DNA Sequencing Megathread! Neanderthals, Denisovans and other ancient DNA!

[jimmy olsen]

Tim, I don't think you understand what the Anatolian Hypothesis is.  It has to do with the homeland of Proto-Indo Europeans not where farming came from.

I know, I'm saying these farmers are the Proto-Indo Europeans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis

The Anatolian hypothesis proposes that the dispersal of Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Neolithic Anatolia. The hypothesis suggests that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) lived in Anatolia during the Neolithic era, and associates the distribution of historical Indo-European languages with the expansion during the Neolithic revolution of the seventh and sixth millennia BC. An alternative (and academically more favored view) is the Kurgan hypothesis.

The main proponent of the Anatolian hypothesis, Colin Renfrew, suggested in 1987 a peaceful Indo-Europeanization of Europe from Anatolia from around 7000 BC, with the advance of farming by demic diffusion ("wave of advance"). Accordingly, most of the inhabitants of Neolithic Europe would have spoken Indo-European languages, and later migrations would at best have replaced these Indo-European varieties with other Indo-European varieties.[1]

[Razgovory]

Sorry, but gotta go with Psellus on this one.  It's sort of his thing.  The Modern Kurgan Hypothesis is the stronger of the two.  The original one was tainted by very stupid form of feminism, but that isn't required for it to work and if you cut it out the whole thing works rather well.

[Eddie Teach]

Tim, you are famous!

But is he prestigious?

[Queequeg]

Tim, I don't think you understand what the Anatolian Hypothesis is.  It has to do with the homeland of Proto-Indo Europeans not where farming came from.

I know, I'm saying these farmers are the Proto-Indo Europeans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis

The Anatolian hypothesis proposes that the dispersal of Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Neolithic Anatolia. The hypothesis suggests that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) lived in Anatolia during the Neolithic era, and associates the distribution of historical Indo-European languages with the expansion during the Neolithic revolution of the seventh and sixth millennia BC. An alternative (and academically more favored view) is the Kurgan hypothesis.

The main proponent of the Anatolian hypothesis, Colin Renfrew, suggested in 1987 a peaceful Indo-Europeanization of Europe from Anatolia from around 7000 BC, with the advance of farming by demic diffusion ("wave of advance"). Accordingly, most of the inhabitants of Neolithic Europe would have spoken Indo-European languages, and later migrations would at best have replaced these Indo-European varieties with other Indo-European varieties.[1]

yes language is genetics
that's why african americans are indistinguishable from villagers in rural east anglia and natives of edirne look like koreans

[The Brain]

There are no races so you can't see any difference, it's all individual variations.

[jimmy olsen]

Tim, I don't think you understand what the Anatolian Hypothesis is.  It has to do with the homeland of Proto-Indo Europeans not where farming came from.

I know, I'm saying these farmers are the Proto-Indo Europeans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis

The Anatolian hypothesis proposes that the dispersal of Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Neolithic Anatolia. The hypothesis suggests that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) lived in Anatolia during the Neolithic era, and associates the distribution of historical Indo-European languages with the expansion during the Neolithic revolution of the seventh and sixth millennia BC. An alternative (and academically more favored view) is the Kurgan hypothesis.

The main proponent of the Anatolian hypothesis, Colin Renfrew, suggested in 1987 a peaceful Indo-Europeanization of Europe from Anatolia from around 7000 BC, with the advance of farming by demic diffusion ("wave of advance"). Accordingly, most of the inhabitants of Neolithic Europe would have spoken Indo-European languages, and later migrations would at best have replaced these Indo-European varieties with other Indo-European varieties.[1]

yes language is genetics
that's why african americans are indistinguishable from villagers in rural east anglia and natives of edirne look like koreans

"Pots, not people" has been thoroughly discredited. The history of Eurasia, in both historical,  prehistoric and even pre-anatomically modern times is one of migration and population replacement. Languages, like all other artifacts of culture were spread primarily by such demographic change, rather than through the simple exchange of ideas. Such did not become a dominant means of exchange until the development of extensive trade routes during the iron age.

[Queequeg]

Well.  I'm going to get a shot of good Visoki Decani rakija and break this down.

1) Genetics
Proponents of the Kurgan hypothesis do not believe that there was no neolithic migration out of Anatolia.  As I mentioned previously, I think it's likely that Etruscans, Pelasgians and other were direct or more-direct semi-Kurganized descendants of these Anatolian migrants.  In certain areas-like where I am right now, the Balkans-you'd see a lot of genetic continuity from these early Anatolian migrants.  Serbs look hugely different from (Slav-looking) north Croatians, or Poles. This is hard country, relatively isolated from the more or less constant drift from the steppe in to the European interior.  HOWEVER, there is ABUNDANT genetic evidence of the Indo-European migrations starting from the Caspian Steppe. 



The Slavic and Baltic language speakers are, as you might guess, in some regards the most conservative.  Poles, Ukrainians and Russians are relatively direct descendants of late shared IE speakers and live next to the Caspian steppe itself.  The fact that you see R1a1a distributed amongst Indian populations and in the isolated Tian Shan AS WELL as very high concentrations in the core Slavic region is EXTREMELY STRONG EVIDENCE.

2)  IE's relationships w other families.

IF you look at a comparison between the Uralic and IE languages, you can reasonably hypothesize three periods of contact.

A) Shared origins in greater Ural region-this is hypothetical, but a lot of the core vocab is both groups looks relatively similar and some of the grammar is similar.

B) VERY EARLY borrowing by the Uralic languages from a later common IE, including words for a pastoral lifestyle ("slave". "pig").

The third is in the historical period, but is not relevant.

So this is the basic model I am talking about



A core population in the west urals moves west, adopts the chariot from the Middle East, and goes NUTS.  I think there's an obvious historical comparison with the Comanches, who started out as another peaceful inner California tribe, realized the horse was awesome, and then went NUTS and were spread across the entire American west within decades.  Something similar happened to the Bantus within roughly the historical period.  This model is backed by the evolution of the IE languages.  Languages that broke off from the IE tree relatively early (Anatolian, Tocharian, Celtic, Latin, to a degree Germanic) do not reflect intense relationship with the NW Caucasian languages, while Balto-Slavic and the Indo-Iranian languages DO. 

By comparison, let's look at the relatively well documented Chalcolithic and Bronze Age history of Anatolia.

There's a substantial amount of evidence that the Hittites, the first documented Indo-European civilization, were NOT NATIVE.  They occupied previously established settlements (see: the Hatti), and though there is MUCH indication of an INTENSE Anatolian and Caucasian influence on the IE cultures, this would appear to happen within the HISTORICAL PERIOD.

Also, IE makes NO SENSE within the scheme of pre-Hittite Anatolia.  It has NO RELATIONSHIP with Hattic, the pre-Hittite language, or Hurro-Urartian, which *might* be related to the NE Caucasian languages or the non IE Kassite language.  There is no evidence of a period of contact, no early areal features, no shared grammar prior to a hypothetical IE migration that got the ball of the Kassite migration rolling.  IE groups in Anatolia, like the Hittite and the Mitanni, at least BEGAN as a NON-NATIVE population mixing with a NATIVE population that spoke CAUCASUS-y agglutinating, ERGATIVE languages that featured DISTINCTIVE CAUCASUS FEATURES like Suffixaufnahme with NO GENDER.  This could NOT BE LESS PIE.   

3) Internal IE features
Generally speaking it's impossible to rebuild a language family after around 10k years of divergence.  Afro-Asiatic bends this a bit, and my own Indo-Uralic pet theory does a bit as well, but it's generally very difficult to establish a relationship.  But IE was NOT HARD to establish.  The Ancients got that Greek and Latin were more closely related than, say, Basque.  People UNDERSTOOD that Sanskirt, Latin and Greek were related going back to the first Portuguese missions to India, and even family freaks like Anatolian and Germanic have a core shared vocabulary that's relatively coherent up in to the historical period.  There's a lot of shared cultural features that would indicate that this happened RELATIVELY RECENTLY as well, and evidences contact with Chalcolithic and Bronze Age civilizations.  HOW DO IE LANGUAGES HAVE A SHARED CHARIOT VOCABULARY, THE COMPLEXITY OF WHICH WE CAN USE TO ESTABLISH WHEN THE BRANCHES BROKE OFF FROM WHICH, IF THE IE MIGRATION HAPPENED THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE CHARIOTS WERE ANYTHING?

[Grinning_Colossus]

People UNDERSTOOD that Sanskirt, Latin and Greek were related going back to the first Portuguese missions to India

Really? It was my understanding that, until the advent of modern linguistics, people didn't understand that, e.g., French and Spanish were descended from Latin; they thought that all contemporary languages were created by God when he destroyed the Tower of Babel.

[dps]

People UNDERSTOOD that Sanskirt, Latin and Greek were related going back to the first Portuguese missions to India

Really? It was my understanding that, until the advent of modern linguistics, people didn't understand that, e.g., French and Spanish were descended from Latin; they thought that all contemporary languages were created by God when he destroyed the Tower of Babel.

My understanding was more along the lines of that studying the comparisons of Sanskrit to Greek and Latin was essentially the foundation of modern linguistics.

[Queequeg]

People UNDERSTOOD that Sanskirt, Latin and Greek were related going back to the first Portuguese missions to India

Really? It was my understanding that, until the advent of modern linguistics, people didn't understand that, e.g., French and Spanish were descended from Latin; they thought that all contemporary languages were created by God when he destroyed the Tower of Babel.

My understanding was more along the lines of that studying the comparisons of Sanskrit to Greek and Latin was essentially the foundation of modern linguistics.

The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.

--William Jones

[Grinning_Colossus]

The Jones quote is from 'The Sanscrit Language,' published in 1786.

[Queequeg]

also

[jimmy olsen]

It no doubt goes back to the last common ancestor of Sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans (assumed to be Hiedelbergensis), perhaps even all the way back to Erectus.


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-09/bu-2fr092415.php

Credit: Casey Staff


BINGHAMTON, NY - Research into human fossils dating back to approximately two million years ago reveals that the hearing pattern resembles chimpanzees, but with some slight differences in the direction of humans.

Rolf Quam, assistant professor of anthropology at Binghamton University, led an international research team in reconstructing an aspect of sensory perception in several fossil hominin individuals from the sites of Sterkfontein and Swartkrans in South Africa. The study relied on the use of CT scans and virtual computer reconstructions to study the internal anatomy of the ear. The results suggest that the early hominin species Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus robustus, both of which lived around 2 million years ago, had hearing abilities similar to a chimpanzee, but with some slight differences in the direction of humans.

Humans are distinct from most other primates, including chimpanzees, in having better hearing across a wider range of frequencies, generally between 1.0-6.0 kHz. Within this same frequency range, which encompasses many of the sounds emitted during spoken language, chimpanzees and most other primates lose sensitivity compared to humans.

"We know that the hearing patterns, or audiograms, in chimpanzees and humans are distinct because their hearing abilities have been measured in the laboratory in living subjects," said Quam. "So we were interested in finding out when this human-like hearing pattern first emerged during our evolutionary history."

Previously, Quam and colleagues studied the hearing abilities in several fossil hominin individuals from the site of the Sima de los Huesos (Pit of the Bones) in northern Spain. These fossils are about 430,000 years old and are considered to represent ancestors of the later Neandertals. The hearing abilities in the Sima hominins were nearly identical to living humans. In contrast, the much earlier South African specimens had a hearing pattern that was much more similar to a chimpanzee.

In the South African fossils, the region of maximum hearing sensitivity was shifted towards slightly higher frequencies compared with chimpanzees, and the early hominins showed better hearing than either chimpanzees or humans from about 1.0-3.0 kHz. It turns out that this auditory pattern may have been particularly favorable for living on the savanna. In more open environments, sound waves don't travel as far as in the rainforest canopy, so short range communication is favored on the savanna.

"We know these species regularly occupied the savanna since their diet included up to 50 percent of resources found in open environments" said Quam. The researchers argue that this combination of auditory features may have favored short-range communication in open environments.

That sounds a lot like language. Does this mean these early hominins had language? "No," said Quam. "We're not arguing that. They certainly could communicate vocally. All primates do, but we're not saying they had fully developed human language, which implies a symbolic content."

The emergence of language is one of the most hotly debated questions in paleoanthropology, the branch of anthropology that studies human origins, since the capacity for spoken language is often held to be a defining human feature. There is a general consensus among anthropologists that the small brain size and ape-like cranial anatomy and vocal tract in these early hominins indicates they likely did not have the capacity for language.

"We feel our research line does have considerable potential to provide new insights into when the human hearing pattern emerged and, by extension, when we developed language," said Quam.

Ignacio Martinez, a collaborator on the study, said, "We're pretty confident about our results and our interpretation. In particular, it's very gratifying when several independent lines of evidence converge on a consistent interpretation."

How do these results compare with the discovery of a new hominin species, Homo naledi, announced just two weeks ago from a different site in South Africa?

"It would be really interesting to study the hearing pattern in this new species," said Quam. "Stay tuned."

The study was published on Sept. 25 in the journal Science Advances.

[The Brain]

"Hello? Is this on?"

[jimmy olsen]

December 2013 lecture in Chicago on Neandertals by Dr. Hawks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uRCVyJ7-0c&feature=youtu.be