Are R1b and R1a ultimately East Asian lineages?

ratchet_fan

Banned
Messages
512
Reaction score
38
Points
0
Is this looking more and more likely? Do we know if the original ANE lineage was actually something like C before a y K2b/P/R ENA group dominated such a group?

I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. But the infighting among R1b and R1a guys always seemed silly especially on certain other forums. Whose more PIE? Who dominated the other? All of that seems silly if the SE Asian origin of K2b/P are true or if Tianyuan is ancestral to Yana to me. I also personally know a few anthrousers who were disgusted by the thought of R1b coming from the Middle East (which we know isn't true) and would rather have their lineage be non West Eurasian and related to Papuans. I'm guessing its the culture of the modern Middle East that nobody wants to be associated with which sadly makes sense.
 
In my opinion, original language of R1b is Proto-IE, original language of R1a is Para-Proto-IE.
 
So if ANE didn't have paternal ENA would we still have IE languages or would we be speaking something different?
 
ANE is NOT East-Asian!
I have no cristal bowl nor hen guts, but I think we could say Y-R1 has been almost exclusively ANE at some stage - I wonder if Y-R passed to North through Steppes from North of South Asia (look at localisation of Y-R2), its farther ancestors come from South-East Asia ( still Y-P ?).
 
ANE is NOT East-Asian!
I have no cristal bowl nor hen guts, but I think we could say Y-R1 has been almost exclusively ANE at some stage - I wonder if Y-R passed to North through Steppes from North of South Asia (look at localisation of Y-R2), its farther ancestors come from South-East Asia ( still Y-P ?).

Would K2b and P be East Asian though? I feel like some East Asians (similar to Near Easterners and Mycenaeans) are trying to claim European accomplishments, culture and civilization by exaggerating the importance of K2b/P. That's why I hope they are wrong although that doesn't look likely.
 
ANE is NOT East-Asian!

What does that mean? ANE developed around Lake Baikal and after thousands of years ANE expanded from Baikalia both east and west. Lake Baikal is on a similar line of longitude as Vietnam, so if Lake Baikal is not East Asia then neither is Vietnam. Surely a culture that develops in East Asia and remains in East Asia for at least the next five thousand years is by definition an East Asian population and culture.

If you mean that only about one third of the earlier ancestors of ANE were of East Asian origin whilst about two thirds were of West Eurasian origin, that may be true. However, by that reasoning, the current populations of Western Europe are not actually West European because the majority of their ancestry originates in West Asia, the Pontic Steppes, the Caucasus and Siberia.
 
Surely a culture that develops in East Asia and remains in East Asia for at least the next five thousand years is by definition an East Asian population and culture.

Geographically, but not necessarily in terms of their genetic affinity, which is what geneticists mean when they talk about something being west or east eurasian.
 
More central asian than east asian 🤔
 
Is this looking more and more likely? Do we know if the original ANE lineage was actually something like C before a y K2b/P/R ENA group dominated such a group?

I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. But the infighting among R1b and R1a guys always seemed silly especially on certain other forums. Whose more PIE? Who dominated the other? All of that seems silly if the SE Asian origin of K2b/P are true or if Tianyuan is ancestral to Yana to me. I also personally know a few anthrousers who were disgusted by the thought of R1b coming from the Middle East (which we know isn't true) and would rather have their lineage be non West Eurasian and related to Papuans. I'm guessing its the culture of the modern Middle East that nobody wants to be associated with which sadly makes sense.

Indeed R and P are of fully Asian and "non-Caucasoid" origin. Native Americans are also EE in origin, and they are just a sub-group under hg Q. Other Q clades are pro-genitors of Turkic language group. R2 clearly migrated to South Asia.

It a genetic paradox that progenitors of Indo-European language group and Semitic/Afroasiatic language groups, who are historically Western Eurasians, have in fact ultimately East Asian/South East Asian (R) and "Subsaharan" (in a sense of not being Eurasian, ofc not being modern Bantu SSA) African non-Eurasian (E-M35) origin.
 
Last edited:
Geographically, but not necessarily in terms of their genetic affinity, which is what geneticists mean when they talk about something being west or east eurasian.

The further back you guy the more East Eurasian these guys are. Tianyuan is K2b and 100% East Eurasian, Yana is P and 28% East Eurasian and Malta is R and about 9% East Eurasian.
 
Indeed R and P are of fully Asian and "non-Caucasoid" origin. Native Americans are also EE in origin, and they are just a sub-group under hg Q. Other Q clades are pro-genitors of Turkic language group. R2 clearly migrated to South Asia.

It a genetic paradox that progenitors of Indo-European language group and Semitic/Afroasiatic language groups, who are historically Western Eurasians, have in fact ultimately East Asian/South East Asian (R) and Subsaharan African non-Eurasian (E-M35) origin.

Yea its looking that way. Racial cucking was high back then I guess. Unfortunate but it is what it is. East Asians and Africans are at least paternally pure. Guess the attack on white males we see today has historical precedent.

Kartvelian and Dravidian are probably the most populous and pure West Eurasian language groups (if those are indeed connected to G and H). Who would have thought? There's South Indian tribals with high frequencies of H who are more paternally West Eurasian than all Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans.
 
How many generations is 42,000 years?

~1400. I know its way far back and the autosomal ancestry has been diluted by now but its still depressing to think about. Africans are African on the paternal line, East Asians are East Asian on the paternal line while West Eurasians are mostly East Asian and African on the paternal lines with the languages and cultures of actual West Eurasian males killed off. No amount of generations will change that.
 
West Eurasians are mostly East Asian and African on the paternal lines

You mean if you follow your paternal lineage back 42,000 years or so you would eventually get to an East Asian or African man. But obviously he would only be one of your billions (?) of male ancestors.

with the languages and cultures of actual West Eurasian males killed off.

That's a non-sequitur.
 
You mean if you follow your paternal lineage back 42,000 years or so you would eventually get to an East Asian or African man. But obviously he would only be one of your billions (?) of male ancestors.



That's a non-sequitur.

True but a large majority of those would descend from that one guy who likely killed the West Eurasian y C guys in the case of K2b/P/R. Africans and East Asians can trace their direct male ancestors to someone of their own race without any West Eurasian input (except Somalis I guess). Either way its kind of depressing. Had that not happened we likely wouldn't be speaking Indo-European languages so the legacy lives on in multiple ways.

I'm not sure about how the second statement doesn't make sense.
 
Yea its looking that way. Racial cucking was high back then I guess. Unfortunate but it is what it is. East Asians and Africans are at least paternally pure. Guess the attack on white males we see today has historical precedent.

Kartvelian and Dravidian are probably the most populous and pure West Eurasian language groups (if those are indeed connected to G and H). Who would have thought? There's South Indian tribals with high frequencies of H who are more paternally West Eurasian than all Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans.

Well today exist races as we know them, what makes you think such marked differences existed 30 k, 40 k years ago? Because they didn't. Plus some external appearance traits that are closely associated with races are much younger (skin color etc.).

For example we have Mota E1b1a2, and Bantu dominated E1b1a1 which separated 39200 years ago, Mota had an African autosomal profile but still very different and distant from E1b1a1 dominated Bantus/West-Africans.

These paradoxes prove futility of identifying in some strong way with ancestors through Y-DNA because of completely different evolutionary paths lineages can take in 40 k years.
 
Kartvelian and Dravidian are probably the most populous and pure West Eurasian language groups (if those are indeed connected to G and H). Who would have thought? There's South Indian tribals with high frequencies of H who are more paternally West Eurasian than all Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans.

Not only Kartvelians (G2a1) but also Circassians/NW Caucasian languages (G2a2b2a), the latter are more related to EEF's (just 10600 years). Also Northeast Caucasian languages are likely J-Z1828 originally, distant relatives of J-P58 which spread Semitic languages.

Dravidians are not native to South India, Dravidians descend from the North, around modern Balochistan, where Dravidian Northern remnant - Brahui is found. H hg is associated with Indian HG's, they aren't original Dravidians. Dravidians predate IE's by a couple of thousands of years, but are incomers too.
 
Well today exist races as we know them, what makes you think such marked differences existed 30 k, 40 k years ago? Because they didn't. Plus some external appearance traits that are closely associated with races are much younger (skin color etc.).

For example we have Mota E1b1a2, and Bantu dominated E1b1a1 which separated 39200 years ago, Mota had an African autosomal profile but still very different and distant from E1b1a1 dominated Bantus/West-Africans.

These paradoxes prove futility of identifying in some strong way with ancestors through Y-DNA because of completely different evolutionary paths lineages can take in 40 k years.

I guess. But there was obviously some difference because we could separate ENA from West Eurasian back then and Eurasians from Africans even back then. I'm not sure about phenotype but I would imagine there were differences although not as much as they are today. Either way though Africans and Asians were able to avoid West Eurasian introgression into their paternal gene pool but West Eurasians were not able to do the same to them which is somewhat depressing to me. Actually very depressing.
 

This thread has been viewed 24013 times.

Back
Top