返回列表 回复 发帖
17# imvivi001
本来没概念也未曾关注过,根据前面照片猜原乡是B,A可能是中转站?
紫蔻 发表于 2016-10-19 07:23
目前欧洲主流学者开始倾向于A,但是我认为原始印欧语的形成要早于颜那亚文化,加上颜那亚人群强烈的古中亚血统而中东血统不多,因此我认为源头可能要在中亚一带寻找~
物格而后知至,知至而后意诚,意诚而后心正,心正而后身修,身修而后家齐,家齐而后国治,国治而后天下平...
在外边打不开,谁能帮忙打开转录一下文章内容?谢谢~ http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/201 ... f-worlds-first.html http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/201 ... f-worlds-first.html
物格而后知至,知至而后意诚,意诚而后心正,心正而后身修,身修而后家齐,家齐而后国治,国治而后天下平...
21# imvivi001
我觉得他们也有道理吧,加上时间维度原乡的位置不同,再早还非洲呢。外行瞎猜。
21# imvivi001
我觉得他们也有道理吧,加上时间维度原乡的位置不同,再早还非洲呢。外行瞎猜。
紫蔻 发表于 2016-10-19 17:02
时间尺度必须按照阶段来看,原始印欧语形成的历史就是六七千年,无法追溯到非洲
物格而后知至,知至而后意诚,意诚而后心正,心正而后身修,身修而后家齐,家齐而后国治,国治而后天下平...
这个白化特征在古代东部西伯利亚地区估计也有不少。从古代的记载来看,但现在的东西伯利亚土著似乎很少见。
原始印欧人的遗址在上世纪50年代已经出土不少,居然还在猜测他们原乡是何处,坛友们的学术水平真让俺感到无比惊讶
原始印欧人的遗址在上世纪50年代已经出土不少,居然还在猜测他们原乡是何处,坛友们的学术水平真让俺感到无比惊讶
Manaus 发表于 2016-10-20 09:17
你不妨说一说哪些“上世纪50年代出土的遗址”可以证明是原始印欧人的原乡? 这样不但可以帮助本坛坛友提高这方面的知识水平,也可以顺便帮现在一大片欧美的专业学者解惑...
物格而后知至,知至而后意诚,意诚而后心正,心正而后身修,身修而后家齐,家齐而后国治,国治而后天下平...
Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians : Nature Communications http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912
某些欧洲专业学者为了能把印欧语的起源地“留在欧洲”,几乎是夜不能寐寝食难安了,再这样下去我怀疑会不会得神经衰弱吖

不过这篇文章还是很有价值的,起码是非常令人信服地说明了欧洲人的第四大成分---CHG
物格而后知至,知至而后意诚,意诚而后心正,心正而后身修,身修而后家齐,家齐而后国治,国治而后天下平...
Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians : Nature Communications http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912
某些欧洲专业学者为了能把印欧语的起源地“留在欧洲”,几乎是夜不能寐寝 ...
imvivi001 发表于 2016-10-22 00:14
论文的作者团队在试图说明PIE起源于欧洲的时候,显然在推理链接过程中不自觉之中犯了基本的逻辑错误,比如他们在揭示颜那亚古人携带明显的CGH成分的同时,也承认颜那亚人的另一个主成分是EHG(东欧猎采者成分),不过作者明显把EHG的归属搞错了(他们说成是WHG的东欧分支)。事实上,声名卓著的Haak团队在同年发表的论文中已经说明,EHG是以ANE为主成分混有一些WHG而形成的西欧亚大草原成分,可能本文团队作者没有看到Haak的成果,所以才会最终得出PIE起源于欧洲的错误结论。
     退几十步来说,即便是他们没有及时看到Haak团队的成果,那根据ANE在欧洲人当中普遍的存在,他们在“得出PIE起源于欧洲”的结论之前,也应该多想一些其他的可能性,而不是轻率地对重大课题发表明显确定性的结论。因此他们在根据本文的数据他们在“得出PIE起源于欧洲”的结论之前,或许应该问一下自己,这些明显与欧洲corded ware古人相关的ANE到底是哪一个古人群带来的? 乌-芬人群? 那标志性的N1c分布与cordedware吻合吗? 或者是当年乌拉尔人发扬可爱的国际主义精神带来了大批的东欧亚美女,那在mt总要有所体现吧,可是...

       总之,现代科学时代做学问,一定要学好逻辑学,不然不经意之间就会闹笑话了
物格而后知至,知至而后意诚,意诚而后心正,心正而后身修,身修而后家齐,家齐而后国治,国治而后天下平...
Hungarian Neolithic Individual (NE5):
ANE -
ASE -
WHG-UHG 54.43%
East_Eurasian -
West_African -
East_African -
ENF 45.57%

Hungarian Neolithic Individual (NE7):
ANE -
ASE -
WHG-UHG 59.98%
East_Eurasian -
West_African -
East_African -
ENF 40.02%

Hungarian Copper Age individual:

ANE -
ASE -
WHG-UHG 60.38%
East_Eurasian -
West_African -
East_African -
ENF 39.62%



Hungarian Iron Age Individual:

ANE 18.36%
ASE -
WHG-UHG 57.41%
East_Eurasian 1.39%
West_African -
East_African -
ENF 22.83%
---------------------------------------------------

    “雅利安人”的到来明显改变了欧洲人的“旧貌”,不过通过这个数据可以看出,从中亚出发的原始印欧语人群固有的E.E.成分大约是7~10%
物格而后知至,知至而后意诚,意诚而后心正,心正而后身修,身修而后家齐,家齐而后国治,国治而后天下平...
本帖最后由 imvivi001 于 2016-10-24 20:26 编辑

关于印欧人的起源,其实许多欧洲专业学者至今仍然感到困惑,比如这一位他这样说:
I’m probably wrong!
]March 16, 2016

When trying to learn and understand approximately everything, one is forced to periodically admit that there are a great many things one does not yet know.
I made a diagram of my thoughts from yesterday:

My intuition tells me this is wrong.
I tried my best to make it neat and clear, focusing on the big separations and leaving out the frequent cross-mixing. Where several groups had similar DNA, I used one group to represent the group (eg, Yoruba,) and left out groups whose histories were just too complicated to express clearly at this size. A big chunk of the Middle East/middle of Eurasia is a mixing zone where lots of groups seem to have merged. (Likewise, I obviously left out groups that weren’t in Haak’s dataset, like Polynesians.)
I tried to arrange the groups sensibly, so that ones that are geographically near each other and/or have intermixed are near each other on the graph, but this didn’t always work out–eg, the Inuit share some DNA with other Native American groups, but ended up sandwiched between India and Siberia. (Abbreviations: SSA =  Sub-Saharan Africa; ANE = Ancient North Eurasian, even though they’re found all over the place; WHG = European hunter-gatherers; I-Es = Indo-Europeans.


Things get complicated around the emergence of the Indo-Europeans (I-Es), who emerged from the combination of a known population (WHG) and an unknown population that I’m super-speculating might have come from India, after which some of the I-Es might have returned to India. But then there is the mystery of why the color on the graph changes from light green to teal–did another group related to the original IEs emerge, or is this just change over time?
The IEs are also, IMO, at the wrong spot in time (so are the Pygmies.) Maybe this is just a really bad proxy for time? Maybe getting conquered makes groups combine in ways that look like they differentiated at times other than when they did?
Either way, I am, well, frustrated.


EDIT: Oh, I just realized something I did wrong.
*Fiddles*
Still speculative, but hopefully better
Among other things, I realized I’d messed up counting off where some of the groups split, so while I fixing that, I went ahead and switched the Siberians and Melanesians so I could get the Inuit near the other Americans.
I also realized that I was trying to smush together the emergence of the WHG and the Yamnaya, even though those events happened at different times. The new version shows the WHG and Yamnaya (proto-Indo-Europeans) at two very different times.
Third, I have fixed it so that the ANE don’t feed directly into modern Europeans. The downside of the current model is that it makes it look like the ANE disappeaed, when really they just dispersed into so many groups which mixed in turn with other groups that they ceased existing in “pure” form, though the Bedouins, I suspect, come closest.
The “light green” and “teal” colors on Haak’s graph are still problematic–light green doesn’t exist in “pure” form anywhere on the graph, but it appears to be highest in India. My interpretation is that the light green derived early on from an ANE population somewhere around India (though Iran, Pakistan, the Caucuses, or the Steppes are also possibilities,) and somewhat later mixed with an “East” population in India. A bit of that light green population also made it into the Onge, and later, I think a branch of it combined with the WHG to create the Yamnaya. (Who, in turn, conquered some ANE groups, creating the modern Europeans.)
I should also note that I might have the Khoi and San groups backwards, because I’m not all that familiar with them.
I could edit this post and just eliminate my embarrassing mistakes, but I think I’ll let them stay in order to show the importance of paying attention to the nagging sense of being wrong. It turns out I was! I might still be wrong, but hopefully I’m less wrong.
物格而后知至,知至而后意诚,意诚而后心正,心正而后身修,身修而后家齐,家齐而后国治,国治而后天下平...
历史上,“雅利安”这个词,原本就只是古代印度-伊朗语族人群对自己的自称(同时代其他民族从未这样称呼过自己)
要猜测他们语言的起源地,我更倾向于泛BAMC区域……
历史上,“雅利安”这个词,原本就只是古代印度-伊朗语族人群对自己的自称(同时代其他民族从未这样称呼过自己)
要猜测他们语言的起源地,我更倾向于泛BAMC区域……
arslan76 发表于 2016-12-1 17:18
我更倾向于安德罗诺沃。
O3a3c* (M134+, M117-)
根据Underhill 2014年的文章,R1a里面最根部、最古老的几个分枝只分布在伊朗,或者在伊朗最高频出现(虽然绝对频率仍然特别低)。所以如果认为R1a跟印欧语系有较好对应的话,那么雅利安人最有可能发源于伊朗附近,也就是上页地图中的A与B地区之间。
根据Underhill 2014年的文章,R1a里面最根部、最古老的几个分枝只分布在伊朗,或者在伊朗最高频出现(虽然绝对频率仍然特别低)。所以如果认为R1a跟印欧语系有较好对应的话,那么雅利安人最有可能发源于伊朗附近,也 ...
sethxu 发表于 2016-12-5 11:48
左看右看,还是B的可能性比较大

物格而后知至,知至而后意诚,意诚而后心正,心正而后身修,身修而后家齐,家齐而后国治,国治而后天下平...
35# imvivi001 我觉得很多学者还是认可干草原起源而向西扩张的,起源于B就改写印欧人理论了吖
    左看右看,还是B的可能性比较大
imvivi001 发表于 2018-1-21 23:55
左看右看,好像没多少人有兴趣跟这个帖。就是你自己树个靶子自己打
NRY: O2a1c1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1(源自粤西云浮)
mtDNA:B4d1(源自浙北慈溪)
百越人的人类学文集 http://blog.sina.com.cn/baiyueren
本帖最后由 samsa 于 2018-1-24 10:43 编辑
    左看右看,还是B的可能性比较大


imvivi001 发表于 2018-1-21 23:55
去年我用谷歌map看了半天, 觉得在B的可能性最大. 也觉得Q和R分叉也在里海南岸, Q系顺里海东岸向东北方向踏遍中亚,去北亚,西伯利亚再,渡过白令海峡. R 系也许沿里海向北逐步开拓进在冰河期跋涉过高加索山脉进入南欧. R系向西沿黑海到土耳其北部再过黑海-地中海陆地通道也可能, 但很难说土耳其北部陆地桥在冰河期的状况. 从R1b分布看, 确实土耳其北部比例比R1a高. 一家之抛砖.

R系也许过了高加索沿黑海北岸向南欧再折转到希腊. 所以他们的神话故事盗火的普罗米修斯也在高加索山.

微信图片_20180121180129.png
2018-1-22 07:04




Map_2B_20180115_TWIG.jpg
2018-1-24 10:41


Map_4_20180115_TWIG.jpg
2018-1-24 10:43
36# 猫人
    分子人类学上,与Z93起源或首次壮大直接相关。语言学上,不仅与乌拉尔语相关,也与闪米特语相关。综合考虑,还是32楼阿斯兰说的泛BMAC区域比较合理,应该去不到南俄草原那么北和那么西~
物格而后知至,知至而后意诚,意诚而后心正,心正而后身修,身修而后家齐,家齐而后国治,国治而后天下平...
36# 猫人
萨马拉-颜那亚可能是受到强烈影响的受让方,进而成为往欧洲扩散的桥头堡
物格而后知至,知至而后意诚,意诚而后心正,心正而后身修,身修而后家齐,家齐而后国治,国治而后天下平...
返回列表
baidu
互联网 www.ranhaer.org