same origin, more than 20ky ago!

By the way, the non EHG admixture in Steppe Eneolithic (so in Yamnaya, which are mainly Steppe Eneolithic) is not CHG, it's a different "CHG-like" population, which deverged thousands of years before Kotias. Damgaard et al. are saying something like 20kya. But since they didn't take into account the European Farmers admixture in Yamnaya, it's probably more recent, perhaps something between 15kya and 10kya.

I have no difficulty with Iran, but using this label is only bruring things as we are speaking of different population which diverged between the LGM and the YoungerDryas, well before Neolithic and Bronze Age.

"Anatolian farmer" admixture is not "minus" in Maykop Caucasus. Maykop are very similar to Kura Araxes and Caucasus Eneolithic and are a mix of mainly Anatolian_ChL + CHG (Neolithisation of South Caucasus was the result of migration from the South). Anatolian_ChL is Anatolian_N + minor CHG.

So again, no Maykop or Eneolithic Caucasus admixture in Yamnaya. The CHG-like admixture in Yamnaya is a complete different population. Easy to spot on this figure by Wang et al.
Click image for larger version.

Maykop have CHG ancestry, not Steppe Eneolithic nor Yamnaya.

So, it's not only the "Anatolian farmers" ancestry which is different between Maykop and Yamnaya, it's also the "Iran/CHG" ancestry which is different.


I don't know whats your goal by discriminating the components so much?

By that logic Anatolian farmers in the Wang chart did't receive CHG but "something older different than CHG", that one is even older than the "CHG-Iran" of Yamnaya...

No need for such precision. Just call that admixture component CHG-Iran like everyone in all recent papers.


First: no CHG-like expansion to form Yamnaya. The CHG component was already in the Steppe Enelithic. The difference between Steppe Eneolithic and Yamnaya is caused by an admixture event with European Farmers (with an increase in WHG). So from the West, not the South.

It's the CHG-Iran or whatever you want to call it component that of importance for the formation of Yamnaya. Up until Neolithic Ukraine has no significant CHG-Iran admixture but its already fully there in the Eneolithic. So we know where we have to search for that event. After that admixture event, Yamnya shows up.


Second: can you clarify your point about R1b? It's extremely unclear. The R1b subclades found in Yamnaya are directly related to those found in Eneolithic Steppe. So?

Basically nothing, R1b at this point looks like the indigenous steppe population that were responsible for the EHG part of Yamnaya and (became?) the dominant Y-DNA linage.


Carian, Lycian, Milyan,... are only attested in the last millenium BC. They are useless to settle the question of Anatolian IE, as other migrations from Europe occured in LBA and IA.

Those groups had ancestors. If we search in the regions of their presence at earlier times we might find that steppe-vital EHG. That means no need to find those "few" Nes at Kanesh that burnt the remains of their elite... It's easier than that.


Anatolia will not be EHG free. That's obvious, because we already know that EHG is present in the East (Hajji Firuz Tepe) so at some point we will find some EHG in samples from Anatolia. But it will not solve the question of Anatolian IE.

We should look out for those western IE Anatolian speakers that are in distance to possible steppe intruders that came via the Caucasus. Those western IE Anatolians must have remained less admixed, with potentially more EHG.


By the way, the main difficulty nowadays, is the fact that searchers from Harvard are trying to date the Anatolian IE entry in Anatolia around 4000BC, which is ridiculous (Hittitologists have deduced for years that Anatolian IE were intrusive in Anatolia, and dated their arrival in the IIId millenium, not before). With a consequence: they are not searching in the good places or the right time.

Fair enough, I support a unambiguous approach. Samples older than 2000Bce can be regarded as non-Anatolian-IE from my side. They go for a older IE presence to disprove the Balkan route and push for a direct Caucasus route.


Demic diffusion is not the only possibility, cultural diffusion is a real option.

Yes and whenever cultural diffusion becomes a option thing get ambiguous. We need to find the oldest attested IE people, compare their ancestry with other IE people and try to figure out if the picture presented looks explainable, then we may be able to identify cases of cultural diffusion.

Generalissimo
07-14-2018, 06:18 AM
NThis J2a sample could be either from BMAC or from pontic steppe R1b-heavy Yamnaya before R1a became so dominant there.

Nonsense.

I asked for an example of J2 in Steppe_MLBA. So where is it?

Central Asian outliers don't count.


Taldysay_MLBA2 – This individual shows admixture with BA sites in Turan.

KZ-TAL-001 (I4794): Date of 1600-1400 BCE. Genetically male. This individual is 1376 genetically systematically different from I4787.

You sound desperate.

Patarames
07-14-2018, 09:41 AM
What is your point? You started a discussion because I said J2a has been found "low" in steppe-MLBA.

Whether it is from Turan or Maykop or something else remains to be seen. In the context of this pre-Maykop paper it looks like from Turan, yes.

What a waste of time... I may would sound desperate if I had said J2a had a significant role in Steppe-MLBA.

ffoucart
07-14-2018, 09:42 AM
I don't know whats your goal by discriminating the components so much?

By that logic Anatolian farmers in the Wang chart did't receive CHG but "something older different than CHG", that one is even older than the "CHG-Iran" of Yamnaya...

No need for such precision. Just call that admixture component CHG-Iran like everyone in all recent papers.

We need to be precise. It is very important, as it is showing which populations admixed or didn't admixed. Obviously some research must be done to identify the source of CHG admixture in Anatolian_ChL, as it is needed for Steppe Eneolithic.

By the way, the last papers are refering to a "CHG/Iran" related population or cluster, but are clearly stating that it is a different population than CHG (and Iran_N or Iran_ChL obviously).

Also, the fact there is no Anatolian_N admixture in Steppe Eneolithic, whereas Caucasus Eneolithic is showing some (with no trace of recent admixture) is meaning that Caucasus Eneolithic can't be the source for admixture in the Steppe.



It's the CHG-Iran or whatever you want to call it component that of importance for the formation of Yamnaya. Up until Neolithic Ukraine has no significant CHG-Iran admixture but its already fully there in the Eneolithic. So we know where we have to search for that event. After that admixture event, Yamnya shows up.


No. The admixture event EHG/CHG-like took place before 4200 BC (first Steppe Eneolithic samples). From the last papers, the possibility of a gradient between EHG and CHG is not excluded, meaning that the mix could be very old, perhaps dating from the Paleolithic.

By no means, we are sure of a recent admixture event which formed Steppe Eneolithic. If it was a gradient, later internal homogeneization could have increase the relative level of CHG-like without real admixture event.

That is not which is seeming the more likely to me, but at the moment, it is not ruled out.

So, in any case, if there was an EHG/CHG-like admixture event, it took place before 4200 BC, perhaps between mesolithic populations (which could explain the divergence from Kotias, at least at some level), so before the Neolithisation of the Caucasus (6000 BC).

Yamnaya is likely the result of homogeneization through Pontic Steppe between different Steppe related groups (Sredny Stop, Khvalynsk, Repin,....) which some of them with European Late Neolithic ancestry (like for Sredny Stog, which have likely CT admixture). Wang et al. are suggesting an admixture event with a GAC-like population (but GAC is too late).

What it means is simple: EHG+CHG-like formed Steppe Eneolithic (Vth millenium), and Steppe Eneolithic + GAC-like formed Yamnaya (mid-IVth millenium). So, two admixture events, not one. And the Yamnaya are only appearing after the second with European Farmers.

So, if you want to say that PIE came from outside the Pontic Steppe, and that Yamnaya were the result of an admixture event with an original PIE population, it would mean that PIE emerged in the Balkans, among European Farmers.

Since European Neolithic Cultures developped metallurgy, wheels,... not completely impossible, but not very parsimonious either.



Those groups had ancestors. If we search in the regions of their presence at earlier times we might find that steppe-vital EHG. That means no need to find those "few" Nes at Kanesh that burnt the remains of their elite... It's easier than that.

No. Again: scarcity of adult burials in EBA. And anyway, late IE Anatolian groups original EBA location could have nothing to do with where we found them in the IA. We already have Barcin samples, and no sign of European admixture.

Site like Demirci Hoyuk could be interesting, as Ikiztepe or Dundartepe, to search for early traces of migration from Steppe derived groups.



Fair enough, I support a unambiguous approach. Samples older than 2000Bce can be regarded as non-Anatolian-IE from my side.


Hittites are already heavily influenced by Hattians around 1900BC, so must have been present in contact of Hattians for several centuries. Hence why it is postulated a migration before 2000BC. Therefore, EBA burials are especially important to find samples with limited local admixture.

Generalissimo
07-14-2018, 09:45 AM
What is your point? You started a discussion because I said J2a has been found "low" in steppe-MLBA.

Whether it is from Turan or Maykop or something else remains to be seen. In the context of this pre-Maykop paper it looks like from Turan, yes.

What a waste of time... I may would sound desperate if I had said J2a had a significant role in Steppe-MLBA.

There's no J2 in Steppe_MLBA.

None at all.

anglesqueville
07-14-2018, 01:17 PM
Patarames: "You think they (Harvard, Jena, Copenhagen) now go for south Caucasus PIE origin for no good reason? "
Seemingly, about Copenhagen, there are several ways to read Daamgard et al.'s text ( or to emphasise some sentences extracted from their context). The authors of a recent article for Haaretz ( https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-backing-the-wrong-wild-horse-1.6196288 ) quote Daamgard that way:
“We suspect proto-Indo-European emerged at the interface between the Caucasus and the eastern European steppe, perhaps through a ‘Caucasification’ of a Uralic language,” Damgaard says."
It's of course in line with the Indo-Uralic model, which is absolutely irreconcilable with the idea of a south Caucasian PIE origin. Then as you discreetly added Copenhagen to Harvard and Jena, you were intellectually dishonest. Whoever reads honestly Daamgard et al. knows that they don't "go for south Caucasus PIE origin". And there is good linguistic reasons for that. The reason why Harvard+Jena goes to is called: Russel Gray. Final point.

Patarames
07-14-2018, 03:25 PM
@ffoucart


We need to be precise. It is very important, as it is showing which populations admixed or didn't admixed. Obviously some research must be done to identify the source of CHG admixture in Anatolian_ChL, as it is needed for Steppe Eneolithic.

By the way, the last papers are refering to a "CHG/Iran" related population or cluster, but are clearly stating that it is a different population than CHG (and Iran_N or Iran_ChL obviously).

Be precise and call it "CHG/Iran related population or cluster", I call it CHG-Iran admixture as I deem the time of diverge negligible in this context.


Also, the fact there is no Anatolian_N admixture in Steppe Eneolithic, whereas Caucasus Eneolithic is showing some (with no trace of recent admixture) is meaning that Caucasus Eneolithic can't be the source for admixture in the Steppe.

It's possible and likely that Caucasus Eneolithic had no ANF admixture at the time it entered the steppe. This original CHG-Iran population formed steppe Eneolithic and later Yamnaya, while their relatives in the Caucasus got ANF admixture during the Caucasus-Neolithic.


What it means is simple: EHG+CHG-like formed Steppe Eneolithic (Vth millenium), and Steppe Eneolithic + GAC-like formed Yamnaya (mid-IVth millenium). So, two admixture events, not one. And the Yamnaya are only appearing after the second with European Farmers.

So, if you want to say that PIE came from outside the Pontic Steppe, and that Yamnaya were the result of an admixture event with an original PIE population, it would mean that PIE emerged in the Balkans, among European Farmers.

Since European Neolithic Cultures developped metallurgy, wheels,... not completely impossible, but not very parsimonious either.

I don't support ANF connection to PIE. I support the connection of the appearance of CHG-Iran admixture in Anatolia together with the first attested IE people (Hittites). However CHG-Iran should also have been among other Caucasus people (expansion hub) such as the Hattians and others.


No. Again: scarcity of adult burials in EBA. And anyway, late IE Anatolian groups original EBA location could have nothing to do with where we found them in the IA. We already have Barcin samples, and no sign of European admixture.

Site like Demirci Hoyuk could be interesting, as Ikiztepe or Dundartepe, to search for early traces of migration from Steppe derived groups.


The chances to detect autosomal components are obviously higher than going by Y-DNA. The KO-criteria of finding EGH in Anatolian IE people would make things very easy, honestly I expect some EHG at least in mid bronze age. It would be quite strange/easy case if first EHG appears with Thracians or Phrygians in IA.
Beside Hittites themselves there must have been ancestors of the other IE people mentioned by the mid bronze age there. To put it simply: It is next to impossible to find no R1b (with IE clade) and no EHG by mid or even late BA. If the is the case, there is nothing left to defend about steppe origin of PIE... I for example can't show J2a in the pontic steppe but at least I have CHG-Iran admix to push that toward a founder effect or something. No Y-DNA and auDNA is a death sentence and a easy one at that, too easy I think.


Hittites are already heavily influenced by Hattians around 1900BC, so must have been present in contact of Hattians for several centuries. Hence why it is postulated a migration before 2000BC. Therefore, EBA burials are especially important to find samples with limited local admixture.


Well EBA burials would be very useful, more so for Y-DNA but finding some EHG like that in Mycenaean samples should be no problem. The CHG-Iran expansion into Anatolia comes at the right time for PIE and if weapons, insignia and other features correlate we can tell it apart from e.g Kura Araxes.

@anglesqueville

That statement is in line with Pontic steppe EHG population speaking Uralic and then change to PIE due to CHG-Iran admix.

I'm not dishonest here, Kopenhagen group have even published a graphic on it (in German):

https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/invasion-yamnaya-steppe.jpg

Here a blog quoting Kopenhagen statements: https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/copenhagen-group-germanic-and-balto-slavic-from-bell-beaker-indo-anatolian-homeland-in-the-caucasus/

@Generalissimo

Good for you. For everyone else: https://public.tableau.com/profile/vagheesh#!/vizhome/TheGenomicFormationofSouthandCentralAsia/Fig_1

Kopfjäger
07-14-2018, 04:03 PM
@ffoucart



Be precise and call it "CHG/Iran related population or cluster", I call it CHG-Iran admixture as I deem the time of diverge negligible in this context.



It's possible and likely that Caucasus Eneolithic had no ANF admixture at the time it entered the steppe. This original CHG-Iran population formed steppe Eneolithic and later Yamnaya, while their relatives in the Caucasus got ANF admixture during the Caucasus-Neolithic.



I don't support ANF connection to PIE. I support the connection of the appearance of CHG-Iran admixture in Anatolia together with the first attested IE people (Hittites). However CHG-Iran should also have been among other Caucasus people (expansion hub) such as the Hattians and others.



The chances to detect autosomal components are obviously higher than going by Y-DNA. The KO-criteria of finding EGH in Anatolian IE people would make things very easy, honestly I expect some EHG at least in mid bronze age. It would be quite strange/easy case if first EHG appears with Thracians or Phrygians in IA.
Beside Hittites themselves there must have been ancestors of the other IE people mentioned by the mid bronze age there. To put it simply: It is next to impossible to find no R1b (with IE clade) and no EHG by mid or even late BA. If the is the case, there is nothing left to defend about steppe origin of PIE... I for example can't show J2a in the pontic steppe but at least I have CHG-Iran admix to push that toward a founder effect or something. No Y-DNA and auDNA is a death sentence and a easy one at that, too easy I think.



Well EBA burials would be very useful, more so for Y-DNA but finding some EHG like that in Mycenaean samples should be no problem. The CHG-Iran expansion into Anatolia comes at the right time for PIE and if weapons, insignia and other features correlate we can tell it apart from e.g Kura Araxes.

@anglesqueville

That statement is in line with Pontic steppe EHG population speaking Uralic and then change to PIE due to CHG-Iran admix.

I'm not dishonest here, Kopenhagen group have even published a graphic on it (in German):

https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/invasion-yamnaya-steppe.jpg

Here a blog quoting Kopenhagen statements: https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/copenhagen-group-germanic-and-balto-slavic-from-bell-beaker-indo-anatolian-homeland-in-the-caucasus/

@Generalissimo

Good for you. For everyone else: https://public.tableau.com/profile/vagheesh#!/vizhome/TheGenomicFormationofSouthandCentralAsia/Fig_1

Patarames,

How do you explain a language shift of the paternally monolithic Steppe cultures from Proto-Uralic to PIE with no evidence of any incursion into the Steppe beyond what appears to be female-mediated?

Are you suggesting that PIE was brought by female migrants from the Caucasus? I find that very hard to believe, considering the patrilocal characteristics of Steppe pastorialists.

anglesqueville
07-14-2018, 04:41 PM
Patarmes: you are perhaps not dishonest, but then you are distracted ... this magnificent map (did you notice the adjective "hypothetish"?) was drawn for Kristiansen's text in Der Spiegel, not by the Copenhagen group. Kristiansen doesn't work in Copenhagen, but in Göteborg. I do repeat that the linguists of the Copenhapen Groups (namely Kroonen) do not "go for a south Caucasus PIE", to use your terms. How many times will it be necessary to quote the linguistic supplement?

First, the lack of genetic indications for an intrusion into Anatolia refutes the classical notion
of a Yamnaya-derived mass invasion or conquest. However, it does fit the recently developed
consensus among linguists and historians that the speakers of the Anatolian languages established
themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation.
Right or wrong, their model is anything but a "south caucasian" one.

Ral
07-14-2018, 05:48 PM
I need some information , pls.
How much has the steppe part of genetics of Greeks increased since the ancient Mykene?

Patarames
07-14-2018, 07:48 PM
@Kopfjäger


How do you explain a language shift of the paternally monolithic Steppe cultures from Proto-Uralic to PIE with no evidence of any incursion into the Steppe beyond what appears to be female-mediated?

Are you suggesting that PIE was brought by female migrants from the Caucasus? I find that very hard to believe, considering the patrilocal characteristics of Steppe pastorialists.

I guess this question is one of the hottest these days. What did happen there?
The mtDNA pattern of the Caucasus paper does not support a massive migration of females from Caucasus direction.
U5 is the dominant linage of all Steppe related cultures in that paper. Just a single Caucasus Maykop sample has it.
U5 does not have a south Caucasus origin and 6 out of the 24 Steppe samples (non-R1b excluded) have are U5 (25%).
This is a indicator that a 50:50 ratio (R1b male and CHG-Iran female) would be hardly feasible with alone 25% of (just this single one) mtDNA linages being Steppe related.

One mtDNA linage that is about equally shared between Caucasus and Steppe samples is T2. It could have a south Caucasus origin but just makes up 3 of the 24 Steppe samples (12,5%).

There is no pattern visible of some kind of brides from the Caucasus scenario. Hence we have too look out for a mysterious event, admixture and sudden Y-DNA replacement (a "red wedding" like event maybe :D ).

There is a Saka/Scythian myth from Herodotus which I mentioned here already that would be a near fitting event albeit millennia later and in a different context but at the exact same location and same cultural environment: The Saka, their Royal tribe was doing a raid into Anatolia, where they stayed and enjoyed to be the lords until the Medes defeated them and forced them back home. When they arrived decades later, they found that their woman had mixed with their former male slaves and produced a new generation of hybrid Sakas. The mythical creation of a whole new population 50% Saka 50% slaves but most importantly: This is supposed to happend in a extremely patriarchal culture with a full replacement of Y-DNA and a population size equaling the original population.

In the Saka myth it ended with a "happy end" and they were able to defeat the Saka/Slave population.

Whatever the explanation might be, we know at least that the major labs try to explain this mysterious detail.

@anglesqueville


Patarmes: you are perhaps not dishonest, but then you are distracted ... this magnificent map (did you notice the adjective "hypothetish"?) was drawn for Kristiansen's text in Der Spiegel, not by the Copenhagen group. Kristiansen doesn't work in Copenhagen, but in Göteborg. I do repeat that the linguists of the Copenhapen Groups (namely Kroonen) do not "go for a south Caucasus PIE", to use your terms. How many times will it be necessary to quote the linguistic supplement?

Honestly I just know (and want to know) about the institutions, groups, not single persons. If you say that the quoted blogpost is wrong and those folks (Kristiansen) that were interviewed and made the map are not associated to the Copenhagen group and get their aDNA from somewhere else then I stand corrected. Can you tell me to which aDNA related lab Kristiansen belongs to?


Right or wrong, their model is anything but a "south caucasian" one..

At this point everything is still "hypothetisch", the data situation is not sufficient to make definitive statements in the name of whole institutions. Especially institutions that supported a different hypothesis for many years and now see the trend towards a revolutionary different one, based on data.

anglesqueville
07-15-2018, 07:21 AM
@Patarames: after verification, Kristiansen is (with Willerslev) in the list of Daamgards et al. coauthors. But curiously what he told to the German journalists of Der Spiegel is in open conflict with the conclusions of Kroonen in the linguistic supplement of Daamgard.

Kroonen: "However, it does fit the recently developed consensus among linguists and historians that the speakers of the Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation"

Kristiansen, or more precisely Der Spiegel quoting Kristiansen: "Nun rätseln die Forscher: Wie kann es sein, dass eine Sprache auf Wanderschaft geht, ohne dass die zugehörigen Sprecher mitkommen? Ist es möglich, dass das Indoeuropäische in Anatolien einsickerte, ähnlich wie sich das Englische heute verbreitet, ohne dass es dazu Engländer bedarf? Archäologe Kristiansen mag daran nicht glauben."

So what? Are we all in a knot of academic and personal rivalries? Possible. We have also to remember that Kristiansen is not at all a linguist, and it would not be the first time he told linguistic bullshit ( don't you remember his corded wares speaking a proto-germanic language?). Btw the example of English is really a bad example. Do we know some case of a complete language replacement without a significative demic phenomenon? The answer is yes, yes of course: Hungarian is one. Anyhow it is, in a linguistic point of view, not a matter of debate: being a proto-uralic language transformed by a perhaps caucasian substrate , PIE can definitely not be autochtonous of a south Caucasian region. The genetic data don't converge? So big deal! Who can seriously be sure that the so far available data are representative of the genetic south caucasian mess? Where are the samples of people certainly descendants of the first proto-Hittite speakers?

Patarames
07-15-2018, 07:43 PM
@Patarames: after verification, Kristiansen is (with Willerslev) in the list of Daamgards et al. coauthors. But curiously what he told to the German journalists of Der Spiegel is in open conflict with the conclusions of Kroonen in the linguistic supplement of Daamgard.

Kroonen: "However, it does fit the recently developed consensus among linguists and historians that the speakers of the Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation"

Kristiansen, or more precisely Der Spiegel quoting Kristiansen: "Nun rätseln die Forscher: Wie kann es sein, dass eine Sprache auf Wanderschaft geht, ohne dass die zugehörigen Sprecher mitkommen? Ist es möglich, dass das Indoeuropäische in Anatolien einsickerte, ähnlich wie sich das Englische heute verbreitet, ohne dass es dazu Engländer bedarf? Archäologe Kristiansen mag daran nicht glauben."

So what? Are we all in a knot of academic and personal rivalries? Possible. We have also to remember that Kristiansen is not at all a linguist, and it would not be the first time he told linguistic bullshit ( don't you remember his corded wares speaking a proto-germanic language?). Btw the example of English is really a bad example. Do we know some case of a complete language replacement without a significative demic phenomenon? The answer is yes, yes of course: Hungarian is one. Anyhow it is, in a linguistic point of view, not a matter of debate: being a proto-uralic language transformed by a perhaps caucasian substrate , PIE can definitely not be autochtonous of a south Caucasian region. The genetic data don't converge? So big deal! Who can seriously be sure that the so far available data are representative of the genetic south caucasian mess? Where are the samples of people certainly descendants of the first proto-Hittite speakers?

It's important to go by the data. If ones personal pet theory (Corded ware IE speakers e.g) becomes obsolete based on new aDNA findings, you can remain professional if you have the courage to change.

Whats more important and what I find strange: If Kopenhagen has joined "the alliance" with MPI and Reich how can the south Caucasus theory be labeled as nonsense here? People seriously expect them to revise their theories and views in light of nothing? Something is brewing there and at least try to be open and constructive towards this "new" theory even if you disagree. If professionals who go by the state of the art support something then it is at least something to consider.

I agree with Kristiansens statements:

- He does not believe in transmission and language without DNA (directed towards the lack of EHG in BA Anatolia)

- He believes in small groups infiltrating Anatolia, which sounds reasonable for this earliest IE layer in Anatolia (Hittite). Whether they came via the Balkans or beyond east Anatolia (Caucasus, Iran).

Patarames
07-15-2018, 07:44 PM
Double post

ffoucart
07-16-2018, 09:33 AM
Be precise and call it "CHG/Iran related population or cluster", I call it CHG-Iran admixture as I deem the time of diverge negligible in this context.


Iran_N diverged from Kotias more than 20 000 years ago, the population source for the CHG-like admixture in Eneolithic Steppe also more than 20 000 years ago for Damgaard et al., and probably later given they didn't take into account the small European Neolithic admixture in Yamnaya.

From the mitochondrial U4 haplogroup, which is the only haplogroup common between Caucasus and Steppe Eneolothic/Yamnaya of a clear recent Caucasian origin, we can guess an divergence between 15 000 and 9 000 years ago, as U4 is dated to around 15 000, but U4b found in the Caucasus samples to 9 000 years ago, and U4a found in the Steppe samples is a bit younger (around 7 700). Given there is clear difference between both groups (and a clear division between U4a and U4b), it means a split some time before the birth of U4b, and probably before the Younger Dryas.

Absolutely not negligible. More than 15 000 years for Iran_N and Yamnaya, more than 5 000 for Kotias and Yamnaya (it's a minimum).



It's possible and likely that Caucasus Eneolithic had no ANF admixture at the time it entered the steppe. This original CHG-Iran population formed steppe Eneolithic and later Yamnaya, while their relatives in the Caucasus got ANF admixture during the Caucasus-Neolithic.


No. Caucasus Eneolithic is not the result of recent admixture: qpwave has been used, and Caucasus Eneolithic can be modelized without any admixture event. The Anatolian_N found in Caucasus Eneolithic is therefore not recent. It is likely the result of the South Caucasus Neolithization, which is the results of migration from the South (broadly speaking).

Neolithic is dated from 6 000 BC in the Caucasus, so the admixture event in Caucasus Eneolithic likely took place in the early VIth millenium.

By the way, I will say it again as you don't seem to understand: the CHG-like admixture found in Steppe Eneolithic and Yamnaya is not the same as the CHG found in Caucasus Eneolithic and Maykop. Two different sources, two different populations. Those populations diverged thousands of years before Eneolithic, so likely during Paleolithic (well before Neolithic).

The internal population dynamics in the Caucasus is unknown. But we must postulate the presence of different groups of Hunter-gatherers, with one ancestral to Steppe Eneolithic, and another one to Caucasus Eneolithic.




I don't support ANF connection to PIE. I support the connection of the appearance of CHG-Iran admixture in Anatolia together with the first attested IE people (Hittites). However CHG-Iran should also have been among other Caucasus people (expansion hub) such as the Hattians and others.


CHG is present in Anatolia at least since the early Neolithic. The increase of Iran/CHG admixture is more likely related and a consequence with the trading relation between the Balkans and Northern Mesopotamia/Levant since the early IIIth millenium. And we have expansion of South of Caucasus cultures like Kura-Araxes, Hurrians....

And non IE populations like Minoans or Hattians did have CHG/Iran admixture.

So, no, CHG/Iran admixture could not be connected to Hittites or Anatolian IE speakers.



The chances to detect autosomal components are obviously higher than going by Y-DNA. The KO-criteria of finding EGH in Anatolian IE people would make things very easy, honestly I expect some EHG at least in mid bronze age. It would be quite strange/easy case if first EHG appears with Thracians or Phrygians in IA.
Beside Hittites themselves there must have been ancestors of the other IE people mentioned by the mid bronze age there. To put it simply: It is next to impossible to find no R1b (with IE clade) and no EHG by mid or even late BA. If the is the case, there is nothing left to defend about steppe origin of PIE... I for example can't show J2a in the pontic steppe but at least I have CHG-Iran admix to push that toward a founder effect or something. No Y-DNA and auDNA is a death sentence and a easy one at that, too easy I think.

Well EBA burials would be very useful, more so for Y-DNA but finding some EHG like that in Mycenaean samples should be no problem. The CHG-Iran expansion into Anatolia comes at the right time for PIE and if weapons, insignia and other features correlate we can tell it apart from e.g Kura Araxes.


Depending on how you acount chronology, but Hittites are a Middle or Late Bronze Age culture. And if you set the MBA to around 2500 BC in Anatolia, it's the time period of IE migration in Anatolia (first IE names in Kultepe around 1900BC).

We'll see if the Kaman Kale Hoyuk samples have some indeed some minor EHG admixture. To date, we are lacking a sample from a clear IE or Hittite context.

Patarames
07-16-2018, 02:37 PM
@ffoucart

Iran_N diverged from Kotias more than 20 000 years ago, the population source for the CHG-like admixture in Eneolithic Steppe also more than 20 000 years ago for Damgaard et al., and probably later given they didn't take into account the small European Neolithic admixture in Yamnaya.

I think you should accept the label CHG-Iran admixture like used in the recent papers. If Kotias is 20kya apart from Iran_N and both are called the same CHG-Iran then the related admixture in Yamnaya should also be no issue. Important for such labels is that they don't get mistaken for something else and because there is no such risk just calling it CHG-Iran admixture is acceptable for me.


From the mitochondrial U4 haplogroup, which is the only haplogroup common between Caucasus and Steppe Eneolothic/Yamnaya of a clear recent Caucasian origin, we can guess an divergence between 15 000 and 9 000 years ago, as U4 is dated to around 15 000, but U4b found in the Caucasus samples to 9 000 years ago, and U4a found in the Steppe samples is a bit younger (around 7 700). Given there is clear difference between both groups (and a clear division between U4a and U4b), it means a split some time before the birth of U4b, and probably before the Younger Dryas.

Absolutely not negligible. More than 15 000 years for Iran_N and Yamnaya, more than 5 000 for Kotias and Yamnaya (it's a minimum).


That is a interesting approach for dating. However U4 plays a rather minor role in the Caucasus paper samples. It is only present in Catacomb culture samples, all other steppe related samples lack it.
We can confidently say that the Yamnaya admixture event took place before ANF admixture arrived in the Caucasus with the Caucasian Neolithic (?). Actually I would expect that the Yamnaya admixture event is connected with metallurgy because there must have been a reason for this CHG-Iran expansion. We know that the admixture event took place after 4500BC at which point ANF admixture hat already arrived in the Neolithic.

The use of mtDNA would be helpful to assess the brides from Caucasus theory and there I see too much steppe related mtDNA (foremost U5 at ~ 25%) to explain the ~ 50:50 ratio of Yamnaya. It may be simplistic but for a 50:50 ratio almost every R1b steppe male must have taken a near to pure CHG-Iran female. This means a mtDNA profile that is lets say 50% steppe related and 50% Caucasus requires some complex selection phenomenons to make sense while a >80% Caucasus mtDNA scenario would instantly make sense.
So I don't expect brides from Caucasus to make much sense, the Yamna EHG/CHG-Iran admixture case will likely become quite a mystery which only more samples can solve.


No. Caucasus Eneolithic is not the result of recent admixture: qpwave has been used, and Caucasus Eneolithic can be modelized without any admixture event. The Anatolian_N found in Caucasus Eneolithic is therefore not recent. It is likely the result of the South Caucasus Neolithization, which is the results of migration from the South (broadly speaking).

Neolithic is dated from 6 000 BC in the Caucasus, so the admixture event in Caucasus Eneolithic likely took place in the early VIth millenium.

Modeling is nice and good but the real thing is true aDNA.

-We know that ANF was in the Caucasus by 4500BC

-We know that ANF was lacking in the CHG-Iran population that mixed with Yamna

The most logical conclusion is to assume that ANF was intrusive into the Caucasus and that the original Caucasus population was lacking it sometime before 4500BC.
In the end it may shows to be more complex.
A paleolithic start of that admixture would only make sense in a Caucaus bride scenario for me (which I exclude atm) because such massive migrations need a effect such as metallurgy (new weapons) to happen.
I'm quite sure someone could model something that would show that Caucasus minus ANF and EHG is about the population that admixed with the purely EHG pre-Yamna.


By the way, I will say it again as you don't seem to understand: the CHG-like admixture found in Steppe Eneolithic and Yamnaya is not the same as the CHG found in Caucasus Eneolithic and Maykop. Two different sources, two different populations. Those populations diverged thousands of years before Eneolithic, so likely during Paleolithic (well before Neolithic).

This would mean CHG-Iran in Yamna is Paleolithic. Sorry but I have many doubts about this presented as fact. Until we lack aDNA data to speak about facts I expect that admixture event to have taken place sometime between 7000-4500BC even if the divergence to Maykop CHG-Iran admixture is in the range of thousands of years as you say.


CHG is present in Anatolia at least since the early Neolithic. The increase of Iran/CHG admixture is more likely related and a consequence with the trading relation between the Balkans and Northern Mesopotamia/Levant since the early IIIth millenium. And we have expansion of South of Caucasus cultures like Kura-Araxes, Hurrians....

Its presence since early Neolithic is minor, Anatolia was quite uniformly ANF. Kura-Araxes, Hurrians, Hattians and pre-semitic southward migrating J1 and J2b all of these contributed to CHG-Iran distribution (basically all Caucasus origin people), but the main drive beyond the region came with new weapons (horse, chariots and metallurgy) and in that sense the expansion of CHG in Eneolithic and BA has a perfect timing. Compared to that trade plays a magnitude more minor role.

Plus its modern day distribution of course which I already stated here:

Amount of CHG-Iran admixture

Lapp < Finnish < Norwegian

Basque < Spanish

Estonian < Pole

Sardinian < South Italian

Usbek < Tajik

Burusho < Brahui < Makrani

Tamil < Gujarati


And non IE populations like Minoans or Hattians did have CHG/Iran admixture.

I could also ask why conservative Lapps have one of the highest amounts of EHG today while totally lacking CHG-Iran that is present in small amounts in their less conservative Finnish relatives. It would be a strawman argument that leads us nowhere while yes their interference in Anatolian context it may be valid.


So, no, CHG/Iran admixture could not be connected to Hittites or Anatolian IE speakers.

Agreed, in Anatolian and Semitic context we would be hardly able to prove which portion is IE and which not. But that's not the goal, at the moment we want to test EHG in Anatolia whichhas ideal conditions for it as it could lead to elimination of it's early IE connection and push it to a LPIE scenario (indirectly putting CHG-Iran into spotlight for that role).


Depending on how you acount chronology, but Hittites are a Middle or Late Bronze Age culture. And if you set the MBA to around 2500 BC in Anatolia, it's the time period of IE migration in Anatolia (first IE names in Kultepe around 1900BC).

We'll see if the Kaman Kale Hoyuk samples have some indeed some minor EHG admixture. To date, we are lacking a sample from a clear IE or Hittite context.

I think everyone can agree to these conditions. Anatolia is the testing ground for EHG, the conditions are right and we await the aDNA samples. How many theories and works are depending on this case which key is simply aDNA. We may find a similar challenge for CHG-Iran admixture sometime.

ADW_1981
07-16-2018, 03:49 PM
No and I didn't claim I have. This J2a sample could be either from BMAC or from pontic steppe R1b-heavy Yamnaya before R1a became so dominant there. .

There isn't any J2a on the PC steppe at this time. The furthest extent was the BMAC or related cultures of Central Asia, or the Maykop foothills, which has been demonstrated as a genetic barrier until much later. We have Catacomb, Steppe-Maykop, Afansevo, Yamnaya and there is no J2a in sight. This is after dozens and dozens of samples. These results are consistent with the lack of Iran_N in these cultures. The distant relationship is to a CHG-like component which appears to be entirely introduced through females until proven otherwise and diverged from the rest of the Middle Eastern ancestry which became dominant in Iran. Not sure what magic you're waiting for, or expecting.

ADW_1981
07-16-2018, 03:53 PM
What a waste of time... I may would sound desperate if I had said J2a had a significant role in Steppe-MLBA.

There's no evidence it had any role.

Kopfjäger
07-16-2018, 09:11 PM
There's no evidence it had any role.

The only geneflow we see going into the Steppe during that time appears to be female-mediated. I don't see how anyone can conclude that the South Caucasus introduced PIE to a patrilocal society such as the Steppe pastoralists.

Even more obvious is that the Caucasus today is mainly non-IE speaking with boatloads of J2. I'm scratching my head here wondering how anyone could come to Patarames's conclusion. Why argue against the obvious?

Nive1526
07-16-2018, 09:38 PM
The vast majority of modern Caucasus J2 is younger than PIE times by a thousand years. Modern frequencies and distributions are altered by the different clan systems and founder effects, they tell relatively few about what the ancient Caucasus language speakers were made of. It is better to stick to ancient DNA in this case.

tipirneni
07-17-2018, 12:57 AM
There's no evidence it had any role.

Some of these following Iran_N mixed auDNA is found widely in South Asia. So many people are interested whether these migrations were related to IE migrations either from Anatolia or from Central Asia.

I2337 I1 J2a1h2 Tepe_Hissar_C 3641-3519 calBCE (4780±30 BP, PSUAMS-1919) Iran
S8724.E1.L1 I1 J2a1 Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1 2650-2550 BCE Iran
S8725.E1.L1 J1 J2a1 Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1 2800 BCE Iran
S8726.E1.L1 U2c1 J2a1h Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2 3200-3000 BCE Iran
S8728.E1.L1 R7 J2a Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3 2550-2450 BCE Iran

The Indus valley skeletons at RakhiGarhi (7000BC) didn't yield any auDNA but the scholars are saying it is not R1a or R1b. So right now even in South Asia there is no clear picture on the Vedic migrations since Afansievo (3000BC) times or may be even older ANE time migration in small groups. There is R1a & R1b in tribal people but there is not enough research to say it is local or not.

pegasus
07-17-2018, 05:06 AM
Iran_N diverged from Kotias more than 20 000 years ago, the population source for the CHG-like admixture in Eneolithic Steppe also more than 20 000 years ago for Damgaard et al., and probably later given they didn't take into account the small European Neolithic admixture in Yamnaya.

From the mitochondrial U4 haplogroup, which is the only haplogroup common between Caucasus and Steppe Eneolothic/Yamnaya of a clear recent Caucasian origin, we can guess an divergence between 15 000 and 9 000 years ago, as U4 is dated to around 15 000, but U4b found in the Caucasus samples to 9 000 years ago, and U4a found in the Steppe samples is a bit younger (around 7 700). Given there is clear difference between both groups (and a clear division between U4a and U4b), it means a split some time before the birth of U4b, and probably before the Younger Dryas.

Absolutely not negligible. More than 15 000 years for Iran_N and Yamnaya, more than 5 000 for Kotias and Yamnaya (it's a minimum).



No. Caucasus Eneolithic is not the result of recent admixture: qpwave has been used, and Caucasus Eneolithic can be modelized without any admixture event. The Anatolian_N found in Caucasus Eneolithic is therefore not recent. It is likely the result of the South Caucasus Neolithization, which is the results of migration from the South (broadly speaking).

Neolithic is dated from 6 000 BC in the Caucasus, so the admixture event in Caucasus Eneolithic likely took place in the early VIth millenium.

By the way, I will say it again as you don't seem to understand: the CHG-like admixture found in Steppe Eneolithic and Yamnaya is not the same as the CHG found in Caucasus Eneolithic and Maykop. Two different sources, two different populations. Those populations diverged thousands of years before Eneolithic, so likely during Paleolithic (well before Neolithic).

The internal population dynamics in the Caucasus is unknown. But we must postulate the presence of different groups of Hunter-gatherers, with one ancestral to Steppe Eneolithic, and another one to Caucasus Eneolithic.




CHG is present in Anatolia at least since the early Neolithic. The increase of Iran/CHG admixture is more likely related and a consequence with the trading relation between the Balkans and Northern Mesopotamia/Levant since the early IIIth millenium. And we have expansion of South of Caucasus cultures like Kura-Araxes, Hurrians....

And non IE populations like Minoans or Hattians did have CHG/Iran admixture.

So, no, CHG/Iran admixture could not be connected to Hittites or Anatolian IE speakers.



Depending on how you acount chronology, but Hittites are a Middle or Late Bronze Age culture. And if you set the MBA to around 2500 BC in Anatolia, it's the time period of IE migration in Anatolia (first IE names in Kultepe around 1900BC).

We'll see if the Kaman Kale Hoyuk samples have some indeed some minor EHG admixture. To date, we are lacking a sample from a clear IE or Hittite context.

There is no way Iran_N and CHG diverged 20Kya ago yet cluster so close together , they are essentially a similar continuum of people with minor differences and also for the peoples of that time I don't think geopolitical boundaries really mattered, the fact is the Imereti culture associated with CHG is derived from Zarzian in what is now Northern Iran. Though I agree that CHG/Iran_N in Anatolia is NOT a marker for Steppe , that would have to be some level of EHG involved, as PIE ultimately comes from Yamna or regions to NE towards the Urals/Steppe.

Kopfjäger
07-17-2018, 03:57 PM
The vast majority of modern Caucasus J2 is younger than PIE times by a thousand years. Modern frequencies and distributions are altered by the different clan systems and founder effects, they tell relatively few about what the ancient Caucasus language speakers were made of. It is better to stick to ancient DNA in this case.

Nive, the majority of J2 in the Caucasus speaks non-IE. This is in direct contrast with ~90% R1b in Ireland speaking an IE language. Your logic does not hold.

Nive1526
07-17-2018, 06:22 PM
I never claimed J2 was IE, but I am quite sure it is not the haplogroup of many proto-Caucasian language speakers either that are dominated by J2 today.
IE came to Ireland with R1b, I don't think anyone is going to deny that.

Patarames
07-18-2018, 10:05 AM
@Kopfjäger & ADW_1981

For some reason you think it is far fetched to interpret J2 samples from the steppe the way I propose?

The big reason is the CHG-Iran admixture in the Pontic steppe. We need a explanation for this and J2 is regarded as a main indicator of CHG-Iran admixture.

I'm discussing here with ffoucart why I think that female mediated CHG-Iran admixture makes not much sense hence it is natural to bring the main CHG-Iran_N related Y-DNA into the discussion.
I don't say that the steppe J2b sample from the Caucasus paper as well as what the Cental Asia paper calls Steppe_MLBA J2a sample represent the potential old extinct Y-DNA linages (like the single steppe_MLBA I2a sample is a representative of) that brought CHG-Iran admixture to the steppe. But at this point I don't exclude it either.

Brides from Caucasus is the most straight forward explanation based on the data we have up to this point but a very strange and unusual one. As I wrote to ffoucart in my last post, it has already now visible problems: The admixture ratio would suggest a higher amount of Caucasus related mt-DNA, but alone the steppe related U5 linages makes up around 25% of the steppe samples mt-DNA.
We have to wait for pre-4500BC samples from the region to get the final answer to this mystery.

Kopfjäger
07-19-2018, 01:10 AM
The big reason is the CHG-Iran admixture in the Pontic steppe. We need a explanation for this and J2 is regarded as a main indicator of CHG-Iran admixture.


Patarames,

The obvious problem with this is... there's no J2 in the Pontic Steppe. We have tons of data, so why do we have to wait for anything? It's clear that the Steppe is uniformly R1 with Caucasian genetic influence mediated through females. Did you see the graphs from the most recent Maykop paper? There is much more yDNA diversity on the Caucasian side than the Steppe side, where we see mostly R1b and Q in the latter. I don't understand how anyone could conclude from these graphs that J2 migrated to, and subsequently brought PIE, to the Steppe.

I think that no matter what, you will argue against the obvious. No matter how many graves are exhumed, you will continue to say "we have to wait for more samples" because the data does not fit your theories. You are completely entitled to it though, and that's what's so frustrating in arguing about it.

Generalissimo
07-19-2018, 01:19 AM
I don't say that the steppe J2b sample from the Caucasus paper as well as what the Cental Asia paper calls Steppe_MLBA J2a sample represent the potential old extinct Y-DNA linages (like the single steppe_MLBA I2a sample is a representative of) that brought CHG-Iran admixture to the steppe.

There's no J2a in Steppe_MLBA.

You keep making this false claim because you have no argument if you admit that it's false. You're a troll.

Arch Hades
07-19-2018, 05:07 AM
Iran_N diverged from Kotias more than 20 000 years ago, the population source for the CHG-like admixture in Eneolithic Steppe also more than 20 000 years ago for Damgaard et al., and probably later given they didn't take into account the small European Neolithic admixture in Yamnaya.

Kotias is from 7,700 BC...so he's about 10,000 years old. So you're saying Iranian Neolithic diverged from CHG/ Kotias 10,000 years before Kotias.

Just curious but where are you getting these dating methods from?

All I'll say is on PCA and various ADMIXTURE charts CHG and Iranian Neolithic look almost the same.

Patarames
07-19-2018, 06:35 AM
@Kopfjäger


I don't understand how anyone could conclude from these graphs that J2 migrated to, and subsequently brought PIE, to the Steppe.

I think that no matter what, you will argue against the obvious.

Strange that you don't understand because for some reasons some of the leading institutions claim that the origin of IE is from south of the Caucasus.
So it's not me who argues here against the obvious, I just go with the science here. You think MPI, Reich and Kopenhagen are wrong? Then it's you who has the exotic ideas.

Btw. J2b is in the steppe, check out the Caucasus paper again.

@Generalissimo


There's no J2a in Steppe_MLBA.

You keep making this false claim because you have no argument if you admit that it's false. You're a troll.

Write the authors and request a correction: https://public.tableau.com/profile/vagheesh#!/vizhome/TheGenomicFormationofSouthandCentralAsia/Fig_1
Request a outlier to be added or completely argue against it, I have no time for these games.

jdean
07-19-2018, 05:04 PM
Write the authors and request a correction: https://public.tableau.com/profile/vagheesh#!/vizhome/TheGenomicFormationofSouthandCentralAsia/Fig_1
Request a outlier to be added or completely argue against it, I have no time for these games.

In later papers the sample is classified as simply J (The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic
transformation of northwest Europe for example)

NW Russia (61°30′N 35°45′E) is hardly the Pontic–Caspian Steppe

Finally this sample is over 7000 yrs old and classified as EHG so highly unlikely to be a source of PIE from Anatolia

Edit: Ha, just noticed the J2a sample in your link was labeled MLBA so presumably must be I4794 (not I0211 as I guessed).

Anyway that one comes from central Kazakhstan and dates to 1600-1400 BCE so again hardly a source for Yamna PIE

Kopfjäger
07-19-2018, 10:52 PM
@Kopfjäger



Strange that you don't understand because for some reasons some of the leading institutions claim that the origin of IE is from south of the Caucasus.
So it's not me who argues here against the obvious, I just go with the science here. You think MPI, Reich and Kopenhagen are wrong? Then it's you who has the exotic ideas.

Btw. J2b is in the steppe, check out the Caucasus paper again.

@Generalissimo



Write the authors and request a correction: https://public.tableau.com/profile/vagheesh#!/vizhome/TheGenomicFormationofSouthandCentralAsia/Fig_1
Request a outlier to be added or completely argue against it, I have no time for these games.

Patarames,

The onus is on you to provide proof since you're making that assertion. If J2 brought PIE to the Steppe, what happened to it? Wouldn't we see the exact opposite of what we're seeing now? Majority J2 on the Steppe?

This is so silly! Lol

Kopfjäger
07-19-2018, 10:59 PM
In later papers the sample is classified as simply J (The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic
transformation of northwest Europe for example)

NW Russia (61°30′N 35°45′E) is hardly the Pontic–Caspian Steppe

Finally this sample is over 7000 yrs old and classified as EHG so highly unlikely to be a source of PIE from Anatolia

Edit: Ha, just noticed the J2a sample in your link was labeled MLBA so presumably must be I4794 (not I0211 as I guessed).

Anyway that one comes from central Kazakhstan and dates to 1600-1400 BCE so again hardly a source for Yamna PIE

You will find more mammoth bones buried in Kazakhstan than J2 during that period.

Generalissimo
07-19-2018, 11:17 PM
Write the authors and request a correction: https://public.tableau.com/profile/vagheesh#!/vizhome/TheGenomicFormationofSouthandCentralAsia/Fig_1
Request a outlier to be added or completely argue against it, I have no time for these games.

I don't have to request a correction, because that J2 sample isn't classified nor labeled as Steppe_MLBA in the paper. It's classified as an outlier from Turan.

This sample has nothing to do with the formation of Steppe_MLBA, with Yamnaya, Maykop or even the Pontic steppe. It's too young and obviously a migrant from Turan to the Kazakh steppe.

You're a troll.

Patarames
07-20-2018, 06:21 AM
@jdean


Edit: Ha, just noticed the J2a sample in your link was labeled MLBA so presumably must be I4794 (not I0211 as I guessed).

Now because you all are so interested in this topic: You can also check out the J2b sample from Caspian steppe from the Caucaus paper KDC001.


Anyway that one comes from central Kazakhstan and dates to 1600-1400 BCE so again hardly a source for Yamna PIE

The single Steppe_MLBA I2a sample in that paper should be from Yamnaya so I don't exclude the J2 sample to be a relict from Yamna too.
I find a female mediated CHG-Iran admix for unlikely for the reasons described. So I try to find which Y-DNA is present in the steppe. If I see that from all CHG-Iran related Y-DNA linages only J2 is a presence (very minor one), it becomes a candidate for a non-female-mediated explanation.
We also have the explanation that the R1b linage of Yamnaya is from south of the Caucasus originally and was enriched with CHG-Iran admixture there already. But this explanation at this point is ranked 3rd, below brides-from-Caucasus while for me on top is a migration with CHG-Iran related Y-DNA which then became extinct.

@Kopfjäger


The onus is on you to provide proof since you're making that assertion. If J2 brought PIE to the Steppe, what happened to it? Wouldn't we see the exact opposite of what we're seeing now? Majority J2 on the Steppe?

This is so silly! Lol

Yes silly because I have not claimed that J2 was the source for CHG-Iran in Yamna. I consider it a possibility at this point, nothing more.
It's you that has made final conclusions such as "CHG-Iran is female mediated". No, this is a open question at this time.


@Generalissimo


I don't have to request a correction, because that J2 sample isn't classified nor labeled as Steppe_MLBA in the paper. It's classified as an outlier from Turan.

This sample has nothing to do with the formation of Steppe_MLBA, with Yamnaya, Maykop or even the Pontic steppe. It's too young and obviously a migrant from Turan to the Kazakh steppe.

You're a troll.

No, look at the link, it has no _o suffix and is in the Steppe_MLBA group. So if you have found a description in the supplementary materials that it is from Turan, write the authors and request a correction of that graphic.
You are sure about its Turan origin and I find it likely too but do not exclude a Pontic steppe origin (like the I2a sample). If its so important to you and you are so sure about it, write the authors and request a correction and call them trolls or whatever.

Generalissimo
07-20-2018, 07:24 AM
No, look at the link, it has no _o suffix and is in the Steppe_MLBA group. So if you have found a description in the supplementary materials that it is from Turan, write the authors and request a correction of that graphic.

I don't care about that because in the paper this sample isn't used as part of the Steppe_MLBA_West or Steppe_MLBA_East clusters, and instead described as an outlier: a recent migrant from the south.

Supp info, page 156, only Taldysay_MLBA1 is used as part of the Steppe_MLBA_East group.

Steppe_MLBA_West: Sintashta_MLBA, Srubnaya, Petrovka, Maitan_MLBA_Alakul, Lisakovskiy_MLBA_Alakul, Karagash_MLBA, Kairan_MLBA, Aktogai_MLBA, Ak_Moustafa_MLBA1,

Steppe_MLBA_East: Krasnoyarsk_MLBA, Dali_MBA, Kazakh_Mys_MLBA, Kyzlbulak_MLBA1, Oi_Dzhailau_MLBA, Taldysay_MLBA1, Zevakinskiy_MLBA, Ferghana_MLBA, Satan_MLBA_Alakul


You are sure about its Turan origin and I find it likely too but do not exclude a Pontic steppe origin (like the I2a sample). If its so important to you and you are so sure about it, write the authors and request a correction and call them trolls or whatever.

What the hell does this sample have to do with the Pontic steppe and I2a? Nothing.

You're taking advantage of a technicality to push an agenda. You have no real argument.

ffoucart
07-20-2018, 08:34 AM
There is no way Iran_N and CHG diverged 20Kya ago yet cluster so close together , they are essentially a similar continuum of people with minor differences and also for the peoples of that time I don't think geopolitical boundaries really mattered, the fact is the Imereti culture associated with CHG is derived from Zarzian in what is now Northern Iran. Though I agree that CHG/Iran_N in Anatolia is NOT a marker for Steppe , that would have to be some level of EHG involved, as PIE ultimately comes from Yamna or regions to NE towards the Urals/Steppe.

I am sorry, but you should read the papers (mainly, Gallego-Llorente et al. 2016, Damgaard et al. 2018 and Wang et al. 2018). Damgaard et al. dating the divergence between Kotias and the CHG-like component in Yamnaya to 27kya (with a possible more extent datation but they do not put too much amphize on this, and used 27 kya in the text).


Kotias is from 7,700 BC...so he's about 10,000 years old. So you're saying Iranian Neolithic diverged from CHG/ Kotias 10,000 years before Kotias.

Just curious but where are you getting these dating methods from?

All I'll say is on PCA and various ADMIXTURE charts CHG and Iranian Neolithic look almost the same.

Specifically about Iran_N, if I may:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31326
"GD13a did not undergo a recent large population bottleneck. (A) GD13a has similar runs
of homozygosity (ROH) lengths to Neolithic individuals, while Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (Kotias and
Satsurblia), like European Hunter Gatherers (Loschbour and Bichon), underwent recent large population
bottlenecks potentially associated with the LGM . (B ) Map showing geographical location of Anatolian Neolithic
samples, Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (CHG) and GD13a."

And since LGM reached its peak around 26/27 kya.....

Mind that I am mainly quoting those papers. My sole add-on is about Damgaard et al. since they didn't take into account the European Farmers admixture in Yamnaya (whith likely a higher divergence date than it should be).

I have no personal opinion on dating those divergence events.

My only contribution is about Mt haplogroups found in Steppe/Caucasus and especially about U4, since Steppe and Caucasus are falling in 2 different subclades which could be roughly dated, with the older dated to around 9000 years ago, so given that U4 is dated to around 15 000 years ago, a divergence between CHG related admixture found in Caucasus Eneolithic and Steppe Eneolithic dated to between 15 000 and 9 000 years ago (Younger Dryas could therefore be an explanation to this divergence).

ffoucart
07-20-2018, 08:44 AM
I think you should accept the label CHG-Iran admixture like used in the recent papers. If Kotias is 20kya apart from Iran_N and both are called the same CHG-Iran then the related admixture in Yamnaya should also be no issue. Important for such labels is that they don't get mistaken for something else and because there is no such risk just calling it CHG-Iran admixture is acceptable for me.

It is leading you to some midundertanding. But do as you like.



That is a interesting approach for dating. However U4 plays a rather minor role in the Caucasus paper samples. It is only present in Catacomb culture samples, all other steppe related samples lack it.

You should read the supplements, and take a look at all the Ukraine Neolithic, Eneolithic, and Steppe samples they are refering to. Dozens of them. And some are U4a.



We can confidently say that the Yamnaya admixture event took place before ANF admixture arrived in the Caucasus with the Caucasian Neolithic (?). Actually I would expect that the Yamnaya admixture event is connected with metallurgy because there must have been a reason for this CHG-Iran expansion. We know that the admixture event took place after 4500BC at which point ANF admixture hat already arrived in the Neolithic.

Yamnaya is the result of Steppe Eneolithic (EHG+CHG-like) + LN European admixture. Possibly connected to metallurgy (found earlier in Europe than in Middle East), but it would mean from the West, not from the Caucasus.

From archeology, we know that Neolithic was brought in the Caucasus by migrants from the South around 6000 BC, with propably partial cultural diffusion in some areas (North Caucasus/Georgia). As I said Caucasus Eneolithic which is a mix of CHG and Anatolian_N (or something very similar) is not showing recent admixture, and is perfectly coherent with the result of Neolithization found in archeologic sites in South Caucasus. So the result of a older admixture event, likely during the VIth millenium BC. 1000 years before Steppe Eneolithic.




The use of mtDNA would be helpful to assess the brides from Caucasus theory and there I see too much steppe related mtDNA (foremost U5 at ~ 25%) to explain the ~ 50:50 ratio of Yamnaya. It may be simplistic but for a 50:50 ratio almost every R1b steppe male must have taken a near to pure CHG-Iran female. This means a mtDNA profile that is lets say 50% steppe related and 50% Caucasus requires some complex selection phenomenons to make sense while a >80% Caucasus mtDNA scenario would instantly make sense.
So I don't expect brides from Caucasus to make much sense, the Yamna EHG/CHG-Iran admixture case will likely become quite a mystery which only more samples can solve.


Steppe Eneolothic and EBA are not 50% from the Caucasus. CHG-like autosomal admixture is lower, and Steppe EMBA have some European Farmers admixture. So, the results are coherent: minor CHG-like admixture.

xenus
07-20-2018, 10:29 AM
FFoucart, trying to explain the current data and what it points to won't get you anywhere when you are arguing against those pushing an agenda. Those who have let things like nationalist ideas merge into their identity and feelings about their own history are always going to be around.

ADW_1981
07-20-2018, 04:32 PM
@jdean



Now because you all are so interested in this topic: You can also check out the J2b sample from Caspian steppe from the Caucaus paper KDC001.



The single Steppe_MLBA I2a sample in that paper should be from Yamnaya so I don't exclude the J2 sample to be a relict from Yamna too.
I find a female mediated CHG-Iran admix for unlikely for the reasons described. So I try to find which Y-DNA is present in the steppe. If I see that from all CHG-Iran related Y-DNA linages only J2 is a presence (very minor one), it becomes a candidate for a non-female-mediated explanation.
We also have the explanation that the R1b linage of Yamnaya is from south of the Caucasus originally and was enriched with CHG-Iran admixture there already. But this explanation at this point is ranked 3rd, below brides-from-Caucasus while for me on top is a migration with CHG-Iran related Y-DNA which then became extinct.

@Kopfjäger



Yes silly because I have not claimed that J2 was the source for CHG-Iran in Yamna. I consider it a possibility at this point, nothing more.
It's you that has made final conclusions such as "CHG-Iran is female mediated". No, this is a open question at this time.


@Generalissimo



No, look at the link, it has no _o suffix and is in the Steppe_MLBA group. So if you have found a description in the supplementary materials that it is from Turan, write the authors and request a correction of that graphic.
You are sure about its Turan origin and I find it likely too but do not exclude a Pontic steppe origin (like the I2a sample). If its so important to you and you are so sure about it, write the authors and request a correction and call them trolls or whatever.

I2-M223 -L701/L801 (Yamnaya type) is actually found in European populations in appreciable quantity, from Ireland to Ukraine, so no, it's not the same at all. So while J2-L26 might correlate with Iran, Armenia, and Greece, it has nothing to do with the 3000 BC steppe populations.

Arch Hades
07-20-2018, 06:40 PM
So are we getting any new Mycenaean genomes soon?

Tomenable
09-13-2019, 12:17 AM
female mediated CHG-Iran admixture [on the Steppe]

This myth probably echoes some cultural practices and admixture events that were taking place there:

The legend about Gargarians and Amazons: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/11E*.html

"The mountains above Albania" refer of course to Caucasian Albania and North Caucasus Mountains.

Johane Derite
09-13-2019, 09:31 AM
Z2103 is most likely:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18299-Mycenaean-South-Caucausian-Origin-theory&p=599311#post599311

Arch
10-23-2019, 07:08 AM
Bull cults can certainly be traced back to Catal Huyuk around 8-9K years BP. I'm not sure what influence this would have had on later cultures or if this was an isolated culture.