05-05-2024, 02:47 AM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2024, 02:48 AM by billh.)
(04-24-2024, 02:08 AM)Woz Wrote:
(04-24-2024, 12:47 AM)billh Wrote: The cline emphasis seems very contrived. Modeling populations as having admixture "from a cline" or being descended "from a cline" seems to serve no purpose but to connect Yamnaya having ancestry from one end of the cline, to Anatolians having ancestry from the other end of the cline. A cline may I add, that is clearly not part of some sort of cultural horizon and has a literal mountain range and two seas crossing through it.
Not part of some cultural horizon? This cline spread the nomadic pastoralist lifestyle across the entire Pontic-Caspian steppe, before then populated by various mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups. That's a pretty impressive cultural horizon, I'd think.
One element of this cline went and created a separate cultural horizon. That has nothing to do with the cline itself. What I'm saying is, people in Armenia and other transcaucasians had way less cultural contact with southern Russia and the Volga than peoples to the west of southern russia/volga, and probably even peoples to the east of them
Apparently people in this thread have already been expressing skepticism about the R1b-L51 Yamnaya call, but I heard elsewhere there was an R1a Yamnaya. Is this true?
I might try and make some graphs using Python from the spreadsheet on this study. I just learned how to do it in class
(05-05-2024, 04:05 AM)billh Wrote: Apparently people in this thread have already been expressing skepticism about the R1b-L51 Yamnaya call, but I heard elsewhere there was an R1a Yamnaya. Is this true?
I might try and make some graphs using Python from the spreadsheet on this study. I just learned how to do it in class
The R1a in Yamnaya seems misdated. So far there is no R1a sample from a Yamnaya sample that isnt contaminated or misdated.
Yesterday, 06:31 AM (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 06:33 AM by targaryen.)
It seems like the Caucasus region, including the area north and south of it, were a major crossroads between different civilizations in antiquity. No surprise given there are like 5-6 unrelated language families there even today.
The Yamnaya were 1 specific group within the heterogeneous Sredny Stog region (a mixture of steppe and Caucasus related groups), that grew rapidly and came to dominate the open steppe. This spilled over into Europe, but eventually even the descendants of the Yamnaya adopted the agricultural norms of the peoples they invaded. Europe wasn't optimal for pastoralism.
This group ultimately came from the CLVs who experienced another success south of the Caucasus by admixing with some Mesopotamian group first and invading ANF related Anatolia.
(Yesterday, 06:31 AM)targaryen Wrote: It seems like the Caucasus region, including the area north and south of it, were a major crossroads between different civilizations in antiquity. No surprise given there are like 5-6 unrelated language families there even today.
The Yamnaya were 1 specific group within the heterogeneous Sredny Stog region (a mixture of steppe and Caucasus related groups), that grew rapidly and came to dominate the open steppe. This spilled over into Europe, but eventually even the descendants of the Yamnaya adopted the agricultural norms of the peoples they invaded. Europe wasn't optimal for pastoralism.
This group ultimately came from the CLVs who experienced another success south of the Caucasus by admixing with some Mesopotamian group first and invading ANF related Anatolia.
It seems that the CLV cluster is not likely the proto Indo Anatolian IMHO. You can see that in the presentation about the genetics of Corded Ware ( the pdf image I posted below) that even the authors of the paper are well aware that the ultimate component of progress like ancestry in CWC can be perfectly modeled as deriving from the Middle Don and not from the caucasus.
So basically they accept the genetyics finding of Allentoft
I do not understand why they hide this result that they themselves introduced in one of their conference from the general public.
It is clear to everybody that the most likely genetic cluster in which proto Indo Anatolian was born is the Dneper Don area and not the northern caucasus. But there is more. You can even model anatolian/hittite samples with just sredni stog derived dna on a western route without the CLV cluster if you want. See the other pdf attached.
But there are also linguistic reasons. PIE is not a contact language. It came out of a very tight and and long lasting population structure. Since the EHG-CHG network was quite recent in the steppe it makes much more sense on linguistic ground alone to se the Dneper Don network as a more likely origin because there WHG and EHG lived side by side since at least 6000 years at the time PIA was born.
There are also questions with the uniparentals. If CLV is the PIA genetic cluster you would expect R1bV1636 to pop up in decent amount in the most progress derived cluster that is Yamnaya. R1b M269, R1a M417 and I2a must have learned the language from R1b V1636 male clans right? Unless proved otherwise we must conclude that the Dneper Don male clans strongly patriarchal ones must have learned PIA from northern caucasian women. Ther is no way to turn it around. Is that likely?
I think this paper is just a bridge that connects the unsustainable " south of the caucasus" theory and the right one ( Dneper -Don) . It is just written not to humiliate too much Lazaridis
When the dust will be settled down a new paper will come out shifting the goalpost to the northwest
ok but tell to the Allentoft and Lazaridis/ Harvard teams. They both agree in the Middle Don as the ultimate source of the steppe ancestry in Yamnaya and Corded Ware. See below.
Yesterday, 04:13 PM (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 04:17 PM by Kale.)
I think the burden of proof would be on showing CHG still existed at the formation of Yamnaya. Same setup...
Yamnaya_Samara
RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic 0.758599 0.0453589 16.7244
Ukraine_Dereivka_Eneolithic_I4110 0.248954 0.0418300 5.95156
GolubayaKrinitsa_LowerDon.SG -0.00755286 0.0657009 -0.114958
Tail: 0.88
(Yesterday, 04:13 PM)Kale Wrote: I think the burden of proof would be on showing CHG still existed at the formation of Yamnaya. Same setup...
Yamnaya_Samara
RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic 0.758599 0.0453589 16.7244
Ukraine_Dereivka_Eneolithic_I4110 0.248954 0.0418300 5.95156
GolubayaKrinitsa_LowerDon.SG -0.00755286 0.0657009 -0.114958
Tail: 0.88
Stavropol was an IE speaking population. We all agree on that. Which is the factor that made them IE speakers?
It cannot be Caucasus Eneolithic other wise we would see IE languages all over the middle east that saw a dramatic expansion of CHG/ Iran dna and J ylines during the calcholitic
IE from central asia is discarded by the same author and by every scientific paper and because ylines that expanded IE languages were all present in Russia and Ukraine. So what we are left with at the end?
Golubaya Krinitsa
Quod erat demonstrandum
we now know the exact reason why anatolian languages were outliers among IE.
1) It is because they were spoken by populations rooted in the Progress cluster that was IEzed by the Ukraine neolithic folks. IE languages that are rooted in the original cluster ( represented in Yamnaya and CWC by the Dereivka cluster) are more "normal" IE languages. This in case the eastern route is the right one for anatolian languages.
2)In case of western route anatolian are divergent because they got massively influenced by the local ANF/CHG population of anatolian copper age.
Yesterday, 05:35 PM (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 05:41 PM by Kale.)
That's fine if you think PPIE comes from this that or the other thing, but that is a separate subject than whether or not CLV is PIE.
In the case of those Anatolian models, there's a lot of overlapping components in the sources, which makes it rather difficult to discern East-vs-West route.
right = c('Congo_Mbuti.DG', 'Anatolia_Barcin_N.SG', 'Anatolia_Boncuklu_N.SG', 'Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG', 'Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG', 'CHG.SG', 'Morocco_OUB002_Epipaleolithic.SG', 'Morocco_SKH001_MN.SG', 'Italy_GrottaContinenza_HG.SG', 'Bichon.SG', 'Sweden_StoraForvar_HG.SG', 'RUS_Arkhangelsk_HG.SG', 'Botai.SG', 'Afanasievo_KarasukIII.SG', 'Yamnaya_Kazakhstan_Karagash.SG', 'Andaman_100BP.SG', 'RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG', 'Peru_RioUncallane_1800BP.SG')
allsnps=TRUE
Areni delivers 9% Progress, and Cernavoda delivers about 6% Progress and 2% Ukraine-HG (being 50% Progress 50% Trypillia). That's really the only difference, otherwise we're just dealing with balancing the levels of ANF + Mesopotamian.
(05-05-2024, 04:05 AM)billh Wrote: Apparently people in this thread have already been expressing skepticism about the R1b-L51 Yamnaya call, but I heard elsewhere there was an R1a Yamnaya. Is this true?
I might try and make some graphs using Python from the spreadsheet on this study. I just learned how to do it in class
The skepticism was about one call that was way downstream of R-L21 which is found in Bell Beaker in Britain. Outside of someone on the Eurogenes blog that fantasizes about L51 expanding from Iberia, nobody is questioning most L51 calls in Yamnaya/Afanasievo. BTW, that same guy was saying the the L51 in Serbian Yamnaya was from the Catacomb Culture even though the Catacomb Culture never existed anywhere near Siberia.
(Yesterday, 04:51 PM)old europe Wrote: we now know the exact reason why anatolian languages were outliers among IE.
1) It is because they were spoken by populations rooted in the Progress cluster that was IEzed by the Ukraine neolithic folks. IE languages that are rooted in the original cluster ( represented in Yamnaya and CWC by the Dereivka cluster) are more "normal" IE languages. This in case the eastern route is the right one for anatolian languages.
2)In case of western route anatolian are divergent because they got massively influenced by the local ANF/CHG population of anatolian copper age.
Anatolian is not just divergent, it also contains some archaic features vs. innovations in the Core PIE (Alvin Kloekhorst has presented these arguments in his studies). Therefore the difference cannot be explained from Core PIE by assuming some "learning errors" made by foreign speakers, if that was your idea. Proto-Indo-Anatolian was real and clearly older than Core PIE.
