Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 135

Thread: Is Indo-European originally an Eastern Eurasian language family?

  1. #81
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    8,624

    Quote Originally Posted by vAsiSTha View Post
    Tarim is 75% ane which itself is mixed west and east Eurasian.
    Is East Eurasian = East Asian?

    Yana ANS is from further east of Tianyuan, and I would think that the 'Beringian' that Yana was likely part of, is as East we can get in modern terms before geographically becoming West again.

    Or does geography not matter for these labels?
    Recalling Lazaridis: "In a different, geographical, sense the category “West Eurasian” could be transferred to the “basal Eurasian” element instead, as it is the only one whose presence we can detect only in West Eurasia, while the common ancestry of both MA1 and Loschbour with eastern non-Africans (drift non_African-->X) raises the alternative possibility of an eastern sojourn of their ancestors and a temporal priority of “basal Eurasians” in western Eurasia."

    Plus Tarim was found to be a 9000ybp isolate - when does the 'statute of limitations' expire on a west vs east label?
    Last edited by parasar; 11-25-2021 at 05:48 AM.

  2. #82
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    8,624

    Quote Originally Posted by vAsiSTha View Post
    PIE Almost definitely arose in a mixed west + east Eurasian population. I think the statement is pretty clear.
    "Unless origin is anatolia, then that would be west eurasian"

  3. #83
    Registered Users
    Posts
    310
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    Yet none of what you posted here excludes the possibility that the ancestors of Papuans and Australian aborigines might have had a northern origin. In fact if Papuans are really a sister branch of Tianyuan, then this makes their northern origin even more likely.
    This is an odd graph...
    Gene flow Aeta-East Asian-West Eurasian seems forced to me in that date. Eastern Eurasian ancestry in West Eurasians should not be younger than 20 or 15kya as they suggest here.

  4. #84
    Registered Users
    Posts
    310
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    Is East Eurasian = East Asian?

    Yana ANS is from further east of Tianyuan, and I would think that the 'Beringian' that Yana was likely part of, is as East we can get in modern terms before geographically becoming West again.

    Or does geography not matter for these labels?
    Recalling Lazaridis: "In a different, geographical, sense the category “West Eurasian” could be transferred to the “basal Eurasian” element instead, as it is the only one whose presence we can detect only in West Eurasia, while the common ancestry of both MA1 and Loschbour with eastern non-Africans (drift non_African-->X) raises the alternative possibility of an eastern sojourn of their ancestors and a temporal priority of “basal Eurasians” in western Eurasia."

    Plus Tarim was found to be a 9000ybp isolate - when does the 'statute of limitations' expire on a west vs east label?
    Do you think "basal Eurasian" may instead reflect differences in ENA/IUP-like ancestry among West Eurasians?


    But anyways, to speak of language families prior to 10.000 years BP is not very meaningful imo

  5. #85
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,658
    Sex

    Why is no one making any reference to the data that has actual biogeographic significance: the Denisovan admixture??

    We already know that East Asians, Siberians and Native Americans have two kinds of Denisovan ancestry: D2, which peaks in Australian Aborigines, Papuans and Melanesians and is moderately related to the Altai Denisovan, and D0, which is much more closely related to the Altai Denisovan. Papuans, Australian Aborigines and Melanesians only have D2 and have no D0; additionally, some Papuan and Melanesian populations on or around Papua New Guinea have D1, which is almost equally related to Neantherthals and Denisovans and likely gained in-situ. See this here.

    The fact that East Asians have multiple Denisovan ancestries that are deeply diverged, with one much closer to the Altai Denisovan and another the same as that which peaks in "Australoid" populations, while "Australoid" populations have only Denisovan ancestries that are very distant from the Altai Denisovan, was already known from this paper back in 2018, and is strong evidence that the ancestors of East Asians and Amerind populations passed through regions where Denisovans that contributed to Papuans lived, but Papuans never passed through regions where Denisovans that contributed to East Asians lived (i.e., never passed through regions where Altai Denisovan-related populations lived).

    Note also that Salkhit and Tianyuan share Denisovan segments disproportionately with East Asians and not with Papuans from the Salkhit paper (figure 4A), showing that the East Asian Denisovan admixture profile was likely established ~40-30 thousand years ago already, i.e. gained with the initial settlement. All this is pretty strong evidence that East Asians moved south to north and gained their Altai Denisovan-related ancestry secondarily in my view.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

    " No, you are in the wrong... I really hope that you are not jumping on my thread with intent to harass me, just like other "receiving comitee", that unites in classic bullying unity, which makes me sad about such people, deprived of love etc.... "

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

     Arlus (Yesterday),  Ebizur (Yesterday),  Kale (11-25-2021),  Megalophias (11-25-2021),  pegasus (Yesterday),  theplayer (11-25-2021)

  7. #86
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,156
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Why is no one making any reference to the data that has actual biogeographic significance: the Denisovan admixture??

    We already know that East Asians, Siberians and Native Americans have two kinds of Denisovan ancestry: D2, which peaks in Australian Aborigines, Papuans and Melanesians and is moderately related to the Altai Denisovan, and D0, which is much more closely related to the Altai Denisovan. Papuans, Australian Aborigines and Melanesians only have D2 and have no D0; additionally, some Papuan and Melanesian populations on or around Papua New Guinea have D1, which is almost equally related to Neantherthals and Denisovans and likely gained in-situ. See this here.

    The fact that East Asians have multiple Denisovan ancestries that are deeply diverged, with one much closer to the Altai Denisovan and another the same as that which peaks in "Australoid" populations, while "Australoid" populations have only Denisovan ancestries that are very distant from the Altai Denisovan, was already known from this paper back in 2018, and is strong evidence that the ancestors of East Asians and Amerind populations passed through regions where Denisovans that contributed to Papuans lived, but Papuans never passed through regions where Denisovans that contributed to East Asians lived (i.e., never passed through regions where Altai Denisovan-related populations lived).

    Note also that Salkhit and Tianyuan share Denisovan segments disproportionately with East Asians and not with Papuans from the Salkhit paper (figure 4A), showing that the East Asian Denisovan admixture profile was likely established ~40-30 thousand years ago already, i.e. gained with the initial settlement. All this is pretty strong evidence that East Asians moved south to north and gained their Altai Denisovan-related ancestry secondarily in my view.
    Nice info, so to check my understanding...
    East-Asians: D0, some D2
    Oceanians (all): Lots of D2
    Oceanians (some): Additional D1
    Tianyuan and Salkhit: D0 only?
    Collection of 14,000 d-stats: Hidden Content Part 2: Hidden Content Part 3: Hidden Content PM me for d-stats, qpadm, qpgraph, or f3-outgroup nmonte models.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Kale For This Useful Post:

     Megalophias (Yesterday)

  9. #87
    Registered Users
    Posts
    36
    Sex
    Location
    Wales
    Ethnicity
    Northwestern European
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-U198
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    England Ireland Wales Scotland France Germany Palatinate
    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    "Unless origin is anatolia, then that would be west eurasian"
    I think the Anatolian hypothesis is pretty generally discredited, at this point, since it isn't supported by the evidence we've gotten from ancient DNA, which shows that the Indo-European expansion (Yamnaya, Andronovo, etc) is associated with a population with steppe-related ancestry. See for instance here (PDF link).

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CJH For This Useful Post:

     JoeyP37 (Yesterday),  parasar (Yesterday),  pmokeefe (11-25-2021)

  11. #88
    Registered Users
    Posts
    102
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Southwestern Chinese

    China Canada Thailand Laos Cambodia
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Why is no one making any reference to the data that has actual biogeographic significance: the Denisovan admixture??

    We already know that East Asians, Siberians and Native Americans have two kinds of Denisovan ancestry: D2, which peaks in Australian Aborigines, Papuans and Melanesians and is moderately related to the Altai Denisovan, and D0, which is much more closely related to the Altai Denisovan. Papuans, Australian Aborigines and Melanesians only have D2 and have no D0; additionally, some Papuan and Melanesian populations on or around Papua New Guinea have D1, which is almost equally related to Neantherthals and Denisovans and likely gained in-situ. See this here.

    The fact that East Asians have multiple Denisovan ancestries that are deeply diverged, with one much closer to the Altai Denisovan and another the same as that which peaks in "Australoid" populations, while "Australoid" populations have only Denisovan ancestries that are very distant from the Altai Denisovan, was already known from this paper back in 2018, and is strong evidence that the ancestors of East Asians and Amerind populations passed through regions where Denisovans that contributed to Papuans lived, but Papuans never passed through regions where Denisovans that contributed to East Asians lived (i.e., never passed through regions where Altai Denisovan-related populations lived).

    Note also that Salkhit and Tianyuan share Denisovan segments disproportionately with East Asians and not with Papuans from the Salkhit paper (figure 4A), showing that the East Asian Denisovan admixture profile was likely established ~40-30 thousand years ago already, i.e. gained with the initial settlement. All this is pretty strong evidence that East Asians moved south to north and gained their Altai Denisovan-related ancestry secondarily in my view.
    Well, the evidence you provided is certainly interesting, but it's not definitive as it still leaves us with two possible scenarios. East Asians could have originated from the south like what you proposed and gained their D2 Denisovan admixtures there, then moved to the north and gained D0 Denisovan admixtures. Alternatively, they could also have originated from the north with D0 Denisovan admixtures, then moved south and gained D2 admixtures. So far we still lack the crucial evidence to determine which of the two scenarios is the correct one, and that's the reason why debates about the origin of East Asians would always boil down to personal preferences in the end.

  12. #89
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,156
    Sex
    Omitted

    Unless Tianyuan and AR33K have only D0 type and no D2.
    Collection of 14,000 d-stats: Hidden Content Part 2: Hidden Content Part 3: Hidden Content PM me for d-stats, qpadm, qpgraph, or f3-outgroup nmonte models.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Kale For This Useful Post:

     Ryukendo (Yesterday)

  14. #90
    Registered Users
    Posts
    102
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Southwestern Chinese

    China Canada Thailand Laos Cambodia
    Quote Originally Posted by Kale View Post
    Unless Tianyuan and AR33K have only D0 type and no D2.
    From my understanding, Tianyuan and AR33K aren't the direct ancestors of modern East Asians, so whether they had only D0 or not isn't that important.

    What is important is the proportions, if the Denisovan admixtures found in East Asians are predominantly D0 with only some D2, then that would suggest to me the ancestors of East Asians most likely took a northern route to arrive in East Asia, and they gained D2 only after they moved south.

Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. new papers about indo-european language origin
    By paoloferrari in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 08-07-2021, 05:26 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2020, 01:38 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-28-2017, 08:50 PM
  4. Indo-European Language SPA Map
    By Humanist in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-28-2013, 12:19 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
  •