New paper - Paul Heggarty et al. ,Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages.Science381,eabg0818(2023).DOI:10.1126/science.abg0818
*Note, in the paper the authors use dates in BP (before present) where present = 2000 CE. While I appreciate the strictly secular nomenclature, I prefer BCE dates as they are easier to comprehend for my brain (for now). So I convert these into BCE by subtracting 2000. eg. 6000 BP = 4000 BCE. Do keep this in mind while reading. Thank you.
Brief Overview of the Method
This paper's Bayesian phylogenetic inference analysis is based on a new improved database (IE - CoR 1.0). The IE‑CoR 1.0 database contains data on relationships of cognacy (shared word origin) between 161 Indo-European languages in a reference set of 170 basic meanings. The new languages include the Nuristani branch, extinct Iranic languages from central Asia and a representative of sub-branches of Celtic which was missing from previous databases (Gaulish). The coverage prioritizes non-modern languages, providing a deeper phylogenetic signal and better chronological estimation. This database was contributed by 80 experts of different language sub-families to maximize data accuracy.
The authors state they improved the cognate encoding (keeping 1 lexeme for each cognate set rather than many synonyms used in previous databases which created lots of cognate sets per lexeme. This, for example, artificially elongated the branch length of modern Greek and the age of old Greek). The IE-CoR data set has highly consistent counts of cognate sets across all languages, very close to the target of 1 cognate set per meaning, per language. They also removed the constraints previously placed on ancient languages to be directly ancestral to modern languages which need not be the case. This previously forced 0 branch length (and therefore no divergence), simply forced the changes onto the next branch and elongated branch lengths artificially.
The database also solves the loanword problem in computational cladistics. "IE-CoR introduced the concept of loanword event, through which it has become possible to encode correctly both non-cognacy to the source lexeme, and subsequent cognacy between vertical descendants of that lexeme, once borrowed and fully integrated into the borrower language."
The IE-Cor database can be found here https://iecor.clld.org/
Important Discussion and Conclusions from the Paper
Heggarty et al reaffirm the position of the earliest Indo-European speakers in the south of the Caucasus around ~6100 BCE. They support a hybrid model in which the steppe was a secondary staging ground for European languages. Notably, the beginning of the split from Indo-Iranian into Indo-Aryan and Iranic is dated to ~3500 BCE, a finding wholly incompatible with the Andronovo hypothesis.
 |
| DensiTree final output of the paper shows the probability distribution of various topologies. Orphan branches are sampled ancient languages in the database (some examples in red and yellow box markers) |
The authors make clear that Proto-Indo-European should include the stage before the Anatolian and Tocharian split, ie. they reject the nomenclature which places PIE in the steppe (which excludes at least the Anatolian branch) used, for e.g in Lazaridis et al 2022 (Southern Arc paper).
Similarly, recasting the question as if a search for the homeland of ‘Late Proto-Indo-European’ serves the same effect, by excluding the same two branches taken to have already diverged by the ‘Late’ stage, as if Anatolian and Tocharian were not relevant to the homeland question. There is in fact considerable inconsistency in linguistic nomenclature about different stages in the family’s diversification. Strictly, ‘proto-’ in any case refers by definition to the last stage of the common ancestor language of a family, immediately before any branches diverged. Proto-Indo-European should thus include Anatolian and Tocharian, since their relatedness with the other branches of Indo-European, in the same family, is not in doubt.
The authors argue for a non-steppe Asian route for Armenian, Greek and Albanian families based on their very early divergence dates. This is one of their conclusions that I am sceptical about, steppe ancestry does reach these regions at some point. However, I am not entirely sure about either theory.
Further south, the expansion of CHG/Iranian ancestry into the eastern Mediterranean and Balkans, without passing through the Steppe and thus without major admixture with EHG ancestry, presents a closer chronological and geographical match with the remaining, deeper European branches in our topology, namely Albanian, Greek and Armenian.
On the route taken by Iran Neolithic ancestry towards the steppe, they remain open to the east of the Caspian route but favour the direct route north from the Caucasus. Given my finding of Sarazm Eneo/Tutkaul neolithic-related ancestry in Steppe Eneolithic and Khvalynsk, I remain open to the east of the Caspian route.
On the route by which this CHG/Iranian ancestry reached the Steppe, aDNA evidence is not yet sufficient to exclude a route via Central Asia, i.e. first eastwards and then north and westwards, counter-clockwise around the Caspian, as hypothesized in (54). Nonetheless, the more parsimonious explanation, also given the aDNA record for time-transects through the Caucasus (48), would be a far shorter route directly northwards through the Caucasus, in line with corresponding expansions in material culture in the archaeological record.
On Indo-Iranian
The inference of an Indo-Iranic split at ~5520 yr B.P. (4540 to 6800 yr B.P.) may, at first glance, seem surprising. Established expectations are for a more recent date, based on the perceived level of similarity between Vedic Sanskrit and Avestan— the earliest known ancient languages in the Indic and Iranic branches, respectively. However, these judgments of linguistic similarity have been largely impressionistic (36) rather than quantified. In the precisely defined IE-CoR meanings, Early Vedic and Younger Avestan share only 58.7% cognacy (37). This matches the level of cognacy that survives between the most divergent sublineages within the Romance clade, for instance, after roughly two millennia since the spread of the Roman Empire. Early Vedic and Younger Avestan themselves date back to at least the mid-fourth and mid-third millennia before present, respectively. A time depth two millennia earlier (~5520 yr B.P.) for the split between their lineages (Indic versus Iranic) is thus consistent with the 58.7% cognacy overlap between them. More widely, ancient Indo-European languages show close similarities in some aspects of their inflectional morphology (noun declension and verb conjugation) and phonology. These similarities have often been assumed to imply a relatively short time span of divergence since their common ancestor language, but these impressions are also unquantified. Our time-depth estimate implies a long period of relative stability in these aspects, while early Indo-European diverged faster in other respects.
From Iran to India, Steppe ancestry is present only in low proportions, and only from a relatively late date, c. 3500 BP (49). This is significantly later than standard expositions of the Steppe hypothesis have proposed, associating Indo-Iranic with the earlier Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) culture. Dates for first incursions southwards from Central Asia as late as 3500 BP also leave little scope for the Indo-Iranic superstrate assumed to be present as far south and west as northern Syria and southeast Anatolia, already by the time of the Mitanni kingdom there.
Unlike the major and relatively sudden incursion of (Forest?) Steppe ancestry into Central Europe with Corded Ware c. 5000 BP, or Yamnaya into the Carpathian Basin around the same time, the weaker and much later signal in south-central Asia does not represent a strong prima facie explanation for the origins and first expansion of Indo-European languages here.
In the context of the Iran Neolithic ancestry, they write
It is found in eastern Iran, and in the Indus Valley (roughly the dividing line between the Iranic and Indic branches today), at the approximate time-depth when the two branches separate from each other in our analysis. This separation could correspond with an eastward expansion along the Ganges valley of what would become the Indic branch, picking up some of its distinctive linguistic characteristics from contact with local populations. This makes for a more straightforward scenario for the chronology, distribution and dominance of Indo-Iranic languages right across this region than a much later and genetically much less significant contribution from Central Asia.
For the steppe hypothesis for Indo-Iranian, they correctly point out the abysmal archaeological evidence (ie 0 steppe artefacts in India and Iran)
It has long remained a recognized weakness of the Steppe hypothesis (pp. 177-181 in (80); pp. 212-217 in (59); (90)) that the archaeological record lacks any obvious impacts out of the Steppe in a time-frame early enough to fit well with the scale of linguistic divergence within Indo-Iranic. Advocates of the Steppe hypothesis have widely assumed that the Andronovo culture ‘must have’ been Indo-Iranic-speaking, but even Mallory “find[s] it extraordinarily difficult to make a case for expansions from this northern region to northern India”, and more generally finds no obvious connection to “the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo- Aryans” (pp. 191-192 in (90)). The urban culture of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) was originally widely taken to offer the least bad candidate (7, 89, 90). Samples of aDNA from BMAC contexts, however, lack the expected Steppe ancestry, found only later.
To this, I add these golden words from CC Lamberg-Karlovsky (2004)
There is absolutely NO archaeological evidence for any variant of the Andronovo culture either reaching or influencing the cultures of Iran or northern India in the second millennium. Not a single artifact of identifiable Andronovo type has been recovered from the Iranian Plateau, northern India, or Pakistan.
In the main paper, they reject the steppe hypothesis for Indo-Iranian
In particular, in this hypothesis, Indo-Iranic, the major eastern branch of Indo-European,was one of the last two main branches to emerge, out of a final major clade with Balto-Slavic. Our results contradict this in both chronology and tree topology. Indo-Iranic branches off early, ~6980 yr B.P. (5650 to 8400 yr B.P.), and support for a common clade with Balto- Slavic is minimal, with a posterior probability of only 12.3%. Recent aDNA data from Central and South Asia have sought to trace movements of people into Western and South Asia by migrations southward from the steppe. However, for the period 4300–3700 yr B.P., samples from the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) do not yet attest to any such southward migration (49). Steppe ancestry is not found until ~3500 yr B.P., in the Gandhara Grave Culture in northern Pakistan, and only at limited proportions (49). The interpretation that this ancestry can be identified with the first Indo-Iranic dispersal into South Asia (49) is not straightforwardly compatible with our earlier date for the separation of Indo-Iranic from the rest of Indo-European (~6980 yr B.P.). We also find that Indic and Iranic had diverged from each other already by ~5520 yr B.P. (4540 to 6800 yr B.P.). To reconcile this with a steppe origin would require an alternative scenario in which Indic and Iranic split from each other approximately two millennia before entering South Asia and Western Asia.
They conclude a trans-Iranian-Plateau route for Indo-Iranian
Our hybrid hypothesis posits that out of this homeland south of the Caucasus, from ~8120 yr B.P., PIE began to diverge as early migrations split it into multiple early branches. One of these branches could have taken Indo-Iranic eastward far earlier than the Steppe hypothesis presumes, but in line with the linguistic chronology in Fig. 3, in which Indo-Iranic emerged as a distinct branch in the early phases of Indo-European divergence. Another main branch reached the steppe directly northward through the Caucasus ~7000 to 6500 yr B.P., compatible with one current interpretation of the aDNA record.
Here, I add that such migration has genetic evidence for SC Asia. In my previous post, I showed how the Tutkaul Neolithic ancestry from Tajikistan 6200 BCE was ~75% Siberian, but by 3600 BCE in Tajikistan, the Sarazm En individuals have a majority Iran Neolithic ancestry and only 20-25% Siberian-related ancestry indicating a gene flow from Iran between those two time periods. The spread of bread wheat from Iran to both India and SC Asia around 4000 BCE also alludes to some migration (Zhao et al 2023). The admixture date between Iran Neolithic and Andamanese-like ancestry in the Indus Periphery individuals was also around 4000 BCE (Narasimhan et al 2019) and the presence of significantly non-zero Anatolian ancestry in Indus Periphery individuals (Maier et al 2023) ensures that this ancestry entered post 6000 BCE via Iran, along with Iran Neolithic ancestry.
Accuracy of predictions
4. The split of the Proto-Romance language of the Italic family into Romanian, Sardinian, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish etc commenced between 200-500 CE which is in line with other estimates (Goldstein 2023) and is also consensus.
5. Balto-Slavic is shown to have formed a clade (Posterior Probability 0.63) with Italo-Celto-Germanic as part of a larger North-West-European language family. The split date of Balto-Slavic from the IE tree is said to be ~4500 BCE [95% CI range 3000-6000 BCE]. I definitely prefer the lower end of this range. A 4500 BCE date is too early.
The beginning of the Balto-Slavic split date into Baltic and Slavic is presented as ~1663 BCE (95% CI range of 531 - 3034 BCE). Given that Balto-Slavic modern populations require the specific B-S drifted sources (population bottleneck can cause large random drift) from Baltic_BA individuals (1200-500 BCE Estonia and Latvia) to model both groups, I feel that the lower end of that range is preferable. Although, the drift could have been in place much earlier than 1200 BCE since we don't have baltic samples from the prior period. This specific drift from Baltic_BA is not required to model other European IE groups like Germans, British, Irish etc.
6. According to the final tree, the breakup of proto-slavic begins around ~500 CE (95% CI range of ~200-800 CE) which is in line with mainstream consensus.
7. Anatolian and Tocharian are the first two to branch off, again following the consensus.
8. Armenian-Greek form a clade with a high posterior probability of 0.86, which is a mainstream view as well.
9. Within Indo-Iranian, Indic and Iranic branches begin separating by ~3500 BCE and are full separate by 3000-2500 BCE (based on DensiTree). This would correspond archaeologically to Indus Valley Civilization (Indo-Aryan) and Bactria-Margiana Complex (Iranic). IVC ancestry is present in all Indo-Aryan speakers from NW India to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Similarly, BMAC-related ancestry is present in all Iranic speakers from ancient Scythians and Sarmatians to modern Tajiks, Yaghnobis, Afghans and plateau Iranians.
Indo-Aryan branching into Dardo-Nuristani and Middle Indo-Aryan seems to be complete by around 800-600 BCE (visually, based on DensiTree) which seems acceptable, although I haven't seen much research on this specific split.
Within the Iranic branch, West Iranic branching away from East Iranic seems to have been completed by ~900 BCE, just in time when Assyrians and Urartians noted Persians and Medes in West Iran. Tablets of King Shalmaneser III, dated to ~840 BCE note the kingdoms of Parsua and Medes to the east of Assyria, the earliest direct reference to Iranic-sounding kingdoms (https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/media)
This database included 7 ancient Iranic languages, and 2 ancient Indic languages, more than any used before (usually only Vedic and Avestan were includedbeforeo this paper) significantly increasing the power to accurately detect chronology within this grouping.
Some Problems
 |
| Maximum Clade Credibility Tree of NWIE (One of many 'least bad' topologies chosen by the authors) |
 |
| NWIE DensiTree |
208 comments:
1 – 200 of 208 Newer› Newest»Seriously all of white Nationalists academia is coping , tom Roswell is crying , Samuel Andrews, beaker lady , all are crying and refuting to accept this paper ,
They claim about a single l2966 sample from Anatolia and claim it as a sign of elite dominance in proto Anatolia, also they argue that there is not chg/iran_n ydna in steppe , they claim ehg as paternal and chg as maternal clearly vested political interests , any answers
White nationalist are also claiming stredny stog as proto indo european, deconstruct their claims please
There's no need. 3 papers have come out on Anatolians, none find any steppe ancestry. Case closed there itself. Finding 4% in 1 sample out of 100 and claiming steppe origin of Anatolians is laughable. Just laugh and move on.
Didn't Barbieri et al 2022 also trace a Balkanic-I-Ir link with a split ~4000 BCE? This would work with a southern route for both language families.
Very interesting but I'm interested to see how genetics and archaeology supports it (if it does).
I would have been much more open to that if these guys had found greek-albanian clade with Armenian as outgroup. I forgot Barbieri et al, will reread.
Haha
I agree with the southern route for greco-armenian(wine trail and other archeology). As regards Albanian I am glad they let the modeled do the talking instead of trying to form fit.
Albanian can be explained on geograp[hical grounds, because it stays relatively north and uses the land bridge to its final destination whereas greeks migrate through a more continental route and then island hopping maintaining a longer link with Armenian.
Even modern history show this pattern. Greeks and Armenians were neighboring peoples in Turkey till the last century. In contrast Albanians, Kosovars were islamized long back.
I agree with your remarks, about Greeks and Armenians, the reconstruction of their movement from the Pontic steppe is convincing and agrees with the usual view of the arrival of the Greeks 2200 BCE. A migration of the Greeks through Anatolia seems very unlikely, since their language is not especially related to Anatolian and we would expect some remnants of a similar language in Anatolia, while it comes only with the migration of Phrygians from the Balkans and Greek colonies. What is interesting to understand is how Greeks and other Balkan IEs (e.g. Albanians/Illyrians) from Yamnaya and NW IEs from Corded Ware belong to different linguistic branches, with different vocabulary, although they are considered to be genetically related.
Perhaps an Anatolian expanded directly into the Balkans along Albanian and Greek. That would explain why Ancient Greece has many Anatolian like toponyms and words.
"“From Iran to India, Steppe ancestry is present only in low proportions, and only from a relatively late date, c. 3500 BP (49). This is significantly later than standard expositions of the Steppe hypothesis have proposed, associating Indo-Iranic with the earlier Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) culture.”
“The inference of an Indo-Iranic split at ~5520 yr B.P. (4540 to 6800 yr B.P.) may, at first glance, seem surprising. “
“In the main paper, they reject the steppe hypothesis for Indo-Iranian”"
Ok. This is a step forward in the right direction, and imho a clear departure from Harvard's southern arcs position.
Daniel, you write "Perhaps an Anatolian expanded directly into the Balkans along Albanian and Greek. That would explain why Ancient Greece has many Anatolian like toponyms and words."
The migration from Anatolia to Greece of people with CHG ancestry is already at the beginning of the Bronze Age, centuries before the arrival of the Greeks, that explains the Anatolian-like toponyms of the substrate that is generally accepted for Greek.
Apparently Albanian autosomal dna has lower steppe than their slavic neighbors. Would be interesting too check.
It would be easier for a sea faring community like what the greeks became, to maintain a wide spread speech community spanning Anatolia and the greek mainland vs The land hugging proto Albanian speakers who did a one time cross over the Bosphorus and then stayed put.
I don't know Albanian genetic data too well. But it's hard for me to see a direct Iran related admixture in Albania by 4000bce. Maybe proto albanian speakers were hidden elsewhere and reached albania at a later date. All very hypothetical. But then if they were hidden elsewhere, say greece or balkans, why doesn't albanian form a clade with greek?
Lol This work is a piece of garbage.
Albanian from 4000 bc Syria ? Lol
@ Vasistha
''Maybe proto albanian speakers were hidden elsewhere and reached albania at a later date. All very hypothetical. But then if they were hidden elsewhere, say greece or balkans, why doesn't albanian form a clade with greek?''
they used BEAST which was designed for Y-DNA phylogeny, You cant just throw in words into it and claim to produce meaningful results.
You are a known troll ,, maybe davidski with another account
Dear heggerty cope coming 1...2...3...
Viv wrote,
"Steppe ancestry has got nothing to with Indo-Iranian should pretty much be the consensus moving forward."
Yup. And that is what is causing so much heartburn. At least to my knowledge, this is the very *first time* a major group of mainstream (whatever that means) scholars have used a recognized journal to point at the elephant in the room.
“From Iran to India, Steppe ancestry is present only in low proportions, and only from a relatively late date, c. 3500 BP (49). This is significantly later than standard expositions of the Steppe hypothesis have proposed, associating Indo-Iranic with the earlier Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) culture.”
The above quote from the article completely invalidates the Kurganists’ genetic AND archaeological scheme to get the IIr to where they are today according to their own time line. Therefore, merely scoffing at the authors’ use of BEAST to estimate divergence times is not enough.
Quoting from a google search done minutes ago,
“There are about 445 living Indo-European languages, according to an estimate by Ethnologue, with over two-thirds (313) of them belonging to the Indo-Iranian branch.”
If migrations of TWO THIRDS of the IE family cannot be explained by the steppe hypothesis or its “southern arcs” variant, then what?
@ Blogger Neolithic Reaper said...
Yeah nice projecting of your victimhood complex. Maybe you need a unicorn to make you feel better from all those racist facts :)
So where did PIE emerge from - is it the collapsed Dravidian society of IVC, or is it BMAC, or is it Majkop, or is it Mesopotamia. It's hard to keep up with your copey goal-post shifting
IVC wasn't Dravidian...This needs to go now...As for BMAC it's already Aryan in character with its Fire-Soma cult knowledge of horses and presence of Wheeled vehicles....
Dravidian languages have terms for wheel, axle, and Vehicle from Aryan languages...not an expert so need someone to verify it...
Eg Dravidian languages have accu for axel, Cakkaram for wheel and Vaṇá¹i for cart....all from Aryan languages....
IVC and BMAC has high IranN ancestry since 4th millennium and wheeled vehicles also date from that period...
@ Assuwatama
Having wheeled vehicles and fire cults doesn’t automatically make something Indo-aryan does it ?
There’s groups in Europe that look culturally kurgan but have no steppe ancestry either . That’s because according to Gimbutas’ silly models only people from the steppe could be mobile warriors
And I agree that the the question of Indus Valley, proto-Iranians or Anatolia needs more data, but I’m just baulking at the methodology in this specific paper
There is nothing wrong with the methodology of this paper that wasn't also wrong with previous papers that used Bayesian inference. it's an improvement over Ringe et al, Bouckaert et al & Chang et al, using more words, many more languages (including ancient extinct Iranic languages & Pali - much better sampling along the Indo-Iranian depth).
Almost all of the final tree and internal subdivisions make sense. The predictions for split dates of Balto-Slavic, Gaelic & Brittonic, Romance, Scandinavian, English vs Frisian are pretty accurate.
Only the Greek, Albanian and Armenian branch needs more solid explanation. They need to prove that early spread to Greece and Balkans with ancient DNA, and as far as I know that has not yet been done (might have missed some balkan adna papers).
There is plenty of documented evidence in the works of Victor Sarianidi which proposes an Aryan nature of BMAC...
As for IE nature of BMAC and IVC more research and data is welcome..Eg Chalcolithic Turanians are somewhat distinct from Bronze age BMAC population who happen to carry lot more Anatolian...
So we need to find what exact source brought that and whether it had any linguistic influence especially from the IranC groups from Northern Iran.
As for IVC, if it is established beyond doubt that Iranian farmers and not Iranian gatherers are the source of IranN ancestry in IVC then IE IVC strengthen further....
High AASI tribes with haplo H probably were the OG dravidian groups
As for IVC, a steppe route is simply lunacy due to absence of any archaeological evidence over the past 100 years for steppe migration in 2000-1000bce. You cant bully people into believing a theory which posits that the most populous region of the world at the time changed language and culture without showing a single material object in the archaeological record.
In Swat, which is at the periphery of the Saptasindhu river system, steppe-bmac admixed from Yaz (Iranic) crept in after 1500bce, even there no steppe sites or artifacts are found. For other more interior sites in the RigVedic regions, even kurganist scholars don't propose any Andronovo material connection.
This is opposed to Andronovo sites found in the Oxus region (Dashty Kozy, Kashkarchi, Kokcha) - agreed by all to be Andronovo camp sites both archaeologically and by genetics of those buried individuals. But even in Oxus, BMAC-Steppe admixture is virtually absent till 1500BCE except in 2 outliers. The first solid evidence is from the Takhirbai 3 sample tkm_IA from 900BCE with 50% Andronovo ancestry.
All this is too late in time to explain Indo-Iranians.
Yeah such an early split for Albanian as an outgroup seems impossible. Will compare traditional linguistic dates for splits with those of the study at some point, Balto-Slavic and Italo-Celtic seem to be on point for when they became audibly different languages.
@ vasistha
'' the most populous region of the world at the time changed language and culture without showing a single material object in the archaeological record.''
''most populous' is not much of an arguement. Every region has viscitudes in dynamics and prosperity. In fact, we can clearly see, there was a rather sharp demographic collapse in the region, with decline, freagmentation and exodus of some groups toward the gangetic plain.
This is how shifts occur - new groups filled in the vacuum. They were probably already mixed, so there's not need to assume a need for 80% replacement with crude, distal modelling. If we model IVC with proximal populations from around Margiana, there is in fact quite a substantial shift. So the admixture between Steppe MBA & post-Gonur had already occurred further northwest. I suspect a substantial language-shift was in turn occurring in Haryana.
BTW ,everyone goes on about R1a, but there are the I12471 and I12146 who belongs to I2a-L699, found in Cernavado & Usatavo kurgans, Anatolia, and Katelai.
The depopulation only occurred in the Cholistan desert which was severely affected by the Saraswati drying and the droughts. This is not even the proper Vedic region of the rig veda. The Indus never dried, and the people there never moved.
There was no archaeological discontinuity, you should read possehl, kenoyer, Schaffer, Mughal on the topic of late Harappan period. Cemetery H culture exists after mature IVC on the Indus, with sites at Harappa. No presence of BMAC, steppe, bishkent-vaksh or Yaz material is seen there in the archaeological record.
Anyway, this paper has used 7 ancient Iranic and 2 ancient Indic languages, more than any previous paper. The indo-iranic splits and sub splits are spot on. Andronovo theory is dead, you can't bully a subcontinent which has been shouting since 50 years that there's a lack of archaeological sign of migration. No archaeologist who has dug the subcontinent believes that there are signs of migration, whether Indian or European.
In fact, anyone who has studied Indian archaeology knows that the depopulation of Punjab/Haryana Vedic region in the late Harappan stage is a lie.
Per Shaffer and Lichtenstein (migration, Philology & south Asian Archaeology).
In East Punjab (Indian states of Punjab, north Haryana, Delhi west UP) there is a 300% increase in number of settlements in Late Harappan (1900-1400BE) from mature harappan (2400-1900BCE).
In Central Haryana - Between Mature Harappan and late Harappan, there is a 98% increase in the number of settlements.
Sindh - 89% decrease, no new settlements
Cholistan - 43% decline by Late Harappan
Gujarat - 30% increase in number of settlements.
The only decrease is in Cholistan desert and Sindh due to lack of water, but no new settlements of outsiders are seen. Late Harappan has nothing to do with BMAC or Andronovo or any culture even remotely related to steppe. This internal movement to the East (towards Yamuna) and towards Gujarat is the only west-to-east movement seen in 2nd mill bce archaeology and it corresonds to the west-to east shift seen in the Rig Veda geography.
I haven’t said anything about Andronovo migrations directly to the Swat valley, but I think it’ll turn out that there was substantial migrations into the region from the northwest by an already mixed population.
Gaska recommends checking out this paper
"Indo-Aryan etymologies of 16 Greek words-Geoffrey Caveney (2.022)-This paper presents the analysis of 10 Minoan Linear A inscriptions as grammatical Indo-Aryan statements. The paper demonstrates the historical plausibility of the presence of Indo-Aryan speakers on Crete circa the 17thc. BCE."
Here is the link
https://www.academia.edu/83578817/Minoan_Indo_Aryan_etymologies_of_17_Greek_words
A dense paper from Professor Kazanas
https://www.academia.edu/83578817/Minoan_Indo_Aryan_etymologies_of_17_Greek_words
Kazanas illustrates his point with a simple example of the three sibilants in Sanskrit (for those who can read the script)
https://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/en/lesson/fan/lesson_fan1.htm
"In this simplest of examples also we see that there is an initial subtlety and
complexity which usage reduced to coalescence for ease. The beginning is
subtlety, differentiation and complexity; the crude simplicity comes later! "
This remarkable observation just turns the very philosophy of IE reconstruction and dating upside down! Languages are assumed to evolve from simple to complex like organic beings from ameba to humans. It may not have happened that way. **It does not have to have happened that way.** Languages can and have been artificially constructed to establish authority, even prove civilizational superiority, or at the least create a distinct social or national identity.
Take Urdu for example. Such languages are intentionally made to be as complex as possible. A google search would indicate that about 80 million people speak Urdu. In reality the “Urdu” they are speaking sounds just like Punjabi or Hindi laced with Arabic, Farsi, Pashto and Dari words with a touch of Farsi grammar.
@ Assuwatama
''IVC and BMAC has high IranN ancestry since 4th millennium and wheeled vehicles also date from that period...''
That's another issue. IranN ancestry spread during the Ice Age across western Asia. This model just lumps it, and CHG, into one mass c. 6000 BC.
In fact, by the Chalcolithic, we see a number of hetereogenous groups, some with ANF (as in the case of BMAC) some with AASI-related ancestry, further southeast. There is no common vector linking Anatolia , Iran and Swat
My apologies Here is the correct link to Kazanas' paper
http://omilosmeleton.gr/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Vedic-and-Greek-Aorists.pdf
Vedic and Greek Aorists
" Language most probably started, as Sanskrit indicates and as RM Dixon held
(1997), with “an explosion”. I add, it started with its fullest and most complex
morphology, like goddess Athena who sprang out of Zeus’ temple in full panoply. "
"Here I add one more short comment. Sanskrit belies all theories claiming
that language started in a simple crude form and developed into a more complex
morphology. Rather the opposite holds for Sanskrit and its derivative tongues -
Bengali, Hindi, Maharashtri, Punjabi etc"
@rob
"I haven’t said anything about Andronovo migrations directly to the Swat valley, but I think it’ll turn out that there was substantial migrations into the region from the northwest by an already mixed population.'
Swat ancestry is from an already mixed bmac-steppe population from Yaz culture which was already Iranic. This is why you don't even see a proper bmac -steppe mixed pop in bmac regions till 1500bce. It's even missing from the LBA sumbar and parkhai samples. This is confirmed by yaz type pottery at Swat (see Silvi papers on Swat).
These migrations are irrelevant to proto indo aryan.
These Yaz migrations also do not affect any region of the subcontinent other than Swat till 1000bce. After 900bce, Petrie et al show YazIi pottery at Bannu in Pakistan which is possibly the beginning of the Iranic migrations into the modern Indian people. The rest of the steppe admixture in Indians occurred over the period of Achaemenid rule ~500BCE and subsequent Indo- Saka rule, 100 BCE onwards.
Admixture dating of modern Indians and Pakistanis agrees with this late admixture.
@Rob
"In fact, by the Chalcolithic, we see a number of hetereogenous groups, some with ANF (as in the case of BMAC) some with AASI-related ancestry, further southeast. There is no common vector linking Anatolia , Iran and Swat"
6200bce tutkaul Neolithic had 75% Siberian ancestry. By 4000 bce this is reduced to 22% by sc asian chalcolithic ancestry (iranN+anatolian). This same ancestry forms a major chunk of the Indus periphery samples. The entry date of this ancestry into both sc asia and India is somewhere between 5000 & 4000bce, exactly as predicted by Heggarty et al. Admixture date of iranN and aasi is also around 4000bce. Admixture date of anatolian and Siberian ancestry in SC asian individuals (geoksyur, parkhai, sarazm, anau) is also around 4500bce. This is also the time when bread wheat entered both these regions from west iran (Zhao et al 2023).
In Anatolia, this iranN related ancestry enters around 5000bce. Heggarty et al perfectly matches the genetic data for these regions.
@ Vas
''6200bce tutkaul Neolithic had 75% Siberian ancestry. By 4000 bce this is reduced to 22% by sc asian chalcolithic ancestry (iranN+anatolian). This same ancestry forms a major chunk of the Indus periphery samples.''
I doubt that Indus valley hunter-gatherers are going to be Siberian like . Instead it'd be quasi-Iran_N like. But happy to be surprised.
''In Anatolia, this iranN related ancestry enters around 5000bce. Heggarty et al perfectly matches the genetic data for these regions.''
Ive not seen a single model - of whatever persuasian- that has been adequate for Anatolia. it's all overly generic so far.
From what I can discern so far, there are at least 2 waves of 'CHG related' movement into Anatolia. There is an early, 'gentle' one post 5000 BC, then there is another 4000 BC associated with northern Anatolian sites like Ikiztepe, Ilipinar and the pre-Hittie stratum in central Anatolia. There is a trickle of Piedmont-steppe related individuals to eastern Anatolia, and a trickle of Balkan BA associated individuals to the western Coast.
That's where we're at atm. There's no real slam dunk in either direction.
@Rob
"I doubt that Indus valley hunter-gatherers are going to be Siberian like . Instead it'd be quasi-Iran_N like. But happy to be surprised."
Same. I don't expect that either. I expect a higher AASI %, although some Iran HG (Hotu like) is still expected. But the Indus periphery, and also the (lone) Rakhigarhi sample can be modeled with AASI and SC Chalcolithic as they have the right Anatolian farmer:ANE ratios required to model IVC in rotating models. Even Narasimhan et al model them with SC Asians in their supplement as proximal models but reject them inexplicably because they cant reduce the std errors, and go for distal model.
The anatolians can be modeled with Aknashen_N like ancestry from Armenia. The impact is huge (40-60%) and pervasive at all sites. The steppe impact is minimal to non-existent. Balkan_N impact is seen in a few individuals on the west coast, but thats all.
@ayush
In non steppe cluster in Aligram swat valley, had IVC + Bmac like ancestry, but missing the steppe_MLBA, what was Time for Bmac mixing with AASI in aligram as per dates? is it before the swat steppe clusters?
The aligrama samples from 700bce have low steppe but its not 0. It's about 7%. There are other samples from Swat which have low steppe and cluster with these Aligrama samples. DATES cant tell us mixing times between two very similar ancestries with reliability, both BMAC and IVC had majority IranN ancestry.
@Mayuresh
That Caveney paper is interesting but I am waiting for other experts to confirm that finding.
" Importantly, the beginning of the split from Indo-Iranian into Indo-Aryan and Iranic is dated to ~3500 BCE, a finding wholly incompatible with the Andronovo hypothesis."
-3,500BC is exactly where I put the split of Vedic and Avestan ie the beginning of the BMAC period.
Most of this seems to make sense. Good to see this field going in the right direction.
The mainstream is almost completely dead and buried. Its just a matter of time until they capitulate, they havent been able to make any real progress for a long time and now newer papers like this are making more sense and ofcourse ties up with everything I've been saying. Truly there is no doubt about everything we know. The mainstream is completely wrong about everything, they are just a joke.
Rob, when u go back to Eurogenes, tell the losers there mzp1 was right all along and they are all wrong. and BTW mzp1 is now Kavi, Kavi is the most elite IE. You ppl dont know anything. Kavi can never be wrong even if mzp1 was not always right.
Also, Kavis were the most elite and Kings of Aryans, literally. You guys dont know anything, this paper is just the beginning of the end for you 'normies' who think Steppe lols nomadic 'gypsies' were the most elite ppl in Eurasia during Bronze Age lol that is a joke.
You have no idea how much a Kavi can know compared to normies. There is alot more to come your way, as I said this is just the beginning of the end for you guys, your position is woefully outmatched in this debate.
Vasistha wrote,
"you should read possehl, kenoyer, Schaffer, Mughal on the topic of late Harappan period"
The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives (Understanding Ancient Civilizations by Jane McIntosh Publisher : Holtzbrinck; 1st edition (November 12, 2007)
I read this book many years ago. Based on memory it does not repeat the predictable story of "Indo Aryans" pouring into the empty vessel of what used to be the Indus Valley Civilization.
@ vasistha
“ Aknashen_N like ancestry from Armenia. The impact is huge (40-60%) and pervasive at all sites.”
I used Aze lowland N, but yeah same deal. Still, we know Anatolia was linguistically diverse, and such ancestry peaks in Kaskian & Hurrian regions. Is their Aknashen ancestry in swat valley ? Because there’s none of it in Celts from Western Europe
Btw check email
@ Kavi
“ Rob, when u go back to Eurogenes, tell the losers there mzp1 was right all along and they are all wrong. and BTW mzp1 is now Kavi, Kavi is the most elite IE.”
Sounds sexy 👀
Hey,@Vasistha,did you see this?
Their multivariate analysis in the supplementary data groups tocharian with yamnaya languages(Graceo-armenian)while indo-iranian splits right after anatolian again
This is the image/chart
https://files.catbox.moe/zhwvik.png
Although the multivariate analysis gives lesser and younger dates, which they mention in their supp,why such younger dates are wrong,but I don't think that this has an effect on their langauge grouping and clusters.
Even with their new Covarion method,they could probably give similar groupings and clades.(tocharian with Greco-armenian) instead of tocharian splitting after anatolian as their in traditional Covarion Tree/Chart.
So,I think the problem of tocharian which you had with this paper is solved.
Mayuresh
"I read this book many years ago. Based on memory it does not repeat the predictable story of "Indo Aryans" pouring into the empty vessel of what used to be the Indus Valley Civilization."
Old books by big names like Allchin did suggest that some new features like round seals were from central asians (mind you, by central asians they still meant BMAC, not steppe. Allchin believed Namazga culture to be Indo-European already without steppe impact). But this has been proven false, the round seals found at Chanhu-daro & Jhukar (in Sindh, outside RV region) late harappan culture are similar to Persian gulf harappan seals. From Laursen (2010) https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/The_westward_transmission_of_Indus_Valle.pdf
"In the Indus Valley and on the Indian subcontinent there are many indications that various round forms are introduced for stamp seals from the early second millennium BC onwards. This development is perhaps most clearly expressed by the tradition of the so-called Jhukar seal-bead amulets, c.1900–1700 BC, first known from Chanhu-Daro in Sind province (Mackay 1943: pl. XLIX and L). Piggott has argued for a central West Asian influence as responsible for
the Jhukar seals (Piggott 1952: 226 cited by Miller 2008: 288), while Miller in her re-evaluation of the evidence from Chanhu-Daro has convincingly demonstrated that the Jhukar seals can equally be regarded as the products of an internal development that followed the major socio-economic re-organization of Harappan society (2008: 288). A comparable
tradition has more recently been identified for the Ahar-Banas complex in Rajasthan (Shinde, Possehl & Ameri 2005). In the latter location one of the largest sites, Gilund, produced evidence of a flourishing tradition of circular stamp seals and pottery sealing tentatively dated from the late third to the early second millennium (2005). Parallels have been
drawn between the sealing tradition of the AharBanas complex and the possible clay tokens found in several early second-millennium BC contexts in Bahrain, including the Barbar temples and the Early Dilmun settlement at Saar (Potts 2005: with references)."
The external connections to Rig Vedic region is so tenuous and non-existent that these guys hang to minute evidences.
For example, Rob is employing a Kulturkugel rationale here, alluding to a mixed BMAC-Steppe ancestry penetrating India with BMAC culture but Steppe Indo-Aryan language. Mallory introduced this idea, but at least he knew how ludicrous it was. The problem is that even BMAC material impact is not seen in India except for some connection in Swat and Pirak (Baluchistan), both regions on the outskirts of the RV region not in the core.
"The Kulturkugel (German is employed here to enhance the respectability of an already shaky model) is envisaged as an explanatory projectile which is driven by social organization (here the type of hierarchical structure seen in the Sintashta burials which presumably extends to the creation of BMAC khanates, small fortress-states; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1994). It carries a linguistic package (here presumably Indo-Aryan) and, to pursue the metaphor farther, it has a nose of malleable material culture (Andronovo ceramics, metalwork, etc.). When, for example, an Andronovo Kulturkugel penetrated the BMAC (Fig. 6b), the force of its delivery (social organization) helped it carry through the BMAC with its linguistic package intact, although its material culture was shed or modified radically by that obtaining in the Central Asian sites. At the other end emerged a bullet, armed with a BMAC (cultural) head but otherwise carrying an Indo-Aryan language"
@Freakk
"Their multivariate analysis in the supplementary data groups tocharian with yamnaya languages(Graceo-armenian)while indo-iranian splits right after anatolian again"
Yeah, I saw that. They reject it based on their pre-conceived bias that Tocharian has to split after Anatolian which I do not accept.
At the same time, they provide other good reasons to reject their multi-state model for the covarion model. Maybe the answer lies in the middle.
Looked up Lazaridis et al 2022 supplementals to check BA Balkan samples. Croatia and Serbia specifically
33/59 BA Croatia samples have excess CHG/Iran ancestry, 19-20 of them also have excess Levant_PPN ancestry. 20 samples have significant excess of CHG/Iran and/or Levant_PPN.
2/5 BA Serbian samples have excess CHG/Ian ancestry and Levant_PPN ancestry, (>5% and >10%)
So theoretically movement from Anatolia that could have brought Albanian with it is possible. Keep in mind it wasn't Albanian itself that would have moved but "Illyric" at best (see Olander 2022 for the tree), if not a more ancestral stage of Balkanic languages including Thracian etc. Still far-fetched imo, I think more work should be done on that area
Yes the Nostratic theory is certainly correct, at the minimum there are many IE influences going into the Middle East, Caucuses and FU.
The Middle East and IE are not completely different. Infact, the origin of MIddle Eastern Civilization is certainly IE.
There are many many IE connections of Middle Eastern history going all the way into known history.
Manyy of the towns and cities of Middle East are named after Bhrighus like Babylon, Babel etc.
The Middle Eastern term Assyria is the IE Asura, Aesir also found in FU.
The Arabic Bhurj, Germanic Berg, Iranian Berzeti, and the Euro alBORZ, Alps etc are all derived from Bhrigu likely due to early towns being placed on high-elevation for security, pre chalcolithic.
Middle Eastern J1 is also IE J1.
The Moon which is an ancient symbol found in the Middle East is the same moon which is highly venerated in Iranian literature. Manucherh means moon-face who was a mythical King of Iran predating the Kayanian Dynasty. From Manuchehr is derived the Indic Manu, the Germanic Manus and the Germanic word 'Man'.
So this IE connection with ME goes way back prior to the Chalcolithic.
In paper of this post, Celtic and Germanic split off earlier than Balto-Slavic and Italic. This makes perfect sense because The Celtic and Germanic ppls have more diverged (Farming, Middle East, Bhrgu related) identity than Latin and Slavic. For instance Germanic has Aesir which is related to Asura/Assyria, Berg as mentioned above, and Manus which are all related to Farming cultures from West Asia. Italic and Slavic dont have these infact those are the only Euro languages that have Deva as the main concept of Gods, just like Vedic.
Amongts the Germanic ppls, the Anglos are a different identity, which is rooted in the name Angiras. They likely became Germanic speakers when they settled in Scandinavia, having migrated there from further East.
Manuchehr (Manu, Noah?, Manus) and Jamshid (Yama, Ymir (Norse), Remus?) are very important ppl as they are very prominent across most of the recently separated IE groups like Indic, Iranian, Norse, Italic.
For sure the Iranian Shahname is probably the most important history of IE. This is the region that best explains the divergence of the early PIE Cattle herding community into farming communities that then affects other regions East (India), South (Middle East) and West (West Asia and Europe).
Interestingly, in Indic, Manu and Yama are mostly absent in the main vedic corpus, books 2-9 but then appear as important characters in later books, 1 and 10. This is explained by the fact that the early books record the hymns of these ppl before they settled down and became farmers. When these NW tribes settled down to become farmers, they went into a system that was already existing due to earlier waves of PIE nomads becoming farmers in 'Iran' and also India. As soon as they enter into this post-Nomadic IE civilzation, their songs become Poems, the Rishi (Singer) disapears and is replaced by Kavi (Poet). The Vedic songs are replaced by Kavitha poetry such as Mahabharat. This already happened in the West in earlier waves of Nomads becoming farmers. THis is why PIE literature was based on short songs like the Vedic chants but all across Eurasia later civilizations like long-form poetry like Shahhname, Illyiad, Edda, Mahabharat etc rather than short form songs, because all PIE herders moving to farming based societies made this transition. This is why Kavi is such an important and pivotal concept. It reflects the transition of nomads into farmers and the next step in advancing human civilization.
The big changes in the Chalcolithic are exactly these. The archeological record increases in the Chalcolithic because more and more nomads are becoming settled. The increase in population and wealth starts from the chalcolithic and that period to today is the biggest increase in human wealth ever. Then in the BA we can see this in the development of the Silk Road, which was facilitated by nomads, but was obviously run by BMAC.
Now, the major thing here, is the failure of the mainstream, and even ppl here. It is a major failure and arrogance of ppl talking about IE and Eurasian history to ignore the ancient literature like Shahname and other 'history' from other regions. For they all corroborate these things. It seems the ancient ppls knew about the whole of human history much better than us today even though we have technology and tools.
The Greeks, Jews and Indians all corroborate everything I have said here. The archeological and genetic data is in agreement. The Linguistic too.
In the future there will be just one major finding from all this. Teh arrogance and stupidity of the maintstream, with all modern tools and data, were wrong while the ancients were right. Modern mainstream is mogged by Shahname, Indian literature, Greek and Jewish 'folk' histories.
The lesson in humility for academia, media scientists and laypeople will be an important one and a necessary one for humanity to progress and prosper in the future.
@Past Steppe theory has been reformed by Anthony recently, now it theorizes Anatolian split from Sredny Stog, moved into Anatolia and the rest of IE (which had passed down from Sredny Stog to Yamnaya somehow) moved later into Europe
@Mayuresh At that date at that place Indo-Aryan seems unlikely, it probably reflects Minoan being some kind of IE language with a relation to Indo-Iranian, either due to contacts before it reached Crete (or before it even split as its own language), or due to a common clade with Indo-Iranian at some point before it moved eastward toward East Iran
The line with "vedic" is well defined almost to 3000BC. Does that make sense?
Vasistha wrote,
"The external connections to Rig Vedic region is so tenuous and non-existent that these guys hang to minute evidences."
Thank you for sharing all those quotes, some familiar some new. My point was McIntosh belongs to the list of other archaeologists like Allchin, Possehl, Kenoyer who see complete continuity in the SSC. I have left Indian heavy weights like B.B Lal, Bisht, S.R. Rao, Shinde out of the list intentionally.
@Daniel
They date Vedic itself to 1500bce. It's ancestor could begin split around 3000bce, that's not an issue
@vasistha
Yeah, you are right,but it's still interesting that They Show two different models for tocharian Grouping/Clade, although they reject one themselves.
But still,This can answer a lot of people on twitter who are having problem with the split of tocharian in this paper.
And can hopefully reconcile tocharian with being an afanasievo+andronovo mix (cladally closest to Armenian but morphologically to italo-celtic).
A part of the IE borrowings in Chinese is disputed, and rest part has status of "borrowed from an unknown IE language".
We need genetic samples from the mid-1st millennium Tarim (Tocharian script period). It may turn out that the Tocharians migrated to this region only a thousand years earlier and had non-Andronovans and non-Siberian genetics.
@freak
"This can answer a lot of people on twitter who are having problem with the split of tocharian in this paper."
I doubt that many others have an issue with tocharian early split, I might be one of the very few ones. because by default Afanasievo becomes the suspect which is unproblematic for kurganists.
@past
"A part of the IE borrowings in Chinese is disputed, and rest part has status of "borrowed from an unknown IE language".
Sure, at the same time andronovo impact on xinjiang is proven by archaeology, R1a-Z2124 males and autosomal ancestry from 1500bce onwards. If these were early Indo-iranians, there would be many early IIr or early Ir loanwords in Tocharian and Old chinese. That is not the case, the loanwords are from middle iranian onwards and later from sanskrit and pali.
" It may turn out that the Tocharians migrated to this region only a thousand years earlier and had non-Andronovans and non-Siberian genetics."
Doesnt seem possible. BMAC or IVC related ancestries cant also be a tocharian source since the branches are so distant. If not Andronovo related, who else came into China at that point?
@vAsiSTha
"Doesnt seem possible"
Previously, it was believed that Indo-Iranian borrowings in the Finno-Ugric languages can only come from Andronov.
It is not clear for what reasons other options were rejected : migration to the Finno-Ugric area of some groups of Iranians, or the presence of FU tribes near the settlement of Iranians and Indians. The latter option can even be supported by genetics (according to your data, ancient Tajikistan was 75% Siberian in genetics).
I believe that the Tarim-Tocharians may have been a small isolated group or a group of several thousand people who migrated to this region in the mid-1st millennium BC.
It's only version.
@Past
"I believe that the Tarim-Tocharians may have been a small isolated group or a group of several thousand people who migrated to this region in the mid-1st millennium BC."
This works since it's so vague and convenient. But the question still remains - what was the IE component of their ancestry - very old neolithic IranN, afanasievo, andronovo or SCAsia/IVC?
@vAsiSTha
I would venture to suggest "Iranian-Anatolian genetics".
Look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisidian_language.
One of the Anatolian languages existed even in our era.
Also in Anatolia they spoke one of the Celtic languages, Thracian, Greek, Armenian. It was a linguistically diverse region. It is possible that proto-Tocharians also lived there. Some scholars link prototochar with Gutians, but I am skeptical about this.
I’m not entirely sure, but I saw some genetic paper that in the 2nd or 1nd millennium BC, the Anatolian component increased in Central Asia. Maybe this was due to the arrival of some tribes?
BMAC itself has slightly higher anatolian than the preceding sc asian chalcolithics, possibly indicative of elamite migration since some elamite elements in BMAC are noted, by HP Francfort for instance.
@Vasistha
But isn't this 1500BCE based on the steppe model?
The 1500BCE date of Early Vedic in this paper is not an assumption, but based on their output from their own model. Their output 95% CI range for early Vedic is ~1000-2000 BCE. ie. 95% chance according to them that Early Vedic falls within 2000-1000 BCE.
Steppe model says that Aryans invaded/migrated around 1500BCE and within 100-200 yrs or whatever they composed the Rig-Veda (but forgot about their whole migration and glorious steppe homeland).
Heggarty model says that I-Ir split from PIE around 5-4.5k BCE and went via Iran into India and Central Asia. Then IA and Ir started to diverge around 3500BCE (presumably independently because of isolation from each other). Within Indic, the divergence begins around 2500BCE and by ~1500BCE one branch gave the early Vedic language. The other branch is responsible for modern IA languages as per them. So this model is very different from Steppe theory.
@Vasistha Check out Alberto's opinion about Tocharian origins at his blog I'm not sure exactly what post it is. I think you've made comments there before.
@Vasistha, are you sure that's an output?
I don't have access to the paper, but this date is oddly coincident with the Steppe version. Pushing back the dates would, I think, also push back the early Vedic Dates, because all other dates were pushed back. Notice that the age of Young Avest was not also changed, but it does have a weird longer trail, that is not as fuzzy as the rest.
So, for me, it seems it was calibrated
56 AM
@ vasistha
“ For example, Rob is employing a Kulturkugel rationale here, alluding to a mixed BMAC-Steppe ancestry penetrating India with BMAC culture but Steppe Indo-Aryan language. Mallory introduced this idea, but at least he knew how ludicrous it was. The problem is that even BMAC material impact is not seen in India except for some connection in Swat and Pirak ””
Where did I suggest that ? I always found that explanation weak
However, I am aware of new archaeological data which shows Andronovo moving beyond the former BMAC frontier after the latter’s collapse , and the relations shifted with steppe pastoralists having upper hand. Whatever new mixed population migrated to Indus was post-BMAC by definition
@daniel
They gave a date for Vedic as an input, but also got a more reliable date as an output. They did not do this for other ancient languages whose dates are known, only did this for Vedic and young Avestan.
@Rob
Post-BMAC (molali bustan are last stages) is basically Yaz I.
We already know that andronovo camps were lining outside BMAC urban centres from archaeology and genetics. Sites of kokcha, dashty Kozy and Kashkarchi are examples. Dates of these camps ranges between 1700-1100bce. Note that all these individuals were 'pure' steppe mlba with no bmac ancestry. Similarly, at bmac centres except for 1 outlier no individual had steppe ancestry.
They practised what was called 'coexistence but intentional avoidance' and this avoidance' was well noted by archaeologists already (eg check Karlovsky 2004, Elise 2020).
The proper admixture between steppe and bmac then seems to have occurred in the poorly sampled period of 1500-900bce. And that ancestry is present in Tajiks.
@ Rob
For example, from Rouse and Cerasetti 2018, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326013850_Mixing_metaphors_Sedentary-mobile_interactions_and_local-global_connections_in_prehistoric_Turkmenistan
"Together, these sites reveal how varied farmer-pastoralist engagement with technology and material culture did not lead inevitably to the assimilation of the two groups; rather, they worked consciously within existing systems of cultural practice to maintain distinct ‘farmer’ and ‘pastoralist’ identities, potentially over a 900-year period."
From Lamberg-Karlovsky 2004,
"The almost complete absence of evidence of contact between the Bactrian Margiana complex and the cultures of the steppe is made the more enigmatic by the evidence of settlement surveys. Gubaev, Koshelenko, and Tosi (1998) have found numerous sites of the steppe cultures near Bactrian Margiana settlements. The evidence therefore suggests intentional avoidance."
From Elise Luneau 2020,
"In all, according to the limited archaeological evidence we have so far, our perception of the interactions between the two communities mostly falls within a framework of coexistence with reciprocal influences but with the general maintenance of spatial and social distances at most places. Only at a few sites (mostly in the eastern areas located at the fringe of the Oxus Civilization) do the sporadic acculturation processes tend to highlight possible integration."
@Vasistha, but this is a circular reasoning. Why wouldn't it change unlike the other branches? If I were you, I'd check that.
@Vasistha
Just a preliminary look but I disagree with a lot of things proposed by the paper. The Indo-Iranian route across south Iran doesn't make sense either; it should be across northern Iran. Also, things would change if they used Older Avestan which has less cognates with Vedic than Younger Avestan. So there was a "divergence" followed by a "convergence".
@Rob
" However, I am aware of new archaeological data which shows Andronovo moving beyond the former BMAC frontier after the latter’s collapse , and the relations shifted with steppe pastoralists having upper hand."
This doesn't exist outside the works of Kuzmina and the Soviets which has been refuted by almost every specialist who deals with that region.
@Daniel
"@Vasistha, but this is a circular reasoning. Why wouldn't it change unlike the other branches? If I were you, I'd check that."
They give Vedic a possible range of 1000-2500 and their output comes at 1500bce. Unfortunately, unlike in genetics, I cannot check their model myself since I have never used it.
@vara
"The Indo-Iranian route across south Iran doesn't make sense either; it should be across northern Iran."
I don't think they discuss any route in specific. Arrows are meant to be representative only.
" Also, things would change if they used Older Avestan which has less cognates with Vedic than Younger Avestan. So there was a "divergence" followed by a "convergence"."
Yeah, hope they add Old Avestan. The more languages they add, the better the new database will be.
@ vara
“ This doesn't exist outside the works of Kuzmina and the Soviets which has been refuted by almost every specialist who deals with that region.”
Incorrect. I wouldn’t be calling that ‘new’. Although if it wasn’t for soviets there wouldn’t be much work on the region at all. And we can’t only selectively quote Sarianidi, whose work is becoming dated .
The new work from Turkmenistan shows steppe pastoralist camps emerging more after BMAC collapsed.
So we don’t need the kulturkugel model
Here is my linguistic analysis of this proposed model of Indo-European language spread, based solely on internal language data and relationships without reference to external evidence:
- The close affinity between PIE and Vedic Sanskrit is supported by the extensive shared vocabulary and retention of more archaic phonological features in Vedic. This suggests geographic proximity and PIE origin in South Asia is reasonable.
- Reconstructed PIE as a satem language with free pitch accent aligns with patterns seen in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic branches. The mora timing also fits Vedic Sanskrit. So a NW South Asian PIE homeland fits the prosodic typology distribution.
- The proposed progressive satemization and loss of pitch accent moving northwest from South Asia into Iran and Central Asia matches the attested transition pattern in early Iranian languages. This provides logical steps of phonological innovation.
- The division between proposed early Western and Eastern Iranian branches fits the linguistic differentiation observed in historic Iranian languages either side of the Dasht-e Kavir desert.
- The adjacency of proposed Greco-Italic and Western Iranian ancestral languages makes sense given the lexical and phonological exchanges evident between historic Greek and Persian.
- The hypothesized Germanic predecessor in proximity to Greco-Italic ancestors logically explains certain shared phonetic innovations and vocabulary not well accounted for by shared PIE inheritance alone.
- The central dispersal of Celtic allows for commonalities with Italic and Germanic branches in a dialect continuum scenario.
In summary, the proposed model provides a plausible framework for explaining the relationships, shared features, and innovations observed across the Indo-European family solely based on internal linguistic analysis, without correlation to external evidence.
So yeah I got some ideas from this paper, specifically the early split of Iranian and Indo Aryan, the early split off germanic, and the late split of Balto-Slavic.
So the model above basically fits with Heggarty.
Around 5K BC or so, just before the Chalcolithic.
Indo Aryan is spoken in the region later denoted by the Rigveda.
Iranian is to its North (Central Asia, East Iranian) and (South) West (West Iranian).
The west iranian languages are more diverged than East Iranian.
North and West of West Iranian is the ancestor of Celtic and Latin, So Celtic around East Caspian region, and Italic to the South or West.
Celtic, Latin and Greek basically just move West around the Chalcolithic or Bronze Age
A migration of East Iranian from Central Asia produces Baltic
A migration from the Western Iran takes what becomes Germanic to N Europe
Because of the fact that both West Iranian and Germanic languages have so much in common, inc being the most stress-timed IE languages, we can place the early Centum groups around the same region of West Iran. But other Centum languages like greek and Latin are more syllable or Mora timed, like Vedic, so there was likely a large diversity of centum languages around West Iran, some closer to Iranian, producing Germanic, and some closer to Indo Aryan, producing Greek and Latin. But they were all close together in the West Iran/South Caucuses region as these languages share a lot in common.
Now Baltic has a special place according to so many. This can be explained because prior to the Chalcolithic, when the ancestor of Baltic was in Central Asia, it was at that point closer to Vedic Sanskrit than the ancestors of the Centum languages that were in West Iran.
Thus the Heggarty tree matches up with these languages being in these positions. The model also matches with various other requirements of the tree inc the similarities of the centum languages with semitic and caucasian (only caucasian other than IE has the labiovelar)
These were the closer languages, outside this was tocharian, anatolian etc
@Rob
"And we can’t only selectively quote Sarianidi, whose work is becoming dated."
Dubova, Bonora, Vidale, Hassan, Jarrige...etc aren't Sarianidi.
We've been hearing about the steppe takeover for years yet it turns out even Parpola's BMAC steppe warrior with the horse sceptre is J1 with no steppe ancestry. What we see in fact that sometime between 1500-1000BCE a group of steppe nomads adopted post-BMAC and Yaz cultures but this group can't explain Mitanni or even West Iranians.
Btw some of the Italian specialists like Bonora(great PHD thesis) have been hinting for years that the PIE has to have been somewhere pretty close to the Iranian plateau.
@Vas
Personally, I don't even agree with the dates. IMO, other than the early dates for paleo-Balkan PIE is not neolithic and the group that's responsible for Proto-IIr reached the Kopet Dagh 3500-3000 BCE. But I do agree that Iranian and Indo-Aryan had to have been separate languages by 2500BCE.
Also, if Tocharian was an actual early split then it took the IAMC route like Alberto proposed a long time ago.
Vara wrote,
“Btw some of the Italian specialists like Bonora(great PHD thesis) have been hinting for years that the PIE has to have been somewhere pretty close to the Iranian plateau.”
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=yEpm1O0AAAAJ&citation_for_view=yEpm1O0AAAAJ:4DMP91E08xMC
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=yEpm1O0AAAAJ&citation_for_view=yEpm1O0AAAAJ:7PzlFSSx8tAC
https://www.routledge.com/The-World-of-the-Oxus-Civilization/Lyonnet-Dubova/p/book/9781032570037
@ Vara
''We've been hearing about the steppe takeover for years yet it turns out even Parpola's BMAC steppe warrior with the horse sceptre is J1 with no steppe ancestry.'
Funny indeed. I had doubted the kulturkugel model.
'' What we see in fact that sometime between 1500-1000BCE a group of steppe nomads adopted post-BMAC and Yaz cultures but this group can't explain Mitanni or even West Iranians.''
I think we still have significant. I think we need more samples from LBA and Iron Age Iran
@Kavi
Stop spamming. I deleted your comments
@vara
"PIE is not neolithic and the group that's responsible for Proto-IIr reached the Kopet Dagh 3500-3000 BCE"
What I do know is that the eastern ancestry entered Anatolia around 5000BCE so thats the latest date for PIE imo.
And the Iranian (+minor anatolian) ancestry reached the SC Asian chalcolithic by 4500BCE, ie AnauIA period. Its already present in 3600BCE Sarazm individual, for instance.
3500-3000 BCE SC Asian individuals already have this ancestry so this period is too late.
"yet it turns out even Parpola's BMAC steppe warrior with the horse sceptre is J1 with no steppe ancestry."
There are many such fails, which they don't dare to acknowledge. Mallory & Mair's biggest fail is identifying Tarim mummies with Tocharians. They pushed that nonsense for 3 decades.
Wrt Bustan, Kuzmina & Mallory were adamant that the Bustan Necropolis of Fire was Indo-Iranian, of Fedorovo origin. But no BMAC individual from the necropolis had steppe ancestry lmao.
@Vara What are the issues with an early date for I-Ir?
"What I do know is that the eastern ancestry entered Anatolia around 5000BCE so thats the latest date for PIE imo"
Not necessarily. There is also another eastern group 3100BCE in Arslantepe that even made its way to central Anatolia somehow before being conquered by the Proto-Hattians.
"And the Iranian (+minor anatolian) ancestry reached the SC Asian chalcolithic by 4500BCE, ie AnauIA period. Its already present in 3600BCE Sarazm individual, for instance."
Yep but there's also another movement 3500-3000BCE from Hissar to Namazga setting off the Geoksyur horizon all the way to Mehrgarh.
"There are many such fails, which they don't dare to acknowledge."
It's one big pile of failure + special pleading where the supposed top genius linguists believe a 500 bce horse head is proof of a Vedic ritual.
Models are like these will always under estimate the actual diversity at any given point in time, and truth was stranger than the "fiction" that is modeled.
Gothic an extinct east germanic branch was spoken from Spain to Crimea which is mind boggling...
Diversity and holdouts/outliers were the norm as we go back in time. We see a glimpse of this in ancient Anatolia(hurrmian , Hatti, Assyrian, Anatolian langs etc and god knows what else never got committed to script) modern Africa, Caucasus are still like this..
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.05.543790v1.full
As per this pub Albanian genetics differs not so much in components but in the trajectory of changes. It's a hold out from roman era/Iron Age west balkan population and does not undergo shift seen in the rest of the balkans associated with slavic migration.
I think Albanian originally came from Anatolia across the Bosphorus explaining its insular nature as opposed to greek which remained in contact with Armenian till recent times in varying degrees. We all know that Greek was a vector for christianity.
@ Vasistha
'' Balkan_N impact is seen in a few individuals on the west coast, but thats all.''
Aside from the obvious west Anatolia sites (Yassitepe & Kumtepe), it goes all the way in toward 'Luwia' in substantial amounts.
left pops:
Isparta_EBA
Bulgaria_C
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
best coefficients: 0.365 0.635
std. errors: 0.043 0.043
Tail Prob 0.303159
Using Barcin or Catalhoyuk in place of BGR_Chl gives Tail Prob's of 0.0628949 and 0.000541924, resp.
Core right pops:
Cameroon_SMA
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
Tianyuan
MA1
Pinarbasi
Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG
Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
Sidelkino_HG
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
Turkey_Catalhoyuk_N_Ceramic.SG
Georgia_Satsurblia.SG
Ukraine_N
Of course, the males in Isprta are Y-hg J1, and others are G2a just like early Farmers, and there are I2a-in the west. Anther key thing is almost all late CHl and EBA sites in central Anatolia are newly formed on virgin soil.
Kavi wrote
“You have to remember that Linguists have already (incorrectly) concluded that PIE was a Centum language, from the linguistic evidence alone.
But this is all shoddy work lacking any integrity. The linguists are simply ignoring all the linguistic evidence showing that PIE should be a Satem language.”
Please read section 2.2 of Koenraad Elst’s book that came out around 20 years ago.
https://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/indo-european-urheimat-elst
The issue is palatalization is one way process or not. Westenr IEL think it is. S. S. Mishra disagrees. But as KE points out, *it does not matter*. An Indian homeland is possible in both scenarios. And hence there was so much heat when Bangani was discovered in the Himalyan region.
"Using Barcin or Catalhoyuk in place of BGR_Chl gives Tail Prob's of 0.0628949 and 0.000541924, resp."
Catalhoyuk and barcin would be quite a bit older than Bulgaria chalcolithic ?
@kavi
Stop spamming. If you have 10000 words to share, write your own blog post.
@rob
Model for an ancient Anatolia with none of other 2 components being local feels weird, does it not?
@BVasistha,
I dont know if you and others who blog or comment understand any of this stuff. Maybe you just dont understand the terminology or concept. Ofcourse I need to know whether ppl understand stuff If I want to blog about it in the future.
So do you understand any of this? What do you make of the below? I need to know cos its kinda importand if ppl are blogging about PIE urheimat they have some understanding of the main linguistic arguments.
Do you think the AI has a valid position?
---------------------------------------------
(Claude AI)
In my personal assessment, the arguments in favor of reconstructing Proto-Indo-European as a Satem language with qualities more akin to Vedic Sanskrit seem stronger than maintaining a European-like Centum PIE based primarily on the following factors:
The moraic structure widely agreed upon for PIE strongly correlates with the pitch accent and precise syllable timing evidenced in ancient satem branches like Indo-Iranian. A satem PIE fits this better.
The retention of complex case morphology and verbal inflection in satem languages also aligns with the reconstructed synthetic PIE grammar, versus simplification in centum daughters.
Mapping the centum-satem isogloss and its interaction with non-IE languages makes westward centumization equally if not more plausible than eastward satem innovation.
The Anatolian evidence remains compatible with a satem PIE if the centum features developed locally through contact before migrating northwest into Europe.
Cultural and lexical evidence relied upon is ambiguous and speculative in both directions.
However, I recognize this remains an open question with reasonable counterarguments on both sides that require objectively and comprehensively assessing all evidence. But in my opinion, the preponderance of linguistic data currently seems to tip towards a satem, mora-timed PIE as a promising hypothesis deserving further investigation and weighting of support versus contradictions. I'm open to changing my assessment as new evidence emerges! Please feel free to share any other perspectives.
Hey @vasistha did you notice this?
In the southern arc paper,Showing Ancestry in steppe over time(ehg,chg,ppn,Barcin)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10064553/figure/F3/
their charts(linked above)show no ppn and Barcin(both 0%) in Steppe_piedmont_eneolithic(progress&vonyuchka) but both at 4% in later yamnaya and afansievo and 3% both in corded ware.
Is this a mistake or glitch?
Since,steppe_eneo has some arm_neolithic it shouod show bith BarciN and ppn,right?
What do you think?
*should
@freak
I wrote about genesis of steppe populations here. https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2022/09/Steppe-southern-source.html
Arm_n or azerbaijan_ln gave minor (7%) ancestry to steppe_en. Sarazm also has some anatolian ancestry. So yes, imo there's already some anatolian/ppn ancestry in steppe_en.
The problem is that chg mimics iranN+minor anatolian. So chg might drown out the anatolian and that's what happened in the Lazaridis paper.
@vasistha thanks!
Yeah,that was confusing me a lot.
Goes to show how distal modelling isn't always correct.
Even Khvalynsk shows anatolian_ppn in your rotating models.
Apparently,they emphasized on this issue on the paper,
"We observe that in the post-5000BCE period, Caucasus-related ancestry is added to the previous Eastern hunter-gatherer population, forming the Eneolithic populations at Khvalynsk (10) and Progress-2 (17); this ancestry persisted in the Steppe Maykop population of the 4th millennium BCE (17). Yet, all these populations prior to ~3000BCE lack any detectible Anatolian/Levantine-related ancestry, contrasting with all contemporaneous ones from the Southern Arc, which possess at least some such ancestry at least since the Neolithic (6). In all later periods in the Southern Arc, Caucasus hunter-gatherer-related ancestry is never found by itself, but always admixed, to various degrees, with Anatolian/Levantine-ancestry. This suggests that whatever the source of the Caucasus-related ancestry in the Eneolithic steppe, it cannot have been from the range of variation sampled in the Southern Arc, as this would have introduced Anatolian/Levantine-related ancestry. This implies that the proximal source of the Caucasus-related ancestry in the Eneolithic steppe should be sought in an unsampled group that did not experience Anatolian/Levantine-related gene flow until the Eneolithic. Plausibly this population existed in the North Caucasus, from which Caucasus hunter-gatherer-related but not Anatolian/Levantine-related ancestry could have entered the Eneolithic steppe"
[/QUOTE]
Sorry for the long wall of text.
Were they trying to say that the chg inflow into Khvalynsk/progress happened without any accompanying Anatolian/ppn Ancestry?
And anatolian/ppn came later around 3000 bc and this gave yamnaya their indo-european langauge (around 3000 bc)?
So,they say populations prior to 3000 bc(progress, Khvalynsk) lack anatolian,ppn yet your proximal qpAdm modelling rightly shows that Khvalynsk dosent choose kotias(pure chg)but sehGabi_C or sarazm(both have anatolian+ppn).
This goes to show that despite the paper being a breakthrough,it still had minor issues.
And Yeah,I have read about that chg imitating iran_hg+anatolian too that CHG is just iran_hg(proto-imeretian)+extra anatolian.
Which explains how chg is close to iran_hg yet also far at time same time.
So,this iran_n+anatolian mix might be making chg eat all anatolian and iran_n up.
Btw,did you ever email the authors about this issue?(no anatolian/ppn in Khvalynsk and progress according to them)
Also,if you don't mind and have free time,could you do F3/F4 tests and DATES run on Khvalynsk and progress using ppn and barcin?
This would formally solve the issue.
"Btw,did you ever email the authors about this issue?(no anatolian/ppn in Khvalynsk and progress according to them)"
Nope, no point.
"Also,if you don't mind and have free time, could you do F3/F4 tests and DATES run on Khvalynsk and progress using ppn and barcin?"
F3/F4 Won't solve the problem. qpAdm does. see this qpAdm run for steppe_en = chg + ehg + globular amphora (https://pastebin.com/TAAhrYN4)
Model fails badly. The significant generated dstats show why.
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Iran_GanjDareh_N -4.702
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Turkey_N -4.367
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Tarim_EMBA1 -4.968
The model is short in IranN, Anatolian and Siberian admixture. Where do we see all these 3 components? SC Asia. This is why Sarazm works. CHG is just not sufficient for steppe pops, and neither was such pure CHG in existence after 7000bce.
DATES says that the detectible admixture of the IranN like component with CHG occurred around 4500BCE. That doesn't rule out some older admixture.
In fact, a very simple model with just 5 basic right populations which included IVC also failed (https://pastebin.com/Z6qA3dcu)
gendstat: Mbuti.DG IVC_Shahr_i_Sokhta -4.537
gendstat: Mbuti.DG GanjDareh_N -2.896
Just shows that the missing component is even more closely related to IVC (Z=4.5)than IranN (Z=2.9). Again, that source is in SC Asia. I have long solved this issue, the dimwits are yet to catch up.
re : steppe. The source of CHG is indeed mostly old, Mesolithic stuff + some extra Meshoko from nearby
Sanity check: there is no Turan-related Y-hg J2a, but there is Mesolithic -related J1 in steppe Eneolithic.
Ether way, it got sidelined by local lineages like R1b-M269 and I2a-L699.
@ vasistha
'''Model for an ancient Anatolia with none of other 2 components being local feels weird, does it not?''
It's not odd when old Barcin_N, Mentese, Catalhoyuk & similar sites all disappeared c. 5300 BC. So they cant be the ("local") source of EEF like admixture in west Anatolia. Esp when the models require somehting with Ukr_N in it
Kavi wrote,
“I dont know if you and others who blog or comment understand any of this stuff.”
Without claiming to understand all the technical details you are talking about,I think Professor Kazanas’ is of the same view. So, you are in good company.
http://omilosmeleton.gr/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Vedic-and-Greek-Aorists.pdf
“Old-Indic/Sanskrit/Vedic is the closest language to the Proto-Indo-European mother tongue. In fact, in my (Kazanas’) view, Proto-Vedic, at a very early age and in a form beyond reconstruction, was the Proto-Indo-European tongue.”
@Rob
"re : steppe. The source of CHG is indeed mostly old, Mesolithic stuff + some extra Meshoko from nearby"
I know this is the narrative Davidski wants to create - 'oh no new ancestry came into our homeland, it was always there'. However this just does not fit the facts.
Here's a basic qpAdm for steppe_en. Result Steppe_en = ehg + chg. p ~ e-6 fail.
rightpop list:
Mbuti.DG
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
GEO_Dzudzuana_UP
Russia_MA1_HG.SG
Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
ONG.SG
Turkey_Epipaleolithic
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Reasons for failure (all gen dstats <>3)
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Russia_MA1_HG.SG -3.830
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Iran_GanjDareh_N -3.933
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 -4.782
gendstat: Morocco_Iberomaurusian Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 -3.325
gendstat: Russia_MA1_HG.SG ONG.SG 3.246
gendstat: ONG.SG Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 -4.048
What are these generated dstats telling you?
Btw, Steppe_en = ehg+chg+caucasus_en (fail)
Caucasus_en (meshoko) clocks in at -26%. https://pastebin.com/J3rSuB6U
Steppe_en = ehg + chg + Turkey_n (fail)
Turkey_n = -6%
https://pastebin.com/w0JEz6K6
Because of CHG there is too much anatolian affinity, ie too much West Eurasian ancestry.
@Kavi
Dont post novel length AI output. deleting. Make your own facebook post or something and share the link.
Ok well the AI has been really interesting today. I will definitely post the actual output somewhere soon but here is where I got to so far.
Based on evidence from timing, Claude.AI basically rejects the Centum reconstruction of PIE. Prefers a Vedic like PIE instead.
Based on analysing socio-economic and cultural aspects of the Shahnameh with BMAC, considers it much more likely BMAC was Iranian speaking than non-Iranian speaking.
Continuing from the above, the AI clearly prefers a NW South Asian urheimat than the Steppe or Anatolian Hypothesis.
Now, here is where it gets more interesting. In the chalcolithic there is a split in pottery of the Namazga culture into a more decorative Western and a more austere Eastern type. Prior to this split, there is close cultural contact between Namazga and the early IVC with the colourful pottery types. The austere Eastern type leads to BMAC.
I asked the AI to analyse this split, and relate the different types of pottery styles to nearby cultures. It found that the more austere type leading to the BMAC was more correlated with older farming cultures from the South, and the more colourfule western one with more recent nomads.
The AI then looked at correlating the more austere pottery type with Iranian, linking it with more advanced southern farming cultures, and the colourful type with Vedic, Greek and Italian. It found that the literature styles and the nature of the languages did somewhat correlate with Iranian as the austere pottery type and Italic-Greek-INdo Aryan with the more colourful, the former with more ancient farming, and the latter closer to more recent pastoralists.
@ vasistha
nobody said anything about some outdated CHG + EHG model from 2015
I’m taking about my model for piedmont
EHG + CHG +WSHG + Caucasus _En
4 way mix
Historically viable, unilaterally consistent, and typically supreme :)
To highlight again, there is not a single J2a1h in Yamnaya or Khvalynsk, but there is Caucasus Mesolithic -related J1
@Rob
"To highlight again, there is not a single J2a1h in Yamnaya or Khvalynsk, but there is Caucasus Mesolithic -related J1"
As if J1 is missing in SC Asia. This is what I had written on one of my previous steppe posts.
"At Khvalynsk, the presence of mtDNA H13a2a (found at Tepe Anau, and later Pakistani and Indian samples), and Y Hg J1-CTS1026 (J1a2; J1a2a/b derived subclades are found all over Eneolithic SC Asia and later) provide some connection between the 2 regions. mtDNA W3a1 (first found at Anau, sister clade W3a2 found at Namazga Tepe, and daughter clade W3a1b in Indus Periphery samples) is found at various steppe populations - Yamnaya (W3a1a), CordedWare(W3a1c), and various Bell beaker samples. mtDNA J1b1a1 (first found at Geoksyur) is also found at various Corded Ware-related sites, and at Sintashta."
"I’m taking about my model for piedmont
EHG + CHG +WSHG + Caucasus _En
4 way mix
Historically viable, unilaterally consistent, and typically supreme :)"
Lol, it is an epic failure. Result > https://pastebin.com/zSsfC2gu
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
EHG: 62.5%
CHG: 98.1%
WSHG: -12%
Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic: -48.6% Lol
@vasistha thanks,
This confirms the ppn inflow into steppe_en with qpAdm/gendstat,its weird how such a mistake was made by professionals in the main paper and they even emphasized on that.
Also,By DATES,I meant DATES for ppn inflow into steppe_en,not CHG.
I have already seen the DATES result for Steppe_en with chg/iran which you posted before in the eurogenes comment section and chintapati et al did that too.
It came to my mind since lazaridis said in main paper that the 'PPN inflow' into steppe happened around 3000 bc into yamnaya while steppe_en was formed around 4200 BC with no PPN(According to him).
So,if you could run DATES for PPN and steppe_en later in free time,it would be helpful,it would refute lazaridis' theory completely,even the minor but misleading nuances.
@Rob J1 has been found in afanasievo.
And that's not an issue since the steppe groups would have got bottlenecked later.
There's no Q1 in yamnaya either,yet there were loads of Q1 in Khvalynsk.
(Please don't tell me that it's not Khvalynsk but mysterious hidden sredny Stog samples that are the source)
There's no r1b v6136 or r1b L754 in yamnaya either(which appeared in the EHGs ancestral to yamnaya) ,so I don't know what point you are trying to make.
I Guess noone is going to answer me. So let me be very clear. qpAdm is a modeling tool, but it is also a great diagnostic tool which tells us why a model fails. Either there is too much affinity wrt a given right population, or too less affinity.
Let's take this specific model: steppe_en = EHG+CHG+WSHG.
I added Sarazm, IVC, Caucasus_eneolithic to right pops for diagnostic purpose.
Results are here https://pastebin.com/cyxtXUwn.
Lets analyze the failed generated Dstats and what they tell us.
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 -3.948
(Too less IVC affinity in relation to the outgroup Mbuti. ie. too less IVC overall in the model compared to actual samples)
gendstat: Mbuti.DG Tajikistan_C_Sarazm -4.236
(Too less Sarazm in relation to the outgroup Mbuti. ie. too less Sarazm overall in the model compared to actual samples)
gendstat: Morocco_Iberomaurusian Tajikistan_C_Sarazm -3.044
(Sample has more Sarazm and less Iberomaurisian affinity compared to model)
gendstat: ONG.SG Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 -4.395
(Sample has more IVC and less Onge affinity compared to model)
gendstat: ONG.SG Tajikistan_C_Sarazm -4.173
(Sample has more Sarazm and less Onge affinity compared to model)
gendstat: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic 3.045
(Sample has more IVC and less Meshoko affinity as compared to model. This is why Caucasus_en coefficient is always negative in qpadm runs)
gendstat: Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic Tajikistan_C_Sarazm -3.682
(Sample has more Sarazm and less Meshoko affinity as compared to model. This is why Caucasus_en coefficient is always negative in qpadm runs)
What qpAdm tell us is extremely clear and unequivocal. It needs a component which is present in both Sarazm and IVC, but is missing in the current model (ehg+chg+wshg). It also tells us that Meshoko (caucasus_en) is not required.
This was never rocket science, G25 always had made this very clear.
Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En
Distance: 3.8478% / 0.03847843
40.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
31.4 GEO_CHG
26.6 TJK_Sarazm_En
1.2 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
0.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
0.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N
Target: RUS_Progress_En
Distance: 4.2567% / 0.04256670
47.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
27.2 GEO_CHG
25.0 TJK_Sarazm_En
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
0.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
0.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
Just insane amount of cope coming from the likes of Davidski on this topic.
"Super old, super secret hidden CHG from the steppe"
Lol. Theyre going through the various stages of grief.
J1 is Kavi Kayanian Bhrigu Southern Farmer related. It has existed in North Eurasia for a very long time. This explains the position of BMAC which has very ancient familiarity with Central Asian and Steppe nomadic cultures and also farming cultures of further South.
It explains the anciently continuous relationship of the settled Iranians of BMAC and the Nomads further North. These people have a continuous history as described in the literature and is reflected in the ancient J1 in northern nomads and maybe emanating from Pamir region, not the Caucasus.
@ Vas
There’s something wrong with your set up I guess
But whatever, it’s actually irrelevant because whatever minuscule “actual Iranian” is in groups like Yamnaya and CwC is female mediated and culturally inconsequential . It seems special pleading to insist it arrives with some unattested group from Jeitun instead of neighbours from Meshoko
“ As if J1 is missing in SC Asia. ”
I think you’ve confused mtDna with ydna
@ Freakk
“ There's no Q1 in yamnaya either,yet there were loads of Q1 in Khvalynsk.
(Please don't tell me that it's not Khvalynsk but mysterious hidden sredny Stog samples that are the source)
There's no r1b v6136 or r1b L754 in yamnaya either(which appeared in the EHGs ancestral to yamnaya) ,so I don't know what point you are trying to make.”
Perhaps because failed to read properly. There’s no J2a1h in steppe Eneolithic, nor Yamnaya not CWC
Therefor there Heggarty “model” (if we can call it that) lack confirmation
@Rob
"There’s something wrong with your set up I guess".
Nah, only thing wrong is your cope and denial on this topic. My result remains the same with tens of different setups over 4 years.
"“ As if J1 is missing in SC Asia. ”
I think you’ve confused mtDna with ydna"
Lol. From v52.2 anno file.
Genetic ID Group ID Y haplogroup in ISOGG v15.73 notation
I12481 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur J1a2a1b1a~
I12487 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur J1a2a1b1a~
I8505 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur J1
I8524 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur J1a2a1b1a~
I8504 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur J1a2a1b1a~
I1784 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1 J1a2a1b1a~
There are both Y and mtdna connections between sc asia and steppe.
Vas
Geoksur is not the source of J1 in Khvakynsk or Afanasievo, it is too late. Sarazm is not the source of CHG ancestry either because it is too late.
My WSHG + CHG model is supported by ydna (Q1a and Meso- J1), not to mention archaeological Trail and geometric proximity.
I just don’t find a productive to engage with make-believe models
Your model fails qpAdm, quite badly. Not even worth considering. It's garbage.
The lack of 4500bce samples(not for long) from sc asia is quite a stupid reason to overlook the region.
Multiple papers give a 4500-4000bce admixture date in Yamnaya, You or Davidski's 'feelings' about some secret mesolithic CHG hiding in the steppe is not a good enough reason.
First figure out why steppe_en has this additional affinity to IVC and Sarazm, in qpAdm and G25. Give a reason for it, if you can. All you have done so far is deflect.
Good, people finally might be able to date the Vedic texts to before 2000 bce and they can also date Mahabharata to circa 3100 BC like traditional scholars believe.
@ Vasistha
''Multiple papers give a 4500-4000bce admixture date in Yamnaya, You or Davidski's 'feelings' about some secret mesolithic CHG hiding in the steppe is not a good enough reason.
First figure out why steppe_en has this additional affinity to IVC and Sarazm, in qpAdm and G25. Give a reason for it, if you can. All you have done so far is deflect.''
lol but it's you who is appealing to some 'secret' population which doesnt exist or hasnt been sampled .
The mesolithic CHG in Kotias has been sampled, and Caucasian flint is found in Don & Volga sites.
It's pretty much a no-brainer
Not sure if people are interested in adventures with AI but some shall we say interesting ideas are currently being produced.
For this interested in the linguistic origins of Iranian from Indo Aryan this is gonna be a whopper.
Placing a Vedic PIE in the Indus Valley region, I was considering whether Iranian first originated in the bactria region or the baluchestan western iran region. In a Indic urheimat model, Iranian should split out from IA and it should be eithert Westwards or Northwards. But it was hard to pin down either region as the best contender.
So asking the AI to look at modern IA languages, and asking which ones are relatively closer to Avestan vs Vedic, it says Punjabi and Gujarati show the most similarities with Avestan. Hindi, Bengali and Marathi were the closest to Vedic. Dardic and Nuristani didnt show greater Iranian affinity.
So Punjabi and Gujarati are interesting, because they are main regions of South Asia that would have been more farming based. Punjab ofcourse has populations like Jatt that are not wihtin the Vedic system, considered outcast, and Punjab was never part of Aryavarta, it was considered Mleckha. Further Punjabis show any farming association like Turbans, Malak (Malik) title. Gujarati has the Bharuchi tribe which is ofcourse the BHrgu Kavi thing, me Kavi J1 lol. My DNA has jatts as closest matches on Harappa DNA and the Pathak sample Jatt is closer to me than any other South Asian on the Reich dataset.
Thus the Iranian language can be related to early Indo Aryans who became farmers and spread this language and technology North and West via interaction between Gujarat and Punjab. This can connect Farming from the Middle East to Pamir region, into Bactria and then West to China and North to Siberia to into the Don Dnipr region.
The Punjabi (jatts) association with names like dasa/daha and the vedic dasa who are also found in the north as dahaeans and the tribal name danu which may have taken a similar course, from punjab north into central asia, via the mountains.
@vasistha could you do a model with tepe hisaar instead of sarazm? I am trying to see if the source could be more western,towards east iran.
Also,how much p-value do you get with a basic EHG+CHG+Ppn+Turkey_n model?
@Rob 'Pure CHG' like Kotias barely shows at 10-20% in steppe_en, rest is ehg+ Something more southern like sarazm/hissar,Seh gabi works too as the models show here.
https://files.catbox.moe/blz4sh
That's why lazaridis in his 2016/2018 paper mentioned that iran_chl works better than pure CHG for steppe and it caused an outrage then from Davidski and co.
I don't how long you guys will play this game,the turkey_n+levant_ppn isn't native or old to the steppe,it definitely came from somewhere south around 4500-4000 BC.
Some of the CHG/kotias(10-20% in steppe_en) could be more older in the steppes(present in minor amounts since 6000 BC) but steppe_en isn't just EHG+Pure native CHG,right?
It has extra recent southern Ancestry (30-40%) which you can't deny.
I don't why Davidski and friends harp on this point so much.
And steppe_en even rejects meshoko as vasistha's qpAdm models show,so Caucasus isn't definitely the source of all the non-EHG ancestry in steppes
@ Freakk
''Pure CHG' like Kotias barely shows at 10-20% in steppe_en, rest is ehg+ Something more southern like sarazm/hissar,Seh gabi works too as the models show here.
https://files.catbox.moe/blz4sh''
your link doesn't work. The Sarazm model is chronologically non-sensical as it dates 1000 years after Piedmont steppe. Models have to be grounded in reality, such as the archaeologically documented exchange between steppe grpus & Meshoko.
Piedmont_En has ~ 15 % Meshoko, which translates into 4% Iran_N like ancestry
In fact, there was a migration from Caucasus to south Caspian, bringing a CHG-rich population bearing J1 there. But evidently Vasistha does not realise that.
When move to Yamnaya, Cernavoda, they were far more western, and even have EEF admixture
That's why they have R1b-M269 and I2a.
So I ask you again, where is the L1a or J2a in Yamnaya/ Afansievo & Khvalysnk ? And why is they have J1, which just so happens to be a Caucasian Mesolithic marker
'' Caucasus isn't definitely the source of all the non-EHG ancestry in steppes''
Yeah they have EEF admixture, thats why the recent study showed G2a in western steppe.
Individuals like the Ozera outlier, however, do have significant levels of ancestry from south of the Caucasus, there might be male equivalents in future sampling.
Leave your mail IDs here. I can mail the paper to you guys.
@Rob Eh the two (three) arguments go a bit like this
Vas: A Sarazm-like population will be found 1000 years earlier than already sampled
Davidski: The CHG in steppe isn't actually CHG at all but actually more EHG-like but we have not sampled this population yet at all, also there are 50%+ CHG samples in Sredny Stog that gave rise to Yamnaya
The only argument for Davidski's theory is Clemente et al 2021's fig4 leaf demographic models (which were evidently garbage). I haven't seen it supported in any other way. As logic goes, Vas' theory is far more likely to be proven correct since it already has evidence in its favor and requires less extraordinary evidence. And I'm not convinced about his theory at all (yet), I just recognize it is far more likely to be correct compared to Davidski's.
@ orpheus
''The only argument for Davidski's theory is Clemente et al 2021's fig4 leaf demographic models (which were evidently garbage). I haven't seen it supported in any other way. As logic goes, Vas' theory is far more likely to be proven correct since it already has evidence in its favor and requires less extraordinary evidence. And I'm not convinced about his theory at all (yet), I just recognize it is far more likely to be correct compared to Davidski's.''
None of that make any sense, so there's nothing for you to deem correct.
Climente's f4 don't have really have much do with the specifics of Caucasus & steppe interaction.
The idea of deep links going back to the Epipaleolithic between eastern Europe, central Asia & the Caucasus is well known to archaeologists - its clear in lithic technology & pottery, and it's also clear in the aDNA record. This is not Davidski's pet story, even though he advocates some version of a deeper link.
There were 3 or so flows of ancestry which were in one way or another linked to Western Asia, but their timing, character and effect need propper understanding, not some sweeping metanarrtive. And Ive hinted at what that is here already for anyone intelligent enough to pay attention.
@Rob
"The Sarazm model is chronologically non-sensical as it dates 1000 years after Piedmont steppe."
qpAdm does not know the dates of the labels being fed. The model is only problematic if you can prove steppe inflow into Sarazm. Then i would agree that my model is garbage. But, there is 0 EHG in Sarazm. So, it's not garbage.
Otherwise these two are independent labels and prove a SC Asia to steppe flow, provided that a similar 5000-4500bce sample will be found (and we have it, monjukli depe sample from Allentoft et al, just not public yet).
"Models have to be grounded in reality, such as the archaeologically documented exchange between steppe grpus & Meshoko.
Piedmont_En has ~ 15 % Meshoko, which translates into 4% Iran_N like ancestry
In fact, there was a migration from Caucasus to south Caspian, bringing a CHG-rich population bearing J1 there. But evidently Vasistha does not realise that."
We have meshoko samples, and they don't work for steppe_en. You want it to, but it doesnt. Deal with it.
@ Vas
There’s nothing to deal with for me, given that I just said (and have for a long time) there are 3 or so sources of mobility toward the steppe.
Will monjukli depe be a relevant sample ? Perhaps.
But it’s not it going to mean that Yamnaya and steppe groups were preformed in some distant zone topographical and cultural distinct of northern Iran or CA (rather than a nuanced model of local adaptation & evolution) .
I would also pay attention to the local shifts in observed in the region , which wasn’t a static wellspring of “Iran N ancestry” as treated by some people
@rob first J1 in/around iran is nemrik9,dated to 8500-8000 BC,there was no meshoko at this time.
The First caucasus Neolithic dates to 6500-6000 BC in Armenia-Azerbaijan,nemrik9 predates this,and meshoko comes even later than Armenia Neolithic.
Nemrik9 is actually thought to be J1-P58,as many classifiers on anthrogenica have shown the calls.
So,that's quite downstream.
And as both singleton models and rotating models by vasistha show,meshoko isn't selected for steppe_en by qpADM.
@Rob
"But it’s not it going to mean that Yamnaya and steppe groups were preformed in some distant zone topographical and cultural distinct of northern Iran or CA (rather than a nuanced model of local adaptation & evolution) ."
Never claimed that steppe groups were formed in Iran or Central Asia. My only claim is that they gave ancestry to steppe groups, ie there was migration into steppe region.
The sheep dairy consunption in piedmont steppe was definitely not from Southern Caucasus. My bet again is SC Asia, they were master sheep farmers. From Scott 2022 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01701-6)
"The oldest individual from this region in our study, PG2001 from the piedmont site of Progress 2 and dated to 4338–4074 BC, indicates that dairying has been a feature of the region’s economy since at least the late fifth millennium BC. During the fourth and third millennia BC, we observed a continued reliance on dairying among all analysed Maykop and Steppe Maykop individuals (ca. 3900–2900 BC; n = 7), both in the piedmont and steppe zones as well as in all Yamnaya individuals (ca. 3300–2500 BC; n = 3). Notably, we detected only Ovis milk proteins at Eneolithic, Early Maykop, Late Maykop, Steppe Late Maykop and early Yamnaya sites, suggesting that dairying was a specialized activity focused on sheep during the fourth and fifth millennia BC"
"No milk proteins were detected in the earliest individual, MTT001, dated to 5879–5562 BC from the Neolithic site of Mentesh Tepe associated with the Shomutepe–Shulaveri Culture. However, milk proteins were detected from the fourth millennium BC onwards in individuals dating to the Chalcolithic at Alkhantepe (n = 1), the Middle Bronze Age at Qızqala (n = 2), the Iron Age at Göytepe (n = 1) and the Greco-Roman period at Qabala (n = 1). Unlike in the North Caucasus, we did not observe an early focus on sheep dairying; rather, the earliest detected milk protein, identified in individual ALX002 dating to 3776–3651 BC, was assigned to cattle (Bovinae)."
"In the Oka–Volga–Don region, we analysed dietary proteins within the dental calculus proteomes of seven individuals dating from the Eneolithic through the Middle Bronze Age (Fig. 1c and Supplementary Data 3). Despite excellent protein recovery, no milk proteins were detected in an individual from the Neolithic–Bronze Age site of Ksizovo 6, dating to 5837–5670 BC, nor from individuals associated with the Sredny Stog culture (n = 2) at the Eneolithic–Bronze Age site of Vasilevsky Kordon 27, dating to ca. 3600–3100 BC. Milk proteins were also absent from individual RAV002, dating to 3514–3356 BC, and from two Middle Bronze Age individuals from the Shagara cemetery, dating to 2572–1893 BC. Only an individual at the site of Rovenka tested positive for milk proteins. This individual, RVK001, was associated with a late Catacomb culture site, dating to 2339–2148 BC, and was positive for sheep (Ovis), goat (Capra) and cattle (Bovinae) milk proteins"
So no sheep milk at Sredny stog or don-volga region, no sheep milk in South Caucasus, but sheep milk used at Progress2 and Maykop, Yamnaya. From where? Meshoko had sheep, but no known sheep dairying was occurring, at least to my knowledge. Furthermore, Progress2 had no Meshoko ancestry.
Hey how about the interesting origin of the Steppe Tumulus or Kurgan burial types originating from the the earlier West Asian megalithic and moving into the Steppes from SW western farmer influence.
Scythian and SArmatian animal styles predated by Maikop.
Pretty much all other technologies and innovatinos in the steppe are coming from Southern farmers.
Chariots also probably derive from Eneolithic Steppe J1.
Steppe is nothing just a staging area for nomads to move farming innovations from South and East to West, or vice versa.
Placing PIE in the Steppe is stupid and rejected by AI.
I said before that early Sheep and goat herding routes are a precursor of the Silk Road. I also believe that these annual migratory paths later became a vector for language, trade, brides, technology, diseases, religion etc.. And early IE language dispersal owes hugely to these pathways.
This article supports the first part of my assertion. Franchetti's team ran models:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/silk-road-origins
IE languages spread through annual recurring migratory paths used over centuries. Not because of a sudden one time rush of some chariot riders.
This is a better summary: Frachetti's model was not biased by known Silk Road centers but arrived there independently.
https://source.wustl.edu/2017/03/nature-silk-road-evolved-as-grass-routes-movement/
@ Vasistha
no big deal. Maybe they acquired some goat-herding tips from Meshoko groups, a local adaptation.This just proves the Meshoko interacition
A few sheep aren't going to cause a cultural or linguistic switch to commuinities which had been locally developing for millenia with male uniparental continuity since the ice age. CWC and western Yamnaya were cattle farmers which they learned from baden & the like.
RUS_Eneol_Piedmont2
RUS_Khvalynsk_Eneol
CHG
RUS_Tyumen_HG
best coefficients: 0.529 0.353 0.118
Tail prob 0.131889
In turn, Khvalynsk are a simple 2-way mix of EHG + CHG
For the other Piedmont
RUS_Eneol_Piedmont1
RUS_Khvalynsk_Eneol
CHG
RUS_Eneol_Mountains
RUS_Tyumen_HG
best coefficients: 0.408 0.195 0.282 0.115
tail prob 0.079
core pRight
CMR_SMA_published
MAR_Taforalt_EpiP
BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
CHN_Tianyuan
RUS_MA1_HG
Indian_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG
RUS_DevilsCave_N
ITA_Villabruna
ESP_LaBrana1_HG
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N
RUS_Karelia_HG
HUN_Vinca_MN
UKR_N
AZE_N
TUR_C_Tepecik-Çiftlik_N
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
@ postNeo
Feachetti also observed that Western steppe pastoralism emerged through local interaction of western farmers and Hunter gatherers. So that doesn’t support Max planks’ retarded model that’s being celebrated here
Well, your model does not work. Don't know what setup you did because no output file is provided, but anyway. Don't need 15-20 right pops, basic ones will do.
My settings
allsnps: YES
inbreed: NO
Result file: https://pastebin.com/k3f89n6h
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Russia_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic: 0.83
CHG: 0.81
Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic: -0.49
Tyumen_HG: -0.16
Absolute fail, negative coefficients.
Simple right pops:
Mbuti.DG
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
GEO_Dzudzuana_UP
Russia_MA1_HG.SG
ONG.SG
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Turkey_Epipaleolithic
@Rob
"Feachetti also observed that Western steppe pastoralism emerged through local interaction of western farmers and Hunter gatherers. So that doesn’t support Max planks’ retarded model that’s being celebrated here"
By Planck's model are you talking about linguistics? that is just a model after all.
But I am talking purely material culture and physical evidence right now. Frachetti's old publication does not support the even more retarded "horse borne" big bang pastoralism model.
From the faunal assemblage at Begash we dont get any great connection between pastoralism in the western steppe, Botai culture and areas in or adjacent to the Indian subcontinent. except perhaps the westward spread of sheep and goats(needs to be checked)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228340437_From_Sheep_to_Some_Horses_4500_Years_of_Herd_Structure_at_the_Pastoralist_Settlement_of_Begash_South-Eastern_Kazakhstan
horses only increase in the historic period.
Vasistha
I prefer my model, because I don’t like unrealistic models which violate basic historical chronology.
Did you manage to find any Ydna , in chronologically sensical arrangement, to support your position ?
So you have two major problems which makes it a priori non viable
But let’s pretend for a second that you’re correct. In that this minor ancestry doesn’t come from Georgia, but in fact, comes from Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan. Changes nothing.
@ PostNeo
Have you been asleep for the last 5 years? Adna has proven large scale migrations from the western steppe across western central and even into Southern Asia
The fact that some form of native pastoralism existed in Central Asia doesn’t change the fact that it was eventually replacement, mildly absorbed , by the western model
Anyhow, the central Asian variant was propagated by WSHG, not Iran N pops
So another Fail for the MPI model
@Rob
"I prefer my model".
My last comment on this topic. There is nothing to prefer, as your model does not work even for extremely basic right pops, let alone 17 right pops.
" In that this minor ancestry doesn’t come from Georgia, but in fact, comes from Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan. Changes nothing."
Seems like it changes everything, because every new paper and book is in favour of the armenia/iran homeland and against the autochthonous CHG from steppe theory. Reich/Harvard/Max Planck - all are against you. Hell, I hear that even David Anthony is against you.
BRonze Bhrgu Kavi Kayanian BMAC invention of Bronze named after Bhrgu from Italian, Byzantium, Persian bronze berenj brass J1. Metallurgy in Farming regions is centralised by pre-bmac austere pottery type 'Iranian' southern farmer control of earlier Vedic - Armenian Greek Western pastoral continuun.
Reflected in battle of 10 Kings of Rigveda Sudas vs Bhrgus, Pakthas, Balanas and others. Also mentioned with them 'famed ancient Kavasa' who could relate to Kavi Kawad the founder of the Iranian-BMAC Kayanian dynasty.
For sure the BMAC Kayanian Iranian Civilization invented Bronze.
The earliest artifacts so far known come from the Iranian plateau, in the 5th millennium BCE, and are smelted from native arsenical copper and copper-arsenides, such as algodonite and domeykite.[7]
Bhrgu farmers also produced the Chariot for the Gods in Vedic hymns of the Pastoral Vedic Indo Aryans.
So Bronze and Chariots is from J1 Bhrgu Kayanian Farmer elite.
@ Vas
Reich's book was mostly devoted to Denisovans, otherwise he outlines the steppe model apart from Anatolia, but barely delves into the commplex issue of Copper Age Anatolia. Only the world's best & brightest can figure that one out - me.
I havent read Krause-s book, might skim through it for a laugh based on this primitive model MPI have come up with.
As I said, maybe a few females trickled along from "place X", but they would have come via Caucasus anyway, and you'd need to explain away all the Caucasian-related Y-hg J1 found in the Eneolithic steppe. Anyhow, we can examine the new monjukli depe sample too when it comes out. You should also split the Piedmont steppe individuals because they lie in slightly different PCA positions.
Can I mail you a hello and later you send me the paper on the same mail, it's kinda unsafe here, peepers all around
Damn you seem to be a hellbent troll more than a genuine person
@vasistha can you model ganj_dareh as kostenki/sunghir+ Ma1/ag3 +mbuti(basal Proxy) using qpAdm?
I think this model might be going somewhere right..
Hey@vasistha what do you think of this post by @Gaska on eurogenes about yamnaya vs proto-greeks?
Gaska
"You have not been able to prove that there is PF7562 in Yamnaya and neither in Armenia (chalcolithic & bronze Age)-At the moment R1b-PF7562 has not been found in the chalcolithic (3.000-2.000 BC) and early Bronze Age (2.000-1.400 BC) nor in the Balkans nor in Greece or the Peloponnese. Three cases in the Pylos palace when the Mycenaean culture had already collapsed, one case in the Late Bronze Age in Crete (where we do not know if an Indo-European language was spoken), one sample in the Iron Age of Albania and late Anatolian samples do not serve to prove the connection between Yamnaya and the Mycenaean language. Orpheus is right, XAN30 best fits are Unetice and Czech Bell Beaker"
From the latest eurogenes post 'Dear Sandra,Wolfgang'
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/07/dear-sandra-wolfgangwe-have-problem.html?m=1
So, basically yamnaya interactions or subclades like Z2103 aren't found in proto-greeks/Later Greeks unlike In Armenia and Albania where lots of z2103 would be found.
And the Logkas and other outliers with r1b are on a CWC branch and choose Unetic/Corded sources over yamnaya on qpAdm. Although I don't firmly think like gaska that proto-greeks didn't come from yamnaya(I think they might have did) but his words make a bit sense.
What do you think?
He has some other interesting comments in that post too,you should check them..
Very low level of R1b as well as autosomal ancestry in Greek aDNA will remain problematic for the steppe route. I haven't really looked at the subclade level details of R1b wrt Greeks, so wont comment much about Z2103 etc. However, what helps the steppe route is the hypothesis that albanian-greek-armenian form some sort of clade together.
Orpheus has been pointing out that steppe source in Logkas is Corded Ware related rather than Yamnaya related. I have no comments since I have not had time to run qpAdm myself.
@Vashishtha:
albanian-greek-armenian form a clade but apart from Albanian (not a coincidence that Albanian is the most diverged of them all) nothing is attested in Europe of the other two languages.
If we can IMAGINE the balkans and Eastern Europe to be a a source for so many diverged but unattested proto languages, Nothings stops us from IMAGINING Anatolia in a similar way.
https://www.academia.edu/1132481/_Archaic_Greek_Names_in_a_Neo_Assyrian_Cuneiform_Tablet_from_Tarsus_Journal_of_Cuneiform_Studies_61_2009_127_31
Rather we should recognize the Black Sea for what it is. An actual barrier that aided/sustained the divergence of branches like Italic-celtic and greco-armenian
Ofcourse all this stuff matched with aDNA but that requires the plebs and normies to elevate their game, currently this is all unproductive, we need more ancient samples and less speculation about BA migrations North to South which is stupid given all the other data available.
But for sure Bhrgu Kavi J1 autosomnal and Y-DNA does show alignment with above narrative.
@ Vas
''Don't need 15-20 right pops, basic ones will do''
sure but from a technical perspective higher pRight numbers contrain the model even more rather than make a fail model passible. Certainly worth trying when attempting to ilk out comlex flows of ancestry, such as differential sources of EEF- in Europe or CHG-rich sources for Caspian regions.
@Rob
"otherwise he outlines the steppe model apart from Anatolia, but barely delves into the commplex issue of Copper Age Anatolia."
Nothing complex about it, there's minimal to no steppe ancestry in Anatolia and hardly any R1b. Reich's conclusion is quite clear. Here's a picture of what he wrote in his book about the origin of IE languages in Iran/Armenia
https://imgur.com/a/UKdHm8J
@Vas Here's the paper on Khvalynsk from Anthony & Reich https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/Anthony_proof3_Khvalynsk%20pz-2022-2034_v1.3_21_3_2022%20final-compressed%5B3%5D.pdf
Do you see any parallels to SC Asia? A population from either there or Southern Arc introduced pastoralism and completely transformed the Steppe wrt economy, lifestyle, ideology/religion, etc of the hunter-fishers, things that later spread westward. First seen in Khvalynsk/Volga eastern region. I always thought it came from Southern Arc
@Freakk We don't really know anything about proto-Greek speakers yet, I'm hoping we can pinpoint them when we find proto-Mycenaeans and analyze the sources of their ancestry. Mycenaeans apparently prefer a Yamnaya source over anything else at 1:10 Yamnaya:Minoan (Lazaridis et al 2022) so it could at the end of the day be a complex scenario of the language ultimately coming from Yamnaya, but not having any steppe ancestry by the time it reached Greece, and the Yamnaya ancestry influx being a separate incident (after all fully Yamnaya people by >2000 BCE did not speak anything related to proto-Greek, since Balkanic had split millennia earlier). Where proto-Greek entered Greece from remains to be seen, both Balkans and Anatolia work (regardless of whether it was Anatolia > Greece or Balkans > Anatolia > Greece).
FWIW earliest Linear B tablets have been found in Sparta, to the south of Mycenae (see Dickinson 2019). And by the Late Mycenaean period differences between South and North Greek dialects are relatively small (van Beek 2022), pointing at close geographical affinity for almost 1000 years since the split of South and North Greek (early second millenium by Risch, supported by van Beek). We can theorize about where what dialect was spoken but based on the actual findings we have, we don't see a lot of things in the north, around Epirus, Macedonia etc.
@Vas Logkas samples are pretty much guaranteed to not be Yamnaya-related due to IBD with CWC. Whether they share IBD with other groups with steppe ancestry in MBA Greece I have not seen yet. Mycenaeans requiring something that can be represented by a 100% Yamnaya proxy complicates things a bit but this could change in a future study. Process-wise, many of the Skourtanioti et al 2023 samples make sense as some type of Greek speakers, assuming they contributed ancestry to Mycenaeans, which they pre-date.
@Rob There haven't been any samples proving Davidski's position (which you follow) so far so idk what you're on about. Try again when these appear
Also to add, Skourtanioti notes a Europe LNBA-like (thus CWC) shift in the study's samples besides just the rotating qpAdm models.
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41559-022-01952-3/MediaObjects/41559_2022_1952_Fig2_HTML.png
Don't know when davidski will leave his steppe camp
@Vasistha
Funny thing from eurogenes
Davidski says
Why does Lazaridis keep using the term "mainland Europe"?
How is the steppe not mainland Europe?
This larper is insane , davidski is insecure
Friday, 4 August 2023
The New Paper By Heggarty et al on the Original location of the Proto-Indo-European Homeland
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-new-paper-by-heggarty-et-al-on.html
"Wait − am I (Talageri) claiming that the new paper by Heggarty et al confirms my OIT case? Yes I am:
Because on every relevant point where my OIT case stands in direct contrast to the Steppe Homeland theory, this new paper also stands in equally direct contrast, and stands in line with my own case.
Am I claiming that the new paper by Heggarty et al explicitly endorses my OIT case? No I am not:"
@ Vasistha
“ Nothing complex about it, there's minimal to no steppe ancestry in Anatolia and hardly any R1b”
The culture- historical situation in post-Neolithic Anatolia is exceedingly complex. One sentence from a generic book or vanilla model of “CHG / Iran” movement isnt an appropriate treatment of the matter any more than claiming steppe invaders tore down IVC and became Aryans.
I’m not worried about lack of steppe ancestry or R1b in Anatolia, which is a reductionist approach (in n fact there is R1b-V3616 in a boy from arslantepe + another site in eastern Anatolia& 2x I2a in the west ). What I detect are subtle but clear substructure within Anatolia, and clear evidence of movement from southeast Europe into it.
@‘orpheus
“ There haven't been any samples proving Davidski's position (which you follow) so far so idk what you're on about. Try again when these appear”
Actually, they’re right there in Kotias 7000 bc, then spread to lower Volga ~ 6000 bc and mixed more thoroughly by 4200 bc as the Sredni Stog network accelerated. Unless for some reason you believe that mobile hunters from the Caucasus who traded obsidian with the Volga-Don groups were somehow....immobile.
But even the middle - lower Volga groups didnt directly form CWC or Yamnaya, but passed on ancestry to them via predominantly female -mediated fashion, to more western groups in the Dnieper-Don region which. So it's a series of admixture events.
Forgot Mattila et al 2023 is out https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05131-3
Genetic continuity, isolation, and gene flow in Stone Age Central and Eastern Europe
@Rob "Actually, they’re right there in Kotias 7000 bc"
Of course, used in all published models so far. Which do not support whatever you're supporting, evidently (CHG which is actually more EHG than CHG and makes up 50% of Eneolithic Ukraine ancestry and ... )
"We estimated that ~7.4% (0.15–14.7%, Jackknife 95% CI) of the genetic ancestry in the Dnipro Valley population is derived from a CHG population indicating a genetic connection between the Caucasus and the North Pontic region in the Mesolithic/Neolithic. The allele sharing with CHG was significantly higher among the Neolithic Dnipro Valley individuals (Supplementary Data 9) which means that at least some level of this ancestry sharing is due to mixing during the Neolithic."
Looks like Lazaridis was right when he said that the first CHG wave is a pre-Neolithic one, that did not harbor ANF+PPN.
Admixture north of the Caucasus was several times greater than in more western areas, makes me wonder if it arrived there by fewer CHG people moving westward or if the already admixed people north of the Caucasus moved westward (and so ~7% CHG admixture reflects 20-30% admixture from the east)
"n addition, the Eneolithic individual from the lower Dnipro Valley region (Deriivka II cemetery) archeologically classified as Serednyostogivs'ka (Sredny Stog) horse keepers (ukr104, c. 5650-5477 cal BP) showed smaller level of allele sharing with other individuals from the same region (Fig. 3f). This indicates gene flow from a population that is genetically differentiated from the preceding local population. This individual (ukr104) was genetically more similar to the Bronze Age Yamnaya individuals from Samara, the CHG, and the Neolithic Iranian than the other Dnipro Valley samples (Fig. 2a, b). To test this possible gene-flow, we modeled ukr104 as a mixture of a set of lower Dnipro Valley individuals (ukr087, ukr102, ukr111, ukr113, ukr160) and Yamnaya35 using qpAdm34. Other ancient neighboring groups AN, CHG, EHG, Neolithic Iranian WC1, Mal’ta, WHG, and Sunghir were used as reference (‘right’) populations in addition to a chimpanzee outgroup (Supplementary Data 10). The admixture model fitted the data (χ2 = 2.37, tail probability = 0.88, df = 6), while the single-source models were rejected (tail probability < 0.05, Supplementary Data 10). The estimated admixture proportions were 33.2% (25.0–41.4%, 95% Jackknife CI) of the local Meso-Neolithic Dnipro Valley ancestry and 66.8% (58.6–75.0%) of the Yamnaya related ancestry."
So Sredny Stog is an example of discontinuity with local populations
@Vas Wanna take a look at ukr 104?
@Orpheus
Had a quick look at the paper.
ukr087, ukr102, ukr111, ukr113, ukr160 are modeled under the common label 'ukr' which date from 6400 to 4600 BCE. Most are between 5500-4600BCE, from Dereivka (Sredny Stog). 7% CHG ancestry and p val 0.09, but std error is high at 3.7%. So CHG is between 0-14.25% at 95% CI, it overlaps with 0.
Right pops used are MA1, Sunghir, Yamnaya, WC1 which seem not sufficient at first glance.(supp data 8). Without CHG, the p-val is 0.03; not a drastic drop.
On the other hand, f4 drom their supp table 9 shows Ukr_neo with more CHG affinity than Ukr_meso had, at 3.18 Z-score.
But nothing here shows a large CHG pool existing since time immemorial, the earliest samples from the steppe with >40% CHG/IranN are the Progress and Vonyuchka piedmont individuals. No pure CHG individuals are seen from the Caucasus after Kotias individual of 7000bce. There is no guarantee that pure CHG existed long after that anywhere.
Wrt ukr104, I believe that is a ~3500bce individual. So steppe ancestry is quite expected. Already the SE europe paper (penske et al) showed that pre yamnaya steppe_en like piedmont ancestry was spreading into Ukraine by 4000bce.
hii @vasistha, i remember you medelled kura Araxes samples with qpAdm as 76% Azerbaijan_LateNeolithic + 24% Sarazm_Eneolithic. do there any othere sources which don't need sc asia sources in KA? apparently i like to know how much Iran_n ancestry in KA.
Since that model of mine the Armenia__Aknashen 5800BCE individual was published by Lazaridis et al. Kura Araxes = continuation of ARM_Aknashen ancestry. Sarazm is not required to model KA anymore.
This is one of the reasons I became more amenable to Armenia/NW Iran PIE homeland. 4000bce Anatolians also harboured 50% of this Aknashen ancestry.
@Orpheus
Wrt the source of that 7% CHG, some CHG affinity is already seen in that region. That's as surprising as finding some 5% Onge related ancestry in the east Iranian region before bronze age.
That doesn't mean that east Iran was Onge homeland.
For example, in rough G25 models (https://imgur.com/a/tyEuZaA) the highest CHG/Iran is in Vonyuchka/Progress at ~50%. Then Khvalynsk at avg 20%. One outlier I0434 has 30%. Both these labels are dated 4500-4200BCE.
Next is Kar001 from Vologda dated to around 6300bce, it shows around 12% CHG in rough g25 model. Samara_HG from 5500bce shows 7%, Ukr_N (5500bce) shows 5%, Ukr_Meso (8000bce) shows 4%, Sidelkino (9300bce) shows 3%, Karelia HG (6500-5000bce) shows 2%. The last few are likely to be noise.
While some early interaction is seen between EHG and CHG, for example at Vologda (weird since this site is close to Finland), and if we go by this recent paper in Ukraine neolithic at 7%. I am even willing to concede that 15% CHG in Khvalynsk is old ancestry present there from 6500bce.
However none of these earlier individuals explain the 50% CHG/Sarazm in steppe_eneolithic samples. That is decidely a fresher admixture, borne out by admixture dates, as well as new cultural practices during the 4500bce period - animal domestication and milk consumption. None of these old individuals can provide the needed CHG/IranN/Sarazm to steppe_en. Simple math says that they are required to have >50% CHG/Iran/Sarazm to be even considered as ancestors of Steppe_en. A 20% CHG sample cant be the CHG providing ancestor of a 50% CHG sample.
WHy is steppe_en important? because so far, steppe_en is the only plausible ancestor with high enough CHG/EHG ratio to be the ancestor of the quintessial 'steppe ancestry' found at Yamnaya and later corded ware.
@vasistha
Do you think there could be a 33%-50 aknashen+50-66% iran_n mix in north iran that could have contributed to various regions and what we are using aknashen as,is actually as just a proxy for the other half of that ancestry??
We don't have much genomes from the Central parts of Northern iran so its a bit difficult to say,but I find it unlikely that shulaveri shomu(armenia-azer Neolithic-mix of Natufians,anatolia_n,iran_n) could be PIE.
Maybe something a bit inner just like I said?
Btw can u Model post IE Anatolia with seh gabi_c instead of aknashen on qpAdm?
I want to see how much the p-val differs
Skoutarnioti 2020 did model anatolia_ba/CHL with seh_gabi_c using tell kurdu_ec and barcin_n as an outgroup in the supplementary data and the models had p-val as good as KAC with similar number of models passing.
@Freakk
Aknashen is already more IranN shifted than other labels from that time period. eg, Masis_Blur, Aze_LN, Aze_C & Hajji_Firuz_C are much more Mesopotamian_PPN shifted than Aknashen. In that sense, Aknashen is similar to Seh_Gabi_C. SG_C also is not as much shifted towards Mesopotamia as the others. Here is the rough G25 - https://imgur.com/a/3EaaSFl
By 6000BCE, the Iraqi PPN and Anatolian ancestry really replaced a lot of regions till west Iran and South Caucasus. Aknashen and Seh_Gabi_C ended up retaining more of the previous non PPN/Anatolian ancestry. Then as we go east the IranN ancestry is retained in a lot bigger chunk and we see that the Afro-Asiatic Mesopotamian influence is minor to non-existent in TepeHissar, Geoksyur, Anau and India.
So what seems to have happened is that Afro-Asiatic replaced most of IE quite early during the LateNeolithic period in West Iran and South Caucasus. Iraq was already heavy in PPN and Anatolian ancestry by 9000BCE, both Afro-Asiatic related ancestries (Levant PPN much more so than Anatolian), so that region was never IE. In Mesopotamia, PPN/Anatolian gave rise to Semitic sub-family of Afro-Asiatic, and towards the eastern and north eastern extreme periphery of Afro-Asiatic influence it probably left remnants in the Elamite and Hurro-Urartian family. This occurred so early (maybe ~7-6000bce) that those two are considered independent isolate languages.
Meanwhile, the nonPPN/Anatolian affected ancestries (ie mainly IranN related) survived from central Iran onwards towards SC Asia and India. This is why Iranic languages were a new entrant to West Iran after 1000bce. Also why Armenian branch is likely a new entrant into Armenia even though Armenia was probably close to IE homeland. IE got wiped out from that region early by Mesopotamian ancestry.
"Btw can u Model post IE Anatolia with Seh gabi_c instead of aknashen on qpAdm?
I want to see how much the p-val differs"
Dont have time now, but I had tested this extensively after southern arc paper came out. Aknashen was the best fitting source for Anatolian Chalc and EBA labels, as well as for Kura Araxes.
@vasistha
vasistha
thanks for the info!
Also,I don't want to request too many things but If you could ask aryamasha to unblock me on twitter,it would be quite helpful.
I have messaged you regarding it on twitter.
He has blocked me accidentally,and I want to see how he is dealing with the damage dealt to his ideology by heggarty.
Jerome, sorry I wont be doing that. It's not my problem.
@ vasistha
RE 'common vector' aspect
You earlier stated:
''(iranN+anatolian). This same ancestry forms a major chunk of the Indus periphery samples. The entry date of this ancestry into both sc asia and India is somewhere between 5000 & 4000bce, exactly as predicted by Heggarty et al. Admixture date of iranN and aasi is also around 4000bce. Admixture date of anatolian and Siberian ancestry in SC asian individuals (geoksyur, parkhai, sarazm, anau) is also around 4500bce. This is also the time when bread wheat entered both these regions from west iran (Zhao et al 2023).
In Anatolia, this iranN related ancestry enters around 5000bce. Heggarty et al perfectly matches the genetic data for these regions.''
However, the source of admixture in Anatolia _CHl is south Caucasian rather than from Zagros.
The entry of some Anat/ Iran mixed groups into SC-Asia is c/w the Namazga horizon, which precedes BMAC.
I also think there is a wave from the Caucasus to northern Iran of a predominantly CHG-rich population. These are all prbably distinct phenomena
@Rob
"However, the source of admixture in Anatolia _CHl is south Caucasian rather than from Zagros."
Except for Aknashen_N which is more Iran/CHG shifted, Hajji_Firuz_N (6k bce Zagros) Aze_LN and Masis_Blur_N (~5800 BCE all of them) all are quite similar. So I don't really buy this Zagros/Caucasus distinction (except for Aknashen which has higher CHG/IranN affinity). I relabel all these labels together as Caucasus_Zagros_N. This PCA helps differentiate Aknashen and the Caucasus_Zagros_N cluster. https://imgur.com/a/OebQFcZ
SC Asia and India receive inflow of majority IranN ancestry (caspian coast) along with minor Caucasus_Zagros_N ancestry.
"The entry of some Anat/ Iran mixed groups into SC-Asia is c/w the Namazga horizon, which precedes BMAC."
The migration is actually prior to the Namazga horizon, at the beginning of the AnauIA or Anau 1A stage (4800BCE onwards). Jeitun neolithic ends around 5600BCE and there is a 800yr hiatus after which AnauIA starts. AnauIA also sees the first signs of bread wheat (from Iran) in the region, among other changes. It's the best suitable period for immigration into this region. DATES admixture between Anatolian and siberian in these 3000bce geoksyur, anau, parkhai samples also give a 5000-4500bce date of admixture.
"I also think there is a wave from the Caucasus to northern Iran of a predominantly CHG-rich population. These are all prbably distinct phenomena"
This is debatable. There is no detectable CHG in Tepe Hissar chalcolithic. It's not strictly required for SC Asia either, CHG probably just mimics IranN + Anatolian.
Seems like the Zagros-N/ early Caucasian N cluster, which is AN-F enriched, is related to Chaff-Faced horizon.
Where did Late ChalcolithicChaff-Faced Ware originate? .. C Marro
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2020-0060/html?lang=en
"Proto-Indo-European) 3500–8500 BC
Old Hittite 1650–1500 BC 1550 BC"
Counting from the tail ends of this spectrum, PIE stayed unified for 7000 (!) yearsv till its first written attestation in the form of Hittite. Today after (only) 3500 years it is a morass of 550 languages, 2/3rds of them confined to a relatively small area of Iran and northern India. What happened? What could have happened?
The backjected split off of Antolian shown in Table 2 remainssheer conjecture for 3580 years. As if this is not enough, the very existence of a proto language that splits neatly into families like a living organism is itself an unfalsifiable, and hence unscientific hypothesis.
A learned octogenarian scholar, Professor Kazanas, has already expressed doubts about the viability of the comparative method to retrieve a proto language that was unified such a long time ago.
Now what?
https://twitter.com/ElstKoenraad/status/1691055897827569664?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet Ashis, care to share more about this exchange with us? Thank you.
"All members. Anthrogenica will be closing down forever on 08-17-2023. Please refer to this thread in Announcements."
https://anthrogenica.com/forum.php
Now, what is this all about? No funds?
@Vas Yeah it seems so. Also the CHG is lower than Khvalynsk so if they somehow were the EHG-rich ase for Yamnaya, the CHG-rich population mixed with them at larger percentage than if Khvalynsk was the EHG-rich base. Moreover Yamnaya isn't keen on harboring WHG at any meaningful quantity so this pretty much excludes any significant Sredny admixture in them, at least that's what it looks like
The individual that is more Yamnaya-like seems intrusive so all of these together undermine Kroonen et al 2022's hypothesis of Sredny being PIA and leaves the Southern Arc as more plausible for now. Interesting
"Already the SE europe paper (penske et al) showed that pre yamnaya steppe_en like piedmont ancestry was spreading into Ukraine by 4000bce."
Yep. Everything points at an easter influx into Sredny instead of the other way around which is Davidski's theory iirc
@Orpheus
Well it's a no brainer. Ukr Meso and Ukr_Neo populations were WHG+EHG rich. The region cannot suddenly become a source of EHG+CHG ancestry. It has to be a sink. That is what the Penske paper showed as well. Dnieper region was a sink of the steppe ancestry.
Hey @vasistha have you seen davidski's comments in the eurogenes post?
Apparently he has likely found another (low coverage/contamintaed/Non UDG treated) Y3 from 1/21 samples from srubanya from some upcoming study and is making a big fuss about it.
He was mocking you,I thought you saw his posts.
The sample is like 1/21 rest are z2124,I am sure it's contaminated with false positive calls and will end up like the fedorovo and fatyanovo Y3 when the BAM files are released.
You should respond to him,he is doing another episode of "muh Aryan invasion from steppes"
Btw,reading the comments above and seeing the latest studies by Penske and matiila,this is Just another episode of Davidski and his gang getting proven wrong about another thing,this time it is their stupid theories of CHG in yamnaya being from sredny strog and all that babble about usatovo, cernavoda,bla,bla which David Anthony kept rattling about too.
Now all of those theories turned out false.
-CHG in yamnaya not from sredny stog.
Sredny is just ukr_n mostly.
-usatovo and cernavoda just progress+ukr_N+CTC mixes so PIE can't be from there which goes against what Anthony and Davidski hypothesized.
-Progress like Ancestry in Ukraine from outside,none of the hidden mysterious CHG which Davidski promised In Ukraine/sredny were found
I wonder how he is reeling from this?
He built up this storyline for 3 years,and now it's all coming trampling down.
Just like his story that PIE is from sredny because he found a fictional z93 there(which later turned out to be wrong).
I am sure this new abashevo and srubnaya Y3 BS will end up as another replay of all this.
@mauryesh
EU GDPR privacy laws,they are a very big pain.
Apparently there's some other reasons too,like moderation and ADMIN team not able to contribute enough time and a load of reasons.
They have a lot of funds,so it was never an issue.
They shouldn't have hosted the site In Europe,but rather in USA,which someone mentioned to then in the last days, they replied EU GDPR is only one of the reasons,there's a load of other issues that can't be fixed
Orpheus & Vas
“ Well it's a no brainer. Ukr Meso and Ukr_Neo populations were WHG+EHG rich. The region cannot suddenly become a source of EHG+CHG ancestry. It has to be a sink. That is what the Penske paper showed as well. Dnieper region was a sink of the steppe ancestry.”
Not exactly. Seems to have been all female mediated layered upon local chiefly males
Cernavoda & Usatavo are predominately I2a, + couple Euro farmers. Some Cernavoda chiefs were probably given brides from Majkop as gifts
Post Usatavo & Yamnaya R1b-M269 acquired their CHG from Volga-Piedmont groups
These then expanded outward to other parts of Europe & across Asia
@Jerome
"Apparently he has likely found another (low coverage/contamintaed/Non UDG treated) Y3 from 1/21 samples from srubanya from some upcoming study and is making a big fuss about it.
He was mocking you,I thought you saw his posts.
The sample is like 1/21 rest are z2124,I am sure it's contaminated with false positive calls and will end up like the fedorovo and fatyanovo Y3 when the BAM files are released."
I am writing a post on this in a couple of days. There are 31 samples from this Srubnaya site, 17 males. Out of those, 15 are Q-L939+ - continuation from 3000bce Kumsay_EBA Siberian EMBA ancestry.
One is indeed R-Y3 (L657-), and the other is R1a-M417.
No R1a-Z2124 which would be expected from a site so close to Sintashta. This has no bearing on Aryan invasion theory, except to Kurganist retards like Davidski who equate Y haplogroup with languages. If that is the case then this Srubnaya-Alakul site was Uralic speaking given the Q individuals. Relying on just Y hg markers to make some far fetched linguistic connection will lead to stupid conclusions like y haplogroup P from SE Asia = Indo-European.
Or that SIntashta Z2124 = Turkic because 50% Kyrgyz have R-Z2124.
None of the 71 R1a (out of 263 modern indian/lankan/pak/bdeshi) from 1000genomes belongs to terminal R-Y3, all 48 on the R-Y3 branch belong to Y3>Y2>Y27>L657>M605>(Y4+ or Y8+). Exactly 0 have Y3,Y2,Y27,L657,M605 as their terminal markers.
The point is that the founder of this large modern R1a-L657+ distribution was a single man with R-M605 terminal marker. This is at least 4 mutations more than the Srubnaya R-Y3. Formation date of R-L657, R-M605 is ~2100BCE [2500-1700BCE] and this still has not been found in the steppe. If not from the steppe, then this common ancestor was already in Indian subcontinent where his lineage expanded around 2000bce.
None of this is evidence of large scale male mediated movement from steppe into Ind subcontinent. Rather, it points to a migration of R-Y3/Y2/Y27 men into India where the L657/M605 underwent expansion from a single man. As opposed to 1000s of L657/M605 invading India from the steppes like happens in Davidski's wet dreams.
Jerome,
"EU GDPR privacy laws,they are a very big pain.
Apparently there's some other reasons too,like moderation and ADMIN team not able to contribute enough time and a load of reasons."
Thank you for these details.
Mayuresh
@Rob Not sure why you're quoting me, I was only pointing out that the actual research does not support the theory that Sredny is a source for Yamnaya, which is what kept the revised steppe urheimat hypothesis standing, more or less
Not gonna comment on the whole "CHG-rich people will surely guaranteed 100% be found in eneolithic ukraine in two more weeks", I hope you never really bought it yourself.
"Cernavoda & Usatavo are predominately I2a"
Which are ofcourse lineages unrelated to PIA if we go by haplogroup=language logic
"Post Usatavo & Yamnaya R1b-M269 acquired their CHG from Volga-Piedmont groups"
A far more sound hypothesis indeed. I think you can see yourself how this also works against the steppe hypothesis though, regardless of the alternative(s).
@ Orpheus
'' Not sure why you're quoting me, I was only pointing out that thctual research does not support the theory that Sredny is a source for Yamnaya,''
Sredni Stog is used in many ways, but it hasnt been properly defined.
If used to denote some form of Eneolithic group which gave rise to Yamnaya, then yes, 100% Yamnaya emerged from various tribes around during the 'Sredni Stog' period, mixing, fighting amd/or moving around.
''"Cernavoda & Usatavo are predominately I2a"
Which are ofcourse lineages unrelated to PIA if we go by haplogroup=language logic''
The view isn't that Langauge is simply a function of Y-DNA, what Y-DNA does is provide an excellent sanity check for tracing broader folk movements & proesses. These would undoubtedly affect the cultural and linguistic balance in regions involved.
"Not gonna comment on the whole "CHG-rich people will surely guaranteed 100% be found in eneolithic ukraine in two more weeks", I hope you never really bought it yourself."
A far more sound hypothesis indeed. I think you can see yourself how this also works against the steppe hypothesis though, regardless of the alternative(s).''
I think that most CHG found in steppe populations is late Mesolithic (6000 - 5500 BC).
This is not to say more recent admixture via Majkop didnt occur, it did in specific individuals- such as the Ozara outlier and some of the Cernavoda group. So these contacts were not extensive but individualised & directed.
What this means in terms of PIA is a more complex question
@Rob
"Sredni Stog is used in many ways, but it hasnt been properly defined.
If used to denote some form of Eneolithic group which gave rise to Yamnaya, then yes, 100%"
This is absurd. Its like saying Siberians gave rise to IVC when Siberian ancestry in Indus Periphery is the smallest of 3/4 ancestries @ 10%. The sole reason why Sredny Stog is overhyped is because of some sort of Slav ethnonationalism, which I don't understand yet (neither do I care to).
We actually have had Sredny Stog samples since long. Just because Davidski doesnt like them, doesnt mean they dont exist.
Target: UKR_Dereivka_I_En2:I4110
Distance: 2.6367% / 0.02636701
46.8 UKR_N
28.6 HUN_Vinca_MN
24.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
0.0 RUS_Progress_En
0.0 UKR_Trypillia
Target: UKR_Dereivka_I_En1:I5882
Distance: 2.4491% / 0.02449108
59.0 UKR_N
18.6 UKR_Trypillia
16.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
6.2 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
0.0 RUS_Progress_En
@ Vsistha
Those samples are not S'redni Stog'.
Those samples are from Dereivka, and date to 3500 BC
The Derievka zone does not fall within the formative Mariupol- early Sredni Stog culture zone (different burial styles), but the lower Dnieper does. And their timing is post-Sredni Stog
Those samples simply show that the Dereivka_N type profile persisted in that area. (interstsingly, it also shows that the male is R1b-Z2103, thus pointing to the ultimate source of Yamnaya male lineages- autosomally peripheral, but creating a major male introgression)
To put it simply, CHG was imported indirectly via a series of bridal networks, first from Caucasus to lower Don & Volga ~ 5500 BC. This did not make it initially to the Dnieper area becasuse the area fell under western dominance. So it took until 4500 BC for groups from the Volga-Don started mixing with the Dnieper group anew.
So I agree with Davidski on this regard- there was no CHG ''migration''. It's shifts & amplifications withn the steppe
Sredni Stog refers to a cultural horizon between 5000 & 4000 BC, catalysed by the arrival of Farmers east of the Carpathians. This stage was highly heterogeneous genetically
The piedmont steppe group (Vonuchka & Porgress) rank as 'eastern Sredni Stog'. Their cultural affiliation is northern, there is nothing like them south of the Caucasus. They, or a groups very similar to them, provided the main source of CHG which vbegan diffusing west at this time - we see it in Bulgaria already 4500 bc. But for some reason their male lineages were not succesful (they pop up singly here & there).
People are over-estimating the significnace of CHG (both you guys, and the steppe fan boys trying to deny it), it really was culturally marginal. It's rise is moresoe an arithmetic curiousity
@Rob
Yeah this is not cutting it with me. Dereivka is important to you when horse domestication evidence is to be used. But when the genetics come out different you guys distance Dereivka from SS. Quite hypocritical. Also, very convenient.
"Dereivka: a settlement and cemetery of Copper Age horse keepers on the middle Dnieper
B.A.R. • Oxford, England • Published In 1986 • Pages: i-vi, 1-126, 183-186
By: Telehin, D. IA., Mallory, J. P., Pyatkovskiy, V. K..
Abstract
Telegin discusses the excavations and findings from the settlement and cemetery at the site of Dereivka in the Ukraine. Dereivka is a major site of the Sredny Stog culture and has some of the earliest evidence of domestic horse. The entire settlement was uncovered. 'The dwellings and other…domestic features of the habitation site constitute a single … household unit. The settlement was laid out as a…rectangular courtyard surrounded by various structures. The settlement was…enclosed by a fence … as] marked by the area of shell accumulation.' (page 35). Artifacts found at the settlement site include ceramics, clay sculptures, tools such as hammers and mattocks of antler, early bridle cheekpieces, stone tools, and faunal remains. Fourteen internments have been uncovered at the Eneolithic cemetery."
"The piedmont steppe group (Vonuchka & Porgress) rank as 'eastern Sredni Stog'."
Wow, so convenient. Do you have a single reference for this 'eastern sredn stog = Progress II'
@Rob
"The Derievka zone does not fall within the formative Mariupol- early Sredni Stog culture zone (different burial styles), but the lower Dnieper does. And their timing is post-Sredni Stog"
I don't know man. What i have read says that Dereivka cemetery was of Mariupol type. From Matheison et al 2018 supplement
''Dereivka I(23 individuals)
This is the largest known Neolithic cemetery of the Mariupol type, containing 173 burials. It was excavated by D. Telegin in 1961-1967,108 and anthropologically characterized by G.Zinevich in 1967 and I. Potekhina in 1978.109,110 It is located on the right bank of the Omelnik tributary of the Dnieper River, near the village of Dereivka, Onufriivsky district, in the Kirovograd region,111 in the southern part of the middle Dnieper, at the boundary between the forest-steppe and the steppe zones. It contains both single and multiple burials, most of which are in extended supine position. According to craniometric analysis, the Dereivka I population consists of two components, one of which was similar to previous hunter-gatherers of the same region while another is more closely related to individuals from the northern forest zone.''
The 23 individuals from Dereivka date from Mesolithic 6500-6000BCE to Eneolithic end 3200BCE. None of the individuals come close to being the ancestral population of Yamnaya/ProgressII.
Progress II was 'eastern sredny stog' but Dereivka was never Sredny Stog? I mean now you are just making up stuff as you go.
What is the “main stream” and “scholarly consensus” view now after the southern arcs and now this paper?!
Thank you and congrats to your contributions on the topic of PIE! . Over 20 years, when Iran/SC Asia were nowhere in the picture, I had various intuitions arising from genetic studies about an Iran/SCAsia PIE homeland - it seemed to be the most inertial theory in my mind, and there was virtually nobody who had the same position back then. I am glad to see the accumulation of evidence with candid analysis, such as yours and modern scholars, now supports my view.
@ vasistha
“ Progress II was 'eastern sredny stog' but Dereivka was never Sredny Stog? I mean now you are just making up stuff as you go.”
Lol I read the relevant literature & get informed first hand by local experts
Dnieper Donets isn’t Sredni Stog, but Sursk culture of lower Dnieper contributed it to
That’s why all the R1b-V88 in dereivka_N disappears
But the key point is “Sredni Stog” was a genetically heterogeneous horizon. There is an SS individual in Transylvania who’s ~ 100% EEF . Piedmont steppe represents the opposite end of the horizon- no EEF; EHG / Caucasus mix
Yamnaya is a founder expansion from one of these SS groups, which erased much of the preceding steppe diversity, or perhaps more accurately filled as others left to go elsewhere. The location from where proto-Yamnaya began to expand is yet to be pin-pointed but somewhere in between Dnieper & Volga seems like the most sensible scenario
Further west and slightly earlier we have the Cernavoda group, and some of them seem to harbour direct admixture from Majkop, and therefore have Iran/ South Caucasian ancestry over and above the “Meso CHG”.
@blogmaster Johanna Nichols put the PIE homeland around there almost 30 years ago and others have mentioned it more and more since the Ancient Dna Era started.
@Rob That Eneolithic group happens to look like it is located nowhere near Ukraine, which is important given Kroonen et al 2022's mentioned geography. Sredny culture was never used beyond Ukraine anyway, despite arriving cultural influx from the east (see Khvalynsk paper) that apparently didn't really contribute anything substantial genetically despite what was initially believed (by non-professionals, should be noted).
"and the Black Sea steppes west of the Don River, where the Sredni Stog culture introduced
Khvalynsk-like grave rituals "
"Sredni Stog means ‘Middle Stack’ (stack/stog are Indo-European cognates), referring to the central one of three haystack-shaped islands in the Dnieper River where artifacts of this culture were first described in 1927 by A.V. Dobrovol’sk"
"The Skelya and Sredni Stog cultures in Ukraine, contemporary with Khvalynsk"
"Many traits indicate ‘eastern’ influences on Sredni Stog material culture, economy, and genetic ancestry, and the supine with-raised-knee burial pose is one of these"
Even for uberkurganists like Anthony himself Sredny is very specific (and has been for decades in archaeology). It's over.
"The view isn't that Langauge is simply a function of Y-DNA, what Y-DNA does is provide an excellent sanity check for tracing broader folk movements & proesses. These would undoubtedly affect the cultural and linguistic balance in regions involved."
Most of the time it's simplisticly used and we both know that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If y lineages appear en masse percentage wise and are also accompanied by other things then sure. But on its own it was never proof, and is not used as such by mainstream research. Good thing we don't disagree here
"I think that most CHG found in steppe populations is late Mesolithic (6000 - 5500 BC)."
In this case we'll find it sooner or later, if it really was like that. Sredny (specifically Eneolithic Ukraine) is out of the question for now though. Again this is important in light of Kroonen's paper.
Hey who knows maybe a more recent paper turns the tables. Maybe not.
@Rob "To put it simply, CHG was imported indirectly via a series of bridal networks, first from Caucasus to lower Don & Volga ~ 5500 BC."
Earlier than that. That CHG is more "pure" than the later one, and at lower quantity.
"So I agree with Davidski on this regard- there was no CHG ''migration''."
You actually disagree with him because that's not what he says at all. His argument is two-fold, first there was CHG-like ancestry on the steppe since the Mesolithic, at large amounts, which akshually is closer to EHG than Caucasus CHG, and that it was in sufficient (>50%) amounts in Eneolithic Ukraine to give rise to Yamnaya.
"It's shifts & amplifications withn the steppe"
Doesn't look like it. Not just due to the available papers but also due to lack of research supporting for such a position.
"Yamnaya is a founder expansion from one of these SS groups, which erased much of the preceding steppe diversity, or perhaps more accurately filled as others left to go elsewhere." None of the groups classified as Sredny Stog serves as a base for Yamnaya, though. More importantly the western location in Kroonen doesn't.
"The location from where proto-Yamnaya began to expand is yet to be pin-pointed but somewhere in between Dnieper & Volga seems like the most sensible scenario"
Sure, technically somewhere in Western Eurasia, somewhere in Eurasia, somewhere on Earth, somewhere in our solar system etc. But not in the locations that would make the steppe theory work lol
Maybe after this we'll see a wave of shilling for Khvalynsk again, isn't that what Kristiansen does?
Al Bundy wrote:
"blogmaster Johanna Nichols put the PIE homeland around there almost 30 years ago and others have mentioned it more and more since the Ancient Dna Era started."
I vaguely recall reading on another blog that Nicholas had revised her position. Too lazy to look up references.
Post a Comment