steppe theory and western europe

[Gaska]

A new genetic dogma has become the official religion of many people who try to conceal their racial and social prejudices by supporting the new Steppe theory as interpreted by prestigious American geneticists. For many people, the fact that the main European male lineages (i.e. R1b-P312 and R1a-M417) have their origin outside the European territory is unacceptable. Genetic advances have proven them right in the sense that currently the oldest samples of both R1a and R1b have been found in Russia and Italy. There is therefore no opportunity for all sorts of Levantinists, Indians, Africanists etc. to claim that the origin of these lineages is in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia or South Asia. That ship sailed a long time ago and the discussion is now focused on defining the origin of some subclades that are particularly problematic because of the obvious bottlenecks they have suffered during their evolution. Particularly problematic is the case of R1b-M269 and R1b-L51, that remain the great mystery to be solved by European and American geneticists. Six years ago it seemed that the Harvardians had solved the mystery by publishing several papers in which they claimed that R1a and R1b and their mass migrations from the steppes had spread IE throughout mainland Europe thanks to the CWC and then thanks to the BBC. Both R1b-M269 and L51 would have their origin in the Yamnaya culture and are exclusively responsible for the expansion of the so-called Yamnaya ancestry throughout the European continent so that the old theory of Marija Gimbutas had been scientifically proven. Since then, dozens of scientific publications, western media and thousands of genetics enthusiasts have accepted the data provided by Dr. Reich's laboratory without question, giving validity to a theory that in my opinion has not yet been adequately demonstrated. In fact, problems soon began to arise around this new theory. First, prestigious linguists criticized these papers saying that even if this were the case, Yamnaya migrations could only have given rise to some regional variants of the IE language, then many archaeologists objected that there had been massive migrations or violent conquests because there is no trace of them in the European archaeological record and finally the genetic advances and the boom of prehistoric samples analyzed all over Europe have brought to light samples that clearly contradict this theory especially regarding the origin of R1b-L754, P297, M269 and L51-Everyone now knows famous names such asVillabruna, Iboussieres, the Narva culture (Baltic countries), the Scandinavian Hunter gatherers (Troms-VK531) and the Balkan HGs that have made R1b a typical lineage of the WHGs, there is no doubt about it and I do not think that today anyone can dare to deny this evidence because all those samples although many have been found in Eastern Europe (Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia etc) have high percentages of western blood in their autosomes. It is important to understand that between approx. 12,000 and 5,500 BC there is no trace of R1b in Ukraine or Russia except for some cases of V88 in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Ukrainian, which demonstrates the migrations of WHGs to eastern Europe because that lineage currently has its origin in the Balkans.

Regarding R1b-M269, Lazaridis has recently recognized that the oldest known case may be the Smyadovo sample (4,500 BC) that despite its poor quality has a marker downstream M269, and Harvard has also recognized that ATP3 (Iberia-3.400 BC) belongs to that same lineage- Both cases are related to European Neolithic cultures, the first with the Gumelnita-Karanovo culture and the second with the late Iberian Neolithic which shows that even recognizing that M269 had its origin in the steppes, it was incorporated very quickly into the Neolithic cultures of old Europe, which means that neither the Repin culture nor the cultures that succeeded it (Yamanya, Afanasievo) had anything to do with the expansion of that lineage in mainland europe-To further complicate the situation, it turns out that Harvard has been unable to find R1b-L51> P312 in any culture of the steppes, they have only found R1b-V1636 in Khvalynsk and Progress eneolithic and R1b-z2013 in Yamnaya, Afanasievo and the cultures that are genetically descended from them and that expanded in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Eastern R1b lineages have absolutely nothing to do with Westerners unless Harvard can prove otherwise and that would be very simple, it would be enough for them to publish a L51 sample in any culture of the steppes.

 

[Gaska]

The truth is that nobody knows yet the origin of CHG-Iran neolithic in the steppes, nobody can explain why Yamnaya is Z2013, the CWC is R1a-M417 and the BBC is r1b-P312, nobody can explain why the horsemen of the steppes are Dolichocephalics and R1b beakers are brachycephalic and no one can explain why if R1b spread the Indo-European language, the first languages ​​attested, that is, the Anatolian and Greek varieties are overwhelmingly J2 without there being a trace of R1b-Z2013 either in Greece or Anatolia at the moment. Of course there are many smart people working to solve the mystery and in this time we have heard dozens of arguments that try to explain the inexplicable

1-The Yamnaya culture has been debunked as the origin of L51 and IE, no matter, that ancestry was in the steppes before then any other satellite culture must have been responsible (Repin, Western Yamnaya, Catacombs, Sredni Stog)

2-There is no L51 in the steppes, it does not matter, surely it is because Z2013 was the elite and the poor L51 were simply not buried in Kurgans, or maybe we are talking about a single L51 man so that it is practically impossible to locate him, or maybe patrilinearity and exogamy are responsible for having concealed this lineage and therefore for preventing male genetic continuity between Yamnaya CWC and BBC.

3-Yamnaya debunked?, it doesn't matter either, L51 reached mainland europe hidden in the CWC and once in the Netherlands it became BBC resurrecting the old and discredited Dutch model

4-The IE speakers in Anatolia and Greece are not R1b-L51 but J2a and other lineages typical of those regions? Nor does it matter, it is probably the steppe ancestry that was responsible for this situation, so that in some regions the uniparental markers are responsible for the expansion of IE and in other regions the autosomal components.

5-The Basques are overwhelmingly R1b-P312, but they do not speak Indo-European, it does not matter, because although it is a unique case in the world, what happened is that the IE conquerors changed their tactics because the Chalcolithic Basques were a matriarchal culture and then they immediately adopted the language spoken by their Iberian women

Etc etc, etc the important thing is that we the 100 million western men R1b-P312 are descendants of the horsemen of the Yamnaya culture, those blond, blue-eyed horsemen who domesticated the horse, invented the wheel, and conquered mainland Europe because they were stronger, taller, more resistant and more intelligent than the neolithic farmers of old europe-As 87% of the Basques and 70% of the Spaniards are descendants of those horsemen of the steppes, we should feel proud to belong to that superior race and we should thank them for ending the old Iberian Neolithic lineages. However, this fairy tale is far from being proven, so that the steppe theory for many of us is just one of many theories that have to be taken into consideration.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Brother why are you so emotionally attached to this?

"there is no doubt about it and I do not think that today anyone can dare to deny this evidence because all those samples although many have been found in Eastern Europe (Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia etc) have high percentages of western blood in their autosomes."

like bro, that's not how you talk science, sounds more like a political rally than an argument, that's not how it works, not how any of this works.

"nobody can explain why Yamnaya is Z2013, the CWC is R1a-M417 and the BBC is r1b-P312"

so we need a why?


"1-The Yamnaya culture has been debunked as the origin of L51 and IE"

I mean you are writing so much, yet I do not seem to get the point? Maybe I am missing something...
Like too much zealotry in the way you write, like your honor depends on it, yet no back up to any of these claims. Harvard, Reich, Lazaridis etc have no clue yada yada yada. They cant dare deny?! this and that.

Sounds to me like you might have been in one two many racist forums and you brought that baggage here.

But then you claim this and that has been debunked, with not even the slightest proof or evidence.
I was legitimately trying to understand what you mean with those posts, I just got lost in the incoherence.

PS: Before you try to project your shadows on me:

 

[real expert]

The truth is that nobody knows yet the origin of CHG-Iran neolithic in the steppes, nobody can explain why Yamnaya is Z2013, the CWC is R1a-M417 and the BBC is r1b-P312, nobody can explain why the horsemen of the steppes are Dolichocephalics and R1b beakers are brachycephalic and no one can explain why if R1b spread the Indo-European language, the first languages ​​attested, that is, the Anatolian and Greek varieties are overwhelmingly J2 without there being a trace of R1b-Z2013 either in Greece or Anatolia at the moment. Of course there are many smart people working to solve the mystery and in this time we have heard dozens of arguments that try to explain the inexplicable

1-The Yamnaya culture has been debunked as the origin of L51 and IE, no matter, that ancestry was in the steppes before then any other satellite culture must have been responsible (Repin, Western Yamnaya, Catacombs, Sredni Stog)

2-There is no L51 in the steppes, it does not matter, surely it is because Z2013 was the elite and the poor L51 were simply not buried in Kurgans, or maybe we are talking about a single L51 man so that it is practically impossible to locate him, or maybe patrilinearity and exogamy are responsible for having concealed this lineage and therefore for preventing male genetic continuity between Yamnaya CWC and BBC.

3-Yamnaya debunked?, it doesn't matter either, L51 reached mainland europe hidden in the CWC and once in the Netherlands it became BBC resurrecting the old and discredited Dutch model

4-The IE speakers in Anatolia and Greece are not R1b-L51 but J2a and other lineages typical of those regions? Nor does it matter, it is probably the steppe ancestry that was responsible for this situation, so that in some regions the uniparental markers are responsible for the expansion of IE and in other regions the autosomal components.

5-The Basques are overwhelmingly R1b-P312, but they do not speak Indo-European, it does not matter, because although it is a unique case in the world, what happened is that the IE conquerors changed their tactics because the Chalcolithic Basques were a matriarchal culture and then they immediately adopted the language spoken by their Iberian women

Etc etc, etc the important thing is that we the 100 million western men R1b-P312 are descendants of the horsemen of the Yamnaya culture, those blond, blue-eyed horsemen who domesticated the horse, invented the wheel, and conquered mainland Europe because they were stronger, taller, more resistant and more intelligent than the neolithic farmers of old europe-As 87% of the Basques and 70% of the Spaniards are descendants of those horsemen of the steppes, we should feel proud to belong to that superior race and we should thank them for ending the old Iberian Neolithic lineages. However, this fairy tale is far from being proven, so that the steppe theory for many of us is just one of many theories that have to be taken into consideration.

I think you have some valid points, thus I'm open to further arguments from your side. That said, who knows maybe Rb1 is an EHG hp.

 

[Stuvanè]

Especially in relation to point 4 - as I happened to write elsewhere - one can see a possible solution if one assumes that part of the Indo-European language and genes are not completely steppic in origin.


Having ascertained for the moment that the Yamnaya's autosomal is already a derivative, a compound of EHG (patrlinear) and CHG (maternal), and that their language seems to be a layering of very ancient idioms that we could define as "Uralic" (or Uralic-like) on other Caucasians, at this point it must be admitted that somewhere - still in the Caucasus and remaining in their own locations - someone continued to speak for other millennia languages of this last branch (already rather relevant as a morphological and phonological legacy).

From this Caucasian branch, then, might have arisen those Indo-European languages (and related peoples) that in cladistics appear almost always rather differentiated and separated from the rest, such as Hittite or archaic Greek.
I make these ramblings on the basis of some recent contributions by Bomhard and Anthony, both published in 2019.

https://www.academia.edu/40002289/Bomhard_The_Origins_of_Proto_Indo_European_The_Caucasian_Substrate_Hypothesis_JIES_Volume_47_Number_1_and_2_Spring_Summer_2019_pre_print_?auto=download

https://www.academia.edu/39985565/A..._Language_in_the_Steppes_A_Comment_on_Bomhard

 

[Archetype0ne]

Especially in relation to point 4 - as I happened to write elsewhere - one can see a possible solution if one assumes that part of the Indo-European language and genes are not completely steppic in origin.


Having ascertained for the moment that the Yamnaya's autosomal is already a derivative, a compound of EHG (patrlinear) and CHG (maternal), and that their language seems to be a layering of very ancient idioms that we could define as "Uralic" (or Uralic-like) on other Caucasians, at this point it must be admitted that somewhere - still in the Caucasus and remaining in their own locations - someone continued to speak for other millennia languages of this last branch (already rather relevant as a morphological and phonological legacy).

From this Caucasian branch, then, might have arisen those Indo-European languages (and related peoples) that in cladistics appear almost always rather differentiated and separated from the rest, such as Hittite or archaic Greek.
I make these ramblings on the basis of some recent contributions by Bomhard and Anthony, both published in 2019.

https://www.academia.edu/40002289/Bomhard_The_Origins_of_Proto_Indo_European_The_Caucasian_Substrate_Hypothesis_JIES_Volume_47_Number_1_and_2_Spring_Summer_2019_pre_print_?auto=download

https://www.academia.edu/39985565/A..._Language_in_the_Steppes_A_Comment_on_Bomhard

Agree with you.

I think the flaw here is limiting certain dna branches to certain cultures. No culture was homogeneous genetically. No DNA was homogeneous culturally.

So because some branch is missing from Yamnaya then what? Yamnaya is a cultural complex. I am sure they were to certain degrees heterogeneous. I am also sure that Yamnaya were not the only culture under the Indo European umbrella. I am also to some degree positive, Yamnaya were not the first Indo Europeans in Europe (As the thread starter was also hinting).

My point is throwing down a hypothesis because lack of evidence(1), as far as samples go, especially when the samples are in double digit numbers(2) is flat out irrational.

Lack of proof, does not "necessarily" constitute falsifying proof for a hypothesis, especially when DNA is very scarce. That's like things you learn studying the scientific method in high school.

Nonetheless, I am just talking from reading papers regarding this stuff, and in no point did they use the rhetoric the thread starter is using "are descendants of the horsemen of the Yamnaya culture, those blond, blue-eyed horsemen who domesticated the horse, invented the wheel, and conquered mainland Europe because they were stronger, taller, more resistant and more intelligent than the neolithic farmers of old europe"... This whole statement smells. Especially given how much EF contributed to modern autosomal makeup (why I even posted my autosomal analysis, and to prove I have no superiority bias towards these Yamnaya I might be accused of).

I hate these emotionally charged arguments, if you can even call them arguments, since most of it is fluff. They cant dare deny this or that. Dare or what?

 

[Gaska]

I think you have some valid points, thus I'm open to further arguments from your side. That said, who knows maybe Rb1 is an EHG hp.

We need more samples of both EHGs and WHGs in order to know their autosomal composition and origin. Many Hgs in Europe are a mixture of both components and we usually consider them eastern or western by virtue of their majority component. We also know that the samples to be published from Volosovo may be R1b-M269, but in any case they have no steppe ancestry, they are very late (3,000 BC) and they are mostly WHGs even though geographically they can be considered as Ehgs. We also know that the Yamnaya autosomal composition has a good percentage of EEF and that this component is more Western than in the rest of steppe cultures. Everything seems to indicate that the genetic contacts were constant, that the different autosomal components are more and more diffuse as more samples are published and that the researchers have underestimated the migrations coming from the West (once again I repeat, technically Eastern Europe-Balkans and Baltic) towards the steppes in their obsession to demonstrate the diffusion of the IE thanks to Yamnaya. That is to say, there can be R1b EHGs?, technically yes, but they will never have the typical autosomal composition of the current EHgs.

The arguments that we can currently use is that R1b-M269 has its origin in Bulgaria (Gumelnita culture) and that R1b-L51 has its origin in Switzerland (megalithic culture-EEFs) because it is in those territories where the oldest samples have been found. To prove the contrary, no autosomal, anthropological, linguistic or archaeological arguments are useful, simply someone must find older samples in other sites (wherever they are).

 

[Gaska]

Especially in relation to point 4 - as I happened to write elsewhere - one can see a possible solution if one assumes that part of the Indo-European language and genes are not completely steppic in origin.


Having ascertained for the moment that the Yamnaya's autosomal is already a derivative, a compound of EHG (patrlinear) and CHG (maternal), and that their language seems to be a layering of very ancient idioms that we could define as "Uralic" (or Uralic-like) on other Caucasians, at this point it must be admitted that somewhere - still in the Caucasus and remaining in their own locations - someone continued to speak for other millennia languages of this last branch (already rather relevant as a morphological and phonological legacy).

From this Caucasian branch, then, might have arisen those Indo-European languages (and related peoples) that in cladistics appear almost always rather differentiated and separated from the rest, such as Hittite or archaic Greek.
I make these ramblings on the basis of some recent contributions by Bomhard and Anthony, both published in 2019.

https://www.academia.edu/40002289/Bomhard_The_Origins_of_Proto_Indo_European_The_Caucasian_Substrate_Hypothesis_JIES_Volume_47_Number_1_and_2_Spring_Summer_2019_pre_print_?auto=download

https://www.academia.edu/39985565/A..._Language_in_the_Steppes_A_Comment_on_Bomhard

Yeah, it is perfectly possible, and any possibility cannot be ruled out, even an origin of the IE language in Southern Caucasus. Why not?

 

[Stuvanè]

Agree with you.

I think the flaw here is limiting certain dna branches to certain cultures. No culture was homogeneous genetically. No DNA was homogeneous culturally.

So because some branch is missing from Yamnaya then what? Yamnaya is a cultural complex. I am sure they were to certain degrees heterogeneous. I am also sure that Yamnaya were not the only culture under the Indo European umbrella. I am also to some degree positive, Yamnaya were not the first Indo Europeans in Europe (As the thread starter was also hinting).

My point is throwing down a hypothesis because lack of evidence(1), as far as samples go, especially when the samples are in double digit numbers(2) is flat out irrational.

Lack of proof, does not "necessarily" constitute falsifying proof for a hypothesis, especially when DNA is very scarce. That's like things you learn studying the scientific method in high school.

Nonetheless, I am just talking from reading papers regarding this stuff, and in no point did they use the rhetoric the thread starter is using "are descendants of the horsemen of the Yamnaya culture, those blond, blue-eyed horsemen who domesticated the horse, invented the wheel, and conquered mainland Europe because they were stronger, taller, more resistant and more intelligent than the neolithic farmers of old europe"... This whole statement smells. Especially given how much EF contributed to modern autosomal makeup (why I even posted my autosomal analysis, and to prove I have no superiority bias towards these Yamnaya I might be accused of).

I hate these emotionally charged arguments, if you can even call them arguments, since most of it is fluff. They cant dare deny this or that. Dare or what?

@Archetyp0ne,

the problem we all have or meet in these topics - which are still among the most worthy and interesting - is always the same, i.e. that they can be subsumed by various agendas, ideologies, cultural or ethnic claims... more or less old that are a counter to old enmities and rivalries.


The common underlying mental and implicit mechanism in the end is that of claiming a greater "autochthony" (or "antiquity") of one's own group with respect to others deemed somehow spurious (perhaps specifically trying to identify who is more "European" than "Middle Eastern").


According to these premises, the palm of antiquity would go to the hunter-gatherers who arrived first in Europe (but coming from the Middle East). But numerically they remain residual. The Anatolian farmers who later became EEF are another base and component common to all Europeans today, much more recent than the hunter-gatherers but still quite ancient. However, they have the disadvantage of being of Anatolian derivation and this displeases many people. 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.


The peoples of the steppes are liked because here, too, we give in to the temptation of imagining ourselves as descendants of characters such as Howard's Conan the Barbarian or something similar that cleans out supposedly decadent and degenerate civilizations. But if the suspicion arises or it turns out that their features were less blond or hyperboreal than expected and / or that they had a part of their lineage between dark mountain dwellers of the Caucasus (therefore still Middle Eastern) or that in some areas have not been able to get the better of cultures and civilizations already started, coming instead to mixes and compromises, here are the beginning of bellyaches and distinctions ...


In conclusion: it takes a lot of maturity and detachment to deal with these topics. Probably these are topics that would be better to deepen when one is old enough...

 

[Hawk]

Just because you find individuals or lone wolfs during Mesolithic in Italy/Russia/Balkan doesn't mean their origin is there, i have no doubt that Y-DNA R1b/R1a is EHG/ANE and its origin was North Eurasia.

 

[Gaska]

Just because you find individuals or lone wolfs during Mesolithic in Italy/Russia/Balkan doesn't mean their origin is there, i have no doubt that Y-DNA R1b/R1a is EHG/ANE and its origin was North Eurasia.

How can you not have doubts? do you know of any case of r1b in the steppes that the rest of us don't know about?


Lone wolves? R1b-P297 in the Baltic countries has a genetic continuity of more than 3.500 years (6.500-3.000 BC), you believe that those WHGs were lone wolves? the only argument in favor of R1b-M269 in the steppes are the autosomal DNA, that as everybody knows is easily manipulated with the sophisticated informatic tools that we have nowadays. The Yamnaya culture is not the source but the sink of R1b and it is also curious that if L51 originates from the steppes, why there is no trace of this lineage neither in Ukraine, nor in Russia, nor in Central Asia, nor in India, nor in Anatolia nor in the Balkans?. What happened?, did all the L51 emigrate and yet their Z2103 relatives stayed in the steppes?

 

[Archetype0ne]

@Archetyp0ne,

the problem we all have or meet in these topics - which are still among the most worthy and interesting - is always the same, i.e. that they can be subsumed by various agendas, ideologies, cultural or ethnic claims... more or less old that are a counter to old enmities and rivalries.


The common underlying mental and implicit mechanism in the end is that of claiming a greater "autochthony" (or "antiquity") of one's own group with respect to others deemed somehow spurious (perhaps specifically trying to identify who is more "European" than "Middle Eastern").


According to these premises, the palm of antiquity would go to the hunter-gatherers who arrived first in Europe (but coming from the Middle East). But numerically they remain residual. The Anatolian farmers who later became EEF are another base and component common to all Europeans today, much more recent than the hunter-gatherers but still quite ancient. However, they have the disadvantage of being of Anatolian derivation and this displeases many people. 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.


The peoples of the steppes are liked because here, too, we give in to the temptation of imagining ourselves as descendants of characters such as Howard's Conan the Barbarian or something similar that cleans out supposedly decadent and degenerate civilizations. But if the suspicion arises or it turns out that their features were less blond or hyperboreal than expected and / or that they had a part of their lineage between dark mountain dwellers of the Caucasus (therefore still Middle Eastern) or that in some areas have not been able to get the better of cultures and civilizations already started, coming instead to mixes and compromises, here are the beginning of bellyaches and distinctions ...


In conclusion: it takes a lot of maturity and detachment to deal with these topics. Probably these are topics that would be better to deepen when one is old enough...

Fully agree friend. Thing is there is no such thing as purity in any sense. We are descendants of HG from West, East, Caucasus, Farmers from Anatolia, Yamnaya herders, and many many more components we probably haven't realized or designated yet. Each one of those components brought important aspects to our development as peoples, from farming and rich diets that allowed us to develop culture, crafts etc due to surplus time and calories, to horse riding and wheels, to any other morphological aspects people like about themselves. I fail to see the fascination with pale skin and blonde hair/blue eyes. I find it childish. I would understand it from a blonde person with blue eyes, believe it or not we all consciously or subconsciously like phenotypes similar to ours, but it seems a lot of people of various phenotypes like to glorify such a look, not me, I don't care.

I am sure with age my opinions will change, but have a feeling I know it wont be in a particular direction I already dislike.
Neither like Noridcism, Afrocentrism or any isms for that matter. And trust me neither do I like this argument that is often popular in the Balkans "we were here first" or this and that, as I said all populations are a mix of some stocks, and if we take a look at it we all have HG components and Farmer and Herder components that got to Europe/Balkans thousands of years ago, so no point even using such casus bellis to start conflicts that should have died in the 19th century, let alone thrive in the dialogue of demagogues today in the region. At the end of the day its a weak argument to begin with, look at Native Americans, without real power, such arguments won't help beyond rhetoric high ground.

The final thing, we take issue with things we ourselves hold in our shadow, as C G Jung would say. So when I see a person take issue with other people, I try to figure out why and how it relates to him. As to the thread starter I have read some of his comments, and with many I have resonated, but this time it feels like he holds a grudge against Yamnaya herders, or Indo Europeans? People that are long gone, they did not hold any Nordicist views while alive for sure 3-4k years ago. So what's the point on hating on them.

If people remember some of the BS I was saying in this very forum 2 years ago or so, they will realize that I also made similar mistakes, so yeah that's why I think this kind of rhetoric's get me rattled up. But hey, looking at the evidence I have changed my theories like 2-3 times, and getting further evidence I would change it once more. My point is this thread didn't provide anything to make me change my mind, but rhetoric that reminded me of my past ramblings(albeit not about isms, but rather anthropology and genetics).

Hope Gaska can understand that I have no ill intent, and am not hostile towards him, just an aspect he is showing I hated in myself.

 

[Ailchu]

@Archetyp0ne,

The Anatolian farmers who later became EEF are another base and component common to all Europeans today, much more recent than the hunter-gatherers but still quite ancient. However, they have the disadvantage of being of Anatolian derivation and this displeases many people. 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.


The peoples of the steppes are liked because here, too, we give in to the temptation of imagining ourselves as descendants of characters such as Howard's Conan the Barbarian or something similar that cleans out supposedly decadent and degenerate civilizations. But if the suspicion arises or it turns out that their features were less blond or hyperboreal than expected and / or that they had a part of their lineage between dark mountain dwellers of the Caucasus (therefore still Middle Eastern) or that in some areas have not been able to get the better of cultures and civilizations already started, coming instead to mixes and compromises, here are the beginning of bellyaches and distinctions ...


In conclusion: it takes a lot of maturity and detachment to deal with these topics. Probably these are topics that would be better to deepen when one is old enough...

can you explain the marked part to me? agree with everything but that part i didn't really understand.

 

[Hawk]

How can you not have doubts? do you know of any case of r1b in the steppes that the rest of us don't know about?


Lone wolves? R1b-P297 in the Baltic countries has a genetic continuity of more than 3.500 years (6.500-3.000 BC), you believe that those WHGs were lone wolves? the only argument in favor of R1b-M269 in the steppes are the autosomal DNA, that as everybody knows is easily manipulated with the sophisticated informatic tools that we have nowadays. The Yamnaya culture is not the source but the sink of R1b and it is also curious that if L51 originates from the steppes, why there is no trace of this lineage neither in Ukraine, nor in Russia, nor in Central Asia, nor in India, nor in Anatolia nor in the Balkans?. What happened?, did all the L51 emigrate and yet their Z2103 relatives stayed in the steppes?

R1b-Z2103 was huge in Balkans and Anatolia during Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, in Russia it died out let's say, and in Balkans and Anatolia it weakened with time, especially during Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age.

 

[Gaska]

R1b-Z2103 was huge in Balkans and Anatolia during Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, in Russia it died out let's say, and in Balkans and Anatolia it weakened with time, especially during Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age.

I know cases of R1b-Z2103 in vucedol and later in BBs deposits (Hungary and Poland) Mokrin (Serbia) and Italy (Iron Age), but evidently that lineage never arrived to central Europe nor to the West with the migrations coming neither from the Yamnaya culture nor with the CWC nor with the BB culture. It is the same case as R1a-M417. Then we can think that if Yamnaya is overwhelmingly z2103 and contributed to expand IE in Eastern Europe including the Balkans, why it has not appeared yet in Greece or Anatolia ? (I do not know any case neither in the Chalcolithic nor in the Bronze Age, if you know them I suppose you will not mind sharing it with us). There we only have j2 in the Mycenaeans as well as in the Minoans and Hittites.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Just because you find individuals or lone wolfs during Mesolithic in Italy/Russia/Balkan doesn't mean their origin is there, i have no doubt that Y-DNA R1b/R1a is EHG/ANE and its origin was North Eurasia.

why north Eurasia? very few people lived there and it was completely empty during LGM
and what do you mean by origin?
most believe we all come out of Africa

and even haplo I wasn't the first in Europe, F*,C1*, C1a2*, C1a2 and C1b* were here before
furthermore 30-35 ka there were at least 3 I tribes : El Miron, Vestonice and Villabruna, but in the end Villabruna replaced the other 2

every tribe or clan or dynasty struggled for it's own survival and procreation, it's always been like that upto a few centuries ago

 

[Stuvanè]

can you explain the marked part to me? agree with everything but that part i didn't really understand.

@Ailchu


the case I am mainly referring to is the undue equation (and related terminological confusion) "Anatolians" = "Turks".
Certainly the current inhabitants of Anatolia are largely Turks, no one disputes that. But in Antiquity, and especially in prehistoric times, this was not the case, as it was inhabited by populations whose most similar autosomal ancestry is now preserved almost exclusively by Sardinians, but which for thousands of years was the common and widespread genetic signal for much of Neolithic Europe.


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. The Etruscans have also suffered as they have become more exotic ("Turkish") than they really are, when their genetic components of Neolithic/Anatolian derivation are actually shared and common with many other European peoples (South European or even continental and northern).


This lack of chronological, historical and genetic disambiguation has been and still is a source of confusion or outlandish ideas that have little to do with research. Sometimes it is gross ignorance or oversimplification on the part of improvised disseminators, sometimes - especially when it is the academics themselves who circulate certain news and certain terms - there are political and ideological intentions that are not even too veiled (first and foremost, in Italy, is that of denying and devaluing ethnic and cultural differences and specificities in order to please radical pro-unregulated immigration positions, uncritical globalism and similar instances...)

 

[Ailchu]

@Ailchu


the case I am mainly referring to is the undue equation (and related terminological confusion) "Anatolians" = "Turks".
Certainly the current inhabitants of Anatolia are largely Turks, no one disputes that. But in Antiquity, and especially in prehistoric times, this was not the case, as it was inhabited by populations whose most similar autosomal ancestry is now preserved almost exclusively by Sardinians, but which for thousands of years was the common and widespread genetic signal for much of Neolithic Europe.


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. The Etruscans have also suffered as they have become more exotic ("Turkish") than they really are, when their genetic components of Neolithic/Anatolian derivation are actually shared and common with many other European peoples (South European or even continental and northern).


This lack of chronological, historical and genetic disambiguation has been and still is a source of confusion or outlandish ideas that have little to do with research. Sometimes it is gross ignorance or oversimplification on the part of improvised disseminators, sometimes - especially when it is the academics themselves who circulate certain news and certain terms - there are political and ideological intentions that are not even too veiled (first and foremost, in Italy, is that of denying and devaluing ethnic and cultural differences and specificities in order to please radical pro-unregulated immigration positions, uncritical globalism and similar instances...)

what kind of people do you think those people are who would not like an anatolian origin or CHG because it would be an association with modern people from anatolia or near east in general? is it really good to then tell them to not feel that way about anatolian farmer ancestry/CHG because it is different from modern near eastern people? imo in that case we should do exactly the opposite.

This lack of chronological, historical and genetic disambiguation has been and still is a source of confusion or outlandish ideas that have little to do with research. Sometimes it is gross ignorance or oversimplification on the part of improvised disseminators, sometimes - especially when it is the academics themselves who circulate certain news and certain terms - there are political and ideological intentions that are not even too veiled (first and foremost, in Italy, is that of denying and devaluing ethnic and cultural differences and specificities in order to please radical pro-unregulated immigration positions, uncritical globalism and similar instances...)

questions about immigration or cultural differences should not be related to questions about ancestry imo. and it has no influence on a persons opinion on those issues unless this person actually belongs to those people who value ancestry a little bit too much.

 

[Jovialis]

what kind of people do you think those people are who would not like an anatolian origin or CHG because it would be an association with modern people from anatolia or near east in general? is it really good to then tell them to not feel that way about anatolian farmer ancestry/CHG because it is different from modern near eastern people? imo in that case we should do exactly the opposite.

questions about immigration or cultural differences should not be related to questions about ancestry imo. and it has no influence on a persons opinion on those issues unless this person actually belongs to those people who value ancestry a little bit too much.

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.

 

[bigsnake49]

I know cases of R1b-Z2103 in vucedol and later in BBs deposits (Hungary and Poland) Mokrin (Serbia) and Italy (Iron Age), but evidently that lineage never arrived to central Europe nor to the West with the migrations coming neither from the Yamnaya culture nor with the CWC nor with the BB culture. It is the same case as R1a-M417. Then we can think that if Yamnaya is overwhelmingly z2103 and contributed to expand IE in Eastern Europe including the Balkans, why it has not appeared yet in Greece or Anatolia ? (I do not know any case neither in the Chalcolithic nor in the Bronze Age, if you know them I suppose you will not mind sharing it with us). There we only have j2 in the Mycenaeans as well as in the Minoans and Hittites.

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.