At this point there are no viable arguments, which can can be provided to support an IE homeland in the Steppe, or anywhere in Central Asia. The Steppe theory is dead among the majority of serious researchers, but lingers among the select few, who can't help but to indulge in their own self-delusions.
Underhill's unparalleled study of R1a used 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia, concluding there was "compelling evidence", that R1a-M420 originated in Iran.
(Underhill 2014)
"Among the 120 populations with sample sizes of at least 50 individuals and with at least 10% occurrence of R1a, just 6 met these criteria, and 5 of these 6 populations reside in modern-day Iran. Haplogroup diversities among the six populations ranged from 0.78 to 0.86 (Supplementary Table 4). Of the 24 R1a-M420*(xSRY10831.2) chromosomes in our data set, 18 were sampled in Iran and 3 were from eastern Turkey. Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus"
As for R1b...
(Grugni, 2012)
"The M530 diffusion pattern seems to be also shared by the paragroups J2a-M410* and J2a-PAGE55*. In addition, the variance distribution of the rare R1b-M269* Y chromosomes, displaying decreasing values from Iran, Anatolia and the western Black Sea coastal region, is also suggestive of a westward diffusion from the Iranian plateau"
Early R1b (the ultra rare M343, M269*) and R1a, are clearly more statistically frequent in West Asian samples - and even without the combination of archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic data, that fact alone, is compelling enough for any reasonable person, to seriously consider a West Asian homeland. Europe is mostly marked by late R1b, though there is early R1b, in the Steppes. And this R1b has little variance, which is precisely to be expected from a population which was clearly under the genetic influence from West Asia, since at least, the Neolithic. Of course, the natural explanation to this anomaly, according to Steppe theorists, is that these early forms somehow disappeared, like a fart in the wind, from all over Europe. Yeah, when it comes to Steppe theorists, anything goes - just conjure some ancient skeletons and vanishing hordes of people, and you have a grand work of fiction (and more like horror) which any garden-variety Steppe theorist, can conveniently entertain as 'proof'. In reality early R1b (originating from West Asia), is only expected in earlier Steppe skeletons, where there was multiple waves of influence from the Iranian plateau.
This is so glaringly obvious, and so painfully true, that Steppe theorists have taken to an impulsive rejection of data and reason, and resorted to irrational defenses. From more impartial views on the subject, and notably from those with European ancestry, a West Asian homeland, has been supported. Dieniekes Pontikos has long supported a West Asian hypothesis. Mariya Ivanova has noted the clear influence in Yamna from it's parent culture, the Maykop, of the South Caspian region. (Ivanova M. 2012. Kaukasus und Orient: Die Entstehung des„Maikop-Phänomens“ im 4. Jahrtausend v.Chr Praehistorische Zeitschrift 2012; 87(1): 1–28) More recently, Giacomo Benedetti wrote a brilliant piece, using several lines of evidence, to support a homeland in the Northern Zagros. A fine work, which can only be considered an epitaph for Steppe theorists. new-indology.blogspot.com/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html
I'd find it easier to believe Mother Theresa and her boyfriend, once robbed a bank at gunpoint, butt-naked, than to listen to any Steppe theorist give me a perverted coaching on how the world is. Giacomo Benedetti is no crackpot, and Dienekes Pontikos is no liar. We can be fairly certain, because they have very little to gain or satisfy, in constructing a phony theory for PIE origins, placing the homeland half way around the world. This is in stark contrast to any arm-chair enthusiast, whose only goal is to fictionalize historical scenarios, in order to appease their own nationalism, and to preserve their honor, in a basement somewhere. Note that Benedetti, is actually an Indologist. And one with a PhD. So the suggestion that he is out to satisfy himself, by suggesting some arbitrary NW Iranian hypothesis, is contradictory. As for Dienikes Pontikos, he is generally well regarded, and has long been so.
I'll leave you with a quote from Benedetti's site. Read it and weep:
"I have the impression that the Aryan Invasionism follows the same method as Creationism. The supporters of the Indo-Iranian invasion from the European steppes of Central and South Asia have no sacred text to defend, although sometimes they use the Vedas or the Avesta with biased (often racial) interpretations. They have a sort of preconceived faith, maybe based on a secret, obstinate Eurocentrism: Europeans must be the conquerors of the Indo-European world, and not the conquered or colonized, they must be the origin of the change, not the recipients. So, they already firmly believe that the Indo-Aryans must have arrived there in the 2nd millennium BC, and so we have to find, in one way or another, the facts able to support that dogma. I think that we should rather start from the archaeological facts, and build a theory from there, seeing if we find a harmony with linguistics and textual traditions, and also genetics"
Underhill's unparalleled study of R1a used 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia, concluding there was "compelling evidence", that R1a-M420 originated in Iran.
(Underhill 2014)
"Among the 120 populations with sample sizes of at least 50 individuals and with at least 10% occurrence of R1a, just 6 met these criteria, and 5 of these 6 populations reside in modern-day Iran. Haplogroup diversities among the six populations ranged from 0.78 to 0.86 (Supplementary Table 4). Of the 24 R1a-M420*(xSRY10831.2) chromosomes in our data set, 18 were sampled in Iran and 3 were from eastern Turkey. Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus"
As for R1b...
(Grugni, 2012)
"The M530 diffusion pattern seems to be also shared by the paragroups J2a-M410* and J2a-PAGE55*. In addition, the variance distribution of the rare R1b-M269* Y chromosomes, displaying decreasing values from Iran, Anatolia and the western Black Sea coastal region, is also suggestive of a westward diffusion from the Iranian plateau"
Early R1b (the ultra rare M343, M269*) and R1a, are clearly more statistically frequent in West Asian samples - and even without the combination of archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic data, that fact alone, is compelling enough for any reasonable person, to seriously consider a West Asian homeland. Europe is mostly marked by late R1b, though there is early R1b, in the Steppes. And this R1b has little variance, which is precisely to be expected from a population which was clearly under the genetic influence from West Asia, since at least, the Neolithic. Of course, the natural explanation to this anomaly, according to Steppe theorists, is that these early forms somehow disappeared, like a fart in the wind, from all over Europe. Yeah, when it comes to Steppe theorists, anything goes - just conjure some ancient skeletons and vanishing hordes of people, and you have a grand work of fiction (and more like horror) which any garden-variety Steppe theorist, can conveniently entertain as 'proof'. In reality early R1b (originating from West Asia), is only expected in earlier Steppe skeletons, where there was multiple waves of influence from the Iranian plateau.
This is so glaringly obvious, and so painfully true, that Steppe theorists have taken to an impulsive rejection of data and reason, and resorted to irrational defenses. From more impartial views on the subject, and notably from those with European ancestry, a West Asian homeland, has been supported. Dieniekes Pontikos has long supported a West Asian hypothesis. Mariya Ivanova has noted the clear influence in Yamna from it's parent culture, the Maykop, of the South Caspian region. (Ivanova M. 2012. Kaukasus und Orient: Die Entstehung des„Maikop-Phänomens“ im 4. Jahrtausend v.Chr Praehistorische Zeitschrift 2012; 87(1): 1–28) More recently, Giacomo Benedetti wrote a brilliant piece, using several lines of evidence, to support a homeland in the Northern Zagros. A fine work, which can only be considered an epitaph for Steppe theorists. new-indology.blogspot.com/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html
I'd find it easier to believe Mother Theresa and her boyfriend, once robbed a bank at gunpoint, butt-naked, than to listen to any Steppe theorist give me a perverted coaching on how the world is. Giacomo Benedetti is no crackpot, and Dienekes Pontikos is no liar. We can be fairly certain, because they have very little to gain or satisfy, in constructing a phony theory for PIE origins, placing the homeland half way around the world. This is in stark contrast to any arm-chair enthusiast, whose only goal is to fictionalize historical scenarios, in order to appease their own nationalism, and to preserve their honor, in a basement somewhere. Note that Benedetti, is actually an Indologist. And one with a PhD. So the suggestion that he is out to satisfy himself, by suggesting some arbitrary NW Iranian hypothesis, is contradictory. As for Dienikes Pontikos, he is generally well regarded, and has long been so.
I'll leave you with a quote from Benedetti's site. Read it and weep:
"I have the impression that the Aryan Invasionism follows the same method as Creationism. The supporters of the Indo-Iranian invasion from the European steppes of Central and South Asia have no sacred text to defend, although sometimes they use the Vedas or the Avesta with biased (often racial) interpretations. They have a sort of preconceived faith, maybe based on a secret, obstinate Eurocentrism: Europeans must be the conquerors of the Indo-European world, and not the conquered or colonized, they must be the origin of the change, not the recipients. So, they already firmly believe that the Indo-Aryans must have arrived there in the 2nd millennium BC, and so we have to find, in one way or another, the facts able to support that dogma. I think that we should rather start from the archaeological facts, and build a theory from there, seeing if we find a harmony with linguistics and textual traditions, and also genetics"
Last edited:
