Massive migration from the steppe - extended discussion

At this point there are no viable arguments, which can can be provided to support an IE homeland in the Steppe, or anywhere in Central Asia. The Steppe theory is dead among the majority of serious researchers, but lingers among the select few, who can't help but to indulge in their own self-delusions.

Underhill's unparalleled study of R1a used 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia, concluding there was "compelling evidence", that R1a-M420 originated in Iran.

(Underhill 2014)
"Among the 120 populations with sample sizes of at least 50 individuals and with at least 10% occurrence of R1a, just 6 met these criteria, and 5 of these 6 populations reside in modern-day Iran. Haplogroup diversities among the six populations ranged from 0.78 to 0.86 (Supplementary Table 4). Of the 24 R1a-M420*(xSRY10831.2) chromosomes in our data set, 18 were sampled in Iran and 3 were from eastern Turkey. Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus"

As for R1b...


(Grugni, 2012)
"The M530 diffusion pattern seems to be also shared by the paragroups J2a-M410* and J2a-PAGE55*. In addition, the variance distribution of the rare R1b-M269* Y chromosomes, displaying decreasing values from Iran, Anatolia and the western Black Sea coastal region, is also suggestive of a westward diffusion from the Iranian plateau"

Early R1b (the ultra rare M343, M269*) and R1a, are clearly more statistically frequent in West Asian samples - and even without the combination of archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic data, that fact alone, is compelling enough for any reasonable person, to seriously consider a West Asian homeland. Europe is mostly marked by late R1b, though there is early R1b, in the Steppes. And this R1b has little variance, which is precisely to be expected from a population which was clearly under the genetic influence from West Asia, since at least, the Neolithic. Of course, the natural explanation to this anomaly, according to Steppe theorists, is that these early forms somehow disappeared, like a fart in the wind, from all over Europe. Yeah, when it comes to Steppe theorists, anything goes - just conjure some ancient skeletons and vanishing hordes of people, and you have a grand work of fiction (and more like horror) which any garden-variety Steppe theorist, can conveniently entertain as 'proof'. In reality early R1b (originating from West Asia), is only expected in earlier Steppe skeletons, where there was multiple waves of influence from the Iranian plateau.

This is so glaringly obvious, and so painfully true, that Steppe theorists have taken to an impulsive rejection of data and reason, and resorted to irrational defenses. From more impartial views on the subject, and notably from those with European ancestry, a West Asian homeland, has been supported. Dieniekes Pontikos has long supported a West Asian hypothesis. Mariya Ivanova has noted the clear influence in Yamna from it's parent culture, the Maykop, of the South Caspian region. (Ivanova M. 2012. Kaukasus und Orient: Die Entstehung des„Maikop-Phänomens“ im 4. Jahrtausend v.Chr Praehistorische Zeitschrift 2012; 87(1): 1–28) More recently, Giacomo Benedetti wrote a brilliant piece, using several lines of evidence, to support a homeland in the Northern Zagros. A fine work, which can only be considered an epitaph for Steppe theorists. new-indology.blogspot.com/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html

I'd find it easier to believe Mother Theresa and her boyfriend, once robbed a bank at gunpoint, butt-naked, than to listen to any Steppe theorist give me a perverted coaching on how the world is. Giacomo Benedetti is no crackpot, and Dienekes Pontikos is no liar. We can be fairly certain, because they have very little to gain or satisfy, in constructing a phony theory for PIE origins, placing the homeland half way around the world. This is in stark contrast to any arm-chair enthusiast, whose only goal is to fictionalize historical scenarios, in order to appease their own nationalism, and to preserve their honor, in a basement somewhere. Note that Benedetti, is actually an Indologist. And one with a PhD. So the suggestion that he is out to satisfy himself, by suggesting some arbitrary NW Iranian hypothesis, is contradictory. As for Dienikes Pontikos, he is generally well regarded, and has long been so.



I'll leave you with a quote from Benedetti's site. Read it and weep:

"I have the impression that the Aryan Invasionism follows the same method as Creationism. The supporters of the Indo-Iranian invasion from the European steppes of Central and South Asia have no sacred text to defend, although sometimes they use the Vedas or the Avesta with biased (often racial) interpretations. They have a sort of preconceived faith, maybe based on a secret, obstinate Eurocentrism: Europeans must be the conquerors of the Indo-European world, and not the conquered or colonized, they must be the origin of the change, not the recipients. So, they already firmly believe that the Indo-Aryans must have arrived there in the 2nd millennium BC, and so we have to find, in one way or another, the facts able to support that dogma. I think that we should rather start from the archaeological facts, and build a theory from there, seeing if we find a harmony with linguistics and textual traditions, and also genetics"
 
Last edited:
@jpz79:
when you evocate facts your are interesting, spite facts can be diversely interpreted sometimes. But when you fall into pub-counter philosophy you are no more so interesting.
I can say that because I have no fossilized theory for I-Eans cradle. And for Western Europeans where Y-R1b is very very dominant,the Russian Steppes are more "asian" than something else. Questions remain about the cradle of PIE (language) and about the true signification of variance. We have yet to trace the roads of the different subclades of Y-R1b (more than one I think).
I repeat: I have at this very day NO definitive theory concerning I-Eans, nor prejudice, contrary to someones who accuse others of this vice;
 
do Notice I don't accuse you personally of prejudice,at this stage. Good evening.
 
Jpz79,

I agree that both R1a-M420 and R1b-M343 most likely originated in the Iranian Plateau during the Upper Paleolithic period some 22,000 years ago (YFull's estimate of the time when R1 split into R1a and R1b).

However, this doesn't tell us absolutely anything about the Indo-European origins, unless you have proofs that the Proto-Indo-European language already existed during the Upper Paleolithic period around 22,000 years ago.

You could as well become an Afro-Centrist and claim that Indo-Europeans came from Africa - and that would be to some extent true, because all humans came from Africa - so very distant ancestors of Indo-Europeans too.

But that's not the point here.

Subclades such as R1a-M420* paragroup or R1b-V88 simply do not correlate with Indo-European languages. And Indo-Iranian languages correlate mostly with R1a-Z93/Z94, which almost certainly originated in the Volga Region.
 
At this point there are no viable arguments, which can can be provided to support an IE homeland in the Steppe, or anywhere in Central Asia. The Steppe theory is dead among the majority of serious researchers, but lingers among the select few, who can't help but to indulge in their own self-delusions.

Welcome to Eupedia?

Your above statement ignores a key factor: the very concept of the Indo-European languages comes from linguistics in the first place, and the in combination with archaeology. If the theory was "dead" amongst the majority of researchers (who precisely?) as you loud and clear anounce, why did Ringe and Anthony publish their paper back in 2015, which summarizes the situation to the point? The way I see it, there's a very strong argument in conjunction between linguistics and archaeology: namely that there's common words for "horse", "wheel" (or "wheeled vehicle") reconstructable for Proto-Indo-European, and via archaeology we can trace where horses were first domesticated and where wheels were first invented (hint: both happened not on the Iranian plateau). I'd like to remind you that back in the early 2000s, there was the opinion amongst geneticists that R1b originated in the Franco-Iberian glacial refuge, and that neither the introduction of agriculture nor the introduction of metal-working had any effect on the genetic makeup of Europe, which we know today is a completely wrong view. I think its careless and hasty to declare "the Pontic-Caspian model is dead". How would you explain that Proto-Indo-European has common words for "horse" and "wheel" if they originated in the Iranian plateau (my main point of contention for example with the Anatolian hypothesis)?
 
At this point there are no viable arguments, which can can be provided to support an IE homeland in the Steppe, or anywhere in Central Asia. The Steppe theory is dead among the majority of serious researchers, but lingers among the select few, who can't help but to indulge in their own self-delusions.

Underhill's unparalleled study of R1a used 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia, concluding there was "compelling evidence", that R1a-M420 originated in Iran.

(Underhill 2014)
"Among the 120 populations with sample sizes of at least 50 individuals and with at least 10% occurrence of R1a, just 6 met these criteria, and 5 of these 6 populations reside in modern-day Iran. Haplogroup diversities among the six populations ranged from 0.78 to 0.86 (Supplementary Table 4). Of the 24 R1a-M420*(xSRY10831.2) chromosomes in our data set, 18 were sampled in Iran and 3 were from eastern Turkey. Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus"

As for R1b...


(Grugni, 2012)
"The M530 diffusion pattern seems to be also shared by the paragroups J2a-M410* and J2a-PAGE55*. In addition, the variance distribution of the rare R1b-M269* Y chromosomes, displaying decreasing values from Iran, Anatolia and the western Black Sea coastal region, is also suggestive of a westward diffusion from the Iranian plateau"

Early R1b (the ultra rare M343, M269*) and R1a, are clearly more statistically frequent in West Asian samples - and even without the combination of archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic data, that fact alone, is compelling enough for any reasonable person, to seriously consider a West Asian homeland. Europe is mostly marked by late R1b, though there is early R1b, in the Steppes. And this R1b has little variance, which is precisely to be expected from a population which was clearly under the genetic influence from West Asia, since at least, the Neolithic. Of course, the natural explanation to this anomaly, according to Steppe theorists, is that these early forms somehow disappeared, like a fart in the wind, from all over Europe. Yeah, when it comes to Steppe theorists, anything goes - just conjure some ancient skeletons and vanishing hordes of people, and you have a grand work of fiction (and more like horror) which any garden-variety Steppe theorist, can conveniently entertain as 'proof'. In reality early R1b (originating from West Asia), is only expected in earlier Steppe skeletons, where there was multiple waves of influence from the Iranian plateau.

This is so glaringly obvious, and so painfully true, that Steppe theorists have taken to an impulsive rejection of data and reason, and resorted to irrational defenses. From more impartial views on the subject, and notably from those with European ancestry, a West Asian homeland, has been supported. Dieniekes Pontikos has long supported a West Asian hypothesis. Mariya Ivanova has noted the clear influence in Yamna from it's parent culture, the Maykop, of the South Caspian region. (Ivanova M. 2012. Kaukasus und Orient: Die Entstehung des„Maikop-Phänomens“ im 4. Jahrtausend v.Chr Praehistorische Zeitschrift 2012; 87(1): 1–28) More recently, Giacomo Benedetti wrote a brilliant piece, using several lines of evidence, to support a homeland in the Northern Zagros. A fine work, which can only be considered an epitaph for Steppe theorists. new-indology.blogspot.com/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html

I'd find it easier to believe Mother Theresa and her boyfriend, once robbed a bank at gunpoint, butt-naked, than to listen to any Steppe theorist give me a perverted coaching on how the world is. Giacomo Benedetti is no crackpot, and Dienekes Pontikos is no liar. We can be fairly certain, because they have very little to gain or satisfy, in constructing a phony theory for PIE origins, placing the homeland half way around the world. This is in stark contrast to any arm-chair enthusiast, whose only goal is to fictionalize historical scenarios, in order to appease their own nationalism, and to preserve their honor, in a basement somewhere. Note that Benedetti, is actually an Indologist. And one with a PhD. So the suggestion that he is out to satisfy himself, by suggesting some arbitrary NW Iranian hypothesis, is contradictory. As for Dienikes Pontikos, he is generally well regarded, and has long been so.



I'll leave you with a quote from Benedetti's site. Read it and weep:

"I have the impression that the Aryan Invasionism follows the same method as Creationism. The supporters of the Indo-Iranian invasion from the European steppes of Central and South Asia have no sacred text to defend, although sometimes they use the Vedas or the Avesta with biased (often racial) interpretations. They have a sort of preconceived faith, maybe based on a secret, obstinate Eurocentrism: Europeans must be the conquerors of the Indo-European world, and not the conquered or colonized, they must be the origin of the change, not the recipients. So, they already firmly believe that the Indo-Aryans must have arrived there in the 2nd millennium BC, and so we have to find, in one way or another, the facts able to support that dogma. I think that we should rather start from the archaeological facts, and build a theory from there, seeing if we find a harmony with linguistics and textual traditions, and also genetics"

Goga?

.
.
.
.
.
 
Welcome to Eupedia?

Your above statement ignores a key factor: the very concept of the Indo-European languages comes from linguistics in the first place, and the in combination with archaeology. If the theory was "dead" amongst the majority of researchers (who precisely?) as you loud and clear anounce, why did Ringe and Anthony publish their paper back in 2015, which summarizes the situation to the point? The way I see it, there's a very strong argument in conjunction between linguistics and archaeology: namely that there's common words for "horse", "wheel" (or "wheeled vehicle") reconstructable for Proto-Indo-European, and via archaeology we can trace where horses were first domesticated and where wheels were first invented (hint: both happened not on the Iranian plateau). I'd like to remind you that back in the early 2000s, there was the opinion amongst geneticists that R1b originated in the Franco-Iberian glacial refuge, and that neither the introduction of agriculture nor the introduction of metal-working had any effect on the genetic makeup of Europe, which we know today is a completely wrong view. I think its careless and hasty to declare "the Pontic-Caspian model is dead". How would you explain that Proto-Indo-European has common words for "horse" and "wheel" if they originated in the Iranian plateau (my main point of contention for example with the Anatolian hypothesis)?

I guess Iranians are just that pissed that their people came from modern day Russia. Has anyone informed them about the prevailing out of Africa model? They're gonna be livid.
 
Your above statement ignores a key factor: the very concept of the Indo-European languages comes from linguistics in the first place, and the in combination with archaeology. If the theory was "dead" amongst the majority of researchers (who precisely?) as you loud and clear anounce, why did Ringe and Anthony publish which summarizes the situation to the point? The way I see it, there's a very strong argument in conjunction between linguistics and archaeology: namely that there's common words for "horse", "wheel" (or "wheeled vehicle") reconstructable for Proto-Indo-European, and via archaeology we can trace where horses were first domesticated and where wheels were first invented (hint: both happened not on the Iranian plateau). I'd like to remind you that back in the early 2000s, there was the opinion amongst geneticists that R1b originated in the Franco-Iberian glacial refuge, and that neither the introduction of agriculture nor the introduction of metal-working had any effect on the genetic makeup of Europe, which we know today is a completely wrong view. I think its careless and hasty to declare "the Pontic-Caspian model is dead". How would you explain that Proto-Indo-European has common words for "horse" and "wheel" if they originated in the Iranian plateau (my main point of contention for example with the Anatolian hypothesis)?
This is a stupid argument and countered many times. Many folks explained this many times. Think about Computer. Everybody is using it since the introduction of computer. From Africa to china.

Does that mean that Chinese and Africans are the same?

Wheel was just an universal tool/word that was used by many different races.
 
I guess Iranians are just that pissed that their people came from modern day Russia. Has anyone informed them about the prevailing out of Africa model? They're gonna be livid.
Nah! Are you jealous of history of Aryans?


Mypeople came from an advanced civilization and made human eating savages into human beings in thesteppes. People the Yamnaya region were heavily influenced by folks from theIranian Plateau. Never forget that.
 
See you soon. I will come back very soon. I'm banned until 24/2/2016, So just 4 days...
 
Jpz79,

I agree that both R1a-M420 and R1b-M343 most likely originated in the Iranian Plateau during the Upper Paleolithic period some 22,000 years ago (YFull's estimate of the time when R1 split into R1a and R1b).

However, this doesn't tell us absolutely anything about the Indo-European origins, unless you have proofs that the Proto-Indo-European language already existed during the Upper Paleolithic period around 22,000 years ago.

You could as well become an Afro-Centrist and claim that Indo-Europeans came from Africa - and that would be to some extent true, because all humans came from Africa - so very distant ancestors of Indo-Europeans too.

But that's not the point here.

Subclades such as R1a-M420* paragroup or R1b-V88 simply do not correlate with Indo-European languages. And Indo-Iranian languages correlate mostly with R1a-Z93/Z94, which almost certainly originated in the Volga Region.
The most important fact is who survived and where that Last Glacial Maximum. It really segregated, depopulated and severely bottlenecked all the populations of Central and North Eurasia and the whole Europe. The most interesting point should be 10,000 BC (End of Ice Age) the starting point of all Admixtures migration and recombination. At 10k BC they still in their secluded places (refugia) and pure.
 
Nah! Are you jealous of history of Aryans?


Mypeople came from an advanced civilization and made human eating savages into human beings in thesteppes. People the Yamnaya region were heavily influenced by folks from theIranian Plateau. Never forget that.

Classic Goga. I do enjoy it. Tonight is lame but you gave me a reason to do something.

proto-Aryans=Sintashta

And that's badass, why would you be averse to the first chariot builders? It's so strange. I'm trying to convince an Iranian enthusiast that the indo-Iranians were awesome. Don't get it.
 
made me chuckle
Did I misspell something again, lol.
Yes, pure gedrosia, pure caucasus, pure ENF, pure WHG, pure ANE, etc. The sources of pure admixtures we can find at exactly that time.
 
Such a PCA chart (based on Fig.1. from Mathieson 10.10.2015 and on Fig.2. from Olalde 19.11.2015):

PCA_Chart.png


Fig.1. from Mathieson 2015: http://i.imgur.com/gdAA3OR.jpg

Olalde: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/12/3132.full

Check also Fig.1. here: http://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/368.full
 
This is a stupid argument and countered many times. Many folks explained this many times. Think about Computer. Everybody is using it since the introduction of computer. From Africa to china.

Does that mean that Chinese and Africans are the same?

Wheel was just an universal tool/word that was used by many different races.

Let's compare what is comparable. Every comparison between past and present (and I don't speak of future!) is not by force valuable. In present we can see a model and buy it through the Net, at those times innovations came not with a man only but with a good bunch of them (roads were unsure) and took little more time to expand everywhere, even if they could run faster than believe someones. But it depended surely too of the their utility not always the same depending on geographic peculiarities and cultural levels and habits.
I accept the caution concerning some words: words present in PIE means they could be found in almost all the "son" languages at some stage of their evolution, but doesn' t exclude they could have been borrowed from ONE other language or from several. Then we have to find these words one together or separated in the supposed "giver"language(S)... Here I confess my knowledge is still limited in ancient I-Ean so...
I ask you: do you know if the wheel and charriots and wagons and horse taming and so on... covered Eurasia and West-Asia at the very same time and everywhere, in every culture?
What seems sure is that first I-Eans had all these things BEFORE expand and did not acquired them separately after expansion into Europe and Asia. Unity of forms AND respect of phonetic evolution rules seems confirm this. Apart the problem of initial possible loans. I answer you here about your objection based on today life, I have not a magic solution to the question of initial cradle.
PLus: today Iranian language concerning verbal grammar shows rather a remodeling of verbal conjugaisons (as does Germani languages): possible acculturation of a formerly NON-I-Ean speaking population??? Not without weight? the Slavic, Romance, Greek and even Celtic languages shows for me a closer position to what could have been ancient I-Ean. I don't know the Avesta language and cannot do comparisons, but maybe specialists can do it and precise us if there has been a strong evolution from old Iranian to today Iranian. They will be welcome.
Nos da. Nos vad. Boune nët.
 
@Tomenable: your map upon Mathieson concerns auDNA.
I think Sintashta-Arkaim itself is closer yet to Corded; Karnitzkiy or Konitsev (metrics) confirms it as rather "Central-East-European" than "Southern Caucasus" or "BMAC"; what is funny is that for archeology, Grigoryev considers it asstrongly influenced by South-East Caspian culrues, themselves showing tight links with Near-Rast ancient cultures. What put me to (re-)conclude the flows of genes and cultural traits are not always the same. Look at today Europe and Europe ancient "dependances" ("occidental evolved world") spreading its material culture, even without language, and fading out bit after bit with underdevelopped countries migrants. No alarming statement here, it could please to someones and bore others, and if not achieved yet; only running on slowly but surely (until when???); I don't read in the hanes guts. I know I give Goga an occasion to tell me I use comparisons between past and present (LOL) me too, but here I think its' more accurate, who knows?
To get back to the topic, we know there were exchanges between the Steppes nomads and the BMAC people. Maybe the fact that some descendants of evolved Tripolje descendants passed into western Steppes were surely among a part of the Sintashta people could explain a facilited acculturation by same level cultures? Guessing, no more.
 
Classic Goga. I do enjoy it. Tonight is lame but you gave me a reason to do something.

proto-Aryans=Sintashta

And that's badass, why would you be averse to the first chariot builders? It's so strange. I'm trying to convince an Iranian enthusiast that the indo-Iranians were awesome. Don't get it.
I'm trying to keep it joyful and fun as possible.

proto-Aryans = Mitanni (descendants of the Sumerians). Mitanni (Medes) migrated into SouthCentral Asia and found BMAC! East Iranid race from BMAC invaded Indian Peninsula. It's a fact that a race from BMAC invaded India! Has nothing to do Sintashta...


R1a moved from the Iranian Plateau and migrated into the Steppes. Oldest R1a subclades has been found in West Asia, there is also the most diversity of R1a. In the Steppes it mixed heavily with Finno-Ugrid, Mongoloid and Europoid races. Never forget that the South was always much more populated than North.


First chariots came from the Mesopotamia. Sumerians chariots were much older than modern Iranid (Aryan = Mitanni & Medes) chariots. Sumerians were (for a huge part) ancestors of the Iranid (Aryan) race.


9e52fba4c8055a72ffff80bfffffe415.jpg



http://sumerianshakespeare.com/84201.html
 

This thread has been viewed 126696 times.

Back
Top