# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Bronze Age >  R1a-Z93 in Yamnaya

## Fire Haired14

Someone leaked on a Russian website that David Reich has sampled DNA from a Yamnaya man who belonged to Y DNA haplogroup R1a-Z93("R1a1a1d2a"). We already have a R1a-Z94 sample from Poltvaka, a successor culture of Yamnaya. This R1a-Z94 man had about 30% Middle Neolithic European(Neolithic Turkey, with minor WHG) ancestry unlike Yamnaya, and clearly represents a migration from west of the Volga.

The same is probably true for this R1a-Z93 Yamnaya guy. These heavily EEF/WHG admixed R1a-Z93 people, migrated into Asia around 2000 BC and became Sintashta and then became the historical Sycthians who the Greeks knew in the Iron age. IMO, it's very likely that west of the Volga river and East of Germany, there had been hyprid EEF/WHG/Steppe populations since as early as 3500 BC. This R1a-Z94 Yamnaya guy will be our earliest example, because he probably lived around 3000 BC. 




> Nadezhdinka is a grave 1 of kurgan 1. It is the main grave. The boy lie in a deep pit, Y-hapl: R1a1a1d2a. He was laying on the back, feet bent, arms not survived. The head was covered by dark red ocher, next to the left shoulder there were round-bottom vessel and conch shell. Both grave and inventory - typical for Volga Yamnaya. Kurgan was on a bank of Bolshoy Irgiz river(left tributary of a Volga) — N 52 12', Е 48 39 '. I have to note that East Yamnaya(Volga-Ural) is dated 3400 — 2900 ВС. West Yamnaya - 3100-2400 ВС. And later he wrote: The result was sent by professor Reich, is not yet published.

----------


## Goga

> Someone leaked on a Russian website that David Reich has sampled DNA from a Yamnaya man who belonged to Y DNA haplogroup R1a-Z93("R1a1a1d2a"). We already have a R1a-Z94 sample from Poltvaka, a successor culture of Yamnaya. This R1a-Z94 man had about 30% Middle Neolithic European(Neolithic Turkey, with minor WHG) ancestry unlike Yamnaya, and clearly represents a migration from west of the Volga.
> 
> The same is probably true for this R1a-Z93 Yamnaya guy. These heavily EEF/WHG admixed R1a-Z93 people, migrated into Asia around 2000 BC and became Sintashta and then became the historical Sycthians who the Greeks knew in the Iron age. IMO, it's very likely that west of the Volga river and East of Germany, there had been hyprid EEF/WHG/Steppe populations since as early as 3500 BC. This R1a-Z94 Yamnaya guy will be our earliest example, because he probably lived around 3000 BC.


Ho ho, not so fast. According to *rozenfeld* fella from anthrogenica they found R1a on the Estern side of Volga River, near Kazakhstan. That R1a can be from everywhere. Because it's not far from the Iranian Plateau. It can be directly from the Iranian Plateau (BMAC) or from Central Asia.

----------


## Goga

Also, the *language* the Scythians spoke was East Iranic. That EAST Iranic *language* evolved around BMAC and NOT in Sintashta or something like that, that's a fact!


Don't claim something where you don't have any knowledge about!

----------


## Tomenable

Is R1a1a1d2a really under Z93 ???

On Anthrogenica someone user Parasar wrote:




> R1a1a1d2a would be on the *Z283-Z2911 branch.*

----------


## Goga

I don't know what's going on, but some people (with hidden agenda) are glad to make some very fast but false conclusions.


The fact is that Saka or Scythians spoke an *EAST Iranic language*. That language evolved around BMAC (Iranian Plateau) and it is NOT from Europe or even Sintashta, lol!

----------


## Tomenable

*Parasar* claims, that this Yamnaya R1a belongs to *Z283* (= European branch of R1a).

I'm not sure, I could not find "R1a1a1d2a" in ISOGG:

http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

----------


## Angela

Before everyone gets too excited did anyone check whether this was actually published somewhere or whether it's just what someone thinks was stated on some hacked website?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Also, the *language* the Scythians spoke was East Iranic. That EAST Iranic *language* evolved around BMAC and NOT in Sintashta or something like that, that's a fact!
> 
> 
> Don't claim something where you don't have any knowledge about!


I'm stating the fact Sycthians were descendants of Sintashta. We know this because we have Sycthian and Sintashta DNA. I never stated Sintashta were proto-Indo Iranians. I don't know whether they were. Since they belonged to a downstream clade of Z93, not found in South Asia, that suggests they weren't. It's possible proto-Indo Iranian lived west of Sintashta in Russia or West Asia. 

You got to understand many people speak languages that most of their ancestors didn't. For example, Austrians speak a German language, but are mostly Polish and Balkan-like, not German-like. West Germans, South Dutch, and Swiss speak a German language, but are far more similar to French than to other Germans. English speak a German language, but are mostly of British Celtic-decent. All the major language families of Europe probably spread in the Bronze age or later, with maybe not much gene flow. There's endless examples of people who speak a differnt language than their ancestors did. 

Indo Iranian languages are no exception. Sycthians and Persians are as differnt as two West Eurasian populations can be, but they spoke closely related languages. At somepoint Indo Iranian languages expanded with little gene flow. As much as you say you're not, it's pretty obvious you don't want the language to have expanded in your region with little gene flow. The langage Kurds speak doesn't define them.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Is R1a1a1d2a really under Z93 ???
> 
> On Anthrogenica someone user Parasar wrote:


The "d" is probably meant to be a "b". The nomenclatur for Z93 is, R1a1a1b2. So, I think it's pretty obvious this guy had Z93, and specifically Z94(R1a1a1b2a).

----------


## Tomenable

> did anyone check whether this was actually published somewhere


It seems that this info comes from the team under prof. David Reich.

IIRC, it has not been published yet, because it is a brand new sample.

----------


## Goga

> I'm stating the fact Sycthians were descendants of Sintashta. We know this because we have Sycthian and Sintashta DNA. I never stated Sintashta were proto-Indo Iranians. I don't know whether they were. Since they belonged to a downstream clade of Z93, not found in South Asia, that suggests they weren't. It's possible proto-Indo Iranian lived west of Sintashta in Russia or West Asia. 
> 
> You got to understand many people speak languages that most of their ancestors didn't. For example, Austrians speak a German language, but are mostly Polish and Balkan-like, not German-like. West Germans, South Dutch, and Swiss speak a German language, but are far more similar to French than to other Germans. English speak a German language, but are mostly of British Celtic-decent. All the major language families of Europe probably spread in the Bronze age or later, with maybe not much gene flow. There's endless examples of people who speak a differnt language than their ancestors did. 
> 
> Indo Iranian languages are no exception. Sycthians and Persians are as differnt as two West Eurasian populations can be, but they spoke closely related languages. At somepoint Indo Iranian languages expanded with little gene flow. As much as you say you're not, it's pretty obvious you don't want the language to have expanded in your region with little gene flow. The langage Kurds speak doesn't define them.


Scythians as people were very MIXED. They had Europoid, Caucasoid, Central Asian and even EAST Asiatic (Turkic/Mongoloid) DNA. Scythians were very diverse people, but the LANGUAGE they spoke came from BMAC. FACT!
Scythians were like Brazilians, a mixture of many races.

But the LANGUAGE the Scythians (Saka) Spoke was EAST Iranic. East Iranic language evolved around and is from BMAC. Has nothing to do with Sintashta. That's a FACT. 

BMAC is on the Iranian Plateau.

Can you prove me wrong that EAST Iranic language is from BMAC?


Languages do define people. The language Kurds speak define them, because it's an UNIQUE language spoken by NOBODY else but the Kurds. No other race on this planet speaks Kurdish, than Kurds themselves. Kurdish language (WEST Iranic) is part of Kurdish history and Kurdish race.

----------


## Tomenable

Goga this thread is about a new R1a sample in Yamnaya culture.

Can you stick to the topic and *stop spamming about Kurds* ???

Please start a new thread to discuss these other things.




> BMAC is on the Iranian Plateau.


Only as much as England is in Northern France...

----------


## Goga

> Goga this thread is about a new R1a sample in Yamnaya culture.
> 
> Can you stick to the topic and *stop spamming about Kurds* ???


He started to talk about the Kurds.

I proved him wrong about his opinion about the Scythians. This is all what I did.


He was the one who started about the Scythians, not me.


Like I said: Scythians were like modern Brazilians, a mixture of many races (Europoid, Caucasoid, Mogoloid/Tukic etc). But their EAST Iranic language was from BMAC and NOT Sintashta! Am I lying? Prove me that I'm wrong. No, you can't. Because I'm telling only the facts and have no hidden agenda. This is how science works...

----------


## Tomenable

I'm not sure about which Scythians are we talking about ???

I have seen only autosomal DNA of an Iron Age (years 380-200 BC) Scythian from the Volga Region:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...-Autosomal-DNA

That Scythian was close e.g. to modern Pamiri / Pomiri Tajiks (as well as to some other populations).

But here we are talking about a sample from 3000 BC - ca. 2700 years older than that Scythian.

----------


## Goga

> I'm not sure about which Scythians are we talking about ???
> 
> I have seen only autosomal DNA of Iron Age (years 380-200 BC) Scythian from the Volga Region:
> 
> http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...-Autosomal-DNA
> 
> That Scythian was very close e.g. to modern Pomiri Tajiks (as well as to several other populations).
> 
> But here we are talking about a sample from 3000 BC - ca. 2700 years older than that Scythian.


Fire Haired14 was talking about "_historical Scythians who the Greeks knew in the Iron age_". Read his first post.


Well, those _'Iron Age'_ Scythians spoke an East Iranic language from BMAC and NOT from Sintashta. But I'm sure they were already mixed as much as modern day Brazilians..

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I'm not sure about which Scythians are we talking about ???
> 
> I have seen only autosomal DNA of Iron Age (years 380-200 BC) Scythian from the Volga Region:
> 
> http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...-Autosomal-DNA
> 
> That Scythian was very close e.g. to modern Pomiri Tajiks (as well as to several other populations).
> 
> But here we are talking about a sample from 3000 BC - ca. 2700 years older than that Scythian.


The Sycthian was 90% Andronovo+10% Siberian. He has about twice as much Steppe than any modern Europeans, but more similar to Europeans than to anyone in Asia. He has genealogical connections with Siberian and Central Asians, but his overall makeup is the same as Andronovo(minus some Siberian). 

Sorry, I should have said Andronovo all along. Our Sintashta genomes are differnt. They were almost 50% Middle Neolithic European, while Andronovo and Timber Grave and Potapovaka(all R1a-Z93) were only about 20% Middle Neolithic European.

----------


## Tomenable

> Well, those 'Iron Age' Scythians spoke an East Iranic language from BMAC and NOT Sintashta. But I'm sure they were already mixed like as much as modern day Brazilians.


*We have Scythian art with quite realistic representations / depictions of Scythian look - for example:*





 

*We also have reconstructions by Russian anthropologists, which do indeed resemble those sculptures.*

----------


## Goga

> Sorry, I should have said Andronovo all along. Our Sintashta genomes are differnt. They were almost 50% Middle Neolithic European, while Andronovo and Timber Grave and Potapovaka(all R1a-Z93) were only about 20% Middle Neolithic European.


The EAST Iranic Scythian *language* is neither from Andronovo, lol. Once again tthe EAST Iranic language evolved around BMAC on the Iranian Plateau.


The language is from BMAC, while it can be picked and spoken by different people who NOT invented that language! Andronovo or Sintashta folks NEVER invented Scythian EAST Iranic language, because it was from BMAC. BMAC folks invented/gave birth to the Scythian (EAST Iranic) language.

Scythians in Central Asia could be like Brazilians who speak Portuguese. But Portuguese is from Europe and not from Brazil. Same can be said about the Scythian language, it was from the Iranian Plateau (BMAC) and NOT from the Steppes. Those Scythians in the Steppes could be just 'Iranized'..

----------


## Goga

> *We have Scythian art with quite realistic representations / depictions of Scythian look - for example:*
> 
> 
> *We also have reconstructions by Russian anthropologists, which do indeed resemble those sculptures.*


Very beautifull ART! They were brave soldiers/pupils of their Aryan masters/teachers from BMAC.

But that doesn't change the fact that the EAST Iranic language the Scythians spoke came from BMAC! Those Scythians from the Steppes were 'Iranized' by people from BMAC, Iranian Plateau. They were like Brazilians from Portugal.


" _Eastern Iranian is thought to have separated from Western Iranian in the course of the later 2nd millennium BC, and was possibly located at the Yaz culture._ "

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

----------


## Tomenable

Do you think that all of Indo-European languages evolved in the Iranian Plateau before spreading to other regions?

You claimed that PIE evolved in the Iranian Plateau, then that Proto-Indo-Iranian did, and now that Scythian also did.

----------


## Goga

> Do you think that all of Indo-European languages evolved in the Iranian Plateau before spreading somewhere else?


Not all.

Some *later* Proto-Indo-European languages evolved around Yamnaya Horizon before they migrated into the European heartland. I'm talking about proto-Italic, proto-Celtic, proto-Germanic, proto-Balto-Slavic. All those languages came from Yamnaya. But Maykop folks or maybe other folks from the Iranian Plateau (Leyla-Tepe ?) brought the early PIE into Yamnaya at the first place.


Languages like Tocharian, Anatolian (Hittite), Graeco-Armenian, proto-Iranic were all native to the West Asia. Sanscrit had West Asian roots too, but evolved into Vedic (Indic) in SouthCentral Asia.





> You claimed that PIE evolved in the Iranian Plateau, then that Proto-Indo-Iranian did, and now that Scythian also did.


I claim nothing.

I'm just giving the facts. And the FACT is that the EAST Iranic language spoken by Scythians came from BMAC and NOT from Andronovo and neither Sintashta.

----------


## Tomenable

So you say that Scythians could originally speak Balto-Slavic and later became Iranized ???




> Languages like Tocharian, Anatolian (Hittite), Graeco-Armenian, proto-Iranic were all native to the West Asia.


Tocharian was spoken in *East Asia* - in Xinjiang province of China - not in West Asia.

Armenian AFAIK evolved in the Balkans and moved from there to Asia Minor.

Greek is native to the Balkans, not to West Asia - it evolved in Greece.

----------


## Goga

> So you say that Scythians could originally speak Balto-Slavic and later became Iranized ???
> 
> 
> 
> Tocharian was spoken in *East Asia* - in Xinjiang province of China - not in West Asia.
> 
> Armenian AFAIK evolved in the Balkans and moved from there to Asia Minor.
> 
> Greek is native to the Balkans, not to West Asia - it evolved in Greece.


Scythians were mixed with different kind of races. Some Steppes people related to ancient Balto-Slavic folks mixed with Yamnaya and far East Asian (Turkic/Mongoloid) folks, later they were influenced by the EAST Iranic tribes from BMAC. So, yes. Most native folks who lived in the Steppes, were simply linguistically 'Iranized' by EAST Iranic speaking folks from BMAC.


EAST Iranian language spoken by the so called Scythians was from BMAC and NOT from the Steppes..

" _Eastern Iranian is thought to have separated from Western Iranian in the course of the later 2nd millennium BC, and was possibly located at the Yaz culture._ "

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


No, there're ancient links between Graeco-Armenian and proto-Iranic, so called Graeco-Aryan connection. Proto-Iranic can't be from the Balkans, that's why Graeco-Armenian has to be West-Asian. Graeco-Armenian, Tocharian, Anatolian (Luwian, Hittite etc) and proto-Iranic were all related to each other.

----------


## Goga

Think of Brazil and Portugal. In both countries Portuguese is spoken. But Portugues is from Portugal.

And now EAST Iranic language spoken in the Steppes by so called Scythians AND spoken by *Khwarezm*, *Bactrians*, *Kambojas, Sogdians* etc. around BMAC.


EAST Iranic language evolved in BMAC. So that makes EAST Iranic language *NATIVE to BMAC*, like Portugues is *native to Portugal*.


Brazilians = Scythians in the Steppes; '*Iranized*' East Iranians.
Portuguese = Khwarezm, Bactrians, Kambojas, Sogdians around BMAC; the *REAL* native East Iranians.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> Fire Haired14 was talking about "_historical Scythians who the Greeks knew in the Iron age_". Read his first post.


Those Scythians, according to Aristotle, had considerably lighter skin than the Greeks (who in turn were considerably lighter than Ethiopians and Egyptians). I don't know if that means something. Probably most would expect it. But I mentioned it because you said they were mixed. Maybe. I don't know, but they may have looked like modern Eastern Europeans to some extent.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Those Scythians, according to Aristotle, had considerably lighter skin than the Greeks (who in turn were considerably lighter than Ethiopians and Egyptians). I don't know if that means something. Probably most would expect it. But I mentioned it because you said they were mixed. Maybe. I don't know, but they may have looked like modern Eastern Europeans to some extent.


They were mixed, in the same sense modern Europeans are mixed. But I mean, it had been like 2,000 years since those admixture events had occurred. So, I wouldn't consider Sycthians very mixed. They definitely had no idea where they themselves came from. I believe Heroduts asked them, and I think they thought they came from Turkey. They had no knowledge of geography, so as far as they knew they were just as native to Central Asia as Turks were.

----------


## Goga

> Those Scythians, according to Aristotle, had considerably lighter skin than the Greeks (who in turn were considerably lighter than Ethiopians and Egyptians). I don't know if that means something. Probably most would expect it. But I mentioned it because you said they were mixed. Maybe. I don't know, but they may have looked like modern Eastern Europeans to some extent.


According to the ancient Greeks, the Western Iranians like the *Medes* and *Persians* who called themselves ARYANS were *darker* than the Greeks.

Scythians were lighter because they were not 'real' Iranians and came from the Northern Eurasia. No matter what race you are, Mongoloid or Europoid, if you're from the NORTH you're not really dark.

Greeks and ancient West Iranians were much darker, like people in the Yamnaya Horizon and WHG. (WHG, CHG, Yamnaya, Maykop were all dark skinned). All those people were more 'Caucasoid'. FIRST Caucasoid folks were darker skinned than Mongoloid Northern EurAsians.



Think of Brazil and Portugal. In both countries Portuguese is spoken. But Portugues is from Portugal.

And now EAST Iranic language spoken in the Steppes by so called Scythians AND spoken by *Khwarezm*, *Bactrians*, *Kambojas, Sogdians* etc. around BMAC.


EAST Iranic language evolved in BMAC. So that makes EAST Iranic language *NATIVE to BMAC*, like Portugues is *native to Portugal*.


Brazilians = Scythians in the Steppes; '*Iranized*' East Iranians.
Portuguese = Khwarezm, Bactrians, Kambojas, Sogdians around BMAC; the *REAL* native East Iranians

----------


## Goga

> so as far as they knew they were just as native to Central Asia as Turks were.


Bingo! But they spoke a language that was NOT native to Central Asia (the Steppes)! The East Iranic language they spoke was native to BMAC, Iranian Plateau.

That's why I'm saying that they were just a bunch 'Iranized' Steppes nomads, 'Iranized' by the true East Iranic tribes from the BMAC/Iranian Plateau.


BTW, Scythians are overrated. Compared to West Iranians/ARYANS, like the Medes & Persians who build empires, Scythians left no legacy at all.

----------


## Tomenable

> *Someone leaked on a Russian website that David Reich has sampled DNA from a Yamnaya man who belonged to Y DNA haplogroup R1a*-Z93 ("R1a1a1d2a").


*Not just "someone", but Pavel Kuznetsov - one of co-authors of Haak 2015* "Massive migration..." study:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14317.html

He posted more information about this in his comments below this article, which is criticizing Haak 2015 study:

http://translate.google.com/translat...page_id%3D7492

*Google-translated:*




> As for the differences in the prevalence of R1a in Corded Ware Culture and R1b have Yamnik, I want to recall - in the article is just a 5-haplogroups Yamnik definition that certainly is not enough! And after the article was published, we received a new sample has haplogroup R1adlya yamnogo burial. All the definitions that we currently operate are derived from a small and distant areas - northern steppe of the Volga region. I'm very optimistic Yamnik forward definitions of the Black Sea steppes.





> Dear Paul 
> You could not tell more in detail about Yamnik with haplogroup R1a? where it is found? What subclade? when the article? 
> Thank you in advance! 
> All new typing results are monitored, met only Yamnik I2a2 and hvalyntsa R1a1-M198- 
> Thank you in advance! 
> with respect, 
> Alexander





> Alexander, dory day! Nadezhdinka - a burial mound 1 1. It is basic. In a deep pit lying teen - boy: Y-hapl. R1a1a1d2a. Lying on his back, legs tucked, hands are not preserved. The head was sprinkled with dark red ocher, he stood at the left plechal round bottom flask, lay shells fold. And rite and inventory - typical pit Volga culture. Barrow was standing on the bank of the river. B.Irgiz (left tributary of the Volga.) - N 52 degrees 12 minutes E 48 degrees 39 minutes. 
> I must say that the East Wing Yamnik (Volga-Urals) covers the period 3400 - 2900 BC. West Wing 3100-2400 BC.





> Dear Paul, but You, unfortunately, have not led the most important information: 
> who genotyped? in a laboratory? which was published? 
> The answers to these questions depend on the reliability of the result. 
> And we could have typed with a lot of samples in the laboratory. Only, most likely, their haplogroup reflect the modern DNA, which is full of all of our laboratory, and is not a DNA sample from the archaeological site. Examples of this mass. And they, alas! multiply. 
> Therefore, only the data can be trusted, who genotyped in a reliable laboratory and published in reputable journals - that is, have been seriously reviewed.


The one who has established that this Yamnaya sample belongs to R1a, *is David Reich,* but it has not yet been published:




> Dear Elena, the result sent David Reich (David Reih). He heads the department at Harvard Medical School. Alas, he is not yet published. 
> Your CP





> Dear Paul, thank you! Reich - is a brand! Even if not published - complete trust :)

----------


## Tomenable

> Eastern side of Volga River, near Kazakhstan.


This sample is from Nadezhdinka - but from which one ???

I found *at least 6 sites of this name* in lands formerly occupied by Yamnaya culture:

Nadezhdinka, Saratov Oblast, Russia
Nadezhdinka, Kurgan Oblast, Russia
Nadezhdinka, Orenburg Oblast, Russia
Nadezhdinka, Tambov Oblast, Russia
Nadezhdinka, Penza Oblast, Russia
Nadezhdinka, Kostanay Oblast, Kazakhstan

===================

OK, this post explains which Nadezhdinka it is:

^ OK, Rozenfeld explained which Nadezhdinka it is: :)





> Ok, since I was the one who posted the link, let me explain my understanding of the situation:
> 
> http://генофонд.рф/?page_id=7492 - this is the article on a Russian website, basically a translation of a Lolita Nikolova's critique of Haak 2015. In the comments people discuss paleogenetics of Yamnaya and Khvalynsk, R1a and R1b. What is important is that they talk about two different sets of samples.
> 
> First, there are three samples representing Khvalynsk culture, belonging to R1a, R1b and Q1a. All these sample are from the *west bank of Volga*, next to Alekseyevka village. These results were already published, back in October, first as a preprint: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/10/10/016477 , then as an article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture16152.html. 
> 
> Another one is however from the *east bank of Volga*, next to Nadezhdinka village. It represents typical Yamnaya grave, it's not yet published (I checked it), and according to Kuznetsov was analyzed by Reich and was found to belong to R1a. So according to Kuznetsov there is R1a among Yamnaya.
> 
> Here is the map: red A is a Nadezhdinka site, blue B is Alekseyevka site:
> ...


It's the one in Saratov Oblast.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Bingo! But they spoke a language that was NOT native to Central Asia (the Steppes)! The East Iranic language they spoke was native to BMAC, Iranian Plateau.


No, I mean genetically speaking Sycthians weren't native to Central Asia. I'm not referring to language. 




> That's why I'm saying that they were just a bunch 'Iranized' Steppes nomads, 'Iranized' by the true East Iranic tribes from the BMAC/Iranian Plateau.


"*true* East Iranic tribes". Dude, settle down. No one remembers when Iranian languages spread, so much has happened afterwards that what defines Kurds or anyone else has little to do with who were the first Iranian speakers. And whoever they were, they're not a superior race. I'm just so tired of this. There's a good chance Iranian languages aren't native to your region, get over it. 





> BTW, Scythians are overrated. Compared to West Iranians/ARYANS, like the Medes & Persians who build empires, Scythians left no legacy at all.


I don't think Scythians were a great people. They were just people. All I'm doing is talking about their ancestry.

----------


## Goga

> "*true* East Iranic tribes". Dude, settle down. No one remembers when Iranian languages spread, so much has happened afterwards that what defines Kurds or anyone else has little to do with who were the first Iranian speakers. And whoever they were, they're not a superior race. I'm just so tired of this. There's a good chance Iranian languages aren't native to your region, get over it.


Don't you think I'm tired of all this too?


You started about "_the historical Scythians who the Greeks knew in the Iron age_", not me.

All what I wrote is that those '_historical Scythians who the Greeks knew in the Iron age_' spoke an East Iranian language that came from BMAC and not from Sintashta or Andronovo, like you changed the region from from Sintashta into Andronovo later.

It's not about chances, but about the facts. The fact is that the so called "_historical Scythians who the Greeks knew in the Iron age"_ spoke a language that came from BMAC. That means that EAST Iranian language spoken by Scythians was NATIVE to BMAC, the Iranian Plateau and NOT Sintashta or Andronovo.

*People who lived in the Steppes spoke an Iranian language that was NOT native to their region, because that language came from BMAC.*

True, real EAST Iranian tribes were those who lived in the same area where their languages were came to birth and evolved. Those EAST Iranian tribes were most likely: *Bactrians*, *Sogdians* etc.

So the so called "_historical Scythians who the Greeks knew in the Iron age" from "__Sintashta or Andronovo_" spoke a language NOT native to their region. So, then they have to be '*Iranized*' by those true 'real' East Iranians from BMAC who spoke East Iranian as their native language from BMAC.

Portugese spoken in Brazil and Portugal. But Portugese is from Portugal. Or Spanish spoken in Mexico and Spain. *Spanish is NATIVE to Spain, Portugese is NATIVE to Portugal and EAST Iranic is NATIVE to BMAC!
*

Scythians = "*Iranized*" East Iranians
Bactrians, Sogdians etc = "*Original*" East Iranians


*The Steppes* = like Brazil, Mexico = *colony*
*BMAC* = like Portugal, Spain = *motherland*


Iranian languages (ancestral to West and East Iranian languages) CAN'T be from somewhere else but the Iranian Plateau. They came to birth, were established and evolved on the Iranian Plateau. Therefore they are NATIVE to the Iranian Plateau. Both Western Iranian and Eastern Iranian are native to the Iranian Plateau. You like it or not. Nowhere outside their habitat Iranian languages are spoken. Iranian languages are part of the Iranid race and not other races at all. These are facts.


Languages do define people, their lives, their culture, their history and their future. The difference between humans and animals is that humans have languages. Without languages people are animals.


Everyone has got his/her own talent. Live and let live...

----------


## Goga

> The one who has established that this Yamnaya sample belongs to R1a, *is David Reich,* but it has not yet been published:


Nice, this might be true. But I don't think that R1b or R1a were the only Y-DNA haplogroups of Yamnaya. I'm sure that if they test more than 1000 samples they would find many more different haplogroups than R1b, like hg. I, J, P, N, Q etc.

----------


## Tomenable

*Goga,*

About the legacy of Scythians, I wrote already before here:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post476156

Moreover, Scythians were the only people apart from Greeks who successfully resisted Persian invasions.

In 530 BC the Scythians under *Queen Tomyris* *defeated the Persians, killing Persian king Cyrus II:*

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post476268

*In fact that defeat against Scythians was the 1st major failure in* *history of the Persian Empire.*

The 2nd major failure in Persian history was their invasion of Greece in 480 - 479 BC.

That battle between Scythians and Persians in 530 BC, is the oldest recorded use of cataphracts in battle:




> The Romans did not invent cataphracts, though - they copied this formation from their eastern neighbours.
> 
> Ultimately, cataphracts - heavily-armoured horsemen with long lances and / or bows - originated in the Steppe.
> 
> *The first recorded use of cataphracts was in year 530 BC by Queen Tomyris in her battle against Cyrus II:*
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomyris
> 
> *Scythian & Massagetae horsemen under Tomyris utterly defeated the Persians, Cyrus II was killed in battle:*
> ...

----------


## holderlin

> Scythians as people were very MIXED. They had Europoid, Caucasoid, Central Asian and even EAST Asiatic (Turkic/Mongoloid) DNA. Scythians were very diverse people, but the LANGUAGE they spoke came from BMAC. FACT!
> Scythians were like Brazilians, a mixture of many races.
> 
> But the LANGUAGE the Scythians (Saka) Spoke was EAST Iranic. East Iranic language evolved around and is from BMAC. Has nothing to do with Sintashta. That's a FACT. 
> 
> BMAC is on the Iranian Plateau.
> 
> Can you prove me wrong that EAST Iranic language is from BMAC?
> 
> ...


No Goga. No. Those are not facts. None of them. 

BMAC was not IE. This is a fact.

Buy that's why I love you

----------


## Goga

> No Goga. No. Those are not facts. None of them. 
> 
> BMAC was not IE. This is a fact.
> 
> Buy that's why I love you


What are you talking about? Yaz culture was East Iranian. And Yaz culture was Iron Age BMAC:

" _The Yaz culture was an early Iron Age culture of Bactria and Margiana (ca. 1500-1100 BC).[1] It has been regarded as a likely archaeological reflection of early East Iranian culture as described in the Avesta. So far, no burials related to the culture have been found, and this was taken as evidence of the Zoroastrian practice of exposure or so-called sky burial._ "

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


I love to you, not as human (man), but as a Reptoid.

----------


## holderlin

> Think of Brazil and Portugal. In both countries Portuguese is spoken. But Portugues is from Portugal.
> 
> And now EAST Iranic language spoken in the Steppes by so called Scythians AND spoken by *Khwarezm*, *Bactrians*, *Kambojas, Sogdians* etc. around BMAC.
> 
> 
> EAST Iranic language evolved in BMAC. So that makes EAST Iranic language *NATIVE to BMAC*, like Portugues is *native to Portugal*.
> 
> 
> Brazilians = Scythians in the Steppes; '*Iranized*' East Iranians.
> Portuguese = Khwarezm, Bactrians, Kambojas, Sogdians around BMAC; the *REAL* native East Iranians.


Dude.

One time you said that PIE was proto-Euphratic.

----------


## Goga

> No Goga. No. Those are not facts. None of them. 
> 
> BMAC was not IE. This is a fact.
> 
> Buy that's why I love you


What are you talking about? East Iranian languages are associated with the YAZ culture and Yaz Culture was just an Iron Age culture of BMAC


" _The Yaz culture was an early Iron Age culture of Bactria and Margiana (ca. 1500-1100 BC).[1] It has been regarded as a likely archaeological reflection of early East Iranian culture as described in the Avesta. So far, no burials related to the culture have been found, and this was taken as evidence of the Zoroastrian practice of exposure or so-called sky burial._ "

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


I love you too. Not as (hu)man, but as Reptoid.

----------


## Goga

> No Goga. No. Those are not facts. None of them. 
> 
> BMAC was not IE. This is a fact.
> 
> Buy that's why I love you


What are you talking about? East Iranian languages are associated with the *YAZ* culture and Yaz Culture was just an Iron Age culture of BMAC


" _The Yaz culture was an early Iron Age culture of Bactria and Margiana (ca. 1500-1100 BC).[1] It has been regarded as a likely archaeological reflection of early East Iranian culture as described in the Avesta. So far, no burials related to the culture have been found, and this was taken as evidence of the Zoroastrian practice of exposure or so-called sky burial._ "

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

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



I love you too. Not as (hu)man, but as Reptoid.

----------


## Goga

> Dude.
> 
> One time you said that PIE was proto-Euphratic.


Never said that. Has to be someone else.

According to me the very early PIE that migrated into Yamnaya where it became late PIE, came from Maykop/Leyla Tepe

----------


## holderlin

> Never said that. Has to be someone else.
> 
> According to me the very early PIE that migrated into Yamnaya where it became late PIE, came from Maykop/Leyla Tepe


You suggested it

----------


## Goga

> You suggested it


No, maybe in your dreams.

What I said that it was possible that some PIE folks from Leyla Tepe (located south of the Caspian Sea, Iranian Plateau) came down from the mountains and went to Mesopotamia and found the Mesopotamian Civilization. And I believe it was pretty much the case. Leyla-Tepe folks migrated into Mesopotamia and found the *Uruk civilization* by replacing the Ubaid Culture.

----------


## Goga

> *Goga,*
> 
> About the legacy of Scythians, I wrote already before here:
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post476156
> 
> Moreover, Scythians were the only people apart from Greeks who successfully resisted Persian invasions.
> 
> In 530 BC the Scythians under *Queen Tomyris* *defeated the Persians, killing Persian king Cyrus II:*
> ...


Great, I like those Scythians much more now. Because those Persians killed the Median King and took over the Empire from the Medes.

If Cyaxares knew that, what would happen after his death, maybe he would not kill those Scythian leaders.


" _According to Herodotus he repelled the Scythians from Media._

_After Phraortes' demise, the Scythians overran Media. Cyaxares, seeking revenge, killed the Scythian leaders[7] and proclaimed himself King of Medes. After throwing off the Scythians, he prepared for war against Assyria_"

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

----------


## holderlin

> What are you talking about? East Iranian languages are associated with the *YAZ* culture and Yaz Culture was just an Iron Age culture of BMAC
> 
> 
> " _The Yaz culture was an early Iron Age culture of Bactria and Margiana (ca. 1500-1100 BC).[1] It has been regarded as a likely archaeological reflection of early East Iranian culture as described in the Avesta. So far, no burials related to the culture have been found, and this was taken as evidence of the Zoroastrian practice of exposure or so-called sky burial._ "
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaz_culture
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian_languages
> 
> ...


Yes, the Yaz culture. An Andronovized remnant of BMAC, quite literally. Steppe overtook BMAC as BMAC declined, or BMAC fell and steppe moved in, or Steppe, Andronovo to be clear, conquered BMAC. 

Those are the only explanations for the archaeology. And the genetics are supporting it.

----------


## holderlin

If you guys are going to withhold my posts for review, maybe have someone awake to actually do it so I don't wonder what's happening and post the same thing 3x times, thank you.

----------


## ThirdTerm

> David Reich has sampled DNA from a Yamnaya man who belonged to Y DNA haplogroup R1a-Z93("R1a1a1d2a"). We already have a R1a-Z94 sample from Poltvaka, a successor culture of Yamnaya. This R1a-Z94 man had about 30% Middle Neolithic European(Neolithic Turkey, with minor WHG) ancestry unlike Yamnaya, and clearly represents a migration from west of the Volga.


The original paper does not deny the existence of R1a in Yamnaya samples and it only says that all 7 Yamnaya males belonged to Haplogroup R1b. According to the Anatolian hypothesis, the R1b people originated in eastern Anatolia as nomadic cattle herders and some migrated northwards to the Pontic Steppe, where they interbred with R1a women. Since the region where the Yamnaya culture flourished is the R1a heartland today, R1a people and R1b people could have coexisted and interacted with each other in the Pontic Steppe. I assume that most Yamnaya female samples belonged to R1a based on this scenario even though it's not explicitly stated in the paper. 



> We determined that 34 of the 69 newly analyzed individuals were male and used 2,258 Y chromosome SNPs targets included in the capture to obtain high resolution Y chromosome haplogroup calls (SI4). Outside Russia, and before the Late Neolithic period, only a single R1b individual was found (early Neolithic Spain) in the combined literature (n=70). By contrast, haplogroups R1a and R1b were found in 60% of Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans outside Russia (n=10), and in 100% of the samples from European Russia from all periods (7,500-2,700 BCE; n=9). R1a and R1b are the most common haplogroups in many European populations today18,19, and our results suggest that they spread into Europe from the East after 3,000 BCE. Two hunter-gatherers from Russia included in our study belonged to R1a (Karelia) and R1b (Samara), the earliest documented ancient samples of either haplogroup discovered to date. These two hunter-gatherers did not belong to the derived lineages M417 within R1a and M269 within R1b that are predominant in Europeans today18,19, but all 7 Yamnaya males did belong to the M269 subclade18 of haplogroup R1b.

----------


## holderlin

And the third attempt

----------


## holderlin

> The original paper does not deny the existence of R1a in Yamnaya samples and it only says that all 7 Yamnaya males belonged to Haplogroup R1b. According to the Anatolian hypothesis, the R1b people originated in eastern Anatolia as nomadic cattle herders and some migrated northwards to the Pontic Steppe, where they interbred with R1a women. Since the region where the Yamnaya culture flourished is the R1a heartland today, R1a people and R1b people could have coexisted and interacted with each other in the Pontic Steppe. I assume that most Yamnaya female samples belonged to R1a based on this scenario even though it's not explicitly stated in the paper.


Okay yes.

And ahahahahahahahahahahaha please tell me who posted about the relative likelyhood of R1a females.

----------


## Goga

> Yaz= Andronovized remnants of BMAC.
> 
> This is archaeological consensus. Explain it however you like. The genetics are now supporting this.


LMAO, this is great fun!

Yaz is located on the Iranian Plateau between Iran and Turkmenstan. How is it possible that the most southern corner of BMAC was 'Andronovized' (this is the first I hear this word), while the northern part of BMAC which actually borders Andronovo was not. This is not logical at all.

Also, Yaz Culture, was actually Zoroastrian in nature, with early Zoroastrian practices. If Yaz Culture was 'Andronovized' then Andronovo would be Zoroastrian or proto-Zoroastrian itself. LMAO, Andronovo Zoroastrian, Prophet Zoroaster from Andronovo! This is crazy and weird at the same time.


It seems that you're trying to drive me crazy. But the more you try, the more I like you.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Since the region where the Yamnaya culture flourished is the R1a heartland today, R1a people and R1b people could have coexisted and interacted with each other in


It wasn't an R1a heartland. It was R1b. R1a arrived in Yamnaya with Western newcomers. Originally 1,000 years before Yamnaya, there's a good chance that's where the R1a came from. But, it migrated west then came back east.

----------


## bicicleur

> Scythians as people were very MIXED. They had Europoid, Caucasoid, Central Asian and even EAST Asiatic (Turkic/Mongoloid) DNA. Scythians were very diverse people, but the LANGUAGE they spoke came from BMAC. FACT!
> Scythians were like Brazilians, a mixture of many races.
> 
> But the LANGUAGE the Scythians (Saka) Spoke was EAST Iranic. East Iranic language evolved around and is from BMAC. Has nothing to do with Sintashta. That's a FACT. 
> 
> BMAC is on the Iranian Plateau.
> 
> Can you prove me wrong that EAST Iranic language is from BMAC?
> 
> ...


BMAC was 4.1 ka
Scythians are not older than 2.9 ka
A 1200 year gap

----------


## bicicleur

> What are you talking about? East Iranian languages are associated with the YAZ culture and Yaz Culture was just an Iron Age culture of BMAC
> 
> 
> " _The Yaz culture was an early Iron Age culture of Bactria and Margiana (ca. 1500-1100 BC).[1] It has been regarded as a likely archaeological reflection of early East Iranian culture as described in the Avesta. So far, no burials related to the culture have been found, and this was taken as evidence of the Zoroastrian practice of exposure or so-called sky burial._ "
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaz_culture
> 
> 
> I love you too. Not as (hu)man, but as Reptoid.


nothing is known about Yaz culture, only this tiny article in wikipedia

----------


## bicicleur

> Is R1a1a1d2a really under Z93 ???
> 
> On Anthrogenica someone user Parasar wrote:


there must be a typo, I guess it will become clear next few days

what about the dating, from which period was this man ?

----------


## Goga

> BMAC was 4.1 ka
> Scythians are not older than 2.9 ka
> A 1200 year gap


Yaz Culture was BMAC too. It was almost identical to the older BMAC generations.

The point is that East Iranian language was born/evolved in that area, around (ancient) BMAC.

East Iranian evolved from Avestan, right? Proto-East Iranian is also not that old, about the same age as Yaz Culture. Maybe even younger...

The thing is that the Avestan language and Sascrit were ergative construction languages. Ergativity in a language is something West Asian. The Steppe languages have no ergativity.


This tree is a little bit wrong because Avestic should be close to proto-Iranian and not under the Eastern Iranic languages. And Saka / Scythians are actually the same. But you see the point.



Same only more languages.










> nothing is known about Yaz culture, only this tiny article in wikipedia


Everything useful about Yaz Culture was written in Avestan language (proto-Iranic) in Zoroastrian Gathas.

It has been said that Zoroaster was actually an outcast from the Magi (tribe) of the Medes. My people are saying that Zoroaster was Ezdi Kurd who went a different way and opposed the religion of his people. That why he was an outcast and that's why he migrated to Bactria, native home of the East Iranic language people. He brought his ideas from West Asia to people in Bactria.

There was a relation between the Zoroastrianism and the "original" East Iranians.

----------


## Tomenable

> what about the dating, from which period was this man ?


He lived before year 3000 BC. Which means that YFull age estimate for Z94 is probably too young.

----------


## LeBrok

> He lived before year 3000 BC. Which means that YFull age estimate for Z94 is probably too young.


Interesting. So this guy is from pre Yamnaya, Khalynsk Culture? Or is it Early Yamnaya already?

I think we are going to see a picture like this for early IE family: 
North East Yamnaya - R1a Z93
South East - R1b Z2103
North West - R1a 283
South West - R1b L51

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Interesting. So this guy is from pre Yamnaya, Khalynsk Culture? Or is it Early Yamnaya already?
> 
> I think we are going to see a picture like this for early IE family: 
> North East Yamnaya - R1a Z93
> South East - R1b Z2103
> North West - R1a 283
> South West - R1b L51


He is Yamnaya not pre-Yamnaya. All of the Samara Yamnaya guys had R1b-Z2103, and they're NorthEast. We already have a R1a-Z93 from Poltvaka culture, which decended from Yamnaya. The individual who had R1a-Z93 was differnt from other Poltvaka guys who had R1b-Z2103. He was about 30% Middle Neolithic European(Neolithic Turkey, with minor WHG). My guess is the same will be true for this R1a-Z93 Yamnaya guy. He probably isn't actually a Yamnaya person, but instead from close relatives who lived much further west and admixed with EEFs.

That's the origin story of Andronovo. Ultimately they came from somewhere between Germany and Russia, then they migrated east into Russia around 3000 BC or earlier, and made it to Siberia by 2000 BC. Corded Ware was basically their brother who stayed in Europe. At least, they shared R1a, besides they might not have many connections.

----------


## LeBrok

> He is Yamnaya not pre-Yamnaya. All of the Samara Yamnaya guys had R1b-Z2103


 I have a feeling they came from farther south. 


> The individual who had R1a-Z93 was differnt from other Poltvaka guys who had R1b-Z2103. He was about 30% Middle Neolithic European(Neolithic Turkey, with minor WHG).


 Possibly, or by Poltavka times EEF farmers reached already far North and East mixing with locals.






> My guess is the same will be true for this R1a-Z93 Yamnaya guy. He probably isn't actually a Yamnaya person, but instead from close relatives who lived much further west and admixed with EEFs.
> 
> That's the origin story of Andronovo. *Ultimately they came from somewhere between Germany and Russia*, then they migrated east into Russia around 3000 BC or earlier, and made it to Siberia by 2000 BC. Corded Ware was basically their brother who stayed in Europe. At least, they shared R1a, besides they might not have many connections.


 It is a hard sell. By early Yamnaya times Z283 and Z93 needed to be separated already. Why do you think Z93 was so far West in Central Europe? It could have been all the time in the area or farther north or east, in smaller hunter gatherer groups, it just started expansion by Yamnaya together with getting some farmer EEF, domestication of horses, and expanded to the east.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Lebrok,

The statistically chances that 7/7 NorthEast Yamnaya come out R1b-Z2013, despite lets say 30% of them in reality having R1a-Z93, is 8%. There's no doubt the Poltvaka R1a-Z93 guy came from a differnt population, a population who had ~100% R1a-Z93 instead of ~100% R1b-Z2103. Either that population lived side by side Samara Yamnaya, or they came from a differnt location. Considering they had ~30% Neolithic European admixture, they certainly came very far to the West in Central/East Europe. 

It's very likely that around modern Ukraine and Romania, there had been hybrid EEF/Steppe populations since 3000-3500 BC. So, German Corded Ware, who could be modeled as 70-80% Yamnaya, was probably in reality 100% from Eastern migrants who already had EEF admixture. The same is true for the Poltvaka outlier, except he arrived west of Samara. You had people of mixed EEF/Steppe heritage and with Y DNA R1a-M417, migrating west into Germany and east into Russia at the same time.

----------


## Goga

Omg, some people trully live in a dream world. There have been many studies done and all those academic studie concluded the same thing that R1a can be from Europe. 

If R1a came from the west, than in the Eastern Steppes and Central Asia would be also haplogroups like I1, I2 etc. But that's not the case.


The thing is that R1a migrated into the Western Steppes and Europe from the Middle East. Like it's brother, R1a is also from the Middle East. Why? Because R1* evolved in the Middle East.


That's why Middle Eastern auDNA in R1a samples are not from Germany or something lol, but actually native directly from the Middle East.


Original R1a was actually Middle Eastern. 

I believe that R1a entered the Steppes from the east, while R1b migrated into Yamnaya via Caucasus.

----------


## LeBrok

> Omg, some people trully live in a dream world. There have been many studies done and all those academic studie concluded the same thing that R1a can be from Europe. 
> 
> .


How many times we have to mention that we are not talking about ethnogenesis of R1a haplogroup but its subclades *Z93 and Z283* in time and area of Yamnaya culture. The oldest ever were found there and we believe it coincides with formation of IEs.

----------


## LeBrok

> @Lebrok,
> 
> The statistically chances that 7/7 NorthEast Yamnaya come out R1b-Z2013, despite lets say 30% of them in reality having R1a-Z93, is 8%. There's no doubt the Poltvaka R1a-Z93 guy came from a differnt population, a population who had ~100% R1a-Z93 instead of ~100% R1b-Z2103. Either that population lived side by side Samara Yamnaya, or they came from a differnt location. Considering they had ~30% Neolithic European admixture, they certainly came very far to the West in Central/East Europe.


It doesn't look they have mixed very well. It is obvious that Z93 became the horsemen of the steppe and moved into Asia. Possibly some minor Z2103 got mixed with them, but I'm not sure how these 2 correlate in Asia to conclude their close relation or not. I can't find good maps. It might be the case that Z93 horsemen warriors pushed Z2103 (herder/farmers?) through mountains to Anatolia (Hittites?).

----------


## Fire Haired14

> It doesn't look they have mixed very well. It is obvious that Z93 became the horsemen of the steppe and moved into Asia. Possibly some minor Z2103 got mixed with them, but I'm not sure how these 2 correlate in Asia to conclude their close relation or not. I can't find good maps. It might be the case that Z93 horsemen warriors pushed Z2103 (herder/farmers?) through mountains to Anatolia (Hittites?).


Yeah, it'll be interesting what we learn next with ancient DNA. We should have getting Paleolithic-Historical era DNA from both Italy and Iberia by next year. Lots of DNA from genomes ranging every era from all of West Asia and Europe are currently being sampled. I'm confident we'll see a migration of unknown close relatives of EEF who lived in Mesoptamia or Levant, into South Europe and Turkey. Especially Turkey, we might see a completle replacement of EEFs in Turkey. It'll be interesting to get Hittitte DNA. They'll certainly be very differnt from EEF, and may or may not have R1b-Z2103. I'm not sure the Steppe hypthesis is true, so who knows what Y DNA they'll have. 

Volga-Ural today still has a significant mount of both Z2103 and Z93, so the Z2103 and Z93 groups must have mixed eventually. People from Volga-Ural with Z2103 and Z93 who tested at FTDNA, belong to the same deep subclades that Yamnaya and Andronvo did. Actually, a high coverage Yamnaya Z2103's closest known relative is a modern Bashkir Z2103, they share mutations not yet on any official tree.

----------


## LeBrok

> Volga-Ural today still has a significant mount of both Z2103 and Z93, so the Z2103 and Z93 groups must have mixed eventually. People from Volga-Ural with Z2103 and Z93 who tested at FTDNA, belong to the same deep subclades that Yamnaya and Andronvo did. Actually, a high coverage Yamnaya Z2103's closest known relative is a modern Bashkir Z2103, they share mutations not yet on any official tree.


Eventually they have mixed, however it'll be interesting to see if they took part in same IE migration or they didn't mix much originally and went to south in separate waves.
Like Z93 being Indo-Aryans



And Z 2103 Iranians, or Anatolians:

----------


## dodona

> EAST Iranian language spoken by the so called Scythians was from BMAC and NOT from the Steppes..


 it appears to be your personal opinions hardly or even unsupported by serious sources. I always wonder about the enormous self-esteem of people like you.

----------


## Tomenable

Maciamo's map of Z93 is far more accurate than that auto-generated (and based on small samples) map from Underhill:

----------


## Tomenable

> Like Z93 being Indo-Aryans


Indo-Aryan specific is only *R1a-L657*, which is the most common subclade of Z93 in India.

But it is only one of branches of Z93.

Z93 or Z94 as a whole is Proto-Indo-Iranian, as is obvious from ancient DNA results so far.

We have Z93+ in Yamna, Poltavka, Potapovka, Sintashta, Srubna, Andronovo, etc., etc.

----------


## LeBrok

> Maciamo's map of Z93 is far more accurate than that auto-generated (and based on small samples) map from Underhill:


Do we have haplogroups of Botai Culture?


Argument for early domestication of horses by Botai, around 5,000 BC. Could have been a source of Z93?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTTxmDsUCgA

----------


## bicicleur

> Do we have haplogroups of Botai Culture?
> 
> 
> Argument for early domestication of horses by Botai, around 5,000 BC. Could have been a source of Z93?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTTxmDsUCgA


The *Botai culture is an archaeological culture (c. 3700–3100 BC)[1] of ancient Kazakhstan.*

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

why do they say 5000 BC ?

furthermore afaik Botai people were small in stature, IE were tall

----------


## Tomenable

> Do we have haplogroups of Botai Culture?


Nope. But I found some descriptions of Botai people:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=7NG...page&q&f=false

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/09...stication.html

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/...n_tab_contents

And also such an image showing a Botai man's skull:

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Do we have haplogroups of Botai Culture?
> 
> 
> Argument for early domestication of horses by Botai, around 5,000 BC. Could have been a source of Z93?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTTxmDsUCgA


R1a-Z93 guys have lots of EEF admixture. EEF lived in Europe and Turkey. So, it is unlikely Z93 came from Central Asia.

----------


## Tomenable

Botai people were supposedly hunter-gatherers who domesticated horses in order to hunt from horseback.

So pretty much like 18th century Amerindians from the Great Plains who hunted buffaloes from horseback.

This is what Dieneks claimed (see the link above). If they were EHG, then they could have some sort of R1.

----------


## Goga

> How many times we have to mention that we are not talking about ethnogenesis of R1a haplogroup but its subclades *Z93 and Z283* in time and area of Yamnaya culture. The oldest ever were found there and we believe it coincides with formation of IEs.


It's you who don't get it! 
Z93 and descendant of Z93, Z94 are all NATIVE to West Asia. this is what the REAL scientists are concluding. Not the uneducated phony wannabe ones on forumsites. Of course according to the uneducated amateur racists everything is different. But wtf are those amateur racists? Nobody, and they will be always nobody and nothing!

Are YOU against science? It would be a big shame!

According the latest major and the most recent *ACADEMIC* study on R1a:


" _CONCLUSION

Our phylogeographic data lead us to conclude that the initial episodes of R1a-M420 diversiﬁcation occurred in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey, and we estimate that diversiﬁcation downstream of M417/Page7 occurred ~5800 years ago. This suggests the possibility that R1a lineages accompanied demic expansions initiated during the Copper, Bronze, and Iron ages, partially replacing previous Y-chromosome strata, an interpretation consistent with albeit limited ancient DNA evidence._ "

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg201450a.html


Like I said R1a in the Steppes is from West Asia ( *the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey* ). R1a could enter the Steppes from Iran on the EASTERN side of the Caspian Sea via Kazakhstan and it is not even far from the Volga River, while R1b entered Yamnaya from the Caucasus, Maykop. This is what every recent academic study suggests.







Why don't you get? If you don't like science, it is not my problem but *YOURS*!

----------


## Goga

> it appears to be your personal opinions hardly or even unsupported by serious sources. I always wonder about the enormous self-esteem of people like you.


Is this ALL what you can tell?


You know that all what I'm saying is true and supported by the science. Eastern Iranian languages are native to the BMAC, not the Steppes. This is FACT! Scythians sopke an East Iranic language that was native to BMAC and NOT to the Steppes. So called Scythians in the Steppes were just 'Iranized' bunch of savages.

If you can't denounce my arguments, just say nothing than this kind of hatred replies.


You seems to be from Greece. It is a big shame that you never learned anything useful from Aristoteles..

----------


## Goga

> It's you who don't get it! 
> Z93 and descendant of Z93, Z94 are all NATIVE to West Asia. this is what the REAL scientist are concluding. Of course according to the uneducated amateur racists everything is different. But wtf are those amateur racists? Nobody, and they will be always nobody and nothing!
> 
> 
> According the latest major and the most recent *ACADEMIC* study on R1a:
> 
> 
> " _CONCLUSION
> 
> ...


+ FACT is that *ALL* those ancient R1a samples in the Steppes have *West Asian auDNA* in them to some degree! This supports the argument that R1a in the Steppes came from Iranian Plateau via the Eastern side of the Caspian Sea. Kazakhstan (Eastern side of the Volga River) borders the Iranian Plateau for GOD sake. Of course there will be R1a in Kazakhstan and R1a in the Steppes in general!


" _CONCLUSION

Our phylogeographic data lead us to conclude that the initial episodes of R1a-M420 diversiﬁcation occurred in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey, and we estimate that diversiﬁcation downstream of M417/Page7 occurred ~5800 years ago. This suggests the possibility that R1a lineages accompanied demic expansions initiated during the Copper, Bronze, and Iron ages, partially replacing previous Y-chromosome strata, an interpretation consistent with albeit limited ancient DNA evidence._ "

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg201450a.html

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Goga,

Karelia_HG had Y DNA R1a. As far as we know he had no Basal Eurasian ancestry, which is how we identify West Asian admixture. Our tree currently isn't perfect, however it is still very unlikely Karelia_HG had any recent or significant West Asian ancestry. However, genome-wide data doesn't tell everything about distant Y DNA origins. For example there are people in Africa with R1b-V88 and no obvious signs of West Eurasian admixture. That doesn't mean R1b originated in Africa. 

The best evidence I can see that Z93 is from Asia, is that all of the Bronze age European guys who had Z93 belonged to a specfic subclade which is rare in SouthCentral Asia today. That supports the idea that Z93 began in West Asia, with one branch going north to Europe and another east to India. 

Also, the lines separates modern European and West Asian are blurred when you go back 8,000 years. Most of all European's ancestors were living in West Asia and in people similar to most of the ancestors of West Asian's 8,000 years ago. Yamnaya wasn't a very West Asian people, because they were roughly 50%. Swedes are more than 50%. Yamnaya reduced Basal Eurasian/West Asian levels significantly in Europe. When you look at it from a God-like view, European isn't very exotic to West Asian. There's enough difference for phenotype to be noticeable differnt, but there's lots of sharing. You shouldn't be so scared of R1a-Z93 being European, because it's less exotic than you think.

----------


## Goga

> @Goga,
> 
> Karelia_HG had Y DNA R1a. As far as we know he had no Basal Eurasian ancestry, which is how we identify West Asian admixture. Our tree currently isn't perfect, however it is still very unlikely Karelia_HG had any recent or significant West Asian ancestry. However, genome-wide data doesn't tell everything about distant Y DNA origins. For example there are people in Africa with R1b-V88 and no obvious signs of West Eurasian admixture. That doesn't mean R1b originated in Africa.


Karelia_HG R1a was different to Z93 and not ancestral haplogroup to Z93 at all. It was a very different lineage, and I'm not sure but that Karelia_HG R1a lineage is extinct today

They found also hg. J2 in far NorthEast Europe (in Finland?). Also that NorthEast European H&G almost lacked West Asian auDNA. Doesn't mean that J2 is not native West Asia.


There was also a very ancient migration from South to North, and hg. J2 is the best evidence for that.


Modern R1a-Z93 is VERY different to Karelia_HG with absolutely no relation to it. Like modern J2a is very different to NorthEast European HG with absolutely no relation to it either. Ancient North European R1a* or J2 haplogroups have nothing to do with modern R1a-Z93 or J2a. There're no direct links at all.



And of course there is not only Z93 from Iran in the Steppes, if they look further there would be much more other haplogroups from West Asia in the Steppes. Nothing special.

There is also a lot modern Z93 in the Steppes from the 'modern' Iranian speakers..

----------


## LeBrok

> R1a-Z93 guys have lots of EEF admixture. EEF lived in Europe and Turkey. So, it is unlikely Z93 came from Central Asia.


Not necessarily, in EN we can find I2 hunter gatherers and I2 farmers. Depending where they live and if they mixed with farmers. The same might be with Z93 of early Yamnaya.

----------


## LeBrok

> Botai people were supposedly hunter-gatherers who domesticated horses in order to hunt from horseback.
> 
> So pretty much like 18th century Amerindians from the Great Plains who hunted buffaloes from horseback.
> 
> This is what Dieneks claimed (see the link above). If they were EHG, then they could have some sort of R1.


 It might be, however milk and some sort of cheese was found in Botai ceramics and they have kept horses in enclosures. Once they have domesticated horses they lived more like herders than hunters. They as well learned to ride horses when tending and moving the herd to new pastures. Who knows?
Equivalent for Amerindians is, had they domesticated buffaloes, milk them and rode them. :)

----------


## Alan

> I'm stating the fact Sycthians were descendants of Sintashta. We know this because we have Sycthian and Sintashta DNA. I never stated Sintashta were proto-Indo Iranians. I don't know whether they were. Since they belonged to a downstream clade of Z93, not found in South Asia, that suggests they weren't. It's possible proto-Indo Iranian lived west of Sintashta in Russia or West Asia. 
> 
> You got to understand many people speak languages that most of their ancestors didn't. For example, Austrians speak a German language, but are mostly Polish and Balkan-like, not German-like. West Germans, South Dutch, and Swiss speak a German language, but are far more similar to French than to other Germans. English speak a German language, but are mostly of British Celtic-decent. All the major language families of Europe probably spread in the Bronze age or later, with maybe not much gene flow. There's endless examples of people who speak a differnt language than their ancestors did.



How much I usually disagree with Goga in this case he is quite right and you are not stating the "fact" but merely put up your hypothesis and conclusions based on a rumor.

It is no fact that R1a was found in Yamna, even if it was, it is no fact that this Yamna R1a z93 was autosomally similar to that Poltavka sample. How do you know he was 30% EEF? Have you seen official or even unoffical aDNA tests on this mystery Yamna R1a? Irony is Sintashta has 40% EEF. So if Sintashta descend of Poltavka how logical does it seem that Sintashta has more EEF than Poltavka? Did they pick up EEF from West or did it increase the further East they went?

Also he is right that their is no evidence that Sintashta is linguistic forefathers of Iranic tribes. Sintashta looks like an ancient Indo_Iranic culture but not ancestral to Iranic groups.

In fact it is true that East iranic tongues are connected the Srubnaya-Yaz connection. Look at page 7
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~w...doIranArch.pdf

Look at the origin point in Northeast Iran. This is Yaz culture




> e *Yaz culture* was an early Iron Age culture of Bactria and Margiana (ca. 1500-1100 BC).[1] *It has been regarded as a likely archaeological reflection of early East Iranian culture as described in the Avesta.*


Do you see any linguistic connection between this early east Iranic Yaz culture and Sintashta? I only see connection to the Srubnaya (Cimmerian) culture.





> Indo Iranian languages are no exception. Sycthians and Persians are as differnt as two West Eurasian populations can be, but they spoke closely related languages. At somepoint Indo Iranian languages expanded with little gene flow. As much as you say you're not, it's pretty obvious you don't want the language to have expanded in your region with little gene flow. The langage Kurds speak doesn't define them.


So let me get that straight, you have done aDNA tests on Medes-Parthians and Persians to tell us how much the language the Kurds or Persians speak define them. You can tell with 100% certinity that these two ancient groups came from Sintashta while there is not even very close linguistic relationship between it and the early East Iranic Yaz culture?

How do you know that the Medes-Parthians and Persians didn't start off in the Yaz or Kura Araxes culture but can say in such a convinced way that they came directly from Sintashta?

Also did you know that in oracle tests the Scythians can be modeled as ~58% Tajik/Pashtun and 42% Russian or in general 50% East European and 50% something West_South_Central Asian. So think about that comment of language not defining them again and let not all your knowledge be based on the blog of one single individual who has a stake on all of that. Instead ask around by many knowledgeable individuals and scientists and make your mind up than. 

Sorry for the neg rep, wasn't meant that way.

----------


## Alan

Mother of god I had a huge long replay and all it tells me is it will be published after a mod has taken a look at it. For what? I hope it didn't disappear. That often happens to me. It is so frustrating.

----------


## holderlin

> LMAO, this is great fun!
> 
> Yaz is located on the Iranian Plateau between Iran and Turkmenstan. How is it possible that the most southern corner of BMAC was 'Andronovized' (this is the first I hear this word), while the northern part of BMAC which actually borders Andronovo was not. This is not logical at all.
> 
> Also, Yaz Culture, was actually Zoroastrian in nature, with early Zoroastrian practices. If Yaz Culture was 'Andronovized' then Andronovo would be Zoroastrian or proto-Zoroastrian itself. LMAO, Andronovo Zoroastrian, Prophet Zoroaster from Andronovo! This is crazy and weird at the same time.
> 
> 
> It seems that you're trying to drive me crazy. But the more you try, the more I like you.


Dude

And you aren't driving anyone crazy 

The Avesta was written in IE 

BMAC was not IE

Whatever, it's like arguing with someone who believes in a conspiracy theory, or something like that

It can also be traced back to PIE religion

----------


## holderlin

> No, maybe in your dreams.
> 
> What I said that it was possible that some PIE folks from Leyla Tepe (located south of the Caspian Sea, Iranian Plateau) came down from the mountains and went to Mesopotamia and found the Mesopotamian Civilization. And I believe it was pretty much the case. Leyla-Tepe folks migrated into Mesopotamia and found the *Uruk civilization* by replacing the Ubaid Culture.


This was OK dream. I made the posts people needed to see.




> *" Indo-European before the Indo-Europeans? - new evidence from Mesopotamia*
> 
> 
> _Fresh evidence from the Land of the Two Rivers suggests otherwise. For many decades now, leading Assyriologists have speculated on the existence of an early population in the 4th millennium B.C. that preceded the Sumerians, hitherto generally regarded as the first settlers of the region. Evidence for such a population comes from place names, the names of deities, technical vocabulary and even from environmental terms. Such speculation has proven fruitless, since no linguistic group or archaeologically attested society could be shown to be related. However, in a number of recent publications data have been presented that suggest that one such linguistic group is indeed comparable -- the Indo-European family of languages. Polysyllabic terms lacking a Sumerian etymology can be demonstrated to resemble segmentable Indo-European words with comparable meanings. Furthermore, the cuneiform writing system can be shown to preserve traces of Indo-European influence in its sign values and in its sign composition._ "
> 
> http://rootsofeurope.ku.dk/english/calendar/archive_2009/euphratic/

----------


## LeBrok

> Nope. But I found some descriptions of Botai people:
> 
> https://books.google.pl/books?id=7NG...page&q&f=false
> 
> http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/09...stication.html
> 
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/...n_tab_contents
> 
> And also such an image showing a Botai man's skull:


There is a reconstruction of his face done by Kazakh researchers, and it looks sort of like a modern Kazakh. ;) I'm not sure if this could be trusted.




Surprisingly for such remote place in Asia, they got pottery by 5th millennium and had Copper Age in 4th. It seems that their was rather good connection and communication between farmers and the people of the steppe, even far away steppe.



> Beginning sometime between 3700–3100 BCE, the Copper Age Botai Culture radically changed their lifestyle and settled in large, permanent villages. They also focused most of their economy on the horse, with more than 90% of the animal bones at their sites attributed to this species. Botai stone tools also changed dramatically, although the pottery was very similar to that of their ancestors.


http://www.carnegiemnh.org/science/d...spx?id=16610#2

It could be a shocker if Copper Age Botai herders had some EEF.

----------


## LeBrok

> Mother of god I had a huge long replay and all it tells me is it will be published after a mod has taken a look at it. For what? I hope it didn't disappear. That often happens to me. It is so frustrating.


Found it. :)

----------


## holderlin

> Botai people were supposedly hunter-gatherers who domesticated horses in order to hunt from horseback.
> 
> So pretty much like 18th century Amerindians from the Great Plains who hunted buffaloes from horseback.
> 
> This is what Dieneks claimed (see the link above). If they were EHG, then they could have some sort of R1.


The only evidence of horse domestication from Botai is mares milk I believe. Nothing related to transport. That is IE unique.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...obi_people.jpg

The Yaghnobi kid in this photo looks a bit like the Botai image

#

edit

Lebrok



> Surprisingly for such remote place in Asia, they got pottery by 5th millennium and had Copper Age in 4th. It seems that their was rather good connection and communication between farmers and the people of the steppe, even far away steppe.


Yes, makes me think the edge of the steppe was maybe the fastest route between NE and NW Eurasia until ships got better - so pottery maybe going east->west and copper going west->east.

----------


## bicicleur

> It might be, however milk and some sort of cheese was found in Botai ceramics and they have kept horses in enclosures. Once they have domesticated horses they lived more like herders than hunters. They as well learned to ride horses when tending and moving the herd to new pastures. Who knows?
> Equivalent for Amerindians is, had they domesticated buffaloes, milk them and rode them. :)


acording to David Anthony, some of the descendents of Botaï were the Kelteminar
if they had learned full riding skills they would have stayed on the steppe and would have been more succesfull
instead they were ousted by folks with wagons and oxens and cattle

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Also did you know that in oracle tests the Scythians can be modeled as ~58% Tajik/Pashtun and 42% Russian or in general 50% Russian and 50% something West_South_Central Asian. So think about that comment of language not defining them again and let not all your knowledge be based on the blog of one single individual who has a stake on all of that. Instead ask around by many knowledgeable individuals and scientists and make your mind up than.


That 50/50 Tajik/Russian thing is probably from an unreliable ADMIXTURE test based on modern populations. I don't buy it at all. Unlike anyone, I do David Wesoliski has done tests on the Sycthian, and I do trust him the Sycthian has no signs of SC Asian ancestry. You got to remember shared CHG, causes Steppe to score a lot in Caucasus/Gedoris components. Yamnaya fits as a Caucasus and Volga-Ural mixture, even though that's not what Yamnaya was. 

If it were true we would know. Allentoft would not have ignored that. As much as David Wesolski gloats about Steppe warriors and what not, he's not very biased at all. I understand the work he does, and trust me it isn't biased. He does more tests than anyone, which is why I follow his blog. If you want the most recent and best info, you got to read his blog.

----------


## Alan

> That 50/50 Tajik/Russian thing is probably from an unreliable ADMIXTURE test based on modern populations.


Of course it is based on modern populations aren't we talking about modern population anyways. Your statement was that Scythians are so "European Steppe" therefore what Kurds (and Iranic tribes in general ) speak doesn't define them. So of course to prove you wrong I am going to present oracle results so whats your point? And how do you know how the old Persians and Medes were genetically anyways? So anything that doesn't suit your agenda is unreliable? What makes Davids test more reliable than the runs of other amateur bloggers especially if you know 1/3 of all Davids threads are about Indo_Iranic tribes anyways and he has no agenda on it? All bloggers have an agenda. I have yet to see one without. 

Also the main problem with you is that you threw things into the room which are either incorrect or you couldn't know anything about yet.





> I don't buy it at all. Unlike anyone, I do David Wesoliski has done tests on the Sycthian, and I do trust him the Sycthian has no signs of SC Asian ancestry. You got to remember shared CHG, causes Steppe to score a lot in Caucasus/Gedoris components. Yamnaya fits as a Caucasus and Volga-Ural mixture, even though that's not what Yamnaya was.


You don't buy it cause you don't like the results. I always knew the reason why you trust David so much isn't because you are so naive but because* you want* to trust him. The Scythian samples have 35% of South_Central Asian(most likely Gedrosia showing up) like admixture in older runs and some Caucasus (20%) too, but as I said Oracle runs show these Scythians as ~50-58% modern Tajik/Pashtun and 42-50% East European.



> If it were true we would know. Allentoft would not have ignored that. As much as David Wesolski gloats about Steppe warriors and what not, he's not very biased at all.


You know him only for 3 years now, don't tell me if he is not biased or not. I know him far longer.
Forget Allentoft, all per reviewed papers presented slightly different results than Davids. Sintashta has been modeled in the scientific papers as 40% EEF. 



> I understand the work he does, and trust me it isn't biased. He does more tests than anyone, which is why I follow his blog. If you want the most recent and best info, you got to read his blog.


You follow only his blog because what he presents you is what you want to see.

I follow his blog too, but not only his opinion. I take his opinion into account and compare it to my and other bloggers andpeoples opinions than I make up my mind.

I will give you just one example. David insists that the 35% ANE like ancestry in CHG is not only shared ancestry but real admixture. YET claims CHG is all J and did not paternally contribute to Yamna. 

Now just think about this statement and see the contradiction in it.

----------


## Alan

> There is a reconstruction of his face done by Kazakh researchers, and it looks sort of like a modern Kazakh. ;) I'm not sure if this could be trusted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surprisingly for such remote place in Asia, they got pottery by 5th millennium and had Copper Age in 4th. It seems that their was rather good connection and communication between farmers and the people of the steppe, even far away steppe.
> 
> http://www.carnegiemnh.org/science/d...spx?id=16610#2
> 
> It could be a shocker if Copper Age Botai herders had some EEF.


 Yep wouldn't trust that much, a herder group that was autosomally quite different but we know these states have their own interests on it. Ask a white supremacists to paint a picture of Jesus than ask an Afro_Centrist to do the same.

----------


## Alan

By the way, the results showing up recently from these ancient cultures. Irony on all this is, how any yDNA of these folks be it Yamna or successor Poltavka turned out either R1a z93 or R1b l23.

Why the irony? Well because those two branches are the only one (except R1b V88) who have been considered as the most likely branches of non European origin just a few years ago. Turn out to be the "archtype" of those beloved cultures and seem to have only spred around the Asian continent with the little exception of Southeast Europe which brought most people to the conclusion that it is recent Asian contribution.

----------


## LeBrok

> acording to David Anthony, some of the descendents of Botaï were the Kelteminar
> if they had learned full riding skills they would have stayed on the steppe and would have been more succesfull
> instead they were ousted by folks with wagons and oxens and cattle


 Till we get their DNA we don't know if they were replaced or they just "updated" their culture from people with wagons.

----------


## Tomenable

> They found also hg. J2 in far NorthEast Europe (in Finland?).


He wasn't described as J2 but just as J (positive for SNPs PF4521, F2114, CTS5934, CTS7028, CTS7229, FGC1599, YSC0000228, CTS11291). And he was not from Finland, but also from Karelia. He was buried in the same Red Deer Island cemetery as that R1a guy from Karelia. Genetiker claimed, that he was actually J1, and not J1a (probably J1b) - link:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0211/

One of two Mesolithic Georgians (Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers) was J1b:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post122320




> Mother of god I had a huge long replay and all it tells me is it will be published after a mod has taken a look at it. For what? I hope it didn't disappear. That often happens to me. It is so frustrating.


It also happens to me often. 

Make sure to copy your text before posting. Or first post "blahblahblah", then click "edit", and paste your real message.

----------


## Tomenable

> seem to have only spred around the Asian continent with the little exception of Southeast Europe


R1b-L23(xL51) is actually quite widespread in North-Eastern Europe as well.

For example in Poland ca. 1 million males - some 5 - 5,5% - carry L23(xL51).

----------


## bicicleur

> Till we get their DNA we don't know if they were replaced or they just "updated" their culture from people with wagons.


we don't have decisive DNA, but what we have today does not speak in favor of Botaï

corded ware, sintashta, andronovo are all descending from the same R1a1 with TMRCA 5500 years, and autosomal hints toward European origin

----------


## bicicleur

> R1b-L23(xL51) is actually quite widespread in North-Eastern Europe as well.
> 
> For example in Poland ca. 1 million males - some 5 - 5,5% - carry L23(xL51).


what part of Poland has the most?

----------


## MOESAN

I seems to me Witzel did not support an Iran origin for Indo-Iranian. If I don't mistake, another book considers too that the Indic languages were imported from North. By the way the argument (Goga?) concerning ergative structure in modern Iranic doesn't support an Iran local origin for PIE. The book I refer to is:
*The Indo-Aryan Controversy - Evidence and Inference in Indian History, by Edwin F. BRYANT* ( a breton "norman" name!) and *Laurel PATTON

*all the way Witzel and the two others doesn't think BMAC was I-Ean, Iranic or not. Let me know if I mistaked (it's boring to read and read again the same things, for my old brain)
Good reading

----------


## Fire Haired14

> You don't buy it cause you don't like the results. I always knew the reason why you trust David so much isn't because you are so naive but because* you want* to trust him. The Scythian samples have 35% of South_Central Asian(most likely Gedrosia showing up) like admixture in older runs and some Caucasus (20%) too, but as I said Oracle runs show these Scythians as ~50-58% modern Tajik/Pashtun and 42-50% East European.


D-stats are much more reliable. It takes too long to explain the method, but I can assure you ancestry percentages with D-stats are dead-on accurate.

Here's modelling of our Scythian genome.
Scythian: 85% Andronovo, 9% Nganasan, 6% Tajik.
Scythian: 61% Andronovo, 21% Sintashta, 11% Nganasan, 4% Tajik.
Scythian: 58% Yamnaya, 17% German_Neolithic, 10% Nganasan, 15% Tajik.

There's no ifs ands or buts about it, this Iron age Scythian was mostly descended of the R1a-Z93 groups who expanded out of Europe around 2500-3000 BC. There's room for minor SC Asian ancestry, but there definitely not significant SC Asian ancestry. I'm not making any statements about Indo Iranian language origins, all I'm saying is this Sycthian is more or less a descendant of Andronovo with minor Siberian and maybe SC Asian admixture.

----------


## Tomenable

> D-stats are much more reliable. It takes too long to explain the method, but I can assure you ancestry percentages with D-stats are dead-on accurate.
> 
> Here's modelling of our Scythian genome.
> Scythian: 85% Andronovo, 9% Nganasan, 6% Tajik.
> Scythian: 61% Andronovo, 21% Sintashta, 11% Nganasan, 4% Tajik.
> Scythian: 58% Yamnaya, 17% German_Neolithic, 10% Nganasan, 15% Tajik.
> 
> There's no ifs ands or buts about it, this Iron age Scythian was mostly descended of the R1a-Z93 groups who expanded out of Europe around 2500-3000 BC. There's room for minor SC Asian ancestry, but there definitely not significant SC Asian ancestry. I'm not making any statements about Indo Iranian language origins, all I'm saying is this Sycthian is more or less a descendant of Andronovo with minor Siberian and maybe SC Asian admixture.


Autosomal analysis of Karelian EHG with R1a by Genetiker:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015...-from-karelia/

Autosomal analysis of Samaran EHG with R1b by Genetiker:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015...e-from-samara/

Some minor "South_Asian" admixture is showing up.

----------


## dodona

> There is a reconstruction of his face done by Kazakh researchers, and it looks sort of like a modern Kazakh. ;) I'm not sure if this could be trusted.  Surprisingly for such remote place in Asia, they got pottery by 5th millennium and had Copper Age in 4th. It seems that their was rather good connection and communication between farmers and the people of the steppe, even far away steppe. http://www.carnegiemnh.org/science/d...spx?id=16610#2 It could be a shocker if Copper Age Botai herders had some EEF.


 we can't trust them! Their culture has no build-in regulative to stop racism and lying.

----------


## bicicleur

> D-stats are much more reliable. It takes too long to explain the method, but I can assure you ancestry percentages with D-stats are dead-on accurate.
> 
> Here's modelling of our Scythian genome.
> Scythian: 85% Andronovo, 9% Nganasan, 6% Tajik.
> Scythian: 61% Andronovo, 21% Sintashta, 11% Nganasan, 4% Tajik.
> Scythian: 58% Yamnaya, 17% German_Neolithic, 10% Nganasan, 15% Tajik.
> 
> There's no ifs ands or buts about it, this Iron age Scythian was mostly descended of the R1a-Z93 groups who expanded out of Europe around 2500-3000 BC. There's room for minor SC Asian ancestry, but there definitely not significant SC Asian ancestry. I'm not making any statements about Indo Iranian language origins, all I'm saying is this Sycthian is more or less a descendant of Andronovo with minor Siberian and maybe SC Asian admixture.


which Scythian are you talking about?
there were Scythians from the Carpaths till the Altaï mountains, from south of the Taiga till northern India
the only thing in common : descend from Andronovo

----------


## Fire Haired14

> which Scythian are you talking about?
> there were Scythians from the Carpaths till the Altaï mountains, from south of the Taiga till northern India
> the only thing in common : descend from Andronovo


This one lived on the Volga river. He specifically lived in Samara. That's where Reich gets all his ancient Russian genomes.

----------


## Alan

> D-stats are much more reliable. It takes too long to explain the method, but I can assure you ancestry percentages with D-stats are dead-on accurate.
> 
> Here's modelling of our Scythian genome.
> Scythian: 85% Andronovo, 9% Nganasan, 6% Tajik.
> Scythian: 61% Andronovo, 21% Sintashta, 11% Nganasan, 4% Tajik.
> Scythian: 58% Yamnaya, 17% German_Neolithic, 10% Nganasan, 15% Tajik.
> 
> There's no ifs ands or buts about it, this Iron age Scythian was mostly descended of the R1a-Z93 groups who expanded out of Europe around 2500-3000 BC. There's room for minor SC Asian ancestry, but there definitely not significant SC Asian ancestry. I'm not making any statements about Indo Iranian language origins, all I'm saying is this Sycthian is more or less a descendant of Andronovo with minor Siberian and maybe SC Asian admixture.


I am talking about Cats you are answering with dogs.

What the heck has the propotion of ancient ancestry among Scythians have to do with the fact that Scythians can be modeled as 50% something West_Central Asian and 50% East European? I am talking merely of Scythians as modeled in modern populations you are using mixed ancient and modern oracle. In this way you find cultures that already explain and catch up most of the ancestry that is not found in East Europeans but can be explained well with South_Central Asians. This is quite manipulative from you and actually not unusual for people to distract from the main point if they feel they have not a right argument left. The same way we could use Sintashta/Andronovo and East Europeans in mixed mode and we would only get few percentages extra(if any) being explained by East Europeans. 

D-Stats/oracle results of you have different purposes than that what we are talking about. Now since despite me already clarifying to you, *that in the case of your statement that the language doesn't define Kurds and Iranic tribes,* *D-stats have absolutely not more value than oracle results.* I don't buy that you missed that one or didn't know better I simply feel you are avoiding this fact.

You might know how to juggle with d-stats and such, but similar to David you often lack the logic and the point, with the only difference that it is possible to discuss with you while David will through an insult after you if you ask and have uncomfortable theory in his views. Thats why most of the cases he only rdiscusses these matters on boards where he know he has some kind of home advantage. Would love to have a good discussion with him for example here on Eupedia. 

Once again I will try to get deeper into this argument just so in the hope my words get clear enough so that we don't get to a different subject again.
What Scythian can be modeled in usage of ancient cultures doesn't play any role in the fact that they can be modeled as 50/50 West_Central Asian/East European if we had to explain them in modern populations. This is because West_Central Asians are not entirely CHG_EF as you probably imagine it. North Caucasians, Tajiks and Pashtuns have some EHG too, even West Iranic tribes have some EHG. Also the Scythian samples had some ASI like ancestry too, even if not in that percentage as modern South_Central Asians but overall in the dimension of North_Caucasians and West Iranic speakers.

Also East Europeans are not entirely EHG-WHG they also have CHG and EF. But CHG is a very old component and if you split that component into more recent Gedrosia-Caucasus you will see that Scythians have around 35% of Gedrosia, which East Europeans almost completely lack. This is why they need West_Central Asians to bring in that component. This is why they are so well combined and fitted with them as being "Scythian like".

This is also the reason why in non mixed model oracles Norwegians, Swedes and even Scotts fit better (though far from good fit as well) and come first before East Europeans and North Caucasians cause they have some of the Gedrosia. 

*In short, take any of your modern East European group and combine them with West_Central Asians if you want and let's see how they fit cause this was our discussion all about.*

I hope this made it too clear now.

----------


## Angela

For another angle:

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Alan,

I'm just going with the evidence. If the evidence suggested this Scythian was largely SC Asian, I'd agree you. That'd actually be really interesting, because it would represent the first migration to the Eurasian Steppe since roughly 3000 BC. The fact is, the evidence suggests he was Andronovo with minor Siberian ancestry. He might have SC Asian ancestry, and I might look into that. 

I don't feel like going over the reasons why D-stats are more reliable than ADMIXTURE. All I have to say, is there's no ifs ands or buts about it, this Iron age Scythian was nothing close to 50% SC Asian, he was maybe like 10%. He was 80-90% from people exactly like Andronovo. His European ancestors(Andronovo) were very differnt from modern East Europeans, so fitting him as East European+Indo Iranian speaking SC Asian speaker, makes no sense. 

I don't care if Scythians were European-like or not. I'm just going with the evidence. I'm being 100% honest. David Wesolski sort of has a pro-Polish and pro-R1a Steppe agenda, and there's absolutely no reason I would be for that because I'm none of those things. I get annoyed by it.

----------


## bicicleur

> This one lived on the Volga river. He specifically lived in Samara. That's where Reich gets all his ancient Russian genomes.


there is also DNA from a Pazyrik Scythian, Altaï Mts

----------


## GogaUnbanned

this post has been deleted by the original poster

----------


## GogaUnbanned

this post has been deleted by the original poster

----------


## Alan

Fire-head I am not going further into this debate just give you one single example. There is a guy I know who is part Russian and part Pashtun and in fst distance, d-stats and even ancient mixed oracle, he scores first Scythian. Before any East European, any South_Central and any West Asian, before anyone on the whole board he is the closest to IA Scythians. Now think about that.

Also the map from Angela does show this quite perfectly, as I said The Scythians had some ancestry that lacks in modern East Europeans or is very weak, they also had ancestry that is very weak in West_Central Asian therefore you need both groups to have a good fit Scythian.

----------


## GogaUnbanned

> D-stats are much more reliable. It takes too long to explain the method, but I can assure you ancestry percentages with D-stats are dead-on accurate.
> 
> Here's modelling of our Scythian genome.
> Scythian: 85% Andronovo, 9% Nganasan, 6% Tajik.
> Scythian: 61% Andronovo, 21% Sintashta, 11% Nganasan, 4% Tajik.
> Scythian: 58% Yamnaya, 17% German_Neolithic, 10% Nganasan, 15% Tajik.
> 
> There's no ifs ands or buts about it, this Iron age Scythian was mostly descended of the R1a-Z93 groups who expanded out of Europe around 2500-3000 BC. There's room for minor SC Asian ancestry, but there definitely not significant SC Asian ancestry. I'm not making any statements about Indo Iranian language origins, all I'm saying is this Sycthian is more or less a descendant of Andronovo with minor Siberian and maybe SC Asian admixture.


This is not completely true. Even *Andronovo was* also for a huge part mixed and partly *Mongoloid*. So Scythians were even more mixed than natives of Andronovo. But It doesn't even matter where those Scythians came from, *they could even come from Antarctica*. Who cares? But the fact is that these Scythian Steppes monkeys were just a bunch Iranized by the REAL Eastern Iranians from BMAC. 


My very best Polish friend banned me again. Because he couldn't find any right arguments to counter my arguments so he banned me like always. *I will be back in 2 weeks*!

----------


## GogaUnbanned

> I seems to me Witzel did not support an Iran origin for Indo-Iranian. If I don't mistake, another book considers too that the Indic languages were imported from North. By the way the argument (Goga?) concerning ergative structure in modern Iranic doesn't support an Iran local origin for PIE. The book I refer to is:
> *The Indo-Aryan Controversy - Evidence and Inference in Indian History, by Edwin F. BRYANT* ( a breton "norman" name!) and *Laurel PATTON
> 
> *all the way Witzel and the two others doesn't think BMAC was I-Ean, Iranic or not. Let me know if I mistaked (it's boring to read and read again the same things, for my old brain)
> Good reading


Mais non, mon ami. C'est pas vrai, ce qui est impossible!

And I will tell you why:

First of all Iranic languages can't be from the Steppes, because in the Steppes no ergativity construction language is spoken. All languages in the Steppes, like Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Slavic etc. all of them don't have any ergativity construction in them

While there is an ergativiy in the Caucasian languages. Not even in the Semitic languages, but only in Caucasian, Iranic and Indic languages. That's why ancestors of Iranic and Indic has to be not far from the Caucasus.



Also, Eastern Iranian Yaz culture was a part of BMAC. BMAC was 1000% hardcore Iranid. It is from BMAC that Aryans/Iranians invaded India in the South.



*I'll be back in 2 weeks*!

----------


## MOESAN

> There is a reconstruction of his face done by Kazakh researchers, and it looks sort of like a modern Kazakh. ;) I'm not sure if this could be trusted.
> 
> 
> 
> .


_Thanks for the docs, Lebrok: a bit apart of this very thread, I think the reconsitution (if concerning the profile crania photo) is not very reliable; too broad skull, I think, and a female look not confirmed by the original profile; I would have been pleased if I could have a picture taken in front;
in more than one reconstruction I already noticed the lack of muscular relief of the jaws, what diminish the live supposed breadth of jaws.
Today Kazakhs (apart the ancient Russians colons) are heavily influenced by diverse 'east-asian' types, when the profile provided here doesn't seem confirming an heavy 'east-asian' imput. I know a profile is not sufficient to judge... the surveys I red stated the first 'east-asian' visible physical influences in Kazakhstan began at Iron Age only and I don't think it has been falsified.
_All the way all these reconstructions are bets concerning forms of mouth, eyelids, eyebrows, fleshy part of nose and so on!
allways pleased when I can see a good crania picture (everybody has its own deviances! Some preferred playmates of Playboy...

----------


## MOESAN

> Mais non, mon ami. C'est pas vrai, ce qui est impossible!
> 
> And I will tell you why:
> 
> First of all Iranic languages can't be from the Steppes, because in the Steppes no ergativity construction language is spoken. All languages in the Steppes, like Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Slavic etc. all of them don't have any ergativity construction in them
> 
> While there is an ergativiy in the Caucasian languages. Not even in the Semitic languages, but only in Caucasian, Iranic and Indic languages. That's why ancestors of Iranic and Indic has to be not far from the Caucasus.
> 
> 
> ...


_Thanks for kind answer (too kind maybe?)

the ergative nature of Iranic languages was the reason for me they are the result of an acculturation of previously non I-Ean speakers by I-Eans come from elsewhere (so not from Iran surroundings), being the ergative aspect the heritage of a non-I-Ean substrata, at least in my modest mind. Maybe I'm wrong; could you confirm or infirm me the first I-Ean languages were ergative or not? It seems the syntacix proximity of I-E is rather with steppes (Finnic-Ugric) languages than with Caucasic ones...
aside, I recommend you to read the paper of Bryant and Patton to make your opinion

_

----------


## GogaUnbanned

> _Thanks for kind answer (too kind maybe?)
> 
> the ergative nature of Iranic languages was the reason for me they are the result of an acculturation of previously non I-Ean speakers by I-Eans come from elsewhere (so not from Iran surroundings), being the ergative aspect the heritage of a non-I-Ean substrata, at least in my modest mind. Maybe I'm wrong; could you confirm or infirm me the first I-Ean languages were ergative or not? It seems the syntacix proximity of I-E is rather with steppes (Finnic-Ugric) languages than with Caucasic ones...
> aside, I recommend you to read the paper of Bryant and Patton to make your opinion
> 
> _


It has been said that there were 2 stages of PIE. The very first original evolved somewhere around the Zagros Mountains. That PIE migrated into the Maykop and from there it migrated into the Yamnaya. And in the Yamnaya it evolved into proto-Celtic, proto-Germanic etc.


*Late* PIE evolved in Yamnaya. It has been said that some IE languages spoken in Europe came from Yamnaya and not from Maykop or Iran (Leyla-Tepe). While some languages like Iranic evolved from the original PIE that stayed home on the Iranian Plateau.


There were 2 PIE stages. *Late PIE* in Yamnaya and *early PIE* on the Iranian Plateau. PIE in Yamnaya came from Maykop/Leyla-Tepe.


PIE that evolved in the Yamnaya Horizon was NOT ergative.

But proto-Iranic that evolved on the Iranian Plateau was an ergative language. The reason why proto-Iranic and proto-Indo-Iranian CAN'T be from the steppes is because some Iranic and Indic languages are still ergative languages. Native languages in the Steppes, like Turkic, Ugric, Mongolic, Russian (Slavic) etc. are NOT ergative languages at all and never have been, while proto-Iranic and proto-Indic were ergative languages. Ergativity in Iranic and Indic is from somewhere else. And that place has to be Iran, where ergativity is NATIVE to Caucasus & Iranian Plateau.

Proto-Iranian and proto-Indic can't be from the Steppes becasue there is no ergativity constructiuon in the Steppe. But there is ergativity construction in Caucasus and the Plateau.

Don't forget that BMAC was practically West Asian in nature, Indic languages are from BMAC. Those Aryans who invaded India came from North, from BMAC. So of course Indic has an ergativity.

There are many links between Caucasian and Indo-Iranian (proto-Iranic) languages. And even today Caucasian and Iranic languages share the same region, West Asia.
Caucasian languages and proto-Iranic languages could even share the ancient ancestry to some degree. both languages heavily influenced each other, that's for sure. They share even the same auDNA! Iran and Caucasus are linked to each other.



My last post with this name. This is against the rules. I'm banned. I'll come back in 2 weeks with my original name. Take care, ciao!

----------


## holderlin

The "Gedrosian" or "South Asian" being seen in Steppe is because "South Asians" and "Gedrosians" are largely descended from CHG like people. I don't know why this modern population that happens to be embedded in the computational models is being used in the way it is on these boards.

MA-1 clearly contributed to EHG and he was clearly related to CHG as well. Whether or not CHG is in some way ancestral to ANE, or that ANE is in some way ancestral to CHG I think is still unlcear. The CHG samples are much younger so it would be logical to make the tentative assumption ANE is in some way ancestral to both CHG and EHG. However in comparisons between EEF/ENF and CHG, CHG looks to be very old, like 40000 ybp I believe, or something like that, so maybe based on this one could say that CHG likely contributed to ANE, I dunno.

MA-1 was a long long time ago. So seeing "South asian"/"Gedrosia" in ANE components is easily explained in this way. It's not some ace in the hole against steppe origins of Scythians.

And no one is saying that Poltovka->Sintashta->Andronova->Iranian in a perfect, linear, seamless transition. But the core ancestry of Iranian speaking peoples is very clear right now. Opposing models are highly unlikely. They're still possible because this isn't a hard science, but for this kind of science, with the kind of statistics that we commonly deal with, most actual scientists would say we are very close to certain on this.

What do we also see? Iron age expansions of Iranian speaking peoples contain a lot of J Y-HG's whereas Andronova and Sintashta were all R1a. This looks to me like BMAC was probably composed of J Y-HG guys that R1a mixed with to form latter differentiated Iranian languages. What's wrong with this model? It's not offensive.

----------


## Silesian

> What do we also see? Iron age expansions of Iranian speaking peoples contain a lot of J Y-HG's whereas Andronova and Sintashta were all R1a. This looks to me like BMAC was probably composed of J Y-HG guys that R1a mixed with to form latter differentiated Iranian languages. What's wrong with this model? It's not offensive.


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



> _Firstly, the Iranian plateau, followed by the adjacent Mesopotamian area, together covering modern Iran, Iraq and Syria, has the earliest arsenical bronze metallurgy in the world, as previously mentioned. It was in use from the 4th millennium BC through to mid 2nd millennium, a period of nearly 2,000 years. T_


Yamnaya-Steppe R1b-Z2103 is about 6200+/-YBP TMRCA. Yamnaya copper is solid, https://books.google.ca/books?id=nLI...20club&f=false R1b-L584 found in and around Iran is about 4800+/- YBP TMRCA & R1a-Z93 in and around Iran is about 4800+/- YBP,TMRCA according to https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/. R1b Poltavka EHG & CHG. Sintashta copper- http://www.csc.ac.ru/news/1999_1/99-1-11-1.pdf

----------


## MOESAN

> The "Gedrosian" or "South Asian" being seen in Steppe is because "South Asians" and "Gedrosians" are largely descended from CHG like people. I don't know why this modern population that happens to be embedded in the computational models is being used in the way it is on these boards.
> 
> MA-1 clearly contributed to EHG and he was clearly related to CHG as well. Whether or not CHG is in some way ancestral to ANE, or that ANE is in some way ancestral to CHG I think is still unlcear. The CHG samples are much younger so it would be logical to make the tentative assumption ANE is in some way ancestral to both CHG and EHG. However in comparisons between EEF/ENF and CHG, CHG looks to be very old, like 40000 ybp I believe, or something like that, so maybe based on this one could say that CHG likely contributed to ANE, I dunno.
> 
> MA-1 was a long long time ago. So seeing "South asian"/"Gedrosia" in ANE components is easily explained in this way. It's not some ace in the hole against steppe origins of Scythians.
> 
> And no one is saying that Poltovka->Sintashta->Andronova->Iranian in a perfect, linear, seamless transition. But the core ancestry of Iranian speaking peoples is very clear right now. Opposing models are highly unlikely. They're still possible because this isn't a hard science, but for this kind of science, with the kind of statistics that we commonly deal with, most actual scientists would say we are very close to certain on this.
> 
> What do we also see? Iron age expansions of Iranian speaking peoples contain a lot of J Y-HG's whereas Andronova and Sintashta were all R1a. This looks to me like BMAC was probably composed of J Y-HG guys that R1a mixed with to form latter differentiated Iranian languages. What's wrong with this model? It's not offensive.


_I want not go into details tonight but I share a lot of your observations and thoughts, as a whole. I like also your remark about "hard science" (not the case here)_

----------


## MOESAN

> It has been said that there were 2 stages of PIE. The very first original evolved somewhere around the Zagros Mountains. That PIE migrated into the Maykop and from there it migrated into the Yamnaya. And in the Yamnaya it evolved into proto-Celtic, proto-Germanic etc.
> 
> 
> *Late* PIE evolved in Yamnaya. It has been said that some IE languages spoken in Europe came from Yamnaya and not from Maykop or Iran (Leyla-Tepe). While some languages like Iranic evolved from the original PIE that stayed home on the Iranian Plateau.
> 
> 
> There were 2 PIE stages. *Late PIE* in Yamnaya and *early PIE* on the Iranian Plateau. PIE in Yamnaya came from Maykop/Leyla-Tepe.
> 
> 
> ...



_I accept to consider your points, Goga. I lack knowledge about proto-iranic languages (I have only a small handbook of iranian for travellers at hand! that said, it's very interesting concerning some syntaxic aspects of today iranian and the evident links with west-europeans basic verbs conjugaisons, spite unsufficient): are you sure the proto-iranic languages (as reconstructed at least) were ergative, or it is only a deduction from the today indo-iranic languages? It's important to know it.
I need more well based advices here.
good night 
_

----------


## MOESAN

Goga, don't fall asleep so quickly!
I forgot: do read the Bryant/Patton and Witzel points: it could change some of your thoughts, perhaps?
Now you can sleep quietly

----------


## Alan

> The "Gedrosian" or "South Asian" being seen in Steppe is because "South Asians" and "Gedrosians" are largely descended from CHG like people. I don't know why this modern population that happens to be embedded in the computational models is being used in the way it is on these boards.


Than you haven't been following this discussion. For the point of determining how much ancestry an ancient people have contributed to a modern population and see to with which modern populations it shares how much ancestry, it is indeed important to include these modern populations in this discussion. We aren't talking about the Scythian ancestry here you have missed the point. If that was the case we would solely speak of CHG, EHG, EF. But we aren't soleley discussing the Scythian ancestry, we are discussing the ancestry of modern Iranic speakers and their relationship to this Scythian samples. Also it is important and interesting in this case to see, IF we had to explain the ancestry of modern Scythians based on modern populations we would need to use a mixed West_South_Central Asian and East European example, cause Scythians as also seen on PCA plots (and this is not due to projection bias as some "experts" with an agenda would claim, cause obviously the Scythian samples have some ancestry only found in significant frequency in West_Central Asians such as allot more CHG like ancestry, some East Eurasian (depending on the Scythian sample from 0-20%, 10-20% is typical Tajik). Than they have higher frequency of EHG compared to West_Central Asians. At last there is EF which both groups- West_Central Asians as well East Europeans share in similar amount.

Therefore the Scythians appear as they appear and plot as they plot.

----------


## dodona

> _Thanks for kind answer (too kind maybe?) the ergative nature of Iranic languages was the reason for me they are the result of an acculturation of previously non I-Ean speakers by I-Eans come from elsewhere (so not from Iran surroundings), being the ergative aspect the heritage of a non-I-Ean substrata, at least in my modest mind. Maybe I'm wrong; could you confirm or infirm me the first I-Ean languages were ergative or not? It seems the syntacix proximity of I-E is rather with steppes (Finnic-Ugric) languages than with Caucasic ones... aside, I recommend you to read the paper of Bryant and Patton to make your opinion_


 I know its naive, nevertheless I always stumbled over this equitations: English One -------------- Farsi yak Shina êk Sanskrit+ éka Finish yksi Mansi akva Hungaria egy

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Alan,

In ADMIXTURE based on modern populations, Corded Ware comes out Caucasus+Volga Ural. This is because none of the modern components are representative of Corded Ware. Corded Ware had more CHG than modern Europeans, which is why it scores in West Asian or SC Asian components. The same is true for the Sycthian. The Sycthian being a 50/50 SC Asian+European mix is absolutely impossible. Some SC Asian ancestry is totally possible, but it would be a very small minority. 

Show me the ADMIXTURE which models the Sycthian as SC Asian+East European. I gurentee the same will be true for Corded Ware, disproving the 50/50 East European/SC Asian model.

----------


## ThirdTerm

The ancient Scythians belonged to the Y-DNA haplogroup R1a1 but their maternal DNA heritage was mixed. For example, Asian-specific mtDNA haplogroups such as F2a and D were detected in ancient Scythian samples. The Scythian males may have interbred with native Siberian women as they colonised or conquered the vast expanse of the Eurasian steppe, which is why their paternal DNA heritage is almost exclusively European. This is similar to what happened in the Soviet era, when ethnic Russians occupied Central Asian countries. In the late 1950s, ethnic Russians accounted for 43% of Kazakhstan's population. A genetic analysis of the Tarim mummies yielded the West Eurasian H, K, T, U7, U5a, U2e, the East Eurasian B, C4, C5, D, G2a, and the Indian M5, which is a 50/50 split. The ancient Scythians would have had more West Eurasian mtDNA components than the Tarim mummies discovered in western China. 




> Ancient Y-DNA data was finally provided by Keyser et al in 2009. They studied the haplotypes and haplogroups of 26 ancient human specimens from the Krasnoyarsk area in Siberia dated from between the middle of the 2nd millennium BC and the 4th century AD (Scythian and Sarmatian timeframe). Nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R-M17. The authors suggest that their data shows that between Bronze and Iron Ages the constellation of populations known variously as Scythians, Andronovians, etc. were blue- (or green-) eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people who might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization. Moreover, this study found that they were genetically more closely related to modern populations of eastern Europe than those of central and southern Asia.[88] The ubiquity and utter dominance of R1a Y-DNA lineage contrasts markedly with the diversity seen in the mtDNA profiles.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Frequency map of R1a-Z2125. This is the branch of Z93, most Sintashta/Andronovo/etc belonged to. It's almost non-existent outside of Central Asia. So, IMO, this does not support the idea Sintashta-descendants migrated to SC Asia and brought Z93.

----------


## Tomenable

> It's almost non-existent outside of Central Asia.


The map shows that a large area of India has 10-15 percent frequency of it, and another large area has 7,5-10 percent. I wouldn't call this "almost non-existent" especially considering that India has a population density of over 1000 per 1 square mile.

That said, the original Indo-Aryans were most likely under L657 (equivalent of M780) subclade of R1a.

Z2125 is probably from later Iranic groups which invaded India (just like U106 came to Britain later than L21):




> Nowhere in the world outside the Greater Iran have the Iranian People reached prominence as they have in India. The history of Iranic and Indic peoples is very much intertwined. As they both are the descendants of Indo-Iranian people who separated some 5000 years ago. Subsequent Iranian Empires have successively controlled north-west and north India through the history. Starting with the Persian Achaemenid Empire, followed by Bactrian Empire, Parthian Empire, Kushan Empire, Indo-Saka Empire, Indo-Parthian Empire, Hephthalites Empire, Sassanid Empire, etc, etc. This has caused a continuous stream of Iranic people penetrating India and settling in different parts of this land.

----------


## Tomenable

Basal paragroup R1a-Z93* has been found in Russia and in Poland:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...olish-R1a-Z93*

Quote: _"YFull's new haplotree shows 3 examples of R1a-Z93* . Two of them are Russian, one Polish."_

https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z93*/

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Tomenable,

Didn't notice it did have a noticble frequency outside of Central Asia. Still, it goes against the idea Andronovo is the source of L657/

----------


## bicicleur

> The map shows that a large area of India has 10-15 percent frequency of it, and another large area has 7,5-10 percent. I wouldn't call this "almost non-existent" especially considering that India has a population density of over 1000 per 1 square mile.
> 
> That said, the original Indo-Aryans were most likely under L657 (equivalent of M780) subclade of R1a.
> 
> Z2125 is probably from later Iranic groups which invaded India (just like U106 came to Britain later than L21):


it's all quite complicated
at least 3 R1a tribes invaded India, and probalby more

Vedic invasion
Indo-Scythian invasion
Yuezhi from Bactria

hard to tell which is the exact origing of specific R1a in India

----------


## bicicleur

> Basal paragroup R1a-Z93* has been found in Russia and in Poland:
> 
> http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...olish-R1a-Z93*
> 
> Quote: _"YFull's new haplotree shows 3 examples of R1a-Z93* . Two of them are Russian, one Polish."_
> 
> https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z93*/


Cimmerian?
Scythian?
Sarmatian?

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Frequency map of R1a-Z2125. This is the branch of Z93, most Sintashta/Andronovo/etc belonged to. It's almost non-existent outside of Central Asia. So, IMO, this does not support the idea Sintashta-descendants migrated to SC Asia and brought Z93.


There have been a lot of steppe transitions since then and steppe transitions seem to have a particularly dramatic impact on the ydna (because it's so flat and refuge-less i guess).

This is possibly hinted at in your map with the surviving lines being mostly in the neighboring mountains.

If you look at a general R1a map

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._R_(Y-DNA).PNG

it looks to me like R1a at one point might have been a large contiguous crescent shape and then had a slice cut through the middle by Turkic/Mongol expansion from north east Asia across and then down into the middle east.

----------


## Tomenable

*Fire Haired14,*

L657 could only be a minority lineage in Sintashta, because it is too young to be numerous back then.

Sintashta culture existed in 2100-1800 BC, while TMRCA of L657 was ca. 1600 BC (according to YFull):

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L657/

R1a samples collected so far from Sintashta, Srubna and Andronovo are certainly older than 1600 BC.

=====================

*Some dates for you:

*TMRCA of L657 according to YFull - 1600 (95% Confidence Interval: 2400-900) BC

Yamnaya - 1 sample of R1a (it is *older than 3000* BC)
Poltavka Outlier - 1 sample of R1a (age *2925-2536* BC)
Xiaohe mummies - 11 x R1a (dated to *2558-1940* BC)
Potapovka - 2 samples of R1a (dated to *2469-1900* BC)
Sintashta - 2 samples of R1a (dated to *2298-1896* BC)
Srubnaya - 6 samples of R1a (dated to *1850*-1200 BC)
Andronovo - 3 samples of R1a (dated to *1800*-1298 BC)

*L657 rose to numerical prominence only in a more recent period.*

And today L657 is undoubtedly the most numerous of all subclades of R1a-Z93.

So its expansion from a few men to a few hundred million men was impressive.

----------


## dodona

> *Fire Haired14,* [B]Some dates for you:


 extremely useful. Thanks a lot!

----------


## Goga

R1a in Eastern Europe is very monotonous, mostly from 1 very recent source. Very young and recent subclades, which indicate a very recent migration and bottleneck/'elite dominance'.






While R1a in NorthWest Asian modern population is much more diverse and much more older than elsewhere in the world.




http://kurdishdna.blogspot.nl/2014/0...t-al-2014.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=24667786




" _CONCLUSION

Our phylogeographic data lead us to conclude that the initial episodes of R1a-M420 diversiﬁcation occurred in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey, and we estimate that diversiﬁcation downstream of M417/Page7 occurred ~5800 years ago. This suggests the possibility that R1a lineages accompanied demic expansions initiated during the Copper, Bronze, and Iron ages, partially replacing previous Y-chromosome strata, an interpretation consistent with albeit limited ancient DNA evidence._ "

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg201450a.html

----------


## johen

> It could be a shocker if Copper Age Botai herders had some EEF.


1. botai people reconstruction


2. comb ceramic :



> The oldest ones have been discovered from the remains of Liao civilization(BC 6200 - 5400 BC), so the Urheimat is assumed to be*Liao** region* and spread afterward to North Europe through Siberia and to Korean peniusla. This is possibly related to Uralic migration and spread ofhaprogroup N (Y-DNA).


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


- Liao region: just above the North Korea




3. Problem is 7,000 years ago EEF ( lots of right burial types) might migrate from Germany to Korea



- EEF pottery in Korea


-->* altai area (especially Astana)locates in the middle of comb ceramic zone, hence, they might have EEF

AND

*oct.2013: Using HSV-1 genome phylogenetics to track past human migrations.

----------


## Alpakut

> _Thanks for the docs, Lebrok: a bit apart of this very thread, I think the reconsitution (if concerning the profile crania photo) is not very reliable; too broad skull, I think, and a female look not confirmed by the original profile; I would have been pleased if I could have a picture taken in front;
> in more than one reconstruction I already noticed the lack of muscular relief of the jaws, what diminish the live supposed breadth of jaws.
> Today Kazakhs (apart the ancient Russians colons) are heavily influenced by diverse 'east-asian' types, when the profile provided here doesn't seem confirming an heavy 'east-asian' imput. I know a profile is not sufficient to judge... the surveys I red stated the first 'east-asian' visible physical influences in Kazakhstan began at Iron Age only and I don't think it has been falsified.
> _All the way all these reconstructions are bets concerning forms of mouth, eyelids, eyebrows, fleshy part of nose and so on!
> allways pleased when I can see a good crania picture (everybody has its own deviances! Some preferred playmates of Playboy...


As for the Botai culture I have to intervene. When people here don't believe Turkic anthropologists, as they seem to be racist and lying, we could at least believe Italian linguists and Russian chemists.

http://www.continuitas.org/news.html
PCP SCIENTIFIC NEWS 
Edited by Mario Alinei, Xaverio Ballester, Francesco Benozzo
*07/12/2009 

"**4. ENEOLITHIC AND HORSE DOMESTICATION.* *A study by A.K. Outram, N.A.Stear, R. Bendrey, S. Olsen, A. Kasparov, V. Zaibert, N. Thorpe, R.P. Evershed ("Science" 323, 2009, pp. 1332-1335) definitively confirms that horse domestication first took place in northern Kazakhstan, in the framework of the Eneolithic Botai culture, dating to about 3500 B.C.E. Analysis of organic residues also reveals milking of mares. See, on the same subject, "Trail of Mare's Milk Leads to First Tamed Horses", in Science 322, 2008, p. 368.**
A comment by M.A.: Surprisingly, the authors still refer to works of Anthony, Mallory and Piggot, according to which "domestication of horse is associated with the spread of Indo-European languages and culture". Modern archaeology (beginning with Renfrew) has demolished this theory. Moreover, overwhelming linguistic evidence, among which most important is the spread of exclusively Turkic loanword related to horse terminology in all languages of Eastern Europe, both Indo-European and Uralic, shows that horse domestication is a fundamental Turkic innovation. It is no accident that the Botai culture is a khazak culture, belonging to the Turkic-speaking area, and not to the IE-, or Uralic-speaking one! Myths and dogmas are hard to die! (M.A.)"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++

*http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...enealogyEn.htm
*Anatole A. Klyosov* *Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, vol. 3, No. 1, 2010*"_The Türkic-speaking bearers of Asian R1b haplotypes and their descendants largely remained in Asia, the rest had moved to the Caucasus, the Middle East, ancient Europe. 5,700-5,100 years ago in the North Kazakhstan they established the Botai archeological culture, and according to the latest data, about 5,500 years ago horse was domesticated there (Archaeology, Jan-Feb 2010). In addition to the Botai settlement dated 3,700-3,100 BC (it certainly was the haplogroup R1b, since the carriers of the R1a1 appeared in those regions only 1500-2000 years later). A summer camp dated 1,200-900 BC, i.e. 3,200-2,900 years ago, was found there. However, these were much more recent times, and the camp might have been established by the Andronovans, “Indo-European” R1a1, after a departure of a part of their tribe to India. They could also be the Türkic-speaking R1b1. The archaeologists, naturally, did not get into such distinctions. They simply noted that the camp belonged to the Bronze Age._"

----------


## bicicleur

the question is not whether the Botaï domesticated the horse, the question is to what extent did they domesticate the horse and for what purpose
and where they the first?
the Botaï swithced all of a sudden from HG to horse herding without any other antecedents
David Anthony suggests the Botaï learned about horse herding from the Afanasievo people, moving from the Volga area to the Altaï

conc Turkic loanwords in horse terminology, what exact words are we talking about?

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

The Kazakhs are descendants of the Turkic and medieval Mongol tribes – Argyns, Dughlats, Naimans, Jalairs, Khazars, Qarluqs; and of theKipchaks and Cumans,[23][24] and other tribes such as the Huns, and ancient Iranian nomads like the Sarmatians, Saka and Scythians from East Europe populated the territory between Siberia and the Black Sea and remained in Central Asia and Eastern Europe when the nomadic groups started to invade and conquer the area between the 5th and 13th centuries AD.

----------


## LeBrok

> *It is no accident that the Botai culture is a khazak culture,**belonging to the Turkic-speaking area, and not to the IE-, or Uralic-speaking one! Myths and dogmas are hard to die! (M.A.)"*


*
*I don't mind if Botai spoke some form of proto-proto-Turkic language. As well they could. I just don't understand why you want to create a new dogma, making Botai a Turkic Culture?!!! We have no idea what language they spoke, or if it was even remotely Turkic or not. They certainly had different beliefs, different way of life, traditions, clothing, songs, etc, etc. Nothing to do with Turkic of any known Turkic culture, or even proto-Turkic of 2000 years ago. Just because they resided in are of Kazakhstan they didn't need to speak the same language. On same grounds we could proclaim that Anatolians spoke Turkic language because Turkey occupies same geographical location. We know the statement is false, and this logic has no merits.
*


*


> http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...enealogyEn.htm
> *Anatole A. Klyosov ...*_, and according to the latest data, about 5,500 years ago horse was domesticated there (Archaeology, Jan-Feb 2010). In addition to the Botai settlement dated 3,700-3,100 BC (it certainly was the haplogroup R1b, .........since the carriers of the R1a1 appeared in those regions only 1500-2000 years later)._


 Perhaps so, but this is one speculation after another. Why don't we wait for genetic anthropology to catch up. 
Another issue is, how important is to brag about possible R1b in Botai? Is this something to be proud of?

----------


## MOESAN

> As for the Botai culture I have to intervene. When people here don't believe Turkic anthropologists, as they seem to be racist and lying, we could at least believe Italian linguists and Russian chemists.
> 
> http://www.continuitas.org/news.html
> PCP SCIENTIFIC NEWS 
> Edited by Mario Alinei, Xaverio Ballester, Francesco Benozzo
> *07/12/2009 
> 
> "**4. ENEOLITHIC AND HORSE DOMESTICATION.* *A study by A.K. Outram, N.A.Stear, R. Bendrey, S. Olsen, A. Kasparov, V. Zaibert, N. Thorpe, R.P. Evershed ("Science" 323, 2009, pp. 1332-1335) definitively confirms that horse domestication first took place in northern Kazakhstan, in the framework of the Eneolithic Botai culture, dating to about 3500 B.C.E. Analysis of organic residues also reveals milking of mares. See, on the same subject, "Trail of Mare's Milk Leads to First Tamed Horses", in Science 322, 2008, p. 368.**
> A comment by M.A.: Surprisingly, the authors still refer to works of Anthony, Mallory and Piggot, according to which "domestication of horse is associated with the spread of Indo-European languages and culture". Modern archaeology (beginning with Renfrew) has demolished this theory. Moreover, overwhelming linguistic evidence, among which most important is the spread of exclusively Turkic loanword related to horse terminology in all languages of Eastern Europe, both Indo-European and Uralic, shows that horse domestication is a fundamental Turkic innovation. It is no accident that the Botai culture is a khazak culture, belonging to the Turkic-speaking area, and not to the IE-, or Uralic-speaking one! Myths and dogmas are hard to die! (M.A.)"
> ...



1- Why did you put my post as if you were answering it when your own post has nothing to do with it (my own post concerned reconstruction upon skeletons remnants, without any opinion concerning other things.
2- Personally I 've nothing systematic against national categories of scientists or posters.
3- Mario Alinei supported cocerning I-E in Occident some thesis which seems to me very unreliable, even if this man has some linguistic credit among some people.
4- Turkic tribes in Botai? I have not made my opinion yet. But a Y-R1b original group for them seems to me an adventurous bet at this stage of our knowledge. 
5- to come back to language, I would be pleased to have some precise and nearly complete serious survey about the (so called?) I-E and uralic east-european terms for the horses world. What does not say I see a problem in the fact that Turkic people would have domesticated horses before others: it's not a competition bewteen us and by the fact steppic Turks were surely good rider...

----------


## holderlin

Please, show me all these Turkic horse training and riding loan words in all IE languages. I would love to see them. 

I imagine they're exclusive to regions that fell under very very very recent Turkic expansion of the middle ages, or relatively recent hunnic expansions if we agree that Huns were Turkic and not Iranic. I think most sane academics agree that the Huns were the late classical West's first contact with Turkic speaking peoples.

----------


## dodona

> the question is not whether the Botaï domesticated the horse, the question is to what extent did they domesticate the horse and for what purpose and where they the first? the Botaï swithced all of a sudden from HG to horse herding without any other antecedents David Anthony suggests the Botaï learned about horse herding from the Afanasievo people, moving from the Volga area to the Altaï


 Botai was a relatively short living culture which disappeared after a couple of centuries. If they invented horse domestication then their military advance was so big that they would have conquered the whole russian steppe, and most of Eurasia in a short period. This definitely wasn't the case therefore all the stories about kumis drinking Botai people living in jurtes can't be true.

----------


## MOESAN

> Please, show me all these Turkic horse training and riding loan words in all IE languages. I would love to see them. 
> 
> I imagine they're exclusive to regions that fell under very very very recent Turkic expansion of the middle ages, or relatively recent hunnic expansions if we agree that Huns were Turkic and not Iranic. I think most sane academics agree that the Huns were the late classical West's first contact with Turkic speaking peoples.


_

I have some diverse I-Ean terms for horse world at hand and I looked at some turkic words for the same ground and I did not find evident link; even the slavic word_ * konj*_ for "horse" seems absent of today turkic languages (maybe replaced? I don't know). By the way, if I rely upon some Hungarian old scientist, the Finnic-Uralic languages had contact with I-Ean and Indo-Iranic (loanwords), but he did not cite any turkic influence at this stage. When speaking about later Hungarians (Magyars of the Steppes), this scientist spoke of some stabilization around the Don, and evident turkic influences on the language at this stage, but it doesn't concern the horse world, it concerns principally the agriculture one: culture and breeding: ovins, caprins, bovins, porcins NOT horses!
So if Turcs domesticated horse before others, it doesn't appear too clearly in the languages of their I-Ean and Finnic-Ugric neighbours._

----------


## dodona

> So if Turcs domesticated horse before others, it doesn't appear too clearly in the languages of their I-Ean and Finnic-Ugric neighbours.[/I]


 the idea that Turks (who appeared very late in history) invented horse riding belongs to the old racist ideologies of the 19th century.

----------


## MOESAN

> the idea that Turks (who appeared very late in history) invented horse riding belongs to the old racist ideologies of the 19th century.


_
-Here I discussed the linguistic point. 
_- &: "racist ideologies? _what is that? "racist" is a dead word as it has been used in so many wrong ways;
__-Turcs were not born from nobody nowhere or from Mars green monsters, they had ancestors like us. So? The question is not the date of their apparition in documented history but the facts we could have or not have concerning horse domestication an cavalry use. I have no opinion for now only believings I don't want expose at this stage.
Sometime, invention is not only linked to a specific human group ability but to hazard and natural environment (flora fauna topography...). Maybe steppes were the best place... 
_

----------


## LeBrok

> the idea that Turks (who appeared very late in history) invented horse riding .


You might be onto something. If Turks were first to domesticate horses they would have been more mobile and much sooner.

----------


## MOESAN

Lebrok, your point is sensible. But perhaps metals working knowledge (weapons) could have played a role too? Bronze seem late enough East the Altay, but Iron there seems not very later than elsewhere; and Iron seems the starter of East Asian/Altay first moves. Maybe it doesn't prove too much things concerning culture but the first appearence of strong East-Asian demic imput East the Caspian (Kazakhstan) began at Iron Age, if what I red is true.

Personally I don't think Turks were the first horses tamers but...? It's true these regions were not my first place of interest. I have to learn a bit.

----------


## LeBrok

> Lebrok, your point is sensible. But perhaps metals working knowledge (weapons) could have played a role too? Bronze seem late enough East the Altay, but Iron there seems not very later than elsewhere; and Iron seems the starter of East Asian/Altay first moves. Maybe it doesn't prove too much things concerning culture but the first appearence of strong East-Asian demic imput East the Caspian (Kazakhstan) began at Iron Age, if what I red is true.
> 
> Personally I don't think Turks were the first horses tamers but...? It's true these regions were not my first place of interest. I have to learn a bit.


Nothing is certain, that's for sure. It might be the case that Turks took part in domestication of horses but didn't build up in population numbers to conquer anyone till medieval times, or were lacking bronze or iron, as you said. It'll be interesting to finally learn haplogroup of Botai people.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Alan,

I got DNAland results for the Sycthian guy. DNAland gives modern regional ancestry percentages. It trys to determine what part of the world you're from. He got almost 100% NorthCentral and NortEast European. I forget the rest. I have other evidence, but don't feel like gathering. He was basically Andronovo+10% something Siberian. Maybe he had a little bit something else, but that's mostly what he was.

----------


## Goga

@ *Fire Haired14*

Do you know that in the Eastern ARYAN Zoroastrian Avesta writings *Scythia* and Scythians are not part of the 16 native original lands of the Aryans? Scythians were NEVER considered by the real true Aryans, like the Medes, ancient Persians, Sogdians, Bactrians etc. as Aryan people. It is true that Scythians spoke East Iranic, but that's because they were colonized by the Eastern Aryans, like I did explain before..


Airyanem Vaejo - Iran
Sukhdho - Tajikistan
Mourum - South Turkmenistan
Bakhdhim - North Afghanistan
Nisaim - Northeast Iran
Haroyum - Northwest Afghanistan
Vaekeretem - Eastern Afghanistan
Urvam - Uzbekistan
Khnentem Vehrkano - North-northeast Iran
Harahvaitim - South Central Afghanistan
Haetumantem - SE Afghanistan & E Iran
Rakham - North Iran
Chakhrem - North Iran
Varenem - North Iran
Hapta Hendu - N. Pakistan & NW India
Ranghaya - Kurdistan



http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/airyanavaeja.htm#haptahindu

----------


## nunofreiresilvameco

Olá. Hello. My name is Nuno. Family name (paternal) is Meco. My father's male previous generations have been living in Portugal (south) for what i least know, 120 years. My latest ydna test showed me R1a-Z93. And nothing more. I tested for Z94, but it was negative. Just to say i found interesting being this ydna haplogroup and being here for about 4800 years and so far as Portugal. Cheers.

----------

