Scythian/Sarmatian DNA, your thoughts.

[Bodin]

Thank you, Bodin, for your reply in post #310.

Youre wellcomed

 

[Bodin]

I see I look like someone with an nationalistic agenda to pursue, while others might think I would like to undermine someones nicely elaborated theory. I am trying to do neither.

I just want to learn about my ancestors, who they really were. I don't really care if there were some Aryans, Sarmatians, Slaves or Gipsies. I would like to know them just for who they really are.

I just hope they were not rapists. I really hope I misread that. But if they were, and someone can tell me why that would be true I would be thankful for the knowledge.

It was part of spoils of war to rape conquered womans ( and it still is - look Russians in Germany during WWII , Americans in Afganistan and Iraq , Serbs , Croats and Bosniacs in war in former Yugoslavia , Foreign legion in Africa ,... ) . So everybodie of us had lots of ancestors that are rapist , killers ( killers left descendants , killed ones are not ) , robers ,...

 

[Bodin]

Abducting women does not result in rape lineages, you're actually correct, it was very common for tribal groups in those regions (Anatolia/Caucasus/Iran) to abduct young beautiful women, but when they abducted them, they usually took them back to their tribal lands and kept them as wives, they did not rape them and throw them away, if they did rape a woman in the intend of not keeping her as a wife they usually killed her after, the reason for that is because rape could result to a pregnancy, and tribal pride was way too much to throw away a seed in case it was potentially a boy which is very important in such tribal cultures, so it was either rape and kill, or abduct and keep as a wife, the actual rapes that you're talking about were more common in army soldiers from foreign lands rather than surrounding tribal groups.



I've seen it somewhere, I'll try to find it, though I also get a lot of my info on this lineage from one of the FTDNA G project administrators, he's a G1* like yourself.

Well if he abduct her and take her to his land she would still have to rape her , or you think she geting lot more willing when she left her village ? Actualy there is no reason to kill girl , he would left her as a shame for her family - making enemies to breed his childs .
Other thing was more common , to family kill girl , or girl kill herself , or she kill a child . But not only girls were raped , but also maried womans , and some times it was hard to determine whose child it is - from rapist or from husband

 

[Cobol19]

Everybody say Tajikistan , Uzbekistan , Turkmenistan, Afganistan and South Kazahstan are in central Asia , just you say they are not, but I suposse there is no way they are right
There is realy small diference betwen east and west Iranic languagues . You seem to know which languague Sarmathians spocked , how? Herodotus clearly say they speacked spoiled Scythian - there was some diference , that even Greek would spot , Greek that isnt speacked any of these languagues . Serbians spoke Slavic languague but still has only about 5% of Slavic genes

You're forgetting that Herodotus also mentioned that the Sarmatians were actually the result of Scythian men marrying Amazonian women:

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/gruffini/cl115/Herodotus 4.110-117.htm

While the above may be some sort of ancient legend, read the important part:

"The language of the Sauromatae is Scythian, but not spoken in its ancient purity"

This leads me to believe that they were the result of Scythians mixing with local native populations of the Eurasian steppes, their off-spring today exists in the form of Ossetian (Which is a language off-spring mostly since they seriously lack R1a1a).

But we are hier to develope theories , and to take best guesses . He probably had his reasons to put most of F* in to J1 - even if all of that is not J1 it is still bether than to call it F* ( which is realy rear )

Developing theories is absurd when there's actual data available, either you re-word the table frequency to "This is what I think", or stop promoting it as a fact, do you understand now? I may argue and say, why is it 9.5% J1? Maybe it's 5%, maybe it's 2%, the point is you don't report numbers because you think it's right, either it's right or it's not, that's how the ethical academic way works, and that frequency table is not academic so please stop referring to it in this discussion until Maciamo fixes these things, because as of now, the table is not legit.

Well if he abduct her and take her to his land she would still have to rape her , or you think she geting lot more willing when she left her village ?

Abducting and forcing a girl is indeed still rape, but this results in an off-spring that will carry a different mtDNA, not different Y-DNA, because the girl's line is being introduced to the tribe, not the father's Y-DNA.

Actualy there is no reason to kill girl , he would left her as a shame for her family - making enemies to breed his childs .

Other thing was more common , to family kill girl , or girl kill herself , or she kill a child . But not only girls were raped , but also maried womans , and some times it was hard to determine whose child it is - from rapist or from husband

I'm not here to tell you whether there's a reason or not, I'm telling you this is what happened in these areas, apperantly you're not familiar of how important it is to pass your seed down in the tribal sense in these regions, it's extremely important because potentially it could be a boy, tribal people loved breeding boys because they make the tribe stronger, raping random women and leaving her alive could result in a birth of a future boy, tribal people avoided that for this very reason unless they killed the girl after the rape.

Rape of this kind was only common when an army from foreign lands came through, that's because they were away from their women and at war with nothing to lose, rapes by them were not an issue, so if any rape off-spring took place, it was likely from this interaction.

 

[Ivan]

It was part of spoils of war to rape conquered womans ( and it still is - look Russians in Germany during WWII , Americans in Afganistan and Iraq , Serbs , Croats and Bosniacs in war in former Yugoslavia , Foreign legion in Africa ,... ) . So everybodie of us had lots of ancestors that are rapist , killers ( killers left descendants , killed ones are not ) , robers ,...

I thought you singled out Haplogroup G to be reproducing itself mostly by rape, and connected one particular group to a custom of raping all the women after killing male population above all other groups. I then misread that.

Though I would not blame any of them for taking the woman with them as a spoil of war and not killing them on the spot, at least the pretty ones were spared.

Still not sure if I would call it rape in the first place. For your theory to work, where rape as you call it led to increase of numbers, I would rather call it the spoil of war that ultimately became female population of the victors.

 

[Ivan]

Well if he abduct her and take her to his land she would still have to rape her , or you think she geting lot more willing when she left her village ?

As a psychological term, from the standpoint of the victim, it is an actual rape, but rape as a mean of war is what you were talking about.

This rape as a mean of war, is much more connected with invading armies who stayed on the spot, unlike this mountain skirmishes with a hit and run tactics; thus producing or not, mostly single offspring that could be male, from those women that are not slain afterwards, and also who decided to keep the babies which in mountain cultures was not so common, and who eventually could be living in a strong atmosphere of hate towards his biological father.

The problem is in the word rape, as a mean of significant increase of ones group numbers, which is ultimately inferior to number of children from women who were later accepted in the new culture, thus capable of producing significantly more children in an atmosphere controlled by society in which the children are born to.

 

[Bodin]

You're forgetting that Herodotus also mentioned that the Sarmatians were actually the result of Scythian men marrying Amazonian women:

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/gruffini/cl115/Herodotus 4.110-117.htm

While the above may be some sort of ancient legend, read the important part:

This leads me to believe that they were the result of Scythians mixing with local native populations of the Eurasian steppes, their off-spring today exists in the form of Ossetian (Which is a language off-spring mostly since they seriously lack R1a1a).



Developing theories is absurd when there's actual data available, either you re-word the table frequency to "This is what I think", or stop promoting it as a fact, do you understand now? I may argue and say, why is it 9.5% J1? Maybe it's 5%, maybe it's 2%, the point is you don't report numbers because you think it's right, either it's right or it's not, that's how the ethical academic way works, and that frequency table is not academic so please stop referring to it in this discussion until Maciamo fixes these things, because as of now, the table is not legit.



Abducting and forcing a girl is indeed still rape, but this results in an off-spring that will carry a different mtDNA, not different Y-DNA, because the girl's line is being introduced to the tribe, not the father's Y-DNA.

I'm not here to tell you whether there's a reason or not, I'm telling you this is what happened in these areas, apperantly you're not familiar of how important it is to pass your seed down in the tribal sense in these regions, it's extremely important because potentially it could be a boy, tribal people loved breeding boys because they make the tribe stronger, raping random women and leaving her alive could result in a birth of a future boy, tribal people avoided that for this very reason unless they killed the girl after the rape.

Rape of this kind was only common when an army from foreign lands came through, that's because they were away from their women and at war with nothing to lose, rapes by them were not an issue, so if any rape off-spring took place, it was likely from this interaction.

Prove Amazons egzisted
There was realy small diference betwen west ( Scythian) and east ( Medae) languagues - they could easily understand each other - so for foreign writer ( Herodothus ) it could look as one of them speack " spoiled" ( or ancient) form of other languague .
Egzactly there is almoust no R1a1 in Ossetians - that is another prove Sarmathian were not R1a1 , Ossetians even call themselves Iron and languague Iraetae - same as Medeans call themselves Aryan
Theories are the ways you read the data
I already said it was way to humiliate family of girl and her tribe/ nation - they are forced to breed child of rapist . It was common practice in both central Asia and Caucasus , especialy Mongolians ( Gengis Khan could be child from such raping )

 

[Bodin]

I thought you singled out Haplogroup G to be reproducing itself mostly by rape, and connected one particular group to a custom of raping all the women after killing male population above all other groups. I then misread that.

Though I would not blame any of them for taking the woman with them as a spoil of war and not killing them on the spot, at least the pretty ones were spared.

Still not sure if I would call it rape in the first place. For your theory to work, where rape as you call it led to increase of numbers, I would rather call it the spoil of war that ultimately became female population of the victors.

No I havent singled out any haplogroup , G was just more numerous in aeria , and spreaded more that way - mathematical progresion
Whell you could call it spoil of war , but thats still rape , no diferent than any other

 

[Cobol19]

Prove Amazons egzisted

Amazons were simply warrior women and they existed based on history books, in fact, female warriors were found in Scythian grave sites, read this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=rOG5VcYxhiEC

There was realy small diference betwen west ( Scythian) and east ( Medae) languagues - they could easily understand each other - so for foreign writer ( Herodothus ) it could look as one of them speack " spoiled" ( or ancient) form of other languague .

The difference between east and west is not so small, heck, even differences between dialects within the same language can be quite large, let alone different languages from different branches?

I actually have a Kurdish friend who speaks the Kurmanji Kurdish dialect, we went to a shawerma place where the owner spoke the Sorani Kurdish dialect, I asked my friend to communicate with him in Kurdish, but he said he couldn't because they don't understand one another, so if two people who speak the same language cannot communicate due to different dialects, you really think two total different languages are gonna be understandable? Unless both sides know a common language, not a chance.

Egzactly there is almoust no R1a1 in Ossetians - that is another prove Sarmathian were not R1a1 , Ossetians even call themselves Iron and languague Iraetae - same as Medeans call themselves Aryan

Speaking a language does not mean you're supposed to carry the genes of the people that brought the language, in Nigeria they speak English, but clearly they don't carry English genes, likewise in Cameroon they speak French, but once again they do not carry French genes, get it?

Theories are the ways you read the data
I already said it was way to humiliate family of girl and her tribe/ nation - they are forced to breed child of rapist . It was common practice in both central Asia and Caucasus , especialy Mongolians ( Gengis Khan could be child from such raping )

I don't care about Genghis Khan or Central Asia, I'm talking about Anatolia/Iran/Caucasus/Mesopotamia, etc, tribal groups did not rape, army did, of course I would not expect you to know this since you're not from this area nor do you know anything about it.

 

[Ivan]

Whell you could call it spoil of war , but thats still rape , no diferent than any other

If you would like to moralize now, I agree with you they were very bad boys, but if this was abduction for the purpose of marrying I forgive them. You can call them rapists if you will.

Rape as a mean of expanding group numbers makes no sense. That was the idea of my posts.

You said probably their custom of raping an entire village, helped them in expanding their numbers.
Where did you find such stuff anyway. Abducting women and marrying them is the only thing I have heard about in those areas to be known as a custom. If you have some other info please share it.

 

[Bodin]

Amazons were simply warrior women and they existed based on history books, in fact, female warriors were found in Scythian grave sites, read this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=rOG5VcYxhiEC

The difference between east and west is not so small, heck, even differences between dialects within the same language can be quite large, let alone different languages from different branches?

I actually have a Kurdish friend who speaks the Kurmanji Kurdish dialect, we went to a shawerma place where the owner spoke the Sorani Kurdish dialect, I asked my friend to communicate with him in Kurdish, but he said he couldn't because they don't understand one another, so if two people who speak the same language cannot communicate due to different dialects, you really think two total different languages are gonna be understandable? Unless both sides know a common language, not a chance.

Speaking a language does not mean you're supposed to carry the genes of the people that brought the language, in Nigeria they speak English, but clearly they don't carry English genes, likewise in Cameroon they speak French, but once again they do not carry French genes, get it?

I don't care about Genghis Khan or Central Asia, I'm talking about Anatolia/Iran/Caucasus/Mesopotamia, etc, tribal groups did not rape, army did, of course I would not expect you to know this since you're not from this area nor do you know anything about it.

No Amazons were nation from Greek miths , they exsistence is not scientificaly proved
I wasnt speacking about Kurdish languague today I was speacking about west and east Iranian languague groups at that time
I know Serbs speack Slavic having only 5% of Slavic genes , there was some spreading of Sarmathian languague( mainly on HG G population) , but some of Sarmathians Alans use to live on Caucasus during Middle Ages - Alania
In many researches high G amongst Ossetians is explained by inter tribal rapes

 

[Ivan]

In many researches high G amongst Ossetians is explained by inter tribal rapes

Can you link me to some. I would really like to see it.

 

[Cobol19]

No Amazons were nation from Greek miths , they exsistence is not scientificaly proved
I wasnt speacking about Kurdish languague today I was speacking about west and east Iranian languague groups at that time
I know Serbs speack Slavic having only 5% of Slavic genes , there was some spreading of Sarmathian languague( mainly on HG G population) , but some of Sarmathians Alans use to live on Caucasus during Middle Ages - Alania
In many researches high G amongst Ossetians is explained by inter tribal rapes

Bodin, you seem to lack the knowledge in the subject of genetics, it's not called rape, it's called genetic drift, when people within the tribe intermarry one another, one lineage or two will likely be dominant, this is seen in other tribal people too, not just in the Caucasus.

As for the Amazons, I'm not talking about the Greek myths, I'm talking about the actual Scythian women warriors that existed, the term Amazon comes from the Iranian language which meant warriors.

 

[Goga]

Prove Amazons egzisted
There was realy small diference betwen west ( Scythian) and east ( Medae) languagues - they could easily understand each other - so for foreign writer ( Herodothus ) it could look as one of them speack " spoiled" ( or ancient) form of other languague .

Median is northwestern Iranic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_language

Scythian is eastern Iranic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_languages

 

[Goga]

Bodin, I thought a little bit about this and I came to the conclusion that I2 in Serbs is not Slavic at all. If it was Slavic, Slavs would carry also a lot of hg. N into the Balkans, since hg. N in Russia is much older than hg. I2!

The only possibility that I2 is not Sarmatian but South Slavic is if Russians are not Slavic.

So I think that it is true that Sarmatians are not a fiction and that Serbs are Sarmatians! I think that Serbs together with the Croats are actually the real (purest) Sarmantians, and othern East European nations are partly Sarmatians, partly Slavic, partly Greek etc.. Like Bulgarians, Macedonians, Slovenians, Romanians, Belarussians and even Hungarians.

I think that Sarmatians and Cimmerians were almost the same people and shared the same origin! Because they came in the historical accounts almost at the same time.

 

[sparkey]

Bodin, I thought a little bit about this and I came to the conclusion that I2 in Serbs is not Slavic at all. If it was Slavic, Slavs would carry also a lot of hg. N into the Balkans, since hg. N in Russia is much older than hg. I2!

The only possibility that I2 is not Sarmatian but South Slavic is if Russians are not Slavic.

Come now, that doesn't follow. Russian haplogroup N clearly has its highest frequencies in Northern Russia, and Russian I2a-Din has its highest frequencies in Southern Russia. Even if we don't think of I2a-Din levels in the Balkans as a case of genetic drift (which it almost certainly is), then at least we would expect the Slavs who came to the Balkans to have been from the Southern area of Slavic extent. That is, they would have been the Slavs who had more I2a-Din than N.

 

[Goga]

That is, they would have been the Slavs who had more I2a-Din than N.

Ok, but there's 0% of N in Croatia and only 2% of N in Serbia. If Slavic tribes from Russian moved into the Balkans I would expect much more N, around 10% or something.

(Slavic) N is just very rare in the Balkans. And there's also not so much R1a...

 

[Alan]

Median is northwestern Iranic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_language

Scythian is eastern Iranic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_languages

Now for the x time there is nothing we could connect to Median Language. The only Reason we know it existed are Persian records where some Median words are listed, surprisingly those words are very similar to Avesta (it is classified as Northeast Iranic). But there are zero sentence samples of it. No one really knows what kind of language Median was. Such Maps are based on the assumings of linguists. NorthWest-East division is based on very small factors which can change in time. Best example are the Parthians. Originally a Sycthian folk now classified as Northwest Iranic. How is that possible? And Wikipedia is the least source I would use.

 

[Goga]

Best example are the Parthians. Originally a Sycthian folk now classified as Northwest Iranic. How is that possible?

Very simple. The Avesta (Zoroastrian sacred texts) was written in a language very close to what the Parthians used.
The closests modernday Iranic language to Avestan language is the northwern Kurdish and I mean the Gorani-Zaza dialects. At the time when Parthians migrated from Central Asia into West Asia this language was already used by the Iranic tribes in West Iran (under the Caspian Sea).

 

[sparkey]

Ok, but there's 0% of N in Croatia and only 2% of N in Serbia. If Slavic tribes from Russian moved into the Balkans I would expect much more N, around 10% or something.

And you don't think it's possible that the N drifted away? We see the pattern of N levels: Russia 23%, Belarus 5%, Ukraine 5%, Serbia 2%. If you consider the pattern of decreasing N from North Russia to South Russia it looks about as expected for the Slavic expansion theory.

(Slavic) N is just very rare in the Balkans. And there's also not so much R1a...

Croatia is almost a third R1a. And wouldn't the Sarmatians have a lot of R1a anyway?