Variation in Bronze Age Europe and the problem with 'Indo' in Indo-European

[Maira La]

Modern Europeans primarily descend from four ancestral populations: EHG, CHG, WHG and Anatolian farmers. EHG are Eastern European hunter-gatherers. WHG are their Western European counterparts. CHG are hunter gatherers from the Caucasus. Anatolian farmers, as their name says, originated in Anatolia in the Neolithic age.
For eg.,

Target: German
48.2 Anatolian_Farmer
36.8 EHG
8.6 CHG
6.4 WHG

Target: Russian_Voronez
Distance: 7.0817% / 0.07081662
41.4 EHG
41.2 Anatolian_Farmer
9.2 CHG
8.2 WHG


Interestingly similar genetic variation, consisting of the same 4 ancestral populations, existed in Europe during the Bronze Age, an era when Europeans began expanding across Eurasia on horseback. Here's a few examples,

Individual belonging to Bell Beaker culture from Bronze Age Western Europe (France):
Target: Bell_Beaker_FRA
42.4 EHG
39.8 Anatolian_Farmer
11.6 CHG
6.2 WHG

Individuals belonging to Corded Ware culture from Bronze Age Central Europe (Germany and Czechia):
Target: Corded_Ware_Germany
53.4 EHG
26.0 Anatolian_Farmer
20.6 CHG

Target: Corded_Ware_Czechia
50.0 EHG
27.0 Anatolian_Farmer
20.4 CHG
2.6 WHG

Individuals from Early Bronze Age Eastern Europe (European Russia):
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
57.0 EHG
36.6 CHG
6.4 Anatolian_Farmer

Target: RUS_Afanasievo*
56.0 EHG
38.0 CHG
6.0 Anatolian_Farmer

* found in Asian part of Russia but is an offshoot of Yamnaya that moved East.

Now let's take a look at the ancestral composition of Sintashta individuals, the people whose remains were found in late Bronze Age Central Asia and the kind of ancestry that is found in significant amount among modern Tajiks, Afghans, Iranians, Pakistanis and in lesser quantity among North Indian Brahmins (and completely absent in the ancient Rakhigarhi individual):

Target: RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
52.6 EHG
31.2 Anatolian_Farmer
15.8 CHG
0.4 WHG

Basically almost identical to the individuals from Bronze Age Central Europe (albeit with slightly higher Anatolian farmer and slightly lower CHG).

How could anyone in their right mind argue that these people originated in India (proposed by Indian nationalists) or Iran (proposed by Iranian ethno-nationalists)? Not only does Sintashta fit the natural genetic variation existing among Bronze Age Europeans, none of the 4 components that go into their making originate in either India or Iran or Central Asia.

Since Sintashta originates entirely in Bronze Age Europe, wouldn't it make much sense to drop the prefix "Indo" from Indo-European, and simply call them European and their language the European language family?

 

[nahtanbob]

Modern Europeans primarily descend from four ancestral populations: EHG, CHG, WHG and Anatolian farmers. EHG are Eastern European hunter-gatherers. WHG are their Western European counterparts. CHG are hunter gatherers from the Caucasus. Anatolian farmers, as their name says, originated in Anatolia in the Neolithic age.
For eg.,

Target: Slovakian
45.6 Anatolian_Farmer
39.8 EHG
8.0 CHG
6.6 WHG

Target: German
48.2 Anatolian_Farmer
36.8 EHG
8.6 CHG
6.4 WHG


Interestingly similar genetic variation, consisting of the same 4 ancestral populations, existed in Europe during the Bronze Age, an era when Europeans began expanding across Eurasia on horseback. Here's a few examples,

Individual belonging to Bell Beaker culture from Bronze Age Western Europe (France):
Target: Bell_Beaker_FRA
42.4 EHG
39.8 Anatolian_Farmer
11.6 CHG
6.2 WHG

Individuals belonging to Corded Ware culture from Bronze Age Central Europe (Germany and Czechia):
Target: Corded_Ware_Germany
53.4 EHG
26.0 Anatolian_Farmer
20.6 CHG

Target: Corded_Ware_Czechia
50.0 EHG
27.0 Anatolian_Farmer
20.4 CHG
2.6 WHG

Individuals from Early Bronze Age Eastern Europe (European Russia):
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
57.0 EHG
36.6 CHG
6.4 Anatolian_Farmer

Target: RUS_Afanasievo*
56.0 EHG
38.0 CHG
6.0 Anatolian_Farmer

* found in Asian part of Russia but is an offshoot of Yamnaya that moved East.

Now let's take a look at the ancestral composition of Sintashta individuals, the people whose remains were found in late Bronze Age Central Asia and the kind of ancestry that is found in significant amount among modern Tajiks, Afghans, Iranians, Pakistanis and in lesser quantity among North Indian Brahmins (and completely absent in the ancient Rakhigarhi individual):

Target: RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
52.6 EHG
31.2 Anatolian_Farmer
15.8 CHG
0.4 WHG

Basically almost identical to the individuals from Bronze Age Central Europe (albeit with slightly higher Anatolian farmer and slightly lower CHG).

How could anyone in their right mind argue that these people originated in India (proposed by Indian nationalists) or Iran (proposed by Iranian ethno-nationalists)? Not only does Sintashta fit the natural genetic variation existing among Bronze Age Europeans, none of the 4 components that go into their making originate in either India or Iran or Central Asia.

Since Sintashta originates entirely in Bronze Age Europe, wouldn't it make much sense to drop the prefix "Indo" from Indo-European, and simply call them European and their language the European language family?

Indo-European is a language family. genetics and language are two different things,

 

[Maira La]

Indo-European is a language family. genetics and language are two different things,

Spread of language is tied to population movement.

Take for example the African Island nation of Madagascar - they speak Austronesian, a language that originated in Eastern Asia. It's no surprise that they also carry East Asian genes:

 

[nahtanbob]

Spread of language is tied to population movement.

Take for example the African Island nation of Madagascar - they speak Austronesian, a language that originated in Eastern Asia. It's no surprise that they also carry East Asian genes:

View attachment 938557

you are trying hard to prove iron clad connections between genetics and language where only a tenuous connection at best exists

 

[Maira La]

you are trying hard to prove iron clad connections between genetics and language where only a tenuous connection at best exists

You don't know what you're talking about, like any Indian in the internet.

Spread of languages is strongly connected to population movement and genetics.

I have been modelling different different East Asian populations the last couple of days, and based on what I saw the connection is pretty obvious, and is consistent with academic literature.

I found out that every ethnicity that speaks Tibeto-Burman scores significant Upper Yellow River Neolithic ancestry.
Every ethnicity that speaks Austroasiatic scores significant late Neolithic Laos ancestry. This includes the Munda population of India.
Every ethnicity that speaks Austronesian (Filipino, Malay, Indonesian, Pacific Islanders) score significant Vanuatu 2900 BP ancestry (pure Austronesian individuals dated to 2900 BP).

Whether it's the spread of Niger-Congo languages in Africa, or Afro-Asiatic in the Middle East, or Indo-European in Eurasia, they were all spread by significant population movement, sometimes peaceful, but often very violent.

 

[SaadH]

you are trying hard to prove iron clad connections between genetics and language where only a tenuous connection at best exists

And you are trying your level best to peddle hindu nationalist narrative about the origins of northern Indians.

 

[Maira La]

@nahtanbob is it merely a coincidence that a UP Brahmin scores substantial Sintashta ancestry (~25%) but a Dravidian speaker from Kerala scores almost none? Or maybe it's a coincidence that an Amhara speaker in Ethiopia scores substantial Bronze Age Levantine ancestry while their non-Semitic speaking neighbors don't?

 

[nahtanbob]

You don't know what you're talking about, like any Indian in the internet.

Spread of languages is strongly connected to population movement and genetics.

I have been modelling different different East Asian populations the last couple of days, and based on what I saw the connection is pretty obvious, and is consistent with academic literature.

I found out that every ethnicity that speaks Tibeto-Burman scores significant Upper Yellow River Neolithic ancestry.
Every ethnicity that speaks Austroasiatic scores significant late Neolithic Laos ancestry. This includes the Munda population of India.
Every ethnicity that speaks Austronesian (Filipino, Malay, Indonesian, Pacific Islanders) score significant Vanuatu 2900 BP ancestry (pure Austronesian individuals dated to 2900 BP).

Whether it's the spread of Niger-Congo languages in Africa, or Afro-Asiatic in the Middle East, or Indo-European in Eurasia, they were all spread by significant population movement, sometimes peaceful, but often very violent.

If you look even at United Kingdom English is the language which is Germanic. You had Irish, Normans, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons all move in. Yet the language is Germanic courtesy of the Anglo-Saxons. There is a correlation. It does not tell the whole picture. You cannot account for everything and classify everything on that basis.

Centuries ago languages got destroyed and created. You had no idea what the ancient languages were. Other than Sanskrit and Tamil none of the major current Indian languages have existed for more than 1000 years.

No one knows what the people of Indus Valley Civilization spoke. What language did people of Bangladesh (you can extend it to whole of India) speak 1500, 2000 and 2500 years ago ? No one really knows.

@nahtanbob is it merely a coincidence that a UP Brahmin scores substantial Sintashta ancestry (~25%) but a Dravidian speaker from Kerala scores almost none? Or maybe it's a coincidence that an Amhara speaker in Ethiopia scores substantial Bronze Age Levantine ancestry while their non-Semitic speaking neighbors don't?

Ethiopians/Eriteans looks unique compared to neighboring Africans. I can spot them from a mile away.

I cannot speak for your UP Brahmin versus Dravidian speaker from Kerala. I could not distinguish people from different parts of India

 

[Maira La]

If you look even at United Kingdom English is the language which is Germanic. You had Irish, Normans, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons all move in. Yet the language is Germanic courtesy of the Anglo-Saxons.

Just proved my point. The Anglo-Saxon invasion altered both language and genetics. The modern English are not exactly the same people as the English during Roman rule, and before Anglo-Saxon invasion:

 

[nahtanbob]

Just proved my point. The Anglo-Saxon invasion altered both language and genetics. The modern English are not exactly the same people as the English during Roman rule, and before Anglo-Saxon invasion:

View attachment 938605

Unless you are in geographically insulated (like island) nobody is the same genetic stock from 2000 years ago

 

[Maira La]

Unless you are in geographically insulated (like island) nobody is the same genetic stock from 2000 years ago

You're going off in a tangent. The point is change of language is accompanied by geneflow.

Turkish people have 11% East Asian genes, while being surrounded on all sides by people with no East Asian genes such as Greeks, Armenians, Iranians and Arabs. Guess where that comes from?

 

[nahtanbob]

You're going off in a tangent. The point is change of language is accompanied by geneflow.

Turkish people have 11% East Asian genes, while being surrounded on all sides by people with no East Asian genes such as Greeks, Armenians, Iranians and Arabs. Guess where that comes from?

It means nothing

 

[Sandwalk]

Hindunationalist crackpots are just that. Crackpots.

There is no arheological, genetical or linguistic proof of India being Urheimat for Indo-Europeans or rest of humanity, as these historical revisionists claim.

 

[reflecthofgeismar]

@MMM-E
Hail the Germano-Turkish Genpool!
Pathetic goat farmers like @Foinikas are nothing in front of Uebermenschen-Genetics.
Oh, wait, islamized Greeks are Turks to a high degree …

 

[Indos]

Modern Europeans primarily descend from four ancestral populations: EHG, CHG, WHG and Anatolian farmers. EHG are Eastern European hunter-gatherers. WHG are their Western European counterparts. CHG are hunter gatherers from the Caucasus. Anatolian farmers, as their name says, originated in Anatolia in the Neolithic age.
For eg.,

Target: German
48.2 Anatolian_Farmer
36.8 EHG
8.6 CHG
6.4 WHG

Target: Russian_Voronez
Distance: 7.0817% / 0.07081662
41.4 EHG
41.2 Anatolian_Farmer
9.2 CHG
8.2 WHG


Interestingly similar genetic variation, consisting of the same 4 ancestral populations, existed in Europe during the Bronze Age, an era when Europeans began expanding across Eurasia on horseback. Here's a few examples,

Individual belonging to Bell Beaker culture from Bronze Age Western Europe (France):
Target: Bell_Beaker_FRA
42.4 EHG
39.8 Anatolian_Farmer
11.6 CHG
6.2 WHG

Individuals belonging to Corded Ware culture from Bronze Age Central Europe (Germany and Czechia):
Target: Corded_Ware_Germany
53.4 EHG
26.0 Anatolian_Farmer
20.6 CHG

Target: Corded_Ware_Czechia
50.0 EHG
27.0 Anatolian_Farmer
20.4 CHG
2.6 WHG

Individuals from Early Bronze Age Eastern Europe (European Russia):
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
57.0 EHG
36.6 CHG
6.4 Anatolian_Farmer

Target: RUS_Afanasievo*
56.0 EHG
38.0 CHG
6.0 Anatolian_Farmer

* found in Asian part of Russia but is an offshoot of Yamnaya that moved East.

Now let's take a look at the ancestral composition of Sintashta individuals, the people whose remains were found in late Bronze Age Central Asia and the kind of ancestry that is found in significant amount among modern Tajiks, Afghans, Iranians, Pakistanis and in lesser quantity among North Indian Brahmins (and completely absent in the ancient Rakhigarhi individual):

Target: RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
52.6 EHG
31.2 Anatolian_Farmer
15.8 CHG
0.4 WHG

Basically almost identical to the individuals from Bronze Age Central Europe (albeit with slightly higher Anatolian farmer and slightly lower CHG).

How could anyone in their right mind argue that these people originated in India (proposed by Indian nationalists) or Iran (proposed by Iranian ethno-nationalists)? Not only does Sintashta fit the natural genetic variation existing among Bronze Age Europeans, none of the 4 components that go into their making originate in either India or Iran or Central Asia.

Since Sintashta originates entirely in Bronze Age Europe, wouldn't it make much sense to drop the prefix "Indo" from Indo-European, and simply call them European and their language the European language family?

Nice info, thanks for sharing it

Every ethnicity that speaks Austronesian (Filipino, Malay, Indonesian, Pacific Islanders) score significant Vanuatu 2900 BP ancestry (pure Austronesian individuals dated to 2900 BP).

Whether it's the spread of Niger-Congo languages in Africa, or Afro-Asiatic in the Middle East, or Indo-European in Eurasia, they were all spread by significant population movement, sometimes peaceful, but often very violent.

How come Vanuatu is the origin of Austronesian ?

Here Indonesia vs India volleyball team. In Indonesian team there is indeed one Papuan (Melanesian) player.