Yamnaya Culture is not Indo-European?

Alex Repin

Regular Member
Messages
45
Reaction score
8
Points
8
Location
Moscow
Ethnic group
Slavo-Germanic
At the suggestion of M. Gimbutas ("Kurgan Hypothesis"), it is generally accepted that the Yamnaya Culture is the source of Indo-European expansion into Europe. But now it is already clear that the Yamnaya Culture is not Indo-European. According to paleogenetic data, it is the result of a mixture of ethnic groups, carriers of the R1b and J haplogroups ... Funeral rites for the Yamnaya Culture and IE are clearly different. If all this is true, the question arises: what exactly did the Yamnaya Culture give for the emergence of the Indo-European community, besides carts, metallurgy and kurgan's? The question is debatable
 
very often you can read that the Yamnaya Culture is proto-Indo-European)))) But the essence does not change - it is NOT Indo-European. There doesn't seem to be any idea how she moved to IE)
 
Understanding the process of transformation of the "proto-IE" of the Yamnaya Culture into the IE itself is difficult because the Yamnaya Culture itself was hybrid, and consisted of two ethnic groups (at least): Caucasian, haplogroup J, and Steppe R1b. But perhaps this is the answer to the question. Apparently, the Yamnaya Culture in the face of the "ethnos R1b" generally easily formed hybrids with other cultures. For example, in Afanasievskaya Kultura R1b together "ethnos Q" and "ethnos T" .


The influence of the Proto-IE language on the formation of the IE language can explain the phenomenon of the "Celtic fire in Europe". When Europe was "suddenly" inhabited by the Celts. Which in fact were there before, but easily adopted the IE language and culture due to the proximity of the root proto-language to IE. A similar phenomenon was observed in the Roman Empire, when "suddenly" several million Jews appeared - former Phoenicians, who feared persecution due to the defeat of Carthage.
 
A theory I heard is that Indoeuropean migration occurred between two groups. Yamnaya wnd Corded ware. And that they were not the same because they didn't share the same r1b subclades. Even though they were autosomally the same. They just both had common origins even further back. Corded ware dominated most of europe and then came back and kicked yamnaya out of the steppe where some migrated eastward, but also some yamnaya had migrated south into the balkans I believe and into Anataolia.
This is where I heard the theory.

 
It's an interesting situation! The fact is that Yamnaya Culture is exclusively R1a with a very small admixture of R1b, and Yamnaya Culture is exclusively R1b and a little J2. And the Corded Culture itself was formed after the Yamnaya Culture, under its influence. Archaeologists also note the evolution of Corded Ware from Bell Beaker cups. That is, we see the influence of R1b simultaneously from the Yamnaya Culture from the East, and from the Bell Beaker from the West of Europe, which began their exodus from the Caucasus region even before the formation of the Yamnaya Culture.An interesting phenomenon is the R1a natives, which are easily "polarized" under the influence of other cultures. There is a hypothesis that the "sudden" Celticization of Europe occurred because the Celts were already there! And during the invasion of the Indo-Europeans, they easily assimilated their culture, fortunately, they were also R1a. The same phenomenon explains the "sudden" emergence of the Corded Culture. They easily and quickly accepted the cultural influence of the Yamnaya Culture.By the way, the Cord Culture apparently did not have its own metallurgy - only stone axes were found in the burials.
 
There's no need to overthink this.

"And 99% of Indo-European speakers stem from Corded Ware ancestors. It is only three small groups: Greeks, Armenians, Albanians who go up to the Yamnaya not via Corded Ware intermediaries. Many others were wiped out linguistically, e.g. Tocharians and most Paleo-Balkan speakers."

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1562894185769754627?s=20







 
Understanding the process of transformation of the "proto-IE" of the Yamnaya Culture into the IE itself is difficult because the Yamnaya Culture itself was hybrid, and consisted of two ethnic groups (at least): Caucasian, haplogroup J, and Steppe R1b. But perhaps this is the answer to the question. Apparently, the Yamnaya Culture in the face of the "ethnos R1b" generally easily formed hybrids with other cultures. For example, in Afanasievskaya Kultura R1b together "ethnos Q" and "ethnos T" .


The influence of the Proto-IE language on the formation of the IE language can explain the phenomenon of the "Celtic fire in Europe". When Europe was "suddenly" inhabited by the Celts. Which in fact were there before, but easily adopted the IE language and culture due to the proximity of the root proto-language to IE. A similar phenomenon was observed in the Roman Empire, when "suddenly" several million Jews appeared - former Phoenicians, who feared persecution due to the defeat of Carthage.


There are no ethnic groups in such remote times. You are confusing 19th century ideologies on the Indo-European question with what we really know today about it.
 
There are no ethnic groups in such remote times. You are confusing 19th century ideologies on the Indo-European question with what we really know today about it.
There probably kinda was, but it was most likely more clannish back then, and modern ethnic groups definitely did not apply in such ancient time.
 
There probably kinda was, but it was most likely more clannish back then, and modern ethnic groups definitely did not apply in such ancient time.

Indeed, it is safe to say that the concept of ethnicity as it is conceived today cannot be applied to such remote prehistoric populations. Let alone if it can be applied to uniparental markers.
 
Nevertheless, we see communities of people marked genetically and leading very different lifestyles... How to be?


You are absolutely right, these are not yet ethnic groups, but certain communities that need to be defined somehow.
 
Indeed, it is safe to say that the concept of ethnicity as it is conceived today cannot be applied to such remote prehistoric populations. Let alone if it can be applied to uniparental markers.

In principle, it is natural that, in the end, formed ethnic groups stand out from certain global communities. This corresponds to the nature of the phylogenetic tree. Here the history of the prehistoric world is marked with genetic markers. It is interesting to highlight the stages of this process!
 
It is interesting that in prehistoric evolution we observe formally two opposite processes:

1. The disaggregation of certain global genetic communities up to the formation of ethnic groups.
2. Consolidation of social societies according to the scheme tribe-village-city-state-empire.
At the same time, the evolution of the language must take place, from some kind of continuous continuum to the formation of dialects. Linking all these processes together is an interesting task for the research historian.
 
It's an interesting situation! The fact is that Yamnaya Culture is exclusively R1a with a very small admixture of R1b, and Yamnaya Culture is exclusively R1b and a little J2. And the Corded Culture itself was formed after the Yamnaya Culture, under its influence. Archaeologists also note the evolution of Corded Ware from Bell Beaker cups. That is, we see the influence of R1b simultaneously from the Yamnaya Culture from the East, and from the Bell Beaker from the West of Europe, which began their exodus from the Caucasus region even before the formation of the Yamnaya Culture.An interesting phenomenon is the R1a natives, which are easily "polarized" under the influence of other cultures. There is a hypothesis that the "sudden" Celticization of Europe occurred because the Celts were already there! And during the invasion of the Indo-Europeans, they easily assimilated their culture, fortunately, they were also R1a. The same phenomenon explains the "sudden" emergence of the Corded Culture. They easily and quickly accepted the cultural influence of the Yamnaya Culture.By the way, the Cord Culture apparently did not have its own metallurgy - only stone axes were found in the burials.

Not everything posted is true. For example this post, by member Fire Haired14
user-offline.png


Thread: R1a-Z93 in Yamnaya


https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32143-R1a-Z93-in-Yamnaya

R1a-Z93 in Yamnaya

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

We now know that vast majority of male paternal Yamnaya belong to R1b-Z2109+. They were buried in kurgans(aka burial mounds) with red ochre and or pottery, wagons, metals-copper, bronze(arsenic), and iron. Animals bones included Dom2 horse like Turganik.

The shadow area-- Sredny Stogg (devoid of R1a-Z93) is also the location of early Yamnaya R1b-Z2109+ culture. Compare the 3 maps below.
Sredny Stogg
Sredny_Stog_culture.jpg

Yamnaya culture
yamnaya-expansion-bell-beaker-1100x458.jpg


R1a-Z93
Haplogroup-R1a-Z93-Eurasia.png
 
DNA Y R1a-Z93 ("R1a1a1d2a") - only ONE sample! The situation is further complicated by the fact that only the elite were buried in well-researched burial mounds - R1b
Willingly assume that somewhere scattered single low-profile graves with R1a. In any case, the question is very interesting. But it seems clear that R1a occupied a subordinate and insignificant position in the Yamnaya Culture. That is, they did not form an alloy of the Yamnaya Culture, unlike the same J2 from the south. I myself have been under the false belief for many years that the Yamnaya Culture is a fusion of R1b and R1a. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it...
 

This thread has been viewed 3443 times.

Back
Top