Central and South Asian DNA Paper

Andronovo origin to be challenged in Eurogenes according to 2017 achaeology paper.

“Bronze Age social and cultural interconnections across the Eurasian steppe are the subject of much current debate. A particularly significant place is occupied by the Andronovo Culture or family of cultures. Important new data document the most easterly extension of Eurasian Bronze Age sites of Andronovo affinity into western China. Findings from the site of Adunqiaolu in Xinjiang and a new series of radiocarbon dates challenge existing models of eastward cultural dispersion, and demonstrate the need to reconsider the older chronologies and migration theories. The site is well preserved and offers robust potential for deeper study of the Andronovo culture complex, pparticularly in the eastern mountain regions.”

"The Begash settlement (at the south-eastern edge of Kazakhstan) in particular was occupied over several chronological phases. Phase Ib is associated with the Fedorovo period, with radiocarbon dates placing it from c. 1890–1690 cal BC." (p.625)

"Twelve AMS 14C dates have been obtained from house F1 and the burials at Adunqiaolu. These show that the start of the early period at Adunqiaolu falls in the nineteenth century cal BC. In the traditional chronology, this is earlier than Petrovka, or even earlier than the late period of Sintashta. A number of radiocarbon dates are now available for sites of Andronovo type in western China, generally showing the same early ranges." (p.632)
Click to expand...

I already mentioned that non- local creamation culture of andronovo seems to be originated in the creamation culture of Bagash around 2,000bc. Also 2013 anthro paper mentions that andronovo proper seems to be in Karzakstan’s origin, even if it cannnot be proved now. Of course, andronovo expansion was closey related to powerful tin bronze of east altai or east karzakstan.

Actually east karzakstan Andronovo culture has something to do with Ferodova culture, being related with Indo aryan. Probelm is the culture started in 1,500bc. More problem is andronvo culture merged in late Krotovo culture of seima turbino for 300 years. How did it pappened? Can tiger and wolf sleep together?

This new Harvard paper also has early sample of east andronovo, zevakinskiey, BA around 2,000BC. But they did not mention how it is connected to the other andronovo.

However, if the andronovo samples do not satisfy L657, we need to have the Okunevo Tuva samples in near future. Their skull type of caucasoid is totally different from Okunevo Munsk basin. As I already quoted, scythian animal art culture originated in okunevo.
Russian anthroplogist A G Kozintsev claimed that Scythian groups had the closest affinities to the Okunev of Tuva, even strongly denying in 2017 2 page paper that Okunevo brachy flat skull in Munsk basin was connected to caucasoid scythian skull.

Additionally, andronov and okunevo cultural connection was also found..
Based on that as well as on the object`s chronology in accordance to the observations of Arkturus on the First Sunduk we came to the conclusion that the First Sunduk is the monument of Okunev and Andronovo cultures. We are also sure that should archeological excavations be conducted Okunev, Karasuk, Andronovo and Afanas`ev ceramics are found. Seraphim Stone was attributed to the Okunev culture because of two images placed in situ on the Stone that are certainly attributed to the Okunev culture. Judging by the Arcturus and Betelgeuse observation, we can attribute Seraphim Stone to the Okunev-Andronovo culture. The presence of the two atypical images that define astronomically significant directions and cannot be attributed to any other known culture of Khakassia allow us to assume that these images may have created by Andronovo culture bearers in Khakassia After studying the sves, A. I. Gotlib, D. A. Kirillova and M.A. Podol`skaya came to the conclusion that these building were the places of seasonal residence and periodical ritual actions, not of permanent residence. At the same time, a clear stratigraphy of cultural layers in the studied objects could not be detected. The researchers proved that monumental swell structures of sandstone slabs can be unambiguously attributed to the Okunev culture.
Click to expand...

The Important thing is okunevo petroglyphs were found near Indus valley and their artifacts clearly imply their connection to modern Hindu culture as I posted lots of time. Most Important thing is modern Hindu culture can not be separate from Mayan culture.
 
Olympus Mons said:
Not Iran. Actually irritatingly wrong by everyone. Enough. Its in Georgia Neolithic because that is where 90% of the shulaveri lived.
That is why oldest wine making was first in georgia and a couple centuries later it shows here in Hajji.
Btw, hajji firuz was clearly a Shulaveri Shomu offshoot in lake Urmia. Then, around 5400/5200bc some others arrive, the Dalma people.
But these dates they were the Shulaveri.
Click to expand...

What do you think about the links of Shulaveri Shomu (SS) to Halaf? Descended or influenced?

Also, according to Wikipedia at least, Leyla Tepe, which has strong links to Maykop, was itself founded by Ubaid settlers. A clear path can be seen from Halaf to Ubaid. Assuming the Halaf-Ubaid transition wasn’t from replacement, can it be said that Halaf is the actual pre-proto-IE home and not SS? Does Leyla Tepe bear more resemblance to SS or Ubaid?
 
New member. Just a thought we don't say khybur Pas .I know it as Habur Ra.It is a river in the land of the Mattanni.This is the way Indians went to get to FELLOW Indians.

Sent from my MIX 2 using Tapatalk
 
The most important thing is the Neolithic farmers and Steppe peoples immigration to s.asia were separated by several millenia.
 
which ydna hg is from ANE or W.Siberian hunter gatherers? this paper shows more influence from these groups too.
 
The paper on the Indus Valley is obviously being delayed out of ideology.
 
@Papadriitriou-
I was ready to answer your surprising post #259 but Ygorcs made a good balanced answer in my place;
 
Did that R1b-Z2103 Hajji Firuz sample ever get radio carbon dated and did the results get posted anywhere?
 
holderlin said:
Did that R1b-Z2103 Hajji Firuz sample ever get radio carbon dated and did the results get posted anywhere?
Click to expand...

Do you know in general how many times it gets? I feel that's the kind of thing that we only gonna know in 8 months or so.
 
halfalp said:
Do you know in general how many times it gets? I feel that's the kind of thing that we only gonna know in 8 months or so.
Click to expand...

This could have been done overnight. It's only matter of someone getting to doing the work, unless someone is hoarding the samples.

Sample size is usually limited by how rare the sample material is because it's a destructive test. No one's in a hurry to grind up a bunch of 10k year old human bone, especially given that technological advancements will enables us to get way more data from the sample in the near future. You can verify the suitability of the sample throughout the prep, in this case getting nitrogen content to verify that the callogen concentration will be high enough to get a good measurement, ensuring that the sample quantity is high enough, and qualitatively ensuring that everything looks normal during the procedure. If you screw up a C14 test the results are almost always so out of whack that there is no question that the measurement was bad, especially in this case when the context is pretty clear.

***EDIT***

So yeah, given the significance that they're trying to ascribe to this sample, they should have gotten right to this. It's annoying.
 
holderlin said:
This could have been done overnight. It's only matter of someone getting to doing the work, unless someone is hoarding the samples.

Sample size is usually limited by how rare the sample material is because it's a destructive test. No one's in a hurry to grind up a bunch of 10k year old human bone, especially given that technological advancements will enables us to get way more data from the sample in the near future. You can verify the suitability of the sample throughout the prep, in this case getting nitrogen content to verify that the callogen concentration will be high enough to get a good measurement, ensuring that the sample quantity is high enough, and qualitatively ensuring that everything looks normal during the procedure. If you screw up a C14 test the results are almost always so out of whack that there is no question that the measurement was bad, especially in this case when the context is pretty clear.

***EDIT***

So yeah, given the significance that they're trying to ascribe to this sample, they should have gotten right to this. It's annoying.
Click to expand...

They probably dont really care about the age of the sample. They are professionnal researchers with an hypothesis in line, they dont care that the amateur community have some requests.
 
holderlin said:
This could have been done overnight. It's only matter of someone getting to doing the work, unless someone is hoarding the samples.
Click to expand...

Reich is probably hoarding lots of samples that suit him because he wants to author the epic paper that will settle the Indo-European question and get tens of thousands of citations. Meanwhile we have to wait for his convenience.
 
^^Obviously, the curiosity of amateurs, and particularly amateurs who are desperate to prove their own agenda, should take precedence over his own career, the careers of all those post doctoral and doctoral students, and any desire to put the results from one sample in proper context both genetically and archaeologically, and to present a well reasoned and complete analysis.
 
Why does everything on here degenerate into these types of arguments now?

THEY SAID THEY WERE RUNNING A C14. IT CAME FROM THEM. It has nothing to do with amateur anything. They understood that they should probably verify the date and so they announced that they were doing that.

They're just taking forever so I wanted to know if anyone knew anything about the progress. This was months ago. Anyone who was interested in that data is allowed to be annoyed.
 
johen said:
Andronovo origin to be challenged in Eurogenes according to 2017 achaeology paper.


[...
I already mentioned that non- local creamation culture of andronovo seems to be originated in the creamation culture of Bagash around 2,000bc. Also 2013 anthro paper mentions that andronovo proper seems to be in Karzakstan’s origin, even if it cannnot be proved now. Of course, andronovo expansion was closey related to powerful tin bronze of east altai or east karzakstan.

...
Russian anthroplogist A G Kozintsev claimed that Scythian groups had the closest affinities to the Okunev of Tuva, even strongly denying in 2017 2 page paper that Okunevo brachy flat skull in Munsk basin was connected to caucasoid scythian skull.


.
Click to expand...

I think Konitsev did a detailed work - and if I remember well, he distinguished some sites of every culture of the other sites, what shows if globally there are ties between cultures and ethnies, it's not always the case for some sites -
and some common tndancies does not prevent small differencies which can be teh result of a specific historical contact with other very different pops -
the sites of Tuva and close surroundings in general, for I red, spite they are very far in East, show often a less 'proto-uralic' input found in other Okunevo sites (in every case almost no typical 'east-asian' input, if any), and a very strong 'europoid' input, whatever the kind of 'europoid' mix - the same or even stronger input of 'europoids' (Central-West Europe and Kura-Araxes ties) in Jelunino sites close to Tuva...

and Konitsev doesn't put all Scythians in the same bag; with good reason, because ancient auDNA showed these differences, even if relatively slight -
I wrote (out work Konitsev) "Spite of their within tribe variances, Kozintsev thinks there were noticeable anthropological difference even if not too strong between Forrest-Steppes groups of Scythians and Steppes groups of Scythians; according to Kozintsev a common element would have been the Srubna people and maybe other ones of same IE origin; but has the distinction between two kinds of Steppes something in common with the distinction between their longitude ?" (thread in Anthropology, you red it I think)
 
So still nothing about Hajji Firuz?
 
Any idea when some of the informative dates/samples get past the political review process?
 
holderlin said:
This could have been done overnight. It's only matter of someone getting to doing the work, unless someone is hoarding the samples.

Sample size is usually limited by how rare the sample material is because it's a destructive test. No one's in a hurry to grind up a bunch of 10k year old human bone, especially given that technological advancements will enables us to get way more data from the sample in the near future. You can verify the suitability of the sample throughout the prep, in this case getting nitrogen content to verify that the callogen concentration will be high enough to get a good measurement, ensuring that the sample quantity is high enough, and qualitatively ensuring that everything looks normal during the procedure. If you screw up a C14 test the results are almost always so out of whack that there is no question that the measurement was bad, especially in this case when the context is pretty clear.

***EDIT***

So yeah, given the significance that they're trying to ascribe to this sample, they should have gotten right to this. It's annoying.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's already done but will be due in the next update.
 
^^Finally, a voice of reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 287373 times.

Back
Top