David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract
- Thread starter Anfänger
- Start date
Archetype0ne
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,726
- Reaction score
- 615
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- L283>Y21878>Y197198
Try reloading the page, might fix it.
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
Silesian, it is language which transmits culture. The development of language is very important for the transmission of this kind of knowledge.
Of course, doesn't matter what the language is or where it came from.
Silesian
Junior Member
- Messages
- 739
- Reaction score
- 104
- Points
- 43
- Ethnic group
- Citizen of Earth.
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-BY593
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5b2a2
Evolution of using copper tools in constructing steppe wheel wagons---
A religious cult I use to belong to many moons( forbade us to go to University under threat of losing connection with are loved ones and friends for questioning the Noah story and how marsupials ended up in certain areas etc..) use to bring up the marvels of the honey bee. No language, no written books etc. How would one convince some one in a religious cult that the honey comb culture can be made transmitted without using evolution?
Jack Johnson
Regular Member
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 22
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-CTS3087
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H16
We have R1b-P297 in Eastern European HGs during the Mesolithic, and P297 is the common ancestor of M269 and Y13200/M73; the oldest V2219/V88 males on record are from Southeastern Europe too. West Asia has a complete dearth of any R1/Q before the LCA and EMBA. In fact, the oldest R1b West Asian male on record is ART038 (3365-3102 calBCE), and he belongs to R1b-V1636*, a subclade/lineage found over 1k years earlier in Eastern Europe, in Khvalynsk and Progress.
These are the 57 oldest R1b samples on record:
Palaeolithic_Epigravettian Villabruna, Villabruna, Italy, 12268-11851 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2b, Y-DNA: R1b-L754(xV2219, xP297, xV1636), FuNature2016
WHG Iboussieres31-2, Aven des Iboussières à Malataverne, Rhône-Alpes, France, 10050-9400 BCE, mtDNA: U5b1, Y-DNA: R1(xR1a; xR1b-PH155, xR1b-V2219, xR1b-V88), MathiesonNature2018
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic I5235, Padina, Serbia, 9221-8548 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2c*, Y-DNA: R1b-V88>Y127541, MathiesonNature2018
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic I5240, Padina Serbia, 9140-8570 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1c3*, Y-DNA: R1b-V88>Y127541, MathiesonNature2018
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic Vlasa32, Vlasac, Serbia, 7791-7518 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2a, Y-DNA: R1b-L754(xL389, xV88), MarchibioRxiv2020
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic I5237, Padina, Serbia, 9300-5800 BCE, mtDNA: U5a2f1, Y-DNA: R1b-V88>Y127541, MathiesonNature2018
Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic I4081, Ostrovul Corbului, Romania, 7581-7191 calBCE, mtDNA: H13, Y-DNA: R1b-L754(xP297, xV1636, xV88), MathiesonNature2018
Latvia_HG I4630, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 7471-7073 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2c, Y-DNA: R1b-P297(xM269, xY13202), MathiesonNature2018
Ukraine_Mesolithic I1734, Vasil'evka, Ukraine, 7451-7056 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2d, Y-DNA: R1b-V88>PF6362*, MathiesonNature2018
Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic M96, Iron Gates, Schela Cladovei, Romania, 7250-6500 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1c3*, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>FTA35720, GonzalezFortesCurrBiol2017
Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic M95, Schela Cladovei, Romania, 7125-6603 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2c, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>Y244169, GonzalezFortesCurrBiol2017
Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic I4655, Schela Cladovei, Romania, 7059-6571 calBCE, mtDNA: K1, Y-DNA: R1(xR1a; xR1b-M269, xR1b-V88), MathiesonNature2018
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic I4916, Hajduka Vodenica, Serbia, 7035-6590 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2b-a3a, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>FTA35720, MathiesonNature2018
Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic I5408, Ostrovul Corbului, Romania, 7022-6485 calBCE, mtDNA: K1i, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>Y244183*, GonzalezFortesCurrBiol2017
Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic I5411, Schela Cladovei, Romania, 7000-6300 BCE, mtDNA: U5a1c1, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>Y244183, MathiesonNature2018
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic Vlasa37, Vlasac, Serbia, 6767-6461 calBCE, mtDNA: K1f, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88*, Hofmanová2017
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic I5772, Vlasac, Serbia, 7100-5900 BCE, mtDNA: U5a2a, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, MathiesonNature2018
Serbia_IronGates_N I4666, Lepenski Vir, Serbia, 6222-5912 calBCE, mtDNA: H40, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219, MathiesonNature2018
Latvia_HG I4432, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 6072-5920 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2c*, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y240021, MathiesonNature2018
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic I5232, Padina, Serbia, 6061-5841 calBCE, mtDNA: K1-a4*, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>FTA35718, MathiesonNature2018
Latvia_HG I4626, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 5838-5631 calBCE, mtDNA: U2e1, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y240021, MathiesonNature2018 (New data; Individual first published in JonesCurrBiol2017)
Latvia_HG I4439, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 5769-5628 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b1d1*, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y240021, MathiesonNature2018
Samara_HG I0124, Samara Oblast, Russia, 5660-5535 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1d, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y13202, MathiesonNature2015
Latvia_HG I4434, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 5611-5382 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2d3, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>FTA35755*, MathiesonNature2018
Ukraine_N I4114, Dereivka, Ukraine, 5474-5324 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219, MathiesonNature2018
Ukraine_N I5891, Dereivka, Ukraine, 5467-5230 calBCE, mtDNA: U4d, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, MathiesonNature2018
Ukraine_N I5893, Dereivka, Ukraine, 5371-5218 calBCE mtDNA: U5a2a, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, MathiesonNature2018
Ukraine_N I3718, Dereivka, Ukraine, 5359-5212 calBCE mtDNA: U5a1b, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219, MathiesonNature2018
Ukraine_N I5879, Dereivka, Ukraine, 5324-5132 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1b, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219, MathiesonNature2018
Italy_HG_N R6, Grotta Continenza, Italy, 5318-5084 calBCE, mtDNA: K1-a, Y-DNA: R1b-V88>Y8451*, AntonioScience2019
Germany_EN_LBK XN191, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, 5316-5081 calBCE, mtDNA: I1, Y-DNA: R1b-L754, RivollatSciAdv2020
Ukraine_N I5890, Dereivka, Ukraine, 5291-5058 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1b, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219, MathiesonNature2018
Ukraine_N I5881, Dereivka, Ukraine, 5215-5052 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a1b, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, MathiesonNature2018
Spain_EN I0411, Els Trocs, Spain, 5298-5059 calBCE, mtDNA: K1a2a, Y-DNA: R1b-V88>Y8451*, OlaldeScience2019
Spain_EN I0410, Els Trocs, Spain, 5298-5057 calBCE, mtDNA: T2c1d or T2c1d2, Y-DNA: R1b-V88>Y8451*, MathiesonNature2015
Spain_EN CHA002, Cueva de Chaves, Spain, 5302-5061 calBCE, mtDNA: K1a2a, Y-DNA: R1b-V88>Y8451, VillalbaMoucoCurrBiol2019
Lithuania_EMN_Narva Donkalnis7, Donkalnis, Lithuania, 5374-4939 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2d1, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y13202, MittnikNatCommun2018
Ukraine_N I5878, Dereivka, Ukraine, 5301-5067 calBCE, mtDNA: U4b1a1a, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219, MathiesonNature2018
Ukraine_N I4112, Dereivka, Ukraine, 5500-4500 BCE, mtDNA: U5a2a, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, MathiesonNature2018
Ukraine_N I5883, Dereivka, Ukraine, 5209-4998 calBCE, mtDNA: U4a, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219, MathiesonNature2018
Ukraine_N I5892, Dereivka, Ukraine, 5301-4952 calBCE, mtDNA: U4a1, Y-DNA: R1b-L754(xL389), MathiesonNature2018
Latvia_HG I4628, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 5304-4848 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2d4, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y240021, MathiesonNature2018
Steppe_Eneolithic PG2001, Progress 2, Russia, 4994-4802 calBCE, mtDNA: I3a, Y-DNA: R1b-V1636*, WangNatCommun2019
Khvalynsk_Eneolithic I0122, Samara Oblast, Russia, 4936-4730 calBCE (FRE: 4500-4300 BCE?), mtDNA: H2a1, Y-DNA: R1b-V1636*, MathiesonNature2015
Estonia_EMN_Narva Kivisaare3, Kivisaare, Estonia, 4776-4542 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2d, Y-DNA: R1b-P297(xM269, xY13202), MittnikNatCommun2018
Bulgaria_C I2181, Smyadovo, Bulgaria, 4606-4447 calBCE, mtDNA: HV15, Y-DNA: R1b-M269, MathiesonNature2018 (no call without Iosif Lazaridis)
Bulgaria_C I2430, Smyadovo, Bulgaria, 4602-4403 calBCE, mtDNA: K1a26, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219, MathiesonNature2018
Varna_Eneolithic ANI153, Varna, Bulgaria, 4550-4368 calBCE, mtDNA: U4, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, MathiesonNature2018
Latvia_MN I4436, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 4318-4051 calBCE, mtDNA: U4a1a1d, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>FTA35755*, MathiesonNature2018
Latvia_MN I4627, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 4311-3978 calBCE, mtDNA: U4a1, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200*, MathiesonNature2018 (new data; individual first published in JonesCurrBiol2017)
Steppe_Eneolithic PG2004, Progress 2, Russia, 4240-4047 calBCE, mtDNA: H2, Y-DNA: R1b-V1636*, WangNatCommun2019
Comb_Ceramic Tamula3, Tamula, Estonia, 3796-3641 calBCE, mtDNA: U4d2, Y-DNA: R1b(xV2219, xV1636, xM269), MittnikNatCommun2018
Bohemia_TRB I14169, Makotřasy, Czech Republic, 3800-3500 BCE (inferred), mtDNA: N1a1a1a2, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, PapacSciAdv2021
Bohemia_TRB I14176, Makotřasy, Czech Republic, 3700-3500 BCE (inferred), mtDNA: K1a4a1, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, PapacSciAdv2021
Bohemia_TRB I14173, Makotřasy, Czech Republic, 3638-3522 BCE (inferred), mtDNA: K1-a4, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, PapacSciAdv2021
Baalberge_MN I0559, Quedlinburg, Germany, 3654-3527 calBCE, mtDNA: HV, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, MathiesonNature2015
Blatterhohle_MN I1593, Blatterhole Cave, Germany, 3644-3528 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2a2, Y-DNA: R1b-V2219>V88, LipsonNature2017
Last edited:
enter_tain
Banned
- Messages
- 737
- Reaction score
- 113
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J2B2-L283/Z638
Yeah but look at the mutation dates for those.
M269 >13,000 years ago
RP297 > 15,000 years ago
We're talking almost 10,000 years prior to IEs for that mutation. That's 20% of the time humans have been out of Africa.
If CHGs have ANE, and R1b was originally an ANE lineage, I wouldn't rule out a southern R1b invasion into the steppes.
enter_tain
Banned
- Messages
- 737
- Reaction score
- 113
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J2B2-L283/Z638
To be honest, I always wondered how the hell did Steppe people manage to keep a near perfect 50/50 EHG/CHG mix. Them "going south for wives", would not be a one time thing, but throughout the generations. This would mean they would overwhelmingly be CHG. The same thing happened to Steppe invaders of southern Europe. Every generation took EEF wives not just the first, and the steppe lineage became a minority.
It makes much more sense for a group of CHG males to expand into the steppe and take EHG wives that one time, and keep rapidly expanding towards Europe. We saw this with Panonian Avars that gradually became more Slavic/European as they pushed westward.
This model explains the "Iranian Neolithic-like"/"Armenian-like" component of Yamnaya, and the early split of Anatolian.
If this is true, then the "Caucausian" misnomer would, through some ****** up twist of fate, actually be correct
It makes much more sense for a group of CHG males to expand into the steppe and take EHG wives that one time, and keep rapidly expanding towards Europe. We saw this with Panonian Avars that gradually became more Slavic/European as they pushed westward.
This model explains the "Iranian Neolithic-like"/"Armenian-like" component of Yamnaya, and the early split of Anatolian.
If this is true, then the "Caucausian" misnomer would, through some ****** up twist of fate, actually be correct
A. Papadimitriou
Regular Member
- Messages
- 617
- Reaction score
- 188
- Points
- 43
R1b>L754 also reached Oman at least 5-6k years ago.
There could have been an R1b population that followed a route like Central Asia > Iran > Europe
(Personally I don't think this has something to do with PIE but that's a different story.).
There could have been an R1b population that followed a route like Central Asia > Iran > Europe
(Personally I don't think this has something to do with PIE but that's a different story.).
Corded Ware != PIE, but Corded Ware was mostly ground zero for the Indo-European expansion.
CWC > Srubnaya > Sintashta-Andronovo > Indic & Iranic
CWC > BBC > Italic & Celtic, probably more
CWC > Battle Axe Culture > Nordic Bronze Age > Germanic
CWC > Balto-Slavic > Baltic & Slavic
CWC Probably also penetrated into the balkans IIRC, because someone brought along Globular Amphorae ancestry, but Greeks/Phrygians/Armenians (Thracian? Not sure, Thracian may be BBC) are the exception and most likely come from Catacomb which comes from Yamnaya.
And obviously, Tocharians and Anatolians don’t come from CWC, but they didn’t come from Yamnaya either.
I thought the whole crux of this “Out of Armenia” argument was that steppe people DIDN’T keep a 50/50 split, and that CHG/Iran ancestry increased on the steppe during the eneolithic for the same reasons it increased in anatolia (an Indo-Anatolian invasion). If admixture event happened during the Mesolithic or Neolithic, it would be unable to explain Anatolian as it predates linguistic estimates for the split of Anatolian and Indo-European.To be honest, I always wondered how the hell did Steppe people manage to keep a near perfect 50/50 EHG/CHG mix. Them "going south for wives", would not be a one time thing, but throughout the generations. This would mean they would overwhelmingly be CHG. The same thing happened to Steppe invaders of southern Europe. Every generation took EEF wives not just the first, and the steppe lineage became a minority.
It makes much more sense for a group of CHG males to expand into the steppe and take EHG wives that one time, and keep rapidly expanding towards Europe. We saw this with Panonian Avars that gradually became more Slavic/European as they pushed westward.
This model explains the "Iranian Neolithic-like"/"Armenian-like" component of Yamnaya, and the early split of Anatolian.
If this is true, then the "Caucausian" misnomer would, through some ****** up twist of fate, actually be correct
Although, I don’t recall Steppe ancestry being 50/50 CHG-EHG. I Thought it was more like 60% EHG 40% CHG
10,000 years prior to the IEs, but not long after Satsurblia. M269 maybe even before it. Some studies put its formation earlier at 10k ybp, making it 3000 years earlier than the post-ANE Satsurblia sample.
Jack Johnson
Regular Member
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 22
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-CTS3087
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H16
To be honest, I always wondered how the hell did Steppe people manage to keep a near perfect 50/50 EHG/CHG mix. Them "going south for wives", would not be a one time thing, but throughout the generations. This would mean they would overwhelmingly be CHG. The same thing happened to Steppe invaders of southern Europe. Every generation took EEF wives not just the first, and the steppe lineage became a minority.
It makes much more sense for a group of CHG males to expand into the steppe and take EHG wives that one time, and keep rapidly expanding towards Europe. We saw this with Panonian Avars that gradually became more Slavic/European as they pushed westward.
This model explains the "Iranian Neolithic-like"/"Armenian-like" component of Yamnaya, and the early split of Anatolian.
If this is true, then the "Caucausian" misnomer would, through some ****** up twist of fate, actually be correct
That’s very unlikely in my view. For one EHGs have a lot more ANE than CHGs. Secondly, West Asia before the EMBA is dominantly G, J, and E, and to a lesser extent H, T, L, and R2. Zero ANFs, ICHGs, Levantine farmers, and Iberomaurusians/North African farmers have R1 or Q1, and at some point, if we find any of the aforementioned with R1, they’ll belong to clades that have their origins in the Villabruna, Iron Gates, and Ukraine_Mesolithic clusters (R1b-L754*, R1b-V2219/V88, R1a-M459(xM198), etc.). However, the aforementioned R1b subclades ultimately derive from proto-EHGs. R1b-M269’s formation date range is 12900-9800 BCE (mean: 11300 BCE); its TMRCA is 5100-3700 BCE (mean: 4400 BCE). This is the oldest M269 bearer we have:
Bulgaria_C I2181, Smyadovo, Bulgaria, 4606-4447 calBCE, mtDNA: HV15, Y-DNA: R1b-M269, MathiesonNature2018 (no call without Iosif Lazaridis)
I2181 has around 46.1% Yamnaya in qpAdm, with a standard deviation of 17.4%. In admixture analysis, he picked up EHG, and a larger Yamnaya_Samara component. I2181 and the Varna outlier are both on the Khvalynsk cline, unlike the other Balkans Chalcolithic samples: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gpo-jpYF...LM7c1KOIkLMAxxhTwCLcB/s1600/Steppe_clines.png
Satsurblia (the sample with ANE) on the other hand dates to 11461-11225 calBCE, and he belongs to J1b-FT34521, so he was relatively contemporaneous with M269’s formation date, but so was the EHG admixed Villabruna man (12268-11851 calBCE, mtDNA: U5b2b, Y-DNA: R1b-L754(xV2219, xP297, xV1636)). Furthermore, M269’s earliest formation date range predates both samples by 700-1500 years at the most; neither one is relevant to the history of R1b-M269. The fact of the matter is this, the oldest R1 bearers are from Europe, and wherever there is R1b there is EHG and ANE autosomal DNA. West Asia has no R1 before the LCA-EMBA, so viewing ICHGs as the donor population is completely baseless, especially when we look at the data.
Iran_N had R2 and BMAC plenty of Q which was probably from BMAC farmers admixing with the previous Keltiminar culture WSHG
real expert
Regular Member
- Messages
- 795
- Reaction score
- 455
- Points
- 63
You have to update your info. R1b-V88 is NOT native to the Middle East but to Eastern Europe.
(Allentoft et al. 2022, Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia, Supplementary Information Part 1)
(Marcus et al. 2020, Genetic history from the Middle Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia, Supplementary Information, p.25)
enter_tain
Banned
- Messages
- 737
- Reaction score
- 113
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J2B2-L283/Z638
Well I'm trying to reconcile David Reich's abstract with what we have so far. Obviously they discovered a new pocket of DNA in the Middle East.
Although it seems that their largest proof seems to be that Anatolia was "impenetrable", which is not saying much.
real expert
Regular Member
- Messages
- 795
- Reaction score
- 455
- Points
- 63
Your assertion about Davidski sounds trustworthy. With that being said, I personally haven‘t come across these specific topics, old posts, and outrageous claims of him, at all. My impression of Davidski is that at times he comes off as rude but he's very knowledgeable in genetics for better or worse. For instance, concerning his conclusions about the Bell Beakers and their relation to the Corded Ware people, he was right. Nonetheless, Davidski must have been high to predict and confidently suggest that the Mycenaeans would turn out to be blonde, blue-eyed very CWC-like people. He failed terribly in that regard. And that's why he may have begun to tone down the rhetoric. The thing is that researchers do take him seriously and obviously read his blog too. In one genetic study, the scholars referred to Davidski, for instance. Thus I think he‘s kinda forced to display discipline and basically summarize what the studies say and comment on them without being carried away by his personal agenda. His blog obviously changed into becoming more moderate and tame. At least compared to what you‘ve witnessed. In my opinion, we should read any conclusions, suggestions, or interpretations of DNA findings regardless of the political affiliation of the involved researchers, with caution.
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
Well, I've been following these sites for about thirteen years, so there's that. I was in the original Dienekes samples, for example, and know many posters from there. I mostly just posted on dna-forums and the 23andme site, but would also lurk on other sites, now almost defunct, and Stormfront, to see what the Nazis were up to, and theapricity. Some of his more outrageous statements were made on Stormfront, where he was a prominent poster. Of course, it's all scrubbed now, because he wanted recognition from academics. He got it, as did Dienekes, who was as different as chalk from cheese, in a Behar paper if I remember correctly, and I know Patterson goes on Eurogenes to explain his programs.
You won't, for example, find his comment that all Southern Italians should be kicked out of Europe. What does that sound like to you if not Nazism? I guess now that all the Ashkenazim have been taken care of, the people who plot near them on PCAs are next. Just surprised the Greeks weren't added too, or perhaps their Slavic percentage saved them. You certainly will no longer find his comment that his father came from northeastern Poland and joined one of the brigades that fought for the Germans; perhaps an SS brigade. Of course, one can't be hanged for the sins of one's father. Amon Goethe's daughter is horrified by what her father did, and there are many others. Eichman's children, on the other hand, are true believers.
Anyway, enough about his political beliefs per se.
The point is that he allows those political beliefs to color his analyses. In fact, his analyses are done specifically to further his political beliefs.
The two examples I gave about the Mycenaeans and the Etruscans are but two of many examples. If you read Eurogenes I don't know how you missed them.
Regardless, the point is, as you say, all his analyses should be read with caution, if for no other reason than that his methods are not at all transparent. Even a commercial operation like 23andme has a white paper, and academic papers have to provide enough data on their methods so that others could see if the results could be re-produced. That's why there's such a crisis in psychology and sociology: a huge percentage of the results in academic papers in those fields can't be reproduced.
MOESAN
Elite member
- Messages
- 5,879
- Reaction score
- 1,291
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Brittany
- Ethnic group
- more celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b - L21/S145*
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3c
To be honest, I always wondered how the hell did Steppe people manage to keep a near perfect 50/50 EHG/CHG mix. Them "going south for wives", would not be a one time thing, but throughout the generations. This would mean they would overwhelmingly be CHG. The same thing happened to Steppe invaders of southern Europe. Every generation took EEF wives not just the first, and the steppe lineage became a minority.
It makes much more sense for a group of CHG males to expand into the steppe and take EHG wives that one time, and keep rapidly expanding towards Europe. We saw this with Panonian Avars that gradually became more Slavic/European as they pushed westward.
This model explains the "Iranian Neolithic-like"/"Armenian-like" component of Yamnaya, and the early split of Anatolian.
If this is true, then the "Caucausian" misnomer would, through some ****** up twist of fate, actually be correct
Not convincing. There is no universal model of intermatings along History. Every kind of model can be found. If R1b had flirted with south Caucasus, it was after an arrival from Central Asia and rather through southern Caspian, I think(not sure, it's true).
real expert
Regular Member
- Messages
- 795
- Reaction score
- 455
- Points
- 63
Simply because I don’t read Stormfront. Plus, I started to read Eurogenes blog relatively recently and more frequently after the Roman paper leak and rumors. In terms of the Etruscans, there were always two camps of scholars. Some scholars believed that the Etruscans were indigenous people of Italy. Others believed that they were immigrants from Asia Minor. The first was vindicated by DNA. Besides, in my view, the Myceneans came out Mediterranean-like as expected. Hence, I just skimmed over some comments on the Mycenean paper and not really followed the discussion closely.
This thread has been viewed 205017 times.