PDA

View Full Version : Your physical idea of what Yamnayans look-like.



halfalp
17-01-17, 15:29
Hi people ! I'm pretty sure that a lot of same topics exists, but i'm gonna try a new. I think its pretty interesting how people imagine physical appareance of ancestral people, and if one subject is very interessting is the yamna ( indo-europeans ) one. Some think they where nordics, depigmented mediterraneans, others think they where pigmented mediterraneans, or iranians, mongoloido-caucasoid, caucasians... We found a lot of terms. So, i think they where physical a sort of melting-pot of Caucasus people, Cro-magnons from the east with mongoloids traits and short mediterranids one. The so callled proto-europid, is very difficult to materialised because, a lot of different physical traits can involved in, and yamna was clearly a multi-ethnique civilization. I choose two images, of two men, that for me reflect a physical pattern that i see in Caucasus, Albania, Balkans, East europe and Irlande. 8384 This man is Aidan Quinn, Irish actor, the fascinate thing about is face, is the eyes shape, i see here, in switzerland a lot of albanians or yugoslavians ( large sens ) totally ressemble to him.8385This one is Tommy Wiseau, american realisator, with Eastern Bloc origin ( we dont know where, but my think is Lituania ). Like the previous, he's got an face, that can be found in modern Albania, they way the eyes look like they curved... If you are interested, you can also, show your representation of YOUR yamnayan people. This topic is not supposed to be serious, just fun, for people who like observed humans physical traits.

Fire Haired14
17-01-17, 19:39
No idea. There's no way they had mongoloid traits because they had no or little Eastern Asian ancestry.

Non-Slavic Russians today are mutts. They have lots of mainland European EEF and WHG and they have lots of Siberian. They do have the most Yambyaish blood bit not enough to say they're good proxies.

Sycthian art is best place to look for how yamnya may have looked. Sycthians art depicts ordinary European or maybe just west Eurasian or maybe just human people.

LeBrok
17-01-17, 19:59
No idea. There's no way they had mongoloid traits because they had no or little Eastern Asian ancestry.

Non-Slavic Russians today are mutts. They have lots of mainland European EEF and WHG and they have lots of Siberian. They do have the most Yambyaish blood bit not enough to say they're good proxies.

Sycthian art is best place to look for how yamnya may have looked. Sycthians art depicts ordinary European or maybe just west Eurasian or maybe just human people.
I agree, there are no good proxies today to make an educated guess.
Certainly though, their facial features still persist through populations, especially Northern Europeans, because their genes still live in us.

halfalp
17-01-17, 20:16
People, physical traits has nothing to do with genetic, i mean, by the time, all the genetic coming from far east or siberia has been diluted in the new population, but eyes, noses, craniums... are all pictures of our past. Personnally, i am 100% swiss for a very long time, and people think i'm albanian or turkish... Physical traits dont lie, there is no coincidence by the ressemblance of amerindians ( without evident mongoloid traits ) with modern afghan people, for exemple. When i look scandinavians, i can tell who has european archaic features, or mongoloid features, or middle eastern features. Ibrahimovic is swedish, but since my childhood, i know that he is not swedish in a physical way. By the way, i have create this topic, because i think the academic papers war of this site is very oppressive, but maybe i'm the only one to think it.

Milan.M
17-01-17, 22:07
People, physical traits has nothing to do with genetic, i mean, by the time, all the genetic coming from far east or siberia has been diluted in the new population, but eyes, noses, craniums... are all pictures of our past. Personnally, i am 100% swiss for a very long time, and people think i'm albanian or turkish... Physical traits dont lie, there is no coincidence by the ressemblance of amerindians ( without evident mongoloid traits ) with modern afghan people, for exemple. When i look scandinavians, i can tell who has european archaic features, or mongoloid features, or middle eastern features. Ibrahimovic is swedish, but since my childhood, i know that he is not swedish in a physical way. By the way, i have create this topic, because i think the academic papers war of this site is very oppressive, but maybe i'm the only one to think it.
Right in my opinion the genes (people) adopt to environment,not straight forward but with time of course but different migrations bring different appearance.That's the case with every other species they adopt in environemnt they live in,to many their color is a camouflage or resemble the environment they live in.
As for Ibrahimovic he is close to typical Dinaric Slav.

Fire Haired14
17-01-17, 22:12
People, physical traits has nothing to do with genetic,...

I agree if what you're saying is not all physical traits can be attributed to a single population/genetic cluster/whatever you want to call it. Yamnaya wasn't pure and wasn't unrelated to Europeans' other ancestors which makes it more difficult to pin point Yamnaya traits.

Yamnaya itself was a mixture of at least three populations; WHG, ANE, CHG. The other ancestors of Europeans had WHG and some had CHG.

Yetos
17-01-17, 22:15
Right in my opinion the genes (people) adopt to environment,not straight forward but with time of course but different migrations bring different appearance.That's the case with every other species they adopt in environemnt they live in,to many their color is a camouflage or resemble the environment they live in.
As for Ibrahimovic he is close to typical Dinaric Slav.


with or without his nose?

Milan.M
17-01-17, 22:18
with or without his nose?
With his "nose"
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DHfmO4fPWfk/ThsxZYNXgDI/AAAAAAAAACQ/eeliNR_r0G4/s1600/ZlatanIbrahimovic460.jpg

halfalp
17-01-17, 23:43
I agree if what you're saying is not all physical traits can be attributed to a single population/genetic cluster/whatever you want to call it. Yamnaya wasn't pure and wasn't unrelated to Europeans' other ancestors which makes it more difficult to pin point Yamnaya traits.

Yamnaya itself was a mixture of at least three populations; WHG, ANE, CHG. The other ancestors of Europeans had WHG and some had CHG.

By the way, for you ANE population were not " Mongoloids " ? What i mean its that, you can have a population with 20% western european and 80% far east asiatiac people and 50% of the population gonna look european. In the pictures that i put, you can see caucasian origin, with caucasus and a little something from somwhere. Plus, dont forget that yamna was clearly a meta-population in the women sight, i think its the most ancestral culture who shows the most varier MTDNA haplogroups. So i know that haplogroups doesnt tell us, the physical caracteristics of the people, but it has to take in count, that sons take most part of their father, and girls from their mother. Like the perfect Sungir exemple.

Tomenable
18-01-17, 00:54
Morph made from several reconstructions:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/printthread.php?t=37860&pp=10&page=2

http://i1153.photobucket.com/albums/p515/aphetor/yamnaya.jpg

http://i1153.photobucket.com/albums/p515/aphetor/yamnaya.jpg

According to Kurts 1984 (p. 90), there were at least 3 main anthropological types among the Yamnaya:

Type 1) - "Dolichocephalic individuals, with broad faces of medium height"

Type 2) - "More robust elements with high and wide faces of the Proto-Europoid type"

Type 3) - "More gracile individuals with narrow and high faces of the East Mediterranean type"

He also wrote: "The Yamna population generally belongs to the European race."

They were also tall (average male height was 175,5 cm). Average Mesolithic EHG male was 173,2 cm.

Fire Haired14
18-01-17, 01:37
By the way, for you ANE population were not " Mongoloids " ? What i mean its that, you can have a population with 20% western european and 80% far east asiatiac people and 50% of the population gonna look european. In the pictures that i put, you can see caucasian origin, with caucasus and a little something from somwhere.

It isn't that simple. In a mixed population almost everyone has features from each ancestor. Mixed populations create their own new look. Latin Americans are the best example of a multi-racial population in the world. Mexicans have equal amounts of Spanish and Amerinidan blood. Many don't look Spanish or Amerindian. More look Amerindian than Spanish. This is why in opinion it's difficult to discover what features in modern Europeans are Yamnaya or not.

halfalp
18-01-17, 02:02
And we dont know if Type 2 was dolicho, meso or brachy ? Of course mixed population create their own look, thats why, i tried to synthetize, what a fusion with gracile, robust and central asian / caucasus amerindian ( with or without mongoloid features ) looks like. So i know that some of you think R1b came from iran or at least transcaucasia, i think that R1b was stationed from Ciscaucasia trought far east in central asia. By the way the physical reproduction of Yamnayans, are pretty strange but also very interesting, with a lot look like some ancient romans stereotypes. Maybe, more interesting could be physical features of Samara and Seroglazovo cultures for the eastern region and early Bug-Dniester culture for the western region. It could also being interesting if the data exist to make a synthesis with the 3 physical types of yamna, their haplogroupes, their autosomal DNA, the location of the graves ( western or eastern part of pontic steppe ) wich type of burials...

LeBrok
18-01-17, 03:08
By the way, for you ANE population were not " Mongoloids " ? What i mean its that, you can have a population with 20% western european and 80% far east asiatiac people and 50% of the population gonna look european. I don't thinks so. Could you give us an example of such population.


but it has to take in count, that sons take most part of their father, and girls from their mother. Especially penis and vegina. What physical characteristics are encoded in Y DNA? You must know something we don't.


People, physical traits has nothing to do with genetic, Really? Oh, because god makes people to his likeness?

halfalp
18-01-17, 11:17
Like 200 millions white and 50 millions black people give 100% metis ( black ) people ? Or modern central asia who has a majority of caucasian R1a and R1b but a majority of mongoloid traits ? Genetic has to be contextualized, maybe you dont know but men and women dont have the same physical traits, women skulls, especially crania, are smaller than men ones. Remember that women, in our history, is the socle of interbreeding, the mtdna haplogroups dispersal are here for remember us that.

halfalp
18-01-17, 16:07
By the way. 8386 this not look familiar to you ? 8387 8388 The second one is Anthony Hopkins, welsh actor, for who dont know.

halfalp
18-01-17, 16:10
8389This one clearly shows some paleo-siberians, mongoloid features.

Valerius
24-01-17, 23:46
Most of the Yamnaya people were Proto-Europids which is a Cromagnoid with dark hair and dark eyes which was something like a mediterranean
type with wide face and minor mongoloid traits. This type is almost extinct today. Most of the modern Europeans look like the pre-indo-european people of old Europe. I think it's possible that the so-called Alpine type could be a more recent reduced "derivate" from the original because this type matches geographically to the expansion of the Indo-Europeans in Europe and also matches pigmentation but this type exist in none-european people so there could be different sources of this phenotype.

Tomenable
25-01-17, 07:34
Some individual reconstructions (not only from Yamnaya, also related Early IE cultures):

http://i.imgur.com/lCJc7aq.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/PvE7RFR.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/FXv9KAY.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/3xSTNGr.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/kK0vfPN.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/BjiBq1h.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/AlpsHKi.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/MoxZb8M.jpg


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/70/Yamna_Srubnik.jpg/390px-Yamna_Srubnik.jpg


http://savepic.su/5898008.jpg


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/Yamna_cultdure.jpg/390px-Yamna_cultdure.jpg


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Yamna_culture.jpg


http://i008.radikal.ru/1201/ee/32a937e78cb6.jpg


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/eWgZkS_XyMQ/hqdefault.jpg



http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/aiwn/arkaim23776.jpg



http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/FwmWtjw_8EU/hqdefault.jpg



http://i47.tinypic.com/28uixhl.jpg


http://s55.radikal.ru/i150/1208/86/dc507890081e.jpg



http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/2015/06/image_2901_2-Yamna-Man.jpg

Tomenable
25-01-17, 07:47
And some more:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BByGe43S-kY/hqdefault.jpg


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TBOI2NdGOpk/hqdefault.jpg


This one clearly shows some paleo-siberians, mongoloid features.Is that a Bronze Age one or an Iron Age one, though?

AFAIK Siberian admixture shows up only in Iron Age samples from the Steppe, not in Bronze Age ones.

halfalp
25-01-17, 09:33
And some more:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BByGe43S-kY/hqdefault.jpg


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TBOI2NdGOpk/hqdefault.jpg

Is that a Bronze Age one or an Iron Age one, though?

AFAIK Siberian admixture shows up only in Iron Age samples from the Steppe, not in Bronze Age ones.


Nice pictures ! I think this is an Eastern Yamnayans reconstruction, so copper age trought bronze age. But away the admixture, who dont tell us about physical traits. There is clearly east asians haplogroups ( C,Z ) west of the ural between the mesolithic and ( C,Z,A,G ) east of the ural. So Pontic-Steppe has to be clearly multi-ethnic, i dont know how many times an admixture takes to be diluted in another. Whoops ! Seems in fact that he was iron-age scythian and not from yamna !

halfalp
25-01-17, 09:36
Most of the Yamnaya people were Proto-Europids which is a Cromagnoid with dark hair and dark eyes which was something like a mediterranean
type with wide face and minor mongoloid traits. This type is almost extinct today. Most of the modern Europeans look like the pre-indo-european people of old Europe. I think it's possible that the so-called Alpine type could be a more recent reduced "derivate" from the original because this type matches geographically to the expansion of the Indo-Europeans in Europe and also matches pigmentation but this type exist in none-european people so there could be different sources of this phenotype.

That Proto-Europoid type is very interessting but also very confuse, can you have modern exemple of what anthropologists considers like Proto-Europoid Type ? What is the difference between Proto-Europoid in features with Cro-Magnoid in a classical sens ?

Valerius
25-01-17, 13:43
Dienekes posted this plate once - http://s21.postimg.org/gwv1snu13/1dienekesracialcal.png

It's confusing because it's no longer observed today in a pure form. The modern Cromagnoid is seen mainly in some northern types with wide heads, wide bones, robust features, heavy brow ridges, endomorphs but the term also could be used on any other (southern) type which exhibits some archaic features like the said wide bones and robustness, etc. So, the Yamnaya people had these archaic features but also had dark hair and dark eyes (confirmed genetically) while the modern Northern Europeans who are CM are mainly light pigmented. In time all CM features and phenotypes tend to disappear in favor of more gracile forms but there are old forms that are still present for some reason today.

halfalp
25-01-17, 15:24
Dienekes posted this plate once - http://s21.postimg.org/gwv1snu13/1dienekesracialcal.png

It's confusing because it's no longer observed today in a pure form. The modern Cromagnoid is seen mainly in some northern types with wide heads, wide bones, robust features, heavy brow ridges, endomorphs but the term also could be used on any other (southern) type which exhibits some archaic features like the said wide bones and robustness, etc. So, the Yamnaya people had these archaic features but also had dark hair and dark eyes (confirmed genetically) while the modern Northern Europeans who are CM are mainly light pigmented. In time all CM features and phenotypes tend to disappear in favor of more gracile forms but there are old forms that are still present for some reason today.

Yes i already saw the Dienekes exemple, but i have to say, those 3 men for me are of complete different population. I have in intuition that east european hunter-gatherer and there later descendants are class like " Cro-Magnon or Proto-Europoid " with a generalization, without take physical features or craniometry for an important detail. I also know for the dark hair and dark eyes of the yamnaya people, wich i think is a very big generalization for the territory covered of the yamna culture ( almost 1 million km2 ), and also because Irish and British Island, Udmurts of Volga ( clearly a local preserved population from the prehistoric context ) and Tocharians depicted by ancient chinese, have all Red Hair in their physical features, somewhat ( but i dont think this is the origin ) link with the R1b expansion. So i think that the Mathieson or Lazaridis ( i dont remember who ) conclusion, is a very very big generalization for only a few samples ( remember that the context of yamna burials, are local elits, and maybe the elit, didnt have the same physical features has the general people ? ). Is there possible that physical traits like light body, light hair, light eyes exist in ancient time, but the markers that in modern time, we take, for thoses innovations, didnt exist in our genetic code a this time ?

Valerius
25-01-17, 18:58
The Bronze Age Indo-Europeans had dark hair but also considerable amount of blonde and red haired people because they are not the same people as the Yamnaya. The Yamnaya were incoming people from Central Asia who gradually mixed with the local population in Eastern Europe/North Eastern Europe/and North Europe (the people there had fair hair and eyes before being Indo-European) and that interaction and interbreeding gave rise to the Corded Ware Culture. After or around the time of the CWC there were new migrations of Satem-speaking Indo-Europeans who were the proto-Indo-Aryans and proto-Iranians. They moved to Central Asia and gave rise to Andronovo, Afanasievo and other cultures, so that's why there are people in Central Asia with light hair and eyes. In the end these CWC people were not the same as their Yamnaya ancestors, I believe there was a thread at Eupedia about how much admixture had the CWC people from Yamnaya and how much they were different.
The Yamnaya people also mixed in the area of Black sea with mediterranean people who, I guess, were the so-called Pontids. This physical type was present among the ancient Scythians according to Bunak and it's still present in Ukraine, South Russia, Eastern-Central Europe and the Balkans.
I guess that is why they've lost their original phenotype. I'm not sure if I understand your last question but I think that 6000 years ago we, the modern Europeans, were not the same people, our ethnogenesis was far from over and we were born in the interaction between these Central Asians carrying Proto-Indo-European speach with the local inhabitants of Old Europe - WHG+EEF.

johen
25-01-17, 20:23
The Bronze Age Indo-Europeans had dark hair but also considerable amount of blonde and red haired people because they are not the same people as the Yamnaya. The Yamnaya were incoming people from Central Asia who gradually mixed with the local population in Eastern Europe/North Eastern Europe/and North Europe (the people there had fair hair and eyes before being Indo-European) and that interaction and interbreeding gave rise to the Corded Ware Culture. After or around the time of the CWC there were new migrations of Satem-speaking Indo-Europeans who were the proto-Indo-Aryans and proto-Iranians. They moved to Central Asia and gave rise to Andronovo, Afanasievo and other cultures, so that's why there are people in Central Asia with light hair and eyes. In the end these CWC people were not the same as their Yamnaya ancestors, I believe there was a thread at Eupedia about how much admixture had the CWC people from Yamnaya and how much they were different.
The Yamnaya people also mixed in the area of Black sea with mediterranean people who, I guess, were the so-called Pontids. This physical type was present among the ancient Scythians according to Bunak and it's still present in Ukraine, South Russia, Eastern-Central Europe and the Balkans.
I guess that is why they've lost their original phenotype. I'm not sure if I understand your last question but I think that 6000 years ago we, the modern Europeans, were not the same people, our ethnogenesis was far from over and we were born in the interaction between these Central Asians carrying Proto-Indo-European speach with the local inhabitants of Old Europe - WHG+EEF. I think it is impossible for CWC people to move to central asia to give rise to Andronovo. Basically majority of Andronovo people were protoeuropid (so called cromagnon type paleo european) like Afanasievo. V. P Alekseev said that it was impossible to differenciate between afansievo and andronovo. Maybe andronovo R1a-z93 is connected to srubna R1a-z93, mongol bronze R1a-93, karasuk R1a-z93, and scythian.
This R1a-z93 makes me confusing, which is a key to IndoAryan. Andronovo, srubna and west scythian are close to afanasievo, but karasuk, East scythian to okunevo, american Indian. Moreover, mongol bronze is related with chandman, being similar to blackfoot american indian and UP people 20,000bc.

Btw, afanasievo predated yamna by D. Anthony, who explained that Repin, origin of yamna, migrated to afanasievo, making use of botai horse-riding culture. really mistery!
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/4-2.jpg

Valerius
25-01-17, 21:27
The information about Andronovo being derived from CWC according to Wikipedia was proposed by Allentoft et al. (2015). This is my understanding, with more information there could be more to say. I guess the truth is much more fluid than the one-way theories. There were R1a/R1b hunter-gatherers who roamed Asia for thousand years, then they settled in Eastern Europe, then again new waves going back to Asia bringing new genetic material from the West to the East, then invasions of Scythians and steppe folk to the West - on & on. About the proto-europoid type in Andronovo - yes, there was, but it seems there were also other elements - there was some data about the pigmentation in Andronovo samples and it turns they also had light hair and light eyes which was not from the dark pigmented proto-europoids but from something else, I guess picked up from NE Europe. Yes, there is a mystery element at this point with these cultures and migrations, Afanasievo being older than Yamna is really strange, also the problem with the hypothetical second PIE branch in Anatolia...

IronSide
25-01-17, 23:44
Is it ok to be watching Nazi racial philosophy on youtube before reading this thread :grin: or a sign from the sky father ?

They were probably tall blonde sexy horse riding conquerors. Don't worry i'm not Nazi I just stumbled on that video by chance.

Is it true that the swastika was a proto indo-european symbol ?

johen
26-01-17, 00:05
Is it ok to be watching Nazi racial philosophy on youtube before reading this thread :grin: or a sign from the sky father ?

They were probably tall blonde sexy horse riding conquerors. Don't worry i'm not Nazi I just stumbled on that video by chance.

Is it true that the swastika was a proto indo-european symbol ? why do you think that?

Valerius
26-01-17, 00:18
The swastika as many other symbols (like the tripod, like the IYI, like the cross) is common in many unrelated cultures but it was very popular image among all Indo-Europeans. I think the oldest known depiction is Mesolithic. Maybe the PIE people weren't the inventors of the symbol but it was something special and important to them.

IronSide
26-01-17, 00:22
this appeared in suggested videos while watching the Nazi stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAysyeFLTfI

And the wikipedia article isn't bad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Historical_use

But it also appeared in west Africa so I don't think it's accurate to attribute it to the Indo-Europeans.

maybe the R1b-V88 branch :smile:

Milan.M
26-01-17, 00:25
Is it ok to be watching Nazi racial philosophy on youtube before reading this thread :grin: or a sign from the sky father ?

They were probably tall blonde sexy horse riding conquerors. Don't worry i'm not Nazi I just stumbled on that video by chance.

Is it true that the swastika was a proto indo-european symbol ?
Well oldest found is in Paleolithic Europe in Ukraine 10 000B.C,then we found it at Neolithic Vinca symbols,all of this suggest that the tall blonde horseman were far away from today's Europe at the time.
http://drakenberg.weebly.com/uploads/6/7/4/7/6747442/1169901.jpg?291

Valerius
26-01-17, 00:36
IronSide (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/51707-IronSide), the best thing you can do is to stay away from that nazi crap video propaganda in YouTube haha.

Milan.M (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/51149-Milan-M), it seems that I was thinking about the same thing, Mesolithic/Paleolithic Ukraine - interestingly a place connected to the PIE people but pre-dating the PIE language. Also, around that time in the same area - north of the Black sea - there's information about that region being the place where the mutation for blue eyes occurred. There could be some connection but there's another 4000 years until the taming of the horse.

Milan.M
26-01-17, 00:44
IronSide (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/51707-IronSide), the best thing you can do is to stay away from that nazi crap video propaganda in YouTube haha.

Milan.M (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/51149-Milan-M), it seems that I was thinking about the same thing, Mesolithic/Paleolithic Ukraine - interestingly a place connected to the PIE people but pre-dating the PIE language. Also, around that time in the same area - north of the Black sea - there's information about that region being the place where the mutation for blue eyes occurred. There could be some connection but there's another 4000 years until the taming of the horse.
Yes,also i think is found in Bulgaria 6000 B.C in "devetashka cave" there is some images on the internet,but i'm not sure if that is that.
Well according to wiki i'm not very familiar with mutation for blue/eyes light skin even though i am one of them,if true?
As of 2015 researches, the earliest light eyes and light hair of hominid (Homo Sapiens) individuals after the long extinct Neandarthals have been documented at 8,000 years old remains in Motala, Sweden, belonging to subclades of Haplogroup I2 and mitochondrial Haplogroup U5. An I2a1 carrier was a carrier of red hair and others of genes of blond/light hair, while all the Mortala hunter-gatherers were light skinned and blue eyed males. However, 8-9,000 years old R1a remains from Karelia belonged to a light skinned male, while 17,000 years old light skin genes have been found in Siberia on a Haplogroup R carrier.

Valerius
26-01-17, 01:03
Yes, the symbol was found in the Neolithic Balkans in several places, also, interestingly in the Varna Culture, Bulgaria - the place where the first golden objects ever were created.
http://doktora757.blog.bg/photos/91603/original/Panitsa%20271016_414056058641668_988952903_n.jpg

Also the Ukrainian swastika - http://doktora757.blog.bg/photos/91603/1%20(1).png

These remains from Motala were first humans found in flesh to have the mutation but I think the researches on the mutation alone was said to had come north from the Black sea area. 8000 years ago (6000 BC) there were already many Nordic/CM people in North Europe and that is 4000 years after the first appearance of the mutation. Also, some people are speaking about sexual selection which made these traits dominant in Northern Europe. I'm not familiar with the results from Karelia but it sounds reasonable. Btw, is there info about the autosomal DNA of this I2a1 from Motala?

IronSide
26-01-17, 01:10
An I2c2 guy was also in Motala, if he was blonde and blue eyed then we're certainly not related

Valerius
26-01-17, 01:24
An I2c2 guy was also in Motala, if he was blonde and blue eyed then we're certainly not related

That I2C2 sample from Motala is PF3827 - is that your clade?

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26803-I2c-frequency-and-diversity-maps/page5?p=451354&viewfull=1#post451354

IronSide
26-01-17, 01:40
I didn't test any snp so I don't know, there are 103 snp's that define I2c2 indicating a bottleneck and PF3827 seems to be one of them, I was classified by str values.

so probably yes

Valerius
26-01-17, 01:45
Test it when you can and see if its the same thing. : )

Also I guess you know that the pigmentation is unrelated to Y-DNA and the information about that is in the Autosomal DNA, so it does not matter if that guy from Motala was blonde or not.

Milan.M
26-01-17, 01:52
Btw, is there info about the autosomal DNA of this I2a1 from Motala?
Nothing written about it,search for some thread here on Eupedia,might have been discussed already.

Milan.M
26-01-17, 01:59
Yes, the symbol was found in the Neolithic Balkans in several places, also, interestingly in the Varna Culture, Bulgaria - the place where the first golden objects ever were created.
http://doktora757.blog.bg/photos/91603/original/Panitsa%20271016_414056058641668_988952903_n.jpg

Also why you don't genetic test that guy covered with gold from Varna culture? :)
Crazy stuff that is even golden p****.
Plenty graves total of 294.

Valerius
26-01-17, 02:09
Haha, they are testing these remains at the moment but I don't know when we'll have the results. Sadly, I think they will test only the mtDNA...
One or two months ago we had the first mtDNA results of 19 individuals from 3000 BC but that's old news already.

Edit - only 7 individuals from 3000 BC and 19 other from the Medieval period.

Maciamo
26-01-17, 15:13
Considering the interest in the subject, I have added a section about What Yamnayans look like physically (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/yamna_culture.shtml#Phenotypes) in the page on the history and genetics of Yamna. Feel free to comment.

Valerius
26-01-17, 15:41
Considering the interest in the subject, I have added a section about What Yamnayans look like physically (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/yamna_culture.shtml#Phenotypes) in the page on the history and genetics of Yamna. Feel free to comment.

So, while migrating the Yamnaya people had mixed with different populations here and there and brought some foreign traits to Europe and simultaneously took new traits from the Old Europeans. As for the red hair I can't understand if it has been picked up from the Urals by the R1b Yamnaya people or it has been already present throughout Northern Europe since the Paleolithic age. Also in Northern Europe there's ANE predating the Yamnaya and CWC expansions, could it be connected with red hair in the region before the Yamnaya?

Maciamo
26-01-17, 16:17
So, while migrating the Yamnaya people had mixed with different populations here and there and brought some foreign traits to Europe and simultaneously took new traits from the Old Europeans. As for the red hair I can't understand if it has been picked up from the Urals by the R1b Yamnaya people or it has been already present throughout Northern Europe since the Paleolithic age. Also in Northern Europe there's ANE predating the Yamnaya and CWC expansions, could it be connected with red hair in the region before the Yamnaya?

I understand you confusion, because it is a more complex topic than it appears. There isn't one, but many mutations (at least a dozen) in the MC1R gene (https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/MC1R) that can cause rufosity. Some mutations are very specific. For example, rs2228479 is associated with red beard rather than hair.

Mutations arise all the time in all populations, and indeed MC1R mutations have been found in places where no red hair is present like Sub-Saharan Africa or Papua New Guinea. We also know that Neanderthals carried some mutations (but the few samples tested did not have the same mutations as those common in Europe today).

What is important to know too is that red hair mutations have no or little visible effect on black haired people, hence the lack of red heads in Africa, South Asia or New Guinea. Other mutations for fair hairs are indispensable, and these were found in Mesolithic Scandinavians (SHG) and Northeast Europeans (EHG).

Red hair mutations also cause skin depigmentation and increase the risk of melanoma. In northern climes, especially in very cloudy regions with little sunshine all year round like Northwest Europe, there is an advantage in having such mutations as they increase production of vitamin D, and therefore also body growth, bone health and immunity. But in hot regions such mutations are deleterious and can cause cancer even in children if exposed daily to a scorching sun. Natural selection does the rest.

So did red hair mutations arise in Yamnayans? No, they have been present all over the world for tens of thousands of years. Were they selected by natural selection in Northeast Europeans (EHG)? That would make sense. If it came into the Yamna gene pool from their EHG ancestors, it would almost necessarily have spread with PIE migrations of the R1b branch, and would later have been further selected by evolution in Northwest Europe where such mutations are the most beneficial.

Fire Haired14
26-01-17, 19:59
Considering the interest in the subject, I have added a section about What Yamnayans look like physically (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/yamna_culture.shtml#Phenotypes) in the page on the history and genetics of Yamna. Feel free to comment.

I like your Yamnaya page but there's an obvious mistake...

had predominantly brown eyes, dark hair......This is not unexpected considering that these samples had about 30% of Iranian Plateau admixture, against 0-12% for modern Europeans.

ADMIXTURE based on modern populations can't gather exact regional ancestry from ancients. So far the data suggests natural selection is the reason why Yamnaya was dark. Pale Andronovo scores high on West Asian components in ADMIXTURE based on modern populations aswell, so it doesn't explain Yamnaya's pigmentation.

Fire Haired14
26-01-17, 20:06
@Maciamo,

I know I was the primary voice who said SHG had red hair alleles but actually it looks like they didn't. DNA damage or whatever is why they had derived calls in red hair MC1R alleles. The oldest examples of red hair alleles come from heavily Steppe admixed Europeans; Late Neolithic Sweden(R1b U106), Sintashta(R1a Z93). The oldest for sure redhead is a Bronze age Urnfield guy from Eastern Germany(R1a Z280). The ancient DNA data base is still too small to be confident of anything.

johen
26-01-17, 20:18
What Yamnayans look like physically (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/yamna_culture.shtml#Phenotypes)

Regarding CHG in yamna, I want to know how Iran neolithic farmer contacted with R1b people.
I mean "by crossing the Caucasus Mt." or "in south central Asia like in BMAC area."
Was the south caucasus area really a crossroad of Europe and middle East in neolithic and Bronze age?


Located at the crossroads of Europe and the Middle East, the Armenian Highland served as a transition corridor for major waves of prehistoric and historic migrations. The genetic history of Armenians as an indigenous population of the region attracts keen scientific interest to resolve the puzzle of ancient Middle Eastern populations’ expansion and the spread of Indo-European languages. Here, we review the current state of studies on the genetic structure of both modern and ancient inhabitants of the Armenian Highland and outline further steps to be fulfilled in this regard.

However, steppe people could easily pick up the iran neolithic gene in south central asia during ancient time.

Neolithic -Bronze age (Aryan era):
1. Mediterranids, 2. Protoeuropids, 3. southern elements (Veddoids)
https://s27.postimg.org/btz4csvtv/neolitbronz.jpg

==> I know there are 3 ways to eneter Europe from south caucasus area, and middle Eastern things were found in Maycop culture. However, I think there was no route on the Caucasus Mt. at that time. If there was a route, scythian would never cross the Mt. to destroy assyrian.


Conclusions
We conclude that irrespective of the Early UP presence of anatomically modern humans both south and north of the Caucasus (Mellars 2006; Adler et al. 2008; Krause et al. 2010), the combined autosomal and gender-specific genetic variation of the Caucasian populations testifies to their predominantly southern, Near/Middle Eastern descent. Y chromosomal variants under strong founder events, seen in particular among populations inhabiting the northern flank of the High Caucasus Mountain Range, appear to never have expanded to the East European Plain, whereas the nomadic people of the latter, once settled down predominantly on the northern slopes of the Caucasus, have likely preserved, to different extent, some of their earlier genetic heritage. In sum, though the Caucasus may well have served as a corridor for numerous invasive expeditions in the past, this has had only a minor influence on the largely sedentary core populations of the region, characterized by much greater autosomal uniformity than that might be expected from a region of deep linguistic and cultural diversity. This suggests that the core of the autosomal genetic structure of the Caucasian populations may have formed before its present-day linguistic diversity, including the language families autochthonous for the region, arose

halfalp
26-01-17, 21:12
Nice Page Maciamo ! Thanks. Just about the different admixtures in Yamna like the so called " Gedrosian " isn't really obvious looking at mtdna haplogroups found in Maykop Culture that it comes with women ? Like the " steppe warrior stealing women " theory, is not necessary to explain that. Alliances, with more southern ( caucasus ), eastern ( south siberia ) and western ( neolithic balkans ) can easily feet. I know that R1b-V88 in africa is obviously came from, from middle-east, with cattle, but seems strange that so much people with different haplogroups had to be anatolian, levantin or iranian farmers... This is very Cradle of Civilizationy.

MOESAN
27-01-17, 00:51
People, physical traits has nothing to do with genetic, i mean, by the time, all the genetic coming from far east or siberia has been diluted in the new population, but eyes, noses, craniums... are all pictures of our past. Personnally, i am 100% swiss for a very long time, and people think i'm albanian or turkish... Physical traits dont lie, there is no coincidence by the ressemblance of amerindians ( without evident mongoloid traits ) with modern afghan people, for exemple. When i look scandinavians, i can tell who has european archaic features, or mongoloid features, or middle eastern features. Ibrahimovic is swedish, but since my childhood, i know that he is not swedish in a physical way. By the way, i have create this topic, because i think the academic papers war of this site is very oppressive, but maybe i'm the only one to think it.


Where did you pick these not even funny opinions about physical aspect and genetics???
Evidently the most of the making of physical (phoenotype) aspect is purely genetic - it's not because we cannot put some phoenotypical subdivisions to strickly coincid with auDNA hazardous subdivisions that phoenotype is not genetic! the whole thing is firstable genetic, only we know genes are not evolving in a block, and that ancient pops, surely less diverse than the current ones, when separated were sbmitted to mutations and selections which did not affect always the same part of the genome - sometimes some external aspects were strongly impacted when the whole genome did not change too much, sometimes the external aspect stayed very similar when invisible parts of the genome quickly evolved; we can say only that. but as a whole when aspect changed very much, whole the genome changed in the same way -

halfalp
27-01-17, 01:35
Of course that physical traits, is about genetic, what i say is, if you see finlande or scandinavia, you clearly see mongoloid physical traits, but geneticaly, they are europeans. If you focus only on genetic, you gonna never know how people looked like. My topic is clearly about physical anthropology, wich is not genetic, yamna or indo-europeans or whatever its not just genetic. So when i say, that i see mongoloide or other horizon physical traits, dont talk about admixture. Im not talking about racial classification or some, wich i dont take in count, i just love human phenotypes !

johen
27-01-17, 03:22
Physical traits dont lie, there is no coincidence by the ressemblance of amerindians ( without evident mongoloid traits ) with modern afghan people, for exemple.

why is the resemblance not coincident? As you know, Afaghan was called to be "Ariana." I think their ancestors were original aryans from central Asia, especially afanasievo-okunevo and andronovo.

johen
27-01-17, 05:08
I think it is impossible for CWC people to move to central asia to give rise to Andronovo. Basically majority of Andronovo people were protoeuropid (so called cromagnon type paleo european) like Afanasievo. V. P Alekseev said that it was impossible to differenciate between afansievo and andronovo. Maybe andronovo R1a-z93 is connected to srubna R1a-z93, mongol bronze R1a-93, karasuk R1a-z93, and scythian.
This R1a-z93 makes me confusing, which is a key to IndoAryan. Andronovo, srubna and west scythian are close to afanasievo, but karasuk, East scythian to okunevo, american Indian. Moreover, mongol bronze is related with chandman, being similar to blackfoot american indian and UP people 20,000bc.

okunevo people have R1a?
Anthropologically afanasievo people is connected to Srubna people who are related with okunevo. Were afanasievo and okunevo same people or not?

new reaserch:
Nonmetric cranial trait variation and the origins of the Scythians Authors Alla A. Movsesian, Varvara Yu. Bakholdina First published: 24 January 2017


The Late Scythian population considered in this study proved to be genetically homogeneous, although some connections with the Sarmatians were found. We also revealed similarities between the Scythian groups and the local Bronze Age population of the Srubnaya culture, as well as, to a lesser extent, a group representative of the Central Asian Bronze Age Okunevo culture.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23159/full

halfalp
27-01-17, 16:37
why is the resemblance not coincident? As you know, Afaghan was called to be "Ariana." I think their ancestors were original aryans from central Asia, especially afanasievo-okunevo and andronovo.

Yes, Indo-Iranians and Scythians, later Kushans ( Tocharians ? ) all contributed to Afghan or Pamiro-Himalayan Complexe phenotypes, but you can found people with specific phenotypes, i mean " archaic " phenotypes, wich somehow look very familiar with amerindians ( like brown skin with reddish cheeks ).

Seanp
27-01-17, 17:35
To me they were probably something like these:

Russian man

http://www.grouph3.com/images/1505/20150530-14.jpg


Hungarian man

http://galeria.cosmopolitan.hu/files/675/074/000/74675/74675_615552_1000x700.jpg

Maciamo
27-01-17, 18:12
I know that R1b-V88 in africa is obviously came from, from middle-east, with cattle, but seems strange that so much people with different haplogroups had to be anatolian, levantin or iranian farmers... This is very Cradle of Civilizationy.

Did you doubt for a second that the Middle East was the cradle of Western Eurasian civilisations? That's what all history books teach (or should if they don't). There are different definition of the word civilisation. Personally I think civilisation require cities with social stratification and a specialisation of labour, possibly also with some form of writing. The Sumerian might be the oldest civilisation. Its written record starts around 3000 BCE, but the protoliterate Uruk period (from 4000 BCE) could be seen as its real starting point as a civilisation. The oldest in Europe is generally considered to be the Minoans (from 3750 BCE, but literate from 2500 BCE), who almost undoubtedly came from the Near East based on the mtDNA samples retrieved (haplogroups like R0, HV, H5, H7, H13a1a and I5, which are typically Middle Eastern).

By some definitions, civilisation means any agricultural society from the Neolithic onward. Since in Western Eurasia agriculture originated in the Fertile Crescent, by that definition too the Middle East is the cradle of European civilisation. There is just no way around it.

MOESAN
27-01-17, 20:46
Of course that physical traits, is about genetic, what i say is, if you see finlande or scandinavia, you clearly see mongoloid physical traits, but geneticaly, they are europeans. If you focus only on genetic, you gonna never know how people looked like. My topic is clearly about physical anthropology, wich is not genetic, yamna or indo-europeans or whatever its not just genetic. So when i say, that i see mongoloide or other horizon physical traits, dont talk about admixture. Im not talking about racial classification or some, wich i dont take in count, i just love human phenotypes !

OK - but Scandinavians as a whole show very few 'mongoloid' traits, Finns show a bit more even if very light - some popular culture edits funny things about everykind of "fact" without checking - every broad cheekboned man is not 'mongoloid' for that, (the more or less afore position of them is also to be considered) and Finns in auDNA tests surely show some East-Asian or at least Siberian traces, more in East or North Finland than in West Finland, in accord with the physical features.
&: don't forget archaïc features (not only skeleton but every kind of detail) are often interpreted as "mixed" compared to more recent features born here and there which divide more clearly the current pops -

MOESAN
27-01-17, 20:49
the explication for some remote pops showing "archaïc" traits could be it's not only because they would have been less submitted to admixtures but because they were less numerous so knowing less innovating mutations? an hypothesis -

ThirdTerm
27-01-17, 21:07
To me they were probably something like these:

Russian man


Haak et al. (2015) identified Yamnaya haplogroups as R1b1a or R1b1a2. Haplogroup R1b is very rare among the modern Russian population (5.8%) and the Russians are less likely to be the direct descendants of the Yamnaya steppe herders. But R1b is the predominant haplogroup among some ethnic minority groups in Russia such as the Bashkirs as 34.4% belong to R1b1a2 among the Bashkirs. R1b1a2 is the identical haplogroup carried by the ancient Yamnaya samples and the Bashkirs also fit the description of the Yamnaya steppe herders described as brown-eyed and brown-haired people (Allentoft et al. 2015), based on a low frequency of rs12913832 from the Pontic-Caspian steppe populations (2%-3%).

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/9d/49/659d496679101671d173cb0628f1f3f9.jpg



The size of our data set allows us to investigate the temporal dynamics
of 104 genetic variants associated with important phenotypic traits or
putatively undergoing positive selection33 (Supplementary Table 13).
Focusing on four well-studied polymorphisms, we find that two single
nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with light skin pigmentation
in Europeans exhibit a rapid increase in allele frequency
(Fig. 4). For rs1426654, the frequency of the derived allele increases
from very low to fixation within a period of approximately 3,000 years
between the Mesolithic and Bronze Age in Europe. For rs12913832, a
major determinant of blue versus brown eyes in humans, our results
indicate the presence of blue eyes already in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers
as previously described33.Wefind it at intermediate frequency in
Bronze Age Europeans, but it is notably absent from the Pontic-
Caspian steppe populations, suggesting a high prevalence of brown
eyes in these individuals (Fig. 4).

halfalp
27-01-17, 22:32
Did you doubt for a second that the Middle East was the cradle of Western Eurasian civilisations? That's what all history books teach (or should if they don't). There are different definition of the word civilisation. Personally I think civilisation require cities with social stratification and a specialisation of labour, possibly also with some form of writing. The Sumerian might be the oldest civilisation. Its written record starts around 3000 BCE, but the protoliterate Uruk period (from 4000 BCE) could be seen as its real starting point as a civilisation. The oldest in Europe is generally considered to be the Minoans (from 3750 BCE, but literate from 2500 BCE), who almost undoubtedly came from the Near East based on the mtDNA samples retrieved (haplogroups like R0, HV, H5, H7, H13a1a and I5, which are typically Middle Eastern).

By some definitions, civilisation means any agricultural society from the Neolithic onward. Since in Western Eurasia agriculture originated in the Fertile Crescent, by that definition too the Middle East is the cradle of European civilisation. There is just no way around it.

My definition of civilization is the same as you, i use the terme Cradle of Civilization in a more symbolic term. My point is, i found bizarre, that middle east, being like a berceau of F,G,H,J,R,T haplogroups . I think, that admixture, especially of some kind of middle east origin, apart of already y-dna haplogroups known ( like G2a neolithic balkans, for exemple ) has to be more look about mtdna haplogroups ! You are the number one referencer of haplogroups, you know, that apart admixture, all this different mtdna haplogroups can not be linked in only 1 or 2 admixtures, its a very complicated labyrinth of population movement, haplogroups, admixture... C.F. Moesan and Maciamo, dont take what i say in first degree, i've sometimes difficult to explain my thoughts in english.

halfalp
27-01-17, 22:36
OK - but Scandinavians as a whole show very few 'mongoloid' traits, Finns show a bit more even if very light - some popular culture edits funny things about everykind of "fact" without checking - every broad cheekboned man is not 'mongoloid' for that, (the more or less afore position of them is also to be considered) and Finns in auDNA tests surely show some East-Asian or at least Siberian traces, more in East or North Finland than in West Finland, in accord with the physical features.
&: don't forget archaïc features (not only skeleton but every kind of detail) are often interpreted as "mixed" compared to more recent features born here and there which divide more clearly the current pops -

I dont want to classify population with racial terms. But human phenotypes dont really lie, so we can argue that epicanthus in scandinavia means nothing, because khoïsan have somewhat something like epicanthus too some times, but i think this is a indifferent way to raisonning.

MOESAN
27-01-17, 23:03
okunevo people have R1a?
Anthropologically afanasievo people is connected to Srubna people who are related with okunevo. Were afanasievo and okunevo same people or not?

new reaserch:
Nonmetric cranial trait variation and the origins of the Scythians Authors Alla A. Movsesian, Varvara Yu. Bakholdina First published: 24 January 2017

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23159/full

cultures of the steppes were not homogenous when compared site by site - here some opinion of Kozintsev, anthropologist, for Okunev

"...With regard to the post-Afanasyev Bronze Age cultures, the traditional idea that the Okunev culture is autochthonous has given place to theories stating that the Pit Grave and Catacomb traditions (Lazaretov, 1997), or those of Afanasyev culture, which were also introduced from Europe, were critical in Okunev origins (Sher, 2006). In terms of physical anthropology however, the presumed European ancestry of the Okunev people of the Minusinsk Basin, according to A.V. Gromov (1997b), pointing to affinities with the Pit Grave and Catacomb people of Kalmykia, is rather indistinct and traceable mostly at the individual level if at all. The analysis of data concerning two independent trait batteries – craniometric and cranial nonmetric – suggests that the affinities of the Okunev people of the Yenisei are mostly Siberian (Gromov, 1997a, b), and the integration of these data demonstrates that the unusual trait combination observed in Okunev crania is rather archaic (plesiomorphic) and may be more ancient than both the Caucasoid and Mongoloid trait combinations (Kozintsev, 2004). According to Gromov (1997b), the Okunev people resembled the Neolithic population of the Krasnoyarsk–Kansk region. The Karakol culture of Gorny Altai is similar to Okunev culture, and craniometric parallels between people associated with these cultures were also noted. However, Karakol crania are believed to exhibit a “Mediterranean” tendency (Chikisheva, 2000; Tur, Solodovnikov, 2005). The Okunev crania from Tuva and the Yelunino crania from the Upper Ob, especially the former, are much more Caucasoid (Gokhman, 1980; Solodovnikov, Tur, 2003; Kozintsev, 2008). This agrees with archaeological facts indicating the affinities of cultures such as Yelunino and Okunev of Tuva with Early Bronze Age cultures of Central and even Western Europe (Kovalev, 2007). The possible Caucasoid ties of other pre-Andronov tribes of Southern Siberia such as Krotovo (Dremov, 1997) and Samus (Solodovnikov, 2005, 2006) have been discussed by craniologists. ..."

MOESAN
27-01-17, 23:22
Allentoft seems having considered some Asian (more Siberian North Asian I think?) input in Steppic cultures people (Andronovo and others), at least he shew some components in diverse blue hues I believe they are not 'europoids' - these blue components are very strong in his admixtures for Okunevo: more than 50% (which one?) and Karasuk (33 to 50%) - but the auDNA samples are very short compared to the metrics ones

Fire Haired14
27-01-17, 23:45
Did you doubt for a second that the Middle East was the cradle of Western Eurasian civilisations? .......
By some definitions, civilisation means any agricultural society from the Neolithic onward. Since in Western Eurasia agriculture originated in the Fertile Crescent, by that definition too the Middle East is the cradle of European civilisation. There is just no way around it.

A lot happened in Europe after agriculture arrived from the Middle East to create civilizations which can't be contributed to the Middle East.

IMO, culture isn't completely hereditary. In other words imo every aspect of a culture can't be traced to an ancestor. Therefore I don't like when people say the fertile crescent is THE birthplace of civilization. I think it's a simplistic way of thinking about the origins of later cultures and civilizations. I really doubt anyone can be accredited with being the main or only source for many later civilizations. Other ancient people contributed to Minoan, Hittite, etc. civilizations and some aspects of their culture was invented by them and can't be attributed to an ancestor culture.

That way of thinking about the ancient world is common I don't like it. I think too much credit is given to the famous Egyptians, Sumerians, Greeks, Romans. Kids in school get the impression they invented everything in existence and everyone in the ancient world lived in one of their civilizations.

Fire Haired14
27-01-17, 23:51
To me they were probably something like these:

Russian man




Hungarian man




Yamnaya had no East Asian ancestry and therefore no East Asian features like that Russian dude has. The Steppe people who invaded Europe in the Bronze age weren't the same as some of the heavily Asian admixed horse riding people who did in the Middle Ages. Not Attila the Hun.

Angela
28-01-17, 00:07
Did you doubt for a second that the Middle East was the cradle of Western Eurasian civilisations? That's what all history books teach (or should if they don't). There are different definition of the word civilisation. Personally I think civilisation require cities with social stratification and a specialisation of labour, possibly also with some form of writing. The Sumerian might be the oldest civilisation. Its written record starts around 3000 BCE, but the protoliterate Uruk period (from 4000 BCE) could be seen as its real starting point as a civilisation. The oldest in Europe is generally considered to be the Minoans (from 3750 BCE, but literate from 2500 BCE), who almost undoubtedly came from the Near East based on the mtDNA samples retrieved (haplogroups like R0, HV, H5, H7, H13a1a and I5, which are typically Middle Eastern).

By some definitions, civilisation means any agricultural society from the Neolithic onward. Since in Western Eurasia agriculture originated in the Fertile Crescent, by that definition too the Middle East is the cradle of European civilisation. There is just no way around it.

Absolutely correct. It's amazing how many people seem to have had no exposure to basic history classes, or even having been so exposed refuse to accept the evidence.

This is why I think it's a great pity that some universities no longer require a full year of classes in Western Civilization. The more in depth exploration would be beneficial.

johen
28-01-17, 00:39
Allentoft seems having considered some Asian (more Siberian North Asian I think?) input in Steppic cultures people (Andronovo and others), at least he shew some components in diverse blue hues I believe they are not 'europoids' - these blue components are very strong in his admixtures for Okunevo: more than 50% (which one?) and Karasuk (33 to 50%) - but the auDNA samples are very short compared to the metrics ones

"Dental features of the Late Bronze Age Irmen population of Western Siberia (14th–10th centuries BC) were studied on the basis of cranio-dental remains from 23 cemeteries in the Kuznetsk Basin, Baraba forest-steppe, the forest-steppe zone of the Altai, Tomsk and Novosibirsk areas of the Ob basin. The results suggest that the Irmen people originated in the Novosibirsk and Baraba areas from a mixture of Andronovo (Fedorovka) and autochthonous groups. Dental data are inconsistent with the idea that the Karasuk tribes might have taken part in this process. The Karasuk people clearly descended from the Okunevo people, as evidenced by the elevated frequencies of the Carabelli cusp and deflecting wrinkle. None of these traits is present in the Irmen people, who display dental gracility evidently introduced by Andronovo (Fedorovka) tribes."

johen
28-01-17, 06:12
cultures of the steppes were not homogenous when compared site by site - here some opinion of Kozintsev, anthropologist, for Okunev

"...With regard to the post-Afanasyev Bronze Age cultures, the traditional idea that the Okunev culture is autochthonous has given place to theories stating that the Pit Grave and Catacomb traditions (Lazaretov, 1997), or those of Afanasyev culture, which were also introduced from Europe, were critical in Okunev origins (Sher, 2006). In terms of physical anthropology however, the presumed European ancestry of the Okunev people of the Minusinsk Basin, according to A.V. Gromov (1997b), pointing to affinities with the Pit Grave and Catacomb people of Kalmykia, is rather indistinct and traceable mostly at the individual level if at all. The analysis of data concerning two independent trait batteries – craniometric and cranial nonmetric – suggests that the affinities of the Okunev people of the Yenisei are mostly Siberian (Gromov, 1997a, b), and the integration of these data demonstrates that the unusual trait combination observed in Okunev crania is rather archaic (plesiomorphic) and may be more ancient than both the Caucasoid and Mongoloid trait combinations (Kozintsev, 2004). According to Gromov (1997b), the Okunev people resembled the Neolithic population of the Krasnoyarsk–Kansk region. The Karakol culture of Gorny Altai is similar to Okunev culture, and craniometric parallels between people associated with these cultures were also noted. However, Karakol crania are believed to exhibit a “Mediterranean” tendency (Chikisheva, 2000; Tur, Solodovnikov, 2005). The Okunev crania from Tuva and the Yelunino crania from the Upper Ob, especially the former, are much more Caucasoid (Gokhman, 1980; Solodovnikov, Tur, 2003; Kozintsev, 2008). This agrees with archaeological facts indicating the affinities of cultures such as Yelunino and Okunev of Tuva with Early Bronze Age cultures of Central and even Western Europe (Kovalev, 2007). The possible Caucasoid ties of other pre-Andronov tribes of Southern Siberia such as Krotovo (Dremov, 1997) and Samus (Solodovnikov, 2005, 2006) have been discussed by craniologists. ..."

In the abstract of his research paper 2009,


Measurements of 220 male Neolithic and Bronze Age cranial series from Eurasia were subjected to multivariate statistical analysis. The results support the idea that people associated with the Catacomb culture played a major role in the origin of the Afanasyev culture. Okunev people of the Minusinsk Basin, those associated with Karakol, Ust-Tartas, and Krotovo cultures, and those buried in the Andronov-type cemeteries at Cherno-ozerye and Yelovka were of predominantly local Siberian origin. The Samus series resembles that from Poltavka burials. The Okunev people of Tuva and probably Yelunino people were likely descendants of the Pit Grave (Yamnaya) and early Catacomb populations of the Ukraine.


Discussion: Afanasyev
The results challenge the traditional idea that the sole and direct ancestors of the Afanasyev people were those of Pit Grave culture. Pit Grave affinities rank first only in the cases of Saldyar I and Karasuk III. Catacomb parallels are no fewer than those with Pit Grave, and in most instances they are the most pronounced. Every Afanasyev group has close ties with Catacomb groups. By contrast, not all Afanasyev series show close Pit Grave connections: these are absent in two groups of the Altai (Ursul and Kurota II) and in the pooled Altai sample. In half of the Altai series, ties with the Catacomb people of the Don are the most distinct, and the same is true of the pooled Altai group. Afanasyeva Gora and the pooled Minusinsk series are closest to the late Catacomb of the Lower Dnieper, whereas the series from Kurota II in the Altai, is closest to Poltavka. These results are matched by archaeological facts which, according to S.V. Tsyb (1981, 1984), evidence the importance of Poltavka and Catacomb cultures in Afanasyev origins.

In the abstract, the Okunev people of the Minusinsk Basin would be original one to be genetically so close to Maltaboy. so " archaic." The other two okuneo types (the Samus series, tuva one) resemble that from Poltavka burials and early Catacomb populations which look like to be close to afanasievo also, considering the discussion part.

Afanasievo people and Okunevo people lived together earlier than 3,500bc.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33484-why-Okunevo-culture-was-ingored-in-Indo-European-history-they-are-just-paleo-people?p=500344#post500344
http://www.clarkriley.com/JIES4034web/07Sokolova(434-456).pdf

Moreover, Anthropologically Okunev people of the Minusinsk Basin is related with Karasuk and East scythian who migrate in west. However, West scythian, srubna and afanasievo are related each other.
So there is possibility of relationship between afansievo and Okunevo.


The Late Scythian population considered in this study proved to be genetically homogeneous, although some connections with the Sarmatians were found. We also revealed similarities between the Scythian groups and the local Bronze Age population of the Srubnaya culture, as well as, to a lesser extent, a group representative of the Central Asian Bronze Age Okunevo culture.

Another Problem here is author mentioned that majority of afanasievo people originated in catacomb culture. I think it is absolutely true, b/c their skulls were elongated. However, did catacomb culture predate afanasievo?

MOESAN
28-01-17, 15:40
thanks - I've the paper at hand - I don't see any problem: culture sharing is not by force auDNA sharing: we see that in the different sites of the same culture; contacts are followed by some crossings, but not always by complete or even strong osmosis, only some individuals can be involved in the crossings (see Gauls and Romans) - BTW Okunev for auDNA doesn't seem completely 'siberian' but strongly enough 'siberian', what is not be "pure" - the seldom Karasuk individuals at the auDNA show great heterogeneity, someones very 'europoid' some others very 'ast-asian' in a broad sense -
Afanasyevo people are as a whole very different from North Okunevo people (phenotypes and auDNA) - the temporal problems of links between Catacombs and Afanasyevo is nothing; they could share a common ancestors, affinities don't always tell us the direction of genes floods - ATW I think even the Neolithical pop of Krasnoiarks Kransk Ienissei regions was already AND an ancestral pop AND the crossing place of well evolved 'europoids' and well evolved 'mongoloids' (I think I said this personal thought before somewhere) and an-auDNA could maybe confirm that sometime when admixture technics improve yet -

Maciamo
28-01-17, 22:02
A lot happened in Europe after agriculture arrived from the Middle East to create civilizations which can't be contributed to the Middle East.

Have you not read what I wrote? For me, civilisations arose c. 4000 BCE with the first cities in Mesopotamia. That's 5,500 years after agriculture started in the Fertile Crescent. The two aren't connected. It's probably just a coincidence that both arose exactly in the same region.



IMO, culture isn't completely hereditary. In other words imo every aspect of a culture can't be traced to an ancestor. Therefore I don't like when people say the fertile crescent is THE birthplace of civilization. I think it's a simplistic way of thinking about the origins of later cultures and civilizations. I really doubt anyone can be accredited with being the main or only source for many later civilizations.

The birth or the cradle of civilisation means the place where it started. It doesn't mean that everything was suddenly invented in one place and spread from there! It's a long, constant evolution, but it needs a starting point. Ancient Europeans also played an important role in that evolution, with the development of metallurgy (based on present evidence it emerged in the Balkans), bronze working (North Caucasus), horse riding (Volga-Ural), war chariots (Volga-Ural)...


Other ancient people contributed to Minoan, Hittite, etc. civilizations and some aspects of their culture was invented by them and can't be attributed to an ancestor culture.

If you read carefully, I said that civilisations arose in the Middle East, not in the Fertile Crescent (that's only agriculture), and the Middle East includes Anatolia, the South Caucasus and Iran too.



That way of thinking about the ancient world is common I don't like it. I think too much credit is given to the famous Egyptians, Sumerians, Greeks, Romans. Kids in school get the impression they invented everything in existence and everyone in the ancient world lived in one of their civilizations.

If you checked my list of inventions (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/list_of_inventions_by_country.shtml), you'd realise that ancient inventions have so little impact on modern life that they don't make the list. I listed separately the greatest contributions to the (modern) world of the ancient Egyptians (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/19850-Greatest-Ancient-Egyptian-contribution(s)-to-the-world), Greeks (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/20654-Greatest-Greek-contributions-to-the-world) and Romans (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/20285-Greatest-Ancient-Roman-contribution(s)-to-the-world), but I would be at a loss to find any invention still in regular use that originated in the Fertile Crescent. From Anatolia at least we have currency (coins), although that's almost obsolete too.

You don't seem to understand the concept of civilisation momentum. Civilisation may have arisen in Mesopotamia, but other civilisations sprang up all around in the Middle East, then the Eastern Mediterranean, etc. New people adopted the higher life styles of their neighbours, but usually also brought their own contributions. I don't know if this is because people of a certain language and culture in a given time in history have a limit to the amount of inventions they can spawn, or because people try to develop a civilisation based on some fixed cultural ideals, but it seems that after a while innovation just peters out and the once great civilisation becomes static and is overtaken by its neighbours, who have copied them but also added new concepts and innovations of their own. This is why the circle needs to keep widening all the time, so that new people with a different culture and fresh aspirations can bring new vigour to their adoptive civilisation. If it isn't neighbours, then it is foreign invaders. That works too. It happened many times in the Middle East in ancient times (the Hittites, Mitanni, Medes, etc were all Indo-European invaders).

You could imagine civilisation like a fire that spreads from a central point and which slowly extends outward in a growing circle. After a while, the point of origin is all burned out and the fire that is still burning forms a ring around it. That rings keep getting wider with time (= civilisation spreading further afield), but the burned out central area also gets bigger, unless someone renews the material in the middle (foreign invaders wishing to adopt the old civilisation but adding their own contribution).

This is why we see a sort of progressive displacement of the centre of gravity of western Eurasian civilisation from southern Mesopotamia to northern Mesopotamia to Anatolia to Greece to Italy to Frankia (France-Low Countries-Germany) to Britain to America. That's just the effect of civilisation being constantly adopted and improved by neighbours on the scale of centuries. It's not the same people. There is almost no genetic heredity, except for the intermarriages between neighbours or the conquest of the old civ by the new civ. It's mostly ideas spreading. That's why Western Civilisation can be said to have its roots in Mesopotamia, even if modern Westerners have little to do with ancient Sumerians.

I am surprised that I have to explain this to veteran members. That's the kind of thing that is part of compulsory education in secondary school in Belgium and many other European countries.

halfalp
29-01-17, 19:30
I'm pretty sure, that in all europe history in secondary school is all about shoah and shoah, at least between 90's, never had anything on ancient civilizations, apart greek or roman mythology and little vulgarization of this and that. I'm Swiss, but i'm pretty sure this is more accurate in France or Belgium.

Angela
29-01-17, 19:57
@Maciamo,
I agree with virtually everything you've written in your last posts. The exception is this:

"Have you not read what I wrote? For me, civilisations arose c. 4000 BCE with the first cities in Mesopotamia. That's 5,500 years after agriculture started in the Fertile Crescent. The two aren't connected. It's probably just a coincidence that both arose exactly in the same region. "

It's by no means a coincidence. There are no large cities, no specialization of labor, without the surplus created by agriculture. It's a progression.

For the rest, I agree.

MOESAN
31-01-17, 15:01
rather agree with Angela on this point, even if it's reasoning not proof -

Angela
31-01-17, 16:55
To be clear, I'm not claiming any kind of original insight here. This is what is taught in every standard course on "western civilization" or ancient history in the U.S. from high school to university. It's also the consensus among archaeologists world wide from what I can tell.

See:
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/big-history-project/agriculture-civilization

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Human_Legacy_Course/Foundations_of_Civilization

Click on the Spielvogel paper at the following link:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=agriculture+as+the+basis+for+specialization+of +labor+and+the+growth+of+cities