drought of ancient DNA papers on prehistoric Europe/SW Asia

[Generalissimo]

Holy crap, I was told that part of the model has Indo-Europeans migrating through North Africa. Haha.

Not sure if that's right 100% yet, but yeah, half of the Indo-Euorpean push into Europe comes from western Anatolia during the early Neolithic.

[R.Rocca]

Holy crap, I was told that part of the model has Indo-Europeans migrating through North Africa. Haha.

Not sure if that's right 100% yet, but yeah, half of the Indo-Euorpean push into Europe comes from western Anatolia during the early Neolithic.

Part of which model? The one from the fuzzy presentation?

[Jean M]

we are all aware of the friendly to - and fro-ing done by Mallory & Renfrew (who portended that the 'question' will be solved by a new generation of scholars). But frankly, this has nothing to do with it, and AFAIK both Mallory and Renfrew are almost retired.

Professor (Lord) Renfrew (aged 79) is retired as Disney Professor of Archaeology and Director of the McDonald Institute, but remains a Fellow there, and continues very active, as you can see from his publications list. As a theorist he has been highly influential. His was the idea that IE was spread by early farmers; his eminence I suspect contributed to making this idea the most popular among other British archaeologists. He remains very much involved in this particular discussion. http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/directory/acr10

Prof. James Mallory has retired from his teaching post at Queen's University, Belfast, but remains a researcher there and continues to publish, as you can see: http://pure.qub.ac.uk/portal/en/pers...lications.html . He was present at the conference on IE last year at the Max Planck Institute in Jena, as was Prof. Renfrew. Mallory points out that Prof. David Anthony has supplanted him in providing an up-to-date review of the archaeological evidence for the steppe IE homeland. But Mallory is still involved in the discussion. He might prefer to turn his attention elsewhere (Irish archaeology/history) in his retirement, but the thing keeps rumbling on.

[Jean M]

However, it will mean great amounts of funding will be dedicated to this. Great amounts of funding that should partly go elsewhere: Red Deer Cave, Flores Hobbit (Maybe our only change to get Homo Erectus DNA?). Solutrean. Ahmarian. More research on the first wave into Eurasia.

Don't worry. Now that the idea is established that aDNA can resolve puzzles of the past, it has been used for more than just one puzzle. The Neolithic was the big initial interest in Europe, and the Palaeolithic followed as soon as technology allowed. Don't forget that it is only recently that it has been possible to get aDNA from human remains so ancient, or from warmer climates. We have much to look forward to.

[Jean M]

Tea-party intrigues.

This is not a tea-party. Russell Gray has packed his department with his allies. He had the freedom to do so and used it. Bear in mind that he has had his pseudo-science published in Science and other reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Other scientists (non-linguists) have been sufficiently impressed to give him an institute to play with. Gray himself of course believes in the method that he "pioneered". Renfrew thought that it had proved him right on IE and was aggrieved that linguists still did not believe it. Now Gray and Renfrew, as intelligent men, have recognised that the future lies in aDNA. But we cannot expect them to be in any hurry to accept that the verdict from same has already gone against them on IE. Why should they, if hybrids can be proposed to save face?

Such skirmishing is all part of the process of paradigm change. New ideas need to be tested thoroughly. The fact that academics entrenched in one paradigm don't generally let go of it at the first query ensures that new ideas do get examined this way and that. It is not anything to worry about.

[R.Rocca]

David W. sees it as a "Dead Cat Bounce" http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2016...at-bounce.html

Not being all that clued up on the financial markets, I had no idea what that was and had to look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_bounce

Russell Gray was one of the founding directors of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in March 2014. Also on the staff there are Quentin Atkinson and Remco Bouckaert, his co-authors in papers attempting to prove the Anatolian theory via computer models, and Paul Heggarty, probably the ony linguist they could find willing to back Renfrew.

So the excellent geneticists recruited by the Max Planck are working in tandem with deep believers in Renfrew, who have a huge career investment in a theory that the Harvard group under Reich is blowing apart. This looks like the cue for lots more ancient DNA as the competing universities fire papers at each other. I'm rubbing my hands in anticipation.

By the way, the slide in question is labeled as "Genomic History of Upper Paleolithic Europeans" (the Fu paper) on the bottom and then has references to Lazaridis 2014 and Haak 2015. If they used those three papers alone to come up with that model, then I don't see how the data can support that linguistic movements on the map.

[razyn]

By the way, the slide in question is labeled as "Genomic History of Upper Paleolithic Europeans" (the Fu paper) on the bottom and then has references to Lazaridis 2014 and Haak 2015. If they used those three papers alone to come up with that model, then I don't see how the data can support that linguistic movements on the map.

I think those newer papers only influenced their decision to hybridize. But what they were hybridizing Renfrew 1987 with, for mapping purposes, appears on the preceding slide to have been Gimbutas 1950. It starts 2 hours 52 minutes 06 seconds into the version here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH_O...tu.be&t=21m17s
Screen Shot 2016-10-10 at 6.15.54 PM.jpg

[Gravetto-Danubian]

This is not a tea-party. Russell Gray has packed his department with his allies. He had the freedom to do so and used it. Bear in mind that he has had his pseudo-science published in Science and other reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Other scientists (non-linguists) have been sufficiently impressed to give him an institute to play with. Gray himself of course believes in the method that he "pioneered". Renfrew thought that it had proved him right on IE and was aggrieved that linguists still did not believe it. Now Gray and Renfrew, as intelligent men, have recognised that the future lies in aDNA. But we cannot expect them to be in any hurry to accept that the verdict from same has already gone against them on IE. Why should they, if hybrids can be proposed to save face?

Such skirmishing is all part of the process of paradigm change. New ideas need to be tested thoroughly. The fact that academics entrenched in one paradigm don't generally let go of it at the first query ensures that new ideas do get examined this way and that. It is not anything to worry about.

The internal competition between linguists doesn't concern me too much, although I'm aware of some of the background

What does interest me is all the late Neolithic to Iron Age aDNA form central and South Asia (which is more or less ready), and how it compares to my views of PIE expansion (not Heggarty's, Renfrew's or anyone else. But you can rest assured, I'm certainly not in the Neolithic camp )

So in the end , the data will talk.

[Jean M]

The internal competition between linguists

There is no competition between linguists worth mentioning on this matter, unless you count Heggarty. Russell Gray is not a linguist. Colin Renfrew is not a linguist. That has been the problem essentially. They have both tried to approach a linguistic question from the perspective of a completely different discipline. Both have dismissed the views of most linguists.

[Jean M]

What does interest me is all the late Neolithic to Iron Age aDNA from central and South Asia (which is more or less ready), and how it compares to my views of PIE expansion

Yes I fully realise that what has you excited is the prospect of a PIE expansion theory that you actually like. But I have been addressing my remarks to other people on this forum wondering what is going on with the Max Planck.

So in the end , the data will talk

Of course it will. That encapsulates what I have been saying.