PDA

View Full Version : Integrating New Evidence for the Origin and Spread of The IE Languages; 11.10.-14.10.



Tomenable
10-03-2015, 10:04 PM
This international conference will take place in Jena, on 11 - 14 October:

http://www.shh.mpg.de/105110/lag_conference

And their programme, titles of some presentations look very interesting:

http://www.shh.mpg.de/105713/LAG2015_MPISHH_Programme_draft4.pdf

Abstracts:

http://www.shh.mpg.de/105702/Abstractbook_Draft_Oct_2nd.pdf

ADW_1981
10-03-2015, 10:25 PM
60% G2a in Anatolian farmers is massive. Curious on the other 40% - H2? E1b? J2?

R.Rocca
10-04-2015, 12:19 AM
60% G2a in Anatolian farmers is massive. Curious on the other 40% - H2? E1b? J2?

...R-V88?

Gravetto-Danubian
10-04-2015, 12:25 AM
Maybe even some I ?

J Man
10-04-2015, 12:35 AM
This one looks quite interesting as well even though we basically already know this.

Ancient DNA suggests a major migration from the steppe as the source for IndoEuropean
languages in Europe
David Reich, Harvard Medical School & Broad Institute, Boston

This talk will present a genome-wide analysis showing that Europeans today largely
derive from three highly differentiated ancestral populations: (1) West European
Hunter-Gatherers, who derive from the Upper Paleolithic indigenous population of
Europe and contributed ancestry to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners; (2)
Ancient North Eurasians related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians, who contributed to
both Europeans and Near Easterners; and (3) Early European Farmers, who were
mainly of Near Eastern origin. However, our analysis of ancient genomes shows that
the Ancient North Eurasian ancestry that is ubiquitous in Europe today was rare or
absent at the time of the arrival of the Early European Farmers. To understand
when the Ancient North Eurasian ancestry arrived, we generated genome-wide data
from 69 Europeans who lived between 8,000-3,000 years ago by enriching ancient
DNA libraries for a target set of almost four hundred thousand polymorphisms. This
strategy decreases the sequencing required for genome-wide ancient DNA analysis
by about 250-fold, allowing us to produce a dataset of genome-wide ancient DNA
that is more than double the size of the entire preceding literature. We show that the
populations of western and far eastern Europe followed opposite trajectories between
8,000- 5,000 years ago. At the beginning of the Neolithic period in Europe,
~8,000-7,000 years ago, closely related groups of early farmers appeared in Germany,
Hungary, and Spain, different from indigenous hunter-gatherers, whereas Russia
was inhabited by a distinctive population of hunter-gatherers with high affinity to a
~24,000 year old Siberian. By ~6,000-5,000 years ago, a resurgence of huntergatherer
ancestry had occurred throughout much of Europe, but in Russia, the
Yamnaya steppe herders of this time were descended not only from the preceding
eastern European hunter-gatherers, but also from a population of Near Eastern ancestry.
Western and Eastern Europe came into contact ~4,500 years ago, as the Late
Neolithic Corded Ware people from Germany traced ~3/4 of their ancestry to the
Yamnaya, documenting a massive migration into the heartland of Europe from its
eastern periphery. This steppe ancestry persisted in all sampled central Europeans
until at least ~3,000 years ago, and comprises about half the ancestry of today’s
northern Europeans. These results support the theory of a steppe origin of at least
some of the Indo-European languages of Europe, and show the power of genomewide
ancient DNA studies to document human migrations.

RCO
10-04-2015, 10:44 AM
That's the real mystery because we need to discover the source of that ancient Near Eastern population ?
the
Yamnaya steppe herders of this time were descended not only from the preceding
eastern European hunter-gatherers, but also from a population of Near Eastern ancestry.

J Man
10-04-2015, 10:56 AM
That's the real mystery because we need to discover the source of that ancient Near Eastern population ?

They are probably some sort of people who will be related to the West Asian/Caucasus like autosomal component.

anglesqueville
11-03-2015, 10:57 AM
Just for laugh, Jean-Paul Demoule, the french hero of the anti-nazist archeology, is back from Jena. Here is what he told about the conference, in a swiss newspaper ( http://www.letemps.ch/sciences/2015/10/12/indo-europeens-peuple-introuvable-hante-fantasmes-racistes ):

"J’étais dernièrement à Iéna, en Allemagne, où des généticiens d’un institut Max Planck ont montré qu’il y avait des ressemblances génétiques, il y a 5000 ans, entre la région des steppes et le nord de l’Europe. Si vous voulez vous faire financer, plutôt que de dire «J’ai retrouvé des ressemblances entre quinze squelettes de telle région et quinze de telle autre», vous dites «J’ai retrouvé les Indo-Européens»
Quickly translated:
" I was recently in Jena, en Germany, where some geneticists from a certain Max Planck institute have shown that there are some genetical similarities, 5000 years ago, between the steppes region and the northern part of Europe. If you want to get financed, rather than saying "I've found similarities between 15 skeletons here and 15 skeletons there", you say :"I've found the Indo-Europeans"

Anabasis
11-03-2015, 11:47 AM
Just for laugh, Jean-Paul Demoule, the french hero of the anti-nazist archeology, is back from Jena. Here is what he told about the conference, in a swiss newspaper ( http://www.letemps.ch/sciences/2015/10/12/indo-europeens-peuple-introuvable-hante-fantasmes-racistes ):

Quickly translated:

lol. i like that guy.

Dubhthach
11-03-2015, 12:41 PM
Google Translate is probably killing this for me but:

– Si l’on écarte l’hypothèse indo-européenne, comment expliquer les ressemblances des langues?

– Ces ressemblances sont plus complexes – et beaucoup moins nombreuses – qu’on ne veut bien le dire. On peut les expliquer avec un modèle en réseau, par des contacts entre populations, plutôt que sur la base d’un arbre généalogique qui partirait d’un point unique. Malheureusement, les modèles complexes se vendent plus difficilement que les explications simples.



- Leaving aside the Indo-European hypothesis, why the languages ​​of similarities?

- These similarities are more complex - and far fewer - although we do not want to say it. Can be explained with the network model, by people contacts, rather than on the basis of a family tree that leave a single point. Unfortunately, complex models are selling more difficult than simple explanations.



So his argument is basically for one of population continuity apart from linguistic change due to trade/contact networks?

What exactly is anti-nazi archaeology?

anglesqueville
11-03-2015, 01:38 PM
What exactly is anti-nazi archaeology?
It's a french specialty, like the cooked oyster or the camembert. Seriously, what is anti-nazi archeology is well summarized by the title of the swiss interview "Inventée par les linguistes et accaparée par les nazis, cette ethnie originelle continue à se dérober. Auteur d’une somme sur la question et invité à Genève pour une conférence, Jean-Paul Demoule déconstruit le mythe". "deconstructing the myth of Indo-Europeans", is the job of an "anti-nazi archeologist" ( I could write "the" rather than "an", because Demoule is seemingly the only one). His linguistic argumentation is very vague, but roughly it's sort of resurgence of the Wellentheorie (like the paleolithic continuity of Allinei). Nothing of interest, just for laugh. He spoke in Jena, just after, or just before Renfrew. I would like to know how that happened... We could hope that a massacre would happen, but no, Demoule is still alive. About Renfrew, I don't know, but as he was already nearly dead before Jena, that does'nt matter that much.:)

Dubhthach
11-03-2015, 01:51 PM
As a Galwayman the only way a Oyster should be eaten is with lots of Guinness!

http://www.freakensweet.com/GalwayOyster/IMG_6803.JPG

Had a look at the Jena Abstrasts here's his one:


Indo-Europeans and Archaeology: some questions
Jean-Paul Demoule, Institut Universitaire de France & Université de Paris I, Paris
Finding the movements of the original Indo-European people (“Urvolk”), requires
two conditions: 1) observation of a migratory movement from a given
region (the “Urheimat”), a movement then branching out to end up in the geographical
locations of the various historically documented peoples speaking IndoEuropean
languages; 2) proof that the populations living in the supposed region of
origin had “something” Indo-European about them. While the recent results of
aDNA analyses seem to show an East-West migratory movement in the 3rd millennium,
it would be premature to consider that all the conditions have initially been
met to identify this as the departure of the “Urvolk”. So much so that one can also
question the starting point, which takes the existence of a unique language that can
be entirely reconstructed (“Ursprache”) as the only model possible.

Webb
11-03-2015, 02:55 PM
As a Galwayman the only way a Oyster should be eaten is with lots of Guinness!

http://www.freakensweet.com/GalwayOyster/IMG_6803.JPG

Had a look at the Jena Abstrasts here's his one:

As an American from the Virginia coast, we eat them raw or steamed, with copious amounts of Budweiser. But I could eat them with Guinness as well.

anglesqueville
11-03-2015, 03:19 PM
As a Galwayman the only way a Oyster should be eaten is with lots of Guinness!

http://www.freakensweet.com/GalwayOyster/IMG_6803.JPG

Had a look at the Jena Abstrasts here's his one:

His conference abstract is very ... timid. In his book, he is much more categorical. Shortly said, you are, I am, we are all nearly or possibly suffering of a terrific intellectual illness, like all the people who support the steppes' theory. Thanks God, Demoule, today the greatest archeologist, is here and saves. Oyster make me sick, and Demoule also.

Mongo
11-03-2015, 10:33 PM
From the Abstract Book:

Pre-Indo-European speech carrying a Neolithic signature emanating from the Aegean


When different Indo-European speaking groups settled Europe, they did not arrive in terra nullius. Both from the perspective of the Anatolian hypothesis and the Steppe hypothesis, the carriers of Indo-European speech likely encountered existing populations that spoke dissimilar, unrelated languages. Relatively little is known about the Pre-Indo-European linguistic landscape of Europe, as the IndoEuropeanization of the continent caused a largely unrecorded, massive linguistic extinction event. However, when the different Indo-European groups entered Europe, they incorporated lexical material from Europe’s original languages into their own vocabularies. By integrating these “natural samples” of Pre-Indo-European speech, the original European linguistic and cultural landscape can partly be reconstructed and matched against the Anatolia and the Steppe hypotheses. My results reveal that Pre-Indo-European speech contains a clear Neolithic signature emanating from the Aegean, and thus patterns with the prehistoric migration of Europe’s first farming populations. These results also imply that Indo-European speech came to Europe following a later migration wave, and therefore favor the Steppe Hypothesis as a likely scenario for the spread of the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Archaeological temporal constraints make phylogenetic methods to support the steppe homeland theory of Indo-European


Until recently all authors who attempted a computational-phylogenetic study of Indo-European obtained strong support for the Anatolian theory, stemming from the temporal estimates for the root of the inferred Indo-European language-family tree. The first split was estimated at 6700 BC [Gray and Atkinson, 2003], ca. 6000-5500 BC [Nicholls and Gray, 2008], 6400 BC [Ryder and Nicholls, 2011], ca. 5900-5800 BC [Bouckaert et al., 2012] (median values), all of those much better compatible with the Anatolian theory assigning the start of Indo-European dispersal to the 7th millennium BC, as opposed to the late 5th millennium under the steppe theory. This would seem to constitute a very strong argument for the Anatolian theory.

Recently those results were challenged by [Chang et al., 2015], who replicated [Bouckaert et al., 2012]’s study with the following change: Dead Indo-European languages that are independently known to be ancestors of living languages (e.g., Latin to Romance languages) are placed as internal nodes from which the descendants speciate. Chang et al. estimate the first Indo-European split at ca. 4000 BC. This is in agreement with the steppe theory. However, Chang et al. crucially exclude six languages from the original dataset, among them Anatolian languages Luvian and Lycian. Without those, the Anatolian-family clade only contains Hittite. This exclusion by itself shaves off a thousand years from the estimate for the root. Thus though [Chang et al., 2015]’s results do indicate that the support for the Anatolian theory from phylogenetics is not unequivocal, they do not demonstrate unambiguous support for the steppe theory either.

We report results from a different modification of the analyses by [Gray and Atkinson, 2003] and [Bouckaert et al., 2012]. Existing phylogenetic analyses of Indo-European rely on historical sources for formulating calibration constraints. Not constraining the internal nodes of the tree beyond the historical period by itself may introduce a significant source of bias. To test for that, we formulated two noncontroversial prehistoric calibration constraints for Indo-European. Our two new constraints are accepted by the proponents of both the Anatolian and the steppe theories. By adding them to phylogenetic analyses, we thus do not implicitly tilt the balance towards either theory:

- Indo-Iranian split. In recent years, a near-consensus emerged in archaeology identifying the Andronovo culture of northern Kazakhstan steppes with IndoIranian speakers. For concreteness sake, we assume that Indic speakers moved south around 1900–1800 BC. Old Indic would then have further developed in Central Asia through 1800–1600 BC. We represent this in a constraint for the Indic-Iranian split at 1900–1600 BC.

- Tocharian split. The steppe and Anatolian theories identify the Tocharian split with different events, but fortunately, their timing almost coincides. We posit a single Tocharian-split constraint at 3400-3100 BC, common to both theories. We replicated [Gray and Atkinson, 2003] on a larger version of the dataset they used, namely IELex as used by [Bouckaert et al., 2012]. With our two new constraints, that estimate goes down to 4660 BC, in satisfactory accordance with the steppe theory, and very far from the Anatolian theory’s predictions.

Our conclusion is two-fold. Given the current data, the steppe theory now appears more likely from the phylogenetic-inference perspective. However, further testing indicated that the time estimate of our model does not show much more robustness against the addition of further constraints than those of the predecessor models. The main objective of this study is therefore to initiate a debate on the status of time constraints in Bayesian phylogenetic inference.

epoch
11-08-2015, 08:46 PM
What exactly is anti-nazi archaeology?

Someone that needs to be fired. Archaeology should serve NO IDEOLOGY WHATSOEVER.

Viktor Reznov
11-08-2015, 11:07 PM
Someone that needs to be fired. Archaeology should serve NO IDEOLOGY WHATSOEVER.

To add to that, exploring the origin of the Indo-European family and its different routes of dispersal has nothing to do with Nutzis or their insane ideology. It's a connection that I simply can't recognize.

Anabasis
11-09-2015, 09:58 AM
To add to that, exploring the origin of the Indo-European family and its different routes of dispersal has nothing to do with Nutzis or their insane ideology. It's a connection that I simply can't recognize.

Well problem is most of the articles and blogs focused thier studies on exploring the so called PIE. Even while we talk about neoletic Europe or Near East we try to explain everything accoring to "Indo Europeans". (Actually i should admit that i am so happy that there arent any evidence that PIE languege originated in Near East) When i follow some discussion even here, i think most of the people ignoring the existence of some other cultures and langueges like Dravidians, Kartvelians and Turkic. Jews have already "labeled" thier admixture components and haplogroups in commercial tests, Indo Europeanism invaded all academic researches. Come on people whats going on is not so objective as we thought.

Padre Organtino
11-09-2015, 05:01 PM
Well problem is most of the articles and blogs focused thier studies on exploring the so called PIE. Even while we talk about neoletic Europe or Near East we try to explain everything accoring to "Indo Europeans". (Actually i should admit that i am so happy that there arent any evidence that PIE languege originated in Near East) When i follow some discussion even here, i think most of the people ignoring the existence of some other cultures and langueges like Dravidians, Kartvelians and Turkic. Jews have already "labeled" thier admixture components and haplogroups in commercial tests, Indo Europeanism invaded all academic researches. Come on people whats going on is not so objective as we thought.

PIE is a very large family that has expanded across giant territory. There are literary tons of PIE speakers. Moreover, lots of PIE languages have a long written tradition. All of this makes PIE reconstructions relatively simple.

Now compare this to Kartvelian where only Georgian has preserved ancient texts and the total number of the people who speak languages is really low. No wonder it is much less studied.

George
11-09-2015, 06:30 PM
PIE is a very large family that has expanded across giant territory. There are literary tons of PIE speakers. Moreover, lots of PIE languages have a long written tradition. All of this makes PIE reconstructions relatively simple.

Now compare this to Kartvelian where only Georgian has preserved ancient texts and the total number of the people who speak languages is really low. No wonder it is much less studied.

And kindly don't forget that even in PIE issues "some families are more equal than others" . So the list of malcontents is larger than you think :beerchug:

Agamemnon
11-10-2015, 02:38 AM
PIE is a very large family that has expanded across giant territory. There are literary tons of PIE speakers. Moreover, lots of PIE languages have a long written tradition. All of this makes PIE reconstructions relatively simple.

Now compare this to Kartvelian where only Georgian has preserved ancient texts and the total number of the people who speak languages is really low. No wonder it is much less studied.

While you have a point as far as the paucity of ancient Kartvelian sources go, you'll probably be surprised to learn that Kartvelian (and Caucasian languages in general) is probably the most studied field after IE and Semitic... Not only that, some of the most famous Indo-Europeanists to have ever lived contributed to our knowledge of these languages, people such as Georges Dumézil and Georges Charachidzé for example.

Padre Organtino
11-10-2015, 04:07 AM
While you have a point as far as the paucity of ancient Kartvelian sources go, you'll probably be surprised to learn that Kartvelian (and Caucasian languages in general) is probably the most studied field after IE and Semitic... Not only that, some of the most famous Indo-Europeanists to have ever lived contributed to our knowledge of these languages, people such as Georges Dumézil and Georges Charachidzé for example.

Well, this is a surprise indeed. I knew that Caucasian isolate families were well-studied compared to other small isolate groups but this is indeed interesting.

Inigo Montoya
11-11-2015, 12:16 PM
While you have a point as far as the paucity of ancient Kartvelian sources go, you'll probably be surprised to learn that Kartvelian (and Caucasian languages in general) is probably the most studied field after IE and Semitic... Not only that, some of the most famous Indo-Europeanists to have ever lived contributed to our knowledge of these languages, people such as Georges Dumézil and Georges Charachidzé for example.
...And the Kartvelian speakers paid us IE back with Tamaz Gamkrelidze (co-author of the glottalic theory).

Agamemnon
11-11-2015, 01:31 PM
...And the Kartvelian speakers paid us IE back with Tamaz Gamkrelidze (co-author of the glottalic theory).

How ungrateful of them ;)

Jean M
11-11-2015, 03:01 PM
60% G2a in Anatolian farmers is massive. Curious on the other 40% - H2? E1b? J2?

C1a2

G
G2a2a
G2a2a1b (2)
G2a2a1b1
G2a2b2a (2)
G2a2b2a1c

H2 (2)

I
I2c

J2a

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/wasianneolithicdna.shtml

Paul_Johnsen
11-11-2015, 05:54 PM
To add to that, exploring the origin of the Indo-European family and its different routes of dispersal has nothing to do with Nutzis or their insane ideology. It's a connection that I simply can't recognize.

I think it may have something to do with the assumption that everything the Nazis may (have) believe(d) is(was) wrong.
so
Premise 1. Everything that Nazis believe is wrong.
Premise 2. The Nazi believe that the Earth isn't flat.
Conclusion: The Earth is flat.

This thinking is a terrible case of intellectual laziness and sloppiness. Not only does it force a denial of some aspects of reality, but there is no need to understand why the core of Nazi ideology was wrong, or why Nazi ideology appealed to so many.

It is good to question the Kurgan hypothesis. It is uncertain. However it is insanity to dismiss it based on an ideological preconception. We should describe reality as accurately as possible based on the best available evidence and as few assumptions as necessary and not based preconceived ideas.

Inigo Montoya
11-11-2015, 06:26 PM
The Nazis believed that the Slavs weren't Indo-Europeans, for Chrissake! How can anyone take the link with actual scholarship seriously?

Romilius
11-11-2015, 07:56 PM
The Nazis believed that the Slavs weren't Indo-Europeans, for Chrissake! How can anyone take the link with actual scholarship seriously?

I'm sorry, but glottological studies were more ancient than Hitler: slavic languages were IE in Germany also during the third reich.

I think we must speak seriously, avoiding every banalization about arguments.

Viktor Reznov
11-12-2015, 10:15 AM
I think it may have something to do with the assumption that everything the Nazis may (have) believe(d) is(was) wrong.
so
Premise 1. Everything that Nazis believe is wrong.
Premise 2. The Nazi believe that the Earth isn't flat.
Conclusion: The Earth is flat.

This thinking is a terrible case of intellectual laziness and sloppiness. Not only does it force a denial of some aspects of reality, but there is no need to understand why the core of Nazi ideology was wrong, or why Nazi ideology appealed to so many.

It is good to question the Kurgan hypothesis. It is uncertain. However it is insanity to dismiss it based on an ideological preconception. We should describe reality as accurately as possible based on the best available evidence and as few assumptions as necessary and not based preconceived ideas.
What I was trying to say was that research into IE history will not "strengthen" the nazi arguments as the cause for nazism, as well as the argument it makes, is not to be found on whether the proto-IE's lived in Kurgan or Anatolia. Furthermore, the only ones likely to WANT one theory to be right as opposed to the other are the Nazis themselves. Others might be more ambivalent or even scientifically-minded(which is rare these days).

Kale
11-16-2015, 06:51 AM
Furthermore, the only ones likely to WANT one theory to be right as opposed to the other are the Nazis themselves.

Or the people who hate everything Nazi, including everything they believe in, and as such will want nothing more than to see Nazi ideas proven wrong. For those people (who far outnumber actual Nazis nowadays), Anatolia all the way!

Viktor Reznov
11-16-2015, 09:19 AM
Or the people who hate everything Nazi, including everything they believe in, and as such will want nothing more than to see Nazi ideas proven wrong. For those people (who far outnumber actual Nazis nowadays), Anatolia all the way!

I'm pretty sure that Nutzis did not have a wide knowledge about lignuistics(they were more in the mood for pseudo-racialism), and therefore I doubt they took any position on the proto-IE urheimat debate. Germans on the whole were great linguists and Semiticists of course. And like I said, this discussion has nothing to do with a psychotic political movement.

Kale
11-16-2015, 05:19 PM
I'm pretty sure that Nutzis did not have a wide knowledge about lignuistics(they were more in the mood for pseudo-racialism), and therefore I doubt they took any position on the proto-IE urheimat debate. Germans on the whole were great linguists and Semiticists of course. And like I said, this discussion has nothing to do with a psychotic political movement.

They probably had as good of knowledge as any at the time...and with their ideology, would obviously love PIE to be German, but I'm sure they'd take Russia a million times over their worst enemy's neighbor.

anglesqueville
11-16-2015, 05:30 PM
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Race-Third-Reich-Christopher-Hutton/dp/0745631770/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447694811&sr=8-1&keywords=race+and+the+third+reich
Very interesting study. Read it and discover that, behind the nazi doxa, german university was in reality an ideological mess.

Kale
11-16-2015, 05:51 PM
pdf or gtfo. :P

Anabasis
11-16-2015, 06:45 PM
ANE=Caucasian theory collapsed. I am so happy that the "teal" tale end. So far nobady could argue that exsistence of "teal" as a component carried by so called PIE. Its just a native component of caucasia and associated with J2 rather then R. I dont want to say that but I was right!!!!!