Your physical idea of what Yamnayans look-like.

okunevo people have R1a?
Anthropologically afanasievo people is connected to Srubna people who are related with okunevo. Were afanasievo and okunevo same people or not?

new reaserch:
Nonmetric cranial trait variation and the origins of the Scythians Authors Alla A. Movsesian, Varvara Yu. Bakholdina First published: 24 January 2017

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23159/full

cultures of the steppes were not homogenous when compared site by site - here some opinion of Kozintsev, anthropologist, for Okunev

"...With regard to the post-Afanasyev Bronze Age cultures, the traditional idea that the Okunev culture is autochthonous has given place to theories stating that the Pit Grave and Catacomb traditions (Lazaretov, 1997), or those of Afanasyev culture, which were also introduced from Europe, were critical in Okunev origins (Sher, 2006). In terms of physical anthropology however, the presumed European ancestry of the Okunev people of the Minusinsk Basin, according to A.V. Gromov (1997b), pointing to affinities with the Pit Grave and Catacomb people of Kalmykia, is rather indistinct and traceable mostly at the individual level if at all. The analysis of data concerning two independent trait batteries – craniometric and cranial nonmetric – suggests that the affinities of the Okunev people of the Yenisei are mostly Siberian (Gromov, 1997a, b), and the integration of these data demonstrates that the unusual trait combination observed in Okunev crania is rather archaic (plesiomorphic) and may be more ancient than both the Caucasoid and Mongoloid trait combinations (Kozintsev, 2004). According to Gromov (1997b), the Okunev people resembled the Neolithic population of the Krasnoyarsk–Kansk region. The Karakol culture of Gorny Altai is similar to Okunev culture, and craniometric parallels between people associated with these cultures were also noted. However, Karakol crania are believed to exhibit a “Mediterranean” tendency (Chikisheva, 2000; Tur, Solodovnikov, 2005). The Okunev crania from Tuva and the Yelunino crania from the Upper Ob, especially the former, are much more Caucasoid (Gokhman, 1980; Solodovnikov, Tur, 2003; Kozintsev, 2008). This agrees with archaeological facts indicating the affinities of cultures such as Yelunino and Okunev of Tuva with Early Bronze Age cultures of Central and even Western Europe (Kovalev, 2007). The possible Caucasoid ties of other pre-Andronov tribes of Southern Siberia such as Krotovo (Dremov, 1997) and Samus (Solodovnikov, 2005, 2006) have been discussed by craniologists. ..."
 
Allentoft seems having considered some Asian (more Siberian North Asian I think?) input in Steppic cultures people (Andronovo and others), at least he shew some components in diverse blue hues I believe they are not 'europoids' - these blue components are very strong in his admixtures for Okunevo: more than 50% (which one?) and Karasuk (33 to 50%) - but the auDNA samples are very short compared to the metrics ones
 
Did you doubt for a second that the Middle East was the cradle of Western Eurasian civilisations? .......
By some definitions, civilisation means any agricultural society from the Neolithic onward. Since in Western Eurasia agriculture originated in the Fertile Crescent, by that definition too the Middle East is the cradle of European civilisation. There is just no way around it.

A lot happened in Europe after agriculture arrived from the Middle East to create civilizations which can't be contributed to the Middle East.

IMO, culture isn't completely hereditary. In other words imo every aspect of a culture can't be traced to an ancestor. Therefore I don't like when people say the fertile crescent is THE birthplace of civilization. I think it's a simplistic way of thinking about the origins of later cultures and civilizations. I really doubt anyone can be accredited with being the main or only source for many later civilizations. Other ancient people contributed to Minoan, Hittite, etc. civilizations and some aspects of their culture was invented by them and can't be attributed to an ancestor culture.

That way of thinking about the ancient world is common I don't like it. I think too much credit is given to the famous Egyptians, Sumerians, Greeks, Romans. Kids in school get the impression they invented everything in existence and everyone in the ancient world lived in one of their civilizations.
 
To me they were probably something like these:

Russian man




Hungarian man



Yamnaya had no East Asian ancestry and therefore no East Asian features like that Russian dude has. The Steppe people who invaded Europe in the Bronze age weren't the same as some of the heavily Asian admixed horse riding people who did in the Middle Ages. Not Attila the Hun.
 
Did you doubt for a second that the Middle East was the cradle of Western Eurasian civilisations? That's what all history books teach (or should if they don't). There are different definition of the word civilisation. Personally I think civilisation require cities with social stratification and a specialisation of labour, possibly also with some form of writing. The Sumerian might be the oldest civilisation. Its written record starts around 3000 BCE, but the protoliterate Uruk period (from 4000 BCE) could be seen as its real starting point as a civilisation. The oldest in Europe is generally considered to be the Minoans (from 3750 BCE, but literate from 2500 BCE), who almost undoubtedly came from the Near East based on the mtDNA samples retrieved (haplogroups like R0, HV, H5, H7, H13a1a and I5, which are typically Middle Eastern).

By some definitions, civilisation means any agricultural society from the Neolithic onward. Since in Western Eurasia agriculture originated in the Fertile Crescent, by that definition too the Middle East is the cradle of European civilisation. There is just no way around it.

Absolutely correct. It's amazing how many people seem to have had no exposure to basic history classes, or even having been so exposed refuse to accept the evidence.

This is why I think it's a great pity that some universities no longer require a full year of classes in Western Civilization. The more in depth exploration would be beneficial.
 
Allentoft seems having considered some Asian (more Siberian North Asian I think?) input in Steppic cultures people (Andronovo and others), at least he shew some components in diverse blue hues I believe they are not 'europoids' - these blue components are very strong in his admixtures for Okunevo: more than 50% (which one?) and Karasuk (33 to 50%) - but the auDNA samples are very short compared to the metrics ones

"Dental features of the Late Bronze Age Irmen population of Western Siberia (14th–10th centuries BC) were studied on the basis of cranio-dental remains from 23 cemeteries in the Kuznetsk Basin, Baraba forest-steppe, the forest-steppe zone of the Altai, Tomsk and Novosibirsk areas of the Ob basin. The results suggest that the Irmen people originated in the Novosibirsk and Baraba areas from a mixture of Andronovo (Fedorovka) and autochthonous groups. Dental data are inconsistent with the idea that the Karasuk tribes might have taken part in this process. The Karasuk people clearly descended from the Okunevo people, as evidenced by the elevated frequencies of the Carabelli cusp and deflecting wrinkle. None of these traits is present in the Irmen people, who display dental gracility evidently introduced by Andronovo (Fedorovka) tribes."

 
cultures of the steppes were not homogenous when compared site by site - here some opinion of Kozintsev, anthropologist, for Okunev

"...With regard to the post-Afanasyev Bronze Age cultures, the traditional idea that the Okunev culture is autochthonous has given place to theories stating that the Pit Grave and Catacomb traditions (Lazaretov, 1997), or those of Afanasyev culture, which were also introduced from Europe, were critical in Okunev origins (Sher, 2006). In terms of physical anthropology however, the presumed European ancestry of the Okunev people of the Minusinsk Basin, according to A.V. Gromov (1997b), pointing to affinities with the Pit Grave and Catacomb people of Kalmykia, is rather indistinct and traceable mostly at the individual level if at all. The analysis of data concerning two independent trait batteries – craniometric and cranial nonmetric – suggests that the affinities of the Okunev people of the Yenisei are mostly Siberian (Gromov, 1997a, b), and the integration of these data demonstrates that the unusual trait combination observed in Okunev crania is rather archaic (plesiomorphic) and may be more ancient than both the Caucasoid and Mongoloid trait combinations (Kozintsev, 2004). According to Gromov (1997b), the Okunev people resembled the Neolithic population of the Krasnoyarsk–Kansk region. The Karakol culture of Gorny Altai is similar to Okunev culture, and craniometric parallels between people associated with these cultures were also noted. However, Karakol crania are believed to exhibit a “Mediterranean” tendency (Chikisheva, 2000; Tur, Solodovnikov, 2005). The Okunev crania from Tuva and the Yelunino crania from the Upper Ob, especially the former, are much more Caucasoid (Gokhman, 1980; Solodovnikov, Tur, 2003; Kozintsev, 2008). This agrees with archaeological facts indicating the affinities of cultures such as Yelunino and Okunev of Tuva with Early Bronze Age cultures of Central and even Western Europe (Kovalev, 2007). The possible Caucasoid ties of other pre-Andronov tribes of Southern Siberia such as Krotovo (Dremov, 1997) and Samus (Solodovnikov, 2005, 2006) have been discussed by craniologists. ..."

In the abstract of his research paper 2009,

Measurements of 220 male Neolithic and Bronze Age cranial series from Eurasia were subjected to multivariate statistical analysis. The results support the idea that people associated with the Catacomb culture played a major role in the origin of the Afanasyev culture. Okunev people of the Minusinsk Basin, those associated with Karakol, Ust-Tartas, and Krotovo cultures, and those buried in the Andronov-type cemeteries at Cherno-ozerye and Yelovka were of predominantly local Siberian origin. The Samus series resembles that from Poltavka burials. The Okunev people of Tuva and probably Yelunino people were likely descendants of the Pit Grave (Yamnaya) and early Catacomb populations of the Ukraine.

Discussion: Afanasyev
The results challenge the traditional idea that the sole and direct ancestors of the Afanasyev people were those of Pit Grave culture. Pit Grave affinities rank first only in the cases of Saldyar I and Karasuk III. Catacomb parallels are no fewer than those with Pit Grave, and in most instances they are the most pronounced. Every Afanasyev group has close ties with Catacomb groups. By contrast, not all Afanasyev series show close Pit Grave connections: these are absent in two groups of the Altai (Ursul and Kurota II) and in the pooled Altai sample. In half of the Altai series, ties with the Catacomb people of the Don are the most distinct, and the same is true of the pooled Altai group. Afanasyeva Gora and the pooled Minusinsk series are closest to the late Catacomb of the Lower Dnieper, whereas the series from Kurota II in the Altai, is closest to Poltavka. These results are matched by archaeological facts which, according to S.V. Tsyb (1981, 1984), evidence the importance of Poltavka and Catacomb cultures in Afanasyev origins.

In the abstract, the Okunev people of the Minusinsk Basin would be original one to be genetically so close to Maltaboy. so " archaic." The other two okuneo types (the Samus series, tuva one) resemble that from Poltavka burials and early Catacomb populations which look like to be close to afanasievo also, considering the discussion part.

Afanasievo people and Okunevo people lived together earlier than 3,500bc.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...hey-are-just-paleo-people?p=500344#post500344
http://www.clarkriley.com/JIES4034web/07Sokolova(434-456).pdf

Moreover, Anthropologically Okunev people of the Minusinsk Basin is related with Karasuk and East scythian who migrate in west. However, West scythian, srubna and afanasievo are related each other.
So there is possibility of relationship between afansievo and Okunevo.

The Late Scythian population considered in this study proved to be genetically homogeneous, although some connections with the Sarmatians were found. We also revealed similarities between the Scythian groups and the local Bronze Age population of the Srubnaya culture, as well as, to a lesser extent, a group representative of the Central Asian Bronze Age Okunevo culture.

Another Problem here is author mentioned that majority of afanasievo people originated in catacomb culture. I think it is absolutely true, b/c their skulls were elongated. However, did catacomb culture predate afanasievo?
 
thanks - I've the paper at hand - I don't see any problem: culture sharing is not by force auDNA sharing: we see that in the different sites of the same culture; contacts are followed by some crossings, but not always by complete or even strong osmosis, only some individuals can be involved in the crossings (see Gauls and Romans) - BTW Okunev for auDNA doesn't seem completely 'siberian' but strongly enough 'siberian', what is not be "pure" - the seldom Karasuk individuals at the auDNA show great heterogeneity, someones very 'europoid' some others very 'ast-asian' in a broad sense -
Afanasyevo people are as a whole very different from North Okunevo people (phenotypes and auDNA) - the temporal problems of links between Catacombs and Afanasyevo is nothing; they could share a common ancestors, affinities don't always tell us the direction of genes floods - ATW I think even the Neolithical pop of Krasnoiarks Kransk Ienissei regions was already AND an ancestral pop AND the crossing place of well evolved 'europoids' and well evolved 'mongoloids' (I think I said this personal thought before somewhere) and an-auDNA could maybe confirm that sometime when admixture technics improve yet -
 
A lot happened in Europe after agriculture arrived from the Middle East to create civilizations which can't be contributed to the Middle East.

Have you not read what I wrote? For me, civilisations arose c. 4000 BCE with the first cities in Mesopotamia. That's 5,500 years after agriculture started in the Fertile Crescent. The two aren't connected. It's probably just a coincidence that both arose exactly in the same region.

IMO, culture isn't completely hereditary. In other words imo every aspect of a culture can't be traced to an ancestor. Therefore I don't like when people say the fertile crescent is THE birthplace of civilization. I think it's a simplistic way of thinking about the origins of later cultures and civilizations. I really doubt anyone can be accredited with being the main or only source for many later civilizations.

The birth or the cradle of civilisation means the place where it started. It doesn't mean that everything was suddenly invented in one place and spread from there! It's a long, constant evolution, but it needs a starting point. Ancient Europeans also played an important role in that evolution, with the development of metallurgy (based on present evidence it emerged in the Balkans), bronze working (North Caucasus), horse riding (Volga-Ural), war chariots (Volga-Ural)...

Other ancient people contributed to Minoan, Hittite, etc. civilizations and some aspects of their culture was invented by them and can't be attributed to an ancestor culture.

If you read carefully, I said that civilisations arose in the Middle East, not in the Fertile Crescent (that's only agriculture), and the Middle East includes Anatolia, the South Caucasus and Iran too.

That way of thinking about the ancient world is common I don't like it. I think too much credit is given to the famous Egyptians, Sumerians, Greeks, Romans. Kids in school get the impression they invented everything in existence and everyone in the ancient world lived in one of their civilizations.

If you checked my list of inventions, you'd realise that ancient inventions have so little impact on modern life that they don't make the list. I listed separately the greatest contributions to the (modern) world of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, but I would be at a loss to find any invention still in regular use that originated in the Fertile Crescent. From Anatolia at least we have currency (coins), although that's almost obsolete too.

You don't seem to understand the concept of civilisation momentum. Civilisation may have arisen in Mesopotamia, but other civilisations sprang up all around in the Middle East, then the Eastern Mediterranean, etc. New people adopted the higher life styles of their neighbours, but usually also brought their own contributions. I don't know if this is because people of a certain language and culture in a given time in history have a limit to the amount of inventions they can spawn, or because people try to develop a civilisation based on some fixed cultural ideals, but it seems that after a while innovation just peters out and the once great civilisation becomes static and is overtaken by its neighbours, who have copied them but also added new concepts and innovations of their own. This is why the circle needs to keep widening all the time, so that new people with a different culture and fresh aspirations can bring new vigour to their adoptive civilisation. If it isn't neighbours, then it is foreign invaders. That works too. It happened many times in the Middle East in ancient times (the Hittites, Mitanni, Medes, etc were all Indo-European invaders).

You could imagine civilisation like a fire that spreads from a central point and which slowly extends outward in a growing circle. After a while, the point of origin is all burned out and the fire that is still burning forms a ring around it. That rings keep getting wider with time (= civilisation spreading further afield), but the burned out central area also gets bigger, unless someone renews the material in the middle (foreign invaders wishing to adopt the old civilisation but adding their own contribution).

This is why we see a sort of progressive displacement of the centre of gravity of western Eurasian civilisation from southern Mesopotamia to northern Mesopotamia to Anatolia to Greece to Italy to Frankia (France-Low Countries-Germany) to Britain to America. That's just the effect of civilisation being constantly adopted and improved by neighbours on the scale of centuries. It's not the same people. There is almost no genetic heredity, except for the intermarriages between neighbours or the conquest of the old civ by the new civ. It's mostly ideas spreading. That's why Western Civilisation can be said to have its roots in Mesopotamia, even if modern Westerners have little to do with ancient Sumerians.

I am surprised that I have to explain this to veteran members. That's the kind of thing that is part of compulsory education in secondary school in Belgium and many other European countries.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure, that in all europe history in secondary school is all about shoah and shoah, at least between 90's, never had anything on ancient civilizations, apart greek or roman mythology and little vulgarization of this and that. I'm Swiss, but i'm pretty sure this is more accurate in France or Belgium.
 
@Maciamo,
I agree with virtually everything you've written in your last posts. The exception is this:

"Have you not read what I wrote? For me, civilisations arose c. 4000 BCE with the first cities in Mesopotamia. That's 5,500 years after agriculture started in the Fertile Crescent. The two aren't connected. It's probably just a coincidence that both arose exactly in the same region. "

It's by no means a coincidence. There are no large cities, no specialization of labor, without the surplus created by agriculture. It's a progression.

For the rest, I agree.
 
rather agree with Angela on this point, even if it's reasoning not proof -
 
To be clear, I'm not claiming any kind of original insight here. This is what is taught in every standard course on "western civilization" or ancient history in the U.S. from high school to university. It's also the consensus among archaeologists world wide from what I can tell.

See:
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/big-history-project/agriculture-civilization

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Human_Legacy_Course/Foundations_of_Civilization

Click on the Spielvogel paper at the following link:
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...cialization+of+labor+and+the+growth+of+cities
 
Not sure how scientific this is, but here is an interesting page which has many reconstructions of ancient humans, including Yamnaya:

https://www.deviantart.com/philipedwin

mofH1Rtl.jpg

330osddl.jpg

vNITZgKl.jpg
 
Sean and Clooney look like what men want to look like when they grow up. :D

On another note, my intuition tells me that those Yamnaya had a higher hairline than some of the reconstructions.

Why Connery is more Alpha than Clooney, he saw no need to plant his hair. Not sure why a high hairline is seen like a positive in my eyes? Maybe subconscious perception of higher testosterone?
 

This thread has been viewed 70983 times.

Back
Top