Page 10 of 481 FirstFirst ... 891011122060110 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 4801

Thread: Genetic Genealogy & Ancient DNA in the News (DISCUSSION ONLY)

  1. #91
    Banned
    Posts
    4,169
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Nationality
    N/A
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1-L621- PH 908
    mtDNA (M)
    H 47

    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    The paper has been released? Considering the IVC was driven by descendents Iran_N farmers I assume they would most likely be 50/50 or 40/60 like mixes , considering a lot of those PJL samples look virtually indistinguishable from many South Indian samples, both of which lack Steppe admixture. Regardless , considering the area covers 1 million square miles , more samples will be needed.
    That extreme kind of ratio is more typical for forager societies in South Asia ie Paniya, Adivasi. Another thing to consider is the spread of rice farming from the South East.
    The analysis is basically complete but will not be published for a while
    However, a handful of people know the results already
    Last edited by Gravetto-Danubian; 10-10-2016 at 01:32 AM.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Gravetto-Danubian For This Useful Post:

     Hando (01-03-2017)

  3. #92
    Banned
    Posts
    4,169
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Nationality
    N/A
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1-L621- PH 908
    mtDNA (M)
    H 47

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    Word is that the pie chart in North India that looks something like 85% ASI and 15% ANI is based on Indus Valley samples from ~2500 BCE.
    Wow. ! 85% 'South Asian hunter-gatherer' in 3000 BC Northern India ?
    Last edited by Gravetto-Danubian; 10-10-2016 at 10:54 AM.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Gravetto-Danubian For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (10-13-2016),  Hando (01-03-2017),  kingjohn (10-11-2016),  pegasus (10-10-2016)

  5. #93
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,343
    Location
    Shangri La

    Afghanistan Jammu and Kashmir United States of America Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Gravetto-Danubian View Post
    The analysis is basically complete but will not be published for a while
    However, a handful of people know the results already
    The issue is with ratios like that, that would insinuate a massive population replacement as a result of plague similar to what wiped out large swathes of Amerindians OR movement of Rice Farmers from east of the Ganges who became urbanized,. Problem is South Asia's urban societies were driven mainly by Iran_N like peoples. Based of dental records and skeletons found in the Indus area , more so the Mergarh , Sudodont dental patterns were replaced by West Eurasian ie Iran_N ones . It is likely even in the Neolithic and into early Bronze Age there was diversity. The fact that most South Indians have elevated Iran_N ancestry but no or little Steppe proves that.
    Last edited by pegasus; 10-10-2016 at 04:02 AM.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to pegasus For This Useful Post:

     Hando (01-03-2017)

  7. #94
    Banned
    Posts
    4,169
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Nationality
    N/A
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1-L621- PH 908
    mtDNA (M)
    H 47

    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    The issue is with ratios like that, that would insinuate a massive population replacement as a result of plague similar to what wiped out large swathes of Amerindians OR movement of Rice Farmers from east of the Ganges. Problem is South Asia's urban societies were driven mainly by Iran_N peoples. Based of dental records and skeletons found in the Indus area , more so the Mergarh , Sudodont dental patterns were replaces by West Eurasian ie Iran_N ones . It is likely even in the Neolithic and into early Bronze Age there was diversity.
    I did not state that this map was based on the actual results (in fact I don't know if it was or wasn't), but Refer to above comment

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gravetto-Danubian For This Useful Post:

     Hando (01-03-2017),  pegasus (10-10-2016)

  9. #95
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,343
    Location
    Shangri La

    Afghanistan Jammu and Kashmir United States of America Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Gravetto-Danubian View Post
    I did not state that this map was based on the actual results (in fact I don't know if it was or wasn't), but Refer to above comment
    Oh ok

  10. #96
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,428
    Sex
    Location
    Poland
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-Z2552
    mtDNA (M)
    W6a

    Poland European Union Poland Pomerania
    When it comes to the Lapita study:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture19844.html

    There is a 2006 paper which already found the same thing - namely that Papuan/Melanesian ancestry in Polynesians is mostly from males: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/11/2234.full

    It looks like some conquest, considering that Early Lapita Y-DNA (but not mtDNA) was largely replaced by Papuan/Melanesian Y-DNA. A similar situation as with Indo-European expansion in Europe.
    Last edited by Tomenable; 10-10-2016 at 07:05 PM.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Tomenable For This Useful Post:

     Hando (01-03-2017)

  12. #97
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,637
    Sex
    Location
    Calgary
    Ethnicity
    Anglo
    Nationality
    Canadian
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2-S2361 < L801
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a2b(1)
    mtDNA (P)
    H3

    Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    When it comes to the Lapita study:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture19844.html

    There is a 2006 paper which already found the same thing - namely that Papuan/Melanesian ancestry in Polynesians is mostly from males: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/11/2234.full

    It looks like some conquest, considering that Early Lapita Y-DNA (but not mtDNA) was largely replaced by Papuan/Melanesian Y-DNA. A similar situation as with Indo-European expansion in Europe.
    The male biased Papuan ancestry is not the novel finding. The surprise is that the admixture did not occur during the migration of the Lapita people through Melanesia on their way to Polynesia; instead an admixed (or Papuan) population entered Polynesia after its initial settlement.

    It is not similar to the Indo-European situation, unless you suppose that it was the Neolithic farmers who spoke IE and the incoming pastoralists adopted their language. The language comes from the female side.

    The question is whether Papuan men conquered a Lapita society and adopted their language, or an admixed society arose through Austronesian matrilocality and then spread into Polynesia.
    Last edited by Megalophias; 10-10-2016 at 11:20 PM.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Megalophias For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (10-13-2016),  Hando (01-03-2017),  Michał (10-11-2016)

  14. #98
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,432
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA (P)
    J1-Z18271
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c5
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-U152
    mtDNA (P)
    U7a5

    Israel Israel Jerusalem United Kingdom England Scotland Isle of Man
    Quote Originally Posted by Gravetto-Danubian View Post
    Respectfully, the entire corpus of "linguistic evidence" for the steppe hypothesis can also be dismantled in 7 seconds, even by non-specialists.
    The very nature of linguistic evidence can only guide with relative chronology, not impose rigid geographic confines

    Many of the perceived "language relations" will become questioned as we get aDNA from the Baltic, Volga-Ural, and the Altai; so it's always good to keep an open mind in the interim
    I agree that people will start asking questions once we get surprises from Eastern Europe and the steppe, nevertheless my working assumption is that genetics can only provide a clue, not an actual answer. No matter the amount of odd ancient genomes, they simply won't slash their way through the comparative grammars most linguists work with

    Look, I've been re-reading Pereltsvaig & Lewis' book on Bouckaert et al. 2012 as of late, these are non-specialists as far as diachronic linguistics go, I do not agree with everything they have to say... And one of the things I certainly do not agree with is their cautious support (tending towards neutrality) of a steppe homeland.
    I know a dodo when I see one, the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of a homeland on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, it certainly cannot be disproven, let alone "dismantled" by non-specialists (though it can be ignored, and I see a lot of this) since it is quite substantial and extremely persuasive not to say conclusive.

    So unless we discover several previously unknown branches of IE in a different setting which would force us to reconsider what we know about PIE, the science is pretty much settled as far as the homeland is of concern... In other words, all the people you see babbling about an alternative homeland (in Anatolia or elsewhere) are fighting over the decaying corpse of the PIE urheimat debate.
    Last edited by Agamemnon; 10-13-2016 at 01:14 AM.
    מכורותיך ומולדותיך מארץ הכנעני אביך האמורי ואמך חתית
    יחזקאל פרק טז ג-


    ᾽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

  15. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Agamemnon For This Useful Post:

     Awale (10-15-2016),  ffoucart (10-13-2016),  Hando (01-03-2017),  Jean M (10-13-2016),  lgmayka (10-13-2016),  Observer (10-13-2016),  rms2 (10-23-2016)

  16. #99
    Banned
    Posts
    4,169
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Nationality
    N/A
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1-L621- PH 908
    mtDNA (M)
    H 47

    Quote Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
    I agree that people will start asking questions once we get surprises from Eastern Europe and the steppe, nevertheless my working assumption is that genetics can only provide a clue, not an actual answer. No matter the amount of odd ancient genomes, they simply won't slash their way through the comparative grammars most linguists work with

    Look, I've been re-reading Pereltsvaig & Lewis' book on Bouckaert et al. 2012 as of late, these are non-specialists as far as diachronic linguistics go, I do not agree with everything they have to say... And one of the things I certainly do not agree with is their cautious support (tending towards neutrality) of a steppe homeland.
    I know a dodo when I see one, the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of a homeland on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, it certainly cannot be disproven, let alone "dismantled" by non-specialists (though it can be ignored, and I see a lot of this) since it is quite substantial and extremely persuasive not to say conclusive.

    So unless we discover several previously unknown branches of IE in a different setting which would force us to reconsider what we know about PIE, the science is pretty much settled as far as the homeland is of concern... In other words, all the people you see babbling about an alternative homeland (in Anatolia or elsewhere) are fighting over the decaying corpse of the PIE urheimat debate.
    You appear to be arguing against chronology of Boukhard, which i concur with you, but there is nothing in the linguistic corpus that mandates a Ponto-Caspian homeland, neither the structure of PIE languages themselves, nor it's Palaeolexicon, nor external language relations . In fact, steppe like areas are found south of the Caucasus, which in the copper age were characterised by pastoralist lifestyle, and Anatolian languages are better explained via a southern route, and here Yamnaya fails. Easentially, in rejecting the neolithic scenario, one doesn't have to a priori fall to the steppe-lands. So I'm saying this not because I do think that a more southenr homeland is correct, but simply because it might be

    The only people who insist that indisputable language evidence exists for Caspian steppe hypothesis, are funnily enough those who need it to- eg Anthony and Parpola, although i take their points, and certainly enjoy Pereltsvaig. It has been argued that this is often achieved by circular reasoning, a tunnelled view of archaeology, and over emphasising IE-Uralic contacts over and above what many linguists (Clackson, Nichols, Garrett) would warn against, whilst concurrently neglecting it's similarities to other families. But this might be a non-issue, as upcoming studies might simply confirm what many might see as Occam's razor- the (primary) steppe homeland. So we can revisit if and when required, but at least aDNA is hard data, whilst the murky world of pre-proto-languages is not.
    Last edited by Gravetto-Danubian; 10-13-2016 at 02:44 AM.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Gravetto-Danubian For This Useful Post:

     Hando (01-03-2017)

  18. #100
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,432
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA (P)
    J1-Z18271
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c5
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-U152
    mtDNA (P)
    U7a5

    Israel Israel Jerusalem United Kingdom England Scotland Isle of Man
    Quote Originally Posted by Gravetto-Danubian View Post
    You appear to be arguing against chronology, which i concur with, but there is nothing in the linguistic corpus that mandates a Ponto-Caspian homeland, neither the structure of PIE languages themselves, nor it's Palaeolexicon, nor external language relations . In fact, steppe like areas are found south of the Caucasus, which in the copper age were characterised by pastoralist lifestyle, and Anatolian languages are better explained via a southern route, and here Yamnaya fails. The only people who insist that such evidence exists, are those who need it to- eg Anthony and Parpola, although i take their points, and certainly enjoy Pereltsvaig . But this might be a non-issue, as upcoming studies might simply confirm what many might see as Occam's razor- the (primary) steppe homeland. So we can revisit if and when required
    In fact, I would argue that the very structure (that is to say the phonological & morphosyntactic structure) of PIE might well provide even more weight to the PC steppe homeland, though this is arguably controversial at this stage, I've been reading some material on NW Caucasian languages which might indicate that PIE had tremendous influence on Pre-PNWC, this is an admittedly peculiar view I've developped since most of the linguists who've investigated the relationship between IE & NWC tend to assume that the latter influenced the former or even that IE is "an aberrant outlier of Caucasian" (to cite Colarusso, of Proto-Pontic fame) while I'm proposing the opposite for the most part (I am not saying contact-induced change did not go both ways, it just looks like IE has left a far more profound impression).

    I do not care much for Yamnaya, though I certainly am curious about the archeological ramifications I do not expect languages and material cultures to correlate perfectly (same thing for genes), I'm just stating a simple fact here: The evidence overwhelmingly (almost unilaterally in fact) supports a homeland on the steppe. There's no way around this really, like I said most of the people you see babbling about alternative homelands are basically fighting over the decaying corpse of the PIE urheimat debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gravetto-Danubian View Post
    The only people who insist that indisputable language evidence exists for Caspian steppe hypothesis, are funnily enough those who need it to- eg Anthony and Parpola, although i take their points, and certainly enjoy Pereltsvaig. This is often achieved by circular reasoning, relative ignorance of archaeology, and by over emphasising IE-Uralic contacts over and above what many linguists (Claxkson, Nichols, Garrett) would warn against, whilst concurrently neglecting it's similarities to other families. But this might be a non-issue, as upcoming studies might simply confirm what many might see as Occam's razor- the (primary) steppe homeland. So we can revisit if and when required, but at least aDNA is hard data, whilst the murky world of pre-proto-languages is not.
    Well, I'm doing the exact opposite, I've recently seen a lot of data on NWC languages (Northeast Caucasian is what I know best after Afroasiatic and Uto-Aztecan, so I'm somewhat accustomed to NWC), and contrary to Kortlandt, Bomhard and countless others I've reached, by and large, the opposite conclusion: NWC was substantially influenced by PIE.
    I might write a paper about this when I have the time to do so (unfortunately, I'm too busy right now).
    Last edited by Agamemnon; 10-13-2016 at 02:17 AM.
    מכורותיך ומולדותיך מארץ הכנעני אביך האמורי ואמך חתית
    יחזקאל פרק טז ג-


    ᾽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

  19. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Agamemnon For This Useful Post:

     Awale (10-15-2016),  ffoucart (10-13-2016),  Gravetto-Danubian (10-13-2016),  Hando (01-03-2017),  Jean M (10-13-2016),  lgmayka (10-13-2016),  Megalophias (10-13-2016)

Page 10 of 481 FirstFirst ... 891011122060110 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Genetic Genealogy & Ancient DNA in the News (TITLES/ABSTRACTS ONLY)
    By History-of-Things in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 3180
    Last Post: Yesterday, 06:16 PM
  2. Ancient Celtic Y dna discussion
    By Principe in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 01-16-2021, 10:47 PM
  3. R2 - Ancient DNA Discussion
    By Tomasso29 in forum R2-M479
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-05-2020, 02:06 PM
  4. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-15-2015, 09:09 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
  •