More evidence that the PIE R1b people originated in the Maykop culture

ForRussian speakers. According to Russian ACADEMIA PIEans are from an area SouthWestof the Caspian Sea.
 
With all do respect Goga, not everybody knows how to speak Russian and the translator is not in the clips:innocent:
 
With all do respect Goga, not everybody knows how to speak Russian and the translator is not in the clips:innocent:
What, no Google translation for youtube? :) I thought they covered everything.
 
Last edited:
I’m new to this forum, but from time to time get interested in origins of Indo-Europeans and google search brought me this interesting discussion so I decided to join it. This is exciting time due to recent advances in human genotyping. My suggestions based on large picture revealed by haplogroup distribution maps in Europe and beyond. According to the R1b distribution map it looks like R1b survived in Pyrenees during last glacial ice age and then spread north and east of Europe. What makes me think so? The distribution of G2a – which is highest in Maykop culture location. There is one correction to modern maps – presently they show very little distribution of G2a in North-West Caucasus, that was misfortunate outcome of losing war to aggressive Russian Empire in the 19th century – almost entire population was destroyed pretty much same way as East Prussia in more modern times. This is little known fact, therefore modern haplogroup map of North-West Caucasus are very misleading and would show predominantly R1a population. Before that indigenous population had very high proportion of G2a which confirmed by recent genotyping studies of North-West Caucasus native nations – Circassians, Abkhaz and Ossetians. There is strong reason why these nations existed there for millennia – terrain is very difficult for any invaders and population was very skilled in martial arts. I am not aware about genotyping of Maykop people, but I’d assume that they were also G2a. According to maps there is very strong correlation between distribution of Maykop G2a and Roman and Persian empire boundaries. High proportion of G2a in Italy and Turkey indicates that Maykop G2a people probably founded Roman and Hittite empires.
There is one striking fact from the genotyping map – Basque area, which is extremely high in R1b, but absolutely lacks G2a. If Basque is not Indo-Europena, that would strongly suggests that R1b is not originally linguistically Indo-European haplogroup, but adopted Indo-European language from Bronze Age Maykop G2a Indo-Europeans.
 
No, G2a is very old and was part of the Paleolithic Europe. The only true Y-DNA haplogroup candidate for PIE is J2a. J2a Entered very recently into the Steppes, India and Europe. There's lots of J2a in Ukraine (which was part of Yamna horizon).
 
No, G2a is very old and was part of the Paleolithic Europe. The only true Y-DNA haplogroup candidate for PIE is J2a. J2a Entered very recently into the Steppes, India and Europe. There's lots of J2a in Ukraine (which was part of Yamna horizon).
Thank you for shearing your opinion. J2a reaches maximum in North Caucasus among Chechens, but G2a reaches maximum among Ossetians, who are proven as IE.
 
I ' m still very confused about PIE as for demic aspects thanfor linguistic aspects -
the last discoveries as on agricultural ground than anthropological/genetical ground proved that an influx came frome S- Caucasus NE Anatolia at these times we link to IE raising - so for all these reasons I agree with the ones that think Y-J2 was involved, perhaps with some primitive enough form of Y-R1b - I lack data for Afghanistan and Kazakhstan populations - it seems that populations close to the ones that took part in the Maikop upraising were involved too in the propagation of metals + agriculture at high level in future "pan-iranic" lands...
but I'm not sure these people were P-I-E speakers even if their cultural superiority could lead us to think it - PIE could be older...
 
What, no Google translation for youtube? :) I thought they covered everything.

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

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

Saturday in:

Sumerian = Shabbât
Arabic = Sabbath,
Greek = Sabbaton
German = Samstag
Italian = sabato
Spanish = sábado
French = Samedi
Russian – subota
etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I shall answer you when I have understood your point of view - it does not seem too easy to do -
autosomals are an approach which deserves being bettered but I find some value in them whatever the imperfection of these poolings principally geographic (of today what is more!)
by the way, some genes sharings between far separated populations can EITHER being the result of recent immigrations OR the result of conservation of old archaic common genes...
I 'm going to eat and drink, after I 'll think better
have a good night
 
Autosomal components are nonsense. According to me we shouldn’t pay to much attention to it. I mean they analysed the auDNA of Neanderthal. And he/she has got a very divers auDNA, from African to West Eurasian. He has much more North European auDNA component than West Asian Homo Sapiens and he has more West Asian component than North European Homo Sapiens. This means that IF proto-IEans Homo Sapiens came from West Asia, than this Neanderthal beast is ‘more’ Indo-European than European Homo Sapiens. And if proto-Indo-Europeans came from Europe (what is of course practically impossible with so much evidences that speak against it) than that would mean that the Neanderthal is more Indo-European that West Asian Homo Sapiens. : http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/43340-Neanderthal-DNA-available-for-download . So, auDNA components don't make lots of sense to me!

you are deflecting the AuDna studies by mentioning the Neanderthals. The link you provided only tests the scientific marker of the neanderthals with the different projects created by people to get an AuDna.
The AuDNa projects are a guide for people. They represent markers of only people tested, so the conclusion is , the more people test, the more accurate the results will be. If Africa tests are scarce, then you have minimal data. Gedmatch update data on a monthly basis, which is why running a test today for yourself will show different results than from a test in December 2012.
A personnel tests would be done by BGA or similar companies. These never change, they are yours forever.
 
All Modern Humans are Homo Sapiens. So Proto-Indo-Europeans must be Homo Sapiens and NOT Neanderthal at all, right?

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

Neanderthal auDNA


tlix.png

5a14.png

lucf.png



So how for GOD sake a White Russian or Polish Homo Sapiens population can be closer to a Neanderthal beast than to French people if we look at this tree:
2013-03-19_figure.jpg

 

This thread has been viewed 130386 times.

Back
Top