Talk:Globular Amphora culture

Anatolian Neolithic farmer-derived ancestry

A new preprint-paper "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus" (May 16, 2018) states Globular Amphora culture played an important role in introducing Anatolian farmer-related ancestry into Europe and Yamnaya/Maykop. --Glasnostiker (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The authors obviously were unaware of the fact that the impact of (Anatolian) farmer ancestry started with the so-called Neolithic 3000 years earlier! Or glasnost overlooked the appropriate explanation. HJJHolm (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Genes and language

"assumed an Indo-European origin, though this is contradicted[how?] by newer genetic studies[vague].[2]" <- That's nonsense again. Genes can only prove migrations in the number of sampled bodies, nothing else. Above all, they cannot talk, which is completely misunderstood in almost all of these new gene studies. (HJHolm) 2A02:8108:963F:F853:78:D39E:FB70:D4BC (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC).

Genetic analysis (Haak et al & Allentoft et al, see Corded Ware Culture) confirms a major component of the Kurgan hypothesis, namely that most individuals in the Corded Ware Culture were descended (especially paternally) from individuals from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, and in particular closely related to individuals in the Yamnaya culture responsible for the Kurgan monuments. On the other hand, a very recent paper [Schroeder et al (2019)] shows that of 24 GAC individuals with DNA sequences, most have no steppe ancestry, and are genetically typical of the European neolithic: that is, with ancestry from Anatolian farmers inherited from the earliest neolithic (LBK), and an admixture from the pre-neolithic western hunter-gatherers (WHG). So Gimbutas' identification of the GAC people with the (hypothetically Indo-European speaking) Kurgan/Yamnaya/CWC people is ruled out. Intriguingly, the Zlota culture appears to be a hybrid of GAC and Steppe, and a prototype of CWC, and the few individuals who have been genotyped have a small but significant Steppe component of their ancestry (All this from the Supporting Information to Schroeder et al, which is freely available). The evidence that Yamnaya/CWC spoke Indo-European languages (albeit not the earliest PIE) has got stronger since Gimbutas' day; even on the alternative Anatolian hypothesis for Indo-European origins the CWC was seen as Indo-European speaking; however the genetic discontinuity between CWC and the earlier neolithic population in the CWC area (and between CWC and GAC) is not at all expected on the Anatolian hypothesis. PaddyLeahy (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@PaddyLeahy: HJHolm's point was that genetic results (lack of steppe ancestry in most individuals sampled) do not and cannot rule out the hypothesis that the GAC was Indo-European-speaking – especially given that some of the individuals sampled do indeed have steppe ancestry, so Indo-European language and culture can have been introduced according to the élite dominance model (as originally also assumed for the CWC), even if no massive folk migration with replacement of the previous inhabitants had taken place, so the results are not decisive. I agree, however, that the results are a strong argument against the AH. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear FB, You are right, genes can never rule out a language, however, they can even less prove a language.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:C05B:E14F:C9FA:9303 (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The article still claims that the genetic data somehow contradicts the linguistic hypothesis. Not sure how it can do that. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Map nonsense

The map is misleading, because the KA started and ended 500 years earlier than the CWC, thus shares a larger period with the Funnelneckbeaker (TRB) culture.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:2016:649:E131:9852 (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)