July 15, 2012

Hints of East/Central Asian admixture in Northern Europe

A little more than a year ago, I noticed an interesting pattern in North Europeans: they all tended to be shifted towards East Asians in PCA plots:
With respect to the Asian- and African- shift of West Eurasian populations, I note that northern Europeans (and Basques) are less African-shifted than southern Europeans, and, at the same time they are more Asian-shifted: the 16 least Asian-shifted populations have a coastline in the Mediterranean (excluding the Portuguese), while the 16 least African-shifted populations do not (excluding the French).
The same pattern could also be observed in the arrangement of the ancestral components inferred by the Dodecad Project. The "Atlantic_Baltic" component, which is modal in Northern Europeans, exhibits lowered genetic divergences to the East Eurasian components (Siberian / East_Asian) relative to the "Southern" component which is modal (in Europe) in Southern Europeans.


The fact that Southern European populations were shifted towards the African side relative to Northern European ones across an African-Asian projection, was interpreted by Moorjani et al. (2011) as evidence of African admixture. As I noted at the time, this entailed the assumption that Northern European populations did not have East Asian admixture, which would also produce the observed pattern:
However, this is clearly a case of seeing the glass half full. The authors prefer the hypothesis that some Caucasoid groups have African ancestry, although the hypothesis that other Caucasoid groups have East Asian ancestry can equally well explain the observed pattern. Indeed, both hypotheses may explain the phenomenon they observe.
It now appears that some of the co-authors of the above paper have realised this, and have detected Central/East Asian admixture in northern Europeans. Writing in the supplement of the recent Reich et al. (2012) paper, we read this important aside:
A complication in computing this statistic is that Native American, Siberian, and East Asian  populations are not all equally genetically related to West Eurasian populations, as we can  see empirically from 4 Population Tests of the proposed tree (Yoruba, (French, (East Asian,  Native American))) failing dramatically whether the East Asian population is Han, Chukchi,  Naukan and Koryak. The explanation for this is outside the scope of this study (it has to do  with admixture events in Europe, as we explain in another paper in submission). In practice,  however, it means that we cannot simply use a European population like French to represent  West Eurasians in Equation S3.2, since if we do this, Equation S3.2 may have a non-zero  value for a Native American population, even without recent European admixture.    
To address this complication, we took advantage of the fact that east/central Asian admixture  has affected northern Europeans to a greater extent than Sardinians (in our separate  manuscript in submission, we show that this is a result of the different amounts of central/east  Asian-related gene flow into these groups). To quantify this, we computed the statistic f4(San,  West Eurasian; Pop1, Pop2) for West Eurasian = Sardinian and West Eurasian = French,  and for 24 Siberian and Native American populations (Pop1 and Pop2) (Figure S3.2). Figure  S3.2 shows a scatterplot for all 190=20?19/2 possible pairs of these populations. Within nonArctic Native populations, and within Arctic populations (East Greenland Inuit, Chukchi,  Naukan and Koryak), the statistics are close to zero, consistent with their being (approximate)  clades relative to West Eurasians. In contrast, there are deviations from zero when the comparisons are between non-Arctic Native and Arctic populations, with non-Arctic Native  populations showing consistent evidence of being genetically closer to West Eurasians.   
David Reich has hinted about ancient admixture in Europeans before, and is apparently working on the South Asian admixture event. It would appear that the new works might be using the newer techniques employed in the Reich et al (2012) paper, which allows one to consider multiple admixture events rather than the more simple ones of Reich et al. (2009) and Moorjani et al. (2011) that considered only two ancestral populations.

I will, of course, eagerly wait the publication of the mentioned manuscript, but it appears that this is not the only piece of evidence of gene flow from Central Asia into Europe. In an SMBE 2012 abstract by Palstra et al. we read:
Using an approximate Bayesian framework, we find that present patterns of genetic diversity in Central Asia may be  best explained by a demographic history which combines long-term presence of some ethnic groups (Indo-Iranians)  with a more recent admixed origin of other groups (Turco-Mongols). Interestingly, the results also provide indications  that this region might have genetically influenced Western European populations, rather than vice versa. A further  evaluation in MCMC-based Bayesian analyses of isolation-with-migration models confirms the different times of  establishment of ethnic groups, and suggests gene flow into Central Asia from the east. The results from the  approximate Bayesian and full Bayesian analyses are thus largely congruent. In conclusion, these analyses illustrate  the power of Bayesian inference on genetic data and suggest that the high genetic diversity in Central Asia reflects both  long-term presence and admixture in more recent historical times. 
Neither of these two upcoming pieces of work mention the timing of the Central Asian element in Europe: 

  • One possibility is that the Mesolithic Europeans were Asian-shifted themselves
  • Another one would relate it to the emerging ancient mtDNA picture of deep penetration of Mongoloid elements into west Eurasia at the dawn of history, although the western limit of this penetration has not been conclusively ascertained. 
  • Finally, the elements may be a legacy of the Bronze Age Indo-European invasion of Europe, piggy-backing on the spread of the latter from their eastern homeland

In two of the existing models of how the latter event took place (the Armenian plateau hypothesis of Gamkrlidze and Ivanov and the Bactria Sogdiana hypothesis of Johanna Nichols), the Indo-Europeans followed separate streams from their eastern homeland into Europe, with some groups following a path north of the Black and Caspian seas, while others followed a southern path from Anatolia to the Balkans. The northern dispersal route would have brought them into contact with the mixed Caucasoid/Mongoloid population of West Siberia and Eastern Europe, and they may have carried some of this DNA across their sweep over Northern Europe.


My own working hypothesis would derive the earliest Proto-Indo-Europeans with groups living in Neolithic eastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia. There are details to be fleshed out, such as when this group of people reached the Balkans (pending ancient DNA from the region), and how they interfaced with the populations living in the north of the Black and Caspian seas (e.g., via a trans-Caucasus movement or a counterclockwise spread around the Caspian).

We will know soon enough how and when Northern Europeans ended up with an extra slice of Central/East Asian ancestry. Things are looking good for our understanding of events in Eurasian prehistory.

33 comments:

truth said...

But in your last K10a, the Mediterranean component is both more distant from East-Asian and Sub-saharan than the Northern European is, which is modal in Baltics.

Dienekes said...

Yes, the Mediterranean component is more distant than the East Asian one.

As for the African/Sub-Saharan components, they tend to be closer to the Southwest Asian/Red Sea components, not the Mediterranean/Atlantic_Med one.

The Mediterranean components appear to be the most remote ones overall (also evidenced by the fact that Basques and Sardinians nearly always form the peak in the West/East Eurasian/Afican triangle), which makes sense since the region where the Mediterranean/Atlantic_Med component is modal is most remote from both Africa and Asia along the land migration routes.

jeanlohizun said...

Dienekes said:

One possibility is that the Mesolithic Europeans were Asian-shifted themselves.

The La Braña individuals are also African-shifted relative to modern Europeans, so the correct thing to say would be that the two Mesolithic Europeans thus far analyzed are Asian-shifted and African-shifted relative to modern Europeans. Such assumption, however assumes that the DNA of modern European has been static for the last 7000 years or so, or that has changed mostly due to admixture with some putative human group that would drive them even farther apart from both Africans and East Asians relative to Mesolithic Europeans.

A more logical conclusion remains that modern Europeans have become more differentiated from East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans due to natural selection and to a lesser extent genetic drift. The PCA were done with ~20,000 SNPs and ~50,000 SNP, and I believe the authors checked for LD in windows of 50 kb, so likely this means that neutral alleles closely linked to alleles under selection got thrown out of the analyses along with the allele that were under selection. I think that if they had not excluded those SNPs, the African and Asian shifting would have been even more noticeable. Now, we have yet to get data from Neolithic Anatolians, or folks from the Levant, do you think the folks who lived in those areas around 7000 ybp, who were contemporary with the La Braña individuals, would appear less Asian shifted or African than the Mesolithic Europeans? Because, if this holds true, then one could see how admixture (+subsequent drift and selection) with a population like could create the situation we observe in the global PCA plot with the La Braña individuals and modern Europeans.

Dienekes said...

The La Braña individuals are also African-shifted relative to modern Europeans, so the correct thing to say would be that the two Mesolithic Europeans thus far analyzed are Asian-shifted and African-shifted relative to modern Europeans.

The Asian shift is much stronger. When one projects the individuals on the African-Asian shift they are clearly Asian-shifted relative to modern Europeans.

A more logical conclusion remains that modern Europeans have become more differentiated from East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans due to natural selection and to a lesser extent genetic drift.

Both selection and drift increase genetic distance over time, but they do NOT increase relative genetic distance to outgroups.

If these were the factors at play then modern populations would not be differentially shifted on the African-Asian axis.

Milford E Smiff said...

The problem with eastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia as an IE homeland is that the earliest (~2000 BC) written evidence shows that the area was occupied by non-Indo-European Hurrian speakers. Later on (~1500 BC) during the Mitanni empire Indo-Aryan words, names, gods appear in Hurrian texts. Its thought that the Mitanni elite were outside IA conquerors.

Dienekes said...

The earliest written evidence is 4 millennia after the beginning of the Halafian.

I can name several languages that were suprimposed on former Hurrian territory over the last 4,000 years, so I see no reason to suppose linguistic continuity in the preceding period.

Also, the Hurrians have Anatolians and Iranians on either side; it's more parsimonious that they were the intruders rather than Indo-Europeans converging on their territory from opposite points of the compass.

jeanlohizun said...

Dienekes said:

The Asian shift is much stronger. When one projects the individuals on the African-Asian shift they are clearly Asian-shifted relative to modern Europeans.

I agree with the second part of your statement, however, the Asian shift isn’t any stronger than the African shift, see here:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GPh5_xses4o/T-yfvfiTB4I/AAAAAAAAE7A/BOTvHVxxkPg/s1600/brana_global.png

In fact, why don’t you tells us what the Fst distance of these individuals are relative to East Asians and Africans.

Dienekes said:

Both selection and drift increase genetic distance over time, but they do NOT increase relative genetic distance to outgroups.

Ok, let’s put it this way: East Asians and Europeans are closer to each other than to Africans because it is accepted that they share a more recent common ancestor, hence, they have been drifting from each other for a shorter time. The two Mesolithic Europeans are 7000 years closer to that common ancestor than modern Europeans are, so relative to Africans and Asians that is 7000 years worth of selection and drift that these folks do not have. Also, selection definitely increases genetic distance relative to outgroups, because it pertains to adaptation to new technologies and the local environment, unless we are to believe there hasn’t been any changes in the diet, environment, soil, pathogens, etc in Europe in the last 7000 years, it is very clear that modern Europeans would become more differentiated from outgroups due to this adaptations than Mesolithic Europeans who probably did not have this adaptations.


Dienekes said:
If these were the factors at play then modern populations would not be differentially shifted on the African-Asian axis

Well, those are the only factors at play in modern populations genetics. The only things that drive apart populations is selection and drift, I can’t make any sense of what you are saying. Why on Earth would modern populations be different would it not be due to isolation which greatly contributes to drift, or natural selection as a process of adaption to new environments. Otherwise had it not been for drift and selection we would still be Archaic Homo Sapiens and everyone would look alike be it physically or genetically.

Milford E Smiff said...

Before there were Hittites to the west there were non-IE Hattians. Before there were Persians to the east were Gutians, Kassites and Mannaeans, among other non-IE groups. Historical sources all characterize the Persians as outside invaders from the north.

The early written records show a sea of non-IE in the supposed IE homeland except for one obvious interloper (Hittite). Not too parsimonious.

Dienekes said...

Before there were Hittites to the west there were non-IE Hattians.

I said "Anatolians".
Also, there is absolutely no evidence that Hattians preceded Hittites.

Historical sources all characterize the Persians as outside invaders from the north.

The mythical Aryan homeland was identified with either present-day Azerbaijan or thereabouts or with a land to the east.

The early written records show a sea of non-IE in the supposed IE homeland except for one obvious interloper (Hittite). Not too parsimonious.

Well, the written records show no IE languages north of the Black and Caspian seas during the early period and one intrusive branch (Scythian/Iranian) during the Iron Age.

In the Near East there are several Anatolian languages, Iranian, Indo-Aryan, and Armenian.

Also, as I said in my previous post, there have been several language shifts in the area over the last 4,000 years and I see absolutely no reason to suppose that one of the many languages spoken in the general area 2,000BC represents long-term linguistic continuity.

Dienekes said...

I agree with the second part of your statement, however, the Asian shift isn’t any stronger than the African shift, see here:

Time to renew that eyeglass prescription.

Well, those are the only factors at play in modern populations genetics. The only things that drive apart populations is selection and drift, I can’t make any sense of what you are saying.

Incorrect, it's mostly admixture. Oetzi lived in the Alps and looks like a Sardinian; present-day people in the Alps didn't evolve into their current state, they admixed with people from elsewhere.

Slumbery said...

Dienekes

"Well, the written records show no IE languages north of the Black and Caspian seas during the early period and one intrusive branch (Scythian/Iranian) during the Iron Age."

As far as I know we have like zero written record about the languages that were spoken in the north before the Scythians and even the contemporary (contemporary with Scytian) languages are undocumented in the wider region, so this argument is not as convincing as it could be.

At the other hand Scytians seems to be too late to even matter, the IE must have already reached Central Europe before they even showed up. (So far they are tracked back on their classic place until 900 BC.) So there had to be IE speaking people in the region before them, even according to your theory, since even you say that most of the IE came from the steppe into Europe (according to your map), opinions only differ on what was before that.

jeanlohizun said...

Dienekes said:

Time to renew that eyeglass prescription.

Is that all you got? Pitiful Ad Hominems? How about looking at the Fst distance from the individuals from La Braña and Sub-Saharan Africans and compare that to the Fst distance of La Braña to East Asian.


Dienekes said:

Incorrect, it's mostly admixture. Oetzi lived in the Alps and looks like a Sardinian; present-day people in the Alps didn't evolve into their current state, they admixed with people from elsewhere

Ok, so who exactly did modern Europeans mixed with that was more different from East Asian and Sub-Saharan Africans than Mesolithic Europeans from Iberia? Also, how did the putative group that modern Europeans admixed with become so differentiated from East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans relative to Mesolithic Europeans? Oh yes, natural selection and genetic drift would be the answer to that. As for present people in the Alps, yeah they admixed with people that where more akin to present day Northern Europeans relative to Oetzi, so what?? How does that invalidate my initial statement:

“…correct thing to say would be that the two Mesolithic Europeans thus far analyzed are Asian-shifted and African-shifted relative to modern Europeans. Such assumption, however assumes that the DNA of modern European has been static for the last 7000 years or so, or that has changed mostly due to admixture with some putative human group that would drive them even farther apart from both Africans and East Asians relative to Mesolithic Europeans.

[…]

Now, we have yet to get data from Neolithic Anatolians, or folks from the Levant, do you think the folks who lived in those areas around 7000 ybp, who were contemporary with the La Braña individuals, would appear less Asian shifted or African than the Mesolithic Europeans?

So please, let us not ignore unwanted questions. Again if modern Europeans admixed heavily(As you claim) with West Asian groups post-Neolithic, it is only logical that unless the West Asians were farther away from East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans relative to Mesolithic Europeans, any admixture with West Asians would in fact bring modern Europeans closer to East Asians and SubSaharan Africans relative to Mesolithic Europeans.

Dienekes said...

Is that all you got? Pitiful Ad Hominems? How about looking at the Fst distance from the individuals from La Braña and Sub-Saharan Africans and compare that to the Fst distance of La Braña to East Asian.

No, I won't do your work for you. If you have an argument, make it. The figure you posted as an argument clearly shows much strong Asian- than African-related shift.

Dienekes said...

As far as I know we have like zero written record about the languages that were spoken in the north before the Scythians and even the contemporary (contemporary with Scytian) languages are undocumented in the wider region, so this argument is not as convincing as it could be.

Scythian words are preserved in the literature of literate peoples. There is no good evidence for any presence of a variety of IE speakers in the area like we have in the Balkans and West Asia.

So there had to be IE speaking people in the region before them, even according to your theory, since even you say that most of the IE came from the steppe into Europe (according to your map), opinions only differ on what was before that.

Passing through != originating in

princenuadha said...

@dienekes

So mtdna C, as it would relate to the steppe migration, is no longer an issue for you, right?

The places thought to have a greater IE influence are slightly Asian shifted. Though, I'm still not convinced that mtdna C implies Asian admixture...

Random thought but... I like the site's art!

Dienekes said...

So mtdna C, as it would relate to the steppe migration, is no longer an issue for you, right?

Certainly, sites are proliferating with a mixed population, and the pattern of how and when unmixed Caucasoids entered the eastern European plain is becoming better defined.

If the East Asian admixture in northern Europeans ends up being recent rather than Mesolithic, then the migration of Indo-European speaking groups through the region of Mongoloid-Caucasoid admixture may be one possible agent for this tranmission.

The excess of East Asian in Northern Europeans relative to South Europeans is, according to all indications, no more than a few percent. One can easily imagine that as the Indo-European speaking groups moved into eastern Europe they might have picked up a dose of the mixed Northern Europeoid-Mongoloid Neolithic population and carried it into Europe.

Slumbery said...

"Scythian words are preserved in the literature of literate peoples. There is no good evidence for any presence of a variety of IE speakers in the area like we have in the Balkans and West Asia."

My point is that there is no good evidence of the presence of non-IE speakers either. Lack of evidence != evidence of lack. If there is no data about the languages (any languages) spoken in the region in the critical time (II. Millennia BC) at all (and only scarce info from later times), then how can you say with confidence that there were no IE languages spoken?

"Passing through != originating in"

Granted, but don't you think it is unlikely that they all just passed through and none of them remained there?

I frankly do not know where was IE originating in, but
1. it is unlikely that they just passed through and nobody settled down here, so there had to be IE speakers before the Scytians (which does not mean they developed here).
2. the fact that Scytian the only documented IE language in the region is barely has any relevant meaning, since the pre-dating languages are not documented at all.

So the lack of documented IE language from the region in II. millennia BC does not prove or disprove anything. It just a general lack of information.

Dienekes said...

My point is that there is no good evidence of the presence of non-IE speakers either. Lack of evidence != evidence of lack. If there is no data about the languages (any languages) spoken in the region in the critical time (II. Millennia BC) at all (and only scarce info from later times), then how can you say with confidence that there were no IE languages spoken?

I didn't say that there were no IE languages spoken, I said that there's no evidence for them.

People have argued for them (e.g., Grigoriev who labels Sintashta Indo-Iranian and derives it from the Syro-Anatolian IE homeland).

There is certainly some evidence for intrusive elements in the steppe, such as the group IV mentioned by Lillie et al. who had a sharp horizontal profile, or the Mediterraneans described by Telegin (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/04/anthropology-of-sredny-stog-and.html). So, pre-Scythian Indo-Europeans arriving on the steppe is quite possible, albeit speculative due to the lack of written records.

Average Joe said...

Didn't Spenser Wells and his colleagues say that R1a1 and R1b came from Central Asia? Maybe this new evidence is just proof that Wells was right all along.

Slumbery said...

Dienekes

I widened my argument on your earlier posts as I remember them. As I understand you use the lack of IE data on the steppe as an argument against the possibility of the IE originating from the steppe. However the contemporary steppe is very poorly documented, because it was too far from the literate high cultures (unlike the Levant and later the Balkan), so this argument is weak. Based on the currently existing language data we can't say for sure that the source of IE is not the steppe. Of course it just as well does not prove that IE was originated from the steppe. I'd say that, seeing that the documentation of early IE languages mainly depends on their distance from the literate cultures, these language information are indifferent for the question for now. (At our current level of knowledge. I do not say that these language data are generally/necessarily indifferent of course, more information can change that.)

I am sorry if I sound a bit negative. Good night! :)

Lank said...

I think you're wrong to presume that this East Asian element is limited to Northern Europeans. That's not what the authors wrote; only that Northern Europeans were affected to a greater extent than Southern Europeans (Sardinians). Probably due to the survival of some older European element, as you suggested.

This element was probably prevalent in Southern Europe as well (see the La Braña individuals), it's just weaker there today than in Northern Europe. Now, aside from this, there is obviously later East Eurasian admixture which only affected Northern/Eastern Europeans, e.g. during the arrival of Finno-Ugrics.

Incidentally, I've seen ADMIXTURE runs where, prior to the distinction between Middle Easterners and Europeans, the West Eurasian component peaks in some isolated Arabians (excluding some East African admixture), whereas Europeans and West Asians have clearly detectable levels of East Eurasian ancestry. You might find similar results if you look at lower K values.

It also seems that the West Eurasian admixture in East Africa is from a population which wasn't as Asian-shifted as most modern West Eurasian groups.

terryt said...

"Incorrect, it's mostly admixture".

I agree. In fact I'd go so far as to say admixture is the main driver of evolution. Isolated groups undergo selection and drift and any new advantageous mutations (or technology, or culture) spread from there by admixture. This process conforms to both evolutionary theories: gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.

"I'm still not convinced that mtdna C implies Asian admixture..."

Doesn't it have to be? C is very widespread in East and Northeast Asia, and probably originated there. C even reached America. Y-DNA N is also evidence of an eastern element in northern Europe. But N is very unlikely to be associated with IE.

"However the contemporary steppe is very poorly documented, because it was too far from the literate high cultures"

And quite likely to have been unoccupied at times as periodic aridity forced people out to the margins. Consequently it is very unlikely that any 'original' steppe dwellers remain there.

Milford E Smiff said...

I said "Anatolians".
Also, there is absolutely no evidence that Hattians preceded Hittites.


There is a wealth of evidence, archaeological and historical, that before the arrival of the Hittites into central Anatolia there was a group of people calling themselves Hatti living there. Central Anatolia was called Hatti from the beginning of ancient records. The only surviving fragments of Hattic are religious texts found in Hittite archives that are referred to as being written in Hatti by Hittite scribes (they called their own language Nesili). And since the Hittites and surround powers referred to their land as Hatti...

The mythical Aryan homeland was identified with either present-day Azerbaijan or thereabouts or with a land to the east.

Whose mythical Aryan homeland? There are about a hundred, include the ones we are debating about here.

Well, the written records show no IE languages north of the Black and Caspian seas during the early period and one intrusive branch (Scythian/Iranian) during the Iron Age.

There are ZERO recorded languages from that area. That means everyone was there was a mute!!!

In the Near East there are several Anatolian languages, Iranian, Indo-Aryan, and Armenian.

so, as I said in my previous post, there have been several language shifts in the area over the last 4,000 years and I see absolutely no reason to suppose that one of the many languages spoken in the general area 2,000BC represents long-term linguistic continuity.


Anatolian, Iranian, Indo-Aryan can be shown as intrusive, and the first evidence for Armenians comes so late it doesn't matter.

With linguistics, you're stuck with the written evidence you have. You can try and fill in the gaps with archeology and genetics, but there is a limit to what that can do before its pure speculation. The incomplete snapshot of the near east that written records provide in 2000-1000 BC indicate that the region was simply not a source of IE languages. If in 6,000 BC there was some ancient ur-IE speakers in eastern Anatolia, fine, but without written evidence its irrelevant. The effective homeland for IE lies elsewhere in some "Homeland B".

libya said...

@Milford E Smiff

Au contraire mon ami, there was a sea of highly divergent IE languages interlopped (Milian, Psidian, Pamphylian, Sidetic, Lutescan, Luwian, Late Luwian, Early Hittite, late Hittite, Palaic, Lycian, Lydian...) by clearly intruder (because consisting of single languages lacking internal diversity) Caucasic languages (Hattian and Hurrian)

Dienekes said...

Whose mythical Aryan homeland? There are about a hundred, include the ones we are debating about here.

Care to back up your statement about "historical sources" deriving the Persians from the north?

I didn't think so.

Anatolian, Iranian, Indo-Aryan can be shown as intrusive, and the first evidence for Armenians comes so late it doesn't matter.


"Can be shown" is a coward's way of speaking: go ahead and show it.

And since the Hittites and surround powers referred to their land as Hatti...

Lol, and the medieval Greeks called much of the same land Romania, I guess the Romans preceded them in Anatolia too.

The incomplete snapshot of the near east that written records provide in 2000-1000 BC indicate that the region was simply not a source of IE languages.

Ok, the fact that you have several written Indo-European languages as soon as writing reaches the region proves that it wasn't a source of IE languages.

I think you're wrong to presume that this East Asian element is limited to Northern Europeans.

I don't presume such a thing. The relative level is the interesting point.

Michael Russell said...

What is the source of the graphic at the bottom on the right of the two images, in your post, please? Is it your own image, Dienekes, or someone else's?

Dax said...

Did you not propose before that Iranians came from Central Asia around BMCA? Due to the high South/Central Asian mixture among west iranians that is low among neighbouring populations in the ME?.

Justin said...

"And since the Hittites and surround powers referred to their land as Hatti...

Lol, and the medieval Greeks called much of the same land Romania, I guess the Romans preceded them in Anatolia too."


"At present the oldest known name for the Anatolian peninsula is the "Land of the Hatti". First mention in the Mesopotamian written sources from the period of the Akkad dynasty (2350 - 2150 BC), the term continued in use until about 630 BC, as is seen in the Assyrian chronicles. Thus for 1500 years Anatolia was know as the land of the Hatti. This name was so firmly established that even the Indo-European tribes that began to invade Anatolia from abou 2200 BC on used the term Land of Hatti when referencing to their own country.

...the Indo-European people referred to themselves as Nesians, speaking Nesian. The fact remains that these Indo-Europeans who called themselves Nesians were confined to a group living in central Anatolia. Those Indo-Europeans who lived in other parts of the country were know as Luwians or Palaians.
p4

But the people over whom they ruled were for the most part the Hattians in central Anatolia and, in eastern and southeastern Anatolia, the Hurrians.
It is a fact that the Hittites, because of their policy of coexistence with the natives, not only used the old names of cities without any change but also themselves took Hattian or Hurrian names, sothat in many cases we are unable to establish which principality is truly Hattian or Hurrian or Hittite.
p37

As to the Hittites, these and several other Indo-European tribes accompanying them ... descended from the east through the Caucassus and after first staying for a long period in south-eastern Anatolia, began to take their places in central Anatolia. The Mitannians, who invaded the country of the Hurrians towards the middle of the second millennium, were also an Indo-European tribe that settled in Anatolia in the course of these attacks.

When we consider as a group the small kingdoms of Anatolia ... we shall see that in the period between 2000 and 1600 BC, besides the native lords like the Hattians and Hurrians there are also kinglets of Indo-European origin. Thus it is understood that Anatolia was not taken over by the Indo-European migrants with a sudden attack but rather through a prolonged process of infiltration.
p34"

The Hattian and Hittite Civilizations, Ekrem Akurgal, 2001

Dienekes said...

What is the source of the graphic at the bottom on the right of the two images, in your post, please? Is it your own image, Dienekes, or someone else's?

I believe it's from a National Geographic article on the G&I theory from the early 1990s.

Did you not propose before that Iranians came from Central Asia around BMCA? Due to the high South/Central Asian mixture among west iranians that is low among neighbouring populations in the ME?.

Yes, the agricultural populations of the BMAC trace their origin to Near Eastern agriculturalists and the Indo-Iranian language most likely formed in that territory and spread north west and south from it.

Ponto said...

Languages and haplogroups are side issues. I doubt any language family is more than 10,000 years old, so, not terribly relevant to the ancient origins of Europeans which including the Neanderthal humans goes back hundreds of thousands of years. Haplogroups can change quickly, as shown in the New World, Australia and New Zealand. A large group of Australian Aborigines, New Zealand Maoris and Morioris, New World Amerindians and African Americans, Greenland Inuits have what are now European haplogroups.

The real issue is who have the most pre Neolithic, Mesolithic European ancestry amongst the Europeans. It seems Northern European have placed that ticket on themselves based on some poor ancient dna results of some not so ancient Swedes and Iberians. Oetzi was a disappointment to them due to his haplogroups and dna results which were more numerous and better quality than those of his near contemporaries in Sweden or Iberia. It is just as likely those Neolithic age hunter/gatherers were themselves recent immigrants, but we won't know until older remains are dna assayed.

You need to forget your preconceived ideas, drop the reliance on languages and haplogroups which can vary greatly over time and concentrate on getting more ancient samples tested not just in Europe but nearby in the Caucasus, Siberia, the Near East and North Africa. Then we will know.

Solis said...

The bottom-right image is from an article from the Scientific American of March 1990 by Thomas Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov.

http://www.science.org.ge/Documents/Jounal-2.pdf

wagg said...

Dienekes: "the agricultural populations of the BMAC trace their origin to Near Eastern agriculturalists"

Do you have a source for this? I remember reading that agriculture there, was a local process (the general region - west/north-west of south Asia).

I have no problems with the fact that it is the result of the arrival of some near east population, but in this case it should be quite old (if it's local) and it doesn't fit well with the Indo-iranian branch - apparently not old enough (anyway I don't think it fits well with the ancient Indo-iranian vocabulary and culture (rg-veda, avesta) that rather point to a pastoralist populations not living in cities).

"The mythical Aryan homeland was identified with either present-day Azerbaijan or thereabouts or with a land to the east"

Azerbaijan? I didn't rememeber this one. It's not the most well-known.
The "mythical Aryan homeland" has been identified with a zillion different places anyway.

Jim said...

"Lol, and the medieval Greeks called much of the same land Romania, I guess the Romans preceded them in Anatolia too."

In a way, yes, since they were calling themselves Roman for a while.

"Well, the written records show no IE languages north of the Black and Caspian seas during the early period and one intrusive branch (Scythian/Iranian) during the Iron Age."

The speakers of Balto-Slavic had to be somewhere up there, records or not, unless they were planted at some point by ancient aliens.