tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post8888956728848900242..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Genome-wide structure of Jews (Behar et al. 2010)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-44430635754227823382013-08-29T21:24:10.260+03:002013-08-29T21:24:10.260+03:00onur observed "It is noteworthy that Karaite ...onur observed "It is noteworthy that Karaite Jews are again (as in Atzmon et al.'s study) missing from this study [Behar et al. 2010, "Genome-wide structure of Jews"]." Here is a remedy to that:<br /><br />Karaite Jewish Ancestry Explored in DNA Study<br /><br />On August 28, 2013, Khazaria.com released phase 2 of the results of a genetic study titled "The Genetic Signatures of East European Karaites" at http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/karaites.html Phase 1, which had been less comprehensive, at lower test resolutions, and without maternal lineage testing, had been published in the second edition of Kevin Alan Brook's book "The Jews of Khazaria" in September 2006. This is the first genetic study of people who practice the Karaite form of Judaism. Previous studies had included Rabbinical Jewish populations and the Samaritans. The results of this new study complete the picture of the ancestry of the worldwide diaspora of the people of Israel.<br /><br />Key findings:<br /><br />1. The East European Karaite have dominant Middle Eastern (Southwest Asian) elements and frequently match Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Egyptian Karaites, and non-Jewish peoples of Southwest Asia (the Middle East) and the Caucasus (especially the South Caucasus). They also sometimes matched Europeans.<br /><br />2. Karaite Cohens are sometimes related to Ashkenazi Cohens.<br /><br />3. The presence of the Y-DNA haplogroup Q1b1a (Q-L245) in Ashkenazi and Karaite samples is not indicative of Khazar ancestry but rather of Southwest Asian ancestry.<br /><br />The analytical portion of the article reaches this conclusion:<br /><br />"Overall, East European Karaites are largely a Middle Eastern people descended from the Israelites, but like other Jewish populations they are a mosaic - the descendants of several ethnic groups that joined this specific stream of Judaism during different periods. Aside from their Israelite component, our DNA study has led us to conclude that they also descend in part from ethnic groups that lived in the Byzantine Empire and in Asia. They may have small amounts of Western European and Caucasus region ancestries (the Byzantine Empire at times included portions of those regions)."<br /><br />The researchers provide each tested Karaite's Y-DNA and/or mtDNA haplogroup names, the HVR1 and HVR2 mutation values for their mtDNA, and details about their matching individuals including how closely they match and, in some cases, data related to how recently their most recent common ancestor lived. The names and original kit numbers of the tested Karaites are kept confidential.Kevin Brookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601049479265020477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-23326669804010599962012-04-04T05:11:46.963+03:002012-04-04T05:11:46.963+03:00As far as I know the ancient Israelites were thems...As far as I know the ancient Israelites were themselves a mosaic of distinct groups that settled in (or collonized) the Levant, namely Judaens, Amonites, Moabites, Philistines, Edomites, Midianites, Nabateans, Jebusites, Hittites, Arameans, Hurrians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Macedonians and Romans. <br /><br />We know Philistines (who were absorbed by the Israelites after being brutally defeated by the Persians)were orignal from Southern Europe, which partially explains the connection to Cypriotes and other Southern Europeans <br /><br />Hurrians on the other hand were original from the Caucasus region and (according to the Tikunani Prism) were highly linked to the semi nomadic warriors known as Habiru. Most of the names found in it are Hurrian. A few others are Kassite and Babylonian. <br /><br />These Habiru are described by Egyptian sources as rebels of Canaan and allies of the Hittites, a people of Anatolian/Caucasian origins that conquered and dominated a large portion of the Levant for centuries. This conflict between them and the Egyptians may very well be the source of the inspiration for the Exodus narrative found in the Torah. <br /><br />Having that said, it seems ancient Israelites had already some degree of North African, Northern Arabian, Mesopotamian, Anatolian, Caucasian origins before they began settling in Southern Europe.<br /><br />Many Israelites were traders and as a result of several periods of violence and poverty, it's only natural that part of them began migrating to more prosperous or peaceful areas such as Rome or Southern Arabia. Others, though, were deported to other neighbouring regions during the Assyrian and Babylonian occupation periods, where they intermmaried with local populations. <br /><br />Admixture with other populations was in fact quiet frequent during certain periods of Israelite History. Seems like a natural strategy to make Israelite communities flourish outside Israel. It could also be a sign of how small they were in the beggining.<br /><br />By comparing Mitchondrial DNA and Y-DNA analysis, it seems there was a shortage of Israelite females in Europe and certain areas of North Africa and the Middle East where Israelite communities had been established, hence it was only normal Israelite males would seek foreign women to build families. <br /><br /><br />Ashkenazim are perhaps the most notable example in the sense. They're a mosaic of ancient Israelites and Southern Europeans with some infusion as well from Central and Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. <br /><br />The so called Palestinians of Israel on the other hand are descendants of ancient Israelites who were gradually converted to Christianism and Islam during the Roman, Arabian and Ottoman occupation periods and also migrants (mostly of Egyptian, Arabian, Babylonian and Assyrian origins) that kept settling in Eretz Israel.<br /><br />For the next studies I believe it would be very interesting to see a detailed comparison between these "Palestinians", Samaritans and also Jews from Portugal, Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran, along with non Jews from these same countries just to figure out better how related they really are. A distinction in the samples used between between "Palestinians" of Gaza, West Bank and Jordan would be nice as well.Shimon Abekassishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10282524813889810278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-27107509783694220912010-09-03T07:29:36.107+03:002010-09-03T07:29:36.107+03:00Ethiopian and Ashkenazim are both true jews in my ...Ethiopian and Ashkenazim are both true jews in my hypothesis, the "L2" mtDNA marker is present in the two populations also the derived and sibling mtDNA Hg "M" and "N", as well as the Y markers Hg E3b and 4s too, all of this from East Africa and so. They belong respectively at one of the three nucleous or center jewish ancient populations, that evolving the called "Syrian-European nucleous"(helenistic and Roman times).<br />The oldest center -Ethiopians belong these- were that developed in Napata and Elephantine (Kush) and whose nucleous or center was after Alexandria, and I called "Coptic Nucleous" derived in two bias, and split forwards the North via Europe -intermixed with the Syrian Europe nucleous- or the South, via Nile and the Horn Of Africa.<br />The "Babilonian and Persian nucleous" is other of the above three mentioned centers and included Bukara, Iranian and Iraki mainly. <br />All of this Nucleous take Judaea and Israel like a axis and pendulo.<br /> Another fourth Nucleous or center I call "East Europe" -not mainly conected with ME-, is not ancient like the three others and was the Jewish Khazar Empire stiring into Askenazy current population and others. All of this events were naturaly intrajewish asimilations in all jews current populations. <br /> The Ashkenazim hyperhaploydia is explained by the superposition and overlay of diverse fount or source population , that are all of this of Jewish origin (that consider converted into intraJewish assimilations) , one coming from the “Syrian European nucleous” – that Sephardic as well as preAshenazim bring inside -. The other convergence were the “Coptic Jewish nucleous”, coming from Alexandria, the main and largest Judaic center in ancient times – the buried and graves in Jewish graveyards and catacombs of Tuscan, and Alsace as too Rhineland cities take a lot of Egyptian ornaments and display figures from these, as well as Y and mtDNA markers - . The great Jews migration from Egypt beginning after the Muslim invaders from Arabia in the VII AE century. The “Babylonian and Persian nucleous” take place and contacts newly with and when the “preAshenazim second fase” were migrating to the East Europe. A remarkable contact was with the fourth “East Europe Jews nucleous”-not related or little related with ME-, with the descendant of the Jews Khazarians ones, spreading every where and carrying a lot of East Europe and Eurasian markers. That happen between the XI and XII century AE. <br />The Tuscan host populations come from Anatolia like infers mtDNA markers, and others, yet present today – a thread Etruscan link - and are so common in South East Basin like Albanian, Grecian, Tunisian and Anatolian , as well as the entirely Italy and some South France spots, practical absent in central or North Europa or East Asia. If we compare Ashkenazy jews with this South European Tuscan population will see a more European genes pool coming from Europe than if we compare with Central and North European population. <br /><br /><br />Dr Hector H. Otero C.<br />Argentina.<br /><br />See too:<br />http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100603/full/news.2010.277.html<br />See, Comment 11149 and 12952 with table 1 -partial-, remember that the sibling Hg "M" and "N" -from "L3"- too correspond to East African origin, and are not included at all-see complete table 1, in reference-.horaciohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177107320272273468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43525038602522005562010-06-21T13:08:24.657+03:002010-06-21T13:08:24.657+03:00Eurologist: I'd say that the European blue com...Eurologist: I'd say that the European blue components correspond grosso modo with the components at K=2 in other studies. The depth of the analysis here is not enough to show anything else and we do know that the vast majority of West and North European ancestry does not belong to them but to distinctive regional clusters (see Behar 2007 specially). <br /><br />So the dark blue component it's most likely to represent the blue component in Behar 2007 and the PC2 of Cavalli Sforza's 1996-97 materials, strongest in NE Europe, specially among Finnic peoples. It always shows up as very strong when Europe is considered as a whole, along with an Aegean component but, when we dig further, both become minoritary in the West. The counterpoint is that there is not one single Western component but probably three, representing three different populations, which IMO should have (Epi-)Paleolithic roots.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21050620455921057712010-06-21T06:11:52.149+03:002010-06-21T06:11:52.149+03:00Someone else has come up with the same map as I di...Someone else has come up with the same map as I did, only it's in pretty colours, so it's easier to understand: <br /><br />http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/evolve4/ch/15/15_1.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/evolve4/ch/15/welcome.shtml&usg=__u7tS_YhyRNt0Qrcq7IKmjYzWi8g=&h=165&w=300&sz=7&hl=en&start=42&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=iyWO6IJO7l1o3M:&tbnh=64&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3D1st%2Bprincipal%2Bcomponent%2Bthe%2Bworld%2Bcavalli-sforza%26start%3D36%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26ndsp%3D18%26tbs%3Disch:1terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45485275730546320652010-06-20T15:07:32.989+03:002010-06-20T15:07:32.989+03:00Europe is expected to have its own cluster - and i...<i>Europe is expected to have its own cluster - and it has. There is nothing neolithic about it. At most 15% to 30% of central to northern Europe are neolithic (depending on region), and this study confirms that.</i><br /><br />Your opinion is worthless if it is not backed up by evidence, and there is no reason to place the origin of the blue cluster at any particular time period, and certainly not to the Paleolithic.<br /><br />In fact, if we look at <a href="http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/04/tishkoff-et-al-on-genetic-structure-of.html" rel="nofollow">Africa</a> many of the discovered clusters have strong linguistic associations, thus making them ineligible for a Paleolithic origin, as there is an <a href="http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/04/shape-and-tempo-of-language-evolution.html" rel="nofollow">upper limit</a> to inference on language relationships. The same is true for <a href="http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/12/mapping-human-genetic-diversity-in-asia.html" rel="nofollow">Asia</a>. <br /><br />In short there is no reason to ascribe the dark blue cluster to Paleolithic Europeans, and I will not repeat the arguments why that is unlikely to be the case.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36613083700822606432010-06-20T13:51:22.296+03:002010-06-20T13:51:22.296+03:00The dark blue cluster doesn't show any particu...<i>The dark blue cluster doesn't show any particular connection to the farmers that replaced all of Europe. Anatolia has a sizeable minority amount similar to other regions directly contacting Europe. And further south, in the Levant, the dark blue diminishes to virtual inexistence. It looks like the direction of flow of the dark blue cluster is from Europe towards the Middle East. The only way this can be reconciled in favor of the farmer replacement theory is to assume that the cluster didn't exist in either the paleolithic Europeans or the farmers, and it came into existence after this supposed event.</i><br /><br />I agree with you.<br /><br />Europe is expected to have its own cluster - and it has. There is nothing neolithic about it. At most 15% to 30% of central to northern Europe are neolithic (depending on region), and this study confirms that.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43651214453105179382010-06-20T13:08:39.490+03:002010-06-20T13:08:39.490+03:00"In fact Cavalli-Sforza's map of the firs..."In fact Cavalli-Sforza's map of the first principal component for the world shows something very much along the lines of Dienekes' comment". <br /><br />I still can't find Cavalli-Sforza's map, but some may find my version of it interesting. It's near the beginning of this article: <br /><br />http://humanevolutionontrial.blogspot.com/2009/06/human-evolution-on-trial-into-australia.htmlterrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19006493393551370812010-06-17T08:02:12.585+03:002010-06-17T08:02:12.585+03:00"According to your 'logic' the greate..."According to your 'logic' the greatest differentiation is between Afro-Europeans and East Asians who split off first, while we know that it is between Africans and Eurasians". <br /><br />This apparently preposterous suggestion may well be the case. <br /><br />"It's odd but it's not the first time that such genetic-statistical data has produced West Eurasian-African affinity results. I recall that in 1996, Cavalli-Sforza already suggested that West Eurasians had some African admixture". <br /><br />In fact Cavalli-Sforza's map of the first principal component for the world shows something very much along the lines of Dienekes' comment. The modern population through Central Asia appears to be basically a hybrid between his two genetic poles. I can't find the map on the Net but it's in his book "History and Geography of Human Genes". <br /><br />The pattern of separation Dienekes is so incredulous about is easily explained if it can be shown there was no single OoA. Perhaps there were two, at least? What does the evidence say? <br /><br />Many claim a distinction between eastern and western haplogroups within Eurasia. And arguments continue as to whether the OoA occurred as recently as 40-50 K, or way back before Toba, at least 60-70 K, or even older. And some claim mtDNA haplogroups M and N represent separate movements from Africa. <br /><br />Maju, for one, is is certain that humans rapidly separated into Indian and African versions. And this eastern version moved rapidly into SE Asia, and then into Australia. He also claims that another expansion from India moved to the northwest, and then into Europe. Recent research shows that elements of this expansion did actually move back into Northeast Africa. Perhaps by then the northern population had become a hybrid between the eastern group and a second OoA. This would certainly accomodate the possible 'greatest differentiation is between Afro-Europeans and East Asians who split off first'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84744862379921099862010-06-17T00:17:39.977+03:002010-06-17T00:17:39.977+03:00Irrelevant comments should no longer be posted on ...Irrelevant comments should no longer be posted on this thread.Dienekes Pontikoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01341303424873475334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-77785231352701522262010-06-16T18:47:05.437+03:002010-06-16T18:47:05.437+03:00For the Mitanni the authors explain how the Mitann...For the Mitanni the authors explain how the Mitanni is a distinct(from earlies iranic and eraliest indic)and how it has some very archaic features.<br /><br />For the diffusal of ie languages and the kurgan.<br /><br />"the movement of ancient indoeuropean tribes to the west northwest and southwest which had begun in the midthird millenium bc became especialy intensive toward the end of the third millennium bc this is the date to be assigned to the corded Ware and battle axe cultures in europe"<br /><br />"we can also trace the trajectory of horsdrawn carts from their point of origin in the near east eastward to centralasia and farther to the northeast using the petroglyphic depictions of such carts and horses"<br /><br />"the sintashta burial ground southeast of urals in the village rymninskij is associated with ancient indoeuropans based on presently available archeological data a cultural connection can be assumed between northern iran and the central asian area to the caspian sea and beyond to the west"<br /> <br />"certain detals of ritual like the<br />rows of bulls heads bear a striking analogy not to iranian materials but to the near east beginning with çatal höyük"<br /><br />"the spatial and temporal correlation of the secondary indoropean homeland with the kurgan culture of the ural volga steppes in the third milennium bc<br />the secondary homeland was settled in the third millennium bc not only by the ancient european tribes as a dialect grouping but also by aryans and possibly other indoeuropan tribes this region at this time is the area of what<br />is known as the kurgan culture (also pit grave culture russian drvnejmnaja culture)this culture was spread from the northern black sea area to the volga steppe and the aral sea"<br /> <br />"the features of the culture reconstructed from material remains are compatible with the culture reconstructed for indoeuropean on linguistic evidence<br />the kurgan culture of the third milennium bc is characterized by the presence of stockbreeding and agriculture wheeled carriages use of the domestic horse as a draft animal developed copper and then bronze metalurgy and construction of fortresses in high places<br />also characteristic of the culture<br />are the distinction of social classes the presence of tribal leaders and a special<br />class of warriors a significant number of religious symbols(solar chariot and others)and burial with cremation in a few instances"<br /><br />"a crucial factor in light of the interpretation we propose for the kurgan culture is the fact that it shows connections with the near eastern world"ashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590059778590185827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83348924545908939372010-06-16T15:04:07.963+03:002010-06-16T15:04:07.963+03:00@ Ashraf :
"The most important proof agains...@ Ashraf : <br /><br /><i>"The most important proof against(aside from the demographic problem)an Ukrainian steppe for proto indo-european is the words for flaura, fauna, myths and tools in proto indo-european."</i><br /><br />I disagree. Like many peoples I think they all work well with the north of the black sea. <br /><br /><i>"The word for "plow" in proto indo-european is "harthro"(nearly identical to the Arabianic one)and there was not agriculture that time in Ukrainian steppes." </i><br /><br />There was agriculture in the north of the black sea in the concerned timeframe and it didn't originate there, so loanwoards are to be expected. <br /><br />about Wheel and reudh roots : It could have been borrowed. Noone is claiming that it originated north of the black sea. I was using it as a timeframe marker. <br /><br /><i>"if I remember well first wheels and chariots were found in Sumerian sites and horses were present in western Asia"</i><br /><br />Apparently both allegations are wrong. Concerning the wheel I already provided some infos the last time, one or two months ago. <br />some infos concerning the horse domestication : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse (sources at the end)<br /><br /><i>"Here "cognates with pie "ekwo" (horse):<br />Hurrian essi,Akkadian sisu,Ugaritic ssw,Aramean susya,Hebrew sus,Egyptian ssmt, Abkhaz acy,Avar cu,Georgian acu,Akhvakh icwa" "</i><br /><br />That's perfectly logic. If it was brought "late" (that is bronze age) from the steppes, the IE word had to pervade all these languages. <br />Given the geographic origin of the horse, that's more a proof of IE transmission than anything else. <br /><br /><i>"For the Kurgans, if I remember well in Gamkrelidze's book it's said that they came from western Asia/Anatolia"</i><br /><br />You must be kidding me. There are a few Kurgans in the north-east of Anatolia IIRC, but they are more recent than the oldest ones found north of the black sea. Archeology shows they spread from the north to the black sea to east of Europe and Asia. Think of Merheleva Ridge in east Ukraine that is 4,000 BC, for instance. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergeleva_Ridge ) <br /><br />PS : since i believe we are off-topic and that it's obvious we won't agree, I probably won't reply the next one (don't take it personnally) unless there is something that I consider really important to be adressed, in which case I will.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62925214996314682232010-06-16T15:00:45.844+03:002010-06-16T15:00:45.844+03:00@ Ashraf :
"Iranic should be older than Ind...@ Ashraf : <br /><br /><i>"Iranic should be older than Indic because it's by far more diverse." </i><br /><br />It doesn't mean a thing and the earliest written tracks (rigvedic sanskrit) are Indic anyway (or close : Mitanni). Many specialists consider Indic closer to proto-indo-iranian, if I'm not mistaken. At worst, it's not possible to know it, so let's stick with what we actually know. <br /><br /><i>"the pie word for "copper/bronze/iron" is "haye/os", in the book it's written that the earliest specimens of copper come from the middle east beginning with çatal hüyük."</i><br /><br />I've read things different about it but even if true, the technology and word could have travelled together, but another good question is how frequent is this root in non-indo-european languages of Anatolia ... I am not aware it is present, and as such the root should be treated as IE specific and from outside of Anatolia. <br />Anyway that's post-neolithic which was the point of my post : a massive IE spreading from Anatolia during Chalcolithic/bronze age don't work well, unlike the Kurgan hypothesis. And so far the visible R1a1a + west Eurasian MtDNA hgs migration to the west and to the east (up to mongolia and south Siberia) supports the Kurgan theory much better I think. <br /><br /><i>"I never said proto ie is neolithic" </i><br /><br />Then how did it spread from north-western-europe up to east India and north-western china? Anything in Archeology to support such a phenomenon? <br />On the other hand the intrusive population movements from the north of the black sea, both west and east, are visible in the expected timeframe (chalcolithic/bronze age). <br />An anatolian language didn't magically appear throughout Eurasia without leaving specific tracks in archeology. Neolithic could have explained it but the vocabulary goes against that idea. After, it doesn't seem likely. <br /><br /><i>"Those loanwords are not in Anatolian but in proto indo-hittite, if you read Gamkrelidze's book you will see that many of those loans are lacking in Anatolian languages."</i><br /><br />I don't have the book in front of my eyes and I don't know the opinion of the other specialists, so... but anyway migrations from Anatolia spreading agriculture and some cultural element in Europe is accepted by basically everyone so nothing say that these loanwords from specific vocabulary aren't from such a (former) population substrate and/or cultural exchanges concerning new technologies, if corroborated. <br /><br /><i>"The Anatolian branch is not late, as it's the first attested indo-hittite language" </i><br /><br />That's what I mean by "late" : around +/- 1,500 BC, well into "late" bronze age, i.e. way way after its origin. <br /><br /><i>"Anatolian is much older than 2700 bc"</i><br /><br />No kidding. <br /><br /><i>"I dont understand why massive destruction movements (if occured) should necessarily bring languages"</i><br /><br />It's a proof a of a disruptive intrusion ans as such a good candidate for such a phenomenon.... It's not a proof per se, of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46992448435501576012010-06-15T19:04:04.869+03:002010-06-15T19:04:04.869+03:00For the Ugaritic problem, I recommand you to read ...For the Ugaritic problem, I recommand you to read the book of Edward Lipinsky "Semitic languages outline of a comparative grammar".<br />The author explains the difficulty of classifiying Semitic languages and states that Ugaritic shares archaic Semitic features with Arabic and Eblaite that are not present in Canaanite (Hebrew) and Aramean.<br />Though he classifies Hebrew (Canaanite), Aramaic Ancient north Arabic and Arabic together under a western Semitic branch and classifies Amorite, Paleosyrian <br />(Eblaite, "Mariic"),Amorite and Ugaritic together under north Semitic branch.<br />But remains that the fact that Arabic and Ugaritic inherited 28 of the 29 proto Semitic phonemes (compared to only 22 in Canaanite-Hebrew) and maintaned the case system, dual and moods distinction (in opposite of Canaanite-Hebrew&Aramaic) should give a clear idea about the closeness of Arabic-Ugaritic.ashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590059778590185827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-37244993945132707432010-06-15T17:23:13.954+03:002010-06-15T17:23:13.954+03:00I don't know if anyone noticed, but in this st...I don't know if anyone noticed, but in this study Palestinians appear where they should have been in Atzmon's study: between Bedouins and Druze. In Atzmon study Palestinians appear more distant to Europeans than Bedouins are, but logically reverse should be true, as is the case in this study. But this time in this study Bedouins appear more distant to Europeans than Saudis are. Logically reverse should be true. May that be because of genetic drift as Negev Bedouins are a small population?Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11203345311092619432010-06-15T17:06:06.627+03:002010-06-15T17:06:06.627+03:00I consulted the book here some notes:
The most imp...I consulted the book here some notes:<br />The most important proof against(aside from the demographic problem)an Ukrainian steppe for proto indo-european is the words for flaura, fauna, myths and tools in proto indo-european.<br /><br />"The word for "plow" in proto indo-european is "harthro"(nearly identical to the Arabianic one)and there was not agriculture that time in Ukrainian steppes."<br /><br />As you wrote, "the pie word for "copper/bronze/iron" is "haye/os", in the book it's written that the earliest specimens of copper come from the middle east beginning with çatal hüyük."<br /><br />"pie for copper "reudh" is connected with Sumerian one "urudu".<br />Copper mettalurgy is first attested in mesopotamia (Hassuna and Ubaid cultures)."<br /><br />Oddly enough, "one word for silver is shared by some ie languages(silpar), semitic and ... Bask."<br /><br />On the other hand "the pie word for silver (hark) is shared by Caucasic languages."<br /><br />This for metals as for the wheel:<br />"Pie is "kel"(rotate,wheel)[it rembers me Arabianic kur=rotate,circle] and "keklo"(wheel,wheeled carriage).<br />Another pie word for cart is "roto"[it remembers me Arabianic arrada=war chariot]<br />Those words have cognates in Hebrew (gilgal), Arabiac ('agal) Aramean (galgal), Georgian (Gorgal), Sumerian (gigir).<br />"<br />As for the horse:<br />"The Przwalski horse found in central and eastern esia and surviving to this day in scattered groups near the Gobi desert in Mongolia cannot have been that ancestor because according to recent data it differs<br />genetically from the domestic horse the przewalski horse has 66 pairs of chromosomes while the domestic horse has 64 hence the original area of the<br />perzewalski horse is ruled out as the center of domestication of the horse further evidence against an asian center of domestication is the lack of domesticated<br />horses in eastern Asia in particular in china until the yin period at which point the horse is introduced from the west evidently under west asiatic cultural influence.<br />the onager was found in the broad steppe zone north of mesopotamia seventh millennium bc<br />in the southern near east the domesticated horse is attested for the fourth<br />millennium bc in culture sites in mesopotmia elam Susa and adjacent<br />areas of ancient iran where ancient horses are depicted on vases and statuettes<br />from hafaj near baghdad <br />an analogous picture can be reconstructed for asia minor at an even earlier<br />period.<br />domesticated horse bones were recntly found at demirci Höyük yankkaya and norshintepe in eastern anatolia they are found in Bronze<br />age strata as early as the second half of the fourth millennium bc <br />the earliest written evidence for horses in asia minor is found in old<br />assyrian tablets from Kültepe karum Kanish which make frequent mention of "rabf sisawm"=chief in charge of the horses and also sometimes mention the use of<br />horses sisum for transport <br />that ancient Mesopotamia is one possible area of horse domestication follows from<br />the fact that traces of horses going back to the seventh millennium bc are found in this area.<br />simlar remains found in paleolithic caves in palestine evidently are those of wild horses"<br /><br />Here "cognates with pie "ekwo" (horse):<br />Hurrian essi,Akkadian sisu,Ugaritic ssw,Aramean susya,Hebrew sus,Egyptian ssmt, Abkhaz acy,Avar cu,Georgian acu,Akhvakh icwa"ashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590059778590185827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71990719207002845912010-06-15T16:04:10.436+03:002010-06-15T16:04:10.436+03:00mr Kepler
Rather than looking at wikipedia article...mr Kepler<br />Rather than looking at wikipedia article, I recommand you to read a book about Semitic languages.<br />This the last thing I could say about that topic.<br />As I said those classifications are controversial.<br />Some times ago Arabic was classified as a south Semitic language with Ethiopic in Wikipedia, now it's classified as western Semitic.<br />But still you can compare Arabic-Ugaritic with Hebrew-Aramaic there in Wiki.<br />Also could you explain what are the shared northwestern Semitic features that Arabic lacks?(after reading much about Semitic languages my impression is that shared Ugaritic-Arabic features lacking in Hebrew-Aramean are more important and numerous) <br /><br />"a/ your comment that "Iranic is older than Indic" is wrong."<br /><br />Iranic should be older than Indic <br />because it's by far more diverse.<br /> <br />"b/ The proto-indo-european language can't be the result of a neolilthic wave coming from Anatolia because the proto-indo-europeans not only knew the wheel but they also knew a metal" <br /><br />I never said proto ie is neolithic (albeit pre proto ie would be so).<br /><br />c/"The Afro-asiatic/hurrian/ etc... loanwaords in Anatolian you mentionned are OK with the Kurgan hypothesis. <br />Also the more massive prooves of the west destructive population movement of 2,700 BC is precisely in the area of the Anatolian languages Also the earliest evidences of Anatolian languages are quite late"<br /><br />Those loanwords are not in Anatolian but in proto indo-hittite, if you read Gamkrelidze's book you will see that many of those loans are lacking in Anatolian languages.<br />The Anatolian branch is not late, as it's the first attested indo-hittite language(of course other old ie languages in Anatolia, for many resons, did not "afford" to left a written record of their languages) <br />Anatolian is much older than 2700 bc since when first appeared in written records there was already many distinct dialects (Luwian, Palaic, Hittite...)<br />I dont understand why massive destruction movements (if occured) should necessarily bring languages (for example the sea peoples and the mongols in middle east/Europe did not brought one).<br />As for the matter of the wheel and horse, it is well explained in that book (if I remember well first wheels and chariots were found in Sumerian sites and horses were present in western Asia, besides words for Horse and Wheel were loans/cognates from Sumerian/Akkadian and other languages I forgot[I will try to write that stuff later]) <br /><br />For the Kuragns, if I remember well in Gamkrelidze's book it's said that they came from western Asia/Anatolia and are perhaps responsible of the dispersal of the Indo-Iranian languages.ashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590059778590185827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62085516982605940422010-06-15T14:04:48.621+03:002010-06-15T14:04:48.621+03:00"According to your "logic" the grea..."According to your "logic" the greatest differentiation is between Afro-Europeans and East Asians who split off first, while we know that it is between Africans and Eurasians".<br /><br />That's probably because the African sample is comparatively much smaller, what pushes them towards the West Eurasian cluster, surely on the minor admixture that exists between both clusters.<br /><br />It's odd but it's not the first time that such genetic-statistical data has produced West Eurasian-African affinity results. I recall that in 1996, Cavalli-Sforza already suggested that West Eurasians had some African admixture. The opposite is also surely true as well. <br /><br />It emphasizes in any case how sample sizes do matter a lot.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-3854268642435434232010-06-15T13:31:25.461+03:002010-06-15T13:31:25.461+03:00@Ashraf, it seems quite clear that you are complet...@Ashraf, it seems quite clear that you are completely ignorant of Semitics. You conflate issues, and conflate Israeli hebrew(actually 1 DIALECT of Israeli hebrew) with biblical hebrew. Tha and Shin have not been merged, rather there was a shift into hebrew, the Sound tha existed still as Taw without daghesh. 7et and Khaf only merged in some dialects, and is not correct, it has nothing to do with ancient, even today half of Israelis pronounce them distinct, (same with alef and 3ain) the Merging of Taw with 6eth, and waw with veth is a new thing, Arabic also lost sounds like P which is a frequent sound in Ugaritic, and in other semitic languages besides Arabic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67821784318994709362010-06-15T12:48:58.700+03:002010-06-15T12:48:58.700+03:00I'm talking about something else here, and tha...<i>I'm talking about something else here, and that is the fact that most of Europe belongs to a cluster that exists as a minority elsewhere, and in a pattern that strongly suggests it was born in Europe and then diffused to all the bordering regions that touch on Europe.</i><br /><br />"Born in Europe" does not mean "Born in Europe in the Paleolithic or among European hunter-gatherers", as I have already explained.<br /><br />In fact, as I have also explained, the fact that it is not well-represented outside Europe, or only in places where it can be explained by late prehistoric population movements is a fairly good argument that it is not very old. Because, if it was very old, then it would spill out over Eurasia and even Africa, as it would have tens of thousands of years to do so.<br /><br /><i>Really? Is that how things work? So sometimes the mixing of populations will result in the appearance of a brand new cluster different from the parental clusters, and other times the ancestral clusters will persist and we will be able to detect the proportions of the ancestral populations that gave birth to the new population. Is that it? Really? And under what circumstances do either case tend to occur? Oh, let me guess, when you need them to for your pet theory of total population replacement by farmers. Right?</i><br /><br />Yes, that is how things work. The blending of different components through a period of endogamy produces a new cluster, as the constituent elements are blended together and do not contrast each other. <br /><br />Some good examples of this in the global PCA are Mozabites who form their own "purple" cluster out of Caucasoid and Negroid constituent elements, while Mongols do not appear to be homogeneous and do not form their own cluster. In the regional PCA we see that Bedouins do not form a homogeneous population, but are split into two quite distinct groups, one of which is distinctive, while Sardinians form a uniform population out of European and West Asian elements.<br /><br />Finally, you are able to detect the ancestral proportions that gave rise to the new population, as I have also already explained, when you have relevant reference points to compare against, in this case, a European hunter-gatherer population. When you don't have such a reference point, you are simply foolish to interpret any dateless cluster as representing European hunter-gatherers.<br /><br /><i>The dark blue cluster doesn't show any particular connection to the farmers that replaced all of Europe. Anatolia has a sizeable minority amount similar to other regions directly contacting Europe. And further south, in the Levant, the dark blue diminishes to virtual inexistence. </i><br /><br />This can be due to the fact that it emerged in Europe AFTER the Neolithic, and not BEFORE the Neolithic. There is no inconsistency there, and, as I have explained several times now, its paucity outside Europe makes better sense if it is of recent rather than older vintage.<br /><br /><i>PS: In the global cluster chart, we can see, as usual, that the first 3 clusters to appear are sub-Saharans, West Asians, and East Asians. Cluster #4 is the Indian sub-continent, which is expected, as I'm sure we'll all agree that amongst West Asians, Indians are probably the most genetically divergent from the rest of the pack. What cluster appears next? European dark blue. Number #5 spot. Or put another way, of the 7 West Asian clusters, the European cluster is the 2nd to appear. The order of appearance, of course, tends to be correlated with the magnitude of its differentiation, that's why the within-Caucasian clusters only start to appear after the inter-Continental clusters have all shown up.</i><br /><br />That is nonsense. According to your "logic" the greatest differentiation is between Afro-Europeans and East Asians who split off first, while we know that it is between Africans and Eurasians.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60212249426227617362010-06-15T09:51:43.436+03:002010-06-15T09:51:43.436+03:00"I think waht is by far,more important than t..."I think waht is by far,more important than the "sound changes" is the grammar and in the case of Ugaritic its grammar is by fare closer to Arabic than to Aramean-Hebrew."<br /><br />Are you sure? I think that is not the case. Hebrew is part of the Northwest Semitic language branch.<br />Arabic is not.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Semitic_languages<br /><br /><br />I am not sure we should be so sure about population's closeness by looking at the similarity of some linguistic features...specially if we are based on rather limited corpora.Keplerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11125538872924743270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26978784335578402292010-06-15T01:57:51.185+03:002010-06-15T01:57:51.185+03:00Dienekes
As I have said before, there is nothing i...<i>Dienekes<br />As I have said before, there is nothing in this cluster that would date it to the Paleolithic (except your irrational attachment to your pet theory).<br /><br />I have already explained to you once that you can't identify a cluster as "hunter-gatherer" using ADMIXTURE unless you have a "hunter-gatherer" population to compare against. You seemed to get it the first time.<br /></i><br /><br />I asked where the European paleolithic cluster was and you made a good argument that it shouldn't show up because it's become too heavily diffused and doesn't stand out in any population as a necessary reference for the STRUCTURE program to recogonize it. Fine. I haven't suddenly forgotten that. I'm talking about something else here, and that is the fact that most of Europe belongs to a cluster that exists as a minority elsewhere, and in a pattern that strongly suggests it was born in Europe and then diffused to all the bordering regions that touch on Europe.<br /><br /><i>I see absolutely no reason why the cluster could not have formed by admixture of early Neolithic farmers with the remnants of pre-farming populations.</i><br /><br />Really? Is that how things work? So sometimes the mixing of populations will result in the appearance of a brand new cluster different from the parental clusters, and other times the ancestral clusters will persist and we will be able to detect the proportions of the ancestral populations that gave birth to the new population. Is that it? Really? And under what circumstances do either case tend to occur? Oh, let me guess, when you need them to for your pet theory of total population replacement by farmers. Right?<br /><br />The dark blue cluster doesn't show any particular connection to the farmers that replaced all of Europe. Anatolia has a sizeable minority amount similar to other regions directly contacting Europe. And further south, in the Levant, the dark blue diminishes to virtual inexistence. It looks like the direction of flow of the dark blue cluster is <b>from</b> Europe towards the Middle East. The only way this can be reconciled in favor of the farmer replacement theory is to assume that the cluster didn't exist in either the paleolithic Europeans or the farmers, and it came into existence after this supposed event.<br /><br />PS: In the global cluster chart, we can see, as usual, that the first 3 clusters to appear are sub-Saharans, West Asians, and East Asians. Cluster #4 is the Indian sub-continent, which is expected, as I'm sure we'll all agree that amongst West Asians, Indians are probably the most genetically divergent from the rest of the pack. What cluster appears next? European dark blue. Number #5 spot. Or put another way, of the 7 West Asian clusters, the European cluster is the 2nd to appear. The order of appearance, of course, tends to be correlated with the magnitude of its differentiation, that's why the within-Caucasian clusters only start to appear after the inter-Continental clusters have all shown up.<br /><br />...............................<br /><br />Thanks, Maju. [your observations on why the cluster ratios would change between K=8 and K=10, and for noting that the specific program they're using is actually ADMIXTURE.] And yeah, I see now why that ratios would change, makes perfect sense.aargiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02885756901119408472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71735909358820585802010-06-15T00:40:48.394+03:002010-06-15T00:40:48.394+03:00@ Ashraf : and BTW you misunderstood me. I never s...@ Ashraf : and BTW you misunderstood me. I never said proto-indo-european appeared in the Balkans so your Y-DNA hg I stuff in Xinjiang and Afghanistan is irrelevant. <br />The Afro-asiatic/hurrian/ etc... loanwaords in Anatolian you mentionned are OK with the Kurgan hypothesis. <br />Also the more massive prooves of the west destructive population movement of 2,700 BC is precisely in the area of the Anatolian languages (like near Konya where it was particularly visible in the archeology IIRC). <br />Also the earliest evidences of Anatolian languages are quite late, so many things could have happened in the geopolitics of Antolia before written documents in the region. <br />All this don't say much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83221503933588279372010-06-15T00:38:06.964+03:002010-06-15T00:38:06.964+03:00Aaron,
This is with regard to both Christian a...Aaron,<br /><br /> This is with regard to both Christian and Jewish populations of the Levant. Alexander built ten cities in the Levant, referred to as the Decapolis, which had Greek colonies for trade and spreading Greek culture throughout the Middle East. <br /><br />The Orthodox and Catholic churches only gained political power in Rome during the reign of Constantine. With the various Councils (Nicaea and Chalcedon), various sects left the empire for Persia. Greek philosophy was translated into Parsi. After the founding of Baghdad, the Muslims asked for translations of Greek, Roman, and Persian philosophy, science, and history, and established translation schools made up primarily of Christians. <br /><br />Southern European is a possibility, and it could be from a wide variety of sources. It would probably be relatively small in proportion.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07968337979542735221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65578879824964818152010-06-15T00:14:41.831+03:002010-06-15T00:14:41.831+03:00@ Ashraf : Too many disputable and unproved allega...@ Ashraf : Too many disputable and unproved allegations to reply to all so let's make it short. <br /><br />just two things : <br /><br />a/ your comment that <i>"Iranic is older than Indic"</i> is wrong. <br /><br />b/ The proto-indo-european language can't be the result of a neolilthic wave coming from Anatolia because the proto-indo-europeans not only knew the wheel but they also knew a metal (latin <i>aes</i>, sanskrit <i>ayas</i>, Gothic <i>aiz</i>) - two things that don't work well with neolithic - and the horse (ubiquitous root among the indo-european languages - this animal was also obviously quite important culturally to them) while this animal was not present in Anatolia, south-west Asia or south Asia untill rather late bronze age.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com