Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 495

Thread: What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

  1. #101
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    I think there should be a map for R1a-M17, I created it:


  2. #102
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    332
    Points
    9,000
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,000, Level: 28
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 350
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    What is controversial about it? As you read about haplogroup R1a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a "A large, 2014 study by Peter A. Underhill et al., using 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia, concluded that there was compelling evidence that "the initial episodes of haplogroup R1a diversification likely occurred in the vicinity of present-day Iran."



    As you see it show a direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia, before talking about other things, first you should show me a new study which fundamentally rejects Underhill's theory by of course using valid evidences. As I said in another thread we have also valid genetic evidences that haplogroup R1a-M17 existed in different parts of Iran from at least 6,000 years ago and it has still the highest frequency in this country.
    I believe you've misunderstood Ygorcs. He stated that the map that Eupedia provides on their R1a page is not exactly updated and it is "controversial" for many. However your map is also controversial, you do not take into account the oldest samples of M417 and Z93, which have been found in the Pontic Steppe with another Z93 individual found in Bronze Age Mongolia. Our oldest example of M417 comes from the Eneolithic period in the Ukraine like I had just previously mentioned. Mathieson et al data has been organized into a chart which can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1261376483, Individual ID I6561 is R-M417, this is in the Sredny Stog cultural area.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    As I see almost all researches in the recent years say the same thing about R1a, for example Dr. Csaba Barnabas Horvath says "Present day microsatellite variance would suggest the origin of European R1a somewhere around present day Turkey and Iran. This, according to its’ present distribution in Europe, with higher microsatellite variance in Central Europe than in Eastern Europe or Central Asia, would clearly suggest a route through Anatolia and the Balkans."
    To expand on your quote from that paper by Dr. Horvath:

    "The problem is the hitherto absence of R1a even in samples from prehistoric cultures where data is relatively abundant, and where its’ present day microsatellite variance would suggest its’ origins. Present day microsatellite variance would suggest the origin of European R1a somewhere around present day Turkey and Iran.114 This, according to its’ present distribution in Europe, with higher microsatellite variance in Central Europe than in Eastern Europe or Central Asia, would clearly suggest a route through Anatolia and the Balkans. However among ancient YNDA [sic] data gained from 26 samples of the Anatolian Neolithic, R1a (as well as R1b) is entirely absent,115 and it is also absent from Neolithic cultures ofthe Balkans, such as the Stračevo,116 Vinča,117 and Lengyel118119 cultures."

    He then goes on to say:

    "Even if the number of samples is relatively few from these cultures, the fact that R1a is missing from all of them seems to be too much for a mere coincidence. The only other possible geographic route could be through Central Asia and Eastern Europe, a scenario of which the presence of the four R1a1 samples from the Kunda and Narva cultures may be signs. This scenario is however also contradicted by some ancient DNA data, as the Comb Ware Culture seems to have been dominated by haplogroup N1c, that likely arrived from Siberia or Central Asia the same time when that culture appeared in the region,120 and autosomal DNA data also defines the population of Corded Ware originating from Yamna,121 and not from Comb Ware. Although R1a1 samples from the Narva and Kunda cultures suggest R1a1 presence in the region from before the arrival of N1c, it seems that by the height of Comb Ware Culture, N1c was already predominant in the region, and therefore, Comb Ware Culture seems to be a highly unlikely candidate to be the source of R1a1a predominance in the Corded Ware and Andronovo Cultures. R1a is also absent from the Funnelbeaker culture,122123that geographically was the direct predecessor of the Corded Ware in its’ own region, so not only Comb Ware, but also Funnelbeaker seems to be anunlikely candidate for that role."

    He proceeds:

    "Since R1a is not only absent from Neolithic Balkan cultures, but it is also absent from all cultures in Central Europe before Rössen, and Cucuteni ie. before 4800 BC, (most notably from western LBK124125) little space seem to remain in Early Neolithic Europe for the role of the original homeland of R1a1a. So while R1a1a is predominant in ancient DNA samples from the Corded Ware and Andronovo cultures, in accordance to its’ present day geographical distribution, it seems to have been almost entirely absent from everywhere from before that. To put it sharply, it seems to have arrived from nowhere, to dominate Bronze Age Eastern Europe and Central Asia.If our approach is to find cultures with R1a abundance, the only space that remains for R1a are cultures from which ancient YDNA samples are as of now unavailable, and that are at the same time the direct predecessors of the Corded Ware and Andronovo cultures, where R1a1a is already proven to have been predominant."

    He doesn't even agree with you due to the lack of R1a clades found in Neolithic cultures in central Europe and the Balkans so he proceeds to say that the Anatolia route is not viable. He then says that a route through Central Asia and Eastern Europe is more plausible. We now have evidence that supports that early important R1a clades were present in important periods in the Steppes when we would have expected them to be found in the Neolithic cultures of Anatolia or the Balkans, if we were to rely on the microsatellite variance. Why did you cut out parts of your quote?

    For those who want the full read:
    https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/...view/6837/6563


    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    The Celtic loans are found in Norse as well. That's why continuity doesn't work, imho. There must have been massive language replacement by a group that had contacts with the Celts. The Jastorf model explains this better.
    Honestly I agree with you, but I was more referring to a continuity of the people, right now the genetic evidence, especially through Eurogenes calculations show that it is unlikely that Scandinavia experienced a population shift. Perhaps a cultural shift, Culture doesn't necessarily need a mass amount of people to come in, just an elite-dominance. However, we'll have a better idea when we acquire more samples, it doesn't help that the parts of Scandinavian soil do not lend themselves to the preservation of genetic material.

    Quote Originally Posted by nornosh View Post
    Could you meet in the middle regarding the origin of Germanic peoples I mean not Scandinavia not Luristan but maybe Northern Caucasia(Pontic Steppe). The Akkadian vocabulary too could have entered Proto Germanic language by Semitic peoples of Caucasus in bronze age not directly by the Akkadian people.
    No, because the evidence doesn't really lend itself to it, however Northern Caucasus being close to the Pontic Steppe fits better in terms of the evidence that we have now for the origin of PIEans. As for Semitic vocabulary in Proto-Germanic, there really isn't any, and sound shifts don't line up as PIE would have to borrow certain sounds, it is more likely that pre-Germanic acquired non-IE traits from the cultures it neighboured, such as Balto-Finnic speakers or the population that already was present in Scandinavia before the arrival of the people who would bring the ancestor of proto-Germanic to the area.

    There are some abstract ideas online which try to tie Haplogroup I (only because of the common root of HG IJ for both I and J haplogroups) to the introduction of an Afroasiatic language in the area... but we have no evidence for the languages of which the people who first entered Europe spoke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    I think there should be a map for R1a-M17, I created it:

    Please provide your source of Tepe Sialk being the oldest R1a-M17 sample, I would to like see the study including supplementary data.

  3. #103
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    19-05-19
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    84
    Points
    642
    Level
    6
    Points: 642, Level: 6
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 108
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Eurasian
    MtDNA haplogroup
    Eurasian

    Ethnic group
    Caucasian
    Country: Afghanistan



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    There are some abstract ideas online which try to tie Haplogroup I (only because of the common root of HG IJ for both I and J haplogroups) to the introduction of an Afroasiatic language in the area... but we have no evidence for the languages of which the people who first entered Europe spoke.
    Yes indeed, only J1 belonged to Semitic languages not J2, in areas where J2 is prominent we see languages which don't belong to Afro Asiatic language family like Sumerian, Hurrian, Gutian, Kassite, Georgian language family... so on, So pre IE europe grouped certainly with Basque and other unknown european languages.

  4. #104
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    To expand on your quote from that paper by Dr. Horvath:

    [I]"The problem is the hitherto absence of R1a even in samples from prehistoric cultures where data is relatively abundant, and where its’ present day microsatellite variance would suggest its’ origins. Present day microsatellite variance would suggest the origin of European R1a somewhere around present day Turkey and Iran.114 This, according to its’ present distribution in Europe, with higher microsatellite variance in Central Europe than in Eastern Europe or Central Asia, would clearly suggest a route through Anatolia and the Balkans. However among ancient YNDA [sic] data gained from 26 samples of the Anatolian Neolithic, R1a (as well as R1b) is entirely absent,115 and it is also absent from Neolithic cultures ofthe Balkans, such as the Stračevo,116 Vinča,117 and Lengyel118119 cultures."
    It actually shows this migration certainly didn't happen in the Neolithic age, of course it is possible that they were some migrations from Iran to the northern lands through the Caucasus and Central Asia in the old times but the Germanic migration dates back to the bronze age. What is the oldest Germanic R1a (L664)?

  5. #105
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    332
    Points
    9,000
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,000, Level: 28
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 350
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by nornosh View Post
    Yes indeed, only J1 belonged to Semitic languages not J2, in areas where J2 is prominent we see languages which don't belong to Afro Asiatic language family like Sumerian, Hurrian, Gutian, Kassite, Georgian language family... so on, So pre IE europe grouped certainly with Basque and other unknown european languages.
    Agreed, but the languages of Europe prior to IE are really not well attested besides Basque. In the case of Scandinavia, maybe some Uralic speakers were there at the right time, which can account for the Uralic loanwords in Germanic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    It actually shows this migration certainly didn't happen in the Neolithic age, of course it is possible that they were some migrations from Iran to the northern lands through the Caucasus and Central Asia in the old times but the Germanic migration dates back to the bronze age. What is the oldest Germanic R1a (L664)?
    Yeah, we know the migration didn't happen in the Neolithic because the R1a clades we are looking for were in the Neolithic sites in the steppe. R-L664 as far as I know has not been acquired in ancient testing yet. So no assumptions can made until we acquire the data. The major European clades all show a rapid expansion in the Bronze Age period. L664 is dated to have formed in the Bronze Age according to YFull's data.

    I should add the following that the R1a-M420* (asterisk meaning that these are isolated and they do not test positive for the downstream SNPs that are widespread) that have been found in Iran and the Caucasus cannot be ancestral to the ancient East European R1a. R-M420* are early offshoots of the more basal lineage of M420 and they are on an entirely different branch than the Z93 branch. Z93 is downstream of Z645 which is downstream of M417. These branches have already been found in Yamnaya-esque LN/BA Eastern European locations through analyses of ancient samples, it's impossible for these Yamnaya-esque LN/BA EE individuals to have been recent migrants as they are a mixture of local forager people + ancient Euro farmer people, this was established through DNA testing and analysis of the the autosomal DNA. Another thing to point out is that all ancient R1a-Z93 samples show Eastern European foraging ancestry, again all evidence shows that Z93 is from the steppe. Besides Z93 has a lot of variance and structure to its lineages in South Asia, this is not a local feature, it's from the steppes. There are suggestions that this could mean that a Kazakh steppe (Kazakh not meaning ethnicity, but geography) population featured high levels of Z93 (including diversity) and perhaps several waves made their way into South Asia.

    Now to visualize the R1a tree better:
    https://yfull.com/tree/R1a/

    Here we see that R-M420* (R1a* in this tree) is on an entirely different very early branch from all others that descend from the basal M420 lineage.

    And again, Ancient Y-DNA far outweighs modern Y-DNA. Populations can mix and certain lineages eventually become dominant, often times an ethnic group survives while another goes extinct. A prime example is that of ancient Europe prior to Bronze Age. We see old lineages in Europe that get replaced by R1b clades and others. This can be from a violent process, genetic drift, etc.

  6. #106
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    I should add the following that the R1a-M420* (asterisk meaning that these are isolated and they do not test positive for the downstream SNPs that are widespread) that have been found in Iran and the Caucasus cannot be ancestral to the ancient East European R1a. R-M420* are early offshoots of the more basal lineage of M420 and they are on an entirely different branch than the Z93 branch. Z93 is downstream of Z645 which is downstream of M417. These branches have already been found in Yamnaya-esque LN/BA Eastern European locations through analyses of ancient samples, it's impossible for these Yamnaya-esque LN/BA EE individuals to have been recent migrants as they are a mixture of local forager people + ancient Euro farmer people, this was established through DNA testing and analysis of the the autosomal DNA. Another thing to point out is that all ancient R1a-Z93 samples show Eastern European foraging ancestry, again all evidence shows that Z93 is from the steppe. Besides Z93 has a lot of variance and structure to its lineages in South Asia, this is not a local feature, it's from the steppes. There are suggestions that this could mean that a Kazakh steppe (Kazakh not meaning ethnicity, but geography) population featured high levels of Z93 (including diversity) and perhaps several waves made their way into South Asia.

    Now to visualize the R1a tree better:
    https://yfull.com/tree/R1a/

    Here we see that R-M420* (R1a* in this tree) is on an entirely different very early branch from all others that descend from the basal M420 lineage.

    And again, Ancient Y-DNA far outweighs modern Y-DNA. Populations can mix and certain lineages eventually become dominant, often times an ethnic group survives while another goes extinct. A prime example is that of ancient Europe prior to Bronze Age. We see old lineages in Europe that get replaced by R1b clades and others. This can be from a violent process, genetic drift, etc.
    I didn't get what you mean, isn't M417 a subclade of M17?

  7. #107
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    332
    Points
    9,000
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,000, Level: 28
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 350
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    M417 is downstream of M198 (which is essentially equivalent to M17, meaning they define the same subclade). M198/M17 is a descending branch of R-M459, which can also be referred to as R-SRY1532.2 among other names. R-M459 is a descending branch of R-M420. R-M420 is the basal R1a haplogroup that formed 22,800 ybp and diversified roughly 18,000 ybp.

    So from the top down:

    R1a (M420) formed 22,800 YBP, TMRCA 18,000 YBP
    - R1a-M420*
    - R-YP4141
    - R-M459
    - R-M459*
    - R-YP1272
    - R-M198/M17
    - R-M198*
    - R-YP1051
    - R-M417
    So what we see above here is that R-M420 branches off into three separate branches, these branches are R-M420* (the isolated early offshoot that has been found in the North Caucasus and Iran populations), a second branch of R-M420 (not to be confused with M420*) is R-YP4141 and a third branch of R-M420 is R-M459. R-M459 branches off into three separate branches, R-M459*, R-YP1272 and R-M198. R-M198 (M17 is in this defining SNP "pack") is the upstream mutation that leads to the following branches of R-M198* (early off shoot, not the same as M198 or later branches), R-YP1051 and R-M417.

    What I was referring to is that there is a very large difference between R-M420* (basal early off shoot) and R-M417, they are separated by several thousand years. So the M420* clades that we find in Iran and N. Caucasus aren't the ancestral forms of R-M417 because that is not possible as they are on separate branches of the tree, they share a common ancestor, but M417 is not descended from M420*, but both M417 and M420* are descended from M420.

  8. #108
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    M417 is downstream of M198 (which is essentially equivalent to M17, meaning they define the same subclade). M198/M17 is a descending branch of R-M459, which can also be referred to as R-SRY1532.2 among other names. R-M459 is a descending branch of R-M420. R-M420 is the basal R1a haplogroup that formed 22,800 ybp and diversified roughly 18,000 ybp.

    So from the top down:

    R1a (M420) formed 22,800 YBP, TMRCA 18,000 YBP
    - R1a-M420*
    - R-YP4141
    - R-M459
    - R-M459*
    - R-YP1272
    - R-M198/M17
    - R-M198*
    - R-YP1051
    - R-M417
    So what we see above here is that R-M420 branches off into three separate branches, these branches are R-M420* (the isolated early offshoot that has been found in the North Caucasus and Iran populations), a second branch of R-M420 (not to be confused with M420*) is R-YP4141 and a third branch of R-M420 is R-M459. R-M459 branches off into three separate branches, R-M459*, R-YP1272 and R-M198. R-M198 (M17 is in this defining SNP "pack") is the upstream mutation that leads to the following branches of R-M198* (early off shoot, not the same as M198 or later branches), R-YP1051 and R-M417.

    What I was referring to is that there is a very large difference between R-M420* (basal early off shoot) and R-M417, they are separated by several thousand years. So the M420* clades that we find in Iran and N. Caucasus aren't the ancestral forms of R-M417 because that is not possible as they are on separate branches of the tree, they share a common ancestor, but M417 is not descended from M420*, but both M417 and M420* are descended from M420.
    I think you are absolutely wrong, Iran is not an isolated island but as most of historians have said, this country has been always at the Crossroad of Civilizations, you can't change all historical facts and genetic evidences for just proving that Germanic people didn't migrate from Iran, it is meaningless to say the main haplogroup of 80 million Iranians differs from the same haplogroup in the east, north and the west of this country, just because in the ancient times one person from this country probably went to modern Ukraine and died there.

  9. #109
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    332
    Points
    9,000
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,000, Level: 28
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 350
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    You have confused what I mean by "isolated" in this sense. I'm referring to R-M420* which is an independent branch of R-M420, it is not the same as other branches of R-M420 because it is negative for defining mutations that define other clades, so it is marked R-M420*. I'm not referring to the country of Iran itself. Don't jump to conclusions.

    I'm not trying to change history, you're the one who claimed the Germanic people came from Iran, you're the one who claims various Germanic people are actually Scythians. You are the same person who posted loose linguistic similarities as evidence that Germanic was a branch of Indo-Iranian.

    Obviously we are going to agree to disagree, and this thread and others like it have gone absolutely nowhere, so do what you wish believe what you want. Maybe publish your ideas for peer review by the same community that has invested a great deal of work into these same studies.

  10. #110
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean
    You have confused what I mean by "isolated" in this sense. I'm referring to R-M420* which is an independent branch of R-M420, it is not the same as other branches of R-M420 because it is negative for defining mutations that define other clades, so it is marked R-M420*. I'm not referring to the country of Iran itself. Don't jump to conclusions.

    I'm not trying to change history, you're the one who claimed the Germanic people came from Iran, you're the one who claims various Germanic people are actually Scythians. You are the same person who posted loose linguistic similarities as evidence that Germanic was a branch of Indo-Iranian.

    Obviously we are going to agree to disagree, and this thread and others like it have gone absolutely nowhere, so do what you wish believe what you want. Maybe publish your ideas for peer review by the same community that has invested a great deal of work into these same studies.
    History is a science, not a divine revelation that you think no one should change it, it is not me who says R1a diversification occured in Iran (read what professional genealogists, like Dr. Peter Underhill, say), it is not me who talks about numerous Akkadian words in proto-Germanic (read what lingists, like German linguist Dr. Theo Vennemann, say), it is not me who talks about archaeological relations between Iran and Scandinavia (read what archaeologists, like Swedish archaeologist Dr. Ture J. Arne, say), ...

    I didn't create this map of R1a migration:



    I'm just trying to change your false belief about the origin of Germanic people.

  11. #111
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    19-05-19
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    84
    Points
    642
    Level
    6
    Points: 642, Level: 6
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 108
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Eurasian
    MtDNA haplogroup
    Eurasian

    Ethnic group
    Caucasian
    Country: Afghanistan



    When problems couldn't be solved we often look at the upper stages of hgs so if we do this then we see R existed in Ma'alta culture 25,000 BC HG P, Q too were present in Siberia then in ice age they have to get out of there so the question is which region they get to, from which we see todays lineages?

  12. #112
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by nornosh View Post
    When problems couldn't be solved we often look at the upper stages of hgs so if we do this then we see R existed in Ma'alta culture 25,000 BC HG P, Q too were present in Siberia then in ice age they have to get out of there so the question is which region they get to, from which we see todays lineages?
    Rumor has it that Tianyuan has been found to have had P.

  13. #113
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    332
    Points
    9,000
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,000, Level: 28
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 350
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    History is a science, not a divine revelation that you think no one should change it, it is not me who says R1a diversification occured in Iran (read what professional genealogists, like Dr. Peter Underhill, say), it is not me who talks about numerous Akkadian words in proto-Germanic (read what lingists, like German linguist Dr. Theo Vennemann, say), it is not me who talks about archaeological relations between Iran and Scandinavia (read what archaeologists, like Swedish archaeologist Dr. Ture J. Arne, say), ...
    I didn't create this map of R1a migration:

    I'm just trying to change your false belief about the origin of Germanic people.
    I'm not going to go back over what Ygorcs, myself and others have already laid out in terms of genetics because again, the data is out there from studies of ancient DNA and from current population geneticists work that is more current than the study you keep as your cornerstone in this rapidly moving field. I also don't feel I need to go back over any of this. You can find all the data you need in several studies that have come out after Underhill.

    Now in regards to your linguistic and archaeological sources:
    Again, these are theories that aren't part of the current consensus by the current specialists of these fields. Vennemann hypothesized a lot, and the majority reject his speculations. Germanic etymological research continues and several unclear words now have plausible explanations in Indo-European morphology. The proportion of non-IE words has dropped because of this work.
    Arne with his conclusion of trade contact is not evidence of migration, we already know the ancient world was far more connected than had been previously thought. This trade doesn't even need to be directly between two areas, there can be intermediaries along the way.

    You can believe what you wish, however if it is a false belief about the origin of Germanic people then it is a lot more people than me that need to have their view "changed" on this topic then.

    Nornosh, there was a tree of haplogroup R posted over in the comments on a geneticists blog that mentioned dates and ancient samples, one of which was Ma'alta boy. I'll dig that link up.

    Markod, I recall seeing that study with Tianyuan man. That find was useful especially when the data was combined with Ust'-Ishim, Ma'alta1, GoyetQ116-1 and Kostenki14. Certainly it helped delineate the early populations of Eurasia.

  14. #114
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    I'm not going to go back over what Ygorcs, myself and others have already laid out in terms of genetics because again, the data is out there from studies of ancient DNA and from current population geneticists work that is more current than the study you keep as your cornerstone in this rapidly moving field. I also don't feel I need to go back over any of this. You can find all the data you need in several studies that have come out after Underhill.
    What do you mean by ancient DNA? Do you belieave that several million people with haplogroup R1a-M17 migrated to Iran in the modern times?! When? From which land?! It seems you just don't want to believe that this hapligroup originated in Iran. Some ancient skeletons which date back to at least 6,000 years ago have been found at Tape Silak in the centre of Iran, Iranian genealogists say that they have found R1a-M17 in their DNA, why we shouldn't believe it?

  15. #115
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    332
    Points
    9,000
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,000, Level: 28
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 350
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    What do you mean by ancient DNA? Do you belieave that several million people with haplogroup R1a-M17 migrated to Iran in the modern times?! When? From which land?! It seems you just don't want to believe that this hapligroup originated in Iran. Some ancient skeletons which date back to at least 6,000 years ago have been found at Tape Silak in the centre of Iran, Iranian genealogists say that they have found R1a-M17 in their DNA, why we shouldn't believe it?
    What I mean by ancient DNA is samples from specific periods of archaeology that show where early clades of R1a (and R1b) have been found, however this is not restricted to uni-parental markers (Y-DNA & mtDNA), this also includes autosomal DNA, which as of right now shows that people in the Yamnaya culture who have had their DNA sequenced show a very specific mixture of Eastern European foragers, European farmers and Caucasus farmers. It's not that I wouldn't want or don't want to believe the haplogroup originated Iran, and I'm open to it, however conflating R1a originating in the Iranian plateau or in the general vicinity with the origin of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is where I think there may be a disconnect here between us, R1a formed thousands of years before the cultures that are suspected to have given rise to the Indo-European speakers. When we use all the genetic data available from the large amount of samples that have been acquired in the steppes and elsewhere we can paint a decent picture that points to the PIE homeland being in the Pontic-Steppe, does this mean that the PIE people didn't descend from certain groups that originated elsewhere? No, it just means that the most likely PIE homeland is in the steppes, they may partially descend from a group of people who came from elsewhere, perhaps Caucasus or Iran, but this all very early and far removed from the spread of the Indo-European speaking people.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5048219/

    The haplogroups of R1a that are associated with European groups and Indo-Iranian groups originated quite a bit after the estimated formation date of R1a-M420. The earliest ancient samples of those have been found in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (with the exception of an ancient DNA outlier in Mongolia)

    Please provide the published work or at least your source for the ancient R-M17 in Tepe Sialk (and better yet provide the source that gives a link to the appropriate BAM file) I would very much like to see it
    Last edited by spruithean; 22-05-19 at 21:48. Reason: Typo

  16. #116
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    What I mean by ancient DNA is samples from specific periods of archaeology that show where early clades of R1a (and R1b) have been found, however this is not restricted to uni-parental markers (Y-DNA & mtDNA), this also includes autosomal DNA, which as of right now shows that people in the Yamnaya culture who have had their DNA sequenced show a very specific mixture of Eastern European foragers, European farmers and Caucasus farmers. It's not that I wouldn't want or don't want to believe the haplogroup originated Iran, and I'm open to it, however conflating R1a originating in the Iranian plateau or in the general vicinity with the origin of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is where I think there may be a disconnect here between us, R1a thousands of years before the cultures that are suspected to have given rise to the Indo-European speakers. When we use all the genetic data available from the large amount of samples that have been acquired in the steppes and elsewhere we can paint a decent picture that points to the PIE homeland being in the Pontic-Steppe, does this mean that the PIE people didn't descend from certain groups that originated elsewhere? No, it just means that the most likely PIE homeland is in the steppes, they may partially descend from a group of people who came from elsewhere, perhaps Caucasus or Iran, but this all very early and far removed from the spread of the Indo-European speaking people.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5048219/
    The haplogroups of R1a that are associated with European groups and Indo-Iranian groups originated quite a bit after the estimated formation date of R1a-M420. The earliest ancient samples of those have been found in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (with the exception of an ancient DNA outlier in Mongolia)
    Please provide the published work or at least your source for the ancient R-M17 in Tepe Sialk (and better yet provide the source that gives a link to the appropriate BAM file) I would very much like to see it
    My sources about ancient R1a-M17 are just in Persian, I mentioned one of them in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...R1a-in-Eupedia!
    I don't believe that Iran was the original land of proto-Indo-Europeans but just the proto-Germanic people, in all probability PIE people originally lived in Anatolia (modern Turkey). Why you think PIE culture relates to R1a? The earliest known PIE people, like Hittites, had no R1a.

  17. #117
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,727
    Points
    26,994
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,994, Level: 50
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 556
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    As you see it show a direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia, before talking about other things, first you should show me a new study which fundamentally rejects Underhill's theory by of course using valid evidences.
    Well, THERE you have what's controversial about it. Underhill's conclusions never included a "direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia". You're putting words in his mouth, that's very intellectually dishonest. He just makes a simple claim, based on a sound even if honestly not very reliable premise: if most BASAL CLADES of R1a are found in Iran (btw do you know what basal means? Sometimes I doubt it as I read your answers), then the INITIAL DIVERSIFICATION of R1a (which happened DOZENS OF THOUSANDS of years ago and most definitely had nothing to do with the Copper Age/Early Bronze Age PIE expansion many millennia later) must've STARTED in Iran (started, you know, it obviously does not mean that the entire process of expansion of R1a clades and the appearance of new mutations defining new subclades happened exclusively within Iran outward to other regions, followed by a big stasis for more than 10,000 years, that's an absurdly simplistic view of how population movements and admixture events take place in real life).

    Now, what's the evidence for a direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia? The map shows RECENT AND ALREADY DISTINCT CLADES OF R1A-M417 (R1a-M417 is NOT the same as R1a-M17, okay? M417 appeared ~10,000 years after R1a-M17) like Z284, Z282 and Z94 moving from the very same land where R1a and R1a-M17 are both assumed to have appeared, as if in total isolation and stasis for many millennia, DIRECTLY to where they were found in higher frequencies much later, in recent historic times. That's so simplistic and so unlikely thay the map doesn't even merit much discussion. This hypothesis is now even weaker because of all the aDNA evidences showing that R1a was already widespread in Eastern Europe and North Asia millennia before even M417 appeared (and certainly well before PIE "proper" was spoken), and proving that specific clades, including the most important M417, were already present in those regions, far away from Iran, since a very long time ago, so they might have developed there from earlier R1a clades, or they might have migrated to those areas very early (so, nothing to do with the PIE expansion). In any case, this map is really naive: it imagines, with no proof, that, because basal clades of R1a are found in Iran, then it did not just start to diversify there, its entire phylogeny must then have arisen there, from R1a to R1a-M17 to R1a-M417, and it only expanded in the Bronze Age with the specific clades derived from M417 going into separate directions right to where they are found much later, with no intermediary homelands for some 15,000 years between R1a and R1a-M417. How likely is that? Not at all. And it's also not corroborated by the aDNA records.

    You keep talking of the older R1a-M17 in a quite suspicious Iranian study that nobody ever heard about in any other scientific publication (you yourself told me that), and which claims controversial things like "R1a (as a whole) is associated with Aryan peoples". R1a-M17, okay? Now we are here talking about aDNA samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe with R1a-M417 specifically only a few centuries after M417 is supposed to have been born, and aDNA samples already with Z93 and other subclades derived from M417 in Eastern Europe and North-Central Asia.

    Honestly, you either don't understand this subject enough to notice the huge holes in your claims, or you just don't want to understand, because that would mean having to change your cherished "theory" accordingly to fit the evidences (which is what everyone with a scientifically oriented mind does, but not people obsessed with a pet hypothesis).

  18. #118
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    19-05-19
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    84
    Points
    642
    Level
    6
    Points: 642, Level: 6
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 108
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Eurasian
    MtDNA haplogroup
    Eurasian

    Ethnic group
    Caucasian
    Country: Afghanistan



    Look from LGM to spread of IE languages theres 15,000 years or so, so why should we think in this long time there could have been only handful of migrations of peoples in Central Asia, Iranian plateau, Pontic steppe, Asia minor, Europe. There could have been many migrations, many extinctions of old lineages which left the ancient samples, but we should focus the current major migrations from Bronze age which left the biggest mark on these regions, for exmple if we see J2 lineages they don't exists in large percentages in Neolithic turkey, Europe but after bronze age they become more dominant yet they were present in neolithic too but in minuet numbers.

  19. #119
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Is it true that the oldest samples of R1a-M17 have been found in Germany? Is it possible that they were actually the Germanic people who migrated to Iran in the 3rd millennium BC?

  20. #120
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    Is it true that the oldest samples of R1a-M17 have been found in Germany? Is it possible that they were actually the Germanic people who migrated to Iran in the 3rd millennium BC?
    I believe Baikal Neolithic is the oldest.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...52409X16306927

  21. #121
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    332
    Points
    9,000
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,000, Level: 28
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 350
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    My sources about ancient R1a-M17 are just in Persian, I mentioned one of them in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...R1a-in-Eupedia!
    I don't believe that Iran was the original land of proto-Indo-Europeans but just the proto-Germanic people, in all probability PIE people originally lived in Anatolia (modern Turkey). Why you think PIE culture relates to R1a? The earliest known PIE people, like Hittites, had no R1a.
    Do you know if your source has published their work outside of Iran for peer-review? Do you have a link that works for the PDF document? If you have the document do you care to translate any conclusions it made or any abstracts or important data and share it with the forum? I would very much like to see ALL the data of this study. If it hasn't been published for peer-review that is VERY suspect and just bad science. I've read the brief overview that your link gives and it's a very broad statement to say that "M198/M17" is associated with "Aryan peoples" when the important lineage found in these regions of Z93 derived, which occurred MUCH later than the formation of M198/M17 (YFull estimates 14,000 YBP, not Bronze Age), Z93 (YFull estimates 5000 YBP, Bronze Age).

    I don't think R1a is strictly PIE, I think PIE contained a lot more lineages, much like modern groups of people. Obviously new lineages get introduced, do better than others, etc. There was a recent paper (which I don't remember the date of, however it was only 1-3 years ago) that proposed that Anatolian languages split off early enough from the main root of PIE that Anatolian languages had more of a sister relationship to the rest of PIE. Mathieson et al 2017 had a very interesting conclusion regarding autosomal ancestral components in various parts of Europe and the Middle East (and elsewhere) that support this early split of Anatolian. Uniparental markers are not the main part of aDNA, autosomal DNA also helps provide a better picture and right now it is fairly clear what likely was going on at this point in time.

    What we've been talking about with R1a is about ancient samples and how they don't support modern distribution of the clades that are common across Eurasia (ignoring early basal offshoots). We also briefly discussed R1b, which again has varying basal offshoot lineages and specific mutation defined descending lineages with a large spread across the world...

    Moving on...

    So you believe that Iran is the homeland of the proto-Germanic people? Okay, let me dig into this a bit here, prehistoric Scandinavia most likely did not see a large population shift. This is reflected by the rather high rates of similarity between the autosomal profiles of ancient samples from the Nordic Neolithic and Bronze Ages. If there was a migration from some part of Iran of these proto-Germanic people don't you think for a lack of a better term, an Iranian-derived autosomal component would be found in ancient Scandinavian samples? I would think there would if such a migration took place. Guess what? No component or anything similar to what we know about the various prehistoric populations of Iran shows up (Iran has multiple components as Iran experienced a rather significant population shift in the Late Neolithic).

    This is what I already brought up with a continuity of people (not culture) in Southern Scandinavia leading up to the eventual rise of Germanic culture/language. Ygorcs has gone over proto-Germanic and related topics multiple times, but just to throw it in here again, historical linguists have noted the material and social continuity connecting the cultures of the Nordic BA to the pre-Roman Iron Age in N. Europe and this has some implications on the stability and development of the Germanic languages. The current consensus is that the 1st Germanic Sound Shift, the probable defining mark in the development of PGmc happened as late as 500 BCE. I'm not sure how many more times this needs to be said.

    Besides, we have ancient DNA from Germanic areas from Migration Period era graves that show most had a strong genetic similarity to Western/Central Europeans and Northern Europeans (the women in some studies showed diverse origins from beyond Central Europe, notably in the Balkans and the eastern part of the steppe close to Kazakhstan.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Well, THERE you have what's controversial about it. Underhill's conclusions never included a "direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia". You're putting words in his mouth, that's very intellectually dishonest. He just makes a simple claim, based on a sound even if honestly not very reliable premise: if most BASAL CLADES of R1a are found in Iran (btw do you know what basal means? Sometimes I doubt it as I read your answers), then the INITIAL DIVERSIFICATION of R1a (which happened DOZENS OF THOUSANDS of years ago and most definitely had nothing to do with the Copper Age/Early Bronze Age PIE expansion many millennia later) must've STARTED in Iran (started, you know, it obviously does not mean that the entire process of expansion of R1a clades and the appearance of new mutations defining new subclades happened exclusively within Iran outward to other regions, followed by a big stasis for more than 10,000 years, that's an absurdly simplistic view of how population movements and admixture events take place in real life).

    Now, what's the evidence for a direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia? The map shows RECENT AND ALREADY DISTINCT CLADES OF R1A-M417 (R1a-M417 is NOT the same as R1a-M17, okay? M417 appeared ~10,000 years after R1a-M17) like Z284, Z282 and Z94 moving from the very same land where R1a and R1a-M17 are both assumed to have appeared, as if in total isolation and stasis for many millennia, DIRECTLY to where they were found in higher frequencies much later, in recent historic times. That's so simplistic and so unlikely thay the map doesn't even merit much discussion. This hypothesis is now even weaker because of all the aDNA evidences showing that R1a was already widespread in Eastern Europe and North Asia millennia before even M417 appeared (and certainly well before PIE "proper" was spoken), and proving that specific clades, including the most important M417, were already present in those regions, far away from Iran, since a very long time ago, so they might have developed there from earlier R1a clades, or they might have migrated to those areas very early (so, nothing to do with the PIE expansion). In any case, this map is really naive: it imagines, with no proof, that, because basal clades of R1a are found in Iran, then it did not just start to diversify there, its entire phylogeny must then have arisen there, from R1a to R1a-M17 to R1a-M417, and it only expanded in the Bronze Age with the specific clades derived from M417 going into separate directions right to where they are found much later, with no intermediary homelands for some 15,000 years between R1a and R1a-M417. How likely is that? Not at all. And it's also not corroborated by the aDNA records.

    You keep talking of the older R1a-M17 in a quite suspicious Iranian study that nobody ever heard about in any other scientific publication (you yourself told me that), and which claims controversial things like "R1a (as a whole) is associated with Aryan peoples". R1a-M17, okay? Now we are here talking about aDNA samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe with R1a-M417 specifically only a few centuries after M417 is supposed to have been born, and aDNA samples already with Z93 and other subclades derived from M417 in Eastern Europe and North-Central Asia.

    Honestly, you either don't understand this subject enough to notice the huge holes in your claims, or you just don't want to understand, because that would mean having to change your cherished "theory" accordingly to fit the evidences (which is what everyone with a scientifically oriented mind does, but not people obsessed with a pet hypothesis).

    I'll just quote this to echo it, since I'm a bit bored of rehashing the same information over and over. Basal lineages of R1a are an entirely different situation to lineages associated with M417. R-M420* is very different from R-M417, so let's look at why R-M420* (note the asterisk) is not the same as R-M459 and why R-M420* (note the asterisk) cannot be the ancestor of R-M459 (which is the node that branches into R-M459*, R-YP1272 and R-M198/M17)

    Imagine R-M420 as the father of a family if you will, he has three sons their names are M420*, YP4141 and M459 because these are siblings they cannot be the parents of one another. M420* is an early offshoot of the M420 lineage that is negative for defining SNPs that define YP4141 and M459 lineages. M420* is a separate lineage, related to the others but not the ancestor of the others, the fact that it is found in Caucasus and Iran (it's also found in Europe BTW) doesn't really mean much compared to where the ancient DNA is found and STR diversity is not a strong argument. STRs are difficult to calculate dates accurately with (they are rarely accurate).

    Also, just because we feel like citing Wikipedia every now and then in this thread:

    "R1a-M198: is common in Iran, more so in the east and south rather than the west and north; suggesting a migration toward the south to India then a secondary westward spread across Iran.[131] Whilst the Grongi and Regueiro studies did not define exactly which sub-clades Iranian R1a haplogrouops belong to, private genealogy tests suggest that they virtually all belong to "Eurasian" R1a-Z93.[132] Indeed, population studies of neighbouring Indian groups found that they all were in R1a-Z93.[133] This implies that R1a in Iran did not descend from "European" R1a, or vice versa. Rather, both groups are collateral, sister branches which descend from a parental group hypothesized to have initially lived somewhere between central Asia and Eastern Europe.[134]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples#Genetics (second bolding emphasis mine)


    Quote Originally Posted by nornosh View Post
    Look from LGM to spread of IE languages theres 15,000 years or so, so why should we think in this long time there could have been only handful of migrations of peoples in Central Asia, Iranian plateau, Pontic steppe, Asia minor, Europe. There could have been many migrations, many extinctions of old lineages which left the ancient samples, but we should focus the current major migrations from Bronze age which left the biggest mark on these regions, for exmple if we see J2 lineages they don't exists in large percentages in Neolithic turkey, Europe but after bronze age they become more dominant yet they were present in neolithic too but in minuet numbers.
    Certainly, I agree. This is a huge span of time and it doesn't take very much for entire lineages or groups of people to disappear (sort of why autosomal DNA is important in ancient DNA). I recommend reading all the studies one can and rather than jumping to any conclusions weighing the evidence. Why R1a became so heavily discussed in this thread is because of the confusion with nomenclature we've ended up discussing various lineages many of which are basal lineages which are quite a bit different from the important lineages that we find today from Europe to India. J2 is one of those confusing ones, we expected to find it in high numbers in Early Farmer samples and instead we found rather low numbers. There are definitely a lot of theories flying around , I think eventually one of theories or a combo of the theories will be correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    Is it true that the oldest samples of R1a-M17 have been found in Germany? Is it possible that they were actually the Germanic people who migrated to Iran in the 3rd millennium BC?
    Who ever said that R-M17 was found in Germany? Are we confusing nomenclature yet again? Markod has just linked that one of the earliest samples was found at Lake Baikal in Siberia.

    Wait so the Germanic people migrated to Iran? Or they migrated out of Iran? Or they did both? What are you saying exactly? What tribe moved to Iran? Germanic people in the 3rd millennium BC?! What? Anachronistic much? The proto-Germanic language hadn't even developed yet and Germanic people we mentioned much much later in historical documents. Proto-Germanic language developed (and developed as late as 500 BC) out of pre-Proto-Germanic in southern Scandinavia and it's possible that IE was brought to southern Scandinavia with the Corded Ware culture in the 3rd millennium BC.

  22. #122
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    I believe Baikal Neolithic is the oldest.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...52409X16306927
    I don't think that the Germanic culture existed 7,500 years ago, I talk about it: http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2015...rrior.html?m=1

    All of the other ancient R1a1a (R1a-M17) samples reported to date from Central Europe are also younger than the Middle Neolithic and from presumably steppe-derived Indo-European archeological cultures:

    - Late Neolithic, Eulau, Germany, Corded Ware Culture, three related samples

    - Late Neolithic, Esperstedt, Gemany, Corded Ware Culture, one sample

    - Late Bronze Age, Halberstadt, Germany, Urnfield Culture (?), one sample

    - Late Bronze Age, Lichtenstein Cave, Germany, Urnfield Culture, two samples

  23. #123
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    Who ever said that R-M17 was found in Germany? Are we confusing nomenclature yet again? Markod has just linked that one of the earliest samples was found at Lake Baikal in Siberia.

    Wait so the Germanic people migrated to Iran? Or they migrated out of Iran? Or they did both? What are you saying exactly? What tribe moved to Iran? Germanic people in the 3rd millennium BC?! What? Anachronistic much? The proto-Germanic language hadn't even developed yet and Germanic people we mentioned much much later in historical documents. Proto-Germanic language developed (and developed as late as 500 BC) out of pre-Proto-Germanic in southern Scandinavia and it's possible that IE was brought to southern Scandinavia with the Corded Ware culture in the 3rd millennium BC.
    I just want to consider all possibilities, this R1a-M17 didn't come from the sky to Iran, I don't know what you believe about it, it is clear that you don't expect that it is found in ancient sites in Iran and at the same time you say it is a very old haplogroup which dates back to Neolithic period!
    About proto-Germanic and this 500 BC, I think it is better that I don't talk about this proto-Germanic but X language which was a direct descendent of proto-Indo-Europeam with *k>x, *d>t, *p>f and other Germanic sound shifts from PIE, this X language certainly existed 5,000 years ago.

  24. #124
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Well, THERE you have what's controversial about it. Underhill's conclusions never included a "direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia". You're putting words in his mouth, that's very intellectually dishonest. He just makes a simple claim, based on a sound even if honestly not very reliable premise: if most BASAL CLADES of R1a are found in Iran (btw do you know what basal means? Sometimes I doubt it as I read your answers), then the INITIAL DIVERSIFICATION of R1a (which happened DOZENS OF THOUSANDS of years ago and most definitely had nothing to do with the Copper Age/Early Bronze Age PIE expansion many millennia later) must've STARTED in Iran (started, you know, it obviously does not mean that the entire process of expansion of R1a clades and the appearance of new mutations defining new subclades happened exclusively within Iran outward to other regions, followed by a big stasis for more than 10,000 years, that's an absurdly simplistic view of how population movements and admixture events take place in real life).

    Now, what's the evidence for a direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia? The map shows RECENT AND ALREADY DISTINCT CLADES OF R1A-M417 (R1a-M417 is NOT the same as R1a-M17, okay? M417 appeared ~10,000 years after R1a-M17) like Z284, Z282 and Z94 moving from the very same land where R1a and R1a-M17 are both assumed to have appeared, as if in total isolation and stasis for many millennia, DIRECTLY to where they were found in higher frequencies much later, in recent historic times. That's so simplistic and so unlikely thay the map doesn't even merit much discussion. This hypothesis is now even weaker because of all the aDNA evidences showing that R1a was already widespread in Eastern Europe and North Asia millennia before even M417 appeared (and certainly well before PIE "proper" was spoken), and proving that specific clades, including the most important M417, were already present in those regions, far away from Iran, since a very long time ago, so they might have developed there from earlier R1a clades, or they might have migrated to those areas very early (so, nothing to do with the PIE expansion). In any case, this map is really naive: it imagines, with no proof, that, because basal clades of R1a are found in Iran, then it did not just start to diversify there, its entire phylogeny must then have arisen there, from R1a to R1a-M17 to R1a-M417, and it only expanded in the Bronze Age with the specific clades derived from M417 going into separate directions right to where they are found much later, with no intermediary homelands for some 15,000 years between R1a and R1a-M417. How likely is that? Not at all. And it's also not corroborated by the aDNA records.

    You keep talking of the older R1a-M17 in a quite suspicious Iranian study that nobody ever heard about in any other scientific publication (you yourself told me that), and which claims controversial things like "R1a (as a whole) is associated with Aryan peoples". R1a-M17, okay? Now we are here talking about aDNA samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe with R1a-M417 specifically only a few centuries after M417 is supposed to have been born, and aDNA samples already with Z93 and other subclades derived from M417 in Eastern Europe and North-Central Asia.

    Honestly, you either don't understand this subject enough to notice the huge holes in your claims, or you just don't want to understand, because that would mean having to change your cherished "theory" accordingly to fit the evidences (which is what everyone with a scientifically oriented mind does, but not people obsessed with a pet hypothesis).
    This thing that R1a-M17 existed 10,000 years before R1a-M417 or nor, doesn't matter because this haplogroup still exists in Iran with a high frequency, the important point is that the oldest sample with M417 dates to back to just 5,500 years ago, by considering Anatolian hypothesis, we know proto-IE was spoken in Anatolia from 8,000 or even 9,000 years ago, this culture probably reached Iran 7,000-6,000 BP (around Tepe Sialk) and then the northern lands in the Caspian steppe about 5,500 BP, in this region it should be called the Satem branch of PIE (Balto-Slavic & Indo-Iranian), not proto-IE.

  25. #125
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    I don't know why those who believe in Kurgan hypothesis, have just focussed on R1a, what about R1b? Is there any ancient sample in the Pontic- Caspian steppe with R1b-L23 (one of the main haplogroups of IE people)?
    The interesting point is that Iranian Zoroastrians have R1b-L23 and no R1a.

Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •