I2a origins in Kurdistan

Yes, I like Jean Manco's writings.
Jean Manco's new book is due this October. I am looking forward to it.

http://www.amazon.com/Ancestral-Jou...TF8&qid=1372960229&sr=8-1&keywords=jean+manco

51uG0DuePvL._SY300_.jpg
 
I don't understand why my post is deleted but according to a recent study on DNA in Central Asia there was no such thing as migration from western part of the steppes (North Caucasus) into east part of the steppes (Central Asia) in the ancient times during the Indo-Iranians.

"Afghanistan's EthnicGroups Share a Y-Chromosomal Heritage Structured by Historical Events" :
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0034288
 
"The prevailing Y-chromosome lineage in Pashtun and Tajik (R1a1a-M17), has the highest observed diversity among populations of the Indus Valley [46]. R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant [46]. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India."

"Furthermore, BATWING results indicate that the Afghan populations split from Iranians, Indians and East Europeans at about 10.6 kya (95% CI 7,100–15,825), which marks the start of the Neolithic revolution and the establishment of the farming communities."

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0034288
 
I 'm still trying to swallow down new data -
on the archeological ground, the metal ages in the Eastern caspian region (Turkmenistan, N Afghanistan, Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan show along the mountainous chains a constant interaction between Near-Eastern farmers : cities builders and steppic people - the physical anthropology confirms it (and so, partly, autosomals) -
every scholar (it spites me) seems supporting is own agenda, and someones speak of almost homogenous "mediterranean' people (very unprecise) when others speak of 'proto-nordic' and 'cromangoid' people in steppes:
however, genetics and metrics are not the best elements to resolve a cultural linguistic problem even if they can give some clues sometimes - an anthropological metric survey spoke of the Kazakhstan population evolution bewteen Calcholithic and Mongols times and mentionned the 'cromagnoid' (with some caution of mine) stock as "autochtonous", 'europoid' and estimates that almost regularly along the centuries the mongoloid genes intruded in the region (NE Caspian) already at 'I-E' times, at first mediated by the wives. No surprise, the first mongoloid elements in East Siberia IE settlements took place through the women, the metric confirmed here by mt DNA-
bu the way, A scythian mummy (1: I know, it is scarce, and I have not the localisation) had autosomals close to the current polish or russian autosomals mixture - but a woman mummy show an "asiatic" mt DNA: what signifies "asiatic" here?
I 'm trying to pack some data together on the anthropological side before post about all that (ancient and new surveys or abstracts) - already I can say: things have not been too simple!
here the problem is rather a South Asian ("indian") mt DNa than a 'mongoloid' one. plus: what is of worth is the proportions and datations, when we speak about origins -
good night
 
i know the maykop culture stuff it was a culture that grew out of the mid east and they connect it to proto indo Europeans because they had a indo european kurgen burial and it is 6,000 years old but there was also a 6,000-7,000years old kurgen in poland http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2010/10/six-thousand-year-old-elite-corded-ware.htm the kurgen thoery has been what most indo european experts have belived since teh 1950's they all agree that it was cultures liek dnieper donets and srdney srdney in Ukraine that where the first Indo Europeans
"the revised dating for the Maikop culture means that the earliest kurgans occur in the northwestern and southern Caucasus and precede by several centuries those of the Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) cultures of the western Eurasian steppes (cf. Chernykh and Orlovskaya 2004a and b)." http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/07/origin-of-early-transcaucasian-culture.html
 
things have not been too simple!
Oh they are. Just look at the FACTS of today. All speakers of Iranic languages are genetically related to each other. All Slavic speakers are genetically related to each other. Slavic speakers do NOT speak Iranic and they NEVER spoke Iranic. Iranic peoples don't have their language from Slavic people simply because Iranic languages are not related to Slavic population or evolved from Slavic. Also, when Iranic tribes existed there was no such a thing as Slavic tribes. Iranic tribes predate Slavic tribes by thousands of years
 
Oh they are. Just look at the FACTS of today. All speakers of Iranic languages are genetically related to each other. All Slavic speakers are genetically related to each other. Slavic speakers do NOT speak Iranic and they NEVER spoke Iranic. Iranic peoples don't have their language from Slavic people simply because Iranic languages are not related to Slavic population or evolved from Slavic. Also, when Iranic tribes existed there was no such a thing as Slavic tribes. Iranic tribes predate Slavic tribes by thousands of years

concerning kurgan in Poland of "Fair haired" ('kurgan' = "krugell" in breton), it would be very interesting to verify the true datation (carbon 14) - maybe in the abstract mentioned 6000 years old = ? Copper time? I believe in N-Europe calcholithic (beginning of 'copper') was not older than 3000 BC

concerning slavic (and baltic) compared to iranic-indic languages, I find hard to not see some common historic linguistic facts linking these satem languages? linguistic contact or better, linguistic "passing" needed demic contacts (so some crossings) EVEN og these contacts did not create a LEVEL OSMOSE RESULT in genes erasing all differences! believing History is simple is naive, for I think - but it is true we just do not need to make things more complicated than true facts, by blindness of spirit.
I repeat we are obliged to imagine a central position for all typical satem languages at some point of history.
good night
 
Oh they are. Just look at the FACTS of today. All speakers of Iranic languages are genetically related to each other. All Slavic speakers are genetically related to each other. Slavic speakers do NOT speak Iranic and they NEVER spoke Iranic. Iranic peoples don't have their language from Slavic people simply because Iranic languages are not related to Slavic
Most likely they've split 6-10k years ago, but they still belong to same IE language family, same as Latin. Up to 4k years ago they lived close by and influenced each other.
Obviously when Iraniens moved south and conquered vast lands, their DNA got diluted in local nations. Their original DNA runs no more than 10% of local stock today. Their paternal DNA might be higher because they were conquerors, but autosomal is mainly local. When you say that Iranic language people are related to each other, it is because the local population is related to each other. Iranians moved south in territory of old farmers, by this I mean large populations. Therefore from the beginning Iranians were minority there.
Large population replacement is uncommon, unless farmers move in territory of hunter gatherers. It wasn't the case when Iranians moved south.
 
"Semitic" can cover much more than just Arabs and Jews....

Some would list y hg H as "Elamite", hg I as (presumably the "aristocratic" or militaristic, founding and oftentimes "chastising" element of) "Assyrian" (now seen in the Kurds), J as "Chaldean" (including the "Pelasgian" J2 and other J "civil" elements which had been absorbed into the Assyrian Empire), F as "Lydian" and G as "Syrian"--and ALL those as "Semitic". They might also list as "European (we might say "Eurasian", to include the geographical Asia)": hg MP as "Cimmerian", L as "Median", O as "Sino-Caucasian (with the Caucasian element presumably now extinct)", T as "Greek", and N as "Cappadocian", among potentially others within K. Hgs A through E would be seen as African (with D now only seen in geographical Asia and C in Asia and Australia).
 
Some would list y hg H as "Elamite", hg I as (presumably the "aristocratic" or militaristic, founding and oftentimes "chastising" element of) "Assyrian" (now seen in the Kurds), J as "Chaldean" (including the "Pelasgian" J2 and other J "civil" elements which had been absorbed into the Assyrian Empire), F as "Lydian" and G as "Syrian"--and ALL those as "Semitic". They might also list as "European (we might say "Eurasian", to include the geographical Asia)": hg MP as "Cimmerian", L as "Median", O as "Sino-Caucasian (with the Caucasian element presumably now extinct)", T as "Greek", and N as "Cappadocian", among potentially others within K. Hgs A through E would be seen as African (with D now only seen in geographical Asia and C in Asia and Australia).
I see you love strict compartmentalization of all the know peoples. It was rather an easy case till Neolithic, in some areas till Bronze Age, if we only knew their tribe names. They didn't move around too much and mixed, therefore they were of one single or one very dominant haplogroup. The best known case is European Hunter-Gatherer being exclusively hg I.
In Bronze Age with all the tibal movements and wars in Eurasia this stopped being an accurate description. By Iron age almost all nations were of mixed paternal haplogroups. I believe most names you cited above are of Iron Age peoples, maybe some late bronze. It means they were not of one, or one very dominant haplogroup. A little bit late in time line for it.

Welcome to Eupedia.
 
In what way is H Elamite? H is only present at interesting frequencies in India, the Dravidians of south-central India have 25-40% H. It is also present in Gypsies/Romani people. The founding fathers of Assyria were not hg I, nor were the Lydians F as small traces of this would be detectable in Tuscany if they were (Etruscans) instead we get J2. G1 has it's highest diversity on the Iranian peninsula just as L does, so you missed that one too. I don't understand how MP is "Cimmerian" how medians were certainly L or how you classify T as Greek. How is N cappadocian. Lol. The only thing you got right is that you said J was Semitic.
 
In what way is H Elamite? H is only present at interesting frequencies in India, the Dravidians of south-central India have 25-40% H. It is also present in Gypsies/Romani people. The founding fathers of Assyria were not hg I, nor were the Lydians F as small traces of this would be detectable in Tuscany if they were (Etruscans) instead we get J2. G1 has it's highest diversity on the Iranian peninsula just as L does, so you missed that one too. I don't understand how MP is "Cimmerian" how medians were certainly L or how you classify T as Greek. How is N cappadocian. Lol. The only thing you got right is that you said J was Semitic.

I see that you like to be self-assured of what you've been spoon fed by others as being right, Adamo. I think time will tell, if we are ever told the truth about what's found by researchers, that the haplogroups' alignments as I've listed them will be seen to be at least close to being correct--but NOT because I mentioned them.

Though, in reality, I was only throwing them out there for discussion--NOT for all the silly, childish "lol" stuff. I'll refrain from "discussing" with you, Adamo. I'll most likely refrain from any further attempt at discussion in general on here, seeing the immature nature of so many who are themselves so insecure that what they only THINK is right is "gospel". There's no ability to find the truth when anyone thinks THEIR truth is all there is. So much for what would be a good site.
 
It's not "my" truth. You're wrong, simple as that. How is T Greek? It originated in Greece, spread by Greeks? Neither. There are no traces of H among Elamites and they were not founded by men with H. None of your propositions make any sense. Silly childish "lol" stuff; You want to discuss that T is "Greek" or spread by them? Then there's no discussion in a sense XD
 
The medians came out of what is original westernmost Iran, they would not have been L predominance. G never had presence nor origin nor center of weight on Syria. Highest diversity in Iran and today the highest frequencies are in the Caucasus region. What's your evidence for these claims? What evidence is there that the Lydians were F and the cappadocian a N? Explain it to us.
 
Had the Lydians been heavily F I would imagine there would be a light F substratum across Tuscany (5-15%) due to the Etruscans, which there isn't. To simply state that the Lydians were F or that the cappadocian Syrians were N without significant scientific proof is ludicrous.
 
Still waiting for your reply "english skin". So my results are in and my maternal grandfather is a basal I-P37.2 (I2a1*). His branch would subsequently give rise to Sardinia's dominant I-M26 branch and I2a dinaric branch as well. This is odd as he was north-central mainland italian (Pisa region.)
 
Still waiting for your reply "english skin". So my results are in and my maternal grandfather is a basal I-P37.2 (I2a1*). His branch would subsequently give rise to Sardinia's dominant I-M26 branch and I2a dinaric branch as well. This is odd as he was north-central mainland italian (Pisa region.)

Do you know which of the haplotype clusters of I2a1* he falls into? Perhaps the "Alpine" cluster? You may be able to find out using Cullen's Predictor, and if not, joining the I2a Project should classify him correctly.
 
According to that thingy there's a 50-60% chance my subclade is I-P37.2* "west", whatever that means.
 
According to that thingy there's a 50-60% chance my subclade is I-P37.2* "west", whatever that means.

It means that he's probably L1286+. Cullen's predictor doesn't include the "Alpine" cluster, so it's not clear whether or not he's L233+. Try to find those on the Nordtvedt tree to get an idea. L233+ is more common overall, but more northern biased, whereas the L233- "Alpine" cluster has a known presence in Italy. If you join the I2a Project (if you tested at FTDNA) they should be able to say which cluster he's in exactly.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info! Were would this subclade reach highest frequency?
 

This thread has been viewed 87312 times.

Back
Top