Wrong Migration map of haplogroup R1a in Eupedia!

C

Cyrus

Banned
Messages
545
Reaction score
27
Points
0
I mean this map:
R1a_migration_map.jpg

Firstly it shows nothing about R1a1a in Iran, most of recent researches show this haplogroup originated in Iran, secondly it shows Z94 in Iran which actually has a very low frequency in this country, in fact for some unknown reasons it supports the false theory of Indo-Iranian migration to Iran, there is absolutely no evidence that an Iranian culture existed in Iran in the 2nd millennium BC.
 
So to try and support your position you use a blog post made in 2014 PRIOR to the discovery of the oldest sample of R-Z93 in the Pontic-Caspian steppe?
 
spruithean said:
So to try and support your position you use a blog post made in 2014 PRIOR to the discovery of the oldest sample of R-Z93 in the Pontic-Caspian steppe?
Click to expand...

What does it mean? It also shows R-Z93 in that region.
 
Cyrus said:
What does it mean? It also shows R-Z93 in that region.
Click to expand...

An ancient sample of Z93 in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe predates the Z93 in Asia by a long shot. It places it squarely in Yamnaya territory.

View attachment 11046

I'm not denying the Z93 descended clades are in Central and South Asia, what the ancient sample shows is that Z93 obviously came to those areas from somewhere and with the oldest sample of Z93 being located in the Eastern Pontic-Caspian Steppe it seems more likely that Z93 arrived in Central/South Asia from the steppes.
 
All ancient R1a samples have been found around the Pontic-Caspian Steppe/East Europe. Modern distributions of basal M420 in Iran doesn't mean it originates all from Iran. Big claims require evidence. Where are the ancient confirmed M420 samples in Iran from which all R1a branched? there isn't any.
 
Which archaelogical cultures might be associated with Proto-Iranian? Witzel believed the East Iranian homeland to be in northern Afghanistan IIRC.
 
The second map is nonsense, they're lumping together the most basal lineages being located in Iran (which doesn't necessarily mean R1a* arose in Iran, it might well have been just somewhere nearby, I'd bet Central Asia considering the Mal'ta Boy with R1* in Siberia), with the much later descendants of M417, which are all found in aDNA from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and other clades of R1a also found in Eastern Europe and North Eurasia as a whole in the aDNA records. M417 is many millennia apart from those basal lineages of R1a. It most probably migrated westward and northwestward, whereas the other old surviving branches migrated more southward and southwestward from Central Asia/North Asia. In the increasing ancient DNA database, R1a-M417 (99% of present-day carriers of R1a) seems to have a very clear north-to-south expansion, appearing first in Eastern Europe, then Central Asia, only much later elsewhere further south in West Asia and South Asia.
 
Dibran said:
All ancient R1a samples have been found around the Pontic-Caspian Steppe/East Europe. Modern distributions of basal M420 in Iran doesn't mean it originates all from Iran. Big claims require evidence. Where are the ancient confirmed M420 samples in Iran from which all R1a branched? there isn't any.
Click to expand...
According to Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology: https://ganj-old.irandoc.ac.ir/articles/515891 Haplogroup R1a1a (R1a-M17) has been observed in most of samples from ancient Elamite civilization and one of two skeletons from Tepe Sialk which dates back to 4,000 BC.
 
Cyrus said:
According to Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology: https://ganj-old.irandoc.ac.ir/articles/515891 Haplogroup R1a1a (R1a-M17) has been observed in most of samples from ancient Elamite civilization and one of two skeletons from Tepe Sialk which dates back to 4,000 BC.
Click to expand...

Do you have any link to those studies published (in English or a Romance language preferably, but no problem if they aren't)? The PDF file in the link your posted is not working. Was that study confirmed by other scientists? I googled, but I found no other English-language reference to those aDNA findings. The generalizing claim that "R1a (M17) is a marker of Indian and Iranian people (Aryans)", and that therefore any R1a will be an indication of the presence of Aryans, sounds really unscientific and kind of amateurish, so that had me a bit suspicious about the content of the paper...

Well, didn't you insist on the idea that Iranic peoples came to Iran only in the IA? Contrary to Germanic peoples, who are more strongly associated with R1b-U106 and I1, the Indo-Iranian populations are strongly associated with clades of R1a-M417, then if those Iranian papers are correct it would seem like Indo-Iranian has a "claim" to the Iranian Plateau much more than the (pre-)Proto-Germanic ones, right? That's exactly what this study seems to be claiming, that the Indo-Iranians were there since before the 4000 B.C., but of course it must have nothing to do with nationalist claims... Additionally, I must always stress that we just don't know what specific subclades of R1a-M17 were supposedly found in Neolithic Iran, not even if they belonged to M417 - that information might change everything. R1a-M17 is basal to R1a-M417.
 
Ygorcs said:
Do you have any link to those studies published (in English or a Romance language preferably, but no problem if they aren't)? The PDF file in the link your posted is not working. Was that study confirmed by other scientists? I googled, but I found no other English-language reference to those aDNA findings. The generalizing claim that "R1a (M17) is a marker of Indian and Iranian people (Aryans)", and that therefore any R1a will be an indication of the presence of Aryans, sounds really unscientific and kind of amateurish, so that had me a bit suspicious about the content of the paper...

Well, didn't you insist on the idea that Iranic peoples came to Iran only in the IA? Contrary to Germanic peoples, who are more strongly associated with R1b-U106 and I1, the Indo-Iranian populations are strongly associated with clades of R1a-M417, then if those Iranian papers are correct it would seem like Indo-Iranian has a "claim" to the Iranian Plateau much more than the (pre-)Proto-Germanic ones, right? That's exactly what this study seems to be claiming, that the Indo-Iranians were there since before the 4000 B.C., but of course it must have nothing to do with nationalist claims... Additionally, I must always stress that we just don't know what specific subclades of R1a-M17 were supposedly found in Neolithic Iran, not even if they belonged to M417 - that information might change everything. R1a-M17 is basal to R1a-M417.
Click to expand...

I think they just refer to the general view that R1a = Indo-Iranian, and they leave open whether that's actually true.
 
Ygorcs said:
Do you have any link to those studies published (in English or a Romance language preferably, but no problem if they aren't)? The PDF file in the link your posted is not working. Was that study confirmed by other scientists? I googled, but I found no other English-language reference to those aDNA findings. The generalizing claim that "R1a (M17) is a marker of Indian and Iranian people (Aryans)", and that therefore any R1a will be an indication of the presence of Aryans, sounds really unscientific and kind of amateurish, so that had me a bit suspicious about the content of the paper...

Well, didn't you insist on the idea that Iranic peoples came to Iran only in the IA? Contrary to Germanic peoples, who are more strongly associated with R1b-U106 and I1, the Indo-Iranian populations are strongly associated with clades of R1a-M417, then if those Iranian papers are correct it would seem like Indo-Iranian has a "claim" to the Iranian Plateau much more than the (pre-)Proto-Germanic ones, right? That's exactly what this study seems to be claiming, that the Indo-Iranians were there since before the 4000 B.C., but of course it must have nothing to do with nationalist claims... Additionally, I must always stress that we just don't know what specific subclades of R1a-M17 were supposedly found in Neolithic Iran, not even if they belonged to M417 - that information might change everything. R1a-M17 is basal to R1a-M417.
Click to expand...

First you should ask why we can't find anything about it in Iranian news agencies, neither in Persian nor English! We can find it just in the only Zoroastrian agency in Iran (Amordad-News), as you see in its weblog in English: http://www.amordaden.blogfa.com/post/718 it says "Genetic tests have proved that the people of Sialk, with a history of 6000 years, and the Elamite people, with a history of 5000 years, were of the Aryan race."
However I believe that relating R1a-M17 to just Indo-Iranians (Aryans) is absolute nonsense (in fact as I said its Indo-Iranian subclade has a very low frequency in Iran) but it can be enough reason for Iranian nationalists to believe that Iran has been always the land of Aryan people, whenas in the last 40 years, Islamic government of Iran has always said that Aryans were a group of savage invaders who established a dictatorial Shahanshahi Kingdom in Iran 2,500 years ago and enforced fire-worshiping (Zoroastrianism) on the people of Iran.
 
Cyrus said:
First you should ask why we can't find anything about it in Iranian news agencies, neither in Persian nor English! We can find it just in the only Zoroastrian agency in Iran (Amordad-News), as you see in its weblog in English: http://www.amordaden.blogfa.com/post/718 it says "Genetic tests have proved that the people of Sialk, with a history of 6000 years, and the Elamite people, with a history of 5000 years, were of the Aryan race."
However I believe that relating R1a-M17 to just Indo-Iranians (Aryans) is absolute nonsense (in fact as I said its Indo-Iranian subclade has a very low frequency in Iran) but it can be enough reason for Iranian nationalists to believe that Iran has been always the land of Aryan people, whenas in the last 40 years, Islamic government of Iran has always said that Aryans were a group of savage invaders who established a dictatorial Shahanshahi Kingdom in Iran 2,500 years ago and enforced fire-worshiping (Zoroastrianism) on the people of Iran.
Click to expand...

Yes, I suspected something of that sort behind the dubious interpretation of those results (if they are actually correct, mind you, since apparently that study can't be found anywhere else and is not mentioned in any source of population genetics research). Thanks for providing some context.
 
This one is a recent work (in Persian) by a group of Iranian genealogists about mtDNA testing on skeletal remains from the ancient site of Hafttapeh in the southwest of Iran in the Middle Elamite period: https://jarcs.ut.ac.ir/article_65670_f8017c546df48130fb6c1a9a8eefb7b1.pdf
It says they have found just mtDNA haplogroups R2 and R5 in this ancient site whcih also exist in India, Pakistan, Georgia and Turkey, for this reason it compares them with Y-DNA haplogroups of J2, L, R1b and R1a and relates it to Indo-European migrations. This is its migration map:
ozrh_r2r5.jpg
 
We see a similar mistake about the migration map of R1b in Eupedia:

R1b-migration-map.jpg


It shows the place of R1b-L23 in the southeast of Europe, whenas this haplogroup has the highest frequency in Iran.
I think these mistakes just relate a false belief about the migration of early Indo-European people. Some people believe the original land of proto-Indo-Europeans was somewhere in the east of Europe, so they have changed the place of these haplogroups for this purpose.
 
You are again, equating modern distribution with ancient. The map Eupedia provides is somewhat old and in need of an update, majority of R-L23 ancient samples have been found in Yamnaya IIRC.
 
I think its interesting how we speak about R1a-M198 here. Because it probably originate in a cheap large-scale survey in Iran were they could only test snp's up to M198, not even M417. It's old because ancient users Goga and Alan both Iranian already spoked about those Iranian hypothesis few years back, even tho its wrong because modern distribution of M198 is restricted in Eastern Europe, wich little pockets in Siberia and India. Prior to 2015, Middle-East suffered a lot of those large-scale survey, Armenia, Kurdistan...
 
Cyrus said:
We see a similar mistake about the migration map of R1b in Eupedia:

R1b-migration-map.jpg


It shows the place of R1b-L23 in the southeast of Europe, whenas this haplogroup has the highest frequency in Iran.
I think these mistakes just relate a false belief about the migration of early Indo-European people. Some people believe the original land of proto-Indo-Europeans was somewhere in the east of Europe, so they have changed the place of these haplogroups for this purpose.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't make up stuff, man. That's really dishonest. You know fully well that ALL CLADES of R1b-L23 together reach a frequency of just 13.5% in Iran according to the study you keep using as a reference all the time. That study clearly referred to R1b-L23 as a whole, including all its downstream subclades (you know: Z2103, L51 etc.), and not to R1b-L23* (I wonder if you even know the difference between L23 and L23*...). There is absolutely NO WAY R1b-L23 is found in highest frequency in Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 13233 times.

Back
Top