R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 in the Bronze Age Levant (16th century BC)

You're mistaking earliest known Indo-Europeans with earliest peoples with writing. Besides, Mycenaean Greek in Southeastern Europe is attested in writing basically as early as Hittite and little clues of Mitanni Aryan.

Mycenaeans also came from the same region (Caucasus/Iran), in fact all genetic evidences regarding ancient known Indo-European people indicate that they migrate from somewhere in the south of Caucasus and northwest of Iran from about 1600 BC.

The PIE reconstruction is just a hypothetical language that is just an approximation of the real language that must've existed, but the common linguistic origin and genealogical relationship between all known IE languages is a very solidly established scientific theory. And by 1500-1600 B.C. they were already diverged since so long ago that they were as dramatically different as Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Vedic Sanskrit show.

There are two possible cases, whether you believe the same Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Vedic Sanskrit speaking people lived in another land before 1500-1600 BC or they were original Indo-European people who migrated to Greece, Anatloia and India and then these languages appeared by the influence of local phonologies. Brazilian Portuguese was not created thousands years after the Portuguese migration to Brazil, there were certainly different Portuguese dialects in Portugal before 1600 AD but none of them was Brazilian Portuguese. I see no reason that we want to make these sound changes in Indo-European languages so complicated, all of them could happen in a short time after migrations to different lands, in the west Asia we see these divergences in Turkic languages about 1,000 years ago, so that an Azeri Turk already needs a translator to speak to a Turk in the east of Turkey.
 
Sources in published studies? The earliest R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 in Northeastern Europe date to before 6000 years ago. The first R1a-M17 and R1b-L23 (which is the actual clade related directly and strongly to the Indo-European expansion, not M269 as a whole) are also found in North Eurasia, including Northwest Eurasia (Europe), and the first R1b was found in Central-Southern Europe (Villabruna Cluster).

Are there really aDNA samples in West Asia older than 5000-6000 years ago belonging to R1b-L23 and R1a-M417? Where?

R1a-M17 and R1b-L23 have still a high frequency in Iran: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399854/ They certainly didn't come from the sky, I don't know why European geneticists never search for the DNA of ancient skeletons in Tepe Sialk and several other ancient sites in Iran, as I read about the origin of R1a and R1b, almost all genetic studies show that they originated in the West Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a), if you believe another thing, please show your sources. Of course there could be different migrations in different times from the West Asia to Europe but those who spoke Indo-European language didn't live 6,000 years ago.

The fact is that recent genetic studies never support the steppe theory of the Indo-European origin, it can be said that those who migrated from the West Asia with R1a and R1b haplogroups to Europe were not Indo-European but those who came back were IE people but R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 which should be in the steppe by this theory, are found in the Levant and we know they came from Zagros/Caucasus, not the steppe.
 
I really can't understand why some people still talk about the steppe theory of Indo-European origins, it is not R1a-Z94 but R1a-M417, it didn't come from the steppe but Zagros/Caucasus, according to Underhill et al., haplogroup R1a diversification occurred in Zagros/Caucasus, not the steppe.

1488309302358.jpg


This map is wrong. The oldest R1a-Z93 samples are from Russia, notably from the Srubna culture.
 
Philjames100 said:
Maciamo appears to have assumed that Catacomb was R1a, however it appears to have been dominated by R1b-Z2103.

That sample is listed as North Caucasus and part of the Steppe cluster, dated to c.2700 cal BCE. It's a male, his Y-DNA is R1b-Z2103.

It is sample GW1001 on map C:



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08220-8/figures/1

GW1001 is from the Maykop region. Although the Maykop culture ended circa 3000 BCE, the overlapping Novotitorovka culture lasted until 2700 BCE. So it's not clear whether that sample is from the Catacomb culture or not. In any case, AFAIK no other Catacomb culture Y-DNA has been tested/published, so it's too soon to assert that the Catacomb culture was predominantly R1b-Z2103. R1a-dominant cultures like the Corded Ware or Sintashta had a minority of R1b-Z2103 - just as in modern Slavic, Iranian and South Asian societies today. It will require a certain number of samples to get a better idea.
 
Mycenaeans also came from the same region (Caucasus/Iran), in fact all genetic evidences regarding ancient known Indo-European people indicate that they migrate from somewhere in the south of Caucasus and northwest of Iran from about 1600 BC.



There are two possible cases, whether you believe the same Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Vedic Sanskrit speaking people lived in another land before 1500-1600 BC or they were original Indo-European people who migrated to Greece, Anatloia and India and then these languages appeared by the influence of local phonologies. Brazilian Portuguese was not created thousands years after the Portuguese migration to Brazil, there were certainly different Portuguese dialects in Portugal before 1600 AD but none of them was Brazilian Portuguese. I see no reason that we want to make these sound changes in Indo-European languages so complicated, all of them could happen in a short time after migrations to different lands, in the west Asia we see these divergences in Turkic languages about 1,000 years ago, so that an Azeri Turk already needs a translator to speak to a Turk in the east of Turkey.

Your remark is not stupid about languages changes, and we don't know if the evolution speed is constant and has the same speed towards every direction in its evolution process. But I bet that the differences between portuguese dialects in Brazil and Portugal are not of the same amplitude as the differences between Hittite, Vedic and Mycenian Greek...
 
GW1001 is from the Maykop region. Although the Maykop culture ended circa 3000 BCE, the overlapping Novotitorovka culture lasted until 2700 BCE. So it's not clear whether that sample is from the Catacomb culture or not. In any case, AFAIK no other Catacomb culture Y-DNA has been tested/published, so it's too soon to assert that the Catacomb culture was predominantly R1b-Z2103. R1a-dominant cultures like the Corded Ware or Sintashta had a minority of R1b-Z2103 - just as in modern Slavic, Iranian and South Asian societies today. It will require a certain number of samples to get a better idea.

There are three 5 samples in that paper (Wang 2019) listed as belonging to the Catacomb culture, three are males, with Y-DNA R1b1a2. According to online sources (forum, blog) they are actually R1b-Z2103.

On the map they are RK4002, RK4001 and SA6003.
 
On the map above, the large circles are known as 'Hyksos bits'. They continue further south into Gaza, not shown on the map. The cluster of five large circles is right on top of Armenia.

The map suggests a movement southwards through the Caucasus. This fits with the 'steppe DNA' seen in Armenia MLBA.

Notice the connection to Greece. There appear to be at least two movements into Greece, one from the steppe (or forest-steppe) and the Balkans, and one originating from the direction of the Caucasus (possibly via the Levant or Anatolia). The Hyksos bits also appear on Cyprus.



(Tel el-Ajjul is in Gaza)

Raulwing 2009

Why do you count out one single proto-Greek migration of people who have steppe as well as Caucasus admixture, through Anatolia? Why two waves of migrations? Historiography speaks of only one migration of proto-Hellenes into Greece during the Early Bronze Age, and the one more (Dorian) during the Iron Age.
 
Your remark is not stupid about languages changes, and we don't know if the evolution speed is constant and has the same speed towards every direction in its evolution process. But I bet that the differences between portuguese dialects in Brazil and Portugal are not of the same amplitude as the differences between Hittite, Vedic and Mycenian Greek...

The most important thing is phonology, in a small region in the northwest of Iran we see three different phonologies, it is very easy to guess that someone who speaks Persian in this region is an Azeri, Kurd or Armenian, because Azeris pronounce k as c (voiceless palatal stop) but Kurds usually pronounce it as (labialized velar) and Armenian as (aspirated velar).

nful_greek_hittite_ii.jpg
 
R1a and R1b languages descent from R1 language.

R1a1 language descent from R1a language.(this language continue)
R1a2 language descent from R1a language.(this language extinct)
R1a1a language descent from R1a1 language(this language continue)
R1a1b language descent from R1a1 language(this language extinct)
R1a1a1 language descent from R1a1a language(this language continue)
R1a1a2 language descent from R1a1a language(this language extinct)

R1b1 language descent from R1b language(this language continue)
R1b2 language descent from R1b language(this language extinct)
R1b1a language descent from R1b1 language(this language continue)
R1b1a1 language descent from R1b1a language(this language continue)
R1b1a2 language descent from R1b1a language(this language extinct)
R1b1a1a language descent from R1b1a1 language(this language continue)
R1b1a1a1 language descent from R1b1a1a language(this language extinct)
R1b1a1a2 language descent from R1b1a1a language(this language continue)
 
Comb Ceramic Culture have R1a-YP1272. Language of this Culture is not Proto-Indo-European. I think that R1a people of Comb Ceramic Culture originally have different language from original Comb Ceramic Culture. R1a people of Comb Ceramic Culture lost own Proto-Indo-European like language, they later spoke Comb Ceramic Culture language.

Kunda Culture have R1b1a1a. Language of this Culture is not Proto-Indo-European. I think that R1b people of Kunda Culture originally have different language from original Kunda Culture. R1b people of Kunda Culture lost own Proto-Indo-European like language, they later spoke Kunda Culture language.
 
[FONT=&quot]The first clearly Proto-Indo-European cultures were the [/FONT]Khvalynsk[FONT=&quot] (5200-4500 BCE) and [/FONT]Sredny Stog[FONT=&quot] (4600-3900 BCE) cultures in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.(Eupedia.com)
[/FONT]

Forest steppe people have mostly R1a, Open steppe people have mostly R1b. Their original language have common origin(R1 language), but different languages. I think if R1a is original Proto-Indo-European, R1b is Para-Proto-Indo-European. if R1b is original Proto-Indo-European, R1a is Para-Proto-Indo-European.
 
Why do you count out one single proto-Greek migration of people who have steppe as well as Caucasus admixture, through Anatolia? Why two waves of migrations? Historiography speaks of only one migration of proto-Hellenes into Greece during the Early Bronze Age, and the one more (Dorian) during the Iron Age.

The archaeological evidence indicates migrations from or connections with different places. I'm not sure which population was the proto-Hellenes though.
 
The archaeological evidence indicates migrations from or connections with different places. I'm not sure which population was the proto-Hellenes.

I regard the proto-Hellenes to be the people who brought the IE language into Greece. Although historians usually regarded this to be the Mycenaeans. I think we have to go further back, since the Mycenaeans may have been largely indigenous. All I know is that Minoans in Greece did not have any Steppe or Caucasus admixture. And at some point the Greek language was introduced in Greece through the Mycenaeans who are essentially Minoans with additional Steppe and Caucasus admixture. Ancient Greek historiography does not speak of any other people settling in Greece. The texts only speak of indigenous peoples and Greek newcomers, as well as mixing. Who are the other people who had Caucasus admixture? That would be the key question.

It would have been possible that proto-Greek speakers mixed near the Caucasus, and through the upper side of the Black sea (Ukraine) migrated South into Greece, but now it seems that Illyrians did not have Caucasus admixture at al while Thracians only had a little. So the Caucasus admixture in Mycenaean Greece could have come with Greek speakers through Anatolia.
 
I regard the proto-Hellenes to be the people who brought the IE language into Greece. Although historians usually regarded this to be the Mycenaeans. I think we have to go further back, since the Mycenaeans may have been largely indigenous. All I know is that Minoans in Greece did not have any Steppe or Caucasus admixture. And at some point the Greek language was introduced in Greece through the Mycenaeans who are essentially Minoans with additional Steppe and Caucasus admixture. Ancient Greek historiography does not speak of any other people settling in Greece. The texts only speak of indigenous peoples and Greek newcomers, as well as mixing. Who are the other people who had Caucasus admixture? That would be the key question.

It would have been possible that proto-Greek speakers mixed near the Caucasus, and through the upper side of the Black sea (Ukraine) migrated South into Greece, but now it seems that Illyrians did not have Caucasus admixture at al while Thracians only had a little. So the Caucasus admixture in Mycenaean Greece could have come with Greek speakers through Anatolia.

The Minoans also had Caucasus admixture, but no steppe apparently.
 
Last edited:
I regard the proto-Hellenes to be the people who brought the IE language into Greece. Although historians usually regarded this to be the Mycenaeans. I think we have to go further back, since the Mycenaeans may have been largely indigenous. All I know is that Minoans in Greece did not have any Steppe or Caucasus admixture. And at some point the Greek language was introduced in Greece through the Mycenaeans who are essentially Minoans with additional Steppe and Caucasus admixture. Ancient Greek historiography does not speak of any other people settling in Greece. The texts only speak of indigenous peoples and Greek newcomers, as well as mixing. Who are the other people who had Caucasus admixture? That would be the key question.

It would have been possible that proto-Greek speakers mixed near the Caucasus, and through the upper side of the Black sea (Ukraine) migrated South into Greece, but now it seems that Illyrians did not have Caucasus admixture at al while Thracians only had a little. So the Caucasus admixture in Mycenaean Greece could have come with Greek speakers through Anatolia.

It seems that you agree now with Robert Drews views for the coming of Greeks..... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Drews


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Lazaridis et al certainly held that out as a possibility, but I am skeptical. Something from the direction of Catacomb culture looks more likely to me, but I could be wrong.

Someone posted some Angel commentary about what Mycenaeans looked like based on some bones. Using modern forensic anthropology tools, this is what a wealthy Mycenaean warrior looked like based on his skull and dna data: certainly brawny and tall looking, but he doesn't look absolutely anything like any brand of Nordic.

Old time anthropologists were basically Nordicists. They saw Nordic features in every culture they wanted to claim. It's bunk. How anyone could have ever looked at a bust of Julius Caesar, for example, and seen a Nordic is beyond me. That one example alone should cause any thinking person to toss most of it out.

mycenaean-griffin-warrior-face-reconstructed_1-770x437.jpg
 
Lazaridis et al certainly held that out as a possibility, but I am skeptical. Something from the direction of Catacomb culture looks more likely to me, but I could be wrong.

Someone posted some Angel commentary about what Mycenaeans looked like based on some bones. Using modern forensic anthropology tools, this is what a wealthy Mycenaean warrior looked like based on his skull and dna data: certainly brawny and tall looking, but he doesn't look absolutely anything like any brand of Nordic.

Old time anthropologists were basically Nordicists. They saw Nordic features in every culture they wanted to claim. It's bunk. How anyone could have ever looked at a bust of Julius Caesar, for example, and seen a Nordic is beyond me. That one example alone should cause any thinking person to toss most of it out.

mycenaean-griffin-warrior-face-reconstructed_1-770x437.jpg


I can't find any scientific/academic publication associated with that reconstruction, only some online news articles.

Here's what one of them says:

"According to the Dr. Stocker, the warrior appears to have been a handsome man, with the facial reconstruction having been based on a stamp that was found inside the tomb. The reconstruction was performed by Tobias Houlton, a specialist in reconstruction, and his colleague Lynne Schepartz of University of the Witwatersrand.

'It was multi-fragmented, with evident deterioration of the bones across the mid-face, affecting the nasal region and inner eye details,' Houlton told Rossella Lorenzi referring to the skull that was found in poor condition. 'Prior to re-assembly, we were uncertain that a facial reconstruction would be possible.'

Houlton used the Manchester method for the reconstruction – facial tissues were laid from the skull surface outward by using depth marker pegs to determine the thickness. And he gauged the look of the facial features, such as the eyes and mouth, by the underlying skull. However, due to the poor condition of the skull, Houlton was unable to accurately reconstruct the area around the eyes and nose. Instead, the team used average face templates of 50 modern Greek males that were 25 to 35 years old.

They also looked at artifacts from the Mycenaean and Minoan civilizations, such as wall paintings, to determine the Griffin Warrior's skin tone and hair color. The finished product is a broad, handsome face with a square jaw and powerful neck."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ffin-Warrior-elite-group-3-500-years-ago.html


DNA wasn't used in the reconstruction, and no DNA has been published yet, however: "Davis and Stocker are also planning DNA tests and isotope analyses that they hope will provide information about his ethnic and geographic origins."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...exposes-roots-western-civilization-180961441/

That was back in 2017 (when the reconstruction was made) so we might learn some more about him in the near future.


The article mentions that the reconstruction was (partly) based on a 'stamp' from the tomb. That appears to be referring to the 'Pylos Combat Agate':




The long curly/wavy hair in the reconstruction looks like it's based on the main figure with the sword. However that looks like it might be a depiction of a Minoan (the seal is thought to be Minoan).





 
I can't find it now, but you found the closest modern populations for each of the samples, with one being very Ashkenazi like all the way to one being almost Central Italian. You could try looking up which are men and which are women and see if there's a pattern.
From what I have heard the Empuries samples seem to be the closest to the highest quality Myceanean sample that we have which is interesting.
 

This thread has been viewed 13270 times.

Back
Top