DNA from the Bronze Age Altai reveals signs of ancient admixture

You seem to be confusing the results from this Altaic find with the results from the Andronovo Culture. The results from Andronovo were 90% R1a and 60% blond haired and light eyed - very different results from these Altaic results, which suggest R1a migration eastward during the Bronze Age. And there is plenty of evidence of BMAC being heavily influenced by the Andronovo Culture.

From what I read , BMAC area is the origins of most of European Haplotypes ..............your reference would would be back-migrations to BMAC
 
Grugni et al. Gharbi region combined 109N. It would be interesting to test other adjacent areas to see if the results are similar.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041252
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041252

R*
R1*
R1b*
R1a1a*
R1b1a2*
R1b1a2a*



672px-West_Azerbaijan_in_Iran.svg.png

confirmation for my point. The origin of R1a* or even R* as a whole, somewhere between West and South_Central Asia, because those are the areas where all subclades of R* and R* itself have been found.

I am not disputing that maybe even most of Indo Europeans spread from the Eastern European steppes, but I am disputing that they were locals to this area and did not immigrate from further South.

I am also not disputing the possibility of a northern origin of Indo_Iranian speakers.
 
Grugni et al. Gharbi region combined 109N. It would be interesting to test other adjacent areas to see if the results are similar.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041252
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041252

R*
R1*
R1b*
R1a1a*
R1b1a2*
R1b1a2a*
Thank you very much for sharing this. You're one of the very few proud & honest people on sites like this! Very open minded, without having any mental barriers (issues) and dare to speak the truth.
 
From what I read , BMAC area is the origins of most of European Haplotypes ..............your reference would would be back-migrations to BMAC

So, you've found a published paper with DNA results from the testing of BMAC people who lived prior to those Andronovo folk? Please tell me the name(s) of the author(s) of this paper and the year it was published, so I can read it.

We both know that no such data exists. And no, the proto-Iranian migration into the BMAC area was not "back-migrations".
 
The egg is on Hitler's face now! He said that the Germans were the Aryan master race and the Slavs were the untermensch, but it turns out the Slavs are the Aryans! Hahaha, and he was an African himself, bahahaha. :embarassed::LOL:
 
The egg is on Hitler's face now! He said that the Germans were the Aryan master race and the Slavs were the untermensch, but it turns out the Slavs are the Aryans! Hahaha, and he was an African himself, bahahaha. :embarassed::LOL:

You're twisting the facts.

Aryan is what people back then called Indo Europeans. I am pretty sure there were German-supremacist movements in the late 1800s and early 1900s that claimed Indo European languages originated in Germanic lands and that Germans were full blooded Indo Europeans aka Aryans, while all other Indo European speakers were unpure. Indo Europeans were called Aryans, because that is what early Indo Iranians in India and Iran called themselves. If you go by the literally origin of the name neither Germans or Slaves have anything to do with Aryans.

Adolf Hitler was not African, he was probably genetically a typical Austrian. He belonged to Y DNA E1b1b1-M35 which makes means his paternal lineage in the Upper Palaeolithic was in east Africa but so what. His paternal lineage is probably descended of Neolithic European farmers, but we need to know his subclade to be for sure.
 
You guys miss interpret people who argue for a European origin as being Eurocentric. People are insulting you guys because they are getting fed up with your biased theories and refusal to acknowledge the evidence of a European origin of R1a Z93 and Indo Iranian languages, not because they hate west Asians. Both of you should look over this situation, not take insults on the internet so seriously(so you don't dis agree with someone just because they insulted you), and read the evidence again.



This debate was never about whether the early Indo Iranians of bronze age south and west Asia were light or dark pigmentated. It isn't the end of the world if R1a Z93 and Indo Iranian languages originated in European-looking people. There are many people even today in south-central Asia with radically differnt physical features like Indians and Tibetans, and they are very comfortable with this. Don't worry, the actions of pre historic people never or rarely had anything to to do with our culture's concept of race.

Studying history isn't about measuring the esteem of people groups. If you go far back enough almost every population has very unpure ancestry, the most traditional and popular parts of their culture even their ethnic identity comes from exotic(in their point of view) foreigners, and their history is full of many evil people and actions. Indo Iranian languages and R1a Z93 originating in people you see as foreign should not be so hard to accept, and does not destroy the integrity of Kurdish people.

Exactly, well said.
The evidence for an ultimate steppe origin of the Indo-Iranian folk is so overwhelming at this point, it's hard to imagine that anyone could make such an impassioned argument to the contrary for anything but emotional reasons, and it's just ridiculous to kick and scream against good science because of your misguided ethnic pride. Why should the fact that Z93 came to central Asia from the west undermine the heritage of the Kurds in any way? Implying that the mass of scientists studying this topic all have some kind of racialist agenda is a classic example of projection. Advocates of obsolete ideas and fringe theories almost always start imagining vast conspiracies when they've run out of valid arguments. It gets really annoying after awhile.
 
I thought there was evidence of Southern influence into the Yamnaya culture. Wasn't there more recently a study which said that the Kurgan burial system has it's roots somewhere in Mesopotamia or Northwestern Iran?

Kurgan people were darker skinned than modern people from that area, but not in the way Hunters and Gatherers were (very Dark skin + light eyes) but in the way that they likely had Olive like skin and mixed but mostly brown eyes?
There could have been some cultural influence from south through Caucasus. In southern part of steppe people ware darker than that from middle Volga. I doubt that it was Near Eastern influence, rather selective pressure for light features was weaker than in the north. Even today, Ukrainians shows some darker features then Poles, Byelorussians, Russians and Morvins.
BTW Remember that in Eurasian steppe there is no autochthonous people, everyone comes from somewhere else in last 1,5 thousand years, and in some areas in last 200 years.
He posted an old study which relied on STRs to measure variance. STRs are useless for that sort of thing, as we now know.

It seems we're having a discussion with some people who can't grasp the basics here...

1) All Near Eastern admixture in most of Europe (except Sicily) can be explained by early Neolithic farmers.

2) It's highly unlikely that early Neolithic farmers brought R1a to Europe.

3) Europeans have post-Neolithic ancestry from the Eastern European steppe which is related to the Mal'ta genome from Siberia, which belonged to Y-HG R.

4) Therefore, R1a arrived in Europe from the Eastern European steppe and has nothing whatsoever to do with any migration from the Near East into Europe at any stage.
My mistake, I intended to write STR not SNP, otherwise my statement would have no point.
3. I do not thing that population of European steppe was direct descendant of Mal'ta boy, because of admixture results. That Siberian population did not survive with its genetic composition, there had to be a lot of bottle necks. As we know there is no evidence of migration from Central Asia to Europe, but there are a lot of signs of migration from Anatolia to Balkans. I think that most of European genetic composition was established by migration from Anatolia.
4. Same thing with R1a; it could entered Europe some time from 25000 - 10 000 YBP from Anatolia, with higher probability for second date, because it's older subclades are not as common as other paleolithic haplogroups in Europe like I.
Kurdistan. In Kurdistan you can find everything, even the OLDEST types. There are in Kurdistan ancient types of R1a* like the subclade to which I do belong. There're also the European types (Z282/Z283variants) and Asian Z93 types and evolved Aryan/Iranian Z93 types, like mong Kurds and Persians. In Europe, there're no ancient Asian Z93 type at all, nor types that are older than West Asian one. In Europe R1a is VERY young (compared to the type I do belong and maybe even yonger than Z93 itself) and entered Europe in very recent times.
The oldest subclades positive only for M420 are also found in Great Britain and France, does it mean that Kurds migrated from Atlantic cost to Near East?:rolleyes:
 
I thought there was evidence of Southern influence into the Yamnaya culture. Wasn't there more recently a study which said that the Kurgan burial system has it's roots somewhere in Mesopotamia or Northwestern Iran?

Kurgan people were darker skinned than modern people from that area, but not in the way Hunters and Gatherers were (very Dark skin + light eyes) but in the way that they likely had Olive like skin and mixed but mostly brown eyes?

The Hunters and Gatherers were not "dark skin and light eyes", cro-magnons were all brown eyes and dark skins, if I don't do mistake, there are just one example, it's Labrana, and he has just 50% chance to have light eyes, he could have been also brown eyed. In my opinion, the presence of light eyes during the late mesolithic (5000BC) could be easily explained by the presence of IE in Europe (in the east part), and R1b was probably already present in the west part, remember Labrana was supposed to have "scandinavian genes" (sorry I don't remember the term), but he have been found in...Spain. I think to make generality with one case is not judicious imo.

For the recent kurgan peoples, Eurogenes has an interesting article and show some of the problems of the study (sorry I can't post the link), and why they has brown eyes and olive skins:

"Surprisingly, the article doesn't mention Keyser et al. 2009, a very important study which showed that a sample of Kurgan nomads from Bronze and Iron Age South Siberia had frequencies of light hair and eyes comparable to those of present-day Northern and Eastern Europeans. Also worth noting is that the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup among these individuals was R1a, which is today the most frequent haplogroup in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine. What this suggests to me is that the Kurgan cultural horizon was not genetically homogeneous. I suspect that Kurgan groups closer to the Balkans carried significantly higher levels of Near Eastern Neolithic farmer ancestry, and were thus much darker than those in the more temperate northerly regions. However, it seems that at some point, the Neolithic farmer DNA was diluted enough by continuous movements of light pigmented groups from the north and east, possibly made up mostly of males, that there was a major shift in pigmentation traits from Near Eastern-like to Northern European-like across most of Eastern Europe. This scenario actually fits very nicely with the latest on the genetic origins of Europeans."

And if I remember correctly, we don't have the Haplogroup Y of these study, so it's not really complete (they could have been mixed).

For the physical aspect of the original IE, imho, that very clear, between all the examples we have, the Andronovo peoples, the Scythians, the Tocharians, the Yuezhi, and the IE of Europe; well they were all, physically europeans, with light hairs and eyes; we have a big majority of IE with these physical features that the opposites, despite that these IE peoples were geographically separate since 1000 years for some of them (sorry for my english).

Except that, thank you very much for ebAmerican and Mattbir for to post the historical facts by archeologists expert, that don't let the place to speculation imho, and thank you also for Polako for your great posts.
 
So, you've found a published paper with DNA results from the testing of BMAC people who lived prior to those Andronovo folk? Please tell me the name(s) of the author(s) of this paper and the year it was published, so I can read it.

We both know that no such data exists. And no, the proto-Iranian migration into the BMAC area was not "back-migrations".

Archeology my friend is what counts............DNA is too confusing for even the experts, they do not even know which haplogroups traveled together , they even name haplogroups in complete illogical forms..............as an example, they name some markers ashkenazi when this ashkenazi is only 4000 years old and the DNA that they talk about it is 8000 years old ...is that logical!

read this 2013 finding for Oxus civilizations or as some call it BMAC

http://www.uam.es/otros/cupauam/pdf/Cupauam39/3902.pdf
 
Impossible, everything is different. archeology, art, way of life, origin/history. Also R1a folks in the Norhern EurAsia were partly Mongoloid as we can see in the first post, full of Y-DNA hg. Q, N1c, and C.
people in BMAC were evolved 'Iranic'/'Aryan' what means that they belonged to much other haplogroups, like Central Asian hg. R2, and West Asian R1a and J2a.


I think you missed the part where Aberdeen posted that you are mixing up Bronze age Andronovo with Bronze Age Altais. Bronze Age Andronovo had 95% West Eurasian Haplogroups and was almost fully West Eurasian autosomally. They were basically West Eurasian. So that Andronovo must have been heavily "East Eurasian" admixed is not an argument at all.
 
Last edited:
You're twisting the facts.

Aryan is what people back then called Indo Europeans. I am pretty sure there were German-supremacist movements in the late 1800s and early 1900s that claimed Indo European languages originated in Germanic lands and that Germans were full blooded Indo Europeans aka Aryans, while all other Indo European speakers were unpure. Indo Europeans were called Aryans, because that is what early Indo Iranians in India and Iran called themselves. If you go by the literally origin of the name neither Germans or Slaves have anything to do with Aryans.

Adolf Hitler was not African, he was probably genetically a typical Austrian. He belonged to Y DNA E1b1b1-M35 which makes means his paternal lineage in the Upper Palaeolithic was in east Africa but so what. His paternal lineage is probably descended of Neolithic European farmers, but we need to know his subclade to be for sure.

And you are doing it the self way. Aryans WAS Never the self designation for all Indo_Europeans, nor was it a synonym for the Indo European language family. It pretty much became so with racialist ideas becoming more popular in Europe.
Aryan != Indo European
 
Last edited:
The oldest subclades positive only for M420 are also found in Great Britain and France, does it mean that Kurds migrated from Atlantic cost to Near East?:rolleyes:

But contrary to Atlantic coast, you can find R* and R1* in all the way between Kurdistan and Kalash. ;)
 
Archeology my friend is what counts............DNA is too confusing for even the experts, they do not even know which haplogroups traveled together , they even name haplogroups in complete illogical forms..............as an example, they name some markers ashkenazi when this ashkenazi is only 4000 years old and the DNA that they talk about it is 8000 years old ...is that logical!

read this 2013 finding for Oxus civilizations or as some call it BMAC

http://www.uam.es/otros/cupauam/pdf/Cupauam39/3902.pdf

Since you seem to think that DNA can tell us nothing, I'm surprised you're on this forum.

That paper isn't a research paper. It's a review of research papers others have published, and a critique that seems to be arguing that because BMAC wasn't created by IE folk, we can forget about the possibility of IE influence. But the author mentions the militarization of BMAC settlements at the start of the Bronze Age, and the presence of Andronovo style pottery and horses during the Bronze Age. All of which fits with the prevailing idea of BMAC as an existing civilization that was impacted by the Iranian migrations from further north.
 
But contrary to Atlantic coast, you can find R* and R1* in all the way between Kurdistan and Kalash. ;)

Which proves that R* and R1* either originated in that general area or eventually found its way there. But, given date estimated dates for when R* and R1* emerged, that doesn't really tell us anything about the direction of Bronze Age IE migrations, does it? If the ancestors of the IE folk lived in that area thousands of years prior to the Bronze Age, that doesn't make them proto-IE folk because the time gap is too great. When I argue that Iranian or Proto-Iranians invaded the area that is now modern Iran during the Bronze Age, I'm not precluding the idea that they could have had some very distant cousins still living there. I think it's rather likely, but I also think it's irrelevant in terms of where the Bronze Age IE culture originated from.
 
Since you seem to think that DNA can tell us nothing, I'm surprised you're on this forum.

DNA is all assumptions, can we ever have a defining accurate result? . Unless you marry archeology into DNA results, you have "fiction"

DNA is best for oneself , to find one's ancestral line,

People never migrated as 1 or 2 DNA types, they migrated in many many types.............no-one has a clue of how many haplotypes there were representing any known ancient culture
 
I think you missed the part where Aberdeen posted that you are mixing up Bronze age Andronovo with Bronze Age Altais. Bronze Age Andronovo had 95% West Eurasian Haplogroups and was almost fully West Eurasian autosomally. They were basically West Eurasian. So that Andronovo must have been heavily "East Eurasian" admixed is not an argument at all.

define what West Eurasian means for you ..........................is it west-asian and ?

what about the semitic south-west asian group that moved from south to north ..........didn't they get partly absorbed into european mix
 
define what West Eurasian means for you ..........................is it west-asian and ?

what about the semitic south-west asian group that moved from south to north ..........didn't they get partly absorbed into european mix
The semitic south west Asian groups were the kurds and assyrians
 
Which proves that R* and R1* either originated in that general area or eventually found its way there. But, given date estimated dates for when R* and R1* emerged, that doesn't really tell us anything about the direction of Bronze Age IE migrations, does it? If the ancestors of the IE folk lived in that area thousands of years prior to the Bronze Age, that doesn't make them proto-IE folk because the time gap is too great. When I argue that Iranian or Proto-Iranians invaded the area that is now modern Iran during the Bronze Age, I'm not precluding the idea that they could have had some very distant cousins still living there. I think it's rather likely, but I also think it's irrelevant in terms of where the Bronze Age IE culture originated from.


Thats what I said, I never denied the possibility that the Indo_Iranian branch has a northern Steppe origin. The Indo_Iranian branch might have originated more northern together with the Balto_Slavic branch but this doesn't exclude the possibility that other branches of Indo European or even the Proto Indo Europeans (from which the Indo_Iranian and Balto_Slavs evolved) came from further South.

My theory is that from Western Asia agroup moved into the Northern Caucasus/European Steppes. from this group the Indo_Iranian,Thracian and Balto_slavic branch might have evolved, while another group moved through the Balkans and became the Illyrians, Phrygian and Celtic branch.
 

This thread has been viewed 62401 times.

Back
Top