Page 101 of 130 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103111 ... LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,010 of 1298

Thread: The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus[preprint Harvard/Jena]

  1. #1001
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,329
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Anglo
    Nationality
    Canadian

    Abkhazians from the larger sample (n=162) of Yunusbayev et al (2011):

    0.6% E-M78
    48% G2a-P15 - 19% G2a1a-P16, 23% G2a2b2-U1 (modal haplogroup), 6% other
    3% I2-M438 - 2% I2a2a-M223, 0.6% I2a1-P37, 0.6% other
    2.5% J1 - 1.2% J1(xP58), 1.2% J1-P58
    27% J2 - 11% J2a-M67, 15% other J2a-M410, 0.6% J2b-M12
    5% L1a-M76
    0.6% T1a-M70
    0.6% Q-M242
    9% R1a-Z645 - 6% R1a-Z94 (including Z2125), 4% R1a-Z282 (including M458 and CT1211)
    4% R1b-M269 - 3% R1b-L23(xL51), 0.6% R1b-P312(xU152)

    Are Abkhazians less mixed with everyone (including other South Caucasians), or just less mixed with Turks and Russians? They've long been politically united with Georgians and have much more G2a1a (which is most common in Georgians and Ossetians) than Adygeans further north.

    For comparison pooled Adygean speakers (n=662):
    1.2% C-M130, 1.7% N, 0.5% Q
    1.2% E-M35, 0.3% G1-M285, 0.2% H1-M52, 2.4% I-P19
    50% G2a-P15 - ~40% G2a2b-U1 (modal haplogroup), 7% G2a1a-P16, 3% other
    3% J1(xP58), 1.8% J1a2b-P58, 6% J2a-M67, 11% other J2a-M410, 0.8% J2b-M12
    0.3% L-M20* (probably L2-L595), 1% L1(a, b, and c), 0.3% K* (prob T), 0.3% T1a
    0.2% R1a1*(xR1a1a-M198), 0.8% R1b(xM269) incl R1b-M73, 0.2% R2a-M124
    14% R1a1a-M198 - ~5% R1a-Z282 (including M458 and CTS1211), 8% R1a-Z2125, 1% other R1a-Z93
    3% R1b-M269 - ~2.5% R1b-L23(xL51), 0.5% R1b-P312(xU152)

    In all the Northwest Caucasian speakers G2-U1 is the dominant haplogroup. The only G in the sample belongs to rather minor clades, not to either of the common ones today, which are characteristic of Ossetians, Georgians, and Northwest Caucasians. We find J2-CTS900 under M67 and J1-Z1842, which are the majority haplogroups of Nakh and Dagestani speakers (Northeast Caucasian), as well as R1b-Z2103 which is also pretty well represented in Dagestan. R1a1* and L2-L595 in Circassia might be ancient survivals from the Maykop period.

    Of course none of this necessarily matters, as nicely shown by Ossetians who are East Iranic speakers with about 1% R1a-Z93 (less than their non-IE neighbours).
    Last edited by Megalophias; 01-10-2019 at 04:32 PM.

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Megalophias For This Useful Post:

     Awale (01-10-2019),  DMXX (01-10-2019),  Hando (01-11-2019),  Michał (01-11-2019),  parasar (01-10-2019),  Ryukendo (01-10-2019),  vettor (01-10-2019)

  3. #1002
    Registered Users
    Posts
    514
    Sex
    Location
    EU
    Ethnicity
    Finnish
    Y-DNA
    Father N1c
    mtDNA
    I5a

    I had a look at Fig. 2. ADMIXTURE and PCA results of “The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus” (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/16/322347).

    Steppe Maikop population is not really close to any modern population. The closest points are with Russians and Nogais. Steppe Maikop outliers seem to be closest to modern North Caucasians.
    The closest modern population to Eneolithic Steppe seems to be Kaitag, Adygei and Tabasaran.
    The closest modern population to Dolmen LBA seems to be Turkish.
    Kura Araxes seems to be closest to modern south Caucasians.
    Maikop seems to be more southwestern than Late Maikop and Maikop Novosvobodnaya. The closest population to Maikop seems to be Turkish and Armenians. Late Maikop and Maikop Novosvobodnaya come closer to Iranians but they are probably sitting on top of the Georgians.
    Eneolithic Caucasus seems to be closest to Iranians.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kristiina For This Useful Post:

     Hando (01-11-2019),  Megalophias (01-10-2019),  parasar (01-10-2019)

  5. #1003
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,259

    Quote Originally Posted by ffoucart View Post
    This is not the consensus in Hittitology. The entry of IE in Anatolia is seen as the result of different waves of small groups. I understand that it is more simple to postulate a single entry and differentiation in situ. But a differenciation already in the place of origin can’t be ruled out. You can read Melchert on this (a single entry « is more likely », but he does not rule out the other option).
    Over how many years did this happen? - Hittite, Luwian, and Palaic migrations to Anatolia - and from where?.

    Hittite, Luwian, and Palaic are there in Anatolia by circa 1900 BC.
    All three descend from a proposed Proto-Anatolian from the time of their split (~3500 BC?).
    Before that we would have common pre-Anatolian period going back to its split (~4500 BC?) from PIE.

    So potentially from 3500 BC to 1900 BC the Anatolian languages entered Anatolia from another location.
    But they did not go anywhere else, only to Anatolia.
    No other language from the non-Anatolian branch of PIE shows up in Anatolia during that period.

    From the other PIE branch, the Mycenaenas show up in Greece circa 1650 BC and the Indo Aryans in Syria prior to 1761 BC.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to parasar For This Useful Post:

     Hando (01-11-2019),  vettor (01-10-2019)

  7. #1004
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,544
    Sex
    Location
    Australia
    Ethnicity
    Italian Alpine
    Nationality
    Australian and Italian
    Y-DNA
    T1a2b- Z19945 - Jura
    mtDNA
    H95a - Osii

    Australia Italy Veneto Friuli Italy Trentino Alto Adige Austria Tirol Germany Palatinate
    Quote Originally Posted by Pribislav View Post
    If I remember correctly, Abkhazians have roughly the same proportion of G2a1a-Z6553 and G2a2b2a-P303>U1 (around 20% each).

    EDIT:

    The actual percentages are as follows (n=162):

    G-M201: 47,5 %

    G2a1a-P16/Z6553: 19,1 %

    G2a2b2a-P303>U1: 22,8 %

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201286
    Balanovsky 2011[5] paper states for abkhaz people

    G = 56.9% of which P303 is 20.7% and P18 is 12.1 %
    R1b = 12.1%
    R1a = 10.3%
    J2 = 8.6%
    L = 3.4%
    T = 1.7%
    E =1.7%

    58 samples
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355373/

    European = 99.2%......Central Asian = 0.8% ....Yfull - 1460BC, Jura caves
    Father's Mtdna .........T2b17
    Grandfather's Mtdna .......T1a1e
    Sons Mtdna .......K1a4
    Maternal Grandfather paternal......I1d-P109...CTS6009
    Wife's Ydna .....R1a-Z282

    My Path = ( K-M9+, TL-P326+, T-M184+, L490+, M70+, PF5664+, L131+, L446+, CTS933+, CTS54+, CTS8862+, Z19945+, Y70078+ )

    The main negatives = ( M193-, P322-, P327-, Pages11- , L25- , CTS1848- )

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vettor For This Useful Post:

     Hando (01-12-2019),  palamede (01-11-2019)

  9. #1005
    Registered Users
    Posts
    113
    Sex
    Location
    Haifa
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & Slavic
    Nationality
    Israel & Russia
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b - S17250
    mtDNA
    R0a4

    Israel Israel Jerusalem Russian Federation Serbia Montenegro
    Quote Originally Posted by suyindik View Post
    We have to look at the languages spoken in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age to define the language that the Maykop people spoke.
    If we have no texts from them, we will never know for sure which language they spoke. In the Early Bronze Age there was writing only in Egypt and Mesopotamia.
    Even if information about further migrations gives us a very strong argument to claim Yamna spoke Indo-European language, we still cannot be 100% percent sure. But if we have no chance to know for sure, we can make assumptions, and Y-chromosome data is an argument.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to artemv For This Useful Post:

     Hando (01-12-2019)

  11. #1006
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,544
    Sex
    Location
    Australia
    Ethnicity
    Italian Alpine
    Nationality
    Australian and Italian
    Y-DNA
    T1a2b- Z19945 - Jura
    mtDNA
    H95a - Osii

    Australia Italy Veneto Friuli Italy Trentino Alto Adige Austria Tirol Germany Palatinate
    interesting that the hurrians and luwians share the same gods of
    Pirinkar and Ishtar

    European = 99.2%......Central Asian = 0.8% ....Yfull - 1460BC, Jura caves
    Father's Mtdna .........T2b17
    Grandfather's Mtdna .......T1a1e
    Sons Mtdna .......K1a4
    Maternal Grandfather paternal......I1d-P109...CTS6009
    Wife's Ydna .....R1a-Z282

    My Path = ( K-M9+, TL-P326+, T-M184+, L490+, M70+, PF5664+, L131+, L446+, CTS933+, CTS54+, CTS8862+, Z19945+, Y70078+ )

    The main negatives = ( M193-, P322-, P327-, Pages11- , L25- , CTS1848- )

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to vettor For This Useful Post:

     Hando (01-12-2019)

  13. #1007
    I've heard from an archaeologist online that the Indo-Europeans from the theorised Caucasian Urheimat were actually found by Reich to be part SSA and they're trying to figure out whether or not it's just poor samples or not as all of the samples they've taken have this admixture. Apparently mostly 5% with outliers at 10%, pretty spooky

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ethereal For This Useful Post:

     DMXX (01-10-2019),  Hando (01-12-2019)

  15. #1008
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,026
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I've heard from an archaeologist online that the Indo-Europeans from the theorised Caucasian Urheimat were actually found by Reich to be part SSA and they're trying to figure out whether or not it's just poor samples or not as all of the samples they've taken have this admixture. Apparently mostly 5% with outliers at 10%, pretty spooky
    Which Caucasian Urheimat?

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Generalissimo For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (01-11-2019),  Hando (01-12-2019),  peternorth (01-11-2019),  rms2 (01-11-2019)

  17. #1009
    Quote Originally Posted by artemv View Post
    If we have no texts from them, we will never know for sure which language they spoke. In the Early Bronze Age there was writing only in Egypt and Mesopotamia.
    Even if information about further migrations gives us a very strong argument to claim Yamna spoke Indo-European language, we still cannot be 100% percent sure. But if we have no chance to know for sure, we can make assumptions, and Y-chromosome data is an argument.
    Here is a quote of David Reich's book(Who We Are and How We Got Here):

    The penetration of Maikop lands by Iranian- and Armenian- related ancestry from the south is also plausible in light of studies showing that Maikop goods were heavily influenced by elements of the Uruk civilization of Mesopotamia to the South.
    The conclusion of archaeological findings of the Maikop people shows that they are people migrated from homeland Mesopotamia. And the genetic studies for now(without the unpublished data of many scientific projects) show at least that the core of the Maikop people came from the South(and then they mixed with the natives of the Steppe).

    But most importantly, its not possible that the Sumerian language came into the Mesopotamian region from outside, because the Sumerian language was already being used by their predecessors(Gobekli-Tepe -> Jarmo -> Halaf -> Ubaid) in the same region. Such a developed language and civilization can not be created all the sudden by invading people, this language was obviously being used thousands of years ago in the same region by the natives.
    The Sumerian language is a very well documented language with lots of texts available. So, this Sumerian language is spreaded from Mesopotamia into wide areas in West Eurasia:

    Gobekli-Tepe -> Jarmo -> Halaf -> Ubaid -> Uruk -> Leyla-Tepe -> Maykop
    Gobekli-Tepe -> Jarmo -> Halaf -> Ubaid -> Uruk -> Sumerians
    Gobekli-Tepe -> Jarmo -> Halaf (-> Ubaid) -> Levant
    Gobekli-Tepe -> Jarmo -> Halaf -> Ubaid -> BMAC

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to suyindik For This Useful Post:

     Ethereal (01-11-2019),  Hando (01-12-2019)

  19. #1010
    Quote Originally Posted by vettor View Post
    interesting that the hurrians and luwians share the same gods of Pirinkar and Ishtar
    Here is a quote of the study "Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation":

    These genetic results have striking correlates to material culture changes in the archaeological record. The archaeological finds at Peqi’in Cave share distinctive characteristics with other Chalcolithic sites, both to the north and south, including secondary burial in ossuaries with iconographic and geometric designs. It has been suggested that some Late Chalcolithic burial customs, artifacts and motifs may have had their origin in earlier Neolithic traditions in Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia. Some of the artistic expressions have been related to finds and ideas and to later religious concepts such as the gods Inanna and Dumuzi from these more northern regions. The knowledge and resources required to produce metallurgical artifacts in the Levant have also been hypothesized to come from the north.
    What is important in here is that the original practicers of the religious concepts such as the gods Inanna(=Ishtar) and Dumuzi were being used by the Sumerians and earlier Neolithic populations in Mesopotamia(and nearby regions). These people spoke the same language and believed in the same religious concepts.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to suyindik For This Useful Post:

     Hando (01-12-2019)

Page 101 of 130 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103111 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Which has greater autosomal genetic diversity: Europe or China?
    By Tomenable in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-19-2018, 03:17 AM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-28-2018, 02:39 PM
  3. Racial Purity,Harvard’s Eugenics Era
    By rock hunter in forum History (Modern)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-05-2016, 08:36 AM
  4. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 02-20-2016, 10:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •