steppe theory and western europe

[bicicleur 2]

Not like we have thousands of samples from each ancient historical period from each inch of land. Be patient the samples are coming, 2 here, 4 there, 3 elsewhere.

we already have lots of Bell Beaker DNA in Central and Western Europe
90 % is R1b-P312, I don't know any R1b-Z2103 further west than the Carpatian Basin, maybe some in Italy

 

[Ailchu]

Yes, your agenda is clear. You want to intentionally blur the line. You are not truly concerned with understanding the nuances of population genetics, but rather you are trying to use genetics to facilitate a socially far-left agenda. Just because some source populations overlap do not make later divergent people one in the same. Your posts are polluted with political-bias, and it should be pointed out. Also, if you were truly accepting of people than those differences shouldn't bother you. The differences are a fact, nevertheless, it doesn't mean you can't look past them in order to have social harmony.

i don't have to blur the line since it is already blured. i don't see why anything i said here is far left agenda. do you think it is good to tell people, who do not like to have anatolian neolithic ancestry or CHG or any other ancestry because of its association with modern groups of people they don't like, that they do not have to be concerned because those modern populations and those ancient ones are not the same anymore?
like, it doesn't deal at all with the fact that people actually consider ancestry of modern populations or just the association, as something bad. instead this approach is trying to appeal to them.

 

[Jovialis]

i don't have to blur the line since it is already blured. i don't see why anything i said here is far left agenda. do you think it is good to tell people, who do not like to have anatolian neolithic ancestry or CHG or any other ancestry because of its association with modern groups of people they don't like, that they do not have to be concerned because those modern populations and those ancient ones are not the same anymore?
like, it doesn't deal at all with the fact that people actually consider ancestry of modern populations or just the association, as something bad. instead this approach is trying to appeal to them.

Obviously that is not what I am saying. It is not a matter of liking, or not liking, it is matters of fact. I don't understand the point you are making, the vast majority of my own autosomal DNA is Anatolian_N, with a smaller but significant amount of CHG. The fact remains, that the lines are not blurred, because we can see that there are differences that make modern populations unique, from each locations in question. The middle east has different admixture rates, with a substantial amount of Natufian, and SSA. Just because they have CHG and Anatolian_N doesn't make them one in the same as Southern Europeans. They are different, and no one here is saying there is something wrong with that. There is no moral imperative to demand people must like or not like it.

 

[Ailchu]

Obviously that is not what I am saying. It is not a matter of liking, or not liking, it is matters of fact. I don't understand the point you are making, the vast majority of my own autosomal DNA is Anatolian_N, with a smaller but significant amount of CHG. The fact remains, that the lines are not blurred, because we can see that there are differences that make modern populations unique, from each locations in question. The middle east has different admixture rates, with a substantial amount of Natufian, and SSA. Just because they have CHG and Anatolian_N doesn't make them one in the same as Southern Europeans. They are different, and no one here is saying there is something wrong with that. There is no moral imperative to demand people must like or not like it.

if someone says " i don't like anatolian neolithic ancestry because i don't like modern people from anatolia and near east" and then you reply "don't worry those ancient ones were not the same as those who live there now" doesn't that sound stupid and awful in your ears?

also i never said they are the same as modern southern europeans. that isn't the meaning of blurred lines imo.

 

[Jovialis]

if someone says " i don't like anatolian neolithic ancestry because i don't like modern people from anatolia and near east" and then you reply "don't worry those ancient ones were not the same as those who live there now" doesn't that sound stupid and awful in your ears?

also i never said they are the same as modern southern europeans. that isn't the meaning of blurred lines imo.

Who is saying that?

 

[Angela]

Who is saying that?

Obviously, no one here is saying that. Ailchu is once again attempting to put words in people's mouths. It's one of his specialties, and yes, it should be pointed out.

All West Eurasians share ancestry, but Europeans, even Southern Europeans, have their own admixtures, as do people in the Near East. It's not a question of, as you say, liking or not liking. It's a question of facts.

Should Turks be prevented from trying to piece together their own origin history, for example? They've discovered that in some areas up to 25% of their ancestry is actual "TURK", as from Central Asia. Should science ignore the fact that there is more Anatolian Neolithic in Italy than in Turkey?

To quote someone I admire: "Facts are facts; they don't care about your feelings."

If he wants to lecture someone who hates having Anatolian Neolithic ancestry and even tries to deny the Middle Eastern origin of CHG by pushing its entrance north of the Caucasus back a few thousand years, as if that makes a difference, why doesn't he go on eurogenes' blog and lecture him? I'll tell you why: he'd be permanently banned.

To take a slightly different tack and answer someone with whom I vehemently disagree about Indo-European society...

From Razib Khan:
https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1399119488704933889

"The Yamnaya brought about a dark age.""the archaeologists on the podcasts all mention how little material remains the corded ware etc. produced. their society was just not that complex compared to the funnel beaker societies. it was collapse"


"getting into reading about the indo-europeanization of europe 5,000 years ago and conversations with archaeologists, i'm getting the sense yamnaya rule ushered in a dark age. 'old europe' of the megalith builders was the kingdom of arnor. the post-yamnaya societies were rohan"

I've been saying this for the past TEN YEARS, because I've always read the archaeology. He could have read it here. Of course, maybe at the time he wouldn't have been ready...none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Jovialis]

Obviously, no one here is saying that. Ailchu is once again attempting to put words in people's mouths. It's one of his specialties, and yes, it should be pointed out.

All West Eurasians share ancestry, but Europeans, even Southern Europeans, have their own admixtures, as do people in the Near East. It's not a question of, as you say, liking or not liking. It's a question of facts.

Should Turks be prevented from trying to piece together their own origin history, for example? They've discovered that in some areas up to 25% of their ancestry is actual "TURK", as from Central Asia. Should science ignore the fact that there is more Anatolian Neolithic in Italy than in Turkey?

To quote someone I admire: "Facts are facts; they don't care about your feelings."

If he wants to lecture someone who hates having Anatolian Neolithic ancestry and even tries to deny the Middle Eastern origin of CHG by pushing its entrance north of the Caucasus back a few thousand years, as if that makes a difference, why doesn't he go on eurogenes' blog and lecture him? I'll tell you why: he'd be permanently banned.

To take a slightly different tack and answer someone with whom I vehemently disagree about Indo-European society...

From Razib Khan:
https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1399119488704933889

"The Yamnaya brought about a dark age.""the archaeologists on the podcasts all mention how little material remains the corded ware etc. produced. their society was just not that complex compared to the funnel beaker societies. it was collapse"


"getting into reading about the indo-europeanization of europe 5,000 years ago and conversations with archaeologists, i'm getting the sense yamnaya rule ushered in a dark age. 'old europe' of the megalith builders was the kingdom of arnor. the post-yamnaya societies were rohan"

I've been saying this for the past TEN YEARS, because I've always read the archaeology. He could have read it here. Of course, maybe at the time he wouldn't have been ready...none so blind as those who will not see.

Indeed, this is clearly a strawman argument he is pulling, as well as pointless moral invective. I find it bizarre that he constantly brings up this same one, all of the time too.

 

[Ailchu]

If he wants to lecture someone who hates having Anatolian Neolithic ancestry and even tries to deny the Middle Eastern origin of CHG by pushing its entrance north of the Caucasus back a few thousand years, as if that makes a difference, why doesn't he go on eurogenes' blog and lecture him? I'll tell you why: he'd be permanently banned.

i'm not sure, why are you writing this as if it was an argument against me? since when is this a bad thing to do here? you even write yourself
"someone who hates having Anatolian Neolithic ancestry and even tries to deny the Middle Eastern origin of CHG by pushing its entrance north of the Caucasus back a few thousand years, as if that makes a difference"

hmm i wonder what people could Stuvane have talked about here "However, they have the disadvantage of being of Anatolian derivation and this displeases many people."

and then "On the contrary, in the worst vulgate, they are directly associated to successive populations forgetting (due to naivety, ignorance or bad faith) some thousands of years of history and invasions that have genetically reconfigured the entire Middle Eastern region."
"Now that ancient Anatolian-Neolithic background in its original locations has been transformed over the millennia by successive introgressions and stratifications (Caucasian, Levantine, Steppic/Central Asian/Siberian, and even European in ancient and medieval times). Omitting this passage - which is not just any detail - then creates confusion or false ideas."

so i'll just ask what do the last 2 quotations have to do with the first one?

 

[Jovialis]

i'm not sure, why are you writing this as if it was an argument against me? since when is this a bad thing to do here? you even write yourself
"someone who hates having Anatolian Neolithic ancestry and even tries to deny the Middle Eastern origin of CHG by pushing its entrance north of the Caucasus back a few thousand years, as if that makes a difference"

hmm i wonder what people could Stuvane have talked about here "However, they have the disadvantage of being of Anatolian derivation and this displeases many people."

and then "On the contrary, in the worst vulgate, they are directly associated to successive populations forgetting (due to naivety, ignorance or bad faith) some thousands of years of history and invasions that have genetically reconfigured the entire Middle Eastern region."
"Now that ancient Anatolian-Neolithic background in its original locations has been transformed over the millennia by successive introgressions and stratifications (Caucasian, Levantine, Steppic/Central Asian/Siberian, and even European in ancient and medieval times). Omitting this passage - which is not just any detail - then creates confusion or false ideas."

so i'll just ask what do the last 2 quotations have to do with the first one?

Enough with your derailment of the thread, this is supposed to be about the Steppe, or what ever Gaska is going on about. You always have to make this about middle easterners, and southern Europeans. It seems that is your primary objective on this website, which is highly dubious. You are the moral authority of no one. People are different, and they don't have to live my your moral code, deal with it. We are not going down this rabbit hole again. Some people don't like being anatolian-derived, so what, that's their problem. There are plenty of white liberals that are resentful of being "white", there are uncle toms that hate being "black". These are their personal demons they need to contend with, and it has nothing to do with science. Now please spare us your lecture, because it is boring, and highly subjective.

 

[Angela]

Indeed, this is clearly a strawman argument he is pulling, as well as pointless moral invective. I find it bizarre that he constantly brings up this same one, all of the time too.

My guess has always been that he is masquerading under a false identity and is actually a Middle Easterner with a huge chip on his shoulder, for reasons that are beyond me, given how much they have of which to be proud.

I'll just clarify the point in the statement of mine which he re-posted and then I'm out. It doesn't matter when CHG went onto the steppe to mix with EHG and create the Yamnaya. CHG was a Middle Eastern "genetic group", as was and is Anatolian Neolithic. I have absolutely no problem in being descended from them.

Nor would I have any problem having Levantine or SSA or East Asian or Amerindian or Southeast Asian or any other damn ancestry if it were proven.

Nor, for the record, do I have any problem with being 25-30% steppe in ancestry. All of us are admixtures of different groups. I just follow the facts. If the steppe people brought down more complex and advanced civilizations, as did the Philistines, for example, after them, then it is what it is.

I'm in all of this for "the truth", and damn people's "feelings" about it, which seems to be an alien concept for some hobbyists in population genetics.

 

[Jovialis]

My guess has always been that he is masquerading under a false identity and is actually a Middle Easterner with a huge chip on his shoulder, for reasons that are beyond me, given how much they have of which to be proud.

I'll just clarify the point in the statement of mine which he re-posted and then I'm out. It doesn't matter when CHG went onto the steppe to mix with EHG and create the Yamnaya. CHG was a Middle Eastern "genetic group", as was and is Anatolian Neolithic. I have absolutely no problem in being descended from them.

Nor would I have any problem having Levantine or SSA or East Asian or Amerindian or Southeast Asian or any other damn ancestry if it were proven.

Nor, for the record, do I have any problem with being 25-30% steppe in ancestry. All of us are admixtures of different groups. I just follow the facts. If the steppe people brought down more complex and advanced civilizations, as did the Philistines, for example, after them, then it is what it is.

I'm in all of this for "the truth", and damn people's "feelings" about it, which seems to be an alien concept for some hobbyists in population genetics.

Those are my thoughts exactly.

 

[Ailchu]

Enough with your derailment of the thread, this is supposed to be about the Steppe, or what ever Gaska is going on about. You always have to make this about middle easterners, and southern Europeans. It seems that is your primary objective on this website, which is highly dubious. You are the moral authority of no one. People are different, and they don't have to live my your moral code, deal with it. We are not going down this rabbit hole again. Some people don't like being anatolian-derived, so what, that's their problem. There are plenty of white liberals that are resentful of being "white", there are uncle toms that hate being "black". These are their personal demons they need to contend with, and it has nothing to do with science. Now please spare us your lecture, because it is boring, and highly subjective.

can't see where i made this about southern europeans. and the matter of discussion was already about middle east. i tried to generalize it in one of my last posts.

It doesn't matter when CHG went onto the steppe to mix with EHG and create the Yamnaya. CHG was a Middle Eastern "genetic group", as was and is Anatolian Neolithic. I have absolutely no problem in being descended from either of them.

Nor would I have any problem having Levantine or SSA or East Asian or Amerindian or Southeast Asian or any other damn ancestry if it were proven.

I'm in all of this for "the truth", and damn people's "feelings" about it, which seems to be an alien concept for some hobbyists in population genetics.

thank you. leaving aside your speculations about me beeing from near east, i agree with everything.

 

[Jovialis]

I think you are a lying about your ethnicity, but whatever.

 

[Jovialis]

Also, I agree with those statements as well, so I am not sure what your issue is.

 

[Ailchu]

all i have been saying is, that the people Stuvane mentioned are probably people who place too many feelings in population genetics and that explaining them how anatolian neolithic is disconnected from modern near east is the wrong kind of coping IMO. especially if we consider CHG and anatolian neolithic as middle eastern genetic groups anyways.
this is all i have been saying. you can disagree and say that it is fine to do that. however why do you attack me for "lecturing" people? people do not have to live by my moral standards, that is true. however we can still argue which moral standards are better than the others right? you certainly also have your own opinions about those "white liberals" and "uncle johns" who hate their ethnicity.

 

[Stuvanè]

@Ailchu,


I try to clarify what I wrote last week, hoping not to open up new controversies. But on some things I want to be direct.


When I refer to those who resent any Middle Eastern roots - including the more archaic, natural and widespread ones - I have in mind mainly the Nordicist groups who get hives just thinking about them.
You would find plenty of such examples in many blogs and other social media over the years. Some of the funniest ones I saw operating a few weeks ago on some amateur Facebook group, when someone posted renderings of the faces of some Yamnaya men from the kurgans of Boldyrevo and Berezhnovka, brought up after some recent studies had identified the people of the steppes as having not particularly rosy skin and un-Northern features. And from the deep North the queries and distinctions began.


I remember that even here on Eupedia these portraits were posted for discussion, perhaps by Jovialis himself if I remember correctly. Now it may be that the author of those renderings deliberately and provocatively accentuated those southern characters, I really don't know. The fact is - and I laugh thinking about it - that two of those Yamnayas remind me respectively of Antonio Bassolino - a former mayor of Naples - and Gigi Pistilli, a famous Italian actor known to the general public and famous for having starred in some of Sergio Leone's westerns. Neither of them is particularly hyperborean - on the contrary - and if all this were scientifically confirmed, I'm imagining the belly aches and despair of those who for years passed them off as ante litteram land Vikings swarming from the steppes. It can't be easy for them to discover or even to come to grips with the hypothesis that these supposed ancient masters of the world and of war (only some of them? or all of them?) didn't look like the powerful and famous He-Man of the Mattel puppets, but rather like some anonymous and rather humble Greek, Albanian, Italian peasant, shepherd or fisherman..., people who would be Europeans in a manner of speaking, according to the canons of the Nordicists. They don't like this fact and they have to be asked for the reasons.


For opposite reasons but with convergent results there are the Levantinists. Their motto is in practice "ex Oriente lux": if the Nordicists dream of expelling the South Europeans from the group of what would be genuinely European, the Levantinists expand their range of action and their genetic, cultural and historical influences to an unbelievable extent, practically watering down or eliminating the presence of any element proper to Southern Europe, which has matured and developed autonomously here. Certainly, in the Middle East there are the Neolithic Anatolian and CHG components and their original cores, but other components have also arrived that have made the history, genetics and culture of the current Middle Easterners very different from those of Southern Europeans. The vice of Levantinists is to tell things by halves, playing on the concept of the common ancestral geographical origin of what we call the Middle East and concealing all that has passed there in terms of mergers, ethnic changes, repopulation. This is not very scientific and belongs more to the armoury of sophistry and mystification.


I'm concluding because I don't want to go off topics: in the North, in some circles, there is an unquenchable desire for revenge against civilisations such as the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans, who would have been great only by virtue of a northern contribution, while in the East (and more recently also further south, from Africa) there is a need to appropriate the glories and achievements of others to camouflage their own more recent historical phases of stagnation or decadence. Holding all these instances together is the ultra-progressive intelligentsia, which makes these pesudorgomentations its own in order to drive forward precise internationalist political agendas, which I have already written about and which southern Europeans should pay for in the near future, and even now.


From the point of view of rigorous research, there are few who actually mind their own business and look objectively at what their predecessors did (or did not do). Here too, when it comes to studying the inheritance of genes, culture and civilisation, the rule seems more often to be that of certain cunning and unscrupulous capitalists: privatise the profits and socialise the losses.

 

[Angela]

all i have been saying is, that the people Stuvane mentioned are probably people who place too many feelings in population genetics and that explaining them how anatolian neolithic is disconnected from modern near east is the wrong kind of coping IMO. especially if we consider CHG and anatolian neolithic as middle eastern genetic groups anyways.
this is all i have been saying. you can disagree and say that it is fine to do that. however why do you attack me for "lecturing" people? people do not have to live by my moral standards, that is true. however we can still argue which moral standards are better than the others right? you certainly also have your own opinions about those "white liberals" and "uncle johns" who hate their ethnicity.

Facts are NEVER the WRONG way of coping with ANYTHING. As I've said until I'm blue in the face, facts are facts, period. All the WOKE jargon and paranoia will not change that.

Modern Middle Easterners are NOT Anatolian Neolithic people. There is more Anatolian Neolithic in Southern Europe (although it's present in all Europeans, whether they like it or not) than in the Near East. That's a fact. Southern Europeans have CHG/Iran Neo, but not the same amount as Near Easterners. Near Easterners also have later admixtures, and Southern Europeans have WHG, for example, of which the Near Easterners have precious little.

Stop trying to gloss over the differences which make each group unique. Southern Europeans are NOT Near Easterners and VICE VERSA. Stop trying to demonize anyone who says what is manifestly true by trying to imply that it is a racist thing to believe. IT IS A FACT.

It is also a fact that the ancient Greeks and Romans were NOT Nordic by any stretch of the imagination, but neither were they modern Turks or Levantines, for example.

This is all political b.s. or indeed racist b.s., and it has to stop, and I don't care whether it comes from Nordicists or Slavicists, or Balkanites, or North Africans, or Levantines, or those pretending to be supporters of the Levant and Jews when they're actually anti-Semites of the worst kind.

Stop freaking obsessing about the genetics of the Italians and the Greeks and obsess on your own ancestral heritage and achievements.

 

[Jovialis]

@Ailchu,


I try to clarify what I wrote last week, hoping not to open up new controversies. But on some things I want to be direct.


When I refer to those who resent any Middle Eastern roots - including the more archaic, natural and widespread ones - I have in mind mainly the Nordicist groups who get hives just thinking about them.
You would find plenty of such examples in many blogs and other social media over the years. Some of the funniest ones I saw operating a few weeks ago on some amateur Facebook group, when someone posted renderings of the faces of some Yamnaya men from the kurgans of Boldyrevo and Berezhnovka, brought up after some recent studies had identified the people of the steppes as having not particularly rosy skin and un-Northern features. And from the deep North the queries and distinctions began.


I remember that even here on Eupedia these portraits were posted for discussion, perhaps by Jovialis himself if I remember correctly. Now it may be that the author of those renderings deliberately and provocatively accentuated those southern characters, I really don't know. The fact is - and I laugh thinking about it - that two of those Yamnayas remind me respectively of Antonio Bassolino - a former mayor of Naples - and Gigi Pistilli, a famous Italian actor known to the general public and famous for having starred in some of Sergio Leone's westerns. Neither of them is particularly hyperborean - on the contrary - and if all this were scientifically confirmed, I'm imagining the belly aches and despair of those who for years passed them off as ante litteram land Vikings swarming from the steppes. It can't be easy for them to discover or even to come to grips with the hypothesis that these supposed ancient masters of the world and of war (only some of them? or all of them?) didn't look like the powerful and famous He-Man of the Mattel puppets, but rather like some anonymous and rather humble Greek, Albanian, Italian peasant, shepherd or fisherman..., people who would be Europeans in a manner of speaking, according to the canons of the Nordicists. They don't like this fact and they have to be asked for the reasons.


For opposite reasons but with convergent results there are the Levantinists. Their motto is in practice "ex Oriente lux": if the Nordicists dream of expelling the South Europeans from the group of what would be genuinely European, the Levantinists expand their range of action and their genetic, cultural and historical influences to an unbelievable extent, practically watering down or eliminating the presence of any element proper to Southern Europe, which has matured and developed autonomously here. Certainly, in the Middle East there are the Neolithic Anatolian and CHG components and their original cores, but other components have also arrived that have made the history, genetics and culture of the current Middle Easterners very different from those of Southern Europeans. The vice of Levantinists is to tell things by halves, playing on the concept of the common ancestral geographical origin of what we call the Middle East and concealing all that has passed there in terms of mergers, ethnic changes, repopulation. This is not very scientific and belongs more to the armoury of sophistry and mystification.


I'm concluding because I don't want to go off topics: in the North, in some circles, there is an unquenchable desire for revenge against civilisations such as the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans, who would have been great only by virtue of a northern contribution, while in the East (and more recently also further south, from Africa) there is a need to appropriate the glories and achievements of others to camouflage their own more recent historical phases of stagnation or decadence. Holding all these instances together is the ultra-progressive intelligentsia, which makes these pesudorgomentations its own in order to drive forward precise internationalist political agendas, which I have already written about and which southern Europeans should pay for in the near future, and even now.


From the point of view of rigorous research, there are few who actually mind their own business and look objectively at what their predecessors did (or did not do). Here too, when it comes to studying the inheritance of genes, culture and civilisation, the rule seems more often to be that of certain cunning and unscrupulous capitalists: privatise the profits and socialise the losses.

Indeed, it was me:

 

[American]

They look like modern Europeans to me. In fact it would be hard for me to place them in any specific part of Europe. I'm very interested in the subject of phenotype, but it would be really hard to distinguish the phenotypical effects of ANE and CHG because they both entered Europe en masse during the Bronze Age, except for of course the Mesolithic in Eastern Europe which was already WHG/ANE mixed.

As for the politicized garbage, it is unfortunate. The current woke mantra is that "EvErYtHiNg Is PoLiTiCaL" and therefore they have an excuse to insert their activism into everything. When it comes to equality of the races, science can't just speak for itself. They don't seem to believe that rationalism and scientific progress will naturally show that all people are equal. I think they actually fear the opposite. Otherwise all the crap they pull would be unjustified.

 

[Ailchu]

Facts are NEVER the WRONG way of coping with ANYTHING. As I've said until I'm blue in the face, facts are facts, period. All the WOKE jargon and paranoia will not change that.

Modern Middle Easterners are NOT Anatolian Neolithic people. There is more Anatolian Neolithic in Southern Europe (although it's present in all Europeans, whether they like it or not) than in the Near East. That's a fact. Southern Europeans have CHG/Iran Neo, but not the same amount as Near Easterners. Near Easterners also have later admixtures, and Southern Europeans have WHG, for example, of which the Near Easterners have precious little.

Stop trying to gloss over the differences which make each group unique. Southern Europeans are NOT Near Easterners and VICE VERSA. Stop trying to demonize anyone who says what is manifestly true by trying to imply that it is a racist thing to believe. IT IS A FACT.

It is also a fact that the ancient Greeks and Romans were NOT Nordic by any stretch of the imagination, but neither were they modern Turks or Levantines, for example.

This is all political b.s. or indeed racist b.s., and it has to stop, and I don't care whether it comes from Nordicists or Slavicists, or Balkanites, or North Africans, or Levantines, or those pretending to be supporters of the Levant and Jews when they're actually anti-Semites of the worst kind.

Stop freaking obsessing about the genetics of the Italians and the Greeks and obsess on your own ancestral heritage and achievements.

yes. modern middle easterners are not anatolian neolithic but you CAN NOT simply disconnect those 2 from each other to calm down for example nordicists who do not like modern near eastern people. it is wrong simple as that. what facts are you talking about that would justify this and make this a reasonable thing to do?


yes, southern europeans are not near easterners. why do you guys keep repeating this eventhough i never claimed the opposite? i never even talked about southern europeans specifically.