An excellent article Nemets. It is truly amazing how much we have been able to piece together of ancient pre-history thanks to modern science.
A question for you. If we look at language spoken around the world, it is clear that that Indo-European has been the most successful in spreading its influence judging by the amount of people speaking it. However if we look at DNA, are the Indo-Europeans the most successful or does some other group take that title?
the further back you go, the more successful those who survived are. For people around in 3000 BC, I think the Yellow River Farmers as well as original Bantus had more of an impact. Bantus will definitely be the most successful group in terms of DNA contribution to living populations by mid-century.
A terrific summary, if I can politely call it that. I've been sharing it with people I think might be interested. A colleague in The Balkans has been assisting with digs, and that is some fascinating stuff. Possibly the most interesting part of the work is the insistence on near-total secrecy as to locations, they won't even tell me casually where any might be, due to potential looting. It's not wrong: I've gone to markets in out-of-the-way places and there is always someone with a metal detector or some other source with a plastic container full of 'finds'. Much of it is innocuous (I watched a colleague kick at some surface dirt in, I am not making this up, a village park and produce a Roman coin), as the area has, as many there put it, 'too much history', but much of it is not.
Great article! I longed for such a useful and insightful overview.
(As a side note, as a spaniard I want to express my mild frustration to the erasure of the word Spain... Portugal is Portugal but Spain is southeastern Iberia, northern Iberia, central Iberia, Cantabria? Why?)
I try (but often fail) to use well-known features of geography like the Iberian Peninsula over the names of large countries (like Spain) to avoid confusing readers who might associate present-day countries with old and often unrelated prehistoric peoples. In Spain's case, there was a tremendous amount of internal diversity in prehistory, so a regional approach is better. I use Anatolia instead of Turkey for the same reason.
Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of well-known geographical names for regions in other places in English, so I'm stuck using horribly unwieldy names like "Germany", "Iran", and "Greece" for regions long before the Germans, Iranians, and Greeks arrived there.
I understand. Central Iberia, Northern Iberia, etc seem sensible choices. However the use of "Portugal" for Western Iberia is what makes it look unconsistent. Like anything in Spain is Iberian Peninsula while Portugal is just Portugal?
Anyhow, this is just me being a bit bothersome, sorry. The article is truly great
Fascinating! The "alliance" system between the Indo-European invaders and the Greek natives was very interesting, and worth going into more detail for. I wonder if something similar happened in Scandinavia with I1-carrying SHG's (my haplogroup :).
I wonder how it must have been like for the men living through the Indo-European invasions. What motivated them? I must ask my local Bantu rn (right now) how it is living through the second Bantu expansion.
Very interesting speculations of the IE Chingis Khan R1a. I have always wondered how the R1b/R1a split between western and central+eastern Europe came about. Can we imagine some IE Bell Beaker family with R1b lineages kicked of the conquests of Britain/France/Iberia/Italy?
I'm not that familiar with R1b's internal phylogeny, but it is a lot more diverse than R1a's. The current theory I think is that the Indo-Europeans were mostly R1b originally, but with an R1a ruling class. Some R1b subclades probably had their own warlord spreads though.
Hello Peter, this is an excellent summary of Indoeuropean expansions. I started reading your work after listening to your conversation with Razib Khan. Just a minor suggestion that might better the readability of your posts would be to split it into shorter sections. Keep up the good work!
they did expand into North Africa, and I think there was some sort of trans-Mediterranean state or at least major trade network that they formed in the 2nd millennium BC. Unfortunately I don't know the archaeology well enough to go into detail on it, so its just mostly hints from DNA.
May 14, 2023·edited May 14, 2023Liked by Peter Nimitz
I wouldn't say a trans-Mediterranean state. More like a major trade network, as both European and African products were exchanged on both ends. This trade network was called "The Ivory road". Look up this link and the sources within it if you want to know more in detail: https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-ivory-road.html
But the main reason Indo-Europeans weren't able to expand into North Africa, was because of the Para-Berber and Proto-Berber pastoral nomads (Tenerians and Capsians). Who recently conquered the Maghreb and the Sahara. These Macro-Berbers were already battle hardened from wars with multiple races (EEF, TAF and Proto-Mandé), which maybe discouraged the Indo-Europeans as they directly traded with Skhirat (Were the SKH (TAF/NATUF) samples came from).
The Indo-Europeans didn't leave their Y-DNA in mass like what they did in Iberia and Britain, which means they didn't conquer North Africa (In fact they left their mtDNA behind). Perhaps they tried to conquer the Maghreb, but they certainly regretted it.
We need a similar about Afroasiatic peoples. I could assist if you want.
My "Sons of Chad" post sort of discusses the Afro-Asiatic question. I'm not sure how the Semites and Berbers fit in, but I'm increasingly sure that Egyptian, Chadic, and Cushitic were all in contact with each other around the Dongola Bend in the mid-4th millennium BC. AA is more likely the result of an old sprachbund than a genetic family.
Yes, I have read the "Sons of Chad". It is certainly fascinating and a good read. However, I strongly disagree that Tenerians were the Proto-Chadics.
The Tenerians came from the east, and you could track their movements from Cattle remains and Midden in the Sahara (previously a Steppe). There's an age cline of it from East to West and Southwest. The farther you go east, the older the remains from these Cattle herders are from their expansion. And they most likely began in Egypt.
These cattle herders were responsible for the "pastoral period" art in the Green Sahara (Neolithic Subpluvial). But were also responsible for the Pastoral Neolithic in East Africa. There's a reason why Capsian tools are very closely similar to Eburran (Kenyan Capsian) tools. Both North African and East African pastoral periods with their archaeology occur at the same time.
This matching is also explained in Afroasiatic linguistics with the ˀ-t-y-n block pattern (or “interlocking” pattern), this pattern is only found in Berber, Cushitic and Semitic. Which means the latest Afroasiatic expansion was mainly driven by Pre-Berber-Cushitic-Semitic speakers between 9k to 3k years ago. Think of it like the Afroasiatic version of "centum and satem". Berber-Semitic-Cushitic in one side, and Egyptian-Chadic in another. However Omotic is not Afroasiatic, but was heavily influenced by Cushitic instead.
Also another interesting thing, this period also shows the appearance of Sub-Saharan mtDNA in Iberia. This marks the beginning of the Trans-Saharan slave trade.
Biggest tragedy of human history. The common ancestors of the people who colonized the Americas and genocided indigenous peoples(native south,north,west and east asians, native european etc.)
It failed in Mongolia and Xinjiang, but Iran, Europe and Northern India still speak Indo-European languages so I’d say it was pretty successful as a whole.
I wonder who would win in a fight between the R1a-M417 Ur-father (Dyḗus ph₂tḗr) and the Germanic I-M253 Ur-father (Wātónos)
An excellent article Nemets. It is truly amazing how much we have been able to piece together of ancient pre-history thanks to modern science.
A question for you. If we look at language spoken around the world, it is clear that that Indo-European has been the most successful in spreading its influence judging by the amount of people speaking it. However if we look at DNA, are the Indo-Europeans the most successful or does some other group take that title?
the further back you go, the more successful those who survived are. For people around in 3000 BC, I think the Yellow River Farmers as well as original Bantus had more of an impact. Bantus will definitely be the most successful group in terms of DNA contribution to living populations by mid-century.
MMD
What a great synthesis. I hope you keep producing great pieces like this. I’ve read a few of the books you cited. All choice.
A terrific summary, if I can politely call it that. I've been sharing it with people I think might be interested. A colleague in The Balkans has been assisting with digs, and that is some fascinating stuff. Possibly the most interesting part of the work is the insistence on near-total secrecy as to locations, they won't even tell me casually where any might be, due to potential looting. It's not wrong: I've gone to markets in out-of-the-way places and there is always someone with a metal detector or some other source with a plastic container full of 'finds'. Much of it is innocuous (I watched a colleague kick at some surface dirt in, I am not making this up, a village park and produce a Roman coin), as the area has, as many there put it, 'too much history', but much of it is not.
This is an outstanding work, Thank You.
Great article! I longed for such a useful and insightful overview.
(As a side note, as a spaniard I want to express my mild frustration to the erasure of the word Spain... Portugal is Portugal but Spain is southeastern Iberia, northern Iberia, central Iberia, Cantabria? Why?)
I try (but often fail) to use well-known features of geography like the Iberian Peninsula over the names of large countries (like Spain) to avoid confusing readers who might associate present-day countries with old and often unrelated prehistoric peoples. In Spain's case, there was a tremendous amount of internal diversity in prehistory, so a regional approach is better. I use Anatolia instead of Turkey for the same reason.
Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of well-known geographical names for regions in other places in English, so I'm stuck using horribly unwieldy names like "Germany", "Iran", and "Greece" for regions long before the Germans, Iranians, and Greeks arrived there.
I understand. Central Iberia, Northern Iberia, etc seem sensible choices. However the use of "Portugal" for Western Iberia is what makes it look unconsistent. Like anything in Spain is Iberian Peninsula while Portugal is just Portugal?
Anyhow, this is just me being a bit bothersome, sorry. The article is truly great
Fascinating! The "alliance" system between the Indo-European invaders and the Greek natives was very interesting, and worth going into more detail for. I wonder if something similar happened in Scandinavia with I1-carrying SHG's (my haplogroup :).
I wonder how it must have been like for the men living through the Indo-European invasions. What motivated them? I must ask my local Bantu rn (right now) how it is living through the second Bantu expansion.
Thucydides has a couple paragraphs on it and late Bronze Age Greek history in "The Peloponnesian War"
Interesting, I have to reread. Are there any papers about it too?
not that I'm aware of
Why are you not an anthropologist? You know so much about it, you could easily have become an academic!
Very interesting speculations of the IE Chingis Khan R1a. I have always wondered how the R1b/R1a split between western and central+eastern Europe came about. Can we imagine some IE Bell Beaker family with R1b lineages kicked of the conquests of Britain/France/Iberia/Italy?
I'm not that familiar with R1b's internal phylogeny, but it is a lot more diverse than R1a's. The current theory I think is that the Indo-Europeans were mostly R1b originally, but with an R1a ruling class. Some R1b subclades probably had their own warlord spreads though.
This was very well done. I appreciate what you do.
Hello Peter, this is an excellent summary of Indoeuropean expansions. I started reading your work after listening to your conversation with Razib Khan. Just a minor suggestion that might better the readability of your posts would be to split it into shorter sections. Keep up the good work!
You failed to mention why Indo-Europeans weren't able to expand into North Africa despite having the means to get there.
they did expand into North Africa, and I think there was some sort of trans-Mediterranean state or at least major trade network that they formed in the 2nd millennium BC. Unfortunately I don't know the archaeology well enough to go into detail on it, so its just mostly hints from DNA.
I wouldn't say a trans-Mediterranean state. More like a major trade network, as both European and African products were exchanged on both ends. This trade network was called "The Ivory road". Look up this link and the sources within it if you want to know more in detail: https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-ivory-road.html
But the main reason Indo-Europeans weren't able to expand into North Africa, was because of the Para-Berber and Proto-Berber pastoral nomads (Tenerians and Capsians). Who recently conquered the Maghreb and the Sahara. These Macro-Berbers were already battle hardened from wars with multiple races (EEF, TAF and Proto-Mandé), which maybe discouraged the Indo-Europeans as they directly traded with Skhirat (Were the SKH (TAF/NATUF) samples came from).
The Indo-Europeans didn't leave their Y-DNA in mass like what they did in Iberia and Britain, which means they didn't conquer North Africa (In fact they left their mtDNA behind). Perhaps they tried to conquer the Maghreb, but they certainly regretted it.
We need a similar about Afroasiatic peoples. I could assist if you want.
Very interesting, thank you for sharing.
My "Sons of Chad" post sort of discusses the Afro-Asiatic question. I'm not sure how the Semites and Berbers fit in, but I'm increasingly sure that Egyptian, Chadic, and Cushitic were all in contact with each other around the Dongola Bend in the mid-4th millennium BC. AA is more likely the result of an old sprachbund than a genetic family.
I seriously doubt that Omotic is real.
Yes, I have read the "Sons of Chad". It is certainly fascinating and a good read. However, I strongly disagree that Tenerians were the Proto-Chadics.
The Tenerians came from the east, and you could track their movements from Cattle remains and Midden in the Sahara (previously a Steppe). There's an age cline of it from East to West and Southwest. The farther you go east, the older the remains from these Cattle herders are from their expansion. And they most likely began in Egypt.
These cattle herders were responsible for the "pastoral period" art in the Green Sahara (Neolithic Subpluvial). But were also responsible for the Pastoral Neolithic in East Africa. There's a reason why Capsian tools are very closely similar to Eburran (Kenyan Capsian) tools. Both North African and East African pastoral periods with their archaeology occur at the same time.
This matching is also explained in Afroasiatic linguistics with the ˀ-t-y-n block pattern (or “interlocking” pattern), this pattern is only found in Berber, Cushitic and Semitic. Which means the latest Afroasiatic expansion was mainly driven by Pre-Berber-Cushitic-Semitic speakers between 9k to 3k years ago. Think of it like the Afroasiatic version of "centum and satem". Berber-Semitic-Cushitic in one side, and Egyptian-Chadic in another. However Omotic is not Afroasiatic, but was heavily influenced by Cushitic instead.
Hope this makes more sense now.
Also another interesting thing, this period also shows the appearance of Sub-Saharan mtDNA in Iberia. This marks the beginning of the Trans-Saharan slave trade.
Biggest tragedy of human history. The common ancestors of the people who colonized the Americas and genocided indigenous peoples(native south,north,west and east asians, native european etc.)
I get sad everytime I think of the indo-europeans. We're descendants of brutes
It failed in Mongolia and Xinjiang, but Iran, Europe and Northern India still speak Indo-European languages so I’d say it was pretty successful as a whole.