# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Bronze Age >  Massive migration from the steppe - extended discussion

## Tomenable

99% of modern R1a in the world originated and expanded from Eastern Europe, not from Iran (as Underhill suggested in 2014).

----------


## Yetos

> There was never Thrachians civilization outside the Balkan( and to a lesser extend Anatolia) :) I hope they will test for male lines remains fro Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and North Greece, this is what was the Thrachian core :)


queen thamar 
thracian queen, 
east caucas,

----------


## Diurpaneus

> civilization


Indeed,this is the true engine of the ethnicity,making the populations mentioned above[i'll add the Albanians, not(only)because i'm Romanian] ,to some degree,of "Thracian" origin.
As for the genes, it can be quite tricky for various reasons.And,as far as I know ,only the elites were inhumated.

some anthropology:

http://www.unz.org/Pub/MankindQuarterly-1980jan-00321

from an early Getae necropolis of Dobruja:

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/ar...ere-jud-tulcea

----------


## Sile

> All this region was once Indo_Iranian speaking. Either Turks themselves are "altaified" Irano_Aryans OR they are Altains who mixed and replaced them.


depends on how much influence the khanate of Sibir ( a part tatar people ) had over these Altai and the Nogai these "western kazaks/uzbeks"

----------


## holderlin

> Yes, great results. Never expected such a confirmation of my theories. No R1a in Yamnaya, so there's still no evidence that R1a-Z93 in Iranic folks is from Yamnaya or the Pontic-Caspian Steppes in general. I knew it, but didn't expect that they would find Anatolian (Armenian, West Iranic) R1b in Yamnaya. R1b in Yamnaya is Anatolia, which again is a great indication that Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov is right about his Armenian hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis . The latest results are victory for Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich *Ivanov* & Tamaz V. *Gamkrelidze*! It's true that Indo-Europeans in Europe came from Yamnaya. But folks from NorthWest Asia (from Maykop) Indo-Europized the Yamnaya folks in the Steppes. I was telling this all the time. Indo-Europeanization occured in stages. Best news for me is that R1a-Z93 has nothing to do with the Yamnaya. And this fact is making my thoughts even stronger!


Lol. Let the games begin.

----------


## Goga

> 99% of modern R1a in the world originated and expanded from Eastern Europe, not from Iran (as Underhill suggested in 2014).


I'm R1a* and the haplogroup to which I do belong is older than all R1a in Europe combined. My R1a is *native* to Zagros, Western Parts of the Iranian Plateau. Even according to 23andMe, DNA company where I got my DNA results, is saying that R1a is from the Iranian Plateau..

Underhill (2014) has suggested that R1a is from the Iranian Plateau, just read his paper one more time! *Please don't spread lies*...

----------


## Goga

_" Based on spatial distributions and diversity patterns within the R1a-M420 clade, particularly rare basal branches detected primarily within Iran and eastern Turkey, we conclude that the initial episodes of haplogroup R1a diversification likely occurred in the vicinity of present-day Iran. "_ - http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg201450a.html

----------


## Goga

According to Underhill (2014) hg. R1a is from Kurdistan!


" _Origin of hg R1a

To infer the geographic origin of hg R1a-M420, we identified populations harboring at least one of the two most basal haplogroups and possessing high haplogroup diversity. Among the 120 populations with sample sizes of at least 50 individuals and with at least 10% occurrence of R1a, just 6 met these criteria, and 5 of these 6 populations reside in modern-day Iran. Haplogroup diversities among the six populations ranged from 0.78 to 0.86 (Supplementary Table 4). Of the 24 R1a-M420*(xSRY10831.2) chromosomes in ourdata set, 18 were sampled in Iran and 3 were from eastern Turkey. Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2* (xM417__/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus. Owing to the prevalenceof basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a._ "

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

----------


## Goga

It's possible this is how *R1a** entered the Pontic Caspian Steppes FIRST and LATER invaded Eastern and Central Europe from there :

Ivanov is a genius!


_Armenian Model by Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov & Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze_

**

----------


## Aberdeen

> I'm R1a* and the haplogroup to which I do belong is older than all R1a in Europe combined. My R1a is *native* to Zagros, Western Parts of the Iranian Plateau. Even according to 23andMe, DNA company where I got my DNA results, is saying that R1a is from the Iranian Plateau..
> 
> Underhill (2014) has suggested that R1a is from the Iranian Plateau, just read his paper one more time! *Please don't spread lies*...


Even if it was true that R1a originated on the Iranian Plateau several thousand years before Yamnaya, that doesn't tell us anything about where Bronze Age Indo-Europeans lived before their expansion into various parts of Europe and Asia. And some people think the original R1a differentiated into subclades in Europe and can provide facts to support that idea. The chap at the Eurogenes Blog pointed out that there was a Mesolithic Karelian R1a (x198) a Late Neolithic Corded Ware pastoralist from Germany who was R1a (M198, M417 and Z282) and a Late Bronze Age Urnfield from Germany who was R1a1 (M198, M417, Z282 and Z280). So he sees R1a as having developed into the European subclades right in Europe. And while I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation, he does have facts on his side.

----------


## Tomenable

> you missed oetzi on your map...........exactly same time frame as the G2a in germany ( on your map )





> He also missed the four Corded Ware samples from Poland (Neolithic looking) and Germany (R1a) and the three Bell Beaker R1b samples from Germany. Including those samples might have complicated things - the two oldest and most easterly CW samples weren't R1a.



I considered adding Oetzi as well. But Corded Ware is too late for that map.

Anyway - you can find this data here (they also already added these new samples from Haak 2015):

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnaintro.shtml

They have aDNA divided into chronological categories, for example:

Mesolithic aDNA
European Neolithic aDNA
Copper-Bronze Age aDNA

Oetzi and Corded Ware are included in "Copper-Bronze Age aDNA".

I added to my map only those from Neolithic and Mesolithic aDNA.

Should I add also Oetzi to the map ???

----------


## Tomenable

> I'm R1a* and the haplogroup to which I do belong is older than all R1a in Europe combined.


That's not the point I was making. Have you read Underhill et. al. 2014 ???

He wrote that before M417, R1a was a minor hg with a small number of individuals at any given time.

Since the emergence of M417 a huge demographic boom took place and it rapidly expanded in numbers.

And everything now indicates that M417 emerged in Eastern Europe, not in Iran or elsewhere.

The oldest R1a is of course much older than M417 - R1a emerged from R1 about 21 - 25 thousand years ago.

But for a long time R1a was few in numbers. Only about 5000-5800 years ago (4800-6800), it started to rapidly increase in numbers.

99% of modern R1a is descended from M417, which started that demographic explosion. Now we have a direct paternal ancestor of M417, who lived in Karelia (and not in Iran or elsewhere) between 7500 and 7000 years ago. It is probable that hunters from Karelia moved southward to the European steppe, and then from the European steppe to Central Europe (M417 from Corded Ware, who lived 4500 - 4350 years ago) and to Asia.

But I really doubt that hunters from Karelia moved to Iran, and then from Iran back to the steppe and Central Europe. 




> the haplogroup to which I do belong is older than all R1a in Europe combined.


But 99% of all R1a in the world descends from M417, which is much younger than your clade.

You and other Non-M417 people with R1a comprise only 1/100 of entire R1a in the world. While M417 is 99/100.

And now everything indicates that M417 emerged in Eastern Europe and then expanded from there.

That Karelian hunter (or another guy with a clade exactly like his clade) seems to be the direct paternal ancestor of M417.

Then we have this Corded Ware individual with M417, who lived 2500 - 3150 years after that Karelian hunter.

----------


## Goga

> Even if it was true that R1a originated on the Iranian Plateau several thousand years before Yamnaya, that doesn't tell us anything about where Bronze Age Indo-Europeans lived before their expansion into various parts of Europe and Asia. And some people think the original R1a differentiated into subclades in Europe and can provide facts to support that idea. The chap at the Eurogenes Blog pointed out that there was a Mesolithic Karelian R1a (x198) a Late Neolithic Corded Ware pastoralist from Germany who was R1a (M198, M417 and Z282) and a Late Bronze Age Urnfield from Germany who was R1a1 (M198, M417, Z282 and Z280). So he sees R1a as having developed into the European subclades right in Europe. And while I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation, he does have facts on his side.


Those chappies from Eurogenes are Polish amateurs and very ethnocentric. I stopped reading his nonsense blog a very long time ago. Even watching porn is better for your brains than reading their retard nonsense. No, the user '*Tomenable*' is very wrong! Compared to the actual ancient age of R1a*, the R1a in Europe is very young and came to Europe in very recent times. Only the modern EUROPEAN R1a subclades differentiated inside Europe, not the oldest one. And it's very logical that R1a differentiate in Europe. May I tell you a secret, all haplogroup differentiate sooner or later. There are also many NATIVE R1a subclades that differentiated in West Asia and Central Asia. R1a-Z93 has NOTHING to do with Europe. And the modern Europeans have NOTHING to do with R1a-Z93! *FACT 1*! Also European R1a has NOTHING to do with West and Central Asia. R1a is evolving further, even today. But the oldest R1a is from the Iranian Plateau and it entered the Pontic Caspian Steppes and from there into Europe originally from Iran. *FACT 2*!

----------


## Tomenable

So he sees R1a as having developed into the European subclades right in Europe. And while I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation, he does have facts on his side.

Exactly, he does have facts on his side. That Mesolithic Karelian R1a was *M198 (M417)* - which means that he was the ancestor of M417. 

M417 has an estimated TMRCA as 4800 - 6800 years ago, most probably 5000 - 5800 years ago. That M198 (M417) Karelian lived 7000 - 7500 years ago.




> Late Neolithic Corded Ware pastoralist from Germany who was R1a (M198, M417 and Z282)



Nope. This Corded Ware pastoralist was not Z282. He was CTS4385 and probably L664.

----------


## Goga

> That's not the point I was making. Have you read Underhill et. al. 2014 ???
> 
> He wrote that before M417, R1a was a minor hg with a small number of individuals at any given time.
> 
> Since the emergence of M417 a huge demographic boom took place and it rapidly expanded in numbers.
> 
> And everything now indicates that M417 emerged in Eastern Europe, not in Iran or elsewhere.
> 
> The oldest R1a is of course much older than M417 - R1a emerged from R1 about 21 - 25 thousand years ago.
> ...


I read that article more than 5 times! According to them the real and original R1a is from West Asia. Asian R1a-Z93 has NOTHING to do with Europe. And the European R1a-Z283 has nothing to do with Asia. They evolved separately and from 2 different (ethnic) groups. And one of the points is that they found ancestral R1a (*S224*) to both R1a-*Z93* AND R1a-*Z283* ALSO in West Asia.

----------


## Tomenable

> R1a-Z93 has NOTHING to do with Europe.


WOW! So much anger! Maybe you should take a look at the phylogenetic tree of R1a. *Z93 is descended from M417.* 

And we now have M417 in a Late Neolithic / Copper Age Central European and M198 (M417) in a Mesolithic North-Eastern European.

So everything indicates that ancestors of Z93 - who were M417 - lived somewhere in Europe before moving to Asia.

----------


## Alan

> Corded Ware individual I0104, age 2473 - 2348 BCE, is M417 - which is ancestral to 99% of modern R1a (including Z93 and CTS 4385).
> 
> He lived 4350 - 4500 years ago. And according to Underhill 2014, the R-M417 has an estimated TMRCA of 4800 - 6800 years ago, average of 5000.
> 
> While according to Haak 2015 it has an estiated TMRCA of 5800 years ago. 
> 
> Anyway, our M417 from Corded Ware lived between 300 and 2500 years after the common ancestor of 99% of modern R1a.
> 
> Moreover, that hunter-gatherer from Karelia from 7000 - 7500 years ago (5000 - 5500 BCE) is ancestral to M417 !!!
> ...


Andronovo was not yet tested downstream R1a m417

upstream to m420 and ancestral m417 exist in South_Central Asia and even West Asia but no m420 in Europe. Very unlikely that all R1a originated in Europe so I don't know how someone can come to this conclusion.

----------


## Tomenable

> According to them the real and original R1a is from West Asia.


The "real and original R1a" is today only 1% of entire global R1a.

99% of global R1a is M417 (Z93 is also downstream from M417) and we now have the oldest M417 in Europe.

So you will need a lot of gymnastics to prove that M417 came to Europe from Asia.

----------


## Goga

> WOW! So much anger! Maybe you should take a look at the phylogenetic tree of R1a. *Z93 is descended from M417.* 
> 
> And we now have M417 in a Late Neolithic / Copper Age Central European and M198 (M417) in a Mesolithic North-Eastern European.
> 
> So everything indicates that ancestors of Z93 - who were M417 - lived somewhere in Europe before moving to Asia.


Not angry, but *tired* reading the same nonsense time after time! No, Z93 is from *R1a-S224*, and they also found *R1a-S224* in West Asia too...

----------


## Tomenable

> ancestral m417 exist in South_Central Asia and even West Asia


But we now have aDNA from Europe which is M417 and ancestral to M417. Karelian hunter and Corded Ware pastoralist.

Find me some aDNA with M417 from Asia.

----------


## Sile

> I considered adding Oetzi as well. But Corded Ware is too late for that map.
> 
> Anyway - you can find this data here (they also already added these new samples from Haak 2015):
> 
> http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnaintro.shtml
> 
> They have aDNA divided into chronological categories, for example:
> 
> Mesolithic aDNA
> ...


I would add oetzi

BTW, what did you do for the spanish Troc4 in the link your provided for your map?

----------


## Alan

Guys chill a bit. It is possible that the z93 vs z280 divide happened in Europe. But my point is you can't say 99% of R1a originated in Europe (what is Europe anyways do you guys count Samara which is actually closer to Kazakhstan and already Asia as Europe too? Europe is not a real continent), because basal m417 is also found outside.

We still have no ancient data from West and South_Central Asia. Let's wait and see.

----------


## Tomenable

> and they also found R1a-S224 in West Asia too...


*

So what, if S224 is descended from M417, and the oldest M417 is now found in Europe...*

----------


## Goga

> *Entire S224 is from M417.*


Haha, you're completely missing the boat here. There's also *M417* in West Asia and also the ancestors the M17, SRY1532.2+, M420 even SRY1532.2- etc. in West Asia. All those line has been found in West Asia!

----------


## Tomenable

> (what is Europe anyways do you guys count Samara which is actually closer to Kazakhstan and already Asia to me as Europe too?)


Samara was R1b not R1a. And - by the way - Samara is still located in European part of Russia.

But we have a direct ancestor of M417 from Karelia and an actual M417 from Esperstedt.

Karelia and Esperstedt are definitely Europe (unless you agree with Konrad Adenauer that Asia starts east of the Elbe River).

----------


## Tomenable

> There's also M417 in West Asia


*

Yes but they came there from Eastern Europe. 

You did not get it - Karelian hunter from 7000 - 7500 years ago is direct ANCESTOR of M417 (which itself is only 4800 - 6800 years old).

And we also have M417 in Corded Ware from Esperstedt, which is 4500 - 4350 years old.

Do you think that descendants of Karelian hunter went first to West Asia - there M417 emerged - and then they returned back to Europe ??? Much more likely is that descendants of Karelian guy stayed in Eastern Europe, evolved M417, and then expanded in all directions.

*

----------


## Alan

I will give you a few reasons why I think ancient South_Central Asia for example is a possible place of origin for R1a.

modern post neolithic Kalash have almost as much ANE (32-40%) as ancient Karelian H&G (38-40%) who were not yet deluted by neolithic DNA.

The R1a among the Karelian is basal M417. 

Now we have *modern* Kalash with m420, m417 and many up and downstream clades.




> L3a (22.7%), H1* (20.5%), R1a (18.2%), G (18.2%), J2 (9.1%), R* (6.8%), R1* (2.3%), and L* (2.3%)


Now imagine how the aDNA of undeluted pre neolithic "Kalash" would look like and combine it with their yDNA. And tell me which is more likely the proto homeland of R1a.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_...enetic_origins

The point is we don't have ancient DNA from South_Central and West Asia yet. Let's wait for it and than take any big conclusions.

----------


## Alan

> Samara was R1b not R1a. And - by the way - Samara is still located in European part of Russia.
> 
> But we have a direct ancestor of M417 from Karelia and an actual M417 from Esperstedt.
> 
> Karelia and Esperstedt are definitely Europe (unless you agree with Konrad Adenauer that Asia starts east of the Elbe River).


Samara is just north of Kazakhstan by few kilometers and it is definitely notin the 100% clear "European" part. if so than 1/5 of the freakn Asian continent is Europe and we should change the school books because Europe is much bigger continent as we thought.

----------


## Goga

> *
> Entire S224 (including Z93) is from M417:
> 
> *


 








http://kurdishdna.blogspot.nl/2014/0...t-al-2014.html

----------


## Tomenable

> Samara is just north of Kazakhstan by few kilometers


Kazakhstan is located on two continents - westernmost part of Kazahstan is in Europe, the rest is in Asia.

Of course Europe and Asia are conventional / cultural terms. In reality this is one landmass called Eurasia.

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

*Goga* - just because *today (!)* there is some relic M417 in Asia, doesn't mean that it emerged there. It could immigrate there.

We have a *7000 years old (!)* Karelian hunter who was direct ancestor of M417. This is a strong proof that M417 emerged in Europe.

Unless M198 (M417) moved to Asia from Karelia, and then back to Europe from Asia (as M417). Which is rather unlikely (and such scenario still means that ancestor was in European Karelia before moving to Asia - so either way it means that Europe was the cradle, in one way or another).

Then we have a Corded Ware individual from Esperstedt with M417 (in this case he is ancestral to L664 / CTS4385).

M198 = M17, and this guy is proven to be ancestral to M417. So we have a Karelian hunter who is ancestor of M417.

Then we have a Corded Ware guy who is M417. And he is proven to be ancestor of L664 / CTS4385.

----------


## Alan

I heard there are some sampling going on in South Caucasus and some other places. I rather wait for ancient West and South_Central Asians and than take any conclusions.

----------


## Goga

> Goga - just because today there is some relic M417 in Asia doesn't mean that it emerged there.
> 
> We have a Karelian hunter who was direct ancestor of M417. This is a strong proof that M417 emerged in Europe.
> 
> Unless M198 (M417) moved to Asia from Karelia, and then back to Europe from Asia. Which is unlikely.


Same can be said about Karelia, just because they found R1a-M417 there, doesn't mean that M417 is from there. I think that M417 in Karelia was part of people who came from the South. There was always a geneflow from West Asia into Europe. The original native Karelian folks were N1c1 and not R1a at all. But the fact is that ALL R1a ancient subclades of R1a has also been found in West Asia. There is also M417 in West Asia and not only in Karelia or something...

----------


## Tomenable

If they find R1a ancestral to M17 / M198 (M417) in Asia, which is older than 7500 years old, then of course I will change my mind.

----------


## Tomenable

> Same can be said with Karelia, just becaus they found R1a-M417 there, doesn't mean that M417 is from there.


They did not find M417. They found M17 (M198), which is ANCESTOR of M417. He is described as "M198 (M417)".

He lived 7000 - 7500 years ago, while M417 is much younger - estimated age is 4800 - 6800 years ago.

So this is a pretty strong proof that M417 emerged in Europe, because ancestor of this clade was found in Karelia.

----------


## Tomenable

Look:




> I0061 (Karelia_HG)
> In contrast to I0104 and I0099, the hunter-gatherer from Karelia could only be assigned to haplogroup
> R1a1 (M459:6906074A→G, Page65.2:2657176C→T) and the upstream haplogroup R1a
> (L145:14138745C→A, L62:17891241A→G, L63:18162834T→C, L146:23473201T→A). It was
> ancestral for the downstream clade R1a1a (M515:14054623T→A, M198:15030752C→T,
> M512:16315153C→T, M514:19375294C→T, L449:22966756C→T). Thus, it can be designated as
> belonging to haplogroup R1a1*(xR1a1a) and it occupied a basal position to the vast majority of
> modern Eurasian R1a-related Y-chromosomes4, although more basal (R1a-M420*) Y-chromosomes
> have been detected in Iran and eastern Turkey4. Overall, our detection of haplogroup R1a1 in a
> ...


But those more basal R1a-M420* from Iran and eastern Turkey could be actually Paleolithic guys, because it is extremely old.

So in the light of these facts arguing that M417 is originally Asian is like arguing that humans are originally African (which is basically true but nobody cares because it was so long time ago). *This "even more basal" M420* is actually 18,500 years old (according to Sharma 2009).*

*So M420* came to Eastern Europe from Iran or Turkey, but that was perhaps 15,000 - 18,000 years ago. And those lineages did not succeed. The only one that demographically succeeded was M417, which has millions of descendants today, and which emerged in Eastern Europe.* *And R1a lived in Eastern Europe since Paleolithic, until M417 emerged and expanded from there in all directions, forming 99% of modern R1a.*

*At this point claiming Asian origin is as pointless as claiming African origin* (we all know that humans originally came from Africa, so what?).

----------


## Goga

> If they find R1a ancestral to M17 / M198 (M417) in Asia, which is older than 7500 years old, then of course I will change my mind.


LMAO, brother there are ancestral subclades to M417 in West Asia, but no, those are modern examples from modern people and not from ancient samples. West Asia (from Caucasus to the Iranian Plateau) is one of those regions that is not really got studied from a genetic few of point.

----------


## Goga

> They did not find M417. They found M17 (M198), which is ANCESTOR of M417. He is described as "M198 (M417)".
> 
> He lived 7000 - 7500 years ago, while M417 is much younger - estimated age is 4800 - 6800 years ago.
> 
> So this is a pretty strong proof that M417 emerged in Europe, because ancestor of this clade was found in Karelia.


Once again, as you can see at this pie chart there is *still* M198 in West Asia in modern people (and they are NOT from Karelia, lol) !!!

----------


## Tomenable

> LMAO, brother there are ancestral subclades to M417 in West Asia


So what, if they did not succeed demographically. 99% of modern R1a is M417, because they expanded as Indo-Europeans.

Non-M417 are not IEs. And M417 emerged in Europe (and M417 ancestors lived in Europe since 15,000 y.a.), this is now almost certain.

BTW - ancestors of West Asians originally came from Africa, just like ancestors of Europeans. Does it mean that Indo-Europeans are African?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Same can be said with Karelia, just because they found R1a-M417 there, doesn't mean that M417 is from there. I think that M417 in Karelia was part of people who came from the South. There was always a geneflow from West Asia into Europe. The original native Karelian folks were N1c1 and not R1a at all. But the fact is that ALL R1a ancient subclades of R1a has also been found in West Asia. There is also M417 in West Asia and not only in Karelia or something...


You're assuming N1c is original in Karelia because lots have it today. Autosomally Mesolithic Karelians are very different from modern ones, they aren't the same people. N1c is probably a recent arrival in northeast Europe. There was no obvious east Asian ancestry in both Mesolithic Russians, but modern Finno-Urgics heavy in N1c do have obvious east Asian ancestry. 

Europe has gone through two major genetic events since the Mesolithic; arrival of west Asians during the Neolithic and migrations out of Russia during the bronze age. No region in Europe has had significant genetic continuum since the Mesolithic. Finno-Urgics are very similar to Indo European-speaking north Europeans, and can fit as being close to 50% Yamna. They aren't Mesolithic relics and have alot of recent common history with other northern Europeans. 

Every Y DNA sample from pre-historic Russia-Siberia going all the way back to the Upper Palaeolithic is R, except for a few which are probably from foreign admixture. This is no coincidence. 

If R1 came to Mesolithic Russia from west Asia, those west Asians had no ENF ancestry making them very different from modern west Asians. West Asia in this sense is just a geographic location. These R1-bearing west Asians would be as foreign to modern west Asians as Mesolithic Russians are.

Will you finally stop with your west Asian-centrism? No one is attacking west Asians. Saying most R1b and R1a in modern west Asians came from Europe isn't inferiorating west Asians. History doesn't follow agendas. It's the story of random events that were ignorant of each other(people had a little knowledge of history before modern times). 

The slogan of historians should be "Random shit happened in the past".

I think there's alot of diversity of R1 and R in general in west and south Asia we should not ignore. If R1b1 was in Spain and Russia 7,000YBP, who's to say it wasn't in Siberia and Iraq. I don't agree with Davidski's simplistic ideas about R and ANE.

----------


## Tomenable

> there is still M198 in West Asia in modern people


Yes. Relic of old migration from Karelia.

----------


## Alan

*Guys you will go so deep into this discussion that we will again end up with a whole thread of 5-6 pages full of discussion in it.* 
And everyone will lose the interest in this thread.
Please let us just wait for the upcoming samples and than take conclusions out of it.

What we know so far,for now is that R1a M417/R1b P25 originated *roughly* somewhere in this area. More is just too speculative imo.

----------


## Tomenable

> What we know so far,for now is that R1a M417/R1b P25 originated roughly somewhere in this area.


We only know that ancestor of M417 lived in Karelia. We don't know where exactly did M417 emerge.

But the farther from Karelia, the less likely. And the closer to Karelia, the more likely.

So areas *north of* the Black Sea - Caspian Sea - Aral Sea line are more much more probable now.

Check also this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans




> The Proto-Indo-Europeans likely lived during the late Neolithic, or roughly the 4th millennium BC [4000 - 3000 BCE]. *Mainstream scholarship places them in the forest-steppe zone immediately to the north of the western end of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe*. Some archaeologists would extend the time depth of PIE to the middle Neolithic (5500 to 4500 BCE) or even the early Neolithic (7500 to 5500 BCE), and suggest alternative location hypotheses.


Our Karelian hunter - ancestor of M417 - lived between 5500 and 5000 BCE.

M417 emerged between 2800 and 4800 BCE. Everything fits pretty well.

----------


## Kristiina

Fire Haired, you write that ”autosomally Mesolithic Karelians are very different from modern ones, they aren't the same people. N1c is probably a recent arrival in northeast Europe. There was no obvious east Asian ancestry in both Mesolithic Russians, but modern Finno-Urgics heavy in N1c do have obvious east Asian ancestry.”
When I look at the chart Shaikort posted http://s28.postimg.org/rqa2facbf/admixt.jpg I would not say that Mesolithic Karelians are so very different from modern Finns. Even that East Asian part seems to be of equal size.

----------


## Goga

> You're assuming N1c is original in Karelia because lots have it today. Autosomally Mesolithic Karelians are very different from modern ones, they aren't the same people. N1c is probably a recent arrival in northeast Europe. There was no obvious east Asian ancestry in both Mesolithic Russians, but modern Finno-Urgics heavy in N1c do have obvious east Asian ancestry. 
> 
> Europe has gone through two major genetic events since the Mesolithic; arrival of west Asians during the Neolithic and migrations out of Russia during the bronze age. No region in Europe has had significant genetic continuum since the Mesolithic. Finno-Urgics are very similar to Indo European-speaking north Europeans, and can fit as being close to 50% Yamna. They aren't Mesolithic relics and have alot of recent common history with other northern Europeans. 
> 
> Every Y DNA sample from pre-historic Russia-Siberia going all the way back to the Upper Palaeolithic is R, except for a few which are probably from foreign admixture. This is no coincidence. 
> 
> If R1 came to Mesolithic Russia from west Asia, those west Asians had no ENF ancestry making them very different from modern west Asians. West Asia in this sense is just a geographic location. These R1-bearing west Asians would be as foreign to modern west Asians as Mesolithic Russians are.
> 
> Will you finally stop with your west Asian-centrism? No one is attacking west Asians. Saying most R1b and R1a in modern west Asians came from Europe isn't inferiorating west Asians. History doesn't follow agendas. It's the story of random events that were ignorant of each other(people had a little knowledge of history before modern times). 
> ...


Native people of Europe were not Indo-European. Saami in Northern Europe are native people of that region and they’re very similar to Finnic people. They are not Indo-European, nor are people in Finland Indo-Europeans. N1c1and I haplogroups are very frequent in that area and not in other parts of the world. That mean that those haplogroups are just native to those areas. Yamnaya was for a huge part West Asian. Yamnaya folks were actually West Asians who mixed with the A hunter-gatherer in the Steppes. We all know right not that R1b entered Europe from West Asia. I’m sure that the same happened with R1a...

----------


## Tomenable

In my opinion N1c1 could be in Karelia at the same time as R1a (or shortly later).

Probably Uralic-speakers (N1c1) and Proto-Indo-European speakers (R1a1 + R1b1a) lived close to each other:

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/en/tempora.../gerasimov/10/




> (...) Skeletons from Yuzhny Oleniy Island were studied by many anthropologists (the most detailed examination was undertaken by V.P. Yakimov). Stature was rather high for that time – about 173 cm in males. *While most people were Caucasoids, some display Mongoloid characteristics* – flat faces and rather flat noses. (...)

----------


## Goga

> Yes. Relic of old migration from Karelia.


Lol, funny guy. M198 is very close to R1a* to which I do belong. Is my R1a* also a relic from Karelia??? And about what old migration from Karelia into West Asa are you talking about? Did I miss something ? The only migrations that I know about are all from West Asia into Europe ...

----------


## Goga

> In my opinion N1c1 could be in Karelia at the same time as R1a (or shortly later).
> 
> Probably Uralic-speakers (N1c1) and Proto-Indo-European speakers (R1a1 + R1b1a) lived close to each other:
> 
> http://www.kunstkamera.ru/en/tempora.../gerasimov/10/


 Wrong again! R1b1a* is much younger than R1a1* …

----------


## Tomenable

> M198 is very close to R1a* to which I do belong. Is my R1a* also a relic from Karelia???


No, your R1a* is much older than M198. It is from Paleolithic times, over 21,000 - 25,000 years old.

It has nothing to do with Indo-Europeans, though. M417 is the kind of R1a related to Indo-Europeans.

----------


## Tomenable

> R1b1a* is much younger than R1a1* …


But Karelian R1a1 was found to be *M17 (M417)* - a direct ancestor of R1a1a, which is 4800 - 6800 years old.

In other words, in Karelia 7000 - 7500 years ago lived the man who is ancestor of 99% of modern people who are R1a.

You are among the remaining 1% who are not his descendants. And this 1% were not Indo-Europeans, but Paleolithic survivors.

----------


## Goga

> No, your R1a* is much older than M198. It is from Paleolithic times, over 21,000 - 25,000 years old.
> 
> Your R1a* is a relic from out-of-Africa migration to Eurasia. Your hg is over 20 thousand years old.
> 
> It has nothing to do with Indo-Europeans, though. Only R1a M417 is related to Indo-Europeans.


My R1a* has been also evolving all those thousands of years among my people. It is part of the Kurds today, before it's was part of the Medes (Mitanni) and other West Iranic peoples etc. My evolved R1a* is not the same as R1a* among my direct ancestors. So it's as modern as all other R1a* But it has its roots with the ancient R1a*. The same can be said about M198. Well, R1a evolved from R1*, R1* evolved from R*, R* evolved out of P, P evolved from K, K is from F etc. And yeah at one point huam race came from Africa I guess...

----------


## Tomenable

And here I agree.

----------


## Goga

> But Karelian R1a1 was found to be *M17 (M417)* - a direct ancestor of R1a1a, which is 4800 - 6800 years old.
> 
> In other words, in Karelia 7000 - 7500 years ago lived the man who is ancestor of 99% of modern people who are R1a.
> 
> You are among the remaining 1% who are not his descendants. And this 1% were not Indo-Europeans, but Paleolithic survivors.


OMG, where is the proof that all direct descendants of R1a1a are from that Karelian fella and not from another M17 (M417) from West Asia? Maybe all modern S224 folks are descendants from a M17 (M417) from West Asia and NOT Karelia at all ! If you have trouble to understand this simple FATC I'm done with you. And my 'R1a*' = Iranic, because my ancestors were ALL Iranic (Medes) and it was part of them too. So, I've got my R1a* from Iranic people...

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Native people of Europe were not Indo-European. Saami in Northern Europe are native people of that region and they’re very similar to Finnic people. They are not Indo-European, nor are people in Finland Indo-Europeans. N1c1and I haplogroups are very frequent in that area and not in other parts of the world. That mean that those haplogroups are just native to those areas. Yamnaya was for a huge part West Asian. Yamnaya folks were actually West Asians who mixed with the A hunter-gatherer in the Steppes. We all know right not that R1b entered Europe from West Asia. I’m sure that the same happened with R1a...


Indo Europeans are just as native to Europe was Finno-Urgics. They have the same basic genetic makeup as IE speaking north Europeans. They have significant west Asian ancestry like all Europeans. You're calling them "native" simply because they don't speak an IE language which isn't good evidence. 

Y DNA I1 is popular in Norse. Just because Finno-Urgics live next to Norse doesn't mean they have alot of I1, because they don't. Autosomally speaking(Y DNA doesn't tell total ancestry) Lithuanians are more Mesolithic-derived than Saami.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Fire Haired, you write that ”autosomally Mesolithic Karelians are very different from modern ones, they aren't the same people. N1c is probably a recent arrival in northeast Europe. There was no obvious east Asian ancestry in both Mesolithic Russians, but modern Finno-Urgics heavy in N1c do have obvious east Asian ancestry.”
> When I look at the chart Shaikort posted http://s28.postimg.org/rqa2facbf/admixt.jpg I would not say that Mesolithic Karelians are so very different from modern Finns. Even that East Asian part seems to be of equal size.


Modern Finno-Urgics have mostly Mesolithic north and east Euro ancestry similar to EHG, but they are still very different. Just like someone who is 60% Swedish and 40% Iraqi is very different from someone who is 100% Swedish.

----------


## Tomenable

> Armenian Model by Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov & Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze


This does not work.

Read Underhill 2014. R1a was a very small population until M417 emerged.

Only since the emergence of M417 we observe a demographic boom.

This is pretty much in agreement with ancestors of M417 being hunters (= not numerous).

But Underhill back in 2014 did not know that ancestors of M417 lived in Karelia. Now in 2015 we know it.

----------


## Goga

> Indo Europeans are just as native to Europe was Finno-Urgics. They have the same basic genetic makeup as IE speaking north Europeans. They have significant west Asian ancestry like all Europeans. You're calling them "native" simply because they don't speak an IE language which isn't good evidence. 
> 
> Y DNA I1 is popular in Norse. Just because Finno-Urgics live next to Norse doesn't mean they have alot of I1, because they don't. Autosomally speaking(Y DNA doesn't tell total ancestry) Lithuanians are more Mesolithic-derived than Saami.


No, native European folks never spoke an Indo-European language. Most Indo-European speakers of EUROPE got Indo-Europized by folks from Yamnaya. People of Yamnaya were NOT really native to Europe. Basque, Saami and Finnic people are the most native people of Europe and they don't speak an Indo-European language...

----------


## Goga

> This does not work.
> 
> Read Underhill 2014. R1a was a very small population until M417 emerged.
> 
> Only since the emergence of M417 we observe a demographic boom.
> 
> This is pretty much in agreement with ancestors of M417 being hunters (= not numerous).
> 
> But Underhill back in 2014 did not know that ancestors of M417 lived in Karelia. Now in 2015 we know it.


It actually works very well, because R1b entered Yamnaya from West Asia! Folks in Yamnaya were for a huge part West Asian (Caucaso-Gedrosian). Even the writers of the latest paper did admit that!

----------


## Tomenable

> It didn't say that in the paper.


It did. Check pages 44 and 47, for example.




> Armenian Model by Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov & Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze


Read Underhill 2014. R1a was a very small population until M417 emerged.

Only since the emergence of M417 we observe a demographic boom.

This is pretty much in agreement with ancestors of M417 being hunters (= not numerous).

But Underhill back in 2014 did not know that ancestors of M417 lived in Karelia. Now in 2015 we know it.

----------


## Goga

> It did. Check pages 44 and 47, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> Read Underhill 2014. R1a was a very small population until M417 emerged.
> 
> Only since the emergence of M417 we observe a demographic boom.
> 
> This is pretty much in agreement with ancestors of M417 being hunters (= not numerous).
> ...


Once again, do you live on a different planet or something, lol? You're so deep, deep in your denial (sleep) that you are in shock to see the things in reality. You have serious trouble with REALITY. First of all they found R1b and NOT R1a in Yamnaya. Yamnaya folks were for a huge part West Asian (*Caucaso-Gedrosian*). *Caucaso-Gedrosia* component is from West Asia, like R1b in Yamnaya and even like R1a*. Because there are all kind of R1a* in West Asia, it's for sure that R1b is from West Asia, *because of Caucaso-Gedrosia component in it*. Why would R1a* not be from West Asia, when R1b and R1a share the same *R1** ancestor. And once again, where is the proof that all direct descendants of R1a1a are from that Karelian fella and not from another M17 (M417) uknown West Asian fella? Maybe all modern S224 folks are descendants from a M17 (M417) from West Asia and NOT Karelia at all...

----------


## Kristiina

> Y DNA I1 is popular in Norse. Just because Finno-Urgics live next to Norse doesn't mean they have alot of I1, because they don't. Autosomally speaking(Y DNA doesn't tell total ancestry) Lithuanians are more Mesolithic-derived than Saami.


But that is again not true! The frequency of I1 in Saamis is c. 26%, and frequency of I1 in West Finland is 41% and in East Finland 20%. And what is your reference when you say that Lithuanians are more Mesolithic-derived than Saami?

----------


## Tomenable

> First of all they found R1b and NOT R1a in Yamnaya.


Professor Reich (co-author of the study) said - during a lecture which took place after the publication of their study - that both R1a and R1b were surely present in Yamnaya.

Indo-Europeans were a combination of R1a1a and R1b1a, who were descendants of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers who switched from hunting to pastoralism.

That took place in forest-steppe zone of Eastern Europe, which is located south of Karelia (but hunters who were direct ancestors of R1a1a M417 lived in Karelia):




> The Proto-Indo-Europeans likely lived during the late Neolithic, or roughly the 4th millennium BC [4000 - 3000 BCE]. Mainstream scholarship places them in the forest-steppe zone immediately to the north of the western end of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe. Some archaeologists would extend the time depth of PIE to the middle Neolithic (5500 to 4500 BCE) or even the early Neolithic (7500 to 5500 BCE), and suggest alternative location hypotheses.


North-Eastern European Hunters - haplogroup M17 (M417), so ancestors of M417 - lived between 5500 and 5000 BCE.

And M417 emerged (among descendants of those hunters) between 2800 and 4800 BCE. Everything fits pretty well.

*Let's also check Y-DNA from steppe / nomadic Indo-European cultures, discovered to date:

Yamnaya - R1b1a (only 7 individuals checked so far)
=============
Corded Ware - R1a1a
Tocharians from Xiaohe - R1a1a (and interestingly, Tocharian R1a was not Z93 - read below)
Andronovo - R1a1a
Scythians - R1a1a

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

Hui Zhou from Jilin University, China, about Tocharian Y-DNA (which was found to be M417, but NOT Z93):

*


> Hui Zhou (2014-07-18 16:14) Jilin University
> 
> Archaeological and anthropological investigations have helped to formulate two main theories to account for the origin of the populations in the Tarim Basin. The first, so-called “steppe hypothesis”, maintains that the earliest settlers may have been nomadic herders of the Afanasievo culture (ca. 3300-2000 B.C.), a primarily pastoralist culture distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions of the steppe north of the Tarim Basin. The second model, known as the “Bactrian oasis hypothesis”, it maintains that the first settlers were farmers of the Oxus civilization (ca. 2200-1500 B.C.) west of Xinjiang in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan. These contrasting models can be tested using DNA recovered from archaeological bones. Xiaohe cemetery contains the oldest and best-preserved mummies so far discovered in the Tarim Basin, possible those of the earliest people to settle the region. Genetic analysis of these mummies can provide data to elucidate the affinities of the earliest inhabitants.
> 
> *Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried Hg R1a1 in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M*in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belonging to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data)* which is mainly found in Asians. mtDNA Hgs H, K, C4 primarily distributed in northern Eurasians. Though H, K, C4 also presence in modern south Asian, they immigrated into South Asian recently from nearby populations, such as Near East , East Asia and Central Asia, and the frequency is obviously lower than that of northern Eurasian. Furthermore, all of the shared sequences of the Xiaohe haplotypes H and C4 were distributed in northern Eurasians. Haplotype 223-304 in Xiaohe people was shared by Indian. However, these sequences were attributed to HgM25 in India, and in our study it was not HgM25 by scanning the mtDNA code region. Therefore, our DNA results didn't supported Clyde Winters’s opinion but supported the “steppe hypothesis”. Moreover, the culture of Xiaohe is similar with the Afanasievo culture. Afanasievo culture was mainly distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions, and didn’t spread into India. This further maintains the “steppe hypothesis”.
> 
> In addition, our data was misunderstand by Clyde Winters. Firstly, the human remains of the Xiaohe site have no relation with the Loulan mummy. The Xiaohe site and Loulan site are two different archaeological sites with 175km distances. Xiaohe site, radiocarbon dated ranging from 4000 to 3500 years before present, was a Bronze Age site, and Loulan site, dated to about 2000 years before present. Secondly, Hgs H and K are the mtDNA haplogroups not the Y chromosome haplogroups in our study. Thirdly, the origin of Xiaohe people in here means tracing the most recently common ancestor, and Africans were remote ancestor of modern people.


This data is not yet officially published.

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

We know TOCHARIAN LANGUAGE from surviving to this day materials. Tocharians spoke INDO-EUROPEAN.

Some links with info about Tocharian language and origins:

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/l...tokol-0-X.html

http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm

----------


## Tomenable

> Yamnaya folks were for a huge part West Asian


Yamnaya folks (3339 - 2635 BCE) were *paternally descended* from hunter-gatherer (5640 - 5555 BCE) who had lived *in the same place* before.

Gedrosian autosomal admixture could be from females (maybe they took wifes from among people south of them), not necessarily from males.

Y-DNA haplogroup of that hunter-gatherer from 5640 - 5555 BCE was ancestral to Y-DNA haplogroups of Yamnaya folks from 3339 - 2635 BCE.

Moreover that hunter from Samara was *autosomally* EHG (Eastern Euro Hunter-Gatherer) - and *extremely close to* Karelian R1a1 hunter.

----------


## Tomenable

> where is the proof that all direct descendants of R1a1a are from that Karelian fella and not from another M17 (M417) uknown West Asian fella?


One mutation emerges only once. The same mutation (in this case M417) cannot emerge in two places at the same time (or at different times).

Authors of this new study found out that Karelian hunters were M17 (M417) which means they were ancestors of M417.

So M417 could emerge in West Asia only if Karelians migrated there, or if M17 (M417) was so widespread that it lived both in Karelia and West Asia. Both these ideas seem to be highly unlikely because we know that M17 was very few in numerous, so how could it live in such a vast area?

Now if we want to keep claiming that M417 emerged in Asia, then we need first to find ancient DNA from Asia which confirms this.

After these new discoveries from Karelia and East Germany, modern DNA is not enough to prove Asian origins of M417.

For the moment, the most probable conclusion is that M417 emerged in Eastern Europe. If we get new data from new aDNA, this might change.

----------


## Robert6

> *Andronovo - R1a1a
> Scythians - R1a1a
> 
> Hui Zhou from Jilin University, China, about Tocharian Y-DNA (which was found to be M417, but NOT Z93):
> *


No Scythian man yet tested.

Andronovo horizon only tested in deep eastern part

Pseudo-Tocharian (Arsi and Kouchean) languages apeared in Tarim basin only in 3 century A.D. in the time when the Kushans came to Tarim basin.

----------


## Goga

> Yamnaya folks (3339 - 2635 BCE) were *paternally descended* from hunter-gatherer (5640 - 5555 BCE) who had lived *in the same place* before.
> 
> Gedrosian autosomal admixture could be from females (maybe they took wifes from among people south of them), not necessarily from males.
> 
> Y-DNA haplogroup of that hunter-gatherer from 5640 - 5555 BCE was ancestral to Y-DNA haplogroups of Yamnaya folks from 3339 - 2635 BCE.
> 
> Moreover that hunter from Samara was *autosomally* EHG (Eastern Euro Hunter-Gatherer) - and *extremely close to* Karelian R1a1 hunter.


Lol, are you serious? What kind of excuse is this? I'm talking about Yamnaya and not Samara, China or Africa. They found R1b in Yamnaya and R1b = from West Asia. What has this to do with females? We're talking about R1b. And oldest subclades of R1b (like R1a* lineages) have been found in West Asia. Caucaso-Gedrosia component is part of R1b. Facts are: R1a is originally from West Asia. R1b is originally from West Asia. R1b is correlated with Caucaso-Gedrsosia component. R1a-Z93 is also correlated with Caucaso-Gedrosia component. They found R1b in Yamnaya. Yamnaya folks were also for a huge part Caucasia-Gedrosia folks. Caucaso-Gedrosia component is from West Asia. So Yamnaya folks that Indo-Europized most people in Europe were for a huge part West Asian. Most Indo-Europized Europeans in Europe don't even belong to that R1b subclade they found in Yamnaya Horizon. Maybe you're a nice fella, nothing personal, but you're so DEEP in denial that you are always looking for excuses (no matter how ridiculous they sound). I'm done with this. I don't have time for this nonsense with you. I'm done, bye, and have a nice day...

----------


## Tomenable

> No Scythian man yet tested.


Check Copper-Bronze Age aDNA and then Iron Age aDNA sections:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnaintro.shtml

Scythians = Tsaagan Asga, Takhilgat Uzuur, Tagar, Pazyryk and Tachtyk.

Andronovo = ancestors of Scythians (and of Indo-Iranians in general).




> where r1b was involved in spreading indo-european languages in the west and r1a in the east.


What about R1a in Scandinavia, in the north. We have Z284 (most frequent in Norway), which is downstream from Z282.

Also R1a CTS4385 / L664 in North-Western Europe and it seems that M417 from Esperstedt (Corded Ware) was ancestral to it.

According to a new map from Eupedia (is it based on this new 2015 study by Haak et. al. ???), R1b came to Scandinavia 3700 years ago and to Britain 4100 years ago (see below). This would mean that Battle-Axe culture in Scandinavia was R1a Z284 (not R1b). Also it seems that R1a L664 (which could be found in Corded Ware) came to Britain around 4600 years - 500 years before R1b (if this map is correct):

----------


## Tomenable

> Andronovo horizon only tested in deep eastern part



Yamnaya samples also come from its deep eastern part !!!




> I'm talking about Yamnaya and not Samara



And from this it becomes evident, that you don't know what you are talking about. 

*I mean - you have not checked where did they find these Yamnaya folks!*  :Rolleyes: 

Samara is a city (and a region) in Russia near the border with Kazakhstan.

Yamnaya skeletons were buried near Samara. And so was that hunter-gatherer.

*All samples from Yamnaya (which is a culture) come from Samara (which is a location).*

Please, before further discussion, take a look at this PDF document:  :Good Job: 

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/201...13433.full.pdf




> Most Indo-Europized Europeans in Europe don't even belong to that R1b subclade they found in Yamnaya Horizon


They found MORE than just ONE subclade. They found several subclades.

Seven Yamnaya individuals (from period 3339 - 2635 BCE) from the vicinity of Samara:

R1b1a2a2* Z2105+, L23+, L150+, M269+, L584-
R1b1a P297+, M173+, L51-
R1b1a2a2 CTS1078+, M269+, L150+, L320+
R1b1a2a* L49+, L23+, PF6399+, L150+, L1353+, PF6509+, M269+, CTS12478+, L51-, Z2105-
R1b1a2a2 CTS1078/Z2103+, L150+, M415+
R1b1a2a2* Z2105+, L23+, L320+, L584-, CTS7822-
R1b1a2a2* CTS1078+, Z2105+, L23+, PF6399+, L265+, PF6434+, L150.1+, PF6482+, M269+, L584-

Sources:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

And here on page 25:

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/201...13433.full.pdf




> Yamnaya guys are very close and alike the two EHG samples



Exactly!

----------


## Robert6

> Check Copper-Bronze Age aDNA and then Iron Age aDNA sections:
> 
> http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnaintro.shtml
> 
> Scythians = Tsaagan Asga, Takhilgat Uzuur, Tagar, Pazyryk and Tachtyk.
> 
> Andronovo = ancestors of Scythians (and of Indo-Iranians in general).


The mark of Scythians and some other Iranians is Acinaces
so not one of these cultures being tested is Scythian
Pazyryk culture is untested for Y-dna, only mtdna is tested and it is N1a 

Andronovo horizon in west south central and northern part are untested
Tachtyks are Uraloids according to Alekseev the biggest anthropologist
etc

----------


## Tomenable

> Pazyryk culture is untested for Y-dna



Wrong. There is *R1a1a* M17 from Pazyryk culture fom Sebÿstei Valley [SEB 96K2], *near Kosh-Agash*, Russian Altai, ca. 450 BCE.

Check Ricaut 2004c and Keyser 2009. And also here: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ironagedna.shtml




> The mark of Scythians and some other Iranians is Acinaces
> so not one of these cultures being tested is Scythian


You have a funny / strange definition of Scythians. Anyway - all of them were Indo-Europeans, whether Scythians or other IEs.




> Tachtyks are Uraloids according to Alekseev the biggest anthropologist



*"Uraloids" with blond hair and blue eyes ???:*  :Confused: 

TACHTYK PIGMENTATION DATA - large image



But if they mixed with Uraloid females then who knows.

----------


## Tomenable

And here for Andronovo:

Andronovo Pigmentation Data - image



Also here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androno...urasian_origin




> Out of 10 human male remains assigned to the Andronovo horizon from the Krasnoyarsk region, 9 possessed the R1a Y-chromosome haplogroup and one the haplogroup C-M130 (xC3). MtDNA haplogroups of nine individuals assigned to the same Andronovo horizon and region were as follows: U4 (2 individuals), U2e, U5a1, Z, T1, T4, H, and K2b.
> 
> 90% of the Bronze Age period mtDNA haplogroups were of west Eurasian origin and the study determined that at least 60% of the individuals overall (out of the 26 Bronze and Iron Age human remains' samples of the study that could be tested) had light hair and blue or green eyes.[3]
> 
> A 2004 study also established that, during the Bronze/Iron Age period, the majority of the population of Kazakhstan (part of the Andronovo culture during Bronze Age), was of west Eurasian origin (with mtDNA haplogroups such as U, H, HV, T, I and W), and that prior to the thirteenth to seventh century BC, all Kazakh samples belonged to European lineages.[4]


As for this C from Andronovo - Paleolithic hunter-gatherer Kostenki man from Russia was also C.

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

Tagar culture is also full of light-haired R1a individuals:

Tagar Pigmentation Data - image

----------


## Tomenable

On the other hand, pigmentation of Karasuk culture from Mongolia (1400 - 800 BCE) is already darker.

That's because they are: *44,4% (4) R1a1a1b2 Z93 + 11,1% (1) C-M130 + 11,1% (1) Q-M242 + 33,3% (3) Q1a2a1 L54*.

The latter (especially Q1a2a1 L54 and Q-M242) introduced dark genes. But dark blond can still be found.

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

Check also this:

http://www.scientificfund.kz/index.p...-their-genesis



And this: 

http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/...eChartsWeb.png

*Fig. 2: Distribution of mitochondrial lineages in the Altai region. 
Green: lineages today mainly found in modern Europe; blue: lineages today mainly found in modern East Asia:*



This second graph is from: http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/...ntralAsia.html




> (2) Sub-project “Steppe Nomads” (Martina Unterländer)
> 
> This study addresses the population dynamics in the Eurasian steppe during the Iron Age. It is carried out in collaboration with H. Parzinger (Director Preußischer Kulturbesitz), A. Nagler (German Archaeological Institute, Berlin), Z. Samachev (Margulan Institut für Archäologie, Akademie der Wissenschaft Kazakhstan, Almaty) and V.I. Molodin (Sibirisches Institut für Archäologie und Ethnographie, Akademgorodok, Russia). Beginning with the 9th century BC, there is evidence for clans of horse nomads from the Altai in the East to as far as North of the Black Sea. Because of the astounding uniformity of their material culture, life style and death rituals, they are often summarised under the term Scythians. The name ‘Scythian’ derives from a people mentioned in Herodotus’ Histories that populated the area north of the Black Sea in the 7th century BC. Their only material legacy is found in the form of kurgans, the impressive burial mounds of the Scythian elite. The earliest archaeological evidence of this culture stems from the region of Tuva, with the kurgan Arzan 1 dating to the 9th century BC. Until the 2nd century BC there are a number of populations in the area of the Eurasian steppe belt which can be assigned to that Scythian culture.
> 
> Together with our partners, we want to answer whether the obvious cultural homogeneity of these groups points to a common origin or rather to the phenomenon of acculturation. The intention is to understand the ethnogenesis and the population historical connections of these groups called Scythians.
> 
> Our data show highly diverse maternal lineages whose composition changes over time within the different populations. At the outset of the 1st century BC the examined populations of the Altai region show a relatively high number of lineages which today are found predominantly in Europe. Over time a change takes place which is reflected in an increased number of maternal lineages predominantly found today in East Asia.

----------


## Sile

> On the other hand, pigmentation of Karasuk culture from Mongolia (1400 - 800 BCE) is already darker.
> 
> That's because they are: *44,5% (4) R1a1a1b2 Z93 + 11,1% (1) C-M130 + 11,1% (1) Q-M242 + 33,3% (3) Q1a2a1 L54*.
> 
> The latter (especially Q1a2a1 L54 and Q-M242) introduced dark genes. But dark blond can still be found.


I think yourself and Goga misunderstand the paper.........its states from yamnya these people came from , it does not say they migrated through yamnya. regardless if they where east-asian or near eastern, they settled in yamnya, then over time moved to central europe. This claim can only come from haak via a skeltral reading of its isotopes

----------


## Tomenable

Are you sure that you quoted correct post? Maybe by mistake you quoted wrong post.

Because I don't see any connection between that quote and your response to it.

----------


## Robert6

Even today there are red haired people with blue eyes Uraloids, the Udmurts for Example

----------


## Robert6

> You have a funny / strange definition of Scythians. .


This is a definition of Archeologists, Scythians =(those who had) Scythian Iron Acinaces + Scythian Animal style
Scythian Animal style is close to previous Luristan Bronze( in west Iran) of late Bronze age

----------


## Tomenable

Red-haired maybe but not blond-haired - like most of ancient R1a which is blond-haired.

Also R1a people were those who brought blond hair to Scandinavia.

As I wrote before, R1a Z284 (or its ancestral clade) was in Scandinavia before R1b.

Another question is when did I1 come to Scandinavia (it was not among Pitted Ware, it is not native to Scandinavia, it was among LBK farmers from Hungary, who were later absorbed by Corded Ware). IMO Battle Axe culture (a branch of CW) was R1a Z284 mixed with I1 (who were originally LBK farmers, but got absorbed by Corded). Probably I1 acquired blond hair from R1a-related maternal lineages and later both were spreading it. Another evidence for mixing between Corded Ware and previous LBK farmers is that R1a M417 guy from Esperstedt (his mtDNA was H23, which was most probably acquired from Neolithic farmers of LBK - an evidence that pastoralist males of Corded Ware mixed with farmer women who had been there before).

So we have R1a Z284 + I1 coming to Scandinavia with Corded Ware (Battle Axe culture) and R1b came later.

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

How "Uraloid" are actually the Udmurts ??? They speak a language from Uralic family, but "Uraloid" is an anthropological term (not linguistic).

The Udmurts look like regular Eastern Europeans, not like Uraloids. When I googled Uraloid I got people looking like this:

For example like this

----------


## Tomenable

And Baltic Finnic N1c1 could acquire blond hair from R1a-related maternal lineages in Karelia.

----------


## Robert6

Not only Uraloids with blond hair
I can find western Siberian(western Mongoloid) with blond hair
The Khanty people
http://kazym.ethnic-tour.ru/kazym/images/d.jpg
http://fototelegraf.ru/wp-content/up...ti-hanty-1.jpg

Blue eyes Mansi
http://media.nazaccent.ru/cache/62/8...34f022a9d5.jpg

Kyrgyz
http://forum-eurasica.ru/uploads/gal...4_29_70033.jpg

Nency
http://an-crimea.ru/tmpImages/img_2_...91_300_199.jpg

----------


## Tomenable

These are very rare cases.

On the other hand among those Bronze and Iron Age cultures where majority of males were R1a, blond hair was common.

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

*Wait - has someone just deleted a lot of posts from this thread ???*

----------


## Tomenable

OK, I can see that our discussion was not deleted, but split to another thread (link below):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ded-discussion

----------


## Robert6

NE7
Light hair and blue eyes in Neolithic Hungary 6400 years ago with EEF ancestry 
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gnh19OW6tc...mms6257-f3.jpg
http://dienekes.blogspot.gr/2014/10/...ehistoric.html

----------


## Tomenable

He was not BLOND, he was *BROWN.*

Blue eyes were already in dark-pigmented (dark-skinned) La Brana from Spain, so blue eyes are much older than blond hair:

https://www.google.pl/search?q=La+Br...S-OcTbapPwgvgK

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

As for blond hair:

Maybe blond hair mutation emerged among those hunter-gatherers from the vicinity of Karelia.

This would explain why today Finland has a lot of blond despite being mostly N1c1.

7500 - 7000 years ago Karelia was where ancestors of R1a M417 and N1c1 Finns had contact.

Valtaves wrote about this here:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...-Europe/page31




> "It seems that two groups, possibly lineages or clans, were using Oleneostrovskii Mogilnik. This is evident from two spatial clusters within the cemetery: the northern cluster is associated with moose sculptures (fig. 2) and the southern cluster with snake and human effigies. The snake and human representations seem to be combined into a single zooanthropomorphic tradition, different from the northern group, whose identity was symbolized by moose representations. Thus, two separate populations shared the use of Oleneostrovskii Mogilnik. The northern cluster was used by people with northern European and Uralic features, more indigenous to the area, while the southern area was used by people with southern European and Siberian features, who might have been newcomers to the area. This interpretation underlines the genetic heterogeneity of the people who used the cemetery. Rather than supporting the existence of two distinct, non-communicating groups, these graduated differences in appearance and genetic makeup instead may reflect "unimpeded gene flow" across the forest zone of eastern Europe, brought about by long-distance travel, intermarriage, and partner exchange that was usual among the northern hunter-gatherer populations."
> 
> http://what-when-how.com/ancient-eur...ncient-europe/
> 
> So apparently in the same little island lived two different cultural spheres, with different set of physical features, using the same burial ground.
> 
> 1 "Uralic"+Northern European
> 
> 2 "Siberian"+ Southern European


Check also:

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/en/tempora.../gerasimov/10/




> Skeletons from YuzhnyOleniyIsland were studied by many anthropologists (the most detailed examination was undertaken by V.P. Yakimov). Stature was rather high for that time – about 173 cm in males. *While most people were Caucasoids*, some display Mongoloid characteristics – flat faces and rather flat noses.


So probably blond hair was originally shared by both R1a1 (xM417) and N1c1. Later it was acquired by I1.

----------


## Tomenable

There is no correlation between R1b and blond hair.

But those kurgan cultures which were found to be * R1a*  - were also found to be light-pigmented. 

*Andronovo, Tachtyk, Pazyryk, Tagar & Tocharian = R1a with a lot of blond + light brown + brown hair.*

This is evident both from pigmentation extracted from genes, and from hair preserved in mummies:














Proto-Tocharians were R1a1:




> In 1934 Swedish archaeologist Folke Bergman discovered some 200 mummies of fair-haired Caucasian people in the Tarim Basin in Northwest China (a region known as Xinjiang, East Turkestan or Uyghurstan). The oldest of these mummies date back to 2000 BCE and all 7 male remains tested by Li et al. (2010), were positive for the R1a1 mutations.


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

Of course not all of them were blond & brown hair. Red hair & dark hair could also be found. 

Blue and green eyes were most common among them:















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

About pigmentation derived from genes (in addition to pigmentation preserved in mummies) I wrote here:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post449880

----------


## Tomenable

CHECK ALSO:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...l#pigmentation




> *R1 populations spread genes for light skin, blond hair and red hair*
> 
> There is now strong evidence that both R1a and R1b people contributed to the diffusion of the A111T mutation of the SLC24A5, which explains apporximately 35% of skin tone difference between Europeans and Africans, and most variations within South Asia. The distribution pattern of the A111T allele (rs1426654) of matches almost perfectly the spread of Indo-European R1a and R1b lineages around Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia. The mutation was probably passed on in the Early neolithic to other Near Eastern populations, which explains why Neolithic farmers in Europe already carried the A111T allele (e.g. Keller 2012 p.4, Lazaridis 2014 suppl. 7), although at lower frequency than modern Europeans and southern Central Asians.
> 
> The light skin allele is also found at a range of 15 to 30% in in various ethnic groups in northern sub-Saharan Africa, mostly in the Sahel and savannah zones inhabited by tribes of R1b-V88 cattle herders like the Fulani and the Hausa. This would presuppose that the A111T allele was already present among all R1b people before the Pre-Pottery Neolithic split between V88 and P297. R1a populations have an equally high incidence of this allele as R1b populations. On the other hand, the A111T mutation was absent from the 24,000-year-old R* sample from Siberia, and is absent from most modern R2 populations in Southeast India and Southeast Asia. Consequently, it can be safely assumed that the mutation arose among the R1* lineage during the late Upper Paleolithic, probably some time between 20,000 and 13,000 years ago.
> 
> *Fair hair was another physical trait associated with the Indo-Europeans*. In contrast, the genes for blue eyes were already present among Mesolithic Europeans belonging to Y-haplogroup I.* The genes for blond hair are more strongly correlated with the distribution of haplogroup R1a,* but those for red hair have not been found in Europe before the Bronze Age, and appear to have been spread primarily by R1b people (=> see The origins of red hair).


AND THIS:

http://dienekes.blogspot.fi/2014/08/...o-ugrians.html




> *Indo-Europeans preceded Finno-Ugrians in Finland and Estonia
> 
> An archaic (Northwest-)Indo-European language* and a subsequently extinct Paleo-European language were likely spoken in what is now called Finland and Estonia, when the linguistic ancestors of the Finns and the Sami arrived in the eastern and northern Baltic Sea region from the Volga-Kama region probably at the beginning of the Bronze Age.


*So our Karelian R1a1 hunter-gatherer from 5500 - 5000 BCE most likely spoke an archaic (Northwest-)Indo-European language. 
*
This, in addition to what I wrote already before (quote below), perfectly fits the big picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans




> The Proto-Indo-Europeans likely lived during the late Neolithic, or roughly the 4th millennium BC [4000 - 3000 BCE). *Mainstream scholarship places them in the forest-steppe zone immediately to the north of the western end of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe. Some archaeologists would extend the time depth of PIE to the middle Neolithic (5500 to 4500 BCE) or even the early Neolithic (7500 to 5500 BC), and suggest alternative location hypotheses.*

----------


## ElHorsto

> It's possible this is how *R1a** entered the Pontic Caspian Steppes FIRST and LATER invaded Eastern and Central Europe from there :
> 
> Ivanov is a genius!
> 
> 
> _Armenian Model by Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov & Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze_
> 
> **



Thanks for this map. Except that I think it more applies to R1b rather than R1a. Check out this map in this old thread:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post411715 

Not having time to read all this fascinating new stuff in this thread, but your map from Ivanov jumped into my eye.
It fits well the Indo-Iranian autosomal trail shown in the link above and coincides well with the Gedrosian tendency in NW-Europe.
I'm also pleased that R1b was confirmed at the eastern edge of Yamna because my theory is that R1b went through Central Asia before reaching the pontic steppe, instead of directly crossing the Caucasus north. But I'm not sure yet. It is also possible that the central asian Kelteminar culture (having cultural similarity to the NE-European Comb-Ceramic culture) is the ancestor of these R1b people.

----------


## Drax

For Roberto and Tomenable

According the website nature (sorry I can't post the link), the main haplgroup Y of Khanty and Mansi peoples are R1A1 followed by N2 and N3, that represent 96% and 84% of their haplogroup, that explain easily why in some rare case, they have light hairs and eyes (imo to post modern pictures of "mixed" eurasian peoples is not really judicious).

I agree with you Tomenable (except maybe the "no correlation R1b/blond hair"), very interesting links and articles, thank you for that.

----------


## Tomenable

*ElHorsto*, when it comes to this Armenian Hypothesis:

The problem with it is that Indo-European R1b (P297) and R1a (M417) were already present to the north of Caucasus 7500 years ago, among hunters:



And now let's see what is the Armenian Hypothesis about**:




> The Armenian hypothesis of the Proto-Indo-European Urheimat, based on the Glottalic theory suggests that the Proto-Indo-European language was spoken during the 4th millennium BC [4000 - 3000 BCE] in the Armenian Highland.


Why should PIE be spoken in the Armenian Highland in 4000 BCE, if genetically Indo-European people lived in Russia already in 5500 BCE ???

So a more probable hypothesis is that PIE Urheimat was in the forest-steppe zone of Eastern Europe - this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

http://dienekes.blogspot.fi/2014/08/...o-ugrians.html




> The Proto-Indo-Europeans likely lived during the late Neolithic, or roughly the 4th millennium BC [4000 - 3000 BCE]. *Mainstream scholarship places them in the forest-steppe zone immediately to the north of the western end of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe. Some archaeologists would extend the time depth of PIE to the middle Neolithic (5500 to 4500 BCE) or even the early Neolithic (7500 to 5500 BC), and suggest alternative location hypotheses.*





> *Indo-Europeans preceded Finno-Ugrians in Finland and Estonia
> 
> An archaic (Northwest-)Indo-European language* and a subsequently extinct Paleo-European language were likely spoken in what is now called Finland and Estonia, when the linguistic ancestors of the Finns and the Sami arrived in the eastern and northern Baltic Sea region from the Volga-Kama region probably at the beginning of the Bronze Age.


So Eastern European hunters who spoke archaic PIE, switched to *pastoralism* and settled the steppe.

Maybe they also mixed with people south of them (but what hg-s did those people have? because R1a and R1b had already been present in Russia before).

----------


## Tomenable

As for the role of N1c1:

As you know Balts have a lot of N1c1. And Lithuanians according to Haak 2015 have a lot of Yamnaya admixture autosomally.

So maybe some N1c1 (but rather a very small amount) was also present among archaic Proto-Indo-Europeans ???

Norwegians (who have more R1a and R1b than other Scandinavians) and Lithuanians (R1a + N1c1) are very Yamnaya-like.

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

And according to Eupedia:




> The N1c1 subclade found in Europe likely arose in Southern Siberia 12,000 years ago, and* spread to north-eastern Europe 10,000 years ago.* It is associated with the Kunda culture (8000-5000 BCE) and the subsequent Comb Ceramic culture (4200-2000 BCE), which evolved into Finnic and pre-Baltic people.


So it could be already present in Karelia 7500 - 7000 years ago.

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

Yakuts (who are Turkic, not Finnic) have a lot of N1c.

Lithuanians & Latvians (Baltic not Finnic) have a lot of N1c as well.

Non-Finnic Uralics (Ugric, Permic, Volgaic, Saamic, Samoyedic) also have N1c.

Samoyedic Nenets have a lot of N1c, but even more of N1b.

Baltic Finnic peoples have no monopoly for N1c.

Slavic and Germanic groups also have N1c. Most of it probably comes from recent (Medieval) assimilation of other, Non-Slavic and Non-Germanic groups. But some clades could be inherited from Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Maybe Proto-Indo-Europeans got a bit of N1c1 early on from intermarriages with Non-Indo-Europeans.

*In Karelia there could be contacts between R1a1 and N1c1 already 7000 - 7500 years ago!*

----------


## ElHorsto

> *ElHorsto*, when it comes to this Armenian Hypothesis:
> 
> The problem with it is that Indo-European R1b (xP297) and R1a (xM417) were already present to the north of Caucasus 7500 years ago, among hunters:
> 
> 
> 
> And now let's see what is the Armenian Hypothesis about**:
> 
> 
> ...


Makes sense, I'm agnostic at the moment. As I said I think both is possible at the same time. I believe R1b was much more widespread in the east during the distant past and old enough in all, Anatolia, Central Asia, Urals and elsewhere. Maybe it was even present in today NE-Europe back then, before it got replaced by R1a and N. It's presence close to Samara is a supportive link between NE-Europe and Central Asia. Kelteminar is very ancient and culturally related to Comb-Ceramic in NE-Europe. The Gedrosia/Indo-Iranic trail could have been cought from Afghanistan already during hunter-gatherer times, much earlier than IE.

----------


## Tomenable

> The Gedrosia/Indo-Iranic trail could have been cought from Afghanistan already during hunter-gatherer times, much earlier than IE.


But R1b hunter from Samara had no Gedrosian admixture.




> Maybe it was even present in today NE-Europe back then, before it got replaced by R1a and N.


R1b is still present in these regions, just not so numerous.

----------


## ElHorsto

> But R1b hunter from Samara had no Gedrosian admixture.


I have yet to work through all the material eventually. Do you mean he really had not Gedrosian admixture, or merely he had no West-Asian admixture? I'm asking because Gedrosia is not only West-Asian, but also an important part of the ANE Mal'ta paleolithic man, who is not West-Asian.

----------


## holderlin

Tomenable getting shit done. Putting in the time and energy for all of us.

The Samara and Karelia HG samples being so close autosomally, so far upstream, and lacking the Yamnaya gedrosian_Caucasian signal is very close to a deal sealer. Not to mention all of the genetic tidbits that conveniently seem to fit the steppe PIE homeland perfectly.

And once you start stacking on the archaeology and linguistics the notion of an Asiatic homeland becomes nearly impossible. Forest steppe or maybe even a Baltic homeland are almost necessitated by deduction. 

What about the fundamental similarities between Uralic and PIE, not to mention the likelyhood of a pPIE substratum in the Baltic during Uralic settlement? What about the ancient lexical exchanges between Uralic and PIE?( e.g. domestic pig in Uralic coming from Indo-Iranian. Not PIE, but relevant to the current debate)? What about Lithuanian being ridiculously close to the reconstructed PIE(one would think it was PIE 500 years ago if not for the verb structures)? What about Baltic river names being conserved in PIE? What about the fact that the region near and around modern day Armenia/East Anatolia/North Mesopotamia bears absolutely no resemblance to an Indoeuropean culture during the time frame for PIE? What about the fact that this region was actually full of historically attested non-IEs during the time frame for the homeland? What about the archaeological and historically attested trajectories of the movements of known IE peoples? All of this is completely inconsistent with a near eastern homeland.

The Yamnaya genetics are new, but people have been looking at the physical remains for years and it's always been known that it was a mixed bag, whereas the preceding Dneiper-Donets and Samarra cultures were homogenous "proto-europoid" (now known to be EHG R1a and R1b). The entire region during this time up through Yamnaya was clearly in the process of domesticating horses. The Yamnaya physical culture however appears to resemble much continuity from Dneiper-Donets/Samara, as does the entire massive region, which includes the advancement of horse breeding. There are zero, zip, zilch horses anywhere in the ancient world until IE's arrive, historically attested and in the dirt.

What this points to is that PIE culture at its height and fleeting unity was very much a synthesis, this is undeniable as well, but the resulting culture that swept through the bronze age world resembled what had been developing on the steppe thousands of years before. This doesn't mean that ANE_ENF R1b's didn't move up through the Caucuses dropping mad metallurgy, cattle breeding, and farming knowledge on the steppe population, it just means that it's looking like these R1b dudes would have then been enveloped/assimilated by the horse breeders and not the other way around (Although upstream R1b already in Samara, lacking Yamnaya near eastern signals clouds this notion a bit) This is obvious when one considers what IE culture looked like during IE expansions, which is nothing like what is found near or around modern day Armenia/East Anatolia/North Mesopotamia during the time frame for PIE. The language itself necessitates a strong familiarity with agriculture, which isn't consistent with an exclusive steppe/EHG origin, so this synthesis made IE's what they became, although these historical IEs bore no resemblance to who were actually likely to be Hurrians or Hattians in Armenia/East Anatolia/North Mesopotamia during the time frame for PIE.

Yes more ancient genomes please

----------


## holderlin

And yes. By the logic of Goga PIE's were the first mammals to utter vocal sounds, and they are R1b from SOUTH of the Black and Caspian Seas. ONLY SOUTH.

R1-> R1a and R1b or even R->R1 may have very well occurred in or around the Caspian/Iranian plateau, which makes sense if you're a Eurasion, because North of there would be a lot of tundra and Ice during this time. But this is in a completely different universe than any discussion on PIE. 

Although it would be very cool to hear the paleolanguages to see how close they came to our current historically attested languages. We might be surprised. I think the Basque language is what would be considered a stone age language actually. The words for tools I think contain the word for stone, or something like that. Youtubing basque language now.....

----------


## Tomenable

> What about the fundamental similarities between Uralic and PIE


Indeed. The original Indo-European homeland appears to have been somewhere between the Baltic Sea and the Ural Mountains. Almost in the same region as the original Finno-Ugrian homeland.

----------


## Ukko

> Indeed. The original Indo-European homeland appears to have been somewhere between the Baltic Sea and the Ural Mountains. Almost in the same region as the original Finno-Ugrian homeland.


Funny coincidence is it not.

----------


## holderlin

> Funny coincidence is it not.


The same can be said of NW Caucasian languages. And so where does this put PIE?

----------


## Ukko

> The same can be said of NW Caucasian languages. And so where does this put PIE?


Baltic Finnish (Finland, Estonia, Karelia) horse breeds are related by paternal lines to the steppe horses, all the way to Mongolia, the cattle breeds are paternally related to the Caucasian originated cattle in the Volga.

Both the horses and cattle have relatives in Yakutia..

Like the men.

----------


## Ukko

> Unfortified settlements, fortresses and burials have been found. In the settlements and fortresses the remains of surface timber dwellings (10×5 m - 12×4 м) were found. In the Konetsgor settlement long houses divided into sections with hearths located on their longitudinal axis were found. The population was engaged in cattle breeding and agriculture, as well as hunting and fishing. Well developed were both iron and nonferrous metallurgy, bronze casting and forging, weaving, spinning, bone and leatherwork, and pottery. Typical ceramics are round-bottomed with indented and rope decorations. In the settlements are many bone utensils, mainly for hunting and fishing, like arrowheads of various forms, harpoons, mattock tips.The burial sites are without mounds and sometimes very extensive. The older Akhmylov cemetery contained more than 1100 burials. The earliest of them had stone stelae with depictions of weaponry beside the burial. In the 6th or 5th century BC they were replaced with stelae above the tombs, sometimes with male images with or without weapons. Inhumations in pit tombs, covered with timber chambers predominate. Single burials prevailed, but paired and collective, dismembered (reburials) and partial (skulls) burials are also known. Burials were in some cases accompanied by meat offerings (horsemeat for men and beef for women), and various objects, including clay vessels. In the male burials are usually found weapons and work tools including spears, kelts, swords, daggers, arrowheads, wedges, and ornaments. In the female tombs are ornaments including bracelets, neckrings, sets of pendants and tubules sown on a leather headband). In the early period bronze and iron tools and weapons co-existed with flint arrowheads and scrapers.
> The Ananyino culture was greatly influenced by the Colchian-Koban cultures of the Caucasus region, the Scythians, and the eastern nomadic cultures of the Eurasian steppes. Especially significant were the links of the Ananyino people with the Caucasus cultures, represented by numerous imported products. It was determined that technological methods for iron processing ascend to the Caucasian traditions


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananyino_culture

----------


## Ukko

Finns and other Uralic also have high percentage of Caucasian MtDNA.

----------


## Tomenable

Is most of R1b among the Basques descended from that Pre-Indo-European Neolithic Spanish R1b ??? 

Check:




> I0410 (Spain_EN)
> We determined that this individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (M415:9170545C→A), with upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, the individual was ancestral for R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C), R1b1a2 (PF6399:2668456C→T, L265:8149348A→G, L150.1:10008791C→T and M269:22739367T→C), R1b1c2 (V35:6812012T→A), and R1b1c3 (V69:18099054C→T), and could thus be designated R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2, R1b1c2, R1b1c3). The occurrence of a basal form of haplogroup R1b1 in both western Europe and R1b1a in eastern Europe (I0124 hunter-gatherer from Samara) complicates the interpretation of the origin of this lineage. We are not aware of any other western European R1b lineages reported in the literature before the Bell Beaker period (ref. 2 and this study). It is possible that either (i) the Early Neolithic Spanish individual was a descendant of a Neolithic migrant from the Near East that introduced this lineage to western Europe, or (ii) there was a very sparse distribution of haplogroup R1b in [Western] European hunter-gatherers and early farmers, so the lack of its detection in the published literature may reflect its occurrence at very low frequency. The occurrence of a basal form of R1b1 in western Europe logically raises the possibility that presentday western Europeans (who belong predominantly to haplogroup R1b1a2-M269) may trace their origin to early Neolithic farmers of western Europe. However, we think this is not likely given the existence of R1b1a2-M269 not only in western Europe but also in the Near East; such a distribution implies migrations of M269 males from western Europe to the Near East which do not seem archaeologically plausible. We prefer the explanation that R-M269 originated in the eastern end of its distribution, given its first appearance in the Yamnaya males (below) and in the Near East17.


And also:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/




> Interestingly, all seven of the Yamnaya males sampled by Haak et al., mostly from the Samara Valley on the Ural steppe, belong to R1b-M269, the most common subclade of R1b today.* However, five belong to the West Asian-specific R1b-Z1203, but none to the West European-specific R1b-M412.* Also, all nine Yamnaya samples show Near Eastern admixture, described in the paper as Armenian-like.


Yamnaya subclades:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

R1b1a2a2*
R1b1a
R1b1a2a2
R1b1a2a*
R1b1a2a2
R1b1a2a2*
R1b1a2a2*

----------


## Fire Haired14

> There is no correlation between R1b and blond hair.
> 
> But those kurgan cultures which were found to be * R1a*  - were also found to be light-pigmented. 
> 
> *Andronovo, Tachtyk, Pazyryk, Tagar & Tocharian = R1a with a lot of blond + light brown + brown hair.*
> 
> This is evident both from pigmentation extracted from genes, and from hair preserved in mummies:
> 
> 
> ...


It's crazy how well those mummies are preserved. Those IEs from central and north Asia are pretty much our (dead)half-brothers. About Half our blood comes from the Neolithic-Bronze age Steppe and about 100% of their blood did. Those mummies+Basque or Sardinians=Most Euros. 

I was told by a someone who's looking at SNPs associated with traits from the genomes in Haak 2015, and he said the younger samples have higher frequencies of markers associated with light pigmentation than their ancestors. This is consistent with other ancient DNA studies. 

A 4,000YBP Pole was said to be "dark complected", and the steppe samples that were even as young as 4,000-4,5000YBP had markers for dark pigmentation. Our steppe ancestors were probably much darker than these mummies. My guess is there was gradually change that occurred throughout Europe 6,000-3,000YBP, that included these mummies' ancestors.

----------


## oriental

I like to mention that the Gedrosian element is associated with Baluchistan, Pakistan, however that is the present-day destination of these people i.e. their descendents. Their ancestors were probably living in the Middle East, say Elam in Persia which was destroyed by Cyrus the Great when he created the Persian Empire and scattered the Elamites. Some went to Europe and some to ancient India. I think the Indus Valley Civilization and Elam were probably one large continuous civilization.

----------


## Tomenable

*Another photo of the Ukok Princess (IE Scythian, Pazyryk culture):*





*Reconstructions:*



*Her tattoos:*

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...anged-art.html

http://jittaaa005.deviantart.com/art...cess-446313049

http://galleryhip.com/scythian-warrior-tattoo.html




> *The Siberian Times said: "The tattoos on the left shoulder of the 'princess' show a mythological animal - a deer with a griffon's beak and a Capricorn's antlers.* *'The antlers are decorated with the heads of griffons. 
> *
> *'And the same griffon's head is shown on the back of the animal.
> *
> *The mouth of a spotted panther with a long tail is seen at the legs of a sheep. 
> *
> *'She also has a dear's head on her wrist, with big antlers. 
> *
> *'There is a drawing on the animal's body on a thumb on her left hand. 
> ...


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

*"The Ukok plateau, Altai, Siberia, where Princess and two warriors were discovered. Their bodies were surrounded by six horses fully bridles, various offering of food and a pouch of cannabis":

*

Another homeland picture:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rthquakes.html



And from wikipedia:

----------


## Tomenable

"Indigenous" inhabitants did not like that the reconstruction is so much European-looking:

http://politicalhotwire.com/current-...ian-mummy.html




> He was explaining to them that, curse or no curse, the Altai and other Native Siberian people are tired of Slavic archeologists and other scientists messing with their dead ancestors.


However, she is not "their dead ancestor", as genetic research shows (and is indeed closer to Europeans):

http://rt.com/news/181308-siberian-ice-maiden-bury/




> Many people in Altay believe that the remains to belong to a legendary ancestor and a powerful princess. (...) Ironically, DNA tests on the Ice Maiden, and other remains of people who belonged to the nomadic Pazyryk culture that inhabited the Ukok Plateau, proved that she cannot be an ancestor of the people living in the Altay Region now. The Pazyryk are genetically closest to Siberian Ket and Selkup peoples, but are further from the Altay people than from, for example, Germans, Basques or Russians.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Ice_Maiden




> A reconstruction of the Ice Maiden’s face was created using her skull, in conjunction with measurements taken from the skulls, facial features, and skin thickness of present-day Altai inhabitants. The artist who created the reconstruction, Tanya Balueva, was documented as saying that the Ice Maiden “is a clear-cut example of the Caucasian race with no typically Mongolian features.” *Rima Eriknova, the director of the Altai Regional Museum, is not in agreement, commenting that, “They made the Ice Maiden completely European.”*[6]
> 
> DNA testing confirmed that the woman was not related to the native Mongoloids in present-day Altai. Prior to the testing, she had been believed to be their ancestor.


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

*EDIT after post #105 [this is another woman, but also from Pazyryk culture, and from the same region]:*

Reconstruction of another steppe female from roughly the same region. Also European-looking:

http://www.ryot.org/frozen-mummy-tat...duction/919290



https://twitter.com/praeparator

*"Bone structure showed she was a skilled rider and bow woman, hence the Greek legends of the Amazones seem to be real. The 'Amazon' was buried together with a man and with horses in a big double grave in a Kurgan":*



Though I'm not sure if this reconstruction and that from post #103 are reconstructions of exactly the same woman ???

----------


## Tomenable

Yes - this is another woman. 

Ukok "Princess" and this "Amazon" from post #104 are two different women - even though from the same region:




> It is also a finding of the Altai region, but the body was NOT naturally mummified (like the "Princess"), only bones were left.


"Princess" was a mummy, while this "Amazon" was only a skeleton.

Also the "Princess" was buried with two men and 6 horses. This "Amazon" was buried with only one man.

----------


## Tomenable

This map seems reliable in the light of these new genetic findings (PIE origin between Baltic Sea, Ural and Pontic-Caspian steppe):

http://steppeasia.pagesperso-orange....andronovo3.jpg

----------


## LeBrok

> "Indigenous" inhabitants did not like that the reconstruction is so much European-looking:
> 
> http://politicalhotwire.com/current-...ian-mummy.html
> 
> 
> 
> However, she is not "their dead ancestor", as genetic research shows (and is indeed closer to Europeans):
> 
> http://rt.com/news/181308-siberian-ice-maiden-bury/
> ...


She has a very high nose root and bridge. Perhaps this is part of Caucasus admixture? They are known for their noses.

----------


## MOESAN

> I like to mention that the Gedrosian element is associated with Baluchistan, Pakistan, however that is the present-day destination of these people i.e. their descendents. Their ancestors were probably living in the Middle East, say Elam in Persia which was destroyed by Cyrus the Great when he created the Persian Empire and scattered the Elamites. Some went to Europe and some to ancient India. I think the Indus Valley Civilization and Elam were probably one large continuous civilization.


_
I have some hard work to link the northwest Europe 'gedrosia' to Sumer or Harappa, Indus Valley - 'gedrosia' ELEMENTS of the today 'gedrosia' component were present in Siberia and East Eurasia between 40000 and 20000 BC !!! 'gedrosia' is almost absent in Mediterranea and Souteastern Europe today, and even ANE is weak in this last region - the 'gedrosia' in Near Eastern / Iran / Caucasus is recent enough (more than an ethny send it in a tremendous History)
the concerned 'gedrosia' is northern, steppic, not southern, and ANE too...
the sumerian and Harappa cultural elements were exported to southern Steppes across BMAC but they received impulses from more northern culture (maybe proto-Hurrits/Hurrians of S-E Caspian, possible promotors of BMAC -_

----------


## oriental

What I meant is that when modern humans exited Africa they probably lived around the Persian Gulf which was just above sea level (and probably where Haplogroup IJ wasn't split up yet). There were Haplogroups F, G, H, I, J and K. Elam's western coastline is the Persian Gulf. Then there is Haplogroup K out of which came Haplogroups L, M, N, O, P, Q and R. Those people around the Persian Gulf then spread East North and West. This what I meant. In the North (Siberia and Central Asia), Haplogroups R and Q dominated and reduced other groups throughout history with invasions. In the west Haplogroup R dominated Europe. So the Gedrosia element is really the Iranian element. Since Haplogroup R also dominates Iran the original inhabitants of the Persian gulf area changed but they survived in Gedrosia (Baluchistan, Pakistan). The Gedrosia element is the original Iranian inhabitants.

Even today's Gedrosia would be quite different as it is controlled by Muslims who separated from India after the Partition in 1947.

----------


## Tomenable

Data for three steppe IE cultures - *Andronovo + Tachtyk + Tagar:*

1. Hair pigmentation (when known):

*blond or light brown - 6 (60%)*
brown - 3
dark brown - 1

2. Y-DNA haplogroups (when known):

*R1a1a - 9 (90%)*
C (not C3) - 1 -------------------> individual with C had dark brown hair

3. mtDNA haplogroups (for everyone):

T3 - 3
H or U - 3
T1 - 2
C - 2
U4 - 2
U5a1 - 1
U2e - 1
H5 - 1
H6 - 1
T2a1b1 - 1
K2b - 1
I4 - 1
G2a - 1
Z1 - 1
HV - 1
F1b - 1
N9a - 1

4. mtDNA of individuals with blond or light brown hair:

T1 - 2
C - 2
N9a - 1
U5a1 - 1

----------


## Drax

Very interesting Tomenable, thank you very much; and the woman is really beautiful;

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Data for three steppe IE cultures - *Andronovo + Tachtyk + Tagar:*
> 
> 1. Hair pigmentation (when known):
> 
> *blond or light brown - 6 (60%)*
> brown - 3
> dark brown - 1
> 
> 2. Y-DNA haplogroups (when known):
> ...


I don't know how they determined hair color. I read the study and they tested for very few SNPs associated with hair color. But I guess the mummies prove they had a wide-range of hair colors.

----------


## holderlin

It's funny. I was gazing at those mummies in awe like everyone else, silent and noble relics of our ancestors.

But then I read a little more and the region was all about traders. I guess one of the mummies was an ancient hat salesman/maker. They buried him with like 50 different kinds of hats LOL.

Another sort of funny tidbit. The Chinese records of these "red haired and green eyed people who look like monkeys" also said that they like to drink excessively. Indo-Europeans haven't changed in thousands of years.

----------


## oriental

> who look like monkeys


It is the deep-set eyes and hairy face that elicited those comments.

They were in Chinese documents expressing their observations. I am sure there are lots of literature from western sources where there are observations of other people that would be awkward for the observed people to read.

http://animals.nationalgeographic.co...rhesus-monkey/

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> It is the deep-set eyes and hairy face that elicited those comments.
> 
> They were in Chinese documents expressing their observations. I am sure there are lots of literature from western sources where there are observations of other people that would be awkward for the observed people to read.
> 
> http://animals.nationalgeographic.co...rhesus-monkey/



it's funny - especially the bit about drinking too much

----------


## oriental

> drinking too much


Since it was a dry area the Tocharians lived in drinking was a precious activity. However, alcohol was a safe liquid to drink as it would kill any bacteria or neutralize micro-organisms. When one drink alcoholized drink one can be rather addicted.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> It's funny. I was gazing at those mummies in awe like everyone else, silent and noble relics of our ancestors.
> 
> But then I read a little more and the region was all about traders. I guess one of the mummies was an ancient hat salesman/maker. They buried him with like 50 different kinds of hats LOL.
> 
> Another sort of funny tidbit. The Chinese records of these "red haired and green eyed people who look like monkeys" also said that they like to drink excessively. Indo-Europeans haven't changed in thousands of years.


Compared to east Asian people, west Eurasians do kind of look like Monkeys. The few times I've been in a place filled with east Asians, I've noticed they have very different structured skulls. Their heads are much more straight, boxy, and bigger. West Eurasians have very round and curvy heads compared to East Asians, that could appear to be similar to monkeys. To be honest I kind of look like a monkey and people have said this before. 

I read a description of Huns(Turks who invaded Europe during Roman times) by a Roman and Goth. The Goth who wrote in Greek said they weren't even human, but were some type of devil spawned in the forest. He put emphasis on their small eyes, dark complexion, short stature, big heads, etc. The Roman writer gave basically the same description, and I think he also said they were evil supernatural beings. 

To the Chinese Tocherians and maybe a few other nations(Sycthians, I don't know) were the only humans on earth with European features. To Germans and Romans the Huns were the only humans on earth with east Asian features. Both it appears treated them as very strange, un-human, and exaggerated their distinct features.

----------


## holderlin

> Compared to east Asian people, west Eurasians do kind of look like Monkeys. The few times I've been in a place filled with east Asians, I've noticed they have very different structured skulls. Their heads are much more straight, boxy, and bigger. West Eurasians have very round and curvy heads compared to East Asians, that could appear to be similar to monkeys. To be honest I kind of look like a monkey and people have said this before. 
> 
> I read a description of Huns(Turks who invaded Europe during Roman times) by a Roman and Goth. The Goth who wrote in Greek said they weren't even human, but were some type of devil spawned in the forest. He put emphasis on their small eyes, dark complexion, short stature, big heads, etc. The Roman writer gave basically the same description, and I think he also said they were evil supernatural beings. 
> 
> To the Chinese Tocherians and maybe a few other nations(Sycthians, I don't know) were the only humans on earth with European features. To Germans and Romans the Huns were the only humans on earth with east Asian features. Both it appears treated them as very strange, un-human, and exaggerated their distinct features.





> It is the deep-set eyes and hairy face that elicited those comments.
> 
> They were in Chinese documents expressing their observations. I am sure there are lots of literature from western sources where there are observations of other people that would be awkward for the observed people to read.
> 
> http://animals.nationalgeographic.co...rhesus-monkey/





> it's funny - especially the bit about drinking too much





> Since it was a dry area the Tocharians lived in drinking was a precious activity. However, alcohol was a safe liquid to drink as it would kill any bacteria or neutralize micro-organisms. When one drink alcoholized drink one can be rather addicted.


It's in one of Mallory's books I've been revisiting. The reference states that they were "given to excessive drinking", which to me sounds like good old IE partying. Pretty funny. Romans say the same about the Celts of course too. Indeed it seems like IE people have a special talent for getting wasted, and those assholes had to pass on those genes to me. I mean, I don't go to meetings or anything, but in a social setting I'm definitely "given to excessive drinking".

----------


## Fire Haired14

> It's in one of Mallory's books I've been revisiting. The reference states that they were "given to excessive drinking", which to me sounds like good old IE partying. Pretty funny. Romans say the same about the Celts of course too. Indeed it seems like IE people have a special talent for getting wasted, and those assholes had to pass on those genes to me. I mean, I don't go to meetings or anything, but in a social setting I'm definitely "given to excessive drinking".


"Beaker people" drank alcohol(and other liquids) out of containers this big. It was so important to them they were buried with them. 



You should bring one to your next social gathering :)

----------


## holderlin

> "Beaker people" drank alcohol(and other liquids) out of containers this big. It was so important to them they were buried with them. 
> 
> 
> 
> You should bring one to your next social gathering :)


Perfect size.

Beaker People is a weird thing. It think the consensus is an elite class, shamanistic perhaps, associated with what I guess would be a get everyone drunk cult. I dunno. But it could also just be a really high quality, nice pot that everyone wanted at the time essentially making it appear among prestige items. I can just imagine "ohhh sweet you got a Adzigringin bowl, dude they're the shit. My mom's had hers in the family for 100 years. It's been dropped countless times and been under the hottest fires."

----------


## jpz79

At this point there are no viable arguments, which can can be provided to support an IE homeland in the Steppe, or anywhere in Central Asia. The Steppe theory is dead among the majority of serious researchers, but lingers among the select few, who can't help but to indulge in their own self-delusions.

Underhill's unparalleled study of R1a used 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia, concluding there was "compelling evidence", that R1a-M420 originated in Iran.

(Underhill 2014)
_"Among the 120 populations with sample sizes of at least 50 individuals and with at least 10% occurrence of R1a, just 6 met these criteria, and 5 of these 6 populations reside in modern-day Iran. Haplogroup diversities among the six populations ranged from 0.78 to 0.86 (Supplementary Table 4). Of the 24 R1a-M420*(xSRY10831.2) chromosomes in our data set, 18 were sampled in Iran and 3 were from eastern Turkey. Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus"_

As for R1b...

(Grugni, 2012)
_"The M530 diffusion pattern seems to be also shared by the paragroups J2a-M410* and J2a-PAGE55*. In addition, the variance distribution of the rare R1b-M269* Y chromosomes, displaying decreasing values from Iran, Anatolia and the western Black Sea coastal region, is also suggestive of a westward diffusion from the Iranian plateau"_

Early R1b (the ultra rare M343, M269*) and R1a, are clearly more statistically frequent in West Asian samples - and even without the combination of archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic data, that fact alone, is compelling enough for any reasonable person, to seriously consider a West Asian homeland. Europe is mostly marked by late R1b, though there is early R1b, in the Steppes. And this R1b has little variance, which is precisely to be expected from a population which was clearly under the genetic influence from West Asia, since at least, the Neolithic. Of course, the natural explanation to this anomaly, according to Steppe theorists, is that these early forms somehow disappeared, like a fart in the wind, from all over Europe. Yeah, when it comes to Steppe theorists, anything goes - just conjure some ancient skeletons and vanishing hordes of people, and you have a grand work of fiction (and more like horror) which any garden-variety Steppe theorist, can conveniently entertain as 'proof'. In reality early R1b (originating from West Asia), is only expected in earlier Steppe skeletons, where there was multiple waves of influence from the Iranian plateau.

This is so glaringly obvious, and so painfully true, that Steppe theorists have taken to an impulsive rejection of data and reason, and resorted to irrational defenses. From more impartial views on the subject, and notably from those with European ancestry, a West Asian homeland, has been supported. Dieniekes Pontikos has long supported a West Asian hypothesis. Mariya Ivanova has noted the clear influence in Yamna from it's parent culture, the Maykop, of the South Caspian region. (Ivanova M. 2012. Kaukasus und Orient: Die Entstehung des„Maikop-Phänomens“ im 4. Jahrtausend v.Chr Praehistorische Zeitschrift 2012; 87(1): 1–28) More recently, Giacomo Benedetti wrote a brilliant piece, using several lines of evidence, to support a homeland in the Northern Zagros. A fine work, which can only be considered an epitaph for Steppe theorists. *new-indology.blogspot.com/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html*

I'd find it easier to believe Mother Theresa and her boyfriend, once robbed a bank at gunpoint, butt-naked, than to listen to any Steppe theorist give me a perverted coaching on how the world is. Giacomo Benedetti is no crackpot, and Dienekes Pontikos is no liar. We can be fairly certain, because they have very little to gain or satisfy, in constructing a phony theory for PIE origins, placing the homeland half way around the world. This is in stark contrast to any arm-chair enthusiast, whose only goal is to fictionalize historical scenarios, in order to appease their own nationalism, and to preserve their honor, in a basement somewhere. Note that Benedetti, is actually an Indologist. And one with a PhD. So the suggestion that he is out to satisfy himself, by suggesting some arbitrary NW Iranian hypothesis, is contradictory. As for Dienikes Pontikos, he is generally well regarded, and has long been so.



I'll leave you with a quote from Benedetti's site. Read it and weep:
_"I have the impression that the Aryan Invasionism follows the same method as Creationism. The supporters of the Indo-Iranian invasion from the European steppes of Central and South Asia have no sacred text to defend, although sometimes they use the Vedas or the Avesta with biased (often racial) interpretations. They have a sort of preconceived faith, maybe based on a secret, obstinate Eurocentrism: Europeans must be the conquerors of the Indo-European world, and not the conquered or colonized, they must be the origin of the change, not the recipients. So, they already firmly believe that the Indo-Aryans must have arrived there in the 2nd millennium BC, and so we have to find, in one way or another, the facts able to support that dogma. I think that we should rather start from the archaeological facts, and build a theory from there, seeing if we find a harmony with linguistics and textual traditions, and also genetics"_

----------


## MOESAN

@jpz79:
when you evocate facts your are interesting, spite facts can be diversely interpreted sometimes. But when you fall into pub-counter philosophy you are no more so interesting.
I can say that because I have no fossilized theory for I-Eans cradle. And for Western Europeans where Y-R1b is very very dominant,the Russian Steppes are more "asian" than something else. Questions remain about the cradle of PIE (language) and about the true signification of variance. We have yet to trace the roads of the different subclades of Y-R1b (more than one I think).
I repeat: I have at this very day NO definitive theory concerning I-Eans, nor prejudice, contrary to someones who accuse others of this vice;

----------


## MOESAN

do Notice I don't accuse you personally of prejudice,at this stage. Good evening.

----------


## Tomenable

*Jpz79,*

*I agree that both R1a-M420 and R1b-M343 most likely originated in the Iranian Plateau during the Upper Paleolithic period some 22,000 years ago* (YFull's estimate of the time when R1 split into R1a and R1b).

However, this doesn't tell us absolutely anything about the Indo-European origins, unless you have proofs that the Proto-Indo-European language already existed during the Upper Paleolithic period around 22,000 years ago.

You could as well become an Afro-Centrist and claim that Indo-Europeans came from Africa - and that would be to some extent true, because all humans came from Africa - so very distant ancestors of Indo-Europeans too.

But that's not the point here. 

Subclades such as R1a-M420* paragroup or R1b-V88 simply do not correlate with Indo-European languages. And Indo-Iranian languages correlate mostly with R1a-Z93/Z94, which almost certainly originated in the Volga Region.

----------


## Taranis

> At this point there are no viable arguments, which can can be provided to support an IE homeland in the Steppe, or anywhere in Central Asia. The Steppe theory is dead among the majority of serious researchers, but lingers among the select few, who can't help but to indulge in their own self-delusions.


Welcome to Eupedia?

Your above statement ignores a key factor: the very concept of the Indo-European _languages_ comes from linguistics in the first place, and the in combination with archaeology. If the theory was "dead" amongst the majority of researchers (who precisely?) as you loud and clear anounce, why did Ringe and Anthony publish their paper back in 2015, which summarizes the situation to the point? The way I see it, there's a very strong argument in conjunction between linguistics and archaeology: namely that there's common words for "horse", "wheel" (or "wheeled vehicle") reconstructable for Proto-Indo-European, and via archaeology we can trace where horses were first domesticated and where wheels were first invented (hint: both happened not on the Iranian plateau). I'd like to remind you that back in the early 2000s, there was the opinion amongst geneticists that R1b originated in the Franco-Iberian glacial refuge, and that neither the introduction of agriculture nor the introduction of metal-working had any effect on the genetic makeup of Europe, which we know today is a completely wrong view. I think its careless and hasty to declare "the Pontic-Caspian model is dead". How would you explain that Proto-Indo-European has common words for "horse" and "wheel" if they originated in the Iranian plateau (my main point of contention for example with the Anatolian hypothesis)?

----------


## holderlin

> At this point there are no viable arguments, which can can be provided to support an IE homeland in the Steppe, or anywhere in Central Asia. The Steppe theory is dead among the majority of serious researchers, but lingers among the select few, who can't help but to indulge in their own self-delusions.
> 
> Underhill's unparalleled study of R1a used 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia, concluding there was "compelling evidence", that R1a-M420 originated in Iran.
> 
> (Underhill 2014)
> _"Among the 120 populations with sample sizes of at least 50 individuals and with at least 10% occurrence of R1a, just 6 met these criteria, and 5 of these 6 populations reside in modern-day Iran. Haplogroup diversities among the six populations ranged from 0.78 to 0.86 (Supplementary Table 4). Of the 24 R1a-M420*(xSRY10831.2) chromosomes in our data set, 18 were sampled in Iran and 3 were from eastern Turkey. Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus"_
> 
> As for R1b...
> 
> ...


Goga? 

.
.
.
.
.

----------


## holderlin

> Welcome to Eupedia?
> 
> Your above statement ignores a key factor: the very concept of the Indo-European _languages_ comes from linguistics in the first place, and the in combination with archaeology. If the theory was "dead" amongst the majority of researchers (who precisely?) as you loud and clear anounce, why did Ringe and Anthony publish their paper back in 2015, which summarizes the situation to the point? The way I see it, there's a very strong argument in conjunction between linguistics and archaeology: namely that there's common words for "horse", "wheel" (or "wheeled vehicle") reconstructable for Proto-Indo-European, and via archaeology we can trace where horses were first domesticated and where wheels were first invented (hint: both happened not on the Iranian plateau). I'd like to remind you that back in the early 2000s, there was the opinion amongst geneticists that R1b originated in the Franco-Iberian glacial refuge, and that neither the introduction of agriculture nor the introduction of metal-working had any effect on the genetic makeup of Europe, which we know today is a completely wrong view. I think its careless and hasty to declare "the Pontic-Caspian model is dead". How would you explain that Proto-Indo-European has common words for "horse" and "wheel" if they originated in the Iranian plateau (my main point of contention for example with the Anatolian hypothesis)?


I guess Iranians are just that pissed that their people came from modern day Russia. Has anyone informed them about the prevailing out of Africa model? They're gonna be livid.

----------


## goga (two)

> Goga? 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .


No it’s not me. I’m banned until 24/2/2016. So I’ll be back very soon.

----------


## goga (two)

> Your above statement ignores a key factor: the very concept of the Indo-European _languages_ comes from linguistics in the first place, and the in combination with archaeology. If the theory was "dead" amongst the majority of researchers (who precisely?) as you loud and clear anounce, why did Ringe and Anthony publish which summarizes the situation to the point? The way I see it, there's a very strong argument in conjunction between linguistics and archaeology: namely that there's common words for "horse", "wheel" (or "wheeled vehicle") reconstructable for Proto-Indo-European, and via archaeology we can trace where horses were first domesticated and where wheels were first invented (hint: both happened not on the Iranian plateau). I'd like to remind you that back in the early 2000s, there was the opinion amongst geneticists that R1b originated in the Franco-Iberian glacial refuge, and that neither the introduction of agriculture nor the introduction of metal-working had any effect on the genetic makeup of Europe, which we know today is a completely wrong view. I think its careless and hasty to declare "the Pontic-Caspian model is dead". How would you explain that Proto-Indo-European has common words for "horse" and "wheel" if they originated in the Iranian plateau (my main point of contention for example with the Anatolian hypothesis)?


This is a stupid argument and countered many times. Many folks explained this many times. Think about Computer. Everybody is using it since the introduction of computer. From Africa to china.

Does that mean that Chinese and Africans are the same?

Wheel was just an universal tool/word that was used by many different races.

----------


## goga (two)

> I guess Iranians are just that pissed that their people came from modern day Russia. Has anyone informed them about the prevailing out of Africa model? They're gonna be livid.


Nah! Are you jealous of history of Aryans?


Mypeople came from an advanced civilization and made human eating savages into human beings in thesteppes. People the Yamnaya region were heavily influenced by folks from theIranian Plateau. Never forget that.

----------


## goga (two)

See you soon. I will come back very soon. I'm banned until 24/2/2016, So just 4 days...

----------


## LeBrok

> *Jpz79,*
> 
> *I agree that both R1a-M420 and R1b-M343 most likely originated in the Iranian Plateau during the Upper Paleolithic period some 22,000 years ago* (YFull's estimate of the time when R1 split into R1a and R1b).
> 
> However, this doesn't tell us absolutely anything about the Indo-European origins, unless you have proofs that the Proto-Indo-European language already existed during the Upper Paleolithic period around 22,000 years ago.
> 
> You could as well become an Afro-Centrist and claim that Indo-Europeans came from Africa - and that would be to some extent true, because all humans came from Africa - so very distant ancestors of Indo-Europeans too.
> 
> But that's not the point here. 
> ...


The most important fact is who survived and where that Last Glacial Maximum. It really segregated, depopulated and severely bottlenecked all the populations of Central and North Eurasia and the whole Europe. The most interesting point should be 10,000 BC (End of Ice Age) the starting point of all Admixtures migration and recombination. At 10k BC they still in their secluded places (refugia) and pure.

----------


## holderlin

> No it’s not me. I’m banned until 24/2/2016. So I’ll be back very soon.


Looking forward to it. Sorry about the banning.

----------


## holderlin

> Nah! Are you jealous of history of Aryans?
> 
> 
> Mypeople came from an advanced civilization and made human eating savages into human beings in thesteppes. People the Yamnaya region were heavily influenced by folks from theIranian Plateau. Never forget that.


Classic Goga. I do enjoy it. Tonight is lame but you gave me a reason to do something.

proto-Aryans=Sintashta

And that's badass, why would you be averse to the first chariot builders? It's so strange. I'm trying to convince an Iranian enthusiast that the indo-Iranians were awesome. Don't get it.

----------


## holderlin

> pure.


made me chuckle

----------


## LeBrok

> made me chuckle


Did I misspell something again, lol.
Yes, pure gedrosia, pure caucasus, pure ENF, pure WHG, pure ANE, etc. The sources of pure admixtures we can find at exactly that time.

----------


## Tomenable

Such a PCA chart (based on Fig.1. from Mathieson 10.10.2015 and on Fig.2. from Olalde 19.11.2015):



Fig.1. from Mathieson 2015: http://i.imgur.com/gdAA3OR.jpg

Olalde: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/12/3132.full

Check also Fig.1. here: http://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/368.full

----------


## MOESAN

> This is a stupid argument and countered many times. Many folks explained this many times. Think about Computer. Everybody is using it since the introduction of computer. From Africa to china.
> 
> Does that mean that Chinese and Africans are the same?
> 
> Wheel was just an universal tool/word that was used by many different races.


 Let's compare what is comparable. Every comparison between past and present (and I don't speak of future!) is not by force valuable. In present we can see a model and buy it through the Net, at those times innovations came not with a man only but with a good bunch of them (roads were unsure) and took little more time to expand everywhere, even if they could run faster than believe someones. But it depended surely too of the their utility not always the same depending on geographic peculiarities and cultural levels and habits.
I accept the caution concerning some words: words present in PIE means they could be found in almost all the "son" languages at some stage of their evolution, but doesn' t exclude they could have been borrowed from ONE other language or from several. Then we have to find these words one together or separated in the supposed "giver"language(S)... Here I confess my knowledge is still limited in ancient I-Ean so...
I ask you: do you know if the wheel and charriots and wagons and horse taming and so on... covered Eurasia and West-Asia at the very same time and everywhere, in every culture?
What seems sure is that first I-Eans had all these things BEFORE expand and did not acquired them separately after expansion into Europe and Asia. Unity of forms AND respect of phonetic evolution rules seems confirm this. Apart the problem of initial possible loans. I answer you here about your objection based on today life, I have not a magic solution to the question of initial cradle.
PLus: today Iranian language concerning verbal grammar shows rather a remodeling of verbal conjugaisons (as does Germani languages): possible acculturation of a formerly NON-I-Ean speaking population??? Not without weight? the Slavic, Romance, Greek and even Celtic languages shows for me a closer position to what could have been ancient I-Ean. I don't know the Avesta language and cannot do comparisons, but maybe specialists can do it and precise us if there has been a strong evolution from old Iranian to today Iranian. They will be welcome.
Nos da. Nos vad. Boune nët.

----------


## MOESAN

@Tomenable: your map upon Mathieson concerns auDNA.
I think Sintashta-Arkaim itself is closer yet to Corded; Karnitzkiy or Konitsev (metrics) confirms it as rather "Central-East-European" than "Southern Caucasus" or "BMAC"; what is funny is that for archeology, Grigoryev considers it asstrongly influenced by South-East Caspian culrues, themselves showing tight links with Near-Rast ancient cultures. What put me to (re-)conclude the flows of genes and cultural traits are not always the same. Look at today Europe and Europe ancient "dependances" ("occidental evolved world") spreading its material culture, even without language, and fading out bit after bit with underdevelopped countries migrants. No alarming statement here, it could please to someones and bore others, and if not achieved yet; only running on slowly but surely (until when???); I don't read in the hanes guts. I know I give Goga an occasion to tell me I use comparisons between past and present (LOL) me too, but here I think its' more accurate, who knows?
To get back to the topic, we know there were exchanges between the Steppes nomads and the BMAC people. Maybe the fact that some descendants of evolved Tripolje descendants passed into western Steppes were surely among a part of the Sintashta people could explain a facilited acculturation by same level cultures? Guessing, no more.

----------


## Goga

> Classic Goga. I do enjoy it. Tonight is lame but you gave me a reason to do something.
> 
> proto-Aryans=Sintashta
> 
> And that's badass, why would you be averse to the first chariot builders? It's so strange. I'm trying to convince an Iranian enthusiast that the indo-Iranians were awesome. Don't get it.


I'm trying to keep it joyful and fun as possible.
*
proto-Aryans = Mitanni (descendants of the Sumerians). Mitanni (Medes) migrated into SouthCentral Asia and found BMAC! East Iranid race from BMAC invaded Indian Peninsula. It's a fact that a race from BMAC invaded India! Has nothing to do Sintashta...*

R1a moved from the Iranian Plateau and migrated into the Steppes. *Oldest R1a subclades has been found in West Asia, there is also the most diversity of R1a.* In the Steppes it mixed heavily with Finno-Ugrid, Mongoloid and Europoid races. Never forget that the South was always much more populated than North.


First chariots came from the Mesopotamia. Sumerians chariots were much older than modern Iranid (Aryan = Mitanni & Medes) chariots. Sumerians were (for a huge part) ancestors of the Iranid (Aryan) race.





http://sumerianshakespeare.com/84201.html

----------


## MOESAN

> I'm trying to keep it joyful and fun as possible.
> *
> proto-Aryans = Mitanni (descendants of the Sumerians). Mitanni (Medes) migrated into SouthCentral Asia and found BMAC! East Iranid race from BMAC invaded Indian Peninsula. It's a fact that a race from BMAC invaded India! Has nothing to do Sintashta...*
> 
> R1a moved from the Iranian Plateau and migrated into the Steppes. *Oldest R1a subclades has been found in West Asia, there is also the most diversity of R1a.* In the Steppes it mixed heavily with Finno-Ugrid, Mongoloid and Europoid races. Never forget that the South was always much more populated than North.
> 
> 
> First chariots came from the Mesopotamia. Sumerians chariots were much older than modern Iranid (Aryan = Mitanni & Medes) chariots. Sumerians were (for a huge part) ancestors of the Iranid (Aryan) race.
> 
> ...


_Is this a joke? I ask because I 'm not sure.
-From what I red Mitanni would be newcmers in Near-East about the 1600 BC and not Sumerians descendants. THeir age of apparition doesn't correspond to the proto-I-Ean times.
-I don't see any objection about a Near-East civilisation influences on the Steppes at more than a time.
-But concerning India as the theories stay between 2 and 5 big moves into from South Central Asia it I wait the winner of the scientists competition to make my mind (I'm an amateur).
-for Y-R1a the current localization of its greater variance in Iran doesn't prove it has always been so. Surely, if not iranian, it came from some place not too far but... And ancient and high variance haplo DNA in a place doesn't prove the bulk of the newer and less variated SNPs did not form elsewhere; some surveys indicate rather a Central Asia position for the most of Z93. The privders of today India Z93 can come as well from Central Asia as from Iran or elsewhere S-West...

_

----------


## johen

> * It's a fact that a race from BMAC invaded India!*
> R1a moved from the Iranian Plateau and migrated into the Steppes. 
> First chariots came from the Mesopotamia.


- Problem is when Sumerian domesticated horse and when west Asians had lactose tolerance gene. Yamna culture had both of them around *3,500BC*

- Another problem is :




> “Prehistorically, the Sumerians were not aboriginal to Mesopotamia. Their native hearth is unknown. Speaking an agglutinative tongue showing affinities, on one hand, with the Uralo-Altaic languages (Balto-Finnish, Hungarian, Volgaic, Uralien, Samoyuedic, Turkish, Mongolian, and Eskimo) and, on the other hand, with the Dravidian tounges of India, the Pelasgian of pre-Homeric Greece, Georgian of the Caucasus, and Basque of the Pyrenes,they had arrived apparently c.*3500 B.C*. to find the river lands already accupied by an advanced Neolithic, farming and cattle-raising population known to science as the Ubaidian (also, Proto-Euphratean), [...].” (Joseph Campbell, The Mythic Dimension, New World Library, 2008, p.122)"


- However, botai culture 



> The world's first broncobusters, it seems, hailed from Central Asia. New research proves that herders from the steppes were the first to tame horses 5,500 years ago. Since the 1990s, horse bones have been unearthed at the site of Botai, a village in what is now northern Kazakhstan that was occupied *from 3700 to 3100 B.C.* But a new analysis of bones, teeth, and pottery sherds leaves no question that the people of Botai practiced horse husbandry.
> 
> Using a newly refined method of stable isotope analysis, the researchers detected horse milk on pottery sherds from Botai. In the past, it had been difficult to distinguish between horse-meat fats and milk fats on pottery. Horses were hunted by the nomadic tribes of the steppes, so the presence of meat fat would tell the scholars little. On the other hand, milk fat could only come from domesticated horses. "It is inconceivable that anyone would milk a wild mare," says Olsen.


1. All things happened around 3,500BC

2. More interesting thing is botai might be connected to Andronovo (Aryan)




> Thus the spreading of the Surtanda culture to the east up to the basin of the Irtysh River seems very probable (Fig. 24.11). We gave the reasons for it earlier. It is interesting that the sites of the Makhandgar and Botai type are dated mainly to the third millennium BP, whereas the sites on the banks of the lake belonging to the Surtanda culture are dated earlier (fifth millennium BP, according to C-14). This dating for the earlier sites is confirmed by the chronology of the lower layer of Berezki settlement (around 7600±200). Thus two periods of development can be distinguished in the *Surtanda culture*. The first can be called the lake period (late fifth-fourth millennium BP). The second period is the steppe period (third millennium BC, at *Botai,* Makhandgar). In the second period, at the beginning of an ecological crisis (second millennium bp), the Petrov and *Alakul (Andron)* cultures of the Bronze Age were formed.


-->* So starting point of yamna and india (or sumer?) might be Botai region considering three of maps also
*




1. Botai region

2. oct.2013: Using HSV-1 genome phylogenetics to track past human migrations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3797750/

3. oct.2015: Reconstructing Genetic History of Siberian and Northeastern European Populations : 
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...29421.full.pdf

----------


## MOESAN

@Johen
Thanks for post
the last map seems a bit curious concerning HGs of North and Central Europe - as if they were not from the same stock (at least partly) as their "Europeans"...?

concerning languages, the fact of sharing agglutinative structures does not prove a tight recent link between concerned languages. I red somewhere legends said Sumerians were foreigners in Mesopotamia, arrived by sea. I know nothing more (It spite me). The tentatives to make of sumerian a proto-proto-I-Ean language had not convinced the mainstream science. I would have been glad to read the sumerian was close to finnic-ugric languages but I did not red it yet. It could have explained a lot of things and resolved some basic questions concerning I-Eans.

----------


## Tomenable

> when west Asians had lactose tolerance gene. Yamna culture had both of them around 3,500 BC


Houston, we have a problem - Yamna people *did not have* lactose tolerance gene, according to Mathieson:

Lactase Persistence and ancient DNA by Iain Mathieson

_"(...) We didn’t find any evidence for LP in early farming populations like the LBK, or in early Bronze age steppe populations like the Yamnaya. In as-yet unreported data, we find a few copies of the allele in the Srubnaya - a later steppe population (...)"
_
So Yamnaya people could not actually drink milk in adulthood. Some of Corded Ware people - on the other hand - could.

Lactase Persistence was surely present (= green colour) in Battle Axe, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Kyjatice and Srubnaya:

Northern_LNBA = Battle Axe
Central_LNBA = Corded Ware
Hungary_BA = Kyjatice culture



More on the issue of lactase persistence here:

Human adaptation and population differentiation : Nature Communications : Nature Publishing Group

They suugest that LP probably originated in LBK culture, but selection sweep was only later.

In other words it was probably present in LBK population but still at low frequency.

----------


## johen

> @Johen
> Thanks for post
> the last map seems a bit curious concerning HGs of North and Central Europe - as if they were not from the same stock (at least partly) as their "Europeans"...?
> 
> concerning languages, the fact of sharing agglutinative structures does not prove a tight recent link between concerned languages. I red somewhere legends said Sumerians were foreigners in Mesopotamia, arrived by sea. I know nothing more (It spite me). The tentatives to make of sumerian a proto-proto-I-Ean language had not convinced the mainstream science. I would have been glad to read the sumerian was close to finnic-ugric languages but I did not red it yet. It could have explained a lot of things and resolved some basic questions concerning I-Eans.


sorry, I have no information.

----------


## johen

> _"(...) We didn’t find any evidence for LP in early farming populations like the LBK, or in early Bronze age steppe populations like the Yamnaya. In as-yet unreported data, we find a few copies of the allele in the Srubnaya - a later steppe population (...)"
> _
> So Yamnaya people could not actually drink milk in adulthood. Some of Corded Ware people - on the other hand - could.
> 
> Lactase Persistence was surely present (= green colour) in Battle Axe, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Kyjatice and Srubnaya:


True, when did it happen?



> We also demonstrate that light skin pigmentation in Europeans
> was already present at high frequency in the Bronze Age, but not lactose tolerance, indicating a more recent onset of
> positive selection on lactose tolerance than previously thought.


--> I think horse domestication and horse riding was revolution around 3,500bc, like a train in industrial revolution and modern internet to concur a distance between humans

See two maps:




If ANE people migrated from Iran plateu to Yamna around 3,500 BC, sumer and yamna culture would be similar.

However, 
- both Yamna and sumer had a wheel, and



> they had arrived apparently c.3500 B.C. to find the river lands already accupied by an advanced Neolithic, farming and cattle-raising population known to science as the Ubaidian


*So the following route would be correct and botai would play a great role in Yamna and (sumer?)*



The above map also looks like representing comb ceramic route from Finland to Korea:


--> They might freely ride on horses thru the route. And EEF also might migrate from Gemany (Harz area) to Korea 7,000 years ago thru this route. And domen people also might migrate from Irend (oldest one : 4,000bc) to Korea(3,000bc), see the dolmen zone in the world.

----------


## Goga

> - Problem is when Sumerian domesticated horse and when west Asians had lactose tolerance gene. Yamna culture had both of them around *3,500BC*
> 
> - Another problem is :
> 
> 
> - However, botai culture 
> 
> 
> 1. All things happened around 3,500BC
> ...


1. Domestication of horses occured thousands of years before 3500 BC. Even earlier than *7000*BC !!! http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14658678
2. What has this to do with lactose tolerance gene? PIE migration happened in two stages. Early PIE and late PIE. Early PIE migrated into the Yamnaya Horizon and gave birth to the most IE languages in Europe. While the original PIE that stayed at home gave birth to the Anatolian, proto-Iranian (Aryan) etc. languages. Lactose tolerance gene could be connected only to Yamnaya, after it mixed with Mongoloid/Uralid folks in the Steppes.

Yamna culture was heavily influenced by the older Maykop 'Kurgan' culture.

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


But Leyla-Tepe culture is MUCH, MUCH older than Maykop and so called 'Botai' culture.

Leyla-Tepe culture was from 4500 - 4000 B.C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture



Aryans that invaded the Indian subcontinent invaded it from *BMAC* and NOT from Andronovo.


Andronovo was *NOT* Aryan, but
BMAC was Aryan


Iranians = Aryans ...

----------


## Goga

> True, when did it happen?
> 
> 
> --> *I think horse domestication and horse riding was revolution around 3,500bc*, like a train in industrial revolution and modern internet to concur a distance between humans
> 
> 
> If ANE people migrated from Iran plateu to Yamna around 3,500 BC, sumer and yamna culture would be similar.
> 
> However, 
> ...


Dude, what the hell are you talking about?

Domestication of horses happened *at least* *7000*BCE. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14658678


Sumerian civilization is much older than from 3500 BC. *Tell Halaf* period started at least *6100* BC.

Only the Sumerian writing system evolved around 3500. But that doesn't mean that Sumerians are from 3500 BC. The Sumerian civilization PREDATE their writing system by thousands of years.


Yamnaya evolved from Maykop 'kurgan' culture. Maykop 'kurgan' culture is older than Yamnaya. The Maykop culture gave birth to the Yamnaya culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture

BUT the original / early PIE of the Leyla-Tepe culture predate also the Maykop culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture



the Sumerian culture:
Tell Halaf period: 6100 BCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Halaf
Hassuna culture: 6000 BCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassuna_culture
Ubaid period: 5300 BCE
Uruk Period: 4100 BCE





About PIE

the Leyla-Tepe culture : 4500 - 4350 BCE - early (*original*) PIE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture
the Maykop culture : 4000 BCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture
the Yamnaya culture : 3,500 BCE - late PIE



Also, the Neolithic farmer DNA in the Steppes and East Asia is mostly from the source, the origin of those Neolithic farmers and that origin is in West Asia!

----------


## johen

> Dude, what the hell are you talking about?


i JUST SAID: 

- If ANE people migrated from Iran plateu to Yamna around 3,500 BC, sumer and yamna culture* would* be similar.




> _“_Prehistorically, the Sumerians were not aboriginal to Mesopotamia_,_ they had arrived apparently c.*3500 B.C*._ to find the river lands already accupied by an advanced Neolithic, farming and cattle-raising population known to science as the Ubaidian (also, Proto-Euphratean), [...].” (Joseph Campbell, The Mythic Dimension, New World Library, 2008, p.122)"_




- *So the following route would be correct and botai would play a great role in Yamna and (sumer?)
*
NO MORE ASSUMPTION

----------


## Goga

Botai what????? 

Can we consider those primitives as culture?


High advanced Mesopotamian Tell Halaf & Hassuna predate Botai by thousands of years.

Even what I do consider early PIE ancestral to Yamnaya, the Leyla-Tepe culture, predate Botai by thousands of years.




Btw, the Tell Halaf *8000* years old culture is located in the native homeland of my paternal Y-DNA haplogroup R1a*. 

As an Ezdi Kurd my paternal (tribe) roots are in Shingal, Kurdistan.

I'm sure that my personal hg. *R1a** has something to do with Tell Halaf culture.

"_It has been known for some time that the Sinjar valley belonged to the Northern Ubaid culture. In the Sinjar plain, where Tell Hamoukar is located, civilizations are known to have existed many centuries earlier (Hassuna, Halaf, Ubaid). More than 200 sites are known._"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raq/sinjar.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamoukar

----------


## Goga

> i JUST SAID: 
> 
> - If ANE people migrated from Iran plateu to Yamna around 3,500 BC, sumer and yamna culture* would* be similar.
> 
> - *So the following route would be correct and botai would play a great role in Yamna and (sumer?)*
> NO MORE ASSUMPTION


ANE auDNA on the Iranian Plateau and in North Caucasus is much older than 3500BC. ANE auDNA existed on the Iranian Plateau and in the North Caucasus thousands of years BEFORE the Yamnaya culture ever existed. It predates late PIE in the Yamnaya and has nothing to do with PIE...


However there're connections between the Leyla-Tepe culture, the Mesoptamian cultures, Makop culture and the Yamnaya Horzion culture.

----------


## johen

> Botai what????? 
> 
> Can we consider those primitives as culture?
> 
> 
> High advanced Mesopotamian Tell Halaf & Hassuna predate Botai by thousands of years.
> 
> Even what I do consider early PIE ancestral to Yamnaya, the Leyla-Tepe culture, predate Botai by thousands of years.
> 
> ...


are you a teen?

----------


## Goga

> are you a teen?


No, I'm 30+


*About the Leyla-Tepe culture:*

linked to the Mesopotamian cultures (5500BCE):
"_The culture has also been linked to the north Ubaid period monuments, in particular, with the settlements in the Eastern Anatolia Region. The settlement is of a typical Western-Asian variety, with the dwellings packed closely together and made of mud bricks with smoke outlets._"


linked to Maykop (proto-Yamnaya) culture (4000BCE). Maykop kurgan culture is ancestral to the Yamnaya Horzion culture:
"_It has been suggested that the Leyla-Tepe were the founders of the Maykop culture. An expedition to Syria by the Russian Academy of Sciences revealed the similarity of the Maykop and Leyla-Tepe artifacts with those found recently while excavating the ancient city of Tel Khazneh I, from the 4th millennium BC._"

http://www.theinfolist.com/php/Summa...maykop_culture

----------


## Goga

Always remember and NEVER forget that Maykop culture was founded by the Leyla-Tepe culture. Horses and some of the earliest wagon wheels has been found in the kurgans of the Maykop culture:


" _HORSE BREEDING

_
_The Maykop people lived sedentary lives, and horses formed a very low percentage of their livestock, which mostly consisted of pigs and cattle. Archaeologists have discovered a unique form of bronze cheek-pieces, which consists of a bronze rod with a twisted loop in the middle and a thread through her nodes that connects with bridle, halter strap and headband. Notches and bumps on the edges of the cheek-pieces were, apparently, to fix nose and under-lip belts. 

_
*Some of the earliest wagon wheels in the world are found in Maykop culture area. The two solid wooden wheels from the kurgan of Starokorsunskaya in the Kuban region have been dated to the second half of the fourth millennium.* " 



_IRANIAN ORIGINS
_
_A more recent suggestion, by Mariya Ivanova, is the Maikop origins were on the Iranian Plateau:_ 
_ "Graves and settlements of the 5th millennium BC in North Caucasus attest to a material culture that was related to contemporaneous archaeological complexes in the northern and western Black Sea region. Yet it was replaced, suddenly as it seems, around the middle of the 4th millennium BC by a “high culture” whose origin is still quite unclear. This archaeological culture named after the great Maikop kurgan showed innovations in all areas which have no local archetypes and which cannot be assigned to the tradition of the Balkan-Anatolian Copper Age. The favoured theory of Russian researchers is a migration from the south originating in the Syro-Anatolian area, which is often mentioned in connection with the socalled “Uruk expansion”. However, serious doubts have arisen about a connection between Maikop and the Syro-Anatolian region. THE FOREIGN OBJECTS IN THE NORTH CAUCASUS REVEAL NO CONNECTION TO THE UPPER REACHES OF THE EUPHRATES AND TIGRIS OR TO THE FLOODPLAINS OF MESOPOTAMIA, BUT RATHER SEEM TO HAVE TIES TO THE IRANIAN PLATEAU AND TO SOUTH CENTRAL ASIA. Recent excavations in the Southwest Caspian Sea region are enabling a new perspective about the interactions between the “Orient” and Continental Europe. On the one hand, it is becoming gradually apparent that a gigantic area of interaction evolved already in the early 4th millennium BC which extended far beyond Mesopotamia; on the other hand, these findings relativise the traditional importance given to Mesopotamia, because innovations originating in Iran and Central Asia obviously spread throughout the Syro-Anatolian region independently thereof"_ 



http://www.theinfolist.com/php/Summa...maykop_culture

----------


## Goga

I'm just getting tired & sick of the inferiority complex of some folks. The original PIE language was not NATIVE to Europe. The native European folks spoke a different non-IE language and got Indo-Europized. Period!

The science (DNA (migation of R1b from West Asia + West Asian auDNA), archeology (architecture, pottery, artifacts, horse cheek-pieces; Maykop kurgans vs. Yamnaya kurgans), linguistics (ergativity in proto-Iranic (Kurdish, old Persian etc.) and proto-Indic (+current) etc.)) has destroyed racism that is rooted in the inferiority complex, insecurity, hate and fear, FEAR!


Tell Halaf: 6100 BCE ((Anunnaki, alien/extraterrestrial origin??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anunnaki)  :Thinking:  :Grin:   :Laughing:  (I believe also the Iranian Plateau origin.)
Hassuna: 6000 BCE
Ubaid: 5500 BCE (Leyla-Tepe/Iranian origin - http://www.theinfolist.com/php/Summa...maykop_culture)
Leyla-Tepe: 4500 - 4350 BCE
Uruk: 4100 BCE (Leyla-Tepe/Iranian origin)
Maykop: 4000 BCE (Leyla-Tepe/Iranian origin)
Yamnaya: 3500 BCE (Maykop origin)


Time to move on...!

----------


## johen

> 1. Domestication of horses occured thousands of years before 3500 BC. Even earlier than *7000*BC !!! http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14658678


just counter argue against what I argue now. Not the other factors like your ancestor's great history, which will be challenged after I research. ok?

My Argument 1: I cannot find any source to accept as a fact, the article(2011) regarding horse domestication 7000bc.

However,  every sources I researched were the same as follows:




> However, an increasing amount of evidence supports the hypothesis that horses were domesticated in the Eurasian Steppesapproximately 3500 BCE;[1][2][3] recent discoveries in the context of the Botai culture suggest that Botai settlements in the Akmola Province ofKazakhstan are the location of the earliest domestication of the horse


 

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

----------


## Goga

> just counter argue against what I argue now. Not the other factors like your ancestor's great history, which will be challenged after I research. ok?
> 
> My Argument 1: I cannot find any source to accept as a fact, the article regarding horse domestication 7000bc.
> 
> However,  every sources I researched were the same as follows:
> 
>  
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse


Which sources? You're looking for the wrong sources.

Well that wiki article is plain wrong and deliberately ignoring the findings of horse domestication in Arabia 9000 years ago. Or even ignoring Maykop findings. Since when is wiki the most evidence-based source of knowledge? Everybody can write in that article. And it's wrong.


But hey, using the same wiki source it is also written on the Maykop page:


" _Horse breeding

The Maykop people lived sedentary lives, and horses formed a very low percentage of their livestock, which mostly consisted of pigs and cattle. Archaeologists have discovered a unique form of bronze cheek-pieces, which consists of a bronze rod with a twisted loop in the middle and a thread through her nodes that connects with bridle, halter strap and headband. Notches and bumps on the edges of the cheek-pieces were, apparently, to fix nose and under-lip belts.__[5]
_
_Radiocarbon dates for various monuments of the Maykop culture are from 3950 - 3650 - 3610 - 2980 calBC "_

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

It is originally from this book: _Мунчаев Р. М. Бронзовые псалии майкопской культуры и проблема возникновения коневодства на Кавказе,«Кавказ и Восточная Европа в древности», М.,1973._



Maykop is *older* than Botai. And there was already horse-breeding in the Maykop culture *before* Botai. Maykop domesticated already horses before Botai.

Maykop = 4000 BCE (radiocarbon dates one of the extant monuments to 3950 BCE), same age as Uruk in Mesopotamia
Botai horses = 3500 BCE




But FIRST domestication of horses is even much older than Maykop. The oldest known to us *yet*, is 9000 years ago.


“_This discovery shows that horses were domesticated in the Arabian Peninsula for the first time more than 9,000 years ago,” said al-Ghabban. “Previous studies estimated the domestication of horses in Central Asia dating back 5,000 years._”




http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...domestication/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sa...77N5TL20110824



“ _The al-Maqar civilisation is a very advanced civilization of the Neolithic period. This site shows us clearly, the roots of the domestication of horses 9,000 years ago,” he added._ "




http://ancient-cultures.info/attachm...W_al_Magar.pdf

----------


## johen

> Which sources? You're looking for the wrong sources.


hey, I found good one.

*Prehistoric genomes reveal the genetic foundation and cost of horse domestication(0ct/2014)*



> The domestication of the horse *revolutionized* warfare, trade, and the exchange of people and ideas. This at least 5,500-y-long process, which ultimately transformed wild horses into the hundreds of breeds living today, is difficult to reconstruct from archeological data and modern genetics alone. 
> 
> The domestication of the horse ∼5.5 kya and the emergence of mounted riding, chariotry, and cavalry dramatically transformed human civilization. However, the genetics underlying horse domestication are difficult to reconstruct, given the near extinction of wild horses. We therefore sequenced two ancient horse genomes from Taymyr, Russia (at 7.4- and 24.3-fold coverage), both predating the earliest archeological evidence of domestication.


http://www.pnas.org/content/111/52/E5661.abstract

----------


## Goga

> hey, I found good one.
> 
> *Prehistoric genomes reveal the genetic foundation and cost of horse domestication(0ct/2014)*
> 
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/111/52/E5661.abstract


Bro, is this a joke? They say nothing about the Botai. I read the article and it's stated nowhere that horse domestication started in Kazakhstan (among proto-Turkic Botai people).

Maykop is older than Botai. It is possible that Maykop culture introduced horse domestication to proto-Turkic Botai people.

It's quite possible that R1b folks from Maykop who migrated into the Yamnaya Horizon introduced horse domestication in the Steppes very early in history. Or horse domestication could be introduced from the Iranian Plateau in the Steppes earlier via the eastern side of the Caspian Sea.

Also, they only tested the Russian horses, while we have proof that horses also existed in SouthWest Asia many thousands of years ago. And they even conclude that Russian 'wild' horses are not even directly related to the 'domesticated' horses. That means that the first horses that were domesticated were NOT the wild 'Russian' one, but distantly related to them. *Modern domesticated horses are NOT native to Russia*. So it quit possible that the domesticated horses in the Steppes came from the Iranian Plateau or much further away.


And look what they wrote, that* "the earliest potential evidence for horse domestication could be ca. 7.5 kya."* (page 1-2). That's thousands of years before Botai!


" _Przewalski’s horse, the last truly wild horse population remaining today, is not the direct ancestor of domesticated horses (7, 8). Instead, it likely represents a sister population that separated from the ancestral population of domesticated horses some 38–72 kya (9). This date significantly predates not only the widely accepted date for the beginning of horse domestication, ca. 5.5 kya (2), but also the earliest potential evidence for horse domestication, ca. 7.5 kya (10). In addition, the current Przewalski’s horse population descends from a captive stock consisting of only 13 founder individuals (7). This severe demographic bottleneck, together with inbreeding resulting from unequal contributions from different captive lineages, likely caused a substantial loss of the diversity once present in Przewalski’s horses. As a result, no modern horse population can fully represent the genetic diversity ancestral to the modern, domesticated gene pool (11–13)._ "

----------


## Alan

Some people just don't use logic.

R Haplogroups are ultimately connected to ANE like ancestry.

EHG has ~40% ANE like ancestry.
CHG has ~35% ANE like ancestry.

Think about this for a minute.

----------


## MOESAN

ANE is a grouping of genes present at some times and in some places, and surely shared long ago by a lot of tribes, between Siberia and South central Asia and Eastern Europe. Concerning the I-Ean concretion, surely recent enough, we cannot rely only on this element; and are all these populations rich today in ANE sharing the same elements of primitive ANE? I don't know. Maybe I'm not logical?

----------


## Alan

> ANE is a grouping of genes present at some times and in some places, and surely shared long ago by a lot of tribes, between Siberia and South central Asia and Eastern Europe. Concerning the I-Ean concretion, surely recent enough, we cannot rely only on this element; and are all these populations rich today in ANE sharing the same elements of primitive ANE? I don't know. Maybe I'm not logical?


Davidski argues that the "ANE" like ancestry in CHG is not just shared ancestry but real ANE admixture. We know that WHG is connected to Haplogroup I predominantly.

So if the Samara EHG did not get their R* Haplogroups from their WHG side than they must have got it from their ANE ancestry, supportive for this hypothesis is the fact that we have found R* Haplogroup in a ANE individual from Siberia 20000 years ago. 

The fact that there is more ANE in some South_Central Asian populations than Indo European ancestry itself only proves that pre Indo Europeans there must have been a very ANE like paleolithic popultion in South_Central Asia and likely on the Iranian Plateau prior to Indo Europeans. That brings me to the conclusion that there should also be R Haplogroups which predate the Indo European expansion.

Another thing that it proves to me is, that if the ANE in CHG is real admixture rather than shared ancestry, than we will most likely find R Haplogroups in some CHG samples. How else could the ANE have ended up in the CHG population? So if they claim the CHG population did not have any R Haplogroups among them than those guys are simply contradicting themselves. Either the ANE in CHG is real, than it must have come via ANE migration. Or are we going to argue that wild Herders from the Caucasus kidnapped ANE wives now? This whole Wive Kidnapping exchanging nonsense is getting ridiculous. 

But if they claim the CHG were entirely J Haplogroup and did not have any Rs among them, than ANE in CHG can't be real admixture but is only shared ancestry, because Haplogroup J is the brotherclade of I (UHG-WHG) and only afterwards with K.

I tend to the first option. Simply out of the logic that populations very high in CHG have very basal and diverse kinds clades of R Haplogroups.

As I said in the past in my very first posts and it seems my theory has been confirmed with all this.


In the Near East we are dealing with two or maybe even three ancient groups. One is EF (Anatolian_Levant farmers). The other are Caucaus-Iranian Plateau herders, who were a mix of something similar to EF and an ANE like group and became "CHG". 

EF on itself is a group that appeared after two more ancient populations (Basal Eurasian and Proto UHG_WHG) merged.

A third group might be a Arabian type farmer population around NorthEast Africa or Arabia that appeared during late Neolithic when EF groups absorbed some [10-15%) Sub Saharan DNA.

----------


## johen

> --> I think horse domestication and horse riding was revolution around 3,500bc, like a train in industrial revolution and modern internet to concur a distance between humans





> _The domestication of the horse revolutionized warfare, trade, and the exchange of people and ideas. This at least 5,500-y-long process, which ultimately transformed wild horses into the hundreds of breeds living today, is difficult to reconstruct from archeological data and modern genetics alone. 
> _The domestication of the horse ∼5.5 kya and the emergence of mounted riding, chariotry, and cavalry dramatically transformed human civilization._ However, the genetics underlying horse domestication are difficult to reconstruct, given the near extinction of wild horses. We therefore sequenced two ancient horse genomes from Taymyr, Russia (at 7.4- and 24.3-fold coverage), both predating the earliest archeological evidence of domestication._


http://www.pnas.org/content/111/52/E5661.abstract

---> Now, when to ride on horse?




> *Evidence for Riding in the Fourth Millennium BC*
> The Botai culture in northern Kazakhstan is named after the site of Botai, where 99% of 300,000 recovered animal bones were from horses. Botai was a culture of foragers that rode horses to hunt horses, a peculiar adaptation found only here and only between about 3600-3000 BCE


http://users.hartwick.edu/anthonyd/h...orsepower.html

----------


## MOESAN

@Alan
Logic post, at first sight; what I lack to be sure? more Y haplo's of CHG people, and admixture runs of them, some with 'gedrosia' some with ANE. Admixtures with the same internal logic and same period, not the curious proxis provided by some forumers or bloggers. Maybe have you data I lack?

----------


## xiaodragon

Wang Chuan Chao: 2018

Recent ancient DNA studies have enabled the resolution of several long-standing questions regarding cultural and population transformations in prehistory. One of these is the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Europe, which saw a change from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a sedentary, food-producing subsistence strategy. Genome-wide data from pre-farming and farming communities have identified distinct ancestral populations that largely reflect subsistence patterns in addition to geography25. One important feature is a cline of European hunter-gatherer (HG) ancestry that runs roughly from West to East (hence WHG and EHG; blue component in Fig. 2A, 2C), which differs greatly from the ancestry of Early European farmers that in turn is closely related to that of northwest Anatolian farmers, and more remotely also to pre-farming individuals from the Levant. The Near East and Anatolia have long been seen as the regions from which European farming and animal husbandry emerged. Surprisingly, these regions harboured three divergent populations, with Anatolian and Levantine ancestry in the western part and a group with a distinct ancestry in the eastern part first described in Upper Pleistocene individuals from Georgia (Caucasus hunter-gatherers; CHG) and then in Mesolithic and Neolithic individuals from Iran. The following two millennia, spanning from the Neolithic to Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods in each region, witnessed migration and admixture between these ancestral groups, leading to a pattern of genetic homogenization and reduced genetic distances between these Neolithic source populations. In parallel, Eneolithic individuals from the Samara region (5200-4000 BCE) also exhibit population mixture, specifically EHG- and CHG/Iranian ancestry, a combination that forms the so-called ‘steppe-ancestry’. This ancestry eventually spread further west, where it contributed substantially to the ancestry of present- day Europeans, and east to the Altai region as well as to South Asia. 

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/05/16/322347.full.pdf

----------


## xiaodragon

still quoting from Wang Chuan chao's 2018 article: the Yamnaya :
Using qpAdm with Globular Amphora as a proximate surrogate population (assuming that a related group was the source of the Anatolian farmer-related ancestry), we estimated the contribution of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry into Yamnaya and other steppe groups. We find that Yamnaya individuals from the Volga region (Yamnaya Samara) have 13.2±2.7% and Yamnaya individuals in Hungary 17.1±4.1% Anatolian farmer-related ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Table 18)– statistically indistinguishable proportions. Replacing Globular Amphora by Iberia Chalcolithic, for instance, does not alter the results profoundly (Supplementary Table 19). This suggests that the source population was a mixture of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry and a minimum of 20% WHG ancestry, a profile that is shared by many Middle/Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic individuals from Europe of the 3rd millennium BCE analyzed thus far.

----------


## xiaodragon

From Wang chuanchao 2018 article : 

We were surprised to discover that Steppe Maykop individuals from the eastern desert steppes harboured a distinctive ancestry component that relates them to Upper Palaeolithic Siberian individuals (AG3, MA1) and Native Americans. This is exemplified by the more commonly East Asian features such as the derived EDAR allele, which has also been observed in EHG from Karelia and Scandinavian hunter- gatherers (SHG). The additional affinity to East Asians suggests that this ancestry 640 does not derive directly from Ancestral North Eurasians but from a yet-to-be- identified ancestral population in north-central Eurasia with a wide distribution between the Caucasus, the Ural Mountains and the Pacific coast, of which we have discovered the so far southwestern-most and also youngest (e.g. the Lola culture individual) genetic representative.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

We're stuck with the most pathetic researchers, what a shame. How many more years will we have to wait for something they can test and publish in the space of months?

----------


## Silesian

> We're stuck with the most pathetic researchers, what a shame. How many more years will we have to wait for something they can test and publish in the space of months?


Ancient genomes belong to all humankind. They should be made public for all in the interest of human origins as soon as the results are verified. People can write, peer review, politics, in their own spheres of influence/interest.

----------


## xiaodragon

> ANE auDNA on the Iranian Plateau and in North Caucasus is much older than 3500BC. ANE auDNA existed on the Iranian Plateau and in the North Caucasus thousands of years BEFORE the Yamnaya culture ever existed. It predates late PIE in the Yamnaya and has nothing to do with PIE...
> 
> However there're connections between the Leyla-Tepe culture, the Mesoptamian cultures, Makop culture and the Yamnaya Horzion culture.



Interestingly, ancient DNA evidence suggests that haplogroup R1b – the current dominant lineage in western Europe – did not reach high frequencies until after the European Neolithic period as given in Lacan _et al_26, 27 and Pinhasi _et al._28
In sum, our results support the hypothesis of a Southeast Asian/Oceanian center for the diversification of Oceanian K-haplogroup lineages and underscore the potential importance of Southeast Asia as a source of genetic variation for Eurasian populations. We propose that the patterns of Y-chromosome variation in the K haplogroup reflect a process of population fragmentation, likely associated with the early expansion of modern human populations into island Southeast Asia, and possibly also with rapidly changing sea levels,29 followed by a subsequent dispersal from the same area. While limited in their inferential power, our results warrant the exploration of a demographic model that includes a population expansion from island Southeast Asia into mainland Asia.

----------


## xiaodragon

Because the phylogenetic structure of haplogroup R is characterized by several consecutive basal splitting events leading to tip branches that are currently observed only outside Africa, it is extremely unlikely that haplogroup R diversified in Africa. Similarly, the phylogenetic structure of haplogroup K-M526 shows consecutive branching events (M526, P331 and P295), which appear to have rapidly diversified. With the exception of P-P27, all of the descendant lineages are located today in Southeast Asia and Oceania: K-M526*, K-P402, K-P261 and NO are the lineages most closely related to haplogroup K-P331, K-P397 is the sister lineage of P-P295 and the P-P295* lineages are the closest relatives of haplogroup P-P27 (Figure 1b). This pattern leads us to hypothesize a southeastern Asian origin for P-P295 and a later expansion of the ancestor of subhaplogroups R and Q into mainland Asia.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4326703/*Improved phylogenetic resolution and rapid diversification of Y-chromosome haplogroup K-M526 in Southeast Asia*

----------


## xiaodragon

*Between Lake Baikal and the Baltic Sea: 
genomic history of the gateway to Europe.*https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29297395

*Abstract**BACKGROUND:*The history of human populations occupying the plains and mountain ridges separating Europe from Asia has been eventful, as these natural obstacles were crossed westward by multiple waves of Turkic and Uralic-speaking migrants as well as eastward by Europeans. Unfortunately, the material records of history of this region are not dense enough to reconstruct details of population history. These considerations stimulate growing interest to obtain a genetic picture of the demographic history of migrations and admixture in Northern Eurasia.
*RESULTS:*We genotyped and analyzed 1076 individuals from 30 populations with geographical coverage spanning from Baltic Sea to Baikal Lake. Our dense sampling allowed us to describe in detail the population structure, provide insight into genomic history of numerous European and Asian populations, and significantly increase quantity of genetic data available for modern populations in region of North Eurasia. Our study doubles the amount of genome-wide profiles available for this region. We detected unusually high amount of shared identical-by-descent (IBD) genomic segments between several Siberian populations, such as Khanty and Ket, providing evidence of genetic relatedness across vast geographic distances and between speakers of different language families. Additionally, we observed excessive IBD sharing between Khanty and Bashkir, a group of Turkic speakers from Southern Urals region. While adding some weight to the "Finno-Ugric" origin of Bashkir, our studies highlighted that the Bashkir genepool lacks the main "core", being a multi-layered amalgamation of Turkic, Ugric, Finnish and Indo-European contributions, which points at intricacy of genetic interface between Turkic and Uralic populations. Comparison of the genetic structure of Siberian ethnicities and the geography of the region they inhabit point at existence of the "Great Siberian Vortex" directing genetic exchanges in populations across the Siberian part of Asia. Slavic speakers of Eastern Europe are, in general, very similar in their genetic composition. Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians have almost identical proportions of Caucasus and Northern European components and have virtually no Asian influence. We capitalized on wide geographic span of our sampling to address intriguing question about the place of origin of Russian Starovers, an enigmatic Eastern Orthodox Old Believers religious group relocated to Siberia in seventeenth century. A comparative reAdmix analysis, complemented by IBD sharing, placed their roots in the region of the Northern European Plain, occupied by North Russians and Finno-Ugric Komi and Karelian people. Russians from Novosibirsk and Russian Starover exhibit ancestral proportions close to that of European Eastern Slavs, however, they also include between 5 to 10 % of Central Siberian ancestry, not present at this level in their European counterparts.
*CONCLUSIONS:*Our project has patched the hole in the genetic map of Eurasia: we demonstrated complexity of genetic structure of Northern Eurasians, existence of East-West and North-South genetic gradients, and assessed different inputs of ancient populations into modern populations.

----------


## xiaodragon

> According to Underhill (2014) hg. R1a is from Kurdistan!
> 
> 
> " _Origin of hg R1a
> 
> To infer the geographic origin of hg R1a-M420, we identified populations harboring at least one of the two most basal haplogroups and possessing high haplogroup diversity. Among the 120 populations with sample sizes of at least 50 individuals and with at least 10% occurrence of R1a, just 6 met these criteria, and 5 of these 6 populations reside in modern-day Iran. Haplogroup diversities among the six populations ranged from 0.78 to 0.86 (Supplementary Table 4). Of the 24 R1a-M420*(xSRY10831.2) chromosomes in ourdata set, 18 were sampled in Iran and 3 were from eastern Turkey. Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2* (xM417__/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus. Owing to the prevalenceof basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a._ "
> 
> http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg201450a.html


The book of :山海经（tentatively translated into Classics of Mountains and Seas " has documented the settlements all the way from China ,from the south route ,into Iran , and Anatolia . It is the 4th line of mountains that make up all the landmarks over this route . It is an ancient document, the oldest geographic and population record in ancient times.

----------


## xiaodragon

The *Mal'ta–Buret' culture* is an archaeological culture of the Upper Paleolithic (c. 24,000 to 15,000 BP) on the upper Angara River in the area west of Lake Baikal in the Irkutsk Oblast, Siberia, Russian Federation. The type sites are named for the villages of *Mal'ta* (Мальта́), Usolsky District and *Buret'*  (Буреть), Bokhansky District (both in Irkutsk Oblast).A boy whose remains were found near Mal'ta is usually known by the abbreviation *MA-1* (or MA1). Discovered in the 1920s, the remains have been dated to 24,000 BP. According to research published since 2013, MA-1 belonged to a population related to the genetic ancestors of Siberians, American Indians, and Bronze Age Yamnaya people of the Eurasian steppe.[1][2] In particular, modern-day Native Americans, Kets, Mansi, Nganasans and Yukaghirs have been found to harbour a lot of ancestry related to MA-1.[3]

The location : 52° 54′ 0″ N, 103° 30′ 0″ E, is well into East Siberia, and somehow , in a recent paper (Fu Qiaomei as first author, ), this sample is listed as European Ice age sample . I wonder why so far east a sample would be considered to represent European ancestry ? How the location of the sample is to be characterized as Europe , but no Eurasia , at least , not to say East Asia ? The demarcation of Europe and Asia on the northern part of Eurasia is supposedly the Ural mountain , which stands at E 60. The Malta 1 is discovered all the way to the E 103, far well into the East Siberia and into East Asia . Is the location of the DNA sample follows such a dividing line ? '

----------


## xiaodragon

*Haploid lineages* https://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-malta-adna-findings.html


The Mal'ta boy, MA-1, carried distinct *yDNA R** and *mtDNA U** lineages. While both are clearly related to those dominant in Europe and parts of Asia (West, South) nowadays, they are also distinct from any specific dominant lineage today.


R* (yDNA) is neither R1 nor R2 but another distinct branch of R. This kind of R(xR1, R2) is most rare today and found mostly in and around NW South Asia. Following Wikipedia, this "other R" is found in:
10.3% among the Burusho6.8% among the Kalash3.4% among the Gujarati
However I must say that I recall from old discussions that some R(xR1) is also found among Mongols and some North American Natives. I would have to find the relevant studies though (maybe in an update).


U* (mtDNA) is also quite rare today but has been found in Swabian Magdalenian hunter-gatherers, as well as in some Neolithic samples, although it may well be a totally different kind of U* (I could not discern the specific markers in the paper nor the supplementary materials and it must be reminded that the asterisk only means "others").

----------


## xiaodragon

It seems that there exist different ideas of where the Continent of Asia starts, and where the continent of Europe ends. In the northern part of the Eurasia , the Ural mountain range has for quite sometime formed the dividing line between Asia and Europe . Therefore , it is very surprising that Fu Qiaomei would list the samples from Ust-Ishim Man , AG sample and Malta boy as European . The positions of them are : Ust -Ishim E.71, Malta E.193, AG both E 92. Could we get agreement where to draw the line that separate Asia and Europe , so the ancient history is not clouded by the shifting line in the sands?

----------


## xiaodragon

or , I am missing something, that is , Fu Qiaomei 's desicion of listing samples from Ust-Ishim, Malta and Afontova Gora is based on different standard , but not according to its geographical location .

----------


## xiaodragon

What is the genetic relationship between the Hg R* and Hg R1, and the rest of the down stream lines ? I know they are distinctive from each other . What does exactly 'distinct ly different ' mean ? Is Maltar1 gives rise to all the descendants of R ?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4326703/
Although K-M526 was previously characterized by a single polytomy of eight major branches, the phylogenetic structure of haplogroup K-M526 is now resolved into four major subclades (K2a–d). The largest of these subclades, K2b, is divided into two clusters: K2b1 and K2b2. K2b1 combines the previously known haplogroups M, S, K-P60 and K-P79, whereas K2b2 comprises haplogroups P and its subhaplogroups Q and R. Interestingly, the monophyletic group formed by haplogroups R and Q, which make up the majority of paternal lineages in Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, represents the only subclade with K2b that is not geographically restricted to Southeast Asia and Oceania. Estimates of the interval times for the branching events between M9 and P295 point to an initial rapid diversification process of K-M526 that likely occurred in Southeast Asia, with subsequent westward expansions of the ancestors of haplogroups R and Q.

----------


## xiaodragon

Although K-M526 was previously characterized by a single polytomy of eight major branches, the phylogenetic structure of haplogroup K-M526 is now resolved into four major subclades (K2a–d). The largest of these subclades, K2b, is divided into two clusters: K2b1 and K2b2. K2b1 combines the previously known haplogroups M, S, K-P60 and K-P79, whereas K2b2 comprises haplogroups P and its subhaplogroups Q and R. Interestingly, the monophyletic group formed by haplogroups R and Q, which make up the majority of paternal lineages in Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, represents the only subclade with K2b that is not geographically restricted to Southeast Asia and Oceania. Estimates of the interval times for the branching events between M9 and P295 point to an initial rapid diversification process of K-M526 that likely occurred in Southeast Asia, with subsequent westward expansions of the ancestors of haplogroups R and Q.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4326703/

----------


## Bethanyorera

I really want to know the origin of these patterns, it looks kinda celtic, but i would love if the devs told where they got this idea from. I want a tattoo on my arm so i'm looking for some patterns on the internet and this one really caught my eye.

----------

