R1b-L51 in Yamnaya: Lazaridis 2024

[jdean]

That is a very good news indeed. I can’t wait for Eurogenes to weigh in on the recent harward paper. When this will happen Lazaridis and Reich flee or take shelter

Kloekhorst and Lazaridis have debated the east or west entry of Anatolian into Anatolia on Twitter.  Kloekhorst prefers a west route whilst  Lazaridis favours the eastern direction but neither are adamant so no matter if this is settled via further analyse of current aDNA or nailed by later results there will be no winners or looser.

[rmstevens2]

Great, Alwin Kloekhorst's Proto-Indo-Anatolian, the “Anatolian split” and the “Anatolian trek” is now available online !!!!!!!

BTW, got a sneaky feeling the Anatolian trek might have been an R1a thing

Lazaridis et al seem to see it as an R1b-V1636 thing.

See this post.

[rmstevens2]

That is a very good news indeed. I can’t wait for Eurogenes to weigh in on the recent harward paper. When this will happen Lazaridis and Reich flee or take shelter

I'm wondering if that is sarcasm.

Usually what Davidski writes is worth paying attention to, but most of the rest of the commentariat over there, with few exceptions, is best ignored. 

And there are some genuine crackpots there. Some of them have been crackpots for a long long time.

[jdean]

Great, Alwin Kloekhorst's Proto-Indo-Anatolian, the “Anatolian split” and the “Anatolian trek” is now available online !!!!!!!
BTW, got a sneaky feeling the Anatolian trek might have been an R1a thing

Lazaridis et al seem to see it as an R1b-V1636 thing.
See this post.

That's part of the eastern entry of Anatolian into Anatolia though and that's less favoured by historical linguists.
I don't have strong opinions on this, and either way it's Steppe to Anatolia, but I'm going to wait it out and see if newer aDNA evidence develops as I suspect it will.

[rmstevens2]

Great, Alwin Kloekhorst's Proto-Indo-Anatolian, the “Anatolian split” and the “Anatolian trek” is now available online !!!!!!!
BTW, got a sneaky feeling the Anatolian trek might have been an R1a thing

Lazaridis et al seem to see it as an R1b-V1636 thing.
See this post.

That's part of the eastern entry of Anatolian into Anatolia though and that's less favoured by historical linguists.
I don't have strong opinions on this, and either way it's Steppe to Anatolia, but I'm going to wait it out and see if newer aDNA evidence develops as I suspect it will.

As I recall Lazaridis et al argue that Proto-Anatolian moved from the steppe over the Caucasus and then into Anatolia from the east, but then the Anatolian languages wound up in western Anatolian because some non-IE folks subsequently moved into Anatolia from the east behind the Anatolian speakers, pushing them to the west. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere, but I don't feel like hunting it up at the moment. 

I think the Proto-Anatolian-from-the-west argument is based on the fact that the Anatolian languages were found mostly in the western part of Anatolia.

I'm certainly not linguist enough or geneticist enough to know what the right answer is. I do agree with Lazaridis et al in the sense that V1636 sure looks like evidence of the trail of the Proto-Anatolians.

[targaryen]

I think Reich's point was that Kura-Axes culture eliminated most Anatolian dialects in eastern Anatolia. That is why there is more diversity in its western end.

Which I don't understand why even go there when the real reason is simply that the Hittites consolidated power very early on and imposed their own dialect all over eastern and central Anatolia. This is what happened with Romans and Italy.

[old europe]

That is a very good news indeed. I can’t wait for Eurogenes to weigh in on the recent harward paper. When this will happen Lazaridis and Reich flee or take shelter

I'm wondering if that is sarcasm.

Usually what Davidski writes is worth paying attention to, but most of the rest of the commentariat over there, with few exceptions, is best ignored. 

And there are some genuine crackpots there. Some of them have been crackpots for a long long time.

obviously I refer to the posts and Davidski's take not on the commentators

[jdean]

As I recall Lazaridis et al argue that Proto-Anatolian moved from the steppe over the Caucasus and then into Anatolia from the east, but then the Anatolian languages wound up in western Anatolian because some non-IE folks subsequently moved into Anatolia from the east behind the Anatolian speakers, pushing them to the west. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere, but I don't feel like hunting it up at the moment. 

I think the Proto-Anatolian-from-the-west argument is based on the fact that the Anatolian languages were found mostly in the western part of Anatolia.

I'm certainly not linguist enough or geneticist enough to know what the right answer is. I do agree with Lazaridis et al in the sense that V1636 sure looks like evidence of the trail of the Proto-Anatolians.

A key point in Kloekhorst's argument in favour of a western entry of Anatolian is the delay in Anatolian entering the Hattic speaking area north of the Kizil Irmak River, he argues if Anatolian had come from the east this river wouldn't have been a barrier.

This distribution of Anatolian languages on all sides of the Kizil Irmak’s bend, while a non-Indo-European language was spoken inside the bend, strongly suggests that the speakers of these Anatolian languages came from the west, but that their migration was initially blocked by the Kizil Irmak river, which they were not able to cross in large enough numbers to settle on its east side.

[rmstevens2]

As I recall Lazaridis et al argue that Proto-Anatolian moved from the steppe over the Caucasus and then into Anatolia from the east, but then the Anatolian languages wound up in western Anatolian because some non-IE folks subsequently moved into Anatolia from the east behind the Anatolian speakers, pushing them to the west. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere, but I don't feel like hunting it up at the moment. 

I think the Proto-Anatolian-from-the-west argument is based on the fact that the Anatolian languages were found mostly in the western part of Anatolia.

I'm certainly not linguist enough or geneticist enough to know what the right answer is. I do agree with Lazaridis et al in the sense that V1636 sure looks like evidence of the trail of the Proto-Anatolians.

A key point in Kloekhorst's argument in favour of a western entry of Anatolian is the delay in Anatolian entering the Hattic speaking area north of the Kizil Irmak River, he argues if Anatolian had come from the east this river wouldn't have been a barrier.

This distribution of Anatolian languages on all sides of the Kizil Irmak’s bend, while a non-Indo-European language was spoken inside the bend, strongly suggests that the speakers of these Anatolian languages came from the west, but that their migration was initially blocked by the Kizil Irmak river, which they were not able to cross in large enough numbers to settle on its east side.

Unless they were shoved east to west across that river by the non-IE speakers. I'm not saying that's what happened, but I can't see why it couldn't have.

[rmstevens2]

It's frustrating how the ancient DNA research has gone. In some ways, it has been good. In 2017, the Olalde et al Beaker preprint appeared, which was the death knell for the old "We're all Basques" idea, but then it took four more years for the Papac et al paper to appear, "Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe", which essentially proved that Beaker was derived from Corded Ware. 

Now, at long last, proof has arrived of L51 in Yamnaya. IMHO, Yamnaya fathered Corded Ware via the Dniester Valley, Małopolska, and the CWC-X Horizon.

Just imagine how things would have gone had Papac et al arrived a few years earlier or if the Lazaridis et al preprint, "The Genetic Origins of the Indo-Europeans" had arrived a few years earlier.

[targaryen]

It's frustrating how the ancient DNA research has gone. In some ways, it has been good. In 2017, the Olalde et al Beaker preprint appeared, which was the death knell for the old "We're all Basques" idea, but then it took four more years for the Papac et al paper to appear, "Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe", which essentially proved that Beaker was derived from Corded Ware. 

Now, at long last, proof has arrived of L51 in Yamnaya. IMHO, Yamnaya fathered Corded Ware via the Dniester Valley, Małopolska, and the CWC-X Horizon.

Just imagine how things would have gone had Papac et al arrived a few years earlier or if the Lazaridis et al preprint, "The Genetic Origins of the Indo-Europeans" had arrived a few years earlier.

Papac paper was just a case of poor analysis. Y-DNA is important but when everything else from linguistics, to archeology, to autosomal genetics, to IBD pointed to Yamnaya -> CWC, then you can't just throw it away.

These nomadic pastoralists were so low in number and patriarchal, that in a few generations you can see great overturn in Y-DNA. Obviously this can't happen that easily nowadays with 8 billion on this planet, but back then all it could take was 1 conflict for the dominant tribes to be overthrown.

[RBHeadge]

What was the population of the Steppe circa 4th millennia BCE? Has anyone ever tried to quantify it?

[rmstevens2]

It's frustrating how the ancient DNA research has gone. In some ways, it has been good. In 2017, the Olalde et al Beaker preprint appeared, which was the death knell for the old "We're all Basques" idea, but then it took four more years for the Papac et al paper to appear, "Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe", which essentially proved that Beaker was derived from Corded Ware. 

Now, at long last, proof has arrived of L51 in Yamnaya. IMHO, Yamnaya fathered Corded Ware via the Dniester Valley, Małopolska, and the CWC-X Horizon.

Just imagine how things would have gone had Papac et al arrived a few years earlier or if the Lazaridis et al preprint, "The Genetic Origins of the Indo-Europeans" had arrived a few years earlier.

Papac paper was just a case of poor analysis. Y-DNA is important but when everything else from linguistics, to archeology, to autosomal genetics, to IBD pointed to Yamnaya -> CWC, then you can't just throw it away.

These nomadic pastoralists were so low in number and patriarchal, that in a few generations you can see great overturn in Y-DNA. Obviously this can't happen that easily nowadays with 8 billion on this planet, but back then all it could take was 1 conflict for the dominant tribes to be overthrown.

Of course, I absolutely love the Papac et al paper, except for the part in which the authors see R1a as replacing R1b-L151 in Corded Ware. I think they missed the boat there and did not see that Bell Beaker is just a variant of Corded Ware, and that's where R1b-L151 "disappeared" to.

I also love the Olalde et al Beaker paper, which was the first signal that ancient DNA would bury all the old baloney from way back when. What a tremendous breath of fresh air that was!

[rmstevens2]

What was the population of the Steppe circa 4th millennia BCE? Has anyone ever tried to quantify it?

Our Y-DNA ggggggggggg . . . grandpa and his handful of women. (Just kidding.)

Good question.

[targaryen]

What was the population of the Steppe circa 4th millennia BCE? Has anyone ever tried to quantify it?

Probably somewhere in the tens of thousands, which is like a town today.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...1.full.pdf