More spam. The actual relevant stuff is in the block quotes of previous posts (minus anything in purple). No relevant stuff in this post.
This post is just to arrange my own thoughts and make sense of somethings/organise points in writing that I keep overlooking.
1. Greece being missing in the following is relevant with respect to attempts at tying any massive migration from the Steppe to Oryanism and intro of IE languages in Europe:
If none of the 3 lineages concern Greece much - and from the above, the omission is glaring - then so much for the Bronze Age Riders from the steppe signifying the urheimat or any alleged primary dispersal of IE.
Q: Could the findings involving Italy and Spain be explained by vestiges of the Gothic and Vandal groups of that region?
Hungary is like Turkey: part local genetics, even if speaking another language family.
2. The Baltic nations being left out is a curiosity in itself: it would be surely interesting to know how much any of these 3 distinct lineages was seen in Latvia/Lithuania vs Estonia, and how that correlates - if at all - to the language family distinction seen in the Baltics (Finno Ugric Estonian vs "IE" Lithuanian/Latvian)
3. Ukraine's omission in the study on the 3 lineages could be thought as due to the war btw Ukraine and Russia, except that
- Belarus needn't have been left out then;
- and the study heralding a Massive Migration (Bronze Age) into Europe from the Steppes was done in approximately same year, and would surely need to feature data from the Ukraine in order to speak about the Steppe, despite the same war going on.
Seems therefore rather that they left out Ukraine/steppe from the study out of a foregone conclusion of the Kurgan Urheimat Hypothesis.
4. News articles just oversimply and in their storytelling the actual main points get lost, especially in the subsequent storytelling on the data.
There is a way to tie the "Massive Migration" from the steppes of one study with the "just 3 forebears for 2/3rds of European males" study. Which answers my own earlier question:
All the news items said (about the '3 forebears of 2/3 Europe Y' study) was that:
+ 3 new distinct paternal (Y) lineages - marked by distinct genetic features (probably some kind of mutations) - made their appearance in Europe in the Bronze age and spread there then (4000-2000 years BP). Meaning, these distinct genetic features were not attested in the native European population prior to the Bronze age/their entry.
+ these origins of these 3 lineages are dated to 7300 to 3500 yrs BP.
+ it was specifically stated that it was not known whether these 3 lineages were local to Europe (originated in Europe) or came from outside:
though it was surmised these lineages would have settled in Europe from outside and that they were thought to be from the steppes, with reference to the Massive Migration paper
+ Now, if the 3 lineages had already existed in the steppes (imagine the "Three Houses of Men" from Tolkien, each descended from some forebear), large numbers of each of the 3 lineages could have "migrated" to Europe from the steppes, thus the "massive migration" could still hold, while not calling into question why only 3 paternal lineages were detected (3 forebears) in Europe: the 3 forebears would already each have generated large families in the steppes, and these large families - each carrying the distinct genetic features of their lineage - would have entered Europe in a "massive migration" and spread there from 4000-2000 years ago.
+ What is known is that the founders of 3 lineages are dated 7000 to 3500 years ago. I.e. the 3 distinctive genetic features/mutations, that originated in 3 distinct invidiuals, are dated to that time:
+ What is not known even in the current assumption that the 3 lineages may have come into Europe from the steppes is whether these 3 or their ancestors originated in the steppes: one study only looked at Europe and didn't know the origins of the 3 paternal/Y lineages, the other study looked at the Steppe and seems to only have spoken of a massive migration into Europe being attested and not these specific 3 Y lineages (else the study on Europe would have been more certain in tying the 3 lineages to the steppes.)
(+ And the Massive Migration study merely referred to Anthony for his work as authority to the spread of some IE language in Europe being tied to the massive steppe migration into Europe. While it need not be untrue, the Massive Migration study itself did not prove the spread of some IE language in Europe with the massive steppe migration: else it would not have needed to refer to Anthony for this statement, but would have said it was a conclusion drawn from the results of the Massive Migration study itself.)
+ So they will next need to study the steppes and
- see if the 3 lineages are already detected there, in which case Europe would have got it from the steppes via that massive migration:
- If only the founder(s) of one or more of the 3 lineages are detected in the Steppes, then one or more of the remaining 3 lineages may have originated within Europe itself. After the migration.
- [Less likely, but for completeness: If either one or more of the 3 lineages, its founders or their direct ancestors are not detected in the steppes, then the entry point to Europe may not have been the massive migration from the steppes. Less likely since the "Massive Migration" paper insisted that said migration was well noticed in modern Europeans.]
- If the 3 lineages did not originate in the steppes (i.e. if the 'founders'/original trio of these 3 paternal lineages did not originate in the steppes), need to look beyond for where they originated
- Even if the founders of the 3 lineages did originate in the steppes (i.e. the 3 mutations originated in the steps) but their ancestors did not, worth looking at where and when their last ancestors were detected
If not done already:
- Do a study on the steppes similar to the study on Europe: to work out the various paternal lineages in the steppes.
E.g. are the 3 lineages seen in Europe also the only ones seen in the steppe, or were there far more. And if so, map them, their dates and their locus too: inside steppes or not. If not inside steps, see whether there was any migration into that region and when.
- If the founders of the 3 lineages did occur in the steppes (i.e. the 3 mutations existed in the steppes since the Bronze age or before), can look at Iranian and Indian lands to see whether the same appears in Iranian and Indian space, and what the relative ages are. (Bronze Age or older. Specifically looking for origination.)
- If there are many more paternal lineages detected in the steppes, also, can see what if any relationship any/all these have with Iranian and Indian lands: where are they older, where are the ancestors of these steppe paternal lineages detected and when etc. For the last two questions it is most worth examining the entire breadth of the Indian population too: even if some Indians and Iranians show the same mutations in the pre/Bronze age as people in the steppes at the time, the direction of travel can become reversed if other Indians show the immediate ancestry of the same mutations. I.e. the interpretation in such a case can then reasonable be that some Indians derived from other Indians and that they - in the same pre/Bronze Age - went and influenced the steppes.
More interesting would be to study Greece, since Anatolia's earlier configuration is no longer easy to test (for aforementioned reasons).
This post is just to arrange my own thoughts and make sense of somethings/organise points in writing that I keep overlooking.
Aka another form of SPAM.
This post is just to arrange my own thoughts and make sense of somethings/organise points in writing that I keep overlooking.
1. Greece being missing in the following is relevant with respect to attempts at tying any massive migration from the Steppe to Oryanism and intro of IE languages in Europe:
Quote:They found one mutation appears to have originated around 4,750 to 7,340 years ago and is prevalent in Norwegian and Orkadian populations.
Another mutation seems to have occurred between 3,700 and 6,500 years ago and has spread throughout Spain, Italy, France, England and Ireland.
A third mutation seems to have occurred in a man who lived between 3,470 and 5,070 years ago and is prominent in the Sami in Lapland, Norwegian, Danish, Frisia populations in the Netherlands, but can also be found in France, Hungary, Serbia and Bavaria.
If none of the 3 lineages concern Greece much - and from the above, the omission is glaring - then so much for the Bronze Age Riders from the steppe signifying the urheimat or any alleged primary dispersal of IE.
Q: Could the findings involving Italy and Spain be explained by vestiges of the Gothic and Vandal groups of that region?
Hungary is like Turkey: part local genetics, even if speaking another language family.
2. The Baltic nations being left out is a curiosity in itself: it would be surely interesting to know how much any of these 3 distinct lineages was seen in Latvia/Lithuania vs Estonia, and how that correlates - if at all - to the language family distinction seen in the Baltics (Finno Ugric Estonian vs "IE" Lithuanian/Latvian)
3. Ukraine's omission in the study on the 3 lineages could be thought as due to the war btw Ukraine and Russia, except that
- Belarus needn't have been left out then;
- and the study heralding a Massive Migration (Bronze Age) into Europe from the Steppes was done in approximately same year, and would surely need to feature data from the Ukraine in order to speak about the Steppe, despite the same war going on.
Seems therefore rather that they left out Ukraine/steppe from the study out of a foregone conclusion of the Kurgan Urheimat Hypothesis.
4. News articles just oversimply and in their storytelling the actual main points get lost, especially in the subsequent storytelling on the data.
There is a way to tie the "Massive Migration" from the steppes of one study with the "just 3 forebears for 2/3rds of European males" study. Which answers my own earlier question:
Quote:if The 3 Founding Europeans are due to the 'massive migration' from the steppes bearing IE-languages to Europe in the Bronze Age, how come the other steppe males of this "massive migration" into Europe haven't left as much of a genetic footprint on modern Europeans' descent as Da Three?
All the news items said (about the '3 forebears of 2/3 Europe Y' study) was that:
+ 3 new distinct paternal (Y) lineages - marked by distinct genetic features (probably some kind of mutations) - made their appearance in Europe in the Bronze age and spread there then (4000-2000 years BP). Meaning, these distinct genetic features were not attested in the native European population prior to the Bronze age/their entry.
+ these origins of these 3 lineages are dated to 7300 to 3500 yrs BP.
+ it was specifically stated that it was not known whether these 3 lineages were local to Europe (originated in Europe) or came from outside:
Quote:Although it is still unclear who exactly the 'fathers' in these paternal lineages were, or even if they were born in Europe, the scientists believe they were influential and powerful individuals, likely tribal chieftains.
though it was surmised these lineages would have settled in Europe from outside and that they were thought to be from the steppes, with reference to the Massive Migration paper
+ Now, if the 3 lineages had already existed in the steppes (imagine the "Three Houses of Men" from Tolkien, each descended from some forebear), large numbers of each of the 3 lineages could have "migrated" to Europe from the steppes, thus the "massive migration" could still hold, while not calling into question why only 3 paternal lineages were detected (3 forebears) in Europe: the 3 forebears would already each have generated large families in the steppes, and these large families - each carrying the distinct genetic features of their lineage - would have entered Europe in a "massive migration" and spread there from 4000-2000 years ago.
+ What is known is that the founders of 3 lineages are dated 7000 to 3500 years ago. I.e. the 3 distinctive genetic features/mutations, that originated in 3 distinct invidiuals, are dated to that time:
Quote:They found distinct paternal families originating 3,500 to 7,300 years ago
Mutations in the DNA suggest these families sprung from just three men
+ What is not known even in the current assumption that the 3 lineages may have come into Europe from the steppes is whether these 3 or their ancestors originated in the steppes: one study only looked at Europe and didn't know the origins of the 3 paternal/Y lineages, the other study looked at the Steppe and seems to only have spoken of a massive migration into Europe being attested and not these specific 3 Y lineages (else the study on Europe would have been more certain in tying the 3 lineages to the steppes.)
(+ And the Massive Migration study merely referred to Anthony for his work as authority to the spread of some IE language in Europe being tied to the massive steppe migration into Europe. While it need not be untrue, the Massive Migration study itself did not prove the spread of some IE language in Europe with the massive steppe migration: else it would not have needed to refer to Anthony for this statement, but would have said it was a conclusion drawn from the results of the Massive Migration study itself.)
+ So they will next need to study the steppes and
- see if the 3 lineages are already detected there, in which case Europe would have got it from the steppes via that massive migration:
- If only the founder(s) of one or more of the 3 lineages are detected in the Steppes, then one or more of the remaining 3 lineages may have originated within Europe itself. After the migration.
- [Less likely, but for completeness: If either one or more of the 3 lineages, its founders or their direct ancestors are not detected in the steppes, then the entry point to Europe may not have been the massive migration from the steppes. Less likely since the "Massive Migration" paper insisted that said migration was well noticed in modern Europeans.]
- If the 3 lineages did not originate in the steppes (i.e. if the 'founders'/original trio of these 3 paternal lineages did not originate in the steppes), need to look beyond for where they originated
- Even if the founders of the 3 lineages did originate in the steppes (i.e. the 3 mutations originated in the steps) but their ancestors did not, worth looking at where and when their last ancestors were detected
If not done already:
- Do a study on the steppes similar to the study on Europe: to work out the various paternal lineages in the steppes.
E.g. are the 3 lineages seen in Europe also the only ones seen in the steppe, or were there far more. And if so, map them, their dates and their locus too: inside steppes or not. If not inside steps, see whether there was any migration into that region and when.
- If the founders of the 3 lineages did occur in the steppes (i.e. the 3 mutations existed in the steppes since the Bronze age or before), can look at Iranian and Indian lands to see whether the same appears in Iranian and Indian space, and what the relative ages are. (Bronze Age or older. Specifically looking for origination.)
- If there are many more paternal lineages detected in the steppes, also, can see what if any relationship any/all these have with Iranian and Indian lands: where are they older, where are the ancestors of these steppe paternal lineages detected and when etc. For the last two questions it is most worth examining the entire breadth of the Indian population too: even if some Indians and Iranians show the same mutations in the pre/Bronze age as people in the steppes at the time, the direction of travel can become reversed if other Indians show the immediate ancestry of the same mutations. I.e. the interpretation in such a case can then reasonable be that some Indians derived from other Indians and that they - in the same pre/Bronze Age - went and influenced the steppes.
More interesting would be to study Greece, since Anatolia's earlier configuration is no longer easy to test (for aforementioned reasons).
This post is just to arrange my own thoughts and make sense of somethings/organise points in writing that I keep overlooking.
Aka another form of SPAM.
Death to traitors.