Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 257

Thread: "The Genetic History of the Southern Arc: A Bridge between West Asia & Europe"

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Kale View Post
    Indeed, these samples don't quite get the mention in publications relating to the steppe topic that perhaps they deserve.
    In regards to the dating, if it is wrong, then these samples are not local. All the Armenian samples from EBA to LBA have less Anatolian and more CHG, due to Kura-Araxes migration.
    From memory what they seem to have is closer to Progress_en than Yamnaya and potentially their earlier forebearers though, which means that they aren't going to be very relevant when it comes to the real "steppe" ancestry and populations, dealing with the Proto-Indo-European languages and such. The split of Anatolian and common PIE did not happen in a neolithic fisher-forager population which is pretty much what these steppe_en people were, even in the 4th millenium BC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kale View Post
    Not well. Areni don't have a ton of CHG mix.
    I'm guessing the progress_en ancestry then came through the eastern part of the Caucasus without admixing all that much with agriculturalists north of the Caucasus moutains?
    Latest blog entry:
    Hidden Content

    Also worth checking out:
    Hidden Content

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     Hando (06-18-2022),  Kale (06-17-2022),  Tutut (06-17-2022)

  3. #22
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,089
    Sex

    If they have no samples fron Cernavoda and early Western Anatolians which got influenced by these, they will miss the point.
    If they have large scale sampling of both and there is just no verifiable migration in the critical period, then they have an argument.

    But even then they need to prove a steppe community dominated by Anatolian derived colonists, which could have transmitted the language in the opposite direction.
    For that they definitely need Lower Don culture, R. Yar samples, otherwise they missed the point again.

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

     Ariel90 (06-17-2022),  K33 (06-21-2022),  terinrajan (06-17-2022)

  5. #23
    Registered Users
    Posts
    878
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    I think we got the answer about the period the massive shift towards the Near East as well as the source in the Roman population occurred?
    I'm very curious how much difference there is between coastal Anatolian, Western Inner Anatolia and Central Anatolia through the ages. While we have Bronze Age samples for Central Anatolia we lack Bronze age to medieval samples for the Western parts so we don't even know what kind of population was even stable to begin with.
    Last edited by Granary; 06-17-2022 at 04:57 PM.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Granary For This Useful Post:

     Andour (06-17-2022),  Hando (06-18-2022),  Megalophias (06-17-2022),  MethCat (06-19-2022)

  7. #24
    Global Moderator
    Posts
    4,449
    Sex
    Location
    Vissaiom
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese highlander
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-Y31991>FT17866
    mtDNA (M)
    H20 (xH20a)

    Asturias Galicia Portugal 1143 Portugal 1485 Portugal Order of Christ PortugalRoyalFlag1830
    Quote Originally Posted by RCO View Post
    731 new samples !
    And yet, if I weren't such a penny-pincher, I'd bet there'll be a grand total of 0 samples with a haplogroup relevant for my branch
    YDNA E-Y31991>PF4428>Y134097>Y134104>Y168273>FT17866 (TMRCA ~1000AD) - Domingos Rodrigues, b. circa 1690 Hidden Content , Viana do Castelo, Portugal - Stonemason, miller.
    mtDNA H20 - Monica Vieira, b. circa 1700 Hidden Content , Porto, Portugal

    Hidden Content
    Global25 PCA West Eurasia dataset Hidden Content

    [1] "distance%=1.6404"
    Ruderico

    Gallic_North_IA,48
    West_Iberia_IA,31
    Berber_EMA,11
    Roman_Colonial,10

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ruderico For This Useful Post:

     Hando (06-18-2022),  JMcB (06-18-2022),  JonikW (06-17-2022),  Michalis Moriopoulos (06-17-2022),  RCO (06-17-2022),  Tora_sama (06-17-2022),  Velislav (06-19-2022)

  9. #25
    Registered Users
    Posts
    913

    Quote Originally Posted by Granary View Post
    I'm very curious how much difference there is between coastal Anatolian, Western Inner Anatolia and Central Anatolia through the ages. While we have Bronze Age samples for Central Anatolia we lack Bronze age to medieval samples for the Western parts so we don't even know what kind of population was even stable to begin with.
    Exactly, we need samples from Western Anatolia. It's pity there is a chronic lack of samples from said region as well as the southern Balkans.

    As for the difference, I think there was definitely a gradient, with the most Eastern Anatolia certainly having more Iran_Neo and Levant_Neo rich elements. You can observe this with the samples from Alalakh(even though Alalakh is not technically Anatolia) when comparing them with MLBA_Kalehoyuk and EBA_Sparti which are more Barcin_Neo rich. More to the west of these I expect increased Balkan ancestry.

    We will have to wait and see but one thing is for sure, the Anatolian ancestry that played huge role in the forming of the Imperial Roman gene pool will definitely be more Alalakh related than anything else.

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

     Aben Aboo (06-17-2022),  Hando (06-18-2022),  Riverman (06-17-2022)

  11. #26
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1
    Sex
    Location
    United Kingdom

    Amidst all the other exciting potential revelations, this claim in particular has interesting implications for the Armenian ethnogenesis event:

    A striking signal of steppe migration into the Southern Arc is evident in Armenia and northwest Iran where admixture with Yamnaya patrilineal descendants occurred, coinciding with their 3rd millennium BCE displacement from the steppe itself. This ancestry, pervasive across numerous sites of Armenia of ~2000-600 BCE, was diluted during the ensuing centuries to only a third of its peak value, making no further western inroads from there into any part of Anatolia, including the geographically adjacent Lake Van center of the Iron Age Kingdom of Urartu.
    Until now we've had only had aDNA from the eastern part of historic Armenia (modern-day Armenia), so these Urartian samples would be the first genomes from the western half. The claim here that they had no steppe ancestry runs counter to the growing opinion among Urartu scholars of proto-Armenian elements being present among Urartian society, and potentially even the elite. In the scenario hinted by Reich, proto-Armenians and their steppe ancestry spread from modern-day Armenia across Eastern Turkey after Urartu.

    Remains to be seen what exactly these Urartian samples look like and whether they are representative.

  12. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to tikosg For This Useful Post:

     Aben Aboo (06-17-2022),  Ariel90 (06-18-2022),  Hando (06-18-2022),  JonikW (06-17-2022),  levantino II (06-18-2022),  Megalophias (06-17-2022),  Michalis Moriopoulos (06-17-2022),  peloponnesian (06-18-2022),  Psynome (06-18-2022)

  13. #27
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,532
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-Z18271
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c5
    Y-DNA (M)
    R-U152
    mtDNA (P)
    U7a5

    Israel Israel Jerusalem United Kingdom England Scotland Isle of Man
    We've been expecting this for quite some time now, data from Mesopotamia is very sorely needed and should prove crucial considering the central role this area had during much of the region's demographic past. What should prove most interesting is the transition from Pre-Pottery Neolithic to Pottery Neolithic and later Chalcolithic, the sequence will be absolutely crucial to our understanding of what really went on in the Fertile Crescent (beyond a handful of individuals from Peki'in and Tell Kurdu, we're still in the dark). Also excited to see the data from Cyprus (though I really expect its population to be an extension of Anatolia's).

    The persistent focus on the Indo-European homeland question however is very underwhelming, I don't mean this in the sense that it wouldn't have any implications and shouldn't be pursued regardless of whether the authors' claims are indeed valid (to put it mildly, from a purely linguistic vantage point, this is doubtful), but rather because one would assume that the data's implications for the origins of the Sumerians, Elamites, Gutians, Kassites, Hurrians and early Semitic-speaking groups (including the Semitic homeland question, possibly even the Afroasiatic homeland as well) and possible external relationships with past archeological horizons are a more directly relevant topic not just considering the geographical setting but also how we're nowhere near the level of accuracy and wide-ranging consensus that has been reached in IE studies (remember, we know more about how Proto-Indo-European, an unattested prehistorical language unlikely to ever show up in the epigraphic record, was spoken than we do about how Sumerian was spoken, let that sink in for a while) and so it is precisely in such cases that the ancient DNA data might provide important clues. While Mesopotamia no longer being a black hole is great news, I can't shake the feeling this approach is making the authors miss some potentially astounding information in any of the given issues I've mentioned.

    Edit: You'd also assume that, after Wang et al.'s paper on the Caucasus, they would avoid making bombastic claims such as these, instead they seem to be doubling down.
    Last edited by Agamemnon; 06-17-2022 at 10:35 PM.
    מְכֹרֹתַיִךְ וּמֹלְדֹתַיִךְ מֵאֶרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי אָבִיךְ הָאֱמֹרִי וְאִמֵּךְ חִתִּית
    יחזקאל פרק טז ג-

    אֲרֵי יִצְרָא לִבָּא דַּאֲנָשָׁא בִּישׁ מִזְּעוּרֵיהּ
    בראשית פרק ח כא-


    ᾽Άλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δ᾽ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσιν:
    κρύβδην, μηδ᾽ ἀναφανδά, φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
    νῆα κατισχέμεναι: ἐπεὶ οὐκέτι πιστὰ γυναιξίν.


    -Αγαμέμνων; H Οδύσσεια, Ραψωδία λ

  14. The Following 51 Users Say Thank You to Agamemnon For This Useful Post:

     Alain (06-18-2022),  alchemist223 (06-21-2022),  Anglecynn (06-18-2022),  anglesqueville (06-18-2022),  Archetype0ne (06-19-2022),  Ariel90 (06-18-2022),  Bruzmi (06-18-2022),  Bygdedweller (06-18-2022),  Caspian (06-20-2022),  Chnodomar (06-18-2022),  CopperAxe (06-17-2022),  drobbah (06-19-2022),  Erikl86 (06-19-2022),  ESPLover4 (06-21-2022),  fabrice E (06-18-2022),  FaerieQueene (06-20-2022),  Hando (06-18-2022),  hartaisarlag (06-19-2022),  Helen (06-19-2022),  Helves (06-18-2022),  illyroid (06-17-2022),  J Man (06-18-2022),  J.delajara (06-17-2022),  Jack Johnson (06-20-2022),  JMcB (06-18-2022),  JonikW (06-17-2022),  kolompar (06-19-2022),  levantino II (06-18-2022),  lg16 (06-17-2022),  manesh (06-18-2022),  MethCat (06-19-2022),  MEurope55 (06-18-2022),  Michalis Moriopoulos (06-17-2022),  Mnemonics (Yesterday),  olive picker (06-20-2022),  parasar (06-18-2022),  pegasus (06-18-2022),  Piquerobi (06-17-2022),  Pribislav (06-18-2022),  Principe (06-18-2022),  Psynome (06-18-2022),  rozenfeld (06-18-2022),  Ruderico (06-17-2022),  Russianbear (06-18-2022),  StillWater (06-18-2022),  Straboo (06-19-2022),  SUPREEEEEME (06-18-2022),  terinrajan (06-22-2022),  Varun R (06-18-2022),  whynot (Yesterday),  XXD (06-17-2022)

  15. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by tikosg View Post
    Amidst all the other exciting potential revelations, this claim in particular has interesting implications for the Armenian ethnogenesis event:



    Until now we've had only had aDNA from the eastern part of historic Armenia (modern-day Armenia), so these Urartian samples would be the first genomes from the western half. The claim here that they had no steppe ancestry runs counter to the growing opinion among Urartu scholars of proto-Armenian elements being present among Urartian society, and potentially even the elite. In the scenario hinted by Reich, proto-Armenians and their steppe ancestry spread from modern-day Armenia across Eastern Turkey after Urartu.

    Remains to be seen what exactly these Urartian samples look like and whether they are representative.
    Rather than proper Armenians, these samples probably relate more to the steppe component in Nakh populations today.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to talljimmy0 For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-19-2022),  Hando (06-18-2022)

  17. #29
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,824
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by talljimmy0 View Post
    Rather than proper Armenians, these samples probably relate more to the steppe component in Nakh populations today.
    Indeed it will be interesting to eventually find out which Steppe populations contributed their autosoml ancestry to modern day Nakh speakers. Modern day Nakhs are of course dominated by Caucasus specific Y-DNA clades under J2a, J1 and L3. Chechens do have a likely Steppe origin Q clade among them though that dominates in the teips Gordaloy and Engenoy yet they have barely any R1a and R1b.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to J Man For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-19-2022),  Caspian (06-20-2022),  Hando (06-18-2022)

  19. #30
    Registered Users
    Posts
    86
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
    We've been expecting this for quite some time now, data from Mesopotamia is very sorely needed and should prove crucial considering the central role this area had during much of the region's demographic past. What should prove most interesting is the transition from Pre-Pottery Neolithic to Pottery Neolithic and later Chalcolithic, the sequence will be absolutely crucial to our understanding of what really went on in the Fertile Crescent (beyond a handful of individuals from Peki'in and Tell Kurdu, we're still in the dark). Also excited to see the data from Cyprus (though I really expect its population to be an extension of Anatolia's).

    The persistent focus on the Indo-European homeland question however is very underwhelming, I don't mean this in the sense that it wouldn't have any implications and shouldn't be pursued regardless of whether the authors' claims are indeed valid (to put it mildly, from a purely linguistic vantage point, this is doubtful), but rather because one would assume that the data's implications for the origins of the Sumerians, Elamites, Gutians, Kassites, Hurrians and early Semitic-speaking groups (including the Semitic homeland question, possibly even the Afroasiatic homeland as well) and possible external relationships with past archeological horizons are a more directly relevant topic not just considering the geographical setting but also how we're nowhere near the level of accuracy and wide-ranging consensus that has been reached in IE studies (remember, we know more about how Proto-Indo-European, an unattested prehistorical language unlikely to ever show up in the epigraphic record, was spoken than we do about how Sumerian was spoken, let that sink in for a while) and so it is precisely in such cases that the ancient DNA data might provide important clues. While Mesopotamia no longer being a black hole is great news, I can't shake the feeling this approach is making the authors miss some potentially astounding information in any of the given issues I've mentioned.

    Edit: You'd also assume that, after Wang et al.'s paper on the Caucasus, they would avoid making bombastic claims such as these, instead they seem to be doubling down.
    It does makes me wonder on where the Sumerians actually came from, but my guess maybe they came from Eastern Anatolian plains or something. As for the Semitic peoples, well, isn't the homeland of the Semitic language family is from the Southern Levant? I believe you've made a very extensive post in regards to genetics, archeology and the domestication of donkeys which played a role in the spread of the various branches of the proto-Semitic language to Arabia.

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Russianbear For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-19-2022),  FaerieQueene (06-20-2022),  Hando (06-18-2022),  whynot (Yesterday)

Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-19-2021, 11:58 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-25-2018, 11:02 AM
  3. "The genetic forge of Europe", by Carles Lalueza-Fox
    By razyn in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-18-2018, 05:52 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-16-2017, 05:36 PM
  5. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 01-18-2015, 02:11 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
  •