Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If you remember, I talked about R1a-M17 in Germany as the source of the same haplogroup in Iran, we read in Wikipedia:
"David Anthony considers the Yamnaya culture to be the Indo-European Urheimat. According to Haak et al. (2015), a massive migration from the Yamnaya culture northwards took place ca. 2,500 BCE, accounting for 75% of the genetic ancestry of the Corded Ware culture, noting that R1a and R1b may have "spread into Europe from the East after 3,000 BCE". Yet, all their seven Yamnaya samples belonged to the R1b-M269 subclade, but no R1a1a has been found in their Yamnaya samples. This raises the question where the R1a1a in the Corded Ware culture came from, if it was not from the Yamnaya culture.
Semenov and Bulat do argue for such an origin of R1a1a in the Corded ware culture, noting that several publications point to the presence of R1a1 in the Comb Ware culture."
It means R1a came from CWC to Yamnaya, not vice versa, so Europeans migrated to the Caspian steppe and then adopted the Indo-European language, one group of these Europeans continued its way to Iran and created the Germanic culture and then came back to Europe in 500 BC.
Look if there were great migrations in 500 BC then people in Greece, Turkey must have noticed it yet no records of it is in those countries sources.
The 2600 BC date looks more probable IMO, with possibly some less migrations in 500 BC which must have had some influences on Europe.
It means R1a came from CWC to Yamnaya, not vice versa, so Europeans migrated to the Caspian steppe and then adopted the Indo-European language, one group of these Europeans continued its way to Iran and created the Germanic culture and then came back to Europe in 500 BC.
I'm K.O. You win here, Cyrus.
I avow all these subclades of Y-R1b-U106, R1a1a, I1, I2a2 in today Germanic lands have no importance.
Ygorcs said:Nonsense. CWC appears centuries later than the early phase of the Yamnaya culture, which is a direct and continuous development from the earlier Repin culture. R1a-M417 was also found centuries earlier in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, before the CWC. Also, again: haplogroups are not people, haplogroups are not one's overall ancestry. The CWC has the same origin as the Yamnaya wherever it was, but the Yamnaya-like admixture was found centuries earlier in the Pontic-Caspian region since the Eneolithic (Vonyuchka, Progress, Khvalynsk).
Nonsense. CWC appears centuries later than the early phase of the Yamnaya culture, which is a direct and continuous development from the earlier Repin culture. R1a-M417 was also found centuries earlier in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, before the CWC. Also, again: haplogroups are not people, haplogroups are not one's overall ancestry. The CWC has the same origin as the Yamnaya wherever it was, but the Yamnaya-like admixture was found centuries earlier in the Pontic-Caspian region since the Eneolithic (Vonyuchka, Progress, Khvalynsk).
Of course nothing happened in 500 BC!! Achaemenid empire didn't exist! Persians didn't conquer and occupy Pontus, Armenia, ..., they didn't force any people to leave their land!! Scythians didn't migrate to Europe, but I don't know why no one lived in the east of Europe except Scythians because ancient Greek sources just talk about them in these regions!!
It really sounds good, there was not any great migration in 500 BC and from 2600 BC just Iranian-speaking people lived in a large part of Europe and Asia, yes?
They are actually very important, we know subclades of R1a1a existed in the north of Europe long time before Yamnaya, as you read in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a, "The Rossen culture (4,600–4,300 BC), which was situated on Germany and predates the Corded Ware culture, an old subclade of R1a, namely L664, can still be found." The same thing can be said about R1b1a but in a southern part of Europe, as you read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b "Villabruna 1 (individual I9030), found in an Epigravettian culture setting in the Cismon valley (modern Veneto, Italy), who lived circa 14,000 years BP and belonged to R1b-L754, numerous individuals from the Mesolithic Iron Gates culture of the central Danube (modern Romania and Serbia), dating from 10,000 to 8,500 BP – most of them falling into R1b-L754"
Northern and southern parts of Europe are certainly the sources of both R1a1a and R1b1a, also I1 and I2, people from these lands migrated to the Caspian steppe and adopted an Indo-Euroepan culture, it is meaningless to say a younger culture in the steppe created old cultures in Europe.
Look at my previous post, I think you know these things better than me, a subclade of R1a-M417, namely L664, has been found in Rossen culture (4,600–4,300 BC) in Germany, at least 1,000 years before Yamnaya culture (3300–2600 BC) in the steppe.
I think many things should be corrected about the migration map of haplogroup R1a:
As I said in another thread Proto-Indo-European was initially divided into two different branches: Satem (R1a-M17) and Centum (R1b-L23), they existed at the same time but they were different cultures, it is possible that Satem originated in Corded Ware culture and Centum in Yamnaya culture.How do you explain the many cultural/archeological[snp age dates] differences between Yamnaya R1b-Z2108/9 [R-Z2108Z2109/CTS1843 * Z2108+/- formed 5200 ybp] and CWC R1a?
The most important point is that we know in the 1st millennium BC non-Indo-European people such as Basques, Iberians, Etruscans, Finns, ... lived in the west and north of Europe and all of them had the same haplogroups of R1a and R1b, so it can't be said that these haplogroups in Europe just relate to Indo-Europeans.Can you explain your reasoning for this map?
Since this seems to be a discussion mainly about genetics, and specifically about y dna, I am moving it to that part of the site.
If you like I can rename it something like Germanic ethnogenesis through yDna analysis.
The most important point is that we know in the 1st millennium BC non-Indo-European people such as Basques, Iberians, Etruscans, Finns, ... lived in the west and north of Europe and all of them had the same haplogroups of R1a and R1b, so it can't be said that these haplogroups in Europe just relate to Indo-Europeans.
We all know what it seems to be. I wish I knew what it really is (Sigh!).
Don't move or rename the damn thing. Dump it where it belongs and pull the chain.
As I said in another thread Proto-Indo-European was initially divided into two different branches: Satem (R1a-M17) and Centum (R1b-L23), they existed at the same time but they were different cultures, it is possible that Satem originated in Corded Ware culture and Centum in Yamnaya culture.
Modern distribution of these hoplogrops show major migration from 5,500 to 4,500 years ago:
After about 2,000 years in the 1st millennium BC, we see some cultural changes, Iranian culture was expanded to modern Iran, Armenian culture reached to modern Armenia in the south and Celtic and Germanic cultures came back to Europe. Balto-Slavic, Indian, Anatolian, Hellenic, Italic, Thracian, Albanian, ... cultures have a longer history in their own lands.
Also where is the citation for an ancient sample of R-L664 in the Rossen Culture? I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a scholarly source.
How do you explain the many cultural/archeological[snp age dates] differences between Yamnaya R1b-Z2108/9 [R-Z2108Z2109/CTS1843 * Z2108+/- formed 5200 ybp] and CWC R1a?
What "many cultural/archaeological" differences are you referring to? They were close enough to be two cultures from different parts of the PIE-speaking sphere of influence. In my nMonte models, I found it pretty interesting (and plausible) that Yamnaya looks more easily modeled as Progress Eneolithic + Khalynsk Eneolithic, whereas CWC Baltic (early, with almost no extra EEF or WHG/EHG ancestry) can be easily modeled as Progress Eneolithic + Ukraine Eneolithic. Maybe CWC derives from Eneolithic Steppe-influenced Ukrainian cultures of the Late Copper Age/Early Bronze Age displaced northward (possibly first into the forest-steppe, later to the forest areas) by the Yamnaya who originally came from the east (Khvalynsk > Repin > Yamnay). They were clearly related not just genetically, but also culturally, but they were not the same, and the CWC most certainly acquired new cultural traits as it mixed with EEF and HG people in Northern Europe and adapted to a completely new environment.
As I said in another thread Proto-Indo-European was initially divided into two different branches: Satem (R1a-M17) and Centum (R1b-L23), they existed at the same time but they were different cultures, it is possible that Satem originated in Corded Ware culture and Centum in Yamnaya culture.
Modern distribution of these hoplogrops show major migration from 5,500 to 4,500 years ago:
After about 2,000 years in the 1st millennium BC, we see some cultural changes, Iranian culture was expanded to modern Iran, Armenian culture reached to modern Armenia in the south and Celtic and Germanic cultures came back to Europe. Balto-Slavic, Indian, Anatolian, Hellenic, Italic, Thracian, Albanian, ... cultures have a longer history in their own lands.
So we're just going ignore phylogeny and make broad sweeping statements then?
This, anything that has been said in this thread has been rejected in favour of a pseudohistory and a pet theory, any evidence that shows the pet theory is complete nonsense gets ignored.
Haplogroups don't speak languages, pretty bold of you to assert that R-L23 is Centum and R-M17 is Satem, are we going to ignore the large amount of Yamnaya admixture in Corded Ware?
This map makes no sense. Celtic and Germanic came back to Europe? That's ridiculous and everyone is getting tired of this pseudohistorical stuff. What about Italic? Italic and Celtic are quite closely linked at a certain point, so care to explain that? Where is Balto-Slavic in all this? How did proto-Germanic influence Balto-Slavic and early Finnish if it was way far away? How did Finnish acquire some pre-proto-Germanic loanwords? Proto-Germanic most definitely arose in Northern Europe, you keep denying this. Present some real archaeological evidence that this migration "out of Iran" happened, we've already discussed the genetic aspect and how it doesn't fit your theory and you insist on ignoring that or misinterpreting the data.
Also where is the citation for an ancient sample of R-L664 in the Rossen Culture? I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a scholarly source.
This thread has been viewed 164573 times.