Mismodeling Indo-European Origins: The Assault On Historical Linguistics | GeoCurrents
Uwaga, uwaga uwaga… nadchodzi, a właściwie nadchodzą… Asya Pereltsvaig i Martin W. Lewis z ich miażdżącą krytyką Anatolii, jako kolebki tzw. PIE, itp,.. czyli kolejny cios w tzw. „południową drogę R1a”…
Przypomnę, że już wielokrotnie powoływałem się na twierdzenia i dowodzenia pani Asya Pereltsvaig i jej kolegów z http://www.geocurrents.info wielokrotnie, min tu:
Od razu zaznaczę, że nigdy nie twierdziłem i nie twierdzę, że oni mają 100% rację, albo że ja zgadzam się z ich poglądami też w 100%, bo tak nie jest, patrz min to, co „wiedzą” o języku słowiańskim,.. niemniej jednak warto poczytać i posłuchać co mają oboje do przekazania…
Dawno temu, pewno jeszcze w 2013 szukając wiedzy o językoznawstwie, natknąłem się na ten ich wykład o pracy Bouckaert et al. dotyczącej obliczenia matematycznego jak to z tzw. językami indo-europejskimi było…
No to cóż… Wywarło to na mnie bardzo wielki wpływ, więc zapamiętałem to i pochłonąłem wszystko, to co kiedyś było dostępne na ich stronie,.. która niestety nie jest już rozwijana, po tym jak Asya Pereltsvaig odeszła stamtąd i zabrała ze sobą swoje artykuły, jak i prawa do ich upowszechniania… Muszę napisać, że nie lubię jej za to specjalnie, bo mogli to jakoś tam zostawić,.. no ale wyszło jak wyszło… 😦
Jakby ktoś pytał się, po co kopiuję całe cudze wpisy, to odpowiadam, ano po to, żeby nie mieć już takiej sytuacji, jak ta, gdzie 90% odnośników na super ciekawe wpisy istniejące kiedyś na ich stronie przestało nagle z dnia na dzień działać… Można to sprawdzić u mnie w źródłach… 😦 Nie zniknąłem ich po to, żeby dąć świadectwo prawdzie, czyli pokazać, że wiedza była dostępna… i już jej niema… Dlatego czytajcie, oglądajcie, kopiujcie i myślcie samodzielnie…
A teraz sobie pomyślałem, że zwrócę uwagę, na mondrość odtwarzanych słów tego tzw. PIE… patrz ten prafdzify i fielce ucuny przykład na rzekome nieznanie przez Słowian części wozu, itp, jaki se fyfiudł i se narysował prześfietny ałtorytet śfiatofej słafy, niejaki… David W. Anthony…
Tu przykłady, że z takom śfietnom fietsom, to on i jemu podobni powinni iść i powiesić się, a następnie utopić… i to w słowiańskiej sławojce… 🙂
Dodatkowe wytłumaczenie dla wolno myślących i mało kumatych: Ten wpis jest o tym, że Anatolia (więc i Bałkany), jak i tzw. „południowa droga R1a”, zwyczajnie nie dodają się, także językowo… 🙂
‘Wheel’ Vocabulary Puts a Spoke in Bouckaert et al.’s Wheel
May 24, 2014 by Asya Pereltsvaig
The Bouckaert et al. article in Science that claims to “solve” a “long-standing problem in archaeology— the origin of the Indo-European family of languages,—also purport to supply novel quantitative evidence for the Anatolian hypothesis, which locates the Indo-European homeland in what is now the Asian part of Turkey. The authors also claim to refute the more commonly adopted Kurgan theory, which places the Indo-European homeland in the Pontic-Caspian steppes of southern Russia and eastern Ukraine. The two theories differ not only on where the Indo-European homeland was located, but also on when Proto-Indo-European (PIE) split into daughter languages: the Anatolian hypothesis dates the division to 8,000-9,000 years ago (or 6,000-7,000 BCE), while the Kurgan hypothesis provides a much later date, 5,000-6,000 years ago (or 3,000-4,000 BCE). Thus, both “where” and “when” questions constitute the problem of Indo-European origins.
Bouckaert et al.’s supposed contribution consists of comparing (existing) lists of cognates for 207 meanings in 103 contemporary and ancient Indo-European languages (5047 cognate sets in total). Based on a calculation of shared cognates, their computational algorithms produce a phylogenetic* tree representing how these 103 languages are related to each other; each split on the tree is dated first in relative and then in absolute terms. Bouckaert et al. also map the resulting tree, creating an animated visualization of how these linguistic lineages supposedly split off from each other and spread across the landscape. Separate posts will focus on problematic aspects of the Indo-European tree produced by Bouckaert et al. (including the dates of the various splits), examining as well the geographical blunders made in placing them on the map; here, we will consider problems arising from the underlying methodology of counting shared cognates.
Since the concept of “cognates” lies at the core of Bouckaert et al.’s methodology, it is imperative to define the term precisely before we proceed with our critique. As mentioned in an earlier post, cognates are not just words of similar meaning that sound alike, such as the English bad and the Persian bad, which mean roughly the same thing. According to the definition adopted in historical linguistics, cognates are words whose similarity of sound and meaning is due to common descent rather than lexical borrowing or sheer accident (as in the case of bad above). Crucially, cognates are often similar but not exactly the same in sound, and are often not the same in meaning either. Yet the differences in sound and meaning can be explained through regular phonological and semantic changes. One example of cognates, still easily recognizable, are the English word knight and the German Knecht (discussed in detail in Pereltsvaig 2012). The differences in sound is accounted for by the disappearance in English of /x/ (spelled as gh, as in in bough and many other words), the simplification of the word-initial consonant cluster /kn/ through the deletion of /k/ (also in knee, knife, and so on), and the Great Vowel Shift, which changed the [i:] into [aj]. The spelling of knight represents the Old English pronunciation of this word, [knixt], which is much closer to that of the German Knecht. Importantly, the meanings of the English and the German words diverged as well, undergoing commonplace processes. Specifically, the English word underwent a great upward mobility during the Middle Ages (known in technical lingo as “melioration”) and became associated with the aristocracy, while its German cognate retained the humble meaning of ‘servant’.
In some instances, cognates are not apparent to the naked eye; as the eminent Russian linguist Andrey Zaliznyak once quipped, if two words look exactly the same, they are in all likelihood not cognates. Since each sound in a word may have undergone an independent change, cognates can bear no immediate resemblance to each other in sound. Based on heaps of data amassed over the last 200 years, historical linguists have worked out principles and procedures for identifying cognates, which rely on an understanding of what types of linguistic changes are likely to happen and what types are not. For example, words often change its meaning from a part to the whole, as in All hands on deck!, which calls for entire sailors, not just their hands; the reverse change is much less common. Similarly, a k sound is likely to change into a ch or sh sound (the initial sounds of chair and share, respectively), but not into a p or an n sound. Also, not all words that resemble each other in form and meaning are cognates. Both borrowings and accidental look-alikes, like the English and Persian words bad mentioned above, are not cognates in the technical sense.
Most research that compares lexical items across languages on a massive scale, like that of Bouckaert et al., wean out items that are accidentally similar. Bouckaert et al. excluded “known borrowings such as English mountain acquired from French montagne” (according to their explanation in the Supplementary Materials, p. 1). Computational methods exist that allow much more thorough identification of loanwords, without “individual linguists scanning through lists on the basis of considerable knowledge of the histories of the languages concerned” (McMahon 2010, p. 132). Essentially, such algorithms produce hundreds of possible phylogenetic trees, selecting the ones that show the fewest discrepancies with the data, and then identifying lexical items “which are persistently discordant with the better trees” (McMahon 2010, p. 133). In other words, borrowings stand out as items that do not fit with the otherwise optimal branching patterns. A more specific method of identifying loanwords—and even dating the time of borrowing—revolves around examining traces of phonological changes known to have happened in either the source or the target language. For example, the words candle and chandelier both derive from the same Latin source: candela meaning ‘a light, torch, candle made of tallow or wax’. However, the two words were borrowed into English at different times: candle during the Old English period and chandelier in the late Middle English period (late 1300s). The different timing is signaled by the fact that chandelier is pronounced with a sh rather than a k sound, reflecting a sound-shift in Old French, from which the word penetrated into English. It appears that Bouckaert et al. did not apply either of these powerful methods for identifying cognates, and instead merely relied on pre-existing lists (though they are unclear on the subject). As we shall see in a later post, misidentifying loanwords as cognates can throw off the phylogenetic tree; and we shall see below that being able to separate loanwords and cognates is crucial for solving the “wheel” problem that confronts the Anatolian hypothesis.
As mentioned above, Bouckaert et al. rely on a quantitative analysis of Indo-European vocabulary lists, but historical linguists have long understood that a qualitative analysis is often necessary for determining where a proto-language must have been spoken. Most items in the classical 100-word Swadesh list—which includes such basic concepts as ‘I’, ‘mother’, ‘heart’, and ‘die’—are universal, and hence are of no use for figuring out past geographical patterns. Less common meanings that are not included in the Swadesh list, however, can provide strong indications of both where and when an ancestral tongue was spoken. One set of words shedding crucial light on the problem of the Indo-European origins pertains to ‘wheel’ and related vehicular items, discussed extensively in chapters 2 and 4 of David W. Anthony’s The Horse, The Wheel, and Language. All told, these vocabulary items tilt the balance towards the Kurgan hypothesis, presenting an insurmountable problem for the Anatolian alternative. Here is the problem in a nutshell. Reconstructions of PIE include the word *kwekwlos for ‘wheel’ (an asterisk in front of PIE and other forms indicate that these forms are reconstructed and not attested in written documents). However, archeological evidence indicates that wheels and wheeled vehicles first appeared about 4,000-3,500 BCE, a timeframe consistent with the Kurgan theory but not with the Anatolian hypothesis. If PIE split earlier than the appearance of a wheel, why do its descendant languages have these cognates? Or if PIE is 3,000 years older, as Bouckaert et al. argue, why is there no archaeological trace of wheeled transport for this three-millennium span?
Let’s consider this conundrum and its possible solutions more closely. The archeological evidence, reviewed by Anthony, is quite solid. While “one uncertain piece of evidence, a track preserved under a barrow grave at Flintbek in northern Germany” (Anthony, p. 66; see map on the left) possibly made by wheels could date as early as 3600 BCE, “the real explosion of evidence begins about 3400 BCE”. Four independent kinds of evidence—“a written sign for wagons, two dimensional images of wagons and carts, three-dimensional models of wagons, and preserved wooden wheels and wagon parts themselves”—appear between 3400 and 3000 BCE, indicating that wheeled vehicles became widespread at that time. The invention of the wheel cannot be dated precisely, but archeologists are confident that “wheeled vehicles were not invented until after 4000 BCE” (Anthony, p. 63). Naturally, people who used wheels and wagons (or carts) needed words to denote them. PIE speakers apparently had a rich vocabulary of vehicular words, including not only the abovementioned *kwekwlos ‘wheel’, but also at least four other roots from the same semantic field: *rot-eh a second term for ‘wheel’, *aks ‘axle’, *hihs- ‘thill’ (the harness pole), and *wegheti, a verb meaning ‘to convey or go in a vehicle’. Since it is hardly likely that PIE speakers invented these words 3,000 years before the objects or actions they designate became a reality, only three scenarios of ‘wheel’-related word origin are logically possible:
- they originated in PIE prior to its split into daughter languages, which thus could not have happened before 4000 BCE (compatible with the Kurgan but not the Anatolian theory);
- they spread among the descendant languages of the Indo-European family by borrowing, after the PIE split had occurred (compatible with the Anatolian theory);
- they were created in the various Indo-European branches independently, also after PIE split had occurred (compatible with the Anatolian theory).
Unfortunately for Bouckaert et al, the latter two scenarios—the only ones compatible with the Anatolian theory that.they advocate—are not compatible with linguistic evidence. As pointed out by Anthony, “almost all the terms are derived from Proto-Indo-European roots, so the vocabulary for wagons and wheels was not imported from the outside but was created within the Proto-Indo-European speech community” (p. 64). It is extremely unlikely that the words could have spread from IE branch to branch by borrowing, as once the daughter languages split off, the resulting communities had virtually no contact with each other. For example, according to Bouckaert et al., the separation of Tocharian from the rest of the IE family occurred around 4800 BCE, yet Tocharian has all five wheel-related roots (cf. Anthony, p. 64).** In his detailed discussion of PIE ‘wheel’ on LanguageLog, historical linguist Don Ringe suggests that based on linguistic evidence this separation “was sharp, and that [Tocharian] did not again come into contact with other IE languages (specifically, Iranian languages) for many centuries”. Geographically speaking, this makes sense: some 1,500 years after the speakers of Tocharian moved away from the PIE homeland, they were too far removed from the rest of the family for any contact to have been be feasible. In fact, Bouckaert et al.’s own animated map puts the front of advance of Tocharian speakers in the middle of Karakum desert in Turkmenistan, as can be seen from the map frame on the left, pertaining to 3300 BCE.
Linguistic evidence also shows that the independent creation of similar looking ‘wheel’ words in at least four branches of Indo-European—Germanic, Iranian, Greek, and Tocharian—is highly improbable. The word *kwekwlos ‘wheel’ has a PIE etymology, deriving from another root in the language, namely *kwel- meaning ‘to turn’: a wheel, after all, is a “thing that turns” (the PIE *aks ‘axle’ derives from another reconstructed PIE word meaning ‘shoulder’). It is not impossible that separate language groups would make up their own words for ‘wheel’ based on the verb ‘to turn’, but “at least four different verbs meaning ‘turn’ or ‘roll’ or ‘revolve’ are reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European, which makes the repeated independent choice of *kwel- problematic” (Anthony, p. 78). Moreover, since the pattern of derivation from *kwel- ‘to turn’ to *kwékwlos ‘wheel’ is unusual (e.g. it involves reduplication), Ringe concludes that “this word is overwhelmingly unlikely to have been formed more than once”. In other words, while speakers of the various Indo-European languages may have reinvented the wheel, it is virtually impossible that they reinvented the word for it as well. That leaves us with only one alternative: the ‘wheel’ vocabulary originated in PIE prior to its split into daughter languages, which thus must have happened some time after 4000 BCE. For Bouckaert et al. to be historically correct, “you’d expect there’d be some pre-4000 BC chariots lying around elsewhere”, in the words of a LanguageHat reader YM. But there are not. Bouckaert et al. themselves do not address this problem in the article, and in media reports and blogosphere discussions individual authors appear to wave all such difficulties away without rebuttal.
The ‘wheel’ problem is part of a larger issue: numerous other PIE words that can be reconstructed from cognates in descendant languages point to the geographic area where PIE speakers must have lived. This vocabulary includes words for trees like ‘beech’, ‘birch’, and ‘pine’, wild animals like ‘bear’, ‘wolf’, ‘deer’, ‘otter’, ‘lynx’, and ‘beaver’, as well as ‘horse’, ‘wool’, ‘sheep’, ‘goat’, ‘cow’, ‘pig’, ‘bee’, and ‘honey’. There are no reconstructed PIE words that would point in the direction of Mediterranean climate (no ‘cypress’, ‘olive’, or ‘laurel’) or a tropical one (no ‘monkey’, ‘elephant’, ‘palm’, ‘papyrus’, ‘coconut’, etc.). Such evidence strongly suggests a temperate-zone location, probably at the border of steppe lands and forests. One area that fits the bill perfectly is the Ukrainian forest-steppe zone that was home to Sredny Stog culture, which was flourished from 4500-3500 BCE in the area just north of the Sea of Azov between the Dnieper and the Don rivers. Intriguingly, the earliest evidence of horse domestication comes from the later phase of the Sredny Stog culture, as does some evidence of woven textiles (discussed in chapter 4 of Anthony’s book).
Another set of reconstructed PIE words that points in the same direction includes such weather and climate related terms as ‘cold’, ‘winter’, and ‘snow’: while Anatolia has some snow-covered peaks, the climatic fit is much better for the Ukrainian forest-steppe zone (see the map on the left).
All in all, examining the meanings of words that can be reconstructed for PIE indicates a relatively northern location for the family’s homeland, compatible more with the Kurgan hypothesis than with the Anatolian one. Examining PIE vocabulary reveals another interesting point: PIE must have been in contact with another reconstructed proto-language, Proto-Uralic, as the latter contains words similar to their counterparts in Proto-Indo-European, such as *porćas ‘pig’ (cf. PIE *porkos). The presence of such shared vocabulary has been interpreted by some linguists as evidence for the existence of a combined Indo-Uralic language family, though most scholars take the opposite view and treat these items as loanwords from PIE into Proto-Uralic. But for such borrowing to have been possible, PIE must have been spoken in reasonable proximity to Proto-Uralic. The location of the Uralic homeland is also uncertain, with some scholars placing it in Western Siberia and others just to the west of the Ural Mountains. Among the latter group are those who associate Proto-Uralic with the Pit-Comb Ware culture situated to the north of the Kurgan culture in the 5th millennium BCE. In effect, the Kurgan hypothesis of the Indo-European origins and the European theory of Proto-Uralic homeland support each other. If PIE had been spoken in Asia Minor, as Bouckaert et al. claim, we find no traces of similar borrowings by its putative neighbors.
* “Phylogeny” is a biological term that refers to the history of the lineages of species as they change and differentiate through evolutionary processes.
**The word *kwekwlos in Tocharian changed its meaning from ‘wheel’ to ‘wagon’. But as pointed out above, such change from part to whole is not uncommon: for example, in present-day English to buy new wheels can denote a purchase of new tires or a whole car.
Anthony, David W. (2007) The Horse, The Wheel, and Language. How Bronze Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press.
McMahon, April (2010) “Computational Models and Language Contact”. In Raymond Hickey (ed.) The Handbook of Language Contact. Pp. 128–147. Wiley-Blackwell.
Pereltsvaig, Asya (2012) Languages of the World: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Strong (?) linguistic and archaeological evidence for steppe Indo-Europeans
Trees, Waves and Linkages: Models of Language Diversification
Language variation Genetic relationships II
TRANSMISSION AND DIFFUSION
William Labov, University of Pennsylvania
Linguistic Reconstruction: An Introduction to Theory and Method
Measuring the diffusion of linguistic change
The Indo-Uralic verb
oj ,jak to zdrobnione od koła kółko tak jest trudne do ogarnięcia dla anglosasów ,że aż dziwotwór *kwel musieli wymyśleć.Kaszubskiego też nie znają, a tam „o” się „ue” wymawia .
Nie mogło być „ojczyzny” PIE języka, bo go nigdy nie było , więc szukamy wiatru w polu.
Nie prawda!!! PIE = Pra-Słowiański!!! Zapamiętaj to sobie i nie opowiadaj tu bzdur!!! Jeśli wiesz jak i umiesz, to obal to… Czekam na Twoje dowodzenie…
no właśnie ,ja się przecież zgadzam ,tylko nazwa mi się nie podoba, ale dopóki „naukowcy” tego nie przyznają to będą kręcić tak żeby nic z tego nie było wiadomo .
A jakie ma znaczenie to, co bełkoczą sobie jęsykosnaftzy, jeśli wszyscy inni zaczną pisać to, co wynika z rozumu i dowodów, hm? Umiesz napisać, że PIE = Pra-Słowiański, czy boisz się, co o tym „naukoftzy” powiedzą, hm?
no skoro sie ich cytuje ciągle i wszędzie to na pewno ma znaczenie dla świadomości ogólnej ,
PIE Proto-Indo-European, the hypothetical reconstructed ancestral language of the Indo-European family. The time scale is much debated, but the most recent date proposed for it is about 5,500 years ago.
skoro PIE jest hipotetyczny to czy Pra-Słowiański też ?
Żebyś jeszcze był logiczny i podawał odnośniki na źródła, które cytujesz… Tak… Pra-Słowiański jest „hipotetyczny”… tak samo jak język, którym posługujesz się tu… 🙂
a , proszę -odnośnik :
jeszcze zacytuję wiki:
„W przeszłości i obecnie proponowanych jest wiele ciekawych, aczkolwiek niezgodnych ze sobą hipotez.”
A co to ma wspólnego z j. Pra-Słowiańskim?
no podobno jest tożsamy z PIE , a to cytat tego dotyczący, nic nie wiadomo,pełno przeczących sobie hipotez, jakieś powymyślane słowa , jak dla mnie ściema, możemy sobie uznać że PS to PIE, ale dopóki nikt oficjalnie tego nie powie , różni poligloci youtubowi i wikipedia będą wciskać ludziom kit o jakimś mitycznym prajęzyku z którego wyrosły głęzie innych prajęzyków, z których wyrosły gałęzie dzisiejszych języków , obraz wg mnie fałszywy.
JA TO QFA OFICJALNIE OD DAWNA MÓWIĘ… I DUMNIE POWTARZAJ TO ZE MNĄ, BO TO PRAWDA!!!
i bardzo dobrze, ale niestety to tacy krzewiciele PIE jak Langfocus na YT mają prawie 300 tysięcy subskrybcji na całym świecie, a filmik o słowiańskich językach widziało pół miliona ludzi , jednakże ten pan zablokował i skasował wszystkie pod nim komentarze (w śród nich moje)
i to oni kształtują wiedzę mas na ten temat.
Etymonline który powtarza głupoty z anglosaskich słowników ma 26tys polubień na fb , jednak zostałem tam zablokowany,wyzwany od nacjonalistów i wandali naukowych, a wszystie moje wpisy skasowane 🙂
I co, to Cię dziwi? Dlatego właśnie należy wszędzie gdzie tylko można używać poprawnego nazewnictwa, przede wszystkim na stronach i miejscach, gdzie nie zostanie to skasowane. Podobnie na brunatnych próbował walczyć Sławomir i wynik był taki sam… Oto nasz wolny i sprawiedliwy świat i jego rzeczywistość, w której przyszło nam żyć. Mondrali różnej maści nie przekonamy, nawet tych „naszych” patrz np. „łowcy ruskich trolli”, bo każdy z nich ma dużo do stracenia, nadęte ja fielkich ałtorytetóf, itp, więc kurczowo będą trzymać się swoich majaczeń.
Olać ich i punktować, zaganiać do rogów i punktować, nie „rozmawiać” z nimi, bo nie ma z kim i o czym, itp. Ważne jest to, żeby doskonalić nasze dowodzenia, zbierać dowody, źródła i doświadczenie, bo kto wie, może nadejdzie czas, kiedy nasza wiedza i to co twierdzimy zostaną bezsprzecznie potwierdzone…
Zupełnie zieloni ludkowie łykają co im poda się, jak bocian żaby, więc nie ma się czym przejmać. Trzeba nam celować daleko za widnokrąg, pracować z całych sił… i nie oczekiwać niczego, nawet nagrody – Ariuna Bhagavadgita… 🙂
NA CHWAŁĘ NASZYCH PRA-SŁOWIAŃSKICH PRZODKÓW… BO JESTEŚMY IM TO WINNI!!! 🙂
Powtarzam, Pra-Słowianie to potomkowie łowców mamutów i są potomkami Karelczyka…
G2a nie ma nad Wisłą, zresztą to raczej nie byli „pierwsi rolnicy” tylko „pierwsi europejscy rolnicy”, bo tylko J2, o ile dobrze rozumiem było obecne w żyznym półksiężycu, a I2a to już „tubylczy wtórnie zrolniczony” ludek…
Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans
Zuzana Hofmanováa,1, Susanne Kreutzera,1, Garrett Hellenthalb, Christian Sella, Yoan Diekmannb, David Díez-del-Molinob, Lucy van Dorpb, Saioa Lópezb, Athanasios Kousathanasc,d, Vivian Linkc,d, Karola Kirsanowa, Lara M. Cassidye, Rui Martinianoe, Melanie Strobela, Amelie Scheua,e, Kostas Kotsakisf, Paul Halsteadg, Sevi Triantaphyllouf, Nina Kyparissi-Apostolikah, Dushka Urem-Kotsoui, Christina Ziotaj, Fotini Adaktylouk, Shyamalika Gopalanl, Dean M. Bobol, Laura Winkelbacha, Jens Blöchera, Martina Unterländera, Christoph Leuenbergerm, Çiler Çilingiroğlun, Barbara Horejso, Fokke Gerritsenp, Stephen J. Shennanq, Daniel G. Bradleye, Mathias Curratr, Krishna R. Veeramahl, Daniel Wegmannc,d, Mark G. Thomasb, Christina Papageorgopoulous,2, and Joachim Burgera,2
Farming and sedentism first appeared in southwestern Asia during the early Holocene and later spread to neighboring regions, including Europe, along multiple dispersal routes. Conspicuous uncertainties remain about the relative roles of migration, cultural diffusion, and admixture with local foragers in the early Neolithization of Europe. Here we present paleogenomic data for five Neolithic individuals from northern Greece and northwestern Turkey spanning the time and region of the earliest spread of farming into Europe. We use a novel approach to recalibrate raw reads and call genotypes from ancient DNA and observe striking genetic similarity both among Aegean early farmers and with those from across Europe. Our study demonstrates a direct genetic link between Mediterranean and Central European early farmers and those of Greece and Anatolia, extending the European Neolithic migratory chain all the way back to southwestern Asia.
One of the most enduring and widely debated questions in prehistoric archaeology concerns the origins of Europe’s earliest farmers: Were they the descendants of local hunter-gatherers, or did they migrate from southwestern Asia, where farming began? We recover genome-wide DNA sequences from early farmers on both the European and Asian sides of the Aegean to reveal an unbroken chain of ancestry leading from central and southwestern Europe back to Greece and northwestern Anatolia. Our study provides the coup de grâce to the notion that farming spread into and across Europe via the dissemination of ideas but without, or with only a limited, migration of people.
It is well established that farming was introduced to Europe from Anatolia, but the extent to which its spread was mediated by demic expansion of Anatolian farmers, or by the transmission of farming technologies and lifeways to indigenous hunter-gatherers without a major concomitant migration of people, has been the subject of considerable debate. Paleogenetic studies (1⇓⇓–4) of late hunter-gatherers (HG) and early farmers indicate a dominant role for migration in the transition to farming in central and northern Europe, with evidence of only limited hunter-gatherer admixture into early Neolithic populations, but increasing toward the late Neolithic. However, the exact origin of central and western Europe’s early farmers in the Balkans, Greece, or Anatolia remains an open question.
Recent radiocarbon dating indicates that by 6,600–6,500 calibrated (cal) BCE sedentary farming communities were established in northwestern Anatolia at sites such as Barcın, Menteşe, and Aktopraklık C and in coastal western Anatolia at sites such as Çukuriçi and Ulucak, but did not expand north or west of the Aegean for another several hundred years (5). All these sites show material culture affinities with the central and southwestern Anatolian Neolithic (6).
Early Greek Neolithic sites, such as the Franchthi Cave in the Peloponnese, Knossos in Crete, and Mauropigi, Paliambela, and Revenia in northern Greece date to a similar period (7⇓–9). The distribution of obsidian from the Cycladic islands, as well as similarities in material culture, suggest extensive interactions since the Mesolithic and a coeval Neolithic on both sides of the Aegean (8). Although it has been argued that in situ Aegean Mesolithic hunter-gatherers played a major role in the “Neolithization” of Greece (7), the presence of domesticated forms of plants and animals indicates nonlocal Neolithic dispersals into the area.
We present five ancient genomes from both, the European and Asian sides of the northern Aegean (Fig. 1); despite their origin from nontemperate regions, three of them were sequenced to relatively high coverage (∼2–7×), enabling diploid calls using a novel SNP calling method that accurately accounts for postmortem damage (SI Appendix, SI5. Genotype Calling for Ancient DNA). Two of the higher-coverage genomes are from Barcın, south of the Marmara Sea in Turkey, one of the earliest Neolithic sites in northwestern Anatolia (individuals Bar8 and Bar31). On the European side of the Aegean, one genome is from the early Neolithic site of Revenia (Rev5), and the remaining two are from the late and final Neolithic sites of Paliambela (Pal7) and Kleitos (Klei10), dating to ∼2,000 y later (Table 1). Estimates of mitochondrial contamination were low (0.006–1.772% for shotgun data) (Table 1; SI Appendix, SI4. Analysis of Uniparental Markers and X Chromosome Contamination Estimates.). We found unprecedented deamination rates of up to 56% in petrous bone samples, indicating a prehistoric origin for our sequence data from nontemperate environments (SI Appendix, Table S5).
Uniparental Genetic Systems
The mtDNA haplogroups of all five Neolithic individuals are typical of those found in central European Neolithic farmers and modern Europeans, but not in European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (1). Likewise, the Y-chromosomes of the two male individuals belong to haplogroup G2a2, which has been observed in European Neolithic farmers (3, 10); in Ötzi, the Tyrolean Iceman (11); and in modern western and southwestern Eurasian populations, but not in any pre-Neolithic European hunter-gatherers (12). The mitochondrial haplogroups of two additional less well-preserved Greek Mesolithic individuals (Theo1, Theo5; SI Appendix, Table S6) belong to lineages observed in Neolithic farmers from across Europe; consistent with Aegean Neolithic populations, unlike central European Neolithic populations, being the direct descendants of the preceding Mesolithic peoples who inhabited broadly the same region. However, we caution against over-interpretation of the Aegean Mesolithic mtDNA data; additional genome-level data will be required to identify the Mesolithic source population(s) of the early Aegean farmers. (…)
DNA reveals origins of first European farmers
Haak W, Balanovsky O, Sanchez JJ, Koshel S, Zaporozhchenko V, et al. Ancient DNA from European Early Neolithic Farmers Reveals Their Near Eastern Affinities. PLoS Biology, 2010; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536
Date: November 10, 2010
Source: University of Adelaide
Summary: A team of international researchers has resolved the longstanding issue of the origins of the people who introduced farming to Europe some 8,000 years ago. A detailed genetic study of one of the first farming communities in Europe, from central Germany, reveals marked similarities with populations living in the Ancient Near East (modern-day Turkey, Iraq and other countries) rather than those from Europe.
Genetic matrilineal distances between 55 modern Western Eurasian populations and Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture (LBK) samples. Mapped genetic distances are illustrated between 55 modern Western Eurasian populations and the total of 42 Neolithic LBK samples (A) or the single graveyard of Derenburg (B). Black dots denote the location of modern-day populations used in the analysis. The coloring indicates the degree of similarity of the modern local population(s) with the Neolithic sample set: short distances (greatest similarity) are marked by dark green and long distances (greatest dissimilarity) by orange, with fainter colors in between the extremes.
Click to access 20150339.full.pdf
Tracing the genetic origin of Europe’s first farmers reveals insights into their social organization
Anna Szecsenyi-Nagy, Guido Brandt, Wolfgang Haak
Proc. R. Soc. B 282: 20150339.
Received: 12 February 2015
Accepted: 25 February 2015
In this study, we present 84 mtDNA and 9 Y chromosomal DNA data from Mesolithic (6200–6000 BC) and Neolithic specimens of the STA and LBKT from western Hungary and Croatia. Spanning a time transect of the Hungarian Neolithic in Transdanubia over approximately 900years (ca 5800– 4900 BC) allowed us to gain detailed insight into the spread of farming from the Near East.
The haplotype of the Mesolithic skeleton from the Croatian Island Korcˇula could be assigned to mtDNA haplogroup U5b2a5 (electronic supplementary material, dataset S3). Sub-haplogroup U5b has been shown to be common in hunter–gatherer communities across Europe [28–30,32,33, 47,48]. Contrary to the low mtDNA diversity observed in Central/North European hunter–gatherers [28–30], we identify a higher variability in early farming communities of the Carpathian Basin including haplogroups N1a, T1, T2, J, K, H, HV, V,W, X, U2, U3, U4 and U5a (electronic supplementary material, table S1). Previous studies described haplogroups N1a, T2, J, K, HV, V, W and X as being characteristic for the Central European LBK and suggested these as the mitochondrial ‘Neolithic package’ that had reached Central Europe in the sixth millennium BC [38,39]. Interestingly, most of these eight haplogroups
show comparable frequencies between the STA, LBKT and LBK, and represent the majority of mtDNAvariation in each culture (STA ¼ 86.36%, LBKT ¼ 61.54%, LBK ¼ 79.63%) with similar haplotype diversity (STA ¼ 0.97674, LBKT ¼ 0.95277, LBK ¼ 0.95483). By contrast, hunter–gatherer haplogroups are rare in the STA and both LBK groups (electronic supplementary material, table S1). Haplogroup H was not included in the Neolithic package, because it has also been found in pre-agricultural context in Iberia . However, the low resolution of HVS-I does not allow to distinguish between H lineages of Neolithic or preNeolithic origins in Transdanubia and would require whole mitochondrial genome analyses.
(b) Y chromosomal DNA
We analysed 33 Y-haplogroup defining SNPs located on the non-recombining part of the Y chromosome (NRY), using multiplex  and singleplex PCR. We successfully generated unambiguous NRY SNP profiles for nine male individuals (STA ¼ 7, LBKT ¼ 2; electronic supplementary material, datasets S3 and S5). Three STA individuals belong to the NRY haplogroup F* (M89) and two specimens can be assigned to the haplogroup G2a2b (S126), and one each to G2a (P15) and I2a1 (P37.2). The two investigated LBKT samples carry haplogroups G2a2b (S126) and I1 (M253). Furthermore, incomplete SNP profiles of eight specimens potentially belong to the same haplogroups—STA: three G2a2b (S126), two G2a (P15) and one I (M170); LBKT: one G2a2b (S126) and one
No i znów brak jest R1a… Ciekawe co na to „łowcy ruskich trolli” i inni wyznawcy południowej drogi R1a..?!! 🙂
Pingback: 47 The End of Old Europe and the Rise of the Steppe | SKRBH