PDA

View Full Version : If hg. IJ folks were Cro-magnon who were R* folks?



Goga
08-11-11, 19:16
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8264/cromagnon.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon


So I'm almost certain that Cro-Magnon were hg. IJ folks. But R* folks belong absolutely to a different lineage. What kind of species were that Homo sapiens?

Both native Europeans (hg. I1 & I2 folks) and native Middle Easterns (hg. J1 & J2 folks) were all descendants of Cro-Magnon, but who was the new newcomer that had R* lineage and migrated into West Eurasia?

sparkey
08-11-11, 23:22
I agree that Cro-Magnons almost certainly carried some IJ in their population, and that modern Haplogroup I is probably a descendant of that. I doubt, though, that Haplogroup J is descended from Cro-Magnons... Haplogroup J is probably descended from a different IJ carrying population.

R*, meanwhile, would have been very Asian in the Paleolithic. Pinpointing exactly where they were is more complicated, but older forms of R1a, R1b, and R2 help give us an understanding. I'm not familiar enough with the Asian Paleolithic to cite specific archaeological cultures that would have been R* dominant, though.

Goga
08-11-11, 23:45
I just read this on wiki and according to me it's even possible that Crog-Magnon belonged to hg. IJK. So it is also possible that all haplogroups from IJK are from Cro-Magnon! Hg. G is from the Caucasus and is older than Cro-Magnon folks. So this Homo sapien haplogroup was in Western Eurasia even before the Cro-Magnon! Hg. E is also NOT from Cro-Magnon.


It is even possible that not only IJ (I* and J*) but also hg. 'R', 'N', 'T' & 'Q' ARE actually also
descendants of Cro-Magnon folks! And that only hg. G and E are different lineages!

Maciamo made this tree.
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/4733/unledlas.jpg

"A 2003 sequencing on the mitochondrial DNA of two Cro-Magnons (23,000-year-old Paglicci 52 and 24,720-year-old Paglicci 12) published by an Italo-Spanish research team led by David Caramelli, identified the mtDNA as Haplogroup N.[22] Haplogroup N is found among modern populations of Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, and represent the northern branch of the out-of-Africa migration of modern humans. Its descendant haplogroups are found among modern North African, Eurasian, Polynesian and Native American populations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

sparkey
09-11-11, 00:03
I just read this on wiki and according to me it's even possible that Crog-Magnon belonged to hg. IJK.

Yes, IJK is another possibility, as is F*, and some others, but since these don't have obvious modern descendants, they're less clear than IJ.


So it is also possible that all haplogroups from IJK are from Cro-Magnon!

"Possible" but I'd put the odds at infinitesimal. The centers of diversity for both modern J and modern K are very Asian. If one day we find some K* or similar in Cro-Magnon remains, it will almost certainly be a now-extinct branch.


It is even possible that not only IJ (I* and J*) but also hg. 'R', 'N', 'T' & 'Q' ARE actually also
descendants of Cro-Magnon folks! And that only hg. G and E are different lineages!

Where do you place the center of diversity of all of these supposedly Cro-Magnon lineages? Do you agree that the center of diversity is the best indicator of the point of origin?


"A 2003 sequencing on the mitochondrial DNA of two Cro-Magnons (23,000-year-old Paglicci 52 and 24,720-year-old Paglicci 12) published by an Italo-Spanish research team led by David Caramelli, identified the mtDNA as Haplogroup N.[22] Haplogroup N is found among modern populations of Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, and represent the northern branch of the out-of-Africa migration of modern humans. Its descendant haplogroups are found among modern North African, Eurasian, Polynesian and Native American populations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

The Caramelli studies weren't all that useful, unfortunately. They gave one mtDNA N with some certainty and two questionable results that could have been HV, but with little certainty. Paleolithic mtDNA is still a little sketchy, but it looks like Cro-Magnons probably had an array of haplogroups that included U, N, and maybe HV and R0. The Mesolilthic appears to correspond with an expansion of U and, on a smaller scale, H. See Jean Manco (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml).

That all says little about Y-DNA, though, or your theory about Cro-Magnon origin of all major IJK lineages.

Goga
09-11-11, 00:26
I'm a very simple person so I do think very simple. IF IJK was part of (Proto)-Cro-Magnon folks, all haplogroups that evolved from IJK are actually descendants of Cro-Magnon. So next haplogroups all evolved from IJK: 'I', 'J', 'R', 'N', 'T' and 'Q'. So that's was I assume that these haplogorups are from Cro-Magnon. All these haplogroups are from the same lineage.

While there is also a possibility that hg. 'E' was part of Qafzeh hominids. According to wiki they the Qafzeh humans seem to have co-existed with Neanderthals for up to 60 000 years in the Levant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnons

Here is a Qafzeh skull from the Levant!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebel_Qafzeh_remains

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Qafzeh.JPG

Goga
09-11-11, 00:29
They found a VERY old hominid skull in Georgia!

"A skull that rewrites the history of man. It has long been agreed that Africa was the sole cradle of human evolution. Then these bones were found in Georgia..."

http://www.independent.co.uk/migration_catalog/article5166785.ece/ALTERNATES/w380/pg-1-skull.jpeg


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html

sparkey
09-11-11, 00:37
IF IJK was part of (Proto)-Cro-Magnon folks, that all haplogourps that evolved from IJK are actually decendats of Cro-Magnon.And of the next haplogroups evolved from IJK: 'I', 'J', 'R', 'N', 'T' and 'Q'. So that's was I assume that these haplogorups are from Cro-Magnon. All these haplogroups are from the same lineage.

It would follow that all IJK were descended from Cro-Magnon if the claim was that the IJK MRCA was Cro-Magnon. But the IJK MRCA was probably pre-Cro-Magnon. Hence only one surviving branch of IJK is likely to have descended from Cro-Magnon.

Goga
09-11-11, 00:55
Hm Ok, but why do you think that Cro-Magnon only migrated into Europe and not to other parts of the world?

Btw, Cro-Magnon was together with the Neanderthals not the only hominid in Europe the so called Grimaldi Man with 'African' features lived also in Europe! Maybe that this Grimaldi Man belonged to a proto haplogroup of the European hg. 'E'!

Ancient Grimaldi fella (with AFRICAN features) from Italy!

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2383/grimaldi.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/theadventurouseye/sets/72157626333072663/detail/?page=3

http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceout.gif

sparkey
09-11-11, 00:59
Hm Ok, but why do you think that Cro-Magnon only migrated into Europe and not to other parts of the world?

Well, "Cro-Magnon" usually refers exclusively to those anatomically modern humans who migrated into Europe, not their cousins who remained in Asia. If by "Cro-Magnon" you mean "Paleolithic Europeans and their close cousins" I think you're mostly right in your analysis of IJK. But otherwise you need backmigrations and a subsequent bottleneck in Europe, which is making the picture more complicated than it is likely to have been.

Goga
09-11-11, 01:04
Well, "Cro-Magnon" usually refers exclusively to those anatomically modern humans who migrated into Europe, not their cousins who remained in Asia. If by "Cro-Magnon" you mean "Paleolithic Europeans and their close cousins" I think you're mostly right in your analysis of IJK. But otherwise you need backmigrations and a subsequent bottleneck in Europe, which is making the picture more complicated than it is likely to have been.Ok, but what if the original Cro-Magnon was IJ and evolved in Europe into hg. I and the same original Cro-Magnon of hg. IJ (NOT his cousin, but his brother or son) evolved into hg. J in the Middle East? Haplogroups I and J are actually very very close to each other!

sparkey
09-11-11, 01:26
Ok, but what if the original Cro-Magnon was IJ and evolved in Europe into hg. I and the same original Cro-Magnon of hg. IJ (NOT his cousin, but his brother or son) evolved into hg. J in the Middle East? Haplogroups I and J are actually very very close to each other!

I've already said that I doubt it, mainly because the center of diversity of J, and hence the likely point of origin of J, is in Asia. So for J to have a direct ancestor who passed through Europe, it requires an odd geographic wandering that's just not a good default assumption. The best assumption is that they remained in the Middle East.

Tell you what, if a study finds true J* or obvious pre-J (as in, IJ with a majority of J SNPs present and the right haplotype) that shows direct continuation with modern J in Paleolithic Europe, I'll bump this discussion and encourage everybody to give you lots of +rep, because it will have been something that nobody but you saw coming. Just don't count on that ever happening...

zanipolo
09-11-11, 03:02
Hm Ok, but why do you think that Cro-Magnon only migrated into Europe and not to other parts of the world?

Btw, Cro-Magnon was together with the Neanderthals not the only hominid in Europe the so called Grimaldi Man with 'African' features lived also in Europe! Maybe that this Grimaldi Man belonged to a proto haplogroup of the European hg. 'E'!

Ancient Grimaldi fella (with AFRICAN features) from Italy!

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2383/grimaldi.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/theadventurouseye/sets/72157626333072663/detail/?page=3

http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceout.gif

This Grimaldi family are OOLLDDD, ancient, rulers of the Republic of Genoa in the middle ages and now princes of Monaco.
Maybe we need to tap into their DNA :laughing: and find the Neanderthal truth

Mzungu mchagga
09-11-11, 12:07
This Grimaldi family are OOLLDDD, ancient, rulers of the Republic of Genoa in the middle ages and now princes of Monaco.
Maybe we need to tap into their DNA :laughing: and find the Neanderthal truth

I already saw it coming... :laughing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGIxihIHPEk&feature=related

Stunning similiarities!

Kardu
09-11-11, 12:35
This Grimaldi family are OOLLDDD, ancient, rulers of the Republic of Genoa in the middle ages and now princes of Monaco.
Maybe we need to tap into their DNA :laughing: and find the Neanderthal truth
Good one :)

Goga
09-11-11, 15:43
I've already said that I doubt it, mainly because the center of diversity of J, and hence the likely point of origin of J, is in Asia. So for J to have a direct ancestor who passed through Europe, it requires an odd geographic wandering that's just not a good default assumption. The best assumption is that they remained in the Middle East.

Tell you what, if a study finds true J* or obvious pre-J (as in, IJ with a majority of J SNPs present and the right haplotype) that shows direct continuation with modern J in Paleolithic Europe, I'll bump this discussion and encourage everybody to give you lots of +rep, because it will have been something that nobody but you saw coming. Just don't count on that ever happening...Of course is hg. J an Asian haplogroup, like hg. IJ was! I'm not saying that hg. J is from Europe. I'm just saying that the father of gh. J* (hg. IJ) entered Europe!

According to Eupedia hg. 'I' is only 25,000 years old. While proto-Cro-Magnon hominids entered Europe maybe 35,000 years ago. The earliest European cave paintings date to the Aurignacian, some 32,000 years ago! So it is impossible that they were already hg. 'I' folks when they entered Europe! So the probability is big that these 'cave painters' were still hg. IJ folks. And hg. IJ is from Asia.

Aurignacian cave painting:

http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/71/6071-004-5744D672.jpg

Fom the Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc Cave:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Chauvethorses.jpg/220px-Chauvethorses.jpg

Also according to me Cro-Magnon entered INTO Europe and not evolved (mutated) to a Cro-Magnon species IN Europe. Sure maybe they mutated into a different type in Europe, but they came all from Asia!

Haplogroup IJK is probably 45,000 years old. IF the Cro-Magnon that entred Europe at the firtst place were hg. IJK folks that would mean that R* is actuallty also a Cro-Magnon haplogroup!

But if that was not the case then haplogroup IJK, later NOP -} P* -} R* all mated with the different hominids before the came to Europe! But my question is who were these R* folks. And with what kind of hominid species did they mated?

Goga
09-11-11, 15:48
This Chauvet hyena panther painting is at least 29,000 years old! It was painted by Cro-Magnon folks.

http://www.originsnet.org/upgallery1animals/images/h)chauvethyena.jpg

Goga
09-11-11, 16:07
Btw it's possible that when hg. IJ entered Europe that it mated with the Neanderthals and Grimaldi hominids and that's how we got hg. 'I*'.

While hg. IJ in West Asia mated also with the the Neanderthals but NOT with Grimaldi hominids but with Caucasian hominids! That's how we got hg. J*

sparkey
10-11-11, 19:00
Of course is hg. J an Asian haplogroup, like hg. IJ was! I'm not saying that hg. J is from Europe. I'm just saying that the father of gh. J* (hg. IJ) entered Europe!

According to Eupedia hg. 'I' is only 25,000 years old. While proto-Cro-Magnon hominids entered Europe maybe 35,000 years ago. The earliest European cave paintings date to the Aurignacian, some 32,000 years ago! So it is impossible that they were already hg. 'I' folks when they entered Europe! So the probability is big that these 'cave painters' were still hg. IJ folks. And hg. IJ is from Asia.

I agree that Cro-Magnons probably carried IJ for the same reason you think they did, but more populations would have carried IJ than just Cro-Magnons, including some Asian cousins of theirs. You're still not presenting a compelling argument for why the pre-J branch of IJ were Cro-Magnons rather than Asian cousins.


Haplogroup IJK is probably 45,000 years old. IF the Cro-Magnon that entred Europe at the firtst place were hg. IJK folks that would mean that R* is actuallty also a Cro-Magnon haplogroup!

It also wouldn't follow that R* have Cro-Magnon ancestors if we found IJK in a Cro-Magnon population. I would still suspect that R* (and the K branch as a whole) simply evolved from an Asian cousin.


Btw it's possible that when hg. IJ entered Europe that it mated with the Neanderthals and Grimaldi hominids and that's how we got hg. 'I*'.

While hg. IJ in West Asia mated also with the the Neanderthals but NOT with Grimaldi hominids but with Caucasian hominids! That's how we got hg. J*

...huh? Are you suggesting that Y-DNA mutates based on autosomal DNA? And that we wouldn't have a Y-DNA haplogroup tree without such an effect? Because that doesn't really make sense. We get I* and J* branching off of IJ regardless of who the carrier populations mated with. If we observe a separation and different mating patterns with non-Sapiens and other Sapiens populations, it's due to geographic isolation. I think that's what we're seeing with the split between I* and J*.

MOESAN
10-11-11, 23:46
So I'm almost certain that Cro-Magnon were hg. IJ folks. But R* folks belong absolutely to a different lineage. What kind of species were that Homo sapiens?

Both native Europeans (hg. I1 & I2 folks) and native Middle Easterns (hg. J1 & J2 folks) were all descendants of Cro-Magnon, but who was the new newcomer that had R* lineage and migrated into West Eurasia?

as said yet by someones, it would be necessary to know what is 'Cro-Magnon' man: for somebody it's every paleolithic man or every european paleolithic man. But paleolithic men was diverse, there was more than a lineage. When I say (without trying to do a rule for the others) Cro-magnon, I say a phenotype that was found in Perigord Dordogne France before the LGM, with a serie of very homogene others phenotypes very close to him and forming a family with him. The Grimaldi people seam to have been a close population but more heterogene and with some negroid traits ON SOME OF THEM. The French CHARLES thought it was a variety of Cro-magnoid with some negroid details that came to Europe form Egypt or near Egypt. It could be either negroid admixture or features kept in a phenotype not completely evolved on the way to Cro-Magnon. The 'negroidism' depends on the specimen choosed to establish the paradygme -
But in the vicinity of well definite Cro-Magnon phenotypes lived also other phenotypes very different in features, (I 've in mind the Brünn and Combe-Capelle types that had maybe evolved in descendants differents from those of Cro-Magnon, brachycephalized or not). the only common point being the robustness of skeletons. It's sure for me that is was yet distinct lineages separated for a long time that met back in France at this time (not a douzen!!!). The same in Germany and Bohem (Brno/Brünn), where crossings became common. What is a pity is that they all won the name of 'cro-magnoid' even when they didn't share any immediate relationship.
I hold that it remain some almost unchanged descendants of the former form of Cro-magnon (the precise type of Perigord), just a litlle gracilized, not too much, and tha they are to be found in Wales and in general from the the Atlantic coasts to the North Sea coast, even if they could be found somwhere else. That 's not to say there are not other evolved descendants of Cro-magnon (someones looked at them as 'Borrebys') living side by side with them today. some occidental pseudo-'mediterranean' types too could be far cousins to these 'borrebys' , with a opposite evolution in a different environment, on 20 years.
coming back to HG's, I keep on option the possibility that some Y-I (ancestors of the precise Y-I2a1:Sardinia, Spain, Atlantic Coasts) was perhaps living in Western Europe not too far from some Y-R1b (close to R-P312 or not too far upstream) present here and there at low numbers (preventing the next mutations that 'll came far after) before the LGM and a first demographic explosion.

for metrics, the 'danubian' pseudo-mediterranean' type is far as a whole from these 'grimaldi' types, and closer to the ethiopian types, diminished and evolved (Chamitic? Y-E1b?) - these last are very far form the true negroid phenotypes and closer to Arabs mediterraneans for I know-
The same reasonment can accept the possibility of others Y-I (ancestors of Y-I1, Y-I2a2, I2b and scattered too) between Bohem and Ukraina, maybe the Eastern Caspian shores, and in the Eatsern Europe or Caucasus r from some Y-R1b (upstream to the central Europe derivees, cousins stayed there): we are too sure of a homogene geographic block of descendants of a same lineage on a long scale of time.
just some speculations and with respect
M

sparkey
11-11-11, 00:06
we are too sure of a homogene geographic block of descendants of a same lineage on a long scale of time.
just some speculations and with respect
M

I don't think that the fact that "Cro-Magnon" defines several different groups of heterogeneous people is a challenge to the obvious conclusions about Y-DNA, though. Because, regardless, Haplogroup I remains the only obvious modern Y-DNA descendant of Cro-Magnon.

If we finally manage to get a study done with several quality Y-DNA samples from Cro-Magnons (whichever subgroup), I fully expect them to have an array of haplogroups, probably including things like now-extinct branches of F, IJK, and C, in addition to IJ.

Personally I'm going to stay away from extrapolating Cro-Magnon phenotypes based on modern populations... too inexact a science, if you ask me.

Alan
11-11-11, 15:29
Personally I'm going to stay away from extrapolating Cro-Magnon phenotypes based on modern populations... too inexact a science, if you ask me.

do you think this persons might have Cro-Magnon phenotypes.
http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3457/awazeciyaxezal03kq7.jpg
(http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3457/awazeciyaxezal03kq7.jpg)http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/items/cache/7faf56e5874604be96ba8fa8c4e07ea4_XL.jpg
(http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/items/cache/7faf56e5874604be96ba8fa8c4e07ea4_XL.jpg)http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/galleries/479/serxwebun_ahmet_okur_2.jpg[/URL]
[URL="http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/galleries/479/serxwebun_ahmet_okur_2.jpg"]
(http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/items/cache/7faf56e5874604be96ba8fa8c4e07ea4_XL.jpg)

(http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/items/cache/7faf56e5874604be96ba8fa8c4e07ea4_XL.jpg)

spongetaro
11-11-11, 16:04
I agree that Cro-Magnons almost certainly carried some IJ in their population, and that modern Haplogroup I is probably a descendant of that. I doubt, though, that Haplogroup J is descended from Cro-Magnons... Haplogroup J is probably descended from a different IJ carrying population.

R*, meanwhile, would have been very Asian in the Paleolithic. Pinpointing exactly where they were is more complicated, but older forms of R1a, R1b, and R2 help give us an understanding. I'm not familiar enough with the Asian Paleolithic to cite specific archaeological cultures that would have been R* dominant, though.

Are Amerindians and Siberians considered Cro magnon too? Since R* evolved from QR and that most Amerindian people have haplogroup Q, the original R* people might have a look similar to that of the Siberians and Northern Amerindian with slight asian features.


If R* people had slight asian features, the europoid features can only come from IJ.
R1a and R1b people mix heavily with native anatolian and European people (as seen by mtdna of present day european) and might thus have lost their slight asian features.

Alan
11-11-11, 16:24
Are Amerindians and Siberians considered Cro magnon too? Since R* evolved from QR and that most Amerindian people have haplogroup Q, the original R* people might have a look similar to that of the Siberians and Northern Amerindian with slight asian features.


If R* people had slight asian features, the europoid features can only come from IJ.
R1a and R1b people mix heavily with native anatolian and European people (as seen by mtdna of present day european) and might thus have lost their slight asian features.

Haplogroup Q-M25 seems more like a Caucasian Haplogroup with similarities to East Asian phenotypes. Beside that The R lineages seem to be a fully Caucasian Haplogroup with ties to East Asians. Considering that R and Q both have the same parent, Hg P.

Knovas
11-11-11, 17:03
I'm not sure about K being possible Cro-Magnon. Anyways, Siberian and Amerindian haplogroups have the center of diversity so far from the Cro-Magnon influence, nobody would follow to consider them Cro-Magnons. No way sorry, I don't see it.

Only Europe, West Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, seem to had very important Cro-Magnon presence. Then, only IJ appears as the most obvious option for a huge influence in the most remote antiquity. The rest it's very difficult to say, and it's more likely to discard it.

sparkey
11-11-11, 18:21
do you think this persons might have Cro-Magnon phenotypes.
http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3457/awazeciyaxezal03kq7.jpg
(http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3457/awazeciyaxezal03kq7.jpg)http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/items/cache/7faf56e5874604be96ba8fa8c4e07ea4_XL.jpg
(http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/items/cache/7faf56e5874604be96ba8fa8c4e07ea4_XL.jpg)http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/galleries/479/serxwebun_ahmet_okur_2.jpg

Not sure, that's not my specialty. We mostly just have bone shape to go by, which tells us a bit about their face shape and stature. I don't know if we also have data on other Cro-Magnon phenotypes, like complexion. I'm fairly sure they had dark eyes and hair.

sparkey
11-11-11, 18:23
Are Amerindians and Siberians considered Cro magnon too? Since R* evolved from QR and that most Amerindian people have haplogroup Q, the original R* people might have a look similar to that of the Siberians and Northern Amerindian with slight asian features.

Under Goga's theory, you could say that Amerindians have Cro-Magnon ancestors. But I don't know of anyone but Goga who holds this at the moment. Knovas put it well.

spongetaro
11-11-11, 18:33
Under Goga's theory, you could say that Amerindians have Cro-Magnon ancestors. But I don't know of anyone but Goga who holds this at the moment. Knovas put it well.

But what does Cro Magnon eventually mean in terms of physical features?

sparkey
11-11-11, 18:35
But what does Cro Magnon eventually mean in terms of physical features?

Since when has "Cro-Magnon" been defined in terms of physical features? It basically means "European Paleolithic Homo Sapiens," especially the earlier/more western ones. I suppose Cro-Magnon physical features can be any that are common among that population.

MOESAN
12-11-11, 00:37
what science??? Does anthropological science exists after all?
As every HG is born by an older HG, even the naming of the big macro-HG is ridiculous!
why R or Q or P or A orL or...?
why not A1, A2, A1b3c1f13..........................x25 in place of R1b, for example (A for all the Human Beings)
it's true that someones are closer between them an others excluded of the considered cluster
I agree that Cro-Magnon is a vaste cultural-temporal naming that can have included more than one of these ARBITRARY NAMED HG's (men HG's only)

but i'm right when, letting the HG's and HT's I examine the existance of true well studied phenotypes created by true biallelic autosomals, and we are sure they lived in the region that gave its name to the prototype: the very big differences between them and others types found in the same regions (same way of life, same natural environment) could be caused by ancient separations of lineages - I'm aware that it will be very hard to make bridges between haplogroups and phenotypes (for the nature of their different sensibility to selection (I'm not a two weeks old rabbit) - the phenotype a choosed for Cro-M. paradygm is not the first arrived there, maybe... It was just to think about possible yet differentiated lineages -(no more a community: Cro-magnon is for me a too unprecise term - Let's say Paleolithic of the ... Culture.

It is no more possible to speak of present days phenotypical Cro-M's homogene population in Wales or elsewhere, BUT YOU CAN see people that indivdually carry some of the unchanged features of their ancestors on their own faces, an more or less according to the region!!! and they are more dense in some regions... But that part of my post was for the people who have eyes, not an effort trying to link a determined HG to a determined phenotype
just to question and bet, not to affirm as a scholars (they affirm and do a lot of errors themselves)
all is OK

MOESAN
12-11-11, 00:44
do you think this persons might have Cro-Magnon phenotypes.
http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3457/awazeciyaxezal03kq7.jpg
(http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3457/awazeciyaxezal03kq7.jpg)http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/items/cache/7faf56e5874604be96ba8fa8c4e07ea4_XL.jpg
(http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/items/cache/7faf56e5874604be96ba8fa8c4e07ea4_XL.jpg)http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/galleries/479/serxwebun_ahmet_okur_2.jpg

(http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/galleries/479/serxwebun_ahmet_okur_2.jpg)

(http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/items/cache/7faf56e5874604be96ba8fa8c4e07ea4_XL.jpg)

just to play!!!
the first: not my local precise Cro-Magnon NOT AT ALL : opposite features
the two others seam to present some common features with my 'local' one, (the second more than the third, even with a tatse of brachycephalization: a German?).
good night
but as a rule my 'local' has a shorter face, a bit larger too

sparkey
12-11-11, 01:11
As every HG is born by an older HG, even the naming of the big macro-HG is ridiculous!
why R or Q or P or A orL or...?
why not A1, A2, A1b3c1f13..........................x25 in place of R1b, for example (A for all the Human Beings)
it's true that someones are closer between them an others excluded of the considered cluster

That's sort of off topic, but I don't have a problem with arbitrarily giving shorthand names to haplogroups at certain points in the haplogroup tree. If you prefer, instead of "Cro-Magnons had Haplogroup IJ" we could redo the tree with only "A" and say "Cro-Magnons had Haplogroup A1b3b1b3a," and it would mean the same thing.

Hey, that would make my haplogroup A1b3b1b3a1b3... I think I'll stick with "I2c." See, shorthand is useful.


It was just to think about possible yet differentiated lineages -(no more a community: Cro-magnon is for me a too unprecise term - Let's say Paleolithic of the ... Culture.

I think you're exploring a different question than the rest of us, and for our question, "Cro-Magnon" is sufficient, because the answer would be the same for all the different Cro-Magnon populations, based on what we know now.

For phenotypes, it may be more useful to define the different groups, yes, and draw distinctions between their bone structure.

Goga
12-11-11, 02:16
do you think this persons might have Cro-Magnon phenotypes.
http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3457/awazeciyaxezal03kq7.jpg
(http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3457/awazeciyaxezal03kq7.jpg)http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/items/cache/7faf56e5874604be96ba8fa8c4e07ea4_XL.jpg
(http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/items/cache/7faf56e5874604be96ba8fa8c4e07ea4_XL.jpg)http://hpg-sehit.com/media/k2/galleries/479/serxwebun_ahmet_okur_2.jpg
Why do you involve modern humans into this discussion?

The thing with the ancient Cro-Magnon is that they got a very distinguish jawline and they got a very 'characteristic' chin! And not a protruded teeth / mouth area (African feature) if you know what I mean.

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/5237/cromagnon3.jpg

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/571/cromagnonsideskull.jpg



http://www.donsmaps.com/cromagnon.html


Btw, those Kurds look very Irano-Nordid to me! Big long faces, big jawlines and a 'characteristic' chins!

Goga
12-11-11, 02:24
Cro-Magnon vs. Grimaldi fella with African features from South Europe.

Cro-Magnon
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/5237/cromagnon3.jpg

Grimaldi fella
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2383/grimaldi.jpg

Goga
12-11-11, 04:37
This is probably how a real Cro-Magnon fella looked like. With dark skin.

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2517/cromagnonmens.jpg

Alan
12-11-11, 04:41
just to play!!!
the first: not my local precise Cro-Magnon NOT AT ALL : opposite features
the two others seam to present some common features with my 'local' one, (the second more than the third, even with a tatse of brachycephalization: a German?).
good night
but as a rule my 'local' has a shorter face, a bit larger too

Sorry dont understand what you mean with your local. He is not German they are Kurds.

Alan
12-11-11, 04:45
Why do you involve modern humans into this discussion?



read the quotes. Sparkey wrote that he doesent thinks their might be still phenotypes which can be connect to ancient cro-magnons. I asked if those do. I mean such narrow faces are most likely to be found among Kurds than any other West Asian population. And Haplogroup I might be the difference in Kurds vs. other West Asians.

Goga
12-11-11, 04:57
read the quotes. Sparkey wrote that he doesent thinks their might be still phenotypes which can be connect to ancient cro-magnons. I asked if those do. I mean such narrow faces are most likely to be found among Kurds than any other West Asian population. And Haplogroup I might be the difference in Kurds vs. other West Asians.
I know that ideas of Carleton S. Coon & the science he practiced are outdated nowadays. But "Carleton S. Coon in his The Races of Europe classifies the Indo-Afghans and Irano-Afghans as Nordic, describing them as being long-faced, high-headed and nose-hooked." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranid_race

But there ain't no hg. 'I' in Central Asia (Tajikistan)! So I believe that it has also something to do with J2 (and maybe R1a & R2a). And you will find the looks of the Kurds you posted also in the Caucasus among non-Iranic or Indo-European population! Caucasians don't have much of 'I' either...

Dagne
12-11-11, 10:28
http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2010/01/following-trails-of-cro-magnon-ii.html

I think this is how a Cro Mangnon looked liked:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TFdF--fOnx8/S2Jf2DfcbSI/AAAAAAAAAfw/Xq08H7allbY/s1600/Cro-Magnon.jpg

MOESAN
12-11-11, 14:26
Sorry dont understand what you mean with your local. He is not German they are Kurds.

they are Kurds and with different phenotypical features (but I think the two last ones presents some apparent influences of Cro-magnon type. The first is very long-narrow big faced and in on a opposite side, very different form C-M features

to answer you my 'local 'is just very like the photo GOGA put on this thread -Go to rugby countries of Aquitania and to Wales: this type is not uncommon there, just a little reduced but still with this dychotomie between large short face an big long low crania (a so called 'long barrow' crania shown by COON as typical seams to me as bearing a mixture of C-M features and accretions of a more 'mediterranean' looking type of man): is it a hazard if the 'long barrows' people remnants is found yet among some Welsh local populations. And that some 'long-barrows' metric means was found in buryings of Megalithic coastal North Europe? I don't think so.

about Kurds, they are crossed types with 2 different brachycephalic strains and dolichocephalic componants where I believe I see a Indo-Irano-Afghan one as being very important but not the unic one -
I believe that the means COON published for his typical 'Corded' people encompassed true high Nordic types with some mixture of Brünn type and Indo-Irano-Afghan type: COON and others even thinked that 'dinarics' was a stable mixture of 'Alpin' and a kind of 'Brünn' or Indo-Afghan or what he called 'Cappadocian' (Anatolia) mediterranean type : difficult to find his way here and to assign an HG to a type even if ti's tempting.
so these mixture of tall dolicho's in the russian steppes could have had blond and black haired people it: some regions of the South-West Asia show a lot of brown haired-green eyed people where History tells us there were ancien iranian invaders. some Kurds are of light complexion and on this brown-green model (but not a lot): same iranian origin? not surprising -(look at the Lurs and some regions of Armenia more fair-haired too): 'corded' mixture among 'mediterraneans' and 'alpine-dinarics' without forget some Cro-Magnon remnants ? (because C-M could have born more than a modern phenotype by evolution, except the 'brünn' model): not to far from Armenians, but with an influence from South Central Asia (a low level one)
&: for 'dinarics' I prefer retain a well-evolved homozygotic phenotype for now, but I'm not sure.

Knovas
12-11-11, 21:37
Dagne, I think your picture probably matches better a Grimaldi man. I don't expect Cro-Magnons having such negroid traits.

Alan
13-11-11, 02:21
I know that ideas of Carleton S. Coon & the science he practiced are outdated nowadays. But "Carleton S. Coon in his The Races of Europe classifies the Indo-Afghans and Irano-Afghans as Nordic, describing them as being long-faced, high-headed and nose-hooked." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranid_race

But there ain't no hg. 'I' in Central Asia (Tajikistan)! So I believe that it has also something to do with J2 (and maybe R1a & R2a). And you will find the looks of the Kurds you posted also in the Caucasus among non-Iranic or Indo-European population! Caucasians don't have much of 'I' either...
The Reason why I came to the conclusion this phenotype might be connect to HG I has nothing to do with Coon or any other political motivated, biased and outdated scientist, for example the euro-nordocentric Egon von Eickstedt who replaced the racial term "Caucasian" with Europid and tried to create a Nordic connection with almost any big and ancient civilizations.
The Reason why I connected HG I with this phenotype is because it is most characteristic in whole of West Asia for Kurds and not typical for any other Caucasian or Iranian Group.
The so called Irano-Afghan race is based on metrical similarities of some Groups which have not much genetic connection. The difference between Groups inside this "Irano-Afghan" race are huger as differences to some other groups with different phenotypes.

For example a Armenoid Armenian or mtebid-Pontid Northcaucasian is genetically (and also phenotypical imo) closer to an Iranian Irano-Afghan as a Northindid Northindian. Totally the opposite of what Egon von Eicksteidt  preached the people. Of course there is a genetic binding between Northindians and Iranians but this binding is only based on some genes. But what 3rd Reich anthropologists like Eikstedt tried to do was to create a link between historic Aryans and Nordid Europeans. And for this goal he picked out from both Iranian and Indo Aryan Groups each one phenotype(out of many) with metrical similarities to each others and of course Nordics and connect ancient Aryans with them. And no Haplogroup R2 and R1a are not connected with long and narrow faced People. You as a Georgian Kurd should know that. Even your own relative looks no way extremely long faced.

Georgian Kurds with 44% R2a. How many of them have long narrow faces?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ep6KRw6TkE

Goga
13-11-11, 05:45
I do not understand you at all. Europid, Armenoid, Pontid etc., I lost you. For every region there's an -id, lol. I'm not into this stuff and sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me and looks more like pseudoscience to me.




Now I do undertsand why Cro-Magnon defeated Neanderthal man, look at the height differences.


http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/379/cromagnonj.jpg
http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/336cromagnon.php

MOESAN
14-11-11, 23:19
It's just a play for phenotype isn't the core of this thread on Cro-Magnons or so called
the Western ones (France caves in perigord) would have been the model of some survivals: thin lips, thick skin with deep dimples, short enough nose, broad but very projected nose with snub tip - for today complexion, not obligatory too dark: the countries I believe I find their individual remnants show a very high percentage of mid-brown haired, almost "two much" , andmid-green-grey eyed people - but in the way to Western Europe lot of them had the time to undergo mutations, so... everybody could be right - for features, nothing evoking a typical Subsaharian African of today not form far -

MOESAN
21-12-11, 15:54
Sorry dont understand what you mean with your local. He is not German they are Kurds.

by local I mean local french Perigord paradigme type of Cro-Magnon (paleo) - and "german" was a guess: to say that SOME SELDOM Kurds have Western European looks - but the most of them present the same mixture as the Armenian people, but with a little taste of South Asian (Indies) influences upon that - not to say that 'armenian' look is not caucasian! but more south-eastern than european -

MOESAN
21-12-11, 16:07
http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2010/01/following-trails-of-cro-magnon-ii.html

I think this is how a Cro Mangnon looked liked:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TFdF--fOnx8/S2Jf2DfcbSI/AAAAAAAAAfw/Xq08H7allbY/s1600/Cro-Magnon.jpg

I think you are far enough from the model for the face (but close enough for the general lines:
the gonials (jaw horns) should be lower and the chin more projecting - and why a so negroid nose?: on the basis of skeletal evidence, true Cro-Magnons (not SOME OF THE GRIMALDOIDS (I say SOME because the majority of Grimaldoids was closer to Cro-Magnon than the wife and the child taken as paradigmes) had a projecting upper nose - and concerning the skin colour, we don't know precisely what it was: it seams Cro-Magnon spend a long time living in cold climates - sure, if you speak about Cro-Magnons ancestors 20000 years before our ones, you can guess what you want: a middle colour skin as on your picture could be very suitable -

MOESAN
21-12-11, 16:13
This is probably how a real Cro-Magnon fella looked like. With dark skin.

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2517/cromagnonmens.jpg

for skin we don't know yet - but WHY a dark skin? (here the skin is middle and not dark) - but i think that his skin could have grew lighter a long time ago already, in Siberia or Eastern Europe - look at the East Asians of Corea/North China/Siberia - for the features, I prefer this reconstitution to DAGNE's one (nose, hairs)

Dagne
21-12-11, 18:37
The website that I copied the picture of Cro-Magnon from says that "the specimen above, tagged as BC-093, was uncovered in South-Western Germany [in the Rhine River deposits] near Mainz"...
And I trust that the reconstruction must have been made following scientific approaches. See in the corner (C)BBC.

Though on the other hand I don't know how much that article is unbiased, because I understood that there must have been other Cro-Magnon "specimens" which might have had quite different appearance, but their reconstructions were not showed.

... http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2010/01/following-trails-of-cro-magnon-ii.html (http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2010/01/following-trails-of-cro-magnon-ii.html)

So I really can’t judge about the Cro-Magnon appearance. I can only say that to my mind the reconstructions of Neanderthal show more similarity with modern Europeans (at least in Northern parts).

MOESAN
23-12-11, 23:35
The website that I copied the picture of Cro-Magnon from says that "the specimen above, tagged as BC-093, was uncovered in South-Western Germany [in the Rhine River deposits] near Mainz"...
And I trust that the reconstruction must have been made following scientific approaches. See in the corner (C)BBC.

Though on the other hand I don't know how much that article is unbiased, because I understood that there must have been other Cro-Magnon "specimens" which might have had quite different appearance, but their reconstructions were not showed.

... http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2010/01/following-trails-of-cro-magnon-ii.html (http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2010/01/following-trails-of-cro-magnon-ii.html)

So I really can’t judge about the Cro-Magnon appearance. I can only say that to my mind the reconstructions of Neanderthal show more similarity with modern Europeans (at least in Northern parts).
Thanks for your precisions
You made seriously your job – pseudo-science is not only the fact of autodidacts : scholars do a lot of approximations too sometimes (look at medecine) -
I got to that site : I knew the crane in question but I looked at it again – and I don't change my mind – this reconstruction is an artistic one, and don't deserve the scientific label – this crania like the others qualified as 'cro-magnoid' is a good enough example even if it is not the paradigme - and it shows a projecting nose (and narrow nose) – all the examples I could see or I red about in diverse places of Europe had a projecting nasal bone (more than my one) : for the width don't confuse wide nasal aperture and negroid flat nose : the cro-magnons have often wide nasal aparture BUT with a projecting upper nasal bone that made them a not too esthetic fine nose ! (my nose is not too projecting and neverthelss I have a very narrow nasal aperture) -
this reconstruction follows the cranial lines as a whole but fails all the way for the nose : too flat – it seams to me an 'a priori' guided the work (maybe a tentative to avoid too extreme types on any side?) - the mandible vertical branch seams me just a litlle too short ans the chin not enough projecting? Giving a not enough quadrangular face ? – I know it's impossible to guess the fleshy parts of a face on the only bony cranial features – itsn't the first time I disagree with that kind of work - I saw many TV broadcasts where « authorized » people did « scientific vulgarization » (anglo-saxon speaking world is found of that) and everytime If saw people I qualify 'artists' explaining how to reconstruct facial traits : sure the muscular marks on bones can help to guess the muscular relief in some way but things like fat, eyelids, nostrils, nose cartilages, lips and hair form are impossible to guess -
for a neanderthal, I 've not more confidence in any reconstruction :
the nearest examples of today people living in region where 'cro-magnoid' bone types or 'cro-magnoid' mesocephalized types can be recognized concerning crane and face show a tendancy toward thin lips', short nose with « potetoe » half snub fleshy nose and projecting 'galoche' chin – and a thick skin and a hairy beard and eyebrows – the most of them are living in Central and North Atlantic Europe, with some places in North and central Europe – but individuals can be seen in every country of Europe, very seldom -

Dagne
30-12-11, 19:46
Well I am not an expert to have any judgement on reconstructions... I can see that there is considerable reservation towards this reconstruction because the Cro-Magnon looks very much like an African rather than present-day European.

The reconstruction was made by a leading UK forensic scientist Richard Neave. In other cases he seems to have been competent
(see http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatch/solved/forensicfiles/facial_reconstructions.shtmle, where he helped police track down the killer of Harjit Singh Luther (http://www.eupedia.com/crimewatch/solved/howtheycaught/lovetriangle_killer.shtml), by reconstructing the victim's face. His body had been found in a field and his skull was crushed, meaning police were unable to identify him. It wasn't until the reconstruction was shown on Crimewatch that police were able to track down the victim - and his killer).

Was he simply incompetent with regard to Cro-Magnons reconstruction, or the remains were of too deteriorated or was there a secret agenda somewhere behind this reconstruction? One can only speculate about it ...

Common sense makes me to believe that if I were this scientist I wouldn't risk my reputation by producing a fraud/unlikely reconstruction because surely everyone (including peer experts in reconstructions) will scrutinise this work with upmost attention.


The best is to wait until a full sequencing of Cro-Magnon DNA is made and compared to modern humans and those of Neanderthal...

MOESAN
31-12-11, 17:19
reputation? Sykes and other went very far and fast, too far sometimes in conclusions, according to other scientists -

for your 'africanoid Cro-Magnon', look again at the nose top (bridge) ! and for fleshy parts of body, I hold on! (I'm not alone) / for bony features, sure, they had a solid ground but...- and I'm a bit doubtful about american science... (scoops, papers and the remnant) - look also at the opposition between afrocentrists and eurocentrists about ancient Egyptians!!! scholars all of them!
and the common DNA researches will say nothing to us about external phenotypes of Cro-magnon and Neanderthal at a precise time - nothing else to say about this question, i'll wait alike you -
thanks for answer and happy new year!
all the way, sure, you can be prudent

Dagne
01-01-12, 10:27
Happy New year MOESAN!

I may well be naive with my judgements about scientific integrity ... So let's wait what kind of discoveries the New Year brings to us!

MOESAN
02-01-12, 18:39
Happy New year MOESAN!

I may well be naive with my judgements about scientific integrity ... So let's wait what kind of discoveries the New Year brings to us!

I'm already happy! Thanks.
And everybody is naive in some degree even the "heavier brained" ones...

MOESAN
02-01-12, 18:43
Happy New year MOESAN!

I may well be naive with my judgements about scientific integrity ... So let's wait what kind of discoveries the New Year brings to us!

I'm already happy but thanks
and on other hand, everybody is naive in some degree even the 'heavier brained' people - I'm not an anti-official-science but I saw (as other) so many "scientific affirmations" an theories breaking in pieces in a short time...

Ramses II
24-02-12, 04:29
The so-called "Grimaldi Man" is the only one like it in existence. Why? Because first of all, Grimaldi "Man" is actually a female whose upper maxilla are protruded, the skull shows Caucasoid features. The adolescent had all its teeth but were deliberately manipulated by the discoverers, Boule & Verneau by drilling/tampering the teeth.

MOESAN
04-03-12, 23:30
The so-called "Grimaldi Man" is the only one like it in existence. Why? Because first of all, Grimaldi "Man" is actually a female whose upper maxilla are protruded, the skull shows Caucasoid features. The adolescent had all its teeth but were deliberately manipulated by the discoverers, Boule & Verneau by drilling/tampering the teeth.

the model of Grimaldian type is based on a female and a child - manipulated or not (teeth) they showed some cro-magnon affiliations and at the same time some negroid facial features (maybe the frontal too in some way) - crossing? primitive negroid? uneasy to say - but the surveys on néolithic-chalcolithic populations of the Mediterranee had showed that an element very close to the cro-magnoids appeared yet in these areas (5-8% of the people in some regions?), the more striking differences being an higher crania in the skull region up the ears but not so high at the inferior plan, more prognatism, bigger teeth not speaking about a lot of visible differences in skull and face profile - Charles linked this type to someones found in Egypt anf thought to a neolithic population from North Africa -
the problem of genetical origin (pure, crossing of Cro-Magnoids with previous subafrican types? is not resolved for what I know - what is sure is that the 'grimadli' type is not only a dream or an individual case -

MOESAN
04-03-12, 23:31
I add a larger and broader nose hole

CrowMagnus
15-11-12, 18:50
Haplogroup IJK is probably 45,000 years old. IF the Cro-Magnon that entred Europe at the firtst place were hg. IJK folks that would mean that R* is actuallty also a Cro-Magnon haplogroup!

But if that was not the case then haplogroup IJK, later NOP -} P* -} R* all mated with the different hominids before the came to Europe! But my question is who were these R* folks. And with what kind of hominid species did they mated?

Cro-Magnon seemed to have a great affinity with R1A and R2A. And they with him. Look at the nearly 50/50 overlap in Sweden between I subclades in total and R subclades. That general trend is also seen centered around Holland, Denmark and Northern Germany.

Even thousands of years ago R1A was also quite tall. Cherchen Man, one of the hundreds of exceptionally well preserved mummies in the Tarim Basin was 6 feet 6 inches tall as were others. All of the Tarim Basin mummies tested were R1A1A. I find those people absolutely captivating to look at. As if they might rise up and talk with you. Show you how much care and effort they expended in creating simple but beautifully artistic objects like their clothes and grass baskets. And the lengths they went to place their dead in their chambers and tend to them afterwards.

MOESAN
17-11-12, 23:46
The fact that Y DNA % can be magnified by male elite domination complicate a lot our efforts to link autosomals and Y, helas!
near 'cromagnon' types was found (I saw no crania, only readings, I regret) supposedly in the North of russian steppes at proto-historic times, mixed with other high statured dolichocephalic people but high faced, not suqare faced as these 'cromagnons': someones speak about 'proto-nordic' type without precising more (a new habit in scientific vulgarization papers) -
the present center of 'slavic' form of Y-R1a is close enough, is it sufficient to say 'cro-magnon' = Y-R1a ??? I avow I thought to this me too without any certitude, R1b: western 'Cr-M', R1a: eastern 'Cr-M' - I would not bet a penny before knowing more even if tempting:
in W-Siberia has been found a first possible I-E population OR PRE-I-E population (thet's the question) with mtDNA U-derived close to the mesolithic sorts, but little after these population showed mtDNA coming from the East Caspian region (J & others: "neolithic like") - was the R1a elite from the previous stock or from the second one? I'll try to find this abstract I red -
kouskit mad, gwrit hunvreoù kaer! sleep well, do agreable dreams!

jjmuneer123
18-11-12, 12:09
The fact that Y DNA % can be magnified by male elite domination complicate a lot our efforts to link autosomals and Y, helas!
near 'cromagnon' types was found (I saw no crania, only readings, I regret) supposedly in the North of russian steppes at proto-historic times, mixed with other high statured dolichocephalic people but high faced, not suqare faced as these 'cromagnons': someones speak about 'proto-nordic' type without precising more (a new habit in scientific vulgarization papers) -
the present center of 'slavic' form of Y-R1a is close enough, is it sufficient to say 'cro-magnon' = Y-R1a ??? I avow I thought to this me too without any certitude, R1b: western 'Cr-M', R1a: eastern 'Cr-M' - I would not bet a penny before knowing more even if tempting:
in W-Siberia has been found a first possible I-E population OR PRE-I-E population (thet's the question) with mtDNA U-derived close to the mesolithic sorts, but little after these population showed mtDNA coming from the East Caspian region (J & others: "neolithic like") - was the R1a elite from the previous stock or from the second one? I'll try to find this abstract I red -
kouskit mad, gwrit hunvreoù kaer! sleep well, do agreable dreams!

Phenotypes have nothing to do with HG. R1a1a people were most likely dolicephalic, so that rules out them being cro-magnon who are brahcephalics.

MOESAN
18-11-12, 16:57
Phenotypes have nothing to do with HG. R1a1a people were most likely dolicephalic, so that rules out them being cro-magnon who are brahcephalics.

You are not coherent!
you say HG have nothing to do with phenotypes, that is only partially true: statistical links exist, but subject to possible (and verified) modifications, what is not NO LINK! or if you prefer, there is not everytime more links within autosomals than between autosomals (acting in phenotypes) and haplogroups of Y - and roughly taken, your affirmation is just THE SAME I did in my post but your incoherence is in the fact you LINK Y-R1a to dolichocephalic which is a phenotypical (and so autosomal+environmental) feature ! contradicting your proper affirmation that I share for the most part just being more cautious -
+ 'cro-magnon' types firstable was dolichocephalic; meso-brachycephally is a later developpement occurred in Europe (W& E) and not everywhere -

Alan
24-11-12, 01:54
Phenotypes have nothing to do with HG. R1a1a people were most likely dolicephalic, so that rules out them being cro-magnon who are brahcephalics.

I disagree my friend, original R1a1* people were most likely mesocephalic with broader faces, as we know R1a and R2a* s closest relative is the Amerindian/Siberian dominant Haplogroup Q* which seems to be Caucasian/East Asian connected. The more longheaded dolichocephalic element was probably brought in by Neolithic people.

MOESAN
25-11-12, 22:54
if we consider that 'corded ware' people was as a majority Y-R1a, whatever the link old or new between this Y-HG and their dominant autosomals, we CAN say Y-R1a was dolichocephalic at pre-metal ages!!! (the same for N-Indians ones, even if they show today dark pigmentation): I write all that not to affirm some perpetual link between R1a and dolichocephally, but to precise some things to tell: let's be cautious! I precise too I see no link between C-M and first Corded people, the C-Ms of E-Europe was at first more northern, I think - I should better see new mesolithic peoeple of C-E Europe as one of the elements in 'Cordeds' -

Templar
25-11-12, 23:16
I disagree my friend, original R1a1* people were most likely mesocephalic with broader faces, as we know R1a and R2a* s closest relative is the Amerindian/Siberian dominant Haplogroup Q* which seems to be Caucasian/East Asian connected. The more longheaded dolichocephalic element was probably brought in by Neolithic people.

I agree. Their faces probably reflected an adaptation to their cold environment (wide faces and such)

MOESAN
26-11-12, 23:12
I agree. Their faces probably reflected an adaptation to their cold environment (wide faces and such)

HUm.... Have you studied the faces proportions in West-central African negroid populations?
these adaptative rules are based more on ancient new born science than on serious surveys: environment plays a role, sure, but we are not arrived yet to find its multiple effects, because genomes have complicated ways to resolve life problems, not always the same! AND 'cro-magnon' guys according to serious scientists (it exists!) was not the better adapted to cold climate, compared, say, with 'neanderthal', by instance...

no ONE BIALLELIC pair <> ONE PROBLEM resolved

Templar
27-11-12, 00:00
cro-magnon' guys according to serious scientists (it exists!) was not the better adapted to cold climate, compared, say, with 'neanderthal', by instance...

I never said they were. They relatively recently migrated into Europe (30,000 years ago?) They mostly exhibit features adapted to a dry climate, which makes sense considering that they came from the Middle-East (long noses and long faces).

I said that R1b/R1a Indo-europeans were adapted to cold climate. All the countries with the highest concentrations of the Indo-European haplogroups have features which are adapted to a very cold climate: snub noses, wide cheeks, round heads, stocky bodies, etc. Both Celts (who have the highest concentrations of R1b), and Slavs (who have the highest concentrations of R1a) are widely stereotyped as having such features. The only Europeans who aren't known for such features are the ones who have high Cro-Magnon and Near/Middle-Eastern admixtures, which attested by certain haplogroups.


Have you studied the faces proportions in West-central African negroid populations?

They have snub noses because they are adapted to a HUMID environment, which humidity-wise is the complete opposite of a DRY environment.

Humid environment = small noses

Cold environment = small noses

Dry environment = long noses

MOESAN
27-11-12, 19:15
I never said they were. They relatively recently migrated into Europe (30,000 years ago?) They mostly exhibit features adapted to a dry climate, which makes sense considering that they came from the Middle-East (long noses and long faces).

I said that R1b/R1a Indo-europeans were adapted to cold climate. All the countries with the highest concentrations of the Indo-European haplogroups have features which are adapted to a very cold climate: snub noses, wide cheeks, round heads, stocky bodies, etc. Both Celts (who have the highest concentrations of R1b), and Slavs (who have the highest concentrations of R1a) are widely stereotyped as having such features. The only Europeans who aren't known for such features are the ones who have high Cro-Magnon and Near/Middle-Eastern admixtures, which attested by certain haplogroups.



They have snub noses because they are adapted to a HUMID environment, which humidity-wise is the complete opposite of a DRY environment.

Humid environment = small noses

Cold environment = small noses

Dry environment = long noses

I'm afraid you don't read entirely the other posts (the mines, by example):
specific 'cromagnons' had NOT long faces, they had broad square faces, and their faces didn't check their other body proportions!!! READ! you confused paleolithic 'cromagnon' with mesolithic 'brünn' and 'combe-capelle' types (as others do, it's true)
look at South America Amerindians, spite of their globally mongoloid tendancies, they have noses that do'nt fit other asiatic origin people nor COLD CLIMATES - North-east Amerindians was yet more typical of that/ EVEN IF WE CONSIDER THEY WAS NEW IN THESE LANDS, THEY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE COME FROM CENTRAL-NORTH SIBERIA!
the old rules of adaptation (the more visible) are overcome by human tribes movements and capacity to respond to rude environment by human inventions!!! (since maybe more than 40000 years) -
I repeat: it exists some ROUGH TENDANCIES corresponding VERY ROUGHLY to climate

and Celts and Slavs are not only the descendants of a PURE Y-R1b or Y-R1a origin affiliated population! read again my posts : Corded Ware people was surely overwhelmingly Y-R1a and they have for the most of them robust BUT LONGILIGNE FEATURES as a lot of 'nordic' looking people have today!

No offense but you lack of knowledge about ancient and current populations! Let's note it's not so important, things are changing nowadays concerning populations movements and climate and natural selection have little to do with it !
by the way, some subtile (no visible) adaptations select still human beings in some remote countries, but they don't change too much the external features (ex: capacity to fix oxygene in blood: interesting fact: in different populations, it's not the same "trick" that finds Nature to adapt "its" Humans to same problems: complicated genome!)

Templar
27-11-12, 21:31
specific 'cromagnons' had NOT long faces, they had broad square faces,

Their faces WERE long, they were square because their face were at the same broad as well.


No offense but you lack of knowledge about ancient and current populations!

No offense but I think you are biased towards Nordicism and using out-dated terminology such as "brünn".

Templar
27-11-12, 21:32
look at South America Amerindians, spite of their globally mongoloid tendancies, they have noses that do'nt fit other asiatic origin people nor COLD CLIMATES

There is alot of evidence that the original South American people were Australoids. There is also evidence that they mixed with the Asiatic migrants. This would explain deviation from the Mongoloid norm.

MOESAN
28-11-12, 15:30
There is alot of evidence that the original South American people were Australoids. There is also evidence that they mixed with the Asiatic migrants. This would explain deviation from the Mongoloid norm.

?!?
as you say, some "paleo" amerindians tribes of SouthAmerica (very small tribes without too much posterity) has (had?) shown some "low-evolved" physical features, the crania, face and skull, recalling some 'veddoid'-'australoid' primitive shapes (plus wavy hairs), some with a so called "judaic" or "armenoid" nose shape (I didn't found other terminology even if this one doesn't fit too well): yes, here we could see some crossing, because the 'veddas' and australian aborigenes don't show this kind of "falling tip" nose - but here, if crossing, we can imagine that the long nose shape is an inheritage from the other and more common south-amerindian tribes - but the weight of thses elements in the amerindian making is too light to explain current features among the Southern Amerindians
- I think you would have better leave all these simplistic mechanical adaptative theories for modern man: If you read what I post... OR give them the place they have since some thousands of years ago: a little one -

answering your other post:
where do you see a link between the use of the 'brünn type' term and Nordicism??? it is as for "antisemitism", nowadays, some communities or some lobbies would have right to attract and monopolize scientific namings??? "semite" is an ethnic and linguistic term which has nothing to do with religious Jew (judaism) and by reaction I never use the word "antisemitism" but "anti-Jew" or "antijudaism", or with distinct meaning: "antisionism"
for "long faces" as you wrote, be precise then:
because as a whole common people understand: "long and narrow" (proportions more than absolute sizes) -
to be precise, 'cromagnon' (original, France for the most) has a broad, square (the 2 are not linked all thetime) AND SHORT!
the only massive (large) faces that was as square as 'cromagnon''s one because their great length was along with very great breadth of face, was the 'borreby' types - its origin is not too clear for now, even if people believe it's a 'cromagnon' evolution with trend to brachycephally: as this type seams having participated into the 'est-baltic' type making, we can suppose it was frequent not only between Germany and Denmark, but too in baltic-south-Finnland regions at mesolithical time - but even in Eastern Europe regions (Russia), if I accept my recent abstracts readings the first 'cromanoids' seen (dead, not at a pub terrasse) at neolithical time end was more upon the old model of sub-dolichicephalic+euryprosope ("brachyfacial") -
So if we want understand one another let's say terms like "absolute ...", "relative length-breadth ratio" or somethings like that, giving sense...
for selection and climate, let's look at South Asia Indians: with the same colour skin or very close, we see completely different shapes for visages and skulls and bodies for people living at the same latitudes for a long enough time (25000 years, more???)

MOESAN
28-11-12, 15:42
Sorry, and it could give some points to Templar (not for selection, but for features origins):
some oceanian populalions, like some Papoos tribes, have a dominent trend towards australoids type, but with the 'falling tip nose' trait: so the noses shape of SOME south -Amerindians could have found their origin there; but I accept that with caution, because the other traits of Papoos and Oceanians are very very scarce there -
by the way: PAPOOS ARE NOT LIVING (and I suppose since a long time) in DRY CLIMATE
good afternoon

Templar
28-11-12, 18:43
some oceanian populalions, like some Papoos tribes, have a dominent trend towards australoids type, but with the 'falling tip nose' trait:
Yeah exactly, and it might be possible that they had a "founder effect" in South America, and that trait became widespread. It is all theorizing, but it is possible.


"antisemitism", nowadays, some communities or some lobbies would have right to attract and monopolize scientific namings??? "semite" is an ethnic and linguistic term which has nothing to do with religious Jew (judaism) and by reaction I never use the word "antisemitism" but "anti-Jew" or "antijudaism", or with distinct meaning: "antisionism"

Yeah I agree with you. It is ridiculous for one very small religious group to monopolize an ethnic term which was applied to dozens of different groups in the past.


the only massive (large) faces that was as square as 'cromagnon''s one because their great length was along with very great breadth of face, was the 'borreby' types - its origin is not too clear for now, even if people believe it's a 'cromagnon' evolution with trend to brachycephally: as this type seams having participated into the 'est-baltic' type making, we can suppose it was frequent not only between Germany and Denmark, but too in baltic-south-Finnland regions at mesolithical time

I don't think East Baltids have anything to do with Cro-Magnons. They usually don't have much muscle mass and are short. Cro-Magnons on the other hand had very thick bones (which were likely accompanied with huge muscles, as the pattern tends to go), and they were extremely tall relative to other populations.

I think people confuse all Alpine-like groups to be descendants of Cro-Magnons, even though there is alot of evidence that they came MUCH later. And the time of their arrival I think coincides with the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. So East Baltids would be similar to what the original Indo-Europeans looked like, Alpines were an Indo-european mix with neolithic farmers, Dinaric are Cro-Magnons mixed with neolithic farmers, and Nordics are a Cro-Magnon and Indo-European mix. And the haplogroup data tends to confirm that. Dinarics = mostly E, J1, J2, and I. Nordics = R1a, R1b, and I. East Baltids = mostly R1a. Alpines= either R1b or an R1a, E, J1, J2 mix.

Goga
28-11-12, 21:58
I don't think East Baltids have anything to do with Cro-Magnons. They usually don't have much muscle mass and are short. Cro-Magnons on the other hand had very thick bones (which were likely accompanied with huge muscles, as the pattern tends to go), and they were extremely tall relative to other populations.

I think people confuse all Alpine-like groups to be descendants of Cro-Magnons, even though there is alot of evidence that they came MUCH later. And the time of their arrival I think coincides with the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. So East Baltids would be similar to what the original Indo-Europeans looked like, Alpines were an Indo-european mix with neolithic farmers, Dinaric are Cro-Magnons mixed with neolithic farmers, and Nordics are a Cro-Magnon and Indo-European mix. And the haplogroup data tends to confirm that. Dinarics = mostly E, J1, J2, and I. Nordics = R1a, R1b, and I. East Baltids = mostly R1a. Alpines= either R1b or an R1a, E, J1, J2 mix.
You don’t even know what you’re talking about. East Baltids similar to original IE speakers? :thinking: East Baltids are mostly Mongoloid. Baltids are mostly N1c1. A part of them even speak Finno-Ugric languages. R1a is the most common haplogroup in India the place of more than 1.5 billion humans.

and Nordics are actually mostly I1, N1c1 with some R1a.

Templar
28-11-12, 22:07
You don’t even know what you’re talking about

You are supporting old biased theories.


East Baltids are mostly Mongoloid

They don't have epicanthic folds. Most Slavs are East Baltids, and most Slavic countries don't have high amounts of N1c1. Both Slavs and Celts share similar features, and both populations have high Indo-European haplogroups.


and Nordics are actually mostly I1

No the I1 is under 50%.


R1a is the most common haplogroup in India

Yes because of the Indo-European invasions. It is only the most common, because India has very high haplogroup diversity.

Goga
28-11-12, 22:22
You are supporting old biased theories.

They don't have epicanthic folds. Most Slavs are East Baltids, and most Slavic countries don't have high amounts of N1c1. Both Slavs and Celts share similar features, and both populations have high Indo-European haplogroups.

No the I1 is under 50%.

Yes because of the Indo-European invasions. It is only the most common, because India has very high haplogroup diversity.No, R1a is also the most frequent haplogroup in India!

Well, let see: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

Estland (speakers of a Finno-Ugric language) 34% of N1c1, Latvia 38%, Lithuania 42% and I don't even speak about the Russians in that area. As you can see N1c1 id DOMINATNT and NATIVE in that part of Europe.

I bet you have some Slavic origin so you think you're a prototype of something right? Well it's very normal for human to thin egocentric.

Templar
28-11-12, 22:27
No, R1a is also the most frequent haplogorup in India!

I didn't say it wasn't.


Estland (speakerof Finno Ugric language) 34% of N11, Latvia 38%, Lithuania 42% and I don’t even speak aboutthe Russians in that area. As you can see N1c1 id DOMINATNT and NATIVE in that area of Europe.

Those aren't the only countries with "East Baltid" phenotype being the dominant one. What about Poland, Ukraine, Berlarus?


I bet youhave some Slavic origin so you think you’re a prototype of something right? Well it’s very normal for human to thin egocentric.

Souths Slavs (with the exception of Slovenians and Northern Croats) have very little Slavic genes.

Goga
28-11-12, 22:37
Poland is a Central European country and Polish people are actually West Slavic people something between East Germans and West Slavs. Poland has nothing to do with the steppes where according to some people proto-Indo-Europeans came from. So Polish people have nothing to do with the so called proto-IE speakers aroudn the Black Sea.
Ukrainians and White Russians are actually almost the same as Russians. Belarusians and Eastern Ukrainians speak the same language as Russians do and West Ukrainians speak almost the same language.

I speak Russian, so I can understand Ukrainian but not so good Polish.

Western Slavs are more I2a and less N1c1, while Eastern Slavs are more N1c1 and less I2a. Both groups have almost the same amout of R1a though.


Eastern Slavs and Balts are more 'Mongoloid' than Western and Southern Slavs.

Templar
28-11-12, 22:43
Poland is a Central European country and polish peopleare actually West Slavic people something between East Germans and West Slavs.Poland has nothing to do with the steppes where according to some peopleproto-Indo-Europeans came from. So Polish people have nothing to do with theproto-IE speakers.
Ukrainians and White Russians are actually almost thesame as Russians. Belarusians nad Eastern Ukrainians speak the same language asRussians and West Ukrainians speak almost the same language.
I speak Russian, so I can understand Ukrainian but not sogood Polish.

You ignored my responses and then changed the subject. We weren't talking about languages, we were talking about genetics and phenotypes. I am guessing since you won't address my replies, you admit defeat. Good. Now you understand that the Eastern European phenotype and the Celtic phenotype are the best representative of the original Indo-European appearance.

Goga
28-11-12, 22:44
I am guessing since you won't address my replies, you admit defeat. Good. Now you understand that the Eastern European phenotype and the Celtic phenotype are the best representative of the original Indo-European appearance.
What defeat. What the hell are you talking about? How do you know how the original proto-IE speakers looked like? Do you have pictures??

And what have Celts (R1b +I folks) to do with this, i don't get it. Celts are totally different people than Slavs. Just some wishfull thinking, I guess.


I thought that Templars were people of knowledge and not of some b*llsh*t.

Goga
28-11-12, 22:52
btw, if you speak about Indo-Europeans you speak about languages, since indo-european is a linguistic term and not a genetic one.

Templar
28-11-12, 22:55
What defeat. What the hell are you talking about? How do you know how the original proto-IE speakers looked like? Do you have pictures??

And what have Celts (R1b +I folks) to do with this, i don't get it. Celts are totally different people than Slavs. Just some wishfull thinking, I guess.

We can guess what Indo-Europeans looked like by looking at the environment in which they lived, how their Y-haplogroup lineage is connected to others, and what appearance people have in countries that overwhelmingly have Indo-European haplogroups. The fact that both Celts and Slavs are stereotyped as having "round faces" is just one of the many forms of indirect evidence that we have.

Read this: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25593-Cro-Magnons-Levantines-and-Indo-Europeans-what-do-we-owe-to-our-ancestors

and note this part: "Neolithic to Bronze-Age steppe people appear to have had Proto-Europoid features (mixed European and Mongoloid features, although probably not slanted eyes), like wide, thick-boned faces and low skulls, which was quickly lost when they interbred with other Europeans. They almost certainly carried with them the genetic mutations for blue eyes, fair hair and red hair, as these can be found in all the regions of Eurasia that they colonised, including in the 4000 year-old Tarim mummies."


I thought that Templars were people of knowledge and not of some b*llsh*t.


​Don't be mad bro.

Goga
28-11-12, 23:10
I’m not mad bro, according to me the same nonsense about R1a never ends. And I get annoy d by that.
The onlyl ink between Celts and Slavs is native European (Europoid) Y-DNA 'I' lineage and some some Neolithic linages.

Maciamo is wrong big time. And I tell you why.
The Iceman Otzi has also a round face, while his haplogroup is G2-something. He was in Europe before Indo-Europeans i guess.
BeforeT urkic and Iranic tribes people in the Steppes were actualy close to Bulgarian sand other Balkanic people. They were not Mongoloid, but Meds. While mumies in the Tarim Basin have actually SYBERIAN (Mongoloid) aDNA!

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/11/mitochondrial-dna-in-ancient-human.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/11/mitochondrial-dna-in-ancient-human.html)


Proto-Indo-Europeans lived even thousands years before Tarim Basin mummies. And they were by no mean 'Mongoloid' or partly 'Mongoloid' like modernday Balts and Slavs..

Templar
28-11-12, 23:22
http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/11/u7-in-rostov-scythians.html

Dienekes gets a lot of things wrong, and he is a biased Greek nationalist. Everything he does is from a Mediterranean-biased persepective. Haven't you noticed that?


Maciamo iswrong big time. And I tell you why.

I actually came to similar conclusions as he did, completely independently, and many others have as well. There are clear patterns that we can see.


BeforeTurkic and Iranic people in the Steppes people were actualy close to Bulgariansand othe Balkan people. They were not Mongoloid

Modern-day Central Asians probably became Mongoloid during the Mongol invasions, but before that they were probably light-eyed, light-haired, short, and with wide roundish faces.



The IcemanOtzi has also a round face, while his haplogroup is G2-something

How old are his remains?

Just look at the data we have available. Most Southern Europeans have traits similar to Near-Eastern people, that is because of the neolithic migrants that migrated. They have thin but long faces, and tend to be average height. The haplogroups support this. East and West Slavs and Celts tend to have light features, are average to short height, and are known for having round faces (this is the stereotype). The only exception to these two phenotypes (the Mediterranean and Slavic/Celt one) are the Scandinavian and Dinaric Alp populations. And both Scandinavians and Yugoslavs share several common traits. Both usually have long faces, both are known to be hairy, both are relatively robust, both are known for their tallness. And they both happen to have the highest rates of Haplogroup I. It doesn't seem like a coincidence.

Goga
28-11-12, 23:33
Otzi had also light feature and he was definitely NOT from the steppes! Otzi lived about 3,300 BCE. Dienekes is more believable and accurate then Polish and Assyrians racists that try to make West Asia/Caucasus URHEIMAT for all Semitic folks, what is of course not true!

And this is an independent study.

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/11/mitochondrial-dna-in-ancient-human.html

Ancient population of Kazakhstan was Mediterranean, while Tarim mummies (TAR) are Siberian (aDNA). These are facts, bro.

Mikewww
28-11-12, 23:35
... Celts are totally different people than Slavs.....

Culturally, that may be a fair statement, but in terms of Y lineages, I wouldn't necessarily characterize it like that. For example, it is possible for a Celtic lineage to have integrated and become a Germanic lineage, so in different eras the lineage was of different speaking groups.

I have two g-grandfathers from the Czech Republic territory that considered themselves Bohemians and spoke Slavic. What is Bohemia named for? The Boii, a Celtic tribe. Who's to say some of the Boii didn't stay in place and learn new languages during the ages?

Goga
28-11-12, 23:40
Culturally, that may be a fair statement, but in terms of lineages, I wouldn't necessarily characterize it like that. I think it is possible for a Celtic lineage have integrated and become a Germanic lineage, for example, so in different timeframes the lineage was of different speaking groups.

I have two g-grandfathers from the Czech Republic territory that considered themselves Bohemians and spoke Slavic. What is Bohemia named for? The Boii, a Celtic tribe. Who's to say some of the Boii didn't stay in place and learn new languages during the ages?I wrote earlier that West Slavic folks have some Germanic DNA. With all due respect but Czech people are not the same as Russians.
But in general they are not the same as Celts. Celts are for me people in Spain, south British folks, French, Italians (Italics) etc.

Also in the Balkans Celts mixed with Slavic people, Rumanians are actually a good example for it.

Templar
28-11-12, 23:46
Otzi lived about 3,300 BCE

This is roughly around the time when Steppe people were entering Europe. This is perfect! So his face was both round AND he had light features? Wow this is great.

Goga
28-11-12, 23:47
This is roughly around the time when Steppe people were entering Europe. This is perfect! So his face was both round AND he had light features? Wow this is great.Have you seen his aDNA? It's mostly Med, (South)West Asian. He was G2a, btw.

He was close to Sardinians like ancient population of Kazakhstan. Modern Slavs have nothing to do with him!

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/11/mitochondrial-dna-in-ancient-human.html
(http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/11/mitochondrial-dna-in-ancient-human.html)



Maciamo

Ötzi's DNA could be from 30% to 42% of Neolithic immigrant origin. There is little doubt that the Caucasian (22.3%) and Southwest Asian (7.6%) admixtures are from Neolithic farmers. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?27331-%C3%96tzi-s-genome-released

Templar
28-11-12, 23:54
He was G2a, btw.

Many believe that G2a went along with R1b when the Anatolian branch of Indo-Europeans migrated into Europe.


He was close to Sardians like ancient population of Kazakhstan.

How would Sardinians have anything to do with Kazakhstan? O.o


Modern Slavs have nothing to do with him!

Haha yet he is round-faced and light-featured. Ah thank Deus for Otzi!

Goga
28-11-12, 23:59
Many believe that G2a went along with R1b when the Anatolian branch of Indo-Europeans migrated into Europe.

How would Sardinians have anything to do with Kazakhstan? O.o


Haha yet he is round-faced and light-featured. Ah thank Deus for Otzi!
Otzi was Sardian like fella (G2a), while Slvas and Balts are partly Mongoloid (N1c1)!


BANG!!

"Both "Tarim" (TAR) and "Neolithic Lake Baikal" (LOK) appear well within east Eurasian variation. But, of the West Eurasian groups, Pitted Ware Complex (PWC), i.e., Neolithic hunter-gatherers from NE Europe and Bronze Age Altai (ALT-BA) appear clearly "northern Europeoid" across the 2nd PC, as do, to a lesser extent, C/N European Hunter-Gatherers (HG) and Kurgan burials from south Siberia (KUR-BA), but Bronze Age Kazakhstan (KAZ-BA) appear to be southern Europeoid, and, also, noticeably more "West Eurasian" than the others. Clearly, the West Eurasian elements were not homogeneous, with some of them (such as KAZ-BA) apparently derived from the southern Caucasoid zone -which largely did not experience east Eurasian admixture- and others from the northern Caucasoid zone that did."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4fyGtwWJTMI/UKpNK618KvI/AAAAAAAAHd4/3X5GQF0efE8/s1600/preironage.png

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/11/mitochondrial-dna-in-ancient-human.html


As you can see Tarim mummies (TAR) in BLUE (Syberian) area, while Kazakh fella near Greeks!

Templar
29-11-12, 00:42
As you can see Tarim mummies (TAR) in BLUE (Syberian) area, while Kazakh fella near Greeks!

Hypothetically if that is true, what are you trying to argue with it?

Goga
29-11-12, 00:54
Native folks in the Steppes (North of the Black Sea/ around Caspian Sea) were Meds, like Greeks, Sardinians, Italians = South Europoids + Middle Easterns and not like Neolithic hunter-gatherers / Eastern Slavs & Balts (which are partly Mongoloid with their Y-DNA hg. N1c1 lineage).

Northeast European aDNA (admixture component) is partly Mongoloid that has nothing to do with proto-Indo-Europeans. Neolithic hunter-gatherers were (and modern eastern Slavs & Balts) are closer to Bronze Age Altai (ALT-BA) folks (Mongoloids)!

Templar
29-11-12, 01:10
So you think that light features developed in Europe? Then how come light features follow wherever Indo-Europeans had a heavy presence?

Goga
29-11-12, 01:23
I don't know.

According to the writers of this site red hair mutation is from West Asia. I believe it's from the Neanderthal from the Balkans or something. http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml

And it's possible that blonde hair mutation is from the native ancestors (Neolithic hunter-gatherers) of Finns, Balts and Slavs and some north Eurasian Turco-Mongoloid tribes..

Templar
29-11-12, 01:49
Ok what is your opinion as to why Scandinavians look different from other Northern Europeans? Why are their faces longer, and why are they taller?

Yetos
29-11-12, 01:54
I think the thread is coming very interesting.

Kardu
29-11-12, 12:49
Goga, perhaps I've asked you this once, but how come that Lithuanian has so much in common with Sanskrit?
How come that so many upper-caste Indians look like Europeans?

Yetos
29-11-12, 14:44
hmm. i wonder if we could also the oposite, why Europeans look like so much with Indians.

ElHorsto
29-11-12, 15:31
Without taking any side here, one should also keep in mind that fringe areas/population sometimes better preserved original foreign languages. Examples are icelandic language which is more close to the original ancient nordic. Or celtic languages are preserved today in the fringes of the birtish isles despite that the celtic cradle was in central europe. Turcic languages also spread a lot with surprisingly low alteration of the native stock. For instance compare the admixture between anatolian Turks, Tatars, Bashkirs and finally Altaians/Mongols. They don't have much in common except a few vague Y-DNA traces. Many Finno-Ugric speaking peoples are autosomally close to indistinguishable from other IE-speaking north europeans (mongoloid(amerind) admixture is actually not significantly higher in north-eastern europe, because it is probably rather of paleolithic origin and thus less linked to Y-HG N).

Kardu
29-11-12, 15:35
hmm. i wonder if we could also the oposite, why Europeans look like so much with Indians.

No, we can't. The vector is clear from West to East..

Alan
29-11-12, 17:26
I think people here are doing wrong in connecting one phenotype to a specific Haplogroup. I believe that the cranial index can change in different environments or with different diets. I simply stated that I believe the first R1a people were largely mesocephalic and broad faced. moving further into Europe they might have changed to more Dolichocephalic people (Corded Ware).

Templar
29-11-12, 17:39
moving further into Europe they might have changed to more Dolichocephalic people (Corded Ware).
Yeah by mixing

Goga
29-11-12, 18:23
Goga, perhaps I've asked you this once, but how come that Lithuanian has so much in common with Sanskrit? How come that so many upper-caste Indians look like Europeans?

Are you on crack? Indians don't look Europoid at all! Georgians look much more Europoid than Indians and Georgians don't even speak an Indo-European languagge!

Kurdish (Gorani, Kurmanji) (closely related to Avestan, Avestan and Sanskrit were almost the same brother languages) is much closer to Sanskrit than Lithuanian is.

Sanskrit is NOT a proto-Indo-European language but just part of an Indo-Iranic family and far relative to Balto-Slavic languages. Baltic folks were the last who began to speak an Indo-European language! Since Indo-Europeans speakers Indo-Europised (Mongoloid) Baltic folks. It's a close community with very few people, so after Indo-Europisation of native Mongoloid Balts their language didn't evolved very much.

Anatolian languages (+Armenian etc.) are much closer to ancient Indo-European languages than Balto-Slavic languages are. And Antolian languages are native to West Asia.

Anatolian languages were much more ARCHAIC Indo-European languages than other languages.

Goga
29-11-12, 18:36
Ok what is your opinion as to why Scandinavians look different from other Northern Europeans? Why are their faces longer, and why are they taller?Scandinavians are more hg. 'I*' folks than hg. 'R1*' folks. Also Indo-European Scandinavians don't have much of Mongoloid hg. N1c1 in them.

Templar
29-11-12, 18:58
Also Indo-European Scandinavians don't have much of Mongoloid hg. N1c1 in them.

Okay, then why do Celts and East Slavs/Balts look similar? Celts don't have N1c1, yet they share many traits with Balts and Slavs. The connection is the high R1a and R1b occurance. The autosomal tests don't show this very clearly though, due to the imperfect way it is being done (for example the "East European autosomal includes a Mongoloid component, this alone makes it difficult to compare to other Europeans).

Knovas
29-11-12, 19:01
Experiments show Indians fall somwhere between the West Eurasian and the East Eurasian cline, and that the so called South Asian component is mostly linked to West Asia. So Kardu wasn't wrong at all in that regard.

Goga
29-11-12, 19:08
Experiments show Indians fall somwhere between the West Eurasian and the East Eurasian cline, and that the so called South Asian component is mostly linked to West Asia. So Kardu wasn't wrong at all in that regard.
You say it right. Some Indians look Caucasoid but not Europoid at all! Also some Indians look Caucasoid because of Iranic folks. Neolithic agriculture immigrants and Iranic folks brought West Asian (Caucasoid) component to India.

I don't know why but some Indians have some fetish to link themselves to Europe, while they're much closer to West Asia

Templar
29-11-12, 19:14
Neolithic agriculture immigrants and Iranic folks brought West Asian (Caucasoid) component to India.

I don't know why but some Indians have some fetish to link themselves to Europe, while they're much closer to West Asia

Yes I agree with you about that (finally we agree on something). I think most of the Caucasoid autosomal genes found in South Asians are the result of West Asian neolithic migrants who brought agriculture (maybe even the Indus valley civilization was started by West Asians?). The Indo-european genetic influence wouldn't have been as strong, especially since India was already a full-fledged civilization when the invasion occurred.

nordicwarrior
29-11-12, 19:17
Great discussion--time for me to jump in...
1. Templar--you seem like you know a few things! I'd like to pick your brain for an hour, no joke. I might learn some things. May I ask your y-haplogroup?
2. Concerning skull shapes--I'm dolichocephalic, so is my dad and his brother. All I1's. What does this mean? (I also have a giant mellon head with a size 8 hatsize. This means extra intelligence I'm hoping.)
3. I concede that R1a could have single handedly brought blue eyes into Europe (judging by the corresponding eye color maps), but I'm not conceding lighter skin and hair color to the R1a's. The Northern I's humped too many ice sheets for too long covered by too many wolf skins for their skin color to not be impacted. The map depicting blonde hair is basically centered over Northern I's hometown. Also, who's to say that blonde and red hair is a single mutation? I thought this was still being discussed by the lab coats. I think it's more probable that blonde and red hair were layered in by waves of both I's and R1a's.

Knovas
29-11-12, 19:21
As we go to the East, obviously we can't expect the same looks, and Indians experienced several events of admixture considering their location. They have Caucasoid traits but dark skin (very dark sometimes), which is curious when comparing to their neighbours: mongoloid traits and lighter skin pigmation as whole.

Templar
29-11-12, 19:32
3. I concede that R1a could have single handedly brought blue eyes into Europe (judging by the corresponding eye color maps), but I'm not conceding lighter skin and hair color to the R1a's.

It is all still up for debate since research and testing is always showing us new things, but I do think that R1a was the main source of both the Light eye genes and Blonde hair. Red hair seems to be a mutation which can only affect those who already have the usual light-hair genes (I forgot where I read this, I will try to link it if I find it). The original Paleolithic Europeans though likely already had light skin, but maybe not as light as the R1a.


1. Templar--you seem like you know a few things! I'd like to pick your brain for an hour, no joke. I might learn some things. May I ask your y-haplogroup?

Thank you, but in all honesty there are many much more informed members on this forum, especially the creator of the forum, Maciamo. I agree with him on most things. My y-haplogroup is I2a, though I myself was never tested, but my father's brother was and his results said that he was I2a (since we share patrilineal ancestry, I must have I2a aswell).



2. Concerning skull shapes--I'm dolichocephalic, so is my dad and his brother. All I1's. What does this mean?

I don't know much about skull measurements and skull-classifications. It is best left to the professionals due to its complex nature. I also am hesitant to use it, because skull-classifications are often used in a biased way.

Templar
29-11-12, 19:34
They have Caucasoid traits but dark skin (very dark sometimes)

The dark skin is likely due to admixture with Australoid natives.

Knovas
29-11-12, 19:47
The Paniya from the Chaubey et al study show 4.6% in the Australasian component, and they peak in South Asian with almost 85% (globe13 analysis). So it's possible.

Yetos
29-11-12, 20:29
It is all still up for debate since research and testing is always showing us new things, but I do think that R1a was the main source of both the Light eye genes and Blonde hair. Red hair seems to be a mutation which can only affect those who already have the usual light-hair genes (I forgot where I read this, I will try to link it if I find it). The original Paleolithic Europeans though likely already had light skin, but maybe not as light as the R1a.



Thank you, but in all honesty there are many much more informed members on this forum, especially the creator of the forum, Maciamo. I agree with him on most things. My y-haplogroup is I2a, though I myself was never tested, but my father's brother was and his results said that he was I2a (since we share patrilineal ancestry, I must have I2a aswell).




I don't know much about skull measurements and skull-classifications. It is best left to the professionals due to its complex nature. I also am hesitant to use it, because skull-classifications are often used in a biased way.

I think no, except if R1a is Baltic component,

the light skin, the extra white to pink skin should also be in the same mutation were blondism happened,

R1a homeland is far from Baltic,

Templar
29-11-12, 20:39
I think no, except if R1a is Baltic component,

the light skin, the extra white to pink skin should also be in the same mutation were blondism happened,

R1a homeland is far from Baltic,

That is implying that light features evolved in the Baltic. Maybe the light features were just as present elsewhere, but subsequent migrations and invasions prevented it from continuing to modern day times. Maybe it is the isolated location of the Baltic is the thing that makes its population have retain high blondness rates.

Yetos
29-11-12, 20:53
I mean that original R1a could not be so white skin as is in today high peaks of Baltic.

Besides lets look and something else,
from blond -white skin Baltic to balkans we have white skin dark-hair populations (central Europe) and then brown hair but easy to change brown-white skin population,

North of Balkans we have less brown population and then Blonds

gradualy brown drops and blondism raises, Leaving outsisde west Europe, that does not happen in China-Moggolia-Berig sea,
and where is the homeland of red hair population?.
not in West Europe, neither at Central and East Asian steppe. but somewhere among North parts of Mediterenean to Caucas to Baltic

Kardu
29-11-12, 21:29
Are you on crack? Indians don't look Europoid at all! Georgians look much more Europoid than Indians and Georgians don't even speak an Indo-European languagge!

Kurdish (Gorani, Kurmanji) (closely related to Avestan, Avestan and Sanskrit were almost the same brother languages) is much closer to Sanskrit than Lithuanian is.

Sanskrit is NOT a proto-Indo-European language but just part of an Indo-Iranic family and far relative to Balto-Slavic languages. Baltic folks were the last who began to speak an Indo-European language! Since Indo-Europeans speakers Indo-Europised (Mongoloid) Baltic folks. It's a close community with very few people, so after Indo-Europisation of native Mongoloid Balts their language didn't evolved very much.

Anatolian languages (+Armenian etc.) are much closer to ancient Indo-European languages than Balto-Slavic languages are. And Antolian languages are native to West Asia.

Anatolian languages were much more ARCHAIC Indo-European languages than other languages.

Since we are talking this way I could also say that you got blind from crack as you dont see that I have written UPPER CASTE INDIANS!
You can push your agenda as much as you like but you won't convince anyone who has little bit of knowledge in these matters.
Lithuanian language shows many similarities with Sanskrit and Baltic pagan religion still contains the most archaic layers pf proto-indoeuropean belief system...
You like it or not Aryans conquering North India were light and blonde and it's well-attested in the Rig Veda.

Templar
29-11-12, 21:36
Since we are talking this way I could also say that you got blind from crack as you dont see that I have written UPPER CASTE INDIANS!
You can push your agenda as much as you like but you won't convince anyone who has little bit of knowledge in these matters.
Lithuanian language shows many similarities with Sanskrit and Baltic pagan religion still contains the most archaic layers pf proto-indoeuropean belief system...
You like it or not Aryans conquering North India were light and blonde and it's well-attested in the Rig Veda.

Right on mate.

Goga
29-11-12, 21:43
Since we are talking this way I could also say that you got blind from crack as you dont see that I have written UPPER CASTE INDIANS!
You can push your agenda as much as you like but you won't convince anyone who has little bit of knowledge in these matters.
Lithuanian language shows many similarities with Sanskrit and Baltic pagan religion still contains the most archaic layers pf proto-indoeuropean belief system...
You like it or not Aryans conquering North India were light and blonde and it's well-attested in the Rig Veda.
Huh? I don't have any agenda, what is my agenda? I'm just trying to make a journey into the past!

The difference between UPPER CASTE INDIANS and other Indians is that UPPER CASTE INDIANS have much more West Asian haplogroups in them: more J2a more G2a etc.

Speaking about the Aryans; Aryans spoke proto-Iranic and not Baltic or Slavic and Zoroastrianism was the only official ARYAN religion (of Media and later Persia).
The only true and direct descendants of those Aryans are not Indians or Slavic & Baltic people, but Iranic tribes which still transmit the legacy of their ancient ancestors to future generations.

Have a good day.

Templar
29-11-12, 21:50
Huh? I don't have any agenda, what is my agenda?I'm just trying to make a journey into the past!

You do have an agenda. You are Kurdish, and you want Indo-Europeans to look like you.


The difference between UPPER CASTE INDIANS and other Indians is that UPPER CASTE INDIANS have much more West Asian haplogroups in them: more J2a more G2a etc.

They also have R1a, which isn't West Asian. It is from the Eurasian Steppe, which ranges from the outskirts of Eastern Europe to Central Asia.


Speaking about the Aryans; Aryans spoke proto-Iranic and
The leadership likely overwhelmingly had light features. Their cultural influence was strong enough to change the local language to an Indo-European one, but genetically they didn't change the make up of West Asia much.

Goga
29-11-12, 22:06
You do have an agenda. You are Kurdish, and you want Indo-Europeans to look like you.



They also have R1a, which isn't West Asian. It is from the Eurasian Steppe, which ranges from the outskirts of Eastern Europe to Central Asia.


The leadership likely overwhelmingly had light features. Their cultural influence was strong enough to change the local language to an Indo-European one, but genetically they didn't change the make up of West Asia much.
Yes, I'm a Kurd and I'm native to Kurdistan. I don't care at all how proto-IE speakers looked like. Why should I?

Also, since I'm not Hamitic, Semitic and since my native language is Kurdic which is part of Iranic (ARYAN) language family, I'm Irnaic.

R1a is among all Indians from low cast Indians, upper cast Indians to castless Indians.

A part of Iranian plateau IS IN Central Asia. And of all Indo-European speakers Kurds have the most Central Asian aDNA component in them, after East-Iranic Central Asians of course.

Lol, Persians and the Medes were always darker than Greeks in the west. That's a fact. Aryans were mostly West Asian - Cetnral Asian hybrids my friend.

Neh, You're just jealous about my history and heritage. And now go and read what ancient Greeks wrote about my ancestors..

Kardu
29-11-12, 22:16
Goga, btw it's high time that you order a genetic test, who knows whom you might turn out to be. Maybe even R1a1 ;)

I personally believe that the first Indo-Europeans were not a single haplogroup (and no ethnic group was even at that time) but a mixture of R1a1, R1b, J2a and G2a...

Indoeuopeans were not Zoroastrians. Zoroastrism is a much later invention in Avestan tradition.
Religious beliefs and practices of the conquerors of the North India are well described in Rig Veda. I advise you to read it.

And you will have to explain from whom did Lithuanians got their archaic language and pagan religion...

Templar
29-11-12, 22:20
Neh, You’re just jealous about my history and heritage ..

Nope, I am never jealous of anyone. I actually think that Kurds should have their own states, but the surroundings countries ofcourse don't want to lose territory, so they spread propaganda. The funniest thing I've heard is Turks saying that Kurds are actually Turks, which makes no sense in so many ways.


R1a is amongall Indians from low Cast Indians, Upper cast Indians to castles Indians.

It is much higher among the high castes.


Aryans were Wes tAsian-Cetnral Asian hybrids my friend.
They likely weren't very mixed yet during that time since relatively shortly after coming to modern-day Iran from Central Asia, they went on to invade India. Over time though they blended with the native population of Iran, and formed the Persian ethnicity. They tend to usually look like the average West Asian, but slightly lighter skinned and some have light eyes.

My point of contention with you is that you believe that Indo-Europeans had Scandinavian facial features, and that infuriates me. In a different thread you talked about how Kurds have similar similar noses to "Nordics", which is crazy. In a way you are trying to justify Nordicism and Hitler's delusional thinking.

Goga
29-11-12, 22:26
Goga, btw it's high time that you order a genetic test, who knows whom you might turn out to be. Maybe even R1a1 ;)

I personally believe that the first Indo-Europeans were not a single haplogroup (and no ethnic group was even at that time) but a mixture of R1a1, R1b, J2a and G2a...

Indoeuopeans were not Zoroastrians. Zoroastrism is a much later invention in Avestan tradition.
Religious beliefs and practices of the conquerors of the North India are well described in Rig Veda. I advise you to read it.

And you will have to explain from whom did Lithuanians got their archaic language and pagan religion...I don't know anything about their religion but they most probably got Indo-Europised by Indo-Europeans from the Balkans-Central Europe.
As far as I know the sun, fire and the bull (cow) played an important role in proto-Indo-European cultures. And the sun, fire & bull worship is from West Asia!

Lithuanian language is not archaic at all, but a modern Baltic language. Archaic languages died a long time ago.

Aboriginal Dravidians were very dark. Aryans were just lighter than Dravidians. But except from Africans EVERYBODY is lighter than Dravidians. Compared to Dravidians West Asians are very light, lol.

Kardu
29-11-12, 22:32
Anyone wishing to hear how Indo-Europeans spoke should come and listen to a Lithuanian peasant.
—Antoine Meillet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Meillet)
Lithuanian still retains many of the original features of the nominal morphology found in some ancient Indo-European languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages) like Sanskrit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit) and Latin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin), and has therefore been the focus of much study in the area of Indo-European (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages) linguistics. Studies in the field of comparative linguistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_linguistics) have shown it to be the most conservative living Indo-European language



Lith. and Skt. sūnus (son)
Lith. and Skt. avis and Lat. ovis (sheep)
Lith. dūmas and Skt. dhūmas and Lat. fumus (smoke)
Lith. antras and Skt. antaras (second, the other)
Lith. vilkas and Skt. vṛkas (wolf)
Lith. ratas and Lat. rota (wheel) and Skt. rathas (carriage).
Lith. senis and Lat. senex (an old man) and Skt. sanas (old).
Lith. vyras and Lat. vir (a man) and Skt. vīras (man, hero).
Lith. angis and Lat. anguis (a snake in Latin, a species of snakes in Lithuanian)
Lith. linas and Lat. linum (flax, compare with English 'linen')
Lith. ariu and Lat. aro (I plow)
Lith. jungiu and Lat. iungo (I join)
Lith. gentys and Lat. gentes (tribes) and Skt. jánas (genus, race).
Lith. mėnesis and Lat. mensis and Skt masa (month)
Lith. dantis and Lat. dentes and Skt dantas (teeth)
Lith. naktis and Lat. noctes and Skt. naktis (night)
Lith. sėdime and Lat. sedemus (we sit) and Skt. siedati (sits).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_language

Goga
29-11-12, 22:37
Don't get confused. Compared to proto-Indo-European, Sanskrit and Latin are very modern languages. And once again, modern IRANIC languages are MUCH CLOSER to Sanskrit than Balto-Slavic languages!

ANATOLIAN languages were MUCH older than Latin or Sanskrit! Don’t get confused!


http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/9676/indoeuropeanlanguagetre.jpg

Taranis
29-11-12, 22:37
I have moved this thread to 'ethnography' because it has increasingly little to do with genetics but instead has derided, I'm sorry to say that, into a hodge-podge about anything else, including what sketchily appear to me like 19th century racial ideas...

Alan
30-11-12, 15:52
Are you on crack? Indians don't look Europoid at all! Georgians look much more Europoid than Indians and Georgians don't even speak an Indo-European languagge!

He asked you a simple question, your behave is just unacceptable and rude. Its this behave which made you banned on a Kurdish forum for a while.



Anatolian languages (+Armenian etc.) are much closer to ancient Indo-European languages than Balto-Slavic languages are. And Antolian languages are native to West Asia.

Armenian is not very close to ancient Indo-European languages. Its derived from Phrygian. Hittite is very close to ancient Indo-European.

Alan
30-11-12, 15:58
I think no, except if R1a is Baltic component,

the light skin, the extra white to pink skin should also be in the same mutation were blondism happened,

R1a homeland is far from Baltic,

I disagree highly on this point. I dont believe that light hair and eyes evolved in the Baltics. In fact this mutation is known as far back as Summerian period (or even further back). If you look at some of the Sumerian statues they show people depicted with Green and Blue eyes. The Assyrians which almost lack the Baltic related North European component have relatively high frequency of Green eyes too.

I believe that this mutations for light hair and eyes evolved much earlier in Paleolithic Western Asia or maybe it was brought into Europe by Neolithic farmers.

Kardu
30-11-12, 17:23
Thanks, Alan.

As for blue eyes, the current consensus among scientists is that the responsible mutation occurred about 8000 years ago somewhere in the region north to the Black sea.

Templar
30-11-12, 17:48
As for blue eyes, the current consensus among scientists is that the responsible mutation occurred about 8000 years ago somewhere in the region north to the Black sea.

Yep, on the steppes where the Indo-Europeans lived.

Alan
30-11-12, 18:34
Thanks, Alan.

As for blue eyes, the current consensus among scientists is that the responsible mutation occurred about 8000 years ago somewhere in the region north to the Black sea.

I doubt that such a widespread phenomenon is the result of only one mutation. And even less that it spread all around the world from North of the Black sea 8000 b.c. . If so we would have to assume that there was a huge movement into Western Asia from North of the steppes during the Neolithic which does not make much sense to me since during this period most if not all movements were rather out of West Asia.

I am sure this current consensus will change during time just like people earlier thought R1b is a paleolithic Haplogroup.

Templar
30-11-12, 18:39
If so we would have to assume that there was a huge movement into Western Asia from North of the steppes during the Neolithic
During the Bronze age there was large movement South. How do you think the R1b and R1a got to West Asia?

Alan
30-11-12, 18:55
During the Bronze age there was large movement South. How do you think the R1b and R1a got to West Asia?

The R1b is native to West Asia this is the most accepted point of view. About the origin of R1a we are still not entirely sure. But one thing is for sure, during Neolithic the area of the Pontic-Caspian Steppes was settled by East Eurasian like people.

So how is it possible that this mutation occurred 8000 b.c. in the Steppes while this area was settled by non West Eurasian people?

It is getting more and more clear that during Neolithic a population replacement took place in the Steppes and most of Eastern Europe. Even Polako, who was the most hardcore supporter of an European origin of R1a and Indo Europeans has changed his mind and believes that during Neolithic somewhere North of the Levant-Southeast Anatolia a group of R1a and R1b carriers moved into Europe.

ElHorsto
30-11-12, 19:21
The R1b is native to West Asia this is the most accepted point of view. About the origin of R1a we are still not entirely sure.


Agreed so far.



But one thing is for sure, during Neolithic the area of the Pontic-Caspian Steppes was settled by East Eurasian like people.


I honestly would like to learn the evidence that makes this so sure.



It is getting more and more clear that during Neolithic a population replacement took place in the Steppes and most of Eastern Europe. Even Polako, who was the most hardcore supporter of an European origin of R1a and Indo Europeans has changed his mind and believes that during Neolithic somewhere North of the Levant-Southeast Anatolia a group of R1a and R1b carriers moved into Europe.

That is not really new, especially based on Eupedia knowledge, but R1a/R1b are merely lineages and we all should know about their (non-)relevance. I also was following these discussions on forumbiodiversity, and honestly some of it didn't make sense to me. To the contrary, there is increasing evidence that even east central asia was partially inhabited by north-european-like peoples. The finno-ugric/pitted-ware background of the Keltiminar culture in southern Kazakhstan is yet another piece in the puzzle. Of course there were many south-european-like peoples too in the steppes and central asia, but it is unknown to which extent and mtDNA is not as reliable as autosomals.

Alan
30-11-12, 19:44
I honestly would like to learn the evidence that makes this so sure.
http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2011/09/east-eurasian-mtdna-in-ukrainian.html





To the contrary, there is increasing evidence that even east central asia was partially inhabited by north-european-like peoples. The finno-ugric/pitted-ware background of the Keltiminar culture in southern Kazakhstan is yet another piece in the puzzle. Of course there were many south-european-like peoples too in the steppes and central asia, but it is unknown to which extent and mtDNA is not as reliable as autosomals.

But these cultures are from Central Asia during Bronze Age, I was specifically talking about the Steppes Southern Russia and Ukraine during Neolithic.

ElHorsto
30-11-12, 20:35
http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2011/09/east-eurasian-mtdna-in-ukrainian.html


Thanks, but I wouldn't consider this convincing evidence. A certain asian shift has been consistently shown to co-exist with north-european components, not only in eastern europe, but even in British islands, where it is just diminished by increasing Atlantic-med admixture. So it wouldn't be surprising to find a few east asian or amerindian HGs among north-europeans (examples are Y-HG N east of the baltic sea and some - probably more ancient Y-HG Q west of the baltic sea). Further, MtDNA C is believed to came 60000 yrs. ago from central Asia, thus it is by no means indicative of mongoloids (as we rightfully also don't claim R1a to be all from Indians for instance). Sure, HG C is rare in Europe today (once case in Iceland), but instead some Y-HG Q (at least as exotic as mtDNA C) occurs in Scandinavia. East of the baltic sea, these sparse exotic HGs might have been erased by newer lineages N and R1a. A remote paleolithic co-ancestry of north-europeans and east-asians/amerindians seems more likely to me than a completely different population in the neolthic steppes.




But these cultures are from Central Asia during Bronze Age, I was specifically talking about the Steppes Southern Russia and Ukraine during Neolithic.

Well, ok.

Alan
30-11-12, 20:40
Thanks, but I wouldn't consider this convincing evidence. A certain asian shift has been consistently shown to co-exist with north-european components, not only in eastern europe, but even in British islands, where it is just diminished by increasing Atlantic-med admixture. So it wouldn't be surprising to find a few east asian or amerindian HGs among north-europeans (examples are Y-HG N east of the baltic sea and some - probably more ancient Y-HG Q west of the baltic sea). Further, MtDNA C is believed to came 60000 yrs. ago from central Asia, thus it is by no means indicative of mongoloids (as we rightfully also don't claim R1a to be all from Indians for instance). Sure, HG C is rare in Europe today (once case in Iceland), but instead some Y-HG Q (at least as exotic as mtDNA C) occurs in Scandinavia. East of the baltic sea, these sparse exotic HGs might have been erased by newer lineages N and R1a. A remote paleolithic co-ancestry of north-europeans and east-asians/amerindians seems more likely to me than a completely different population in the neolthic steppes.





A few East Asian lineages is good but all 6 samples came out as East Eurasian. Its hard for me to believe this is just coincidence.

ElHorsto
30-11-12, 21:02
A few East Asian lineages is good but all 6 samples came out as East Eurasian. Its hard for me to believe this is just coincidence.

I agree that it is significant. I merely can't see proof that mtDNA C itself is always mongol or east asian. It is most frequent in east asia today, but according to Wikipedia, "C is believed to have arisen somewhere between the Caspian Sea and Lake Baikal some 60,000 years before present. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C_%28mtDNA%29
This location is right north from the maximum of the gedrosia component, which is BTW still present in Altaians and North-west europeans today. (although the NW-european Gedrosian is likely of much later origin, but doesn't matter)

C is low in Chinese and Japanese today and has a significant diversity in Amerindians today, which fits well to the paleolithic north-eurasian-american tundra. If these 6 samples can be traced back to backmigration from north-east asia, then your hypothesis would get more weight. Else, they are more likely migrants coming from central asia.

Kardu
30-11-12, 23:13
I didn't mean that the first people with blue eyes were R1a1.

According to current research unlike blond hair the mutation for blue eyes did occur only once and it most probably happened north to the Black sea.

And blue eyes are not the same a s green eyes.

Alan
01-12-12, 00:16
I didn't mean that the first people with blue eyes were R1a1.

According to current research unlike blond hair the mutation for blue eyes did occur only once and it most probably happened north to the Black sea.

And blue eyes are not the same a s green eyes.

Green eyes are simply a cross of genes for Blue and Brown Eyes. That this mutation occurred only once is impossible since today in one generation we have several examples of Blue Eyes which are not connected to this one mutation.


Look at this African kid

5776

Kardu
01-12-12, 00:22
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

Kardu
01-12-12, 00:36
"The picture of the little boy with the blue eyes and dark skin probably represents Ocular Albinism or Nettleship-Falls albinism, or Juvenile uveitis. Both conditions cause the pigment of the iris to be less dense"

Alan
01-12-12, 00:43
I am generally suspicious about Genetic components and the time frame needed for them to drift.



I will give you an example why.

The Druze are genetically one of the most "Mediterranean" groups in all of Western Asia. They are believed by many people to represent an "ancient Near Eastern source", but in fact many of them are of Kurdish or Kurdish related origin.


more about the Druze People.


Ethnic origins

The Druze faith extended to many areas in the Middle East, but most of the surviving modern Druze can trace their origin to the Wadi al-Taymour in South Lebanon, which is named after an Arab tribe Taymour-Allah (formerly Taymour-Allat) which, according to Islamic historian, al-Tabari, first came from Arabia into the valley of the Euphrates where they were Christianized prior to their migration into the Lebanon. Many of the Druze feudal families whose genealogies have been preserved by the two modern Syrian chroniclers Haydar al-Shihabi and al-Shidyaq seem also to point in the direction of this origin. Arabian tribes emigrated via the Persian Gulf and stopped in Iraq on the route that was later to lead them to Syria. The first feudal Druze family, the Tanukh family, which made for itself a name in fighting the Crusaders, was, according to Haydar al-Shihabi, an Arab tribe from Mesopotamia where it occupied the position of a ruling family and apparently was Christianized.[28][page needed]

The Tanukhs must have left Arabia as early as the second or third century A.D. The Ma'an tribe, which superseded the Tanukhs and produced the greatest Druze hero in history, Fakhr-al-Din, had the same traditional origin. The Talhuq family and 'Abd-al-Malik, who supplied the later Druze leadership, have the same record as the Tanukhs. The Imad family is named for al-Imadiyyah — the Kurdish town of Amadiya, northeast of Mosul inside Kurdistan, and, like the Jumblatts, is thought to be of Kurdish origin. The Arsalan family claims descent from the Hirah Arab kings, but the name Arsalan (Persian and Turkish for lion) suggests Persian influence, if not origin.[28][page needed]


According to Jewish contemporary literature, the Druze, who were visited by Benjamin of Tudela, were described as descendants of the Itureans — an Ismaelite Arab tribe, which used to reside in the northern parts of the Golan plateau through Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Nevertheless, many scholars formed their own hypotheses: for example, Lamartine (1835) discovered in the modern Druzes the remnants of the Samaritans;[53] Earl of Carnarvon (1860), those of the Cuthites whom Esarhaddon transplanted into Palestine;[54] Professor Felix von Luschan (1911), according to his conclusions from anthropometric measurements, makes the Druze, Maronites, and Alawites of Syria, together with the Bektashis, 'Ali-Ilahis, and Yezidis of Asia Minor and Persia, the modern representatives of the ancient Hittites.[55]

During the 18th century, there were two branches of Druze living in Lebanon: the Yemeni Druze, headed by the Hamdan and Al-Atrash families; and the Kaysi Druze, headed by the Jumblat and Arsalan families.

The two big families Jumblat (derives from Kurdish Canpolat) and Arsalan (not sure about Arsalan) are of Kurdish origin.

The most famous member of the Jumblat family is Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Progressive Socialist Party in Lebanon.

5777

When he recently visited Iraqi Kurdistan with his son, Timour Jumblatt, he said in a speech with Barzani that his ancestors are originally Kurdish from Kurdistan and how proud he is of his origin.


igin of the Jumblatt family is the Kurdish Janpoulad family coming from Shamel Janpoulad and dating back to Janboulad Ibn Kassem al Kirdi al Kaisari, known as Ibn Arabou (1530–1580), and governor of Aleppo. Walid Jumblatt is the son of Kamal Jumblatt, the founder of the PSP, the party which Walid Jumblatt currently leads. He is the maternal grandson of Prince Shakib Arslan.[2] His first wife was Gervette "Gigi," a Jordanian woman of Circassian origin who is the mother of his child Timour. His current wife is the Syrian Nora Sharabati, the daughter of the former Syrian Minister of Defense Ahmed Al-Sharabati. Walid Jumblatt graduated from the American University of Beirut in Political Science.

al is the arabic article (like the in English) Kirdi is derived from Kurdish Kurdi and means Kurdish.

But Kurds are genetically different and have less of the Mediterranean and Southwest Asian and more of the West Asian component compared to the Druze.


So how is it possible that the Druze, who are also largely of Kurdish origin, can be different from Kurds genetically. They should resemble mostly Kurds with some stronger Southwest Asian input (from the Gulf Arabic input) but they resemble genetically more the genetically pure Levantins though they share common origin and religious roots (with Yezidi) Kurds.

Is it possible that the Mediterranean component is simply "West Asian " component slightly drifting towards Southwest Asian? And the reason Druze are high on this component is because they are largely of West Asian (Kurdish ) origin with Southwest Asian input?

There are so many things you cant explain with the current genetic consensus.

Alan
01-12-12, 00:45
"The picture of the little boy with the blue eyes and dark skin probably represents Ocular Albinism or Nettleship-Falls albinism, or Juvenile uveitis. Both conditions cause the pigment of the iris to be less dense"

The boys eyes look pretty normal to me, Albinism is relative imo and it depends on your own definition of it. I am not trying to be rude but in some kind of way you could say the North Europeans "suffer" also from a sort of "Albinism".

Kardu
01-12-12, 01:07
The boys eyes look pretty normal to me, Albinism is relative imo and it depends on your own definition of it. I am not trying to be rude but in some kind of way you could say the North Europeans "suffer" also from a sort of "Albinism".

No, blue eyes in Europeans are due to a specific, inheritable genetic mutation. :)

Ocular albinism on the other hand is a medical condition...

Alan
01-12-12, 01:16
No, blue eyes in Europeans are due to a specific, inheritable genetic mutation. :)

Ocular albinism on the other hand is a medical condition...

ok let it be so, still the boy does not look like he suffers from albinism, his skin color is normal, and his eyes too. Blue eyes of Albinos have a reddish touch.

here is another one, and the description states that he is not suffering from Albinism and non Mulatto.

5778


A quick trace of the flurry of hits revealed the picture before you. It is, perhaps, the best example of a black African, non-mulatto, non-albino, with blue eyes. Also, the boy in the picture does not appear to have Waardenberg Syndrome, also a source of blue eyes in blacks. This leaves the strong possibility of a rare mutation of a key eye color gene.

Templar
01-12-12, 01:21
ok let it be so, still the boy does not look like he suffers from albinism, his skin color is normal, and his eyes too. Blue eyes of Albinos have a reddish touch.


It is a TYPE of albinism. Search for: "Ocular Albinism"

Alan
01-12-12, 01:26
the description says it is most probably not a sort of albinism but mutation.

Templar
01-12-12, 01:29
the description says it is most probably

What one says does not mean it is true. It is probably biased. The implicit message seems to be: "oh hey look, non-Europeans are capable of having blue eyes as well!". Political correctness at its best.

Kardu
01-12-12, 01:32
Ocular albinism is a form of albinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albinism) which, in contrast to oculocutaneous albinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oculocutaneous_albinism), presents primarily in the eyes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism#cite_note-urlOcular_albinism_-_Genetics_Home_Reference-1) There are multiple forms of ocular albinism, which are clinically similar.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism#cite_note-Andrews-2):865
Both known genes are on the X chromosome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_chromosome). When the term "autosomal recessive ocular albinism" ("AROA") is used, it usually refers to mild variants of oculocutaneous albinism
Also known as Nettleship-Falls syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettleship-Falls_syndrome),[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism#cite_note-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism#cite_note-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism#cite_note-6) is the most common variety of ocular albinism. OA1 is usually associated with nystagmus, and difficult to otherwise detect in females; males show more readily observable symptoms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism

LeBrok
01-12-12, 02:45
Ocular albinism on the other hand is a medical condition...
Is it make him sick? Is he going to die?



Ocular albinism is a form of albinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albinism) which, in contrast tooculocutaneous albinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oculocutaneous_albinism), presents primarily in the eyes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism#cite_note-urlOcular_albinism_-_Genetics_Home_Reference-1)There are multiple forms of ocular albinism, which are clinically similar.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism#cite_note-Andrews-2):865
Both known genes are on the X chromosome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_chromosome).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism


If I'm reading it correctly, they mean changes on X chromosome, compared to "normal" people. By definition, it is a mutation, period.

It is not a beneficial mutation for these people or a region, that's why it is very sporadic. If it was beneficial there, we would have seen many more, or even most with blue eyes.

Likewise you can call blond mutations a medical conditions while in Africa. You will burn quickly unprotected and get skin cancer 1,000 fold faster than locals. A very serious medical condition I must add.
On other hand, around Baltic Sea blond mutations are/were beneficial to the degree that they spread across all populations in few thousand years.

Kardu
01-12-12, 02:54
What's your point, LeBrok? :)

Does what you say challenge the claim that blue eyes among Europeans is due to a single mutation which occurred about 8000 years ago?

LeBrok
01-12-12, 05:27
What's your point, LeBrok? :)

Does what you say challenge the claim that blue eyes among Europeans is due to a single mutation which occurred about 8000 years ago?

Not at all, I was challenging your understanding of relation between mutation and medical condition.

To add, here is a fragment of this article you posted.

The mutation of brown eyes to blue represents neither a positive nor a negative mutation. It is one of several mutations such as hair colour, baldness, freckles and beauty spots, which neither increases nor reduces a human’s chance of survival. As Professor Eiberg says, “it simply shows that nature is constantly shuffling the human genome, creating a genetic cocktail of human chromosomes and trying out different changes as it does so.” If what professor says is right, then Ocular Albinism cannot be a medical condition. Blue eyes won't make you sick even if you're African.

Most likely the difference is that Blue eye Europeans got this OCA2 mutation in whole body, at least skin and eyes (as side effect of one of mutations of making skin whiter), where the African boy got this mutation in eyes only.

Alan
01-12-12, 09:35
thanks LeBrok, that was my point. "Albinism and what is a "medical condition" is relative.

And the reason why I do not believe this mutation occurred North of the Black sea, is that we would have to assume that during Sumerian Period or even earlier a huge group of people have to have moved from North of the Blacksea into Western Asia. This doesnt sound very logical to me, but of course it is a possibility.

Kardu
01-12-12, 12:02
Not at all, I was challenging your understanding of relation between mutation and medical condition.

To add, here is a fragment of this article you posted.
If what professor says is right, then Ocular Albinism cannot be a medical condition. Blue eyes won't make you sick even if you're African.

Most likely the difference is that Blue eye Europeans got this OCA2 mutation in whole body, at least skin and eyes (as side effect of one of mutations of making skin whiter), where the African boy got this mutation in eyes only.
Not so fast :) Is Ocular Albinism among Africans heritable like blue eye mutation among Europeans?

LeBrok
01-12-12, 18:27
Yes, if it is a mutation that happened in early cell divisions. If this mutation happened only in eyes cells then no, sperm or egg won't carry it to next generation.

Kardu
01-12-12, 20:25
Yes, if it is a mutation that happened in early cell divisions. If this mutation happened only in eyes cells then no, sperm or egg won't carry it to next generation.

So there you have your answer. Mutation responsible for blue eyes (in Europeans) is benign and heritable, while ocular albinism is a medical condition (you don't like this definition but still :))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism
"Also known as Forsius-Eriksson syndrome[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism#cite_note-8)[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism#cite_note-pmid14230113-9) or "Åland Island (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_Island) eye disease", mostly only affects males, though females are often carriers and can sometimes be symptomatic; it is frequently linked with protanopic dichromacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichromacy) (a form of color blindness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness)) and with night blindness (nyctalopia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyctalopia))."

Kardu
01-12-12, 20:45
Y-chromosome variation in Tajiks and Iranians

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/03014460.2012.747628https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/424863_3823408110088_1311194968_n.jpg

It's interesting to observe that in Persian sample R1a1 is 20.8%, in Tajiks - 30% while among Kurds - 0%

Goga
01-12-12, 23:52
Y-chromosome variation in Tajiks and Iranians

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/03014460.2012.747628

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/424863_3823408110088_1311194968_n.jpg

It's interesting to observe that in Persian sample R1a1 is 20.8%, in Tajiks - 30% while among Kurds - 0%
Thanks for this study. Every study on Kurds is GOLD for me. Shows me that the Medes and other ancient 'Umman Manda' in Kurdistan were mostly J2a folks.

but you're way off topic now. I started this topic about totally other subject. Nothing to do with this. And what are you trying to say? That Kurds are not Iranic?
Well, if Kurds are not Iranic, Indians are not Indic, French are not Celtic, Germans are not Germanic, Italians are not Italic/Roman, modernday Greeks are not Hellenic etc. This doesn't make any sense, right?

Templar
01-12-12, 23:58
but you're way off topic now. I started this topic about totally other subject. Nothing to do with this. And what are you trying to say? That Kurds are not Iranic?
Well, if Kurds are not Iranic, Indians are not Indic, French are not Celtic, Germans are not Germanic, Italians are not Italic/Roman, modernGreeks are not Hellenic etc. This doesn't make any sense.

The study didn't really test a large number of people though. Only 25 Kurds were tested.

Goga
02-12-12, 00:05
The study didn't really test a large number of people though. Only 25 Kurds were tested.Kurdish aDNA is well know. I believe new results doesn't change Kurdish aDNA, right?

The closest relatives to Kurds are Persians, Ossetians and than folks in the Caucasus if we can believe aDNA of course.

Ossetians were Alanians, Persians were ancient Persians, while Kurds were ancient Medes, so this whole picture makes sense to me. Persians, Alanians and Medes were brothers to each other.

Templar
02-12-12, 00:16
Kurdish aDNA is well know. I believe new results doesn't change Kurdish aDNA, right?

The closest relatives to Kurds are Persians, Ossetians and than folks in the Caucasus if we can believe aDNA of course.

Ossetians were Alanians, Persians were ancient Persians, while Kurds were ancient Medes, so this whole picture makes sense to me. Persians, Alanians and Medes were brothers to each other.

No, I mean maybe more Kurds have R1a1 than the test suggests, since they only tested 25 Kurds.

LeBrok
02-12-12, 00:17
So there you have your answer. Mutation responsible for blue eyes (in Europeans) is benign and heritable, while ocular albinism is a medical condition (you don't like this definition but still :))
So you know for sure which form of mutation he has? Maybe he had Swedish father? How come you're so sure?




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism
"Also known as Forsius-Eriksson syndrome[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism#cite_note-8)[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_albinism#cite_note-pmid14230113-9) or "Åland Island (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_Island) eye disease", mostly only affects males, though females are often carriers and can sometimes be symptomatic; it is frequently linked with protanopic dichromacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichromacy) (a form of color blindness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness)) and with night blindness (nyctalopia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyctalopia))."

Are freckles on skin a medical condition too? After all, they are frequently linked with skin cancer.

Kardu, I don't mind if we're wrong, that we are learning through debate, or sometimes a shouting match. What can't settle with me is how sure you are of many things with still limited and almost rudimentary knowledge we poses (we as humans) in these fields.

Goga
02-12-12, 00:28
No, I mean maybe more Kurds have R1a1 than the test suggests, since they only tested 25 Kurds.Of course, it must be so. Because on every aDNA map Kurds and Iranians cluster together.

“Two Y-DNA haplogroups are supposed to be connected with Iranic peoples: J2 and R1a1.
R1 is more closely linked to Iranians, while R1b is linked to Europeans”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/IE1500BP.png

Also mtDNA haplogoup U7 is closely linked to Iranic folks:

"Many European populations lack Haplogroup U7, but its frequency climbs over 4% in the Near East and up to 5% in Pakistan, reaching nearly 10% level in Iranians."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_(mtDNA)#Haplogroup_U7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_(mtDNA)#Haplogroup_U7)

Kardu
02-12-12, 00:42
So you know for sure which form of mutation he has? Maybe he had Swedish father? How come you're so sure?




Are freckles on skin a medical condition too? After all, they are frequently linked with skin cancer.

Kardu, I don't mind if we're wrong, that we are learning through debate, or sometimes a shouting match. What can't settle with me is how sure you are of many things with still limited and almost rudimentary knowledge we poses (we as humans) in these fields.

If you check the original discussion above you'll see that I replied on Alan's claim that blue eyes can occur naturally in various parts of the world...
Sure that child on that photo might have a Swedish/European parent, it can be Photoshopped or he most probably has ocular albinism...

Goga
02-12-12, 00:52
Talking about colors, blue eyes and blonde hair are very very rare in Kurdistan, while red hair and green eyes are very common in the inland of Kurdistan/Zagros Mountains. So blonde hair and blue eyes are definitely NOT from West Asia!

Kardu
02-12-12, 01:14
Kurdish aDNA is well know. I believe new results doesn't change Kurdish aDNA, right?

The closest relatives to Kurds are Persians, Ossetians and than folks in the Caucasus if we can believe aDNA of course.

Ossetians were Alanians, Persians were ancient Persians, while Kurds were ancient Medes, so this whole picture makes sense to me. Persians, Alanians and Medes were brothers to each other.

You are mixing linguistics with genetics/ethnic origins.
Ossetians are as much Alans as modern Turks are Oghuz or modern Hungarians - Magyars...

Goga
02-12-12, 01:20
You are mixing linguistics withgenetics/ethnic origins.
Ossetians are as much Alans as modern Turks are Oghuz or modern Hungarians -Magyars...
I do understand your feelings as a Georgian and I'm not here to encourage separatism in your country. But South Ossetians are genetically very close to Persians and Kurds.

Btw, I was born in Tbilisi (USSR) and I like Georgians much more than Ossetians or Persians (I don't like Persians at all)!

As you can see even on this map South Ossetians (SE-S), Kurds (KUR) and Iranians (IRN) are clustered together.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4fyGtwWJTMI/UKpNK618KvI/AAAAAAAAHd4/3X5GQF0efE8/s1600/preironage.png

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/11/mitochondrial-dna-in-ancient-human.html

Goga
02-12-12, 01:23
So, both genetically and linguistically West Iranian nations are very close to each other. Like 3000 years ago; Alanians, Persians and Medes were close to each other! We didn't change that much in the last 3000 years!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/IE1500BP.png

Alan
02-12-12, 01:24
Y-chromosome variation in Tajiks and Iranians

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/03014460.2012.747628

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/424863_3823408110088_1311194968_n.jpg

It's interesting to observe that in Persian sample R1a1 is 20.8%, in Tajiks - 30% while among Kurds - 0%

?just recently there was a study (grugni. et al. 2012) which found 20% R1a in Kurds and only some 10% among Persians overall.


May I ask where the samples were token? I suspect its from a group of very isolated Kurds.

Could you please give more informations about it? Could you list the frequency of Haplogroups found in the three groups and from where these samples were taken?

Alan
02-12-12, 01:31
Kurdish aDNA is well know. I believe new results doesn't change Kurdish aDNA, right?

The closest relatives to Kurds are Persians, Ossetians and than folks in the Caucasus if we can believe aDNA of course.

Ossetians were Alanians, Persians were ancient Persians, while Kurds were ancient Medes, so this whole picture makes sense to me. Persians, Alanians and Medes were brothers to each other.

The study says, based on aDNA Kurds are considerably different from Persians and Tajiks, this is not really new news. Kurds might be slightly closer to Iranians compared to other groups in the Near East but they are almost equally distinct to them too.


The only weird thing is the frequency of Haplogroup R1a* among this sample. Giving that just recently a study found 20% R1a among Kurds and only some ~10% among Persian speakers. I would like to know where the samples were taken from.

Since I have never seen a study on Kurds with less than ~11% r1a.

Goga
02-12-12, 01:31
But I think it's true that we Kurds have less R1a and more J2a than our Iranic cousins in Central Asia.

Goga
02-12-12, 01:35
And Tajiks are actually descendants of the Persians mixed with East Eurasian (Mongoloid) tribes.

Alan
02-12-12, 01:37
Of course, it must be so. Because on every aDNA map Kurds and Iranians cluster together.

“Two Y-DNA haplogroups are supposed to be connected with Iranic peoples: J2 and R1a1.
R1 is more closely linked to Iranians, while R1b is linked to Europeans”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/IE1500BP.png

Also mtDNA haplogoup U7 is closely linked to Iranic folks:

"Many European populations lack Haplogroup U7, but its frequency climbs over 4% in the Near East and up to 5% in Pakistan, reaching nearly 10% level in Iranians."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_(mtDNA)#Haplogroup_U7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_(mtDNA)#Haplogroup_U7)


This is wrong, and how do you come up with R1, this has nothing to do with the thematic. R1b is clustered under R1* too.

R1b is as much "European" as R1a is. you are confusing things. On aDNA maps Kurds do not cluster "together" with Iranians. I dont know what together even means to you. Kurds generally are distinct and have their own cluster which is positioned, by McDonald and Dienekes somewhere in between Iranian, Turkish Georgian and Armenian but slightly leaning to the Iranian cluster if you compare these groups.

Alan
02-12-12, 01:40
But I think it's true that we Kurds have less R1a and more J2a than our Iranic cousins in Central Asia.

Less than Tajiks? Yes we have less R1a and more R1b, J2a compared to Tajiks and other Central Asians. But its new to me that we have less than Iranians and even close to 0% according to this study.

Goga
02-12-12, 01:43
R1b is as much "European" as R1a is. you are confusing too many things. On aDNA maps Kurds do not cluster "together" with Iranians. I dont know what together even means to you. Kurds generally are distinct and have their own cluster which is positioned, by McDonald and Dienekes somewhere in between Iranian, Turkish Georgian and Armenian but slightly leaning to the Iranian cluster if you compare these groups.
I'm not confusing anyting, I got that from wiki.

Also, of course we Kurds are separated from other groups and form our own genepool and nation, but in general we're closer to Iranians than to other groups. We have some common roots with Persians...

Goga
02-12-12, 01:51
Less than Tajiks? Yes we have less R1a and more R1b, J2a compared to Tajiks and other Central Asians. But its new to me that we have less than Iranians and even close to 0% according to this study.I know. But only 25 samples from Eastern Kurdistan were tested. And it's the first study ever where Kurds lack of R1a.
ALL other studies on Kurds show that R1a together with J2a is the biggest or the second common haplogroup among Kurds. Sometimes J2a is the most common and sometimes is R1a the most common. But according to eupedia I2 and R1b are also very common in Kurdistan.

Btw, the most common haplogroups among Armenians are R1b & J2a and among Assyrians R1b & J1. So J2a has nothing do to with and Semites and their homeland where original Assyrians are from. Original URHEIMAT of proto-Semites was almost Y-DNA hg. J2a free!

Alan
02-12-12, 01:53
I'm not confusing anyting, I got that from wiki.

Also, of course we Kurds are separated from other groups and form our own genepool and nation, but in general we're closer to Iranians than to other groups. We have some common roots with Persians...

Thats what I said but you said we cluster together with Iranians which is just not true.

As I said we are distinct to these groups but if you ask which group is closest to us it would be the Iranians which leans more towards us compared to the other groups.

Its like this, lets take a scale from 1-10

Than Armenians would be close as a 7
Georgians as close as a 8
Turks as close as a 8
and Iranians as close as a 9

Goga
02-12-12, 02:04
Thats what I said but you said we cluster together with Iranians which is just not true.

As I said we are distinct to these groups but if you ask which group is closest to us it would be the Iranians which leans more towards us compared to the other groups.

Its like this, lets take a scale from 1-10

Than Armenians would be close as a 7
Georgians as close as a 8
Turks as close as a 8
and Iranians as close as a 9
Yes.

The most interesting thing is that Kurds in West (Ottoman occupied) Kurdistan are still closer to Persians than to Turks, Kurds in South and Southwest Kurdistan (former Syria & Iraq) are still closer to Persians than to Arabs from Arabia and Kurds in Eastern (Persian occupied) Kurdistan are closer to other Kurds than to Persians!

This is the only true fact that matters to me. All Kurds from all parts of Kurdistan are the same! :grin:

Kardu
02-12-12, 02:46
I do understand your feelings as a Georgian and I'm not here to encourage separatism in your country. But South Ossetians are genetically very close to Persians and Kurds.

Btw, I was born in Tbilisi (USSR) and I like Georgians much more than Ossetians or Persians (I don't like Persians at all)!

As you can see even on this map South Ossetians (SE-S), Kurds (KUR) and Iranians (IRN) are clustered together.

https://lh3.ggpht.com/-4fyGtwWJTMI/UKpNK618KvI/AAAAAAAAHd4/3X5GQF0efE8/s1600/preironage.png

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/11/mitochondrial-dna-in-ancient-human.html
This has nothing to do with separatism and politics. I actually have a very nice daily contact with the admins of Ossetian project and other knowledgeable people from their group.
What I mean is that just because of linguistic data you mistakenly call Ossetians Alans which is not correct. Again are modern Hungarians Magyars? Or modern Turks - Oghuz?

Goga
02-12-12, 19:26
What are you talking about? Turks ARE just TURKS and Hungarians ARE also East Asiatic people. They like it or not! They speak all Turkic languages, if they want to become something else they should start to forget their language firtst and start to learn, Greek, Armenian, Arabic or Kurdic for my part.


There was no such thing as ‘elite dominance‘ of Iranic folks in Kurdistan, since Zagros Mountains in Kurdistan were always populated by (proto-)Iranic folks and always attracted without any problem Iranic tribes en mass from the region. Also to MANY Iranic tribes lived in Kurdistan.
Also it’s a fact that since the 1000 years BC. For at least 3000 years Kurdistan was nonstop populated by Iranic tribes. First Mitanni, then the Medes then the Parthians and then the ancient Kurds. All these folks (names) are actually the same and refer to same modern population the Kurds!

Kurds are TRIBALIC folks and ALL Kurdish TRIBES have direct links to their ancient Median (Iranic) TRIBES! It's impossible to impose 'elite dominance' on such a TRIBALIC community.

The same thing is with Ossetians, they speak an Iranic language and they’re genetically very close to other Iranic folks around them. Of course they’re Iranic people!

Goga
02-12-12, 19:31
If Kurds and Ossetians are not Iranic, than Germans are NOT Germanic, French are NOT Celtic, Italians are NOT Italic, Arabs & Assyrians are NOT Semitic and Turks are NOT Turkic & Hungarians are NOT Hunnic. We're all one big family, right? NONSENSE!

So, don't buy this stupid Turkic, Assyrian (and other Kurdish HATERS) propaganda! And that's nothing but PROPAGANDA! Persians, Ossetians, Kurds are Iranic as you can get. That's a FACT and all scholars and anthropologists agree on that!

Templar
02-12-12, 19:37
Turks ARE just TURKS and Hungarians ARE also East Asiatic people

A very small fraction of the average Turk's and Hungarian's autosomal DNA is mongoloid. Kurds and Persian are likewise mostly not of 100% Indo-European ancestry. Both the haplogroups and physical appearance confirm this. Less than 25% of Kurds have light eyes. Which is really low for supposed descendants of Indo-Europeans. All the evidence suggests that the rulers of Persia were ethnically distinct from the masses, but over time the whole population adopted a common ethnic label. Wherever Indo-Europeans went, they left genes for light features so you cannot possibly argue that proto-Indo-Europeans didn't have them.

Templar
02-12-12, 19:39
Also it’s a fact that since the 1000 years BC. For at least 3000 years Kurdistan was nonstop populated by Iranic tribes. First Mitanni, then the Medes then the Parthians and then the ancient Kurds. All these folks (names) are actually the same and refer to same modern population the Kurds!

The Indo-European invasions happened before 1000 BC you know. By that time, enough mixing could have happened to create a common identity, but right after the invasions it is logical to suspect that the elites were ethnically distinct from the rest of the population (just like in India and in Europe).

Goga
02-12-12, 19:44
A very small fraction of the average Turk's and Hungarian's autosomal DNA is mongoloid. Kurds and Persian are likewise mostly not of 100% Indo-European ancestry. Both the haplogroups and physical appearance confirm this. Less than 25% of Kurds have light eyes. Which is really low for supposed descendants of Indo-Europeans. All the evidence suggests that the rulers of Persia were ethnically distinct from the masses, but over time the whole population adopted a common ethnic label. Wherever Indo-Europeans went, they left genes for light features so you cannot possibly argue that proto-Indo-Europeans didn't have them.If you look at Turkic DNA you can trace their roots to Central and East Asia. There’s EVIDENCE in their DNA that they’re from the ALTAI, Turks speak Turkic, their ORIGIN in the ALTAI and as long they do speak Turkic they will be Turkic. The same is with the Hungarians.

Templar
02-12-12, 19:48
If you look at Turkic DNA you can trace their roots to Central and East Asia. There’s EVIDENCE in their DNA that they’re from the ALTAI, Turks speak Turkic, their ORIGIN in the ALTAI and as long they do speak Turkic they will be Turkic. The same is with the Hungarians.

So you are saying that a small number of nomads completely exterminated the millions of Greeks and Armenians that were living in Anatolia? That seems highly unlikely. Mass conversion over time is much more likely, and the Turkish haplogroup data suggest that as well. Just because someone considers themselves Turkish, doesn't mean they genetically are. Just like how most North Africans consider themselves Arab, yet very few are so genetically.

Goga
02-12-12, 19:50
The Indo-European invasions happened before 1000 BC you know. By that time, enough mixing could have happened to create a common identity, but right after the invasions it is logical to suspect that the elites were ethnically distinct from the rest of the population (just like in India and in Europe).
ONCE AGAIN: Kurds have a TRIBALIC community and ALL Kurdish TRIBES have direct links to their ancient Median (Iranic) TRIBES! It's impossible to impose 'elite dominance' on such a TRIBALIC community.

Of course are Kurds NOT of 'pure blood'. NOBODY is 'pure'. Kurds (Medes, Iranic people) mixed a little bit with Semitic folks, like Jews and Chaldeans. But these Jews & Chaldeans didn’t change Kurdish ethnography, origins (roots), history, language.
With other words Kurds are still Kurds.

Goga
02-12-12, 19:55
So you are saying that a small number of nomads completely exterminated the millions of Greeks and Armenians that were living in Anatolia? That seems highly unlikely. Mass conversion over time is much more likely, and the Turkish haplogroup data suggest that as well. Just because someone considers themselves Turkish, doesn't mean they genetically are. Just like how most North Africans consider themselves Arab, yet very few are so genetically.
Are MODERN Germans 'Germanic'? Are MODERN French people 'Celtic'? Is MODERN Italian population 'Italic' ? Are MODERN Arabs/Assyrians 'Semitic'?

YES. YES, YES and YES, as much as Turks are 'Turkic', Hungarians are 'Hunnic', Arabs & Assyrians are 'Semitic'.

Arabs/Assyrians are mixed with Kurds, Armenians and Turks and still they are ARABS/Semites.

Turks are mixed withpeople from the Balkans, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Persians, Arabs and still they're Turkic!

Arabs ARE Semitic, Turks ARE Turkic and Kurds ARE Iranic. FACT!

Templar
02-12-12, 20:02
ONCE AGAIN: Kurds have a TRIBALIC community and ALL Kurdish TRIBES have direct links to their ancient Median (Iranic) TRIBES! It's impossible to impose 'elite dominance' on such a TRIBALIC community.

Of course are Kurds NOT of 'pure blood'. NOBODY is 'pure'. Kurds (Medes, Iranic people) mixed a little bit with Semitic folks, like Jews and Chaldeans. But these Jews & Chaldeans didn’t change Kurdish ethnography, origins (roots), history, language.
With other words Kurds are still Kurds.

I already explained that. Originally there WAS elite dominance, but it disappeared in the last few thousand years. I am talking about genetics and phenotypes. The tribalism started after the immediate period of conquest, after enough mixing happened.

Templar
02-12-12, 20:05
Are MODERN Germans 'Germanic'? Are MODERN French people 'Celtic'? Is MODERN Italian population 'Italic' ? Are MODERN Arabs/Assyrians 'Semitic'?

YES. YES, YES and YES, as much as Turks are 'Turkic', Hungarians are 'Hunnic', Arabs & Assyrians are 'Semitic'.

Arabs/Assyrians are mixed with Kurds, Armenians and Turks and still they are ARABS/Semites.

Turks are mixed withpeople from the Balkans, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Persians, Arabs and still they're Turkic!

Arabs ARE Semitic, Turks ARE Turkic and Kurds ARE Iranic. FACT!

You are talking about culture and national identity. This thread is about the genetics of the original R1a/R1b people. Note that it is called "If hg IJ (read as "I") folks were Cro-Magnons who were R folks". Lets try to get back on topic, shall we? I mean that with no disrespect. I wish your people get their country, and hopefully defeat the forces who prevent that. But this about genetics, not nationality and culture.

Kardu
02-12-12, 20:05
Goga, it's not a fact :) and putting this in capital letters won't change it :)

Check the Turkish DNA project for god's sake and tell me how many altai related haplogroup persons you count there....

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/turkey/default.aspx?section=yresults

Goga
02-12-12, 20:24
I already explained that. Originally there WAS elite dominance, but it disappeared in the last few thousand years. I am talking about genetics and phenotypes. The tribalism started after the immediate period of conquest, after enough mixing happened.

NO, if you speak about 'elite dominance' it was in the Balkans by the Ottomans (Turks). Only the rulers spoke Turkic (and f*cked Slavic women) while common people spoke Slavic. When Ottomans left the rulers in the Balkans started to speak Slavic again.

And we all know how ancient Medes (Iranic tribes) looked like 3000 years ago, they looked like modern KURDS! Ancient Greeks described them, also they are statues, coins left from that era etc...

Both of you, either you are not very smart or not very much educated. I’m done we you both on this issue!

Templar
02-12-12, 20:35
NO, if you speak about 'elite dominance' it was in the Balkans by the Ottomans (Turks). only the rulers spoke Turkic while common people spoke Slavic. When Ottomans left the rulers in the Balkans started to speak Slavic again\

The Turks were in the Balkans for less than 500 years, while the Indo-European tribes that created Persia were there for thousands. There is a huge difference between them. You are only using the Turks as an example because I am Bosnian. Wow, very clever.

And we all know hou ancient Medes looked like 3000 years ago, they looked like modern KURDS!
3000 years ago wasn't when the conquest happened! It is thought to have have been 4000 years ago. So ofcourse the ones from 3000 years ago were already one solid ethnic group, they had 1000 years to mix and to assimilate each other.


Both of you, either you are not very smart or not very much educated. I’m done we you on this issue!

Name-calling won't give you victory. I've tried to be friendly with you, and to empathize with your situation (Kurdistan being divided by 4 different countries) and yet this is how you respond. As the old saying goes: "Give them a finger, and they'll take the whole hand".

Goga
02-12-12, 20:50
3000 years ago wasn't when the conquest happened! It is thought to have have been 4000 years ago. So ofcourse the ones from 3000 years ago were already one solid ethnic group, they had 1000 years to mix and to assimilate each other.

Name-calling won't give you victory. I've tried to be friendly with you, and to empathize with your situation (Kurdistan being divided by 4 different countries) and yet this is how you respond. As the old saying goes: "Give them a finger, and they'll take the whole hand".
Kurds have no friends but mountains. I don't give a f*ck about friendship. We're warrior people and we will got back what belonged to our ancestors. We don't need anybody for it!

Kurds live in a TRIBALIC community and ALL Kurdish TRIBES have direct links to their ancient Median (Iranic) TRIBES! Our tribes don't have any links with the Semitic, Turkic etc. speaking tribes, but only DIRECT links with IRANIC tribes. There's no Kurdish tribe that says that their ancestors were Semitic, there're ONLY Kurdish tribes that say that their ancestros were Iranic.

Templar
02-12-12, 20:55
Kurds have no friends but mountains. I don't give a f*ck about friendship. We're warrior people and we will got back what belonged to our ancestors. We don't need anybody for it!

Kurds live in a TRIBALIC community and ALL Kurdish TRIBES have direct links to their ancient Median (Iranic) TRIBES! Our tribes don't have any links with the Semitic, Turkic etc. speaking tribes, but only DIRECT links with IRANIC tribes. There's no Kurdish tribe that says that their ancestors were Semitic, there're ONLY Kurdish tribes that say that their ancestros were Iranic.


What then happened to the native people of Iran and Kurdistan?

Goga
02-12-12, 21:03
What then happened to the native people of Iran and Kurdistan?
Native people of Kurdistan were proto-Kurds. It's that simple. They weren't Semitc speakers in that region like Arabs and Assyrians are, they were not Turkic speakers like modernday Turks are etc.

Before 'modern' Iranic tribes (Persians, Medes etc.) ever existed native people of Kurdistan/Zagros mountains and in the area south of the Caspian Sea were all proto-Iranic .

And of course Kurds aint no pure blooded. But NOBODY is pure! Kurds have been always living in a region of many ethnicities. Elamites in the Gulf region and proto-Armenian tribes in the West Anatolian Moutains were always Kurdish neighbours. They lived always next to each other. The thing is that the ancient non-Iranic folks (proto-Armenians) didn't change Kurdish ethnicity that much that Kurds lost their original (Iranic) ethnicity (roots).

Taranis
02-12-12, 21:37
NO, if you speak about 'elite dominance' it was in the Balkans by the Ottomans (Turks). Only the rulers spoke Turkic (and f*cked Slavic women) while common people spoke Slavic. When Ottomans left the rulers in the Balkans started to speak Slavic again.

And we all know how ancient Medes (Iranic tribes) looked like 3000 years ago, they looked like modern KURDS! Ancient Greeks described them, also they are statues, coins left from that era etc...

Both of you, either you are not very smart or not very much educated. I’m done we you both on this issue!





Kurds have no friends but mountains. I don't give a f*ck about friendship. We're warrior people and we will got back what belonged to our ancestors. We don't need anybody for it!

Kurds live in a TRIBALIC community and ALL Kurdish TRIBES have direct links to their ancient Median (Iranic) TRIBES! Our tribes don't have any links with the Semitic, Turkic etc. speaking tribes, but only DIRECT links with IRANIC tribes. There's no Kurdish tribe that says that their ancestors were Semitic, there're ONLY Kurdish tribes that say that their ancestros were Iranic.


This has certainly gone too far. Banned.

Kardu
02-12-12, 21:40
People with an agenda are never interested in truth, quite contrary...

Taranis
02-12-12, 22:29
Native people of Kurdistan were proto-Kurds. It's that simple. They weren't Semitc speakers in that region like Arabs and Assyrians are, they were not Turkic speakers like modernday Turks are etc.

Before 'modern' Iranic tribes (Persians, Medes etc.) ever existed native people of Kurdistan/Zagros mountains and in the area south of the Caspian Sea were all proto-Iranic .

As much as you clearly love to make the Kurds "native", this statement is certainly wrong in the linguistic sense: the earliest known inhabitants of the area of modern Kurdistan were the Hurrians, who spoke a language not closely related with any other language except for Urartian (together forming Hurro-Urartian). Certainly, the area was not the Proto-Iranic homeland, it's far more probable that Proto-Iranic was spoken further to the east, in closer proximity to it's closest relatives: the Nuristani languages of the Hindukush, and the Indic (Indo-Aryan) languages of India. The first Iranic-speaking peoples to reach the region were the Medians, and although it's popular to see the origin of the Kurds with the Medians, this is by no means the only possibility as there is no mention of the Kurds prior the early Medieval Ages.

What I might add, before anybody mentions the Mitanni, is that the "Mitanni" loanwords in Hurrian are of Indo-Aryan (Indic) origin, from a language very similar to Vedic Sanskrit.

Alan
03-12-12, 00:52
It was just a matter of time that Goga would have been banned. This is not the first time and I doubt it will be the last time. As much as I try to stay "friendly" on him since he belongs to my ethnic group, it is often impossible to have a normal conversation with him. He is mixing to many things up.

Templar
03-12-12, 00:55
It is unfortunate that it had to come to this, but at least now we can continue the discussion properly.

Alan
03-12-12, 01:06
As much as you clearly love to make the Kurds "native", this statement is certainly wrong in the linguistic sense: the earliest known inhabitants of the area of modern Kurdistan were the Hurrians, who spoke a language not closely related with any other language except for Urartian (together forming Hurro-Urartian). Certainly, the area was not the Proto-Iranic homeland, it's far more probable that Proto-Iranic was spoken further to the east, in closer proximity to it's closest relatives: the Nuristani languages of the Hindukush, and the Indic (Indo-Aryan) languages of India. The first Iranic-speaking peoples to reach the region were the Medians, and although it's popular to see the origin of the Kurds with the Medians, this is by no means the only possibility as there is no mention of the Kurds prior the early Medieval Ages.

What I might add, before anybody mentions the Mitanni, is that the "Mitanni" loanwords in Hurrian are of Indo-Aryan (Indic) origin, from a language very similar to Vedic Sanskrit.


I agree with you on the most part yet I have to straight out some points.

1. Today more and more scientist seem to favor the West Asian (Anatolian?) origin of Proto-Indoeuropeans, which I agree on. But it seems that Proto-IndoIranian formed somewhere in the steppes between Central Asia and Southern Russia not in the Hindukush.

2. The Kurds speak an Iranian language and a large part of their ancestry is most probably linked to Iranic nomads. Yet the ethnogenesis of Kurds starts earlier most probably even during the Sumerian period. The term Karda was used by Sumerians as name for the lands in Southeastern Anatolia around lake van and described a antagonistic "mountain people".

3. The Mitanni loandwords in Hurrian are not believed to be "Indic" since the Indo-Aryans pushed forward into India approximately at the same time the "Mitanni" appeared in Western Asia (or maybe even earlier). Most linguists today seem to agree that the Mitanni spoke a sort of Indo-Iranian dialect from a source before the language split into a Indo-Aryan and Iranian branch. Something like "Proto-Aryan"

Taranis
03-12-12, 01:59
I agree with you on the most part yet I have to straight out some points.

1. Today more and more scientist seem to favor the West Asian (Anatolian?) origin of Proto-Indoeuropeans, which I agree on. But it seems that Proto-IndoIranian formed somewhere in the steppes between Central Asia and Southern Russia not in the Hindukush.

"more and more scientists"? Whom in particular? I have to say, I consistently have the feeling that the Anatolian origin to me makes no sense (by the way, are you talking about an origin in Anatolia, or the Anatolian hypothesis in the sense of Colin Renfew (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?27713-Anatolia-is-the-source-of-Indo-European-languages&p=398912&viewfull=1#post398912)? The latter certainly has stiff resistence). The main problem I see is the clear abundance of non-Indo-European languages and language families in an area that is supposed to be the Proto-Indo-European homeland. Another, fairly decisive argument against an Anatolian origin was forwarded by Melchert (2012): namely that there's not a single known example of a borrowing from any of the known ancient Near Eastern languages into Proto-Anatolian. So, if not even Proto-Anatolian was possibly spoken in Anatolia, why should PIE have been spoken there at all? I personally think that an origin north of the Caucasus - in the Pontic-Caspian region makes more sense to me. This of course is "West Asia" by some definitions. ;-)

On Proto-Indo-Iranic, read closely what I wrote, because I didn't say that it was spoken near the Hindukush: I was refering to the Nuristani languages. I agree with your assessment here, I merely pointed out that an Proto-Indo-Iranic homeland in the area of modern Kurdistan was improbable based on the location of the other branches of PII.


2. The Kurds speak an Iranian language and a large part of their ancestry is most probably linked to Iranic nomads. Yet the ethnogenesis of Kurds starts earlier most probably even during the Sumerian period. The term Karda was used by Sumerians as name for the lands in Southeastern Anatolia around lake van and described a antagonistic "mountain people".

I agree on the ethnogenesis on the Kurds, yeah. But, I have to ask this regarding the term: is there any reference to this term in Assyrian, Hellenisitic, Roman or Byzantine sources? If no, then the likelihood that a connection actually exists is quite questionable. How do we know it's the same term if it has been in disuse for some 2000 years?


3. The Mitanni loandwords in Hurrian are not believed to be "Indic" since the Indo-Aryans pushed forward into India approximately at the same time the "Mitanni" appeared in Western Asia (or maybe even earlier). Most linguists today seem to agree that the Mitanni spoke a sort of Indo-Iranian dialect from a source before the language split into a Indo-Aryan and Iranian branch. Something like "Proto-Aryan"

Well, my opinion is that the Mitanni loanwords are certainly closer with Sanskrit than with the Iranian languages: this might indicate an undifferentiated Proto-Indo-Iranic dialect. On the other hand, as you may be aware, there (presumably through some late language contact) common innovations of Greek and Iranic. As you may recall, the Hurrian language is effectively contemporary to Mycenaean Greek. How likely is it that an undifferentiated PII was still spoken at that time?

By the way, I have to admit that I dislike the term "Aryan": not so much because of it's mindless misusage by the Third Reich (which might be an obvious reason), but due to it's potential for ambiguity. Depending on the context, and also the time the literature was written, "Aryan" may be interchangable with "Indo-European", "Indo-Iranian", "Iranic" or "Indic"...

Templar
03-12-12, 03:06
"more and more scientists"? Whom in particular? I have to say, I consistently have the feeling that the Anatolian origin to me makes no sense (by the way, are you talking about an origin in Anatolia, or the Anatolian hypothesis in the sense of Colin Renfew (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?27713-Anatolia-is-the-source-of-Indo-European-languages&p=398912&viewfull=1#post398912)? The latter certainly has stiff resistence). The main problem I see is the clear abundance of non-Indo-European languages and language families in an area that is supposed to be the Proto-Indo-European homeland. Another, fairly decisive argument against an Anatolian origin was forwarded by Melchert (2012): namely that there's not a single known example of a borrowing from any of the known ancient Near Eastern languages into Proto-Anatolian. So, if not even Proto-Anatolian was possibly spoken in Anatolia, why should PIE have been spoken there at all? I personally think that an origin north of the Caucasus - in the Pontic-Caspian region makes more sense to me. This of course is "West Asia" by some definitions. ;-)

I think this is the best theory that we have so far. Unless some very compelling new evidence is discovered, we'll have to rely on the Southern Russian/Central Asian steppe origin. I think it is supported by both haplogroup diversity and haplogroup frequency of R1a/R1b. Not to mention all the linguistic and historical evidence.

Kardu
03-12-12, 11:59
I agree with you on the most part yet I have to straight out some points.

2. The Kurds speak an Iranian language and a large part of their ancestry is most probably linked to Iranic nomads. Yet the ethnogenesis of Kurds starts earlier most probably even during the Sumerian period. The term Karda was used by Sumerians as name for the lands in Southeastern Anatolia around lake van and described a antagonistic "mountain people".


To whom referred Karda is not that clear. :) Kardu was a Huro-Urartian deity for example.
We Georgians call ourselves Kartveli/Kardueli. There are several toponimes related to the term in Georgia as well.
And in Georgian we have many loan words from Sumerian.
It might well be that Georgians and Kurds have a certain common ancestral population. J2a folks are the primary suspect :)

Templar
03-12-12, 12:18
And in Georgian we have many loan words from Sumerian.

Really? I didn't know that. This is very interesting. Could it be possible that Georgian is related to Sumerian? I am asking, because noone knows to what language family Sumerian belongs to.

Kardu
03-12-12, 12:49
Really? I didn't know that. This is very interesting. Could it be possible that Georgian is related to Sumerian? I am asking, because noone knows to what language family Sumerian belongs to.
It looks more like loan words from Sumerian. I guess our area was under direct political and cultural influence from Mesopotamia. Apart from linguistics there are numerous artifacts found at archeological sites and earlier this year in east Georgia whole Sumerian style city remains were discovered.

MOESAN
03-12-12, 23:36
You are mixing linguistics with genetics/ethnic origins.
Ossetians are as much Alans as modern Turks are Oghuz or modern Hungarians - Magyars...

I doubt the Ossetes could be descendants of pure Alani - I see rather them as a mix of Alani (Y-R1a as a majority, maybe Y-J2a?) and autochtonous tribes of Caucasus- the study of Ossete languages seams showing an I-E origin but strongly modified by non I-E substrata - I suppose the high %s of Y-G2 among Ossetes are from local geographically origin - Alani was considered as commonly enough fair haired, by the way, even if phenotypical features are not always of great use for someones -

Kardu
04-12-12, 00:24
I doubt the Ossetes could be descendants of pure Alani - I see rather them as a mix of Alani (Y-R1a as a majority, maybe Y-J2a?) and autochtonous tribes of Caucasus- the study of Ossete languages seams showing an I-E origin but strongly modified by non I-E substrata - I suppose the high %s of Y-G2 among Ossetes are from local geographically origin - Alani was considered as commonly enough fair haired, by the way, even if phenotypical features are not always of great use for someones -
Concerning Ossetians, indeed, dominant among them subclade of G2a1 is relatively young, about 1500 years old. While it's also dominant and much more archaic among adjacent to them Georgian sub-ethnic group Svans. Actually Roman sources mention a tribe Suanosarmatae. So it's plausible that mix of Sarmats with Svans among others gave birth to what later would become Ossetians.

Templar
04-12-12, 00:43
Concerning Ossetians, indeed, dominant among them subclade of G2a1 is relatively young, about 1500 years old. While it's also dominant and much more archaic among adjacent to them Georgian sub-ethnic group Svans. Actually Roman sources mention a tribe Suanosarmatae. So it's plausible that mix of Sarmats with Svans among others gave birth to what later would become Ossetians.

Hey Kardu, this is is slightly off topic, but I have a question that I have been wondering about. Since you are Georgian, I was wondering if you knew why Caucasoids are named after the Caucus region? I heard it has something to do with the oldest Caucasoid skull being found there. Though it could just be based on 19th century pseudo-science guesswork. Do you have any information about it?

Kardu
04-12-12, 00:58
Hey Kardu, this is is slightly off topic, but I have a question that I have been wondering about. Since you are Georgian, I was wondering if you knew why Caucasoids are named after the Caucus region? I heard it has something to do with the oldest Caucasoid skull being found there. Though it could just be based on 19th century pseudo-science guesswork. Do you have any information about it?
Yes, those were the first days of modern anthropology with lot of misconceptions :)
"Blumenbach claimed that Adam and Eve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve) were Caucasian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race) (Georgian) and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Friedrich_Blumenbach

Templar
04-12-12, 01:15
Yes, those were the first days of modern anthropology with lot of misconceptions :)
"Blumenbach claimed that Adam and Eve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve) were Caucasian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race) (Georgian) and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Friedrich_Blumenbach

So that is where that trend started. Thanks a lot Kardu.

Kardu
04-12-12, 01:49
Sure, nema na cemu :)