UWAGA!!! BARDZO WAŻNY WPIS!!!
Dla mnie ten wpis to kolejny dowód na:
a) śmierć „południowej drogi R1a”, bo brak jest R1a na Bałkanach, Anatolii, itp,
b) śmierć Anatolii jako kolebki tzw. PIE, czyli także i języka tzw. PIE,
c) coś dziwnego dzieje się rolnikami z Bałkanów, bo okazują się wcale nie być aż tak anatolijscy, tylko 2000 lat wcześniej zmieszani z hodowcami ze stepu,
d) no i zaczyna się dyskusja nad około 10,500 starym R1a na stepie (Vasilievka) i w Karelii,
e) no i to samo dotyczy R1b znalezionego w Dereivka, ale przede wszystkim na zachód od stepu… czyli R1b jako, że mieszało się wcześniej z innymi ludami, nie tak jak R1a… to zatraciło np. wiele ze swojego… hm… „pierwotnego?” języka…
I find extremely interesting: „early farmers from southern Greece are not descended from the Neolithic population of northwestern Anatolia that was ancestral to all other European farmers”.
May 10, 2017 at 5:07 AM
„intermittent steppe ancestry” intermittent doesn’t mean „massive”, I’d say it means „a little” let that I say that, being this word of Latin origin. good-by R-L51 from the East. good-by Samara
May 10, 2017 at 5:15 AM
‚Intermittent’ sounds like pockets of foreigners. Varna elite = Lower Volga? Question is if they are like later Yamnaya?
May 10, 2017 at 5:57 AM
According to geography and the alledged bifurication of R1, Varna ‚elite’ should rather relate to a West Side Story of Lower Vistula.
May 10, 2017 at 6:30 AM
I1819 (8825-8561 calBCE (9420±50 BP, Poz-81128), Ukraine_Mesolithic, Vasil’evka) – R1a
May 10, 2017 at 7:14 AM
LOTS OF R1B IN MESOLITHIC BALKANS
May 10, 2017 at 7:28 AM
Roy King said…
Amazing! Much R1b1a in Balkans!
May 10, 2017 at 7:28 AM
Ukraine Eneolithic 3500 BCE I4110 from Dereivka looks like a modern Balto-Slav (Figure 1.)
May 10, 2017 at 7:28 AM
It’s nice to have enough samples that you can actually get a sense of the variety of mixing between cultures, and the regional differences in genetics. Lots of unexpected stuff here.
May 10, 2017 at 7:49 AM
About a much debated topic: it looks like GAC had no „Steppe”, it appears as a typical farmer population, but with elevated (25%) WHG. Also Comb Ware is EHG and assimilating the previous WHG-heavy groups in the Baltic.
May 10, 2017 at 7:58 AM
@Slumbery And some Comb Ware were close to 100% EHG. Very interesting that they were so isolated for so long.
May 10, 2017 at 8:03 AM
Varna man belonged to Y DNA CT, what a let down, guess his golden condom ended that Y line. Other Varna are 2x G2a and 1 R1.
May 10, 2017 at 7:59 AM
@Karl_K R1a is an EHG marker, native to Eastern Europe. It did not migrate there with CHG.
May 10, 2017 at 9:21 AM
R1a is an EHG marker, native to Eastern Europe
To be neutral you can’t connect autosome with Hgs directly . But obviously we are not worried about M417- clines , they were there all over Eurasia from Meso to Early Neo , we will have to see how the pattern of M417 + emerges. I also think Meso India will also show lots of R1a M417 – , but again it will not matter much to the IE question, to which M417 can be somewhat faithfully connected. Now it turns for the Mycenaean and Maykop , very very crucial and of course India.
May 10, 2017 at 9:30 AM
@Nirjhar I also think Meso India will also show lots of R1a M417-. You’re totally nuts. Take some pills and go and lie down for a while.
May 10, 2017 at 9:35 AM
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
The genomic history of Southeastern Europe (Mathieson et al. 2017 preprint)
Over at BioRxiv at this LINK:
Abstract: Farming was first introduced to southeastern Europe in the mid-7th millennium BCE – brought by migrants from Anatolia who settled in the region before spreading throughout Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between the first farmers and the indigenous hunter-gatherers remain poorly understood because of the near absence of ancient DNA from the region. We report new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 204 individuals-65 Paleolithic and Mesolithic, 93 Neolithic, and 46 Copper, Bronze and Iron Age-who lived in southeastern Europe and surrounding regions between about 12,000 and 500 BCE. We document that the hunter-gatherer populations of southeastern Europe, the Baltic, and the North Pontic Steppe were distinctive from those of western Europe, with a West-East cline of ancestry. We show that the people who brought farming to Europe were not part of a single population, as early farmers from southern Greece are not descended from the Neolithic population of northwestern Anatolia that was ancestral to all other European farmers. The ancestors of the first farmers of northern and western Europe passed through southeastern Europe with limited admixture with local hunter-gatherers, but we show that some groups that remained in the region mixed extensively with local hunter-gatherers, with relatively sex-balanced admixture compared to the male-biased hunter-gatherer admixture that we show prevailed later in the North and West. After the spread of farming, southeastern Europe continued to be a nexus between East and West, with intermittent steppe ancestry, including in individuals from the Varna I cemetery and associated with the Cucuteni-Trypillian archaeological complex, up to 2,000 years before the Steppe migration that replaced much of northern Europe’s population.
Posted by Davidski at 12:04:00 AM
May 10, 2017 at 4:26 AM
so Varna was R1b with Steppe ADMIXTURE???
May 10, 2017 at 4:34 AM
This paper looks equally exciting to the BB one…
May 10, 2017 at 4:34 AM
Yes, looks amazing this one too. I just don’t know how they manage to publish two huge papers on the very same day (after 2 years waiting). We’ll get crazy trying to get our heads around 400 new samples and following comments about both papers. No, I’m not complaining. This is a feast. But it’ll take time to digest all this new data. I’d recommend not to shoot too fast on the comments. With all this data, better to take is easy. At least it’s what I’ll try to do. Enjoy everyone!
May 10, 2017 at 4:53 AM
WHG moved to the steppe? Figure 1. WHG appears in Ukraine Neolithic while it was non existent in Mesolithic.
May 10, 2017 at 7:47 AM
Three new Yamnaya, all from Ukraine, but sadly all females. Expected the Mesolithic/Neolithic R1a/R1b in Ukraine, and it would’ve been good to see some Yamnaya males from there, because some are likely to be R1a-M417. But it’s nice to see that Bulgarian MLBA R1a/U5a sample. Interesting date for R1a to be in the Balkans: 1750-1625 calBCE (3400±30 BP). Anyway, can’t wait to analyze these samples myself. What’s the earliest L51 in this dataset?
May 10, 2017 at 8:11 AM
It can’t be a coincide that all of their Yamnaya samples from Ukraine are females. I reckon they’re holding the males back for their South Asian paper. I’m surprised they let the Bulgarian MLBA R1a out of the bag, because that’s a big clue about what we’ll see in BA Ukraine.
May 10, 2017 at 8:20 AM
Is this right? In their spreadsheet of everything aDNA, Ust Ishim (45530-40610 calBCE, mtDNA R*) has Y DNA R1a1a1b, which in the isogg tree is nowadays „S224/Z645, S441/Z647”. R1a1a1b being R1a1a1-M417, Ust-Ishim is already M417.
May 10, 2017 at 8:25 AM
Obviously it’s a mistake. Try not to stretch this out into a massive discussion.
May 10, 2017 at 8:29 AM
I’m ready to agree that it’s obviously a mistake, but I’d like to have it stated officially by the people on the paper. Could you ask someone from Broad/Harvard to confirm it’s a mistake?
May 10, 2017 at 8:34 AM
It doesn’t seem that the results are against a Steppe PIE Homeland, quite the contrary. But, without some samples from Anatolia in a clear IE Anatolian context, it will be difficult to be sure. But if R1 a/b is rare in the Caucasus, as it is likely, the hypothesis of CHG = PIE would become very difficult to defend. It is hard to imagine a very patriarchal/patrilocal/patrilienal society, as deduced by linguists for PIE, tansmitted by women, with a very long duration (at least hundred of years, as CHG arised from 30% in Khvalynsk to 50% in Yamna). Not very convincing.
May 10, 2017 at 8:49 AM
@Davidski „R1a is an EHG marker, native to Eastern Europe. It did not migrate there with CHG.”
That was not my suggestion. But we also have no actual idea what language family EHG people spoke, and Uralic is an alternative. Why couldn’t CHG people have brought PIE into the R1a/R1b EHG populations? They obviously mixed extensively to become a new homogeneous population.
May 10, 2017 at 9:43 AM
@Karl_KWhy couldn’t CHG people have brought PIE into the R1a/R1b EHG populations? They obviously mixed extensively to become a new homogeneous population. Because the early Indo-Europeans were highly patriarchal and patrilineal, with a vocabulary to match. And the the two Y-HGs that show the best correlation with supposed ancient Indo-Europeans as well as modern-day living Indo-Europeans are R1a and R1b. Typical CHG/Caucasus/South Caspian Y-HGs don’t get a look in. So unless the CHG/Iran_N adopted local EHG stepsons to take over the family business, as it were, then PIE has its origins in R1a/R1b groups on the steppe.
May 10, 2017 at 9:52 AM
Karl_K We are likely facing a huge survivorship-bias when it comes to the deep roots of language families. Probably neither IE nor Uralic is old enough to be the language of the EHG as it is. Comb Ware and Yamnaya separated from the post Ice Age re-population of East Europe by more time than they separated from us. There is no good reason to assume that there was no linguistic diversity in such a huge region after such long time (even assuming that the re-population had only one relatively homogeneous source, and that is already a strong assumption). We do not even know the geographical extent of the „EHG” into the east actually.
May 10, 2017 at 9:52 AM
Farmers were patriarchal, the ORIGIN of elite patriarchal societies came from them, for example Varna man. Who we know definitively was a farmer. Steppe people were hunter gatherers before they had these advanced ideas introduced to them from the south, via EEF or CHG, it doesn’t matter, nothing originated on the Steppe.
May 10, 2017 at 10:32 AM
Dude ManBro said…
@Romulus, it would seem Varna had some steppe ancestry according to the new paper, although it may have been spotty and not homogeneous throughout the population.
„In a few individuals from southeastern Europe, we find evidence of steppe-related ancestry far earlier (defined here as a mixture of EHG and CHG similar to the genetic signature of individuals of the later Yamnaya; Figure 1B,D). One individual (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dates to 4711-4550 BCE, one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dates to 4550-4450 BCE, and a third individual (I1927) from Verteba cave, associated with the Cucuteni-Trypillian complex, dates to 3619-2936 BCE. These findings push back by almost 2000 years the first evidence of steppe ancestry this far West in Europe, demonstrating the resumption of genetic contact between southeastern Europe and the Steppe that also occurred in the Mesolithic.”
May 10, 2017 at 10:37 AM
R1 too? Balkans look like a hotspot of R1 lineages so far. And enough diversity of R1b lineages contrary to Yamnaya
May 10, 2017 at 10:58 AM
this kind of diversity of R1 lineages is only known on the Iranian Plateau, East Anatolia and South_Central Asia. However only with modern samples non ancient unfortunately. More samples would be good. Also nice to see that they stand with the Iran_CHL/Neo ancestry.
May 10, 2017 at 11:05 AM
The authors dismiss the Balkan route for Anatolian languages out of the reasont that even during the Bronze Age Steppe ancestry was very rare and appeared only sporadicly across the Balkans with no connection to a culture. So like a few individuals got „lost” there. However despite this R1 linages all the way to Mesolithic/Paleolithic times. The Balkans are rivaling Mal’ta.
May 10, 2017 at 11:31 AM
Ha, Jesus, no R1b/R1a in GAC, they were pure I2, and neither were they steppe admixed.
May 10, 2017 at 11:36 AM
rch Hades said…
I cant believe these guys didnt sample the Mycenaeans or Minoans. What the hell? Will we ever get them? On another note..The Neolithic Peloponnese looks pretty similar to The Neolithic farmers from Greek Macedonia..only more Southern shifted/slightly less WHG shifted.
May 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM
Roy King said…
Very interesting that the Bronze Age Anatolian from near Isparta has Y-J1a. As mentioned, these samples could be speaking a substrate language to Luwian and later Lycian. There is much J1(xP58) in Western Anatolia in modern populations.
May 10, 2017 at 1:27 PM
@Arza “Ukraine Eneolithic 3500 BCE I4110 from Dereivka looks like a modern Balto-Slav (Figure 1.)”
Ukraine Eneolithic 3500 BCE I4110 from Dereivka looks very interesting. It is a pity we don’t have Y-DNA. It is much later than other Dereivka samples who look like a bunch of HGs. Notice that it is on the line extending from Trypillia to Trypillia outlier: http://s22.postimg.org/inmma7oj5/screenshot_180.png
Maybe this line will lead us to some R1a PIE population from the steppe?
May 10, 2017 at 1:43 PM
Karl_K said… „And some Comb Ware were close to 100% EHG. Very interesting that they were so isolated for so long.” Isolated? From whom or what?
The gothic Pit-ware and the finish Comb-ware were quite closely related already during NME/ENE – as they both related to the Atlantic Pontus at the inning of the Finnish Gulf to the great Volga – creating the major track of travel and trade bewteen Europe and Asia. This was populated and ran by the finns and used by the goths, too – creating the Pit-Com-Ware in the middle of the ancient north.
Which may explain why the first northern farmers could move into the Bay of Riga and the Gulf of Finland – carrying hgs like R1a and U4 – migrating from Sweden and Gotland to Narva and Oleni Ostrov and the lower Volga, Srubnaya and Sinthasta. Making various styles of corded ware as well as pitted and combed ware. Just like their somewhat older Scandiavian and East-European brotherlines.
Thus there’s a clsoe relation between the Scania-Motala-Ajvide population and the „EHG” (I2/I1 – U5b). Reflecting the close connection to the „WHG-motive” made from Motala-Loshbour. Which is why you find „unacounted substructures” in the rundowns using WHG and EHG both.
A similar close relationship is reflected in the „eastern” vs „western” farmers. As the Narva-pottery from Estland, with R1a1a/U4 is reflected in the CWC it’s also reflected in the female part of the Yamna-horizon, otherwise carried by an eastern branch of R1b. Due to the close conection between the R1a and R1b dynasties – that just like todays farmers from Sweden (R1a) and Denmark (R1b) – kept marrying their laborous daugthers to eachothers sons.
Thus we may explain the close mitocondrial connections between the early agriculturalists of Narva/R1a and Yamna/R1b. As well as the close y-connections between the early R1a-farmers of Sweden/Norway, Baltic/Carelia an the Srubnaya, Androvno and Sinthasta.
Thus the heartland of the 8.000 year old Comb-ware-culture were at the very helm of the old highways across Eurasia, untill Mercators time marking the border between ‚Europe’ and ‚Asia’. Not really that isolated, in other words…
May 10, 2017 at 2:48 PM
@Simon, „Ha, Jesus, no R1b/R1a in GAC, they were pure I2, and neither were they steppe admixed.”
That’s a bit curious because it theoretically could mean that the segment of Neolithic BBC/CWC ancestry that can be modeled as GAC/TRB could have happened much further east instead of North-Central Europe as is currently assumed. IOW, the CWC turnover in Northern Europe could have been much more extreme.
May 10, 2017 at 2:57 PM
@ EastPole I’m playing now with DoHA overlay… Trypillia outlier looks like Hungary BA I1504.
What is even better mysterious RISE568 apparently is also on this line. RISE568-like + Ukraine_N-like (Latvia MN?) will give Baltic BA, which fused with maybe again Hungary BA will give a cline from Czechs/Slovaks/UkrWest to Latvians. But how all of this connect to Indo-Iranians? And what about R1a CWC and possibly Yamnaya_Ukraine (totally different cline)? And this is genetics only… now think about languages. The only expected thing here is R1a on its way to Greece.
May 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM
@Arza “But how all of this connect to Indo-Iranians? And what about R1a CWC and possibly Yamnaya_Ukraine (totally different cline)?”
Maybe this: Dereivka +Yamnaya = CWC –> Sintashta/Andronovo –> Indo-Iranians:
May 10, 2017 at 4:25 PM
@Rob „All in all there is no denonstrable „steppe migration” to the Balkans”
Yes, if you consider an early migration around 4000 BC. But the Anatolian languages are only attested after 2000 BC, not before. It is therefore likely (and consistant with History, as related in Assyrian sources) that Anatolian IE speakers were intrusive in Anatolia in the Bronze Age. Hatti were not IE, and Hittites arose to power only around 1600 BC (and very little is know about them before, if any). Divergence between Luwian and Hittite could be anterior to their migration into Anatolia. And frankly, given what we know about Anatolian languages geography arond 1200 BC, they could have come from the East, rather than by the Balkans. The big difficulty is always the same: the IE tree says that Anatolian branch is the first to diverge from the common PIE. So, I think that the only way to know will be to find some Hittite genome, if it could be identified as ethnically Hittite (not so easy, if, as I understand, they assimilated Hatti and others non-IE).
May 10, 2017 at 4:36 PM
Breaking news! Ust’-Ishim doesn’t really belong to Y-HG R1a. There was a mistake in the spreadsheet and it’ll be fixed very soon. Please report all other such errors to the authors via bioRxiv and/or e-mail, and they’ll be corrected ASAP.
May 10, 2017 at 4:54 PM
@ EastPole Hmm, but in CWC Germany we have samples from Beaker-like to almost Yamnaya-like (I1536, I1538). They are apparently blending into local farmers. This would work flawlessly in case of hypothetical CWC Russia, but they were on the „wrong” side in Germany.
May 10, 2017 at 5:07 PM
@ Folker „the IE tree says that Anatolian branch is the first to diverge from the common PIE.”
This tree is obviously wrong as almost everything in the „reconstructions”.
May 10, 2017 at 5:14 PM
Colin Welling „I never liked the patriarchal language argument for genetics. I remember a few years back when you argued that because PIE was patriarchal and because early IE groups were associated with R1a, we therefore wouldnt find any r1b in PIE. Turns out that was wrong.”
It’s a fact that both R1a and b was patrilineal, patrilocal and patriarchic. You can’t be one without being both others. Without any of them you won’t get any linearity at all – which is why it had to exist.
Some millenia ago everybody understood that. Which is why all old laws built on „natural principles” where the first was that ‚right’ was defined by birth – as the first son and daugther would inherrit distinct functions – and thus positions and duties. Depending on the size of the family and their farm the number of siblings would vary. On large and central farms, as a manor or estate, there could be 20-30 sons and daugters required to meet the demands for production, communication and trade. Besides a number of socio-political duties as a part of greater whole, as in a kingdom.
To form a law of the land you need to define HOW the next king is going to be appoingted. Thus it was ONLY the FIRST son of the present king that could get the chrown. Which explains titles like chrownprince. Now from there you can build a Constitution and thus a Constututional Tradition, which by default become a „state of being”. To ensure stability, development and progress one needs a Constitutional Law, engulfing ALL men in the kingdom with rights and plights. Ensuring that only „Right” would give „Might” – rather than the inverse, where one risk ending in lawlessness anytime.
We may like or dislike political systems. But we can’t use myoptic likes and dislikes to analyze motives and reasons behind historical realities.
May 10, 2017 at 5:41 PM
@ Folker Hittites are first attested 2300 BC bud. By the time of attestation of all other Anatolian languages c. mid 2nd millenium, they were so differentiated that they require divergence for at least 2000 years. Coupled with that. The only demographic & settlement shift occurring in Anatolia is c. 4000 BC. You should be aware of these important facts if you want to enter debate, which is why there is little wriggle room. Also, the Bronze Age Anatolians were from western Anatolia. Not many Hurrians or Hatti there I’m afraid
And yes we have steppe individuals in the Balkans too. But they just seem individual migrants and traders; and EHG ancestry existed since the Mesolithic; and Balkans seems one source for the eventual steppe lines. So there is a long history of mutual exchange there. Undoubtedly the classic Kurgan hypothesis is incorrect.
May 10, 2017 at 6:32 PM
John Smith said…
I was wrong about the Trypillian culture having R1b, but I was correct about ancient SE Europeans having R1b and of my SE European/Italy or just (SE European not any new data from Italy) refugium theory that I created due to the presence of R1b in Villabruna.
They had one western Yamna from Bulgaria on the opposite side of the Yamna influence and he had a similar I as the Russian Yamna. You can see how all Corded Ware almost (almost all NOT all) have R1a thousands of miles from each other and how Bell Beakers except those in Iberia have the same type of R1b , with even the Iberian Bell Beakers having 2/7 R1b which is a lot and enough to explain a connection (unless its V88 than that would be a coincidence). The Yamna there is no doubt in my mind had little or no R1a and were dominated by R1b-L23 (Z2105/2103)(and maybe I) and had little or no R1b-L151/P310 these groups tend to have all the same lines and even though more than just one West Yamna will be needing to confirm this hypothesis, I think it is pretty much set in stone from the pattern of everything else. Perhaps the Yamna were the ancestors of Europeans in between (Autosomes) but I seriously doubt the modern R1a and R1b comes from the Yamna. I am starting to sense a Yamnn y-chromosome ancestor confirmation bias. I would love to be a direct male descendant of the Yamna and I really hope there is a new study but it isnt looking good. And BTW if any scientist (I.E David Reich) knows I am wrong please let me know. PS was the other paper the Bell Beaker Behemoth? I thought it would be larger.
May 10, 2017 at 8:13 PM
@Rob „Hittites are first attested 2300 BC bud.”
To my knowledge, it’s Hatti which was attested from 2300BC, not Hittites. The confusion lies in the use of the name Hatti by Hittites, because they took control of the Hatti around 1700/1600 BC. But Hattians were non IE, contrary to the Hittites.
„By the time of attestation of all other Anatolian languages c. mid 2nd millenium, they were so differentiated that they require divergence for at least 2000 years.”
That’s the main difficulty, and I let it to linguists. But differentiation must not to have occured in Anatolia. It could have been the result of common migration of Anatolian IE speakers in Anatolia after 2000BC. We have other examples of the sort, like with Germans in the Roman Empire. So differentiation is not synomim with early arrival.
Hittites, in the Assyrians texts, are seen as an intrusive population, before they took over Hatti. So probably recent in Anatolia.
„Coupled with that. The only demographic & settlement shift occurring in Anatolia is c. 4000 BC.”
No. There are hints of population shift around 2000 BC. For example, there is discontinuity between the last Chalcolithic settlement in Barcin, and the first Hittite settlement (200 years later).
„Also, the Bronze Age Anatolians were from western Anatolia. Not many Hurrians or Hatti there I’m afraid”.
Clear. West Anatolia is known to have been in relation with non-IE cultures, so not the best place to find IE. That’s the problem, even if I don’t understand your reference to Hatti, as they have nothing to do with IE.
„So there is a long history of mutual exchange there. Undoubtedly the classic Kurgan hypothesis is incorrect.”
We are completly agree on that.
May 10, 2017 at 10:41 PM
Ric Hern said…
What is interesting for me is the R1a, R1b and I2a found at Vasil’evka and the then also some 3000 years later we see R1a, R1b and I2a just a little bit North at Derievka. I wonder if this points towards continual contact and interaction between these people for at least 2000 years. Enough time to swap some words….? Did GAC I2a and Corded Ware R1a expand from this area ? Who were the R1bs that expanded from this area ? Derievka is after all within Sredny Stog Cultural area….
May 11, 2017 at 2:02 AM
Not time to look at all yet, but a few things that I didn’t see too explicitly in the comments:
– The Anatolian Bronze Age samples are said to be published in Lazaridis 2017. So that must be an upcoming study with the other Asian samples (Maykop, BMAC, Swat Valley?). These samples have a strong shift towards Iranian ancestry (Supplementary Table 2), which together with what they write in their conclusions does seem to support that they’re moving to a different model with a homeland in Asia. Let’s see.
– Peloponnese Greek samples are interestingly not shifted (compared to Anatolian ones) towards Levant Neolithic, but towards Iran Neolithic too. No idea why (also sup. Table 2).
– Balkans Bronze Age: Yes, some variable steppe admixture, but no R1b and just one R1a outlier.
In the single Iron Age sample, steppe ancestry falls to half, and WHG ancestry to 0.2% (Sup. Table 4).
– From Sup. Table 5, it seems that the autosomes vs. X chromosome estimates using qpAdm don’t really work well, so we can’t get good clues there about the origin of R1b. Strange that with all these samples and the ones from the BB paper the origin of R1b-L23 (and L51) is still unknown. And still no Neolithic Italian samples…
We’ll need more time to look into all of this, but it’s strange that so many samples didn’t bring much more clear answers to many questions. Sampling looks a bit random, probably because of what Nick Patterson explained. I hope that Lazaridis 2017 paper will settle more questions.
May 11, 2017 at 2:29 AM
And these in Anatolia as well Armenia show no sign of EHG admixture.
Bullshit alert. Armenia_Chalcolithic shows about 20% of EHG.
May 11, 2017 at 4:43 AM
1) „To my knowledge, it’s Hatti which was attested from 2300BC, not Hittites. The confusion lies in the use of the name Hatti by Hittites, because they took control of the Hatti around 1700/1600 BC. But Hattians were non IE, contrary to the Hittites.”
Yes but by 2300 BC the land of the Hatti was the Hittites. It had already happened, the strata are quite clear at the site.
2) R: „By the time of attestation of all other Anatolian languages c. mid 2nd millenium, they were so differentiated that they require divergence for at least 2000 years.”
F: „That’s the main difficulty, and I let it to linguists. But differentiation must not to have occured in Anatolia. It could have been the result of common migration of Anatolian IE speakers in Anatolia after 2000BC. We have other examples of the sort, like with Germans in the Roman Empire. So differentiation is not synomim with early arrival. „
Aren’t you a linguist ? 🙂 Hold on, but that’s a bit unlikely, I mean how did it turn out that every one that went out happened to speak Anatolian, but were otherwise already distinct languages. And how is it IE reached NW Europe as a common Italo-Celtic-Ligurian etc clade, one Balto-Slavic, and one or two at best I-A migrations, but 5 for Anatolia ? And didn;t the GErmanic migrations into the ROman Empire result in language loss ?
3) „Hittites, in the Assyrians texts, are seen as an intrusive population, before they took over Hatti. So probably recent in Anatolia.”
Well it actually says that they took over Kanesh specifically. That they took over all of central Anatolia at the same time seems to be your interpolation.
4) „There are hints of population shift around 2000 BC. For example, there is discontinuity between the last Chalcolithic settlement in Barcin, and the first Hittite settlement (200 years later).”
I agree, there are indications of some conflicts and changes at this time also. But I think the major change was in c. 4000 BCs.
5) R: „Also, the Bronze Age Anatolians were from western Anatolia. Not many Hurrians or Hatti there I’m afraid”.
„F: Clear. West Anatolia is known to have been in relation with non-IE cultures'”
Yes i think these were the maritime Aegean cultures which were non-IE, eg Minoans, etc.
I think mainland Anatolia was solidly IE. A lot of the supposedly non-IE substrata in Anatolian has been overestimated. Virtually all their institutions appear to be native Luwian, Hittite, etc.
I suspect whatever is in print with Lazaridis et al. will outline West Asia more clearly, including Majkop perhaps. I think perhaps for now I should try to absorb more of what this means for Europe.
May 11, 2017 at 4:48 AM
Ric Hern said…
@David Are the R1a,R1b and I2a in Vasil’evka and +-2000 years later in Derievka related to each other ? Does this point to Genetic continuity within that area ? If so, could it not point towards the formation of Proto-Indo-European between 7000 and 4000 BCE within that area ?
May 11, 2017 at 5:05 AM
@Rob I’m sorry because you are making a confusion between Hattians and Hittites, for obvious reasons (confusion made in the XIXth century, and because the take-over of Hatti territories by Hittites didn’t change the name of the place, stil designed as the Land of Hatti).
But Hattic, the langue of Hattians, is partially known even if it’s an isolate (as Hurrian), and it is not a IE language (as an example, it was agglutinative, so not fusional as the Hittite/Nesite and the large majority of IE languages). Frankly, there is no doubt about this, and very little that Anatolia was overwhelming Hattian and Hurrian in the late IIId millenium BC.
The relation of the birth of the Hittite kingdom is very interesting, as the known text show a conflict between two branchs of a same royal house, one of them with Hattian names, the other with IE names. During the conflict, Kanesh was destroyed and Hattusa became the capital of the new, unified kingdom (it’s only a resume of the text itself). If you read between the lines, it seems there was a conflict between Hattians (non IE) and Hittites (IE). The Hittites won, and absorbed the Hattians (Hattic became extinct shortly after) and a large part of their culture.
So, it does seem that some IE speakers (of the Anatolian branch)became sufficiently numerous in Kanesh to impose their language to their Hattian king, and finally conquered all the land of Hatti, before conquering nearly all Anatolia, and absorbing the defeated, and imposing their culture (admixed with Hattian culture) and language. The fondation of the Hittite Kingdom is usally dated from the XVIIth or XVIth centurirs BC.
The Kanesh IE pety kingdom could have been relatively small (probably a city-state), and doesn’t need any mass migration. A comparison could also be make with Rome(1000 years later) and its relations to Etruscans (roman royal house was Etruscan, and Romans adopted many cultural customs from them). If you making a confusion between Hattic and Hittite/Nesite, between a non-IE language, and an IE language, how could you try to find a solution to the Anatolian languages?
May 11, 2017 at 6:15 AM
@ Folker „I’m sorry because you are making a confusion between Hattians and Hittites, for obvious reasons (confusion made in the XIXth century, and because the take-over of Hatti territories by Hittites didn’t change the name of the place, stil designed as the Land of Hatti).
But Hattic, the langue of Hattians, is partially known even if it’s an isolate (as Hurrian), and it is not a IE language (as an example, it was agglutinative, so not fusional as the Hittite/Nesite and the large majority of IE languages).”
No, I am not . The „Land of the Hatti” was continued to be used in the Hittite period.
The Hittites arrived c 2300 BC because there are no subsequent destructions. This has been physically explored.
„”But our main focus will be on central Anatolia. Here developed a
number of prosperous settlements, presumably the nuclei of small
kingdoms, in a region extending from just below the southern bend of
the river now known as the Kızıl Irmak (Red River)3 northwards
towards the Pontic zone along the southern shore of the Black Sea.
Prominent amongst these settlements was the site now known as Alaca
Ho¨yu¨k, which lies some 180 kilometres north-east of the modern
Turkish capital Ankara. The settlement which was founded here in the
Late Chalcolithic period reached its peak in the Early Bronze II phase, as
illustrated by its thirteen ‘royal’ shaft graves and their spectacular grave
goods, generally dated to c.2300–2100. But it continued as a flourishing
community to the end of the Late Bronze Age. Its Bronze Age
name is unknown, though Hittite Arinna, city of the Sun-Goddess, is
possibly to be identified with it. Other important settlements were
Hattus, the site of the later Hittite capital Hattusa, Alis¸ar lying 80
kilometres to the south-east of Hattus (and probably the ancient
Ankuwa6), Zalpa, which lay in the Pontic region, and Kanesh.
The last of these, Kanesh, is located in the fertile Kayseri Plain just
south of the southern bend of the Kızıl Irmak river on the site with a
mound now known as Ku¨ltepe. A Chalcolithic site in origin, it has a
history of continuous occupation down to the Roman period. But its
most flourishing phase occurred during the Early and Middle Bronze
And „The name of a king of Kanesh called Zipani figures in a well-known
tradition which deals with a rebellion of seventeen local rulers against
the Akkadian king Naram-Sin (c.2254–2218),”
Your confused interpretation of texts is quite irrelevant.
May 11, 2017 at 6:35 AM
@Rob You do realize that your answers relie on pure hypothesis? And as I said, that Hittites adopted a large part of Hattians culture, so why should they destroy everything? Earlier settlements were not destroyed, so what? Is there a clear connection to Hittites? No? So it proves nothing.
By the way, you are answering to facts (Hattic language, texts of different origins) with mere suppositions. There is simply no proof of presence of IE in Anatolia in the IIId millennium. Deal with it, or find something solid. Saying simply that there is a consensus about something leads nowhere. There was a consensus about Cultural diffusion and Paleolithic continuity some years ago. What happened?
An early divergence of Anatolian languages is likely, but it doesn’t need to have happened in Anatolia. It’s only because Anatolian languages are found in Anatolia around 1300BC that seems logical. But it’s purely conjectural.
May 11, 2017 at 7:45 AM
@Postneo, @Alogo Completely agree. I want to be clear about my position: I am not saying that no IE population existed in Anatolia in the IIId century, or that the split didn’t happen there. But, given that the story of this specific branch is quite different from the other ones, we need to keep our mind open on all possibilities.
By the way, there are some facts:
– Anatolia was not fully Indo Europeanized even in the late IId millenium BC, and some non-IE were prominant in the early IId millenium BC,
– No Steppe admixture has been found in Chalcolithic or EBA Anatolia,
– So far, all IE population tested did have some level of Steppe Admixture,
– an introgression from the East (CHG + Levant_N) seem clear in the IIId millenium BC,
– the IE languages in Anatolian are only attested after a. 2000 BC.
So, from that, the rest is purely conjectural. The only way to find out if the Anatolian branch came from the Steppe is to find samples in a clear IE context. The problem is, Hittites burned their dead, and DNA doesn’t resist fire. So, I think that we must put everything on the table, and test every hypothesis. That’s all.
May 11, 2017 at 9:01 AM
Ric Hern said…
Apparently Yuri Rassamakin suggested that Sredny Stog should be seen as four different Cultures within that area. (R1a, R1b, I2a and later G2a ?) Could this at least partly explain the Uralic, and Kartvelian connection with Indo-European ?
May 11, 2017 at 10:22 PM
I wonder what this all means for R1a..
I2 and R1b seem to have long been existing in a line from the Baltic to the Balkans since the LUP, to-ing and fro-ing through the epochs.
R1a appears in Karelia Mesolithic, then Ukraine „Neolithic”. It is also in a couple of the Meso-Neolithic samples from around Baikal…
Perhaps an Aral-Caspian centre of dispersion?
May 11, 2017 at 11:15 PM
Ric Hern said…
@Rob What about that Mesolithic R1a at Vasil’evka ? Isn’t that older than the Karelia sample ?
May 11, 2017 at 11:49 PM
Ric Hern said…
@Rob Yes and those same tribal types hung around there for at least 3000 years when you compare Vasil’evka and later Derievka.
May 12, 2017 at 12:58 AM
Onur Dinçer said…
From a purely historical perspective, Hattusa was conquered by Hittites even later than Nesa (Kanesh). When Hittites moved their capital from Nesa to Hattusa sometime during the 16th century BC the Hattusa region was still largely Hattic-speaking as evidenced from the abundance of Hattian names and the preservation of Hattian writings from that region in the Hittite records and the ongoing conquest of that region by Hittites even after the city of Hattusa became their capital. Even the name of the city of Hattusa comes from Hattians, natives of the Hattusa region, who were clearly a non-IE-speaking people. Hittites always preserved the memory of coming from Kussara and conquering Nesa and Hattusa later, they did not regard themselves as natives of Nesa or Hattusa.
May 12, 2017 at 9:34 AM