Unmasking AIT

[Husky]

Post 4/n



While the daily mail article refers to nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/full/ncomms8152.html for the May 2015 study of the 3 Forebears of 2/3 Euro males- a paper was was interestingly received in May 2014 a whole year before -

(have yet to read it in full),



how does all the above square with the following Different study from Mar 2015 (received Dec 2014) - which I see is referenced in "3 European forebears" study from the May 2015 (received May 2014) study, particularly in the section which assumes the 3 European ancestors should be attributed to a steppe origin and associated with IE-languages based on the following (but of course!, the whole Europe = 80% neolithic farmers from the Middle-East speaking IE languages doesn't impress 'Europe=Oryanism' unless the genes and the IE languages are made to go together) [is that why the steppe and a whole lot more beyond was left out from the May 2015 study? For foregone conclusions?]:



nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14317.html

Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe



Wolfgang Haak, Iosif Lazaridis, Nick Patterson, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, Bastien Llamas, Guido Brandt, Susanne Nordenfelt, Eadaoin Harney, Kristin Stewardson, Qiaomei Fu, Alissa Mittnik, Eszter Bánffy, Christos Economou, Michael Francken, Susanne Friederich, Rafael Garrido Pena, Fredrik Hallgren, Valery Khartanovich, Aleksandr Khokhlov, Michael Kunst, Pavel Kuznetsov, Harald Meller, Oleg Mochalov, Vayacheslav Moiseyev et al.



Nature

(2015)

doi:10.1038/nature14317



Received

29 December 2014

Accepted

12 February 2015

Published online

02 March 2015



We generated genome-wide data from 69 Europeans who lived between 8,000–3,000 years ago by enriching ancient DNA libraries for a target set of almost 400,000 polymorphisms. Enrichment of these positions decreases the sequencing required for genome-wide ancient DNA analysis by a median of around 250-fold, allowing us to study an order of magnitude more individuals than previous studies1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and to obtain new insights about the past. We show that the populations of Western and Far Eastern Europe followed opposite trajectories between 8,000–5,000 years ago. At the beginning of the Neolithic period in Europe, ~8,000–7,000 years ago, closely related groups of early farmers appeared in Germany, Hungary and Spain, different from indigenous hunter-gatherers, whereas Russia was inhabited by a distinctive population of hunter-gatherers with high affinity to a ~24,000-year-old Siberian6. By ~6,000–5,000 years ago, farmers throughout much of Europe had more hunter-gatherer ancestry than their predecessors, but in Russia, the Yamnaya steppe herders of this time were descended not only from the preceding eastern European hunter-gatherers, but also from a population of Near Eastern ancestry. (Near East=ME. ANE=ME + SW Iran) Western and Eastern Europe came into contact ~4,500 years ago, as the Late Neolithic Corded Ware people from Germany traced ~75% of their ancestry to the Yamnaya, documenting a massive migration into the heartland of Europe from its eastern periphery. This steppe ancestry persisted in all sampled central Europeans until at least ~3,000 years ago, and is ubiquitous in present-day Europeans. These results provide support for a steppe origin9 of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe.

("Some" is neither here nor there unless they can prove it's the locus of all "IE" languages. I.e urheimat. Besides, the statement only says "some of the IE languages of Europe". So even in 2014 they still couldn't prove steppe as more than a stopover/'staging ground for "IE"' to enter Europe. So the question is still left open on "Where did *they* - the relevant steppe persons/community/-ies - get it 'IE' from"?



The other problem is Renfrew's Anatolia theory can't be tested easily. It claimed farming origins + "IE" dispersal from Anatolia at 8,000 BCE. Except Anatolia has belonged to everybody after 'the Anatolians', whoever these were: the ancestors of Romans during Troy [e.g. Julian still revered his ancestor Hector at a shrine], the Greeks, the Romans and Greeks again as well as Continental Celts in Galatia, and -much later- some Turks from Turkmenistan as well as some Arabs, Kurds and persistent Greek presence.

So DNA testing the presentday Turks may indicate Greek ancestry, but could it ever reliably indicate whatever "Anatolian" was there at the PIE era? Anatolia is therefore a great black hole for PIE-ism: can derive all paternal lineages from there and declare that latterday GrecoRomans and presentday Turks did away with the genetic evidence/a clear genetic trail. Steppes can then still be a later staging area for IE languages about to enter Europe proper.)



More importantly, if it's a "massive migration", and assuming for now that the 3 key European ancestors came from the steppe (though the news articles themselves do not know so and the May study on The Three Euro Ancestors only references the above paper, to fill in its own blank on their origins and its own omission of including people in the steppe/Ukraine and Baltic too at least if not Russia in their study) -

Again: 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?





And footnote 9 for the statement "steppe origin9 of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe" in the 'Massive Migration/IE into Europe' article is none other than:

Anthony, D. W. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World (Princeton Univ. Press, 2007)

That is, the 2014/2015 Massive Migration study - going by its abstract - seems to want to link the IE languages to the migration based on Anthony's 2007 book. (Anthony is also listed as an affiliate in the Massive Migration study.)



Now isn't Anthony the guy who wrote how Indra was not PIE - not general IE at all - but a late and local Indo-Afghan derivation, unique to them. Essentially meaning that Bhagavaan Indran - praised in 1/4 of the Rig Vedam itself - belongs to the Hindoos onlee and not to any alien PIE-ists/recons who wish to dabble.



So when horsies are not native to the steppe - as seen in Priyadarshi reviewing the literature on the subject and revealing that horses have been domesticated independently in 70 different places in Eurasia BUT NOT THE STEPPES - did the Bronze Age pre-Riders of the steppe go all the way to outside the steppes to kidnap horses from there* and teach themselves to domesticate and ride them in the steppes, to which they returned [before invading Europe in a massive migration where only 3 steppe Bronze Age Riders have left an imprint on 2/3 of the males]? Or did someone else teach the Bronze Age Riders of the steppes about domesticating and riding horses? And in that last case, then: how would this qualify as 'steppe knowledge/knowledge of bronze age riders from the steppe', as in Anthony's title? *Since the Mongolian "Central Asian" Przewalski horses are specifically not the horses of 'Indo-Europeans' and not ancestral to any horse lineages at all, see the article by Priyadarshi again, which discusses the discoveries on the subject.



By the way, the author of the above 2007 book "The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World", i.e. Herr David W. Anthony, *is* the very guy that Priyadarshi speaks about at (Repeat):



aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/3/

Sir William Ridgeway was wise enough to assert in the year 1905 that the Przewalski was not the ancestor of the caballus horses (Ridgeway:425). However, as the Aryan theory gained influence, more and more authors started saying that the steppe horse Przewalski was the ancestor of the caballus horses. To their frustration, the DNA studies have concluded that not a single horse lineage has descended from the Przewalski (Achilli; Weinstock). The Przewalski and the caballus have different chromosome numbers, and actually they belong to different species. On this basis we can say that the domestic horse found in the steppe and Central Asia was surely imported from outside.



The much widely publicized story of the horse domestication at Dereivka (horse-and-dog burial, Ukraine) at 4200-3700 BCE, which is generally believed even today, proved wrong in 2000. The dates claimed were of the soil layer, not of the skull. The Dereivka horse was never accepted as domestic horse by a large number of scholars (like Levine, Hausler etc). To silence the opposition, the skull bone was directly radiocarbon dated and found to be from 3000 BCE (Anthony 1997). However it became soon obvious that this report was wrong as a bone not actually belonging to the horse had been tested by mistake. Still later, by actual radiocarbon dating of the horse skull, it came out that the horse-burial had been made by a much later settlement, settled over the same place (Scythian era 800-200 BCE), digging deep into the lower layers. David Anthony, author of the Dereivka story was left with no choice. He quickly retracted his earlier claim (Anthony:2000, 2009:215).

(Yet in 2007 he still wrote his story on the "horse, the wheel and the spiel" about the oryans now euphemised to "Bronze Age Riders" note. Oryanism - i.e. Bronze Age plus spread of horse-riding - is *exactly* what the recently published study about 3 Bronze Age ancestors of Europeans is about.)



Thus the 4200 BCE domestic horse no more exists, although many authors still beat its drum. The DNA studies have proved that the horse had been domesticated at more than seventy places throughout Eurasia (Vila; Tatjan; Kavar). However, horse was possibly not domesticated in the Central Asia and the steppe, while it was domesticated in India and Spain. The progenitor of the Indian domestic horse was the wild sivalensis horse, and that of the Spanish was the Tarpan horse. This is the only parsimonious solution. Many horse breeds of the Iberian Peninsula (like the Pottoka) were locally evolved much before the Aryans arrived into the penninsula (Solis 2005:677; Achilli 2011:4 pdf).

No, I see what Anthony did there with his 2007 book title: Bronze Age (Horse) *Riders* from the steppes spread IE, i.e. no longer bronze-age "Horse-domesticators + riders".