# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics >  101 Ancient Eurasian Genomes Available Online

## Fire Haired14

No paper has been published, but all 101 Ancient Eurasian Genomes are available. We won't know what era and location each genome comes from until the paper is published. Emails have been sent to Felix, and others will probably analysis them. 

http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB9021

Here are the eras and locations samples may be coming from according to Davidski.

- Late Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age remains from Germany, Poland and/or Scandinavia
- Copper, Bronze and Iron Age remains from Bulgaria
- Bronze and/or Iron Age remains from Hungary
- Sintashta from Kazakhstan
- Maikop from Russia
- Yamnaya from Russia
- Afanasevo from Russia

Use this link to find when the paper is published.

http://www.nature.com/nature/researc...-sciences.html


Abstract



> The Bronze Age (BA) of Eurasia (c. 3,000-1,000 years BC, 3-1 ka BC) was a period of major cultural changes. Earlier hunter-gathering and farming cultures in Europe and Asia were replaced by cultures associated with completely new perceptions and technologies inspired by early urban civilization. It remains debated if these cultural shifts simply represented the circulation of ideas or resulted from large-scale human migrations, potentially also facilitating the spread of Indo-European languages and certain phenotypic traits. To investigate this and the role of BA in the formation of Eurasian genetic structure, we used new methodological improvements to sequence low coverage genomes from 101 ancient humans (19 > 1X average depth) covering 3 ka BC to 600 AD from across Eurasia. 
> 
> *We show that around 3 ka BC, Central and Northern Europe and Central Asia receive genetic input through people related to the Yamnaya Culture from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, resulting in the formation of the Corded Ware Culture in Europe and the Afanasievo Culture in Central Asia. A thousand years later, genetic input from North-Central Europe into Central Asia gives rise to the Sintashta and Andronovo Cultures. During the late BA and Iron Age, the European-derived populations in Asia are gradually replaced by multi-ethnic cultures, of which some relate to contemporary Asian groups, while others share recent ancestry with Native Americans.* 
> 
> Our findings are consistent with the hypothesised spread of Indo-European languages during early BA and reveal that major parts of the demographic structure of present-day Eurasian populations were shaped during this period. We also demonstrate that light skin pigmentation in Europeans was already present at high frequency during the BA, contrary to lactose tolerance, indicating a more recent onset of positive selection in the latter than previously believed.

----------


## arvistro

We know exactly which era and place genomes come from.
The very first one is Corded Ware Estonia.
Sample accession - attributes.

Kudos to Scandinavs for their social democratic approach!

----------


## Fire Haired14

> We know exactly which era and place genomes come from.
> The very first one is Corded Ware Estonia.
> Sample accession - attributes.
> 
> Kudos to Scandinavs for their social democratic approach!


Awesome. Thanks. I'm surprised one is from Estonia, that's in your neighborhood. Maybe it'll be high in WHG. The main ancestors of Balts though could have arrived later from further south.

----------


## arvistro

> Awesome. Thanks. I'm surprised one is from Estonia, that's in your neighborhood. Maybe it'll be high in WHG. The main ancestors of Balts though could have arrived later from further south.


We will know today.

----------


## bicicleur

would be interesting to know who these maykop people were
i guess they are different from yamnaya people

----------


## Fire Haired14

> We know exactly which era and place genomes come from.
> The very first one is Corded Ware Estonia.
> Sample accession - attributes.
> 
> Kudos to Scandinavs for their social democratic approach!


I don't see attributes as an option.

----------


## arvistro

Click on value for column sample accession.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Never mind arvistro I got it now.

----------


## Fire Haired14

I'm making a spreadsheet with the year, country, sex, site, and culture of every sample.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

----------


## Angela

"*A thousand years later, genetic input from North-Central Europe into Central Asia gives rise to the Sintashta and Andronovo Cultures. During the late BA and Iron Age, the European-derived populations in Asia are gradually replaced by multi-ethnic cultures, of which some relate to contemporary Asian groups, while others share recent ancestry with Native Americans."* 

I'll wait to see the paper, but I think this confirms what "Alan" on Anthrogenica (and others) were saying almost two years ago, which is that the route to the east didn't go directly from Yamnaya or even from nearby areas of eastern Europe, at least not for all of the migrations, but occurred later and with a slightly (or more than slightly) different group genetically.

----------


## Fluffy

Can't wait to see the results. Should be interesting.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Samples I didn't know where going to be in this study....

>Remedello culture from Italy. The oldest is from 2908-2578 BC and the youngest is from 2134-1773 BC. SOme are male, so we'll get Y DNA.
>Late Bronze age Montenegro. 

The rest are Armenian, a shit load of samples from Russia ranging Yamnya-Iron age, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Unetice, LN/BA Scandinavia, LN/BA Hungary. Stuff we've mostly already seen or have a good idea what the results will be.

The Remedello in Italy were chosen because they're suppose to be the earliest IEs of Italy, who gave rise to Italics(got that from Wikipedia), etc. I would rather have Pre-IE DNA from deep in Italy. A good guess is the males will turn out R1b-U152.

----------


## Fire Haired14

"Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14507.html

----------


## arvistro

I don't have access to text, but found the following quote:
Using D-statistics,
we find that Corded Ware and Yamnaya individuals form a clade to
the exclusion of Bronze Age Armenians (Extended Data Table 1)
showing that *the genetic ‘Caucasus component’ present in Bronze
Age Europe has a steppe origin rather than a southern Caucasus
origin.* Earlier studies have shown that southern Europeans received
substantial gene flow from Neolithic farmers during the Neolithic9
.
Despite being slightly later, we find that the Copper Age Remedello
culture in Italy does not have the ‘Caucasian’ genetic component and
is still clustering genetically with Neolithic farmers (Fig. 2; Extended
Data Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 6). Hence this region was either
unaffected by the Yamnaya expansion or the Remedello pre-dates
such an expansion into southern Europe. The ‘Caucasian’ component
is clearly present during Late Bronze Age in Montenegro (Fig. 2b).
*The close affinity we observe between peoples of Corded Ware and
Sintashta cultures (Extended Data Fig. 2a) suggests similar genetic
sources of the two, which contrasts with previous hypotheses placing
the origin of Sintastha in Asia or the Middle East28*. Although we
cannot formally test whether the Sintashta derives directly from an
eastward migration of Corded Ware peoples or if they share common
ancestry with an earlier steppe population, the presence of European
Neolithic farmer ancestry in both the Corded Ware and the Sintashta,
combined with the absence of Neolithic farmer ancestry in the earlier
Yamnaya, would suggest the former being more probable (Fig. 2b and
Extended Data Table 1).

----------


## Fire Haired14

I added Y DNA frequencies from Fig. 6. Note, It is possible some males didn't find their Y DNA haplogroup. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CIg__h0X8iGBGprX46hKEZGfG6bZhLlZToZSjw1lSns/edit?usp=sharing

----------


## Sile

As per the released study ...for Italy and The Remedello culture , it found for Remedello only:

yDna = I2 and I2a and I2b

Mtdna = H1 and J1 and X2


so Remedello, sardinia and Illyria are all from I2 and I2a ( and I2b as well )


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...re14507-s1.pdf

----------


## arvistro

Uniparental markers, from same article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...e14507-sf6.jpg
I2a + R1b in Yamna, with mtdna U4, U5, T1 (or T2 I cant differentiate this color). 
Bronze age Italy - I2 and I2a
I1 and I1a show up in Scandinavia bronze age.
Armenia R1b + E1b.

----------


## Garrick

> Uniparental markers, from same article:
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...e14507-sf6.jpg
> I2a + R1b in Yamna, with mtdna U4, U5, T1 (or T2 I cant differentiate this color). 
> Bronze age Italy - I2 and I2a
> I1 and I1a show up in Scandinavia bronze age.
> Armenia R1b + E1b.


I2a + R1b is logical, and for Italy I2 and I2a, also for Scandinavia I1 and I1a.

For Armenia R1b + E1b is logical too. I supposed this result when linked IE Proto Languages in Caucasus, but I had no evidence. Thanks a lot for this, reputation.

And today Armenians have significant R1b ht35 (Armenian haplotype).

----------


## Finalise

Can someone make a map of all this please? You can share it for other sites too. I'm tired of looking up the location of random Russian villages.

----------


## Fluffy

What the hell is Bahu? Bronze age...Hungary?

----------


## Vukodav

> Samples I didn't know where going to be in this study....
> 
> >Remedello culture from Italy. The oldest is from 2908-2578 BC and the youngest is from 2134-1773 BC. SOme are male, so we'll get Y DNA.
> >Late Bronze age Montenegro. 
> 
> The rest are Armenian, a shit load of samples from Russia ranging Yamnya-Iron age, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Unetice, LN/BA Scandinavia, LN/BA Hungary. Stuff we've mostly already seen or have a good idea what the results will be.
> 
> The Remedello in Italy were chosen because they're suppose to be the earliest IEs of Italy, who gave rise to Italics(got that from Wikipedia), etc. I would rather have Pre-IE DNA from deep in Italy. A good guess is the males will turn out R1b-U152.


Samples are from Remedello I (3400-2800 BC)

----------


## bicicleur

i could only read some fragments here and there

it seems R1 was replaced by J2 in Armenia and the steppe with the onset of the iron age
maybe that's why we did not find J2 in neolithic and bronze age Europe

i see only 1 E1b : baArm
the spread of E-V13 is still a mystery

it would have been helpfull to know the subclades of the I2 individuals
I2 = I2* , or test for subclades failed?

----------


## bicicleur

> Uniparental markers, from same article:
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...e14507-sf6.jpg
> I2a + R1b in Yamna, with mtdna U4, U5, T1 (or T2 I cant differentiate this color). 
> Bronze age Italy - I2 and I2a
> I1 and I1a show up in Scandinavia bronze age.
> Armenia R1b + E1b.


I wonder wether the I2 in Remedello was the same like the I2 in Yamnaya

----------


## Eldritch

> it would have been helpfull to know the subclades of the I2 individuals
> I2 = I2* , or test for subclades failed?


It's likely it's of the Sardinian variety, looking at autosomals Remedello were basically Sardinians.

----------


## sparkey

> it would have been helpfull to know the subclades of the I2 individuals
> I2 = I2* , or test for subclades failed?


I'm particularly interested in this. Both Yamna and Italy are just a little out of the range of the highest modern diversity of I2, so it's not an easy guess.

----------


## Arame

Phrygian Armenian comparison
From a small list of 14 Phrygian words the Armenian has cognates only for 4 words :)))

http://www.palaeolexicon.com/Phrygian

A good joke.

----------


## Johannes

> The idea that the Silures were Iberians is based on one piece of speculation by Tacitus. Placing them as another dark-complexioned people, like the Berbers as you do, doesn't have any precedence as far as I know.
> 
> My opinion is that the Silures were definitely Celts. Archaeology in the area settled by the Silures points to very similar patterns to other Brythonic Celts, like the use of British-style roundhouses. Modern Southeastern Welsh are genetically about as we would expect. They may be a local maximum for dark complexion, but IMO don't share many other phenotypic traits with non-British populations. There are also no notes, in Tacitus or otherwise, of the Silures speaking an unusual language, or having unusual cultural patterns (other than being warlike).


I have seen some peculiar Welsh people: one is the singer who had woolly hair like an Afro and was swarthy. What was his name? He did not look British at all.

Of course and I agree with you. I remember reading some classical author whom I forgot stating that Iberians had white skin but curly hair. However, when the Celts expanded to such an enormous area (all of Western Europe!) they absorbed many non-Celts and the adoption of Celtic was similar to what happened when the Romans invaded. What are the subclades of Silures? I am aware that Wales is 80% R1b. Is it all Celtic?

----------


## Johannes

> The Iberian language is probably from people who didn't have R1b1a2. R1b-L11 was obviously brought to Iberia from the east(originally Russia/Ukraine). Ancient DNA speaks for itself. If Iron age Iberians had R1b, which they probably did, it still came originally from the east. 
> 
> I say Iberians are an Iron age people, because that's the only time period we have prove they existed. Iberian is a language. Their language is what defines them. Their language could descend from Neolithic Iberians, or at least earlier than the Iron age. But we have no prove. It's all theory.


I think your conclusions are rather shaky at best. The Iberians were not Iron Age people: the Celts were. The Iberians migrated to "Iberia" around the end of the Neolithic and start of the Bronze Age (4000-2000 BCE). The evidence points more and more to a Proto-Celtic people. Forget the language: Celts never occupied eastern and southern Iberia -- yet its 60-80% R1b -- more than England! During the Muslim occupation many Iberians converted to Islam and were ethnically cleansed and R1b decreased in Andalusia (60%). But since we still have such high R1b DNA in Valencia and Catalonia then the evidence points to Iberians being proto Celts who had R1b DF-27 the most common marker found among Basques. I will go further and state that Basques are also a proto-Celtic people who have a lot of Neolithic DNA from the female side.

Here is what Wikipedia says: *"Origins[edit]*
Neolithic expansion.

Paleohispanic languages according to inscriptions (except Aquitanian - according toanthroponyms and theonyms used in Latininscriptions).
Iberian origins are not clear. However it is suggested that they arrived in Spain in the Neolithic period, with their arrival being dated from as early as the fifth millennium BC to the third millennium BC. Most scholars[_who?_] adhering to this theory believe from archaeological, anthropological and genetic evidence that the Iberians came from a region farther east in the Mediterranean. Others[_who?_] have suggested that they may have originated in North Africa."

----------


## Johannes

> _You ought to look again at your %s: Iberian Peninsula doesn't show higher %s of Y-R1b than overall France (except Basque country; common to both), at fist. and soemtimes ago in History Celtic languages occupied larger territories than genuine Iberians._


Yes it does -- well at least in Eupedia. Here are the overall results by Edupedia: Spain 70% R1b, England 67% R1b, Germany 45% R1b, and France at 59% R1b. 70% is almost pure or homogeneous. How did this massive R1b get there? I know the Reconquista expelled many Iberians and dramatically changed the genetic structure of Spain and Portugal.But if you bother to check the maps of Iberian settlement you will see they are in eastern and southern Iberia. YET the R1b results are almost identical. ONLY the Basque region is higher. 

here is a map to make my point more clear:

----------


## Johannes

> we need samples from the Iron Age to see if Germanic tribes invaded and expelled Bronze Age Poles, or never visited that area.
> 
> Another possibility is that Bronze Age "Poles" were first Germanized (in the Iron Age), and later Slavicized (in the Dark Ages).
> 
> And there was R1a continuity all the time, language changed, but actual migrations of people were not massive.
> 
> Anyway - it doesn't look like East Germanic tribes were R1a and later emigrated with that R1a, because there is almost no R1a in North Africa, Iberia, Italy, France, etc. - places to which East Germanic tribes allegedly came from Poland.
> 
> So either R1a people were expelled from Poland in the Iron Age, and later returned in the Dark Ages - or there was never actually a massive East Germanic immigration and later emigration from Poland to the Roman Empire.


There were never any "Poles" or Slavs west of the Vistula during the Iron Age. Its clear the Germanics occupied all of Poland west of the Vistula River by about 200 BCE. The Goths, Gepids, Heruli, Rugaii, Burgundians, Lombards, and Vandals all came from Sweden and occupied western Poland and other areas. Why is this skull study so important?? Its obvious the Slavs and Germans had similar skull structure and looked very similar during those days. They began to look different after the Turkic and Mongol invasions. That's were you should study for any difference.

There is almost no "Germanic" DNA in North Africa because the Vandals left it after they were defeated by the Byzantines to settle in Sardinia, Iberia, and Italy. In Iberia there is so little because they have never bothered to study a large sample. All they do is try small samples and make conclusions out of it. I dont know what you mean about France. The Goths lived there for about 100 years and left. And Italy had the Gothic Wars which decimated many Goths and most of the surviving Goths emigrated to Austria or Northern Italy.

----------


## LeBrok

> I will try to explain it.
> 
> Look see it that way. From ancient Armenia perspective (in the middle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those ancient samples on the more on the left side of the "ancient Armenia" cirlcle will have Italians/Greeks/Bulgarians as their top 10 fit. But the following ten (11-20) are the North Caucasian/Iranic groups.
> ...


I like your visualization method.

So far I would guess that Bronze Age Armenians came from Balkans or from the Steppe. Or whole Anatolia and Caucasus was more IE? We need more Near Eastern samples.

----------


## Sile

> No, it means "Other Italian". I misremembered; the outlier in that group had strangely high northeast Asian not SSA, so obviously admixed to some degree. Imo that group and its scores should be disregarded in any analysis of Italians.
> 
> Dodecad ProjectJune 22, 2011 at 1:34 AM
> _"O_Italian is Other Italian, and that is all due to a single individual that I am waiting to hear from to see whether he/she has any explanation for these results. I will also carry another data cleanup once I'm done with this, to detect submitted relatives or outliers that likely misreported their ancestry. This is part of the reason why I am not reporting raw averages at this time, as I have not cleaned up all the latest submissions.
> 
> Part of the (to be continued) involves visually inspecting the population portraits to catch outliers such as the one contributing the "Northeast Asian" in the O_Italian sample."_
> 
> 
> Makes sense now why "Other Italians" landed where they did.
> ...


wasn't the Dodecad rules that 5 samples equalled one of its naming titles ..............reference to O_Italian, North_Italian, TSI etc

Others use O_italian to represent Italians displaced from an area into Italy since the end of the Napoleonic wars to the end of WWII ................so, 90000+ from Istria, 40000+ from Dalmatia, north-tyrol, Swiss, Monaco, Nice ( the french Riviera) , Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, albania, Greece etc etc etc

----------


## Angela

QUOTE=LeBrok;459940]

So far I would guess that Bronze Age Armenians came from Balkans or from the Steppe. Or whole Anatolia and Caucasus was more IE? We need more Near Eastern samples.[/QUOTE]


It's possible that these ancient Armenian samples are the product of admixture between the earlier inhabitants and a movement of steppe people from the north, regardless of whether or not the steppe people were themselves formed by a prior movement of people north from this region. As to why there would be an "Atlanto-Med" component among them given this scenario, I'm not sure. EEF might have formed in Anatolia, not in Europe. Any additional WHG like genes in the area, when combined with that EEF might be seen by the calculator as "Atlantic-Med". I think we have to be cautious when using ADMIXTURE calculators derived from modern samples on more ancient people.

It's also possible, and _perhaps_ more likely that this represents steppe admixture from the Balkans. There is this assumption that the only proposed movement of Indo-European people into Anatolia from the Balkans took place rather late in the day with the speakers of the "Armenian" language. That isn't the case. The Anthony/Ringe model shows a movement of "Anatolian" speakers from the Balkans very early on, the first "break-away" group. The ancient Armenian samples, at least the earliest ones, or perhaps some of the more western ones, may represent the mixture of these people with the prior farming populations. This would neatly explain the "Atlanto-Med" element in them, and that, combined with the heterogeneity of the samples, may explain why a few of them cluster so close to the southern European populations. 
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Et6SS_bTFt...124812.f2.jpeg


I don't think these samples represent a population that went north to form the Yamnaya population. I'm not even sure that there _was_ a population that went directly north from this area to form the steppe people, whether it was a whole group or just female mediated gene flow. We need to see earlier Neolithic samples from this area and from Central Asia as well to get a sense of the direction of gene flow. 

Then, as LeBrok mentioned, we need an _early_ Anatolian farmer from around south-eastern Anatolia/the northern Levant, not just a Natufian ( the farmer from a later period in northwestern Anatolia will be helpful as well, but harder to interpret because it's later and so subject to different gene flows).

Oh, and we need samples from further west in Yamnaya and from the southeastern European Neolithic areas adjacent to them. I don't see how anything can really be said about the formation of later European groups until we have them

----------


## LeBrok

> It's possible that these ancient Armenian samples are the product of admixture between the earlier inhabitants and a movement of steppe people from the north, regardless of whether or not the steppe people were themselves formed by a prior movement of people north from this region. As to why there would be an "Atlanto-Med" component among them given this scenario, I'm not sure. EEF might have formed in Anatolia, not in Europe. Any additional WHG like genes in the area, when combined with that EEF might be seen by the calculator as "Atlantic-Med". I think we have to be cautious when using ADMIXTURE calculators derived from modern samples on more ancient people.
> 
> It's also possible, and _perhaps_ more likely that this represents steppe admixture from the Balkans. There is this assumption that the only proposed movement of Indo-European people into Anatolia from the Balkans took place rather late in the day with the speakers of the "Armenian" language. That isn't the case. The Anthony/Ringe model shows a movement of "Anatolian" speakers from the Balkans very early on, the first "break-away" group. The ancient Armenian samples, at least the earliest ones, or perhaps some of the more western ones, may represent the mixture of these people with the prior farming populations. This would neatly explain the "Atlanto-Med" element in them, and that, combined with the heterogeneity of the samples, may explain why a few of them cluster so close to the southern European populations.


It makes sense.




> I don't think these samples represent a population that went north to form the Yamnaya population. I'm not even sure that there _was_ a population that went directly north from this area to form the steppe people, whether it was a whole group or just female mediated gene flow. We need to see earlier Neolithic samples from this area and from Central Asia as well to get a sense of the direction of gene flow. 
> 
> Then, as LeBrok mentioned, we need an _early_ Anatolian farmer from around south-eastern Anatolia/the northern Levant, not just a Natufian ( the farmer from a later period in northwestern Anatolia will be helpful as well, but harder to interpret because it's later and so subject to different gene flows).
> 
> Oh, and we need samples from further west in Yamnaya and from the southeastern European Neolithic areas adjacent to them. I don't see how anything can really be said about the formation of later European groups until we have them


 The main idea would be to catch ancestral populations in their, still stagnant, not very mobile stage during end of Ice Age. Before explosion of farmers and other later migrations, before the picture got "mudded". Sequence as many Mesolithic groups as possible. It would give us a picture of uni-parental geographical configuration, and a way to identified true admixtures with there starting location, and finally naming them correctly.

----------


## Angela

> wasn't the Dodecad rules that 5 samples equalled one of its naming titles ..............reference to O_Italian, North_Italian, TSI etc
> 
> Others use O_italian to represent Italians displaced from an area into Italy since the end of the Napoleonic wars to the end of WWII ................so, 90000+ from Istria, 40000+ from Dalmatia, north-tyrol, Swiss, Monaco, Nice ( the french Riviera) , Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, albania, Greece etc etc etc


For privacy reasons, Dienekes never published the exact locations of any of the samples. People were free to identify themselves on a thread he provided. Is this where you're getting this information?

The only thing he mentioned that I remember is that there was one sample who had an oddly high North East Asian component, as can be seen in the quote from his blog.

_If_ it's true that the samples in this group have such extremely varied origins then it just underlines my point that they shouldn't be used in these kinds of analyses.

----------


## Alan

> Alan
> Armenians are synthesis from historic Armenia


 I sense a little bit of politics here. I was never a fan of calling a region "historic Armenia, Kurdistan Assyria" or whatever for obvious reasons. Neither the ethnogenesis of Armenians, modern Kurds or Assyrians predate the Iron Age. And who ever claims something else is a delusional chauvinist. And if we want to start this way than Iranic tribes (of which Armenians also have allot of ancestry) are not only attested but also genetically proven to be among the earliest arrivals

Armenians have absorbed genes from various populations who lived in the region from Neolithic to Iron Age. The Armenian ethnogenesis formed during Iron Age in Central Anatolia. 






> This is pretty vast area and different autosomal genes. You will find very different autosomal patterns from BA Van, Malatya, Erzrum. This are only pieces of puzzle not the whole puzzle. You will find very high SWA in БА Sasun.


mere speculation with no valid reasoning. Van, Erzurum, Sivas, Elih/Sasun all those regions were populated by the same kind of people in the same Empires and Kingdoms. Hurrians,Urartaens,Subarians&Gutians/Mitanni/Medes are who populated this region from Baghdad/Tikrit all the way up to Erzurum. Why should we assume that there was a large genetic difference there? 

http://www.urkesh.org/images/HUrrian...BC%20small.jpg
https://narinnamkn.files.wordpress.c...01/mitanni.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../Urartu743.png

And again no modern population can claim that their ethnogenesis has formed during the Bronze Age.* No one*




But than you seem to be confused about something. It is not the SWA DNA what makes the ancient DNA so different. With more Southwest Asian DNA the ancient Samples would rather appear like typical Iranians and Kurds. It is the lack of the SouthWest Asian and stronger West Mediterranen and North Euro like DNA what makes the ancient sample more shifted towards North Caucasus and South Europe.





> Perhaps he will be much closer to Assyrians. In another place You will find a piece that will be closer to Georgians.


Again sounds to my ears VERY unlikely if not unthinkable. With more Southwest Asian DNA they would appear even more like Iranians and Kurds because their overal genetic make up doesn't fit for Assyrians. I think I mentioned this at least 10 times already. The ancient samples have high frequency of Gedrosia, North Euro and significant percentage of Central Asian ASI. Assyrians lack North Euro, have far too low Gedrosia and no ASI. Even if the ancient samples had 30% genetic variation they would still cluster closer to modern Iranians. 





> But You will NOT find a piece that will be closer to modern Armenians because Armenians are the sum of all this components and one piece will never be the same as the whole.


I think you misunderstood something again. All the people living their today are the result of many components, The reason why you don't find any which resemble more closely the modern Armenians is because during that time an important component of the Armenian ethnogenesis (The linguistic forefathers) hadn't reached the region yet. I am sure by 1200 BC we will find people genetically allot more similar to Armenians in Central Anatolia and by 600 BC some in Transcaucasus/EastAnatolia and Mesopotamia.




> The thing that glued all this various stuff are the IE. There is no other candidates for this synthesis.


the thing what differentiate all the people is 1. the Semitic 2 Balkanic Indo European expansion. The Assyrians are simply not natives to this region it's easy as that. Assyrians and Syriacs are a cross of ancient Levantines and modern Armenians.







> , when they became part of all Armenians their 'Balkanic' signal was shared by everybody. The same apply to SWA. You think You find a proof that Semitic influence came late. But it is just an illusion (it came late only to lake Sevan). Because what You see is just the spread of SWA from Sasun like people in South to the rest of Armenians. 
> The number of true Balkanic Y DNA is ridiculosly low among Armenians.


Sorry there is no known Semite people prior to 2500 BC in Mesopotamia and 700 BC in Transcaucasus. You are not giving any scientific evidences merely using assumptions.

But just for the sake of it if you want, let's wait for more ancient samples to take final conclusions. 
I am tired now and for me the discussion ends here my dear friend. Have a nice day/night (depending where you live).

----------


## Alan

> I like your visualization method.
> 
> So far I would guess that Bronze Age Armenians came from Balkans or from the Steppe. Or whole Anatolia and Caucasus was more IE? We need more Near Eastern samples.




As said Bronze Age Armenians didn't have more "European" admixture. It is the Bronze Age Armenian samples representing a more EEF like core component with more North European component prior to Semite expansion which most likely deluded the North European component which "shifts" them closer to Europe.

Atlantic_Med as part of the EEF has been there since Neolithic.
During Bronze Age the samples looked like a cross of native EEF farmers and native NorthCaucsian/Iranic speakers.

But just for the sake of it to make other people also happy. Let's wait for more ancient samples to take final conclusions.

----------


## Rethel

Angela, 
where did you get this map?
I saw that D. Anthony was using this picture? 

I remember that he had some more fine diagrams.

----------


## Angela

> Angela, 
> where did you get this map?
> I saw that D. Anthony was using this picture? 
> 
> I remember that he had some more fine diagrams.


It's from a paper he and Ringe published this year, so presumably his latest thinking on the subject.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf...-030514-124812

----------


## Rethel

> It's from a paper he and Ringe published this year, so presumably his latest thinking on the subject.
> 
> http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf...-030514-124812


Thank you Angela. I'll read
this whith plesure, because
his lectures were quite good....
I don't see interesting me
diagrams, but maybe they
are discribe in the text...

----------


## Tomenable

> There were never any "Poles" or Slavs west of the Vistula during the *Iron* Age.


Did I claim so above? Nope - I claimed that genetic ancestors of Poles lived west of the Vistula during the *BRONZE* Age. Bronze Age people of modern East Germany and Poland were not ancestors of Germans, they had too much of R1a to be their ancestors (see below). Apparently when Germanic tribes expanded from Scandinavia in the Iron Age, they drove previous inhabitants out. They escaped to the east:

Those Bronze Age inhabitants who escaped to the east in the Iron Age, several centuries later returned, under the name "Slavs":

*ybp = years before present* 

http://s8.postimg.org/67u7kqtb9/R1_samples_C.png

----------


## Tomenable

This above is my previous map (link below) with new R1a and R1b samples from Allentoft et al. 2015 added:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post458128

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

Allentoft's Y-DNA samples can be found in these links:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9vzsK0Ig1...nU1WDhXNWM/view

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php...-Allentoft-2015

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

----------


## Humanist

> The Assyrians are simply not natives to this region it's easy as that.


What region are you referring to?

----------


## Arame

Dear Alan

Ok let's stop this discussion and let's wait further developments.
My predictions are this. 
You will see a lot off regional disparities in West Asia, especially the Northern mountainous part. And we will not find any R1b-Z2103 in Neolithic. Even Copper Age.

If someone think that genetics had influence on politics, give somebody a right to live somewhere or deny somebody to live somewhere I think this is wrong. Politics is about living persons. Turkey is wrong not because they came from Altai but because they don't respect basic human rights. I was very happy when I knew that Kurdish party won in Kars, Igdir and most other places of Kurdistan . And You know that I am fan of Independent Kurdistan. But this is off-top here and it should be continued elsewhere.

----------


## bicicleur

> Did I claim so above? Nope - I claimed that genetic ancestors of Poles lived west of the Vistula during the *BRONZE* Age. Bronze Age people of modern East Germany and Poland were not ancestors of Germans, they had too much of R1a to be their ancestors (see below). Apparently when Germanic tribes expanded from Scandinavia in the Iron Age, they drove previous inhabitants out. They escaped to the east:


how far east? Balkans and Ukraine where dominated by Goths
and there was also pressure from the east : 99 BC Hunns arrived near the Aral Sea

----------


## bicicleur

something else : Allentoft et al claims people or ancestors from Central Europe were involved in the well-planned Sintashta colonization
maybe R1a-Z93 in central Europe was replaced by R1a-Z283

----------


## Tomenable

Jordanes claimed that Slavs at some point became vassals [slaves?] of the Goths, but later rebelled against them and started to "rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our [Gothic] sins":

Jordanes, Gothic chronicler - in "Getica", 23 - claimed the following achievements for his ancestors:

"Post Herulorum cede item Hermanaricus in Venethos arma commovit, qui, quamvis armis despecti, sed numerositate pollentes, primum resistere conabantur. Sed nihil valet multitudo inbellium, praesertim ubi et deus permittit et multitudo armata advenerit. Nam hi, ut in initio expositionis vel catalogo gentium dicere coepimus, ab una stirpe exorti, tria nunc nomina ediderunt, id est Venethi, Antes, Sclaveni; qui quamvis nunc, ita facientibus peccatis nostris, ubique deseviunt, tamen tunc omnes Hermanarici imperiis servierunt. Aestorum quoque similiter nationem, qui longissimam ripam Oceani Germanici insident, idem ipse prudentia et virtute subegit omnibusque Scythiae et Germaniae nationibus ac si propriis lavoribus imperavit."

Translation to English:

"After defeating the Heruls, Hermanaric also took arms against the Wends [Slavs]. This peoples, though despised in war, was strong in numbers and tried to resist him. But a multitude of cowards is of no avail particularly when god permits an armed multitude to attack them. This nation, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalogue of nations, though off-shoots from one stock, has now three names, that is Wends, Ants and Slavs. Though they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins, yet at that time they were all obedient to Hermanaric’s commands. This ruler also subdued by his wisdom and might the race of the Aesti [literally "Easterners", Balts], who dwell on the farthest shore of the German Ocean [Baltic Sea], and ruled all the nations of Scythia and Germania by his own prowess alone."

Defeat of the Heruls by the Goths was probably in the 2nd half of the 300s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heruli#History

Jordanes also describes a war of Goths against one of Slavic tribes in the 300s:

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




> maybe R1a-Z93 in central Europe was replaced by R1a-Z283


Not a single ancient Z93 was found in Central Europe so far. By contrast you have for example 3100 years ago that Z280 near Halberstadt, and Polish Bronze Age warrior was also under Z283:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...or-from-Poland

----------


## Tomenable

> dominated by Goths


Politically.

But political domination is not the same as being the majority of inhabitants.

See for example South Africa and Rhodesia during the Germanic Apartheid.

Tacitus would definitely count South Africans as one of "Germanic tribes".

Even though only the ruling class was Germanic, the majority wasn't.

----------


## bicicleur

> Not a single ancient Z93 was found in Central Europe so far. By contrast you have for example 3100 years ago that Z280 near Halberstadt, and Polish Bronze Age warrior was also under Z283:
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...or-from-Poland


that replacement would have happened 4000 years ago when Sintashta colonised southern Ural

----------


## bicicleur

> It's from a paper he and Ringe published this year, so presumably his latest thinking on the subject.
> 
> http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf...-030514-124812


this review was before the Allentoft paper ?

Allentoft paper redates many events to a few centuries later
they also claim contacts between Cucuteni and Maikop before Yamna

I'm curious about next year review

----------


## Tomenable

Allentoft claimed that only one part of Corded Ware was involved in creating Sintashta.

Corded Ware extended from Central Europe to western regions of European Russia.

So probably that was just one part of Corded Ware, in which Z93 subclade spread.

BTW - there was no replacement because modern Slavs still plot genetically near ancient Sintashta. Check Supplementary Figure 2 on page 33: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...re14507-s1.pdf

Which means that Balto-Slavs share common ancestors with Indo-Iranians. So rather than some "replacement" it was simply by chance that Z93 migrated east, while Z283 was more western.

Despite different subclades of R1a, both Corded Ware groups were genetically similar.

Even today West Slavs and some of South Slavs are close to ancient Sintashta (link above). 

Modern East Slavs and Balts plot farther away than other Slavs possibly due to mixing with Ugro-Finns.

*Ugro-Finns (red color in the map below) inhabited much more land in the 800s than today.* As you can see nearly all of European Russia was mostly or partially Ugro-Finnic at that time:

http://s17.postimg.org/mcrd7o52n/900.jpg

----------


## Alan

[QUOTE=Arame;460004]Dear Alan




> Ok let's stop this discussion and let's wait further developments.
> My predictions are this. 
> You will see a lot off regional disparities in West Asia, especially the Northern mountainous part. And we will not find any R1b-Z2103 in Neolithic. Even Copper Age.


my prediction based on the contemporary data and history is this, we will not find any SWA admixture prior to Bronze Age. We will most likely find R1b which predates the Indo Europeans. Of course during Neolithic the genetic make up will be sligthly different but not that they will be more Assyrian like. Either more H&G like (from Iranian plateau and North Caucasus) or EEF like.





> If someone think that genetics had influence on politics, give somebody a right to live somewhere or deny somebody to live somewhere I think this is wrong. Politics is about living persons. Turkey is wrong not because they came from Altai but because they don't respect basic human rights. I was very happy when I knew that Kurdish party won in Kars, Igdir and most other places of Kurdistan . And You know that I am fan of Independent Kurdistan. But this is off-top here and it should be continued elsewhere.


Right, claiming land based on history will not bring us much. We Kurds have lost since the Iron Age territories in North Iran to Azeris, and Persian speakers and Central/East Anatolia to Turks.

I just fel this might be a political statement because I am used to that some Armenians and especially more Assyrian (Ironically) members were discrediting us in an insulting way our existence rights in the region, based on genetics as if they actually knew how the region genetically was and if they were 100% natives. They didn't even use historic common sense knowing perfectly that their ancestors arrived from the Levant after the first Iranic speakers were already attested. They thought them beeing genetically closer to Armenians would mean they have more claim on Iraqi Kurdish territory, though historically the region was first populated by Caucasic/Iranic tribes.

If you were ariund for long and saw how some of these Assyrian members acted on the net and some still do you would understand why I react so sensitive on "historic claims".
Well good old karma caught them really bad that I haven't heard yet any word from the Baghdadi Assyrian Elias Alucard who was the leading person in those theories.

Of course not all Assyrians were that way but a good number. 

I have some Armenian friends.
The day Kurdistan gets independent the border should be opened to Armenia I know for free passage I know that Armenians have also long history in regions such as Van and as us Kurds have historic legends/connections to the Ararat mountain. Kurds aand Armenians have been living side by side for very long.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Variation makes sense. Estonia is Estonia and Germany is Germany :)
> In Baltics Corded mixed and assimilated (under Daugava) or got assimilated (above Daugava) by local folk.
> 
> More precisely borders for assimilation can be found here
> Attachment 7296


6-8 thousand years closer to the LGM the boreal forest line may have been further south.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> The idea that the Silures were Iberians is based on one piece of speculation by Tacitus. Placing them as another dark-complexioned people, like the Berbers as you do, doesn't have any precedence as far as I know.
> 
> My opinion is that the Silures were definitely Celts. Archaeology in the area settled by the Silures points to very similar patterns to other Brythonic Celts, like the use of British-style roundhouses. Modern Southeastern Welsh are genetically about as we would expect. They may be a local maximum for dark complexion, but IMO don't share many other phenotypic traits with non-British populations. There are also no notes, in Tacitus or otherwise, of the Silures speaking an unusual language, or having unusual cultural patterns (other than being warlike).



There are pockets of ydna E in the mountainous bits of Wales which may hint at some very early southern origins (greatly diluted over time) getting pushed back into refuges.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults

----------


## arvistro

@Tomenable, I doubt this has to do with FU folk. At least for modern Balts.
I had difficulties to notice which green thing is Sintasta in plot, different shades of green does not mate with my eyes...
But if this is the between Hungar, Bulgar, Croat one, then main reason is WHG/EEF proportion. Finno-Ugric seems to push down, rather than right. 

Although Russians seem to be located between Finns and Mordvins in this plot. So, you are right there on East Slavs. Interesting.
Ukrainians to my great surprise too.

----------


## arvistro

> 6-8 thousand years closer to the LGM the boreal forest line may have been further south.


This pic covers time period since Corded to current days, I checked specifically. 4,500-5,000 years ago it became like this with some insig fluctuations.
6-8 maybe, did not check any further then.

----------


## Angela

> this review was before the Allentoft paper ?
> 
> Allentoft paper redates many events to a few centuries later
> they also claim contacts between Cucuteni and Maikop before Yamna
> 
> I'm curious about next year review


Me too. These genetics results are going to cause a re-evaluation all across the board, I think.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> This pic covers time period since Corded to current days, I checked specifically. 4,500-5,000 years ago it became like this with some insig fluctuations.
> 6-8 maybe, did not check any further then.



Fair enough. It seems logical to me the conifer line would have gradually retreated north as the world warned up after the LGM.

(edit: but i don't know for sure.)

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> My friend how many times have I actually explained this here and on Eurogenes? Atlantic_Med is an EEF type ancestry. It lacked in Yamna people. So how could they brought it for that matter? :)
> 
> All modern people of the region have less of the Atlantic_Med than ancient, it rather seems the Indo European expansion has deluded the Atlantic_Med ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Language spoken by modern North Caucasians
> ...



"Atlantic_Med is an EEF type ancestry. It lacked in Yamna people. So how could they brought it for that matter?"

If Atlantic_Med is more Bell Beaker than EEF i.e. a mix of EEF and some steppe copper workers and if the proto-Armenians also got an influx from a related group of steppe copper workers might the software pick "Atlantic_Med" as the closest match?

Also there seems to be an argument over whether the bulk of the gene flow was north to south or south to north. It's possible that it was both i.e. a minority influx of miners from north to south could even be the catalyst for a south to north expansion by making the region richer and more densely populated.

----------


## arvistro

> Fair enough. It seems logical to me the conifer line would have gradually retreated north as the world warned up after the LGM.
> 
> (edit: but i don't know for sure.)


http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen...PS/europe0.gif

In general I recommend the article:
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEUROPE.html
It helps to add another dimension also to population and culture movements.

----------


## Tomenable

> I had difficulties to notice which green thing is Sintasta in plot, different shades of green does not mate with my eyes...


Sintashta is the one above, Andronovo the one below.

Andronovo is not really similar to any of modern populations included in the comparison.

But Sintashta is similar to modern West Slavic populations.




> Ukrainians to my great surprise too.


If their sample was from Eastern Ukraine then there could be many people with Russian ancestors.

----------


## LeBrok

> Allentoft claimed that only one part of Corded Ware was involved in creating Sintashta.
> 
> Corded Ware extended from Central Europe to western regions of European Russia.
> 
> So probably that was just one part of Corded Ware, in which Z93 subclade spread.
> 
> BTW - there was no replacement because modern Slavs still plot genetically near ancient Sintashta. Check Supplementary Figure 2 on page 33: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...re14507-s1.pdf
> 
> Which means that Balto-Slavs share common ancestors with Indo-Iranians. So rather than some "replacement" *it was simply by chance that Z93 migrated east, while Z283 was more western*.


They were very young and not very spread throughout whole Western Yamna population. Each could exist in one tribe or family out of many. It just happened that they became very successful and spread out after the split happened. There is also a chance that they came to existence short after the split. Dating of their ages is just about the time of Yamna.

----------


## bicicleur

> Allentoft claimed that only one part of Corded Ware was involved in creating Sintashta.
> 
> Corded Ware extended from Central Europe to western regions of European Russia.
> 
> So probably that was just one part of Corded Ware, in which Z93 subclade spread.
> 
> BTW - there was no replacement because modern Slavs still plot genetically near ancient Sintashta. Check Supplementary Figure 2 on page 33: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...re14507-s1.pdf
> 
> Which means that Balto-Slavs share common ancestors with Indo-Iranians. So rather than some "replacement" it was simply by chance that Z93 migrated east, while Z283 was more western.
> ...


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...re14507-s1.pdf

Page 33

Supplementary Figure 2. Example of principal component analysis of individualssubsampled to 10,000 SNPs. Arrows indicate the shift in position for each ancient individualcompared to the full dataset.

Can anybody explain please?
Are there 2 positions? 1 compared to partial dataset and 1 compared to full dataset?
Is partial dataset without modern populations then?

----------


## holderlin

> I am just having a thought now. If Lith/Lat have 0 farmer ancestry whatsoever, should I call my grandpa and tell him to quit what he is doing, since he is genetically incapable? ;)


Ha, Seriously. The Lazaridis model has warped my already warped mind. I'm starting to blame certain flaws on either my farmer or HG ancestry, and I'm very HG-centric about it, which is probably a flaw from my farmer genes. Go figure. 

Anything irrationally obsessive or what I judge to be cowardly, I blame my farmer genes. Anything alpha, stoic, or in any way attributed to Conan of Cimmeria I credit my EHG component. And anything super human I'm inclined to credit ANE, just because of it still being shrouded in mystery.

----------


## Angela

> Ha, Seriously. The Lazaridis model has warped my already warped mind. I'm starting to blame certain flaws on either my farmer or HG ancestry, and I'm very HG-centric about it, which is probably a flaw from my farmer genes. Go figure. 
> 
> Anything irrationally obsessive or what I judge to be cowardly, I blame my farmer genes. Anything alpha, stoic, or in any way attributed to Conan of Cimmeria I credit my EHG component. And anything super human I'm inclined to credit ANE, just because of it still being shrouded in mystery.


Are you capable of posting something that is not insulting or offensive to either an individual or a group?

Is this behavior typical of members of the Reptoid ethnic group to which you say you belong?

I would suggest that you consider posting intellectual content that advances our discussions. There are consequences for your preferred method of communicating.

----------


## arvistro

> Sintashta is the one above, Andronovo the one below.
> 
> Andronovo is not really similar to any of modern populations included in the comparison.
> 
> But Sintashta is similar to modern West Slavic populations.


Since when are Bulgars and Hungars modern West Slavic populations? I believe Poles would be a bit farther away, between Cze and Belarus samples.

----------


## Tomenable

Modern Bulgarians and Hungarians are mostly - or largely - of Slavic ancestry.

This study does not compare Proto-Bulgars and Magyars, but modern populations.




> I believe Poles would be a bit farther away, between Cze and Belarus samples.


Depends* which Poles* probably. According to K. Rebala before WW2 there were regional genetic differences between various Polish groups, but later they got mixed due to large population movements.

Yet you can still pick up a sample of Poles with ancestors only from a given region, and check.

Poles from Belarus are surely closer to Belarusians than for example Poles from Cracow, etc.

----------


## Arame

Alan
Just a clarification. When I say no R1b, I mean only the Z2103 subclade.
Of course upstream clades like M269, V88, P25 and even L23 will be present in our region from long time ago.

----------


## arvistro

> Modern Bulgarians and Hungarians are mostly - or largely - of Slavic ancestry.
> 
> This study does not compare Proto-Bulgars and Magyars, but modern populations.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends* which Poles* probably. According to K. Rebala before WW2 there were regional genetic differences between various Polish groups, but later they got mixed due to large population movements.
> 
> Yet you can still pick up a sample of Poles with ancestors only from a given region, and check.
> ...


I understand but point is it is not West Slavs but rather Bulgarians and Hungarians. Which is South Slavic not West Slavic. Croats are also closer than Czechs. Apparently they had relatively more EEF than modern West Slavs.

----------


## Tomenable

From Anthrogenica:




> Rise509 (Afanasievo) is practically identical to Yamnaya!
> 
> Here is various samples with 3 main components: WHG, European Neolithic and Yamnaya, established with harappa admixture:


Corded Ware:

I0103 (Germany) - 68,75% Yamnaya / 20,0% WHG / 11,25% Neolithic
RISE94 (Sweden) - 46,25% Yamnaya / 32,5% WHG / 21,25% Neolithic
RISE00 (Estonia) - 35,0% Yamnaya / 47,5% WHG / 17,5% Neolithic

Sintashta:

RISE386 - 52,5% Yamnaya / 32,5% WHG / 15,0% Neolithic 
RISE392 - 40,0% Yamnaya / 45,0% WHG / 15,0% Neolithic 

Afanasievo:

RISE509 - 92,5% Yamnaya / 7,5% WHG / 0,0% Neolithic 

Andronovo:

RISE509 - 73,9% Yamnaya / 0,0% WHG / 15,7% Neolithic / 10,4% South Indian
RISE509 - 61,6% Yamnaya / 17,0% WHG / 6,4% Neolithic / 15,0% Siberian




> What is the source for these Yamnaya scores? It's rather strange how Andronovo score higher Yamnaya than Sintashta do when Andronovo branched off from Sintashta. Perhaps Andronovo mixed with descendants of Afansievo as they went east, increasing their Yamnaya scores and their South-Central Asian affinities.
> 
> 
> Even a 50:50 mix of Sintashta and Afasievo would leave a WHG component of 20-25%. But it is at 0 and 17 in Andronovo.
> 
> Following the nulls the two Andronovans look very different. The one with 0 WHG overlap also has a 10.4% South Indian overlap.

----------


## Alan

> "Atlantic_Med is an EEF type ancestry. It lacked in Yamna people. So how could they brought it for that matter?"
> 
> If Atlantic_Med is more Bell Beaker than EEF i.e. a mix of EEF and some steppe copper workers and if the proto-Armenians also got an influx from a related group of steppe copper workers might the software pick "Atlantic_Med" as the closest match?


Who said AtlanticMed is Bell Beaker? Just because it peaks among them? Bell Beaker is a Neolithic group though. And Atlantic_Med was one of the strongest components in all Neolithic farmer people. And again, This doesn't explain why is almost lacks among Yamna. Therefore Atlantic_Med =/= Yamna.




> Also there seems to be an argument over whether the bulk of the gene flow was north to south or south to north. It's possible that it was both i.e. a minority influx of miners from north to south could even be the catalyst for a south to north expansion by making the region richer and more densely populated.


That is a very reasonable theory and I have taken it into consideration.

----------


## Alan

> Alan
> Just a clarification. When I say no R1b, I mean only the Z2103 subclade.
> Of course upstream clades like M269, V88, P25 and even L23 will be present in our region from long time ago.


When I said R1b I meant the upstream clades especially. But Z2103 is still also possibly from the region since it fits as yDNA which brought the West Asian type ancestry to Yamna.

----------


## Regio X

There are links for Eurogenes Steppe K10 averages and the calculator download: 
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...nes-steppe-k10

----------


## holderlin

> Are you capable of posting something that is not insulting or offensive to either an individual or a group?


I don't think it was insulting, and these groups aren't even real. If you think by making a joke about EEF genes being responsible for neurotic behavior that I'm being offensive to modern day Sardinians then I would question your sanity. Because that is truly crazy.




> Is this behavior typical of members of the Reptoid ethnic group to which you say you belong?


Yes, we all hate imaginary historic groups created by algorithms.




> I would suggest that you consider posting intellectual content that advances our discussions. There are consequences for your preferred method of communicating.


It takes a while to wade through all of your guys' "intellectual content".You must forgive me. I'm very busy. And it doesn't help that I have to consciously open myself up to some of these more "speculative" theories.

At the moment I could say that I liked how you cleared up Anatolian languages vs. Armenian. Big difference. But I do still think that calling these BA samples "Armenian" is confusing in this regard. People skim the thread and start talking about the language group where we're actually talking about a MBA sample from the _region of modern day Armenia._ The sample has little to do with modern day Armenians and I think some people are getting crossed up by this. On a related note that R1b-Z2103 is probably Hittite in origin.

I now must go purchase some Scotch.

----------


## Jason Neuharth

Yamnaya / Catacomb	Russia	Ulan IV, kurgan 4, grave 8 [RISE552]	M	2849-2146 BC	I2a	I2a2a1b1b2 (S12195)

----------


## Jason Neuharth

RISE486 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327
RISE487 Italy Remedello I2a1a
RISE489 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327

----------


## Jason Neuharth

RISE247 Hungary Vatya I2a2a-L368
RISE254 Hungary Vatya I2a2a-L59
RISE479 Hungary Vatya I2a2a1a2a2-SK1247/Y4915

----------


## holderlin

> Yamnaya / Catacomb Russia Ulan IV, kurgan 4, grave 8 [RISE552] M 2849-2146 BC I2a I2a2a1b1b2 (S12195)


It's obvious how I2's got to the steppe. Makes sense and all. But does anyone else see this as an indication of stronger affinity with Europe rather than West Asia e.g. if we keep seeing I2 among Yamnaya R1a and R1b and no J's, could we draw some sort of conclusion? Stronger ties with CT perhaps?

Curious what other's think about this.

----------


## Sile

> It's obvious how I2's got to the steppe. Makes sense and all. But does anyone else see this as an indication of stronger affinity with Europe rather than West Asia e.g. if we keep seeing I2 among Yamnaya R1a and R1b and no J's, could we draw some sort of conclusion? Stronger ties with CT perhaps?
> 
> Curious what other's think about this.


maybe

but you need to know that I was in union with J somewhere

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

----------


## holderlin

> maybe
> 
> but you need to know that I was in union with J somewhere
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_IJ


Lol. As were we all.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> It's obvious how I2's got to the steppe. Makes sense and all. But does anyone else see this as an indication of stronger affinity with Europe rather than West Asia e.g. if we keep seeing I2 among Yamnaya R1a and R1b and no J's, could we draw some sort of conclusion? Stronger ties with CT perhaps?
> 
> Curious what other's think about this.


IJ was apparently a thing at one time so I'd assume the I/J split happened either side of some kind of geographical barrier which could be west/east or north/south depending on what/where the barrier was.

----------


## Tomenable

The barrier was most likely Caucasus (ask *bicicleur* for more details, I know this from him). J stayed to the south of Caucasus while I crossed it and went to Europe. That was ca. 33,000 years ago. Before I came, Europe was inhabited by C1 (see Kostenki 14, La Brana 1, Neolithic Hungary).

Aurignacian culture was C1, and I came with Gravettian.

When it comes to mtDNA, Aurignacians were mostly R:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...not-Neaderthal

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...ll=1#post80916

Kostenki 14 found near the city of Voronezh along the Don River is the oldest European Y-DNA sample to date. He was C1. This C1 shows up from time to time in samples from later periods - for example in Mesolithic Spain (La Brana 1), Neolithic Hungary (Apc-Berekalja I and Kompolt-Kigyoser), etc. - so Gravettian Y-DNA didn't entirely replace Aurignacian. MtDNA R shows up too.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> The barrier was most likely Caucasus (ask *bicicleur* for more details, I know this from him).


Yes either side of the Black Sea seems most likely from the current distribution (although given all that's happened current distribution can't be relied on 100%).

----------


## Alan

@Angela @Sile

Got banned (with IP as if a normal ban wasn't enough and there is the risk me coming back and spamming lol) on Anthrogenica for saying that some people(David meant) have an Agenda and allegedly distracting from the topic (yes sure talking about BaArmenian samples in the thread population genomics of Eurasia is really off topic  :Laughing: ).


What a pathethic board with pathethic mod on it, I wouldn't have set a foot there if I wasn't invited.

David once again proved how pathethic he is reporting that. This guy is so obsessed with Indo_Iranians.

In this case he will also totally ignore that East Euros don't really fit as model for Sintashta but North/Central and Northwest Europeans.



Here is the full discussion and the reason for me why I got banned on Anthrogenica(which I would have never entered if not invited).

"MasterRoshi "= me

"Generalissimo"= David





> Even more after looking at those Sintashta results, I honestly doubt that this could be Proto_Indo Iranian culture. Heck even Afanasievo and Yamna look much more Indo_Iranian. Sintashta looks North and Central European with doubled teal admixture. Aren't there archeologists who see very close affinities of Indo_Iranians and BMAC? I could imagine and see it as the most plausivble that Proto Indo_Iranian is a hybrid of BMAC and Andronovo.






> The Armenian Bronze Age samples resemble northeast Caucasians, not any Indo-Iranians that I know. And they were probably Hurrians, which makes sense.
> 
> I have the dataset from the paper. I'm not using the samples from the bam files.





> The Bronze Age Armenian samples clearly resembled Indo_Iranian speakers, They score at first Tajik closely followed by Lezgians and Italians but that doesn't mean they couldn't resemble North Caucasian speakers too, because if you haven't realized both groups Iranic and Caucasians share around 70% of ancestry. Some of the Bronze Age samples have average of 7% ASI admixture typically for Indo_Iranian speakers (range of 1-20%), 20% North Euro (typical for Iranic and Caucasian speakers) ~24% Gedrosia (typical Iranic and Caucasian speakers) and 26% Atlantic Med (typical Italian,Greek, Bulgarian) + 24% Caucasus(typical Iranic, Caucasian, Italian,Greek,Bulgarian).
> 
> Of course the Indo_Iranian speakers didn't stay exactly the same for over thousands of years. It is just the general genetic make up of those Bronze Age samples fit better for Indo_Iranian ancestry than Sintashta.





> So please next time you quote me again first take a closer look at the data. I thought after people sharing their results and comparing it to BaArmenian you would have realized that their is a very Iranic like element in them. The Bronze Age Armenian samples look like a cross of Lezgian, Tajik and Italian. At least data looks like it fits as a possible source for Indo Iranian and NorthCaucasian speakers. However the "Italian" type seems to be EEF ancestry deluded out by other waves of migrants.
> 
> Not like the Sintashta figures which seem very different





> I'm assuming that you're referring here to the GEDmatch stuff, because I can tell you that what you just said makes no sense when the data from the paper is analyzed in ADMIXTOOLS.


Yep as a person who is known for creating Admix tools and having them on GEDmatch he is being very GEDmatch and Admix tool critical here. I wonder why, because it doesn't suit his agenda?  :Smile: 


And it goes on.





> What doesn't make sense from what I said`?
> 
> If you don't like Gedmatch stuff you are at the wrong place I think. 70% of this whole forum is based on "GEDmatch stuff". we had people here who published the fst distances of those Bronze Age samples. They had Tajiks next by Lezgians so what is actually the problem?
> 
> We had the Samples compared by various calculators the results are always the same. Like a North_Caucasian/Iranic group + something more EEF typical (ancient element of the region most likely).
> 
> here population distances of one of the BaArmenian samples.
> 
> # Population (source) Distance
> ...


So I got banned for saying that with the right tools you can make populations appear like you want and some people might have agendas (As if David and his agenda is completely unknown from his times on various boards, including very white supremacist once). Or was it just an excuse of David use because he had no arguments to offer. What an excuse of an individual. So sensible while in the past constantly insulting Dienekes on his own board and still insulting established scientist and accusing them of agendas. But he is so sensible when someone excuses him of obvious agenda? :)
like here




> *Paul Heggarty: desperate or clueless?*
> 
> 
> 
> Over at Diversity Linguistics Comment, Paul Heggarty of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig) puts his foot in his mouth with a long-winded and rather whiny comment piece about two recent ancient genomics papers - Haak et al. and Allentoft et al. - and the PIE question.
> 
> I don't have the time or energy right now to pick apart in detail Heggarty's ramblings, so I'll only focus on a couple of points. Firstly, here's a modified figure from Haak et al. that Heggarty put up with his post, and below that a couple of quotes with his explanation.



Mark my words in the near future he will create admix tools that Scythians came straight out of Baltics and modern Indo Iranians (and Kurds as his favourite foes will be viewed in the most negative way).

The reason why he doesn't want to accept the genetic links between the BaArmenian and Indo_Iranian speakers despite it being infront of him, it goes against his wish of an Scythian origin of Poles. Or Baltic origin of Scythians.

----------


## Arame

Alan
But You believe that Armenians came from Balkans right? :) Balkanic theory is part of Kurgan model.
In Kurgan model Indo-Iranians came from Sintashta and Andronovo.

But if You think that Iranians were present in South Caucasus and North West Iran in BA then this is a very different model. Something like Gamkrelidze Ivanov model but shifted to N Iran.

Sincerly I believe that this second option is quite viable. ;)

----------


## Rethel

> Aurignacian culture was C1, and I came with Gravettian.


And do you know maybe Tomenable,
whom were Magdalenians? Hg I too,
or maybe some diffrent ethnos came
into Europe... I'm courios...

----------


## Alan

> Alan
> But You believe that Armenians came from Balkans right? :) Balkanic theory is part of Kurgan model.
> In Kurgan model Indo-Iranians came from Sintashta and Andronovo.
> 
> But if You think that Iranians were present in South Caucasus and North West Iran in BA then this is a very different model. Something like Gamkrelidze Ivanov model but shifted to N Iran.
> 
> Sincerly I believe that this second option is quite viable. ;)


Both models are possible with an Indo_iranian origin in South Caucasus and Northwest Iran. The Gamkreildze model would put the Proto Indo Europeans in this region that is one possibility I always hold in mind :)

The other is even if we go by the Yamna theory it is very plausible that the Indo_Iranian branch emerged between the Zagros-Taurus mountains next to the proto Armenians in Central Anatolia, next to Greek in Greece. This would be the Indo-Hittite/Greco-Armenia-Indo_Iranian connection :)

The thing is what I also wrote there. We have BaArmenian samples who fit very well Indo_Iranian ancestry and some of them are closest to Turkmens and Tajiks. 

This Zagros_Taurus mountain and Khorasan connection is historically evident.

Cyrus the Great and many other people point the homeland of Aryans in Umman Manda. This is what the region from Central Anatolia/Mesopotamia/Zagros all the way down to Babylon.

Linguists see Avesta as the Proto Iranic tongue. Historians believe Avesta was the language of Zarathustra and have two theory of where Avesta might have been written and where Zarathustra came from.

1. From Umman Manda from the Mithra cult and moved to Khorasan.

2. From Khorasan expandings towards West.

So either way there is connection for both regions. And it seems genetics now confirm those historic records. As we see the genetic relationship of BaArmenian and modern Turkmens/Tajiks.

----------


## Rethel

> Linguists see Avesta as the Proto Indo_Iranian tongue


How it is possible, if Avesta was recreating in sassanid period in III century CE? 
The language is extrapolating in VI-VII century BC. So how it could be proto-I-I?
Even proto-Iranian would be difficult, but yet possible, but not indoiranian.

----------


## Alan

> How it is possible, if Avesta was recreating in sassanid period in III century CE?


You are confusing something. Avestan language was never spoken among the Sassanids. 

I misstipped. I meant Proto Iranic.

Avesta was like a holy language and is considered as the most archaic form of East Iranic tongues and extremely close to Proto Iranic.
Similar to what Rig Veda is to Indo_Aryans.

The text were found in Sassanid era but they speak about a much older language. Just like how today bibles exist in very archaic Aramaic tongue.

The three most archaic dialects of Iranic are those.

Most archaic East Iranic tongue Avestan, in Khorasan often connected to Yaz culture and believed by some historians to have been brought by Zarathustra from further West in Umman Manda.

Most archaic Northwest Iranic tongue Median, spoken in the region from Taurus to Zagros and Albroz mountains.


Most archaic Southwest Iranic tongue Old Persian, spoken in modern Southwest Iran.

----------


## Johannes

> Did I claim so above? Nope - I claimed that genetic ancestors of Poles lived west of the Vistula during the *BRONZE* Age. Bronze Age people of modern East Germany and Poland were not ancestors of Germans, they had too much of R1a to be their ancestors (see below). Apparently when Germanic tribes expanded from Scandinavia in the Iron Age, they drove previous inhabitants out. They escaped to the east:
> 
> Those Bronze Age inhabitants who escaped to the east in the Iron Age, several centuries later returned, under the name "Slavs":
> 
> *ybp = years before present* 
> 
> http://s8.postimg.org/67u7kqtb9/R1_samples_C.png


Yes but as you said the Germans drove these people out and then they came back as "Slavs" but were driven out again by Saxons during the Early Middle Ages. Like I said: East Germany is a genetic barrier to the peoples from the East.

It would be interesting to see how much of this R1a the Goths, Burgundians, Vandals, and others was absorbed?

----------


## Johannes

> how far east? Balkans and Ukraine where dominated by Goths
> and there was also pressure from the east : 99 BC Hunns arrived near the Aral Sea


The Goths never "dominated" the Balkans. They did dominate western Ukraine, Moldova, and Transylvania. Eventually the migrated south of the Danube River escaping the Huns. If you consider Transylvania as "Balkans", then yes. But as far as I recall Balkans are all south of the Danube?

----------


## Johannes

> Modern Bulgarians and Hungarians are mostly - or largely - of Slavic ancestry.


I have been to both Bulgaria and Hungary and I did not notice anything "Slavic" about them. The Bulgarians looked very similar to Greeks and southern Italians, while the Hungarians looked very similar to Croats, Austrians and Germans. 

R1a = 24% Croats
R1a = 30% Hungarians
R1a = 19% Austria
R1a = 17% Bulgarians

Only Hungarians have some significance but others not.

----------


## LeBrok

> Yes but as you said the Germans drove these people out and then they came back as "Slavs" but were driven out again by Saxons during the Early Middle Ages. Like I said: East Germany is a genetic barrier to the peoples from the East.
> 
> It would be interesting to see how much of this R1a the Goths, Burgundians, Vandals, and others was absorbed?


Yes, we need to wait for a detailed movement of R1a subclades and others, to have a full picture of assimilation of locals during cultural shifts.

----------


## Tomenable

> Only Hungarians have some significance but others not.


R1a was not the only haplogroup that Proto-Slavs had.

For example I2a-Din was definitely spread by Slavic migrations as well. 

One hotspot is in Polesia, the other one in Bosnia, and TMRCA is very young.

----------


## Tomenable

The reason why mtDNA diversity is much greater than Y-DNA diversity in all populations, is:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...-of-modern-DNA




> An analysis of modern DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture.
> 
> Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction (...) for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today - only one man did the same. 
> 
> "It wasn't like there was a mass death of males. They were there, so what were they doing?" asks Melissa Wilson Sayres, a computational biologist at Arizona State University, and a member of a group of scientists who uncovered this moment in prehistory by analyzing modern genes. (...)
> 
> Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. (...) In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man.


So if we go back several centuries, we have 5 - 4 times more female ancestors than male ancestors.

If we go back several millennia, this increases to 17 times more female ancestors than male ancestors.

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

Polygyny + patriarchy + wars.

----------


## Eldritch

> The reason why mtDNA diversity is much greater than Y-DNA diversity in all populations, is:
> 
> http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...-of-modern-DNA
> 
> 
> 
> So if we go back several centuries, we have 5 - 4 times more female ancestors than male ancestors.
> 
> If we go back several millennia, this increases to 17 times more female ancestors than male ancestors.
> ...


Hypergamy theory at work.

----------


## Garrick

> Alan
> But You believe that Armenians came from Balkans right? :) Balkanic theory is part of Kurgan model.
> In Kurgan model Indo-Iranians came from Sintashta and Andronovo.
> 
> But if You think that Iranians were present in South Caucasus and North West Iran in BA then this is a very different model. Something like Gamkrelidze Ivanov model but shifted to N Iran.
> 
> Sincerly I believe that this second option is quite viable. ;)


I read more Armenian texts and Armenians mostly refuse that Armenian language came from Balkans, and I think Armenians are right.

What I found interesting, it is room between Armenian and West and North Iranian languages. 

The link exists between Armenian, Albanian and West and North Iranian languages.

Probably speakers of Proto Albanian were between speakers of Proto Armenian and speakers of forerunners of West and North Iranian languages.

Armenian language probably created in Eastern Anatolia (and Albanian probably created in similar area, maybe more eastern comparing with Armenian), not only West and North Iranian languages, even Kurdish should have some similarities with Armenian and Albanian, although it is second branch in relation with Armenian.

----------


## bicicleur

> And do you know maybe Tomenable,
> whom were Magdalenians? Hg I too,
> or maybe some diffrent ethnos came
> into Europe... I'm courios...


Magdalenian was Gravettian, so haplo I too.
During LGM all Europe was Gravettian, all I, except few pockets Aurignacian tribe C1a mesolithic left (cfr La Brana)
Before arrival of Gravettian (33 ka) European proto-Aurignacian expanded into Levantine Aurignacian. That is why there was few neolithic C1a too.

----------


## Rethel

> Magdalenian was Gravettian, so haplo I too. During LGM all Europe was Gravettian, all I, except few pockets Aurignacian tribe C1a mesolithic left (cfr La Brana)
> Before arrival of Gravettian (33 ka) European proto-Aurignacian expanded into Levantine Aurignacian. That is why there was few neolithic C1a too.


Did I correctly understand you, that all (majority) C1-people left Europe?

Where at present live C1 - if they exist of course...
Are maybe some local majorities of them?

----------


## Yetos

> The Goths never "dominated" the Balkans. They did dominate western Ukraine, Moldova, and Transylvania. Eventually the migrated south of the Danube River escaping the Huns. If you consider Transylvania as "Balkans", then yes. But as far as I recall Balkans are all south of the Danube?


@ Johannes

there is a strange connection among in Balkans and Crimea with Gothic,
some say that Thracian Getae were simmilar with Goths,
land of Ostrogoths (Auster-Getae) VisiGoths (Besii-Getae)
Crimean Gothic until after 1900
I admit that somehow I believe, I can not certify, neither is attested that gothic and Getae have a connection among them,
I believe Thracian was not Satem, but split to satem and centum much after 500BC and satem Thracian with Scythian created Slavic, 
all the above is a feeling, nothing serious,
that many wonder why and how,
but we found strange Gothic/germanic vocabulary in Slavic, Albanian, even in Greek, and that is not expected, neither explained,

for example how you can explaine the Albanian_ Dera_ (door) that is a germanic aspiration with Greek _Θυρα_ and celtic _Port_ and S Slavic _Vrata_, south of Danube?
if Goths did not cross south of Danube?

----------


## Rethel

> I admit that somehow I believe, I can not certify, neither is attested that gothic and Getae have a connection among them,


A couple of tribes are split among many indoeurpean branches.

Getians, Gutians, Massagetans, Gots, Gaets, Gutars, Tyssagets, Wisigots, Ostrogoths could be the one of them.




> for example how you can explaine the Albanian_ Dera_ (door) that is a germanic aspiration with Greek _Θυρα_ and celtic _Port_ and S Slavic _Vrata_, south of Danube?
> if Goths did not cross south of Danube?


This is normal indoeuropean and slavic word.

Slavic simples:
russian: Dvierь - singular, fem. (as albanian dera?)
polish: drzwi - pl.
churchslavonic: dverь - sing, fem. (as albanian dera?)
praslavic: dvьrь
ukrainian: dveri
slovenian: *duri*
lithianian: duris



As you see, there is no need for Goths.
It could be of indoeuropean or slavic origin.

Wrota - they could be in castle, not in house  :Smile:

----------


## Garrick

Yetos, Rethel

Albanian derë is not from Germanic or Slavic.

It is from Iranian: در (dr); Albanian has similarities with Iranian languages (North/Caucasus, Western, etc. Iranian languages).

----------


## Yetos

> A couple of tribes are split among many indoeurpean branches.
> 
> Getians, Gutians, Massagetans, Gots, Gaets, Gutars, Tyssagets, Wisigots, Ostrogoths could be the one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> This is normal indoeuropean and slavic word.
> 
> Slavic simples:
> ...


the difference is that south of istros (danube) this d is missing,
Greek θυρα
Serbian Vrata
Croatian 
Bulgarian
at least in google trans

it means that does not follow balkanic aspirations,
which means is either a loan word,
either entered from North of danube or Iran as Garrick claims

----------


## Rethel

> Serbian Vrata


But vrata it is not the same, as dw'r'.
Etimologically comes from different roots.
It is protoslavic *vorta.
So, there is not missing "d".


In polish and russian it means that: https://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%8...CE%BB%CE%B7#el

In english it would be gate.

Something like that, or even bigger:

----------


## arvistro

In Latvian vārti was for every sēta :)
Durvis for house, vārti for backyard.

----------


## Ukko

> The reason why mtDNA diversity is much greater than Y-DNA diversity in all populations, is:
> 
> http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...-of-modern-DNA
> 
> 
> 
> So if we go back several centuries, we have 5 - 4 times more female ancestors than male ancestors.
> 
> If we go back several millennia, this increases to 17 times more female ancestors than male ancestors.
> ...


It is clear the warriors often had several women at the same time, the women where also traded a lot, maybe even bred like horses.

----------


## Arame

Garrick
You are probably right. I saw Your thread about Slavic - Thracian connections. I think it is very probable.
I strongly advise Slavic linguists to search common words with Phrygian also. I bet You will find some many interesting examples. 

Just my amateur examples.
Gordum - Grad, Gorod - City town.
Zemelo - Zemlia , *zemja - a ground, a mortal a slave, man on ground
eistani - *sta, Stanovit - (they are setting), to setup something
eksis, ezis - Slavic **ezji*, Greek *ekhinos*, Armenian *ozni*, Lithuanian *ez'ys* (a hedgehog) - Note that the Slavic form is closer and lacks the N that is present in Greek and Armenian forms
wit- vedat - (to know) also to see videt in Russian. 

http://tied.verbix.com/project/glossary/phry.html
http://www.palaeolexicon.com/Phrygian

----------


## MOESAN

[QUOTE=Tomenable;460163]From Anthrogenica:



Corded Ware:

I0103 (Germany) - 68,75% Yamnaya / 20,0% WHG / 11,25% Neolithic
RISE94 (Sweden) - 46,25% Yamnaya / 32,5% WHG / 21,25% Neolithic
RISE00 (Estonia) - 35,0% Yamnaya / 47,5% WHG / 17,5% Neolithic

Sintashta:

RISE386 - 52,5% Yamnaya / 32,5% WHG / 15,0% Neolithic 
RISE392 - 40,0% Yamnaya / 45,0% WHG / 15,0% Neolithic 

Afanasievo:

RISE509 - 92,5% Yamnaya / 7,5% WHG / 0,0% Neolithic 

Andronovo:

RISE509 - 73,9% Yamnaya / 0,0% WHG / 15,7% Neolithic / 10,4% South Indian
RISE509 - 61,6% Yamnaya / 17,0% WHG / 6,4% Neolithic / 15,0% Siberian


_I avow I'm a bit confused by this study - but when I look at others analysis of Late Neolithic-Bronze Ages or Antiquity people, made by scientists AND lobbyists I see they were surely less homogenous than sedentary agricole populations of XX°Century Europe! They were moving people, some of them with skills in metallurgy and changing place and marrying afar.
I 'm almost sure we are speaking here of kind of elite people; I think we loose a lot concerning more basic people of their tribes... some of the mtDNA were seemignly closer to 'east-asian' origins in some individuals of East Steppes.
_

----------


## MOESAN

> It is clear the warriors often had several women at the same time, the women where also traded a lot, maybe even bred like horses.


_we have exactly the same number of male and female ancestors: it the variety (quality) of female ancestors which is in cause, not the bumber (quantity);
the effect of polygamyt is not creating more "mothers" than "fathers"! only more possible mixing: possible only, not obliged because if the numerous wives of a man are all taken in the same close human stock, it doesn' t change greatly! polygamy: more females mating for a male (less for the other males, by the way), more children, but not more ancestors for a child! Just an inoffensive precision._

----------


## MOESAN

[QUOTE=Rethel;460523]But vrata it is not the same, as dw'r'.
Etimologically comes from different roots.
It is protoslavic *vorta.
So, there is not missing "d".

In english it would be gate.

OK correct, 2 roots: it's not the very thread, but I think 'vrata' contains a I-Ean root akin to latine 'vert-', 'versus' see 'to revert': notion of circular move, rotation?

----------


## MOESAN

> RISE486 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327
> RISE487 Italy Remedello I2a1a
> RISE489 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327


_a good answer to me when I was speculating it could have been an other kind of Y-I2: I lost and I didn't loose in the same time because I did not bet; 
interesting in the way it could be the proof some male population could have received bronze technology without being overflowed by new elite!
It invites me to prudence! Or were they Adriatic coastal newcome people?
_

----------


## LeBrok

> Etimologically comes from different roots.
> It is protoslavic *vorta.
> So, there is not missing "d".
> 
> In english it would be gate.
> 
> OK correct, 2 roots: it's not the very thread, but I think 'vrata' contains a I-Ean root akin to latine 'vert-', 'versus' see 'to revert': notion of circular move, rotation?


That's right, it could be a name for a hinged door. Before invention of hinges wooden door was just placed in the opening and locked with some pegs and cross boards.

----------


## MOESAN

> RISE247 Hungary Vatya I2a2a-L368
> RISE254 Hungary Vatya I2a2a-L59
> RISE479 Hungary Vatya I2a2a1a2a2-SK1247/Y4915


_
is that the Y-I2a2 M223?_

----------


## Jason Neuharth

> _
> is that the Y-I2a2 M223?_


no it would be P216

----------


## Johannes

> @ Johannes
> 
> there is a strange connection among in Balkans and Crimea with Gothic, some say that Thracian Getae were simmilar with Goths, land of Ostrogoths (Auster-Getae) VisiGoths (Besii-Getae) Crimean Gothic until after 1900 I admit that somehow I believe, I can not certify, neither is attested that gothic and Getae have a connection among them, I believe Thracian was not Satem, but split to satem and centum much after 500BC and satem Thracian with Scythian created Slavic, all the above is a feeling, nothing serious, that many wonder why and how, but we found strange Gothic/germanic vocabulary in Slavic, Albanian, even in Greek, and that is not expected, neither explained, for example how you can explaine the Albanian_ Dera_ (door) that is a germanic aspiration with Greek _Θυρα_ and celtic _Port_ and S Slavic _Vrata_, south of Danube? if Goths did not cross south of Danube?


The Goths were allowed to cross the Danube by the Romans after the Huns put pressure on them but eventually were very badly treated. That is why they revolted and destroyed four Roman legions. The Goths then pillaged and plundered all throughout the Balkans for several years. If I recall correctly the Goths only stayed in the Balkans for 25-30 years. Then the Roman Emperor wanted to get rid of them and gave them lands in what is now Croatia. But later the emperor changed his mind and asked the Goths to move into Italy and eventually France. Thus there was very little time for the Goths to settle and mix with the locals. Plus the locals treated the Goths very badly and considered them weird and strange people (barbarians). In fact the Goths were persecuted throughout their journey into Western Europe. So I doubt the Greeks or any other people adopted any Gothic words. Like everyone has said, they are from Indo-European roots. The Getae were not Goths. They were probably Thracian/Dacian or Skythian who happened to have a name similar to Goths. The word "goth" means to pour (as a libation) in adoration of a god. It probably has simlarity to "give forth." Besides the Getae were mentioned by the Greeks around 700 BCE!! This is way before the Goths ever set foot in SE Europe. Probably the reason why many sources confused the Getae with the Goths is that they looked very similar (both had red to blonde hair).

----------


## Alan

> The Goths were allowed to cross the Danube by the Romans after the Huns put pressure on them but eventually were very badly treated. That is why they revolted and destroyed four Roman legions. The Goths then pillaged and plundered all throughout the Balkans for several years. If I recall correctly the Goths only stayed in the Balkans for 25-30 years. Then The Roman Emperor gave them lands in what is now Croatia. But later the emperor changed his mind and asked the Goths to move into Italy (and eventually France). Thus there was very little time for the Goths to settle and mix with the locals. Plus the locals treated the Goths badly and considered them weird and strange people (inferior barbarians). In fact the Goths were persecuted throughout their journey into Western Europe. So I doubt the Greeks or any other people adopted any Gothic words. Like everyone has said, they are from Indo-European roots. The Getae were not Goths. They were probably Thracian/Dacian or Skythian who happened to have a name similar to Goths. The word "goth" means to pour (as a libation) in adoration of a god. It probably has simlarity to "give forth." Besides the Getae were mentioned by the Greeks around 700 BCE!! This is way before the Goths ever set foot in SE Europe. Probably the reason why many sources confused the Getae with the Goths is that they looked very similar (both had red to blonde hair).



The Getae were a small tribal group among Thracians with most likely Iranic origin. Like 1/3 of all Thracian tribes were originaly Iranic.

The Getae most likely descend from the Massagetae (what basically means "big/great/massive Getae")

----------


## Alan

Thracians in general seem to have a connection to Iranic speakers. No wonder were they neighbors of the Cimmerians who were Iranic but withconnections to Thracians.

Also a comment I found about late Bronze AGe Thracian samples. Some were contaminated/noisy (showing some noisy australic and Sub Saharan admixture) some other were very stable.




> V2 from a late Bronze Age flat grave: He's perhaps the most complete of the lot and he had about 44% West_Asian in Eurogenes K15, which is almost at Caucasus-level.
> T2G2 from an early Iron Age kurgan, very noisy.
> K8 from a late Iron Age kurgan, came out rather Russian-like, Dave suggested he might be contaminated.

----------


## Johannes

> The Getae were a small tribal group among Thracians with most likely Iranic origin. Like 1/3 of all Thracian tribes were originaly Iranic.
> 
> The Getae most likely descend from the Massagetae (what basically means "big/great/massive Getae")


Thats correct. Jordanes was the one who caused all the confusion because he thought the Massagetae were the original Goths. But were the Getae originally Iranic-speakers??? How do you know? Is there any linguistic evidence?

----------


## Sile

> The Goths were allowed to cross the Danube by the Romans after the Huns put pressure on them but eventually were very badly treated. That is why they revolted and destroyed four Roman legions. The Goths then pillaged and plundered all throughout the Balkans for several years. If I recall correctly the Goths only stayed in the Balkans for 25-30 years. Then The Roman Emperor gave them lands in what is now Croatia. But later the emperor changed his mind and asked the Goths to move into Italy (and eventually France). Thus there was very little time for the Goths to settle and mix with the locals. Plus the locals treated the Goths badly and considered them weird and strange people (inferior barbarians). In fact the Goths were persecuted throughout their journey into Western Europe. So I doubt the Greeks or any other people adopted any Gothic words. Like everyone has said, they are from Indo-European roots. The Getae were not Goths. They were probably Thracian/Dacian or Skythian who happened to have a name similar to Goths. The word "goth" means to pour (as a libation) in adoration of a god. It probably has simlarity to "give forth." Besides the Getae were mentioned by the Greeks around 700 BCE!! This is way before the Goths ever set foot in SE Europe. Probably the reason why many sources confused the Getae with the Goths is that they looked very similar (both had red to blonde hair).


The goths where only allowed to enter Roman empire if they gave up 1 child as a slave and then where fed dog meat to survive in the Roman empire

The thracians composed of 4 main tribes , 
*Dacians* , next to them on the black sea the *Getae*
*Triballi* and next to them on the black sea *Odrysian* ( the true pure thracians as noted by some )

----------


## Alan

> Thats correct. Jordanes was the one who caused all the confusion because he thought the Massagetae were the original Goths. But were the Getae originally Iranic-speakers??? How do you know? Is there any linguistic evidence?



The Massagetae are definitely Iranic speakers related to Sakas(Scythians) historically evident by records from Heredotus. They lived in what is modern day Uzbekistan and South Kazakhstan. Massa is an old Iranic term and basically means "massive/big/great" . As comparison modern Kurdish "Masin" what has the same meaning. It is related to modern English "massive" and Greek "Mega" . And Getae =Getae.

Now the aDNA of some ancient Thracians show evidence of Eastern origin. It is also known that among the Thracians was all large number of Scythic tribes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...d_Dacia#Tribes
Also Heredotus saw a connection between the Getae(Thracians) and Massagetae.

Therefore I have the hypothesis that the Getae originated or were very closely related to the Massagetae.

As I said in the past, I believe if the Thracians were still alive, they would be the next closest relatives to Iranic speakers (Even before Balto_Slaves, Armenians or Greeks). Many things on Thracians are identical to ancient Iranic tribes.

But thats just all my hypothesis.

----------


## Johannes

[QUOTE=Alan;461619]The Massagetae are definitely Iranic speakers related to Sakas(Scythians) historically evident by records from Heredotus. Massa is an old Iranic term and basically means "massive/big/great". Now the aDNA of some ancient Thracians show evidence of Eastern origin. It is also known that among the Thracians was all large number of Scythic tribes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...d_Dacia#Tribes Also Heredotus saw a connection between the Getae(Thracians) and Massagetae.QUOTE]

Herodotus never mentioned anything about how the Massagetae spoke or what the language of the Skythians used to be. The DNA of some Thracians might be of "eastern origin" but this does not prove they were Saka. The Thracians lived at the "edge" of Europe so its obvious they would have some Euro-Asian DNA.

----------


## Alan

> Herodotus never mentioned anything about how the Massagetae spoke or what the language of the Skythians used to be. The DNA of some Thracians might be of "eastern origin" but this does not prove they were Saka. The Thracians lived at the "edge" of Europe so its obvious they would have some Euro-Asian DNA.


Heredotus called the Massagetae a "Scythic people" (Iranic speakers). Those people lived in Central Asia next to Sakas , their costumes, rituals and everything else is evident. They are generally accepted in the scientific world as Iranic group.

Some is good they had ~45% Caucasus_Gedrosia type DNA which is typical for modern people of Western Asia.

----------


## Johannes

> Heredotus called the Massagetae a "Scythic people" (Iranic speakers). Those people lived in Central Asia next to Sakas , their costumes, rituals and everything else is evident. They are generally accepted in the scientific world as Iranic group.
> 
> Some is good they had ~45% Caucasus_Gedrosia type DNA which is typical for modern people of Western Asia.


I know what you mean but we should be wary of Herodotus -- he called them "Scythic people" -- OK: but this does not mean he went over to them and made a linguistic study of them! Herodotus was guessing! We will never know what the Massagetae spoke! As far as I remember Herodotus only studied the Skythians of eastern Europe or southern Russia not Central Asia.

----------


## Alan

> I know what you mean but we should be wary of Herodotus -- he called them "Scythic people" -- OK: but this does not mean he went over to them and made a linguistic study of them! Herodotus was guessing! We will never know what the Massagetae spoke! As far as I remember Herodotus only studied the Skythians of eastern Europe or southern Russia not Central Asia.


True but we have actually Saka inscriptions from Khotan in Central Asia and they have been identified as Iranic. Also Heredotus wrote Sogdians were descend of Scythians and he also saw a relationship with Sarmatians. Linguistic have confirmed that Sogdian is most likely a middle Iranic descend of Saka. Also Sarmatian being related to Scythic has been confirmed. Also Heredotus saw a clear resemblence of Massagetae to Scythians.

Also linguists have identified the name of the Massagetae Queen and her son as Iranic.


So in large majority of cases Heredotus was correct. Therefore I find it very likely that Heredotus was correct about Massegetae too especially since they were surrounded by other Iranic speakers and linguists identifiying Massagetae names as Iranic.

----------


## Johannes

> True but we have actually Saka inscriptions from Khotan in Central Asia and they have been identified as Iranic. Also Heredotus wrote Sogdians were descend of Scythians and he also saw a relationship with Sarmatians. Linguistic have confirmed that Sogdian is most likely a middle Iranic descend of Saka. Also Sarmatian being related to Scythic has been confirmed. Also Heredotus saw a clear resemblence of Massagetae to Scythians.
> 
> Also linguists have identified the name of the Massagetae Queen and her son as Iranic.
> 
> 
> So in large majority of cases Heredotus was correct. Therefore I find it very likely that Heredotus was correct about Massegetae too especially since they were surrounded by other Iranic speakers and linguists identifiying Massagetae names as Iranic.


Yes, Herodotus is to be respected. He is a valuable authority of ancient peoples. He is the father of history. Whats interesting is that the Persians were also descended from "Scythian" or "Iranic speakers." In fact Iran derives from "Aryanland." 

There were two kinds of Scythians: European Scythians and "Saka" or Asian Scythians. They both spoke the same or similar language and used Satem. However, a study was made of remains in Kazakhstan and some interesting results came out. For example, by the time Herodotus was writing about the Scythians most of the Saka were alredy a hybrid people (part white part Asian). However, the culture of the Saka seems to have been identical to the European Scythians. Just imagine Mountain Men in USA and Native Americans who had mixed with whites but had the same culture. Here is the study:

*Figure 2. Spatial frequency distribution maps of East Eurasian lineages.*
A- Pre-Iron Age period; B- Iron Age period. Frequency values and detailed information for populations 1–8 are shown in table 3. 1- Mongolia (Altai), 2- Gorny Altai, 3- West Kazakhstan, 4- Central Kazakhstan, 5- South Kazakhstan, 6- East Kazakhstan, 7- SW Siberia, 8- Mongolia (Egyin Gol).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048904.g002


"Tracing the Origin of the East-West Population Admixture in the Altai Region (Central Asia)"

*This clearly shows that by the Iron Age most of the Sakas in Central Asia had become "hybrids". During the Bronze Age the Saka had reached all the way into W China and the Altai region. They then mixed with Mongoloid women (and probably men) and the Mongoloid DNA had spread with the Saka and other possible Turkish-speaking tribes into Russia. So we can conclude that during by the start of the Iron Age two types of Indo-Iranians lived in the steppes: 1) the European Skythians and Sarmatians and the hybrids possibly of Turkish speaking descendants of the Saka. The Saka had clearly mixed with Mongoloid people throughout the time they roamed Kazakhstan. And this predates the time of the Huns and other Turkish speakers.*

----------


## MOESAN

Some points after Reich and Allentoft:
Some discrepancies between both works even if the samples of cultures were not exactly the same ones, and if, and I regret it, the breaking down into autosomes subgroups are not the same ones; let’s be cautious then. First result: I’m obliged to use proxi’s. the brown part in graphics seems sort of ‘steppic’ (ANE in it?) +’WHG’+’EHG’, so I’ ll do with it. I suppose it the ‘yamnaya’ element?
The ‘west-asian’ (absent in Samara HG) seems light, as the East-Asia diverse components. The question is in the interpretation of this kind of ‘WHG’: new introduced by Steppes tribes or stayed in place after Neolithic? The first hypothesis magnifies the role of Steppes people in Western Europe when the second diminishes it for a part. Personally I would think the first interpretation is closer to reality but who knows?
What remains of the two surveys is the vicinity of Corded to Unetice and BBs people, with a bit more of Western Europe (‘atlantic’ , ‘west-med’) among BBs Quickly said Unetice seems between Corded and BB what is not disproved by archeology and physical anthropology. The proximity to Yamnaya population (not only the component) is less evident in Allentoft than in Reich; Yamnaya people had almost 0% of ‘west-med’ or EEF or whatever ‘sardinian’ but in Allentoft this southwestern component appears in Corded, what troubles me! Not the same Corded sites or onlythhe differences in breaking down? 
What strikes me in Allentoft  is the greater vicinity of Sintashta C. to Corded and other Central Europe Bronze Populations than to Yamnaya, spite it is further East and well separated from Corded on a map. Sintashta people had a little bit of EEF or a ‘mediter’ or pseudo ‘sardinian’ (?) as Corded when Yamnaya has not; Sintashta had less ‘caucasus’ or ‘west-asian’ than Yamnaya, and also less of diverse North-East Asia DNA. At the opposite, Afanasyevo, older than Sintashta, is very close to Yamnaya. Not so stupid was Konintsev affirmation saying a lot of Russian-Siberian Steppes cultures were in debt to Center-Western Europe, according to his metric surveys. Not in accord with Grigoryev affirmations that Sintashta people were for the most southerners, finding cultural sources in Anatolia, South Caucasus, Syria and Palestina. I red in some forums that Afanasyevo would have been of Western Europe origin, but it does not appear in the Allentoft’s DNA survey; As Yamnaya and Afanasyevo are older, I think the first impulse was from Steppes. Is it hazard if Sintashta and Andronovo more recent cultures seem linked to Corded? I don’t think it!
The Grigoryev’s error is thinking similar artefacts are the mark of similar population: old problem of archeology. Artefacts prove contacts, not fusion. And contacts between steppic tribes and southern more civilized folks were already old enough.The Corded tribes had stone axes which were inspired by Anatolia and Iran copper axes (even imitating the mould marks!), spite their rather northern affinities. Contacts have been, sure. When? Where? When looking at burying traditions in some cultures and places like Unetice or South Siberian ones we see different traditions surely linked to different origins: some scholars imagined metallurgists elites, with great cultural influences and light demic influences…

&: concerning Armenia supposed without admixture since the 1500 BC, the bronze Age people, spite being far enough from Steppes tribes, showed less EEF or ‘mediter’ component, less ‘west-asian’ and more ‘steppe’ (+HG) and some North-East Asia components quasi absent in today population: so either Armenians received imput from Near-Eastern after Bronze or at the contrary the Bronze population contained addition of Steppes people and was a partly foreign elite whose rarest components almost disappeared by time. a third solution could be: more Catacomb A proximity, these last ones more southernlike?

&: the first 'mongoloids' in eastern Steppes appeared about the iron Age, depending on places (Tarim Bassin: only about 1000 BC) - but in Northern parts of Okunevo culture, pre-Iron, 'amerindian-like' people weighted for more than 50% versus 'europoids'

----------


## MOESAN

Thanks Johannes. It seems confirming Kazakhstans surveys about the progressive replacement of 'europoids' in this part of Steppes by 'east-asian' people.
in Kazakhstan the process of replacement perdured until late enough historical times, according to their scholars.

----------


## Alan

> Yes, Herodotus is to be respected. He is a valuable authority of ancient peoples. He is the father of history. Whats interesting is that the Persians were also descended from "Scythian" or "Iranic speakers." In fact Iran derives from "Aryanland." 
> 
> There were two kinds of Scythians: European Scythians and "Saka" or Asian Scythians. They both spoke the same or similar language and used Satem. However, a study was made of remains in Kazakhstan and some interesting results came out. For example, by the time Herodotus was writing about the Scythians most of the Saka were alredy a hybrid people (part white part Asian). However, the culture of the Saka seems to have been identical to the European Scythians. Just imagine Mountain Men in USA and Native Americans who had mixed with whites but had the same culture. Here is the study:
> 
> *Figure 2. Spatial frequency distribution maps of East Eurasian lineages.*
> A- Pre-Iron Age period; B- Iron Age period. Frequency values and detailed information for populations 1–8 are shown in table 3. 1- Mongolia (Altai), 2- Gorny Altai, 3- West Kazakhstan, 4- Central Kazakhstan, 5- South Kazakhstan, 6- East Kazakhstan, 7- SW Siberia, 8- Mongolia (Egyin Gol).
> doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048904.g002
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I know the Steppes were slowly getting mixed with East Eurasian admixture but I think we were speaking about a people ethnic origin and not there genetic make up.

Yet this is still incorrect. What we clearly see here is that Early Saka were predominantly West Eurasian (+90% ) and slowly when they expanded towards East they *absorbed* East Eurasian dna within time. But how does that play a role in the ethnic origin of Sakas? 

Obviously all Iranic speakers mixed with other respective people of their region. Or are Punjabis not Indo_Iranians because they obviously mixed with tribal Indian groups? I kinda don't see the logic behind this and don't understand how this is important to our discussion that Saka were an Iranic tribe confirmed by linguistics and archeologists. It doesn't matter much how much of non Scythian genes they absorbed in some places in that case. 

Just because a, let's say my brother marries a woman from a near by tribe and brings her to ours and she becomes part of our tribe, does that make their children anything else but Kurds? I think you have a different view because you are not used to tribal thinking as much as I (not meant in a disrespectful manner) . People who incooperate into a society (mostly females) become part of it. And in the case of Sakas we see that geneticwise there was a change but culturalwise not. Therefore we can speak of genetic absorbation but not an "ethnical change".

Also as I pointed out before the Bronze and early Iron Age Saka from all of Kazakhstan were almost fully West Eurasian. Only when they expanded further towards east into the Altais they absorbed genes from local people what is very normal, as Indo_Iranians did when they reached India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. But that doesn't make them any less Iranic, because Iranic is a ethno_cultural designation to which more than just genetics belong (Culture, Religion, Language, political motives and genetics). All Iron Age Iranic tribes differed significantly from their Proto Indo_Iranian forefathers *at least* slightly and Sakas from Altais were not an exception to that.

pazyryk culture was the furthest the Scythians expanded.The primary homeland of the Saka (from where they expanded) was Kazkahstan

as seen on this map

----------


## Johannes

> Yes I know the Steppes were slowly getting mixed with East Eurasian admixture but I think we were speaking about a people ethnic origin and not there genetic make up.
> 
> Yet this is still incorrect. What we clearly see here is that Early Saka were predominantly West Eurasian (+90% ) and slowly when they expanded towards East they *absorbed* East Eurasian dna within time. But how does that play a role in the ethnic origin of Sakas? 
> 
> Obviously all Iranic speakers mixed with other respective people of their region. Or are Punjabis not Indo_Iranians because they obviously mixed with tribal Indian groups? I kinda don't see the logic behind this and don't understand how this is important to our discussion that Saka were an Iranic tribe confirmed by linguistics and archeologists. It doesn't matter much how much of non Scythian genes they absorbed in some places in that case. 
> 
> Just because a, let's say my brother marries a woman from a near by tribe and brings her to ours and she becomes part of our tribe, does that make their children anything else but Kurds? I think you have a different view because you are not used to tribal thinking as much as I (not meant in a disrespectful manner) . People who incooperate into a society (mostly females) become part of it. And in the case of Sakas we see that geneticwise there was a change but culturalwise not. Therefore we can speak of genetic absorbation but not an "ethnical change".
> 
> Also as I pointed out before the Bronze and early Iron Age Saka from all of Kazakhstan were almost fully West Eurasian. Only when they expanded further towards east into the Altais they absorbed genes from local people what is very normal, as Indo_Iranians did when they reached India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. But that doesn't make them any less Iranic, because Iranic is a ethno_cultural designation to which more than just genetics belong (Culture, Religion, Language, political motives and genetics). All Iron Age Iranic tribes differed significantly from their Proto Indo_Iranian forefathers *at least* slightly and Sakas from Altais were not an exception to that.
> ...


The Saka did not mix "slightly." They mixed a lot. As it is clear from this study during the Bronze Age the Saka were 100% West Eurasian and by the Iron Age they were 50% West Eurasian-50% East Eurasian. I know the study uses confusing terminology. They claim to have studied remains of persons in Mongolia and Altai region (#1 and #8). But what they should have stated is that East Eurasians were actually East Asian, or at least most of them.

I never said the Saka lost their culture. I stated before that the Saka and Tocharians had a tremendous influence on the Turks and Mongols on the development of the steppe culture. The Turks and Mongols completely copied or adopted the Saka culture that at the time. If we encountered Saka during the Bronze Age it would have been hard to tell them apart from the Skythians. However, this study clearly shows how the Saka and Tocharians became progressively more Mongol/Turkish as time went on. This study also points to how the Huns and later Turkish tribes who conquered all of Central Asia and Eastern Europe must have carried all the R1a of the Sakas and mixed with the Slavic and Balkanic peoples. Therefore not all of the R1a in eastern Europe is of Slavic origin.

----------


## Johannes

> Thanks Johannes. It seems confirming Kazakhstans surveys about the progressive replacement of 'europoids' in this part of Steppes by 'east-asian' people.
> in Kazakhstan the process of replacement perdured until late enough historical times, according to their scholars.


And the Hybrids later on became or evolved into Turkish speakers and carried a lot of R1a back into Eastern Europe.

----------

