What do you think this? (uruk migrants in caucasus?)
http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2013/05/uruk-migrants-in-caucasus.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2013/05/uruk-migrants-in-caucasus.html
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Probably not, that's a very complicate hypothesis you present here. I mean people have already difficult to assume that R1b have conquered most of western europe from eastern europe in millenia, so your hypothesis looks like a Master Race Rampage over the world. It also sound a little bit, correct me if im wrong, that you would like middle-eastern to have culturally and genetically conquer europe isn it ?
What do you think this? (uruk migrants in caucasus?)
http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2013/05/uruk-migrants-in-caucasus.html
Johane, agree.Also this Ydna void from the Caucasus seems almost like a set up for the next moment to come.
It feels as if the authors are aware of something and withholding and setting it up so that the next paper that comes out is almost like a final act in a narrative.
Thanks, John Derite, for the table of Y-haplo's in iran - the question is: very too small sample for Assyrians here!
From Wiki : "The appearance of the Ubaid folk has sometimes been linked to the so-called Sumerian problem, related to the origins of Sumerian civilisation. Whatever the ethnic origins of this group, this culture saw for the first time a clear tripartite social division between intensive subsistence peasant farmers, with crops and animals coming from the north, tent-dwelling nomadic pastoralists dependent upon their herds, and hunter-fisher folk of the Arabian littoral, living in reed huts."
Hunters, farmers, herders... living side by side. Did they mix, or ignore/exploit each other ? Did some of them move on ?
An unusual social structure anyway - which leaves plenty of options open...
Also this Ydna void from the Caucasus seems almost like a set up for the next moment to come.
It feels as if the authors are aware of something and withholding and setting it up so that the next paper that comes out is almost like a final act in a narrative.
From Wiki : "The appearance of the Ubaid folk has sometimes been linked to the so-called Sumerian problem, related to the origins of Sumerian civilisation. Whatever the ethnic origins of this group, this culture saw for the first time a clear tripartite social division between intensive subsistence peasant farmers, with crops and animals coming from the north, tent-dwelling nomadic pastoralists dependent upon their herds, and hunter-fisher folk of the Arabian littoral, living in reed huts."
Hunters, farmers, herders... living side by side. Did they mix, or ignore/exploit each other ? Did some of them move on ?
An unusual social structure anyway - which leaves plenty of options open...
Did you even bother reading the paper? This paper burried your Steppes hypothesis finally. Even the authors themselve say this. Embarrassing.
Did you bother to read it? Because this paper doesn't even remotely bury the steppe theory. If anything, it buries the south of the Caucasus theory. Because, if the PIE homeland is there, how did late PIE get in the steppe? Not by males. And that is what this paper's data says.
In Iran Assyrians and Zoroastrians are interesting in terms of R1b. Abrahamic religion took a lot from Zoroastrians:
Well they actually have done it... look at their graph, CWC have more CHG than EHG, Yamnaya have more CHG than EHG. Genetically, everything is going in they way they have meant to, meaning they have the result of those samples between a long time now and that they already have create a story around them. Thats a huge meli-melo, because EHG is ANE + WHG but CHG is Iran_Neolithic + something WHG / EHG. Meaning there is no way to say what is what, Satsurblia is older than Iran_Neolithic, so what's the ancestor of Iran_Neolithic ( that have ANE ) that contribute to the early CHG ? This is really a mind breaker at this point, CHG needs to be clearly defined without any Iran_Neolithic because it is technically older than Iran_Neolithic. The response of CHG can only come from paleolithic samples of eastern europe and iran / armenian plateau. And they have create that new ANF for refute the possibility than anatolian neolithic ancestry in steppe came from EEF, i mean i'm not a complotist really, but in this study everything mingle a little too much good, more than a hundreded yamnaya samples didn't have any anatolian_neolithic at all and now in that study it pops from everywhere, but it didn't came from europe, so frome where, the caucasus ? that study is not clear at all, where in all previous studies it let place to controversy, this one tries to underground the steppe one for good, with newly created genetic notions.
Ok so i might have been completely wrong with the graph, but what is the green component because it pop as a majority in Iran_Neolithic ? And what is the red " Caucasus " component, because CHG is mainly green ? How i understand the graph is, in southern steppe, the CHG element become dominant over the EHG one and also a new component wich is the orange " Anatolian_Neolithic " pop up. But for what i see the orange component is only relevent for Maikop wich is not steppe but from south caucasus ?
Yes i know that Davidski have say that there would be EEF in steppe between a long time. Why change EEF for ANF so ? because as far as i know their ANF is the same to south caucasus, so why not say EEF = ANF + WHG ? For the graph its all over the topic, the green component ( CHG ? ) pop in Motala.If they did, I missed it. As far as I can see, the very large percentage of CHG that they present are there in the steppe populations since a very early time, it's already present in large proportions in the Eneolithic samples. So, it does not seem like that they found that "extra CHG" that I'm talking about. I'm not talking about an "extra" amount of CHG in relation to other studies, but in terms of comparing the earliest with the latest steppe samples, that is, a diachronic increase in CHG ancestry during the Eneolithic until the Yamnaya expansion, which would suggest that "CHG-led Indo-Europeanization" of the steppe that the South Caucasus hypothesis relies on. That does not seem to have happened. If the influx of CHG happened before those Eneolithic ~4300 BC samples then it wasn't even related to any big economic revolution, like farming and pastoralism, because the bulk of these changes came to the steppes later.
Actually even Eurogenes in his blog had repeatedly posted about Yamnaya samples showing some minor ANF or more specifically EEF-derived ancestry. It's just that the scientists' data were much less numerous and comprehensive until a few years ago. Also, EEF had already been identified years ago in significant proportions in a few Sredny Stog individuals just west of Yamanaya, in the steppes, so it would be really unbelievable if not even the later stages of Yamnaya, when it basically absorbed and superseded Sredny Stog, did not show any EEF ancestry. So, if even knowledgeable amateurs like Davidski noticed that more than two years ago, I'm pretty sure most scientists already believed it was a possible outcome, too.
Also, I don't know where you took this idea that "they have create that new ANF for refute the possibility than anatolian neolithic ancestry in steppe came from EEF". Actually what they say in the study is exactly the opposite, that there was no ANF ancestry in earlier steppe samples and when it appears it comes together with WHG, so it probably came from EEF via the western EEF societies in Ukraine/Bulgaria/Romania. As far as I've understood they don't say most of it came from the Caucasus ANF/CHG mix at all.
This thread has been viewed 241083 times.