Page 251 of 404 FirstFirst ... 151201241249250251252253261301351 ... LastLast
Results 2,501 to 2,510 of 4039

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

  1. #2501
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,481
    Sex
    Location
    Republic of Moldova
    Ethnicity
    Moldovan/Romanian
    Y-DNA (P)
    I-PH908*, DYS561=15
    mtDNA (M)
    T2a1b1a

    Moldova Romania European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    Bad prediction.

    All of the R1a in Turkic groups is from Indo-Iranians and Slavs.
    Can you or someone who pushed the thanks button back this up with actual evidence? Or is this another prediction?
    Recent ancestry: 2/4 Central Moldova (Orhei district), 1/4 Southern Moldova (Cahul district), 1/4 Northern Moldova (Briceni district)
    Hidden Content

    Hidden Content

  2. #2502
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,612
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Dorkymon View Post
    Can you or someone who pushed the thanks button back this up with actual evidence? Or is this another prediction?
    You should read Allentoft et al. and Damgaard et al. (x2)

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14507.html

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2

    http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...cience.aar7711

    These papers provide a lot of direct genetic evidence about how R1a spread from Eastern Europe into Central and South Asia, along with Indo-European languages, and then a subset of it came back with Turkic speakers.

    This really isn't a controversial topic and never really has been. The consensus is very strong on these matters.

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

     Agamemnon (06-03-2019),  DMXX (06-03-2019),  Dorkymon (06-03-2019),  Erikl86 (06-04-2019),  etrusco (06-03-2019),  Hando (06-06-2019),  jdean (06-03-2019),  palamede (06-04-2019),  peternorth (06-06-2019),  Pribislav (06-03-2019),  Psynome (06-04-2019),  Ruderico (06-04-2019),  spruithean (06-03-2019)

  4. #2503
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,481
    Sex
    Location
    Republic of Moldova
    Ethnicity
    Moldovan/Romanian
    Y-DNA (P)
    I-PH908*, DYS561=15
    mtDNA (M)
    T2a1b1a

    Moldova Romania European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    You should read Allentoft et al. and Damgaard et al. (x2)

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14507.html

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2

    http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...cience.aar7711

    These papers provide a lot of direct genetic evidence about how R1a spread from Eastern Europe into Central and South Asia, along with Indo-European languages, and then a subset of it came back with Turkic speakers.

    This really isn't a controversial topic and never really has been. The consensus is very strong on these matters.
    Thanks, I'll give them a read.
    Recent ancestry: 2/4 Central Moldova (Orhei district), 1/4 Southern Moldova (Cahul district), 1/4 Northern Moldova (Briceni district)
    Hidden Content

    Hidden Content

  5. #2504
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,417
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R2a*-M124 (L295-)
    mtDNA (M)
    D4j5*

    England United Kingdom England
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorkymon View Post
    Can you or someone who pushed the thanks button back this up with actual evidence? Or is this another prediction?
    The statement "R1a-M417 is the Y-DNA of the Turkic peoples" is an invalid one, rather than merely being an unlikely prediction.

    R1a1a-M417 has a MRCA of 5.4kya according to YFull.

    The conventional estimates of PIE go back to at least 5kya (depending on the linguist or school of thought you subscribe to). The Anthony-Ringe model has it at approx. 6.5kya. The precise age is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion, where the only important consideration is that it's thousands of years old. The suspected early Semitic and proto-Kartelian (or possibly a third party mediator?) shared words with PIE place the homeland firmly within (or very close to) W. Eurasia.

    On the other hand, proto-Turkic is a relatively younger language (the estimates I've seen vary; 200 B.C. per Hrushka et al. 2015). It also shares what appears to be a set of cognates with proto-Tungusic, pre-proto-Mongolic and possibly proto-Koreanic (and proto-Japonic). The irregular patchwork of loans between these otherwise disparate language families suggests a complex interaction pattern within (or very close to) South Siberia or Manchuria (E. Eurasia).

    R1a-M417 has several downstream subclades with living representatives dispersed across West Eurasia, whereas the Central Asian Turkish or Mongolian-derived R1a-M417 lines are all situated distally to these and are nestled among West Eurasians.

    The aDNA isn't supportive of this statement, either. The oldest populations who carry Y-DNA R1a to date are all situated in Eastern Europe. The Iron Age Altaian and Medieval Turkish samples, humourously, are largely non-R1a-M417 (Y-DNA J2 actually looks like the main paternal line if we're going by the current data alone).

    As such, the only conceivable way that Y-DNA R1a-M417 can be considered a "Turkic marker" were if one engaged in identity politics-level special pleading - Linguists underestimated the age of proto-Turkic or the MRCA of M417 is a gross overestimation and proto-Turkic arose in NE Europe and we find a convenient excuse for the multi-layer cognates with proto-Tungusic and pre-proto-Mongolic or the splinter subclades of M417 that are embodied by modern Europeans actually are proto-Turkic-derived because of [reasons].

    In sum, that statement is invalid due to the chronology established by both the estimation of linguists, the current aDNA and an assessment of R1a's phylogeny. The only way anyone can sincerely hold that view is if they've subscribed to Klyosov's divergent theorycrafting, or there's an over-interpretation of a narrow band of data.

    The evidence-based proposal, which is in agreement with the linguistic and genetic data, supports the emergence of R1a-M417 in Eastern Europe, the presence of downstream subclades in IE-speaking groups followed by their subsequent dispersal, and the eventual uptake of M417 by other cultures outside of the P-C steppes, with descendant populations possessing different frequencies due to genetic drift.
    Last edited by DMXX; 06-03-2019 at 11:28 PM. Reason: A few sentence modifications

  6. The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to DMXX For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-03-2019),  alexfritz (06-04-2019),  Erikl86 (06-04-2019),  Generalissimo (06-03-2019),  Hando (06-06-2019),  J Man (06-03-2019),  jdean (06-03-2019),  KSDA (06-04-2019),  Michalis Moriopoulos (06-04-2019),  palamede (06-04-2019),  parasar (06-06-2019),  peternorth (06-06-2019),  Pribislav (06-03-2019),  Psynome (06-04-2019),  rms2 (06-04-2019),  rozenfeld (06-03-2019),  Ruderico (06-04-2019),  SonsOfHerakles (06-04-2019),  Targum (06-04-2019)

  7. #2505
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,681
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-DF27 FGC17112
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Quote Originally Posted by rozenfeld View Post
    Eh, there is also Ireland(Dan Bradley's lab), Sweden(Mattias Jacobsson etc), Estonia(Mait Metspalu etc).

    If I remember correctly, Japanese guys consulted with Willerslev.
    Supposedly, another in Turkey with 12,000 samples from every region for 12,000 years.

    https://t.co/eBmWV29GP2

  8. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Chad Rohlfsen For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-04-2019),  Angoliga (06-03-2019),  DMXX (06-04-2019),  Erikl86 (06-04-2019),  Hando (06-06-2019),  hartaisarlag (06-03-2019),  jdean (06-04-2019),  Michalis Moriopoulos (06-04-2019),  parasar (06-06-2019),  Psynome (06-04-2019),  rozenfeld (06-03-2019)

  9. #2506
    Registered Users
    Posts
    936
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX View Post
    The statement "R1a-M417 is the Y-DNA of the Turkic peoples" is an invalid one, rather than merely being an unlikely prediction.

    R1a1a-M417 has a MRCA of 5.4kya according to YFull.

    The conventional estimates of PIE go back to at least 5kya (depending on the linguist or school of thought you subscribe to). The Anthony-Ringe model has it at approx. 6.5kya. The precise age is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion, where the only important consideration is that it's thousands of years old. The suspected early Semitic and proto-Kartelian (or possibly a third party mediator?) shared words with PIE place the homeland firmly within (or very close to) W. Eurasia.

    On the other hand, proto-Turkic is a relatively younger language (the estimates I've seen vary; 200 B.C. per Hrushka et al. 2015). It also shares what appears to be a set of cognates with proto-Tungusic, pre-proto-Mongolic and possibly proto-Koreanic (and proto-Japonic). The irregular patchwork of loans between these otherwise disparate language families suggests a complex interaction pattern within (or very close to) South Siberia or Manchuria (E. Eurasia).

    R1a-M417 has several downstream subclades with living representatives dispersed across West Eurasia, whereas the Central Asian Turkish or Mongolian-derived R1a-M417 lines are all situated distally to these and are nestled among West Eurasians.

    The aDNA isn't supportive of this statement, either. The oldest populations who carry Y-DNA R1a to date are all situated in Eastern Europe. The Iron Age Altaian and Medieval Turkish samples, humourously, are largely non-R1a-M417 (Y-DNA J2 actually looks like the main paternal line if we're going by the current data alone).

    As such, the only conceivable way that Y-DNA R1a-M417 can be considered a "Turkic marker" were if one engaged in identity politics-level special pleading - Linguists underestimated the age of proto-Turkic or the MRCA of M417 is a gross overestimation and proto-Turkic arose in NE Europe and we find a convenient excuse for the multi-layer cognates with proto-Tungusic and pre-proto-Mongolic or the splinter subclades of M417 that are embodied by modern Europeans actually are proto-Turkic-derived because of [reasons].

    In sum, that statement is invalid due to the chronology established by both the estimation of linguists, the current aDNA and an assessment of R1a's phylogeny. The only way anyone can sincerely hold that view is if they've subscribed to Klyosov's divergent theorycrafting, or there's an over-interpretation of a narrow band of data.

    The evidence-based proposal, which is in agreement with the linguistic and genetic data, supports the emergence of R1a-M417 in Eastern Europe, the presence of downstream subclades in IE-speaking groups followed by their subsequent dispersal, and the eventual uptake of M417 by other cultures outside of the P-C steppes, with descendant populations possessing different frequencies due to genetic drift.
    The ancient Turkic J2 samples indeed are quite interesting. Unfortunately the archaeological descriptions of most of those samples are rather poor though.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to J Man For This Useful Post:

     DMXX (06-04-2019),  Hando (06-06-2019)

  11. #2507
    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX View Post
    R1a1a-M417 has a MRCA of 5.4kya according to YFull.

    R1a-M417 has several downstream subclades with living representatives dispersed across West Eurasia, whereas the Central Asian Turkish or Mongolian-derived R1a-M417 lines are all situated distally to these and are nestled among West Eurasians.
    Which is convenient because Turkic culture can be traced back to Sredny Stog:

    "The Sredny Stog culture carried a number of traits exclusive for the later Turkic peoples.
    As far as the kurgans are concerned, only the Turkic peoples had retained a name for a man-made grave marker hill, and they bestowed that name "kurgan" on all surrounding IE and non-IE peoples, precisely because those people did not have a term for a foreign object belonging to a foreign religion from a contrasting culture.

    The presumptuous militantly patriarchal nature of the Eneolithic burials is nearly identical to that of the Turkic kurgans in the historical times, which are known as being dual endogamic societies with no exaggerated sexual dominance, just to name the Dulo/Ukil ruling clans of the Hunno-Bulgars, or Ashina/Ashtak ruling clans of the Turks.

    Animal bones are an intriguing accompaniment to many burials and the principal species represented were ovicaprids, cattle, horse, dog and some wild animals. These remains may often be interpreted simply as joints of meat presented as food offerings; however, other rituals were also at play. Frequently the skull and forelegs of a sheep, or much more rarely of a horse, are encountered in a grave and indicate the presence of a 'head and hooves' cult. In some cases the forepart of the animal might have been erected directly over the burial.

    This prominent, radically distinctive, and without equal trait seems being directly taken from the textbook on Turkic burial traditions. Like the kurgan burials themselves, this religious rite survived and is well documented until the Middle Ages, and like the kurgan burials themselves, this religious rite was never as a traditional custom among Indo-European or Finno-Ugrian peoples."

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX View Post
    On the other hand, proto-Turkic is a relatively younger language (the estimates I've seen vary; 200 B.C. per Hrushka et al. 2015). It also shares what appears to be a set of cognates with proto-Tungusic, pre-proto-Mongolic and possibly proto-Koreanic (and proto-Japonic). The irregular patchwork of loans between these otherwise disparate language families suggests a complex interaction pattern within (or very close to) South Siberia or Manchuria (E. Eurasia).
    "However, in recent decades the proposal has been rejected by many comparative linguists, after supposed cognates were found not to be valid, and Turkic and Mongolic languages were found to be converging rather than diverging over the centuries. "

    Guess who's been converging with Mongolic since 2000BC:
    Last edited by Mr. Snow; 06-03-2019 at 11:53 PM.

  12. #2508
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,612
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Snow View Post
    Which is convenient because Turkic culture can be traced back to Sredny Stog.
    The linguistic associations of the Sredny Stog culture are discussed in this book, which is an infinitely more reliable source than your cut and paste text from some crazy website.

    In Search Of The Indo-Europeans JP Mallory

    And make sure you check out the caption under Figure 26, which shows a facial reconstitution of a Sredny Stog man from Alexandria, Ukraine, where the earliest currently sampled R1a-M417 is from.

  13. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Generalissimo For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-04-2019),  DMXX (06-04-2019),  Erikl86 (06-04-2019),  Hando (06-06-2019),  jdean (06-04-2019),  Michalis Moriopoulos (06-04-2019),  peternorth (06-06-2019),  Power77 (06-04-2019),  rms2 (06-04-2019),  Ruderico (06-04-2019),  SonsOfHerakles (06-04-2019)

  14. #2509
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,417
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R2a*-M124 (L295-)
    mtDNA (M)
    D4j5*

    England United Kingdom England
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Snow View Post
    Which is convenient because Turkic culture can be traced back to Sredny Stog:
    Where to begin?

    "The Sredny Stog culture carried a number of traits exclusive for the later Turkic peoples.
    As far as the kurgans are concerned, only the Turkic peoples had retained a name for a man-made grave marker hill, and they bestowed that name "kurgan" on all surrounding IE and non-IE peoples, precisely because those people did not have a term for a foreign object belonging to a foreign religion from a contrasting culture.
    That Turkic-speakers introduced the popular term "kurgan" to Russians when referring to tumuli doesn't mean they were the originators of the practice of constructing tumuli. That's a variant of the attestation logical fallacy.

    Kurgans are observed in West Asia (Kura-Araxes, Anatolia) and Eastern Europe (Khvalynsk, Maikop, Repin) thousands of years prior to the older accepted dates for proto-Turkic. The Eastern European ones look older.

    On the basis of chronology and the logical fallacy used to prop the argument up, this statement can be dismissed.

    The presumptuous militantly patriarchal nature of the Eneolithic burials is nearly identical to that of the Turkic kurgans in the historical times, which are known as being dual endogamic societies with no exaggerated sexual dominance, just to name the Dulo/Ukil ruling clans of the Hunno-Bulgars, or Ashina/Ashtak ruling clans of the Turks.
    The reconstructed Indo-European culture was patriarchal with some limited evidence of egalitarianism (according to some archaeologists at least). This is a non-specific association.

    Animal bones are an intriguing accompaniment to many burials and the principal species represented were ovicaprids, cattle, horse, dog and some wild animals. These remains may often be interpreted simply as joints of meat presented as food offerings; however, other rituals were also at play. Frequently the skull and forelegs of a sheep, or much more rarely of a horse, are encountered in a grave and indicate the presence of a 'head and hooves' cult. In some cases the forepart of the animal might have been erected directly over the burial.

    This prominent, radically distinctive, and without equal trait seems being directly taken directly from the textbook on Turkic burial traditions. Like the kurgan burials themselves, this religious rite survived and is well documented until the Middle Ages, and like the kurgan burials themselves, this religious rite was never as a traditional custom among Indo-European or Finno-Ugrian peoples."
    That certain cultural motifs persist in recently sedentarised Central Asian populations with an antiquity in the Eurasian steppes does not automatically indicate that they are the direct and exclusive descendants of a particular culture. That level of reductionist thinking is, again, identity politics-level sophomorism.

    By that reasoning, Gilaki speakers from Northern Iran are the closest descendants of the Andronovo culture, just because they happen to have inherited the Andronovan domestic structure (though they use them as summer houses).

    That your quote from your mystery source also omits the ubiquity of animal celebration in IE culture (horses in reconstructed poetry, the "war pig" meme, warrior bands invoking wolves etc.) is suggestive of their own ignorance of IE linguistics.

    "However, in recent decades the proposal has been rejected by many comparative linguists, after supposed cognates were found not to be valid, and Turkic and Mongolic languages were found to be converging rather than diverging over the centuries. "
    That is correct, and the Altaic macro-family has been dismissed by most Western linguists on that basis. The same readily applies with Turkic-Tungusic and Turkic-Koreanic cognates. That, by extension, indicates extensive, multi-layered and irregular contacts between early speakers of these language families within a focused geographical range (i.e. the Altai-Manchuria zone).

    I don't think you understand that your quote supports my contention, and you're actively distracting from the best-fit, multidisciplinary narrative I posted.

    You need to counter each specific point and explain why an alternative interpretation to each in isolation, alongside an all-encompassing alternate narrative, should be considered equally plausible.

    Nitpicking won't do.
    Last edited by DMXX; 06-04-2019 at 02:42 PM. Reason: awareness -> ignorance, capitalised N

  15. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to DMXX For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-04-2019),  Awale (06-04-2019),  Erikl86 (06-04-2019),  Generalissimo (06-04-2019),  Hando (06-06-2019),  jdean (06-04-2019),  parasar (06-06-2019),  peternorth (06-06-2019),  Power77 (06-04-2019),  Pribislav (06-04-2019),  rms2 (06-04-2019),  Ruderico (06-04-2019),  SonsOfHerakles (06-04-2019),  spruithean (06-04-2019)

  16. #2510
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,462
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    C-F5481
    mtDNA (M)
    M8a

    Kyrgyzstan
    Reagrding kurgans: Russian language actually has native word for kurgans, but it was mostly replaced by the Turkic borrowing "kurgan". The native Russian word is сопка/sopka, but now its meaning has shifted and it mostly denotes large hills and volcanoes: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8...BF%D0%BA%D0%B0

  17. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to rozenfeld For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-04-2019),  Awale (06-04-2019),  DMXX (06-04-2019),  Erikl86 (06-04-2019),  Hando (06-06-2019),  jdean (06-04-2019),  parasar (06-07-2019),  peternorth (06-06-2019),  Power77 (06-04-2019),  Pribislav (06-04-2019),  rms2 (06-04-2019),  Ruderico (06-04-2019)

Page 251 of 404 FirstFirst ... 151201241249250251252253261301351 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Genetic Genealogy & Ancient DNA in the News (TITLES/ABSTRACTS ONLY)
    By History-of-Things in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 3025
    Last Post: 11-24-2020, 09:09 AM
  2. R2 - Ancient DNA Discussion
    By Tomasso29 in forum R2-M479
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-05-2020, 02:06 PM
  3. Ancient Celtic Y dna discussion
    By Principe in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 10-15-2018, 01:27 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
  •