Reich: Yamnaya brought R1b to Europe [Archive] - Page 2 - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Demhat

02-13-2015, 12:12 AM

I have said the same thing (north caucasus-affinity of indo-europeans) before we knew of ANE component, but no one believed it.

You said the same? Add me to the list too bro.

When I said North Caucasians are basically the ONLY population who have not been targeted by major genetic shift in the region, and therefore Yamna would be like a more northern (slightly more ANE and slightly more WHG vs less ENF) shifted version of North Caucasians, people were not taking me serious.

Lookwise, Yamna people were neither like the majority of North Caucasians nor like anyone else. They were still predominantly darker than average North Caucasians and pigmentationwise more like Kurds, Turks, South Caucasians and Iranians in this matter. We can imagine them like dark haired and dark eyed Robust Pontoids which often occurs in the North Caucasus. But mordern North Caucasians are lighter and often dinarized.

This look might have been common among Yamna.
http://cs9897.vk.me/u96941728/a_57435b96.jpg

http://www.neuepresse.de/var/storage/images/np/hannover/meine-stadt/tschetschene-bricht-in-moringen-aus/141198739-1-ger-DE/Tschetschene-bricht-in-Moringen-aus_ArtikelQuer.jpg

Genetically they are similar to North Caucasians and Mordovians, in other words basically a Northern shifted version of North Caucasians or southern shifted version of Mordovians.

But keep in mind this is only Yamna we are talking about. Even the paper itself says the origin of not every Indo European group can be explained with an Yamna expansion. And the West Asian highlands theory also gained more possibility.

It is very well possible that the PIE were pastoralists who brought their language to Yamna, just as they brought their culture too.

Jackson

02-13-2015, 12:16 AM

So who brought that Armenian-like admixture to the steppe?

Someone from the south or from the east I guess (and they were probably not R1b).

Well they apparently weren't like the Near Easterners that brought farming to Europe, and they apparently had Caucasus and Gedrosia like autosomal ancestry.

Peterski

02-13-2015, 12:23 AM

Gedrosian autosomal peaks in Iran - a place where according to Underhill et. al. 2014, hg R1a could originally expand from:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/full/ejhg201450a.html

(...) we conclude that the initial episodes of haplogroup R1a diversification likely occurred in the vicinity of present-day Iran. (...)

Jackson

02-13-2015, 12:29 AM

Gedrosian autosomal peaks in Iran - a place where according to Underhill et. al. 2014, hg R1a could originally expand from:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/full/ejhg201450a.html

It would have to have expanded early if it was to be in unmixed EHG by the point that it is. Another alternative in theory is that R1b/R1 was wide ranging already, and this R1b in Samara is associated with incomers from the south, however the EHG R1b was very close to becoming those haplogroups seen, so it looks like the most likely scenario is that the R1b is EHG related rather than related to the Gedrosian admixture in Yamnaya. What other alternatives do you think there might be if it isn't R1b?

Demhat

02-13-2015, 12:33 AM

They are 38-40% ANE + 62% WHG

So now half the 60% WHG since the Yamna were 1/2 Karelian like. There you go with 30% WHG, which is basically what I stated all along.

My hypothesis was 20-30% WHG vs 30% ANE. Since we know the "Near Eastern" part of Yamna was also ANE rich.

This fits. Some People on Eurogenes comment section made claims like 50% WHG and told me I should accept it :D

Peterski

02-13-2015, 12:35 AM

But according to these maps Gedrosian completely doesn't match the distribution of European R1a:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29009-New-map-of-Caucasian-autosomal-admixtures-in-Europe-and-the-Middle-East

Black Wolf

02-13-2015, 12:38 AM

It is interesting to note that the thing that seems to unite the WHG-ANE autosomal genetic clade is mtDNA haplogroup U. Many seem to think that the WHG-ANE components form a clade to the exclusion of other autosomal components. It seems clear now that the Y-DNA of the WHG and ANE people was quite different. We have Y-DNA haplogroups I and C for WHG and Y-DNA haplogroup R mainly for ANE but all of these ancient hunter-gatherer groups are almost completely dominated by mtDNA haplogroup U an it's subclades. I could be wrong but it is an interesting pattern I think.

Jackson

02-13-2015, 12:44 AM

Black Wolf

02-13-2015, 12:46 AM

These early U women must have been a hit with the men. :D

No wonder they were making statuettes of them.

And you and I are direct maternal line descendants of those lovely robust ladies. :P

Jackson

02-13-2015, 12:47 AM

And you and I are direct maternal line descendants of those lovely robust ladies. :P

Charm must still be in effect, worked on my dad.

Black Wolf

02-13-2015, 12:49 AM

Charm must still be in effect, worked on my dad.

Worked on my dad and both of my grandfathers as well.

curupira

02-13-2015, 01:51 AM

Let us not forget the study also showed a close genetic autosomal relationship between the two R1a and R1b oldest samples who lived about 7000 years ago. They plot at about the same place and were rich in the EHG component. Being both R1 already hinted at a closer genetic relationship back in the past. Now the autosomal map shows it. Not only this, they were found both up in the North in Karelia and in Samara in Russia.

R -> ~ 24000 years ago
R1a and R1b > ~ 7000 years ago

Their locations:
http://i60.tinypic.com/1j7mfm.gif

Oldest R1a and R1b and their close autosomal relationship, they lived ~7000 years ago:
http://i58.tinypic.com/fnthrk.png

Black Wolf

02-13-2015, 01:54 AM

Proto-Shaman

02-13-2015, 10:24 AM

Moreover, results from the Armenian DNA Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ArmeniaDNAProject/default.aspx?section=ysnp; administered by Hovann Simonian, Mark Arslan, and Peter Hrechdakian; accessed Dec 09, 2014) indicate the presence of the Z2103 derived state in many modern Armenians.

Harkonnen

02-13-2015, 11:29 AM

Valtaves wrote on page 23 (post #229):

I don't think that they were brothers.

They just lived close to each other (but the one you posted was rather of N1c1 haplogroup):

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/en/temporary_exhibitions/virtual/gerasimov/10/

Most people who lived in Karelia at that time, were Caucasoids (like the one I posted).

The one you posted looks Lapponoid. Perhaps he was N1c1 and spoke Uralic.

Lol, do you have any idea how retarded you sound.

So we have two ancient men living in the same island, in the same time period, buried in the same grave. And you are just going to presume that these two fellows A) spoke different language, and B) were completely different genetically?

By the way where did you get the information, to which skeleton this result belongs to?

Linguist, btw, today are of the opinion that mesolithic Karelians did not speak Uralic. In the time Gerasimov made these reconstructions, the idea was that these people were Finno-Ugrics, which is one of the reasons, I think, Gerasimov was so inclined to call them mongoloid influenced.

Anyway, obviously these guys are not really caucasoids. They belong to the ancient UP Cromagnid race. The 'mongoloid' one is probably just a low-T incel version of the first dude.

You can see the same type from these American reconstructions from the same time period

http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/51/9f/519fea8a-a215-48fe-ba09-fae09a0bb3e3/kennewick-hero.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpg
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/meet-kennewick-man/image-01-small.jpg
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/6761/noyh8.jpg

Remember these guys are around 50/50 ANE/ENA whereas the Karelians are around 50/50 WHG/ANE

Speaking of the Saamis, they do actually share a lot of drift with Meso-Karelians, about equal with Lithuanians, and a tad bit more. Will be interesting to see what IBD/IBS shows

http://oi61.tinypic.com/2d760t5.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Mikel_Mikelsen_Hetta_-_Sami_man,_Kautokeino,_Norway,_by_Bonaparte_1884.j pg
http://oi57.tinypic.com/ztixxx.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/40/e7/6d/40e76d497d04f43aea13740d480a408b.jpg

aherne

02-13-2015, 02:13 PM

Is that so. What about his brother?

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/images/g/11_05.jpg

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/en/temporary_exhibitions/virtual/gerasimov/10/24/

:eek:

By the way we were discussing this: Soon they will start to reconstruct the reconstructions. You wait and see brothers!
1. how do we know they are brothers? has a DNA test been performed on them?
2. assuming they are brothers, it is perfectly possible in a mixed population for siblings to exhibit different even opposing types. If I remember well, they date from the period of Corded expansion. It's well known that Corded Ware people (Aryans) invaded Finland as well. So to have an Uralid and an Aryan in same family is about as "odd" as a Slavic family where brother is "Nordid" and sister is Baltid.

aherne

02-13-2015, 02:18 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Mikel_Mikelsen_Hetta_-_Sami_man,_Kautokeino,_Norway,_by_Bonaparte_1884.j pg
http://oi57.tinypic.com/ztixxx.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/40/e7/6d/40e76d497d04f43aea13740d480a408b.jpg

These people (pictures of one man?) are entirely Aryan in type (proving that at some point Aryans mixed with Baltic Finns). Their small height is natural adaptation to food shortages in arctic climate.

Harkonnen

02-13-2015, 02:26 PM

1. how do we know they are brothers? has a DNA test been performed on them?
2. assuming they are brothers, it is perfectly possible in a mixed population for siblings to exhibit different even opposing types. If I remember well, they date from the period of Corded expansion. It's well known that Corded Ware people (Aryans) invaded Finland as well. So to have an Uralid and an Aryan in same family is about as "odd" as a Slavic family where brother is "Nordid" and sister is Baltid.

They are not Corded Warians. They belong roughly to a very early Comb Ceramic Cultural sphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit%E2%80%93Comb_Ware_culture

The brother thing was a joke. I have no idea about their familiar relationship.

oh-nahhh

02-13-2015, 03:31 PM

An article on this http://www.nature.com/news/european-languages-linked-to-migration-from-the-east-1.16919

curupira

02-13-2015, 03:41 PM

As I said, the oldest R1a and R1b come from the Northern part of Russia, and on the autosomal they were quite closely related, being rich in EHG. Being both R1 already hinted at that. So far, R1a and R1b are Eastern European hunter gatherer markers, closely associated, the further back you go back to the past, and their spread far and wide fits with the timeframe of the spread of the IE languages, R1b-M269+, R1a-Z93+, R1a-Z283+, Kurgan burials, etc. They were there in the steppes when PIE started. The old R1b Samara hunter gatherer was there thousands years before the Near Eastern push in the autosomal profile of the Yamnayans.

Thus, R1a and R1b stand so far for R1-ussian bear:

http://www.pecat.co.rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Russian_bear.jpg

Let us not forget the study also showed a close genetic autosomal relationship between the two R1a and R1b oldest samples who lived about 7000 years ago. They plot at about the same place and were rich in the EHG component. Being both R1 already hinted at a closer genetic relationship back in the past. Now the autosomal map shows it. Not only this, they were found both up in the North in Karelia and in Samara in Russia.

R -> ~ 24000 years ago
R1a and R1b > ~ 7000 years ago

Their locations:
http://i60.tinypic.com/1j7mfm.gif

Oldest R1a and R1b and their close autosomal relationship, they lived ~7000 years ago:
http://i58.tinypic.com/fnthrk.png

Demhat

02-13-2015, 04:21 PM

As I said, the oldest R1a and R1b come from the Northern part of Russia, and on the autosomal they were quite closely related, being rich in EHG. Being both R1 already hinted at that. So far, R1a and R1b are Eastern European hunter gatherer markers, closely associated, the further back you go back to the past, and their spread far and wide fits with the timeframe of the spread of the IE languages, R1b-M269+, R1a-Z93+, R1a-Z283+, Kurgan burials, etc. They were there in the steppes when PIE started. The old R1b Samara hunter gatherer was there thousands years before the Near Eastern push in the autosomal profile of the Yamnayans.

Thus, R1a and R1b stand so far for R1-ussian bear:

http://www.pecat.co.rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Russian_bear.jpg

The R1b and R1a in Russia are not basal. At some point of time they must have come from further south because both basal R1b (m343) and basal R1a(L62) are only found in West and South_central Asia.
The only thing we know nowadays is that R1a and R1b already existed in Russia during the mesolithic. But this isn't really any news. As far as I can think the R1b wasn't even Karelian but Yamna.

And We don't have yet a single ancient sample from Western Asia. But even modern West Asians have basal R1a (L62) and R1b (m343). While neither ancient nor modern samples from Russia have this type.

All R1b in Samarra are Z2103, P297 and L23. No M343 found.

But even the Iberian Neolithic R1b seems to have been possibily basal and brought there directly from Western Asian pastoralists and not Yamna, since the Yamna R1b is not ancestral to it.

curupira

02-13-2015, 04:52 PM

The R1b and R1a in Russia are not basal.

They surely are the oldest so far found. Look at the map I posted, check R* and make a triangle linking them. R*, R1a and R1b are associated with an ancestral ANE component. The oldest R1a and R1b so far found were rich in EHG, plotting very closely and in a quite Northern position.

Just look at the inferences the researchers made:

I0124 (Samara_HG)
The hunter-gatherer from Samara belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (L278:18914441C¨T), with
upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C¨A) also supported. However, he was ancestral for both
the downstream haplogroup R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T¨C) and R1b1a2 (M269:22739367T¨C) and
could be designated as R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2). Thus, this individual was basal to most west
Eurasian R1b individuals which belong to the R-M269 lineage as well as to the related R-M73/M478
lineage that has a predominantly non-European distribution17. The occurrence of chromosomes basal
to the most prevalent lineages within haplogroups R1a and R1b in eastern European hunter-gatherers,
together with the finding of basal haplogroup R* in the ~24,000-year old Malfta (MA1) boy18
suggests the possibility that some of the differentiation of lineages within haplogroup R occurred in
north Eurasia, although we note that we do not have ancient DNA data from more southern regions of
Eurasia. Irrespective of the more ancient origins of this group of lineages, the occurrence of basal
forms of R1a and R1b in eastern European hunter-gatherers provide a geographically plausible source
for these lineages in later Europeans where both lineages are prevalent4,17,19.

Not a Cop

02-13-2015, 04:58 PM

Linguist, btw, today are of the opinion that mesolithic Karelians did not speak Uralic. In the time Gerasimov made these reconstructions, the idea was that these people were Finno-Ugrics, which is one of the reasons, I think, Gerasimov was so inclined to call them mongoloid influenced.

Anyway, obviously these guys are not really caucasoids. They belong to the ancient UP Cromagnid race. The 'mongoloid' one is probably just a low-T incel version of the first dude.

I believe Gerasimov was a bit too an much artist for a reconstructor, he exaggerated some features, and played with mimic, hair style, and similar stuff, look at Karelian reconstructions - they have hats, clothes, beards, "DOM" guy have beard, all of this decreases the anthropological value of his sculptures, he propably wanted to make them look real, but that's the price.

Compare Oberkassel of Gerasimov and some other reconstruction:

http://www.sivatherium.narod.ru/library/Nesturh/pics/foto_112.jpg

http://bilder.bild.de/fotos/koeln-eiszeit-teaser-39522423-qf-36600594/Bild/3.bild.jpg

Gerasimov's dude looks like you would expect H-G to look like, while other guy looks like a chubby bus driver everobody saw a thousand times, obviously Gerasimov's work is more interesting, but probably a bit less realistic.

Demhat

02-13-2015, 05:10 PM

@curupira

They are the oldest found samples of R1a and R1b yes, because there aren't yet any samples from other regions of the world.

But they are not the oldest clades of R1b and R1a (Not basal).

They are all upstream to basal R1b/R1a.

Thats what I am saying.

Demhat

02-13-2015, 05:11 PM

I believe Gerasimov was a bit too an much artist for a reconstructor, he exaggerated some features, and played with mimic, hair style, and similar stuff, look at Karelian reconstructions - they have hats, clothes, beards, "DOM" guy have beard, all of this decreases the anthropological value of his sculptures, he propably wanted to make them look real, but that's the price.

Compare Oberkassel of Gerasimov and some other reconstruction:

http://www.sivatherium.narod.ru/library/Nesturh/pics/foto_112.jpg

http://bilder.bild.de/fotos/koeln-eiszeit-teaser-39522423-qf-36600594/Bild/3.bild.jpg

Gerasimov's dude looks like you would expect H-G to look like, while other guy looks like a chubby bus driver everobody saw a thousand times, obviously Gerasimov's work is more interesting, but probably a bit less realistic.

Thats also what I criticized about this dude.

His work does not look realistic. If you look at Gerasimovs reconstruction of Ivan the terrible, you could think Ivan was some sort of Uzbek.

curupira

02-13-2015, 05:19 PM

The most basal is R*, which lived 24000 years ago, was found in Siberia. It carried an autosomal component which the the researchers noticed in the oldest R1a and in the oldest R1b. A triangle with the location also hints at a location somewhere there. Not to mention the R1 mutation which is the immediate ancestor of both R1a and R1b. At that timeframe, 7000 years ago R1a and R1b samples were still looking very similar genetically, plotting very near one to the other. I'm just saying chances are high R1a and R1b are native hunter gatherers from Eastern Europe (or North Eurasia, if you prefer).

I think they did the right thing. They tested first the core steppe area, not the area near Cucuteni. I'm sure if they had tested near Cucuteni, and it was R1b, many would be claiming R1b as a Neolithic marker. :thumbs up Now, it turns out R1b is as old as R1a in that area, they both are associated with Eastern European hunter gatherers on an autosomal level, plotting very closely on a genetic map, and both located in Russia. So far, R1b and R1a are Eastern European hunter gatherer markers, from which PIE would emerge. IE expansions carried them far and wide to many different parts of the world. R1b-M269+, R1a-Z93+ and R1a-Z283+ can already be established as part of that, at least speaking of the main Chiefs.

@curupira They are the oldest found samples of R1a and R1b yes, because there aren't yet any samples from other regions of the world. But they are not the oldest clades of R1b and R1a (Not basal).They are all upstream to basal R1b/R1a.Thats what I am saying.

Danishmend

02-13-2015, 05:23 PM

Behold! The oldest subclade of R1b M269 so far.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?159823-R1b-M269-Phylogenetic-Tree-(Updated-February-9-2015)

Ibericus

02-13-2015, 05:23 PM

The R1b and R1a in Russia are not basal. At some point of time they must have come from further south because both basal R1b (m343) and basal R1a(L62) are only found in West and South_central Asia.
The only thing we know nowadays is that R1a and R1b already existed in Russia during the mesolithic. But this isn't really any news. As far as I can think the R1b wasn't even Karelian but Yamna.

And We don't have yet a single ancient sample from Western Asia. But even modern West Asians have basal R1a (L62) and R1b (m343). While neither ancient nor modern samples from Russia have this type.

All R1b in Samarra are Z2103, P297 and L23. No M343 found.

But even the Iberian Neolithic R1b seems to have been possibily basal and brought there directly from Western Asian pastoralists and not Yamna, since the Yamna R1b is not ancestral to it.
The Samara Hunter-gatherer is much older than Yamnaya.

Demhat

02-13-2015, 05:24 PM

Demhat

02-13-2015, 05:24 PM

The Samara Hunter-gatherer is much older than Yamnaya.

So he is mesolithic yes. But he is not M343.

The point is, none of the samples in Samarra are upstream to M269.

That R1b or R1a originated in Russia we would need to find upstream clades of M269. Such as M343 for example. And for R1a L62.

Ibericus

02-13-2015, 05:25 PM

I would rather bet my money to find basal R1b/R1a in West or South_Central Asia than Russia. Especially if we take into account that these samples are halfway "Caucasus_Gedrosia " like autsomally .
They are not. The R1b man is 100% hunter-gather (40% ANE + 60% WHG) with no near-eastern.

Demhat

02-13-2015, 05:32 PM

Let me give you examples of basal R1b and R1a.

1x R1a*(L62+, L63+, SRY10831.2-, M17-) (Yezidi Kurd from Georgia)

1x R1b-M343 (Iranian Kurds in Grugni et al., 2012)

http://kurdishdna.blogspot.de/

These two are upstream to the R1a/R1b found in the Samarra/Karelian samples.

Demhat

02-13-2015, 05:34 PM

They are not. The R1b man is 100% hunter-gather (40% ANE + 60% WHG) with no near-eastern.

Do you know how much ANE contributed into the making of Caucasus_Gedrosia? Armenians with near zero "North European" have 15% ANE.

Also the point is that R1b and R1a in Russia is not basal (all upstream to M269). What is so hard to understand about this? Is it that you don't want to understand it? So why are you even beating a dead horse.

Not a Cop

02-13-2015, 06:16 PM

Genetically they are similar to North Caucasians and Mordovians, in other words basically a Northern shifted version of North Caucasians or southern shifted version of Mordovians.

What genetic similarity you talk about here - IBD or admixture wise (WHG-EEF-ANE)?

Proto-Shaman

02-13-2015, 10:18 PM

Peterski

02-14-2015, 01:06 PM

Corded Ware individual I0104, age 2473 - 2348 BCE, is M417 - which is ancestral to 99% of modern R1a (including Z93 and CTS 4385).

He lived 4350 - 4500 years ago. And according to Underhill 2014, the R-M417 has an estimated TMRCA of 4800 - 6800 years ago, average of 5000.

While according to Haak 2015 it has an estiated TMRCA of 5800 years ago.

Anyway, our M417 from Corded Ware lived between 300 and 2500 years after the common ancestor of 99% of modern R1a.

Moreover, that hunter-gatherer from Karelia from 7000 - 7500 years ago (5000 - 5500 BCE) is ancestral to M417 !!!

So it seems very probable that common ancestor of all of R1a lived in Europe somewhere between Finland-Russia and East Germany.

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

Yamnaya - R1b
=============
Corded Ware - R1a
Tocharians - R1a (and Tocharian R1a is M417, but not Z93)
Andronovo - R1a
Scythians - R1a

Demhat

02-14-2015, 01:22 PM

Corded Ware individual I0104, age 2473 - 2348 BCE, is M417 - which is ancestral to 99% of modern R1a (including Z93 and CTS 4385).

He lived 4350 - 4500 years ago. And according to Underhill 2014, the R-M417 has an estimated TMRCA of 4800 - 6800 years ago, average of 5000.

While according to Haak 2015 it has an estiated TMRCA of 5800 years ago.

Anyway, our M417 from Corded Ware lived between 300 and 2500 years after the common ancestor of 99% of modern R1a.

Moreover, that hunter-gatherer from Karelia from 7000 - 7500 years ago (5000 - 5500 BCE) is ancestral to M417 !!!

So it seems very probable that common ancestor of all of R1a lived in Europe somewhere between Finland and East Germany.

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

Yamnaya - R1b
=============
Corded Ware - R1a
Tocharians - R1a (and Tocharian R1a is M417, but not Z93)
Andronovo - R1a
Scythians - R1a

Bro the Karelian dude was M198 (M417)

1. R1a does not start with M417 which is R1a1a for Gods sake. It starts with l62 which is R1a. So it can't be ancestral to all R1a around the world, because there are R1a in the world upstream to R1a m417.

2. Andronovo/Scythians was not in "Europe" but Central/North Asia. You people are now claiming completely half of the whole Asian continent as Europe.

Peterski

02-14-2015, 01:53 PM

So it can't be ancestral to all R1a around the world

I mean ancestral for 99% of R1a in the world (which is M417).

because there are R1a in the world upstream to R1a m417.

Which is 1% of entire R1a today. Only M417 branch was successful.

2. Andronovo/Scythians was not in "Europe" but Central/North Asia.

I did not write that Andronovo was in Europe. It was mostly in Asia (westernmost part in Europe).

Scythians were both in Europe and in Asia, since they lived along the whole Eurasian steppe.

Peterski

02-14-2015, 01:59 PM

the Karelian dude was M198 (M417)

Yes, this Karelian dude was actually ancestral to M417. M417 emerged hundreds of years after that dude.

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

curupira

02-14-2015, 03:17 PM

Bro Basal R* is not the same as Basal R1b or R1a ;) there are tens of thousands years between them.
It is possible that they find basal in Russia (maybe), but we haven't found it yet. But what we have is even modern West and South_Central Asians having the basal clade while neither ancient nor modern samples from Russia have shown any. :) Lets wait for ancient samples from West and South_Central Asia.I would rather bet my money to find basal R1b/R1a in West or South_Central Asia than Russia. Especially if we take into account that these samples are halfway "Caucasus_Gedrosia " like autsomally .

It is not the location of one single haplogroup. It is the location of the oldest R1a, the oldest R1b, and the oldest R*. Look at the triangle linking the three and the area covered. Don't forget they all share an autosomal component called ANE (Ancestral North Eurasian).

R -> ~ 24000 years ago
R1a and R1b > ~ 7000 years ago

http://i60.tinypic.com/1j7mfm.gif

Demhat

02-14-2015, 03:28 PM

Yes, this Karelian dude was actually ancestral to M417. M417 emerged hundreds of years after that dude.

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

hundreds of years yes but not thousands of years like m420(L62), which is the ancestral clade. But the Karelian dude was not m420. He was on the root of M417 not on the root of m420 which is thousands years older. Thats the point.

Demhat

02-14-2015, 03:29 PM

It is not the location of one single haplogroup. It is the location of the oldest R1a, the oldest R1b, and the oldest R*. Look at the triangle linking the three and the area covered. Don't forget they all share an autosomal component called ANE (Ancestral North Eurasian).

I am discussing with people who have not the basic knowledge of genetics :picard1:

Peterski

02-14-2015, 04:41 PM

He was on the root of M417 not on the root of m420 which is thousands years older.

Yes, but have you read Underhill et. al. 2014 ???

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

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

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

It is the location of the oldest R1a

No, no. The oldest R1a is much older - R1a emerged from R1 about 21 - 25 thousand years ago.

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

And 99% of modern R1a is descended from M417, which started that demographic explosion.

Now we have a direct paternal ancestor of M417, who lived in Karelia (and not in Iran or elsewhere). It is probable that hunters from Karelia moved southward to the European steppe, and then from the European steppe to Central Europe (M417 from Corded Ware) and to Asia.

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

oh-nahhh

02-14-2015, 05:25 PM

Yes, but have you read Underhill et. al. 2014 ???

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

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

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

No, no. The oldest R1a is much older - R1a emerged from R1 about 21 - 25 thousand years ago.

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

And 99% of modern R1a is descended from M417, which started that demographic explosion.

Now we have a direct paternal ancestor of M417, who lived in Karelia (and not in Iran or elsewhere). It is probable that hunters from Karelia moved southward to the European steppe, and then from the European steppe to Central Europe (M417 from Corded Ware) and to Asia.

But I really doubt that hunters from Karelia moved to Iran, and then from Iran back to the steppe and Central Europe. :)So how does this relate to indo-european languages or a proto-indo-european homeland?

What exactly is your point?

Peterski

02-14-2015, 06:19 PM

He lived 7000 - 7500 years ago, was M17 (M198), and was direct ancestor of M417 (which emerged 4800 - 6800 years ago).

Eastern European hunters came down to the Eastern European steppe, and gave rise to pastoralist Indo-Europeans.

So my point is that Indo-Europeans emerged in Eastern Europe and they did so from native, local population.

Check also here on pages 11 and 12:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30878-Massive-migration-from-the-steppe-is-a-source-for-Indo-European-languages-in-Europe/page12

Peterski

02-14-2015, 06:30 PM

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

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

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

Check also this:

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

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

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

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

oh-nahhh

02-14-2015, 06:40 PM

oh-nahhh

02-14-2015, 06:43 PM

I meant *r1a first.

Harkonnen

02-14-2015, 06:49 PM

So we have two ancient men living in the same island, in the same time period, buried in the same grave. And you are just going to presume that these two fellows A) spoke different language, and B) were completely different genetically?

Apparently I against all odds, I spoke too soon here

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

http://what-when-how.com/ancient-europe/oleneostrovskii-mogilnik-postglacial-foragers-80004000-b-c-ancient-europe/

So apparently in the same little island lived two different cultural spheres, with different set of physical features, using the same burial ground.

1 "Uralic"+Northern European

2 "Siberian"+ Southern European

Wtf, this sounds very weird.

Peterski

02-14-2015, 06:54 PM

And you are just going to presume that these two fellows A) spoke different language, and B) were completely different genetically?

And what is so strange about this ??? The island could be for example a trading spot where two ethnic groups traded with each other.

Yes, they are completely genetically different - please take a look at their reconstructed faces. Very different anthropological types.

Harkonnen

02-14-2015, 07:03 PM

And what is so strange about this ??? The island could be for example a trading spot where two ethnic groups traded with each other.

.

What are they going to trade with each other? These are stone age hunter-gatherers, are they going to change they're rabbits?

Yes, they are completely genetically different - please take a look at their reconstructed faces. Very different anthropological types

If I had to guess they meant the robust guy with the Uralic-North Euro, and the incel with the Siberian-SouthEuro. Ie Siberian more mongoloid, and South Euro, the gracile elements of the guy.

Peterski

02-14-2015, 07:12 PM

So the proto-indo-european homeland is in the neighborhood of Karelia where r1b people lived and these people went down south and transferred their language to a group of r1b people who then spread indo-european languages to western Europe!?

Is that your theory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hui Zhou (2014-07-18 16:14) Jilin University

Archaeological and anthropological investigations have helped to formulate two main theories to account for the origin of the populations in the Tarim Basin. The first, so-called “steppe hypothesis”, maintains that the earliest settlers may have been nomadic herders of the Afanasievo culture (ca. 3300-2000 B.C.), a primarily pastoralist culture distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions of the steppe north of the Tarim Basin. The second model, known as the “Bactrian oasis hypothesis”, it maintains that the first settlers were farmers of the Oxus civilization (ca. 2200-1500 B.C.) west of Xinjiang in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan. These contrasting models can be tested using DNA recovered from archaeological bones. Xiaohe cemetery contains the oldest and best-preserved mummies so far discovered in the Tarim Basin, possible those of the earliest people to settle the region. Genetic analysis of these mummies can provide data to elucidate the affinities of the earliest inhabitants.

Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried Hg R1a1 in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M*in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belonging to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data) which is mainly found in Asians. mtDNA Hgs H, K, C4 primarily distributed in northern Eurasians. Though H, K, C4 also presence in modern south Asian, they immigrated into South Asian recently from nearby populations, such as Near East , East Asia and Central Asia, and the frequency is obviously lower than that of northern Eurasian. Furthermore, all of the shared sequences of the Xiaohe haplotypes H and C4 were distributed in northern Eurasians. Haplotype 223-304 in Xiaohe people was shared by Indian. However, these sequences were attributed to HgM25 in India, and in our study it was not HgM25 by scanning the mtDNA code region. Therefore, our DNA results didn't supported Clyde Winters’s opinion but supported the “steppe hypothesis”. Moreover, the culture of Xiaohe is similar with the Afanasievo culture. Afanasievo culture was mainly distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions, and didn’t spread into India. This further maintains the “steppe hypothesis”.

In addition, our data was misunderstand by Clyde Winters. Firstly, the human remains of the Xiaohe site have no relation with the Loulan mummy. The Xiaohe site and Loulan site are two different archaeological sites with 175km distances. Xiaohe site, radiocarbon dated ranging from 4000 to 3500 years before present, was a Bronze Age site, and Loulan site, dated to about 2000 years before present. Secondly, Hgs H and K are the mtDNA haplogroups not the Y chromosome haplogroups in our study. Thirdly, the origin of Xiaohe people in here means tracing the most recently common ancestor, and Africans were remote ancestor of modern people.

This data is not yet officially published.

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

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

Some links with info about Tocharian language and origins:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peterski

02-14-2015, 07:15 PM

What are they going to trade with each other? These are stone age hunter-gatherers

Ekhm ??? Trade developed among humans before they migrated out of Africa:

http://s18.postimg.org/697v0sy9l/Trade.png

Large-scale trade (long distance exchange) is at least 140,000 years old.

SOURCE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohne6LpKFKk&list=PL142715B39745054C#t=942

Harkonnen

02-14-2015, 07:20 PM

??? Trade developed among humans before they migrated out of Africa:

http://s28.postimg.org/4ea86ipcd/Wynalazki_Afryki.png

Large-scale trade (long distance exchange) is ca. 140,000 years old.

SOURCE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohne6LpKFKk&list=PL142715B39745054C

Actually if I remember correctly there was lot of early whaling activity going on in Onega and White Sea. So it could be that one of these groups were Beluga whalers, and something like whale bone could be tradable and worth traveling from afar.

Peterski

02-14-2015, 07:25 PM

Yes, quite probable.

Harkonnen

02-14-2015, 07:36 PM

Stone age Karelians killed and ate whales, an activity documented in this epic image of four boats dragging a great whale, probably a bowhead, back to shore. The ancient Karelians may have hunted belugas in the same way traditional Inuvialuit in Arctic Canada did it up to thirty years ago, by stationing a scout on top of a log tower. When a pod was sited near shore, the hunters would row their skinboats towards the whales and make a kill with a harpoon.

http://www.interspecies.com/images/whaling%20petro.gif
http://www.interspecies.com/images/belugahunt1.gif

oh-nahhh

02-14-2015, 07:49 PM

Scythians - R1a1a
Where do you get this from? I couldn't find a source.

Anyway I believe the Schytians had both r1a and r1a tribes where r1b was involved in spreading indo-european languages in the west and r1a in the east.

Peterski

02-14-2015, 08:05 PM

Scythians - R1a1a

Where do you get this from? I couldn't find a source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-migration-map.jpg

Peterski

02-14-2015, 08:32 PM

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

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

Sources:

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

And here on page 25:

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

Harkonnen

02-14-2015, 08:41 PM

By the way, I now remember reading about these two different cultures years back.

I can't believe I forgot it.

Usually my memory is unbreakable.

Yeah wrong word.

oh-nahhh

02-14-2015, 08:42 PM

According to a new map from Eupedia (is it based on this new 2015 study by Haak et. al. ???), R1b came to Scandinavia 3700 years ago and to Britain 4100 years ago (see below). This would mean that Battle-Axe culture in Scandinavia was R1a Z284 (not R1b). Well if r1a reached Scandinavians earlier than r1b then so it did I don't really see how that is a problem. Scandinavia is kinda isolated from the rest of western Europe so it was probably a closer route for r1a then.

Peterski

02-14-2015, 09:05 PM

Also R1a is more closely associated with blond hair while R1b with red hair.

Check for example this pigmentation data for Andronovo and Tachtyk cultures:

Tachtyk Pigmentation Data - image (http://s28.postimg.org/yk0dq7659/Tachtyk.png)

http://s28.postimg.org/yk0dq7659/Tachtyk.png

Andronovo Pigmentation Data - image (http://s2.postimg.org/kz2vhilpl/Andronovo.png)

http://s2.postimg.org/kz2vhilpl/Andronovo.png

Also here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture#West_Eurasian_origin

Out of 10 human male remains assigned to the Andronovo horizon from the Krasnoyarsk region, 9 possessed the R1a Y-chromosome haplogroup and one the haplogroup C-M130 (xC3). MtDNA haplogroups of nine individuals assigned to the same Andronovo horizon and region were as follows: U4 (2 individuals), U2e, U5a1, Z, T1, T4, H, and K2b.

90% of the Bronze Age period mtDNA haplogroups were of west Eurasian origin and the study determined that at least 60% of the individuals overall (out of the 26 Bronze and Iron Age human remains' samples of the study that could be tested) had light hair and blue or green eyes.[3]

A 2004 study also established that, during the Bronze/Iron Age period, the majority of the population of Kazakhstan (part of the Andronovo culture during Bronze Age), was of west Eurasian origin (with mtDNA haplogroups such as U, H, HV, T, I and W), and that prior to the thirteenth to seventh century BC, all Kazakh samples belonged to European lineages.[4]

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

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

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

Tagar Pigmentation Data - image (http://s23.postimg.org/fc9z8n1kr/Tagar.png)

http://s23.postimg.org/fc9z8n1kr/Tagar.png

Peterski

02-14-2015, 09:12 PM

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

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

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

Peterski

02-14-2015, 09:39 PM

Check also this:

http://www.scientificfund.kz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7:physical-anthropology-of-kazakh-people-and-their-genesis

http://s30.postimg.org/4idxp4rfl/Kazakhstan.png

And this:

http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/Illustrationen/CentralAsiaPieChartsWeb.png

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

http://s10.postimg.org/buv77jrm1/Central_Asia_Pie_Charts_Web.png

This second graph is from: http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/English/Research/CentralAsia.html

(2) Sub-project “Steppe Nomads” (Martina Unterländer)

This study addresses the population dynamics in the Eurasian steppe during the Iron Age. It is carried out in collaboration with H. Parzinger (Director Preußischer Kulturbesitz), A. Nagler (German Archaeological Institute, Berlin), Z. Samachev (Margulan Institut für Archäologie, Akademie der Wissenschaft Kazakhstan, Almaty) and V.I. Molodin (Sibirisches Institut für Archäologie und Ethnographie, Akademgorodok, Russia). Beginning with the 9th century BC, there is evidence for clans of horse nomads from the Altai in the East to as far as North of the Black Sea. Because of the astounding uniformity of their material culture, life style and death rituals, they are often summarised under the term Scythians. The name ‘Scythian’ derives from a people mentioned in Herodotus’ Histories that populated the area north of the Black Sea in the 7th century BC. Their only material legacy is found in the form of kurgans, the impressive burial mounds of the Scythian elite. The earliest archaeological evidence of this culture stems from the region of Tuva, with the kurgan Arzan 1 dating to the 9th century BC. Until the 2nd century BC there are a number of populations in the area of the Eurasian steppe belt which can be assigned to that Scythian culture.

Together with our partners, we want to answer whether the obvious cultural homogeneity of these groups points to a common origin or rather to the phenomenon of acculturation. The intention is to understand the ethnogenesis and the population historical connections of these groups called Scythians.

Our data show highly diverse maternal lineages whose composition changes over time within the different populations. At the outset of the 1st century BC the examined populations of the Altai region show a relatively high number of lineages which today are found predominantly in Europe. Over time a change takes place which is reflected in an increased number of maternal lineages predominantly found today in East Asia.

Peterski

02-14-2015, 10:07 PM

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

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

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

I1 was also part of Neolithic LBKT farmers by the time when Indo-Europeans came.

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

Peterski

02-14-2015, 10:14 PM

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

Peterski

02-14-2015, 10:52 PM

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

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

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

Valtaves wrote about this here:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?159505-Reich-Yamnaya-brought-R1b-to-Europe/page31

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

http://what-when-how.com/ancient-europe/oleneostrovskii-mogilnik-postglacial-foragers-80004000-b-c-ancient-europe/

So apparently in the same little island lived two different cultural spheres, with different set of physical features, using the same burial ground.

1 "Uralic"+Northern European

2 "Siberian"+ Southern European

Check also:

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/en/temporary_exhibitions/virtual/gerasimov/10/

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

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

Not a Cop

02-15-2015, 07:51 AM

Lol, do you have any idea how retarded you sound.

So we have two ancient men living in the same island

We have a little problem here, Uzhniy Oleniy ostrov is 2,5 km long and 0.5 km wide archeologists wound >170 burials so they certenly didn't lived there, why did they used this island as a cemetery is another question.

Peikko

02-15-2015, 07:51 AM

And Baltic Finnic N1c1 could acquire blond hair from R1a-related maternal lineages in Karelia.
It's kind of lame how you Eastern Europeans constantly try to steal the Finn-look as your own. We both know, that blondism is more common in Uralic speaking Finns and Estonians, than it is in our Indo-European neighbors.

Harkonnen

02-15-2015, 08:09 AM

Well this Litvin is of course, just another batshit crazy Polak. They are a epidemic. We don't know what is the pigmentation of Mesolithic Karelians (or was it said somewhere?). We do know that Bronze age Kurgans were mostly dark pigmented.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JLa-7fpwSqg/Ux4kyuxE2eI/AAAAAAAAJg0/ZhEnWFtTn-E/s1600/wilde.png
http://oi57.tinypic.com/11joxkw.jpg

La Brana had blue eyes, with "dark" pigmentation. Some of those Neolithics had actually lighter skin pigmentation than La Brana. Most likely the high levels of blue eyes and blondism around the Baltic is the result of quite recent genetic sweep.

Anyway the maternal lineages of Karelia are quite distinct to all modern European population, with very high levels of mtDNA C for example.

Peikko

02-15-2015, 08:34 AM

This guy's hyper-angular features and almost Neanderthal tendencies are a start point towards "Nordid". He's completely un-Uralic...
What are you babbling again. He can easily pass as a modern day Finn and represents the original pure Uralic-type.

This other dude on the other hand looks very Indo-European and can be found all over Eastern Europe.
http://www.kunstkamera.ru/images/g/11_05.jpg

Compare to this Slovakian guy (bottom left)
http://www.zahorak-noviny.sk/images/stories/nov4110/v2.jpg

I'm guessing he can also pass in your Indo-European speaking Romania as one of those atypical more European looking Romanians.

Harkonnen

02-15-2015, 08:42 AM

Peikko I would say that the guy looks extremely robust for any average modern European. Notice the very protruding browridge and robust zygomata.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 08:50 AM

We have a little problem here, Uzhniy Oleniy ostrov is 2,5 km long and 0.5 km wide archeologists wound >170 burials so they certenly didn't lived there, why did they used this island as a cemetery is another question.

It is possibly a gateway to the underworld for some reason, what is the meaning of the name? Any birds associated with it?

Harkonnen

02-15-2015, 09:19 AM

It is possibly a gateway to the underworld for some reason, what is the meaning of the name? Any birds associated with it?

It means South Deer Island. This name is obviously the modern Russian name and does not derive from mesolithic.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 09:23 AM

It means South Deer Island. This name is obviously the modern Russian name and does not derive from mesolithic.

Oh it is that island, just woke up and little slow. Btw, you have opinion how long of a tradition the cremation is with Baltic Finns?

Harkonnen

02-15-2015, 09:29 AM

Oh it is that island, just woke up and little slow. Btw, you have opinion how long of a tradition the cremation is with Baltic Finns?

1.6 K years. Origin in Estonia. Likely spread to Finland 1.5K with Finnic language.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 09:41 AM

1.6 K years. Origin in Estonia. Likely spread to Finland 1.5K with Finnic language.

Did you know cremation started by the order of Odin? That in Sweden also they have two burial practices side by side.

Peterski

02-15-2015, 10:12 AM

We do know that Bronze age Kurgans were mostly dark pigmented.

You must be talking about Yamnaya R1b. There is no correlation between R1b and blond hair.

But other Kurgan cultures - which were found to be R1a - were also found to be light-pigmented. Andronovo, Tachtyk, Pazyryk, Tagar & Tocharian = R1a with a lot of blond + light brown + brown hair.

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

http://s11.postimg.org/v2yvc03hf/IE_individual_from_Russia.png

http://bialczynski.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/arz-nn-krol-tatuowany-hbfve5xs_pxgen_r_1100xa.jpg?w=720&h=479

http://bialczynski.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/image008.jpg?w=720

http://artislimited.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/2500-tattoo-warrior-mummy.jpg?w=725&h=755

http://www.evilsunday.com/wp-content/uploads/new/2011/06/Tarim-mummies-14.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViFlT52gs4s

Proto-Tocharians were R1a1:

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

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

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

Blue and green eyes were most common among them:

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/redhairedmummieschinagoldilocks1a.jpg

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/redhairedmummiesloubeaut.JPG

http://www.anastasia.sk/images/archeologia/3-8.jpg

http://bialczynski.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/czerczen-koc582pak-z-mogic582-czerczen-koc582pak-scytyjski-krc3b3lewski-foto-127.jpg

http://bialczynski.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/poulanskaja-krasawica-tochar-foto-114.jpg

http://bialczynski.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/czerczen-malunek-z-odziec5bcy-biac582ego-czc582owieka-foto-121.jpg?w=720

http://s21.postimg.org/c4kngzehj/Scythian_Pazyryk.png

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

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

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?159505-Reich-Yamnaya-brought-R1b-to-Europe&p=3397786&viewfull=1#post3397786

Äijä

02-15-2015, 10:21 AM

How many bones if any left from the Uppsala kurgans?

I do think it is dubious to touch them but for the greater good they need all to be examined, we have some in Finland that have never been opened.

Vasconcelos

02-15-2015, 10:26 AM

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

Human hair colour changes after death, because it oxidizes due to burrial conditions.

Peterski

02-15-2015, 10:55 AM

CHECK ALSO:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#pigmentation

R1 populations spread genes for light skin, blond hair and red hair

There is now strong evidence that both R1a and R1b people contributed to the diffusion of the A111T mutation of the SLC24A5, which explains apporximately 35% of skin tone difference between Europeans and Africans, and most variations within South Asia. The distribution pattern of the A111T allele (rs1426654) of matches almost perfectly the spread of Indo-European R1a and R1b lineages around Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia. The mutation was probably passed on in the Early neolithic to other Near Eastern populations, which explains why Neolithic farmers in Europe already carried the A111T allele (e.g. Keller 2012 p.4, Lazaridis 2014 suppl. 7), although at lower frequency than modern Europeans and southern Central Asians.

The light skin allele is also found at a range of 15 to 30% in in various ethnic groups in northern sub-Saharan Africa, mostly in the Sahel and savannah zones inhabited by tribes of R1b-V88 cattle herders like the Fulani and the Hausa. This would presuppose that the A111T allele was already present among all R1b people before the Pre-Pottery Neolithic split between V88 and P297. R1a populations have an equally high incidence of this allele as R1b populations. On the other hand, the A111T mutation was absent from the 24,000-year-old R* sample from Siberia, and is absent from most modern R2 populations in Southeast India and Southeast Asia. Consequently, it can be safely assumed that the mutation arose among the R1* lineage during the late Upper Paleolithic, probably some time between 20,000 and 13,000 years ago.

Fair hair was another physical trait associated with the Indo-Europeans. In contrast, the genes for blue eyes were already present among Mesolithic Europeans belonging to Y-haplogroup I. The genes for blond hair are more strongly correlated with the distribution of haplogroup R1a, but those for red hair have not been found in Europe before the Bronze Age, and appear to have been spread primarily by R1b people (=> see The origins of red hair).

AND THIS:

http://dienekes.blogspot.fi/2014/08/indo-europeans-preceded-finno-ugrians.html

Indo-Europeans preceded Finno-Ugrians in Finland and Estonia

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

So our Karelian R1a1 hunter-gatherer from 5500 - 5000 BCE most likely spoke an archaic (Northwest-)Indo-European language.

This, in addition to what I wrote already before (quote below), perfectly fits the big picture:

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

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

Harkonnen

02-15-2015, 11:20 AM

Peterski

02-15-2015, 11:26 AM

Harkonnen

02-15-2015, 11:28 AM

Oh right.

Blond-haired Helen of Troy was Uralic and blond-haired Roman patricians were Uralic. Not Indo-European.

What are you smoking? Seriously: What are you smoking?

Peterski

02-15-2015, 11:37 AM

Those people who Indo-Europeanized Italy (by conquest), were lighter-haired (on average) than local Pre-Indo-European population:

Pigmentation
According to Peterson, literary evidence indicates that Patricians were lighter than Plebians and the remaining paint on Patrician death masks "commonly indicates light complexions with blue or grey eyes, and fair or brown hair" (1986: 220-2). Peterson also notes:

Literary evidence similarly gives us some idea as to the coloring of eyes, hair and skin of the original Romans, in so far as we may asume that the descriptions of their gods and heroes to some extent reflect a memory of the idealized ancestral type. Thus, Vergil, in the Aeneid, refers to the god Mercury, and to Lavinia, Turnus, and Camillus, as 'golden-haired'.

Of the important Romans whose hair and eye color were recorded, many had light pigmentation. A few examples are given below.

Augustus had light hair and light eyes.

"He had clear, bright eyes, in which he liked to have it thought that there was a kind of divine power, and it greatly pleased him, whenever he looked keenly at anyone, if he let his face fall as if before the radiance of the sun;"

(Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum: Divus Augustus, LXXIX)
Nero had light hair and grey/blue eyes and came from a family named for their light pigmentation.

"Of the Domitian family two branches have acquired distinction, the Calvini and the Ahenobarbi. The latter have as the founder of their race and the origin of their surname Lucius Domitius, to whom, as he was returning from the country, there once appeared twin youths of more than mortal majesty, so it is said, and bade him carry to the Senate and People the news of a victory which was as yet unknown. And as a token of their divinity it is said that they stroked his cheeks and turned his black beard to a ruddy hue, like that of bronze. This sign was perpetuated in his descendants, a great part of whom had red beards."

(Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum: Nero, I)
The Roman Emperor Commodus (AD 180-192), was blond and light-eyed.

"Commodus was of a striking appearance, with a shapely body and a handsome, manly face; his eyes were burning and flashing; his hair was naturally blond and curly, and when he went out in the sunlight it gleamed with such brilliance that some people thought gold dust was scattered on it before public appearances, though others considered it supernatural and said that a heavenly halo was shining round his head."

(Herodian, History of the Empire I, vii, 5)
Sulla, who was of patrician descent, had blond hair, blue eyes, and a ruddy complexion.

". . . his golden head of hair made him an extraordinary-looking man, nor had he any shame, after the great actions he had done, in testifying to his own great qualities. And thus much of his opinion as to divine agency."

(Plutarch, Lives: Sylla)

We note that Romans often saw light pigmentation as a token of the "divine" or "supernatural". Some might interpret this fact to mean light pigmentation was extremely rare among Romans. But in examining naming conventions it is clear that light features were common among Patricians. According to Karl Earlson:

Once they had reached a certain stage in their lives, the Patricians gained their additional personal name (cognomina), which was often based on the physical characteristics they possessed. Names such as Albus, indicate fair skin; Ravilla, grey eyes; Caesar, blue eyes; Flavius, blond hair; Rufus, red hair; Longus, tall stature; Macer, a slender body build. All of these names were common among the Patricians. Thus, the Latin author Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria (I, iv, 25), observes that a man called Rufos or Longos, is so named after his bodily features: because he is red-haired or tall. Plutarch, Coriolanus, XI, states that two men, one red-haired, the other dark-haired, could be distinguished by the former being called Rufus, the latter Niger. Aelius Spartianus, Historia Augusta: Aelius (II, 4), suggests that the Caesars gained their name from the fact that the founder of their gens had blue eyes (oculis caesiis). The lexicographer Sextus Pompeius Festus, de verborum significatu (376 ff), states that the name Ravilia derives from grey eyes (ravis oculis), and the name Caesulla from blue eyes (oculis caesiis). Julius Paris, de nominibus Epitome, VII, provides examples of women's names which, he says, have their origins in the bearers pigmentation: Rutila (red hair), Caesellia (blue eyes), Rodacilla (rosy complexion), Murrula and Burra (either red hair, or a ruddy complexion). I've provided all of these quotations to demonstrate that these names were not purely arbitrary, but were in fact based on physical characteristics, and that these features were not uncommon amongst a certain strata of Roman society.

Karl Earlson summarize Sieglin's findings on the pigmentation of the Patricians as follows:

Sieglin (1935), collated the details of Roman Patricians, whose names indicate fair hair. He produced the following list: 7 Flavi, 20 Flaviani, 10 Fulvi, 121 Fulvii, 27 Rubrii, 26 Rufi, 24 Rufii, 36 Rufini, 45 Rutilii and 13 Ahenobarbi. This totally confounds Sergi's contention that: "The Romans had also their Flavi, which indicates that fair persons were uncommon, and required a special name, but does not indicate that the Germanic type was considered aristocratic or dominant." [Sergi (1901) 20.] Obviously, such persons were not rare. Sieglin also determined that among the Iulii, Licinii, Lucretii, Sergii and Virginii families, the name Flavius was very common; Rufi was often seen among the Antonii, Caecilii, Coelii, Cornelii, Geminii, Iunii, Licinii (often also Flavii), Minucii, Octavii, Pinarii, Pompei, Rutilii, Sempronii, Trebonii, Valgii and Vibii; Rufini was found frequently among the gens Antonia, Cornelia, Iunia, Licinia, Trebonia and Vibia. Sieglin observes that this list could certainly be increased, in the light of further research. In addition to all of this, Sieglin also compiled a list of 63 blond or red-haired Romans, about whom a definite reference to hair colour was made; many of these individuals were Patricians. He also found references to 27 blond divinities (including Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, Diana, etc), and 10 blond heroic personalities. Man makes god in his own image: so, these blond gods are telling about the racial nature of the early Romans. His list of blonds includes Aeneas, the ancestor of the Latins, Romulus and Remus, the twin founders of Rome, Augustus, the first Roman Emperor, and even Roma, who symbolised the city of Rome itself.

While most of Sieglin's 63 light-haired historical Romans were Patricians, most of the 17 brunet Romans he finds references to were Plebians or freedmen.

Another indication that original Indo-European conquerors had a large frequency of light hair.

This also refers to red hair, which was spready mostly by R1b.

Proto-Indo-Europeans were descendants of Mesolithic, Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG), who were - as we now know - R1a and R1b people.

Hunters living in the forest-steppe zone switched to pastoralism.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 11:38 AM

Listen retard. Mesolithic Karelians did not speak Indoeuropean, that is not what your link says.

Your Eupedia link is pure humbug.

I could just as easily claim that these Mesolithic Karelian are Uralics if I'm just going to pick and choose the theory that fits my mood the best. There are actually quite legit theories about some Para-Uralic languages preceding Uralic in the Eastern Baltic.

It is almost 100% that there was previous languages in the region before more advance peoples moved in.
Uralic role is forming to be the people to trade metals and possibly even introduce bronze to the region, also seem to have formed large part of the elite.
N1c1 is a textbook example of elite dominance IMO.

Harkonnen

02-15-2015, 11:40 AM

Those people who Indo-Europeanized Italy (by conquest), were lighter-haired (on average) than local Pre-Indo-European population:

What about those populations which Indo-Europeanized Northeast Baltic, were they also blonder than the local Pre-Indo-European population?

Peikko

02-15-2015, 11:46 AM

Oh right.

Light-haired Helen of Troy was Uralic, light-haired Roman patricians were Uralic, etc. Not Indo-European.

Not to mention for example Alexander III of Macedon, who was famously light-haired. Pure Uralic.

And today the only Uralic-speakers with large % of light hair are Baltic Finnic, living close to Indo-Europeans.

These Ugric and other Uralic speakers living farther to the east have mostly dark hair.
Ugrics are not a good representative of original Uralics. Ugrics are late splinters, who moved to East and mixed with darker populations there before spreading back West towards Hungary.

Peikko

02-15-2015, 11:48 AM

Those people who Indo-Europeanized Italy (by conquest), were lighter-haired (on average) than local Pre-Indo-European population:

Another indication that original Indo-European conquerors had a large frequency of light hair.

This also refers to red hair, which was spready mostly by R1b.

Proto-Indo-Europeans were descendants of Mesolithic, Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG), who were - as we now know - R1a and R1b people.

Hunters living in the forest-steppe zone switched to pastoralism.
Congrats, you just proved the obvious, Greeks and Romans are darker than Eastern Europeans. Doesn't change the fact, that N1c1 people are blonder than R1a or R1b people.

Harkonnen

02-15-2015, 11:51 AM

Ugrics are not a good representative of original Uralics. Ugrics are late splinters, who moved to East and mixed with darker populations there before spreading back West towards Hungary.

There is no reason to presume Proto-Uralics were as blonde as many modern Uralic speakers. Like I said all ancient European and early Steppe population so far have been darker than modern Euros. Litvin is right that some of those later Iranians at Siberia were lighter pigmented than the earlier Ukrainian Kurgans.

Peterski

02-15-2015, 11:56 AM

Peterski

02-15-2015, 11:58 AM

Litvin is right that some of those later Iranians at Siberia were lighter pigmented than the earlier Ukrainian Kurgans.

So far the only Yamnaya samples we have are these R1b samples from Samara.

Light hair does not correlate with R1b (but red hair probably does).

Congrats, you just proved the obvious, Greeks and Romans are darker than Eastern Europeans.

Greeks are mostly descendants of Neolithic Farmers, not of Indo-Europeans who conquered them.

Just check what haplogroups do Greeks have. R1a and R1b are in minority.

Romans do not exist, we now have Italians, who are descendants not only of original Romans (Latins) but of entire variety of peoples who were conquered by Romans, or who united with the Romans as their allies.

Non-Indo-European people such as for example Etruscans are also among their ancestors.

As for Greeks - modern Greeks are still lighter-pigmented than Non-Indo-European Minoans from Crete.

Harkonnen

02-15-2015, 12:02 PM

As Ukko wrote above, N1c1 was a small number of males who took a lot of local blond females as wifes.

See also the link to that text blog by Dienekes - archaic Indo-European was spoken there before Finnic languages.

So Finnic-speakers came, assimilated local archaic IE. Thousands of years later Slavic expansion Re-Indo-Europeanized the area.

Proto IE in Europe is linked with ANE and EEF components. WHG is the component which correlates with blondism. WHG is the Native component. Try to understand this.

However, I do think that these mutations truly ignated fire after the adding of these components.

Peikko

02-15-2015, 12:03 PM

There is no reason to presume Proto-Uralics were as blonde as many modern Uralic speakers. Like I said all ancient European and early Steppe population so far have been darker than modern Euros. Litvin is right that some of those later Iranians at Siberia were lighter pigmented than the earlier Ukrainian Kurgans.
Yes, yes, I agree with you. There's no reason to presume Proto-Uralics were as blonde as modern Uralics, and there is also a possibility that modern Indo-European speakers are darker than ancient Indo-Europeans.

Peikko

02-15-2015, 12:07 PM

Greeks are mostly descendants of Neolithic Farmers, not of Indo-Europeans who conquered them.

Just check what haplogroups do Greeks have. R1a and R1b are in minority.
Yes, just like you said, Greeks are and always were darker than IEs.

Romans do not exist, we now have Italians, who are descendants not only of original Romans (Latins) but of entire variety of peoples who were conquered by Romans, or who united with the Romans as their allies.
Romans were dark and Italians continue to be dark. So do you have a point?

Peterski

02-15-2015, 12:09 PM

blonder than R1a or R1b people.

Today there is no nation in which R1a is higher than 50% (and also no nation with majority of blondes).

Those blond groups of kurgan nomads from the steppe were 90% R1a and 60% blond + light brown.

Blond is recessive to dark - if blond people mix with dark, dark hair prevails and blond decreases in percent.

So you cannot expect as much blond hair among 50% R1a group as among 90% R1a group. It is dilluted.

Peterski

02-15-2015, 12:12 PM

Romans were dark and Italians continue to be dark.

Many Romans were light, epecially patricians - the group most likely to be descendants of conquerors from the steppe. Light hair was also not so uncommon among ancient Indo-European Greeks as evidence of all kind shows.

Harkonnen

02-15-2015, 12:13 PM

Today there is no nation in which R1a is higher than 50% (and also no nation with majority of blondes).

.

Oh yes there is Khoton Mongols are 83% R1a.

http://s46.radikal.ru/i112/1102/96/890b5e7b1c64.jpg

Peterski

02-15-2015, 12:14 PM

Oh yes there is Khoton Mongols are 83% R1a.

So now tell us what is the sample size.

And also what are their mtDNA haplogroups (probably typically East Asian) and autosomal DNA.

As I wrote when blond people mix with dark people, children are mostly dark.

If blond males take dark-haired women as wifes, children will be much darker than farthers.

And "Khoton Mongols" are not a nation. In Europe you also have small regions with over 75% R1a.

A small village with 90% R1a is not a nation with 90% R1a.

Peikko

02-15-2015, 12:16 PM

As Ukko wrote above, N1c1 was a small number of males who took a lot of local blond females as wifes.

See also the link to that blog by Dienekes - archaic PIE was spoken there before Finnic languages.

So Finnic-speakers came, assimilated local archaic IE as well as any other archaic (neither Uralic nor IE) languages spoken there. Hundreds of years later Slavic expansion Re-Indo-Europeanized part of that area.
I don't necessarily disagree with these points. I don't see why N1c1 couldn't have already been here when IE was spoken. Is there any evidence, that it spread with Uralic-languages? And are maternal lineages in Finland somehow very Indo-European?

Peterski

02-15-2015, 12:19 PM

I don't see why N1c1 couldn't have already been here when IE was spoken

It could be there, I wrote about this before - actually.

Maybe we will discover also N1c1 next to that R1a1 from Karelia.

Peterski

02-15-2015, 12:22 PM

Dienekes wrote that Uralic languages were not spoken there. Not that N1c1 was not present there.

So there could be N1c1 people who did not speak Uralic languages (at that time).

Peterski

02-15-2015, 12:44 PM

As for the Armenian Hypothesis on the PIE Urheimat:

The problem with it is that Indo-European R1b (xP297) and R1a (xM417) were already present to the north of Caucasus 7500 years ago, among hunters:

http://s1.postimg.org/hhctxkrtb/Neolithic.png

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

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

http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/indo_european_migation.jpg

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

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

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

http://dienekes.blogspot.fi/2014/08/indo-europeans-preceded-finno-ugrians.html

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

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

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

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

Peterski

02-15-2015, 01:05 PM

As for the role of N1c1:

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

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

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

Äijä

02-15-2015, 01:11 PM

I don't necessarily disagree with these points. I don't see why N1c1 couldn't have already been here when IE was spoken. Is there any evidence, that it spread with Uralic-languages? And are maternal lineages in Finland somehow very Indo-European?

To me N1c1 tree looks like directly linked to Finnic peoples, it is one haplo that actually seems to fully correlate with an ethnicity to large degree.
It looks like a bottlenecked population with some special status and/or skill that expanded very fast trough the trade network, Volga-Baltic-Scandinavia, during Bronze and Iron Age.
Seima-Turbino is looking very much connected, the relations to Proto-Germanic is also obvious.
.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 01:14 PM

Peterski

02-15-2015, 01:16 PM

To me N1c1 tree looks like directly linked to Finnic peoples

Sorry but no. Yakuts (who are Turkic, not Finnic) have a lot of N1c.

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

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

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

Baltic Finnic peoples have no monopoly for N1c.

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

And according to Eupedia:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Äijä

02-15-2015, 01:17 PM

Sorry but no. Yakuts (who are Turkic, not Finnic) have a lot of N1c1.

No they dont..

Äijä

02-15-2015, 01:22 PM

http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/SNP-N-TREE.jpg

Please look at this and think, calculate the possibilities, it is very hard to come up with many possible scenarios and the most plausible is they are Finnic.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 01:30 PM

http://i1102.photobucket.com/albums/g452/HuckleberryXXXFinn/Maumllaraxe_zpsda816718.jpg

Spread of "Mälar" axes from the Bronze Age.. They actually originate from the Volga.

Do you know the role metal working and blacksmithing has in Baltic Finnic archaeology and mythology?

Äijä

02-15-2015, 01:42 PM

If this circumstantial evidence was connected to someone else than Fingoloids this would be considered a case closed.

Peterski

02-15-2015, 01:45 PM

Seima-Turbino is looking very much connected

According to Eupedia Seima-Turbino were the Indo-European part of ancestors of Greeks:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#Greek

The Greek branch

Little is known about the arrival of Proto-Greek speakers from the steppes. The Mycenaean culture commenced circa 1650 BCE and is clearly an imported steppe culture. The close relationship between Mycenaean and Proto-Indo-Iranian languages suggest that they split fairly late, some time between 2500 and 2000 BCE. Archeologically, Mycenaean chariots, spearheads, daggers and other bronze objects show striking similarities with the Seima-Turbino culture (ca. 1900-1600 BCE) of the northern Russian forest-steppes, known for the great mobility of its nomadic warriors (Seima-Turbino sites were found as far away as Mongolia). It is therefore likely that the Mycenaean descended from Russia to Greece between 1900 and 1650 BCE, where they intermingled with the locals to create a new unique Greek culture.

So Proto-Greeks.

glass

02-15-2015, 01:46 PM

To me N1c1 tree looks like directly linked to Finnic peoples
.
at least every second n1c1 person is russian...

Äijä

02-15-2015, 01:48 PM

at least every second n1c1 person is russian...

Hugs back brother.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 01:49 PM

According to Eupedia Seima-Turbino were the Indo-European part of ancestors of Greeks:

My mistake, Eupedia is the bible of all the serfs of Europe.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 01:52 PM

Getting drunk but will keep posting until I hit the Berserker level.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 01:55 PM

Not a Cop is lurking, one good specimen of Finnic supremacy with a family history to prove it.

Peterski

02-15-2015, 01:56 PM

at least every second n1c1 person is russian...

OK but that's because Slavic people expanded into Uralic and Baltic areas and assimilated a lot of N1c1.

Belarusians have a lot of N1c1 from assimilation of Balts as well, especially in northern parts of Belarus.

That said, it is possible that some small amount of N1c1 was present already among Proto-Slavs.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 01:57 PM

OK but that's because Slavic people expanded into Uralic and Baltic territories and assimilated a lot of N1c1.

Belarusians have a lot of N1c1 from assimilation of Balts as well, especially in northern parts of Belarus.

That said, it is probable that some small amount of N1c1 was present already among Proto-Slavs.

Not that it really matters, Slavs being a very recent tribe,

Peterski

02-15-2015, 01:59 PM

If this circumstantial evidence was connected to someone else than Fingoloids

Balts have distinct subclades of N1c1 than Finnic people, and they appear to be ancient Balto-Slavic.

Not that it really matters, Slavs being a very recent tribe

Just because recently they came in contact with people who wrote books (= Mediterraneans), doesn't mean they are recent. There was nobody to describe them as nobody in North-Eastern Europe knew writing.

Not that Finnic or Baltic people are older than Slavic.

Term "Baltic" as a name of ethnicity actually for the first time appeared in the 19th century... AD. :)

Äijä

02-15-2015, 02:03 PM

Baltic people have distinct subclades of N1c1 than Finnic people, and they appear to be ancient Balto-Slavic.

Just because recently they came in contact with people who wrote books (Mediterraneans), doesn't mean they are recent. There was nobody to describe them as nobody in North-Eastern Europe knew writing.

The possibility the N1c1 that entered Balts spoke anything but Finnic is close to zero.

Peterski

02-15-2015, 02:05 PM

Slavs being a very recent tribe

Bronze Age Lusatian Culture were ancestors of Balto-Slavs since R1a Z280 has just popped up in Haak 2015 for this culture. R1a Z280 is an almost exclusively Balto-Slavic marker, present among all Slavs and Balts.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 02:07 PM

Just because recently they came in contact with people who wrote books (= Mediterraneans), doesn't mean they are recent. There was nobody to describe them as nobody in North-Eastern Europe knew writing.

Not that Finnic or Baltic people are older than Slavic.

Term "Baltic" as a name of ethnicity actually for the first time appeared in the 19th century... AD. :)

You should read Tacitus about the Suebi confederation and it will all make sense.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 02:09 PM

Bronze Age Lusatian Culture were ancestors of Balto-Slavs since R1a Z280 has just popped up in Haak 2015 for this culture. R1a Z280 is an almost exclusively Balto-Slavic marker, present among Slavs and Balts.

Yest, they where the locals before connected to the global trade and introduced to the new rule.

Peterski

02-15-2015, 02:11 PM

They were not "locals" because this marker does not exist in this region before the Bronze Age.

Peterski

02-15-2015, 02:19 PM

The possibility the N1c1 that entered Balts spoke anything but Finnic is close to zero.

Nope.

The opposite is true - the possibility that the Baltic N1c1 entered from Finns is close to zero. Not only Baltic languages have very few early loanwords from Finnic, but also Baltic N1c1 is not found among Finns. Modern high frequency of N1c1 among Balts (but also in the past among Prussians) is the result of a founder effect.

Moreover (as was written in another thread by Jaska, who is from Finland):

The "Baltian" (areal, not linguistic label) N1c has probably nothing to do with the Finnic languages: it has been born in the area where no Finnic language has never been spoken (the limit goes across Latvia). Furthermore, new linguistic studies show that Uralic languages only started to expand later than earlier was thought, about 2000 BC. But Karl, as we know, will stubbornly resist these new results, because they do not fit into his belief that Estonian language is the oldest language in Europe...

These new results:
http://www.kotikielenseura.fi/virittaja/hakemistot/jutut/2006_2.pdf
http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf

In brief: Proto-Uralic started to expand about 2000 BC from the Volga-Kama area. So the Uralic languages cannot predate the Indo-European languages here near the Baltic Sea. You see, the Indo-European dating has not changed: it is still connected to the Corded Ware Culture, reaching the Baltic Sea region about 3200 BC.

And here is something in English to tell you what is wrong with the continuity argument you believe in:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html
More in Finnish:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus1.pdf

Many linguists have already agreed with these new results. During the present decade you will see these views also in English and in popular books, and at 2020's they are in the school books. I have told this to you earlier in ForumBiodiversity, but you just refuse to understand it.

1. Some ancestors of Estonians have of course lived in Estonia "forever". But some of the ancestors are later newcomers.

2. You cannot claim that the Estonian language is inherited from the first inhabitants. Firstly, it is methodologically invalid (see the third link above), and secondly, it is against the linguistic results (see the first and second link above).

3. Proto-Germanic loanwords are not older than 500 BC, but there are Palaeo- and Pre-Germanic loanwords older than that. There is no need to consider them older than, say, 1500 BC, when the Uralic (Pre-Finnic) language had already reached the Baltic Sea.
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf

Äijä

02-15-2015, 02:21 PM

They were not "locals" because this marker does not exist in this region before the Bronze Age.

Sorry I said I was drunk, R1a Z280 is the same as the rare Finnish R1a?

Äijä

02-15-2015, 02:23 PM

Nope. Quite the opposite is true - the possibility that the Baltic N1c1 entered from Finns is close to zero. Not only Baltic languages have very few early loanwords from Finnic, but also Baltic N1c1 is not found among Finns. Modern high frequency of N1c1 among Balts (but also in the past among Prussians) is the result of a founder effect.

Moreover (Jaska is from Finland):

Not true, the bolded part.

From what date is the comment by Jaska?

Governor

02-15-2015, 02:25 PM

I'm curious about which ancient IE civilizations belongs to Yamnaya culture and which one is the first?Is it possible Hittites?

Peterski

02-15-2015, 02:38 PM

You are drunk, and I must go out now.

So, let's take a break and we will return to this discussion later.

Jaska made those comments in 2011:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?24657-Why-are-quot-Baltic-quot-Lithuanians%28and-Latvians%29-so-heavily-FinN1C

R1a Z280 is the same as the rare Finnish R1a?

Z280 is a very common branch of R1a, which is found among all Slavic and Baltic peoples:

http://s22.postimg.org/5np1l4jr5/image.png

R1a-Z280 is also an Balto-Slavic marker, found all over central and Eastern Europe, with a western limit running from East to south-west Germany and to Northeast Italy. It can be divided in many clusters: East Slavic, Baltic, Pomeranian, Polish, Carpathian, East-Alpine, Czechoslovak, and so on.
R1a1a1b1a2 (S204 / Z91, S466 / Z280) - an Eastern European marker (probably Balto-Slavic), is found throughout Central and Eastern Europe, the western limit of distribution stretches from East to South-western Germany and further to the north-eastern Italy, is spread in Russian, Ukrainians, Volga Tatars and others. Inside branches divided into several clusters studied so far only in general terms: East Slavic, Baltic, Pomeranian, Polish, Carpathian, Eastern Alpine, Czechoslovak and other

Äijä

02-15-2015, 02:39 PM

Something to ponder for all, N1c1 starts so show up with the spread of metals and advanced trade networks.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 02:40 PM

Peikko

02-15-2015, 04:58 PM

Norwegians (who have more R1a and R1b than other Scandinavians) and Lithuanians (R1a + N1c1) are very Yamnaya-like.
Interestingly enough, Norwegians are darker than Swedes and Danes.

Peikko

02-15-2015, 05:07 PM

Dienekes wrote that Uralic languages were not spoken there. Not that N1c1 was not present there.

So there could be N1c1 people who did not speak Uralic languages (at that time).
To me it sounds more credible, than some fantasies about small ruling elite of Finns slaughtering the Indo-European males. Usually small ruling elite becomes assimilated and leaves very little genetic influence (e.g. Magyars in Hungary or the Rus in Novgorod). Also, if the Indo-European males in Finland were of R1a stock, then we should still have some of that left, especially if the ruling elite was so small.

My guess is, that high levels of N1c1 has more to do with the bottleneck effect, than the spread of Finnic language in Finland.

papa diddy pop

02-15-2015, 05:35 PM

These early U women must have been a hit with the men. :D

No wonder they were making statuettes of them.
Troll mode:ON

Please,U women are like the biggest nymphomaniac .Every Y-haplogroup has got down there with them,They accepted every penis they saw.
It can be an I2 penis, a C penis, a R penis or even an E penis :bullet puke,it doesn't matter they take it all.

And I'm sure that all the white girls you see with Black guys today are all U !

Peterski

02-15-2015, 06:13 PM

Peikko - did Magyars in Hungary become assimilated ???

As far as I know everyone speaks their language there today.

So no - they assimilated the locals, despite being a minority.

Peterski

02-15-2015, 06:15 PM

Also, if the Indo-European males in Finland were of R1a stock, then we should still have some of that left

That Mesolithic R1a hunter from 5250 BCE was discovered in Karelia, not Finland.

He lived in area where R1a is present today (see the map from Underhill 2014).

Äijä

02-15-2015, 06:26 PM

To me it sounds more credible, than some fantasies about small ruling elite of Finns slaughtering the Indo-European males. Usually small ruling elite becomes assimilated and leaves very little genetic influence (e.g. Magyars in Hungary or the Rus in Novgorod). Also, if the Indo-European males in Finland were of R1a stock, then we should still have some of that left, especially if the ruling elite was so small.

My guess is, that high levels of N1c1 has more to do with the bottleneck effect, than the spread of Finnic language in Finland.

There was no slaughter but there is elite dominance, the previous population in Finland was dominated by I1 paternal lines.
In Svea the same, in Baltic I1 and/or R1a.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 06:30 PM

This is not a fantasy, it is becoming a scientific fact, the metal introduction is the most likely cause for the N1c1 spread.

Äijä

02-15-2015, 06:34 PM

I have not tested myself yet but I am most likely I1 so I have no haplogroup bias to this.

Peikko

02-15-2015, 07:20 PM

Peikko - did Magyars in Hungary become assimilated ???

As far as I know everyone speaks their language there today.

So no - they assimilated the locals, despite being a minority.
Well true, everyone speaks their language. But maybe the situation is comparable to Finland nevertheless. If we want to find Finnic paternal lineages, then there are other possibilities than N1c1.

Peikko

02-15-2015, 07:24 PM

That Mesolithic R1a hunter from 5250 BCE was discovered in Karelia, not Finland.

He lived in area where R1a is present today (see the map from Underhill 2014).
Yes. But I was talking about Finland, not Karelia. If there were significant amounts of R1a paternal lineages in Finland, where did they disappear?

BTW, I'm guessing that Karelian hunter is very similar to modern Finns by autosomal DNA.

Arch Hades

02-15-2015, 07:38 PM

The Yamna were'nt light pigmented, they were 80% dark eyed and haired.

Only later steppe groups, like the Andronovo and Scythian have been scientifically proven to be predominately light haired and eyed so far.

Arch Hades

02-15-2015, 07:41 PM

is Ukko "Jaska" from Forum-Biodiversity?

Peikko

02-15-2015, 07:53 PM

is Ukko "Jaska" from Forum-Biodiversity?
No, Jaska is different guy. Jaska posts with his own name, he's a linguist at the University of Helsinki. Ukko is more likely to be another one of karl's sockpuppets.

Arch Hades

02-15-2015, 08:07 PM

No, Jaska is different guy. Jaska posts with his own name, he's a linguist at the University of Helsinki. Ukko is more likely to be another one of karl's sockpuppets.

Yeah, I know who Jaska is, he's an intelligent guy. Was hoping to a him some questions.

Peterski

02-15-2015, 08:19 PM

If there were significant amounts of R1a paternal lineages in Finland, where did they disappear?

Please, don't get me laugh. :) They emigrated as Indo-Europeans in all directions into Asia and Europe.

And no, there was not a significant amount of them 7500 years ago, because R1a was not numerous at that time.

R1a M417 started a demographic explosion after 4800 - 6800 years ago (read Underhill 2014).

Before that time, people with R1a were small in numbers. Only after switching from hunting to pastoralism it changed.

blogen

02-15-2015, 08:26 PM

Proto-Shaman

02-15-2015, 08:38 PM

Peikko - did Magyars in Hungary become assimilated ???

As far as I know everyone speaks their language there today.

So no - they assimilated the locals, despite being a minority.
Ottomans saved Magyar identity

Peterski

02-15-2015, 08:43 PM

Let's clarify something:

1) All of modern R1a M417 (which is 99% of total R1a in the world today) is descended from ONE SINGLE MALE who lived 4800 - 6800 years ago.

2) All of modern I1 M253 (which is also great majority of I1 in the world) is descended from ONE SINGLE MALE who lived around 5000 years ago.

And ancestor of all R1a M417 lived in Karelia 7500 - 7000 years ago, while ancestor of all I1 M253 lived in Hungary 7000 years ago.

FeederOfRavens

02-15-2015, 08:43 PM

Interestingly enough, Norwegians are darker than Swedes and Danes.

As a matter of fact, the darkest part of Norway is Western Norway which also has the highest R1a levels of any part of Norway and any part of Scandinavia.

Peikko

02-15-2015, 10:31 PM

Please, don't get me laugh. :) They emigrated as Indo-Europeans in all directions into Asia and Europe.
You mean that R1a people from Finland emigrated to Asia and Europe? Are you drunk?

Peikko

02-15-2015, 10:35 PM

Peikko I would say that the guy looks extremely robust for any average modern European. Notice the very protruding browridge and robust zygomata.

A modern day Finn:
http://i650.photobucket.com/albums/uu227/roapazeinli/JaniVirtanen.jpg

I know what you mean, though.

Peterski

02-16-2015, 12:08 AM

You mean that R1a people from Finland emigrated to Asia and Europe?

Yes, but from Karelia or somewhere around (not Finland).

7500 - 7000 years ago ancestor of R1a M417 lived in Karelia.

And nowadays his descendants live all over this vast area in Eurasia:

http://s3.postimg.org/7xw9w6qrn/Hunter2.png

Modern distribution of R1a M417 (green = R1a Z282; blue = R1a Z93):

http://s15.postimg.org/9uab212az/Hunter.png

Now info from Underhill 2014:

Whole Y-chromosome sequence analysis of eight R1a and five R1b individuals suggests a divergence time of ~25 000 (95% CI: 21 300–29 000) years ago and a coalescence time within R1a-M417 of ~5800 (95% CI: 4800–6800) years.

(...)

A consensus has not yet been reached on the rate at which Y-chromosome SNPs accumulate within this 9.99Mb sequence. Recent estimates include one SNP per: ~100 years,58 122 years,4 151 years5 (deep sequencing reanalysis rate), and 162 years.59 Using a rate of one SNP per 122 years, and based on an average branch length of 206 SNPs from the common ancestor of the 13 sequences, we estimate the bifurcation of R1 into R1a and R1b to have occurred ~25 100 ago (95% CI: 21 300–29 000). Using the 8 R1a lineages, with an average length of 48 SNPs accumulated since the common ancestor, we estimate the splintering of R1a-M417 to have occurred rather recently, ~5800 years ago (95% CI: 4800–6800). The slowest mutation rate estimate would inflate these time estimates by one third, and the fastest would deflate them by 17%.

(...)

we estimate that diversification downstream of M417/Page7 occurred ~5800 years ago. This suggests the possibility that R1a lineages accompanied demic expansions initiated during the Copper, Bronze, and Iron ages, partially replacing previous Y-chromosome strata, an interpretation consistent with albeit limited ancient DNA evidence

Nowadays 99% of all R1a (2893 out of 2923 samples) belong to M417 branch, even though it is so young:

We measured R1a haplogroup frequency by population (Supplementary Table 4). Of the 2923 hg R1a-M420 samples, 2893 were derived for the M417/Page7 mutations (1693 non-Roma Europeans and 1200 pan-Asians), whereas the more basal subgroups were rare. We observed just 24 R1a*-M420(xSRY10831.2), 6 R1a1*-SRY10831.2(xM198), and 12 R1a1a1-M417/Page7*(xZ282,Z93). We did not observe a single instance of R1a1a-M198*(xM417,Page7), but we cannot exclude the possibility of its existence. Of the 1693 European R1a-M417/Page7 samples, more than 96% were assigned to R1a-Z282 (Figure 2), whereas 98.4% of the 490 Central and South Asian R1a lineages belonged to hg R1a-Z93 (Figure 3), consistent with the previously proposed trend.31 Both of these haplogroups were found among Near/Middle East and Caucasus populations comprising 560 samples.

Another excerpt from Underhill 2014:

This raises the possibility of a wide and rapid spread of R1a-Z282-related lineages being associated with prevalent Copper and Early Bronze Age societies that ranged from the Rhine River in the west to the Volga River in the east55 including the Bronze Age Proto-Slavic culture that arose in Central Europe near the Vistula River.56 It may have been in this cultural context that hg R1a-Z282 diversified in Central and Eastern Europe. The corresponding diversification in the Middle East and South Asia is more obscure. However, early urbanization within the Indus Valley also occurred at this time57 and the geographic distribution of R1a-M780 (Figure 3d) may reflect this.

Peterski

02-16-2015, 12:57 AM

Velda

02-16-2015, 09:26 AM

I also found a bit different estimate for age of M417 (and other clades):

R1b subclades (age in thousand years):

R1b-M269 7.5 (7.0-8.1)
R1b-L23 7.2 (6.7-7.7)
R1b-Z2103 6.4 (5.9-6.9)
R1b-L51 6.7 (6.2-7.2)
R1b-L11 5.7 (5.2-6.2)
R1b-P312 5.6 (5.1-6.1)
R1b-U106 5.5 (5.0-6.0)

R1a subclades (age in thousand years):

R1a-M417 6.2 (5.7-6.7) ----- when according to Underhill 5.8 (4.8-6.8)
R1a-CTS4385 5.8 (5.3-6.3)
R1a-L664 4.8 (4.3-5.2)
R1a-Z645 5.6 (5.1-6.1)
R1a-Z93 5.4 (4.9-5.9)
R1a-Z282 5.4 (4.9-5.9)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMBuo7JHesg

If someone could explain this video, I'd be very grateful. It's by the Russian Ministry of Culture and deals with the origin of R1a und R1b.
Unfortunately I do not understand the symbols. :-(

What do you guys think of the video?

Peterski

02-16-2015, 11:01 AM

Usually small ruling elite becomes assimilated and leaves very little genetic influence (e.g. ... the Rus in Novgorod).

Abraham ben Jacob, a 10th-century Iberian Jewish traveller, wrote about the Rurikid Dynasty: "they speak Slavic, because they interbred with them." But he did not write what language had they allegedly spoken before that, and he did not write why did he think that originally they did not speak Slavic (let's add that Abraham ben Jacob never actually visited Russia, in years 961 - 962 he personally visited Italy, Germany, the Danes, the Czechs, and the Obotrites).

Moreover, A. Bajor in his Rurikid DNA Project found the following 7 Y-DNA haplogroups among descendants of the Rurikids:

N1c1, R1a-L260, R1a-P278, R1a-Z92, R1a-M458, R1a-Z280, I2a1

As you can see he found not a single "Germanic haplogroup" among them, which raises doubts if the Rurikids ever actually spoke Germanic.

He also confirmed the old theory that Oleg I of Chernigov was not biological but adopted son of Sviatoslav II of Kiev.

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

The theory that the Rurikids were Germanic by origin was first proposed by Gerhardt Friedrich Müller in 1749, but finds no confirmation in modern genetics. If there were some Germanics in service of the Rurikids is another thing. Byzantine Emperors also employed foreign mercenaries, including Scandinavians.

Peikko

02-16-2015, 03:43 PM

Abraham ben Jacob, a 10th-century Iberian Jewish traveller, wrote about the Rurikid Dynasty: "they speak Slavic, because they interbred with them." But he did not write what language had they allegedly spoken before that, and he did not write why did he think that originally they did not speak Slavic (let's add that Abraham ben Jacob never actually visited Russia, in years 961 - 962 he personally visited Italy, Germany, the Danes, the Czechs, and the Obotrites).

Moreover, A. Bajor in his Rurikid DNA Project found the following 7 Y-DNA haplogroups among descendants of the Rurikids:

N1c1, R1a-L260, R1a-P278, R1a-Z92, R1a-M458, R1a-Z280, I2a1

As you can see he found not a single "Germanic haplogroup" among them, which raises doubts if the Rurikids ever actually spoke Germanic.

He also confirmed the old theory that Oleg I of Chernigov was not biological but adopted son of Sviatoslav II of Kiev.

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

The theory that the Rurikids were Germanic by origin was first proposed by Gerhardt Friedrich Müller in 1749, but finds no confirmation in modern genetics. If there were some Germanics in service of the Rurikids is another thing. Byzantine Emperors also employed foreign mercenaries, including Scandinavians.

Wasn't the N1c1 of Rurik of the Scandinavian subclade? You can't prove their language by genetics. Rurik is a Germanic name.

Äijä

02-16-2015, 05:33 PM

Wasn't the N1c1 of Rurik of the Scandinavian subclade? You can't prove their language by genetics. Rurik is a Germanic name.

Like a large part of the Viking Age names in Finland, just saying.

Äijä

02-16-2015, 05:48 PM

No, Jaska is different guy. Jaska posts with his own name, he's a linguist at the University of Helsinki. Ukko is more likely to be another one of karl's sockpuppets.

Fuck you, my theories get support from official sources, your have no explanation for the arrival of the Baltic Finns.

LightHouse89

02-16-2015, 05:50 PM

Thanks for the thread. I was wondering why people here weren't discussing this. I'm really excited about it. It fits in with a lot of things I've noticed about genetics over the last few years and of course reading Anthrogenica has been most informative.

It coincides with Irish mythology and Norse mythology.

Äijä

02-16-2015, 06:03 PM

Anyone remember the Danish linguist that found contacts between Baltic Finnic and Celtic? I take that as more possible proof for all N1c1 being originally Finnic.

LightHouse89

02-16-2015, 06:12 PM

Anyone remember the Danish linguist that found contacts between Baltic Finnic and Celtic? I take that as more possible proof for all N1c1 being originally Finnic.

Never heard of this. I have heard the claim that R1b came from the Scythians who were proto celts.

FeederOfRavens

02-16-2015, 06:17 PM

Rurik is a Germanic name.

The first 3 rulers of Rus

Rurik ---> Hrœrekr(Rørik)

Oleg ---> Helgi

Igor ---> Ingvar

The fourth one, Sviatoslav was the first ruler of the Rus' recorded in the Primary Chronicle with a name of Slavic origin.

Äijä

02-16-2015, 06:25 PM

The first 3 rulers of Rus

Rurik ---> Hrœrekr(Rørik)

Oleg ---> Helgi

Igor ---> Ingvar

The fourth one, Sviatoslav was the first ruler of the Rus' recorded in the Primary Chronicle with a name of Slavic origin.

And they most likely came from Svea, Åland or Gotland, but what is the ethnogenesis of those places and their relations to Baltic Finns is a different matter.

Peterski

02-16-2015, 06:44 PM

Well, in such case we have a lot of leaders of Germanic tribes with Celtic names.

For example Boiorix, Lugins, Claodicus, Ceasorix, Ariovistus, Maroboduus, Aneroestes and others.

They were chiefs of Germani, Suebi, Harudes, Cimbri, Marcomanni, Teutones and others.

Does it mean that Germanic tribes were ruled by ethnic Celtic chiefs / kings ???

Or some names were so trendy that people of various ethnic groups used them (regardless of origin).

Origin of name is not any proof if genetic research says something contrary (i.e. no Germanic haplogroups).

Peikko

02-16-2015, 06:51 PM

Well, in such case we have a lot of leaders of Germanic tribes with Celtic names.

For example Boiorix, Lugins, Claodicus, Ceasorix, Ariovistus, Maroboduus, Aneroestes and others.

They were chiefs of Germani, Suebi, Harudes, Cimbri, Marcomanni, Teutones and others.

Does it mean that Germanic tribes were ruled by ethnic Celtic chiefs / kings ???

Or some names were so trendy that people of various ethnic groups used them (regardless of origin).

No, but it doesn't mean that Rurik wasn't Germanic either.

FeederOfRavens

02-16-2015, 06:54 PM

Well, in such case we have a lot of leaders of Germanic tribes with Celtic names.

For example Boiorix, Lugins, Claodicus, Ceasorix, Ariovistus, Maroboduus, Aneroestes and others.

They were chiefs of Germani, Suevii, Harudes, Cimbri, Marcomanni, Teutones and others.

Does it mean that Germanic tribes were ruled by ethnic Celtic chiefs / kings ???

You damage control so hard whenever someone talks about Germanic peoples, Litvin/Domen. This is completely irrelevant but yes, there was cultural, linguistic and population exchanges as well as political mingling between the Germanic and Celtic tribes of antiquity as which so often happens between neighbouring peoples.

Peterski

02-16-2015, 06:57 PM

FeederOfRavens

02-16-2015, 07:23 PM

The idea that name Rurik comes from some kind of an originally Germanic name is also disputed.
For example according to Finnish historian Eero Kuussaari, this name was actually of Finnic origin.
And was adopted from Finnic language by both Germanic and Slavic speakers.
Eero Kuussaari's theory that this name is Finnic fits pretty well to the discovery of N1c1 haplogroup.

Irregardless of Meta-Ethnicity we know for sure that he came from Scandinavia:

Scandinavian origin of the Rurikid N1c1 lineage (http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Rurikid.pdf)

It is irrelevant whether Rurik was a historical or mythical person. We don't
need to believe that a man with this name arrived from Scandinavia exactly
at that year the Primary Chronicle tells us. His true identity may remain an
unsolved question, but it now seems to be beyond any reasonable doubt
that there truly was a man of Scandinavian origin, who arrived in the Early
Rus' and founded a ruling dynasty, being the genetic forefather of many
Russian noble families. That man we can call the "genetic Rurik".

Imo, the fact that he has a Germanic name points to a Germanic origin. Anything else is just speculation.

Peterski

02-16-2015, 07:50 PM

In the article you linked and quoted (this one (http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Rurikid.pdf)), author claims that Rurikid subclade of N1c1 is most likely Scandinavian.

But on what factual basis does he claim so ???

Well, it seems that the only kind of proof he uses, is that a basal haplotype for this subclade was found in one guy from Sweden:

The first branch (I Varangian) has the most convincing support for its Scandinavian origin: the very basal haplotype I-A 174607 is Swedish

I checked this guy (number 174607) in the Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project. He was born in the mid-17th century AD:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/rurikid/default.aspx?section=yresults

174607 Oluf Jonsson, 1649-1735

So he lived between 1649 and 1735, and was a farmer, whose father probably fought in the Thirty Years' War (read below).

On another forum I found one of his descendants:

http://www.molgen.org/eng/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=665

I am newly registered with you and am classified as N1 Unknown. My FTDNA kit is 174607 and I have been tested to 37 STR and also am M178+, L1025+. I am classified in the FT N1C1 project as (N1c1d1a) in the South Baltic branch. My earliest known ancestor was Oluf Jonsson 1649-1735. He was a farmer in Ostergotland, Sweden. I do not know of any ties to the south Baltic region, but his father could have been a soldier in the 30 years' war. Are there additional SNP's that I should order that might better indicate the family origin and could I be placed differently in your tables?

On page two of that discussion, user Stenhög suggests that this is a subclade of Saamic origin.

Therefore even if really Scandinavian, then still not Germanic anyway.

Imo, the fact that he has a Germanic name points to a Germanic origin.

So you agree that many Germanic tribes were ruled by ethnic Celts (see my post on previous page).

However, in this case we actually don't know if Rurik is a name of Germanic origin. This is only one of few theories.

FeederOfRavens

02-16-2015, 08:08 PM

Well, it seems that the only kind of proof he uses, is that found a basal haplotype for this subclade in one guy from Sweden:

On page two of that discussion, one of users suggests that this is a subclade of Saami origin. So not Germanic anyway.

Just speculation. And he(Stenhög) doubted it himself as it didn't fit with the ancestry of Southern Saami. Irregardless, the Haplotype had it's origin in Sweden.

So you agree that Germanic tribes were ruled by Celts (see my post on previous page).

Maybe they were occasionally, but anyways irrelevant.

However, in this case we actually don't know if Rurik is a name of Germanic origin.

Yes we do know Rurik is a Germanic name which comes from Old Norse Hrœrekr(or Rorik) and from there the Proto-Germanic Hrōþirīk(i)az which means "[he who is] rich in glory"

All of Rurik's Brothers/Successors have Germanic names up until Sviatoslav.

Peterski

02-16-2015, 08:13 PM

Irregardless, the Haplotype had it's origin in Sweden.

Just because there is one basal sample from Sweden doesn't mean it originated there.

It is not an ancient DNA sample, but a sample from a guy who was born in 1649 AD.

And in the future more similar basal haplotypes might pop up in other regions.

Yes we do know Rurik is a Germanic name which comes from Old Norse Hrœrekr(or Rorik)

Finnish scholar Eero Kuussaari proposed an alternative, Finnic etymology for name Rurik.

The main proponents of Old Norse etymology are scholars from Germanic-speaking nations (surprise!).

and from there the Proto-Germanic Hrōþirīk(i)az which means "[he who is] rich in glory"

Proto-Germanic is a reconstructed / hypothetical language. Let alone individual words from it (and their meaning).

FeederOfRavens

02-16-2015, 08:26 PM

Just because there is one basal sample from Sweden doesn't mean it originated there.

It is not an ancient DNA sample, but a sample from a guy who was born in 1649 AD.

And in the future more similar basal haplotypes might pop up in other regions.

Well then your post is just speculation. You can only assume it came to Sweden from elsewhere but until then.

As I wrote above, Finnish scholar Eero Kuussaari proposed an alternative, Finnic etymology for name Rurik.

And as I wrote not only Rurik but also his Brothers/Successors have Germanic derived names.

The main proponents of Old Norse etymology are scholars from Germanic-speaking countries (surprise!).

You caught us. It's a huge Neo-Fascist Germanic conspiracy trying to attack and dismantle non-Germanic nations. We give in. :rolleyes:

Peterski

02-16-2015, 08:29 PM

So you agree that Germanic tribes were ruled by Celts (see my post on previous page).

Maybe they were occasionally

Even the Proto-Germanic word for king is of Celtic origin:

Celtic loanwords in PGmc included at least *rīk- "king", *īsarną "iron", *ambahtaz "servant", *brunjōn- "mailshirt", *lēkijaz "physician", *gīslaz "hostage", *Rīnaz "Rhine", and *walhaz "foreigner" (an adaptation of the Celtic tribal name that appears in Latin as Volcae). The first is identifiable as Celtic because of its vowel: if it were cognate with Lat. rēx, rēg- the PGmc vowel would be *ē, but in Celtic (alone among the languages of ancient Europe) *ē merged with *ī. The same argument might apply to "iron", if was originally a vṛddhi-derivative of PIE *ésh₂r̥ "blood" (Cowgill 1986: 68, n. 10). The other loans are identifiable as distinctively Celtic words or formations. "Physician" appears to reflect *leagis, the preform of OIr. liaig; if the vowel sequence *ea was treated like native vowel sequences (which of course is not certain), the PGmc word might have had a trimoric vowel in its root syllable. "King", "physician", and "foreigner" were clearly borrowed before Grimm's Law applied; since the *b's and *g of the other words reflect, or could reflect, original breathy-voiced stops, it is possible that all these words were borrowed before Grimm's Law applied. The preponderance of words indicating social and political relations (including warfare) is obvious, suggesting that the Celts enjoyed a higher level of ‘civilization’ [than the Germanics] at the time of the loans. There are also quite a few words shared only by Celtic and Germanic, which might or might not be loanwords; typical examples include *tūną "fortified enclosure", *aiþaz "oath", *rūnō "secret", *marhaz "horse", and *rīdana "to ride". For further discussion see de Vries 1960.

Donald Ringe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ringe

The name for the Rhine river in Germanic languages is also borrowed from Celtic languages.

Suggesting that originally Celts lived on both sides of that river, and Germanic-speakers had no contact with that river.

FeederOfRavens

02-16-2015, 08:41 PM

Even the Proto-Germanic word for king is of Celtic origin:

First time i've heard anything like that. Must be a fringe theory.

The name for Rhine is also from Celtic, suggesting that originally Celts lived on both sides of that river, and Germanic-speakers had no contact with that river.

The Proto-Germanics didn't have contact with the Rhine originally and the Celts for the most part lived on both sides.

Peterski

02-16-2015, 08:44 PM

Must be a fringe theory.

It is a mainstream theory, actually. At least outside of the isolated social circle of Germanic nationalists.

You caught us. It's a huge Neo-Fascist Germanic conspiracy

Well, the same guys who claimed that the Lusatian Culture was Germanic, and definitely not ancestors of Slavs. And now in Haak et. al. 2015 what do we have? - we have a sample of extremely Balto-Slavic Y-DNA - R1a Z280 - from the Bronze Age Lusatian Culture.

Of course now Germanophiles will attempt to add Z280 to the list of "originally Germanic haplogroups".

Jackson

02-16-2015, 08:45 PM

Germanic had early contact with Celtic and also a non-Indo-European language that it borrowed around 15% of it's vocabulary from.

FeederOfRavens

02-16-2015, 08:51 PM

Well those were the same Fascist Germanics who claimed that the Lusatian Culture was Germanic, and definitely not ancestors of Slavs. And now in 2015 what do we have - we have a sample of extremely Balto-Slavic Y-DNA - R1a Z280 - from the Bronze Age Lusatian Culture.

:eek: That's cool Litvin, keep fighting the evil Germanics and upholding the truths of Polish Chauvinism.

Get out of the past.

Peterski

02-16-2015, 08:56 PM

Get out of the past.

You are in the past (in the 1930s) given that you have your Meta-Ethnicity as "Indo-Germanic".

There is Indo-European, not Indo-Germanic. Germanic is among the least Indo-European of IE languages.

As Jackson wrote on previous page, 15% of Germanic vocabulary is from a Non-Indo-European language.

So Germanic is a mongrel language. Language most closely resembling Proto-IE is rather Lithuanian.

This new study also shows that Lithuanians have the most of Yamnaya autosomal component, together with Norwegians (who happen to have the highest percent of R1a out of all Germanic nations). Lithuanians are far ahead of other Germanic groups in Yamnaya autosomal. For some reason, many ethnic groups were not included - for example this new study does not say how much of Yamnaya autosomal do Poles have.

Peterski

02-16-2015, 09:05 PM

That cool Litvin keep fighting the evil Germanics

We do this all the time since the Teutonic Order invaded our lands in the 13th century. A long tradition. ;)

oh-nahhh

02-16-2015, 09:06 PM

Language most closely resembling Proto-IE is rather Lithuanian.why do you assume this?

Peterski

02-16-2015, 09:07 PM

why do you assume this?

Because Lithuanian preserved most of archaic Proto-IE features and is also close to Sanskrit.

Google it.

FeederOfRavens

02-16-2015, 09:15 PM

You are in the past (in the 1930s) given that you have your Meta-Ethnicity as "Indo-Germanic".

There is Indo-European, not Indo-Germanic.

Indo-Germanic is synonymous with Germanic. Like Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan.

Germanic is among the least Indo-European of IE languages.

Not true.

So Germanic is a mongrel language. Language most closely resembling Proto-IE is rather Lithuanian.

"Mongrel language" lol.

This new study also shows that Lithuanians have the most of Yamnaya autosomal component, together with Norwegians (who happen to have the highest percent of R1a out of all Germanic nations).

Swedes(& Danes) are genetically most similar to Norwegians so they will likely have high Yamnaya

Lithuanians are far ahead of other Germanic groups in Yamnaya autosomal.

Not more ahead Norwegians and possibly not ahead Swedes and Danes.

This discussion is silly now.

Peterski

02-16-2015, 09:57 PM

Well with "mongrel language" I exaggerated (all languages are mongrel), but here is about Lithuanian / PIE relation:

http://www.lituanus.org/1969/69_3_02.htm

THE IMPORTANCE OF LITHUANIAN FOR INDO-EUROPEAN LINGUISTICS

ANTANAS KLIMAS
The University of Rochester

In his book, Historical Linguistics,1 Professor Winfred Lehmann states:

Modern Lithuanian is remarkable for its conservatism of pitch accent, inflection and retention of formal distinctions, especially in the substantive. The word for 'son' sūnus is like that in Sanskrit, sūnūs; eiti 'he goes' has undergone fewer changes than has Latin it. Lithuanian is accordingly one of the most important Indo-European languages for comparative study, (p. 26). 2

Recently, the writer of the present article emphasized the same point by stating:

Lithuanian... is the most archaic among all the Indo-European languages spoken today, and as a result it is very useful, indeed, indispensable in the study of Indo-European linguistics.'3

What, then, are the linguistic (and other) factors which make Lithuanian so important for Indo-European studies ? We will try to list here the most important features of Lithuanian, without necessarily exhausting their listing, and without trying to assign them their relative degree of importance.

1. The most important fact is that Lithuanian is not only very archaic, but still very much alive, i. e., it is spoken by about three and a half million people. It has a rich tradition in folklore, in literature, and it is used very successfully in all walks of modern life, including the most advanced scientific research. The fact that, at the present time, Lithuania is occupied by the U.S.S.R. and that the Russian language is very cunningly foisted4 upon the Lithuanians has not diminished the lively development of archaic (or conservative) Lithuanian into a completely modern language in every field of human endeavor.

Thus, any linguist can hear, tape-record, use, check and re-check any type of language information that he may need in his research of Lithuanian. All of the other ancient Indo-European languages are dead: Tocharian, Indo-Iranian (Sanskrit and Old Persian), Hittite, Old Armenian. Classical Greek, Thracian, Phrygian, Latin, Old Gaelic (Celtic), the various ancient Anatolian languages, etc.. Some of these ancient languages came down into our times as they became modern languages: e.g., French, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan. Provencal, Rumanian, Rheto-Romansch, and Italian are all descendants of Latin, but they changed their phonological (i. e., sound) and morphological (i. e., inflectional: declensions, conjugations, etc.) systems so much that there are only "traces" of Latin left in all of them. Only the basic vocabulary remained the same in all of these modern Romance languages.5

Many Northern Indian languages (i. e., the direct descendants of Sanskrit, or Old Indic) have given up most of the inflectional patterns (i. e., endings) of the parent language. So have some of the Germanic languages, most notably Modern English. Therefore, the linguist has only some written documents for all of those ancient languages, and the writing itself is only a very poor rendering of the real language (or speech) itself.

2. In the phonological (sound) system, Lithuanian has remained quite close to what we imagine might have been the sound system of Proto-Indo-European. The vocalic system of Proto-Indo-European is especially well retained in Lithuanian (...)

3. In the consonant system, Lithuanian did not undergo any shifts comparable in scope to the Germanic consonant shift. Only the palatals k and g were partially shifted to the sibilants č and and ž respectively. (...)

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080421182026AAfFxuH

The Baltic languages are of particular interest to linguists because they retain many archaic features, which are believed to have been present in the early stages of the Proto-Indo-European language.

The Baltic languages are a group of related languages belonging to the Indo-European language family and spoken mainly in areas extending east and southeast of the Baltic Sea in Northern Europe. The language group is sometimes divided into two sub-groups: Western Baltic, containing only extinct languages, and Eastern Baltic, containing both extinct and the two living languages in the group: Lithuanian (including both Standard Lithuanian and Samogitian) and Latvian (including both literary Latvian and Latgalian). While related, the Lithuanian, the Latvian, and particularly the Old Prussian vocabularies differ substantially from each other and are not mutually intelligible. The now extinct Old Prussian language has been considered the most archaic of the Baltic languages. Lithuanian and Latvian are two the most archaic and least changed of all the living Indo-European languages.
Most linguists believe that the Baltic languages (Latvian & Lithuanian) come the closest to what Proto-Indo-European or Urindogermanisch (German term) was like.

Next, come Russian and the Slavic languages.

This is not surprising since the original Indo-European homeland appears to have been somewhere between the Baltic Sea and the Ural Mountains. Almost in the same region as the original Finno-Ugrian homeland.

http://www.unilang.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29930

oh-nahhh

02-16-2015, 09:59 PM

Because Lithuanian preserved most of archaic Proto-IE features and is also close to Sanskrit.

Google it.
Interesting seems like sir W. Jones agrees with this. He actually calls Lithuanian "the indo-european ursprache" very interesting.

Peterski

02-16-2015, 10:20 PM

BTW - here is an interesting paper, which reveals a correlation between genetics and linguistics among Indo-European speakers:

http://www.jolr.ru/files/(105)jlr2013-9(23-35).pdf

We do not expect that the history of Indo-Europeans followed the same clear model as that of
the North Caucasians. It is therefore even more interesting to apply the same methodology to
the IE case. So far, we have performed only one, but the most important kind of analysis — the
correlation analysis of genetic, linguistic and geographic distances between the Indo-European
populations of Europe. (We did not include Indo-Iranian populations because the Indian gene
pool is much too different from the European one). This kind of analysis had already been performed
earlier, in 2000 [Rosser et al., 2000], where it was found that both correlations are about
r = 0.3. Twelve years later we repeated this analysis using a dataset that was ten times as large
(Table 1). We found correlations that were twice as high (0.67 between genetics and linguistics
and 0.70 between genetics and geography). In contrast with the case of the Caucasus, the partial
correlation indicates a more important role of geography (genetics and geography r = 0.32,
while genetics and linguistics only r = 0.21). However, the high pair correlation with linguistics
(r = 0.67) allows to use the statistical data as good predictors of genetic similarity between
populations

A very interesting chart from page 5 (genetic distances of mitochondrial DNA between major IE groups):

http://s7.postimg.org/i0i4yprln/Genetics_vs_Language.png

We notice that:

1) Generally languages correlate well with genetic distances.
2) There are some sharp exceptions from this rule, including:

a) Hungarians - they are genetically like Slavonic group, yet speak a Non-IE language
b) Romanians - genetically half-way between Slavonic & Germanic, yet speak Romance
b*) Aromuns - genetically (mtDNA) most similar to Slavonic group, yet speak Romance
c) Sicilians - genetically far away from all other groups, yet speak Romance

3) Some other quick observations:

d) Albanians - genetically in the middle between Germanic, Romance, Slavonic, and Baltic
e) Norwegians & Germans - genetically closest to Slavonic & Romance out of all Germanic groups
f) Icelanders and Austrians - relatively close to Celtic group (even closer than English)
g) Slavonic - genetically about half-way between Baltic and Germanic (interesting!)
h) Icelanders - mitochondrial DNA is very Celtic (pretty consistent with other studies).
i) Germanic group - in the middle between Celtic, Romance & Balto-Slavonic (fits with geography)

Remember that this is mitochondrial only (so Y-DNA and autosomal DNA was not compared).

Peterski

02-16-2015, 10:36 PM

One more thing - Latvians, so far away from Germanic (quite surprising).

Perhaps this is because this study is on mtDNA, not on Y-DNA or autosomal.

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

BTW:

Czechs & Swedes - looks like Czechs like Swedish women (or the other way around).

Or rather female stock in both countries have some common deep ancestry ???

In terms of Y-DNA Swedes and Czechs are very different.

Peterski

02-16-2015, 11:10 PM

From page 6 - hotspots of Neolithic ancestry in Picardy and North-Eastern Ukraine ???:

http://s10.postimg.org/sjyc4jjbt/Neolithic.png

Äijä

02-17-2015, 10:42 AM

Irregardless of Meta-Ethnicity we know for sure that he came from Scandinavia:

Imo, the fact that he has a Germanic name points to a Germanic origin. Anything else is just speculation.

We dont know for sure, there are not much in the sagas about this hero and king.
And the names dont prove really anything as Finnic used the same names.

It is most likely he was from Svea, Åland or Gotland, it is not certain.

Äijä

02-17-2015, 10:47 AM

Finnish is actually the most "archaic form of Germanic", this should be always in mind when talking about Germanic ethnogenesis even as amateurs, for the scientists it is.

Äijä

02-17-2015, 10:54 AM

Even the Proto-Germanic word for king is of Celtic origin:

Donald Ringe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ringe

The name for the Rhine river in Germanic languages is also borrowed from Celtic languages.

Suggesting that originally Celts lived on both sides of that river, and Germanic-speakers had no contact with that river.

Kuningas comes from Celtic? News to me, I doubt this.

Äijä

02-17-2015, 11:53 AM

Again lets look at the present picture of N1c1.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/SNP-N-TREE.jpg

Lets focus on VL29 and its main branches, L1022 and L550.

http://www.yfull.com/tree/N-VL29/

If the L1022 is not related to the spread of Finnic languages then N1c1 is not connected to Western Baltic Finnic peoples, simple as that.
There is no other possible carrier for the language, there is no other carrier that fits linguistic datings.

Only argument is the relation of its cousin L550 to Baltic Finns, you can see there is a connection in dating and spread.

Calling L550 Baltic or Norse is hilarious for me personally.

Jackson

02-17-2015, 11:57 AM

Kuningas comes from Celtic? News to me, I doubt this.

I thought it was quite a well known thing...

Äijä

02-17-2015, 11:59 AM

I thought it was quite a well known thing...

Where did this loan happen?

Graham

02-17-2015, 01:18 PM

Kuningas comes from Celtic? News to me, I doubt this.
Celtic language for King is normally something like Righ or Ri.

Artek

02-17-2015, 01:26 PM

Well, the same guys who claimed that the Lusatian Culture was Germanic, and definitely not ancestors of Slavs. And now in Haak et. al. 2015 what do we have? - we have a sample of extremely Balto-Slavic Y-DNA - R1a Z280 - from the Bronze Age Lusatian Culture.

Of course now Germanophiles will attempt to add Z280 to the list of "originally Germanic haplogroups".

I think that's now a well estabilished view,that Lusatian Culture haven't represented any today-known ethnicity, and all attempts to make Germanic or Slavic culture out of it have failed.

But some scientists agree that "Lusatians" could've likely spoken some kind of Balto-Slavic language, what's consistent with it's origin. Because it basically went like : Corded Ware>western Trzciniec Culture>Lusatian Culture

Austrvegr

02-17-2015, 01:48 PM

Kuningas comes from Celtic? News to me, I doubt this.

Kuningas is Germanic; the archaic word for king, reik (present in names like Heinrich, etc.) and its derivatives like Reich are of Celtic origin.

Äijä

02-17-2015, 02:06 PM

Kuningas is Germanic; the archaic word for king, reik (present in names like Heinrich, etc.) and its derivatives like Reich are of Celtic origin.

That is what I thought, they are not related words?

Äijä

02-17-2015, 02:11 PM

Kuningas as a ton of Germanic words is preserved unchanged in Finnish and Estonian.

Baltic Finnic is funny like that, 90% of words are loans from Germanic, Baltic and Slavic, funny people these hunter gatherers that appeared in the Bronze Age.:thumbs up

Conte Mascetti

02-17-2015, 03:02 PM

In that case Basques, to explain extreme prevalence of R1b, must have had a HUGE Aryan (which can only be Celtic) influence. Why is that this influence does not reflect in phenotype (few Basques are "Nordid", which is opposite of what one would expect from a mainly "Indo-European" populace)? Why is that Basque language has so few Celtic words?

Between 2500 and 1800 BCE Western Europe was invaded by Bronze-age Indo-European speakers carrying mostly the R1b paternal lineage.

I could be believed that the Basques escaped this Indo-European invasion because they retained their non-IE language to this day. That is not the case.

In Iberia, it seems that the (Proto-)Celts of the early Bronze Age simply failed to impose their language not just over the Basque and Aquitanians, but also over all Mediterranean Iberia. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence that (Proto-)Celtic was spoken in Iberia before the Iron Age, with the La Tène expansion of the Celts to Northeast Iberia. Iberian was still spoken when the Romans arrived. It was the Romanisation that eventually obliterated Iberian language around the 2nd century.

I think it is very possible that all Iberia and Southwest France, and not just the Basques, kept their original Neolithic languages following the Bronze Age Indo-European invasions.

The survival of the indigenous language would have been the most likely scenario if the IE/R1b invaders were predominantly men. An army of adventurous Celtic men riding horses and equipped with bronze weapons could have butchered a substantial part of the Neolithic Iberian male population and taken their women. As good conquerors they would have taken many wives or concubines each (polygamy), having a great many children each, which helped the spread of R1b Y-DNA lineages. Children, however, learn the language of the people who raise them, and these kinds of fathers would not have been able to take care of so many children. They would have concentrated on ruling their new land and enjoying their privileges, and left the education of their offspring to the (local) women.

After one, or a few, generation(s) their IE language would have completed disappeared, leaving only the previous Neolithic languages. It is possible, and even expected, that a few loanwords from (Proto-)Celtic entered the non-IE languages of Iberia and Southwest France to fill the gaps in vocabulary for new Bronze Age technologies brought by the Indo-Europeans. This is exactly what we see in the modern Basque vocabulary. I expect that the same happened to all other non-IE languages of the peninsula in the Bronze Age.

BTW, are R1b niggers in Cameroon Aryan too?

Are you still comparing Y-DNA haplogroups with NOWADAYS populations?
R1b-V88 in Africa was carried via Middle-East, you can find it also in Mediterranean coasts like Levant and northern Africa.
If a group of R1b warriors goes to an african country, kills native men and crossbreed with native women, and their sons do the same, you get a diffusion of the Y-DNA haplogroup but after milliennia people remain Negroid because old Caucasoid blood disappears. That's simple.

Peterski

02-17-2015, 04:38 PM

Out of 138 Mesolithic and Palaeolithic samples of mtDNA from various parts of Europe (see below) from this website:

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

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

As many as 58% belonged to U5 (54 samples - 39%) and U4 (26 samples - 19%).

Samples from Sweden, European Russia, Germany, Czech Rep., Portugal, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Poland, Croatia, England.

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

Today high % of U5 is among the Saami (48%) and Finns (21%), while high % of U4 among Latvians (9%) and Georgians (8%):

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtml

So Finns have quite a lot of their maternal lineages derived from Pre-Neolithic European hunter-gatherers.

Artek

02-17-2015, 04:53 PM

It should be noted that Saami belong mostly to two bottlenecked maternal lineages, so it's not that informative. They could've been 48% H( let's say H1b) or C1f.

Peterski

02-17-2015, 04:54 PM

I could be believed that the Basques escaped this Indo-European invasion because they retained their non-IE language to this day. That is not the case.

Isn't most of R1b among the Basques descended from that Pre-Indo-European Spanish R1b ???

Check:

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

Peterski

02-17-2015, 05:29 PM

What also bothers me, is this (if true):

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/

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

Yamnaya subclades:

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

R1b1a2a2*
R1b1a
R1b1a2a2
R1b1a2a*
R1b1a2a2
R1b1a2a2*
R1b1a2a2*

oh-nahhh

02-17-2015, 06:23 PM

What also bothers me, is this (if true):

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/

Yamnaya subclades:

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

R1b1a2a2*
R1b1a
R1b1a2a2
R1b1a2a*
R1b1a2a2
R1b1a2a2*
R1b1a2a2*what bothers you about it?

Arch Hades

02-17-2015, 06:36 PM

Yamna aren't really the Nordic Gods a lot of old theoriests believed they were

1. we know they were mostly [80%] dark haired and eyed
2. We know they were 50% descended from the West Asian Highlands

FST genetic distance

To Lithuanians : 22
To Greeks : 26

Only 1.2x closer to modern Lithuanians than to modern Greeks. I'm not impressed.

aherne

02-17-2015, 07:41 PM

Between 2500 and 1800 BCE Western Europe was invaded by Bronze-age Indo-European speakers carrying mostly the R1b paternal lineage.

I could be believed that the Basques escaped this Indo-European invasion because they retained their non-IE language to this day. That is not the case.

In Iberia, it seems that the (Proto-)Celts of the early Bronze Age simply failed to impose their language not just over the Basque and Aquitanians, but also over all Mediterranean Iberia. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence that (Proto-)Celtic was spoken in Iberia before the Iron Age, with the La Tène expansion of the Celts to Northeast Iberia. Iberian was still spoken when the Romans arrived. It was the Romanisation that eventually obliterated Iberian language around the 2nd century.

I think it is very possible that all Iberia and Southwest France, and not just the Basques, kept their original Neolithic languages following the Bronze Age Indo-European invasions.

The survival of the indigenous language would have been the most likely scenario if the IE/R1b invaders were predominantly men. An army of adventurous Celtic men riding horses and equipped with bronze weapons could have butchered a substantial part of the Neolithic Iberian male population and taken their women. As good conquerors they would have taken many wives or concubines each (polygamy), having a great many children each, which helped the spread of R1b Y-DNA lineages. Children, however, learn the language of the people who raise them, and these kinds of fathers would not have been able to take care of so many children. They would have concentrated on ruling their new land and enjoying their privileges, and left the education of their offspring to the (local) women.

After one, or a few, generation(s) their IE language would have completed disappeared, leaving only the previous Neolithic languages. It is possible, and even expected, that a few loanwords from (Proto-)Celtic entered the non-IE languages of Iberia and Southwest France to fill the gaps in vocabulary for new Bronze Age technologies brought by the Indo-Europeans. This is exactly what we see in the modern Basque vocabulary. I expect that the same happened to all other non-IE languages of the peninsula in the Bronze Age.

This is just your speculation, issued by your desire to validate population history using haplogroups. Common scientific consensus is that, at the time of Roman conquest, Iberian peninsula was split between a Keltic-speaking NW and an Iberian speaking SE. Of course, this was a conjunctural difference in language, whereas population remained somewhat evenly mixed following two waves of Aryan settlement (one during Bronze age that brought Lusitanians, the other in Iron age that brought Celtiberians) which affected the whole peninsula, minus Andalusia. However, to argue the male side in modern Iberians is mostly of Aryan origin is nothing short of fantasy.

There is absolutely no historical ground for this:

Are you still comparing Y-DNA haplogroups with NOWADAYS populations?
R1b-V88 in Africa was carried via Middle-East, you can find it also in Mediterranean coasts like Levant and northern Africa.
If a group of R1b warriors goes to an african country, kills native men and crossbreed with native women, and their sons do the same, you get a diffusion of the Y-DNA haplogroup but after milliennia people remain Negroid because old Caucasoid blood disappears. That's simple.

Same "science" that finds Finns' close relatives among Yukaghirs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png

Artek

02-17-2015, 07:48 PM

Isn't most of R1b among the Basques descended from that Pre-Indo-European Spanish R1b ???

Check:

Do you read posts of others? Basque R1b(a certain subclade under DF27) most likely can't descend from this one. It can descend from Western Yamnayan R1b, but they weren't tested.

The most important part of this quotation from thesis is after "however"

Sikeliot

02-17-2015, 07:49 PM

Äijä

02-17-2015, 08:11 PM

Peikko

02-17-2015, 08:19 PM

Maciamo is a good example of people that have a problem with N1c1. ;)

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30878-Massive-migration-from-the-steppe-is-a-source-for-Indo-European-languages-in-Europe?p=450168&viewfull=1#post450168

Maciamo is just one of those delusional med-centrics, who think that European civilization came from the middle east. It's annoying when people can't be objective.

Äijä

02-17-2015, 08:20 PM

Maciamo is just one of those delusional med-centrics, who think that European civilization came from the middle east. It's annoying when people can't be objective.

So you dont have a problem with N1c1 possibly connected to the spread of metals in Eurasia?

Peikko

02-17-2015, 08:30 PM

So you dont have a problem with N1c1 possibly connected to the spread of metals in Eurasia?

No, not really. Did they do a paper on that?

Peterski

02-17-2015, 08:33 PM

The most important part of this quotation from thesis is after "however"

OK, but authors wrote "we prefer this explanation", not "we are sure that this explanation must be true".

So the other option still cannot be entirely ruled out. We need more ancient DNA samples, I guess.

Äijä

02-17-2015, 08:37 PM

No, not really. Did they do a paper on that?

No, it just looks a good possibility with the present datings.

Peterski

02-17-2015, 08:37 PM

N1c1 possibly connected to the spread of metals in Eurasia?

And where did they extract those metals ???

Wikipedia says that so far the oldest evidence for copper making is from the Balkans:

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

The archaeological site of Belovode on the Rudnik mountain in Serbia contains the world's oldest securely dated evidence of copper making at high temperature, from 5,000 BCE.[2][3]

Artek

02-17-2015, 08:38 PM

OK, but authors wrote "we prefer this explanation", not "we are sure that this explanation must be true".

So the other option still cannot be entirely ruled out. We need more ancient DNA samples, I guess.

We need them, of course.
Though it can be deduced that DF27(and P312, L51 etc.) can't come from that one R1b case from 5178-5066 BC :).

But if anything convincing will pop-up, it will need a revision.

Äijä

02-17-2015, 08:42 PM

And where did they extract those metals ???

Wikipedia says that so far the oldest evidence for copper making is from the Balkans:

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

Where did R1a extract them and who showed them how?

There is N* in the Balkans, Serbia, at that time but it could be a coincidence. :)

War Chef

02-17-2015, 08:43 PM

All samples are from Samara bend on the Volga, extreme north-east frontier of Yamna. From this we can assume the Yamna people down south, on the Pontic Steppe itself were more West-Asian than those living in Samara. Finding such strong West-Asian genes that far north-east is impressive in itself. By the way, my mtDNA H was absent in all Yamna samples - where did it come from?

Peterski

02-17-2015, 08:43 PM

But it is possible that copper making was invented in several places independently:

An archaeological site in Serbia contains the oldest securely dated evidence of copper making at high temperature, from 7,500 years ago. The find in June 2010 extends the known record of copper smelting by about 800 years, and suggests that copper smelting may have been invented in separate parts of Asia and Europe at that time rather than spreading from a single source.[3] In Serbia, a copper axe was found at Prokuplje, which indicates that humans were using metals in Europe by 7,500 years ago (~5,500 BCE), many years earlier than previously believed.[6] Knowledge of the use of copper was far more widespread than the metal itself. The European Battle Axe culture used stone axes modeled on copper axes, even with imitation "mold marks" carved in the stone.[7]

And also:

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

The theory that metallurgy was imported into Europe from the Near East has been practically ruled out. A second hypothesis, that there were two main points of origin of metallurgy in Europe, in southern Spain and in West Bulgaria, is also doubtful due to the existence of sites outside the centers of diffusion where metallurgy was known simultaneously with, or before, those in the ‘original’ nuclei, such as Brixlegg (Tyrol, Austria), while sites closer to the supposed origins of metallurgy, such as in the north of Spain, show fewer metal artifacts than sites in the south and practically no evidence of production (Perez Arrondo 1986).

Nowadays, the general opinion is that the development of metallurgy took place independently in different places, at different times, with various techniques. One fact that supports this interpretation is that, although the final products (beads, rings, sickles, swords, axes, etc.) are quite similar throughout Europe, the method of production is not.

Domestication of horse and invention of wheeled vehicle are less problematic events.

Artek

02-17-2015, 08:45 PM

Where did R1a extract them and who showed them how?

There is N* in the Balkans, Serbia, at that time but it could be a coincidence. :)
It's an early-diverged branch, N-P189.2. If I recall correctly, a Cimmerian was negative to it but positive to some close upstream SNP.

Peterski

02-17-2015, 08:48 PM

There is N* in the Balkans, Serbia, at that time

Nope. Here you have all ancient DNA samples discovered to date:

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

Peterski

02-17-2015, 08:49 PM

It's an early-diverged branch, N-P189.2. If I recall correctly, a Cimmerian was negative to it but positive to some close upstream SNP.

Where is info about this sample?

Is it listed by the website I linked above ???

Äijä

02-17-2015, 08:51 PM

But it is possible that copper making was invented in several places independently:

And also:

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

Domestication of horse and invention of wheeled vehicle are less problematic events.

Maybe hunting and gathering was so good that they had time to make inventions and no need for importing new technologies, it is possible.

Peterski

02-17-2015, 08:52 PM

Though it can be deduced that DF27(and P312, L51 etc.) can't come from that one R1b case from 5178-5066 BC.

Well - the authors of the study did not deduce anything like this (they actually wrote that that Iberian R1b farmer could be an ancestor of modern Western Europeans, their only argument against such an option was that archaeology allegedly does not show a west-east migration from Iberia to the Middle East / Asia Minor). So may I ask how exactly do you deduce it (on what basis), and also are there any modern subclades of R1b present in Europe which can be (or likely are according to you) descendants of that Neolithic Iberian ??? Or is his lineage now extinct ???

Peterski

02-17-2015, 08:55 PM

Ukko, :) we are trying a serious discussion, not a penis comparison contest.

Maybe hunting and gathering was so good that they had time to make inventions and no need for importing new technologies

Maybe Nokia was invented 7500 years ago by that R1a hunter from Karelia ??? And you were hiding it so long. :)

Äijä

02-17-2015, 08:57 PM

Ukko , :) we are trying a serious discussion, not a penis comparison contest.

Good for you as I generally win those.:)

Peterski

02-17-2015, 08:59 PM

Though N1c1 is not so numerous in the world, perhaps they did not win the contest.

Peterski

02-17-2015, 09:00 PM

They were too busy inventing and spreading metal dildos. :)

N1c1 possibly connected to the spread of metals in Eurasia?

Maybe hunting and gathering was so good that they had time to make inventions

Äijä

02-17-2015, 09:03 PM

Though N1c1 is not so numerous in the world, perhaps they did not win the contest.

Looking at the bottlenecks they did pretty damn good. :thumb001:

Äijä

02-17-2015, 09:03 PM

They were too busy inventing and spreading metal dildos. :)

No, too busy penetrating Aryan women.

Peterski

02-17-2015, 09:04 PM

Bottlenecks took place because most were too busy spreading copper dildos.

too busy penetrating Aryan women.

With metal dildos (= no offspring possible). ;)

Äijä

02-17-2015, 09:08 PM

Bottlenecks took place because most were too busy spreading copper dildos.

With metal dildos (= no offspring possible). ;)

I am sorry, I did not know you had issues with your penis. :)

Peterski

02-17-2015, 09:11 PM

Before I posted map "B" which can be seen below, here is also another map ("A"):

This is the complete graphic from Haak et al 2010, which only concerns mtDna:

http://z3.ifrm.com/67/29/0/p406313/Haak_et_al_2010__Figure_3.jpg

The map on the left shows the genetic distances to modern populations for all of their 42 mtDna samples (which in addition are only from the early Neolithic LBK). The map on the right shows the genetic distances for only the Derenberg sample. Obviously, comparisons using the samples from one single site are not as informative as comparisons using the compilation of all the samples from that particular culture. If this were repeated with all the mtDna sequences from all of the pre-Yamnaya appearance Neolithic samples in Europe it would be even more informative. Then, we have to remember that Yamnaya brought some EHG mtDna along with it, and there were still migration movements further on into history, including migrations with ancestry from northern Baltic refugia and from Uralic speaking areas. All of those things would affect modern distributions. It has nothing to do with yDna obviously.

It seems to me that this graphic shows that the "Neolithic" or "farmer" mtDna is correlated with Anatolia/northern Syria and the area just to the south of the Caucasus, which is what I've been talking about for the last couple of days. The mtDna and thus some part of the autosomal admixture in "EEF" and "Near Eastern" is similar. There is far less of this mtDna signature off to the east. That might indicate that the people who contributed the "Near Eastern" portion of Yamnaya came from south of the Caucasus, possibly moving up the narrow passage along the eastern side of the Caspian, or, if they came up the other side of the Caspian their mtDna signature is no longer dominant there. Perhaps someone very familiar with that part of the world can further elucidate this for us.