INDOEUROPEICS - everything about Indoeuropeans (what doesn't fit to other threads).

[Rethel]

I am lastly counting historical and
future Indoeuropean population.

It is astonishing, that yet after second world war,
almost 1/2 of all Indoeuropeans lived in Europe.
In XVIIth century it was probably even above 60%.
Now it dropped almost to 1/4... and in the future it
is going to be probably 16% (or even less if foreign
immigration from Africa and Asia will not be stoped)

[Rethel]

The oldest Indoeuropeans BEFORE Bronze Age
expantion according to the 'Ancient DNA' page.

[Rethel]

Estonian CCC.PNG

[Fantomas]

The oldest Indoeuropeans BEFORE Bronze Age
expantion according to the 'Ancient DNA' page.

This picture shows that cavalr1y was invented in west.Europe and later invaded "steppe".... and i agree with that

[Rethel]

This is some mambo jumbo, but I put it for the record:


http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/0...-of-north.html

Geometric morphometrics of North Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers

Over at the AJPA behind a paywall at this link. Right now also freely accessible at Researchgate here. Emphasis in the abstract below is mine. I don't have a strong opinion about the conclusions of this paper, but I'd say that the "common substrate" shared by Mesolithic Northeast Europeans and Neolithic Siberians is from an Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population rich in Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a. We might soon find out whether that's the case thanks to ancient DNA.

Objectives: Remains from several Eastern European and Siberian Mesolithic and Neolithic sites are analysed to clarify their biological relationships. We assume that groups' geographical distances correlate with genetic and, therefore, morphological distances between them.

Materials and Methods: Material includes complete male crania from several Mesolithic and Neolithic burial sites across Northern Eurasia and from several modern populations. Geometric morphometrics and multivariate statistical techniques are applied to explore morphological trends, group distances, and correlations with their geographical position, climate, and the time of origin.

Results: Despite an overlap in the morphology among the modern and archeological groups, some of them show significant morphological distances. Geographical parameters account for only a small proportion of cranial variation in the sample, with larger variance explained by geography and age together. Expectations of isolation by distance are met in some but not in all cases. Climate accounts for a large proportion of autocorrelation with geography. Nearest-neighbor joining trees demonstrate group relationships predicted by the regression on geography and on climate.

Discussion: The obtained results are discussed in application to relationships between particular groups. Unlike the Ukrainian Mesolithic, the Yuzhny Oleni Ostrov Mesolithic displays a high morphological affinity with several groups from Northern Eurasia of both European and Asian origin. A possibility of a common substrate for the Yuzhny Oleni Ostrov Mesolithic and Siberian Neolithic groups is reviewed. The Siberian Neolithic is shown to have morphological connection with both modern Siberian groups and the Native North Americans.

[Rethel]

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/0...challenge.html

The Out-of-India Theory (OIT) challenge: can we hear a viable argument for once?

Recent weeks have seen a rash of activity from OIT proponents defending their "truth", largely as a response to a news feature in The Hindu on new genetic evidence backing the Aryan Invasion or Migration Theory (AIT/AMT). A few examples:

Genetics Might Be Settling The Aryan Migration Debate, But Not How Left-Liberals Believe

Genetics and the Aryan invasion debate

Propagandizing the Aryan Invasion Debate: A Rebuttal to Tony Joseph

Here We Go Again: Why They Are Wrong About The Aryan Migration Debate This Time As Well

The problematics of genetics and the Aryan issue

Too early to settle the Aryan migration debate?


The people who wrote these articles are able to string sentences together in a reasonable way, but apart from that, their efforts are clumsy at best. Not only do they not appear to completely understand what they're attempting to debunk, but they also fail to offer an OIT that realistically incorporates new findings from ancient and modern-day DNA.

AIT/AMT is now firmly backed by ancient DNA from Eastern Europe and high resolution modern-day DNA from South Asia. To quote myself from a week ago:

During the past couple of years ancient DNA has revealed the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a in Eastern European remains dated to the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic and Bronze Age. Moreover, the Bronze Age remains, packed in ancestry derived from Eastern European hunter-gatherers (or EHG) and totally lacking any sort of South Asian admixture, belong to R1a-Z645, which is the ancestral clade of by far the most common types of R1a in Europe and South Asia today: R1a-Z282 and R1a-Z93, respectively. And on top of that, South Asians, especially those speaking Indo-European languages, show significant admixture derived from EHG.

The conclusion from this data is self-evident: during the Bronze Age R1a-Z645 became a very important Y-chromosome lineage in Europe and quickly moved to South Asia, in all likelihood on the back of the Indo-European expansion.

Pre-Indo-European Eastern Europe and South Asia were not the same world; they were world's apart. Thus, you will never read anything like this, no matter how much ancient DNA from South Asia is sequenced:

During the past couple of years ancient DNA has revealed the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a in South Asian remains dated to the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic and Bronze Age. Moreover, the Bronze Age remains, packed in ancestry derived from South Asian hunter-gatherers, and totally lacking any sort of European admixture, belong to R1a-Z645, which is the ancestral clade of by far the most common types of R1a in Europe and South Asia today: R1a-Z282 and R1a-Z93, respectively. And on top of that, Europeans, especially those speaking Indo-European languages, show significant admixture derived from South Asian hunter-gatherers.


So, OIT proponents, what counter-arguments can you offer? And can you come up with a new vision for OIT that coherently takes into account ancient DNA from Eastern Europe?

However, to ensure that the debate is a fruitful one not derailed regularly by anti-AIT/pro-OIT red herrings, let's take care of the most obvious of these red herrings now. I reserve the right to delete any comments that attempt to go down these tired, irrelevant avenues without a very good excuse for doing so.

You: So and so found Y-haplogroup P* and other basal clades upstream of R1a in Papuans, therefore R1a and Indo-Europeans are from South Asia. Me: Nonsense. R1 and R1a are found in the remains of Eastern European Mesolithic foragers. Were these individuals recently arrived Indo-European-speakers from South Asia? Try harder.

You: It doesn't matter that Eastern European Mesolithic foragers belonged to R1a, because the most common form of R1a in the world is R1a-M417, and if it originated in India then OIT is a reality. Me: But what are the chances realistically that R1a-M417 is from India or South Asia, considering that prehistoric European samples, with absolutely no signals of ancestry from South Asia, belong to both M417+ and M417- lineages? In fact, Europe is the most likely homeland of R1a-M417.

You: India has incredible diversity in R1a, therefore it's the R1a and Indo-European homeland. Me: No it doesn't. India, and indeed, South Asia as a whole are dominated by one fairly young subclade: R1a-Z93. Europe is home to three different subclades that show up at perceptible frequencies: R1a-Z282, found throughout much of the continent; R1a-L664, mostly confined to Northwestern Europe; and R1a-Z93, mostly confined to far Eastern Europe.

You: Many unique Indian ethnic groups are yet to be tested genetically. They may show surprising results, including new subclades of R1a. Me: If you dig hard enough, you'll always find some exceptions to the rule. But how do you know where the ancestral lineages of such exceptions in South Asia were during, say, the Neolithic? What makes you think they were in South Asia? To prove that South Asia is the homeland of its by far most dominant R1a subclade, R1a-Z93, then at the very least you need to show that other, closely and distantly related subclades, are also found at perceptible frequencies in whole regions of South Asia, and therefore that they have some sort of history there. Otherwise we can safely assume that R1a-Z93 and the few exceptions to the R1a-Z93 rule in South Asia are relative latecomers from somewhere else.

You: But we have no ancient DNA from South Asia yet, and it may produce a huge shock. Me: For you yes, but not for me. What are the chances realistically that R1a was present among both European and South Asian foragers? I'd say practically zero. Feel free to raise it to a few per cent to make yourself feel better, but we both know the hard reality.

You: Ancient DNA from South Asia might show that Northern India was home to a population very similar to Yamnaya, and if so, then the Yamnaya-related ancestry in modern-day Indians is native to India. Me: There's no logic behind this. Yamnaya and other closely related Bronze Age groups were very specific mixtures of Mesolithic foragers and Neolithic farmers living in Eastern Europe and surrounds. There's absolutely no reason to assume that such unique mixtures would also form independently in South Asia, or even outside of Europe's generally accepted borders.

You: Bronze Age Europeans who belonged to R1a also carried southern admixture from Iran, or maybe even India. Me: In prehistoric samples, R1a is always highly correlated with Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) ancestry, so positing that it also arrived in Europe with a southern population makes no sense. And why would this southern ancestry be from Iran or India? Why not the Caucasus? We know from ancient DNA that the type of southern ancestry that these ancient Europeans carried has been sitting in the Caucasus since the Upper Paleolithic. Moreover, they lack South Caspian- and South Asian-specific markers such as mtDNA haplogroup U7. How were such markers purged from their gene pool if they or their recent ancestors arrived in Europe from Iran or India?

You: Chickens and mice came from South Asia, therefore Indo-Europeans came from South Asia too. Me: Bullshit. Do better or go away.

Does anyone want to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about? Or perhaps that I'm just putting out Eurocentric propaganda? If you don't understand my arguments, and that they're indeed very solid arguments, then there's no hope for you. Go and find a new hobby or profession, because you're not cut out for this.

OK, now what we have the formalities out of the way, who wants to have a go at salvaging OIT in the comments? Don't be shy.

[Rethel]

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/0...-chunk-of.html

Corded Ware origin of a big chunk of Finnish mtDNA (Oversti et al. 2017)

Over at Scientific Reports at this link. Emphasis is mine. Corded Ware people were in all likelihood early Indo-European speakers and belonged, perhaps almost exclusively, to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a, while present-day Finns obviously speak a Uralic language and mostly belong to Y-chromosome haplogroups N1c and I1. But Finns do show a lot of Corded Ware- or Yamnaya-related genome-wide ancestry, so it shouldn't be surprising that a large part of their maternal ancestry is derived from the Corded Ware population.

Abstract: In Europe, modern mitochondrial diversity is relatively homogeneous and suggests an ubiquitous rapid population growth since the Neolithic revolution. Similar patterns also have been observed in mitochondrial control region data in Finland, which contrasts with the distinctive autosomal and Y-chromosomal diversity among Finns. A different picture emerges from the 843 whole mitochondrial genomes from modern Finns analyzed here. Up to one third of the subhaplogroups can be considered as Finn-characteristic, i.e. rather common in Finland but virtually absent or rare elsewhere in Europe. Bayesian phylogenetic analyses suggest that most of these attributed Finnish lineages date back to around 3,000–5,000 years, coinciding with the arrival of Corded Ware culture and agriculture into Finland. Bayesian estimation of past effective population sizes reveals two differing demographic histories: 1) the ‘local’ Finnish mtDNA haplotypes yielding small and dwindling size estimates for most of the past; and 2) the ‘immigrant’ haplotypes showing growth typical of most European populations. The results based on the local diversity are more in line with that known about Finns from other studies, e.g., Y-chromosome analyses and archaeology findings. The mitochondrial gene pool thus may contain signals of local population history that cannot be readily deduced from the total diversity.

[Miekka]

The oldest Indoeuropeans BEFORE Bronze Age
expantion according to the 'Ancient DNA' page.

Excluding this fantastic and very creative map that you've created, I request evidence, actual evidence supported by esteemed and recognized personalities to support your claim. As it stands, you have have given us very little to work with and thus cast a looming shadow of doubt upon your assertions and theories on the whole. While I appreciate your contribution and theories, I'm afraid I'm going to need a bit more before being convinced of them.

Please note that eurogenes.blogspot copypasta does not count.

[Rethel]

Excluding this fantastic and very creative map that you've created, I request evidence, actual evidence supported by esteemed and recognized personalities to support your claim. As it stands, you have have given us very little to work with and thus cast a looming shadow of doubt upon your assertions and theories on the whole. While I appreciate your contribution and theories, I'm afraid I'm going to need a bit more before being convinced of them.

Please note that eurogenes.blogspot copypasta does not count.

I allready did write on what I based it.

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

[Miekka]

I allready did write on what I based it.

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

Okay look, I wasn't at all interested in having a conversation with you, but I feel the need to contradict what you said here. You are indirectly stating that I'm ugly, however, the truth lies in my private life and I feel you are trying to predict it. While many people may think this is funny, it is also very unproductive. I would say that you are jealous, but I'm not going to because I'm not willing to dictate your private life, since I want my productivity levels to be positive. I'm sure you want yours to remain the same as well.

While I do appreciate all your support, I would also appreciate if you realize how unproductive your logic is, and maybe try to correct it by showing more positivity than negativity. Since I stopped being negative, I believe that my newly acquired positivity has helped my own productivity levels rise. I'm not going to dictate anything for you by saying this will help you, but I strongly suggest that you consider what I'm saying. Thank you.