The Anatolian Language Family
 | |
Source: Petra Goedegebuure | Anatolians on the Move: From Kurgans to Kanesh - Youtube (2) |
The majority of linguists agree that Anatolian was the first branch to split off from the common ancestor (Proto-Indo-Europeans or PIE) of the other branches of the IE family (Lehrman 1998; Melchert 2017).
The Hattian language is a non-IE local language of the North Central Anatolian region during the bronze age. The main attested languages of the Anatolian family are Hittite, Luwian & Palaic, along with other minor dialects. Hittite is attested between 2000 and 1200 BCE. Luwian is attested between 2000 - 700 BCE. Hittite is mainly attested through thousands of clay tablets inscribed in cuneiform writing obtained from the institutional archives of the Hittite state (ca.1650–1180 BCE) (1).
Dating & Location of the earliest Anatolian Languages
Kroonen et al 2018 states
We stress that the presence of the Anatolian Indo-European language in Anatolia must be much older than the first cuneiform evidence. Anatolian personal names resembling those appearing in the Assyrian trade records are attested approximately half a millennium earlier among individuals said to be from the state of Armi. These are recorded in texts found in the palatial archives of the city of Ebla in Syria, dated to the 25–24th centuries BCE (Bonechi 1990).
The location of Armi remains unknown and is debated (Archi 2011; Bonechi 2016). It was clearly a state with multiple urban centres and was in a position to control Ebla’s access to commodities that can be securely associated with the Anatolian highlands, chiefly metal. Among the individuals listed as coming from Armi, some bear names of unknown derivation while others may have had names that are Semitic in origin. It is not always clear whether the latter are in fact merely the names of Eblaites active in Armi (Winters in prep.). However, a small group of ca. twenty names connected to Armi build on what appear to be well-known Anatolian roots and endings, such as -(w)anda/u, -(w)aššu, -tala, and -ili/u, cf. A-lalu- wa-du, A-li-lu-wa-da, A-li-wa-da, A-li-wa-du, A-lu-wa-da, A-lu-wa-du, Ar-zi-tá-la, Ba-mi-a-du, Ba-wia-du, Du-du-wa-šu, Ha-áš-ti-lu, Hu-da-šu, Mi-mi-a-du, Mu-lu-wa-du, Tar5-hi-li, and Ù-la-ma-du (Archi 2011: 21–25; Bonechi 1990). The Eblaite script does not always distinguish voiced and voiceless consonants and ignores germinates (Catagnoti 2012). This renders it difficult to establish an exact reading of the names and makes it impossible at present to determine the language or languages to which the names from Armi belong with any certainty, except to say that they clearly fall within the Anatolian Indo-European family.
So, personal names belonging to the Anatolian branch are found as far back as 2500 BCE Syrian texts.
Hittitologist Petra Goedegebuure from the University of Chicago suggests that the location of Armi is to the north of Syria according to the Ebla texts (near or inside eastern Anatolia) and that Anatolian entered through its east rather than from the West (Balkan route). She also rejects Colin Renfrew's local origin of Anatolian theory (2).
The Anatolian languages do not share the terms for vehicles and wheels with the rest of the IE languages (2), and given that Yamnaya, Maykop & Kura Araxes cultures had these technologies post 3500 BCE, the split of Anatolian should be placed before 3000-3500BCE. How much before? Given that Anatolian does not share agricultural terms with other IE languages, however, it does share the word for 'wine' with other IE languages. Interesting to note that the Areni-1 cave in Armenia is the oldest winery found so far, dating to around 4200 BCE. This is also where the Armenia_chalcolithic samples were found. The oldest stored wine jars have been found in Georgia, dating to 6000 BCE. So let's say roughly sometime between 6000-3500 BCE is the split date for Anatolian languages.
The other contenders as the source of the Anatolian languages are:
1. Steppe through Balkan route (Anthony 2007; Mallory 1989; Melchert 2003; Steiner 1990; Watkins 2006)
2. Steppe through Caucasus route (Kristiansen 2005; Stefanini 2002; Winn 1981)
3. South Caucasus / Armenia (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1984; Silagadze 2010)
With this in mind, let us proceed to the ancient population genetics of the region.
Ancient Anatolian Genetics
Damgaard et al 2018 was the first study to analyze ancient Anatolian aDna from the relevant Hittite period. It states
In Anatolia, Bronze Age samples, including from Hittite speaking settlements associated with the first written evidence of IE languages, show genetic continuity with preceding Anatolian Copper Age (CA) samples and have substantial Caucasian hunter-gatherer (CHG)–related ancestry but no evidence of direct steppe admixture.
Some commenters expressed that this was a big claim to make based on just 2 Hittite context samples, keeping an eye out for some 5-10% steppe ancestry somewhere in Anatolia to make their weak case for a steppe origin of Anatolian languages.
Genetic Time Transect of Anatolia
 |
| Various Anatolian sites where ancient DNA was obtained. |
1. Anatolia_HG - Pinarbasi - ~13000 BCE
This is the oldest Anatolian sample and belongs to the West Eurasian branch of modern humans out of Africa.
2. Boncuklu_Neolithic - Boncuklu - ~8000 BCE
Can be modeled as 87% Anatolia_HG + 13% Iran_N. qpAdm Result File.
3. Barcin_Neolithic - Barcin, Western Anatolia - ~6000 BCE
Can be modeled as 76% Boncuklu_N + 3% Iran_N + 21% Levant_PP_Neolithic. qpAdm Result File.
These results agree with the conclusions of Feldman et al 2019 (3).
4. TellKurdu_EC - TellKurdu, Southern Anatolia, ~5700 BCE
Can be modeled as 54% Barcin_N + 27% Levant_PP_N + 19% Iran_Hajji_Firuz_Chalcolithic
From the Neolithic to Early Chalcolithic, we see an influx of Iranian as well as Levantine farmer ancestry in various proportions into Anatolia.
The next focus is on Chalcolithic to the Bronze age samples. The qpAdm methodology will be as follows.
Fixed Reference populations (Right Populations)
Mbuti.DG
ONG.SG
EHG
CHG
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
WSHG
Tarim_EMBA1
Mongolia_North_N
Turkey_Epipaleolithic
Iran_GanjDareh_N
PPN
Sources tested one by one:
Iran_C_SehGabi
Bulgaria_Varna_C
Iran_HajjiFiruz_C
Bulgaria_BeliBreyag_EBA
Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
Russia_Steppe_Maikop
Armenia_EBA_KuraAraxes
Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic
Armenia_C
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Russia_Caucasus_Maikop
Rotating qpAdm Model Strategy
We will test each subsequent target with all 13 of these sources 1 by 1. When one source is tested, the other 12 will be added to the fixed reference (right) population list, as per Harney et al 2021 rotating model. This helps us pinpoint the actual source better by way of direct competition with competing sources.
Target Populations:
Barcin_Chalcolithic - 1 sample - ~3800 BCE - Barcin, Western Anatolia
ArslanTepe_LateC - 17 samples - 3800-3000 BCE - Arslan Tepe, Eastern Anatolia
IkizTepe_LateC - 11 samples - 3900-3100 BCE - Ikiz Tepe, North Anatolia
Turkey_EBA - 3 samples - 2800-2300 BCE - Isparta, Central Anatolia
ArslanTepe_EBA - 4 samples - 2800-2300 BCE, Arslan Tepe, Eastern Anatolia
OldHittitePeriod.SG - 2 Shotgun sequenced samples, 2500-1200 BCE, Kalehöyük, Central Anatolia
 |
| Models with Kura Araxes works for most of the Targets. Result files are available here. |
The above results tell us that Armenia_Kura_Araxes samples found from 3500 BCE Kaps, Armenia are the best source of ancestry which works as a source for most of the ancient Anatolian populations. The other competing sources like Yamnaya or Bulgarian sources do not work.
Even though the p-value for HittitePeriod samples is 0.011 for Kura Araxes, it is still the best amongst the competing sources. This p-value is low because of the shotgun sequenced HittitePeriod samples which sometimes show technical affinities with some reference populations due to their nature of sequencing. In our case, the samples showed the inexplicable need for an African ancestry (Mbuti.DG) which is most likely not real but a statistical artifact.
A 3 source model for Hittite Period with Barcin_N + Kura_Araxes + Yamnaya_Samara/Bulgaria_EBA shows 0% ancestry for Yamnaya/Bulgaria and p-values don't improve, proving that no steppe/Balkan source is required for the HittitePeriod samples, agreeing with Damgaard et al 2018.
Ancestry Proportions
Given that no other external ancestry has been detected in all these samples, the substantial gene flow from Kura Araxes (or its immediate ancestors) is the best explanation for the entry of Anatolian languages into Anatolia.
Kura-Araxes Culture
Kura-Araxes culture was an Early Transcaucasian culture that made distinctive red and black pottery with geometric design. The traditional dates of this culture are from 3500-2000BCE, however, some studies suggest an earlier origin of 4200 BCE (4).
 |
| Kura Araxes - Locations & Spread. Source: https://www.asor.org/resources/photo-collection/maps/mid000011 |
Post 3000 BCE, KA pottery and material culture is visible at Arslan Tepe. Given our genetic results above, this suggests that the spread of people occurred centuries before the spread of material culture from the Kura Araxes people (or their ancestors). The genetic impact was felt as far as western Anatolia however the material culture impact which occurred later seems to have been limited till eastern Anatolia and the Levant. Interesting to note here that the Proto-Semitic word for wine is a borrowed word from PIE as well - hypothetical 'wéyh₁n-o-m'. Kura Araxes may have been the agent of this loan word transfer.
The culture was based on farming and livestock raising. They also produced and consumed wine. Burial customs include flat graves as well as kurgans.
Kura Araxes Genetics
KA samples can be modeled with qpAdm as 76% Azerbaijan_LateNeolithic + 24% Sarazm_Eneolithic with a p-value of 0.051. In short, a 76% local population plus an incoming population from somewhere east of the Caspian sea. Sarazm is just a proxy population, so we need better sampling from the region east of the Caspian sea dated to 5000-4000bce to pinpoint the accurate source. There is no steppe ancestry present in the Kura Araxes samples.
An improvement can be made to this model by adding a 3rd source.
Target: Armenia_EBA_KuraAraxes
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN - 61%
Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic - 20%
Tajikistan_C_Sarazm - 19%
p-value: 0.538. Result file
Conclusion
In all the ancient samples from the Anatolian region, there has been no steppe or Balkan ancestry detected, thereby rejecting the steppe or Balkan origin of the Anatolian language family. Starting from 4000 BCE, the ancient samples from Anatolia show 45% to 60% ancestry similar to that of the Kura Araxes population. This ancestry appears in Anatolia between the TellKurdu 5700 BCE and Barcin 3800 BCE samples. This Kura Araxes like geneflow fits perfectly as the source of the Anatolian language family in time, proportion, and direction of entry. Therefore, the South Caucasus / Armenian origin of Anatolian languages as proposed by Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1984 & Silagadze 2010 has to be accepted. The presence of non-IE Hattian language in Anatolia in the 3rd and 2nd Millenium BCE shows that the eastern migrants could not Indo-Europeanize the whole Anatolian region in terms of language spoken.
References
(1) Kroonen, G., Barjamovic, G., & Peyrot, M. (2018). Linguistic supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018: Early Indo-European languages, Anatolian, Tocharian and Indo-Iranian. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1240524
(2) Goedegebuure, P. Anatolians on the Move: From Kurgans to Kanesh. 2020, Oriental Institute Channel, Youtube https://youtu.be/Pe4jnBdVxjw
(3) Feldman, M., Fernández-Domínguez, E., Reynolds, L. et al. Late Pleistocene human genome suggests a local origin for the first farmers of central Anatolia. Nat Commun 10, 1218 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09209-7
(4) Marro Catherine, Bakhshaliyev Veli, Berthon Rémi. On the Genesis of the Kura-Araxes phenomenon: New evidence from Nakhchivan (Azerbaijan). In: Paléorient, 2014, vol. 40, n°2. The Kura-Araxes culture from the Caucasus to Iran, Anatolia and the Levant: Between unity and diversity. pp. 131-154.
(5) Palumbi Giulio, Chataigner Christine. The Kura-Araxes Culture from the Caucasus to Iran, Anatolia and the Levant: Between unity and diversity. A synthesis. In: Paléorient, 2014, vol. 40, n°2. The Kura-Araxes culture from the Caucasus to Iran, Anatolia and the Levant: Between unity and diversity. pp. 247-260.
(6) de Barros Damgaard P, Martiniano R, Kamm J, et al. The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia. Science. 2018;360(6396):eaar7711. doi:10.1126/science.aar7711
(7) Skourtanioti E, Erdal YS, Frangipane M, et al. Genomic History of Neolithic to Bronze Age Anatolia, Northern Levant, and Southern Caucasus. Cell. 2020;181(5):1158-1175.e28. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.044
(8) Silagadze N. The Homeland Problem of Indo-European Language-Speaking Peoples http://www.spekali.tsu.ge/index.php/en/article/viewArticle/2/16
(9) Harney É, Patterson N, Reich D, Wakeley J. Assessing the performance of qpAdm: a statistical tool for studying population admixture. Genetics. 2021;217(4):iyaa045. doi:10.1093/genetics/iyaa045
133 comments:
Extract from pp 62-64 of "Wheels, Languages and Bullshit (Or How Not To Do Linguistic Archaeology)" by Jonathan Sherman Morris, 2017
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/plg/phil/2017/00000003/00000001/art00003
The word for ‘wine’, present in every Indo-European family other than Indo-Iranian, including Anatolian (Hittite wiyana, Greek oinos, Latin uinum, English wine, Russian vino, etc.), shows that it is. The phonetic stability of this word also disposes of Anthony and Ringe’s claim that there would have been too much phonetic divergence in wheel etymologies to support Renfrew’s theory. Wine cultivation has been attested in Georgia around 6000 BCE, in Iran around 5000 BCE, in the Balkans by 4500 BCE and in Sicily around 4000 BCE and is probably a very early borrowing e.g. Hattic windu and Akkadian inu, Hebrew yayin, Arabic yayin, OEgyptian wnš.t etc.), which clearly predates any wheeled technology.
Indeed, to quote the seminal work on Indo-European by Ivanov and Gamkrelidze:
"The fact that there are etymological links between the ‘wine’ and ‘grape’ words within each of the language groups (Indo-European, Semitic, Kartvelian) indicates the extreme antiquity of the migratory term, which must have passed from one language to another at a protolanguage level, i.e. prior to the break-up of each protolanguage into separate dialects.
The formal characteristics of the PIE word for wine, with its regular ablaut grades *(e): *o: *Ø, allow us to regard this word, built according to the rules of ancient Indo-European word formation, as a native element of the Indo-European system; we can therefore give it an etymology within Indo-European (Gamkrelidze - Ivanov, 1995, pp. 558–559)."
This underwrites Atkinson & Gray’s point about how borrowings, if sufficiently old, can appear to be native words.
Buried in the first paragraph of the above quotation from Anthony & Ringe is the key word ‘independently’. As we can see from our wine example, one cannot argue for independence when there is clearly a pre-existing network for the spread of technologies. As such, all of their arguments about the improbability of different groups independently choosing the same roots are simply irrelevant (and factually inaccurate, since not only are there multiple roots for their wheel etymologies but these authors also entirely ignore the comparative linguistic evidence).
Robert Beekes suggests that wine production could have originated on the Pontic Steppes since the vine is indigenous there. This seems unlikely on account of the archaeological dating of wine production. Furthermore, while I am no expert on Caucasian languages, I note that Starostin’s proto-North Caucasian root for wine *ʒ́w[ə̆]nʔi (Proto-Avaro-Andian: *žono, Proto-Tsezian: *š(:)aj, Proto-Lak: zini, Proto-Lezghian: *č:on, Proto-West Caucasian: *sʷa(nə) bears a passing resemblance to Georgian ɤwino but that these forms are very divergent, given how similar the PIE term is to the Kartvelian form. This is not what we expect for a centre of diffusion from the Pontic Steppes. Beekes nevertheless suggests that Georgian borrowed its word for wine ɤwino from Armenian gini. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov believe that wine itself is an Indo-European term relating to a root *wei-/*wi- ‘weave, plait, twist’ (Gamkrelidze - Ivanov, 1995, p. 561). If correct, the evident linguistic conclusion would be that Anatolian languages were already in situ in Anatolia by the 6th millennium BCE.
By contrast, the PIE wine word is absent from Indo-Iranian, a culture which, according to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (p. 562), lost it because it adopted soma (whatever that was). We find a word related to ‘vine’ in Avestan vaēiti, but it tells us nothing about when proto-Indo-Iranian migrated eastwards and whether it preserved the original word for wine.
Good job!
Kozintsev had already dismantled the balkan origin of proto-anatolian. Now your evidence shows an eastern origin of proto-anatolians.
That Anatolian is very related to the urhaimat of PIA is more or less expected in an Armenian hypothesis, genetically speaking. They are really neighbors. But, what about the other branches?
For example, I cited the spread of Latin in the previous comment section. You can see that wherever the catholic church held strong, people turned out to be Latin speakers. In other places, Orthodox branches or Protestantism triumphed. So, it is suggestive of an elite influence. Notice that England almost adopted French as a language, as it was used in court cases until the 17 century and that the Anglican church is the one that is closes in structure to Catholic among protestant sects.
Hu-da-šu in Hittite?
Sudasu in Indo-Iranianan....
Na! Not possible.
@comet
Yes, the common root for wine in Semitic, kartvelian as well as all IE sans IIr is interesting. Don't know exactly what implications it has, but suits the more eastern non wine drinking homeland for IIr just fine.
IIr also doesn't share agri terms with rest of IE iirc.
Christianity didn't spread with the language of Christ, Right?
Need some clarity on Hittite, Is it sister to PIE or daughter of it?
@daniel
I'm not sure what you're saying. Your claim is that elite dominance is enough to change whole language of a region without substantial geneflow?
It's possible I guess, but as we progress in time and effective population size increases it become harder and harder.
India has had several outside rulers, none managed to influence language apart from copious loanwords.
"Need some clarity on Hittite, Is it sister to PIE or daughter of it?"
A linguistic question, not my strength. Genetics shows the only external geneflow into Anatolia was from a population like Kura araxes. No other model passes test. Which means KA itself was some sort of IE.
Nikoloi Silagadze proposed a Kura Araxes for Anatolian, but an ultimately SC asian origin of PIE.
Whereas Gamkrelidze & Ivanov proposed Armenian origin for both.
Congratulations on your work. Always a joy to read.
Thanks Dosas and 3rdacc
> Need some clarity on Hittite, Is it sister to PIE or daughter of it?
those who follow the Indo-Hittite believe Hittite to the be the sister to PIE and both come from a common "Indo-Hittite" language.
However a more parsimonious explanation is that Anatolian is simply a very degraded and innovated language, due to living in a highly populous and linguistically/culturally diverse middle east.
An improvement can be made to Kura Araxes model by adding a 3rd source.
Target: Armenia_EBA_KuraAraxes
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN - 61%
Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic - 20%
Tajikistan_C_Sarazm - 19%
p-value: 0.538. Result file https://pastebin.com/59rqmttA
@vAsiSTha
what is russia_caucasus_eneolithic made up of?
"what is russia_caucasus_eneolithic made up of?"
Wang et al 2019 had it modeled as 45% CHG and 55% barcin_chalcolithic, but that is sort of a loop as barcin_c has KA ancestry which itself has some Caucasus_eneo ancestry.
So, my best model which i ran just now explains it as
31% CHG + 10.5% Steppe_eneolithic + 58.5% Azerbaijan_LateNeolithic
p-value 0.05
@vAsiSTha
interesting, so there is a tiny amount of steppe in it.
@Vasistha Yes, but I am not suggesting, I am stating. And it depends on what is "foreign". None of these rulers were stronger than locals, they were stronger than the highest elites, the ones that could command wars, and integrated into the rest of elites and locals. With of the Brithish Raj, as the most recent example. That is not always the case, though.
Now compare that to the subsaharan colonization, where the foreigners could topple the entire elites or replace with new. In many cases, the population is still going through language change. The Muslims in North Africa also were strong enough to topple the entire elites and change language.
There is no evidence that in the Bronze Age, in the Steppes, there was anything of worth in terms of social organization that could overrun anything within India.
"There is no evidence that in the Bronze Age, in the Steppes, there was anything of worth in terms of social organization that could overrun anything within India."
I agree with this.
However, what I'm saying again is that for each IE branch, there seems to be a good chunk of external ancestry which explains the language turnover of the locals. I'm not seeing any exceptions here.
"interesting, so there is a tiny amount of steppe in it."
Yes we see 1 later 2400bce Kura araxes sample with R1b-v1636, also 1 more R1b-v1636 in Anatolia. The 2 males found in steppe_eneolithic were both v1636
However, it's only a minor trickle from steppe to southern Caucasus.
@Vasistha I can see for Anatolian and IA. Sure, you can see that many of the motifs of Harappa and RV resemble many of Mesopotamia, specially what you see with Semitic themes (that are otherwise ascribed to "reconstructed PIE"). You can expect that a population outflow with the administrative methods that allowed a larger population to live or, conversely, an elite to dominate over vaster larger of people: the invention of the bureaucracy, that allowed the State to exist.
In this sense, I can see that PIE would correspond to one of the first populations to spread this idea. I don't think it is possible to distinguish if Anatolian and Indo Aryan spread by population and/or elite domination, because both factors were into play here.
But I don't see a similar case for other branches. Perhaps Greek and Armenian, because they were very close to Anatolia. But, in the case of others, perhaps there were too many intermediary links, so that a genetic/population overrun and even an elite diffusion would be lost in time.
@daniel
can you provide some 100% attested examples of a small elite causing the complete replacement of spoken language in a decently big region?
@Vasistha Complete replacement is a hard thing to argue for. That didn't happen in most places, not even in India (unless dravidian language came with it_. But the Hegemony, sure. Catholic Church in France; Turks in Anatolia; Portuguese, French, English and Arabic in sub Saharan Africa by their respective colonizers. This is a guess of mine of course, except for Saharan África (first as a lingua franca and then as a dominating language).
I can't talk about invisible movements. So, it's up to people with genetic data to say something about that. The Germanic migrations did not cause language change outside England, and these are attested movements. The Arabic domination of Iberia did not cause language change. What is visible, to me, is the ideological domination of the Catholic Church. But they did not displace Basque, so, it is never 100% guaranteed.
@daniel
Portugues have 50% basque + 50% italy roman ancestry. this roman ancestry explains the romance language (same for spanish)
Turks have 35-45% Mongolia Xiongnu ancestry, explains the Turkish language.
I haven't checked french but pretty sure there will be a Roman genetic connection.
In Africa, I believe the colonial European languages are always spoken along with indigenous languages as 1st (or 2nd) language, so it doesn't serve as an example for my question.
Very interesting analysis, however archaeologically it is difficult to connect Anatolians with Kura-Araxes, because this culture spread only in eastern Anatolia and was quite limited there, and then disappeared. It is interesting that the Van area was considered the homeland of Hittites by Ivanov, but it is not the homeland of Kura-Araxes, that is more northern, and includes a region where Anatolian languages are not at home, like Caucasus.
Moreover, Kura-Araxes has been connected specifically with Hurrians, that are not Anatolian or Indo-Europeans. Some traits of Kura-Araxes culture, like the typical hearths, are present in Urkesh, one of the main Hurrian cities in northern Syria (see http://urkesh.org/attach/KellyBuccellati2018b.pdf).
My idea about Anatolians, especially Luwians, is that they developed already in Neolithic SE Anatolia, and are connected with the Iran Neolithic component, and that their spread is connected with the spread to the west of this component, that reached also Crete (where we have apparently an Anatolian language) and Greece (with the famous Anatolian substrate).
You show an affinity of Kura-Araxes with Anatolian people, but a specific connection is difficult to accept. We must also consider that Kura-Araxes culture developed different cultural areas, that could have different languages, including maybe Proto-Armenian. I have a question, the Sarazm component is present in all Kura-Araxes samples or mainly in Armenia? It could be interesting to explain the affinity of Armenian and Iranian.
@giacomo
"however archaeologically it is difficult to connect Anatolians with Kura-Araxes because this culture spread only in eastern Anatolia and was quite limited there, and then disappeared."
The genetic presence of KA-like ancestry predates by 1000 yrs the KA pottery appearing at ArslanTepe 3000bce. Whether this geneflow was Kura Araxes people or their immediate ancestors is a moot point for me. The fact is that this geneflow happened and there is no other detectable geneflow into Anatolia from 5000bce till 1500bce apart from this one.
"Moreover, Kura-Araxes has been connected specifically with Hurrians, that are not Anatolian or Indo-Europeans. Some traits of Kura-Araxes culture, like the typical hearths, are present in Urkesh, one of the main Hurrian cities in northern Syria (see http://urkesh.org/attach/KellyBuccellati2018b.pdf)."
Others connect it with IE (Silagazde).
"My idea about Anatolians, especially Luwians, is that they developed already in Neolithic SE Anatolia, and are connected with the Iran Neolithic component, and that their spread is connected with the spread to the west of this component, that reached also Crete (where we have apparently an Anatolian language) and Greece (with the famous Anatolian substrate)."
Neolithic SE anatolia has minimal Iranian geneflow. I think 50% KA like geneflow explains language change much better. Yes, the arslan tepe_eba like ancestry is seen in Minoans too @ 25%. There seems to be another geneflow from armenia into greece around 1500bce (can be seen in mycenaeans Laziridis 2017)
" I have a question, the Sarazm component is present in all Kura-Araxes samples or mainly in Armenia? It could be interesting to explain the affinity of Armenian and Iranian."
Sarazm component is not present in 5700bce azerbaijan but appears in 3600bce Kura araxes sample. so inflow occurred in that timeframe. I think Armenian link with iranian is a bronze age or later occurence rather than a shared chaloclithic development (linguists can shed more light).
@Vasistha where did you get the component? Because the "Roman" component might be explained by the Celtic origin of Iberians, given that both the Latin speakers and Celtic speakers seem to come from a group in Central Europe around the middle of the 2nd millenium BC. They appear like an "invisible group" that appear in the Bell Beaker, that, to me, seems actually related to the Basque (Vasconic Europe)
And I don't see an origin from this PIE group.
@Vasistha, concerning Sub Saharan Africa, they are in a process of replacement.
@Giacomo https://www.academia.edu/40055347/PIE_roots_in_Hurrian
Target: Spanish
Distance: 1.1561% / 0.01156095
70.6 Basque
29.4 ITA_Rome_Imperial
Target: Portuguese
Distance: 1.2025% / 0.01202512
66.6 Basque
33.4 ITA_Rome_Imperial
@Vasistha Let me restate what I said. Can you distinguish it from Celtic, that was my question. Both Italic and Celtic seem to come from Urnfield culture. Given that half of Iberia was inhabited by Celts by pre Roman times, I'd expect at least a much larger portion. So, what I am perhaps seeing in your graph is that this Roman sample is actually showing the Urnfield representation, which means Celtic plus Roman portion. Thus, in this case, you can't rule out a very tiny Roman influence.
@Vasistha Another point of contention is how much of this convergence is due mixing with North African people? People in the coast of the Mediterranean sea has clearly a darker skin. And, you have to see that the South of Italy was populated by Greeks until they were conquered, so this is a problem of saying "what is an Italian?". Non IE speakers heavily influenced Romans, the Etruscans.
The situation was quite complicated, it's a lot more complicated.
Amazing!
The pieces on your game board or calculation/ memorization board are moving very methodically, Vasistha
@Daniel - Sub-Saharan Africans are despite general schooling in foreign languages not undergoing language shift en masse when speaking with each other any more than e.g. French and Germans contemporarily. I live there, and they don't speak English or French with each other in their daily affairs at all. Of course they have a lot of loanwords for things they didn't possess before, but that's a completely different topic (such as also the much older Muslim influence in some areas), that I won't get into here at the moment - the topic is much too complex & my time limited.
BTW, French is not simply a Romance language originating from Latin, there's a lot of Germanic in there, but anti-Germanic sentiments won't like to see that mentioned.
@Eco I used this source, why is it wrong? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/french-is-now-the-fifth-most-spoken-world-language-and-growing-thanks-to-africans
@daniel
"Let me restate what I said. Can you distinguish it from Celtic, ..."
Yes we can, Spanish and Portuguese ancestry is different from pre Celtics who lacked the Roman ancestry. Basques have same ancestry as Iberia bell beaker BA. So same ancestry since bronze age. So clearly, steppe (40%) couldn't change the language of proto Basques but it did change language of others. Thus we get pre Celtic in Iberia.
The Spanish and Portuguese speakers have the additional ancestry from italy_imperial_rome on top of basque which explains the romance languages.
This difference between Spanish/Portuguese being pulled towards rome from Basques can be clearly seen on PCA too.
@ Daniel
It's comparable to most Germans being able to speak some English, but it's not the language they commonly speak among each other.
As for an African example, English is even the official language of instruction throughout the Ghanaian educational system, as well as the administrative language. The lingua franca there, however, is "Twi" (Tshuie) - i.e., if members of different Ghanaian native language groups meet, they invariably choose to converse in Twi.
I wouldn't say most African languages are currently under threat of extinction.
@ vAsiSTha:
oh,sorry, I thought that was a board with tokens / markers in front of your avatar / profile pic character,
but now that I've enlarged it, I've seen it's paper & quill - a scribe.
@Vasistha I don't believe the Celts simply disappeared as you seem to imply. In this case, I wasn't mentioning pre Celts or Basques (I mention Basques as an example of language replacement vs. hegemony, which is not related to this point). You didn't verify if the signals from Celts in Iberia is different from that of Romans, since both have probably the same origin and thus Celts=Romans
Celts and Basques and whoever else, basically all of pre Roman Iberia has avg 40% steppe. Similar ancestry profile since bronze age.
Then come Romans, and they give 25-40% ancestry to this existing populations. This can be verified by pca and other tools. The people who got this ancestry seem to speak Portuguese/Spanish. The people who didn't get this ancestry speak basque.
I don't know what exactly happened to the celt/ celtIberian speakers. Maybe they intermarried romans and started speaking vulgar latin.
For those who have knowledge of Linguistics
Is Vedic Sunus (Son) possibly a loan from steppe-sinthastha migrants where as Putra is the native word for son.
I was looking for a word that comes close to it and i found Puca (old Iranian) 500bce. Do you know of anyother old word that cognates with Putra?
Also i looked into it further and found Sunus to be used in relation to father and Putra in relation to mother but i am not sure.
sūnus is word for son in Lithuanian.
It also appears Putra is neither Munda, Dravidian & Elamite derived.
@Vasistha. I am waiting for the data. But, assuming that is the case, it answer only for the Romans in Iberia and it makes the matters for the origin of the Romans worse, because, in this case, they should had inherited the language for a group close to Celts. And it makes it obscure on how Iberians got Celtic and Vasconic languages.
It increases the likelihood that the origin of many IE quite opaque and probably untraceable.
@daniel there is enough data. refer Olalde et al 2019 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aav4040
"The impact of mobility from the central/eastern Mediterranean during the Classical period is also evident in 10 individuals from the 7th to 8th century CE site of L'Esquerda in the northeast, who show a shift from the Iron Age population in the direction of present-day Italians and Greeks (Fig. 1D) that accounts for approximately one-quarter of their ancestry (Fig. 2C and table S17). The same shift is also observed in present-day Iberians outside the Basque area and is plausibly a consequence of the Roman presence in the peninsula, which had a profound cultural impact and, according to our data, a substantial genetic impact too."
"Unlike in Central or Northern Europe, where Steppe ancestry likely marked the introduction of Indo-European languages (12), our results
indicate that, in Iberia, increases in Steppe ancestry were not always accompanied by switches to Indo-European languages. This is consistent with the genetic profile of present-day Basques who speak the only non-Indo-European language in Western Europe but overlap genetically with Iron Age populations (Fig. 1D) showing substantial levels of Steppe ancestry.
@Vasistha "The genetic presence of KA-like ancestry predates by 1000 yrs the KA pottery appearing at Arslan Tepe 3000bce. Whether this geneflow was Kura Araxes people or their immediate ancestors is a moot point for me."
This means that this ancestry should not be connected with Kura-Araxes, but with their ancestors, maybe not so immediate.
"Neolithic SE anatolia has minimal Iranian geneflow. I think 50% KA like geneflow explains language change much better. Yes, the arslan tepe_eba like ancestry is seen in Minoans too @ 25%. There seems to be another geneflow from armenia into greece around 1500bce (can be seen in mycenaeans Laziridis 2017)"
Where do we have SE Anatolian Neolithic DNA? With SE Anatolia I mean sites like Hallan Cemi and Cayonu. It is the Taurus-Zagros Neolithic horizon, with Zarzian roots (see Peasnall): we can expect a strong Iran Neolithic component. Boncuklu is too western, but also there 13% Iran N component in 8000 BCE is a lot, and it is probably still too early for the spread of Anatolian languages. According to Atkinson and Gray, Anatolian separated 7500-6000 BCE. We should also know the haplogroups, that in some cases are more important than components (see the Munda speakers in India, with specific Y DNA haplogroups but small SE Asian component). 25% Arslan tepe EBA-like component in Crete is significant, but Arslan tepe was the western end of Kura-Araxes, and was a dead end in the analysis of Kelly-Buccellati. About Mycenaeans, the latest study on Elati Logkas has shown that the new geneflow, that apparently is the root of present Greeks, is earlier than 1900 BCE. An Armenian origin remains interesting, also for linguistic reasons, can you say what is the Kura-Araxes-like component there?
"Sarazm component is not present in 5700bce azerbaijan but appears in 3600bce Kura araxes sample. so inflow occurred in that timeframe. I think Armenian link with iranian is a bronze age or later occurence rather than a shared chalcolithic development (linguists can shed more light)."
Armenian belongs to the great Greek-Aryan group, but it is quite original. I think a pre-3600 BCE origin is not unlikely. Here is what reports Petrosyan: "According to G. Djahukian, the initiation of Armenian as a separate language started from the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. Approximately the same time period was also suggested by F. Kortlandt (the third phase of
Gimbutas’ theory). According to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, J. Tischler, Atkinson and Gray, the separation of Armenian occurred earlier."
> About Mycenaeans, the latest study on Elati Logkas has shown that the new geneflow, that apparently is the root of present Greeks, is earlier than 1900 BCE.
which study?
"This means that this ancestry should not be connected with Kura-Araxes, but with their ancestors, maybe not so immediate."
Depends. KA is attested earliest from 4200bce by some people. The samples we have are from 3600bce. The Anatolian samples we have from chalcolithic with KA like ancestry are from 3900 bce. The admixture dating is unknown. So the geneflow could be directly from KA people or their genetic ancestors (who have the sarazm like component)
Whether the low 13% iranN component in boncukluN (admixture date 10k bce) is the IE vector into Anatolia is a linguistic and archaeological question. Post this there is a 15% hajji firuz inflow into tellkurdu 5900bce sample (se Anatolia, admixture date unknown).
Then there is 50% KA like ancestry seen from 3900bce samples (admixture date unknown)
Aramaic and Greek were spoken in north west India for a long time to leave behind some loan words, Right?
Do we know any such loans?
The whole Zodiac in Vedic astrology is probably greek derived though names havent been retained their soul remains.
Funny enough Aramaic was used in Ashokan rock edict of Taxila instead of old persian or Sanskrit.
Lets assume that was the language spoken by masses in that region between 500bce-200bce.
Post 200bce many Indo-European speaking nomads moved into the region. Is it vissible in genetic & linguistic data?
Ant idea what language Porus and his people spoke?
It seems my comment was not posted. I am tyring agains.
@Vasistha That yields 1/4 of a group living in that time and region in the 8th century in a small region that was sampled, not the present day. And it didn't specify Roman, but Greco Roman, which makes the claim weaker as Greece had colonies in Iberia. Other regions had a larger contribution from Germanic peoples. This is the sort of claim that Indian invasionists claim and so I think cultural hegemony is still important. Again, I must ask what is *exactly* Roman and what is its relation to Celtic? Both should be related to Unfield.
> The whole Zodiac in Vedic astrology is probably greek derived though names havent been retained their soul remains.
its not derived from greeks
> Lets assume that was the language spoken by masses in that region between 500bce-200bce.
why would greek and aramaic become languages of the common folk, looks unlikely.
@daniel
I do not know what exactly is Roman relation to Celtic. I currently have no interest in this topic.
What I do know is that that was Roman presence in Iberia for a long period and geneflow into local iberians. We know unequivocally that Romans spoke some form of Latin, unlike Sintashta for which we have no proof of language. We also know unequivocally that Spanish and Portuguese are Roman derived languages.
G25 clearly shows significant Italy_imperial_rome ancestry in present day Spanish and Portuguese which is not present in non IE speaking Basques. This is a clear genetic differentiator which correlates with language differentiation.
Therefore there is ample proof that the romance languages in Iberia are not just a result of elite dominance but also a significant geneflow from Roman period.
https://imgur.com/rbFzVXL
PCA which shows spanish/portuguese = basque + italy_roman
So @daniel
where is the problem?
1. Do you deny Italian geneflow into Iberia during the roman empire age?
2. Do you oppose that the Roman settlers spoke some kind of Latin-derived language?
3. Do you disagree that Spanish & Portuguese are Latin-derived languages?
4. Is there not a simple connection between this geneflow and the introduction of Latin-derived languages in Iberia?
Haxamanish dynasty ruled thise parts since ~520bce till alexander and post alexander by Greeks & Mauryas.
Probably the reason why aramaic and Greek is used in rock edicts in these parts.
If these edicts were addressed to people there is a good possibility people knew both these languages or possibly the literate class in the region knew both these languages.
What surprises me is why not old Persian or sanskrit which were linguistically much closer to what was probably spoken by the masses.
Wait!
Arent Aries to Pisces - Greek influence while we were using nakshtra based system. Arent horoshashtra and yavanajataka Greekish if thats the word?
> Arent Aries to Pisces - Greek influence while we were using nakshtra based system. Arent horoshashtra and yavanajataka Greekish if thats the word?
No, Pingree's BS is BS. India's astronomy is indigenous.
another link for the spanish/basque pca plot if resolution was low earlier
https://imgur.com/25OhI5k
1.It depends on what is Italian.
2.Yes and no. There was Germanic inflow too. And it's not merely a "Germanic Invasion". Germans were hired to fight other Germans and at the end they enriched or became better in fighting. Thus rebeled and started setting the terms on their terms.
3.My motherlanguage is Portuguese, so I am sure it is derived from Latin.
4.No, because it is complicated, since it depends on 1. For example, what is south Itarly nowadays was dominated by Greeks and Messapians (a poorly attested IE language). Sardinia was inhabitted by semitic speaking people. The North of Italy was inhabitted by Erustans, a non IE language. A strip from the center to NE of Italy was occupied by Italic speaking people, a tiny part of, around Rome, was occupied that Latins. They imposed this language on all others. So, genetically speaking, it is hard to say what was an Italian. You didn't have something that very slowly expanded and could eventually identify as Indo Aryan.
For my not trained eye, Portuguese and Spanish is as close to Imperial as it is to Bell Beaker and Corded Ware. It is very close, though, to Basque. Imperial, in itself, seem quite diverse, it doesn't cluster as much as in small clusters as those of Iberia/Portuguse-Spanish/Basque. It might mean that Imperial is not very meaningful in itself, as I said, due its very varied origns. But there is a caveat: I am "color blind", I cannot distinguish shades of colors very well.
I miss in this analysis the Unetice, Urnfield and Hallstatt/La Tne (which must be Celtic, since it imediately predates the Roman occupation), since all of them have the wheel as element in the culture, like we have with Harappa.
On youtube ancestry videos many Iranians average 15% South Asian ancestry and Kurds average 5% ancestry.
Especially Kurds as they occupy mitanni lands...
My questions
01 What is the nature of this admixture?
02 is it IranN or IndiaN+AASI or just AASI
03 what is the timing of this admixture? Recent or ancient
04 is there possible roma ancestry poping up as south asian ancestry?
Genetically what is the composition of hurrian ancestry?
@daniel
"It depends on what is Italian."
Those are Roman period samples from all over Italy between 1-400ce. samples from AntonioGaoMootsScience2019. Is there any reason to think they're not Latin speakers? These are the locations of samples
Via Paisiello (Necropoli Salaria)
Palestrina Antina
Viale Rossini (Necropoli Salaria)
Monterotondo
Civitanova Marche
Isola Sacra
Casale del dolce
Mazzano Romano
Centocelle
ANAS (Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strada)
"But there is a caveat: I am "color blind", I cannot distinguish shades of colors very well."
Understood
"For my not trained eye, Portuguese and Spanish is as close to Imperial as it is to Bell Beaker and Corded Ware. It is very close, though, to Basque. Imperial, in itself, seem quite diverse, it doesn't cluster as much as in small clusters as those of Iberia/Portuguese-Spanish/Basque."
Yes Italy_imperial doesn't cluster much like others but the samples are all in one direction, quite distinct from all others on the PCA.
The way you should read that PCA is that Basques are similar to bronze age Iberians, but modern Spanish/Portuguese are pulled towards Italy_imperial from Basques. This is confirmed with g25 models.
They're not pulled towards bell beaker or corded ware, and g25 with these groups don't work.
@3rdacc This is the study about Elati-Logkas and ancient Greek DNA: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421003706
@Giacomo
thank you, appreciate it.
@Vasistha Yes, they are probably Latin speakers, I can now agree with that. But look at how much that is spread, that's too much. And look at the spread of Iberians, it's also quite wide. I can see a small clustering, but I can't say it was pushed significantly.
In my mind, I try to picture a kind of sigma distribution on each cluster. The spread of Portuguese and Spanish is very thin but that of Iberian is wide and overlaps with the former, so any small perturbation could lead it to anywhere, if it were to concentrate anywhere in more recent. I can't say it was caused by Latin speakers.
For example, I told you to plot those other cultures. The Celts and the Italic speakers have apparently a closer origin. So, if you compare with the Celtic, you might ending up subtracting the deviation from the Celtic background and closing up the differance to Latin speakers (or not).
Please do genetic analysis for proto-Euphratic Indo-european in Sumeria between 3350-3100bce
Gordon Whittaker proposal for it.
@vAsiSTha
Turks have 35-45% Mongolia Xiongnu ancestry, explains the Turkish language.
I do not know how you got that figure, but, anyway, Anatolian Turks acquired their Turkic language and mix not from the Xiongnu but from a Karakhanid or Karluk-like population, thus from a population with more average East Eurasian ancestry than the Xiongnu. For comparison:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jy8QZpN5-Y0QiUPcwOyEQyeTeuJZvlun/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vHqBk3aFzDcCim2FAUWWrbORxgWcP_AW/view?usp=sharing
As can be seen, the Anatolian Turkish groups included in this analysis have average Karakhanid-like ancestry ranging between 15% and 30%. Much lower than your figure, but still enough to explain the Turkish language in Anatolia.
If Balkans have nothing to do with PIE how would you explain this:
Mixed Mode:
1 87.11% I1634_AR1/44_Middle_Late_Chalcolithic_Vayots-Dzor_Armenia + 12.89% I1951_GD39_Ganj_Dareh_Iran_Neolithic @ 4.006
2 78.52% I1656_KAT16_Kura-Araxes_Middle/Late_Bronze_Age_Aragatsotn_Armenia + 21.48% Kumtepe004_Anatolian @ 5.792
3 84.77% I1656_KAT16_Kura-Araxes_Middle/Late_Bronze_Age_Aragatsotn_Armenia + 15.23% R132_Imperial_Era_Marcellino_&_Pietro @ 5.906
4 90.23% I1656_KAT16_Kura-Araxes_Middle/Late_Bronze_Age_Aragatsotn_Armenia + 9.77% I15940_Sardinia_Chalcolithic_Anghelu_Ruju @ 6.075
Using 1 populations approximation
1 100% I1656_KAT16_Kura-Araxes_Middle/Late_Bronze_Age_Aragatsotn_Armenia @ 8.356
This is me with Dodecad K12b Ancient and 100% Balkans according to Living DNA company with very specific mtDNA which can confirm this is real ancestry in me. The same mtdna was found in samples from proven medieval Bulgarian necropolis and from a Bronze age mound from Bulgaria.
Is there an EEF presence in Europe in your opinion and what components do you think it consists of?
Certainly the steppes have nothing to do with PIE, but what did our Balkan ancestors genetically represent before the invasion of Yamnaya from the East?
Linguistically, you can't prove anything without the original source, which has nothing to do with the Armenian language, if this is the main idea of your work.
Even the name of the wine comes from a verb from my mother tongue associated with the plant from which it is extracted.
@anon
So your from the balkans and your Dna is mainly from the kura araxes sample, is that right? what language do you speak?
" but what did our Balkan ancestors genetically represent before the invasion of Yamnaya from the East?"
Before yamnaya, balkans had mostly Anatolian farmer (BarcinN) plus minor WEHG ancestry.
Can you list all the samples used for the categories of EHG, WSHG, etc., so I can replicate the categories for my own runs?
Thanks!
sample ids and labels are here https://pastebin.com/wEz4af5z
2 more skeletons excavated with harappan pottery. Can you ask Niraj Rai if he is involved in DNA extraction?
J-CTS1026 in Khvalynsk(I6735)?!!
@dosas
New samples? source?
But we have known about Y-HG Js and Qs in khvalynsk for some time now.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/pz-2022-2034/html
> But we have known about Y-HG Js and Qs in khvalynsk for some time now.
@vAsiSTHa
Do we know if they are subclades specific to the near east and iran? There is evidence of south caspian, south-east caspian elements entering the steppe. J in khvalynsk would be explained this way.
"https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/pz-2022-2034/html"
Yea but couldnt access it.
@vAsiSTha
I have university access, I can send you a pdf.
Yes please. Thanks.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.jagran.com/lite/haryana/hisar-eleven-skeletons-found-during-excavation-at-rakhigarhi-site-in-three-days-secrets-will-be-revealed-after-dating-22589276.html
ONe is from harappan time.
Anyway i am bit confuzed.
Suppose 1 male from steppe marry Indian women and has a daughter who marries Indian man. Grandson will carry Native X and Y haplogroups + autozomal steppe ancestry.
Similarly 1 steppe women marries Indian man and has a son who marries Indian women. Again both X and Y would be native with autozomal steppe ancestry.
How do scientists determine who propagated this ancestry profile?
@anon
as you rightly analyzed, it cannot be determined in such cases. What can only be said is that the steppe ancestry wasn't propagated through the direct patrilineal or matrilineal descendants.
@vAsiSTha have you seen Prof. Miano's video (debunking Abhijit Chavda's video, and proclaiming Aryan Migration (as very distinct from Invasion, in his view) theory?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQX5LlJ7YXg
Leave aside the broad sweep of the video, or Chavda's statements (which sometimes are easy to attack). But your opinion/comments of the specific claims from this video about what fraction of current Indian ancestry can be attributed to Steppe, and how much is it correlated to higher-caste groups will be worthwhile.
Apologies for being tangential to this particular blog post.
Non-elite peasants and herders like Jatts tend to have 35-40% steppe ancestry. They also score high %age of L and Q haplogroups.
Traditional Upper castes have half of that 15-25% depending on the region.
1500bce steppe ancestry shows up in Mionians samples better call them Mycenaeans and in Indus Valley.
Can anybody explian to me why is the Mycenaean Greek and Vedic so much diverged from each other as if 15% steppe component that went to Mionian islands were linguistically divergent to steppe speakers in Indus valley.
Also can anybody explain to me why
te-mi-ti-ja/ti-mi-ti-ja, scholars consider this as a possible dialect?
Unless spoken how can they tell how it was pronounced?
Ashish sounds as Aasheesh
Aasheesh & Ashish is not a dialect or variation but shows non uniformity in the use of the same word by different individual.
Why have scholars transliterated bi-ir-ya-aš-šu-wa as Priyāśva (dear horse)?
Old Indo Aryan to Prakrit shifts
bi-ir-ya-aš-šu-wa would translate to Viryāśva (Valourous horse)
bi-ir-ya-ma-aš-da as Priyamazdha should be Viryamāshda.
There is a character named Vichitravirya who probably lived 200-400 years prior to "Birya" attestaion of mitanni.
@historicallycurious
I couldn't watch the whole video, it was too general. maybe I will get to finish it soon.
As for steppe ancestry in different caste groups, anyone who makes the the claim that Brahmins have the highest steppe ancestry are lying. You can refer to my Narsimhan post (part 2) for rebuttal of the papers claim.
Brahmins have between 10-30% steppe ancestry, NW Indians have 20-35% steppe ancestry (including backward castes). Burusho have 20-25% steppe ancestry but aren't even IE speaking (burushaski is considered language isolate by most), leave aside them being Brahmins.
Similarly, kalash, pashto etc have high steppe but aren't Brahmins.
So, there is no clear correlation between steppe ancestry % and caste, asking the question of causality becomes even more meaningless.
The only correlation which holds true is a decreasing steppe % north to south, which is clearly due to steppe being to the north. The same is also true for the IranN/IndiaN component.
So called "debunkings" of OIT by "experts" on the internet are extremely lackluster. They strawman OIT, pick out people who don't know what they are talking about (like Chawda) and "debunk" them. So far no one has debunked Talageri yet.
@vAsiSTha : I wonder if you can publish your blog post (Steppe --> Brahmin..) in a journal (maybe even the same one that had Reich/Narasimhan paper) as a short paper, or 'letter". Some journals do accept such, and then it becomes citable. Of course, not being from a University *might* hamper that, but your post appears academically rigorous.
What does he mean by BMAC?
With steppe or without steppe admixture?
If i am understanding it correctly
BMAC without steppe will make IranN related ancestry as IE
BMAC with steppe would mean Andronovo wasnt Indo-Iranian
Count me confuzed......
"Similarly, kalash, pashto etc have high steppe but aren't Brahmins." --- Kalash, pashtuns are not even indians, Kalash are an isolated population at the periphery of subcontinent while pashtuns are recent migrants to east of Indus region, so it's not right to bring them up. Brahmins of a region should ideally be compared with the other castes of their region
"there is no clear correlation between steppe ancestry % and caste" --- There is actually, except for a few north-west castes like jatts, rors who seems to be recent migrants, for the rest of india, brahmins do have more steppe ancestry than their neighbouring castes. So, there is some correlation between steppe ancestry and caste.
"The same is also true for the IranN/IndiaN component." --- The gradient of IranN/IndiaN follows more of a west-to-east pattern than north-to-south. Some of the most IndiaN depressed populations are central and eastern indian tribals. Even irulas of tamil nadu would beat Asur tribals of jharkhand when it comes to IVC-IranN/IndiaN ancestry :)
"Burusho have 20-25% steppe ancestry but aren't even IE speaking" --- That's a good point, but similar exceptions can be made for IndiaN being vector for IA languages. You can find castes in non-brahmin castes in south which are extremely IndiaN shifted. Then theee is the enigma of Toda - an isolated tribe of the nilgiris , who speak a very different dravidian language. I have been waiting for Todas autosomal results, I have only found their results on 2D-PCA and as expected, they seemed to be west shifted. In the event, todas turn out to have high IranN/IndianN ancestry(which I am sure they would), how would you explain their case? They ysd to live in isolation in nilgiri hills till recently.
"Kalash, pashtuns are not even indians, Kalash are an isolated population at the periphery of subcontinent while pashtuns are recent migrants to east of Indus region, so it's not right to bring them up. Brahmins of a region should ideally be compared with the other castes of their region..."
Why, did the steppe folks change culture depending on location wrt modern border of India? That's ludicrous.
Or are you claiming that the steppe component in kalash and pashtun is of a different kind than that in Brahmins? Why shouldn't I expect the 40% steppe kalash to be the priestly class as a logical conclusion of steppe---> Brahmins?
Brahmins should not be compared to the other castes of their region because Brahmins are an ultimately north/nW population. Their ancestry should be compared strictly to other castes of N/NW india. The migration stories of Brahmins in the south are well known, the jAtis remember themselves to be children of migrants from the North.
It is precisely because of such a stupid null hypothesis as yours that I detest the AMT folks.
Any retard can hypothesize successfully that south or east indian Brahmins will have more steppe than other castes of the region. It doesn't mean that the steppe component caused the caste, but that the Brahmins are not local to the region.
As far as indiaN/IranN in south is concerned, any southern group will be more AASI shifted than a northern group, on average.
(Even the south indian Brahmins speak Dravidian as mother tongue).
Saw the supplement of the new Xinjiang paper. If anyone has the main paper access, please share.
Labels in that paper are complicated, but seeing quite a bit of SPGT geneflow into Xinjiang starting 600bce. This ancestry probably brought Buddhism into Xinjiang. A lot of andronovo/steppe as well as BMAC ancestry seen too.
Most of the R1a is of the Z2122+ andronovo kind, again confirming that most of the steppe mlba R1a was Z2122+ (like Sintashta). The 1 R-Y3 in the Xinjiang data dating to 100bce doesn't change this view in my eyes.
South asian R1a is 80% of the L657 kind, suggesting a different origin than andronovo, or a local expansion from a few L657 males (who came from elsewhere).
"Most of the R1a is of the Z2122+ andronovo kind, again confirming that most of the steppe mlba R1a was Z2122+ (like Sintashta)."
I know its impossible to decipher but what is the likely hood of these R1a males belonged to tocharians?
Or were they Iranian speaking (Saka/Khotanese).
L657 formation date?
Is it direct descendent of z93 or z2122? Or is it sibling of it?
"Why, did the steppe folks change culture depending on location wrt modern border of India? That's ludicrous." --- Pashtuns are an eastern iranic speaking population and they have received additional cultural input from the future migrations/invasions as well, in India too, the culture has evolved quote a lot in the past 3000 years. So, it's incorrect to think that present day cultures in both areas are solely due to steppe migration impact.
"Why shouldn't I expect the 40% steppe kalash to be the priestly class as a logical conclusion of steppe---> Brahmins?" ----- Because the IA priestly class developed in india not in the peripheries of hindu kush. Besides, I don't think that Kalash have 40% stepppe_MLBA kind of ancestry.
"Their ancestry should be compared strictly to other castes of N/NW india." --- Well, while most of the brahmins in south are indeed of N/NW origin, perfect endogamy with 0% gene flow is impossible to maintain for close to 1500-2000 years. So, south indian brahmins would get more AASI shifted than many brahmin N/NW castes.
"As far as indiaN/IranN in south is concerned, any southern group will be more AASI shifted than a northern group, on average." --- yes, but that would be due to lower steppe_MLBA ancestry in south, on average, not because of low IndiaN/IranN.
There is apparently a steppe_MLBA heavy but with Y-HG L1a2 (L-M357) dated to some 700 BCE in Xinjiang (similar to many jaats and rors). This sample may be a proto-jaat/proto-ror sample .
On Y full it says l657 formation date in 2200bce. This clade is literally absent from steppe.
Would be interesting to see if samples from Kassite & Mitanni ruled regions comes up with this clad.
Where is the father clad of l657 found?
Proto-Kushana
Most of the Arab L657 TMRCA dates are between 1200-400 ybp. What does that mean?
Can't say about father but ancestor to L657, R1a-Z93 was found in ancient samples of fatyanovo-balanovo culture.
If you are talkimg about distribution of R1a-Z93 among a few moderns, you can check them here at https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/
"As far as indiaN/IranN in south is concerned, any southern group will be more AASI shifted than a northern group, on average." --- yes, but that would be due to lower steppe_MLBA ancestry in south, on average, not because of low IndiaN/IranN.
This is Bunkum.
Read, https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2022/01/final-evidence.html
ANI = 64% IVC + 36% Steppe
ASI = 99% AHG + 1% IVC
AI = 61% IVC + 39% AHG
South Indian castes are more shifted towards AI as well as ASI. Both of these are much more AHG/AASI shifted than north Indians, who are more shifted towards ANI.
Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that the ancestry in south indian castes (or rest of india) is necessarily directly from IVC in punjab and haryana. We are forced to use it because those are the only samples we have (shahr_sokhta_ba2).
"Is it direct descendent of z93 or z2122? Or is it sibling of it?"
Z93>Z94>Z2124>Z2122
Z93>Z94>Y3/Y2>L657
So z94 mutated into z2124 which is found in steppe and some z94 came down south which later mutated into India specific l657 clad?
"South Indian castes are more shifted towards AI as well as ASI. Both of these are much more AHG/AASI shifted than north Indians, who are more shifted towards ANI."
---
I was taking ancestry from Indus_periphery cluster as a rough proxy for IndiaN while it seems that you are taking your ghost pop ANI as the proxy for IndiaN/IranN inspite of the fact that AI contains IndiaN ancestry as well. In the narasimhan's 3-source qpAdm model, I don't see any significant differences in IVC_p ancestries of northern and southern groups except for outliers like Palliyan, Ullayan of south but that north-south difference could have been offset by sampling more IA speaking dalit and tribal population from central India and eastern gangetic plains.
On top of that, your ghost pop ANI contains Steppe, so my point about Steppe_MLBA making a difference still stands. Regarding south indian castes being more shifted towards ASI, in your revised model, you can easily see groups like Chamars_UP getting 43% ASI vs irulas getting 39% ASI in your model so, my original point about standalone IndiaN gradient being along west-to-east than north-to-south still stands.
"So z94 mutated into z2124 which is found in steppe and some z94 came down south which later mutated into India specific l657 clad?"
Yes something like that.
@Vasistha I am getting an Italian citizenship because my great great grandfather was Italian. So, I'd like to go further... can you find what is the origin of Proto Italic?
"I was taking ancestry from Indus_periphery cluster as a rough proxy for IndiaN while it seems that you are taking your ghost pop ANI as the proxy for IndiaN/IranN inspite of the fact that AI contains IndiaN ancestry as well. In the narasimhan's 3-source qpAdm model, I don't see any significant differences in IVC_p ancestries of northern and southern groups except for outliers like Palliyan, Ullayan of south but that north-south difference could have been offset by sampling more IA speaking dalit and tribal population from central India and eastern gangetic plains.
On top of that, your ghost pop ANI contains Steppe, so my point about Steppe_MLBA making a difference still stands. Regarding south indian castes being more shifted towards ASI, in your revised model, you can easily see groups like Chamars_UP getting 43% ASI vs irulas getting 39% ASI in your model so, my original point about standalone IndiaN gradient being along west-to-east than north-to-south still stands."
There is no reason for you to be anon. INteraction will be better without anonymity.
Anyway, your point doesnt stand.
Take Narasimhan excel sheet, and go to the last sheet where 140 modern groups have been modeled as IVC+AHG/AASI+Steppe. Do a ratio of AHG/IVC for all the 140 groups, and analyze by language spoken (IE or Dravidian). This is what you will get.
AHG/IVC for Dravidian castes
Avg. 0.956
Max 2.29
Min 0.523
AHG/IVC for IE castes
Avg 0.78
Max 1.51
Min 0.20
What you will see here is that the lowest AHG/IVC dravidian speakers are coorghis, panta_kapus and Gaud. Gauda/Gaud/Gaur are most likely immigrants from the north (Pancha Gauda brahmins are the northern brahmin castes, whereas pancha dravida brahmins are southern brahmins, vindhya range being the divider). Similarly, coorghis as well as the Kapu would have similar origins, and they adopted the language of the destination just like the south indian brahmins did.
More interestingly, the highest AHG/IVC ratio IE speakers are the Kolcha, Warli, Kathodi, Koli, Kotwalia tribes of South Gujarat and Maharashtra (the extremity of the IE speaking region of India). All of these were forest dwellers, now scheduled tribes, with ratio of 1.2 - 1.5 AHG/IVC.
This is the list of all the IE castes with AHG/IVC ratio above 0.8. Most, if not all of these, belong to the OBC/SC/ST category today. So, even without using steppe ancestry, there is a good metric to guess the category of an IE speaker if their ancestry breakup is known. The higher the AHG/IVC ratio, the more likely they are to belong to OBC/SC/ST, with the highest ratio present in STs. Again, steppe has no relevance here.
Jatav
Jogi
Kanjad
Sindhi_MP
Ansari
Dhobi
Baiswar
Pal
Muslim_Bihar
Scheduled_Caste_Haryana
Sonkar
Lodhi
Dushadh
Pasi
Sah_Obc
Manjhi_MP
Chamar_UP
Vishwabrahmin
Dharikhar
Bhil
Rathwa
Satnami
Chaudhary
Bhilala
Gamit
Mahadeo_Koli
Tadvi
Garasia
Kumhar
Barela
Kotwalia
Koli
Kathodi
Warli
Kolcha
Similarly, these Dravidian speaking castes sit at the top of the list in terms of AHG/IVC ratio by ascending order.
Panta_Kapu
Coorghi
Havik
Brahmin_Karnataka
Gaud_Karnataka
Reddy_Telangana
Yadav_Pondicherry
Vysya
These are mostly from middle castes/brahmins.
> @Vasistha I am getting an Italian citizenship because my great great grandfather was Italian. So, I'd like to go further... can you find what is the origin of Proto Italic?
I don't know much about European IE dispersals, but what do you think of theory of eastern Yamnaya in Hungary being ancestral to the Italics?
"Gauda/Gaud/Gaur are most likely immigrants from the north (Pancha Gauda brahmins are the northern brahmin castes, whereas pancha dravida brahmins are southern brahmins, vindhya range being the divider)." ---
@vasistha, No, the gaud here are not the Gaud brahmin caste but a toddy tapping caste found predominantly in Andhra/telangana region https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goud
There are Gaud_telangana samples too and they score more or less similar to the Gaud_karnataka samples. The paper has also marked priestly status as NO for these Gaud samples.
"Similarly, coorghis as well as the Kapu would have similar origins, and they adopted the language of the destination just like the south indian brahmins did." ---
Coorgis/Kodavas origin are a mystery but I have been told by my kannadiga friends that Kodave-bhasa is a bit different from usual kannada language. I am a not an expert here so just giving wiki link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodava_language
As for Kapus(Panta Kapu is a sub-caste of Kapus), they have nothing to do with brahmins. They are the primary agricultural caste of andhra/telangana region, the word Kapu means cultivator/agriculturalist in Telugu. It's claimed by many historians that Reddys, Kammas and Velamas are offshoot of Kapus.
Regarding Yadav_pondicherry, well, they are actually from Konar caste(a pastoralist group) who are lower-middle sort of caste. They are not like Ahirs of North india.
"The higher the AHG/IVC ratio, the more likely they are to belong to OBC/SC/ST, with the highest ratio present in STs. Again, steppe has no relevance here"
---- That's true but the thing is that steppe ancestry does have relevance in skewing the AHG/IVC ratio of gangetic plains castes. For example - take these gangetic OBC and SC castes, most of these lower castes have nearly the same IVCp ancestry as Brahmins_UP, Bhumihars_Bihar, Brahmin_Tiwari. However, their AASI/AHG ancestry is more than these gangetic brahmin castes because gangetic brahmins castes AHG is depressed by additional Steppe mixture. All of these gangetic lower castes have IVCp ancestry beyween 45%-49% which is same for gangetic brahmins and bhumihars castes. It's the additional steppe in these brahmins castes which depresses their AHG and thus, you get higher AHG/IVC ratio for these lower castes. So, at least in gangetic plains, steppe is the indicator of caste category/hierarchy.
@vasistha, No, the gaud here are not the Gaud brahmin caste but a toddy tapping caste found predominantly in Andhra/telangana region https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goud
There are Gaud_telangana samples too and they score more or less similar to the Gaud_karnataka samples. The paper has also marked priestly status as NO for these Gaud samples.
As for Kapus(Panta Kapu is a sub-caste of Kapus), they have nothing to do with brahmins. They are the primary agricultural caste of andhra/telangana region, the word Kapu means cultivator/agriculturalist in Telugu. It's claimed by many historians that Reddys, Kammas and Velamas are offshoot of Kapus."
I never said that Gowdas, Gauds, Kapus etc are brahmins. What i said was that the word Gauda, Gowd, Gaur denotes a northern origin in the cases of pancha gauda brahmins as opposed to pancha dravida brahmins.
This northern checks out when we see the ancestry of of the non-Brahmin Gaudas of the south who have a low AHG/IVC ratio.
"For example - take these gangetic OBC and SC castes, most of these lower castes have nearly the same IVCp ancestry as Brahmins_UP, Bhumihars_Bihar, Brahmin_Tiwari. However, their AASI/AHG ancestry is more than these gangetic brahmin castes because gangetic brahmins castes AHG is depressed by additional Steppe mixture."
Why would the steppe ancestry only depress AHG and not IVC ancestry? In any case, what you said above is contradicted by data. Gangetic brahmins, nepal brahmins, bhumihars etc have a depressed IVC ancestry but excess AHG ancestry. The reason for this is explained in my steppe--->brahmin post.
You should really have a look at this PCA, was also a part of my steppe---> Brahmin post. https://imgur.com/a/YTza4cG
@daniel
"@Vasistha I am getting an Italian citizenship because my great great grandfather was Italian. So, I'd like to go further... can you find what is the origin of Proto Italic?"
I might be a while before I start studying Italian samples.
"Why would the steppe ancestry only depress AHG and not IVC ancestry?" ---
Most likely because whatever population X contributed to the steppe ancestry of brahmins, X wasn't pure Steppe_MLBA but X had some IVCp like ancestry too so the decrease in absolute % of IVCp ancestry was mild.
"In any case, what you said above is contradicted by data. Gangetic brahmins, nepal brahmins, bhumihars etc have a depressed IVC ancestry but excess AHG ancestry" ----
@Vasistha,I will be more specific - I said that while comparing *GANGETIC CASTES* in terms of *NET ABSOLUTE % of IVCp ancestry*, these gangetic OBCs and SCs have roughly the same % of IVCp ancestry as brahmins of gangetic plains. Again, I am talking about net total % of IVCp ancestry. This is not contradicted by data.
Regarding gangetic brahmins having depressed IVCp and increased AHG ancestry, yes, under your 3-way ghost pop model of ANI, AI and ASI for a particular % of ghost ANI ancestry , compared to north western castes, they have little AI and increased need for ASI BUT I was only comparing net total IVCp ancestry here among gangetic castes NOT the one coming from ANI or AI.
On top of that, we don't know for sure if these ghost pops ANI, AI and ASI with such ratios of IVCp, Steppe_MLBA and AHG actually existed. I mean think of the social implication here - You claim that gangetic Bs got their increased Steppe_MLBA due to female mixing. If this is indeed true, how will you explain this in terms of ANI, AI, ASI ? Since steppe was non-existent before, would that mean those steppe females corresponded to ANI pop and pre-steppe gangetic Bs corrresponded to ASI :) ?
"You claim that gangetic Bs got their increased Steppe_MLBA due to female mixing. If this is indeed true, how will you explain this in terms of ANI, AI, ASI ? Since steppe was non-existent before, would that mean those steppe females corresponded to ANI pop and pre-steppe gangetic Bs corrresponded to ASI :) ?"
It is true without a doubt for uttarakhand brahmins.
https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2015121
The 'higher castes' of uttarakhand correlate with higher proportion of west eurasian (iran+european) mtdna markers. The same is not true for the paternal markers.
No, the pre-steppe gangetic B's would not correspond to ASI. This is because the ANI, AI & ASI 3 source model is a simplification which assumes one shot admixture between the 3 sources. However in reality, The steppe% in this region would have increased gradually over centuries due to preferential mating with high steppe women from the north west (gandhara etc). The brahmins of the ganga region would be higher status even amongst other Brahmins due to the religious importance of the region post the Vedic era and religious tourism to this region. This region was also near the capital of the Magadhan kingdom. This might be proven if we get a time transect of samples spanning multiple centuries from the ganga region.
On the other hand, the high ASI in these groups is from the locals, and it correlates with Aryanisation of East India at an earlier time period.
Excellent post! Kura-Araxes are Hurrians, this is directly traceable in the archeological record. Anatolian speaking zone is to the west of Kura-Araxes. Cilicia and the Konya are the most populous centers of Anatolian speakers, up to Byzantine times. In 717 an Anatolian from Isauria in the Taurus became Emperor. Kanesh and Kushara were the North and West most borders of the Anatolian speaking zone. Archaeological record shows continuity from at least the Early Bronze Age in these areas.
IMHO Anatolian likely took root with earlier or separate spread of Iranian/Zagros type ancestry to Southwest Anatolia. I.E the Anatolian HG was a separate lineage, almost immediately with the onset of the Holocene there is ever increasing mixture of Geneflow from the East. You can also trace these movements in both archaeology and archeogenetics from SW Anatolia (Lycia) through the dodecanese and on to Crete, they were very early.
Keep up the great work, I look forward to your next post!
I guess, its time for (a sort of) a victory lap. From Reich's upcoming paper/and talk.
"By sequencing 727 ancient individuals from the Southern Arc (Anatolia and neighbors in Southeastern Europe and West Asia) over 10,000 years, we contextualize its Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages (~5000-1000 BCE), when extensive gene flow entangled it with the Eurasian steppe. At least two streams of migration transmitted Caucasus and Anatolian/Levantine ancestry northward, contributing to Yamnaya steppe pastoralists who then spread southwards: into the Balkans, and across the Caucasus into Armenia, where they left numerous patrilineal descendants. Anatolia was transformed by intra-West Asian gene flow, with negligible impact of the later Yamnaya migrations. This contrasts with all other regions where Indo-European languages were spoken, suggesting that the homeland of the Indo-Anatolian language family was in West Asia, with only secondary dispersals of non-Anatolian Indo-Europeans from the steppe."
No yamnaya ancestry in Anatolia till 1000bce. Wonder what they choose the west asian source of anatolian as.
https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/events/2022/09/the-genetic-history-of-the-southern-arc-a-bridge-between-west-asia-and-europe
So this influence from the Kura-Araxes coincides with the split of Hittite (or later languages associated with Anatolian) from an ancient Anatolian, but not the split from Indo-Anatolian - which from the looks of genetics and linguistics appears to be more related to the late Neolithic Iranian?
"So this influence from the Kura-Araxes coincides with the split of Hittite (or later languages associated with Anatolian) from an ancient Anatolian, but not the split from Indo-Anatolian - which from the looks of genetics and linguistics appears to be more related to the late Neolithic Iranian?"
With the southern arc paper, we have 5700bce armenian samples now. They are very close to Kura araxes, and likely the direct ancestors of KA. These samples are basically a mix of CHG, IranN, PPN and anatolian ancestry.
So the eastern ancestry in anatolia likely entered between 5000-4000bce, perfectly in time for the proposed split of Anatolian from PIE. This 'Indo-hittite' terminology is new and has not been used since decades but has been reignited by Harvard for monkey balancing purposes. PIE is just fine (Paul Heggarty feels the same about this change in terminology).
"With the southern arc paper, we have 5700bce armenian samples now. They are very close to Kura araxes, and likely the direct ancestors of KA. These samples are basically a mix of CHG, IranN, PPN and anatolian ancestry"
Do you have any admixture results you've posted for those armenian samples? -Thanks
I have these results for KuraAraxes_kaps and Kura_Araxes_Berkaber samples.
They can be modeled as Arm_Aknashen_neolithic, no other source needed. So Kura Araxes was simply a local continuation of the earlier neolithic culture.
Rotating models here
Arm_aknashen itself can be modeled as 90% Iran_HajjiFiruzN and 10%CHG
HajjiFiruz can be modeled as mainly Iraq_PPN + Anatolia_Barcin_N + 5% WSHG. Depending on the WSHG level in 6000bce east iran and SC asia, about 20-30% of its ancestry would have come from the east.
Rotating models for armenia and hajjifiruz here
Thanks. I was looking thorugh Reich Summplemntary data and the didn't use Hajjifiruz
<a href="https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/8_25_2022_Manuscript2_Neolithic_Supplement.pdf</a>
For Arm_Aknashen they show CHG (73%) + LEVANT (28%)
Maybe cause they didn't use Hajji Firuz?
Post a Comment