PDA

View Full Version : R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 in the Bronze Age Levant (16th century BC)



Shahmiri
03-06-20, 08:07
I think these are very important, so it is better that we talk about them in a separate thread.

They have been found near Megiddo and it is believed they came from Zagros and/or South of Caucasus, so they could be Aryans. We can read about these things in different books, like this one:

The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East, page 60:

http://uupload.ir/files/zgf6_aryan.jpg

Shahmiri
03-06-20, 10:53
It seems the puzzle is being assembled, R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 are actually the main Proto-Indo-European haplogroups, other than Indo-Iranians, we also read about other Indo-Euroepan people:


"Who We Are and How We Got Here", by David Reich:



Ancient DNA available from this time in Anatolia shows no evidence of steppe ancestry similar to that in the Yamnaya. This suggests to me that the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia.


"Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans", by Lazaridis et al:



We show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean, and most of the remainder from ancient populations like those of the Caucasus and Iran.
Note that a combination of EHG-related and Iran-related ancestry also existed on the Eurasian steppe in roughly equal proportions. However, we cannot model Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and steppe populations (Table S2.13). This is due to the fact that Mycenaeans have more Iran-related than EHG-related ancestry (Table S2.2).


"The Arrival of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western Mediterranean", by Fernandes, Mittnik, Olalde et al.:



In Sicily, steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived by ~2200 BC, in part from Iberia; Iranian-related ancestry arrived by the mid-second millennium BC, contemporary to its previously documented spread to the Aegean; and there was large-scale population replacement after the Bronze Age.

Maciamo
03-06-20, 12:34
Without knowing the deep clade, R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 could have come from almost anywhere: straight from the Steppe, from the Balkans, from Central Asia, from Iran...

Fortunately we have other clues from mtDNA from Tell Megiddo.

- T2b7: was found in Bell Beaker Hungary and England, and in Bronze Age Poland and Bulgaria. Nowadays it is present in found in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland and Italy.

- U2e1b (2 samples): the parent clade U2e1 was U2e1 found in Mesolithic Sweden, Estonia and Latvia, in Neolithic Ukraine, in Bell Beaker Czechia, in the Corded Ware and Unetice cultures, and in EBA Alsace. U2e1b was also present in Early Bronze Age England.

All these are clearly European maternal lineages, and all three were found among the R1b Bell Beakers and in Bronze Age Central and Western Europe. But none were found among Steppe populations or among Indo-Iranians. So it looks like there was a migration of Indo-Europeans from Europe itself to Israel during the Bronze Age.

Nevertheless it looks like it was not a direct migration from Europe as they are not purely European autosomally. They had previously mixed with a population carrying Y-haplogroup J1a2b as the above mtDNA samples have this Y-DNA. The R1b-M269 guy had mtDNA J2a2a2, which is also found in Italy and Turkey today. So my best guess, considering the period, is that those foreigners in Israel were Proto-Armenians who had originally come from the Balkans (R1a + R1b) and mixed with the J1a, J2a and E1b1b population of the South Caucasus, before launching an invasion of the Levant until Tell Megiddo.

Anfänger
03-06-20, 15:49
Shahmiri i have to apologize :) I just jumped over these outliers because the paper doesn't mention any steppe in them but connected them to the Caucasus. So my assumption was that they were the same people from earlier periods with more Caucasus ancestry.




Without knowing the deep clade, R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 could have come from almost anywhere: straight from the Steppe, from the Balkans, from Central Asia, from Iran...
Fortunately we have other clues from mtDNA from Tell Megiddo.
- T2b7: was found in Bell Beaker Hungary and England, and in Bronze Age Poland and Bulgaria. Nowadays it is present in found in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland and Italy.
- U2e1b (2 samples): the parent clade U2e1 was U2e1 found in Mesolithic Sweden, Estonia and Latvia, in Neolithic Ukraine, in Bell Beaker Czechia, in the Corded Ware and Unetice cultures, and in EBA Alsace. U2e1b was also present in Early Bronze Age England.
All these are clearly European maternal lineages, and all three were found among the R1b Bell Beakers and in Bronze Age Central and Western Europe. But none were found among Steppe populations or among Indo-Iranians. So it looks like there was a migration of Indo-Europeans from Europe itself to Israel during the Bronze Age.
Nevertheless it looks like it was not a direct migration from Europe as they are not purely European autosomally. They had previously mixed with a population carrying Y-haplogroup J1a2b as the above mtDNA samples have this Y-DNA. The R1b-M269 guy had mtDNA J2a2a2, which is also found in Italy and Turkey today. So my best guess, considering the period, is that those foreigners in Israel were Proto-Armenians who had originally come from the Balkans (R1a + R1b) and mixed with the J1a, J2a and E1b1b population of the South Caucasus, before launching an invasion of the Levant until Tell Megiddo.

I think the R1a guy will be interesting but maybe you know more Maciamo.
This is as precise as I could find:

I10768 Megiddo_MLBA 1600-1500 BCE R1b1a1a2
I2189 Megiddo_MLBA 1600-1500 BCE R1a1a1b2e1:F17329-

For the brothers also : I2189 Megiddo_MLBA_family4 R1a1a1:F3551/V8042/PF6231 (Thanks to kingjohn :good_job: )

The three Megiddo outliers with 25%-35% Steppe are :
I2189(R1a guy) and I2220 (brother and sister), I10100

These outliers have good chunk of steppe but later samples from the region have barely any steppe.

Shahmiri
03-06-20, 16:21
Without knowing the deep clade, R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 could have come from almost anywhere: straight from the Steppe, from the Balkans, from Central Asia, from Iran...
Fortunately we have other clues from mtDNA from Tell Megiddo.
- T2b7: was found in Bell Beaker Hungary and England, and in Bronze Age Poland and Bulgaria. Nowadays it is present in found in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland and Italy.
- U2e1b (2 samples): the parent clade U2e1 was U2e1 found in Mesolithic Sweden, Estonia and Latvia, in Neolithic Ukraine, in Bell Beaker Czechia, in the Corded Ware and Unetice cultures, and in EBA Alsace. U2e1b was also present in Early Bronze Age England.
All these are clearly European maternal lineages, and all three were found among the R1b Bell Beakers and in Bronze Age Central and Western Europe. But none were found among Steppe populations or among Indo-Iranians. So it looks like there was a migration of Indo-Europeans from Europe itself to Israel during the Bronze Age.
Nevertheless it looks like it was not a direct migration from Europe as they are not purely European autosomally. They had previously mixed with a population carrying Y-haplogroup J1a2b as the above mtDNA samples have this Y-DNA. The R1b-M269 guy had mtDNA J2a2a2, which is also found in Italy and Turkey today. So my best guess, considering the period, is that those foreigners in Israel were Proto-Armenians who had originally come from the Balkans (R1a + R1b) and mixed with the J1a, J2a and E1b1b population of the South Caucasus, before launching an invasion of the Levant until Tell Megiddo.

"U2e1b was also present in Early Bronze Age England." It reminds me of this article: https://www.haaretz.com/1.5206214


Morbid Theory in Mystery of Israel's Answer to Stonehenge

Archaeologist Rami Arav links structure of concentric stone circles in the Golan Heights, known as Rujm al-Hiri in Arabic and Galgal Refaim in Hebrew, to ancient method of disposing of the dead.
...
He also noticed a similarity to round, high-walled structures used by Zoroastrians in Iran and India, known as dokhmas or towers of silence. These are buildings used for a process known as excarnation or sky burial — the removal of flesh from corpses by vultures and other birds. The winged scavengers perch on the high circular walls, swoop in when the pallbearers depart and can pick a skeleton clean in a matter of hours.

There could be certainly some migrations or cultural influences from Europe to the Anatolia/Levant and then Iran/India in the ancient times, but I don't think that it related to Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Maciamo
03-06-20, 18:32
This is as precise as I could find:

I10768 Megiddo_MLBA 1600-1500 BCE R1b1a1a2
I2189 Megiddo_MLBA 1600-1500 BCE R1a1a1b2e1:F17329-

For the brothers also : I2189 Megiddo_MLBA_family4 R1a1a1:F3551/V8042/PF6231 (Thanks to kingjohn :good_job: )

The three Megiddo outliers with 25%-35% Steppe are :
I2189(R1a guy) and I2220 (brother and sister), I10100

These outliers have good chunk of steppe but later samples from the region have barely any steppe.


Excellent! Now we can work with something.

R1a-F17329 (aka YP1505) (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP1505/) is a subclade of Z93 that formed around 4000 years ago. It seems to be found chiefly in the Altay region. The FTDNA R1a project also has one YP1505 from Azerbaijan. Its parent clade, YP1506, is also found in Pakistani Punjab. So it looks definitely more Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian.

So that R1a could have come with the Mitanni, who are AFAIK the only Indo-Aryan people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_superstrate_in_Mitanni) who invaded the region in the 16th century BCE, establishing a state around what is now Kurdistan from c. 1500 BCE.

I spoke too fast about the Proto-Armenians. They only arrived around Armenia c. 1200 BCE, so the Megiddo samples are a bit too old to be compatible.

As for the mtDNA correspondance, I am not aware of the presence of T2b7 and U2e1b in Russia/Siberia, Central Asia, Iran, Pakistan or India that could corroborate the Indo-Aryan hypothesis. However both were found in R1a-associated Indo-European cultures, such as the Corded Ware and Bronze Age Poland and Bulgaria, so it's definitely possible that they were found among Indo-Aryans.

Maciamo
03-06-20, 18:39
"U2e1b was also present in Early Bronze Age England." It reminds me of this article: https://www.haaretz.com/1.5206214

There could be certainly some migrations or cultural influences from Europe to the Anatolia/Levant and then Iran/India in the ancient times, but I don't think that it related to Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Stonehenge was part of the Megalithic culture of Atlantic Europe, which was developed by Neolithic farmers (and some contemporary Mesolithic HG in the British Isles before they adopted farming themselves). U2a1b was not found in any of these populations. It arrived with the R1b Steppe people who put an end to the Megalithic culture. So no link.

Shahmiri
03-06-20, 19:49
Stonehenge was part of the Megalithic culture of Atlantic Europe, which was developed by Neolithic farmers (and some contemporary Mesolithic HG in the British Isles before they adopted farming themselves). U2a1b was not found in any of these populations. It arrived with the R1b Steppe people who put an end to the Megalithic culture. So no link.

U2e1b: formed 9900 ybp, TMRCA 7500 ybp (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/U2e1b/)

About Stonehenge: Archaeologists believe it was constructed from 3000 BC to 2000 BC. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge)

I think both of them don't relate to Indo-Europeans.

Maciamo
03-06-20, 20:28
U2e1b: formed 9900 ybp, TMRCA 7500 ybp (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/U2e1b/)
About Stonehenge: Archaeologists believe it was constructed from 3000 BC to 2000 BC. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge)
I think both of them don't relate to Indo-Europeans.

U2e1b originate in Northeast Europe during the Mesolithic. As mentioned above, it was found in Mesolithic Sweden, Estonia and Latvia, as well as in Neolithic Ukraine, where it was later absorbed by Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Shahmiri
03-06-20, 23:48
U2e1b originate in Northeast Europe during the Mesolithic. As mentioned above, it was found in Mesolithic Sweden, Estonia and Latvia, as well as in Neolithic Ukraine, where it was later absorbed by Proto-Indo-Europeans.

U2e1b has been also found in the Caucasus (2867-2581 BC), The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus (https://adnaera.com/2018/05/21/the-genetic-prehistory-of-the-greater-caucasus-preprint-a-few-answers-and-many-questions/), so it also points to a migration from Zagros and/or Caucasus.

Shahmiri
04-06-20, 00:20
Shahmiri i have to apologize :) I just jumped over these outliers because the paper doesn't mention any steppe in them but connected them to the Caucasus. So my assumption was that they were the same people from earlier periods with more Caucasus ancestry.

I think the R1a guy will be interesting but maybe you know more Maciamo.
This is as precise as I could find:

I10768 Megiddo_MLBA 1600-1500 BCE R1b1a1a2
I2189 Megiddo_MLBA 1600-1500 BCE R1a1a1b2e1:F17329-

For the brothers also : I2189 Megiddo_MLBA_family4 R1a1a1:F3551/V8042/PF6231 (Thanks to kingjohn :good_job: )

The three Megiddo outliers with 25%-35% Steppe are :
I2189(R1a guy) and I2220 (brother and sister), I10100

These outliers have good chunk of steppe but later samples from the region have barely any steppe.





Would you please show your source about R1a1a1b2e1?! I don't know what you want to prove.

Anfänger
04-06-20, 11:27
Would you please show your source about R1a1a1b2e1?! I don't know what you want to prove.

People on another forum tested him. I want to prove nothing, i don't know why this bothers you. Here you have a Indoiranian(IndoAryan) in the Levant, like you was looking for. This was your assumption not mine.

Maciamo
04-06-20, 11:35
U2e1b has been also found in the Caucasus (2867-2581 BC), The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus (https://adnaera.com/2018/05/21/the-genetic-prehistory-of-the-greater-caucasus-preprint-a-few-answers-and-many-questions/), so it also points to a migration from Zagros and/or Caucasus.

I suppose you meant a migration to the Caucasus/Zagros since the European samples are much older.

Shahmiri
04-06-20, 12:12
People on another forum tested him. I want to prove nothing, i don't know why this bothers you. Here you have a Indoiranian(IndoAryan) in the Levant, like you was looking for. This was your assumption not mine.

How did they test him?! Iran is the source, not the destination, R1a-M417 is a subclade of R1a-M17 which has the highest frequency in Iran, especially among Kurds.

Shahmiri
04-06-20, 12:37
I suppose you meant a migration to the Caucasus/Zagros since the European samples are much older.

Yes, from Europe to the Caucasus/Zagros and from there to the Levant but the European one dates back to almost 10,000 years ago, so it didn't relate to Indo-Europeans.

Maciamo
04-06-20, 15:01
Yes, from Europe to the Caucasus/Zagros and from there to the Levant but the European one dates back to almost 10,000 years ago, so it didn't relate to Indo-Europeans.

The Indo-Europeans didn't emerge as an ethnic group until about 5500 years ago. But they didn't appear out of nowhere. They were a merger of populations and their ancestors included Mesolithic/Neolithic Northeast Europeans - among which we find U2e1b.

Shahmiri
04-06-20, 16:53
The Indo-Europeans didn't emerge as an ethnic group until about 5500 years ago. But they didn't appear out of nowhere. They were a merger of populations and their ancestors included Mesolithic/Neolithic Northeast Europeans - among which we find U2e1b.

Northeast European one seems to be Uralic culture, not Indo-European. Of course some scholars talk about a common Indo-Uralic origin but about Proto-Indo-European there was also a Semitic adstrate, as I see most of scolars already believe in a Proto-Indo-European homeland in the south of Caucasus.

Philjames100
09-06-20, 05:33
Might be the Hyksos?


look at this map, showing the distribution of chariot bits: i-dot-imgur-dot-com/i5dOvMH-dot-png

fits perfectly.


I can't post the image or link because of the restrictions on this site, which are apparently designed to discourage new people from joining.

Shahmiri
09-06-20, 06:56
Might be the Hyksos?


look at this map, showing the distribution of chariot bits: i-dot-imgur-dot-com/i5dOvMH-dot-png

fits perfectly.


I can't post the image or link because of the restrictions on this site, which are apparently designed to discourage new people from joining.

Yes, I mentioned Hyksos in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/40037-The-Genomic-History-of-the-Bronze-Age-Southern-Levant-(Agranat-Tamir-et-al-2020)/page2?p=604722&viewfull=1#post604722 & https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/40037-The-Genomic-History-of-the-Bronze-Age-Southern-Levant-(Agranat-Tamir-et-al-2020)?p=604680&viewfull=1#post604680

Linguists believe the Sumerian word for "chariot" (gigir) has an Indo-European origin, from Proto-Indo-European *kʷikʷlos "wheel", this word has been mentioned in the Sumerian texts in Girsu (south of modern Iraq) from 2,500 BC. It is also believed that the name of Kiklipatalish, one of Tukri kings who conquered Elam in 2,300 BC has a Tocharian origin with the meaning of charioteer. Name of Kikkuli, author of a chariot horse training text in the Hittite language, has a similar origin too.

Philjames100
09-06-20, 14:34
It is also believed that the name of Kiklipatalish, one of Tukri kings who conquered Elam in 2,300 BC has a Tocharian origin with the meaning of charioteer.

Interesting. What's the evidence for that?

Philjames100
09-06-20, 15:02
From the Agranat-Tamir paper:

"The two outliers from Megiddo (three including the sibling pair) provide additional evidence for the timing and origin of gene flow into the region. ... The reason these individuals are distinct from the rest is that their Caucasus- or Zagros-related genetic component is much higher, reflecting ongoing gene flow into the region from the northeast. The Neolithic Levant component is 22%–27% in I2200, and 9%–26% in I10100. These individuals are unlikely to be first generation migrants, as strontium isotope analysis on the two outlier siblings (I2189 and I2200) suggests that they were raised locally. This implies that the Megiddo outliers might be descendants of people who arrived in recent generations. Direct support for this hypothesis comes from the fact that in sensitive qpAdm modeling (including closely related sets of outgroups), the only working northeast source population for these two individuals is the contemporaneous Armenia_MLBA..."

(The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant, 2020)

Angela
09-06-20, 17:12
^^That isn't good enough for some people. They want to create elaborate, speculative stories.

Shahmiri
10-06-20, 05:49
Interesting. What's the evidence for that?

Iranian geneticists, like Dr. Maziar Ashrafian Bonab, have found R1a-M17 in Elam which dates back to at least 2,000 BC, also one sample in Tepe Sialk of Kashan (Central Iran) from 4,000 BC: https://www.virascience.com/thesis/515891/

Philjames100
10-06-20, 09:34
What about the Tocharian thing?

Philjames100
10-06-20, 09:34
^^That isn't good enough for some people. They want to create elaborate, speculative stories.

There's more to it than that though..

Ygorcs
10-06-20, 10:38
16th century B.C. sampels in the Levant is just way too late to matter in the PIE discussion. If steppe admixture arrived there by that time we should be talking of Mycenaean Greeks, Indo-Aryans, Indo-Iranians, Proto-Armenians, Hittites. The Balkans, Armenia, Iberia and Italy as south as Sicily already had steppe ancestry since any centuries before. We're very far from the time of a "IE homeland". The most likely candidates for a presence in the Levant in the 16th century B.C. IMO are the Mitanni (and related Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian groups starting to expand and settle in parts of West Asia, including Iran) and perhaps whoever lived in BA Armenia (could they really be Proto-Armenians hidden in the historical record until the IA? I don't know, that'd be bizarre).

Actually, even 2300-2500 B.C. is too late for PIE, the common language had almost certainly started splitting more than 1,000 years earlier (first between Anatolian and Late PIE), and by 2500 B.C it was already a small Indo-European family of closely related but no so similar languages. PIE (including Anatolian) was probably spoken in the Early Copper Age, around or even before 6,000 years ago. Sumerians' written texts were novel compared to that. Steppe populations' admixture may have already diffused southward as early as the Late Copper Age or at the very early part of the Bronze Age. Besides, Sumerians are known to have had a very long and wide sphere of international contacts (trade and perhaps some cultural exchange, too). So, by 2500-2300 B.C. we could be seeing Sumerians and intermediaries between Sumerians and other peoples getting a word from Indo-European-speaking groups, but not PIE people themselves.

Ygorcs
10-06-20, 10:39
Northeast European one seems to be Uralic culture, not Indo-European. Of course some scholars talk about a common Indo-Uralic origin but about Proto-Indo-European there was also a Semitic adstrate, as I see most of scolars already believe in a Proto-Indo-European homeland in the south of Caucasus.

Do you really think the entirety of Northeastern Europe was uniformly Uralic as far back as 5,000-7,000 years ago? Ancient lands, especially in places that hadn't seen the massive expansion of a few farming populations yet, were far more diverse than most moderns realize.

Shahmiri
10-06-20, 11:24
What about the Tocharian thing?

This theory that Tocharians were the same Tukri in Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian and Elamite sources was first proposed by Walter Henning. The name of Tocharian is believed to be from proto-Iranian Tuxri, so the original name could be Tukri, "k" has been changed to "x" in the proto-Iranian because it is in a consonant cluster.
Of course ancient Tuxri people who lived in Takhar province of Afghanistan in the 2nd century BC were probably an Iranian-speaking people but it seems to be possible that their original language was Tocharian and their original land was in the west of Afghanistan (Iran).

Philjames100
10-06-20, 12:01
Analysis by Eurogenes from 2019:


"A couple of months ago I suggested that populations associated with the Early to Middle Bronze Age (EMBA) Catacomb culture were the vector for the spread of steppe ancestry into what is now Armenia during the MLBA. After taking a closer look at the Lchashen Metsamor samples, I now think that the peoples of the Sintashta and related cultures were also important in this process. If so, they may have moved from the steppe into Transcaucasia both from the west via the Balkans and the east via Central Asia, and brought with them spoked-wheel chariots. I don't have a clue what language they spoke, but I'm guessing that it may have been something Indo-European."

Armenia_MBA_Lchashen
Kura-Araxes_Kaps 0.788±0.043
Sintashta_MLBA 0.212±0.043
chisq 14.871
tail prob 0.315451


‘Early chariot riders of Transcaucasia came from…’ (Thursday, April 18, 2019) (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/04/early-chariot-drivers-of-transcaucasia.html)

Philjames100
10-06-20, 12:07
Eurogenes again (2016):

"Armenia_EBA or Kura-Araxes shows strong affinity to Caucasus populations, particularly those from the Northeast Caucasus. This is very cool, and it makes a lot of sense, because historical linguists and archaeologists generally consider Kura-Araxes people to have been early speakers of Hurrian, an ancient language thought to be closely related to present-day Northeast Caucasian languages.

But what's going on with Armenia_MLBA? I really didn't expect to see Latvians and Swedes sitting near the top of this graph. Clearly, someone from the north, closely related to present-day people from around the Baltic Sea, moved into the Armenian Plateau during or just before the Middle Bronze Age. But who were they?

I don't have a clue, but f4-stats suggest that they may have also been closely related to the Sintashta people of the Middle Bronze Age Ural steppes, who do appear very Northern European in terms of genome-wide genetic structure. The time frame fits, so does the expansive and militaristic nature of the Sintashta Culture."


Armenia_MLBA
Armenia_EBA 0.799±0.069
Sintashta 0.201±0.069

chisq 7.181 tail prob 0.618257


‘Hurrians and the others’ (Tuesday, October 4, 2016) (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/10/hurrians-and-others.html)

Philjames100
10-06-20, 12:28
In 2019 Eurogenes also looked at an individual buried at Tel Shaddud in Israel (near Megiddo), dated to c.1250 BC, who was found to have R1b-M269.

First a description of the individual:

"A Canaanite individual from a clay coffin burial in Tel Shaddud (ca.1250 BC), reported as of hg. R1b1a1b-M269, has been interpreted as a Canaanite official residing at this site and emulating selected funerary aspects of Egyptian mortuary culture, apparently connected to the administrative centre at Bet Sheʽan during the 19th and 20th Dynasties." p.195 (https://indo-european.info/game-clans-clash-chiefs.pdf) / Link 2 (https://www.docdroid.net/aOxmq6A/tel-shaddud-pdf)

Eurogenes:

“Surprisingly, individual I2062 is listed in the anno files as belonging to Y-haplogroup R1b1a1a2, which is also known as R1b-M269. The reason that this is a surprise to me is because R1b-M269 is closely associated with the Bronze Age expansions of pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe … intriguingly, his autosomes do show a subtle signal of Yamnaya-related ancestry from the Pontic-Caspian steppe that is missing in earlier ancients from the Levant. …

Samples associated with the Kura-Araxes or Early Transcaucasian culture are particularly strong references for the eastern ancestry in I2062. This probably isn't a coincidence, and it might also explain his Y-haplogroup, because, at its maximum extent, the territory occupied by the Kura-Araxes culture stretched all the way from the Pontic-Caspian steppe to the southern Levant.”

'R1b-M269 in the Bronze Age Levant’ (Monday, April 22, 2019) (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/04/r1b-m269-in-bronze-age-levant.html)

Philjames100
10-06-20, 12:43
Map posted with the above article:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-duJlUo8KqR4/XMAM3b3WX9I/AAAAAAAAHwQ/eYGp2naTN2MZIzl5Zm9fh6QJDZ4HILdCwCLcBGAs/s1600/Kura-Araxes_Early_Transcaucasian_phenomenon.jpg

ETC = Early Transcaucasian culture / Kura-Araxes culture

https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2014_num_40_2_5643

Shahmiri
10-06-20, 13:03
16th century B.C. sampels in the Levant is just way too late to matter in the PIE discussion. If steppe admixture arrived there by that time we should be talking of Mycenaean Greeks, Indo-Aryans, Indo-Iranians, Proto-Armenians, Hittites. The Balkans, Armenia, Iberia and Italy as south as Sicily already had steppe ancestry since any centuries before. We're very far from the time of a "IE homeland". The most likely candidates for a presence in the Levant in the 16th century B.C. IMO are the Mitanni (and related Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian groups starting to expand and settle in parts of West Asia, including Iran) and perhaps whoever lived in BA Armenia (could they really be Proto-Armenians hidden in the historical record until the IA? I don't know, that'd be bizarre).

Actually, even 2300-2500 B.C. is too late for PIE, the common language had almost certainly started splitting more than 1,000 years earlier (first between Anatolian and Late PIE), and by 2500 B.C it was already a small Indo-European family of closely related but no so similar languages. PIE (including Anatolian) was probably spoken in the Early Copper Age, around or even before 6,000 years ago. Sumerians' written texts were novel compared to that. Steppe populations' admixture may have already diffused southward as early as the Late Copper Age or at the very early part of the Bronze Age. Besides, Sumerians are known to have had a very long and wide sphere of international contacts (trade and perhaps some cultural exchange, too). So, by 2500-2300 B.C. we could be seeing Sumerians and intermediaries between Sumerians and other peoples getting a word from Indo-European-speaking groups, but not PIE people themselves.

It really doesn't matter that some people in the Europe or other lands had steppe ancestry before 1,600 BC or even 16,000 BC, the earliest known Indo-Europeans were those who lived in the west Asia, not Iberia or Sicily. Proto-Indo-European is just a hypothetical language, what we know about real Indo-European languages can not be traced back to even 1600 BC, what about 6,000 years ago!

R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 have been found in the same region and the same period where the earliest known Indo-Europeans lived and geneticists believe these haplogroups relate to the origins of Proto-Indo-Europeans. If you want to find older origins, you should search in the same region a few centuries earlier.

Philjames100
10-06-20, 13:37
This is the map that I wanted to post earlier:


http://i.imgur.com/NpKFIJO.jpg (https://imgur.com/NpKFIJO)
https://imgur.com/NpKFIJO

Kristiansen 2011 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333121533_Bridging_India_and_Scandinavia_Instituti onal_Transmission_and_Elite_Conquest_during_the_Br onze_Age)

Philjames100
10-06-20, 14:02
On the map above, the large circles are known as 'Hyksos bits'. They continue further south into Gaza, not shown on the map. The cluster of five large circles is right on top of Armenia.

The map suggests a movement southwards through the Caucasus. This fits with the 'steppe DNA' seen in Armenia MLBA.

Notice the connection to Greece. There appear to be at least two movements into Greece, one from the steppe (or forest-steppe) and the Balkans, and one originating from the direction of the Caucasus (possibly via the Levant or Anatolia). The Hyksos bits also appear on Cyprus.

http://i.imgur.com/9qIruOD.png (https://imgur.com/9qIruOD)

(Tel el-Ajjul is in Gaza)

Raulwing 2009 (https://www.academia.edu/3039205/The_Buhen_Horse_Fifty_Years_after_Its_Discovery_19 58_2008_)

Riverman
10-06-20, 23:10
No doubt the expansion of Sintashta and chariots is directly related to the timing of the appearance of this steppe haplogroups and ancestry. There might have been a North Carpathian influence working directly on Sintashta and what we see in the Aegaen is essentially the result of a pincer movement by two branches of the original chariot complex.

Ygorcs
11-06-20, 00:14
the earliest known Indo-Europeans were those who lived in the west Asia, not Iberia or Sicily. Proto-Indo-European is just a hypothetical language, what we know about real Indo-European languages can not be traced back to even 1600 BC, what about 6,000 years ago!

You're mistaking earliest known Indo-Europeans with earliest peoples with writing. Besides, Mycenaean Greek in Southeastern Europe is attested in writing basically as early as Hittite and little clues of Mitanni Aryan.

The PIE reconstruction is just a hypothetical language that is just an approximation of the real language that must've existed, but the common linguistic origin and genealogical relationship between all known IE languages is a very solidly established scientific theory. And by 1500-1600 B.C. they were already diverged since so long ago that they were as dramatically different as Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Vedic Sanskrit show.


R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 have been found in the same region and the same period where the earliest known Indo-Europeans lived and geneticists believe these haplogroups relate to the origins of Proto-Indo-Europeans. If you want to find older origins, you should search in the same region a few centuries earlier.
Sources in published studies? The earliest R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 in Northeastern Europe date to before 6000 years ago. The first R1a-M17 and R1b-L23 (which is the actual clade related directly and strongly to the Indo-European expansion, not M269 as a whole) are also found in North Eurasia, including Northwest Eurasia (Europe), and the first R1b was found in Central-Southern Europe (Villabruna Cluster).

Are there really aDNA samples in West Asia older than 5000-6000 years ago belonging to R1b-L23 and R1a-M417? Where?

kmak
11-06-20, 09:38
If Proto-Indo-European language is from branch of R1b(Y-DNA). R1a1a(Y-DNA) languages is Para-Proto-Indo-European?

kmak
11-06-20, 09:38
Original languages of R1a is Para-Proto-Indo-European?

Riverman
11-06-20, 14:04
Original languages of R1a is Para-Proto-Indo-European?

There were most likely related, maybe you can call them Para-Proto-Indo-European, dialects all over Eastern Europe, spoken by R1a and R1b people, including some other haplotypes. The more strict division between R1a and R1b and the exclusion of other lineages is mainly the result of a later founding effect and small scale regional developments, which just got big because some of these small groups exploded demographically later and came to the successful expansion we know of later. Real Pre-Proto-Indo-European was most likely spoken in the Lower Don Culture, this might have been shared with Yamnaya still, but real PIE developed on the Western steppe within Sredny Stog Culture I'd say.

Philjames100
11-06-20, 14:08
No doubt the expansion of Sintashta and chariots is directly related to the timing of the appearance of this steppe haplogroups and ancestry. There might have been a North Carpathian influence working directly on Sintashta and what we see in the Aegaen is essentially the result of a pincer movement by two branches of the original chariot complex.

I don't know if it was specifically Sintashta in this case or a closely related population, but yes I agree. There also appears to be a contribution from the Catacomb culture. Catacomb seems to have also played a role in the development of chariots, as they had two-wheeled proto-chariot type vehicles with solid wheels, possibly a precursor to the later chariots found in Sintashta:


"In the Black Sea region, the Pit Grave (Yamnaya) period was followed by the Katakombnaya (Catacomb) culture (cal. 2700–1900 BC (Chernykh 2008)), which continued and improved upon the technological innovations of pre-existing people (Kiyashko 2002), including bronze metallurgy and utilization of four-wheeled wagons. To the east, the Pit Grave gave way to the cemeteries of the Poltavka archaeological culture (c. 2700–2100 BC), which occupied the Volga–Ural interfluve (Tkachev 2006; Kiyashko and Sukhorukova 2012). (...) Elaborate burials of the Catacomb culture, especially with wagons and carts, are interpreted as those of high-status people, possibly chiefs and warlords of local communities (Cherednichenko and Pustovalov 1991). At the beginning of this period, the first two-wheeled vehicles in the steppes appeared and were buried in the cemeteries of Tyagunova Mogila (Cherednichenko and Pustovalov 1991; Pustovalov 2008) and Bolshoi Ipatovskyi Kurgan (Korenevskiy et al. 2007), both in the Black Sea region. These carts have small (up to 60 cm diameter), single-piece disk wheels with an integral nave independently rotating on the axle. They can thus be seen as forerunners of an actual chariot, similar to those vehicles known in the Near East at this time. (…)

The site of Sintashta in the steppe zone of the Southern Trans-Urals (the eastern side of the Ural Mountains) was excavated in the 1970s and yielded abundant Bronze Age material, including unparalleled evidence of six vehicles buried in graves, each with two spoked wheels accompanied by cheekpieces and sacrificial horses. (…)

Subsequent archaeological investigations have expanded the area of the chariot complex to the whole Ural–Kazakhstan region, and probably more broadly to the forest-steppes of the Volga–Don interfluve. Evidence of chariots comes mainly from Sintashta sites (16 finds), Petrovka sites (9 finds), and from two Alakul’ sites in the southern Urals and northern Kazakhstan. There are three possible graves of the Abashevo–Pokrovka and Potapovo cultures in the Don–Volga region (Pichaevo kurgan, grave 2; Utevka cemetery, kurgan 6, graves 4 and 6). To date, there are 28 published cases (and at least two known unpublished cases) of chariots in mortuary ritual contexts. (…)

Chariot remains from the Middle and Late Bronze Age in the southern Urals are quite abundant compared with early chariot remains from other parts of the world, and allow statistical analysis. In contrast, only two wagons and one sledge were found in the Royal Cemetery of Ur (Woolley 1965), and only ten actual chariots and their parts are known from tombs of the New Kingdom of Egypt (1550–1069 BC) (Littauer and Crouwel 1985; James 1974; Herold 2006), with the rest of the information on the Near Eastern chariots coming in other forms. Two chariots and the wheels of a third were also found in the Lchashen Cemetery in Armenia (Yesayan 1960), dated to 1400–1300 BC (Pogrebova 2003, p. 397), and bronze models of chariots were found in the burial sites of neighboring Transcaucasia (Brileva 2012). Over one hundred chariots have been discovered in Shang period tombs in China, but none dates before 1200 BC (Wu 2013). (…)

The evidence presented and analyzed here shows that horse-drawn chariots were a development of the Eurasian Steppe, they were functional and heavily used, and they indicate significant social complexity. (…)

Anthony stated that chariots were invented in the southern Ural steppes (Anthony 2009, p. 62); however, it is important to underline the fact that the Sintashta–Petrovka two-wheelers represent already-developed technology, and do not have known local prototypes. Even the earliest types of shield-shaped cheekpieces have very developed attributes and demonstrate long-term preceding evolution. Since the whole Sintashta phenomenon was likely developed not in the Urals, but elsewhere (Vinogradov 2011), chariot technology also likely developed before the year 2000 BC in the Sintashta homeland, which is the Don–Volga interfuve. The reference point might be two-wheeled carts from the Catacomb culture, the Sintashta predecessor, dated to cal. 2400–2200 BC (Korenevskiy et al. 2007, p. 111; Pustovalov 2008). These might be the prototypes for the later Sintashta–Petrovka chariot complex. (…)

However, the periods contemporaneous with the Catacomb horizon and the early phases of Sintashta are the Early Dynastic III, where the Royal Tomb yielded four-wheeled wagons, and the Third Dynasty of Ur (Woolley 1934; Anthony 2009). The summed probability of six radiocarbon samples attributed to the Early Dynastic III period is cal. 2620–2200 BC (1 sigma) and fve dates for the Third Dynasty of Ur sum up to cal. 2440–2030 BC (1 sigma) (Hassan and Robinson 1987). The absence of evidence for chariots in the Near East at this time (Izbitser 2013) contrasts with ample archaeological evidence of actual chariots in Sintashta–Petrovka sites. Hence, the Sintashta fndings cannot be reminiscent of those from the Near East, as was suggested by Jones-Bley (2000, p. 139), and Genz (2013), since the chariot complex—evidenced by representations of equid-drawn vehicles with two spoked wheels (Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 1996)—was not known there until the early second millennium BC. The classic chariot complex, or a true battle chariot drawn by horses, did not appear in the Near East until the Hittite Empire and the Kingdom of Mitanni, c. 1600–1200 BC. (…)

Thus, the chariot complex is a complicated set of technologies, skills, and resources that first emerged in the zone of the Northern Eurasian steppes before 2000 BC in the context of complex but stateless societies. (…)

In conclusion, evidence provided by the study of the development of Bronze Age vehicles allows us to state that chariots were invented in Northern Eurasia before 2000 BC. The Sintashta–Petrovka fnds represent the earliest known spoke-wheeled chariots, whose forerunners are found in the burials of the Catacomb culture. Thus, they were invented in the context of the pre-Sintashta cultures and fully developed during the Sintashta period. The connection with the Near East is not quite clear as yet; however, the chariot complex as a chariot with two spoked wheels drawn by a pair of bitted horses did not appear there until the early second millennium BC, apparently associated with speakers of Indo-European languages (Raulwing 2009). (…)

Because of the great role played by horse chariots in the social and historical processes of the Middle and Late Bronze Age, the Sintashta–Petrovka chariot complex became a highly important feature of mortuary practices. The competition between collectives of military elites for resources, power and prestige brought to life the earliest horse-drawn chariots in the world.”

‘Eurasian Steppe Chariots and Social Complexity During the Bronze Age’ (Chechushkov and Epimakhov, 2018) (https://www.docdroid.net/JrWdmmx/chechushkov2018-pdf)


http://i.imgur.com/RRP1bfd.png (https://imgur.com/RRP1bfd)

^ Catacomb culture two-wheeled cart (https://indo-european.info/indo-europeans/vii_2_ponticcaspian_steppes-008p.htm)

Riverman
11-06-20, 14:25
The fun thing is that the chariot was much more useful in West Asia and Egypt than in most of Europe. Yet the impression left by the chariots even in regions with a worse terrain was tremendous. There are even speculations about the Unetice culture with its fabulous military organisation and king-like rulers might habe been destroyed or at least pushed to crumble and flee by Eastern intruders coming with chariots. Unetice crumbled around 1600-1500 BC and the Nordic Bronze Age started about 1700 BC and might have been strongly influenced by Unetice migration in my opinion, because it came almost "out of nothing".
The period of 1600 BC is important in many regions - for the same reason. The expansion of the Satem-speaking charioteers made an impression minimum as big as the Mongol invasions. With the difference that many regional people changed too by simply adopting the new technology and warfare and used it for their own expansions.


The Indo-Aryans split off around 1800 BCE to 1600 BCE from the Iranians,[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration#cite_note-FOOTNOTEAnthony2007408-11) whereafter the Indo-Aryans migrated into Anatolia and the northern part of the South Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia) (modern Afghanistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan), Bangladesh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh), India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India), Pakistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan) and Nepal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal)), while the Iranians moved into Iran, both bringing with them the Indo-Iranian languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranian_languages).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration

Its fairly easy to correlate many cultural changes and migrations between 2000-1300 with the spread of the charioteers:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Chariot_spread.png

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitwagen#/media/Datei:Chariot_spread.png

Philjames100
11-06-20, 14:32
The fun thing is that the chariot was much more useful in West Asia and Egypt than in most of Europe. Yet the impression left by the chariots even in regions with a worse terrain was tremendous. There are even speculations about the Unetice culture with its fabulous military organisation and king-like rulers might habe been destroyed or at least pushed to crumble and flee by Eastern intruders coming with chariots. Unetice crumbled around 1600-1500 BC and the Nordic Bronze Age started about 1700 BC and might have been strongly influenced by Unetice migration in my opinion, because it came almost "out of nothing".
The period of 1600 BC is important in many regions - for the same reason. The expansion of the Satem-speaking charioteers made an impression minimum as big as the Mongol invasions. With the difference that many regional people changed too by simply adopting the new technology and warfare and used it for their own expansions.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration

Its fairly easy to correlate many cultural changes and migrations between 2000-1300 with the spread of the charioteers:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Chariot_spread.png

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitwagen#/media/Datei:Chariot_spread.png

Some of the dates on that map are wrong, but otherwise I agree.

Philjames100
11-06-20, 15:26
There are even speculations about the Unetice culture with its fabulous military organisation and king-like rulers might habe been destroyed or at least pushed to crumble and flee by Eastern intruders coming with chariots. Unetice crumbled around 1600-1500 BC and the Nordic Bronze Age started about 1700 BC and might have been strongly influenced by Unetice migration in my opinion, because it came almost "out of nothing".

Here's another map:

http://i.imgur.com/iZeOnbZ.png (https://imgur.com/iZeOnbZ)

"The breakthrough of the Nordic Bronze Age (NBA) c.1600 BC as a koine within Bronze Age Europe can be historically linked to the Carpathian Basin. ... In a Carpathian crossroad between the Eurasian Steppes, the Aegean world and temperate Europe during this time, a transcultural assemblage coalesced, fusing both tangible and intangible innovations from various different places. ... In southern Scandinavia, weaponry radiated momentous creativity that drew upon Carpathian originals, contacts and a pool of Carpathian ideas, but ultimately drawing on emergent Mycenaean hegemonies in the Aegean."

Vandkilde 2014 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272312010_Breakthrough_of_the_Nordic_Bronze_Age_Tr anscultural_Warriorhood_and_a_Carpathian_Crossroad _in_the_Sixteenth_Century_BC)

Riverman
11-06-20, 15:48
"The breakthrough of the Nordic Bronze Age (NBA) c.1600 BC as a koine within Bronze Age Europe can be historically linked to the Carpathian Basin. ... In a Carpathian crossroad between the Eurasian Steppes, the Aegean world and temperate Europe during this time, a transcultural assemblage coalesced, fusing both tangible and intangible innovations from various different places. ... In southern Scandinavia, weaponry radiated momentous creativity that drew upon Carpathian originals, contacts and a pool of Carpathian ideas, but ultimately drawing on emergent Mycenaean hegemonies in the Aegean."

Vandkilde 2014 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272312010_Breakthrough_of_the_Nordic_Bronze_Age_Tr anscultural_Warriorhood_and_a_Carpathian_Crossroad _in_the_Sixteenth_Century_BC)

I'd say largely the same for Unetice. I guess people from Unetice fled West and North, obviously keeping, where possible, the the contacts to the Carpathians and further South. Its almost as if Unetice would have blocked the North from development before, and then, suddenly, that blockade was lifted and on the contrary everything came in. This is clearly related to the, however you explain it, decline and change in Unetice. I still think that its even possible that Pre-Proto-Germanic and haplogroup I1 came from Unetice to the North, during the formation of the Nordic Bronze Age. But let's see, that is another riddle to be solved by ancient DNA eventually.


By contrast,
connections with Central Europe are
culturally distinct from the onset of metalworking
traditions in Scandinavia. LN II
metalwork is specifically related to the
EBA nětice complex, and a strong
Central European orientation characterized
NBA IA as well as later periods.
From 1600 BC and throughout the NBA,
contact with remote Iberian and Aegean
communities is revealed in glimpses in the
Nordic cultural sphere

Philjames100
11-06-20, 15:55
Where's that quote from?

Riverman
11-06-20, 16:02
Where's that quote from?

From the paper you linked. Vandkilde p. 609.

Philjames100
11-06-20, 16:12
ha ha, doh!

Philjames100
11-06-20, 16:31
There's also evidence of an earlier movement into Greece (c.2200-2000 BC) related to the Bell Beaker culture:

“Bell Beaker margins include parts of Eastern Poland, Moldova, and Romania, as well as Malta in the south… Surprisingly perhaps, one can argue that these Beaker margins also reached as far as the Early Bronze Age core, Greece, Crete and the Aegean. This European south-east has only recently come into the focus of Beaker research (Heyd 2007; Maran 2007). Besides conspicuous pottery evidence mostly from Olympia, it is again the wristguards, and the ‘Montgomery toggles’ (as on duffle coats), that form the majority of the diagnostic Beaker elements. As a result of this recent interest, more wristguards, both the broader four-holed and the oblong-narrow two-holed, are now known from the Aegean than from the whole of Italy, for example. They almost all date to Early Helladic III levels (as does the pottery evidence from Olympia), thus after 2200 BC in absolute terms. This makes them late Beaker, as compared to the central and western European examples. the best explanation for their relatively late appearance lies with a migratory event, rightly described by Maran (e.g. 1998) as bringing Adriatic Cetina people incrementally to southern Greece for some decades from the transition of Early Helladic II to III. And since early Cetina is one of those syncretistic Bell Beaker cultures of its south-eastern periphery as shown above, this best explains the manifestation of these Bell Beaker elements deep in south-east Europe.” (p.63-64)

http://i.imgur.com/LJirgSx.png (https://imgur.com/LJirgSx)

http://i.imgur.com/9OEusEm.png (https://imgur.com/9OEusEm)

Heyd 2013 (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hefUAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=anatolian+red+slip+ware&source=bl&ots=gbPqawLxim&sig=mh_y_q8E5CS2vSJJ945QgDc1hiY&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Riverman
11-06-20, 16:40
Which could be associated with the spread of R1b plus E-V13 according to some (Cetina).

Philjames100
11-06-20, 16:48
Which could be associated with the spread of R1b plus E-V13 according to some (Cetina).

Sounds reasonable.

Shahmiri
11-06-20, 22:25
I really can't understand why some people still talk about the steppe theory of Indo-European origins, it is not R1a-Z94 but R1a-M417, it didn't come from the steppe but Zagros/Caucasus, according to Underhill et al., haplogroup R1a diversification occurred in Zagros/Caucasus, not the steppe.

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1488309302358.jpg

Philjames100
11-06-20, 22:55
Which could be associated with the spread of R1b plus E-V13 according to some (Cetina).

However,

"Most of the R1b found in Greece today is of the Balkanic Z2103 variety. There is also a minority of Proto-Celtic S116/P312 and of Italic/Alpine Celtic S28/U152. ...

The Mycenaeans might have brought some R1b (probably also Z2103) to Greece ... their origins can be traced back through archaeology to the Catacomb culture (https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/catacomb_culture.shtml) and the Seima-Turbino phenomenon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_Phenomenon) of the northern forest-steppe."

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Greco-Anatolian


Maciamo appears to have assumed that Catacomb was R1a, however it appears to have been dominated by R1b-Z2103.

And:

"Nowadays 30% of Armenians belong to haplogroup R1b, the vast majority to the L584 subclade of Z2103."

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Greco-Anatolian

Angela
11-06-20, 23:11
However,

"Most of the R1b found in Greece today is of the Balkanic Z2103 variety. There is also a minority of Proto-Celtic S116/P312 and of Italic/Alpine Celtic S28/U152. ...

The Mycenaeans might have brought some R1b (probably also Z2103) to Greece ... their origins can be traced back through archaeology to the Catacomb culture (https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/catacomb_culture.shtml) and the Seima-Turbino phenomenon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_Phenomenon) of the northern forest-steppe."

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Greco-Anatolian


Maciamo appears to have assumed that Catacomb was R1a, however it appears to have been dominated by R1b-Z2103.

And:

"Nowadays 30% of Armenian belong to haplogroup R1b, the vast majority to the L584 subclade of Z2103."

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Greco-Anatolian






I completely agree. That's always been my position, and I was, in fact, surprised that no Z2103 turned up among the Mycenaeans.

Philjames100
12-06-20, 02:39
I completely agree. That's always been my position, and I was, in fact, surprised that no Z2103 turned up among the Mycenaeans.

Well there's only one Mycenaean Y-DNA sample so far.

mtDNA U5a1 was found in an elite male from Grave Circle B at Mycenae, and is also found in Catacomb culture samples.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/05/mtdna-from-grave-circle-b-in-mycenae_07.html (2008)

Philjames100
12-06-20, 03:40
Actually the U5a1 was found in skeleton Z59, which was also analysed by J.L Angel in 1973. This is how he described the skeleton:


“Tomb Z: 59 Myc., represented by a fairly complete skeleton, was in his prime perhaps the most powerful of the champions. He is very tall and broad-shouldered, and thick boned, with large hands and feet. At the age of at least 49, probably older … The strikingly large, long ovoid, and high skull, with its marked muscle attachments, almost concave sidewalls, and long rectangular horse-like face is Nordic-Iranian in the Corded Nordic sense (like skulls found with cord-marked pottery from South Russia to Scandinavia). Large mouth, deep chin, vertical face profile, and notably high and narrow nose fit this picture. Noticeable depressions in the skull vault 2cm above the left eye and behind the left parietal boss are apparently results of heavy blows or wounds inflicted by a right-handed opponent.”


Angel 1973 p.3 (https://www.docdroid.net/WPUFSZZ/mycenae-skeletons-pdf)

Musgrave et al. 1995 (https://www.docdroid.net/FuSxMyY/musgrave1995-pdf)

bigsnake49
12-06-20, 17:18
As usual we need more Mycenean DNA, both autosomal and Y-DNA. There seems to be some differentiation among them and I would like to see where that leads. Is it just among the women?

Philjames100
12-06-20, 20:53
U2e1b has been also found in the Caucasus (2867-2581 BC), The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus (https://adnaera.com/2018/05/21/the-genetic-prehistory-of-the-greater-caucasus-preprint-a-few-answers-and-many-questions/), so it also points to a migration from Zagros and/or Caucasus.

That sample is listed as North Caucasus and part of the Steppe cluster, dated to c.2700 cal BCE. It's a male, his Y-DNA is R1b-Z2103.

It is sample GW1001 on map C:

http://i.imgur.com/ykzSuQF.png (https://imgur.com/ykzSuQF)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08220-8/figures/1

Angela
13-06-20, 00:07
As usual we need more Mycenean DNA, both autosomal and Y-DNA. There seems to be some differentiation among them and I would like to see where that leads. Is it just among the women?

I can't find it now, but you found the closest modern populations for each of the samples, with one being very Ashkenazi like all the way to one being almost Central Italian. You could try looking up which are men and which are women and see if there's a pattern.

bigsnake49
13-06-20, 02:04
I can't find it now, but you found the closest modern populations for each of the samples, with one being very Ashkenazi like all the way to one being almost Central Italian. You could try looking up which are men and which are women and see if there's a pattern.

There is only one Mycenean man. Not a lot you can extrapolate from one sample. We need a lot more samples. In my previous lives I designed statistical experiments for a hospital and I would not accept a sample size of under 25.

Philjames100
13-06-20, 02:12
The single Mycenaean male sample (in Lazaridis 2017) belonged to Y-DNA J2a1.

"The J2a1 sample tested is obviously an assimilated Minoan, so it doesn't shed any light on the patrilineal origins of Mycenaeans."

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page3?p=516172&viewfull=1#post516172

Shahmiri
13-06-20, 06:43
You're mistaking earliest known Indo-Europeans with earliest peoples with writing. Besides, Mycenaean Greek in Southeastern Europe is attested in writing basically as early as Hittite and little clues of Mitanni Aryan.

Mycenaeans also came from the same region (Caucasus/Iran), in fact all genetic evidences regarding ancient known Indo-European people indicate that they migrate from somewhere in the south of Caucasus and northwest of Iran from about 1600 BC.


The PIE reconstruction is just a hypothetical language that is just an approximation of the real language that must've existed, but the common linguistic origin and genealogical relationship between all known IE languages is a very solidly established scientific theory. And by 1500-1600 B.C. they were already diverged since so long ago that they were as dramatically different as Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Vedic Sanskrit show.

There are two possible cases, whether you believe the same Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Vedic Sanskrit speaking people lived in another land before 1500-1600 BC or they were original Indo-European people who migrated to Greece, Anatloia and India and then these languages appeared by the influence of local phonologies. Brazilian Portuguese was not created thousands years after the Portuguese migration to Brazil, there were certainly different Portuguese dialects in Portugal before 1600 AD but none of them was Brazilian Portuguese. I see no reason that we want to make these sound changes in Indo-European languages so complicated, all of them could happen in a short time after migrations to different lands, in the west Asia we see these divergences in Turkic languages about 1,000 years ago, so that an Azeri Turk already needs a translator to speak to a Turk in the east of Turkey.

Shahmiri
13-06-20, 09:13
Sources in published studies? The earliest R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 in Northeastern Europe date to before 6000 years ago. The first R1a-M17 and R1b-L23 (which is the actual clade related directly and strongly to the Indo-European expansion, not M269 as a whole) are also found in North Eurasia, including Northwest Eurasia (Europe), and the first R1b was found in Central-Southern Europe (Villabruna Cluster).

Are there really aDNA samples in West Asia older than 5000-6000 years ago belonging to R1b-L23 and R1a-M417? Where?

R1a-M17 and R1b-L23 have still a high frequency in Iran: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399854/ They certainly didn't come from the sky, I don't know why European geneticists never search for the DNA of ancient skeletons in Tepe Sialk and several other ancient sites in Iran, as I read about the origin of R1a and R1b, almost all genetic studies show that they originated in the West Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a), if you believe another thing, please show your sources. Of course there could be different migrations in different times from the West Asia to Europe but those who spoke Indo-European language didn't live 6,000 years ago.

The fact is that recent genetic studies never support the steppe theory of the Indo-European origin, it can be said that those who migrated from the West Asia with R1a and R1b haplogroups to Europe were not Indo-European but those who came back were IE people but R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 which should be in the steppe by this theory, are found in the Levant and we know they came from Zagros/Caucasus, not the steppe.

Maciamo
13-06-20, 13:41
I really can't understand why some people still talk about the steppe theory of Indo-European origins, it is not R1a-Z94 but R1a-M417, it didn't come from the steppe but Zagros/Caucasus, according to Underhill et al., haplogroup R1a diversification occurred in Zagros/Caucasus, not the steppe.

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1488309302358.jpg


This map is wrong. The oldest R1a-Z93 samples are from Russia, notably from the Srubna culture (https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/srubna_culture.shtml).

Maciamo
13-06-20, 14:02
Maciamo appears to have assumed that Catacomb was R1a, however it appears to have been dominated by R1b-Z2103.


That sample is listed as North Caucasus and part of the Steppe cluster, dated to c.2700 cal BCE. It's a male, his Y-DNA is R1b-Z2103.

It is sample GW1001 on map C:

http://i.imgur.com/ykzSuQF.png (https://imgur.com/ykzSuQF)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08220-8/figures/1

GW1001 is from the Maykop region. Although the Maykop culture ended circa 3000 BCE, the overlapping Novotitorovka culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novotitorovka_culture) lasted until 2700 BCE. So it's not clear whether that sample is from the Catacomb culture or not. In any case, AFAIK no other Catacomb culture Y-DNA has been tested/published, so it's too soon to assert that the Catacomb culture was predominantly R1b-Z2103. R1a-dominant cultures like the Corded Ware or Sintashta had a minority of R1b-Z2103 - just as in modern Slavic, Iranian and South Asian societies today. It will require a certain number of samples to get a better idea.

Shahmiri
13-06-20, 14:38
This map is wrong. The oldest R1a-Z93 samples are from Russia, notably from the Srubna culture (https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/srubna_culture.shtml).

I think you mean the oldest one which has been found so far, anyway it has been shown in Russia.

MOESAN
13-06-20, 19:22
Mycenaeans also came from the same region (Caucasus/Iran), in fact all genetic evidences regarding ancient known Indo-European people indicate that they migrate from somewhere in the south of Caucasus and northwest of Iran from about 1600 BC.



There are two possible cases, whether you believe the same Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Vedic Sanskrit speaking people lived in another land before 1500-1600 BC or they were original Indo-European people who migrated to Greece, Anatloia and India and then these languages appeared by the influence of local phonologies. Brazilian Portuguese was not created thousands years after the Portuguese migration to Brazil, there were certainly different Portuguese dialects in Portugal before 1600 AD but none of them was Brazilian Portuguese. I see no reason that we want to make these sound changes in Indo-European languages so complicated, all of them could happen in a short time after migrations to different lands, in the west Asia we see these divergences in Turkic languages about 1,000 years ago, so that an Azeri Turk already needs a translator to speak to a Turk in the east of Turkey.

Your remark is not stupid about languages changes, and we don't know if the evolution speed is constant and has the same speed towards every direction in its evolution process. But I bet that the differences between portuguese dialects in Brazil and Portugal are not of the same amplitude as the differences between Hittite, Vedic and Mycenian Greek...

Philjames100
13-06-20, 19:37
GW1001 is from the Maykop region. Although the Maykop culture ended circa 3000 BCE, the overlapping Novotitorovka culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novotitorovka_culture) lasted until 2700 BCE. So it's not clear whether that sample is from the Catacomb culture or not. In any case, AFAIK no other Catacomb culture Y-DNA has been tested/published, so it's too soon to assert that the Catacomb culture was predominantly R1b-Z2103. R1a-dominant cultures like the Corded Ware or Sintashta had a minority of R1b-Z2103 - just as in modern Slavic, Iranian and South Asian societies today. It will require a certain number of samples to get a better idea.

There are three 5 samples in that paper (Wang 2019) listed as belonging to the Catacomb culture, three are males, with Y-DNA R1b1a2. According to online sources (forum, blog) they are actually R1b-Z2103.

On the map they are RK4002, RK4001 and SA6003.

Dianatomia
13-06-20, 19:52
On the map above, the large circles are known as 'Hyksos bits'. They continue further south into Gaza, not shown on the map. The cluster of five large circles is right on top of Armenia.

The map suggests a movement southwards through the Caucasus. This fits with the 'steppe DNA' seen in Armenia MLBA.

Notice the connection to Greece. There appear to be at least two movements into Greece, one from the steppe (or forest-steppe) and the Balkans, and one originating from the direction of the Caucasus (possibly via the Levant or Anatolia). The Hyksos bits also appear on Cyprus.



(Tel el-Ajjul is in Gaza)

Raulwing 2009 (https://www.academia.edu/3039205/The_Buhen_Horse_Fifty_Years_after_Its_Discovery_19 58_2008_)

Why do you count out one single proto-Greek migration of people who have steppe as well as Caucasus admixture, through Anatolia? Why two waves of migrations? Historiography speaks of only one migration of proto-Hellenes into Greece during the Early Bronze Age, and the one more (Dorian) during the Iron Age.

Shahmiri
14-06-20, 06:30
Your remark is not stupid about languages changes, and we don't know if the evolution speed is constant and has the same speed towards every direction in its evolution process. But I bet that the differences between portuguese dialects in Brazil and Portugal are not of the same amplitude as the differences between Hittite, Vedic and Mycenian Greek...

The most important thing is phonology, in a small region in the northwest of Iran we see three different phonologies, it is very easy to guess that someone who speaks Persian in this region is an Azeri, Kurd or Armenian, because Azeris pronounce k as c (voiceless palatal stop) but Kurds usually pronounce it as kʷ (labialized velar) and Armenian as kʰ (aspirated velar).

http://uupload.ir/files/nful_greek_hittite_ii.jpg

kmak
14-06-20, 07:35
R1a and R1b languages descent from R1 language.

R1a1 language descent from R1a language.(this language continue)
R1a2 language descent from R1a language.(this language extinct)
R1a1a language descent from R1a1 language(this language continue)
R1a1b language descent from R1a1 language(this language extinct)
R1a1a1 language descent from R1a1a language(this language continue)
R1a1a2 language descent from R1a1a language(this language extinct)

R1b1 language descent from R1b language(this language continue)
R1b2 language descent from R1b language(this language extinct)
R1b1a language descent from R1b1 language(this language continue)
R1b1a1 language descent from R1b1a language(this language continue)
R1b1a2 language descent from R1b1a language(this language extinct)
R1b1a1a language descent from R1b1a1 language(this language continue)
R1b1a1a1 language descent from R1b1a1a language(this language extinct)
R1b1a1a2 language descent from R1b1a1a language(this language continue)

kmak
14-06-20, 07:51
Comb Ceramic Culture have R1a-YP1272. Language of this Culture is not Proto-Indo-European. I think that R1a people of Comb Ceramic Culture originally have different language from original Comb Ceramic Culture. R1a people of Comb Ceramic Culture lost own Proto-Indo-European like language, they later spoke Comb Ceramic Culture language.

Kunda Culture have R1b1a1a. Language of this Culture is not Proto-Indo-European. I think that R1b people of Kunda Culture originally have different language from original Kunda Culture. R1b people of Kunda Culture lost own Proto-Indo-European like language, they later spoke Kunda Culture language.

kmak
14-06-20, 08:05
The first clearly Proto-Indo-European cultures were the Khvalynsk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvalynsk_culture) (5200-4500 BCE) and Sredny Stog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sredny_Stog) (4600-3900 BCE) cultures in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.(Eupedia.com)

Forest steppe people have mostly R1a, Open steppe people have mostly R1b. Their original language have common origin(R1 language), but different languages. I think if R1a is original Proto-Indo-European, R1b is Para-Proto-Indo-European. if R1b is original Proto-Indo-European, R1a is Para-Proto-Indo-European.

Philjames100
14-06-20, 14:07
Why do you count out one single proto-Greek migration of people who have steppe as well as Caucasus admixture, through Anatolia? Why two waves of migrations? Historiography speaks of only one migration of proto-Hellenes into Greece during the Early Bronze Age, and the one more (Dorian) during the Iron Age.

The archaeological evidence indicates migrations from or connections with different places. I'm not sure which population was the proto-Hellenes though.

Dianatomia
14-06-20, 14:33
The archaeological evidence indicates migrations from or connections with different places. I'm not sure which population was the proto-Hellenes.

I regard the proto-Hellenes to be the people who brought the IE language into Greece. Although historians usually regarded this to be the Mycenaeans. I think we have to go further back, since the Mycenaeans may have been largely indigenous. All I know is that Minoans in Greece did not have any Steppe or Caucasus admixture. And at some point the Greek language was introduced in Greece through the Mycenaeans who are essentially Minoans with additional Steppe and Caucasus admixture. Ancient Greek historiography does not speak of any other people settling in Greece. The texts only speak of indigenous peoples and Greek newcomers, as well as mixing. Who are the other people who had Caucasus admixture? That would be the key question.

It would have been possible that proto-Greek speakers mixed near the Caucasus, and through the upper side of the Black sea (Ukraine) migrated South into Greece, but now it seems that Illyrians did not have Caucasus admixture at al while Thracians only had a little. So the Caucasus admixture in Mycenaean Greece could have come with Greek speakers through Anatolia.

Philjames100
14-06-20, 15:10
I regard the proto-Hellenes to be the people who brought the IE language into Greece. Although historians usually regarded this to be the Mycenaeans. I think we have to go further back, since the Mycenaeans may have been largely indigenous. All I know is that Minoans in Greece did not have any Steppe or Caucasus admixture. And at some point the Greek language was introduced in Greece through the Mycenaeans who are essentially Minoans with additional Steppe and Caucasus admixture. Ancient Greek historiography does not speak of any other people settling in Greece. The texts only speak of indigenous peoples and Greek newcomers, as well as mixing. Who are the other people who had Caucasus admixture? That would be the key question.

It would have been possible that proto-Greek speakers mixed near the Caucasus, and through the upper side of the Black sea (Ukraine) migrated South into Greece, but now it seems that Illyrians did not have Caucasus admixture at al while Thracians only had a little. So the Caucasus admixture in Mycenaean Greece could have come with Greek speakers through Anatolia.

The Minoans also had Caucasus admixture, but no steppe apparently.

blevins13
14-06-20, 16:30
I regard the proto-Hellenes to be the people who brought the IE language into Greece. Although historians usually regarded this to be the Mycenaeans. I think we have to go further back, since the Mycenaeans may have been largely indigenous. All I know is that Minoans in Greece did not have any Steppe or Caucasus admixture. And at some point the Greek language was introduced in Greece through the Mycenaeans who are essentially Minoans with additional Steppe and Caucasus admixture. Ancient Greek historiography does not speak of any other people settling in Greece. The texts only speak of indigenous peoples and Greek newcomers, as well as mixing. Who are the other people who had Caucasus admixture? That would be the key question.

It would have been possible that proto-Greek speakers mixed near the Caucasus, and through the upper side of the Black sea (Ukraine) migrated South into Greece, but now it seems that Illyrians did not have Caucasus admixture at al while Thracians only had a little. So the Caucasus admixture in Mycenaean Greece could have come with Greek speakers through Anatolia.

It seems that you agree now with Robert Drews views for the coming of Greeks..... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Drews


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Angela
14-06-20, 16:40
Lazaridis et al certainly held that out as a possibility, but I am skeptical. Something from the direction of Catacomb culture looks more likely to me, but I could be wrong.

Someone posted some Angel commentary about what Mycenaeans looked like based on some bones. Using modern forensic anthropology tools, this is what a wealthy Mycenaean warrior looked like based on his skull and dna data: certainly brawny and tall looking, but he doesn't look absolutely anything like any brand of Nordic.

Old time anthropologists were basically Nordicists. They saw Nordic features in every culture they wanted to claim. It's bunk. How anyone could have ever looked at a bust of Julius Caesar, for example, and seen a Nordic is beyond me. That one example alone should cause any thinking person to toss most of it out.

https://www.realmofhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/mycenaean-griffin-warrior-face-reconstructed_1-770x437.jpg

Philjames100
14-06-20, 19:26
Lazaridis et al certainly held that out as a possibility, but I am skeptical. Something from the direction of Catacomb culture looks more likely to me, but I could be wrong.

Someone posted some Angel commentary about what Mycenaeans looked like based on some bones. Using modern forensic anthropology tools, this is what a wealthy Mycenaean warrior looked like based on his skull and dna data: certainly brawny and tall looking, but he doesn't look absolutely anything like any brand of Nordic.

Old time anthropologists were basically Nordicists. They saw Nordic features in every culture they wanted to claim. It's bunk. How anyone could have ever looked at a bust of Julius Caesar, for example, and seen a Nordic is beyond me. That one example alone should cause any thinking person to toss most of it out.

https://www.realmofhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/mycenaean-griffin-warrior-face-reconstructed_1-770x437.jpg


I can't find any scientific/academic publication associated with that reconstruction, only some online news articles.

Here's what one of them says:

"According to the Dr. Stocker, the warrior appears to have been a handsome man, with the facial reconstruction having been based on a stamp that was found inside the tomb. The reconstruction was performed by Tobias Houlton, a specialist in reconstruction, and his colleague Lynne Schepartz of University of the Witwatersrand.

'It was multi-fragmented, with evident deterioration of the bones across the mid-face, affecting the nasal region and inner eye details,' Houlton told Rossella Lorenzi referring to the skull that was found in poor condition. 'Prior to re-assembly, we were uncertain that a facial reconstruction would be possible.'

Houlton used the Manchester method for the reconstruction – facial tissues were laid from the skull surface outward by using depth marker pegs to determine the thickness. And he gauged the look of the facial features, such as the eyes and mouth, by the underlying skull. However, due to the poor condition of the skull, Houlton was unable to accurately reconstruct the area around the eyes and nose. Instead, the team used average face templates of 50 modern Greek males that were 25 to 35 years old.

They also looked at artifacts from the Mycenaean and Minoan civilizations, such as wall paintings, to determine the Griffin Warrior's skin tone and hair color. The finished product is a broad, handsome face with a square jaw and powerful neck."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3839092/The-face-Bronze-Age-fighter-revealed-Scientists-reconstruct-face-Griffin-Warrior-elite-group-3-500-years-ago.html


DNA wasn't used in the reconstruction, and no DNA has been published yet, however: "Davis and Stocker are also planning DNA tests and isotope analyses that they hope will provide information about his ethnic and geographic origins."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/golden-warrior-greek-tomb-exposes-roots-western-civilization-180961441/

That was back in 2017 (when the reconstruction was made) so we might learn some more about him in the near future.


The article mentions that the reconstruction was (partly) based on a 'stamp' from the tomb. That appears to be referring to the 'Pylos Combat Agate':

http://i.imgur.com/HpPQnRz.jpg (https://imgur.com/HpPQnRz)


The long curly/wavy hair in the reconstruction looks like it's based on the main figure with the sword. However that looks like it might be a depiction of a Minoan (the seal is thought to be Minoan).

ihype02
14-06-20, 20:08
I can't find it now, but you found the closest modern populations for each of the samples, with one being very Ashkenazi like all the way to one being almost Central Italian. You could try looking up which are men and which are women and see if there's a pattern.
From what I have heard the Empuries samples seem to be the closest to the highest quality Myceanean sample that we have which is interesting.

Angela
14-06-20, 21:29
I can't find any scientific/academic publication associated with that reconstruction, only some online news articles.

Here's what one of them says:

"According to the Dr. Stocker, the warrior appears to have been a handsome man, with the facial reconstruction having been based on a stamp that was found inside the tomb. The reconstruction was performed by Tobias Houlton, a specialist in reconstruction, and his colleague Lynne Schepartz of University of the Witwatersrand.

'It was multi-fragmented, with evident deterioration of the bones across the mid-face, affecting the nasal region and inner eye details,' Houlton told Rossella Lorenzi referring to the skull that was found in poor condition. 'Prior to re-assembly, we were uncertain that a facial reconstruction would be possible.'

Houlton used the Manchester method for the reconstruction – facial tissues were laid from the skull surface outward by using depth marker pegs to determine the thickness. And he gauged the look of the facial features, such as the eyes and mouth, by the underlying skull. However, due to the poor condition of the skull, Houlton was unable to accurately reconstruct the area around the eyes and nose. Instead, the team used average face templates of 50 modern Greek males that were 25 to 35 years old.

They also looked at artifacts from the Mycenaean and Minoan civilizations, such as wall paintings, to determine the Griffin Warrior's skin tone and hair color. The finished product is a broad, handsome face with a square jaw and powerful neck."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3839092/The-face-Bronze-Age-fighter-revealed-Scientists-reconstruct-face-Griffin-Warrior-elite-group-3-500-years-ago.html


DNA wasn't used in the reconstruction, and no DNA has been published yet, however: "Davis and Stocker are also planning DNA tests and isotope analyses that they hope will provide information about his ethnic and geographic origins."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/golden-warrior-greek-tomb-exposes-roots-western-civilization-180961441/

That was back in 2017 (when the reconstruction was made) so we might learn some more about him in the near future.


The article mentions that the reconstruction was (partly) based on a 'stamp' from the tomb. That appears to be referring to the 'Pylos Combat Agate':

http://i.imgur.com/HpPQnRz.jpg (https://imgur.com/HpPQnRz)


The long curly/wavy hair in the reconstruction looks like it's based on the main figure with the sword. However that looks like it might be a depiction of a Minoan (the seal is thought to be Minoan).







The pigmentation of the Mycenaeans is based on ancient dna: all had black hair, dark brown eyes, and relatively dark skin, probably darker than a lot of mainland Greeks today, and so decidedly NOT Nordic in coloring. If they came from Catacomb culture it would make sense, since they were quite dark from the evidence of the dna.

The work done on the Griffin Warrior may be iffy as to the eye and nose but the rest is based on modern forensic reconstruction and it shows he had a wide face and jaw, and so AGAIN, absolutely not Nordic. Plus, it was partly based on their art, i.e. how they portrayed themselves, not some Nordicist's fantasies.

Just give it up. The Mycenaeans weren't "Nordic" people, and they didn't LOOK like Nordic people, despite the fact that they had all the hallmarks of an Indo-European society. They had a minute, minority percentage of steppe. Period.

Philjames100
14-06-20, 22:03
They had a minute, minority percentage of steppe.

How do you think a minute, minority percentage of steppe managed to make the large, majority of non-steppe adopt the language of the minute steppe minority?

Philjames100
14-06-20, 22:17
The pigmentation of the Mycenaeans is based on ancient dna: all had black hair, dark brown eyes, and relatively dark skin, probably darker than a lot of mainland Greeks today, and so decidedly NOT Nordic in coloring.

J.L. Angel was talking about 'skull type' and other skeletal traits. He doesn't say anything about pigmentation.

Angela
14-06-20, 22:53
How do you think a minute, minority percentage of steppe managed to make the large, majority of non-steppe adopt the language of the minute steppe minority?

How did the Huns do it? What was their autosomal impact? 5%? How did the Romans change the language of France and Spain? If Pannonia hadn't been invaded by the Germanics, a Romance language would still be spoken there too. One rule doesn't fit all situations.

If they only had, what, 11-17% steppe, then that's what they had. Or do you doubt it? Are we going to try to change the facts now, because we don't like them? Before you say it, the "upper class" sample had the same autosomal mix. So, it is what it is. When a bunch of samples turns up that are 30-50% steppe, let me know.

As for Angel, he was talking about skull and face type in order to come up with a designation like "Nordic". That's not what modern forensics concluded about the Griffin Warrior. The problems were with the eye and nose, not the skull and face shape.

Most of that old nonsense is just that: nonsense. If you want to talk about Corded Ware types much further north, that may be different, but imo Corded Ware people were Indo-Europeanized, not the source of the blended EHG/CHG culture we know as the Indo-Europeans. Certainly, the Mycenaeans didn't get their culture from Corded Ware; the Corded Ware people weren't sophisticated enough.

Riverman
14-06-20, 23:27
"The problem" with Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Greeks seems to be that it was a demic diffusion and elite dominance combined, in between, but not one such case, but a series of cases from up the Bug down to the Aegean. If you think about it, its a logical thing and only "racial segregation", a strictly caste like society could have kept the original high steppe level intact. I'm not even saying that didn't happen at all, for some royal lineages it might have happened, but it doesn't have to be and it was not the main agent for the spread. The main agent for the spread was steppe ancestry roughly cut in half with every movement down to the South. So in the end you get a people which might, even in their upper ranks, being far from a 50 percent share of steppe ancestry, with many non-steppe elite lineages included and so on. Its quite a distance from Moldavia down to the Bosporus. A lot can happen in between and the steppe ancestry wasn't 100 percent when they started, because the Western steppe people which formed PIE had significant Neolithic ancestry from the start. So we might deal with a fairly big wave of Proto-Greeks coming in, but they were not predominantely steppe of course.

Philjames100
15-06-20, 00:25
Here are some other reconstructions (by Musgrave, Reave and Prag, 1995), based on some skulls from Grave Circle B at Mycenae, that were also analysed by J.L. Angel in 1973 (along with other skulls from Mycenae):

http://i.imgur.com/oYryQyW.jpg (https://imgur.com/oYryQyW)

Angel described this skull (A62) as 'Mixed Alpine'.

http://i.imgur.com/da63DzH.jpg (https://imgur.com/da63DzH)

Z59 'Nordic-Iranian in a Corded Nordic sense'

http://i.imgur.com/9uVwFg8.jpg (https://imgur.com/9uVwFg8)

∑131 'Mixed Alpine'

http://i.imgur.com/kbXNgMq.jpg (https://imgur.com/kbXNgMq)

Γ51 'Nordic-Iranian'

http://i.imgur.com/YbIpR8L.jpg (https://imgur.com/YbIpR8L)


B52 'Iranian-Mediterranean'

http://i.imgur.com/KzKxgPc.jpg (https://imgur.com/KzKxgPc)


Γ55 ‘intermediate Dinaroid impression’

http://i.imgur.com/X2GqGNu.jpg (https://imgur.com/X2GqGNu)


Γ58 ‘varying in a lateral direction from a Nordic-Iranian norm’

http://i.imgur.com/A9OH6or.png (https://imgur.com/A9OH6or)

http://i.imgur.com/TXL2MkE.png (https://imgur.com/TXL2MkE)


Musgrave 1995 (https://www.docdroid.net/FuSxMyY/musgrave1995-pdf)

A (https://www.docdroid.net/FuSxMyY/musgrave1995-pdf)ngel 1973 (https://www.docdroid.net/WPUFSZZ/mycenae-skeletons-pdf)


I have no idea how reliable any of these reconstructions are.


J.L. Angel's overall description of skeletons from the Grave Circles at Mycenae (excerpts):

“The surprising thing about the males in this small sample of Middle Bronze Age Greek aristocracy is that in spite of their tallness their bones are not relatively slenderer than those of short and stocky peoples but are actually relatively as well as absolutely thicker […] This massiveness and ruggedness shows up further in large hands and feet, generally pronounced markings for muscle attachments and large trunks … Fourteen princes at 171.5 cm with a stature range from just over 160 to over 180 average over 5cm taller than commoners at 166.3. […]

these Mycenaean aristocrats were not mere fattened figureheads. The wounds on the left side of the head of 51 and of 59, the healed spinal column fractures of 25, probably of 59 together with the signs of extra muscular strength show that these men were indeed involved in fighting and capable of being champions. […]

[their] skull vaults approach Upper Palaeolithic male size, indicating a brain mass unusually large for any population in a Mediterranean rather than cold climate. Such extra brain size does not necessarily mean any greater capacity for intelligence but correlates with the greater size of body and viscera in these aristocrats. […]

In contrast with the 3rd millennium BC pre-Greeks, short (162 cm), with rather small heads, just mesocrane, and fairly linear faces and noses, the Middle Bronze commoners are taller, with larger heads (longer and higher especially) and wider and shorter faces, wider noses and lower orbits. The pre-Greeks were mainly Mediterranean, Basic White and Alpine (both “Eastern” and “European” Alpine) … The intruders during and after E.H. III [Early Helladic III] seem to have been, on the one hand, Iranian plus Eastern Alpine like the Trojan plus Cappadocian plus Pamphylian areas of Anatolia, and, on the other hand, Corded Nordic plus Mixed Alpine like the westernmost steppe populations of the N.E. Balkans, and somewhat like later Illyrians. […]

The aristocrats share the diversity of the the general Middle Bronze propulation, with variability 20% above normal. But they are less Mediterranean and more intermediate Dinaroid-Mixed Alpine than the common people, with strong Nordic-Iranian influence. […]

The rulers buried in the Mycenaean Shaft Graves during the time of transition from Middle Bronze Age to full “urban” Mycenaean period (about 1630 to 1500 BC) were 171-172 cm tall on the average, about 5 cm taller that their subjects and with individuals taller that 180cm. […] They have remarkably thick bones, and relatively and absolutely massive bodies and heads […] in terms of arbitrary type tendencies they show less Mediterranean, Basic White, and Alpine (“pre-Greek” trait combinations) and more Nordic-Iranian and Dinaroid-Mixed Alpine tendencies than commoners show.

These small trait shifts are in the direction of Iranian steppe (...)

It is likely that the rulers spring directly from the extraordinarily mixed late Middle Bronze Age population which they ruled over and that their differences result from (a) better diet and training and (b) social selection for both ability and strength and subsequent microevolution."

Angel 1973 (https://www.docdroid.net/WPUFSZZ/1.pdf)

Philjames100
15-06-20, 00:40
An engraved seal from grave Γ55:

http://i.imgur.com/7nQudkQ.png (https://imgur.com/7nQudkQ)
Musgrave 1995 (https://www.docdroid.net/FuSxMyY/musgrave1995-pdf)

of course the 'Mask of Agamemnon', from Grave Circle A at Mycenae:

http://i.imgur.com/0RskNg7.jpg (https://imgur.com/0RskNg7)

Philjames100
15-06-20, 01:56
"The intruders during and after Early Helladic III seem to have been, on the one hand, Iranian plus Eastern Alpine like the Trojan plus Cappadocian plus Pamphylian areas of Anatolia, and, on the other hand, Corded Nordic plus Mixed Alpine like the westernmost steppe populations of the N.E. Balkans, and somewhat like later Illyrians."

That sounds pretty similar to

'Caucasus + Sintashta-like + Catacomb + Balkans'

Shahmiri
15-06-20, 07:32
http://uupload.ir/files/oezd_r1a1.jpg

http://uupload.ir/files/hakr_r1b1.jpg

Shahmiri
15-06-20, 10:54
1600 BC in the east.

High mitochondrial diversity of domesticated goats persisted among Bronze and Iron Age pastoralists in the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233333

http://uupload.ir/files/09qk_goat.jpg

Aaron1981
28-06-20, 06:43
I completely agree. That's always been my position, and I was, in fact, surprised that no Z2103 turned up among the Mycenaeans.

Inside sources suggest it has and will be published soonish(?). I know some of the BA Greeks found so far have the same line J2a as the Minoans, which obviously suggests continuity and not that of a northern intruder, which is the only thing R1b could be. At least one video a few years back demonstrated a "R1b" male in Classical Greece who had positives for blonde hair and lactose intolerance. I believe this is different from the Mycenaeans though.

Aaron1981
28-06-20, 07:01
Lazaridis et al certainly held that out as a possibility, but I am skeptical. Something from the direction of Catacomb culture looks more likely to me, but I could be wrong.

Someone posted some Angel commentary about what Mycenaeans looked like based on some bones. Using modern forensic anthropology tools, this is what a wealthy Mycenaean warrior looked like based on his skull and dna data: certainly brawny and tall looking, but he doesn't look absolutely anything like any brand of Nordic.

Old time anthropologists were basically Nordicists. They saw Nordic features in every culture they wanted to claim. It's bunk. How anyone could have ever looked at a bust of Julius Caesar, for example, and seen a Nordic is beyond me. That one example alone should cause any thinking person to toss most of it out.



Most definitely that fellow looks like many contemporary Greeks I have seen (but not all), and certainly was a look that would have been common in West Asia and the Levant during the Bronze Age and possibly even Neolithic Europe. However, I'd be skeptical if the R1b guys looked like that, since they were in a different part of the world for tens of thousands of years from the G2/J2/J1/E1b men, and had their own genetic path. Some of the busts above do look far more like north European men, who happen to have R1b as a common haplogroup, but I hate that term "Nordic", it's a major misnomer. One of those busts looks like a "Hun" to me.

Maybe your definition of "Nordic" is different than mine, but Julius Caesar is clearly like a contemporary European, but the Greek reconstruction looks far more West Asian or Levantine.

Aaron1981
28-06-20, 07:11
Which could be associated with the spread of R1b plus E-V13 according to some (Cetina).

R1b and E-V13 don't really correlate with each other, anywhere, so I'd be skeptical if they were linked. E-V13 seems to have already been in the Balkans, or if it was a contemporary of R1b-M269, it came from a different direction. I2-M223 seems to be linked to R1b-M269 very often, despite the fact the former is extremely ancient in Europe and linked to many groups.

Aaron1981
28-06-20, 07:20
In 2019 Eurogenes also looked at an individual buried at Tel Shaddud in Israel (near Megiddo), dated to c.1250 BC, who was found to have R1b-M269.

First a description of the individual:

"A Canaanite individual from a clay coffin burial in Tel Shaddud (ca.1250 BC), reported as of hg. R1b1a1b-M269, has been interpreted as a Canaanite official residing at this site and emulating selected funerary aspects of Egyptian mortuary culture, apparently connected to the administrative centre at Bet Sheʽan during the 19th and 20th Dynasties." p.195 (https://indo-european.info/game-clans-clash-chiefs.pdf) / Link 2 (https://www.docdroid.net/aOxmq6A/tel-shaddud-pdf)

Eurogenes:

“Surprisingly, individual I2062 is listed in the anno files as belonging to Y-haplogroup R1b1a1a2, which is also known as R1b-M269. The reason that this is a surprise to me is because R1b-M269 is closely associated with the Bronze Age expansions of pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe … intriguingly, his autosomes do show a subtle signal of Yamnaya-related ancestry from the Pontic-Caspian steppe that is missing in earlier ancients from the Levant. …

Samples associated with the Kura-Araxes or Early Transcaucasian culture are particularly strong references for the eastern ancestry in I2062. This probably isn't a coincidence, and it might also explain his Y-haplogroup, because, at its maximum extent, the territory occupied by the Kura-Araxes culture stretched all the way from the Pontic-Caspian steppe to the southern Levant.”

'R1b-M269 in the Bronze Age Levant’ (Monday, April 22, 2019) (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/04/r1b-m269-in-bronze-age-levant.html)

I'm skeptical on that conclusion since the only R1b in Kura-Araxes has been R1b-V1636, an early offshoot into the eastern Caucasus from the steppes, including the most recent 2020 paper on Neolithic/Early BA Anatolia. There would have been plenty of non-R1b immigrants to the Levant from Kura-Araxes whose autosomes are lost in this shuffle and can be identified among locals, no need to link to R1b. The most likely scenario is from the BA Balkans. We know after a handful of generations, immigrant autosomes will look like locals. Even the R1a "outlier" is in the process of being absorbed by locals.

There was also a Russian paper a year back that found R1b in an Egyptian mummy, so that makes at least 3 R1bs in BA Levant, and sheds some more possibility on the controversial "Tut" result. What I'd like to know is if this Megiddo R1b guy was L51+ which has been suggested as a possibility over at Anthrogenica.

Riverman
28-06-20, 12:02
R1b and E-V13 don't really correlate with each other, anywhere, so I'd be skeptical if they were linked. E-V13 seems to have already been in the Balkans, or if it was a contemporary of R1b-M269, it came from a different direction. I2-M223 seems to be linked to R1b-M269 very often, despite the fact the former is extremely ancient in Europe and linked to many groups.

The difference though is that I2 was picked up from a large sea of preceding dominance, while E-V13 emerged, like I1, as a new Bronze Age winner, while being not as widespread before. R1b and E-V13 are linked for a very early wave of PIE to the Balkans it seems, but let's see with more samples what's coming up. This early wave of R1b/E-V13 incomers was later dispersed and partly replaced, especially during the Central Asian steppe and Slavic expansion from Late Antiquity on.

ratchet_fan
28-06-20, 17:33
How do you think a minute, minority percentage of steppe managed to make the large, majority of non-steppe adopt the language of the minute steppe minority?

Violence. R1 has a violent history dating back to when it was K2b imo.

ratchet_fan
28-06-20, 17:39
I'm skeptical on that conclusion since the only R1b in Kura-Araxes has been R1b-V1636, an early offshoot into the eastern Caucasus from the steppes, including the most recent 2020 paper on Neolithic/Early BA Anatolia. There would have been plenty of non-R1b immigrants to the Levant from Kura-Araxes whose autosomes are lost in this shuffle and can be identified among locals, no need to link to R1b. The most likely scenario is from the BA Balkans. We know after a handful of generations, immigrant autosomes will look like locals. Even the R1a "outlier" is in the process of being absorbed by locals.

There was also a Russian paper a year back that found R1b in an Egyptian mummy, so that makes at least 3 R1bs in BA Levant, and sheds some more possibility on the controversial "Tut" result. What I'd like to know is if this Megiddo R1b guy was L51+ which has been suggested as a possibility over at Anthrogenica.

L51+ would not be that surprising given it was found in Afanasievo.

tyuiopman
12-08-20, 01:56
Excellent! Now we can work with something.

R1a-F17329 (aka YP1505) (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP1505/) is a subclade of Z93 that formed around 4000 years ago. It seems to be found chiefly in the Altay region. The FTDNA R1a project also has one YP1505 from Azerbaijan. Its parent clade, YP1506, is also found in Pakistani Punjab. So it looks definitely more Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian.

So that R1a could have come with the Mitanni, who are AFAIK the only Indo-Aryan people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_superstrate_in_Mitanni) who invaded the region in the 16th century BCE, establishing a state around what is now Kurdistan from c. 1500 BCE.

I spoke too fast about the Proto-Armenians. They only arrived around Armenia c. 1200 BCE, so the Megiddo samples are a bit too old to be compatible.

As for the mtDNA correspondance, I am not aware of the presence of T2b7 and U2e1b in Russia/Siberia, Central Asia, Iran, Pakistan or India that could corroborate the Indo-Aryan hypothesis. However both were found in R1a-associated Indo-European cultures, such as the Corded Ware and Bronze Age Poland and Bulgaria, so it's definitely possible that they were found among Indo-Aryans.


The issue is, as others have pointed out before, there's no evidence of a Balkanic migration to Armenia in the genetic record at 1200 BCE, which was proposed by Diakonoff in 1968 (obviously prior to genetic testing). Nor is there in the archaeological record. Ironically, this is one of the few points that Armenian, Greek, and Turkish scholars agree on--that the Mushki came from the east (eastern Turkey/Armenia/the South Caucasus) and not the west. Here's a good writeup of that. http://smea.isma.cnr.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Kossian_The-Mushki-problem-Reconsidered.pdf

Diakonoff was working under the assumption that Mushki=Phrygians and therefore they came from the west (Balkans).

There is really nothing connecting Armenians to Balkan migrants during the second or first millennium BCE. There's even a debate regarding Armenian's linguistic proximity to Greek (and by extension, Phrygian).

I agree that this was probably connected to some sort of Indo-Iranian (or maybe early Indic-speaking, specifically) population. There was clearly the presence of an Indo-Iranian people not only in Mitanni, but also in the Kassites of northern Iran, in the lands located to the immediate east of Hatti--Pahhuwa, Ishuwa, possibly Hayasa (the latter mention the Indo-Iranian god "Agni" in a treaty with the Hittites), and maybe Syro-Palestine by the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE.

MOESAN
15-08-20, 11:48
Here are some other reconstructions (by Musgrave, Reave and Prag, 1995), based on some skulls from Grave Circle B at Mycenae, that were also analysed by J.L. Angel in 1973 (along with other skulls from Mycenae):

http://i.imgur.com/oYryQyW.jpg (https://imgur.com/oYryQyW)

Angel described this skull (A62) as 'Mixed Alpine'.

http://i.imgur.com/da63DzH.jpg (https://imgur.com/da63DzH)

Z59 'Nordic-Iranian in a Corded Nordic sense'

http://i.imgur.com/9uVwFg8.jpg (https://imgur.com/9uVwFg8)

∑131 'Mixed Alpine'

http://i.imgur.com/kbXNgMq.jpg (https://imgur.com/kbXNgMq)

Γ51 'Nordic-Iranian'

http://i.imgur.com/YbIpR8L.jpg (https://imgur.com/YbIpR8L)


B52 'Iranian-Mediterranean'

http://i.imgur.com/KzKxgPc.jpg (https://imgur.com/KzKxgPc)


Γ55 ‘intermediate Dinaroid impression’

http://i.imgur.com/X2GqGNu.jpg (https://imgur.com/X2GqGNu)


Γ58 ‘varying in a lateral direction from a Nordic-Iranian norm’

http://i.imgur.com/A9OH6or.png (https://imgur.com/A9OH6or)

http://i.imgur.com/TXL2MkE.png (https://imgur.com/TXL2MkE)


Musgrave 1995 (https://www.docdroid.net/FuSxMyY/musgrave1995-pdf)

A (https://www.docdroid.net/FuSxMyY/musgrave1995-pdf)ngel 1973 (https://www.docdroid.net/WPUFSZZ/mycenae-skeletons-pdf)


I have no idea how reliable any of these reconstructions are.


J.L. Angel's overall description of skeletons from the Grave Circles at Mycenae (excerpts):

“The surprising thing about the males in this small sample of Middle Bronze Age Greek aristocracy is that in spite of their tallness their bones are not relatively slenderer than those of short and stocky peoples but are actually relatively as well as absolutely thicker […] This massiveness and ruggedness shows up further in large hands and feet, generally pronounced markings for muscle attachments and large trunks … Fourteen princes at 171.5 cm with a stature range from just over 160 to over 180 average over 5cm taller than commoners at 166.3. […]

these Mycenaean aristocrats were not mere fattened figureheads. The wounds on the left side of the head of 51 and of 59, the healed spinal column fractures of 25, probably of 59 together with the signs of extra muscular strength show that these men were indeed involved in fighting and capable of being champions. […]

[their] skull vaults approach Upper Palaeolithic male size, indicating a brain mass unusually large for any population in a Mediterranean rather than cold climate. Such extra brain size does not necessarily mean any greater capacity for intelligence but correlates with the greater size of body and viscera in these aristocrats. […]

In contrast with the 3rd millennium BC pre-Greeks, short (162 cm), with rather small heads, just mesocrane, and fairly linear faces and noses, the Middle Bronze commoners are taller, with larger heads (longer and higher especially) and wider and shorter faces, wider noses and lower orbits. The pre-Greeks were mainly Mediterranean, Basic White and Alpine (both “Eastern” and “European” Alpine) … The intruders during and after E.H. III [Early Helladic III] seem to have been, on the one hand, Iranian plus Eastern Alpine like the Trojan plus Cappadocian plus Pamphylian areas of Anatolia, and, on the other hand, Corded Nordic plus Mixed Alpine like the westernmost steppe populations of the N.E. Balkans, and somewhat like later Illyrians. […]

The aristocrats share the diversity of the the general Middle Bronze propulation, with variability 20% above normal. But they are less Mediterranean and more intermediate Dinaroid-Mixed Alpine than the common people, with strong Nordic-Iranian influence. […]

The rulers buried in the Mycenaean Shaft Graves during the time of transition from Middle Bronze Age to full “urban” Mycenaean period (about 1630 to 1500 BC) were 171-172 cm tall on the average, about 5 cm taller that their subjects and with individuals taller that 180cm. […] They have remarkably thick bones, and relatively and absolutely massive bodies and heads […] in terms of arbitrary type tendencies they show less Mediterranean, Basic White, and Alpine (“pre-Greek” trait combinations) and more Nordic-Iranian and Dinaroid-Mixed Alpine tendencies than commoners show.

These small trait shifts are in the direction of Iranian steppe (...)

It is likely that the rulers spring directly from the extraordinarily mixed late Middle Bronze Age population which they ruled over and that their differences result from (a) better diet and training and (b) social selection for both ability and strength and subsequent microevolution."

Angel 1973 (https://www.docdroid.net/WPUFSZZ/1.pdf)



I'm late here.
I don't know if these Mycenians are the same ones who have been genetically tested, not sure at all?
Concerning reconstructions, for the noses and lips even more, I have more than a doubt. THat said, the apparent discrepancy between total autosomes and aspect (if they are so less 'steppic') could be explained by the late part of the Angel's notes here: social selection.

MOESAN
15-08-20, 11:55
Violence. R1 has a violent history dating back to when it was K2b imo.

You go back very far in past!
and violence is not a guarantee to linguistic dominence if it's without some minimum political organisation and system of integration.

ratchet_fan
16-08-20, 03:31
You go back very far in past!
and violence is not a guarantee to linguistic dominence if it's without some minimum political organisation and system of integration.

I don't really care about the violence. Just don't want these lineages to come from East Eurasians.

MOESAN
16-08-20, 14:41
If we come back in far past we find our "lineages" drowned into older more common lineages, so eve if Y-R1a and R1b were from East Asia (which is not exactly 'East Eurasia' in my mouth or pen), I would not care too much. I think they developped between South Central Eurasia and North Central Eurasia. For R1a I lack sufficient knowledge to date (history of subclades). Concerning R1b-M269 I suppose it developped in Eastern Europe rather than South the Caucasus, but who knows with certainty? (It's not Maciamo's theory)
That said, this forum is for people who try to know more, not for people who want or want not something, even if when accurate answers are obtained, we would prefer they would be of our taste. But reality is not myth or dream.

ratchet_fan
24-08-20, 13:03
If we come back in far past we find our "lineages" drowned into older more common lineages, so eve if Y-R1a and R1b were from East Asia (which is not exactly 'East Eurasia' in my mouth or pen), I would not care too much. I think they developped between South Central Eurasia and North Central Eurasia. For R1a I lack sufficient knowledge to date (history of subclades). Concerning R1b-M269 I suppose it developped in Eastern Europe rather than South the Caucasus, but who knows with certainty? (It's not Maciamo's theory)
That said, this forum is for people who try to know more, not for people who want or want not something, even if when accurate answers are obtained, we would prefer they would be of our taste. But reality is not myth or dream.

I also think they developed in Central Eurasia. I don't mind if they came from the Lake Baikal area if they were associated with ANE and not ENA. We'll see I guess.