Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 261

Thread: Anatolian Hypothesis: Lord Renfrew still a partial holdout

  1. #51
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,728
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,728, Level: 63
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 1,222
    Overall activity: 45.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    I think that this K12 orange component must already include some CHG. Otherwise it would be identical with EHG.

    Light green likely indicates some extra amount of CHG (or Iran Neolithic) admixture in Yamnaya vs. Sredni Stog II.
    it's quite strange Ukraine eneo doesn't have CHG
    the oldest CW sample (Estonian or Latvian? I don't recall) already had some CHG and he had no EEF yet
    the Khvalynsk outlier had some CHG too

  2. #52
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,190
    Points
    39,350
    Level
    61
    Points: 39,350, Level: 61
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 1,000
    Overall activity: 48.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Guys it simple

    Renfrew theory
    the pure first Anatolian Hypothesis
    was dead from the begining
    why?
    cause supported as IE the neolithic farmers
    cases like Otzi or the G2a2b2b1 of Kleitos
    cause if it was a neolithic farmers then the name of metals should be different
    I mean the plants and animals etc should have common name due to agricultural culture
    but not the metals, cause they invented milleniums after
    what we see at IE is that has common name for era metals,
    so yes a wave with metal technology passed all over Europe either south, either North
    This does not exclude that Neolithic spoke IE
    but the connectivity of Otzi with Sardinians a mediterenean population drives us to a Caucasian language.
    makes us wonder about the language of neolithic, while seems much better to be with the Bronze metal expand
    although we know the love of this casta and their love for gold, which was a balkanic industry, a non Yamnaa neither steppe

    on the other hand in the case of steppe and most possibly pastoralis and horse milk eaters
    I do not see such neither at Myceneans neither At Yamnaans why?
    we see the names of metals common to both Myceneans and Yamnaans
    which is possible even if origin is steppe
    BUT HOW come the trees and the plants that already prexisted Europe, before the bronze expand, have same name to N Europe, to Iran To Greece?
    and not exist at steppe?
    the most possible is that either they adopted them from neolithic farmers of Anatolia
    or their primary land, the first land of IEans had such,
    so if steppe is the land of IE why Myceneans who did not pass Yamnaa or N Europe have same names with Iran and N Europe?
    this as also the gedrosian and the causasus component make me believe that IE was a S Caucasian or an Iranic origin
    and possibly existed partially at Neolithic farmers,

    the word is water, but Latin kept the previous which is close to Summerian the word aqua,
    from the previous neolithic? or a close to Summerian non Yamnaa population also?
    ΟΘΕΝ ΑΙΔΩΣ OY EINAI
    ΑΤΗ ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ
    ΥΒΡΙΣ ΓΕΝΝΑΤΑΙ
    ΝΕΜΕΣΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣΗ ΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΣΙ ΔΕ

    When there is no shame
    Divine blindness conquers them
    Hybris (abuse, opprombium) is born
    Nemesis and punishment follows.

    Εχε υπομονη Ηρωα
    Η τιμωρια δεν αργει.

  3. #53
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,822
    Points
    249,005
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,005, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    Do you really think two separate admixture events is possible for Greece? That EHG ancestry somehow came to Greece unadmixed? Minoans and even Peloponnese Neolithic already had CHG ancestry, yet they were not an IE people. Looking at the Bronze age balkans we can see the trickling down of Yamnaya ancestry increasingly over time, pure EHG somehow arriving in Greece on its own doesn't make any sense. Why do you claim it as if it is 100% proven the Mycenaeans did not come from the north through the balkans and had to come from Armenia through Anatolia? Lazaridis' paper mentioned both options as plausible, it is not settled yet which is correct. In either situation CWC lexicon about trees could have reached Greece through LNBA steppe cultures in the balkans or through Armenians originating from the Catacomb culture which had contact with the CWC. Baden looks similar to GAC in that they were neolithic farmers who adopted an IE like culture without receiving any steppe genetic input, J2 was found earlier in Neolithic Hungary so it's not odd that it is found in the Baden Culture. As for the Gedrosia admixture I already addressed this in the comment you're replying to, as well as how indo-aryan would be connected to the CWC(Through Sintashta). Also there is Yamnaya ancestry in Vucedol before 2500bc, long before the emergence of the Mycenaean culture in Greece. It should also be mentioned that by Anatolian hypothesis it is meant the spread of IE languages from Asia Minor, not the arrival of steppe ancestry to Greece through Anatolia from Armenia which is something completely different and still likely to have happened.
    I don't see how anyone can logically argue against this.

    @Silesian,
    Please look up the definition of a straw man argument.

    When someone implies that the accomplishments of the Egyptians are the result of the genetic make-up of one Pharaoh or one line of pharaohs, I fail to see how it is a straw man argument that this pharaoh was a genetic mess who would have been unable to accomplish or direct his people to accomplish anything whatsoever.

    Plus, try not to get the Pharaohs all mixed up. It was Akhenaten who looked peculiar, for whatever reason.

    Bringing all this up is for nought, however. Tut accomplished nothing of note, except for the luck involved in the fact that his tomb wasn't looted. Akhenaten spent most of his time on religious matters, which ultimately proved to have been time ill spent.

    "Akhenaten tried to shift his culture from Egypt's traditional religion, but the shifts were not widely accepted. After his death, his monuments were dismantled and hidden, his statues were destroyed, and his name excluded from the king lists.[12]Traditional religious practice was gradually restored, and when some dozen years later rulers without clear rights of succession from the 18th Dynasty founded a new dynasty, they discredited Akhenaten and his immediate successors, referring to Akhenaten himself as "the enemy" or "that criminal" in archival records."

    It was the succeeding dynasty, by most accounts descending from a commoner, which brought Egypt to its greatest glory.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  4. #54
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,482
    Points
    57,575
    Level
    74
    Points: 57,575, Level: 74
    Level completed: 35%, Points required for next Level: 975
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    it's quite strange Ukraine eneo doesn't have CHG
    the oldest CW sample (Estonian or Latvian? I don't recall) already had some CHG and he had no EEF yet
    the Khvalynsk outlier had some CHG too
    I'm sure that this orange component also includes some CHG or something CHG-like.

    Already Khvalynsk had CHG, and from previous papers we know that CWC had it too.

    Does anyone know what exactly is "Gedrosia" and "Caucasus" from Dodecad K12b? These are components based on modern populations. Are both of these components related to CHG and Iran Neolithic?

    Maybe CHG admixture on the Steppe was not from one source, but from a few sources.

  5. #55
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    24
    Posts
    883
    Points
    8,064
    Level
    26
    Points: 8,064, Level: 26
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 71.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    I'm sure that this orange component also includes some CHG or something CHG-like.

    Already Khvalynsk had CHG, and from previous papers we know that CWC had it too.

    Does anyone know what exactly is "Gedrosia" and "Caucasus" from Dodecad K12b? These are components based on modern populations. Are both of these components related to CHG and Iran Neolithic?

    Maybe CHG admixture on the Steppe was not from one source, but from a few sources.
    Gedrosia in modern populations is a component that is highest in the Baloch and Brahui peoples, while Caucasus is the main component of Georgians, Abkhazians, and other Caucasian peoples.

    In an ancient context, Iran Neolithic was extremely high in Gedrosia, while CHG were high in Caucasus as well as Gedrosia, we know from Genetic structure of the world first farmers that CHG can be modelled as 72% Iran Neolithic like and 28% European hunter-gatherers, Iran Neolithic is a mix of Basal Eurasian and an ANE like population.

    IMO, Caucasus and Gedrosia are composed from the same elements, ANE and Basal, but Caucasus includes more EHG and WHG.



    This is IranNeo in Dodecad K12b

    Population
    Gedrosia 67.02
    Siberian -
    Northwest_African -
    Southeast_Asian -
    Atlantic_Med -
    North_European -
    South_Asian 6.25
    East_African -
    Southwest_Asian 5.28
    East_Asian -
    Caucasus 19.91
    Sub_Saharan 1.55

    Iran Chalcolithic:

    Population
    Gedrosia 38.56
    Siberian -
    Northwest_African -
    Southeast_Asian -
    Atlantic_Med -
    North_European -
    South_Asian 1.19
    East_African -
    Southwest_Asian 11.42
    East_Asian -
    Caucasus 48.74
    Sub_Saharan 0.09

    Kotias CHG:

    Population
    Gedrosia 34.94
    Siberian 0.98
    Northwest_African -
    Southeast_Asian -
    Atlantic_Med -
    North_European 9.76
    South_Asian 1.17
    East_African -
    Southwest_Asian -
    East_Asian -
    Caucasus 47.18
    Sub_Saharan 5.95

  6. #56
    Baron Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-06-12
    Posts
    340
    Points
    7,498
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,498, Level: 25
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 9.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-BY593
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2

    Country: Canada-Ontario



    @Angela

    When someone implies that the accomplishments of the Egyptians are the result of the genetic make-up of one Pharaoh or one line of pharaohs, I fail to see how it is a straw man argument that this pharaoh was a genetic mess who would have been unable to accomplish or direct his people to accomplish anything whatsoever.

    Plus, try not to get the Pharaohs all mixed up. It was Akhenaten who looked peculiar, for whatever reason.

    Bringing all this up is for nought, however. Tut accomplished nothing of note, except for the luck involved in the fact that his tomb wasn't looted. Akhenaten spent most of his time on religious matters, which ultimately proved to have been time ill spent.

    "Akhenaten tried to shift his culture from Egypt's traditional religion, but the shifts were not widely accepted. After his death, his monuments were dismantled and hidden, his statues were destroyed, and his name excluded from the king lists.[12]Traditional religious practice was gradually restored, and when some dozen years later rulers without clear rights of succession from the 18th Dynasty founded a new dynasty, they discredited Akhenaten and his immediate successors, referring to Akhenaten himself as "the enemy" or "that criminal" in archival records."

    It was the succeeding dynasty, by most accounts descending from a commoner, which brought Egypt to its greatest glory.
    RamessesII-19 Dynasty was good at signing peace treaty the Indo-European Hattusili-Battle of Kadesh.
    However that is not what is of interest. It's the use of the wheel and chariot, and wagon. Egypt accomplished building the pyramids, not an easy feat, the use of wheels and wagons would be great to transport tools and food stuffs for example. To show they had shared a common word for wheel from Proto-Afro-Asiatics, and shared with [Phoenicians >borrowed from Egyptian heiroglyphics] who in turn shared their written alphabet as sea-faring people.
    If Egypt did not have a use/word/ wood for wheels/wagons, just how did the Phoenicians acquire the symbol-in Greek known as Theta? We know Sintashta had spoked wheels, and earlier wagons were used by Yamnaya culture. This is the reason for wanting to know the genetic identity of the Eighteenth, were they native to Egypt, then we might get some insight were they acquired invented the use of wheel chariot and earlier use of wagons, like the distinct linguistic Sumerians.



    Be wary of those who graduate from the university of perversity & diversity by destroying and
    demonizing the past, underestimating the present, and glorifying the future.

  7. #57
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,822
    Points
    249,005
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,005, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Silesian View Post
    @Angela


    RamessesII-19 Dynasty was good at signing peace treaty the Indo-European Hattusili-Battle of Kadesh.
    However that is not what is of interest. It's the use of the wheel and chariot, and wagon. Egypt accomplished building the pyramids, not an easy feat, the use of wheels and wagons would be great to transport tools and food stuffs for example. To show they had shared a common word for wheel from Proto-Afro-Asiatics, and shared with [Phoenicians >borrowed from Egyptian heiroglyphics] who in turn shared their written alphabet as sea-faring people.
    If Egypt did not have a use/word/ wood for wheels/wagons, just how did the Phoenicians acquire the symbol-in Greek known as Theta? We know Sintashta had spoked wheels, and earlier wagons were used by Yamnaya culture. This is the reason for wanting to know the genetic identity of the Eighteenth, were they native to Egypt, then we might get some insight were they acquired invented the use of wheel chariot and earlier use of wagons, like the distinct linguistic Sumerians.

    I'm not following you at all. This dynasty was founded by a man who kicked the Hyksos OUT of Egypt. If he was R1b, then perhaps it was a situation like that of Somerled.

    I don't see how it matters.

    No one has ever suggested, to my knowledge, that the Egyptians invented the chariot. They certainly improved it immensely, however.

    Start at 8:00


    Nor is the might of Egypt or its importance to the world down to one technology. This is 1000 years after the building of the Pyramids, and before the great reigns of Ramses.

    It should be obvious to anyone who has studied any history whatsoever that once an improvement was made, the knowledge spread like wildfire. That's they way it goes.

    It was a mixed blessing. The fiscal drain of building these chariots, getting mounts and training the men has been suggested as one cause of the Bronze Age Collapse.

    When will this mania to take over the glory of other civilizations for the aggrandizement of steppe peoples end? For the first time in my life I'm in sympathy with the "New Left". This is cultural appropriation on a truly gigantic scale.

  8. #58
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,702
    Points
    25,472
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,472, Level: 48
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 78
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    The well tested Greaco-Aryan even Greaco-Armenian CAN NOT BE EXPLAINED NEITHER BY KURGANNEITHER BY STEPPE THEORIES. and altough Yamnaa and Steppe seems very well in explanation of North Europe genetic and Linguistic THEY ARE TOTTALY OUT OF THINKING in South.so Renfrew's theory still is strong and well based
    I really fail to see how the recent studies on the Mycenaeans and Minoans can reinforce Renfrew's increasingly out of touch hypotheses. There we have a Neolithic Greece with no steppe component at all, a Bronze Age Greece where the Minoans traditionally held to be more indigenous and non-IE really appear as a mix of EEF+(extra) CHG without any steppe admixture, and suddenly we know that the Mycenaeans are, out of "sheer coincidence", the only Bronze Age Greeks with a minor but noticeable steppe admixture (and they are certainly not the first Proto-Greeks to arrive in Greece, but a people already totally diluted into the numerous Pre-Hellenic population). To me these data alone make it extremely improbable that Proto-Greeks had nothing to do with the Pontic-Caspian steppe. They were probably not direct immigrants from the steppes, but were certainly related to the Yamna horizon, either in the Balkans or, less likely, in the South Caucasus evidently admixed with the indigenous peoples there. To me, at least, the findings that Mycenaeans were only ~10% steppe-like perfectly fits what I had imagined for Proto-Greeks: a Balkanic people (Ezero? Cotofeni? Vucedol?) who had a heavy Pre-IE substrate both in genetics and in language and had undergone a deep process of cultural shift by elite dominance . as expressed after 2011 by Greenhill Gray Atkinson
    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    Greek Celtic Ikkos Ippos Hepphew Germanic Ars Mars Aryan Cappa (Capadawa cappadaka) So if Antony is correct why the horse is different in South? should the main theme of the basic material of IE culture should the same? BUT IS NOT. WHY?
    Languages often have synonyms for very common animals in the given culture of that society. In the Northeast of Brazil, where donkeys were a major livestock for transport and agricultural techniques, we have "jumento", "jegue", "asno" and other words. It's perfectly normal. See how easily "equus" was replaced by "caballus" in all Romance languages. Also, the Greek "hippos" doesn't come directly from PIE *hek'wos, it would've become a different word if it had followed the regular sound changes from PIE to Greek. I think it may well have come from another IE language that once bordered Proto-Greek. Also, the same root *hek'wos is found in the vast majority of IE groupings, including the Northern ones. The Germanic root that gave us "horse" comes from an affectionate euphemism meaning basically "the swift one", but still you had "eoh" in Old English and "jór" in Icelandic directly descended from *hek'wos. So, it doesn't look like the northern and the southern branches were all that different between themselves. Greek actually shares more isoglosses with "northern" groups like Indo-Iranian (once the main group spoken in the steppes) and Balto-Slavic than other IE branches.

  9. #59
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,702
    Points
    25,472
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,472, Level: 48
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 78
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    As for the 4-18 % of Myceneans I can tell you this in N Greece the Slavic admixture is 20-25% and in some spotted areas reach 35% was this % able to change tottaly language?
    That is one situation. Right to the east of these Northern Greek areas, you have Turkey where a minor East Asian+Central Asian component (presumably Turkic influx) of at most 20% was capable to shift the language of one of the most populated regions of the world in the Middle Ages
    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    Καστανον chestnut kastanie karycnievy castan
    Basic rule of linguistics: if the words look way too similar in meaning and in phonetic form for branches that are supposed to have diverged thousands of years ago, the odds are that you're dealing with a very widespread loanword. "Castan", "kastanie", "chestnut" are all too similar, there doesn't seem to have happened a lot of regular and historic sound changes there. A root that in Romance gave "castagna, castaña" would probably be something like *hasten, *hassen in Germanic. In fact, as you can look in the dictionaries, "chestnut" comes from "chesten, chestaine", the French derivative of "castanea", which by itself is the Latin loanword borrowed from Greek "kastánea". These words didn't come from Neolithic/Chalcolithic PIE, but from much later.

  10. #60
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,702
    Points
    25,472
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,472, Level: 48
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 78
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    I agree, we aren't going to settle where the IE language came to Greece right now, but it seems clear it was accompanied by an increase in steppe admixture regardless. I am not saying the Mycenaean's were direct transplant from the steppe either genetically or culturally, that is ridiculous, but an incursion from a people harboring steppe ancestry brought foundations of the IE Greek language.
    I think there should be more attention to investigate, maybe linking it with population genetics, the linguistic hypothesis (I'd read an article on it months ago) that PIE was the result of heavy grammatical influence and vocabulary borrowing imposed by a language related to the Northwestern Caucasian branch onto an EHG/Eurasian Steppe language. It really did make sense to me on many linguistic (like supposed links of PIE with Northwestern Caucasian and also a bit with Kartvelian), historical and genetic grounds (heavy influx of CHG into a previous EHG population). It also could maybe explain why Neolithic Pontic-Caspian Steppe is mainly a R1a and I2 landscape, but R1b increasingly appeared later. Still in the present age the highest diversity of R1b is in North/Northeastern Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus, and there is a clear concentration of R1b in that region compared to the neighboring Anatolian and Caucasian areas.

  11. #61
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,190
    Points
    39,350
    Level
    61
    Points: 39,350, Level: 61
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 1,000
    Overall activity: 48.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I really fail to see how the recent studies on the Mycenaeans and Minoans can reinforce Renfrew's increasingly out of touch hypotheses. There we have a Neolithic Greece with no steppe component at all, a Bronze Age Greece where the Minoans traditionally held to be more indigenous and non-IE really appear as a mix of EEF+(extra) CHG without any steppe admixture, and suddenly we know that the Mycenaeans are, out of "sheer coincidence", the only Bronze Age Greeks with a minor but noticeable steppe admixture (and they are certainly not the first Proto-Greeks to arrive in Greece, but a people already totally diluted into the numerous Pre-Hellenic population). To me these data alone make it extremely improbable that Proto-Greeks had nothing to do with the Pontic-Caspian steppe. They were probably not direct immigrants from the steppes, but were certainly related to the Yamna horizon, either in the Balkans or, less likely, in the South Caucasus evidently admixed with the indigenous peoples there. To me, at least, the findings that Mycenaeans were only ~10% steppe-like perfectly fits what I had imagined for Proto-Greeks: a Balkanic people (Ezero? Cotofeni? Vucedol?) who had a heavy Pre-IE substrate both in genetics and in language and had undergone a deep process of cultural shift by elite dominance . as expressed after 2011 by Greenhill Gray Atkinson Languages often have synonyms for very common animals in the given culture of that society. In the Northeast of Brazil, where donkeys were a major livestock for transport and agricultural techniques, we have "jumento", "jegue", "asno" and other words. It's perfectly normal. See how easily "equus" was replaced by "caballus" in all Romance languages. Also, the Greek "hippos" doesn't come directly from PIE *hek'wos, it would've become a different word if it had followed the regular sound changes from PIE to Greek. I think it may well have come from another IE language that once bordered Proto-Greek. Also, the same root *hek'wos is found in the vast majority of IE groupings, including the Northern ones. The Germanic root that gave us "horse" comes from an affectionate euphemism meaning basically "the swift one", but still you had "eoh" in Old English and "jór" in Icelandic directly descended from *hek'wos. So, it doesn't look like the northern and the southern branches were all that different between themselves. Greek actually shares more isoglosses with "northern" groups like Indo-Iranian (once the main group spoken in the steppes) and Balto-Slavic than other IE branches.

    Plz read my post #52

  12. #62
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,190
    Points
    39,350
    Level
    61
    Points: 39,350, Level: 61
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 1,000
    Overall activity: 48.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    That is one situation. Right to the east of these Northern Greek areas, you have Turkey where a minor East Asian+Central Asian component (presumably Turkic influx) of at most 20% was capable to shift the language of one of the most populated regions of the world in the Middle Ages Basic rule of linguistics: if the words look way too similar in meaning and in phonetic form for branches that are supposed to have diverged thousands of years ago, the odds are that you're dealing with a very widespread loanword. "Castan", "kastanie", "chestnut" are all too similar, there doesn't seem to have happened a lot of regular and historic sound changes there. A root that in Romance gave "castagna, castaña" would probably be something like *hasten, *hassen in Germanic. In fact, as you can look in the dictionaries, "chestnut" comes from "chesten, chestaine", the French derivative of "castanea", which by itself is the Latin loanword borrowed from Greek "kastánea". These words didn't come from Neolithic/Chalcolithic PIE, but from much later.

    Ygorcs

    we do not speak about the word computer here
    we speak about a tree that was in Europe
    and people, either Neolithic either IE eat it and new it before Aristoteles made his taxonomy and before Roman empire

  13. #63
    Baron Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-06-12
    Posts
    340
    Points
    7,498
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,498, Level: 25
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 9.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-BY593
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2

    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I'm not following you at all. This dynasty was founded by a man who kicked the Hyksos OUT of Egypt. If he was R1b, then perhaps it was a situation like that of Somerled. I don't see how it matters.
    Why bother testing him and not release the results in an official/peer reviewed paper? Maybe he is not even R1b, that is speculation, he maybe of a different ydna group altogether, maybe an Afrocentrist dream come true, why deny them some joy. Of course they will have to do a 180 with all the negative profiling about his looks and health.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    No one has ever suggested, to my knowledge, that the Egyptians invented the chariot. They certainly improved it immensely, however.
    They were not able to defeat the Hittites with their improved chariots, and according to you one of the 19 dynasty famed Pharoahs. What more did they need.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Nor is the might of Egypt or its importance to the world down to one technology. This is 1000 years after the building of the Pyramids, and before the great reigns of Ramses.
    Still you provide no Afro-Asiatic root associated with the wheels and wagons and chariots word for a very basic technology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    It should be obvious to anyone who has studied any history whatsoever that once an improvement was made, the knowledge spread like wildfire. That's they way it goes.
    I don't see any Egyptian type pyramids or the technology or science that was used to make them anywhere but Egypt. If you know let us in on it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    It was a mixed blessing. The fiscal drain of building these chariots, getting mounts and training the men has been suggested as one cause of the Bronze Age Collapse.
    Again more speculation, we simply do not know, and unless we test and release the results of those tests we might never know, was weather global
    cooling,plague, we don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    When will this mania to take over the glory of other civilizations for the aggrandizement of steppe peoples end?
    You forgot about the fine examples found in United Nations of their contribution. That's okay I doubt you know what they are.


    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    For the first time in my life I'm in sympathy with the "New Left". This is cultural appropriation on a truly gigantic scale.
    Just more political-profiling and cultural-profiling. I think it would be nice to give the linguistic/culture/ tradition that allowed us to communicate and express our ideas to one another a brief mention. Modern Intellectual property laws are written in their language, legal laws are written in their language and peace treaties. Just show me one post, just one where you give your cultural appropriation of due recognition to the Germanic tribe called the Angles, or their customs and traditions.

  14. #64
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,822
    Points
    249,005
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,005, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Silesian:Why bother testing him and not release the results in an official/peer reviewed paper? Maybe he is not even R1b, that is speculation, he maybe of a different ydna group altogether, maybe an Afrocentrist dream come true, why deny them some joy. Of course they will have to do a 180 with all the negative profiling about his looks and health.
    Are you feeling quite all right? Why am I to blame if the results weren't released? Of course they should be released. What do I have to do with Afrocentrists? I barely know who they are. Plus, Ramses already carries an African lineage, doesn't he? What's the big deal?

    They were not able to defeat the Hittites with their improved chariots, and according to you one of the 19 dynasty famed Pharoahs. What more did they need.
    I think you need to go on Wiki and get a simple timeline of Egyptian history. It's not "according to me"; it's according to history and archaeology.

    Tut and Akhenaten were members of the 18th dynasty, yes? That dynasty was founded by Ahmose I, who finished the work of EXPELLING the Hyksos. That's why I implied it would be very ironic if this dynasty carried an R1b y presumably from the Hyksos. Get it now? It was the 15th, 16th and 17th dynasties, the Third Intermediate period, which were contemporary with the Hyksos. Of course, there's a dispute as to whether Thutmose I, who continued the dynasty, was actually a male line descendant of Ahmose I. I suppose he could have been descended from some Delta left over male line of ultimate Hyksos origin. Or, if Tut was indeed R1b, maybe it had moved down into Egypt hundreds of years before. These things are murky, which is why I don't get too worked up about them.

    As for chariots, the earliest Egyptian improvements to chariots of which I'm aware took place around 1500 BC, which would be the beginning of the 18th dynasty. There were six excellent specimens in the tomb of Tutankhamen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chario..._ancient_Egypt

    They continued to improve them until they were the marvels used by Ramses II, of a totally different dynasty, in the epic battle of Kadesh in 1274 BC against the Hittites, who could have had nothing to do with the ancestry of the 18th dynasty, since it was centuries before. As I already said, the y of one of these subsequent pharaohs is "E", and may be a Sub-Saharan "E".

    As to who won the Battle of Kadesh, it depends upon whom you believe, or whose account you believe, but at worst, from the Egyptian perspectivem it was a draw, if not the victory they claimed. Since I don't look at history and pick winners or losers based on some agenda, I don't care who won or lost. Why would I care? I'm not Egyptian or Hittite.

    Some things seem to be part of the consensus however.

    "The Hittites, who believed their enemies to be totally routed, had stopped to plunder the Egyptian camp and, in doing so, became easy targets for Ramesses' counterattack. Ramesses' action was successful in driving the looters back towards the Orontes river and away from the Egyptian camp,[32] while in the ensuing pursuit, the heavier Hittite chariots were easily overtaken and dispatched by the lighter, faster, Egyptian chariots.[13]"

    So, yes, their chariots were better.

    Still you provide no Afro-Asiatic root associated with the wheels and wagons and chariots word for a very basic technology.

    For goodness' sakes, you're going to go back to the invention of the wheel? That's way before the period you started discussing. Can we focus here? Use the search engine. All the latest research indicates that the wheel was invented either in the Near East or "Old Europe". When are you people going to admit that nothing is original to the steppe except the domestication of the horse and perhaps the spoked wheel all the way over in Sintashta. If you want to really get into the chariots you should read up about the role the Mitanni played in all of this. As to the steppe people, in the beginning they got everything from other people with whom they came into contact: herding and the animals to herd, farming, metallurgy, everything, maybe even the damn kurgans. There's just no dispute about these things any longer. Why is that so terrible? The Japanese have borrowed almost everything too and done quite well off it.

    I don't see any Egyptian type pyramids or the technology or science that was used to make them anywhere but Egypt. If you know let us in on it.


    Don't be childish: different points for tools spread, different domesticates, flora and fauna, and techniques to farm them spread, different firing techniques and glazes for pottery spread, different forms for metallurgy, including furnace technology, spread, different and better sword making techniques spread, and yes, different improvements for chariots spread. It became like an ancient version of the arms war. If you're going to argue about something like this, you have to have done the reading required.

    You forgot about the fine examples found in United Nations of their contribution. That's okay I doubt you know what they are.
    Getting nasty now about other ethnicities? I don't think that's such a good idea. You really want to compare what your people have contributed of such great import to European or world civilization in the last 5000 years, after this mass inflow of Indo-European genes, compared to the total achievements of the Egyptians? You sure you want to go down that road? It also never makes sense to me to be casting stones at other people when every group has things of which to be ashamed.

    Just more political-profiling and cultural-profiling. I think it would be nice to give the linguistic/culture/ tradition that allowed us to communicate and express our ideas to one another a brief mention. Modern Intellectual property laws are written in their language, legal laws are written in their language and peace treaties. Just show me one post, just one where you give your cultural appropriation of due recognition to the Germanic tribe called the Angles, or their customs and traditions.
    This is just silly, Silesian. If by Angles you mean their partial descendants the English, I'm an avid admirer of a lot of things about English civilization. In fact, I've been accused of being a bit of an Anglophile. I'll just mention three of the most important.

    One: I have profound respect for the tradition of English jurisprudence and law in particular, the common law tradition, the jury system, and on and on. I could wax prolific about it.

    Two: it is to the English in great part, but not only, that we owe the modern development of democracy and I am profoundly grateful for it. I could wax prolific about that as well, starting with the Magna Carta, moving all the way through things like the Glorious Revolution etc. etc.

    Three: I think English literature is one of the most important contributions of any country to world culture.

    If you're talking about things from the culture of the Angles and Saxons specifically, like trial by battle, or fire, or the death of a Celt being worth less money than the death of a Saxon or Angle, then no, I'm not a fan. You can't possibly think there's any comparison in terms of their achievements and those of people like the ancient Egyptians? It's ludicrous. I will grant you, of course, that Alfred's reign was of importance.

    That should do, given this is totally off-topic.

    You know, I never start this ethnic bashing stuff, and, in fact, I find it abhorrent. If there is anything of which I'm sure, it's that there are good and bad, intelligent and stupid, people in every ethnic group, and I have friends, good friends in most, including yours. However, people who dish it out should be willing to take it. I know I'm not Egyptian, but since we don't have any here I'll take it upon myself to even the playing field. I don't believe in turning the other cheek about this or anything else. I believe in hitting back hard so the bullies think better of it next time. Don't degrade or hold other groups up to ridicule and it won't be done to you.
    Last edited by Angela; 02-01-18 at 05:20.

  15. #65
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    501
    Points
    4,876
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,876, Level: 20
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 174
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    Do you really think two separate admixture events is possible for Greece? That EHG ancestry somehow came to Greece unadmixed? Minoans and even Peloponnese Neolithic already had CHG ancestry, yet they were not an IE people. Looking at the Bronze age balkans we can see the trickling down of Yamnaya ancestry increasingly over time, pure EHG somehow arriving in Greece on its own doesn't make any sense.
    I avoid talking about what I think. Unadmixed with what? Unadmixed with Iran Neolithic, theoretically yes. Btw, also not 'on its own'.

    I don't know what language Peloponnese Neolithic people spoke and concerning the Linear A language(s) the theories that have been proposed are: 1) Anatolian, 2) Greek or Greek-like, 3) Semitic, 4) distinct IE clade, 5) Indo-Iranian, 6) Tyrsenian etc.

    The steppe-like admixture that increases doesn't mean anything, if IE languages were already in Balkans and Central Europe before the expansions from the steppe.

  16. #66
    Princess Achievements:
    Overdrive10000 Experience PointsVeteranThree Friends
    davef's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-06-16
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,199
    Points
    10,445
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,445, Level: 30
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 105
    Overall activity: 48.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian,Irish,Jewish
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Silesian, I'm pretty sure it's possible to design a pyramid and figure out the math involved as well as the steps needed to carry out its construction (involving quite a bit of brain power) without having to rely on a chariot. You have to focus on what makes building a pyramid impressive.
    mmmmmmmmm dooouuughhhnuuuutz

  17. #67
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    501
    Points
    4,876
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,876, Level: 20
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 174
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Greece



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Also, the Greek "hippos" doesn't come directly from PIE *hek'wos, it would've become a different word if it had followed the regular sound changes from PIE to Greek. I think it may well have come from another IE language that once bordered Proto-Greek. Also, the same root *hek'wos is found in the vast majority of IE groupings, including the Northern ones.
    What are they? What are the laws that give eoh in Old English?

    "hippos" was the Attic Greek word, the word was different in Mycenean and other dialects (*ikwos -> ikkos in Aeolic).
    There is one thing that is unexplained based on the reconstructed word (the /i/).

    If you know the relevant sound laws for Greek I have a question to make.

  18. #68
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Promenade's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-16
    Posts
    288
    Points
    4,459
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,459, Level: 19
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 191
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U106 R-L1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1e

    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I think there should be more attention to investigate, maybe linking it with population genetics, the linguistic hypothesis (I'd read an article on it months ago) that PIE was the result of heavy grammatical influence and vocabulary borrowing imposed by a language related to the Northwestern Caucasian branch onto an EHG/Eurasian Steppe language. It really did make sense to me on many linguistic (like supposed links of PIE with Northwestern Caucasian and also a bit with Kartvelian), historical and genetic grounds (heavy influx of CHG into a previous EHG population). It also could maybe explain why Neolithic Pontic-Caspian Steppe is mainly a R1a and I2 landscape, but R1b increasingly appeared later. Still in the present age the highest diversity of R1b is in North/Northeastern Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus, and there is a clear concentration of R1b in that region compared to the neighboring Anatolian and Caucasian areas.

    My issue with this is what group would have brought R1b from the Caucasus to the steppe? It does not appear in the Caucasus until the Kura-araxes culture, long after we see R1b in the steppe. Earlier in the chalcolithic the predominate haplogroup in Armenia is L1a and we find steppe ancestry in both populations. CHG's also had y-dna J2 and likewise the spread of CHG ancestry south of the Caucasus follows the spread of J2, yet we find no J2 in the steppe. The Shulaveri-Shomu culture would be old enough to have been responsible for bringing R1b to the steppe, but we do not know their y-dna as far as I know.


    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    I avoid talking about what I think. Unadmixed with what? Unadmixed with Iran Neolithic, theoretically yes. Btw, also not 'on its own'.

    I don't know what language Peloponnese Neolithic people spoke and concerning the Linear A language(s) the theories that have been proposed are: 1) Anatolian, 2) Greek or Greek-like, 3) Semitic, 4) distinct IE clade, 5) Indo-Iranian, 6) Tyrsenian etc.

    The steppe-like admixture that increases doesn't mean anything, if IE languages were already in Balkans and Central Europe before the expansions from the steppe.

    Yes, or more precisely CHG ancestry. Lazardis doesn't offer any model for EHG entering Greece without the CHG component entering in tandem and we see much greater levels in Yamnaya ancestry in populations surrounding the north of Greece than we do EHG ancestry.

    Also Peloponnese Neolithic did not have CHG so I should have not included them when mentioning Minoans, the CHG element in Greece did not appear until much later. I know Renfrew believes Minoan might have been IE, but he suggests it's entrance around the same time as we see Peloponnese Neolithic which lacks CHG ancestry. If Minoan is IE it means the ultimate origin of IE languages is likely the Caucasus and whatever impact the steppe harboring ancestry had in terms of linguistics in Greece during the Mycenaean era was less prominent, but that doesn't necessitate that the appearance "doesn't mean anything."

  19. #69
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,836
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,836, Level: 22
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 214
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    In the History of South-Eastern Europe of Mathiesen we have 1 individual that is R1b and H13, H13 is clearly a Caucasus maternal lineage so a CHG one. Maybe the anatolian hypothesis is correct for R1b expansion but IE languages is another story.

  20. #70
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Promenade's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-16
    Posts
    288
    Points
    4,459
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,459, Level: 19
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 191
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U106 R-L1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1e

    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    In the History of South-Eastern Europe of Mathiesen we have 1 individual that is R1b and H13, H13 is clearly a Caucasus maternal lineage so a CHG one. Maybe the anatolian hypothesis is correct for R1b expansion but IE languages is another story.
    This guy is a pure WHG from before 7,500bc though, with no CHG ancestry. I remember them stating that Iron Gates HG's could be related to Anatolian HGs or a source population WHGs split from because of their mtdna, but the CHG ancestry isn't there.

  21. #71
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,836
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,836, Level: 22
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 214
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    This guy is a pure WHG from before 7,500bc though, with no CHG ancestry. I remember them stating that Iron Gates HG's could be related to Anatolian HGs or a source population WHGs split from because of their mtdna, but the CHG ancestry isn't there.
    Hum, well that's interesting, i dont understand how could Villabruna individual with clear Magdalenian maternal lineage shows Middle-Eastern signals, just like Baltic HG, when the most geographical close Balkans HG or Danubian Fishermen, with clear Middle-East maternal signals would be pure WHG. Ukraine HG is pure EHG and Balkans HG is pure WHG but Baltic HG shows signals of CHG, coming through those pure european HG clusters ?

    Kotias Klde is mtdna H13c and after Maciamo modern H13 is confine to Caucasus.

  22. #72
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    04-09-16
    Posts
    491
    Points
    1,328
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,328, Level: 9
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 22
    Overall activity: 29.0%


    Country: Portugal



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    The Shulaveri-Shomu culture would be old enough to have been responsible for bringing R1b to the steppe, but we do not know their y-dna as far as I know.."
    Yes. But we know their Mtdna: I1, H2, H15a1.
    These mtdna are later associated with steppe.
    Shulaveri were remarkable because of highly developement pastoral traits and very developed agricultural. My opinion is those pastoral traits, mostly on the cattle side, links them somehow to iron gates, ovogorata, in the balkans.
    Shulaveri is key to unraveling this story.
    http://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo.pt/hagoshrim-6121

  23. #73
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    501
    Points
    4,876
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,876, Level: 20
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 174
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    Yes, or more precisely CHG ancestry. Lazardis doesn't offer any model for EHG entering Greece without the CHG component entering in tandem and we see much greater levels in Yamnaya ancestry in populations surrounding the north of Greece than we do EHG ancestry.

    Also Peloponnese Neolithic did not have CHG so I should have not included them when mentioning Minoans, the CHG element in Greece did not appear until much later. I know Renfrew believes Minoan might have been IE, but he suggests it's entrance around the same time as we see Peloponnese Neolithic which lacks CHG ancestry. If Minoan is IE it means the ultimate origin of IE languages is likely the Caucasus and whatever impact the steppe harboring ancestry had in terms of linguistics in Greece during the Mycenaean era was less prominent, but that doesn't necessitate that the appearance "doesn't mean anything."
    It was Davidski's idea that Yamnaya was EHG + CHG while Lazaridis had said it was EHG and Iran Chalcolithic or EHG + CHG + Iran Chalcolithic if I remember correctly.

    Peloponnese Neolithic appeared to have some 'steppe' (steppe-like) admixture in Iain Mathieson, The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe (see Extended Data figure 2) but Davidski and others said it wasn't real steppe admixture but CHG related. If that is wrong anything about that study can be wrong.

    Concerning 'Minoans' if they were IE, either the Anatolian Neolithic/EEF or the CHG component or both were associated with early IE and if they weren't at least one of them wasn't.

    My first option was to connect IE languages to Anatolian and European Neolithic but if 10% admixture is enough to cause language shift the 'homeland' can be almost everywhere.
    Last edited by A. Papadimitriou; 09-01-18 at 10:35.

  24. #74
    Regular Member Achievements:
    500 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    29-05-17
    Posts
    85

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-M222
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1A

    Country: United Kingdom



    You sure about that
    i recall china was about to build a lifesize replica, a few years back that didnt get out of planning because it was too difficult.
    if china cant build one now neither can africa.

    I read a interesting book about some grooves in front of the great pyramid that run under a later building.
    the author made a very good case for the use of ropes and pulleys that dropped weights down a hundred ft
    shaft to lift blocks off of boats on a canal at giza.
    i cant think of the name of it right now but i thought it was very interesting his second book too was all about
    crystal lenses and ancient telescopes. well worth a look at.
    but the experts dismiss his idea for a drainage channel used to drain water from the building. Even though it slopes
    the wrong way lol.

    Reply to davef #66

  25. #75
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,728
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,728, Level: 63
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 1,222
    Overall activity: 45.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    My issue with this is what group would have brought R1b from the Caucasus to the steppe? It does not appear in the Caucasus until the Kura-araxes culture, long after we see R1b in the steppe. Earlier in the chalcolithic the predominate haplogroup in Armenia is L1a and we find steppe ancestry in both populations. CHG's also had y-dna J2 and likewise the spread of CHG ancestry south of the Caucasus follows the spread of J2, yet we find no J2 in the steppe. The Shulaveri-Shomu culture would be old enough to have been responsible for bringing R1b to the steppe, but we do not know their y-dna as far as I know.
    Yes indeed, R1b-L23 split 6.1 ka into the Yamna R1b-Z2106 and R1b-L51 which brought IE to western Europe.
    I can't think of any other origin of R1b-L23 than eastern Europe.
    Actually, all subclades downstream of R1b1a-L754 seem originated in eastern Europe.

    So IE must have been in eastern Europe by 6.1 ka the latest - I'd even say 6.4 ka when R1b-M269 split, because the other branch of R1b-M269 was probably also IE.
    Yet anciant DNA doesn't show any significant other Y-DNA in eastern Europe coming from south of the Caucasus.
    We don't know the Y-DNA of Maykop, but that was later than 6.1 ka anyway.

    The subclades of R1b-M269 found in Armenia are dated after the replacement of Yamna folks by Corded Ware folks.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •