PDA

View Full Version : More evidence that the PIE R1b people originated in the Maykop culture



Maciamo
23-05-13, 10:37
Dienekes mentions on his blog a recent paper (http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2/153-161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf) by Konstantine Pitskhelauri on the settlement of the Caucasus by migrants from the Middle East during the Neolithic period.

The paper brings additional evidence regarding the origins of the Early Bronze Age Maykop culture in Mesopotamia, confirming my theory (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Maykop) that R1b people from the Middle East migrated across the Caucasus and established the Maykop culture, before expanding throughout the Pontic-Caspian Steppes and mixing with the indigenous R1a steppe people.

The author also argues that the tradition of burial mounds did not originated in the Pit-Grave culture from the steppes because new radiocarbon dating seemingly points that the burial mounds from the Maykop culture actually predate those found in the steppes. Those of Maykop could trace their origins back to the Levant and Mesopotamia, two regions with relatively high levels of R1b, where the oldest subclades of R1b are to be found. This is new. Although I had always thought that R1b migrated from the Middle East to the North Caucasus, founded the Maykop culture and spread the Bronze Age to the steppes then to Europe, I had previously assumed too that burial mounds (i.e. kurgan or tumulus) was a practice that they picked up from the R1a people in the steppes, because that is what the archaeological data was saying so far.

This doesn't change anything to the R1b migration path or chronology though. I had thought that a two-way exchange took place between R1b and R1a people during the Yamna period. I imagined that R1b brought bronze working, while R1a provided the burial customs. If this new radiocarbon dating is correct, then it would seem that R1b brought both. In that case, it becomes increasingly likely that the Proto-Indo-European language itself was also brought by the more advanced and dominant partner (R1b), and adopted by the R1a population at the same time as the rest of the cultural package from Maykop.

I still maintain though that the Satem branch of Indo-European languages (associated with R1a) diverged from the original Centum (R1b) because of the influence of the original R1a languages, which altered the pronunciation of IE words (namely, the sound change by which palatovelars became fricatives and affricates in satem languages). Obviously Centum languages were later influenced by, and adopted words from the Chalcolithic people of Southeast Europe, then of Central and Western Europe. I strongly believe that languages evolve faster when new people are integrated into a linguistic community, bringing their own idioms with them.


I have highlighted a few passages from the paper:

"At the end of the 5th and in the 4th millennia B.C. large masses of Uruk migrants had settled in the South, and later in the North Caucasus. Assimilation of cultures of the newcomers and residents, as a result, caused their “explosive” development paving the way to the formation of the Maikop culture in the North Caucasus and the Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus.
...
In this context, recent archaeological finds in the Southern and Northeastern Caucasus gave yet another, entirely new nuance to scientific researches into the ancient past of the Caucasus. They made it clear that incursion of these peoples into the Caucasus was not a onetime event, but continued for a significantly long period. Reasoning by the topography of the archaeological finds in Mesopotamia, it becomes clear that large masses of migrant settlers from that area did not move straight along the route to Transcaucasia in order to reach the destination faster. Actually, they settled down in every region of the Caucasus, in the mountains and flatlands, in areas where they could maintain a lifestyle familiar to them.
...
It seems obvious that from that period on, two cultures of the Caucasus that had been at different stages of development could coexist peacefully on the basis of their mutual participation in metallurgical manufacturing; it was this type of communal economy that gave impetus to a speedy development of the local culture. This is well illustrated by the metallurgical items of the Kura-Araxes culture, which is significantly more advanced in comparison with the pre-Aeneolithic culture.
...
According to our data the wave of Uruk migrants moving from the south to the north covered the entire territory of the Caucasus in the 4th millennium B.C. It seems that at the very outset, they settled all over the South Caucasus, acclimatized to local conditions, assimilated with the local population and jointly continued their customary activity. Probably in search of predominantly metal works, they gradually got acquainted with the main mountain range of the Caucasus, traversed it to the north Caucasus either through passages across it or along the sea shore strip and spread throughout both its highlands and valleys. It is quite possible that it was they, the bearers of advanced culture of Mesopotamia, who had a deep impact on the development of local cultures of the Caucasus, speeded up its development and gave it “explosive” character. It is believed that precisely this integration of indigenous and incoming cultures made possible the emergence of the so-called magnificent Maikop culture in the north-western part of the Caucasus. It is possible that a similar process was simultaneously developing in the South Caucasus as well, where it left a noticeable trace. The transformation was so significant that it is reasonable to presume that Uruk migrants together with the local population participated in the creation of the powerful Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus of the Early Bronze Age.
...
Understandably, the scientists had enough ground to formulate their conviction. From the start they supported this assumption by the fact that the burial mounds were typical of the ancient pit-grave culture and already present throughout the northern steppe zone in the 4th millennium B.C., whereas there were no mounds of such construction in Southwest Asia. This was why they assumed that even the magnificent Maikop culture absorbed the technique of building this type of burial mounds as a result of its contacts with the steppe area cultures [81: 75].
At present the situation has changed drastically. On the basis of a whole series of radiocarbon analyses, it has been proved [15; 82] that burial mounds of the ancient pit-grave culture are of a significantly later period in comparison with Maikop archaeological sites. This allows scholars to assume that the tradition of building this type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture. Its ties with Levant and Mesopotamian antiquities point to its earlier origin [15: 97]. At the same time, a whole range of chronological data obtained with radiocarbon analysis has established that the settlements and burial mounds of the South Caucasus containing Uruk artefact are coexistent with the Maikop culture [13: 149-153] and, accordingly, the ancient pit-grave culture and its burial mounds belong to a later period. Therefore, today we cannot possibly ascribe the emergence of this kind of burial mounds in the Maikop culture as well as similar contemporaneous sites in the South Caucasus to the influence of the steppe zone cultures. Moreover, there were no adverse conditions that would have prevented emergence of this type of burial mounds in the Caucasus itself.
"

Maciamo
23-05-13, 10:50
Philip L. Kohl in The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0521130158?ie=UTF8&tag=eupedia-21&link_code=as3&camp=2506&creative=9298&creativeASIN=0521130158) also confirms (see abstract (http://books.google.be/books?id=pA1-3KfkpuwC&pg=PA57&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)) that the Copper Age in the Caucasus started off spectacularly out of nowhere (meaning that it was brought by immigrants). From the Early Bronze Age (Maykop), I cite, the Caucasus was the main suppliers of arsenical copper/bronzes to the peoples of the steppes, particularly the Pit and Catacomb Graves cultural communities. As Chernykh (1992: 159-162) has argued, the northern Caucasus from Maikop times through the Middle Bronze period may have functioned as the critical intermediary for receiving metals that originated in Transcaucasia and for producing and shipping bronze artifacts to the steppes.

Kohl goes on explaining that the recent reappraisal of the origins of the Maykop culture by Trifonov (2004) argues for an eastern Anatolian Chalcolithic origin, such as the site of Korucutepe near the source of the Tigris. Kohl then states that the origins of the steppe kurgans may have originated in eastern Anatolia too.

This all agrees with what I wrote back in 2007 about the origin of the R1b (and G2a) founders of the Maykop culture being in eastern Anatolia - although ultimately R1b might have come from somewhere else in the Fertile Crescent during the Neolithic.

What remains unclear is how R1b was part of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic expansion within the Middle East, but that the migrants who brought the Neolithic to Europe belonged only to G2a and E1b1b (and perhaps also J1, J2 and T). That may have been caused by a founder effect in the original population of Neolithic farmers who moved to Europe. Or it could be that R1b was confined to the north or east of the Fertile Crescent and decided to expand north across the Caucasus, while Levantine farmers moved to Europe. G2a would have brought agriculture from the Levant to eastern Anatolia, and R1b picked it up before moving north.

kamani
23-05-13, 13:16
The paper does not mention R1b. If the pre-Maykop civilization came from Mesopotamia, then they probably had a lot of E1b1b and J. I think you're taking the most common western european gene and trying to prove that it was a dominant marker of the first ancient advanced civilizations, but it doesn't work because they're all in Levant/Anatolia/Middle East. Thanks for doing this research thou.

Maciamo
23-05-13, 14:39
The paper does not mention R1b. If the pre-Maykop civilization came from Mesopotamia, then they probably had a lot of E1b1b and J. I think you're taking the most common western european gene and trying to prove that it was a dominant marker of the first ancient advanced civilizations, but it doesn't work because they're all in Levant/Anatolia/Middle East. Thanks for doing this research thou.

Obviously it does not mention R1b. As far as I know, I am the only person who came up with the idea that the Maykop culture is associated with R1b people.

R1b is more frequent in parts of Mesopotamia than E1b1b. For example, northern Iraq has 17% of R1b against 7.5% of E1b1b. In nearby Armenia R1b is 30% for only 6% of E1b1b. In parts of northern Anatolia, R1b also exceeds 25% of the lineages.

Anyway, the genetic landscape 6000 years ago was certainly very different to what it was today. All the Neolithic data from Europe so far only contained haplogroups G2a, I2a and E1b1b, while nowadays the most common haplogroups are R1a and R1b.

The only way to estimate which people was associated with what ancient culture is to go backward step by step. If R1b did come to Europe along with the Bronze Age, then it came from the Pontic Steppe, and before that from the Maykop culture, and before that from the Middle East (I'd say eastern Anatolia or northern Mesopotamia rather than southern Mesopotamia). There is no other logical alternative consistent with the archaeological data.

It is possible though that a small minority of G2a3b1 and perhaps even J2, T and E1b1b might have been part of the R1b migration to the North Caucasus, then to the steppes, Europe and Central Asia. That is one way of explaining why these haplogroups also turn up at very low frequencies in Central Asia, alongside R1a and R1b. But considering the clear dominance of R1b in Europe, the western branch of the Yamna culture must have been composed predominantly of R1b men, almost certainly with an R1a and G2a3b1 minority, and possibly also with an even smaller E1b1b, J2 and T minority.

ebAmerican
23-05-13, 20:35
I completely agree. If you look at the dated samples, only G2a and F* is found before 4000BC in Europe. E1b, I1, I2a, T, R1a, R1b are found earliest 3000BC (Maykop culture 3700BC-2500BC). The source on eupedia stating that E1b is 5000BC is wrong. The lacan et al (2011) has the samples tested at 3000BC. The Hittites who I believe were R1b dominate appeared at the end of Maykop. Maykop was the catalyst that turned the tide on earlier G2a neolithic farmers. It would be awesome if we could find some ancient DNA from Uruk. An old branch of R1b is in Africa, and it would be interesting if R1b was the dominate haplogroup in the middle east during the Mesolithic and early Neolithic (before J1-J2 pushed them out), and were responsible for stone monuments like Gobekli Tepe.

Maciamo
23-05-13, 21:05
I completely agree. If you look at the dated samples, only G2a and F* is found before 4000BC in Europe. E1b, I1, I2a, T, R1a, R1b are found earliest 3000BC (Maykop culture 3700BC-2500BC). The source on eupedia stating that E1b is 5000BC is wrong. The lacan et al (2011) has the samples tested at 3000BC. The Hittites who I believe were R1b dominate appeared at the end of Maykop. Maykop was the catalyst that turned the tide on earlier G2a neolithic farmers. It would be awesome if we could find some ancient DNA from Uruk. An old branch of R1b is in Africa, and it would be interesting if R1b was the dominate haplogroup in the middle east during the Mesolithic and early Neolithic (before J1-J2 pushed them out), and were responsible for stone monuments like Gobekli Tepe.

There are two Lacan et al. studies. The one (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/24/1113061108.abstract) that found a Neolithic E1b1b sample in Catalonia is dated from 7000 ybp (5000 BCE).

As for the African R1b, it is all V88, the same as in Egypt and the Levant, so it is highly unlikely that this R1b migration to Africa had anything to do with Indo-Europeans or Maykop. It is more probably an offshoot of Late Paleolithic/Mesolithic Middle Eastern hunter-gatherers or even Neolithic Levantines that split in various directions and ended up in various parts of Africa.

If this African R1b-V88 came from a Neolithic migration, it could be the one responsible for spreading agriculture around Africa. The Neolithic started in North Africa in the 6th millennium BCE, just before Saharan desertification. The haplogroup most strongly associated with the spread of agriculture around North and East Africa (Horn of Africa) is E1b1b. Actually it is not impossible that agriculture originated in North Africa before the desertification, then spread to the Levant. All traces would be lost in the dessert today. I think it is very likely considering the stupendous population explosion of E1b1b in regions that later became the Sahara dessert.

Pockets of haplogroup R1b-V88, T and G have all been found here and there and bit everywhere in Africa. Therefore I think that haplogroup G, T and R1b-V88 were part of this original North African Neolithic explosion. E1b1b would have recolonised most of Africa with a minority of R1b-V88, G and T trailing along.

ebAmerican
23-05-13, 21:24
OK, but I would argue that G2a is much older than E1b in Europe. Dienekes has shown that the ancient markers for E1b1b1a1b are 14% similar to current E1b populations, where ancient G2a was only about .3%. I think if E1b was earlier than G2b (or same age) it would be more distant to modern populations like G2a. I bet E1b first appeared on the scene around 5000BC, where G2a had been there for at least thousand years earlier.

kamani
23-05-13, 22:01
J1, J2, and E1b1b have been in south-west asia at least since the Neolithic, with E1b1b found more in Levant/Anatolia. Old R1b (M269 or older) was also sharing the same area, but I doubt it was ever a majority, at least not in the late Neolithic or Bronze Age. Remember that there has also been back migration of R1b in the Bronze-Age into south-west asia.

ElHorsto
23-05-13, 22:27
Actually it is not impossible that agriculture originated in North Africa before the desertification, then spread to the Levant. All traces would be lost in the dessert today. I think it is very likely considering the stupendous population explosion of E1b1b in regions that later became the Sahara dessert.

This is a very important point which we should consider more often. Even if agriculture did not originate there, it was once fertile and almost surely populated. When desertification started, these pre-saharan populations surely migrated somewhere else (maybe Bell Beakers?).

sparkey
23-05-13, 22:46
OK, but I would argue that G2a is much older than E1b in Europe. Dienekes has shown that the ancient markers for E1b1b1a1b are 14% similar to current E1b populations, where ancient G2a was only about .3%. I think if E1b was earlier than G2b (or same age) it would be more distant to modern populations like G2a. I bet E1b first appeared on the scene around 5000BC, where G2a had been there for at least thousand years earlier.

We could use this as evidence for G2a being more ancient in Europe than E1b, but it doesn't quite square with our expectations unless we push the G2a arrival date back to quite a lot more than a thousand years earlier (otherwise we would expect a closer similarity than .3%). But a Paleolithic G2a is tough to match with its diversity patterns outside of Europe. So I think we should instead look for alternate explanations. The obvious one is that the E1b-V13 and G2a arrived around the same time but had different diversity to begin with, and the few E1b-V13 lines bottlenecked to one later, while the G2a lines maintained their diversity via multiple lineages. That is, the ancient European E1b-V13 sample could be pretty close to being a direct ancestor of all European E1b-V13 lineages, whereas the ancient G2a samples may not have their lines connect to modern European G2a until you go back long before any G2a arrived in Europe. Ancient similarity to modern populations may be used as evidence for migration times, but it can be highly misleading.

Nobody1
23-05-13, 22:53
I just have a few Questions;

According to our data the wave of Uruk migrants moving from the south to the north covered the entire territory of the Caucasus in the 4th millennium B.C.It is believed that precisely this integration of indigenous and incoming cultures made possible the emergence of the so-called magnificent Maikop culture in the north-western part of the Caucasus. It is possible that a similar process was simultaneously developing in the South Caucasus as well, where it left a noticeable trace. The transformation was so significant that it is reasonable to presume that Uruk migrants together with the local population participated in the creation of the powerful Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus of the Early Bronze Age.

This is very clear;
both Maykop and Kura-Araxes are hybrid cultures- from Indigenous and Uruk/Mesopotamia [south] migrants;
But who exactly are these Indigenous people?

Understandably, the scientists had enough ground to formulate their conviction. From the start they supported this assumption by the fact that the burial mounds were typical of the ancient pit-grave culture and already present throughout the northern steppe zone in the 4th millennium B.C., whereas there were no mounds of such construction in Southwest Asia. This was why they assumed that even the magnificent Maikop culture absorbed the technique of building this type of burial mounds as a result of its contacts with the steppe area cultures [81: 75].
At present the situation has changed drastically. On the basis of a whole series of radiocarbon analyses, it has been proved [15; 82] that burial mounds of the ancient pit-grave culture are of a significantly later period in comparison with Maikop archaeological sites. This allows scholars to assume that the tradition of building this type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture. Its ties with Levant and Mesopotamian antiquities point to its earlier origin [15: 97].

This is not very clear;
Does this suggest that the Steppe peoples [Sredny Stog -> Yamna culture] invaded/infiltrated the Maykop culture in a later period?
Or does this suggest that the Maykop culture was autochthonous and developed a similar culture akin to Yamna based on its ties with Mesopotamia???

Goga
23-05-13, 23:33
This is not very clear;
Does this suggest that the Steppe peoples [Sredny Stog -> Yamna culture] invaded/infiltrated the Maykop culture in a later period?
Or does this suggest that the Maykop culture was autochthonous and developed a similar culture akin to Yamna based on its ties with Mesopotamia???No, Maykop is older than Yamna. Maykop culture heavily influenced Yamna culture. As far a I know early Indo-Europeans were part of Maykop culture BEFORE Yamna foragers were Indo-Europized.

Nobody1
24-05-13, 00:30
No, Maykop is older than Yamna. Maykop culture heavily influenced Yamna culture. As far a I know early Indo-Europeans were part of Maykop culture BEFORE Yamna foragers were Indo-Europized.

No,
the study we are talking about doesnt question the Sredny Stog [4500 BC - 3500 BC] -> Yamna [3600 BC - 2500 BC] continuity in the Northern Steppe (Caspian-Pontic) region [Kurgan phase IV].

Maykop [3700 BC - 3000 BC] was contemporary with Yamna.

It pos. questions (or pos. debunks) the influence of Yamna (steppe cultures) on Maykop.

This used to be the standard view, that the pit graves of Maykop was an Influence of the steppes (Yamna)

Understandably, the scientists had enough ground to formulate their conviction. From the start they supported this assumption by the fact that the burial mounds were typical of the ancient pit-grave culture and already present throughout the northern steppe zone in the 4th millennium B.C., whereas there were no mounds of such construction in Southwest Asia. This was why they assumed that even the magnificent Maikop culture absorbed the technique of building this type of burial mounds as a result of its contacts with the steppe area cultures [81: 75].

However;

At present the situation has changed drastically.
On the basis of a whole series of radiocarbon analyses, it has been proved [15; 82] that burial mounds of the ancient pit-grave culture are of a significantly later period in comparison with Maikop archaeological sites.
This allows scholars to assume that the tradition of building this type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture. Its ties with Levant and Mesopotamian antiquities point to its earlier origin [15: 97].

Now the study establishes that Maykop emerged as a hybrid between an indigenous pop. and Uruk/Mesopotamian migrants;

So what does type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture mean in contrast to the old views?
whats the drastic change? that Yamna [steppe cultures Kurgan phase IV] had no influence on Maykop (at all)?

Either im reading it wrong or this is a complete new look on Maykop.

Yetos
24-05-13, 06:03
OK, but I would argue that G2a is much older than E1b in Europe. Dienekes has shown that the ancient markers for E1b1b1a1b are 14% similar to current E1b populations, where ancient G2a was only about .3%. I think if E1b was earlier than G2b (or same age) it would be more distant to modern populations like G2a. I bet E1b first appeared on the scene around 5000BC, where G2a had been there for at least thousand years earlier.

Dienekes also shown that hg E in balkans minor-Asia is very late than G2a dated only 4000 years in SE Europe,
and Iberian E has nothing to do with Konya E

Yetos
24-05-13, 06:05
I wonder Vinca culture (Varna Necropolis) revael its genetical secrets.

nordicwarrior
24-05-13, 06:24
...and it would be interesting if R1b was the dominate haplogroup in the middle east during the Mesolithic and early Neolithic (before J1-J2 pushed them out), and were responsible for stone monuments like Gobekli Tepe.

Those of you who have followed my ramblings for awhile may remember that I stated it was only a matter of time before R1b would claim Gobekli Tepe.

Goga
24-05-13, 06:52
No,
the study we are talking about doesnt question the Sredny Stog [4500 BC - 3500 BC] -> Yamna [3600 BC - 2500 BC] continuity in the Northern Steppe (Caspian-Pontic) region [Kurgan phase IV].

Maykop [3700 BC - 3000 BC] was contemporary with Yamna.

It pos. questions (or pos. debunks) the influence of Yamna (steppe cultures) on Maykop.

This used to be the standard view, that the pit graves of Maykop was an Influence of the steppes (Yamna)

Understandably, the scientists had enough ground to formulate their conviction. From the start they supported this assumption by the fact that the burial mounds were typical of the ancient pit-grave culture and already present throughout the northern steppe zone in the 4th millennium B.C., whereas there were no mounds of such construction in Southwest Asia. This was why they assumed that even the magnificent Maikop culture absorbed the technique of building this type of burial mounds as a result of its contacts with the steppe area cultures [81: 75].

However;

At present the situation has changed drastically.
On the basis of a whole series of radiocarbon analyses, it has been proved [15; 82] that burial mounds of the ancient pit-grave culture are of a significantly later period in comparison with Maikop archaeological sites.
This allows scholars to assume that the tradition of building this type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture. Its ties with Levant and Mesopotamian antiquities point to its earlier origin [15: 97].

Now the study establishes that Maykop emerged as a hybrid between an indigenous pop. and Uruk/Mesopotamian migrants;

So what does type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture mean in contrast to the old views?
whats the drastic change? that Yamna [steppe cultures Kurgan phase IV] had no influence on Maykop (at all)?

Either im reading it wrong or this is a complete new look on Maykop.You're misinformed man. Maykop has nothing to do with Sredny Stog. In contrast to Yamna and Maykop, Sredny Stog was NOT a 'Kurgan' culture. Yamna just replaced Sredny Stog. According to this study Maykop was heavily influenced by cultures from South. Cultures in the South we much older than Maykop (and Sredny Stog). Like Halaf/Ubaid culture and Hassuna culture.

Goga
24-05-13, 06:54
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Mesopotamia_Per%C3%ADodo_6.PNG

Nobody1
24-05-13, 07:35
In contrast to Yamna and Maykop, Sredny Stog was NOT a 'Kurgan' culture. Yamna just replaced Sredny Stog.

Yes, Yamna fell from the skies and simply replaced Sredny Stog.

In reality, Yamna emerged out of the Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk cultures;
with Sredny Stog being Kurgan phase I-II

K. Jones-Bley - Early and Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Volga-Don Steppe (1999)
The Samara culture, and its successor the Khvalynsk culture, have also shown to be, along with the Sredny Stog culture, the direct antecedents of the Yamna culture.

Do you even know anything about Sredny Stog? or Yamna [Kurgan phase IV]; its not a real question so please dont reply.


According to this study Maykop was heavily influenced by cultures from South.

Well thats the whole point im trying to make, despite Maykop being a Kurgan culture and having a pit-grave culture akin to Yamna; the study now reveals it has no direct links to Yamna.

At present the situation has changed drastically.
On the basis of a whole series of radiocarbon analyses, it has been proved [15; 82] that burial mounds of the ancient [U]pit-grave culture are of a significantly later period in comparison with Maikop archaeological sites. This allows scholars to assume that the tradition of building this type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture. Its ties with Levant and Mesopotamian antiquities point to its earlier origin [15: 97].

have you even bothered to read the study or any of the quotes Maciamo posted?
The study gives away that Maykop emerged as a hybrid between Mesopotamia and Indigenous people of the Caucasus. same with the Kura-Araxes.

Nobody1
24-05-13, 07:45
Those of you who have followed my ramblings for awhile may remember that I stated it was only a matter of time before R1b would claim Gobekli Tepe.

as Kamani already pointed out the study doesnt even mention R1b and Gobekli Tepe was abandoned somewhere between 8000 and 7000 BC; thats a good 3500 years before Maykop even started,

so based on this study you are jumping to conclusions about Gobekli Tepe,
but you might be correct overall.

zanipolo
24-05-13, 09:55
We could use this as evidence for G2a being more ancient in Europe than E1b, but it doesn't quite square with our expectations unless we push the G2a arrival date back to quite a lot more than a thousand years earlier (otherwise we would expect a closer similarity than .3%). But a Paleolithic G2a is tough to match with its diversity patterns outside of Europe. So I think we should instead look for alternate explanations. The obvious one is that the E1b-V13 and G2a arrived around the same time but had different diversity to begin with, and the few E1b-V13 lines bottlenecked to one later, while the G2a lines maintained their diversity via multiple lineages. That is, the ancient European E1b-V13 sample could be pretty close to being a direct ancestor of all European E1b-V13 lineages, whereas the ancient G2a samples may not have their lines connect to modern European G2a until you go back long before any G2a arrived in Europe. Ancient similarity to modern populations may be used as evidence for migration times, but it can be highly misleading.

Oetzi was G2a4, also found in tyrolese, ladins and other minor alpine races............isn't this older than E
Also G2a3b is in northern italy and southern france at around same period.

IMO G2 is older than E

Maciamo
24-05-13, 10:06
OK, but I would argue that G2a is much older than E1b in Europe. Dienekes has shown that the ancient markers for E1b1b1a1b are 14% similar to current E1b populations, where ancient G2a was only about .3%. I think if E1b was earlier than G2b (or same age) it would be more distant to modern populations like G2a. I bet E1b first appeared on the scene around 5000BC, where G2a had been there for at least thousand years earlier.

I really think that there is too little data at the moment to judge that. Age estimates of haplogroups are still a very unreliable, as I have explained here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28597-Current-age-estimats-of-I1-and-subclades?p=407838&viewfull=1#post407838).

Maciamo
24-05-13, 10:14
J1, J2, and E1b1b have been in south-west asia at least since the Neolithic, with E1b1b found more in Levant/Anatolia. Old R1b (M269 or older) was also sharing the same area, but I doubt it was ever a majority, at least not in the late Neolithic or Bronze Age. Remember that there has also been back migration of R1b in the Bronze-Age into south-west asia.

Don't look at the whole Middle East as if it was a monolithic block. Modern populations are much more mixed than Neolithic ones, which evolved from completely separate tribes of hunter-gatherers. It is very likely that in the Neolithic the Middle East was still a patchwork of relatively homogeneous communities with only one or two dominant haplogroups. It's only since the Bronze Age, with the rise of civilisations and states that populations started to blend with one another, a process that continued and intensified with time. I am convinced that if you looked at the population of one region every one thousand years, we would see a clear diminution of the haplogroup diversity as we go back in time. In other words, in the Neolithic the Middle East had pockets of R1b, pockets of J1, pockets of J2, pockets of G2a, etc. I expect that few of them were 100% homogeneous, but most neolithic villages or towns probably had over 80% of a single haplogroup. This is what has been observed by Lacan et al. in Neolithic France and Spain too.

Maciamo
24-05-13, 10:21
This is a very important point which we should consider more often. Even if agriculture did not originate there, it was once fertile and almost surely populated. When desertification started, these pre-saharan populations surely migrated somewhere else (maybe Bell Beakers?).

The last desertification of the Sahara started 6,200 years ago, about 1,400 years before the Beaker culture started. But it is not impossible that the Beaker people originated in Northwest Africa and crossed over to Iberia because of population pressures brought on by the advance of the Sahara desert. That would explain why there is so much E-M81 in western Iberia, especially in the north-west, which was the region least affected by the Moorish conquest. I wrote about this (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml#ice_age) hypothesis of E1b1b migration from North Africa in the Late Neolithic nearly two years ago.

Maciamo
24-05-13, 10:24
We could use this as evidence for G2a being more ancient in Europe than E1b, but it doesn't quite square with our expectations unless we push the G2a arrival date back to quite a lot more than a thousand years earlier (otherwise we would expect a closer similarity than .3%). But a Paleolithic G2a is tough to match with its diversity patterns outside of Europe. So I think we should instead look for alternate explanations. The obvious one is that the E1b-V13 and G2a arrived around the same time but had different diversity to begin with, and the few E1b-V13 lines bottlenecked to one later, while the G2a lines maintained their diversity via multiple lineages. That is, the ancient European E1b-V13 sample could be pretty close to being a direct ancestor of all European E1b-V13 lineages, whereas the ancient G2a samples may not have their lines connect to modern European G2a until you go back long before any G2a arrived in Europe. Ancient similarity to modern populations may be used as evidence for migration times, but it can be highly misleading.

My thoughts exactly.

Maciamo
24-05-13, 10:31
I just have a few Questions;

According to our data the wave of Uruk migrants moving from the south to the north covered the entire territory of the Caucasus in the 4th millennium B.C.It is believed that precisely this integration of indigenous and incoming cultures made possible the emergence of the so-called magnificent Maikop culture in the north-western part of the Caucasus. It is possible that a similar process was simultaneously developing in the South Caucasus as well, where it left a noticeable trace. The transformation was so significant that it is reasonable to presume that Uruk migrants together with the local population participated in the creation of the powerful Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus of the Early Bronze Age.

This is very clear;
both Maykop and Kura-Araxes are hybrid cultures- from Indigenous and Uruk/Mesopotamia [south] migrants;
But who exactly are these Indigenous people?

The indigenous people were the Neolithic populations that had colonised the Caucasus in the Early Neolithic, but had since lagged behind considerably in technological advances compared to the Middle East. There are so many population pockets in the modern Caucasus that it is difficult to say whether the pre-Maykop populations belonged to G2a, J1 or J2.



Understandably, the scientists had enough ground to formulate their conviction. From the start they supported this assumption by the fact that the burial mounds were typical of the ancient pit-grave culture and already present throughout the northern steppe zone in the 4th millennium B.C., whereas there were no mounds of such construction in Southwest Asia. This was why they assumed that even the magnificent Maikop culture absorbed the technique of building this type of burial mounds as a result of its contacts with the steppe area cultures [81: 75].
At present the situation has changed drastically. On the basis of a whole series of radiocarbon analyses, it has been proved [15; 82] that burial mounds of the ancient pit-grave culture are of a significantly later period in comparison with Maikop archaeological sites. This allows scholars to assume that the tradition of building this type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture. Its ties with Levant and Mesopotamian antiquities point to its earlier origin [15: 97].

This is not very clear;
Does this suggest that the Steppe peoples [Sredny Stog -> Yamna culture] invaded/infiltrated the Maykop culture in a later period?
Or does this suggest that the Maykop culture was autochthonous and developed a similar culture akin to Yamna based on its ties with Mesopotamia???

My understanding is the Yamna culture (which started around 3300BCE) is an offshoot of the Maykop culture (which started around 3700BCE), which itself originated in Anatolia or Mesopotamia. Yamna and Maykop later merged into, or were replaced by the Catacomb culture, circa 2500 BCE.

Maciamo
24-05-13, 10:36
Those of you who have followed my ramblings for awhile may remember that I stated it was only a matter of time before R1b would claim Gobekli Tepe.

It's not impossible based on its geographic location, but what were your arguments for an R1b settlement there instead of another haplogroup (notably G2a, J1, J2 and T) ?

Maciamo
24-05-13, 10:37
I wonder Vinca culture (Varna Necropolis) revael its genetical secrets.

Most probably a blend of G2a, E1b1b and I2a1b, perhaps with some J1 and T.

nordicwarrior
24-05-13, 13:47
It's not impossible based on its geographic location, but what were your arguments for an R1b settlement there instead of another haplogroup (notably G2a, J1, J2 and T) ?

My comment about R1b "claiming" Gobekli Tepe have more to do with this haplogroup's tendencies to grab ahold of the good stuff no matter what science has to say of the matter. For example-- Spencer Wells and his R1b first into Europe comments, his tale of R1b being the group that founded Cro-Magnon, even R1b garnering the "highest" spot on the alphabetic nomenclature. I said my earlier comment on this thread tongue-in-cheek, but only partially so.

While it is possible that R1b had outposts at the start of Gobekli Tepe (which was over 11,000 years ago)... it's far more likely the groups laying the foundation of this settlement where members of hg. I, J1, J2, or G2a. I would think branches of hg. E would have a greater chance of being present during the construction than either R1b or R1a.

adamo
24-05-13, 16:24
I hate people trying to make links between Chatal Hoyuk, Gobekli Tepe ( ancient Anatolia in general) and R1b. To me all these ancient sites across turkey, the Urartians of Armenia etc. are linked to the spread of j2 from Mesopotamia to other northern regions of the Middle East; the R1b element was present but very secondary, at very low %, they did not "dominate hurrian or Hittite societies, the J2 was the main elements. The northern Middle East (fertile crescent) has been for thousand and thousands of years, J2 dominated, not R1b.

Yetos
24-05-13, 19:01
Most probably a blend of G2a, E1b1b and I2a1b, perhaps with some J1 and T.

I agree about G2a, but I don't agree about E1b.
the more ancient in nearby Konya is 2-2,500 years after the destruction of Vinca, almost same time with Hettits or just little earlier

so you believe that J2 came later with iron age? or bronze age? and did not exist in Vinca?
and you tottaly exclude R1a to exist in Vinca/Varna ?

Maciamo
24-05-13, 20:07
I hate people trying to make links between Chatal Hoyuk, Gobekli Tepe ( ancient Anatolia in general) and R1b. To me all these ancient sites across turkey, the Urartians of Armenia etc. are linked to the spread of j2 from Mesopotamia to other northern regions of the Middle East; the R1b element was present but very secondary, at very low %, they did not "dominate hurrian or Hittite societies, the J2 was the main elements. The northern Middle East (fertile crescent) has been for thousand and thousands of years, J2 dominated, not R1b.

You can't possibly know that. Who would have guessed that the European Neolithic was dominated by G2a ? Haplogroup J2 seems to have expanded fairly late, like R1b. If there is one very old haplogroup, in addition to G and E1b1b, that I would associate with the early Neolithic in Mesopotamia, it would be haplogroup T. As I explained above, I believe that E1b1b, G and T were the three haplogroups that invented and diffused agriculture. Some R1b might have been with them, but only the V88 branch. On the other hand, I am confident that all subclades of E1b1b1, G1, G2 and T are linked to the development of agriculture.

Maciamo
24-05-13, 20:13
so you believe that J2 came later with iron age? or bronze age? and did not exist in Vinca?
and you tottaly exclude R1a to exist in Vinca/Varna ?

Yes, pretty much.

Goga
24-05-13, 21:02
http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/05/stanislav-grigorievs-ancient-indo.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/05/stanislav-grigorievs-ancient-indo.html)

Dienekes is so right! I do also believe that ancient Indo-European clades of hg. R1b originally came not far from the South of the Caspian Sea (Zagros/Iranian Plateau). Later on hg. R1b moved more to the west into Asia Minor/Central Anatolia and formed the Halaf culture. And from that spot they spread into Europe maybe through Greece or maybe through North Caucasus.
But the fact is that ancient R1b folks that entered Europe were already Indo-European. R1b was NOT Indo-Europized by R1a or something, lol. I'm sure about that.

Luan
24-05-13, 23:30
http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/05/stanislav-grigorievs-ancient-indo.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/05/stanislav-grigorievs-ancient-indo.html)

Dienekes is so right! I do also believe that ancient Indo-European clades of hg. R1b originally came not far from the South of the Caspian Sea (Zagros/Iranian Plateau). Later on hg. R1b moved more to the west into Asia Minor/Central Anatolia and formed the Halaf culture. And from that spot they spread into Europe maybe through Greece or maybe through North Caucasus.
But the fact is that ancient R1b folks that entered Europe were already Indo-European. R1b was NOT Indo-Europized by R1a or something, lol. I'm sure about that.
Very interesting.

nordicwarrior
24-05-13, 23:39
Maciamo, it's believed Gobekli Tepe was built by hunter-gatherers, not by a population practicing agriculture.

LeBrok
25-05-13, 01:02
Maciamo, it's believed Gobekli Tepe was built by hunter-gatherers, not by a population practicing agriculture.
This is impossible for pure hunter-gatherers to build bigger settlements as Gobeki Tepe. I don't mean their mental capacity but population numbers to be able to build on this scale. Remember that agriculture started slowly (like everything else) and even its beginning took few thousand years. They needed to develop efficient techniques and seeds had to go through genetic modification, all to be right for large scale farming.
I would say that Gobeki Tepe is in time period of either, start of agriculture, and most likely it was limited to house gardens, or (and) already fairly extensive herding. Herding is hard to prove by scientists at this stage, because their herding animals were exactly same as wild variety. It took time to develope breeds only found in human control today.

Once again, I don't think any hunter-gatherer society had their population numbers large enough to start any big settlement, not mentioning civilisation. Not enough food, therefore not enough people. Plus, there is not even one established evidence from archeology of civilization of hunter-gatherers. Food is the reason.

nordicwarrior
25-05-13, 03:16
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm in agreement with LeBrok. :)

Yes, it's all about food when talking about a development like Gobekli Tepe. You can't build if you can't eat.

What I've read about concerning this site is that thousands of years ago, the area received much more rainfall and that it was teeming with life... both plants and animals. (I'm only repeating what the archeologists working the excavation have said.) It was the perfect combination of favorable climate, edible fruits, and plentiful game. Every expert I've read concerning Gobekli Tepe has indicated hunter-gatherer-- made possible only because of a rare and unusual food bounty.

I have a large chunk (if not the majority) of Gobekli Tepe founders as hg I. Of course as an member of haplogroup I-- I must admit a pronounced bias. But my reasoning is simple-- hg. I always seems to be attached to stone monoliths throughout it's history, and Gobekli Tepe is basically concentric rings of stone monoliths.

Maciamo
25-05-13, 13:53
http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/05/stanislav-grigorievs-ancient-indo.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/05/stanislav-grigorievs-ancient-indo.html)

Dienekes is so right! I do also believe that ancient Indo-European clades of hg. R1b originally came not far from the South of the Caspian Sea (Zagros/Iranian Plateau). Later on hg. R1b moved more to the west into Asia Minor/Central Anatolia and formed the Halaf culture. And from that spot they spread into Europe maybe through Greece or maybe through North Caucasus.
But the fact is that ancient R1b folks that entered Europe were already Indo-European. R1b was NOT Indo-Europized by R1a or something, lol. I'm sure about that.

Until recently Dienekes had always said that R1b and IE languages came to Europe during the Neolithic, while I insisted that they only came during the Bronze Age. This new theory of Grigoriev and others linking the Proto-Indo-European with the Halaf culture is actually in agreement with the views I always supported, namely that R1b PIE people came from eastern Anatolia or northern Mesopotamia before they moved to the North Caucasus and the Pontic Steppe from circa 4000 BCE. The Halaf culture ended around 5400 BCE, so that still leaves 1,500 years before the migration north.

Maciamo
25-05-13, 13:57
Maciamo, it's believed Gobekli Tepe was built by hunter-gatherers, not by a population practicing agriculture.

Actually only the early settlement of Göbekli Tepe was built by hunter-gatherers. The community later domesticated animals and even started farming a bit. Anyway, what's your point ? I have always said that the first haplogroups to domesticate animals were hg J and R1b (as opposed to farming, first developed by E1b1b, G and T).

Yetos
25-05-13, 17:15
http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/05/stanislav-grigorievs-ancient-indo.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/05/stanislav-grigorievs-ancient-indo.html)

Dienekes is so right! I do also believe that ancient Indo-European clades of hg. R1b originally came not far from the South of the Caspian Sea (Zagros/Iranian Plateau). Later on hg. R1b moved more to the west into Asia Minor/Central Anatolia and formed the Halaf culture. And from that spot they spread into Europe maybe through Greece or maybe through North Caucasus.
But the fact is that ancient R1b folks that entered Europe were already Indo-European. R1b was NOT Indo-Europized by R1a or something, lol. I'm sure about that.

That is also a thought,

from what i see in maps I could say

1) that only R1a is enough to spread IE language,
yet that thread could exclude R1a from IE speakers

2) Tocharians, they spoke a kind of anatolian IE language they started migrate from minor-Asia Middle East, BUT THEY WERE R1a,

3) R1a is also common among Uraloid populations, could they spoke an Fino-Ugric language at first place?

so at least in case of Tocharian don't be sure to exclude R1a, although it is possible,

Goga
25-05-13, 19:03
That is also a thought,

from what i see in maps I could say

1) that only R1a is enough to spread IE language,
yet that thread could exclude R1a from IE speakers

2) Tocharians, they spoke a kind of anatolian IE language they started migrate from minor-Asia Middle East, BUT THEY WERE R1a,

3) R1a is also common among Uraloid populations, could they spoke an Fino-Ugric language at first place?

so at least in case of Tocharian don't be sure to exclude R1a, although it is possible,The oldest branches of R1a are from West Asia as you can see here: http://kurdishdna.blogspot.be/2013/05/r1a-tree.html#comment-form

If Tocharians were partly R1a folks it is possible that Tocharian R1a was just native to West Asian.

As you can see here (light blue line) oldest clades of R1a (m420) entered Europe via the Balkans. m420 is estimated to be 8000 years old!
http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l625/ft-d/1O-R1a.jpg

nordicwarrior
25-05-13, 20:27
...Anyway, what's your point ?

Re-read post 29.

nordicwarrior
25-05-13, 20:58
...I have always said that the first haplogroups to domesticate animals were hg J and R1b (as opposed to farming, first developed by E1b1b, G and T).

I'm not willing to concede this as fact. How do you explain the 27,000 year old dog found in the Czech Republic or the 31,700 year old specimen found in Goyet Cave? Is it now believed that R1b showed up in Belgium 32,000 years ago?

Granted, R1b probably worked with horses first and J probably domesticated cattle, but these topics are far from being accepted as hard fact by the scientific community.

**EDIT**

For those readers who may be new to this topic, Gobekli Tepe pre-dates the ancient Sumer civilization by at least 3,000 years (maybe even 4,000). This would make Gobekli Tepe the first/earliest/founding site of human built structures which required collective effort. It may even replace Sumer's claim of being home to "the cradle of civilization" you read about in school.

Gobekli Tepe is a historical game changer.

oriental
25-05-13, 21:00
I was wondering if fishing was what enabled hunter-gatherers to form a village. If they were hunting land animals they would have to move around as the area would soon run out of animals to hunt. Keeping goats and cows would have to be small in numbers as the grass would be gone if too many animals. So fishing using boats would enable hunter-gatherers to form a village with a few cows and goats. They could have harvested plants like cabbage and such as chimpanzees ate plant food too. Over thousands of years the women would have found which vegetables were edible.

Maciamo
25-05-13, 21:39
I'm not willing to concede this as fact. How do you explain the 27,000 year old dog found in the Czech Republic or the 31,700 year old specimen found in Goyet Cave? Is it now believed that R1b showed up in Belgium 32,000 years ago?

Don't be ridiculous. You know I was referring to the first animals domesticated for their meat, namely cattle, goat and pigs.

As for horses, it was probably both R1b and R1a who domesticated them in the steppes.

Maciamo
25-05-13, 21:41
Re-read post 29.

I still don't know where you are getting at. I am not the one who said that Göbekli Tepe was founded by R1b people. I am the one who doubted that assumption.

nordicwarrior
26-05-13, 03:10
The paper does not mention R1b. If the pre-Maykop civilization came from Mesopotamia, then they probably had a lot of E1b1b and J. I think you're taking the most common western european gene and trying to prove that it was a dominant marker of the first ancient advanced civilizations, but it doesn't work because they're all in Levant/Anatolia/Middle East. Thanks for doing this research thou.

Can't say it any better than this really.

nordicwarrior
26-05-13, 03:36
...I imagined that R1b brought bronze working, while R1a provided the burial customs. If this new radiocarbon dating is correct, then it would seem that R1b brought both. In that case, it becomes increasingly likely that the Proto-Indo-European language itself was also brought by the more advanced and dominant partner (R1b), and adopted by the R1a population at the same time as the rest of the cultural package from Maykop... "

So you postulate that R1b (the more advanced and dominant partner) brought bronze, burial customs, and Indo-European language, as well as horse domestication (possibly in partnership with R1a as you mentioned before). Wow, that is quite a body of work and humankind is certainly appreciative of it.

I'm putting on the brakes though and saying the numbers don't add for R1b founding Gobekli Tepe. Yes I know that ebamerican made the initial statement on this thread, but I've observed a track record from R1b members and I won't be surprised if Gobekli Tepe is the next intended target. That's how you guys roll. However this is one claim (albeit probably the juciest of all) that R1b proponents aren't going to win, not logically anyway.

Humans using construction materials in a cohesive, intelligent manner at Gobekli Tepe-- and in my opinion the building of humanity's first civilization-- can be attributed to a mix of hg. I, J1, J2, and G2a. Maybe some lines of E as well.

This is surely a difficult pill to swallow for R1b members because I've noticed that members this particular hg. seem to pride themselves on being "the architects" of modern society.

Lucky for us more primitive haplogroups, we were able to muddle through long enough for R1b to arrive on their white horses to lead us forward on our journey. We unwashed heathens did build a really cool system of massive concentric stones (11,000 years ago) that somehow didn't tumble like a set of large dominos, and we did it all without a set of blueprints from our most evolved R1b chieftains. Whew, we dodged the bullet on that one. :)

Alan
26-05-13, 03:39
What remains unclear is how R1b was part of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic expansion within the Middle East, but that the migrants who brought the Neolithic to Europe belonged only to G2a and E1b1b (and perhaps also J1, J2 and T). That may have been caused by a founder effect in the original population of Neolithic farmers who moved to Europe. Or it could be that R1b was confined to the north or east of the Fertile Crescent and decided to expand north across the Caucasus, while Levantine farmers moved to Europe. G2a would have brought agriculture from the Levant to eastern Anatolia, and R1b picked it up before moving north.


I think I had mentioned not that long ago that there are Kurgan stelae found in Southeastern Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamia which are in date older than these found in the Steppes. Most of these traces were diminished by other conquering people.

Alan
26-05-13, 04:11
That is also a thought,

from what i see in maps I could say

1) that only R1a is enough to spread IE language,
yet that thread could exclude R1a from IE speakers

2) Tocharians, they spoke a kind of anatolian IE language they started migrate from minor-Asia Middle East, BUT THEY WERE R1a,

3) R1a is also common among Uraloid populations, could they spoke an Fino-Ugric language at first place?

so at least in case of Tocharian don't be sure to exclude R1a, although it is possible,

Finno-Ugric languages are connected to Haplogroup N. There is no doubt that R1a people have a connection to the earliest Indo Europeans.

Maciamo
26-05-13, 09:51
So you postulate that R1b (the more advanced and dominant partner) brought bronze, burial customs, and Indo-European language, as well as horse domestication (possibly in partnership with R1a as you mentioned before). Wow, that is quite a body of work and humankind is certainly appreciative of it.

I personally think that R1b people didn't invent agriculture, pottery, writing, city-states, and many other important early inventions or developments. Actually I've always claimed that R1b people didn't invent agriculture and that they didn't spread the Neolithic to Europe, going completely against the current of the vast majority of "professional" population geneticists, as well as from bloggers like Dienekes or Davidski.

R1b surely acquired agriculture from its Middle Eastern neighbours to the south (Levant). The only place where R1b might have spread the Neolithic is to the Pontic-Caspian steppes. But even there agriculture played only a minor role due to the harsh climate, and cattle and goat/sheep herding was the main means of subsistence. Hence my assumption that R1b might have domesticated these animals, as R1b was in the right region (eastern Anatolia) at the time and someone had to bring these domesticates to the steppes, so who better than R1b ?

I also never say that they invented burial customs ! The new data I mentioned in the OP seems to point that the kurgan (tumulus) type of burial, i.e. the one undeniably associated with the steppe cultures and later Indo-European migrations, might well have originated in the Middle East (not necessarily with the R1b people who exported the practice to the steppes). In any case, there are plenty of types of burial practices, and the most impressive were those of the Megalithic people (mostly G2a and I2) of Western Europe and of the ancient Egyptians (mostly E1b1b, G and T).

But as far as bronze working is concerned, I do see a link with R1b. Indo-European languages are not an invention, and they are undeniably spoken mostly by R1a- and R1b-dominated societies nowadays.

As for the horse domestication, as I said, R1a played as much a role as R1b, and there were probably some G2a3b1 among them as well.


I'm putting on the brakes though and saying the numbers don't add for R1b founding Gobekli Tepe. Yes I know that ebamerican made the initial statement on this thread, but I've observed a track record from R1b members and I won't be surprised if Gobekli Tepe is the next intended target. That's how you guys roll. However this is one claim (albeit probably the juciest of all) that R1b proponents aren't going to win, not logically anyway.

Frankly, I don't care. It's not a battle, and I am not on anybody' side, R1b or other.


Humans using construction materials in a cohesive, intelligent manner at Gobekli Tepe-- and in my opinion the building of humanity's first civilization-- can be attributed to a mix of hg. I, J1, J2, and G2a. Maybe some lines of E as well.

The first civilizations arose in the late Bronze Age. I agree that they were composite of many haplogroups. However Göbekli Tepe was not a civilisation, perhaps not even a culture, merely a settlement. At that time (Mesolithic to early Neolithic), most human populations were still living in tribes of closely related individuals. Hunter-gatherers may have settled down at Göbekli Tepe, but they were still a large extended family, primarily belonging to one haplogroup.

But Göbekli Tepe was not the only such settlement, and it is likely that all haplogroups present in the Fertile Crescent played their role in the Neolithic development. Agriculture arose in the Levant, domestication in the Taurus and Zagros mountains, and pottery appears to have first be made in Northeast Asia, then was diffused westward through Siberia. All were originally developed by different haplogroups. Actually even domestication could be attributed to different haplogroups depending on the animal.

On the other hand, there was probably precious little hg I in the region at the time. The present-day I2 found in Kurdistan almost certainly came with R1a from Eastern Europe (perhaps via Central Asia) during the Bronze Age or later. On the other hand, R1b has always been part of the Middle Eastern landscape at a reasonably high frequency (+10%).



This is surely a difficult pill to swallow for R1b members because I've noticed that members this particular hg. seem to pride themselves on being "the architects" of modern society.

Lucky for us more primitive haplogroups, we were able to muddle through long enough for R1b to arrive on their white horses to lead us forward on our journey. We unwashed heathens did build a really cool system of massive concentric stones (11,000 years ago) that somehow didn't tumble like a set of large dominos, and we did it all without a set of blueprints from our most evolved R1b chieftains. Whew, we dodged the bullet on that one. :)

You don't seem to understand that the R1b people who lived in the Middle East 7,000 or 10,000 years ago share very little autosomal DNA with the R1b people of modern Europe. I have explained at length before (e.g. here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27519-Neolithic-farmers-Southwest-Europeans-or-West-Asians?p=395134&viewfull=1#post395134)) that R1b men constantly blended with local population (read women) on their long journey from the Middle East to Western Europe via the North Caucasus, Pontic Steppes, Balkans and Central Europe. I actually think that the original Mesolithic/Neolithic R1b carried autosomal genes that would fit better in the West Asian or Gedrosian admixtures in Dienekes' Dodecad Project.

Besides, you are not representative of the Y-haplogroup you carry. Whatever their haplogroup, people whose ancestors all come from the same region are more autosomally similar with one another than they are with geographically distant people who share the same haplogroup.

Yetos
26-05-13, 14:47
The oldest branches of R1a are from West Asia as you can see here: http://kurdishdna.blogspot.be/2013/05/r1a-tree.html#comment-form

If Tocharians were partly R1a folks it is possible that Tocharian R1a was just native to West Asian.

As you can see here (light blue line) oldest clades of R1a (m420) entered Europe via the Balkans. m420 is estimated to be 8000 years old!
http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l625/ft-d/1O-R1a.jpg

If Tocharians were R1a and R1a is originated in south, Balkans have extreme diversity of R1a, but until today is considered as sink phenomena.
yet the spead of Vinca/Varna seems to enter minor Asia, and from there spread to North of Caucasos

Yetos
26-05-13, 14:56
I personally think that R1b people didn't invent agriculture, pottery, writing, city-states, and many other important early inventions or developments. Actually I've always claimed that R1b people didn't invent agriculture and that they didn't spread the Neolithic to Europe, going completely against the current of the vast majority of "professional" population geneticists, as well as from bloggers like Dienekes or Davidski.

R1b surely acquired agriculture from its Middle Eastern neighbours to the south (Levant). The only place where R1b might have spread the Neolithic is to the Pontic-Caspian steppes. But even there agriculture played only a minor role due to the harsh climate, and cattle and goat/sheep herding was the main means of subsistence. Hence my assumption that R1b might have domesticated these animals, as R1b was in the right region (eastern Anatolia) at the time and someone had to bring these domesticates to the steppes, so who better than R1b ?

I also never say that they invented burial customs ! The new data I mentioned in the OP seems to point that the kurgan (tumulus) type of burial, i.e. the one undeniably associated with the steppe cultures and later Indo-European migrations, might well have originated in the Middle East (not necessarily with the R1b people who exported the practice to the steppes). In any case, there are plenty of types of burial practices, and the most impressive were those of the Megalithic people (mostly G2a and I2) of Western Europe and of the ancient Egyptians (mostly E1b1b, G and T).

But as far as bronze working is concerned, I do see a link with R1b. Indo-European languages are not an invention, and they are undeniably spoken mostly by R1a- and R1b-dominated societies nowadays.

As for the horse domestication, as I said, R1a played as much a role as R1b, and there were probably some G2a3b1 among them as well.



Frankly, I don't care. It's not a battle, and I am not on anybody' side, R1b or other.



The first civilizations arose in the late Bronze Age. I agree that they were composite of many haplogroups. However Göbekli Tepe was not a civilisation, perhaps not even a culture, merely a settlement. At that time (Mesolithic to early Neolithic), most human populations were still living in tribes of closely related individuals. Hunter-gatherers may have settled down at Göbekli Tepe, but they were still a large extended family, primarily belonging to one haplogroup.

But Göbekli Tepe was not the only such settlement, and it is likely that all haplogroups present in the Fertile Crescent played their role in the Neolithic development. Agriculture arose in the Levant, domestication in the Taurus and Zagros mountains, and pottery appears to have first be made in Northeast Asia, then was diffused westward through Siberia. All were originally developed by different haplogroups. Actually even domestication could be attributed to different haplogroups depending on the animal.

On the other hand, there was probably precious little hg I in the region at the time. The present-day I2 found in Kurdistan almost certainly came with R1a from Eastern Europe (perhaps via Central Asia) during the Bronze Age or later. On the other hand, R1b has always been part of the Middle Eastern landscape at a reasonably high frequency (+10%).




You don't seem to understand that the R1b people who lived in the Middle East 7,000 or 10,000 years ago share very little autosomal DNA with the R1b people of modern Europe. I have explained at length before (e.g. here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27519-Neolithic-farmers-Southwest-Europeans-or-West-Asians?p=395134&viewfull=1#post395134)) that R1b men constantly blended with local population (read women) on their long journey from the Middle East to Western Europe via the North Caucasus, Pontic Steppes, Balkans and Central Europe. I actually think that the original Mesolithic/Neolithic R1b carried autosomal genes that would fit better in the West Asian or Gedrosian admixtures in Dienekes' Dodecad Project.

Besides, you are not representative of the Y-haplogroup you carry. Whatever their haplogroup, people whose ancestors all come from the same region are more autosomally similar with one another than they are with geographically distant people who share the same haplogroup.


I see by connecting Gedrosian component and R1b spread you admit that there was a second agricultural boom, mainly by nomadic sheep breaders, something I express as the spread of IE after Neolithic agricultural boom in a possible Anatolian origin outside Renfrew's thesis.

that is interesting, cause it combines with Indo-Hettit theory for IE language.
an expansion like the Abraam's patriarchy,?

Maciamo
26-05-13, 16:09
I see by connecting Gedrosian component and R1b spread you admit that there was a second agricultural boom, mainly by nomadic sheep breaders, something I express as the spread of IE after Neolithic agricultural boom in a possible Anatolian origin outside Renfrew's thesis.

that is interesting, cause it combines with Indo-Hettit theory for IE language.
an expansion like the Abraam's patriarchy,?

Animal herding and stock breeding is not agriculture.

nordicwarrior
27-05-13, 05:50
Maciamo, thank you for clarifying your positions. I do have a couple questions though:

1. You've mentioned the placement of R1b in Eastern Anatolia... have ancient remains there been I.D.'ed as R1b members? If so, what time frame are we looking at?

2. You say it's not a battle, and I would like to agree with you. Unfortunately we all have a bias (part of the human condition really) and I'm upfront in admitting mine. I'm guessing from your posts that you are a R1b member (or at least somewhere in the hg R lineage)... have you publicly declared your y-haplogroup?

And I do understand the importance of autosomal over y-dna in most applications. However y-DNA does have a role to play in tracing historical movements. What's also interesting about y-DNA (and mtdna for that matter) is that it trumps nationality, religion, and even race. These two outside positions of the genetic funnel cannot be altered and will be with us through all of time... or until the next major mutation anyway.

Yetos
27-05-13, 10:12
Animal herding and stock breeding is not agriculture.

Maybe the meaning in translation is not correct

Αγροτικος Agriculture contains plant and animal production

Κτηνοτροφος breader is the one who produces animals
Γεωργος (landfarmer) is the one who produces seeds and plants right?

I think with term agriculture we mean both animal and plant production

Maciamo
27-05-13, 10:18
Maybe the meaning in translation is not correct

Αγροτικος Agriculture contains plant and animal production

Κτηνοτροφος breader is the one who produces animals
Γεωργος (landfarmer) is the one who produces seeds and plants right?

I think with term agriculture we mean both animal and plant production

Agriculture can sometimes have a wider meaning of both plant and animal production, but I've always use agriculture to refer only to farming (of plants). If I mean animals I say herding or stock-breeding.

Maciamo
31-05-13, 13:17
A new paper (http://www.academia.edu/2543571/Kaukasus_und_Orient_Die_Entstehung_des_Maikop-_Phanomens_im_4._Jt._v._Chr) (in German) by Mariya Ivanova argues that the Maykop culture did not originate in Anatolia or Syria (as I had suggested), but rather in Iran or Central Asia. That's an interesting alternative theory because I had ultimately placed the origin of R1b (+ R1a + R2) in Central Asia in the Upper Palaeolithic. That would mean that if Maykop indeed had an R1b connection, R1b could have come straight from southern Central Asia (most likely in modern Iran) to the North Caucasus.

The only issue with this theory is the very old presence of R1b-V88 in the Levant and Egypt, and its dispersal throughout Africa. Nothing prevents, however, that one branch of R1b migrated first from central Asia to the Levant in the Mesolithic or early Neolithic (perhaps c. 10,000 BCE), then another one migrated much later (4,000 BCE) from Central Asia to the North Caucasus.

One argument in favour of an origin of R1b in modern Iran is the link between the Gedrosian admixture and modern R1b populations.

Abstract

"Graves and settlements of the 5th millennium BC in North Caucasus attest to a material culture that was related to contemporaneous archaeological complexes in the northern and western Black Sea region. Yet it was replaced, suddenly as it seems, around the middle of the 4th millennium BC by a “high culture” whose origin is still quite unclear. This archaeological culture named after the great Maikop kurgan showed innovations in all areas which have no local archetypes and which cannot be assigned to the tradition of the Balkan-Anatolian Copper Age. The favoured theory of Russian researchers is a migration from the south originating in the Syro-Anatolian area, which is often mentioned in connection with the socalled “Uruk expansion”. However, serious doubts have arisen about a connection between Maikop and the Syro-Anatolian region. The foreign objects in the North Caucasus reveal no connection to the upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris or to the floodplains of Mesopotamia, but rather seem to have ties to the Iranian plateau and to South Central Asia. Recent excavations in the Southwest Caspian Sea region are enabling a new perspective about the interactions between the “Orient” and Continental Europe. On the one hand, it is becoming gradually apparent that a gigantic area of interaction evolved already in the early 4th millennium BC which extended far beyond Mesopotamia; on the other hand, these findings relativise the traditional importance given to Mesopotamia, because innovations originating in Iran and Central Asia obviously spread throughout the Syro-Anatolian region independently thereof."

Twilight
24-06-13, 21:45
A new paper (http://www.academia.edu/2543571/Kaukasus_und_Orient_Die_Entstehung_des_Maikop-_Phanomens_im_4._Jt._v._Chr) (in German) by Mariya Ivanova argues that the Maykop culture did not originate in Anatolia or Syria (as I had suggested), but rather in Iran or Central Asia. That's an interesting alternative theory because I had ultimately placed the origin of R1b (+ R1a + R2) in Central Asia in the Upper Palaeolithic. That would mean that if Maykop indeed had an R1b connection, R1b could have come straight from southern Central Asia (most likely in modern Iran) to the North Caucasus.

The only issue with this theory is the very old presence of R1b-V88 in the Levant and Egypt, and its dispersal throughout Africa. Nothing prevents, however, that one branch of R1b migrated first from central Asia to the Levant in the Mesolithic or early Neolithic (perhaps c. 10,000 BCE), then another one migrated much later (4,000 BCE) from Central Asia to the North Caucasus.

One argument in favour of an origin of R1b in modern Iran is the link between the Gedrosian admixture and modern R1b populations.

Abstract

"Graves and settlements of the 5th millennium BC in North Caucasus attest to a material culture that was related to contemporaneous archaeological complexes in the northern and western Black Sea region. Yet it was replaced, suddenly as it seems, around the middle of the 4th millennium BC by a “high culture” whose origin is still quite unclear. This archaeological culture named after the great Maikop kurgan showed innovations in all areas which have no local archetypes and which cannot be assigned to the tradition of the Balkan-Anatolian Copper Age. The favoured theory of Russian researchers is a migration from the south originating in the Syro-Anatolian area, which is often mentioned in connection with the socalled “Uruk expansion”. However, serious doubts have arisen about a connection between Maikop and the Syro-Anatolian region. The foreign objects in the North Caucasus reveal no connection to the upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris or to the floodplains of Mesopotamia, but rather seem to have ties to the Iranian plateau and to South Central Asia. Recent excavations in the Southwest Caspian Sea region are enabling a new perspective about the interactions between the “Orient” and Continental Europe. On the one hand, it is becoming gradually apparent that a gigantic area of interaction evolved already in the early 4th millennium BC which extended far beyond Mesopotamia; on the other hand, these findings relativise the traditional importance given to Mesopotamia, because innovations originating in Iran and Central Asia obviously spread throughout the Syro-Anatolian region independently thereof."

Quite an interesting article, is there a name for the Culture in 4,000 Bc Iran Plateau. :shocked::thinking:

Goga
25-06-13, 20:55
ForRussian speakers. According to Russian ACADEMIA PIEans are from an area SouthWestof the Caspian Sea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKlGCc0xhv8

Goga
25-06-13, 20:57
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh1OzBsqZtk

Goga
25-06-13, 20:58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0FflO5j-TI

Twilight
28-06-13, 05:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0FflO5j-TI

With all do respect Goga, not everybody knows how to speak Russian and the translator is not in the clips:innocent:

LeBrok
28-06-13, 05:54
With all do respect Goga, not everybody knows how to speak Russian and the translator is not in the clips:innocent:
What, no Google translation for youtube? :) I thought they covered everything.

Hattlandic
03-07-13, 07:48
I’m new to this forum, but from time to time get interested in origins of Indo-Europeans and google search brought me this interesting discussion so I decided to join it. This is exciting time due to recent advances in human genotyping. My suggestions based on large picture revealed by haplogroup distribution maps in Europe and beyond. According to the R1b distribution map it looks like R1b survived in Pyrenees during last glacial ice age and then spread north and east of Europe. What makes me think so? The distribution of G2a – which is highest in Maykop culture location. There is one correction to modern maps – presently they show very little distribution of G2a in North-West Caucasus, that was misfortunate outcome of losing war to aggressive Russian Empire in the 19th century – almost entire population was destroyed pretty much same way as East Prussia in more modern times. This is little known fact, therefore modern haplogroup map of North-West Caucasus are very misleading and would show predominantly R1a population. Before that indigenous population had very high proportion of G2a which confirmed by recent genotyping studies of North-West Caucasus native nations – Circassians, Abkhaz and Ossetians. There is strong reason why these nations existed there for millennia – terrain is very difficult for any invaders and population was very skilled in martial arts. I am not aware about genotyping of Maykop people, but I’d assume that they were also G2a. According to maps there is very strong correlation between distribution of Maykop G2a and Roman and Persian empire boundaries. High proportion of G2a in Italy and Turkey indicates that Maykop G2a people probably founded Roman and Hittite empires.
There is one striking fact from the genotyping map – Basque area, which is extremely high in R1b, but absolutely lacks G2a. If Basque is not Indo-Europena, that would strongly suggests that R1b is not originally linguistically Indo-European haplogroup, but adopted Indo-European language from Bronze Age Maykop G2a Indo-Europeans.

Goga
03-07-13, 10:52
No, G2a is very old and was part of the Paleolithic Europe. The only true Y-DNA haplogroup candidate for PIE is J2a. J2a Entered very recently into the Steppes, India and Europe. There's lots of J2a in Ukraine (which was part of Yamna horizon).

Hattlandic
13-07-13, 06:26
No, G2a is very old and was part of the Paleolithic Europe. The only true Y-DNA haplogroup candidate for PIE is J2a. J2a Entered very recently into the Steppes, India and Europe. There's lots of J2a in Ukraine (which was part of Yamna horizon).
Thank you for shearing your opinion. J2a reaches maximum in North Caucasus among Chechens, but G2a reaches maximum among Ossetians, who are proven as IE.

MOESAN
13-07-13, 21:34
I ' m still very confused about PIE as for demic aspects thanfor linguistic aspects -
the last discoveries as on agricultural ground than anthropological/genetical ground proved that an influx came frome S- Caucasus NE Anatolia at these times we link to IE raising - so for all these reasons I agree with the ones that think Y-J2 was involved, perhaps with some primitive enough form of Y-R1b - I lack data for Afghanistan and Kazakhstan populations - it seems that populations close to the ones that took part in the Maikop upraising were involved too in the propagation of metals + agriculture at high level in future "pan-iranic" lands...
but I'm not sure these people were P-I-E speakers even if their cultural superiority could lead us to think it - PIE could be older...

Twilight
08-08-13, 04:25
What, no Google translation for youtube? :) I thought they covered everything.

Okay, I improvised and I noticed with the Out of India theory That there are Haplogroup K and P so if that is the case the ancestors of R must have gone North to central Asia and R2 made a back migration to India. On the flip side I took some time off to study about this matter and noticed that in the first recorded history in Central Asia are the Indo-Iranians and the Tajik, Indo-Iranians are apart of the Indo-Europeans already to begin with leaving the ancestors of the Tajik tribes as the first surviving culture in the area unless otherwise. Source: (Denovan Webster and Spencer Wells Meeting the Family; One man's journey through his human Ancestry 2010 National Geographic) and http://www.ask.com/wiki/Early_history_of_Tajikistan?o=2800&qsrc=999#cite_note-lcweb-1 I got a feeling if this Southern Caspian Sea Indo-European Theory is the case then it must be an Ancient Tajik tribe.

Goga
08-08-13, 05:02
Okay, I improvised and I noticed with the Out of India theory That there are Haplogroup K and P so if that is the case the ancestors of R must have gone North to central Asia and R2 made a back migration to India. On the flip side I took some time off to study about this matter and noticed that in the first recorded history in Central Asia are the Indo-Iranians and the Tajik, Indo-Iranians are apart of the Indo-Europeans already to begin with leaving the ancestors of the Tajik tribes as the first surviving culture in the area unless otherwise. Source: (Denovan Webster and Spencer Wells Meeting the Family; One man's journey through his human Ancestry 2010 National Geographic) and http://www.ask.com/wiki/Early_history_of_Tajikistan?o=2800&qsrc=999#cite_note-lcweb-1 I got a feeling if this Southern Caspian Sea Indo-European Theory is the case then it must be an Ancient Tajik tribe.Dushanbe is the capital of Tajikistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan). Dushanbe is an Iranic name and it means 'Monday' (second day after Saturday) . 'Du' = 2 in Iranic and 'shanbe' = Saturday. Monday is in Kurdish: 'Duseme'. Şeme = Saturday

So, the word Şeme (Saturday) has West Asian/Babylonian roots.

Saturday in:

Sumerian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language) = Shabbât
Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic) = Sabbath,
Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) = Sabbaton
German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language) = Samstag
Italian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language) = sabato
Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language) = sábado
French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language) = Samedi
Russian – subota
etc.

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

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

Twilight
08-08-13, 06:27
Point taken although, Tajikstan was once apart of Persia so I'm not surprised also this is a hypothesis and am putting it out there. The British have claimed for example according to tradition that the Germanics pushed out the Celts yet DNA has proved otherwise, don't get me wrong, I'm part British myself. You're response has risen a question, since the Tajiks are the earliest record in Central Asia. Are there any oral history pertaining to the Tajiks invading a culture, there could be natives in Central Asia far more ancient than the Tajiks. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/world/europe/05iht-web.0305BRITS.full.4803645.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 :thinking::satisfied:

MOESAN
09-08-13, 13:47
Point taken although, Tajikstan was once apart of Persia so I'm not surprised also this is a hypothesis and am putting it out there. The British have claimed for example according to tradition that the Germanics pushed out the Celts yet DNA has proved otherwise, don't get me wrong, I'm part British myself. You're response has risen a question, since the Tajiks are the earliest record in Central Asia. Are there any oral history pertaining to the Tajiks invading a culture, there could be natives in Central Asia far more ancient than the Tajiks. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/world/europe/05iht-web.0305BRITS.full.4803645.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 :thinking::satisfied:

excuse me because it is off topic a little
DNA CONFIRMS that eastern Anglo-Saxons pushed the Celts westwards for a part, mixing with some of them nevertheless with time, and in some places (osmose is obligatory with time) - at the beginning, surely the eastern parts of Britain were almost completely germanic around the 6°/7° century...

Twilight
10-08-13, 05:06
excuse me because it is off topic a littleDNA CONFIRMS that eastern Anglo-Saxons pushed the Celts westwards for a part, mixing with some of them nevertheless with time, and in some places (osmose is obligatory with time) - at the beginning, surely the eastern parts of Britain were almost completely germanic around the 6°/7° century... It was only an example, I do not mean for this to derail pardon me:useless::innocent:. But none the less, the point is that since there was no recorded history in Central Asia beyond the Tajiks and Iranians. Why not look to the oral history unless the oral history has been forgotten it's been 28,000 years after all since Haplogroup R was in Central Asia and R1B around the Caspian Sea or Central Asia looking at the Haplogroup Description. Language does change with time after all. Anyways this was not ment to be an argument but just throwing it out there as a Hypothesis. :indifferent:

MOESAN
10-08-13, 18:02
It was only an example, I do not mean for this to derail pardon me:useless::innocent:. But none the less, the point is that since there was no recorded history in Central Asia beyond the Tajiks and Iranians. Why not look to the oral history unless the oral history has been forgotten it's been 28,000 years after all since Haplogroup R was in Central Asia and R1B around the Caspian Sea or Central Asia looking at the Haplogroup Description. Language does change with time after all. Anyways this was not ment to be an argument but just throwing it out there as a Hypothesis. :indifferent:

OK no problem
concerning Y-R1b I lack more details about distribution East the Caspian sea: according to maps published by Maciamo, the most of the upstream ligneages were rather in Caucasus or South-West the Caucasus and we CAN suppose (it WAS not my first feelings) that R1b expanded about the metal ages with northwards movements of South Caucasus S-W Caspian populations leading perhaps to Maikop culture before acculturate (Indo-Europeanizing) steppes tribes,at least partially -
BUT it is true that some populations shifts, even rare when total, occurred in History: the N-E caspian region of today, turkic and physically half mongolid, could have known a male shift erasing the old I-E traces containing maybe a lot of Y-R1b and NOT Y-R1a???
I thought before that R1b cradle was in eastern caspian regions too and not more western... and the 'gedrosia' component, abandoned in some more recent DODECAD simulations, seemed to me the possible confirmation of that (a first non yet I-E wave of Y-R1b males (and females akin to them?) along with some north 'gedrosian' component?... the non-I-E.an stage could have explained the 'basque' mystery (a north path for first R1b's, basque elements in Saami language..., later I-E.ization for the remnant of these tribes stayed in east-central Europe??? but other theories have some worth too: proto-basque = mesolithical language arrived in North from Pyrenees and surroundings after the LGM, and some apparently basque traces in neo-celtic languages which were not found among the first "classical" celtic languages (but I have almost no knowledge about old celtic grammar...)
I confess my present trouble... the (even proved) movements of population don't tell us by themselves the direction of languages changes; I am still thinking I-E COULD Have been born in the Steppes, before later influence of more advanced cultures from south, either through Caucasus or through S-E-Caspian and Hindue Kush... three or four scenarios are still possible: the contacts Steppics <>S-Caspian and Harappa successors seem more progressive East the Caspian than brutal - languages changes depend on more than a condition -
what is of some weight is the fact basque language seems having a metals vocabulary not I-E: acquired by sea (Mediter.) or by land (N-Caspian pre-I-E travel) ?!?
I 'll speak later about the last Dienekes "communication" concerning the 2 folds admixture events (west-asian<>south asian) in the Indies: the links with kown traditional history is evident; for language change, it is not sure it will put a end to our pains!

MOESAN
10-08-13, 20:52
maybe this post is late but it contains some thoughts whic can be discussed here

Questions of Indo-Europeans, Y-DNA R1b and R1a and others, and autosomals components 'west-asian' ('caucasian' and 'gedrosian'):

Y-R1b in Europe seems having followed more than a way and known its greater «births boom» in west-central Europe and not in south-eastern Europe (perhaps am I wrong?) - I abandoned my first (old) believings concerning a birthplace in Iberia – yet I had some problems concerning today distributions of SNPs. Y-R1a seems the result of a relatively recent expansion with two poles, one in eastern Europe and one in southern Asia – Even if not precise, the most recent maps of global Y-R1a distribution fit very well with Baltic-Slavic cradles, Andronovo culture (partly turkicized and uralicized after?) and northern Indies/northern Pakistan (roughly): all linguisitically and historically indo-european lands and all of them in the satem category of language.
About Y-R1b a majority agrees they could have been involved in non-I-E and in I-E cultures in past; and it is true the ones living in Caucasus/Anatolia could have known and I-E language AND caucasic (diverse?) languages, without speaking about dravidian. Some people think some of Y-R1b bearers were among bearers of the first I-E cultures and, backed on the appreciable presence of 'gedrosia' autosomals among N-W and Northern Europeans, think the first I-Eans came into Europe through Anatolia and Balkans (what is not stupid: always the «Danubian highway»), not with first agriculture but with subsequent waves of already metallurgists (maybe are they thinking in Varna Culture? or Tripolje-Cucuteni?).
The problem is that even if Anatolia and Iran and Near-Eastern show a perceptible percentage of 'gedrosians', the Mediterranea people and Balkans people and even Slavic and Baltic people show very little of 'gedrosia' if some trace spite a globally high* percentage of 'west-asian'* component!... Even Cyprus is poor for 'gedrosia' component.
*W-As: > 30% in S-E Europe, 20-38% in Italy, 7-13% in N-E and E slavic Europe
at the contrary, even Basques and (then atlantic) Portugueses show more 'gedrosian' and Basques and Portugueses too show a 'northwest-european' (according to poolings) component than Italians or Greeks as a whole, even if these S-W people do not reach the percentages of N-W and N-Europe, by far... but the absolute percentages can abuse us, not the relative ones: when comparing weight of 'gedrosian' among the mix 'gedrosian'-'caucasian', the W-NW Europe show percentages over 70%, sometimes more than 95%, when S and SE Europe and NE Europe stay about 3-11%... the closer to the supposed southern way of intrance for 'gedrosian', the least of 'gedrosian'!!! the most evident scenario would be: a wave from N-Caspian to northern and western Europe until the Atlantic shores: the remainers in central Europe has been indo-europeanized later (principally Celts, Ligurians, pre-Germanics?)– the few remained in eastern and northeastern Europe were «erased» by subsequent Y-R1a Indo-Europeans (indo-europeanized too? >> satem?)
I-Eans? But Basques are still a problem here: they are closer than Iberians to the N-W Europe as for autosomals as for Y-DNA even if not identical; and the Y-R1b shows more variants in N-Europe and baltic lands than in Iberia! The south baltic territories and central Europe show what could be the trail between old SNPs and new ones AS DO also western Mediterranea (Italy N and S, Valencia in eastern Spain): two ways? But the same language? The obsessional supposed presence of basque-like substrate in Saami language (we wait confirmation, it is true) could prove the North-R1b were maybe not I-E speakers... the more northern position of 'basque' component - # 'sardinian' - among 'mediterranean' could be a confirmation: it is true that it can be too the result of post-LGM expansion from Pyrenees about the 14000 BC but if we analyse more precisely we can say: 'basque' is a mix of 'west-mediterranean' (= first Mesolithic incursions from E-Mediterranea) and 'north-west-european' (= Paleo+Mesolithic folks = firstable hunters-gatherers, maybe not homogenous, to be broken later?) : whatsoever, their very very high percentages of Y-R1b (so males) and high enough (by comparison) of 'gedrosian' (autosomals) put them very close to Neo-Celts and Neo-Germanics of northern Europe: I see there a male mediated acculturation with elitist Y-DNA drift linked to a warriors colonization and I have difficulty to accept that Basques would have left their I-Ean language when irish or gaulish folks would have kept their I-E language... basque culture is principally patriarcal, more than current celtic cultures. I am even tempted to say among Y-R1b, L21 is maybe the less celtic one and reflect maybe with some other «minor» SNPs the descendants of Atlantic shores cultures (it is about 18% among spanish Basques, what is not neglictible) – if the result of celtized folks (between W-/NW- an central Europe) then it was associated more surely with an archaïc form of celtic language: gaëlic? All the way, 'gedrosian' did not reach Europe by South but by North, it is so evident*: I imagine a N-Caspian way from E-Iran/Pakistan > Kazakhstan > N.Caspian > S-Ukraina>...
&: a difference between Neo-Celts and Basques: Neo-Celts show more B blood group than Germanics that show themselves more than Basques: maybe due to a bit more eastern females autosomals conserved among Celts (not illogical at all: the Basques were rather on the end part of thet travel and the northern rough lands were on the fringes too...)
*: Basques show very little of Near-Eastern southern neolithical influence nor later metallurgists, less than any surrounding population - I cannot imagine a 'continuum' of 'gedrosian' population between Pakistan and South-Atlantic because I do not understand how a yet more eastern 'caucasian' population could have lately covered 'gedrosian' in Caucasus and Near-Eastern and erased it in S-E Europe, I know no historical fact going that way...BUT I can imagine a central steppic population (future Baltic-Slavic people) plus Finns could have erased 'gedrosian' in present days N-E Europe. Indo-Europeans Y-R1a then (battle axes culture and corded)
Concerning language I have far more questions than answers:
1- 'gedrosian' component in Caucasus seems more linked to East than to West ( not too surprising) but also to turkic speaking populations than to diverse caucasic speaking ones. It seems to me the first turkic or turkized tribes coming from East absorbed a perceptible part of 'gedrosia' (I-E or not) on their way to Anatolia (more through wives) before absorbing 'caucasus', either iranic speaking or dravidic speaking... but this distribution does not suit to anatolian or mesopotamian agricultors nor metallurgists in Balkans or S-E Mediterranea... 'sardinian' and 'caucasian' components suit better to these events -
&: I should say distribution of 'caucasian' suits very well to propagation of agriculture in Europe, better than 'mediter' or 'sardinian', even if I suppose 'sardinian' component of eastern Mediterranea, after a first pre-neolithical wave into western Mediterranea, was involved in agriculture or herding, either by females only or by males+females pushed by a majority of 'caucasian' bearers – NO COMPLETELY PURE WAVES: also, some bearers of the 'caucasian' component took part in contacts with proto-I-Eans OR WERE the proto-I-Eans (I 'm not able to say for now, spite the last discoveries) – and later Greeks send some 'caucasian' component to Italy too.
2- Basques have a not-I-Ean metals lexic And they are patriarcal! But someone can imagine that Basques had not a metals vocabulary first and that they loaned these words from an other, non I-Ean one like them: we have choice: iberic, helladic (both pre-I-Ean anatolian or caucasic)... I cannot answer.
3- if not caucasic, the first language spoken by the supposed first emigration involving Y-R1b + ? and 'gedrosia' + ? could be a dravidic one, considering the very high density of 'gedrosia' among the Dravidian, and the possibility that Elam and perhaps Harappâ were dravidic speaking (language of a first wave of europoids in S-Indies, with agriculture?: see the Dienekes last?). But I have no mean to compare dravidic languages to basque for now.
&: Harappâ Punjab (CN Pakistan/Indus): morts pliés dans jarres - 3000/1600 BC + metals (copper bronze) pacific??? supposed maybe pacific in center, and fortified (oups!) on boundaries?
&&: 'gedrosia' is centered on Pakistan, not Indies as a whole – it could have been associated to Y-R > Y-R2 + Y-R1a ? And mt H? >#< 'caucasian' to Y-G? And to Y-J?
&: in Saami, Y-R1a is present for the most among swedish Saami, but very weak among Finnland Saami AND Finns – (so, for me: R1a = I-E)
Y-J and Y-E are present only among Kola Saami (russian imput?!!) - mt DNA among Saami shows very peculiar percentages but the phylogeny is west-eurasiatic for the most and not east-asiatic

I wrote that in July and I red after some thoughts which were very close to the mines -
I saw only later the map of Maciamo about upstream SNPs of Y-¨R1b – but I still ignore the precise East Caspian situation of today for Y-R1b and others Hgs – so this text is just to expose some thought... I am a bit surprised by the new pooling of DODECAD 14 abandoning the 'gedrosia' component, which could ruin down my all brain-masturbations!

Goga
10-08-13, 21:21
maybe this post is late but it contains some thoughts whic can be discussed here

Questions of Indo-Europeans, Y-DNA R1b and R1a and others, and autosomals components 'west-asian' ('caucasian' and 'gedrosian'):
Autosomal components are nonsense. According to me we shouldn’t pay to much attention to it. I mean they analysed the auDNA of Neanderthal. And he/she has got a very divers auDNA, from African to West Eurasian. He has much more North European auDNA component than West Asian Homo Sapiens and he has more West Asian component than North European Homo Sapiens. This means that IF proto-IEans Homo Sapiens came from West Asia, than this Neanderthal beast is ‘more’ Indo-European than European Homo Sapiens. And if proto-Indo-Europeans came from Europe (what is of course practically impossible with so much evidences that speak against it) than that would mean that the Neanderthal is more Indo-European that West Asian Homo Sapiens. : http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/43340-Neanderthal-DNA-available-for-download . So, auDNA components don't make lots of sense to me!

MOESAN
10-08-13, 21:41
Autosomal components are nonsense. According to me we shouldn’t pay to much attention to it. I mean they analysed the auDNA of Neanderthal. And he/she has got a very divers auDNA, from African to West Eurasian. He has much more North European auDNA component than West Asian Homo Sapiens and he has more West Asian component than North European Homo Sapiens. This means that IF proto-IEans Homo Sapiens came from West Asia, than this Neanderthal beast is ‘more’ Indo-European than European Homo Sapiens. And if proto-Indo-Europeans came from Europe (what is of course practically impossible with so much evidences that speak against it) than that would mean that the Neanderthal is more Indo-European that West Asian Homo Sapiens. : http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/43340-Neanderthal-DNA-available-for-download . So, auDNA components don't make lots of sense to me!

I shall answer you when I have understood your point of view - it does not seem too easy to do -
autosomals are an approach which deserves being bettered but I find some value in them whatever the imperfection of these poolings principally geographic (of today what is more!)
by the way, some genes sharings between far separated populations can EITHER being the result of recent immigrations OR the result of conservation of old archaic common genes...
I 'm going to eat and drink, after I 'll think better
have a good night

Sile
10-08-13, 22:02
Autosomal components are nonsense. According to me we shouldn’t pay to much attention to it. I mean they analysed the auDNA of Neanderthal. And he/she has got a very divers auDNA, from African to West Eurasian. He has much more North European auDNA component than West Asian Homo Sapiens and he has more West Asian component than North European Homo Sapiens. This means that IF proto-IEans Homo Sapiens came from West Asia, than this Neanderthal beast is ‘more’ Indo-European than European Homo Sapiens. And if proto-Indo-Europeans came from Europe (what is of course practically impossible with so much evidences that speak against it) than that would mean that the Neanderthal is more Indo-European that West Asian Homo Sapiens. : http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/43340-Neanderthal-DNA-available-for-download . So, auDNA components don't make lots of sense to me!

you are deflecting the AuDna studies by mentioning the Neanderthals. The link you provided only tests the scientific marker of the neanderthals with the different projects created by people to get an AuDna.
The AuDNa projects are a guide for people. They represent markers of only people tested, so the conclusion is , the more people test, the more accurate the results will be. If Africa tests are scarce, then you have minimal data. Gedmatch update data on a monthly basis, which is why running a test today for yourself will show different results than from a test in December 2012.
A personnel tests would be done by BGA or similar companies. These never change, they are yours forever.

Goga
10-08-13, 22:14
All Modern Humans are Homo Sapiens. So Proto-Indo-Europeans must be Homo Sapiens and NOT Neanderthal at all, right?

Neanderthal genome is a mix of everything (African + Eurasian). But according to Prof.McDonalds results Neanderthal beast is very close to White Russian and Polish population, LOL! How is it possible that White Russian and Polish Homo Sapien groups are closer to a NON-Homo Sapien Neanderthal beast than to other Homo Sapiens in Europe and elsewhere? This doesn’t make sense at all to me!

Neanderthal auDNA (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/43340-Neanderthal-DNA-available-for-download!!!/page2)

http://imageshack.us/a/img14/7381/tlix.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img5/4656/5a14.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img27/6793/lucf.png


So how for GOD sake a White Russian or Polish Homo Sapiens population can be closer to a Neanderthal beast than to French people if we look at this tree:
http://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/genetics/neandertal-genome/images/2013-03-19_figure.jpg

Goga
10-08-13, 22:25
My conclusion is that aDNA components are nonsense or are in a very infantile phase, not accurate at all and need a further ACADEMIC examination. Still, the most reliable 'tool' we have to trace migrations are Y-DNA haplogroups, period!

Sile
10-08-13, 22:37
My conclusion is that aDNA components are nonsense or are in a very infantile phase, not accurate at all and need a further ACADEMIC examination. Still, the most reliable 'tool' we have to trace migrations are Y-DNA haplogroups, period!

Genetic research has confirmed that some admixture took place.[102] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#cite_note-102) The genomes of all non-Africans include portions that are of Neanderthal origin,[103] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#cite_note-103)[104] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#cite_note-104) due to interbreeding between Neanderthals and the ancestors of Eurasians in Northern Africa or the Middle East prior to their spread. Rather than absorption of the Neanderthal population, this gene flow appears to have been of limited duration and limited extent. An estimated 1 to 4 percent of the DNA in Europeans and Asians (French, Chinese and Papua probands) is non-modern, and shared with ancient Neanderthal DNA rather than with Sub-Saharan Africans (Yoruba and San probands).[105] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#cite_note-105) Nonetheless, more recent genetic studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics) seem to suggest that modern humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_humans) may have mated with "at least two groups" of ancient humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_humans): Neanderthals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthals) and Denisovans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovans).[106] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#cite_note-NYT-01302012-106) Some researchers suggest admixture of 3.4%-7.9% in Eurasian populations, rejecting the hypothesis of ancestral population structure.[107] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#cite_note-KLLF-107)

While modern humans share some nuclear DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_DNA) with the extinct Neanderthals, the two species do not share any mitochondrial DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA),[108] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#cite_note-108) which in primates is always maternally transmitted. This observation has prompted the hypothesis that whereas female humans interbreeding with male Neanderthals were able to generate fertile offspring, the progeny of female Neanderthals who mated with male humans were either rare, absent or sterile.[109] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#cite_note-109) However, some researchers have argued that there is evidence of possible interbreeding between female Neanderthals and male modern humans.[110] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#cite_note-110)[111] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#cite_note-111)

Neanderthals did not exist in Africa, they are from western europe to the urals, and the middle-east.

Ydna of modern people is inaccurate to determine origins, too many people moved around. You do not expect that when 1 group moved from A to B , that they left nobody behind , do you!.
The people left behind got absorbed my others moving into the area.

Sile
10-08-13, 22:47
My conclusion is that aDNA components are nonsense or are in a very infantile phase, not accurate at all and need a further ACADEMIC examination. Still, the most reliable 'tool' we have to trace migrations are Y-DNA haplogroups, period!

whats your paranoia ?

It was very silly and stupid to give Doug this tests, he even stated he had to amend things as markers did not appear. What are you trying to deflect?

Well, its strange. Its got far too many half-nocalls. If these are real it can’t
be run. But likely they might in fact be simply homozygous since there are no homozygous
locations listed. That’s easy to fix, and I did so.

But the file did not run for some reason, despite having almost all the necessary locations, plus some.
I fixed it by comparing to a German, and cutting locations not in the
German’s file. Thjere were not enough missing ones to matter.

And now it runs. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW WELL IT WORKED.

For 999900FIX-autosomal-o36-results.csv.

The automated computer results are as follows.
Please read the attached .rtf file for an explanation of how to
interpret all the data and plots. Both can be misleading without interpretation.

Most likely fit is 5.8% (+- 0.9%) Africa (various subcontinents)
and 61.6% (+- 0.9%) Africa (all Pygmy/Bushmen)
which is 67.4% total Africa
and 27.8% (+- 0.4%) Europe (various subcontinents)
and 4.8% (+- 0.2%) S. Asia (all India)

The following are possible population sets and their fractions,
most likely at the top
Bantu_Sout= 0.073 Biaka_Pygm= 0.598 English= 0.280 S_India= 0.049 or
Bantu_Keny= 0.060 Biaka_Pygm= 0.614 English= 0.278 S_India= 0.048 or
Bantu_Sout= 0.069 Biaka_Pygm= 0.600 French= 0.281 S_India= 0.050 or
Yoruba= 0.048 Biaka_Pygm= 0.621 French= 0.281 S_India= 0.050 or
Yoruba= 0.050 Biaka_Pygm= 0.621 English= 0.280 S_India= 0.049 or
Mandenka= 0.047 Biaka_Pygm= 0.624 English= 0.279 S_India= 0.049 or
Mandenka= 0.045 Biaka_Pygm= 0.624 French= 0.281 S_India= 0.051 or
Bantu_Keny= 0.060 Biaka_Pygm= 0.614 Germany= 0.277 S_India= 0.048 or
Maasai= 0.062 Biaka_Pygm= 0.623 Germany= 0.269 S_India= 0.046 or
Maasai= 0.067 Biaka_Pygm= 0.620 Irish= 0.270 S_India= 0.044

my corresponding result to 23andme’s “Ancestry Composition” gives

Euro 0.2571 Mideast 0.0404 S. Asia 0.0261 Native American 0.0008 Sub-Saharan 0.6611 E. Asia 0.0145


yet a third method gives

Euro 0.2737 Mideast -0.0355 S. Asia 0.0042 Native American -0.0004 sub-Saharan 0.7390 E. Asia -0.0181 Oceania 0.0372 Siberia -0.0113

I’m also including an unusual vertical bar plot giving a fit to ALL populations at the
same time, which gives the above line (“third”).

I have zero idea of whether this result is meaningful or not!!!

Doug McDonald

Clearly the people who gave Doug this need to have some tests done on themselves ( mental tests )

Goga
10-08-13, 22:49
So my question is: "are White Russians Homo Sapiens or Neanderthal (who is practically a mix of African and Eurasian aDNA) ?"

I'm aware that most Homo Sapiens have some Neanderthal DNA in them to some degree. Let say that White Russian population has the most Neanderthal DNA of all modern humans in them. Because Neanderthal non-human BEAST is closest to White Russian population and actually due to a fact that White Russians are CLOSER to Neanderthal THAN to West Europeans (French, Englishetc.).

Does this fact make then White Russians Neanderthal species and not Homo Sapiens at all? According to current knowledge of aDNA White Russians are closer to Neanderthal species than to French, English Homo Sapien species. According to aDNA White Russians ARE Neanderthal !!! LMAO, this doesn't make any sense to me! AuDNA is nothing but a big JOKE!

Ziober
11-08-13, 00:20
So my question is: "are White Russians Homo Sapiens or Neanderthal (who is practically a mix of African and Eurasian aDNA) ?"I'm aware that most Homo Sapiens have some Neanderthal DNA in them to some degree. Let say that White Russian population has the most Neanderthal DNA of all modern humans in them. Because Neanderthal non-human BEAST is closest to White Russian population and actually due to a fact that White Russians are CLOSER to Neanderthal THAN to West Europeans (French, Englishetc.). Does this fact make then White Russians Neanderthal species and not Homo Sapiens at all? According to current knowledge of aDNA White Russians are closer to Neanderthal species than to French, English Homo Sapien species. According to aDNA White Russians ARE Neanderthal !!! LMAO, this doesn't make any sense to me! AuDNA is nothing but a big JOKE!I had proposed in a thread the new nomenclature about our specie. It is Homo Heidelberg sapiensis. Which non African people have a bit of Homo Heidelberg neandertalensis. That is two subspecies of Homo heidelberg, even could be less separate than subspecies.

nordicwarrior
11-08-13, 00:31
Easy now little fella... talk like this is going to force me to unwrap my new R1b theory that revolves around their surprising lack of autosomal contribution to Northern Europe. I haven't worked all the kinks out yet, so don't get me too riled up or I will have to drop this little dandy earlier than I wanted. And don't forget Goga, Hilter wasn't a member of either of the more common macro European lineages (R and I).

nordicwarrior
11-08-13, 00:37
That was directed toward Goga, not you Ziober. You popped in before my comment posted. Sorry for the confusion.

Sile
11-08-13, 00:42
So my question is: "are White Russians Homo Sapiens or Neanderthal (who is practically a mix of African and Eurasian aDNA) ?"

I'm aware that most Homo Sapiens have some Neanderthal DNA in them to some degree. Let say that White Russian population has the most Neanderthal DNA of all modern humans in them. Because Neanderthal non-human BEAST is closest to White Russian population and actually due to a fact that White Russians are CLOSER to Neanderthal THAN to West Europeans (French, Englishetc.).

Does this fact make then White Russians Neanderthal species and not Homo Sapiens at all? According to current knowledge of aDNA White Russians are closer to Neanderthal species than to French, English Homo Sapien species. According to aDNA White Russians ARE Neanderthal !!! LMAO, this doesn't make any sense to me! AuDNA is nothing but a big JOKE!

You fail to understand, the paper presented to Doug is irrelevant, the data is irrelevant due to the fact that he had to make adjustments. He was never told it was Neanderthal data. If he knew it was Neanderthal he never would have done the test. It was a trick by some paranoia groups in society that finally realise that genetics will DESTROY THE BULL SHIT THEY WHERE TOLD IN SCHOOL. In 10 years ( my guess) a lot of people will be very annoyed that this truth came out via genetic testing.

So, you questions cannot be answered because the data supplied is useless

Goga
11-08-13, 01:21
You fail to understand, the paper presented to Doug is irrelevant, the data is irrelevant due to the fact that he had to make adjustments. He was never told it was Neanderthal data. If he knew it was Neanderthal he never would have done the test. It was a trick by some paranoia groups in society that finally realise that genetics will DESTROY THE BULL SHIT THEY WHERE TOLD IN SCHOOL. In 10 years ( my guess) a lot of people will be very annoyed that this truth came out via genetic testing.

So, you questions cannot be answered because the data supplied is uselessNo, you fail to understand that this was just an example. It's not about Doug. All other aDNA data on this Neanderthal beast show an African-Eurasian Homo Sapiens mix.

According to me the DNA of this Neanderthal beast exposed that we can't trust aDNA components. They’re all way to manipulated and tweaked with lies, just like we can see here. We can’t trust aDNA components, like I said they're full of lies, nonsense or are in a very infantile phase, not accurate at all and need afurther ACADEMIC examination.

So at this moment it is impossible to find truth with this tool. Why wasting time and money on this NONSENSE? Somebody is really getting very rich because of this crap. The most reliable genetic tool at this moment is still Y-DNA. And all 'professional' genetics use Y-DNA tool.

And to come back again on this topic. We must a) first find out which Y-DNA haplogroups belonged to the proto-Indo-Europeans. And b) where those haplogroups are originally from. If we are able to answer this 2 questions we will find out the true Indo-European URHEIMAT. And I’m 100% sure it’s not in the Eurasians steppes (north of the Caspian Sea) but somewhere in the neighborhood south of the Caspian Sea, where R1b is from…

Goga
11-08-13, 01:30
I had proposed in a thread the new nomenclature about our specie. It is Homo Heidelberg sapiensis. Which non African people have a bit of Homo Heidelberg neandertalensis. That is two subspecies of Homo heidelberg, even could be less separate than subspecies.
LOL, why Heidelberg? If modern Eurasians have this Neanderthal DNA to some degree than so do Africans, because there was actually a BACKmigration into Africa after Neanderthal beasts disappeared from this planet.

Goga
11-08-13, 01:48
I still don’t understand why people doubt about PIE homeland?!


1. It has been proven many times and also many times verified that there was actually a migration from West Asia / South Caucasus into North Caucasus and the Eurasian Steppes. Not so long time ago.

2. To be honest I'm not 100% sure about this, but hey many people believe that European R1b originally came from the Iranian Plateau and entered Europe almost at the same time as the first fact above.


How many facts do we need? According to me the case is closed!

Sile
11-08-13, 02:19
No, you fail to understand that this was just an example. It's not about Doug. All other aDNA data on this Neanderthal beast show an African-Eurasian Homo Sapiens mix.

According to me the DNA of this Neanderthal beast exposed that we can't trust aDNA components. They’re all way to manipulated and tweaked with lies, just like we can see here. We can’t trust aDNA components, like I said they're full of lies, nonsense or are in a very infantile phase, not accurate at all and need afurther ACADEMIC examination.

So at this moment it is impossible to find truth with this tool. Why wasting time and money on this NONSENSE? Somebody is really getting very rich because of this crap. The most reliable genetic tool at this moment is still Y-DNA. And all 'professional' genetics use Y-DNA tool.

And to come back again on this topic. We must a) first find out which Y-DNA haplogroups belonged to the proto-Indo-Europeans. And b) where those haplogroups are originally from. If we are able to answer this 2 questions we will find out the true Indo-European URHEIMAT. And I’m 100% sure it’s not in the Eurasians steppes (north of the Caspian Sea) but somewhere in the neighborhood south of the Caspian Sea, where R1b is from…

AuDna which is in Gedmatch is manipulated to a degree. it depends on the integrity of the maker. harappaworld seem to concentrate on the west-asian area. MDLP on the lithaunian. Eurogenes on polish/czech areas and dodecad unsure.

There was no neaderthal in Africa.why talk about it?

I agree the west -asian scenario you present is correct , the polish genetics deny this. east side of the caspian sea /Uzbekistan is what I believe is the place where most haplotypes emerged from. Well All K (ydna) group and markers which came out of K at least

Twilight
11-08-13, 07:31
maybe this post is late but it contains some thoughts whic can be discussed here

Questions of Indo-Europeans, Y-DNA R1b and R1a and others, and autosomals components 'west-asian' ('caucasian' and 'gedrosian'):

Y-R1b in Europe seems having followed more than a way and known its greater «births boom» in west-central Europe and not in south-eastern Europe (perhaps am I wrong?) - I abandoned my first (old) believings concerning a birthplace in Iberia – yet I had some problems concerning today distributions of SNPs. Y-R1a seems the result of a relatively recent expansion with two poles, one in eastern Europe and one in southern Asia – Even if not precise, the most recent maps of global Y-R1a distribution fit very well with Baltic-Slavic cradles, Andronovo culture (partly turkicized and uralicized after?) and northern Indies/northern Pakistan (roughly): all linguisitically and historically indo-european lands and all of them in the satem category of language.
About Y-R1b a majority agrees they could have been involved in non-I-E and in I-E cultures in past; and it is true the ones living in Caucasus/Anatolia could have known and I-E language AND caucasic (diverse?) languages, without speaking about dravidian. Some people think some of Y-R1b bearers were among bearers of the first I-E cultures and, backed on the appreciable presence of 'gedrosia' autosomals among N-W and Northern Europeans, think the first I-Eans came into Europe through Anatolia and Balkans (what is not stupid: always the «Danubian highway»), not with first agriculture but with subsequent waves of already metallurgists (maybe are they thinking in Varna Culture? or Tripolje-Cucuteni?).
The problem is that even if Anatolia and Iran and Near-Eastern show a perceptible percentage of 'gedrosians', the Mediterranea people and Balkans people and even Slavic and Baltic people show very little of 'gedrosia' if some trace spite a globally high* percentage of 'west-asian'* component!... Even Cyprus is poor for 'gedrosia' component.
*W-As: > 30% in S-E Europe, 20-38% in Italy, 7-13% in N-E and E slavic Europe
at the contrary, even Basques and (then atlantic) Portugueses show more 'gedrosian' and Basques and Portugueses too show a 'northwest-european' (according to poolings) component than Italians or Greeks as a whole, even if these S-W people do not reach the percentages of N-W and N-Europe, by far... but the absolute percentages can abuse us, not the relative ones: when comparing weight of 'gedrosian' among the mix 'gedrosian'-'caucasian', the W-NW Europe show percentages over 70%, sometimes more than 95%, when S and SE Europe and NE Europe stay about 3-11%... the closer to the supposed southern way of intrance for 'gedrosian', the least of 'gedrosian'!!! the most evident scenario would be: a wave from N-Caspian to northern and western Europe until the Atlantic shores: the remainers in central Europe has been indo-europeanized later (principally Celts, Ligurians, pre-Germanics?)– the few remained in eastern and northeastern Europe were «erased» by subsequent Y-R1a Indo-Europeans (indo-europeanized too? >> satem?)
I-Eans? But Basques are still a problem here: they are closer than Iberians to the N-W Europe as for autosomals as for Y-DNA even if not identical; and the Y-R1b shows more variants in N-Europe and baltic lands than in Iberia! The south baltic territories and central Europe show what could be the trail between old SNPs and new ones AS DO also western Mediterranea (Italy N and S, Valencia in eastern Spain): two ways? But the same language? The obsessional supposed presence of basque-like substrate in Saami language (we wait confirmation, it is true) could prove the North-R1b were maybe not I-E speakers... the more northern position of 'basque' component - # 'sardinian' - among 'mediterranean' could be a confirmation: it is true that it can be too the result of post-LGM expansion from Pyrenees about the 14000 BC but if we analyse more precisely we can say: 'basque' is a mix of 'west-mediterranean' (= first Mesolithic incursions from E-Mediterranea) and 'north-west-european' (= Paleo+Mesolithic folks = firstable hunters-gatherers, maybe not homogenous, to be broken later?) : whatsoever, their very very high percentages of Y-R1b (so males) and high enough (by comparison) of 'gedrosian' (autosomals) put them very close to Neo-Celts and Neo-Germanics of northern Europe: I see there a male mediated acculturation with elitist Y-DNA drift linked to a warriors colonization and I have difficulty to accept that Basques would have left their I-Ean language when irish or gaulish folks would have kept their I-E language... basque culture is principally patriarcal, more than current celtic cultures. I am even tempted to say among Y-R1b, L21 is maybe the less celtic one and reflect maybe with some other «minor» SNPs the descendants of Atlantic shores cultures (it is about 18% among spanish Basques, what is not neglictible) – if the result of celtized folks (between W-/NW- an central Europe) then it was associated more surely with an archaïc form of celtic language: gaëlic? All the way, 'gedrosian' did not reach Europe by South but by North, it is so evident*: I imagine a N-Caspian way from E-Iran/Pakistan > Kazakhstan > N.Caspian > S-Ukraina>...
&: a difference between Neo-Celts and Basques: Neo-Celts show more B blood group than Germanics that show themselves more than Basques: maybe due to a bit more eastern females autosomals conserved among Celts (not illogical at all: the Basques were rather on the end part of thet travel and the northern rough lands were on the fringes too...)
*: Basques show very little of Near-Eastern southern neolithical influence nor later metallurgists, less than any surrounding population - I cannot imagine a 'continuum' of 'gedrosian' population between Pakistan and South-Atlantic because I do not understand how a yet more eastern 'caucasian' population could have lately covered 'gedrosian' in Caucasus and Near-Eastern and erased it in S-E Europe, I know no historical fact going that way...BUT I can imagine a central steppic population (future Baltic-Slavic people) plus Finns could have erased 'gedrosian' in present days N-E Europe. Indo-Europeans Y-R1a then (battle axes culture and corded)
Concerning language I have far more questions than answers:
1- 'gedrosian' component in Caucasus seems more linked to East than to West ( not too surprising) but also to turkic speaking populations than to diverse caucasic speaking ones. It seems to me the first turkic or turkized tribes coming from East absorbed a perceptible part of 'gedrosia' (I-E or not) on their way to Anatolia (more through wives) before absorbing 'caucasus', either iranic speaking or dravidic speaking... but this distribution does not suit to anatolian or mesopotamian agricultors nor metallurgists in Balkans or S-E Mediterranea... 'sardinian' and 'caucasian' components suit better to these events -
&: I should say distribution of 'caucasian' suits very well to propagation of agriculture in Europe, better than 'mediter' or 'sardinian', even if I suppose 'sardinian' component of eastern Mediterranea, after a first pre-neolithical wave into western Mediterranea, was involved in agriculture or herding, either by females only or by males+females pushed by a majority of 'caucasian' bearers – NO COMPLETELY PURE WAVES: also, some bearers of the 'caucasian' component took part in contacts with proto-I-Eans OR WERE the proto-I-Eans (I 'm not able to say for now, spite the last discoveries) – and later Greeks send some 'caucasian' component to Italy too.
2- Basques have a not-I-Ean metals lexic And they are patriarcal! But someone can imagine that Basques had not a metals vocabulary first and that they loaned these words from an other, non I-Ean one like them: we have choice: iberic, helladic (both pre-I-Ean anatolian or caucasic)... I cannot answer.
3- if not caucasic, the first language spoken by the supposed first emigration involving Y-R1b + ? and 'gedrosia' + ? could be a dravidic one, considering the very high density of 'gedrosia' among the Dravidian, and the possibility that Elam and perhaps Harappâ were dravidic speaking (language of a first wave of europoids in S-Indies, with agriculture?: see the Dienekes last?). But I have no mean to compare dravidic languages to basque for now.
&: Harappâ Punjab (CN Pakistan/Indus): morts pliés dans jarres - 3000/1600 BC + metals (copper bronze) pacific??? supposed maybe pacific in center, and fortified (oups!) on boundaries?
&&: 'gedrosia' is centered on Pakistan, not Indies as a whole – it could have been associated to Y-R > Y-R2 + Y-R1a ? And mt H? >#< 'caucasian' to Y-G? And to Y-J?
&: in Saami, Y-R1a is present for the most among swedish Saami, but very weak among Finnland Saami AND Finns – (so, for me: R1a = I-E)
Y-J and Y-E are present only among Kola Saami (russian imput?!!) - mt DNA among Saami shows very peculiar percentages but the phylogeny is west-eurasiatic for the most and not east-asiatic

I wrote that in July and I red after some thoughts which were very close to the mines -
I saw only later the map of Maciamo about upstream SNPs of Y-¨R1b – but I still ignore the precise East Caspian situation of today for Y-R1b and others Hgs – so this text is just to expose some thought... I am a bit surprised by the new pooling of DODECAD 14 abandoning the 'gedrosia' component, which could ruin down my all brain-masturbations!

Wow, I am very amazing by your work and processing all this information as we speak. I wish you the best of luck. :)

MOESAN
11-08-13, 14:05
[QUOTE=Goga;413632]All Modern Humans are Homo Sapiens. So Proto-Indo-Europeans must be Homo Sapiens and NOT Neanderthal at all, right?

Neanderthal genome is a mix of everything (African + Eurasian). But according to Prof.McDonalds results Neanderthal beast is very close to White Russian and Polish population, LOL! How is it possible that White Russian and Polish Homo Sapien groups are closer to a NON-Homo Sapien Neanderthal beast than to other Homo Sapiens in Europe and elsewhere? This doesn’t make sense at all to me!

Neanderthal auDNA (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/43340-Neanderthal-DNA-available-for-download!!!/page2)


before undergo a nerves break I would be happy Goga if you provided me the origin of the graph NEANDERTHAL is closer to Polishmen and Bela-Russians in it, to know the reasoning of the persons who made this graph and to know what genetic stuff (global, partial...) support these results. Thanks beforehand

silkyslovanbojkovsky
20-08-13, 19:37
I don't know why you would think r1a peoples just totally adopted basically the I.E culture from R1b people. Most likely they both developed from their burial techniques, bronze working and languages from an earlier source where r1b and r1a were already together or the PIE languages developed when they both met north of the caucus.. Your statement seems a little biased and nationalist to call R1b(descendants mainly in western Europe) were the Dominant and more advanced people as compared to the R1a individuals(descendants in eastern Eruope). Also your citing of language as evidence that PIE languages came from r1b doesn't make much sense considering Languages in Eastern Europe, Slavic-Baltic, Greek are associated with R1a and are much closer to PIE than western European languages.

Noman
22-08-13, 21:21
All Modern Humans are Homo Sapiens. So Proto-Indo-Europeans must be Homo Sapiens and NOT Neanderthal at all, right?

Neanderthal genome is a mix of everything (African + Eurasian). But according to Prof.McDonalds results Neanderthal beast is very close to White Russian and Polish population, LOL! How is it possible that White Russian and Polish Homo Sapien groups are closer to a NON-Homo Sapien Neanderthal beast than to other Homo Sapiens in Europe and elsewhere? This doesn’t make sense at all to me!

Neanderthal auDNA (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/43340-Neanderthal-DNA-available-for-download!!!/page2)

http://imageshack.us/a/img14/7381/tlix.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img5/4656/5a14.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img27/6793/lucf.png


So how for GOD sake a White Russian or Polish Homo Sapiens population can be closer to a Neanderthal beast than to French people if we look at this tree:
http://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/genetics/neandertal-genome/images/2013-03-19_figure.jpg


It's theoretically possible someone could have 100% neanderthal DNA besides their mtDNA and y-DNA marker. Especially due to natural selection. For example some y-dna makes for more boys and some for more girls, guess which one will come to dominate over time?

Interestingly people point this out a lot when it comes to talking about race, but when talking about neanderthals they use it to justify the view neanderthals became totally extinct. Y-DNA is just one small part of your DNA, but neanderthal is the root of a clade for other parts of your DNA, meaning everyone has the neanderthal version or a sub version so far as we can tell.

I suspect if we ever get a chance to recover rhodiensis y-DNA we'll find it's "extinct" like neanderthal and denisova.

But I don't think you can go too crazy over these sort of comparison yet, he is probably just looking at a couple markers like most population studies, which is almost meaningless except to find some comparisons and try and guess migrations (and many guesses I see seem to be taken to mean the opposite of what makes nay sense).

Twilight
25-08-13, 01:59
It's theoretically possible someone could have 100% neanderthal DNA besides their mtDNA and y-DNA marker. Especially due to natural selection. For example some y-dna makes for more boys and some for more girls, guess which one will come to dominate over time?

Interestingly people point this out a lot when it comes to talking about race, but when talking about neanderthals they use it to justify the view neanderthals became totally extinct. Y-DNA is just one small part of your DNA, but neanderthal is the root of a clade for other parts of your DNA, meaning everyone has the neanderthal version or a sub version so far as we can tell.

I suspect if we ever get a chance to recover rhodiensis y-DNA we'll find it's "extinct" like neanderthal and denisova.

But I don't think you can go too crazy over these sort of comparison yet, he is probably just looking at a couple markers like most population studies, which is almost meaningless except to find some comparisons and try and guess migrations (and many guesses I see seem to be taken to mean the opposite of what makes nay sense).

I understand but the thing is, but how much Neanderthal DNA did the Ancient Celts and Slavs pick up?

Twilight
25-08-13, 02:00
[QUOTE=Goga;413632]All Modern Humans are Homo Sapiens. So Proto-Indo-Europeans must be Homo Sapiens and NOT Neanderthal at all, right?

Neanderthal genome is a mix of everything (African + Eurasian). But according to Prof.McDonalds results Neanderthal beast is very close to White Russian and Polish population, LOL! How is it possible that White Russian and Polish Homo Sapien groups are closer to a NON-Homo Sapien Neanderthal beast than to other Homo Sapiens in Europe and elsewhere? This doesn’t make sense at all to me!

Neanderthal auDNA (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/43340-Neanderthal-DNA-available-for-download!!!/page2)


before undergo a nerves break I would be happy Goga if you provided me the origin of the graph NEANDERTHAL is closer to Polishmen and Bela-Russians in it, to know the reasoning of the persons who made this graph and to know what genetic stuff (global, partial...) support these results. Thanks beforehand


I agree, I find that we need more proof of the Neanderthal DNA to be relative to this study.

Noman
25-08-13, 02:18
I understand but the thing is, but how much Neanderthal DNA did the Ancient Celts and Slavs pick up?

I would estimate it to be the exact same as the number of negative blood types in the population. Obviously people with negative blood type aren't 100% neanderthal but the average should be about right.

New estimates have gone from 1-4% up to up to 8% for europeans so that seems right. Keep in mind that some of the neanderthal genes, even africans will have. We just don't know which are which so they are basically making the assumption there's no neanderthal dna in black africans, what is there probably mostly comes from ancient ancestors (some of this dna is shared by chimps and gorillas) but I also expect due to natural selection you will get some to fix in populations of every corner of the world.

So you can't tell for sure but it keeps climbing upwards.

And what this high percentage means is basically there was no extinction at all. This is not a one time event, they just wholly interbred into modern people. If it was really a one time thing or an absorbtion in middle east it would have faded out quickly. Which should be obvious but somehow gets ignored.

Luan
06-09-13, 18:53
I would estimate it to be the exact same as the number of negative blood types in the population. Obviously people with negative blood type aren't 100% neanderthal but the average should be about right.

New estimates have gone from 1-4% up to up to 8% for europeans so that seems right. Keep in mind that some of the neanderthal genes, even africans will have. We just don't know which are which so they are basically making the assumption there's no neanderthal dna in black africans, what is there probably mostly comes from ancient ancestors (some of this dna is shared by chimps and gorillas) but I also expect due to natural selection you will get some to fix in populations of every corner of the world.

So you can't tell for sure but it keeps climbing upwards.

And what this high percentage means is basically there was no extinction at all. This is not a one time event, they just wholly interbred into modern people. If it was really a one time thing or an absorbtion in middle east it would have faded out quickly. Which should be obvious but somehow gets ignored.
I heard people with Negative blood types are aliens. One of my friends has it, and hes weird. lol

Twilight
13-09-13, 05:56
<em>Moesan: Concerning language I have far more questions than answers: <br>
1- 'gedrosian' component in Caucasus seems more linked to East than to West ( not too surprising) but also to turkic speaking populations than to diverse caucasic speaking ones. It seems to me the first turkic or turkized tribes coming from East absorbed a perceptible part of 'gedrosia' (I-E or not) on their way to Anatolia (more through wives) before absorbing 'caucasus', either iranic speaking or dravidic speaking... but this distribution does not suit to anatolian or mesopotamian agricultors nor metallurgists in Balkans or S-E Mediterranea... 'sardinian' and 'caucasian' components suit better to these events - :indifferent::indifferent::indifferent::indifferen t::indifferent::indifferent::indifferent::indiffer ent::indifferent::indifferent::indifferent: Maybe the Ket People can shed some light, the last surviving culture of the Native Americans apparently, according to legend the Kets; Predominately Haplogroup Q lived in the Sayan Mountains, a strait shot North East from where Haplogroup R approximately originated; somewhere in the Eastern Caspian sea as seen in Haplogroups in Eupedia. According to legend the Ket People were invaded by the mountain people and were chased down North to Siberia, ironically Haplogroup N arrived in the Russo-Mongolian area around 14-12,000 ybp around the time the Native Americans arrived in North America.</em> Coincidence? Here are some sources and links. Thanks, trying to figure out if I'm joshing myself. <img title="Grin" class="inlineimg" alt="" src="http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/grin.png" border="0" smilieid="491">

Twilight
13-09-13, 07:32
My bad, here are the links and sources :) http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/06/origins-and-dispersals-of-y-chromosome.html
http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/kets.shtml
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ea210/ket.htm
http://originhunters.blogspot.com/2012/07/attila-native-americans-and-dna-hunny.html
http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Haplogroup_Q_(Y-DNA)

Tabaccus Maximus
17-09-13, 08:04
Dienekes mentions on his blog a recent paper (http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2/153-161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf) by Konstantine Pitskhelauri on the settlement of the Caucasus by migrants from the Middle East during the Neolithic period.

The paper brings additional evidence regarding the origins of the Early Bronze Age Maykop culture in Mesopotamia, confirming my theory (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Maykop) that R1b people from the Middle East migrated across the Caucasus and established the Maykop culture, before expanding throughout the Pontic-Caspian Steppes and mixing with the indigenous R1a steppe people.


"


Maciamo,

I like your Maikop theory, however I think it needs some tweeking in light of your own Gedrosian map and some of the question marks that remain about the density of Caucasian haplogroups, and in this case, the origins of Kurgans.

Wouldn't it make more sense if R1b's continuous movement in the Caucasus was up and down the the Caspian Coast on the East side of the Caucasus? (I realize Maikop was on the West side-hold that thought...)
The Caspian is a much better highway than walking through brusing, mud-slide-capital-of-the-world, terrain, especially with its length--much better.
Early R1b peoples seem to have been very capable boatsmen and may have preferred long distance trade in boats. I've also noticed that the Kura River could potentially act almost as a highway between the epicenter of the Maikop and the Caspian Sea enabling the kind of wealth they were able to accumulate in exports. And make no mistake, the Maikop econoomy was an enterprise based on exports, not country living.

I think it better explains the distribution of Gedrosian mixture and R1b clades where there is a clear East/West differentiation in the Caucasus. Perhaps the Maikop was not so much the discrete ancestor of PIE or Western PIE or M-269, but rather an incidental culture formed from a M-269 superstrate interested in mining and trade in the region. Perhaps those networks moved from the ore-rich mountain settlements, down the Kura, and from there North or South depending on destination.

I've already soap boxed on my ideas on the reason R1b people moved where they did, how they got there, etc. so none of that here.

Sile
17-09-13, 12:02
Maciamo,

I like your Maikop theory, however I think it needs some tweeking in light of your own Gedrosian map and some of the question marks that remain about the density of Caucasian haplogroups, and in this case, the origins of Kurgans.

Wouldn't it make more sense if R1b's continuous movement in the Caucasus was up and down the the Caspian Coast on the East side of the Caucasus? (I realize Maikop was on the West side-hold that thought...)
The Caspian is a much better highway than walking through brusing, mud-slide-capital-of-the-world, terrain, especially with its length--much better.
Early R1b peoples seem to have been very capable boatsmen and may have preferred long distance trade in boats. I've also noticed that the Kura River could potentially act almost as a highway between the epicenter of the Maikop and the Caspian Sea enabling the kind of wealth they were able to accumulate in exports. And make no mistake, the Maikop econoomy was an enterprise based on exports, not country living.

I think it better explains the distribution of Gedrosian mixture and R1b clades where there is a clear East/West differentiation in the Caucasus. Perhaps the Maikop was not so much the discrete ancestor of PIE or Western PIE or M-269, but rather an incidental culture formed from a M-269 superstrate interested in mining and trade in the region. Perhaps those networks moved from the ore-rich mountain settlements, down the Kura, and from there North or South depending on destination.

I've already soap boxed on my ideas on the reason R1b people moved where they did, how they got there, etc. so none of that here.

What is forgotten is that a lot of genetic markers commenced around Uzbekistan, Turkestan etc., the reason is the the Aral Sea in ancient times was the size of half of England, there where rivers connecting the caspian sea to the Aral Sea, all fertile lands.
If you check Ftdna and nat geno to name 2 companies, both have man breaking off from there, most heading north of the caspian sea to europe or rounding the eastern Caspian lands.
maikop seems like a mountainous stop over for man.

Tabaccus Maximus
17-09-13, 16:05
What is forgotten is that a lot of genetic markers commenced around Uzbekistan, Turkestan etc., the reason is the the Aral Sea in ancient times was the size of half of England, there where rivers connecting the caspian sea to the Aral Sea, all fertile lands.
If you check Ftdna and nat geno to name 2 companies, both have man breaking off from there, most heading north of the caspian sea to europe or rounding the eastern Caspian lands.
maikop seems like a mountainous stop over for man.


Granted, the expanded Near East is a hard egg to unscramble, however the time period of interest is not that deep and many of those ancient founding haplotypes moved on and matured in other lands.

I would imagine that the area was inhabited by many diverse ancient peoples. The movement of R1b around the Black and Caspian seas may prove one of the easier puzzles to solve given that it probably was not originally native to the region.
The trans-caucasus may seem like a hopeless puzzle, but the resolution will improve with more testing and archaelogical finds...

Twilight
10-10-13, 21:30
J1, J2, and E1b1b have been in south-west asia at least since the Neolithic, with E1b1b found more in Levant/Anatolia. Old R1b (M269 or older) was also sharing the same area, but I doubt it was ever a majority, at least not in the late Neolithic or Bronze Age. Remember that there has also been back migration of R1b in the Bronze-Age into south-west asia.

Hold on a moment the let's not forget that the Celts have been reputed for having a decentralized organization and as the map shows that the Hussuna culture is doted with R1B to the north. http://www.icenitea.com/tag/celtic/

yeomandroid
08-01-15, 11:46
Those of you who have followed my ramblings for awhile may remember that I stated it was only a matter of time before R1b would claim Gobekli Tepe.

Got anything better than a bunch of long forgotten dilapidated buried stones for us to claim? Like gold, silver, copper, tin.
//Signed//
R1b thieving boogey man

LeBrok
08-01-15, 18:46
Got anything better than a bunch of long forgotten dilapidated buried stones for us to claim? Like gold, silver, copper, tin.
//Signed//
R1b thieving boogey man
I agree yeomandroid, and not because I'm R1b :). Welcome to Eupedia.

Twilight
11-04-16, 01:16
Hey Maciamo, it appears that not only have you mentioned that R1b has been linked to the Maykop people but also linked to mysterious "first cattle headers in the SE Taurus mountains including in the vicinity of Goklepe Tepe. There are some forum sites that are skeptical of your "R1b= first cattle herder claim"; it's almost like R1b invented civilization. Plus we don't even have a name for this SE Taurus culture.

Do you have any sources saying the Neolithic SE Taurus skeletons can predominately traced back to R1b?

On a site note I'm just curious, I find it interesting that R1b tribes were making a b-line north into the Caucasus during the early neolithic and Neolithic Anatolian; EEF people filled the vacuum. It's almost like either SE Turkey has a grass-less epidemic or some sort of war or by other problems. What convinced The proto-Maykop and Proto-South Yamna people to run to the Caucasus mountains during the Early Neolithic? :)

However, considering the data above if you can prove that the "SE Taurus Cattle Herder = Predominately R1B" Hypothasis as scientifically legit then I suppose I could offer my nick name for this culture; The "Cayonu-Pheonix Culture" for they broke apart heading north to the Caucasus (As depicted in the Early Neolithic map) and blossomed from the ashes as the Maykop and South Yamna cultures. ;)

Alpakut
16-09-17, 22:46
"...the linguistic evidence from our family does not lead us beyond Gimbutas’ secondary homeland and that the Khvalynsk culture on the middle Volga and the Maykop culture in the northern Caucasus cannot be identified with the Indo-Europeans. Any proposal which goes beyond the Sredny Stog culture must start from the possible affinities of Indo-European with other language families. It is usually recognized that the best candidate in this respect is the Uralic language family, while further connections with the Altaic languages and perhaps even Dravidian are possible... What we do have to take into account is the typological similarity of Proto-Indo-European to the North-West Caucasian (i.e. Adyg) languages. If this similarity can be attributed to areal factors, we may think of Indo-European as a branch of Uralo-Altaic which was transformed under the influence of a Caucasian substratum. It now appears that this view is actually supported by the archaeological evidence. If it is correct, we may locate the earliest (Uralo-Altaic) ancestors of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European north of the Caspian Sea in the seventh millennium."

[F.Kortlandt, Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 18, 1990, p.131]
_________________
The case is closed.

halfalp
19-09-17, 01:31
If we put away all the neolithic package, proto-indo-europeans religion and metaphysic is a fusion with " siberian / shamanic " concepts like the tripartition of the world in sky, axis and underground, all joined by the three of life, also the myth of the hero and the monster ( snake / dragon ) is typically siberian and somehow caucasian / south caucasian package including the Storm God, wich is primarly just a Storm God without a warrior like role. Know, it also obvious that proto-indo-european mythology is very syncretic. All searchers knows that the indo-european expansion proper comes from the steppe, where, we never gotta know, with certainty, but because it is not certain, some people try to challenge that theory with subjective interpretation of genetic data. It is obvious that proto-indo-europeans where not a " Pure Race ", like it just pop like this without reason. Know, the caucasus theory is a great fail for me, for years, balkans and south central asia are better proxy for respectively Herds, Crops, middle eastern like Pottery, Metallurgy and Second Neolithic Revolution package and east asiatic Pottery and Millet. Knowing that, i'm pretty sur that the final syncretism of all this takin place somewhere in south ukraine and south russia. Sredny Stog where R1a hunter gatherer wich was replaced in second phase by R1b people, wich push the native R1a in a north west direction ( corded ware ). The link is those R1b that start to pup between -5000 and -4000.

halfalp
19-09-17, 01:34
"...the linguistic evidence from our family does not lead us beyond Gimbutas’ secondary homeland and that the Khvalynsk culture on the middle Volga and the Maykop culture in the northern Caucasus cannot be identified with the Indo-Europeans. Any proposal which goes beyond the Sredny Stog culture must start from the possible affinities of Indo-European with other language families. It is usually recognized that the best candidate in this respect is the Uralic language family, while further connections with the Altaic languages and perhaps even Dravidian are possible... What we do have to take into account is the typological similarity of Proto-Indo-European to the North-West Caucasian (i.e. Adyg) languages. If this similarity can be attributed to areal factors, we may think of Indo-European as a branch of Uralo-Altaic which was transformed under the influence of a Caucasian substratum. It now appears that this view is actually supported by the archaeological evidence. If it is correct, we may locate the earliest (Uralo-Altaic) ancestors of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European north of the Caspian Sea in the seventh millennium."

[F.Kortlandt, Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 18, 1990, p.131]
_________________
The case is closed.

Its not to you to decide when a case is closed or not. Nether to anybody on that site, wether they think to be right or not.

halfalp
19-09-17, 01:38
I'm tired of those genetic or admixtures arguments, your CHG could be R1b replaced by J in paleolithic / mesolithic transition, those datas are important, but used by random people juste like they want to interprete it. Remember that Globular Amphora are I2a EEF...

ToBeOrNotToBe
05-12-18, 10:26
Your phylogeny might be a bit off (I'm guessing things like YFull were less accurate/didn't exist back then), but if this is correct this will be the best prediction on all of these online forums? I know Maykop has been linked to Yamnaya for decades, but still - this is 2013 predicting the PIE homeland (if it turns out to be correct in the upcoming Caucasus paper)

G2ian
13-02-19, 05:52
If we put away all the neolithic package, proto-indo-europeans religion and metaphysic is a fusion with " siberian / shamanic " concepts like the tripartition of the world in sky, axis and underground, all joined by the three of life, also the myth of the hero and the monster ( snake / dragon ) is typically siberian and somehow caucasian / south caucasian package including the Storm God, wich is primarly just a Storm God without a warrior like role.
Hold on a minute. I thought that was Georgian mythos. You mean Siberians have the same ?

ToBeOrNotToBe
13-02-19, 06:49
RIP thread :( Wang ruining all the fun

aleph
15-02-19, 01:02
So, PIE originated in south-eastern Ukraine, and having nothing genetically to do with Maykop, right? Would have been cool if they were renegades from an actual civilization like Maykop, but oh well.

Piro Ilir
01-05-19, 16:06
So, PIE originated in south-eastern Ukraine, and having nothing genetically to do with Maykop, right? Would have been cool if they were renegades from an actual civilization like Maykop, but oh well.

Most of Maciamo's analysis here looks correct to me. R1b-M269 is the original speaker of proto proto IE language. It originated somewhere in current northern Irak. They were herders whom migrated further north into Caucasus and later further north in the steppes (R1b-L23) and in Anatolia (R1b-PF7562).

ToBeOrNotToBe
01-05-19, 17:12
Most of Maciamo's analysis here looks correct to me. R1b-M269 is the original speaker of proto proto IE language. It originated somewhere in current northern Irak. They were herders whom migrated further north into Caucasus and later further north in the steppes (R1b-L23) and in Anatolia (R1b-PF7562).

M269 is very old.

Piro Ilir
04-05-19, 17:59
M269 is very old.

Yes, it is. It's the parent glade of R1b-L23 and PF7562. It is from the Calcolithic. It fits the best with IE linguistic candidate, and kurgans theory of IE tribes either. R1b-M269 moved from northern Iraq into Caucasus, there they founded the Maykop and later split into the so called Yanmaya culture. Yanmaya were overwhelming L23 while Maykop was a mix of many haplos including R1b-PF7562. M269 which remained back became the PF7562 branch, whom later migrated to Anatolia giving rise to Hittites empire.

Nevertheless, there might have been a totally different situaten about Maykop and IE genesis. IE languages may have evolved from a language pool of mixed and different languages. Some kind of language habitat spanning from Caucasus further north into forest steppes. A sort of creole or something. I generally don't believe this theory. I support that Maykop is the parent culture for the Anatolian IE people. Maykop is the earliest bronze age culture, and it fits with genetic of bronze age Anatolians, whom don't have steppe ancestry.