R1a-Z93 in Yamnaya

There is a reconstruction of his face done by Kazakh researchers, and it looks sort of like a modern Kazakh. ;) I'm not sure if this could be trusted.
botai-head-3.JPG
Surprisingly for such remote place in Asia, they got pottery by 5th millennium and had Copper Age in 4th. It seems that their was rather good connection and communication between farmers and the people of the steppe, even far away steppe. http://www.carnegiemnh.org/science/default.aspx?id=16610#2 It could be a shocker if Copper Age Botai herders had some EEF.
we can't trust them! Their culture has no build-in regulative to stop racism and lying.
 
D-stats are much more reliable. It takes too long to explain the method, but I can assure you ancestry percentages with D-stats are dead-on accurate.

Here's modelling of our Scythian genome.
Scythian: 85% Andronovo, 9% Nganasan, 6% Tajik.
Scythian: 61% Andronovo, 21% Sintashta, 11% Nganasan, 4% Tajik.
Scythian: 58% Yamnaya, 17% German_Neolithic, 10% Nganasan, 15% Tajik.

There's no ifs ands or buts about it, this Iron age Scythian was mostly descended of the R1a-Z93 groups who expanded out of Europe around 2500-3000 BC. There's room for minor SC Asian ancestry, but there definitely not significant SC Asian ancestry. I'm not making any statements about Indo Iranian language origins, all I'm saying is this Sycthian is more or less a descendant of Andronovo with minor Siberian and maybe SC Asian admixture.

which Scythian are you talking about?
there were Scythians from the Carpaths till the Altaï mountains, from south of the Taiga till northern India
the only thing in common : descend from Andronovo
 
which Scythian are you talking about?
there were Scythians from the Carpaths till the Altaï mountains, from south of the Taiga till northern India
the only thing in common : descend from Andronovo

This one lived on the Volga river. He specifically lived in Samara. That's where Reich gets all his ancient Russian genomes.
 
D-stats are much more reliable. It takes too long to explain the method, but I can assure you ancestry percentages with D-stats are dead-on accurate.

Here's modelling of our Scythian genome.
Scythian: 85% Andronovo, 9% Nganasan, 6% Tajik.
Scythian: 61% Andronovo, 21% Sintashta, 11% Nganasan, 4% Tajik.
Scythian: 58% Yamnaya, 17% German_Neolithic, 10% Nganasan, 15% Tajik.

There's no ifs ands or buts about it, this Iron age Scythian was mostly descended of the R1a-Z93 groups who expanded out of Europe around 2500-3000 BC. There's room for minor SC Asian ancestry, but there definitely not significant SC Asian ancestry. I'm not making any statements about Indo Iranian language origins, all I'm saying is this Sycthian is more or less a descendant of Andronovo with minor Siberian and maybe SC Asian admixture.

I am talking about Cats you are answering with dogs.

What the heck has the propotion of ancient ancestry among Scythians have to do with the fact that Scythians can be modeled as 50% something West_Central Asian and 50% East European? I am talking merely of Scythians as modeled in modern populations you are using mixed ancient and modern oracle. In this way you find cultures that already explain and catch up most of the ancestry that is not found in East Europeans but can be explained well with South_Central Asians. This is quite manipulative from you and actually not unusual for people to distract from the main point if they feel they have not a right argument left. The same way we could use Sintashta/Andronovo and East Europeans in mixed mode and we would only get few percentages extra(if any) being explained by East Europeans.

D-Stats/oracle results of you have different purposes than that what we are talking about. Now since despite me already clarifying to you, that in the case of your statement that the language doesn't define Kurds and Iranic tribes, D-stats have absolutely not more value than oracle results. I don't buy that you missed that one or didn't know better I simply feel you are avoiding this fact.

You might know how to juggle with d-stats and such, but similar to David you often lack the logic and the point, with the only difference that it is possible to discuss with you while David will through an insult after you if you ask and have uncomfortable theory in his views. Thats why most of the cases he only rdiscusses these matters on boards where he know he has some kind of home advantage. Would love to have a good discussion with him for example here on Eupedia.

Once again I will try to get deeper into this argument just so in the hope my words get clear enough so that we don't get to a different subject again.
What Scythian can be modeled in usage of ancient cultures doesn't play any role in the fact that they can be modeled as 50/50 West_Central Asian/East European if we had to explain them in modern populations. This is because West_Central Asians are not entirely CHG_EF as you probably imagine it. North Caucasians, Tajiks and Pashtuns have some EHG too, even West Iranic tribes have some EHG. Also the Scythian samples had some ASI like ancestry too, even if not in that percentage as modern South_Central Asians but overall in the dimension of North_Caucasians and West Iranic speakers.

Also East Europeans are not entirely EHG-WHG they also have CHG and EF. But CHG is a very old component and if you split that component into more recent Gedrosia-Caucasus you will see that Scythians have around 35% of Gedrosia, which East Europeans almost completely lack. This is why they need West_Central Asians to bring in that component. This is why they are so well combined and fitted with them as being "Scythian like".

This is also the reason why in non mixed model oracles Norwegians, Swedes and even Scotts fit better (though far from good fit as well) and come first before East Europeans and North Caucasians cause they have some of the Gedrosia.

In short, take any of your modern East European group and combine them with West_Central Asians if you want and let's see how they fit cause this was our discussion all about.

I hope this made it too clear now.
 
Last edited:
For another angle:

5c989117704a.jpg
 
@Alan,

I'm just going with the evidence. If the evidence suggested this Scythian was largely SC Asian, I'd agree you. That'd actually be really interesting, because it would represent the first migration to the Eurasian Steppe since roughly 3000 BC. The fact is, the evidence suggests he was Andronovo with minor Siberian ancestry. He might have SC Asian ancestry, and I might look into that.

I don't feel like going over the reasons why D-stats are more reliable than ADMIXTURE. All I have to say, is there's no ifs ands or buts about it, this Iron age Scythian was nothing close to 50% SC Asian, he was maybe like 10%. He was 80-90% from people exactly like Andronovo. His European ancestors(Andronovo) were very differnt from modern East Europeans, so fitting him as East European+Indo Iranian speaking SC Asian speaker, makes no sense.

I don't care if Scythians were European-like or not. I'm just going with the evidence. I'm being 100% honest. David Wesolski sort of has a pro-Polish and pro-R1a Steppe agenda, and there's absolutely no reason I would be for that because I'm none of those things. I get annoyed by it.
 
this post has been deleted by the original poster
 
Last edited:
this post has been deleted by the original poster




 
Last edited:
Fire-head I am not going further into this debate just give you one single example. There is a guy I know who is part Russian and part Pashtun and in fst distance, d-stats and even ancient mixed oracle, he scores first Scythian. Before any East European, any South_Central and any West Asian, before anyone on the whole board he is the closest to IA Scythians. Now think about that.

Also the map from Angela does show this quite perfectly, as I said The Scythians had some ancestry that lacks in modern East Europeans or is very weak, they also had ancestry that is very weak in West_Central Asian therefore you need both groups to have a good fit Scythian.
 
Last edited:
D-stats are much more reliable. It takes too long to explain the method, but I can assure you ancestry percentages with D-stats are dead-on accurate.

Here's modelling of our Scythian genome.
Scythian: 85% Andronovo, 9% Nganasan, 6% Tajik.
Scythian: 61% Andronovo, 21% Sintashta, 11% Nganasan, 4% Tajik.
Scythian: 58% Yamnaya, 17% German_Neolithic, 10% Nganasan, 15% Tajik.

There's no ifs ands or buts about it, this Iron age Scythian was mostly descended of the R1a-Z93 groups who expanded out of Europe around 2500-3000 BC. There's room for minor SC Asian ancestry, but there definitely not significant SC Asian ancestry. I'm not making any statements about Indo Iranian language origins, all I'm saying is this Sycthian is more or less a descendant of Andronovo with minor Siberian and maybe SC Asian admixture.
This is not completely true. Even Andronovo was also for a huge part mixed and partly Mongoloid. So Scythians were even more mixed than natives of Andronovo. But It doesn't even matter where those Scythians came from, they could even come from Antarctica. Who cares? But the fact is that these Scythian Steppes monkeys were just a bunch Iranized by the REAL Eastern Iranians from BMAC.


My very best Polish friend banned me again. Because he couldn't find any right arguments to counter my arguments so he banned me like always. I will be back in 2 weeks!
 
Last edited:
I seems to me Witzel did not support an Iran origin for Indo-Iranian. If I don't mistake, another book considers too that the Indic languages were imported from North. By the way the argument (Goga?) concerning ergative structure in modern Iranic doesn't support an Iran local origin for PIE. The book I refer to is:
The Indo-Aryan Controversy - Evidence and Inference in Indian History, by Edwin F. BRYANT ( a breton "norman" name!) and Laurel PATTON

all the way Witzel and the two others doesn't think BMAC was I-Ean, Iranic or not. Let me know if I mistaked (it's boring to read and read again the same things, for my old brain)
Good reading

Mais non, mon ami. C'est pas vrai, ce qui est impossible!

And I will tell you why:

First of all Iranic languages can't be from the Steppes, because in the Steppes no ergativity construction language is spoken. All languages in the Steppes, like Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Slavic etc. all of them don't have any ergativity construction in them

While there is an ergativiy in the Caucasian languages. Not even in the Semitic languages, but only in Caucasian, Iranic and Indic languages. That's why ancestors of Iranic and Indic has to be not far from the Caucasus.



Also, Eastern Iranian Yaz culture was a part of BMAC. BMAC was 1000% hardcore Iranid. It is from BMAC that Aryans/Iranians invaded India in the South.



I'll be back in 2 weeks!
 
There is a reconstruction of his face done by Kazakh researchers, and it looks sort of like a modern Kazakh. ;) I'm not sure if this could be trusted.
botai-head-3.JPG



.
Thanks for the docs, Lebrok: a bit apart of this very thread, I think the reconsitution (if concerning the profile crania photo) is not very reliable; too broad skull, I think, and a female look not confirmed by the original profile; I would have been pleased if I could have a picture taken in front;
in more than one reconstruction I already noticed the lack of muscular relief of the jaws, what diminish the live supposed breadth of jaws.
Today Kazakhs (apart the ancient Russians colons) are heavily influenced by diverse 'east-asian' types, when the profile provided here doesn't seem confirming an heavy 'east-asian' imput. I know a profile is not sufficient to judge... the surveys I red stated the first 'east-asian' visible physical influences in Kazakhstan began at Iron Age only and I don't think it has been falsified.
All the way all these reconstructions are bets concerning forms of mouth, eyelids, eyebrows, fleshy part of nose and so on!
allways pleased when I can see a good crania picture (everybody has its own deviances! Some preferred playmates of Playboy...
 
Mais non, mon ami. C'est pas vrai, ce qui est impossible!

And I will tell you why:

First of all Iranic languages can't be from the Steppes, because in the Steppes no ergativity construction language is spoken. All languages in the Steppes, like Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Slavic etc. all of them don't have any ergativity construction in them

While there is an ergativiy in the Caucasian languages. Not even in the Semitic languages, but only in Caucasian, Iranic and Indic languages. That's why ancestors of Iranic and Indic has to be not far from the Caucasus.



Also, Eastern Iranian Yaz culture was a part of BMAC. BMAC was 1000% hardcore Iranid. It is from BMAC that Aryans/Iranians invaded India in the South.



I'll be back in 2 weeks!

Thanks for kind answer (too kind maybe?)

the ergative nature of Iranic languages was the reason for me they are the result of an acculturation of previously non I-Ean speakers by I-Eans come from elsewhere (so not from Iran surroundings), being the ergative aspect the heritage of a non-I-Ean substrata, at least in my modest mind. Maybe I'm wrong; could you confirm or infirm me the first I-Ean languages were ergative or not? It seems the syntacix proximity of I-E is rather with steppes (Finnic-Ugric) languages than with Caucasic ones...
aside, I recommend you to read the paper of Bryant and Patton to make your opinion

 
Thanks for kind answer (too kind maybe?)

the ergative nature of Iranic languages was the reason for me they are the result of an acculturation of previously non I-Ean speakers by I-Eans come from elsewhere (so not from Iran surroundings), being the ergative aspect the heritage of a non-I-Ean substrata, at least in my modest mind. Maybe I'm wrong; could you confirm or infirm me the first I-Ean languages were ergative or not? It seems the syntacix proximity of I-E is rather with steppes (Finnic-Ugric) languages than with Caucasic ones...
aside, I recommend you to read the paper of Bryant and Patton to make your opinion


It has been said that there were 2 stages of PIE. The very first original evolved somewhere around the Zagros Mountains. That PIE migrated into the Maykop and from there it migrated into the Yamnaya. And in the Yamnaya it evolved into proto-Celtic, proto-Germanic etc.


Late PIE evolved in Yamnaya. It has been said that some IE languages spoken in Europe came from Yamnaya and not from Maykop or Iran (Leyla-Tepe). While some languages like Iranic evolved from the original PIE that stayed home on the Iranian Plateau.


There were 2 PIE stages. Late PIE in Yamnaya and early PIE on the Iranian Plateau. PIE in Yamnaya came from Maykop/Leyla-Tepe.


PIE that evolved in the Yamnaya Horizon was NOT ergative.

But proto-Iranic that evolved on the Iranian Plateau was an ergative language. The reason why proto-Iranic and proto-Indo-Iranian CAN'T be from the steppes is because some Iranic and Indic languages are still ergative languages. Native languages in the Steppes, like Turkic, Ugric, Mongolic, Russian (Slavic) etc. are NOT ergative languages at all and never have been, while proto-Iranic and proto-Indic were ergative languages. Ergativity in Iranic and Indic is from somewhere else. And that place has to be Iran, where ergativity is NATIVE to Caucasus & Iranian Plateau.

Proto-Iranian and proto-Indic can't be from the Steppes becasue there is no ergativity constructiuon in the Steppe. But there is ergativity construction in Caucasus and the Plateau.

Don't forget that BMAC was practically West Asian in nature, Indic languages are from BMAC. Those Aryans who invaded India came from North, from BMAC. So of course Indic has an ergativity.

There are many links between Caucasian and Indo-Iranian (proto-Iranic) languages. And even today Caucasian and Iranic languages share the same region, West Asia.
Caucasian languages and proto-Iranic languages could even share the ancient ancestry to some degree. both languages heavily influenced each other, that's for sure. They share even the same auDNA! Iran and Caucasus are linked to each other.



My last post with this name. This is against the rules. I'm banned. I'll come back in 2 weeks with my original name. Take care, ciao!
 
The "Gedrosian" or "South Asian" being seen in Steppe is because "South Asians" and "Gedrosians" are largely descended from CHG like people. I don't know why this modern population that happens to be embedded in the computational models is being used in the way it is on these boards.

MA-1 clearly contributed to EHG and he was clearly related to CHG as well. Whether or not CHG is in some way ancestral to ANE, or that ANE is in some way ancestral to CHG I think is still unlcear. The CHG samples are much younger so it would be logical to make the tentative assumption ANE is in some way ancestral to both CHG and EHG. However in comparisons between EEF/ENF and CHG, CHG looks to be very old, like 40000 ybp I believe, or something like that, so maybe based on this one could say that CHG likely contributed to ANE, I dunno.

MA-1 was a long long time ago. So seeing "South asian"/"Gedrosia" in ANE components is easily explained in this way. It's not some ace in the hole against steppe origins of Scythians.

And no one is saying that Poltovka->Sintashta->Andronova->Iranian in a perfect, linear, seamless transition. But the core ancestry of Iranian speaking peoples is very clear right now. Opposing models are highly unlikely. They're still possible because this isn't a hard science, but for this kind of science, with the kind of statistics that we commonly deal with, most actual scientists would say we are very close to certain on this.

What do we also see? Iron age expansions of Iranian speaking peoples contain a lot of J Y-HG's whereas Andronova and Sintashta were all R1a. This looks to me like BMAC was probably composed of J Y-HG guys that R1a mixed with to form latter differentiated Iranian languages. What's wrong with this model? It's not offensive.
 
What do we also see? Iron age expansions of Iranian speaking peoples contain a lot of J Y-HG's whereas Andronova and Sintashta were all R1a. This looks to me like BMAC was probably composed of J Y-HG guys that R1a mixed with to form latter differentiated Iranian languages. What's wrong with this model? It's not offensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze
Firstly, the Iranian plateau, followed by the adjacent Mesopotamian area, together covering modern Iran, Iraq and Syria, has the earliest arsenical bronze metallurgy in the world, as previously mentioned. It was in use from the 4th millennium BC through to mid 2nd millennium, a period of nearly 2,000 years. T

Yamnaya-Steppe R1b-Z2103 is about 6200+/-YBP TMRCA. Yamnaya copper is solid, https://books.google.ca/books?id=nL...IGzAA#v=onepage&q=yamnaya copper club&f=false R1b-L584 found in and around Iran is about 4800+/- YBP TMRCA & R1a-Z93 in and around Iran is about 4800+/- YBP,TMRCA according to https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/. R1b Poltavka EHG & CHG. Sintashta copper- http://www.csc.ac.ru/news/1999_1/99-1-11-1.pdf

 
The "Gedrosian" or "South Asian" being seen in Steppe is because "South Asians" and "Gedrosians" are largely descended from CHG like people. I don't know why this modern population that happens to be embedded in the computational models is being used in the way it is on these boards.

MA-1 clearly contributed to EHG and he was clearly related to CHG as well. Whether or not CHG is in some way ancestral to ANE, or that ANE is in some way ancestral to CHG I think is still unlcear. The CHG samples are much younger so it would be logical to make the tentative assumption ANE is in some way ancestral to both CHG and EHG. However in comparisons between EEF/ENF and CHG, CHG looks to be very old, like 40000 ybp I believe, or something like that, so maybe based on this one could say that CHG likely contributed to ANE, I dunno.

MA-1 was a long long time ago. So seeing "South asian"/"Gedrosia" in ANE components is easily explained in this way. It's not some ace in the hole against steppe origins of Scythians.

And no one is saying that Poltovka->Sintashta->Andronova->Iranian in a perfect, linear, seamless transition. But the core ancestry of Iranian speaking peoples is very clear right now. Opposing models are highly unlikely. They're still possible because this isn't a hard science, but for this kind of science, with the kind of statistics that we commonly deal with, most actual scientists would say we are very close to certain on this.

What do we also see? Iron age expansions of Iranian speaking peoples contain a lot of J Y-HG's whereas Andronova and Sintashta were all R1a. This looks to me like BMAC was probably composed of J Y-HG guys that R1a mixed with to form latter differentiated Iranian languages. What's wrong with this model? It's not offensive.

I want not go into details tonight but I share a lot of your observations and thoughts, as a whole. I like also your remark about "hard science" (not the case here)
 
It has been said that there were 2 stages of PIE. The very first original evolved somewhere around the Zagros Mountains. That PIE migrated into the Maykop and from there it migrated into the Yamnaya. And in the Yamnaya it evolved into proto-Celtic, proto-Germanic etc.


Late PIE evolved in Yamnaya. It has been said that some IE languages spoken in Europe came from Yamnaya and not from Maykop or Iran (Leyla-Tepe). While some languages like Iranic evolved from the original PIE that stayed home on the Iranian Plateau.


There were 2 PIE stages. Late PIE in Yamnaya and early PIE on the Iranian Plateau. PIE in Yamnaya came from Maykop/Leyla-Tepe.


PIE that evolved in the Yamnaya Horizon was NOT ergative.

But proto-Iranic that evolved on the Iranian Plateau was an ergative language. The reason why proto-Iranic and proto-Indo-Iranian CAN'T be from the steppes is because some Iranic and Indic languages are still ergative languages. Native languages in the Steppes, like Turkic, Ugric, Mongolic, Russian (Slavic) etc. are NOT ergative languages at all and never have been, while proto-Iranic and proto-Indic were ergative languages. Ergativity in Iranic and Indic is from somewhere else. And that place has to be Iran, where ergativity is NATIVE to Caucasus & Iranian Plateau.

Proto-Iranian and proto-Indic can't be from the Steppes becasue there is no ergativity constructiuon in the Steppe. But there is ergativity construction in Caucasus and the Plateau.

Don't forget that BMAC was practically West Asian in nature, Indic languages are from BMAC. Those Aryans who invaded India came from North, from BMAC. So of course Indic has an ergativity.

There are many links between Caucasian and Indo-Iranian (proto-Iranic) languages. And even today Caucasian and Iranic languages share the same region, West Asia.
Caucasian languages and proto-Iranic languages could even share the ancient ancestry to some degree. both languages heavily influenced each other, that's for sure. They share even the same auDNA! Iran and Caucasus are linked to each other.



My last post with this name. This is against the rules. I'm banned. I'll come back in 2 weeks with my original name. Take care, ciao!


I accept to consider your points, Goga. I lack knowledge about proto-iranic languages (I have only a small handbook of iranian for travellers at hand! that said, it's very interesting concerning some syntaxic aspects of today iranian and the evident links with west-europeans basic verbs conjugaisons, spite unsufficient): are you sure the proto-iranic languages (as reconstructed at least) were ergative, or it is only a deduction from the today indo-iranic languages? It's important to know it.
I need more well based advices here.
good night
 
Goga, don't fall asleep so quickly!
I forgot: do read the Bryant/Patton and Witzel points: it could change some of your thoughts, perhaps?
Now you can sleep quietly
 

This thread has been viewed 99139 times.

Back
Top