Forum Replies Created
@Alone Coder, Thank you for your message.
The core idea of a Modern Indo-European language is to follow the mainstream reconstruction of PIE. The reason for this is precisely to avoid having a thousand Interlinguas or Esperantos being constantly created by different people to improve it. If we want it to be used, we can’t risk having a thousand. I know it’s difficult to accept one version, especially because the field is neither unitary nor static, so we also try to keep an eye on new developments to adapt it whenever necessary.
Some conscious and potentially risky choices on our part are e.g. our preference for avoiding laryngeals and “palatovelars”, both decisions made because of their controversial nature (too long to explain here, you have probably read about it here and elsewhere). With regards to vocabulary, my aim has always been to select North-West Indo-European related ones, but Fernando’s lexicon chooses mainstream ones, as you say. I don’t think you can easily select which Indo-European languages are core ones, although I am sure he will be open to review vocabulary that consistently appears in more languages with the same meaning, to be used instead of other, less common words that he might have picked for the dictionary.
Anyway, I decided long ago to let Fernando López-Menchero – who is formally trained on Classics and on Indo-European linguistics – take all decisions on linguistic matters. I suggest you contact him at email@example.com, he might be very interested in having help with the lexicon, and maybe he can help you with yours at the same time. You can also use our Facebook Modern Indo-European group to discuss specific reconstructed vocabulary.
In version 1.90.1 I added changes proposed by Kovalev to culture and group classification of samples from Jeong et al. (2020).
I have left the samples labelled as C2a… according to what I could find in Japanese pages, which suggest they belong to ISOGG 2019 C2b, even though no recent ISOGG nomenclature included them in the past 5 years… These include C2a1a1, C2a1a2, but particularly C2a1a3, whose corresponding C2b1a3?? I couldn’t find anywhere.
Changes into version 1.89.16 include:
1. Addition of mtDNA from Ancient mitogenomes show plateau populations from last 5200 years partially contributed to present-day Tibetans, by Ding et al. Proc R Soc B (2020).
2. Review of SNP inferences of Bronze Age R1b-Z2103 samples, including negative SNPs.
Now using Yleaf v. 2.2, but I didn’t see any marked differences with previous inferences made with Yleaf v.2.
1. I have tested all Baltic Neolithic samples reported as R1b-L754 or P297: all have enough coverage to show they are of basal subclades P297* (xM73, xM269).
2. I also tried using Skoglund et al. (2014) PMDtools with different thresholds to improve damaged samples:
Unsuccessful with the Balkan Chalcolithic outlier from Smyadovo: all positive SNPs except BT are excluded, so we are stuck with the more risky: P-, but R+, R1b+, R1b-M269+ results. For some reason (maybe a specific threshold??) the authors assumed that the R-P280 call was acceptable, though.
Successful with the Samara HG sample: a low threshold (=0.1) confirms one R1b-M73-equivalent SNP, with two negative R1b-M269-equivalent reads, so the most plausible haplogroup seems to be M73, until proven otherwise.
3. I added samples from Egypt, including two newly reported from the Kurchatov Institute (no clear date or location), also the dubious R1b-M269 from the KV 55 coffin and the mtDNA of Djehutynakht in Loreille et al. (2018).March 13, 2020 at 1:47 pm in reply to: van de Loosdrecht (2020): Genomic and dietary shifts in Sicilian prehistory #27955
Interestingly, the paper also supports some main points:
1. The WHG-reated migration might have been initially mediated by R1b-rich Epipalaeolithic groups from south-eastern Europe, but it seems to have been soon hijacked by I2 lineages, much like the later Neolithic migrations.
The two Neolithic-related reported Y-DNA show what seems like a resurgence or continuity of previous Mesolithic lineages, C1a2, but also likely Neolithic H. Despite the low number of samples, it questions the origin of the R1b-V88 expansion into Africa from (NW) Sicily.
See more on the question of the R1b-V88 expansion.
2. The affinity of Impressed Ware and Stentinello I to Balkan Neolithic- or Greek Neolithic-related ancestry supports that the NW Anatolia Neolithic-related ancestry found among sampled Italics and Etruscans could be in fact an admixture of “local” peoples from Southern Italy or the Adriatic, in line with the appearance of the Etruscan J2b-L283.
See more on the EEF ancestry of Italics and Etruscans.
Updated with Sicilian Epigravettian, Mesolithic, and Early Neolithic samples from van de Loosdrecht et al. bioRxiv (2020).March 12, 2020 at 9:10 pm in reply to: Prehistory Atlas: Maps of Cultures, Peoples, and Languages #27941March 12, 2020 at 9:07 pm in reply to: Prehistory Atlas: Maps of Cultures, Peoples, and Languages #27940
I have updated the Late Trypillian groups in the Early Chalcolithic map, using Diachenko & Harper (2016) and (not so much) Videiko (2011). I hope future papers on population genomics give a more precise chronology:
Proposed synchronizations and durations of local groups of the Late Tripolye culture. Colors indicate typo-chronological assignment: yellow – Tripolye BII; light green – Tripolye CI; dark green – Tripolye CI-II; blue – Tripolye CII. From Diachenko & Harper (2016).
The general distribution of Late Tripolye local groups and relevant sites with 14C dating. From Diachenko & Harper (2016).
I have updated the dataset, including reported Neanderthal and Denisovan Y-DNA (ISOGG only).
I have also checked out some of the samples of hg. T. I can’t find Genetiker’s reported SNP for the Varna individual. The best I can do (like the original paper) is CT+.
It’s quite interesting that the R1a-Z93 from the Balkans shows SNP calls similar to the Glăvăneştii one, suggesting that it is an R1a-Z93* sample more closely related to Late Trypillian groups, and thus a potential resurgence event more than a Srubnaya-related migration:
I have also updated all maps of Y-DNA.
The SNP calls for Villabruna show it is negative for V2219 and L389 subclades (although the L389 level is not covered). I’d say it was more likely of a basal subclade that hasn’t survived to this day.
The question is thus if the associated Epigravettian WHG expansion in Western Europe consisted mainly of this subclade, and V2219-associated peoples expanded in a different (later?) wave into SE Europe, or if it was a common L754-rich migration of which we can only see the effects after regional bottlenecks.
Sadly, Iboussieres31-2 has a too small coverage to help support any option.
These are some curiously similar SNP inferences around Lake Baikal, apparently N1a1*(xN1a1a), but nevertheless with multiple positives for N1a-L1026 equivalents, showing that this specific lineage (whichever it was) was widespread on both sides of the lake during the Neolithic.
For some reason, this last one didn’t make its way into YFull.
EDIT: According to Pribislav, they are N1a-pre-B187, from Y24317, a rare sister clade of N1a-708. ISOGG 2019 is really far behind new SNPs compared to FTDNA and YFull, and the current nomenclature doesn’t make much sense…
- This reply was modified 22 hours, 35 minutes ago by Carlos Quiles. Reason: Pribislav SNP calls for Fofonovo and DA345
I have updated the file with SNP inferences of samples from Sirak et al. (2019).
I had to delete update dates and start anew, because the previous ones were all messed up, probably due to messing around with different formats (Excel, CSV, txt).March 4, 2020 at 1:06 pm in reply to: Wilkin (2020) Pastoralism sustained eastern Eurasian steppe populations #27634
Wilkin, S., Ventresca Miller, A., Miller, B.K. et al. Economic Diversification Supported the Growth of Mongolia’s Nomadic Empires. Sci Rep 10, 3916 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60194-0
Populations in Mongolia from the late second millennium B.C.E. through the Mongol Empire are traditionally assumed, by archaeologists and historians, to have maintained a highly specialized horse-facilitated form of mobile pastoralism. Until recently, a dearth of direct evidence for prehistoric human diet and subsistence economies in Mongolia has rendered systematic testing of this view impossible. Here, we present stable carbon and nitrogen isotope measurements of human bone collagen, and stable carbon isotope analysis of human enamel bioapatite, from 137 well-dated ancient Mongolian individuals spanning the period c. 4400 B.C.E. to 1300 C.E. Our results demonstrate an increase in consumption of C4 plants beginning at c. 800 B.C.E., almost certainly indicative of millet consumption, an interpretation supported by archaeological evidence. The escalating scale of millet consumption on the eastern Eurasian steppe over time, and an expansion of isotopic niche widths, indicate that historic Mongolian empires were supported by a diversification of economic strategies rather than uniform, specialized pastoralism.
Files updated to v. 1.89, including newly reported samples from Sardinia and the Mediterranean, as well as some not so recent ones I had missed – Mazovian prince, Early Poles – and some updated SNPs of samples from different published papers.
It’s going to be a mess to change all corresponding names for the PCA files, but I’d say this clearly helps us all save time and offers easy access for all.
Interesting the change in nomenclature to Hungary_LC_EBA_Baden_Yamnaya. I guess we are going to see how this Baden community admixed with the Yamnaya very soon.
Also interesting are the doubts on the Varna Eneolithic outlier, now Bulgaria_Varna_C_contam:
QUESTIONABLE_CRITICAL (literature, but data were later found to lack characteristic ancient DNA damage raising the possibility that contamination explains why this individual appears to be an ancestry outlier; a subset of the co-authors of Mathieson et al. 2018 are actively looking into this and will publish corrected information after the issues are fully understood)