View Full Version : The Indo-European homeland and the most Euro zones of Europe according to DNA Tribes
I found this interesting, because it seems to fit exactly with my own theories based on ancient DNA, Y-DNA and genome-wide SNPs.
European Index scores were also calculated for all non-European world regions where Indo-European languages are spoken (the Mesopotamian, North India, Eastern India, and South India regions) or have been spoken in the past (the Altaian region).
European Index
Germanic (IE) 1.000
Polish (IE) 1.000
Balkan (IE) 1.000
Norse (IE) 0.990
Belgic (IE) 0.987
Celtic (IE) 0.977
Russian (IE) 0.977
Scythian (IE) 0.971
Finnic (non-IE) 0.880
Basque (non-IE) 0.835
Portuguese (IE) 0.807
Spanish (IE) 0.792
Thracian (IE) 0.784
Urals (non-IE) 0.676
Italian (IE) 0.653
Greek (IE) 0.526
Altaian (former IE) 0.302
Mesopotamian (some IE) 0.196
North India (IE) 0.122
Eastern India (some IE) 0.000
South India (some IE) 0.000
Discussion: Three European sub-regions were assigned the highest European Index scores: the Balkan, Germanic, and Polish sub-regions. This indicates that of all surveyed regions, genetic patterns in these three subregions are most specifically European. These scores do not imply that this zone has been isolated from world patterns of gene flow in any absolute sense, but do indicate that it is relatively characteristic of Europeans. These three sub-regions are located in adjacent territories of Central Europe (mapped in Figure 4), which will be termed the Central Indo-European (CIE) genetic zone in subsequent portions of this article.
These results indicate that the highest European Index scores were observed in geographically central locations of Europe where Indo-European languages are spoken, including linguistically conservative Balto-Slavic languages. However, this CIE zone does not include the Scythian region where the Kurgan cultures (central to Gimbutas’ Kurgan hypothesis) are thought to have originated. Instead, the CIE genetic zone is more similar to the Corded Ware horizon, which developed from local cultural traditions of North-Central Europe (such as the Funnelbeaker or TRB culture).
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/IE_zone.gif
Old Europes: Genetic Evidence of Indo-Europeans and Substrates in the West (http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2009-07-29.pdf)
In the end, the Germanic zone comes out slightly more Indo-European than the Polish one (96.8% vs. 95.8%). I'd hate to be a sore loser, but I blame the inclusion of the partly Finnic Balts in the "Polish" zone for our second place. :whoco:
EliasAlucard
2009-11-26, 01:34
Not to sound like a race denier or anything, but is it even possible to measure "Indo-European" genes?
Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287948/)
And what's those 5% non-IE genes in Poles and Germans anyway?
Not to sound like a race denier or anything, but is it even possible to measure "Indo-European" genes?
And what's those 5% non-IE genes in Poles and Germans anyway?
I think it's possible to measure the origin of the IE expansion with genetic evidence.
The non-IE input in the Germans includes Basque and Native American (North Erasian) influence, the latter probably from Scandinavia. The Polish zone has Uralic and Finnic admix, but like I already mentioned above, that would drop if the Balts weren't included in the analysis. It's no coincidence that N1c1 is so common in Lithuania and Latvia.
---------- Post added at 02:09 ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 ----------
Compare the above map with the one showing the modern distribution of R1a1a lineages most closely resembling those of the proto-Scythians and Scythians.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Ystr.jpg
Christine Keyser et al., Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people, Human Genetics (http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/?p=087abdf3edf548a4a719290f7fc84a62&pi=0), Saturday, May 16, 2009, doi: 10.1007/s00439-009-0683-0
Geto-Thracian
2009-11-26, 03:10
I found this interesting, because it seems to fit exactly with my own theories based on ancient DNA, Y-DNA and genome-wide SNPs.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/IE_zone.gif
Old Europes: Genetic Evidence of Indo-Europeans and Substrates in the West (http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2009-07-29.pdf)
In the end, the Germanic zone comes out slightly more Indo-European than the Polish one (96.8% vs. 95.8%). I'd hate to be a sore loser, but I blame the inclusion of the partly Finnic Balts in the "Polish" zone for our second place. :whoco:
Amazing how little this company's data meant to you in regards to my results from them, but lo and behold, once they have something to say which you "like" their data is all-of-a-sudden worthy of your attention. Not surprised, really.
Anyway, no big deal, we all do it.
On my europa results, which is what this is based on, I scored highest scores for the Balkan zone, followed by the Germanic zone, then Italian, celtic, Russian, Polish, Norse etc. I have not updated my results since they added the Thracian and Scythian zones to these graphs so it will be interesting to see how I score on those two seeing how Romania is almost entirely in the Thracian zone. I predict I will not score higher in the Thracian zone than my two top zones (Balkan, Germanic) because the Banat and Transylvania are at the western extreme of modern Romania. My score for Bucharest "tribe" ws way down the list at no 60 and the Moldavian and Dobrojean ones were also way removed from my top scores. According to DNA tribes I gotta be at or near 100% IE.
Once again I will reiterate my theory that IE culture and language began in the Carpatho-Danubian space when the neolithic farmers met and mixed with the steppe herders to form the Sesklo, Vinca and Cucuteni cultures. The first people to master mettalurgy, proto-writing, agriculture (in europe), the wheel, pastoralism (minus the horse) and secondary industries involving sheep, cows, pigs, and goats. This cultural package HAD to be the one to spread IE as nothing that was done on the steppes could even come close to the influence these people had on eurasian development.
Geto-Thracian
2009-11-26, 03:11
WEAK comeback! It doesn't even make any sense. Romania is a microcosm of the entire caucasoid race and that is why we do not have a specific grouping. I personally, however, am as good an example of a pure Aryan IE yadda yadda as you will find. I may be closer to the ME than N euros TODAY, but the original old euros looked like me not like you. I am a little less inbred and with far fewer recessive traits.
So what were your personal results like? All kidding aside (and I do hope you don't take any of our exchanges personally or too seriously, I enjoy intelligent debate with a bit of a cutting edge) I would love to hear about your results with them. Did you post them on DNA tribes log?:)
Something is wrong with the site again, all these should have been below yours...sorry for repeating myself!
This cultural package HAD to be the one to spread IE as nothing that was done on the steppes could even come close to the influence these people had on eurasian development.
I'm not seeing Romania doing too well on any of these maps though...
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/IE_zone.gif
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Ystr.jpg
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/cw_map.jpg
Wolfgang Haak et al, Ancient DNA, Strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226.full), PNAS, Published online before print November 17, 2008, doi:10.1073/pnas.0807592105
EliasAlucard
2009-11-26, 03:39
I think it's possible to measure the origin of the IE expansion with genetic evidence.How so? You are aware you're trying to measure a language group, genetically? Even if it's possible to measure the PIE-expansion chances are you'll also include non-IE ethnic groups without knowing better, simply because they were genetically close at the time despite speaking completely different language groups. This would certainly complicate measuring the origins of IE expansion. The same is probably also true for Afro-Asiatic and many other language group expansions.
We have to keep in mind here, language groups aren't as clear cut as sub-Saharan African, West Eurasian, East Asian etc.
The non-IE input in the Germans includes Basque and Native American (North Erasian) influence, the latter probably from Scandinavia. The Polish zone has Uralic and Finnic admix, but like I already mentioned above, that would drop if the Balts weren't included in the analysis. It's no coincidence that N1c1 is so common in Lithuania and Latvia.Elaborate?
Something is wrong with the site again, all these should have been below yours...sorry for repeating myself!I turned off the double-post auto-merger plugin, it may be what's causing the posts to be placed in the wrong order like that. However, if you switch to hybrid mode, it displays it in the correct order. I'm working on solving this.
Edit:
Turned off hybrid mode as well, let's see if this solves it.
You are aware you're trying to measure a language group, genetically? Even if it's possible to measure the PIE-expansion chances are you'll also include non-IE ethnic groups without knowing better, simply because they were genetically close at the time despite speaking completely different language groups. This would certainly complicate measuring the origins of IE expansion. The same is probably also true for Afro-Asiatic and many other language group expansions.
The spread of Indo-European culture and languages had to be linked to some fairly large migrations, especially early on.
The proto-Scythians (Andronovo et al.) and Scythians are most often thought as the emblematic early Indo-Europeans of the Eurasian steppes, and from their early remains, we know they were quite homogeneous.
But they didn't come from Central Asia originally. They migrated there from somewhere else. So that place must be the Indo-European homeland.
Elaborate?
Balts have Finnic admixture that Poles lack. They show this via their Y-DNA very clearly.
Interesting study, but since the map only shows the former Yugoslavia I wouldn't have referred to that region as "the Balkans" note that Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Albania are not included in the map.
WEAK comeback! It doesn't even make any sense. Romania is a microcosm of the entire caucasoid race and that is why we do not have a specific grouping. I personally, however, am as good an example of a pure Aryan IE yadda yadda as you will find. I may be closer to the ME than N euros TODAY, but the original old euros looked like me not like you. I am a little less inbred and with far fewer recessive traits.
Judging by your avatar, you're a spitting image of this Scythian.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Scythian.jpg
So what were your personal results like? All kidding aside (and I do hope you don't take any of our exchanges personally or too seriously, I enjoy intelligent debate with a bit of a cutting edge) I would love to hear about your results with them. Did you post them on DNA tribes log?:)
Something is wrong with the site again, all these should have been below yours...sorry for repeating myself!
I haven't done the Tribes test. If I did, I'm sure I'd be pretty similar to the Polish example they have on their website, but minus the relatively large Italian affinity, since I don't show any characteristics like that at 23andme.
Example Polish Person (http://www.dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnatribes-europa-sample-polish.pdf)
Btw, I'm gonna delete one of your "double" posts. Hopefully we can get this thing fixed soon.
Cinnabar
2009-11-26, 10:29
What is this "European Index score" exactly?
What is this "European Index score" exactly?
The most typical mix of those STR markers expected for Europeans.
It's kinda like scoring 100% on a genome-wide admix test, except you also get points taken away for being less typical than what the average European should be in theory. That's why Basques don't score 1.000 with that index, even though they don't actually have any non-European admixture.
I found this interesting, because it seems to fit exactly with my own theories based on ancient DNA, Y-DNA and genome-wide SNPs.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/IE_zone.gif
Old Europes: Genetic Evidence of Indo-Europeans and Substrates in the West (http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2009-07-29.pdf)
In the end, the Germanic zone comes out slightly more Indo-European than the Polish one (96.8% vs. 95.8%). I'd hate to be a sore loser, but I blame the inclusion of the partly Finnic Balts in the "Polish" zone for our second place. :whoco:
Polako, don't take this the wrong way, but I think you should see someone. :confused:
We've been through this before: Either you are European or you're not. There's no in between. This notion is a Slavic one. And Slavs... you know.
David Noi
2009-11-26, 14:11
In the end, ...
... your views became very close to the views of germany in between 1933 - 1945. Congrats :whoco:
Polako, don't take this the wrong way, but I think you should see someone. :confused:
There's nothing to be confused about. I didn't write this report, and I didn't write the other stuff coming out about the early Indo-Europeans. It's just how things are.
We've been through this before: Either you are European or you're not. There's no in between. This notion is a Slavic one. And Slavs... you know.
That's like saying the British aren't European because they established colonies in North America, Australia, Asia, etc.
sturmgewehr
2009-11-26, 15:18
When u say Balkans what the hell do they mean????
Are Bulgarians, Macedonians and Albanians Included or what????
There's nothing to be confused about. I didn't write this report, and I didn't write the other stuff coming out about the early Indo-Europeans. It's just how things are.
It's not about the facts. I don't dispute them in any way. It's about your interpretation of them. European identity doesn't work that way. Europeans strive to be different from each other - not similar.
Example: The French don't usually want to "be European" together with brits. Germans don't want to "share identity" with Italians. And so on. It's only among Slavs that people have this kind of "communal" identity. I'm not sure how to better describe it.
That's like saying the British aren't European because they established colonies in North America, Australia, Asia, etc.
Well, brits are actually quite different from the continent in many ways. But I don't think I understand your argument though?
It's only among Slavs that people have this kind of "communal" identity. I'm not sure how to better describe it.
I'm not really sure what you're doing in this thread? I told you, I didn't write the report, which is self-evident and backed up by academic research on the topic.
And you should really lay off the genetics angle. First of all, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and secondly you don't have a leg to stand on since you're a Romanian talking to a Pole.
I'm not really sure what you're doing in this thread? I told you, I didn't write the report, which is self-evident and backed up by academic research on the topic.
And you should really lay off the genetics angle. First of all, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and secondly you don't have a leg to stand on since you're a Romanian talking to a Pole.
Dude, I'm not talking about the genetics. I refer to the way you interpret the genetic scores to correspond to a "real" European identity. I am convinced that in terms of pure genetics you are correct. But you can at the same time not ignore how the cultural/ideological/whatever European identity is constructed. In short: Having "European" genes doesn't make you European. Ignoring the other part makes it look ridiculous.
Dude, I'm not talking about the genetics. I refer to the way you interpret the genetic scores to correspond to a "real" European identity. I am convinced that in terms of pure genetics you are correct. But you can at the same time not ignore how the cultural/ideological/whatever European identity is constructed. In short: Having "European" genes doesn't make you European. Ignoring the other part makes it look ridiculous.
No one's ignoring the other parts, but this thread isn't about those parts, it's about genetics.
EliasAlucard
2009-11-26, 15:55
No one's ignoring the other parts, but this thread isn't about those parts, it's about genetics.So anyway, does 95/6% mean that all Germans and Poles are straight up derived from the IE-expansion group? And is it somehow connected to the aR1an haplogroup or did they measure this through genome-wide SNP? I haven't had time to read the study.
Azvarohi
2009-11-26, 16:05
No one's ignoring the other parts, but this thread isn't about those parts, it's about genetics.
Yes, some just don't look at what subforum they are in.
No one's ignoring the other parts, but this thread isn't about those parts, it's about genetics.
I in no way intend to pull the thread off Topic. However I do believe that it should be related impact in modern times.
Btw. I have now taken the time to look through it and the whole thing seems pretty "amateurish" to me. Who writes these things?
My DNAtribes and 23&me contradicts, if you don't want get confused 23&me is enough.
My DNAtribes and 23&me contradicts, if you don't want get confused 23&me is enough.
Yes, I think with STR markers, as far as individuals are concerned anyway, there's always a chance of a crazy result.
Geto-Thracian
2009-11-27, 02:19
The spread of Indo-European culture and languages had to be linked to some fairly large migrations, especially early on.
The proto-Scythians (Andronovo et al.) and Scythians are most often thought as the emblematic early Indo-Europeans of the Eurasian steppes, and from their early remains, we know they were quite homogeneous.
But they didn't come from Central Asia originally. They migrated there from somewhere else. So that place must be the Indo-European homeland.
Balts have Finnic admixture that Poles lack. They show this via their Y-DNA very clearly.
That is where our beliefs converge. I think the Scythians stem from the overflow Carpatho-Danubian peoples who migrated north and north-east from what is now Romania and Moldova up into the steppes of the Ukraine and then came back later on and mixed with them again. Cucuteni culture is the one which spread to Ukraine and were whites.
Geto-Thracian
2009-11-27, 02:24
Judging by your avatar, you're a spitting image of this Scythian.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Scythian.jpg
I haven't done the Tribes test. If I did, I'm sure I'd be pretty similar to the Polish example they have on their website, but minus the relatively large Italian affinity, since I don't show any characteristics like that at 23andme.
Example Polish Person (http://www.dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnatribes-europa-sample-polish.pdf)
Btw, I'm gonna delete one of your "double" posts. Hopefully we can get this thing fixed soon.
Like they all looked like that! I bet most of them looked more like me than that dude.
That is where our beliefs converge. I think the Scythians stem from the overflow Carpatho-Danubian peoples who migrated north and north-east from what is now Romania and Moldova up into the steppes of the Ukraine and then came back later on and mixed with them again. Cucuteni culture is the one which spread to Ukraine and were whites.
This isn't a discussion about religion, so beliefs don't matter...
Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe. Finally, our data indicate that at the Bronze and Iron Age timeframe, south Siberians were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people and that they might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Ystr.jpg
Christine Keyser et al., Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people, Human Genetics, Saturday, May 16, 2009, doi: 10.1007/s00439-009-0683-0
The assignment method was performed from only the allelic frequencies of the seven STR loci considered in the consensus genotype. The probability of observing an individual with the Kizil skeleton STR profile was the highest in the two eastern European populations (Russia and Poland). Indeed, the likelihood that the Kizil skeleton STR profile occurred in these two populations was 10 times higher than in other European populations, 100 times higher than in eastern Asian populations, and about 100,000 times higher than in Indian populations.
...
We conclude that our analysis of genetic data obtained from a skeleton recovered in a Scytho-Siberian kurgan (2500 years old) links this ancient skeleton to several European populations that live in the neighboring region of Central Asia and shows that the Scytho-Siberian population contained a European component (Voevoda et al. 2000; Clisson et al. 2002).
Ricaut, Francois-X et al., Genetic Analysis of a Scytho-Siberian Skeleton and Its Implications for Ancient Central Asian Migrations, Human Biology - Volume 76, Number 1, February 2004, pp. 109-125, DOI: 10.1353/hub.2004.0025
Geto-Thracian
2009-11-27, 03:01
I'm not really sure what you're doing in this thread? I told you, I didn't write the report, which is self-evident and backed up by academic research on the topic.
And you should really lay off the genetics angle. First of all, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and secondly you don't have a leg to stand on since you're a Romanian talking to a Pole.
So, educate us on why Romanians cannot talk to Poles about this, or anything? Seriously, go ahead, tell us what you really think, don't beat around the bush!
So, educate us on why Romanians cannot talk to Poles about this, or anything? Seriously, go ahead, tell us what you really think, don't beat around the bush!
Baboon was under the impression that Slavs weren't really European, or at least nowhere near as European as Romanians. Of course, the irony of such an argument coming from a Romanian is that Romanians actually have more non-European influence than Poles.
Geto-Thracian
2009-11-27, 03:27
Baboon was under the impression that Slavs weren't really European, or at least nowhere near as European as Romanians. Of course, the irony of such an argument coming from a Romanian is that Romanians actually have more non-European influence than Poles.
Drat!! I was hoping for something far more controversial than that!
(Hate when you're right!):lol:
Baboon was under the impression that Slavs weren't really European, or at least nowhere near as European as Romanians. Of course, the irony of such an argument coming from a Romanian is that Romanians actually have more non-European influence than Poles.
Dear Polako, how can we even talk about Indo-European stuff when the proto-Poles arrived here several thousand years later? Or perhaps we should understand this as that Poles are actually "Indo-Europeans" that happen to speak a Slavic language? Or that Poles are Slavs that were genetically germanized? Please do enlighten me.
Secondly, it's not IMO relevant to even speak of "European" genes, but rather of genes of different geographic origins.
And finally thirdly, why are we even identifying Indo-Europeans with "European" in some kind of absolute sense? I mean, aren't the Basques, for instance, supposed to be derived from pre-Indoeuropean populations?
Dear Polako, how can we even talk about Indo-European stuff when the proto-Poles arrived here several thousand years later? Or perhaps we should understand this as that Poles are actually "Indo-Europeans" that happen to speak a Slavic language? Or that Poles are Slavs that were genetically germanized? Please do enlighten me.
Arrived from where? Several thousand years after what?
Slavic is an Indo-European language group you moron.
Arrived from where? Several thousand years after what?
Slavic is an Indo-European language group you moron.
1. That would be a debate about the Slavic homeland. And we should really take that in a different thread. But I don't think anyone disputes that the proto-Poles began arriving in Europe in the 6th century AD, that is, several thousand years after the "original" Indo-European migrations into Europe where supposed to have taken place. Or perhaps you mean that the proto-Poles migrated into Europe already back then (5000 BC) followed by later waves of migrations? To clarify: That there is a "direct connection" or something between between the proto-Indoeuropean population before the Slavic migrations and the Poles of today? Because I'm assuming that this is what you're trying to say?
2. I know that. But I am using it as a racial term and I don't think anyone really misunderstands it in this context.
3. So we're back at the interpretation. What do you suggest this means?
1. That would be a debate about the Slavic homeland. And we should really take that in a different thread. But I don't think anyone disputes that the proto-Poles began arriving in Europe in the 6th century AD, that is, several thousand years after the "original" Indo-European migrations into Europe where supposed to have taken place. Or perhaps you mean that the proto-Poles migrated into Europe already back then (5000 BC) followed by later waves of migrations?
The proto-Poles were sitting in Central-East Europe for a very long time.
R1a1 is one of the earliest haplogroups to have arrived in that part of Europe after the Ice Age, and not surprisingly in Europe it shows the highest diversity in Poland (closely followed by Germany). There's even a "Polish" version of it called R1a1a7, which originated at least 3,500 years ago in southern Poland.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/R1a1a7.gif
Btw, the oldest skeleton successfully typed for Y-DNA in Europe was 4,600 years old, and has at least one modern descendant in Northern Poland. He was R1a1 and belonged to the Corded Ware culture which was in part centered in what is now Poland.
Now let's you see find some skeletons older than that and match them to living Romanians.
Geto-Thracian
2009-11-27, 06:52
Btw, the oldest skeleton successfully typed for Y-DNA in Europe was 4,600 years old, and has at least one modern descendant in Northern Poland. He was R1a1 and belonged to the Corded Ware culture which was in part centered in what is now Poland.
Now let's you see find some skeletons older than that and match them to living Romanians.
Now, if that dude survived on the N euro plain all these years, I guarantee you that there is at least as much continuity in the Carpathian mountains. I guess we will have to wait and see. There is a huge highway building program underway in Romania and it will surely turn up some interesting archeology by 2014, these projects always do!
The thing is the Cucuteni culture practiced cremation so the most likely candidates are not going to be there, unfortunately.
Now, if that dude survived on the N euro plain all these years, I guarantee you that there is at least as much continuity in the Carpathian mountains. I guess we will have to wait and see. There is a huge highway building program underway in Romania and it will surely turn up some interesting archeology by 2014, these projects always do!
The thing is the Cucuteni culture practiced cremation so the most likely candidates are not going to be there, unfortunately.
You can't guarantee anything without hard evidence.
Btw, two more R1a1 lineages popped up in Iron Age caves in Germany. And they're also present in modern-day Poles.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/a.jpg
The proto-Poles have been sitting in Central-East Europe for a very long time.
R1a1 is one of the earliest haplogroups to have arrived in that part of Europe after the Ice Age, and not surprisingly in Europe it shows the highest diversity in Poland (closely followed by Germany). There's even a "Polish" version of it called R1a1a7, which originated at least 3,500 years ago in southern Poland.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/R1a1a7.gif
Btw, the oldest skeleton successfully typed for Y-DNA in Europe was 4,600 years old, and has at least one modern descendant in Northern Poland. He was R1a1 and belonged to the Corded Ware culture which was in part centered in what is now Poland.
Now let's you see find some skeletons older than that and match them to living Romanians.
1. Again: What do you suggest this means in relation to modern Poles?
Does it mean that Poles are descendants of the proto-Indoeuropean populations and that they acquired a Slavic language with the later migrations of the Slavic tribes into the area?
Or does it mean that Poles are descendants of Slavic tribes that acquired these genes by intermixing with Germanic populations?
2. OK... I found this:
Theories that the earliest generations of R1a1a (M17/M198) men originated in Eastern Europe have become less common with the publication of bigger and more international surveys. However suggestions have been made which associate the distribution of R1a clades with several proposed movements of people in history and prehistory in Eastern Europe. As usual, these suggestions mainly concern the R1a1a sub-clade defined by M17/M198, because this is the dominant R1a clade, and the only one for which there is significant data.
The period from the end of the Ice Age until the Mesolithic. The spread from a Ukrainian refugium during the Late Glacial Maximum.
The European Neolithic, for example the LBK (Linear Pottery) Culture and Corded Ware Culture.
Bronze Age. The spread of Indo-European languages and/or Indo-Aryan languages and/or Indo-Iranian languages in the Bronze Age (also associated with the use of horses, and "Kurgan" burials).
Historical Era. The spread of Slavic languages and migrations in late Classical times.
These four proposals involve very different time periods, but they are not mutually exclusive given that R1a lineages may have been taken part in many different human movements over time in the same geographical region.[38]
And this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/R-M458_frequency_distribution.PNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1a1
Does it mean that Poles are descendants of the proto-Indoeuropean populations and that they acquired a Slavic language with the later migrations of the Slavic tribes into the area?
Poles are descendants of proto-Indo-European populations of Central-East Europe, and Slavs come from Southern Poland, or from the present Polish/Ukrainian/Belorussian border region.
This is easily read in our DNA. We don't show any patterns suggesting a migration as late as 600AD from Asia.
Not only that, but skeletons are being dug up in Central Europe from the Bronze and Iron Ages showing the same R1a1 lineages as in modern Poles. It's unlikely they were transported from Asia and buried in Central Europe after 600AD.
2. OK... I found this...
R1a1a comes from Asia, but so do most, and maybe all, major modern European haplogroups.
However, R1a1a7 is a purely European haplogroup, showing the greatest diversity and frequency in Poland. It's basically non-existant in Asia.
Poles are descendants of proto-Indo-European populations of Central-East Europe, and Slavs come from Southern Poland, or from the present Polish/Ukrainian/Belorussian border region.
This is easily read in our DNA. We don't show any patterns suggesting a migration as late as 600AD from Asia.
Not only that, but skeletons are being dug up in Central Europe from the Bronze and Iron Ages showing the same R1a1 lineages as in modern Poles. It's unlikely they were transported from Asia and buried in Central Europe after 600AD.
I see. I had no idea.
But since you mention skeletons:
Remarks on the Discussion of Polish Archaeologists on
the Ethnogenesis of Slavs (http://www.leidykla.eu/fileadmin/Archeologia/Archeologia_4/Michau_Parczewski.pdf)
The Slavs under this very name are mentioned in the written
records only as late as in the first half of the 6th c. A. D. We
are not able to define when exactly they became a separate
ethnic community. We know for certain, however, that all
history scientists must consider the Migration Period, from
the 5th to the 6th c. A. D., as the key moment and the only
possible chronological point of departure for any sensible
exchange of opinions about the location of the earliest
span of settlement in the Slavic world.
The autochthonistic concept was undermined, and
then refuted on the source-based grounds by
K. Godowski, the founder of the so-called Krakw school
of historical archaeology. K. Godowski – on the basis of
the available set of data from the 3rd–5th/6th c. –
demonstrated the lack of cultural and settlement
continuation on Polish territory in the 5th–6th c.1 I carried
out the analysis of the sources from the 6th–7th c., which
broadened and partly supplemented the picture of the
great breakthrough in the basin of Oder and Vistula
Rivers2. Further progress was brought by the monographic
work by M. Dulinicz (2001). The analysis of selected
categories of artefacts from the discussed period has been
undertaken3.
W. Szymaski has recently presented the assessment
of the current results of the dispute dividing Polish
autochthonists and allochthonists. He does not see ‘a
possibility of the straightforward filling the gaps between
the groups dated from the 3rd–4th c. and those from the
6th–7th c.’ (Szymaski, 2000, p. 360). In spite of long
years of research, ‘it has not been successfully proven that
there existed some intermediate stage between the late
antiquity and the early mediaeval specialised pottery
production. We are not aware of any reliable groups from
the 5th–6th c. containing the prototypes of ceramics of the
discussed type’ (Szymaski, 2000, p. 370).
It doesn't seem like Polish archaeologists agree with you.
R1a1a comes from Asia, but so do most, and maybe all, major modern European haplogroups.
However, R1a1a7 is a purely European haplogroup, showing the greatest diversity and frequency in Poland. It's basically non-existant in Asia.
But if you look at the map, doesn't it seem to mark primarily Slavic speaking territories/populations? If it was "purely European" we should be seeing more of it in France, Italy and Spain as well.
It doesn't seem like Polish archeologists agree with you.
There have been arguments over population and cultural continuity in Poland from the Bronze Age to the present. But no one credible has ever suggested that Slavs migrated to Europe from Asia in the 6th century AD.
However, it's now very difficult to argue against population continuity in Central-East Europe since the Bronze and Iron Ages based on pottery, when people who live there are being matched to skeletons buried nearby 3000 to 4,600 years ago.
But if you look at the map, doesn't it seem to mark primarily Slavic speaking territories/populations? If it was "purely European" we should be seeing more of it in France, Italy and Spain as well.
It only occurs in Europe so it's definitely purely European. The reason it's not found in southwestern Europe is because Slavs didn't push very far in that direction from Central-East Europe. Instead, they went east and south.
Geto-Thracian
2009-11-27, 08:10
Poles are descendants of proto-Indo-European populations of Central-East Europe, and Slavs come from Southern Poland, or from the present Polish/Ukrainian/Belorussian border region.
This is easily read in our DNA. We don't show any patterns suggesting a migration as late as 600AD from Asia.
Not only that, but skeletons are being dug up in Central Europe from the Bronze and Iron Ages showing the same R1a1 lineages as in modern Poles. It's unlikely they were transported from Asia and buried in Central Europe after 600AD.
R1a1a comes from Asia, but so do most, and maybe all, major modern European haplogroups.
However, R1a1a7 is a purely European haplogroup, showing the greatest diversity and frequency in Poland. It's basically non-existant in Asia.
I'm convinced, modern Poles show continuity with ancient peoples of the same region. However, I believe this is true with most populations. Invasions never totally wipe out populations, especially from steppe-nomads, who would do the farming and work which they cannot? They have to have something to steal next time, right?
Nice work Polako! We are both ancient CIE-IE peeps! I guess you can hang!:D
There have been arguments over population and cultural continuity in Poland from the Bronze Age to the present. But no one credible has ever suggested that Slavs migrated to Europe from Asia in the 6th century AD.
However, it's now very difficult to argue against population continuity in Central-East Europe since the Bronze and Iron Ages based on pottery, when people who live there are being matched to skeletons buried nearby 3000 to 4,600 years ago.
1. What are you saying? :eek: As far as I know this is the generally accepted theory. It is supported with both written and archaeological material. I've personally never even heard anyone say otherwise.
2. Shall we look at the text again?
K. Godowski – on the basis of
the available set of data from the 3rd–5th/6th c. –
demonstrated the lack of cultural and settlement
continuation on Polish territory in the 5th–6th c.
In spite of long
years of research, ‘it has not been successfully proven that
there existed some intermediate stage between the late
antiquity and the early mediaeval specialised pottery
production. We are not aware of any reliable groups from
the 5th–6th c. containing the prototypes of ceramics of the
discussed type’ (Szymaski, 2000, p. 370).
3. Will you please give a link to these skeletons you speak of? :)
4. If Poles are predominately Slavic, they arrived here between 5th-7th century AD.
The other alternative is that Poles are predominately proto-Indoeuropeans that acquired a Slavic language some other way. This seems pretty controversial to me.
It only occurs in Europe so it's definitely purely European. The reason it's not found in southwestern Europe is because Slavs didn't push very far in that direction from Central-East Europe. Instead, they went east and south.
Yes... And that would make it a predominately Slavic marker. Just like on of the theories suggest.
1. What are you saying? :eek: As far as I know this is the generally accepted theory. It is supported with both written and archaeological material. I've personally never even heard anyone say otherwise.
I think you're confused. Just because the Slavs appeared suddenly to the Byzantines in the 6th century doesn't mean they were in Asia before that.
2. Shall we look at the text again?
You don't seem to get it. No one in Poland has ever suggested a Slavic migration from Asia to Europe. The main argument is whether Slavs came from Poland or Ukraine originally.
3. Will you please give a link to these skeletons you speak of?
Three Corded Ware R1a1 skeletons (4,600 year old, with a modern match in Northern Poland).
Ancient DNA, Strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226.abstract)
Supporting Information (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226/suppl/DCSupplemental)
Two Urnfield Culture R1a1 skeletons (3,000 year old, with modern matches all over Poland).
Molekulargenetische Verwandtschaftsanalysen am prahistorischen Skelettkollektiv der Lichtensteinhahle (http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/diss/2006/schilz/schilz.pdf)
4. If Poles are predominately Slavic, they arrived here between 5th-7th century AD. This is, as far as I know, the generally accepted theory.
Accepted by who? All latest genetic and anthropological reports refer to Slavs as originally a Central-East European group.
The other alternative is that Poles are predominately proto-Indoeuropeans that acquired a Slavic language some other way. This seems pretty controversial to me.
There's nothing preventing Slavs from being direct descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans, and in fact, such a theory makes perfect sense.
Yes... And that would make it a predominately Slavic marker. Just like on of the theories suggest.
Hence, it makes the early Slavs a people of European origin, because R1a1a7 frequency and diversity shows it expanded from the Vistula basin, which is definitely in Europe not Asia.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/R1a1a7-M458.jpg
The most typical mix of those STR markers expected for Europeans.
It's kinda like scoring 100% on a genome-wide admix test, except you also get points taken away for being less typical than what the average European should be in theory. That's why Basques don't score 1.000 with that index, even though they don't actually have any non-European admixture.
Wait, I'm confused. How exactly is this test done. I'm sorry that I can't get the actual study down because of my bad internet connection. :( I've been reading up a bit, but I'm really no scientist.
First of all, they base this on the so called Y-DNA, the Haplogroup I. In general, the group seems awfully diverse and spread out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haplogroup_I.png). Unless you divide it into subgroups. According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_(Y-DNA)), it still seems pretty diverse.
I2b1-M223 (...)Occurs at a moderate frequency among populations of Northwest Europe, with a peak frequency in the region of Lower Saxony in central Germany; minor offshoots appear in Moldavia and Russia
According to this my claim to fame would be by claiming I was realted to Europeans through this particular sub-group, which I naturally don't believe for a moment. Yes, I know they're talking about further south than where I'm from. It's just an example.
Basically, Ivan from Nizhni Novgorod would be able to claim he was actually of German ancestry because of this specific gene. Do you see why I doubt that a specific gene can pinpoint your ancestry?
I can imagine how the SNPs have pinpointed it better, but unless you're a full blown scientist, it's impossible to understand SNPs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_nucleotide_polymorphism) in detail, and especially what they mean.
So, in this study, have they used this haplogroup I, looked at different mutations in this group and mixed and matched it with different etchnicity? Which exact mutation was it then that they decided to identify as "Indo-European". Please explain if you can. I'm really not big on understanding genetic studies.
EliasAlucard
2009-11-27, 12:30
Basically, Ivan from Nizhni Novgorod would be able to claim he was actually of German ancestry because of this specific gene. Do you see why I doubt that a specific gene can pinpoint your ancestry?Haplogroups are tiny segments of your entire genome. Think of them as genetically maternal or paternal surnames.
I can imagine how the SNPs have pinpointed it better, but unless you're a full blown scientist, it's impossible to understand SNPs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_nucleotide_polymorphism) in detail, and especially what they mean.Genome-wide SNP can show overall genetic similarity with other individuals and populations, and therefore, they're more reliable than haplogroups to determine race/ancestry.
But in a way, genome-wide SNP is less precise, because it tells you your genetic similarity with other people, based on a lot of genotype frequencies (which means that minor ancestral SNPs aren't given as much emphasis), whereas haplogroups tell you your most recent male/female lineage, which can be, sort of useful to associate you with a particular group that expanded in historic times and may have had the same (ancestral) haplogroups as you carry.
Of course, the problem with all this is that we don't know enough about the proto-Indo-Europeans to make accurate conclusions of all this stuff. We simply don't have living real life examples of PIE peoples, to compare with. So I don't trust all these studies too much, especially if it was done by DNA Tribes; they're not exactly known for high resolution genome-wide SNP.
Which exact mutation was it then that they decided to identify as "Indo-European". Please explain if you can. I'm really not big on understanding genetic studies.
The study which this thread is about used autosomal STRs, which are best for forensic work (fe. like identifying individuals sought by Police). However, they can be used in population genetics, and seem to give reliable results for groups, if not always for individuals.
Also, the study is backed up by both autosomal genome-wide SNPs, which can tell us phenotypic traits as well as overall genetic structure, and Y-chromosome (paternal lineage) analysis of ancient bones dug up so far in Europe and Central Asia. And the latter analysis doesn't just include a look at overall haplogroups like R1a1, which is what the early Indo-Europeans carried, but also the most closely matching haplotypes from each of the individuals tested (in other words, more specific lineages within R1a1).
But in a way, genome-wide SNP is less precise, because it tells you your genetic similarity with other people, based on a lot of genotype frequencies (which means that minor ancestral SNPs aren't given as much emphasis), whereas haplogroups tell you your most recent male/female lineage, which can be, sort of useful to associate you with a particular group that expanded in historic times and may have had the same (ancestral) haplogroups as you carry.
Identity by Descent (IBD) SNP segments are a much more thorough way to look for relationships than Y-DNA or mtDNA, because they pick up all ancestral lines, not just paternal or maternal. That's what the Relative Finder at 23andMe uses.
EliasAlucard
2009-11-27, 12:48
Identity by Descent (IBD) SNP segments are a much more thorough way to look for relationships than Y-DNA or mtDNA, because they pick up all ancestral lines, not just paternal or maternal. That's what the Relative Finder at 23andMe uses.Interesting. Is that what DNA Tribes used in the study that is the focus of the thread?
Still, I maintain that we don't have enough PIE population samples (skeletons, mummies or whatever) to determine who's genetically Indo-European today. Who knows, the PIE folks may have had a lot of other non-R1a Y-DNA we don't know about because it hasn't been found.
Interesting. Is that what DNA Tribes used in the study that is the focus of the thread?
No, they used autosomal STRs, which is interesting, because even though these markers aren't designed for population genetics, they got the same results as everyone else with other methods.
Still, I maintain that we don't have enough PIE population samples (skeletons, mummies or whatever) to determine who's genetically Indo-European today. Who knows, the PIE folks may have had a lot of other non-R1a Y-DNA we don't know about because it hasn't been found.
I'm sure they did, especially later on. But the fact that 10 out of the 11 proto-Scythian and Scythian skeletons, including those from the valley of the kings, carried R1a1 says something.
They also showed other telling traits, like mostly GG or AG at rs12913832 (HERC2 gene). So even if these genotypes don't really predict eye or hair color, they're still only found in certain European groups at such high frequencies.
EliasAlucard
2009-11-27, 13:14
No, they used autosomal STRs, which is interesting, because even though these markers aren't designed for population genetics, they got the same results as everyone else with other methods.Tried and true until proven otherwise, even for autosomal STR, right? :)
I'm sure they did, especially later on. But the fact that 10 out of the 11 proto-Scythian and Scythian skeletons, including those from the valley of the kings, carried R1a1 says something.
They also showed other telling traits, like mostly GG or AG at rs12913832 (HERC2 gene). So even if these genotypes don't really predict eye or hair color, they're still only found in certain European groups at such high frequencies.I'm well aware about this study, that the Andronovo culture had high frequencies of R1a and were up to 60% blue or green eyed (well, at least carried those genotype frequencies). But were they proto-Indo-Europeans (i.e., the Scythians of Andronovo) and is it reliable and representative to measure genetic "Indo-European" in modern European populations (large ones at that), based on a few bone remnants? I don't think so.
I'm well aware about this study, that the Andronovo culture had high frequencies of R1a and were up to 60% blue or green eyed (well, at least carried those genotype frequencies). But were they proto-Indo-Europeans (i.e., the Scythians of Andronovo) and is it reliable and representative to measure genetic "Indo-European" in modern European populations (large ones at that), based on a few bone remnants? I don't think so.
These are the most important sites that have long been claimed to be Indo-European, even before R1a1 was known to exist. They're separated by hundreds of years, at least, and most of the skeletons typed weren't directly related. If there was such a variety in haplogroups among these people, it seems strange only one C was found, and it belonged to an individual identified as East Asian via genome-wide markers.
In the past, some have suggested these were pre-Indo-European sites belonging to local Asian cultures. However, cranial and genetic studies have buried those ideas now, because they clearly show a majority European component and a migration from west to east during the Bronze Age. So if these weren't the early Indo-European movements, it's a complete mystery what they were, and leaves a massive question mark about how so much of Eurasia was Indo-Europeanzied while these other migrations from the west were also taking place.
EliasAlucard
2009-11-27, 13:46
These are the most important sites that have long been claimed to be Indo-European, even before R1a1 was known to exist. They're separated by hundreds of years, at least, and most of the skeletons typed weren't directly related. If there was such a variety in haplogroups among these people, it seems strange only one C was found, and it belonged to an individual identified as East Asian via genome-wide markers.
In the past, some have suggested these were pre-Indo-European sites belonging to local Asian cultures. However, cranial and genetic studies have buried those ideas now, because they clearly show a majority European component and a migration from west to east during the Bronze Age. So if these weren't the early Indo-European movements, it's a complete mystery what they were, and leaves a massive question mark about how so much of Eurasia was Indo-Europeanzied while these other migrations from the west were also taking place.So how do you explain that large parts of Europe (Poland and Germany are no exceptions) don't carry Y-DNA R1a1:
http://www.le.ac.uk/ge/maj4/EuropeMap+Tree.jpg
How should I interpret this anyway, that the ar1an Europeans of today are R1a due to PIE invasion admixture?
Azvarohi
2009-11-27, 14:04
I see. I had no idea.
But since you mention skeletons:
Remarks on the Discussion of Polish Archaeologists on
the Ethnogenesis of Slavs (http://www.leidykla.eu/fileadmin/Archeologia/Archeologia_4/Michau_Parczewski.pdf)
It doesn't seem like Polish archaeologists agree with you.
But if you look at the map, doesn't it seem to mark primarily Slavic speaking territories/populations? If it was "purely European" we should be seeing more of it in France, Italy and Spain as well.
Parczewski and Godowski are both processual archaeologists, the mere concept of "ethnic archaeological expansion/culture/continuation" in the sense that is discussed here is non existant for a processual archaeologist.
So how do you explain that large parts of Europe (Poland and Germany are no exceptions) don't carry Y-DNA R1a1.
The steppes to the east were sparsely populated, so it was probably easy for small groups to dominate the region and keep their homogeneity for a while, especially in terms of paternal lineages.
But Europe seems to have been a different story, because of higher population densities. The Urnfield burials in Germany dated at 3,000 years Bp only had two R1a1 men, while 12 were I2b1 and one R1b.
How should I interpret this anyway, that the R1a Europeans of today are R1a due to PIE invasion admixture?
There were various expansions carrying R1a1, both into Europe, from Europe, and around Europe. Some of these happened before the Indo-Europeans existed, and others after they broke up into various groups, like the Slavs.
I think you're confused. Just because the Slavs appeared suddenly to the Byzantines in the 6th century doesn't mean they were in Asia before that.
I never said that they were in Asia. But archaeological as well as written sources are pretty clear on their arrival. Slavic burial mounds begin showing up in SE-Europe in the 5th century if I remember correctly and around the same time documents speak of very large numbers of people that move in from the East. I think you would be hard pressed to move in to inhabited lands, established a civilization and then not be noticed for several hundred years. In short: Nope. Nothing indicates Slavs were present before this time.
You don't seem to get it. No one in Poland has ever suggested a Slavic migration from Asia to Europe. The main argument is whether Slavs came from Poland or Ukraine originally.
Again: Who is talking about Asia? :unsure:
Three Corded Ware R1a1 skeletons (4,600 year old, with a modern match in Northern Poland).
Ancient DNA, Strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226.abstract)
Supporting Information (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226/suppl/DCSupplemental)
Two Urnfield Culture R1a1 skeletons (3,000 year old, with modern matches all over Poland).
Molekulargenetische Verwandtschaftsanalysen am prahistorischen Skelettkollektiv der Lichtensteinhahle (http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/diss/2006/schilz/schilz.pdf)
OK. And we are now talking about the R1a1, right? The same Haplogroup that is found over most of eastern Europe and even beyond. With your logic this would imply that everyone from Icelanders to Kurds would have present in modern in day Poland. I don't suppose you've considered that this could have been acquired simply intermixing?
Accepted by who though? All latest genetic and anthropological reports refer to Slavs as originally a Central-East European group.
Eh, all serious scholars? Not that I follow the field, but I've never heard any other theory.
And yes, you could probably say that, in the same way that I could claim that Romanians are originally an African group - which is also true in a distant kind of way. But for the purposes of this discussion you would have to stretch the meaning of the word "originally" quite far to make it work.
There's nothing preventing Slavs from being direct descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans, and in fact, such a theory makes perfect sense.
See above.
Hence, it makes the early Slavs a people of European origin, because R1a1a7 frequency and diversity shows it expanded from the Vistula basin, which is definitely in Europe not Asia.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/R1a1a7-M458.jpg
You mean that Slavs migrated to the Vistula and from there migrated again into Europe? That sounds plausible to me. Or you could argue that Slavs from other areas migrated to the Vistula and multiplied in the region. This also seems plausible. But it doesn't in itself make Slavs of "European origin" since - again - nothing suggests they were in Europe before the 5th century.
Parczewski and Godowski are both processual archaeologists, the mere concept of "ethnic archaeological expansion/culture/continuation" in the sense that is discussed here is non existant for a processual archaeologist.
That does in my opinion seem to be the most sensical approach. But in either case, what are you suggesting that they missed?
Here is another researcher, in case the first two weren't good enough:
The author of the most recently
published monograph shows that the oldest welldocumented
traces of Slavic presence in north-western
Poland are dated as late as from the end of the 7th c.,
although theoretically one cannot exclude that scarce
penetration of small groups arriving from the East began
even in the 6th c. (Dulinicz, 2001, p. 207–211).
But maybe this guy got it wrong too? You guys should really share your discoveries with the rest of the Polish archaeological community. :D
I never said that they were in Asia. But from archaeological as well as written sources are pretty clear on their arrival. Slavic burial mounds begin showing up in SE-Europe in the 5th century if I remember correctly and around the same time documents speak of very large numbers of people that move in from the East. I think you would be hard pressed to move in to inhabited lands, established a civilization and then not be noticed for several hundred years. In short: Nope. Nothing indicates Slavs were present before this time.
If by "east" you mean southeastern Poland, then yes, the proto-Slavs come from the east.
OK. And we are now talking about the R1a1, right? The same Haplogroup that is found over most of eastern Europe and even beyond. With your logic this would imply that everyone from Icelanders to Kurds would have present in modern day Poland. I don't suppose you've considered that this could have been acquired simply intermixing?
No I mean haplotype matches within R1a1. Did you read the reports I posted the links to? Or were they too complicated for you?
Eh, all serious scholars? Not that I follow the field, but I've never heard any other theory.
Read this very carefully. This is the general agreement on the issue.
The East European (Russian) Plain is a region in which peoples of the Indo-European and Uralic language families have come into contact over an extended period. Uralic-speaking peoples have the longest validated archaeological record in this region. The most recent large-scale migration to this region involved the movement of Slavs (the Indo-European language family) to the east and northeast of their presumed homeland in Central Europe about 500 AD. Slavs were not the first Indo-European-speaking people who arrived in the Russian Plain: in the first millennium BC, Baltic-speaking tribes occupied a large part of the East European Plain. They were later displaced by Slavic tribes.
Olga V Flegontova et al., Haplotype frequencies at the DRD2 locus in populations of the East European Plain (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/62/abstract), BMC Genetics 2009, 10:62doi:10.1186/1471-2156-10-62
You mean that Slavs migrated to the Vistula and from there migrated again into Europe? That sound plausible to me. Or you could argue that Slavs from other areas migrated to the Vistula and multiplied in the region. This also seems plausible. But it doesn't in itself make Slavs of "European origin" since - again - nothing suggests they were in Europe before the 5th century.
No, I mean the proto-Slavs originated from older Indo-European groups near the Vistula, or at the most between the Vistula and the Dnieper.
We know this, because modern Poles carry paternal lineages that were already present in Central Europe during the Bronze and Iron Ages. And no, I'm not just talking about R1a1, but more detailed haplotype matches within R1a1.
Plz grow a brain before replying again.
Motörhead Remember Me
2009-11-27, 17:42
Isn't DNAtribes the joke among DNA testing companies? They had all sorts of odd results and weird "facts".
I remember that you Polako said so yourself...
Azvarohi
2009-11-27, 17:45
That does in my opinion seem to be the most sensical approach. But in either case, what are you suggesting that they missed?
The thing is that using processual archeologists in the case the thread is about is like using atheists to show which religion is more true than the others. Processual archaeologists sees the spread of language and culture as done through contacts, while the threads basis is clearly about migration, and continuation. In processual archaeology there is no continuation of this sort, since they only care about social culturalism/social culture evolution. Ethnic groups, or groups of people at all, does not interest them, so "no continuation" for a processual archaeologist is about artefacts and their own opinions about how a culture "should" evolve in the material record.
Azvarohi
2009-11-27, 17:46
Isn't DNAtribes the joke among DNA testing companies?
iGENEA is the real joke. But yes DNAtribes have been a "special" company.
Isn't DNAtribes the joke among DNA testing companies? They had all sorts of odd results and weird "facts".
I remember that you Polako said so yourself...
Autosomal STRs don't work too well for some individuals as far as population genetics/ancestry stuff are concerned. But averages of large datasets seem to produce the same results as all the other methods, like genome-wide SNPs.
Motörhead Remember Me
2009-11-27, 17:50
I'm not sure how they were thinking to get these scores? Basques, genetically similar to their neighbours are more European than Spaniards but less European than Balkanites based on what exactly..?
I'm not sure how they were thinking to get these scores? Basques, genetically similar to their neighbours are more European than Spaniards but less European than Balkanites based on what exactly..?
Basques are a genetic isolate within Europe, which drags them down in this analysis, even though they don't seem to have much non-European influence (except some North African stuff I think).
But maybe this guy got it wrong too? You guys should really share your discoveries with the rest of the Polish archaeological community.
He's not saying that Slavs came from Asia, or even from far eastern Europe. He just means they came from the Dnieper Basin. It's the same old argument; Vistula Basin vs. the Dnieper.
But this sort of archeology is too subjective, and no longer of much use since we now have DNA, and especially ancient DNA.
There are a couple of Poles at the Polish DNA project who closely match 7,000 year old mtDNA N1a lineages from Slovakia. That's pretty impressive as far as continuity is concerned.
If by "east" you mean southeastern Poland, then yes, the proto-Slavs come from the east.
As far as I can remember east Poland/west Ukraine was the identified spot. So here we can agree.
No I mean haplotype matches within R1a1. Did you read the reports I posted the links to? Or were they too complicated for you?
Please quote the part you refer to.
Read this very carefully. This is the general agreement on the issue.
The East European (Russian) Plain is a region in which peoples of the Indo-European and Uralic language families have come into contact over an extended period. Uralic-speaking peoples have the longest validated archaeological record in this region. The most recent large-scale migration to this region involved the movement of Slavs (the Indo-European language family) to the east and northeast of their presumed homeland in Central Europe about 500 AD. Slavs were not the first Indo-European-speaking people who arrived in the Russian Plain: in the first millennium BC, Baltic-speaking tribes occupied a large part of the East European Plain. They were later displaced by Slavic tribes.
Olga V Flegontova et al., Haplotype frequencies at the DRD2 locus in populations of the East European Plain (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/62/abstract), BMC Genetics 2009, 10:62doi:10.1186/1471-2156-10-62
OK. And what are you trying to say? Are we discussing the Slavic homeland? The Slavic ethnogenesis? The Polish one?
Or are you claiming a continuity between the proto-Indoeuropean populations and the Slavic Poles? The same position that was ridiculed in the paper I posted?
No, I mean the proto-Slavs originated from older Indo-European groups near the Vistula, or at the most between the Vistula and the Dnieper.
We know this, because modern Poles carry paternal lineages that were already present in Central Europe during the Bronze and Iron Ages. And no, I'm not just talking about R1a1, but more detailed haplotype matches within R1a1.
Plz grow a brain before replying again.
Look. I'm not ditching your theory as a whole. But I think we should look at all the possibilities. Poles could very well have acquired these haplogroups simply by intermixing with the proto-Inodeuropeans that inhabited the region.
Or are you claiming a continuity between the proto-Indoeuropean populations and the Slavic Poles? The same position that was ridiculed in the paper I posted?
Your paper was an archeological one, and not the only opinion on the matter. Like I already said, they've been arguing about this for generations; Vistula vs. Dnieper.
Look. I'm not ditching your theory as a whole. But I think we should look at all the possibilities. Poles could very well have acquired these haplogroups simply by intermixing with the proto-Inodeuropeans that inhabited the region.
No, because Poles basically have the oldest R1a1a in Europe. Germany comes in second.
Actually, the Corded Ware R1a1 haplotype recovered from the 4,600 year old skeleton in Germany is on average most similar to the modern German ones in the region. No surprise there, since it's basically the same population. But the Polish lineages across the Oder are very similar to these, except a little older.
Btw, here's the quote from the report on that 4,600 year old Y-DNA...
"The consensus haplotype of the three individuals (based on most complete profile) gave two exact matches in an European population sample of 11,213 haplotypes in a set of 100 populations (as of July 2008, Release 23 from 200801-15 14:44:25): one individual from Poland (1/939 from Gdansk) and one from Russia (1/48 from Tambov). The haplotype frequency in a Eurasian/European/Eastern European metapopulation calculated with the minimum amount of loci (i.e., DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS393, and DYS385; excluding DYS392) was 1.020494 103. Because of the locus dropout of DYS392, this estimate is considered as most conservative. The Y haplotype was predicted using the Web-based program Haplotype Predictor (9). The three individuals of grave 99 belong to haplotype R1a, with a probability of 100% based on the Y-STR profile of individual 3 (10)."
He's not saying that Slavs came from Asia, or even from far eastern Europe. He just means they came from the Dnieper Basin. It's the same old argument; Vistula Basin vs. the Dnieper.
But this sort of archeology is too subjective, and no longer of much use since we now have DNA, and especially ancient DNA.
There are a couple of Poles at the Polish DNA project who closely match 7,000 year old mtDNA N1a lineages from Slovakia. That's pretty impressive as far as continuity is concerned.
1. You seem to have Asia on your brain. Maybe you want to tell us about this bizarre fear of Asian ancestry? For the last time: I have no idea where the Slavs were before they show up in written and archaeological sources. If I knew then I would tell. Promise! My guess is that either they were hiding in the Pripyat swamp or they were part of the mishmash of peoples on the Russian steppes.
2. And now we, predictably, end up in a discussion on Slavic ethnogenesis. Should we perhaps take that in a separate thread?
3. They are matching it because the Slavs interbred with the indigenous populations in the areas where they arrived, and as a consequence they acquired their genes. This is why Poles show similarity with Germans and Scandinavians and Russians with Finno-Ugrics and southern Slavs with their surrounding populations. The written and archaeological sources (as far as I know, I don't claim to be an expert of any kind) simply doesn't support that Slavs would have emerged as a continuation/branch of these groups.
4. The concept of "inventing" an ancient history for ethnic groups, which is what it seems to me that you are trying to do, went out of fashion quite some time ago. I really don't think it contributes to the forum to hold some kind of competition (cockmeasuring, really) of who was "here" the longest.
The thing is that using processual archeologists in the case the thread is about is like using atheists to show which religion is more true than the others. Processual archaeologists sees the spread of language and culture as done through contacts, while the threads basis is clearly about migration, and continuation. In processual archaeology there is no continuation of this sort, since they only care about social culturalism/social culture evolution. Ethnic groups, or groups of people at all, does not interest them, so "no continuation" for a processual archaeologist is about artefacts and their own opinions about how a culture "should" evolve in the material record.
Let's see if I get it: processual archaeologists ignore national/ethnic groups? Because they have a faulty methodology/perspective? So when they claim, for instance, that there is not continuation in pottery production, this has no relevance in terms of ethnic/cultural groups? Is this how I should understand it?
Your paper was an archeological one, and not the only opinion on the matter. Like I already said, they've been arguing about this for generations; Vistula vs. Dnieper.
So archaeological arguments/facts are not to be taken into account when discussing this issue? You do understand how that sounds, right?
No, because Poles basically have the oldest R1a1a in Europe. Germany comes in second.
Actually, the Corded Ware R1a1 haplotype recovered from the 4,600 year old skeleton in Germany is on average most similar to the modern German ones in the region. No surprise there, since it's basically the same population. But the Polish lineages across the Oder are very similar to these, except a little older.
Btw, here's the quote from the report on that 4,600 year old Y-DNA...
"The consensus haplotype of the three individuals (based on most complete profile) gave two exact matches in an European population sample of 11,213 haplotypes in a set of 100 populations (as of July 2008, Release ‘‘23’’ from 2008–01-15 14:44:25): one individual from Poland (1/939 from Gdansk) and one from Russia (1/48 from Tambov). The haplotype frequency in a Eurasian/European/Eastern European metapopulation calculated with the minimum amount of loci (i.e., DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS393, and DYS385; excluding DYS392) was 1.020494 103. Because of the locus dropout of DYS392, this estimate is considered as most conservative. The Y haplotype was predicted using the Web-based program Haplotype Predictor (9). The three individuals of grave 99 belong to haplotype R1a, with a probability of 100% based on the Y-STR profile of individual 3 (10)."
1. Yes Polako, in fact even the earliest African cultures exhibit clear similarities with the much older Polish skeletons. I'm sure you can find some genes that match to prove it. And should we ever find life in space, that too is most certainly Polish in origin. In fact, early Poles constructed spaceships out of birch and fueled them with vodka in order to reach Mars, before the Big Bang took place.
2. So they found one guy in Gdansk and one guy in Tambov that have the exact same haplotype as three of the skeletons? Will you please tell Baboon what you believe that this means?
EliasAlucard
2009-11-28, 09:55
Let's see if I get it: processual archaeologists ignore national/ethnic groups? Because they have a faulty methodology/perspective? So when they claim, for instance, that there is not continuation in pottery production, this has no relevance in terms of ethnic/cultural groups? Is this how I should understand it?Generally speaking, archaeologists aren't that "ethnocentric" in their research. Cavally-Sforza explains, using the theories of linguistic archaeologist Colin Renfrew as an example (and this is just a case in point; the rest of the text is unrelated to the topic):
2. Conquest by a minority, including Renfrew's elite dominance and system-collapse models. Under conquest, a people, usually with strong social hierarchy and military organization, takes power in a country and imposes its language and usually much of its global cultural inheritance, retaining for itself positions of power and control of wealth. Conquerors, if well-organized, can be a small minority. Two such cases are the previously cited examples of Turkey and Hungary, which are well-known historically and are further studied in chapter 5. In both cases the genetic traces of the invaders are, at best, extremely modest since they were not sufficiently numerous to influence strongly the genetic pool of the previous inhabitants.
Conquest does not always involve language replacement. Several barbarian invasions after the fall of the Roman empire did not have a marked effect on local languages, although in some cases the original barbarians' dialect has been conserved to these days in certain small areas.
In Renfrew's terminology, system collapse, generating a power vacuum, may result in unusual circumstances, giving a chance to certain minorites to take control and impose their language. Two examples cited by Renfrew are the fall of the Roman Empire in Britain, after which Anglo-Saxon mercenaries, perhaps with the help of kin from abroad, acquired power; and the fall of the Myan civilisation around the tenth century A.D., about which much less is known. As acknowledged by Renfrew, this mechanism could be considered a special case of elite dominance.
Unlike Renfrew, who has chosen not to consider genetic aspects of these phenomena, we are interested in joint history. In the demographic-subsistence model, there is clearly replacement of both languages and, at least partially, also of genes. Most elite-dominance situations are likely to leave the genes largely or relatively intact.
— Cavalli-Sforza et al., The History and Geography of Human Genes, ISBN 0691087504, p. 102 (http://books.google.com/books?id=FrwNcwKaUKoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0691087504&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false)
So, archaeology isn't always the best argument in a population genetics discussion, unless of course, it's archaeogenetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeogenetics) or something we're talking about :) Speaking of archaeogenetics, I think I'm going to add a sub-forum soon.
Azvarohi
2009-11-28, 10:10
Let's see if I get it: processual archaeologists ignore national/ethnic groups? Because they have a faulty methodology/perspective? So when they claim, for instance, that there is not continuation in pottery production, this has no relevance in terms of ethnic/cultural groups? Is this how I should understand it?
Processual archaeologists see cultures and language spread as purely social thing, i.e. through contact and trade of ideas. They see ethnic designations as a late historical phenomenon...ironically processual archaeologist should be more interested in genetics since they were the ones who pushed for the use of natural sciences used with archaeology. If there is no continuation of pottery, their answer wouldn't be "it is not the same people", rather that it was a change in ideas/fashion etc...if it is because of a new people or not they don't really want to discuss.
It is not that they don't think that migration have happened, just that they don't really care about it and allways try to see it in a respect for social evolution.
Cultural historical archaeologists are those who connect culture with ethnic groups (Kossinna and Childe being the most prominent of this sort).
Renfrew's idea of Indo-European spread is a good example of processual thinking with minor influences of cultural historical thinking. The spread wasn't done by any particular ethnic group or culture, but rather a concept (spread of farming) through contact (hunter-gatherers switching to farming) and slow migration by farmers (diffusion).
Sevastopol
2010-01-11, 11:52
Polako, are you seriously this conceited that you now think all Europeans came from Poland?
Does the sun also revolve around Poland?
You're crazy, tune it down a notch.
"all exotic things came from Poland" is basically what you're trying to tell us
First off, the indo European homeland could of not been located on that longitude. IE's were pastoralist who needed the greenest of grasses to maintain their livestock, tell me, where can you find grass all year long in Poland? It snows to much, and is far to cold for a nomadic people who lived in wagons.
IE homeland is more towards the south-east, near the Black sea. That's almost a fact.
The oldest European Y-DNA haplogroup we know of at the moment is R1a1 (dated to 4600 years before present in Central Europe).
You were wrong here, Haplogroup I is the oldest. So now this quote, and your entire theories that revolve around Poland, have tainted your credibility and will haunt you forever, you are seen as no different than a nationalist, since you never mention anything other than Poland, it makes you look self centered and your attempt to be some 'Aggripa' of genetics is failing when you give false information like 'R1a is the oldest in Europe'. etc.
And as far as the Scythians are concerned, they have no direct link to Poland, however all things Slavic emerged from the contact with the Scythians, in other words, the Scythians 'sub-dued' the Slavs, and many Slavs ultimatley became Scythian in their language and way of live. Not only did the Scythians dominate the Slavs on the steppes of Ukraine, they also subjegated and intermingled with north Caucasian people, and even further east there are Mongoloid skulls that were found with Scythian artifacts buried with them, and textiles made in the manner that's associated with Indo Iranian people. So basically, the elites sub-dued the masses.
Heres a map. If you still believe that Poles are Scythians, have fun creating a crazy theory explaining how the two are related when there is at least a 500 km gap between where the Scythians lived and where Poland is.
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa29/powerup927/Ukr20Prehist.jpg
First off, the indo European homeland could of not been located on that longitude. IE's were pastoralist who needed the greenest of grasses to maintain their livestock, tell me, where can you find grass all year long in Poland? It snows to much, and is far to cold for a nomadic people who lived in wagons.
Ukraine and Southern Russia get colder than Poland you retard, where there's still some influence from the Atlantic warming things up.
The proto-IEs started off as agriculturalists in Central-Eastern Europe, and eventually developed into nomadic pastoralists in their eastern range, starting in southeastern Poland.
You were wrong here, Haplogroup I is the oldest.
Prove that its the oldest. Find a skeleton older than 4,600 Bp carrying I.
And as far as the Scythians are concerned, they have no direct link to Poland, however all things Slavic emerged from the contact with the Scythians, in other words, the Scythians 'sub-dued' the Slavs, and many Slavs ultimatley became Scythian in their language and way of live. Not only did the Scythians dominate the Slavs on the steppes of Ukraine, they also subjegated and intermingled with north Caucasian people, and even further east there are Mongoloid skulls that were found with Scythian artifacts buried with them, and textiles made in the manner that's associated with Indo Iranian people. So basically, the elites sub-dued the masses.
Right, so the earliest Indo-Iranians, genetically and phenotypically like modern Northern Slavs, subdued the Slavs 3000BC, even though Slavs didn't exist at the time?
Think about it for a moment. Are you making any sense? :|
Heres a map. If you still believe that Poles are Scythians, have fun creating a crazy theory explaining how the two are related when there is at least a 500 km gap between where the Scythians lived and where Poland is.
Yes, the Central-Eastern European agriculturalists moved to the steppes, where they became the cowboys of the Brozne and Iron Ages.
They were awesome, and they all carried R1a1a. So that makes them even more awesome. :thumbsup:
Sevastopol
2010-01-11, 15:33
Ukraine and Southern Russia get colder than Poland you retard,
What kind of credible geneticist uses words like 'retard' , dude just stop with the act, you didnt even have basic knowledge about r1a and I1 ages.
The proto-IEs started off as agriculturalists in Central-Eastern Europe,
That sounds like one hell of a conspiracy theory to me.
Prove that its the oldest. Find a skeleton older than 4,600 Bp carrying I.
OKAY !!! Here let me get my shovel and anthro gear ready, I will take my first flight to Croatia in the morning. :whoco:
Right, so the earliest Indo-Iranians, genetically and phenotypically like modern Northern Slavs, subdued the Slavs 3000BC, even though Slavs didn't exist at the time?
1. The earliest Indo-Iranians were not phenotypically Slavic, nor were they anything close to that. Find me one Slav, just one, who resembles the Scythians.
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa29/powerup927/sumex07_04-1.jpg
2. If Scythians and Slavs are genetically similar like your absurd theory claims, Why is Slavic language, more closely related to Germanic languages than to Iranic ones? Care to explain that one, "Professor Polako" :lol:
3. Proto Slavs did exist. They were still confined in marshes and swamps of Belorussia.
Yes, the Central-Eastern European agriculturalists moved to the steppes, where they became the cowboys of the Brozne and Iron Ages.
That sounds like one hell of a Star trek episode.
They were awesome,
Yeah and they all looked like me. ;)
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa29/powerup927/dddr98-1.jpg
Yeah and they all looked like me. ;)
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa29/powerup927/dddr98-1.jpg
Hey, El Retardo, that's a painting from 300BC deep in Asia.
What don't you understand about the early-Indo-Iranians and proto-Scythians (1000-3000BC) coming before the later, mixed Scythians (300BC).
Do you have a learning disability of some sort?
Semitic Duwa
2010-04-04, 20:12
Who knows, the PIE folks may have had a lot of other non-R1a Y-DNA we don't know about because it hasn't been found.
Without even mentionning mtDNA!:|
^ Well, the Indo-European expansion was a male led phenomenon, so mtDNA in most cases will only tell you the ancestry of the females these guys absorbed as they moved on. That's why the mtDNAs of the Andronovo remains in the west are very different from those in the Tarim Basin, but the Y-DNA is almost 100% R1a1. Only one C was found, and that was obviously some Asian dude who was incorporated into their ranks.
The extremely high frequency of R1a1 at all these key burial sites is not something I expected, so it's a pleasant surprise to be sure. But what I'm now waiting for are full genome sequences of the better preserved mummies from Andronovo, especially the ones with R1a1 and West Eurasian mtDNAs. That'll be an eye opener for sure for many people, but I've got a very good idea where they'll cluster in terms of many thousands of genome-wide SNPs.
Ukraine and Southern Russia get colder than Poland you retard, where there's still some influence from the Atlantic warming things up.
The proto-IEs started off as agriculturalists in Central-Eastern Europe, and eventually developed into nomadic pastoralists in their eastern range, starting in southeastern Poland.
Prove that its the oldest. Find a skeleton older than 4,600 Bp carrying I.
Right, so the earliest Indo-Iranians, genetically and phenotypically like modern Northern Slavs, subdued the Slavs 3000BC, even though Slavs didn't exist at the time?
Think about it for a moment. Are you making any sense? :|
Yes, the Central-Eastern European agriculturalists moved to the steppes, where they became the cowboys of the Brozne and Iron Ages.
They were awesome, and they all carried R1a1a. So that makes them even more awesome. :thumbsup:
indo iranians looked like modern day slavs?? what the hell are you talking about look at any living iranic people today and youre telling me they resemble slavs??
---------- Post added 2010-04-05 at 01:30 ----------
the only place you find a high concentration of I or even a signifcant one is in europe. what non euros with siginifcant I values are who turks at like 4% not suprising considering the massive enslavement of balkan people they committed. R1a you find its oldest subclades in india how can it be native european??
Geto-Thracian
2010-04-05, 02:45
^ Well, the Indo-European expansion was a male led phenomenon, so mtDNA in most cases will only tell you the ancestry of the females these guys absorbed as they moved on. That's why the mtDNAs of the Andronovo remains in the west are very different from those in the Tarim Basin, but the Y-DNA is almost 100% R1a1. Only one C was found, and that was obviously some Asian dude who was incorporated into their ranks.
The extremely high frequency of R1a1 at all these key burial sites is not something I expected, so it's a pleasant surprise to be sure. But what I'm now waiting for are full genome sequences of the better preserved mummies from Andronovo, especially the ones with R1a1 and West Eurasian mtDNAs. That'll be an eye opener for sure for many people, but I've got a very good idea where they'll cluster in terms of many thousands of genome-wide SNPs.
How do you see R1b1b2a1a and downstream clades fitting in to the IE picture?
indo iranians looked like modern day slavs?? what the hell are you talking about look at any living iranic people today and youre telling me they resemble slavs??
"It could be stated, to summarize, that the Iranian-speaking Scythians and Saka were descendants of the steppe population of the Bronze Age which was divided between two major cultural unities: the Timber-grave and the Andronovo, the latter being represented by two original types; Fedorovo and Alakul. From the Eneolithic [Copper] period to the Early Iron Age there were no invasions of population from the Near East or Iran in the steppes of Eurasia. All migrations, though numerous, occurred within the steppe and forest-steppe zones
...
According to C-14 [carbon] dating, the Andronovo and Timber-grave cultures formed at the shift of the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC on the common base of Eastern European cultures. The main components were the steppe cultures of Poltavka, late Catacomb (to far lesser degree), and the Abashevo culture of the forest steppe zone. The latter culture belonged to the Corded Ware group of cultures of Central Europe."
Elena E. Kuz'mina, James P. Mallory (Editor), The Origin of the Indo-Iranians (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Origin-of-the-Indo-Iranians/Elena-E-Kuzmina/e/9789004160545), Vol. 3, Barnes & Noble, 2007
"During the first millennium BC, other Aryan speakers of the Srubnaya culture, a western counterpart of Andronovo, migrated south from the steppes along the shores of the Caspian toward Iran. Later in the millennium, these Iranian speakers would invade the Middle East. In the seventh century BC, Cimmerian cavalry attacked Urartu in Anatolia, then Assyria and Phrygia, while Scythian horsemen undertook devastating raids into Mesopotamia and Syria."
Pita Kelekna, The Politico-Economic Impact of the Horse on Old World Cultures: An Overview (http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp190_horse_old_world.pdf), SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS, Number 190, June 2009.
the only place you find a high concentration of I or even a signifcant one is in europe. what non euros with siginifcant I values are who turks at like 4% not suprising considering the massive enslavement of balkan people they committed. R1a you find its oldest subclades in india how can it be native european??
The oldest R1a1 lineages are generally being found in the Middle East, same as with I. Modern frequencies don't mean shit.
But the oldest skeleton carrying R1a1 comes from Germany, dated at 4600 YBP. Ancient DNA analysis is the only way at the moment to be sure of anything. If that doesn't change, we might never know where R1a1 originated. Not that I really care, because I'm more interested in the events during the Bronze Age, and the Indo-European expansions, than which Paleolithic group carried R1a1.
"It could be stated, to summarize, that the Iranian-speaking Scythians and Saka were descendants of the steppe population of the Bronze Age which was divided between two major cultural unities: the Timber-grave and the Andronovo, the latter being represented by two original types; Fedorovo and Alakul. From the Eneolithic [Copper] period to the Early Iron Age there were no invasions of population from the Near East or Iran in the steppes of Eurasia. All migrations, though numerous, occurred within the steppe and forest-steppe zones
...
According to C-14 [carbon] dating, the Andronovo and Timber-grave cultures formed at the shift of the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC on the common base of Eastern European cultures. The main components were the steppe cultures of Poltavka, late Catacomb (to far lesser degree), and the Abashevo culture of the forest steppe zone. The latter culture belonged to the Corded Ware group of cultures of Central Europe."
Elena E. Kuz'mina, James P. Mallory (Editor), The Origin of the Indo-Iranians (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Origin-of-the-Indo-Iranians/Elena-E-Kuzmina/e/9789004160545), Vol. 3, Barnes & Noble, 2007
"During the first millennium BC, other Aryan speakers of the Srubnaya culture, a western counterpart of Andronovo, migrated south from the steppes along the shores of the Caspian toward Iran. Later in the millennium, these Iranian speakers would invade the Middle East. In the seventh century BC, Cimmerian cavalry attacked Urartu in Anatolia, then Assyria and Phrygia, while Scythian horsemen undertook devastating raids into Mesopotamia and Syria."
Pita Kelekna, The Politico-Economic Impact of the Horse on Old World Cultures: An Overview (http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp190_horse_old_world.pdf), SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS, Number 190, June 2009.
The oldest R1a1 lineages are generally being found in the Middle East, same as with I. Modern frequencies don't mean shit.
But the oldest skeleton carrying R1a1 comes from Germany, dated at 4600 YBP. Ancient DNA analysis is the only way at the moment to be sure of anything. If that doesn't change, we might never know where R1a1 originated. Not that I really care, because I'm more interested in the events during the Bronze Age, and the Indo-European expansions, than which Paleolithic group carried R1a1.
uh yeah they do. I i doubt that the oldest is in the middle east seeing as it was IJ still but i guess its possible a split happened there. look I desnt reach over 5% in any given middle east country it obviously didnt have to much of an impact there. R1a on the other hand does. so care to explain why many say that I is the only native european haplgroup and the only one that orginated there??
So how come modern indo iranians look nothing like slavs or their supposed slavic looking predecessors. here you go typical indo iranian slav http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.jpg
uh yeah they do. I i doubt that the oldest is in the middle east seeing as it was IJ still but i guess its possible a split happened there. look I desnt reach over 5% in any given middle east country it obviously didnt have to much of an impact there. R1a on the other hand does. so care to explain why many say that I is the only native european haplgroup and the only one that orginated there??
So you're telling me that no scientist in the world can prove where I or R1a1 originated, but you can? You should publish a paper.
So how come modern indo iranians look nothing like slavs or their supposed slavic looking predecessors. here you go typical indo iranian slav http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.jpg
Don't know, don't care. But genes don't speak languages, people do, and they can learn them pretty quickly.
So you're telling me that no scientist in the world can prove where I or R1a1 originated, but you can? You should publish a paper.
so care to tell me why most sources say that I is the only native european haplogroup then?? ill gladly provide you with some if you want
Don't know, don't care. But genes don't speak languages, people do, and they can learn them pretty quickly.
So then where are these supposed ancestors of these slavic looking indo iranians if they arent found anywhere, considering the fact that all indo iranian speakers today look like arabs or middle easterners yet some like the tajiks have a high incidence of R1a
---------- Post added 2010-04-05 at 02:18 ----------
and even your own post about these tribes seems to suport it seeing as that the balkan slavs score amoung the highest degrees in the european index thing
So then where are these supposed ancestors of these slavic looking indo iranians if they arent found anywhere, considering the fact that all indo iranian speakers today look like arabs or middle easterners yet some like the tajiks have a high incidence of R1a
That's because Y-DNA doesn't recombine, while the stuff that controls phenotype eventually gets lost in the mix.
"Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe. Finally, our data indicate that at the Bronze and Iron Age timeframe, south Siberians were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people and that they might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization."
Christine Keyser et al., Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people (http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/?p=087abdf3edf548a4a719290f7fc84a62&pi=0), Human Genetics, Saturday, May 16, 2009, doi: 10.1007/s00439-009-0683-0
again i want to know where are they today?? they dont exist anywhere or none of their descendants meet this criteria there must of been some relatively pure group that still speaks the language just like today you have purer slavs and less pure ones. there is no living ino iranian group today that looks like this
again i want to know where are they today?? they dont exist anywhere or none of their descendants meet this criteria there must of been some relatively pure group that still speaks the language just like today you have purer slavs and less pure ones. there is no living ino iranian group today that looks like this
They're still there. The Tajiks are their direct descendants. They just don't look like that anymore, because most of their maternal ancestors were Asians, but not all...
"The combination of polymorphisms 16093C, 16224C, 16311C, and 16319A is characteristic of mtDNA haplotype K1b. So far this haplotype has uniquely been reported in two modern Shugnans of Tadzhikistan.
...
The consensus haplotype of the three individuals (based on most complete profile) gave two exact matches in in an European population sample of 11,213 haplotypes in a set of 100 populations (as of July 2008, Release ‘‘23’’ from 2008–01-15 14:44:25): one individual from Poland (1/939 from Gdansk) and one from Russia (1/48 from Tambov). ... The Y haplotype was predicted using the Web-based program Haplotype Predictor. The three individuals of grave 99 belong to haplotype R1a, with a probability of 100% based on the Y-STR profile of individual 3."
Wolfgang Haak et al, Ancient DNA, Strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/11/17/0807592105.full.pdf+html), PNAS, Published online before print November 17, 2008, doi:10.1073/pnas.0807592105
MAP (http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/cw_map.jpg)
Decimator
2010-04-05, 04:23
Indeed, some Tajiks do indeed look part Slavic/part middle easterner. Like these ones:
http://api.ning.com/files/sRIrcaRuJe87PSUbArYHxEzi5DbZ04eozXVf9aSixuLNrP4L-daHx9ZZbbTzuKStuMxSOx-FwU25vuw8srwx3S6qLrWKcRoB/PaziraNelofer.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FBEH9SuzMP0/SOl5uituzWI/AAAAAAAAA9o/0ypio6RMlmk/s400/12_hosseini_lgl.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Tajikistani_boys.jpg
And this one would be more Aboriginal?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/A_Tajikistani_man.jpg
How do you see R1b1b2a1a and downstream clades fitting in to the IE picture?
I have no idea where they fit in at the moment. We'll only know when someone finds a few in some fairly early Indo-European skeletons. But I don't know which ones these would be?
Geto-Thracian
2010-04-05, 07:04
I have no idea where they fit in at the moment. We'll only know when someone finds a few in some fairly early Indo-European skeletons. But I don't know which ones these would be?
Have you checked out this thread over at DNA forums? dna-forums.com/index.php?/topic/10490-r1b1b2-is-neolithic-entrant-to-europe-from-near-east/page__st__400
According to Argiedude, R1b1b2 ht15 and ht35 show the highest diversity in Transylvania and Moldavia (respectively). And it is not even close considering the low number of samples from these areas.
I don't know about R1a1a, but it is becoming obvious that R1b1b2's european explosion happened in former Dacia and is probably associated with the Cucuteni-Trypolie.
I am curious to hear your thoughts on the R1b brother-branch of the IE warrior tandem of r1's which are so undeniably bad-ass!
Have you checked out this thread over at DNA forums? dna-forums.com/index.php?/topic/10490-r1b1b2-is-neolithic-entrant-to-europe-from-near-east/page__st__400
According to Argiedude, R1b1b2 ht15 and ht35 show the highest diversity in Transylvania and Moldavia (respectively). And it is not even close considering the low number of samples from these areas.
I don't know about R1a1a, but it is becoming obvious that R1b1b2's european explosion happened in former Dacia and is probably associated with the Cucuteni-Trypolie.
I am curious to hear your thoughts on the R1b brother-branch of the IE warrior tandem of r1's which are so undeniably bad-ass!
I tend to trust Vince's estimates ahead of argiedude's. But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if present day Romania was one of the staging points for R1b's expansion across Europe, after it made its way into Europe from Anatolia.
BTW, I think the Danubian farmers from Romania and Hungary were probably involved in the formation of the proto-Indo-Europeans in what is now Ukraine, along with Corded folk from Germany and Poland, and the Ukrainian locals. But if so, it's a mystery why no R1b has been found in any of the Andronovo or Tarim Basin remains in Central Asia. Maybe the Indo-Iranians who went east originated in an East European sub-population that was mostly R1a, while the R1b's went west?
Geto-Thracian
2010-04-05, 07:22
I tend to trust Vince's estimates ahead of argiedude's. But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if present day Romania was one of the staging points for R1b's expansion across Europe, after it made its way into Europe from Anatolia.
BTW, I think the Danubian farmers from Romania and Hungary were probably involved in the formation of the proto-Indo-Europeans in what is now Ukraine, along with Corded folk from Germany and Poland, and the Ukrainian locals. But if so, it's a mystery why no R1b has been found in any of the Andronovo or Tarim Basin remains in Central Asia. Maybe the Indo-Iranians who went east originated in an East European sub-population that was mostly R1a, while the R1b's went west?
Staging ground for the bad-assest clades of R1b1b2....I mean, who cares about the scrawny little brother clades of R1b, it's m-269 which dominates and not those other also-rans.:lol:
:thumbsup:
Vince's opinion is important but then again where's his stab at this important topic? If it were not for his "young R1b1b2" theory, I would think he was allergic to hypothesizing or speculating in any way, shape, or form.
I guess the key is if you agree with Vince's criticizm of Argiedude's data...I mean Argiedude is in maths so he isn't a total layman, right?
Staging ground for the bad-assest clades of R1b1b2....I mean, who cares about the scrawny little brother clades of R1b, it's m-269 which dominates and not those other also-rans.:lol:
:thumbsup:
Vince's opinion is important but then again where's his stab at this important topic? If it were not for his "young R1b1b2" theory, I would think he was allergic to hypothesizing or speculating in any way, shape, or form.
I guess the key is if you agree with Vince's criticizm of Argiedude's data...I mean Argiedude is in maths so he isn't a total layman, right?
I don't know if argiedude's a total layman or not, but I've seen some strange opinions from him based on his own interpretations of various data, so it could be the same case in this instance.
Geto-Thracian
2010-04-05, 08:12
I don't know if argiedude's a total layman or not, but I've seen some strange opinions from him based on his own interpretations of various data, so it could be the same case in this instance.
Fair enough...but he didn't make any interpretation, that was me:unsure:
:D
Polako check the map: http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Ystr.jpg
Serbia has several dots, what can you just explain a bit closer, does that mean that the serbs in central/southern serbia didn't intermix with the greek,thracian etc etc folk in the balkans? My family hails from those dotted parts :)
^ Many Slavs carry similar R1a1 haplotypes to those of the ancient Andronovo groups, so it's not surprising some of these are found amongst Serbs. There was, after all, a major migration of Slavs to the Balkans during the early middle ages.
^ Many Slavs carry similar R1a1 haplotypes to those of the ancient Andronovo groups, so it's not surprising some of these are found amongst Serbs. There was, after all, a major migration of Slavs to the Balkans during the early middle ages.
Need to get my tests done dude!
It's not that hard to figure out where the Indo-European homeland was. Just look at where all the different IE languages diverged from.
Karhunkynsi
2010-06-09, 22:34
^ Many Slavs carry similar R1a1 haplotypes to those of the ancient Andronovo groups, so it's not surprising some of these are found amongst Serbs. There was, after all, a major migration of Slavs to the Balkans during the early middle ages.
Interesting. Are you suggesting Slavs came from Kazakstan ?
Well of course Slav speakers migrated to the Balkans - they are there!
Did the Kazakhs exist during the time of the Slav speaking migrants or any Turkic speakers outside of NE Asia?
Anyway this thread is about different languages and different peoples who spoke them other than Turkic or Turks. Good thread, very interesting. There are quite a lot of separate lines of investigation which could be totally independent of each other: Y chromosome haplogroups, Language families, archaeological remains, ancient dna from ancient burials sites, ancient cultures but tying them all together is the art, and where the result or conclusions can be criticized.
.
BTW, I think the Danubian farmers from Romania and Hungary were probably involved in the formation of the proto-Indo-Europeans in what is now Ukraine, along with Corded folk from Germany and Poland, and the Ukrainian locals. But if so, it's a mystery why no R1b has been found in any of the Andronovo or Tarim Basin remains in Central Asia. Maybe the Indo-Iranians who went east originated in an East European sub-population that was mostly R1a, while the R1b's went west?
The Carpatho-Danubian farmers were not just involved, they were everything as far as European history is concerned. The Vinca culture & the Cucuteni-Tryptiallian cultures developed the first forms of writing ever seen on earth.
The mainstream academic view holds that writing first appeared during the Sumerian civilization in southern Mesopotamia, around 3300-3200 B.C. in the form of the Cuneiform script. This first writing system did not suddenly appear out of nowhere, but gradually developed from less stylized pictographic systems that used ideographic and mnemonic symbols that contained meaning, but did not have the linguistic flexibility of the natural language writing system that the Sumerians first conceived. These earlier symbolic systems have been labeled as Proto-writing, examples of which have been discovered in a variety of places around the world, some dating back to the 7th Milennium B.C.
One such early example of a proto-writing system is the Vinča script, which is a set of symbols depicted on clay artifacts associated with the Vinča culture, which flourished along the Danube River in the Pannonian Plain, between 6000-4000 B.C.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlements_of_the_Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillian_cul ture)
Not only that, the first major population boom in Europe was the product of the Vinca & Cucuteni-Tryptillian cultures.
The Vinca & Cucuteni-Tryptillian cultures are the first civilizations to flourish in Europe & to build the cities with 15,000+ inhabitants. Major cities began there even before Mesopotamian cultures did.
*Talianki, Ukraine – circa 3700 B.C. – up to 15,000 inhabitants, up to 2,700 houses, and covered an area of 450 hectares (1100 acres). Talianki is the largest and best studied Trypillian settlement in Ukraine.
*Dobrovody, Ukraine – circa 3800 B.C. – up to 10,000 inhabitants, and covered an area of 250 hectares (600 acres).
*Maydanets, Ukraine – circa 3700 B.C. – up to 10,000 inhabitants (probably between 6000 to 9000 inhabitants), up to 1575 houses, and covered an area of 270 hectares (660 acres).
*Nebelivka, Ukraine - covered an area of 300 hectares (740 acres).
Source ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlements_of_the_Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillian_cul ture)
My thoughts on the subject are that both the Cucuteni-Tryptillain culture and the Vinca dissapeared because of a bad location on the steppes. Various bandits to the east of the Dnepr caused the decline of these civilizations in events which were similar to the declne of central American civilizations like the Maya & Olmec. Eventually the two cultures of the Balkans abandoned their settled ways and became nomadic, thats how the swastika, a important symbol of the Vinca writing system eventually got all the way into northern India.
The Cucuteni-Tryptillian culture even invented the weel, of which both Mesopotamians & steppe bandits stole from us and claimed it as their own invention.
PolskiMoc
2010-06-18, 04:54
I found this interesting, because it seems to fit exactly with my own theories based on ancient DNA, Y-DNA and genome-wide SNPs.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/IE_zone.gif
Old Europes: Genetic Evidence of Indo-Europeans and Substrates in the West (http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2009-07-29.pdf)
In the end, the Germanic zone comes out slightly more Indo-European than the Polish one (96.8% vs. 95.8%). I'd hate to be a sore loser, but I blame the inclusion of the partly Finnic Balts in the "Polish" zone for our second place. :whoco:
Poland is more Indo-European by genes than Germany.
Tocharians Indo Europeans in the Tarim basin had R1a.
Corded Ware were all R1a.
Indo European language spread from R1a people that is fact. Poland is the most R1a in Europe.
Poland has more Pure Haplogroups than Germany.
Germany has more J & More E1b1b than Poland.
by some studies show Germany has more Asiatic Tat C than Poland.
---------- Post added 2010-06-18 at 03:57 ----------
Interesting. Are you suggesting Slavs came from Kazakstan ?
Male Haplogroup R Dna comes from Kazakstan originally. Which includes R1a & R1b.
But, Your Uralic Finnish speakers your language comes from people related to Mongolians, Turks & the Chinese.
& Male Haplogroup
Haplogroup N Comes from even further East than Kazakstan around Mongolia
Where Haplogroup N Splits off from Haplogroup C & O around Mongolia
---------- Post added 2010-06-18 at 04:15 ----------
[QUOTE=Polako;8514]I think it's possible to measure the origin of the IE expansion with genetic evidence.
Indo European language expansion starts with the Wheeled Wagons & Chariots pulled by Horses making the Indo-Europeans able to conquere & quickly move across Eurasia to spread their language.
Since this depends on Wheeled Wagons.
The First Wheeled Wagon Evidence is that of the Broncice pot. in Krakow Poland 5,500 years old
&
Then 4,600 years ago we find the First Evidence of the First Wheeled cart in the Ukrainian Yamna Culture.
Then further East.
We find the First Chariots in Russia 4,000 years ago
Then Further east
We find the FIrst Tocharian Tarim Indo European mummies in Western China about 4,000 years ago.
This shows a direct spread & this spread starts in Poland.
PolskiMoc
2010-06-18, 05:24
^ Many Slavs carry similar R1a1 haplotypes to those of the ancient Andronovo groups, so it's not surprising some of these are found amongst Serbs. There was, after all, a major migration of Slavs to the Balkans during the early middle ages.
What is so Interesting about R1a & R1b is the SPLIT between Poland & Lusatian Sorbs & Germany.
With Poland having 56 percent R1a. Lusatian Slavic Sorbs in East Germany being 60 percent R1a.
Yet, Germany might be between 8 & 16 percent R1a. With 24 percent R1a in East Germany (Mostly from East Germans / Prussian Germans Assimilating Poles & Slavs like Sorbs, Polabians, SIlesians, Kashubians & Czechs ect.
I am really starting to Wonder if there was something Blocking R1b & R1a people from each other in Germany during the Ice age.
I am starting to think that Perhaps the R1b people were Blocked in to the West by an Ice Sheet in Germany which caused People in the West to become Split & Become R1b.
This even fits with the Solutrean being Likely R1b & the gravettianculture likely being R1a.
The gravettian split with the solutrean culture by an Ice sheet is shown by this map too.
9919
The Solutreans were probably like the Basques. Speaking a Non Indo-European Basque like LAnguage.
In fact Basques maybe the Pure Solutrean people.
Which would prove R1a are Indo- Europeans.
justlurkingdude
2010-06-18, 05:29
When I was a teenager in high school they told me that indo europeans were blondish horse riders who came from somewhere between around Ukraine.
So, that has been confirmed, right?
I am more interested in knowing how the latin and celti languages spread around western europe, anybody got some info?
PolskiMoc
2010-06-18, 06:28
It's not that hard to figure out where the Indo-European homeland was. Just look at where all the different IE languages diverged from.
Yeah, The Center is in Galicia. Which is Poland thank you. I have Galician Pole roots from Tarnobrzeg.
So yes my people were the Indo-Europeans.
Balto-Slavic language is intermediate between Western Indo-Europeans like Germans, Celts, Romance languages et.
&
Half way between Eastern Indo-Europeans like PErsians, Indians & tocharians.
Balto-Slavic is the Sole Mother of Indo-European languages as far as I am concerned.
Motörhead Remember Me
2010-06-18, 06:39
The most typical mix of those STR markers expected for Europeans.
It's kinda like scoring 100% on a genome-wide admix test, except you also get points taken away for being less typical than what the average European should be in theory. That's why Basques don't score 1.000 with that index, even though they don't actually have any non-European admixture.
So, this is intellectual humbug like the other conclusions this weird DNA tribes company have done so far.
- They basically assume that the biggest language group = European?
- The STR markers of the "average" European is taken from a region most heavily affected by migration?
- People with non-European ancestry comes out as less European than Europeans with non European admixture?
---------- Post added 2010-06-18 at 05:44 ----------
When I was a teenager in high school they told me that indo europeans were blondish horse riders who came from somewhere between around Ukraine.
Yeah, blondish. Not blonde. The blondes hunted and fished, while the blondish were riding horses and breeding cattle.
---------- Post added 2010-06-18 at 05:47 ----------
But, Your Uralic Finnish speakers your language comes from people related to Mongolians, Turks & the Chinese.
And you have a source?
PolskiMoc
2010-06-18, 06:53
So, this is intellectual humbug like the other conclusions this weird DNA tribes company have done so far.
- They basically assume that the biggest language group = European?
- The STR markers of the "average" European is taken from a region most heavily affected by migration?
- People with non-European ancestry comes out as less European than Europeans with non European admixture?
---------- Post added 2010-06-18 at 05:44 ----------
Yeah, blondish. Not blonde. The blondes hunted and fished, while the blondish were riding horses and breeding cattle.
---------- Post added 2010-06-18 at 05:47 ----------
And you have a source?
Castrén's Altaic is thus equivalent to what later[when?] came to be known as Ural-Altaic (ib. 127). More precisely, Ural-Altaic came to subgroup Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic as "Uralic" and Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic as "Altaic", with Korean sometimes added to Altaic, and less often Japanese.
For much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, many linguists who studied Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic regarded them as members of a common Ural-Altaic family, together with Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic, based on such shared features as vowel harmony and agglutination.
The M214 mutation that defines Haplogroup NO occurred in a gamete of a man who belonged to Haplogroup MNOPS and who probably lived somewhere in Eurasia east of the Aral Sea about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago.[citation needed] This man has become the direct patrilineal ancestor of a very large percentage of present-day humans, as he is the forefather of both Haplogroup N and Haplogroup O, which together are overwhelmingly dominant in most populations of North and East Eurasia.
[edit] Distribution
No confirmed case of Haplogroup NO* has been found among the males of present-day human populations. However, NO-M214(xN1-LLY22g, O-M175), which potentially may belong either to Haplogroup NO* or to Haplogroup N*-M231(xN1-LLY22g), has been found in 5.7% (2/35) of a sample of Buyi[1] and in 2.9% (6/210) of a pool of four samples of Japanese, particularly in Tokushima (4/70 = 5.7%).[2] Haplogroup NO-M214(xN1-LLY22g, O-M175) Y-DNA also has been found sporadically in samples of Han Chinese[2], Yizu[2], Malays[2], Mongolians[2], Daurs[1], Manchurian Evenks[1], Hezhes[1], Huis[1], Yaos[1], and South Koreans[1]; however, the two published Han Chinese cases of NO-M214(xN1-LLY22g, O-M175) subsequently have been found to belong to N*-M231(xN1-LLY22g).[3]
Yeah, The Center is in Galicia.
Seems like geography never was your best subject in school. Look at the red dot that I added on that map. That's where all the I-E languages groups originated from, between modern day Romania & Bulgaria, not in NW Ukraine (Galicia).
I'm tired of all these mental retards coming around trying to mold history to their favour. You can never take away credit from the people of the Wallachian & Danubian plains,
they are the authentic Indo-Europeans, whether you like it or not.
Ubirajara
2010-06-25, 23:39
I know it is just a guess, but to me the Indo European homeland was either in Russia or Ukraine, and R1a is definitely associated with it.
I know it is just a guess, but to me the Indo European homeland was either in Russia or Ukraine, and R1a is definitely associated with it.
Just a guess you pulled out of your asshole. R1a guys helped spread the language. That does NOT mean they were the original aryans you fool.
PolskiMoc
2010-06-27, 02:47
Just a guess you pulled out of your asshole. R1a guys helped spread the language. That does NOT mean they were the original aryans you fool.
R1a
Wagons'
Domesticated horses
Kurfgans
Wheeled Wagons.
Blonde hair
& Indo European languages
spread from around Ukraine & Russia.
&
We see Blonde Indo-Europeans between Tocharians & Ukraine.
R1a
Wagons'
Domesticated horses
Kurfgans
Wheeled Wagons.
Blonde hair
& Indo European languages
spread from around Ukraine & Russia.
&
We see Blonde Indo-Europeans between Tocharians & Ukraine.
Having a horse makes you aryan? No you lard of shit. Anyway poland is full of woods. How they ride them there? The 1st wheel was middle eastern. IE spread with agriculture you fucking retard and supported by language divergence times.
You just wrote pile of shit words coming from a horses ass. WTF. Lick my ass you retadred fatass on roids with shrunken cawk.
As I mentioned some time back, you guys are mixing up a lot of things which may not have anything to do with each other and disconnected by thousands of years.
According to the aging of genes and SNPs, blond hair, blue eyes, light pigmentation did not arise in Europe and the age of this loss of pigmentation is less than 10,000 years ago. Wagons, horses, the use of wheels, the burial of some folks in Kurgans are all not totally connected. It is hard to believe that sane people actually believe a language group has something to do with one haplogroup, whether it is those fuckwit Jews or Arabians thinking men of J1 invented the Semitic group of languages or fuckwits thinking R1a men invented Proto I.E. Lots of studies show that the frequency of haplogroups vary over time, some once common are now rare. Haplogroups like R1a or R1b or J1 or J2 are much older than any existing language.
The Androvono culture of the Bronze Age was not located in geographical Europe, and unless the Ukraine or Russia, has moved, it means neither those eastern European countries had much to do with Androvono, and it is the Androvono culture which gets the credit for wheeled, horse driven wagons.
The Tocharians spoke a language closer to Farsi than to Russian. Are you saying the Iranian speakers are the true Aryans who invented I.E languages? Androvono culture is closer to Iran than to Poland.
R1a is turning into the sleaze bag haplogroup as it is found from one end of Eurasia to the other.
Having a horse makes you aryan? No you lard of shit. Anyway poland is full of woods. How they ride them there? The 1st wheel was middle eastern. IE spread with agriculture you fucking retard and supported by language divergence times.
You just wrote pile of shit words coming from a horses ass. WTF. Lick my ass you retadred fatass on roids with shrunken cawk.
I bet, everybody agree on that, Henry.
Interesting find. What I think this shows is that metallurgic innovations pushed R1a1a people from Eastern Europe to Eurasia looking for metals. Among the first of these waves were the Afanasyevo folk (copper), followed by the Andronovo horesmen (bronze) and Indo-Iranian tribes (iron).
The beginnings of extractive metallurgy in Eurasia are contentious. The first cast copper objects in this region emerge c7000 years ago, and their production has been tentatively linked to centres in the Near East. This assumption, however, is not substantiated by evidence for copper smelting in those centres. Here, we present results from recent excavations from Belovode, a Vinča culture site in Eastern Serbia, which has provided the earliest direct evidence for copper smelting to date. The earliest copper smelting activities there took place c7000 years ago, contemporary with the emergence of the first cast copper objects. Through optical, chemical and provenance analyses of copper slag, minerals, ores and artefacts, we demonstrate the presence of an established metallurgical technology during this period, exploiting multiple sources for raw materials. These results extend the known record of copper smelting by more than half a millennium, with substantial implications. Extractive metallurgy occurs at a location far away from the Near East, challenging the traditional model of a single origin of metallurgy and reviving the possibility of multiple, independent inventions.
Miljana Radivojević et al., On the Origins of Extractive Metallurgy: New evidence from Europe (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH8-50BJNVF-2&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F19%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1e9d9007e1b259e930feadfd15aab781), Journal of Archaeological Science doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.06.012
And a related PDF...
On the steppes, c. 2300 BC, systematic agro-pastoralism was spreading far to the east beyond the Ural River, probably in response to the need for metal ores from the Ural mountains in order to manufacture hard bronze weapons. Migrations penetrated deep into the eastern steppes and forests, to areas previously uninhabited or only sparsely populated by hunter-gatherers. Hundreds of new sources of copper ores were located in Kazakhstan, the Altai, and the desert regions of Central Asia. From the Don-Volga to the upper Ural basin, the important bronze production culture of Abashevo was established predominantly in forest-steppe zones. Seams were reached by open quarry or drift mine. Eventually tin deposits, rare in the west, were located as far afield as the upper Irtysh, gold was mined in the Dzungarian Alatau mountains, and, with transition to the Iron Age, bimetallic (bronze and iron) tools began to appear. Widespread demand for valuable metals thus had led to far-flung exploratory prospecting in distant zones. At this time, population movement was no longer in a single direction; initial migration was followed by counter-stream, returning to the place of origin with reports of outlying opportunities and inciting new efforts at exploration and further colonization; lessons learned from novel situations were widely shared across society.
Pita Kelekna, The Politico-Economic Impact of the Horse on Old World Cultures: An Overview (http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp190_horse_old_world.pdf), SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS, Number 190, June 2009.
---------- Post added 2010-07-02 at 02:12 ----------
Androvono culture is closer to Iran than to Poland.
The Andronovo culture formed near the Urals from Central and Eastern European migrants, who went there looking for metals.
That's why ancient Andronovo skeletal remains carry typical North/Central European pigmentation markers (and lots of R1a1a).
Having a horse makes you aryan? No you lard of shit. Anyway poland is full of woods. How they ride them there? The 1st wheel was middle eastern. IE spread with agriculture you fucking retard and supported by language divergence times.
Horse mythology is an important part of all Indo-European cultures.
Horses weren't native to the Middle East.
It is said the horse actually is native to North America, but they died out there. So it was written.
I don't understand the sensitivity of some to the fact that Andronovo culture was located in geographical Asia not Europe. Seems rather a touchy issue. Humans supposedly developed first in geographical Africa that does not imply anything racial about their genetics so why does a location in geographical Asia set off the nerves? As for Andronovo being composed of North/Central European Caucasoids. I will leave that to the combined multidisciplinary team of archaeologists, linguistic experts, geneticists to work out. So far it is based on some remains. There are humanoid remains in Europe, which are not even of the modern sapient kind. Does that mean all Europeans evolved from them, the Neanderthals. Remains are one thing, linking those with a culture or a language is another. More evidence is needed.
P.S When I mentioned Iran, it was just a GPS thing, a location guide, nothing to do with modern or ancient people who happened to live in Iran.
Yautja_BR
2010-07-02, 06:03
Scythians?? They belong to the descent of Magog, of Japhetic stock, and their original homeland was Northern Mesopotamia, namely the country of Magor/Matiene/Subartu, the Biblical Charan.
But is doesn't matter..:)
You believe in that stuff? Magog? The only Magog I believe in is a mechanical giant, part of an elaborate clock, in an arcade in my home town in Australia. The Bible to me is just a nice work of fiction, nothing to do with the Urheimat of I.E languages.
Scythians?? They belong to the descent of Magog, of Japhetic stock, and their original homeland was Northern Mesopotamia, namely the country of Magor/Matiene/Subartu, the Biblical Charan.
But is doesn't matter..:)
Get off the pipe lol.
The Scythians were a Central Asian Iranian folk that migrated all over the place, they touched Eastern Europe, South Asia, and Middle East also.
As for Andronovo being composed of North/Central European Caucasoids. I will leave that to the combined multidisciplinary team of archaeologists, linguistic experts, geneticists to work out. So far it is based on some remains.
Good, because they totally agree who the Andronovo tribes were. There's no evidence to dispute their conclusions, and I'm sure someone is now working on full genome sequences of the Corded Ware and Andronovo remains, which will settle the issue once and for all, and probably result in a large number of hobby genetic genealogists jumping off tall buildings in despair, judging from some of the discussions I've had with them online.
Yautja_BR
2010-07-02, 06:27
Get off the pipe lol.
The Scythians were a Central Asian Iranian folk that migrated all over the place, they touched Eastern Europe, South Asia, and Middle East also.
Thanks for the information. lol.. I was just quoting some biblical related text..
No pipes from my part..hahah
---------- Post added 2010-07-02 at 02:29 ----------
You believe in that stuff? Magog? The only Magog I believe in is a mechanical giant, part of an elaborate clock, in an arcade in my home town in Australia. The Bible to me is just a nice work of fiction, nothing to do with the Urheimat of I.E languages.
lol..
portugalo
2010-07-02, 06:31
Get off the pipe lol.
The Scythians were a Central Asian Iranian folk that migrated all over the place, they touched Eastern Europe, South Asia, and Middle East also.
blasphemy
they were native to central europe and invaded parts of south asia and the middle east
pay attention to our great polacks divine words
blasphemy
they were native to central europe and invaded parts of south asia and the middle east
pay attention to our great polacks divine words
LOL, Central Asia buddy :)
Well they're an Iranian folk, Indo-Iranians in general originated in Central Asia, actually I would say South Central Asia around the Stans (Afghanistan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan/Tajikistan).
they were native to central europe and invaded parts of south asia and the middle east
pay attention to our great polacks divine words
Hey shitbag, I have a better idea. From now on, why doesn't everyone pay more attention to peer reviewed scholarly work? It's not that difficult. Anyone with basic English can grasp these concepts...seriously, you should try it.
It could be stated, to summarize, that the Iranian-speaking Scythians and Saka were descendants of the steppe population of the Bronze Age which was divided between two major cultural unities: the Timber-grave and the Andronovo, the latter being represented by two original types; Fedorovo and Alakul. From the Eneolithic [Copper] period to the Early Iron Age there were no invasions of population from the Near East or Iran in the steppes of Eurasia. All migrations, though numerous, occurred within the steppe and forest-steppe zones
...
According to C-14 [carbon] dating, the Andronovo and Timber-grave cultures formed at the shift of the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC on the common base of Eastern European cultures. The main components were the steppe cultures of Poltavka, late Catacomb (to far lesser degree), and the Abashevo culture of the forest steppe zone. The latter culture belonged to the Corded Ware group of cultures of Central Europe.
...
The subsequent development of the Timber-grave culture in the Pontic Caspian steppes was determined by the large-scale participation of the Abashevo culture in the Don region and the post-Catacomb Multi-roller Ware culture in the Ukraine.
...
The close genetic affinity of the Andronovo and the Timber-grave culture tribes became even closer thanks to regular contacts, especially because of the flow of tin from Kazakhstan and of copper ( as well as of finished products) from the Urals. The contact zone lay between the Volga and the Urals. The Andronovan influence reached the Dnieper.
Elena E. Kuz'mina, James P. Mallory (Editor), The Origin of the Indo-Iranians (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Origin-of-the-Indo-Iranians/Elena-E-Kuzmina/e/9789004160545), Vol. 3, Barnes & Noble, 2007
In our ancient sample, among the nine specimens carrying haplogroup R1a1, five different Y-chromosomal haplotypes were observed. Similarities were noted between these haplotypes, particularly the motif 11/14-11-11-13-14-11- 10-20-16-15-23 (in bold in Table 3) which is common to all of them except S32. This motif is typically an eastern European one since currently found in the Russian federation only (YHRD database). Matching haplotypes were found for all the R1a1-specimens except S32. Figure 2 shows that the current distribution pattern of the Y-STR haplotypes found in our ancient sample resembles that of R1a1. Indeed, they were observed at high frequencies in Slavic and Baltic populations (with peaks among Poland and Czech Republic) as well as in the indigenous populations of south Siberia. By contrast, they were only sporadically observed in central and east Asia and were absent in western Europe.
Regarding the mtDNA analyses, our Wndings indicate that the ancient Krasnoyarsk mtDNA pool harbored both western and eastern Eurasian lineages. Nevertheless, most of the retrieved sequences (n = 20, 77%) belong to western Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups (HV, H, T, I, U and K). The eastern Eurasian lineages (23% of the sequences) were represented by haplogroups or subhapologroups C, Z, G2a, F1b and N9a. The western Eurasian contribution to the ancient mtDNA pool reached 90% for the Bronze Age and decreased to 67% for the Iron Age. Thus, despite a small sample size, our data suggests a temporal pattern which is in agreement with the view that west Eurasian populations predominated in the Krasnoyarsk region during the Bronze Age, whereas Asian component began to increase from the Iron Age on. This result is similar to that obtained in the ancient DNA study of Lalueza-Fox et al. (2004) who showed that all Kazakh sample specimens from before thirteenth to seventh centuries BC belonged to European lineages. After that time, there was an inXux of East Asian sequences which are thought to have coexisted with the prior west Eurasian genetic substratum.
If we consider that there is a correspondence between the overall distribution of haplotypes and haplogroups and past human movements, it seems that the European or Caucasoid component observed in the ancient Siberian sample may originate from East European populations. Moreover, it is likely that some mtDNA lineages were carried to southern Siberia from the Volga–Ural region. Incidentally, in the Wfth century BC, Herodotus mentioned transit trade occurring in Central Asia along a route that stretched from the Urals in the west to the Altai and the Minusinsk Basin in the east (Hemphill and Mallory 2004). In Altai, the presence of the R1a1 haplogroup in the middle of the Wfth century BC is conWrmed by the [Scythian] sample SEB 96K2 of Ricaut et al. (2004) which was found to belong to this Y-haplogroup.
Christine Keyser et al., Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people (http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/?p=087abdf3edf548a4a719290f7fc84a62&pi=0), Human Genetics, Saturday, May 16, 2009, doi: 10.1007/s00439-009-0683-0
---------- Post added 2010-07-02 at 05:55 ----------
Well they're an Iranian folk, Indo-Iranians in general originated in Central Asia, actually I would say South Central Asia around the Stans (Afghanistan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan/Tajikistan).
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
I don't think it's bullshit at all, I said Central Asia and when you think of the so called Andronovo culture as being Indo-Iranian, that's exactly where it's located, here you go:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Jo7lJoQhtjw/SQYOQyMin_I/AAAAAAAADeo/wbM6dGqxM_I/s400/Indo-Iranian_origins.png
That's Kazakhstan pretty much which is Central Asia, anyways, the term here is "Indo-Iranian", not "Indo-European".
justlurkingdude
2010-07-02, 08:14
I don't mean to sound insulting, but why all the enthusiasm among Poles? Even if corded ware had an important role in the ethnogenesis of the Andronovo Culture, the Andronovo Culture was thousands of Kilometers away from Central Europe and in Central Asia, it was a different culture.
I actually agree with everything Polako has posted, but all the "they were my folk" stuff that lurks here beneath the surface is ridiculous
I would like to see studies made on the light pigmented tajiks that still survive, isolated in the mountains. They are the only ones who can feel the descendants of that.
I don't think it's bullshit at all, I said Central Asia and when you think of the so called Andronovo culture as being Indo-Iranian, that's exactly where it's located, here you go:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Jo7lJoQhtjw/SQYOQyMin_I/AAAAAAAADeo/wbM6dGqxM_I/s400/Indo-Iranian_origins.png
That's Kazakhstan pretty much which is Central Asia, anyways, the term here is "Indo-Iranian", not "Indo-European".
The ethnogenesis of the Andronovo culture took place near the Urals, within the formal boundaries of Europe, from groups that came from Central and Eastern Europe.
Suggesting that the North Iranians originated somewhere around Afghanistan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan/Tajikistan, and then moved into Europe, is indeed bullshit.
I would like to see studies made on the light pigmented tajiks that still survive, isolated in the mountains. They are the only ones who can feel the descendants of that.
Sure, they're the descendants of the Indo-Iranians who moved into those regions. But Poles are descendants of Polish Corded Ware groups, while Central Russians the descdenants of Andronovo and North Iranian groups.
All very exciting, and worth looking into, since these groups are all related and had a big impact on history.
The ethnogenesis of the Andronovo culture took place near the Urals, within the formal boundaries of Europe, from groups that came from Central and Eastern Europe.
Suggesting that the North Iranians originated somewhere around Afghanistan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan/Tajikistan, and then moved into Europe, is indeed bullshit.
I never said North Iranians, I said Indo-Iranians, as we know there are a bizillion type of Indo-Iranians out there, either way, Central Asia seems to be the safest bet, and that also stretches through parts of Afghanistan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan/Tajikistan, so once again, it's not bullshit, Ukraine or Poland on the other hand would probably be bullshit :unsure:
Anyways, I think before they were Indo-Iranian speakers they were some sort of Indo-European speakers, and Ultimately THEY arrived from Eurasia (Ukraine part), but as Indo-Iranians they most likely developed in the eastern parts.
So are you saying this diagram of the Androvono culture is imaginative or bullshit? The location does not look like geographic Europe to me.
I am just a wee bit dubious of all the hype regarding languages and their origins. I need more evidence for my satisfaction. It is probable that light pigmentation evolved there, at least that is my belief, but what language those proto Blonds spoke or what their haplogroups were, that is another group of questions.
PolskiMoc
2010-07-03, 03:09
I don't think it's bullshit at all, I said Central Asia and when you think of the so called Andronovo culture as being Indo-Iranian, that's exactly where it's located, here you go:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Jo7lJoQhtjw/SQYOQyMin_I/AAAAAAAADeo/wbM6dGqxM_I/s400/Indo-Iranian_origins.png
That's Kazakhstan pretty much which is Central Asia, anyways, the term here is "Indo-Iranian", not "Indo-European".
Indo-Iranians are Indo-Europeans.
Those Indo-Europeans came from around Ukraine & Poland with the spread of the Indo-Europeans from around Ukraine, Russia & Poland.
Andronovo had high Blonde hair as did Tocharians in Western China who had Blonde hair.
Blonde hair started right around Poland. As did the First Wheeled Wagons. Which the Andronovo culture basically took those Earlier Wheeled Wagons & Made them into Chariots.
You can follow the Kurgans & they start in West Russia, Ukraine & Poland as well.
Sweden had Kurgans before Central Asia did.
I never said North Iranians, I said Indo-Iranians, as we know there are a bizillion type of Indo-Iranians out there, either way, Central Asia seems to be the safest bet, and that also stretches through parts of Afghanistan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan/Tajikistan, so once again, it's not bullshit, Ukraine or Poland on the other hand would probably be bullshit.
North Iranians are the early Iranians. Central Asian Iranians are the later Iranians.
And clearly, the difference between me and you is that I don't speculate.
It could be stated, to summarize, that the Iranian-speaking Scythians and Saka were descendants of the steppe population of the Bronze Age which was divided between two major cultural unities: the Timber-grave and the Andronovo, the latter being represented by two original types; Fedorovo and Alakul. From the Eneolithic [Copper] period to the Early Iron Age there were no invasions of population from the Near East or Iran in the steppes of Eurasia. All migrations, though numerous, occurred within the steppe and forest-steppe zones
...
According to C-14 [carbon] dating, the Andronovo and Timber-grave cultures formed at the shift of the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC on the common base of Eastern European cultures. The main components were the steppe cultures of Poltavka, late Catacomb (to far lesser degree), and the Abashevo culture of the forest steppe zone. The latter culture belonged to the Corded Ware group of cultures of Central Europe.
...
The subsequent development of the Timber-grave culture in the Pontic Caspian steppes was determined by the large-scale participation of the Abashevo culture in the Don region and the post-Catacomb Multi-roller Ware culture in the Ukraine.
...
The close genetic affinity of the Andronovo and the Timber-grave culture tribes became even closer thanks to regular contacts, especially because of the flow of tin from Kazakhstan and of copper ( as well as of finished products) from the Urals. The contact zone lay between the Volga and the Urals. The Andronovan influence reached the Dnieper.
Elena E. Kuz'mina, James P. Mallory (Editor), The Origin of the Indo-Iranians (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Origin-of-the-Indo-Iranians/Elena-E-Kuzmina/e/9789004160545), Vol. 3, Barnes & Noble, 2007
In our ancient sample, among the nine specimens carrying haplogroup R1a1, five different Y-chromosomal haplotypes were observed. Similarities were noted between these haplotypes, particularly the motif 11/14-11-11-13-14-11- 10-20-16-15-23 (in bold in Table 3) which is common to all of them except S32. This motif is typically an eastern European one since currently found in the Russian federation only (YHRD database). Matching haplotypes were found for all the R1a1-specimens except S32. Figure 2 shows that the current distribution pattern of the Y-STR haplotypes found in our ancient sample resembles that of R1a1. Indeed, they were observed at high frequencies in Slavic and Baltic populations (with peaks among Poland and Czech Republic) as well as in the indigenous populations of south Siberia. By contrast, they were only sporadically observed in central and east Asia and were absent in western Europe.
Regarding the mtDNA analyses, our Wndings indicate that the ancient Krasnoyarsk mtDNA pool harbored both western and eastern Eurasian lineages. Nevertheless, most of the retrieved sequences (n = 20, 77%) belong to western Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups (HV, H, T, I, U and K). The eastern Eurasian lineages (23% of the sequences) were represented by haplogroups or subhapologroups C, Z, G2a, F1b and N9a. The western Eurasian contribution to the ancient mtDNA pool reached 90% for the Bronze Age and decreased to 67% for the Iron Age. Thus, despite a small sample size, our data suggests a temporal pattern which is in agreement with the view that west Eurasian populations predominated in the Krasnoyarsk region during the Bronze Age, whereas Asian component began to increase from the Iron Age on. This result is similar to that obtained in the ancient DNA study of Lalueza-Fox et al. (2004) who showed that all Kazakh sample specimens from before thirteenth to seventh centuries BC belonged to European lineages. After that time, there was an inXux of East Asian sequences which are thought to have coexisted with the prior west Eurasian genetic substratum.
If we consider that there is a correspondence between the overall distribution of haplotypes and haplogroups and past human movements, it seems that the European or Caucasoid component observed in the ancient Siberian sample may originate from East European populations. Moreover, it is likely that some mtDNA lineages were carried to southern Siberia from the Volga–Ural region. Incidentally, in the Wfth century BC, Herodotus mentioned transit trade occurring in Central Asia along a route that stretched from the Urals in the west to the Altai and the Minusinsk Basin in the east (Hemphill and Mallory 2004). In Altai, the presence of the R1a1 haplogroup in the middle of the Wfth century BC is conWrmed by the [Scythian] sample SEB 96K2 of Ricaut et al. (2004) which was found to belong to this Y-haplogroup.
Christine Keyser et al., Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people (http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/?p=087abdf3edf548a4a719290f7fc84a62&pi=0), Human Genetics, Saturday, May 16, 2009, doi: 10.1007/s00439-009-0683-0
The assignment method was performed from only the allelic frequencies of the seven STR loci considered in the consensus genotype. The probability of observing an individual with the Kizil skeleton STR profile was the highest in the two eastern European populations (Russia and Poland). Indeed, the likelihood that the Kizil skeleton STR profile occurred in these two populations was 10 times higher than in other European populations, 100 times higher than in eastern Asian populations, and about 100,000 times higher than in Indian populations.
...
We conclude that our analysis of genetic data obtained from a skeleton recovered in a Scytho-Siberian kurgan (2500 years old) links this ancient skeleton to several European populations that live in the neighboring region of Central Asia and shows that the Scytho-Siberian population contained a European component (Voevoda et al. 2000; Clisson et al. 2002).
Ricaut, Francois-X et al., Genetic Analysis of a Scytho-Siberian Skeleton and Its Implications for Ancient Central Asian Migrations, Human Biology - Volume 76, Number 1, February 2004, pp. 109-125, DOI: 10.1353/hub.2004.0025
The article presents some results of a multivariate analysis of 245 male Eurasian cranial series dating to various periods from the Neolithic to the Early Iron Age. These results contradict the commonly held view that certain comparatively gracile (narrow-faced) Bronze Age populations of Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan were “Mediterranean” in the anthropological sense, i.e. Southern Caucasoid. Craniometry provides no support for the theory that those people migrated to Southern Siberia or Kazakhstan from Southwestern Central Asia, the Near East, or Trans-Caucasia. Populations described as “Mediterranean” (the Okunev people of Tuva, the Yelunino, the Samus, and some Afanasiev and Andronov groups) display craniometric resemblance with the Bronze Age people of Southern Russian and Ukrainian steppes, as well as with certain Late Neolithic and Bronze Age groups of Central and Western Europe. These affinities are apparently caused by migrations of Indo-Europeans (specifically Indo-Iranians) from their European homeland eastward, as far as Eastern Central Asia. The return from Eastern Central Asia to Europe of the descendents of one of these groups during the Early Iron Age was probably the principal cause for the emergence of the Scythians on the historical arena.
A.G. Kozintsev, The "Mediterraneans" of Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan, Indo-European migrations, and the origin of the Scythians: a multivariate craniometric analysis, Archaeology (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JJ9-4VY25NF-G&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=14&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info%28%23toc%2343721%232008%23999639995%231009099 %23FLP%23display%23Volume%29&_cdi=43721&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=19&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=297360fc0ce5ce2971c58d8959c57414), Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, Volume 36, Issue 4, December 2008, Pages 140-144, doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2009.03.013
---------- Post added 2010-07-03 at 03:45 ----------
So are you saying this diagram of the Androvono culture is imaginative or bullshit? The location does not look like geographic Europe to me.
The Andronovo culture formed on the European side of the Urals, from Corded Ware and Timber Grave groups who came from Central and Eastern Europe.
Your map shows its extent at a certain time period, not its ethnogenesis.
BTW, that area was sparsely populated by Uralic-like hunter gatherers before Europeans got there to mine copper and bronze.
North Iranians are the early Iranians. Central Asian Iranians are the later Iranians.
And clearly, the difference between me and you is that I don't speculate.
Elena E. Kuz'mina, James P. Mallory (Editor), The Origin of the Indo-Iranians (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Origin-of-the-Indo-Iranians/Elena-E-Kuzmina/e/9789004160545), Vol. 3, Barnes & Noble, 2007
Christine Keyser et al., Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people (http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/?p=087abdf3edf548a4a719290f7fc84a62&pi=0), Human Genetics, Saturday, May 16, 2009, doi: 10.1007/s00439-009-0683-0
Ricaut, Francois-X et al., Genetic Analysis of a Scytho-Siberian Skeleton and Its Implications for Ancient Central Asian Migrations, Human Biology - Volume 76, Number 1, February 2004, pp. 109-125, DOI: 10.1353/hub.2004.0025
A.G. Kozintsev, The "Mediterraneans" of Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan, Indo-European migrations, and the origin of the Scythians: a multivariate craniometric analysis, Archaeology (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JJ9-4VY25NF-G&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=14&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info%28%23toc%2343721%232008%23999639995%231009099 %23FLP%23display%23Volume%29&_cdi=43721&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=19&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=297360fc0ce5ce2971c58d8959c57414), Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, Volume 36, Issue 4, December 2008, Pages 140-144, doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2009.03.013
---------- Post added 2010-07-03 at 03:45 ----------
The Andronovo culture formed on the European side of the Urals, from Corded Ware and Timber Grave groups who came from Central and Eastern Europe.
Your map shows its extent at a certain time period, not its ethnogenesis.
BTW, that area was sparsely populated by Uralic-like hunter gatherers before Europeans got there to mine copper and bronze.
How much pseudo-Uralic admixture Tajiks, Afghans, Turkmens have? I don't think it can be called really uralic like... Probably the Northern steppe zone in Kazakhstan was populated by Uralic like people, but I think Southern Central Asia had another type of darker, Caucasian like population.
lookingforinfo
2010-11-08, 12:21
The ethnogenesis of the Andronovo culture took place near the Urals, within the formal boundaries of Europe, from groups that came from Central and Eastern Europe.
Suggesting that the North Iranians originated somewhere around Afghanistan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan/Tajikistan, and then moved into Europe, is indeed bullshit.
Sure, they're the descendants of the Indo-Iranians who moved into those regions. But Poles are descendants of Polish Corded Ware groups, while Central Russians the descdenants of Andronovo and North Iranian groups.
All very exciting, and worth looking into, since these groups are all related and had a big impact on history.
No one said they moved into Europe you idiot. He said they migrated from Central Asia to South-Central Asia and ethnogenesis took place there. Why would they go to Europe?
EliasAlucard
2011-10-29, 19:19
Genetic DNA Companies ---> Urheimat Theories
//mod
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.