PDA

View Full Version : Were Myceneans lineages R1b or R1a



Pages : [1] 2

Odyss
06-17-2015, 08:53 PM
Mycenean refers to the proto-Greek civilisation of the Peloponnese.
Question : Were the Indo-European paternal lineages of Myceneans R1b or R1a?

Piquerobi
06-17-2015, 08:56 PM
I'm looking forward to seeing their results! It could be either and also both at the same time. It'll be very interesting when they get tested and their results are available.

alan
06-17-2015, 09:26 PM
IMO odds are they will be R1b L23xL51 but could be mixed. You really have to wonder now if there was R1a on the actual southern part of the Euro steppes before Iranian branch tribes. I think the Thracian-Dacians were heavy in M269 and L23xL51 because I am pretty convinced by the argument that the Albanians area a remnant of them. Satem or satemised groups throught to be of Balkans origins like the Armenians are clearly linked to L23 and a bit of M269xL23. It seems to me that not only were apparently early branch offs like the Celto-Italics R1b related but with other centum branches like Greeks and possibly satem or satemised Dacian-Albanians and Armenians also R1b rich it gives the impression that a number of IE waves over a long period were R1b rich. I feel that only Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians are R1a related albeit the later Germanic areas seem to be an overlap zone. The overlap of R1a and R1b in the Germanic speaking lands seem to me to be a consequence of beaker dominating the west-central European part of CW after on a couple of centuries of hegemony. I also think that the awkward to categorise nature of Germanic or pre-Germanic owes something to this quick succession of CW and beaker in that area.

I dont know but now we have a pretty clear path of R1a through CW and its eastern offshots and the modern linguistic correspondences with R1a and probable descendants of those cultures.

Heber
06-17-2015, 09:46 PM
My guess would be R1b.
I dont know if the Bronze Age Myceae Bulls

4934
are linked to the Bronze Age
Maikop
4935
and
Iberian (Costix) bulls
4936
but it is an interesting possibility.

ADW_1981
06-17-2015, 09:50 PM
Mycenean refers to the proto-Greek civilisation of the Peloponnese.
Question : Were the Indo-European paternal lineages of Myceneans R1b or R1a?

Southern Greece yields much higher rates of R1b, as do the former western colonies of Greece in modern day Turkey.

Arame
06-18-2015, 05:08 AM
This is a very good question.
I am pretty sure that it will be R1b-Z2103 related maybe some R1b upstream also. The presence of R1b in Armenia at 1800 BC shows that it must be also present in Greece. Because the link between Armenian and Greek languages.
So my bet is R1b. But for Dorians I think R1a is a good candidate. The Dorians brought a second layer of IE words that links Greek words to Iranian languages.

Michał
06-18-2015, 09:51 AM
But for Dorians I think R1a is a good candidate.
Which paticular clade of R1a do you have in mind? I don't know any Greece-specific or Balkan-specific subclade of R1a that would be both relatively common in SE Europe and sufficiently old to be regarded as potentially associated with the influx of the Dorians.


The Dorians brought a second layer of IE words that links Greek words to Iranian languages.
Are you saying that the Mycenean Greek lacked the Iranian-related or Indo-Iranian-related words (known from the Ancient and/or Modern Greek?) that can be securely (and specifically) assigned to a later influence of the Dorian dialect? If so, could you please provide any examples of such words or refer us to any linguistic work that suggests this kind of Iranian-related division between the Mycenean Greek and Dorian Greek?

Piquerobi
06-18-2015, 12:32 PM
Curiously, the mtDNA of some samples has been tested already:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.br/2008/05/mtdna-from-grave-circle-b-in-mycenae_07.html

Arame
06-18-2015, 02:02 PM
Michael

I am reffering to the Graeco-Aryan hypothese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan) which is quite difficult to imagine in the current stage of our genetic knowledge. I just proposed a version that could explain this hypothese, but if You think that Greeks lack any R1a that is sufficiently old/specific for Dorian invasion then I will not insist.

Piquerobi
06-18-2015, 11:08 PM
David Anthony on the Mycenaeans:


Luckily we have well-dated inscriptions in two other Indo-European languages from the same era as the Hittite empire. The first was Greek, the language of the palace-centered Bronze Age warrior kings who ruled at Mycenae, Pylos, and other strongholds in Greece beginning about 1650 BCE. The Mycenaean civilization appeared rather suddenly with the construction of the spectacular Shaft Graves of Mycenae, dated about 1650 BCE, about the same time as the rise of the Hittite empire in Anatolia. The Shaft Graves, with their golden death masks, swords, spears, and images of men in chariots, signified the elevation of a new Greek-speaking dynasty of unprecedented wealth whose economic power depended on long-distance sea trade. The Mycenaean kingdoms were destroyed during the same period of unrest and pillage that brought down the Hittite empire about 1150 BCE. Mycenaean Greek, the language of palace administration as recorded in the Linear B tablets, was clearly Greek, not Proto-Greek, by 1450 BCE, the date of the oldest preserved inscriptions. The people who spoke it were the models for Nestor and Agamemnon, whose deeds, dimly remembered and elevated to epic, were celebrated centuries later by Homer in the Iliad and the Odyssey. We do not know when Greek speakers appeared in Greece, but it happened no later than 1650 BCE. As with Anatolian, there are numerous indications that Mycenaean Greek was an intrusive language in a land where non-Greek languages had been spoken before the Mycenaean age. pages 48 and 49


A number of artifact types and customs connect the Mycenaean Shaft Grave princes, the first definite Greek speakers at about 1650 BCE, with steppe or southeastern European cultures. These parallels included specific types of cheekpieces for chariot horses, specific types of socketed spearheads, and even the custom of making masks for the dead, which was common on the Ingul River during the late Catacomb culture, between about 2500 and 2000 BCE. It is very difficult, however, to define the specific source of the migration stream that brought the Shaft Grave princes into Greece. The people who imported Greek or Proto-Greek to Greece might have moved several times, perhaps by sea, from the western Pontic steppes to southeastern Europe to western Anatolia to Greece, making their trail hard to find. page 369

From "The Horse, the Wheel and Language"

Trojet
06-19-2015, 01:16 AM
Are we supposed to finally get some aDNA from the area anytime in the near future, or are we just gessing here? I would bet on R1b-L23 though...maybe J2b-M241 too :)

Sequana
07-06-2015, 02:19 AM
Mycenean refers to the proto-Greek civilisation of the Peloponnese.
Question : Were the Indo-European paternal lineages of Myceneans R1b or R1a?

My guess R1b

Heber
08-26-2015, 08:11 PM
This is beautiful archaeology.

http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.nl/2015/08/important-finds-at-two-excavations-in.html#.Vd4UdSWqqkp

Gravetto-Danubian
08-26-2015, 08:30 PM
Trojet
As you're probably aware, greece has been sampled from neolithic to Bronze Age. Some of these- but not the bulk- would be from Mycenean times too, both North and southern greece. The mtDNA data was presented in conferences already. I think full sequencing and Y dnA is on the cards in the near future.

Heber
08-27-2015, 04:23 PM
This is beautiful archaeology.

http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.nl/2015/08/important-finds-at-two-excavations-in.html#.Vd4UdSWqqkp

Speculation that is is a lost Spartan Palace from 17th century BC.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/26/ancient-greek-palace-unearthed-near-sparta-dates-back-to-17th-century-bc

tamilgangster
09-10-2015, 08:31 AM
srry about that wrong thread

Piquerobi
10-25-2015, 04:52 PM
We are still waiting for it!

vettor
10-25-2015, 10:24 PM
My guess is
R1b
e-v13
J2
And g2a

kinman
10-26-2015, 01:21 AM
I agree that the odds are that it will be R1b-Z2103 or a close relative, perhaps PF7558/PF7562 (the brother clade of L23). The odds of R1a would be much lower.
---------------Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is a very good question.
I am pretty sure that it will be R1b-Z2103 related maybe some R1b upstream also. The presence of R1b in Armenia at 1800 BC shows that it must be also present in Greece. Because the link between Armenian and Greek languages.
So my bet is R1b. But for Dorians I think R1a is a good candidate. The Dorians brought a second layer of IE words that links Greek words to Iranian languages.

Piquerobi
01-22-2016, 05:24 PM
Gimbutas on the Mycenaeans:


The period of 2500 to 2200 BC was the peak and the final stage of the Kurgan expansion. Immense destruction of the towns in the Aegean area, Turkey and in the eastern Mediterranean marked the arrival of the Kurgan tribes. By the time of this historical period, the Mycenaean Greeks are known in Greece and the Hittites in Anatolia. Fabulous treasures in royal tombs indicate the prowess of the Indo-European chieftains in war, in plunder, and in ruling over the peoples of different cultural backgrounds.
page 129, "The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe"

Generalissimo
01-22-2016, 09:24 PM
There's supposed to be Sintashta-related influence in Mycenaean Greece. So I won't be surprised if we see some R1a-Z93.

Piquerobi
01-24-2016, 11:00 PM
A documentary on the Mycenaeans:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-sgu4hDj5s

Coldmountains
01-24-2016, 11:46 PM
There's supposed to be Sintashta-related influence in Mycenaean Greece. So I won't be surprised if we see some R1a-Z93.

There is some R1a-Z93 still in Greece and even in Italy. Of course insignificant and just in tiny amounts but it was found there. Interestingly the rare Y40 subclade of Z93 was found in Tuscany and outside of India and Afghanistan it is absent anywhere else. Also it is unlikely related to later scythians/sarmatians who were Z2124 . The linguistic similarities between Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian show that there must be some contacts between them and for example R1b-Z2103 is not so rare in the Iranic-speaking world but could have other Indo-European sources of course.

Michał
01-25-2016, 11:00 AM
Interestingly the rare Y40 subclade of Z93 was found in Tuscany and outside of India and Afghanistan it is absent anywhere else.
Actually, clade Y40>YP294 (parental to the Tuscan subclade Z96) seems to be more common in West Asia (or in a region encompassing Turkey, Iraq and the Gulf region) than in Southern Europe. Since Y40 has not been found in Eastern Europe so far, while it seems to be most common in India, one may hypothesize that Y40>YP294 has been brought to West Asia with the Mitanni Aryans, although this scenario should be considered very speculative until more data are available.

Coldmountains
01-25-2016, 11:23 AM
Actually, clade Y40>YP294 (parental to the Tuscan subclade Z96) seems to be more common in West Asia (or in a region encompassing Turkey, Iraq and the Gulf region) than in Southern Europe. Since Y40 has not been found in Eastern Europe so far, while it seems to be most common in India, one may hypothesize that Y40>YP294 has been brought to West Asia with the Mitanni Aryans, although this scenario should be considered very speculative until more data are available.

Interesting I thought Y40 was not found in West Asia yet. Can you link studies or ftdna results which show Y40 or YP294 in West Asia? I know that it was found among Burusho and that one South Indian and some Afghans were positive for it. But if it present in West Asia than it could of course arrive with later Iron Age migrations from West Asia into South Europe(Etruscans?,...)

Michał
01-25-2016, 11:48 AM
Can you link studies or ftdna results which show Y40+ in West Asia?
Please visit our R1a project's Results page: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?section=yresults (you will find Y40 on page 7).
Also, here is a link to the relevant part of the YFull tree: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y40/

Reza
02-28-2016, 12:34 AM
Are any of those above examples Y40*?

parasar
02-28-2016, 05:46 AM
Are any of those above examples Y40*?

I believe all are either YP294 or Y37 or downstream not tested.
As you are negative for both YP294 and Y37, you would be on a parallel line.

Michał
02-28-2016, 10:40 AM
I believe all are either YP294 or Y37 or downstream not tested.
As you are negative for both YP294 and Y37, you would be on a parallel line.
In the R1a project, there are three confirmed or predicted Y40 members who haven't been tested for Y37 yet, so some of them may turn out to be Y40(xY37,YP294), just like Reza.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-29-2016, 10:32 AM
I know we see the odd, single Greek with Z93 - probably descendants of Hellenized Anatolians and those with remote or recent ancestry from Middle Age South Asia. But the big picture suggests that either (a) Myceneans had no Z93, or (b) Mycenean Greek were virtually wholly replaced. Whilst the latter is about 30% true, the parasiminous hypothesis at present would be that bronze Age Balkan IEs had no R1a, but were composed of R1b-Z2013, J2b and I2a2.

Hando
03-01-2016, 01:28 AM
I know we see the odd, single Greek with Z93 - probably descendants of Hellenized Anatolians and those with remote or recent ancestry from Middle Age South Asia. But the big picture suggests that either (a) Myceneans had no Z93, or (b) Mycenean Greek were virtually wholly replaced. Whilst the latter is about 30% true, the parasiminous hypothesis at present would be that bronze Age Balkan IEs had no R1a, but were composed of R1b-Z2013, J2b and I2a2.

Middle Age South Asians migrated to Greece?
And I also recall Jean M stating that there was genetic continuity from Myceneans to Classical Greece, so I assume this means modern Greeks are also descended from Myceneans.

ThirdTerm
03-01-2016, 01:42 AM
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/middle_bronze_age_europe.png

The Mycenaean culture commenced circa 1,650 BCE as an imported steppe culture from the northern Russian forest-steppes, known for the great mobility of its nomadic warriors. It is likely that the Mycenaeans migrated from Russia to Greece between 1,900 and 1,650 BCE, where they intermingled with the locals, and their Y-DNA haplogroups were R1a, E-V13, G2a, I2a and J2. A following study on mitochondrial DNA from Grave Circle B in Mycenae found that the ancient Mycenaean samples belonged to U5a1 or U5a1a and U5a lineages have also been found in Mesolithic Russia (U5a1) and Sweden (U5a1 and U5a2).



A new preprint on mitochondrial DNA from Grave Circle B in Mycenae. Unfortunately, the authors report that they could not get any autosomal or Y chromosome DNA, however they did manage to obtain four mtDNA sequences (out of 22 individuals) which appear to be authentic, and which belonged to haplogroups UK ("heart-shaped face" individuals Γ55 and Γ58, possibly brother and sister), U5a1 or U5a1a ("long-faced" individual Ζ59) and the Cambridge Reference Sequence ("heart-shaped face" individual Α62), which is "compatible in the region sequenced.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/05/mtdna-from-grave-circle-b-in-mycenae_07.html

Several authors felt that some steppe influence can be detected in the Early Mycenaean art, e.g. in the well known gold sheets from the 5th Shaft Grave showing wild animal in repoussée technique 54. This reminds us of the suggestion that also the boar tusks helmet is supposed to have originated in South Russia as it may be concluded from corresponding finds in several graves at Mariupol 55. Likewise the so-called arrow smootheners which appear in Greece for the first time during the later middle Helladic period have been referred to parallels in the Pontic area 56. This is also the case for horse burials; as S. Foltiny has pointed out, a characteristic feature of the cultures in the Volga-Ural area is the double burial of horses which is also known form Mycenaean Greece 57.
http://www2.ulg.ac.be/archgrec/IMG/aegeum/aegaeum7(pdf)/Hiller.pdf

Gravetto-Danubian
03-01-2016, 01:55 AM
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/middle_bronze_age_europe.png

The Mycenaean culture commenced circa 1,650 BCE as an imported steppe culture from the northern Russian forest-steppes, known for the great mobility of its nomadic warriors. It is likely that the Mycenaeans migrated from Russia to Greece between 1,900 and 1,650 BCE, where they intermingled with the locals, and their Y-DNA haplogroups were R1a, E-V13, G2a, I2a and J2. A following study on mitochondrial DNA from Grave Circle B in Mycenae found that the ancient Mycenaean samples belonged to U5a1 or U5a1a and U5a lineages have also been found in Mesolithic Russia (U5a1) and Sweden (U5a1 and U5a2).


I really don't get the point of your post -dumps straight out of Eupedia . They're simplistic, outdated and , often, wrong
No archaeologist has ever described the Mycenean culture as "steppic", even though we can well expect some steppe descended admixture there

Mikewww
03-09-2016, 01:59 PM
I know we see the odd, single Greek with Z93 - probably descendants of Hellenized Anatolians and those with remote or recent ancestry from Middle Age South Asia. But the big picture suggests that either (a) Myceneans had no Z93, or (b) Mycenean Greek were virtually wholly replaced. Whilst the latter is about 30% true, the parasiminous hypothesis at present would be that bronze Age Balkan IEs had no R1a, but were composed of R1b-Z2013, J2b and I2a2.
R1b-Z2103 (I think you mean, not Z2013) is also found in Armenians. When and where do you think the split occurred of the pre-Myceneans and the pre-Armenians? I see the Ringe-Taylor language tree has Armenian and Greek on the same branch that they call "Hellenic".

ADW_1981
03-09-2016, 02:54 PM
The Mycenaean culture commenced circa 1,650 BCE as an imported steppe culture from the northern Russian forest-steppes, known for the great mobility of its nomadic warriors. It is likely that the Mycenaeans migrated from Russia to Greece between 1,900 and 1,650 BCE, where they intermingled with the locals, and their Y-DNA haplogroups were R1a, E-V13, G2a, I2a and J2. A following study on mitochondrial DNA from Grave Circle B in Mycenae found that the ancient Mycenaean samples belonged to U5a1 or U5a1a and U5a lineages have also been found in Mesolithic Russia (U5a1) and Sweden (U5a1 and U5a2).

Based on the Yamnaya results...all the more likely this culture was heavily populated with R1b-Z2103 men, and not the ones you mentioned above.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-09-2016, 10:33 PM
R1b-Z2103 (I think you mean, not Z2013) is also found in Armenians. When and where do you think the split occurred of the pre-Myceneans and the pre-Armenians? I see the Ringe-Taylor language tree has Armenian and Greek on the same branch that they call "Hellenic".


At the moment, I don't really agree with any tree of I.E. families, because I think the tree model misses how IE languages developed, although I certainly do agree with the comparative method as a whole, and with the idea that IE are indeed genetically related, from a once common source.

But the problem is - I don't think that modern or even attested extinct languages - capture the initial most branchings of IE. Moreover, even when catering for borrowing and homoplasy (as Ringe and Taylor do), it misses a lot of interemediate dialect levellings and language extinctions. The result is often 'odd' trees which pair Albanian with German (although German is often seen as 'problematic' and even at times left out).


I've not gone into deep thought on Greco-Armenian- Iranian. But I think it might turn out that they Greco-Aryan theory is going to suffer if no Z93 comes up in Mycenean remains. This means that the putative links are due to later phenomena, or mediated via other lineages - such as J2b-M12. If - as most agree- Anatolian languages were the first split - then the clear linking of Greek and Armenian within 'nuclear IE' would suggest that there was a later movement of IEs from Balkans to Anatolia- probably the late Bronze Age. This remains to be discerned by aDNA, and by way of archaeology the movement of Balkano-Thracian groups to Anatolia was always tenuous (and would never have been suggested had it not been for Herodotus).

Overall, I have no definite hypotheses for this part of the world, where numerous "layerings" are very difficult to sort out. But I do suspect that there were 2 waves of IE languages into Anatolia and the Balkans: an older one bringing Anatolian -like languages from east to west (?directly from Caucasus / west central Asia), and a later one from the west Black Sea region moving south and perhaps back east. This might place the pre-Greek and pre-Armenian from their common source in the LBA, as the separated ends of a continuum from Greece to Armenian highlands.

Agamemnon
03-09-2016, 11:46 PM
The Armeno-Greco-Aryan node isn't a mere "theory", and it certainly won't "suffer" from the presence or absence of certain uniparental markers in Mycenaean remains. The only thing which will contradict this node's validity is linguistic evidence, not genetic evidence, not isotopic evidence, not climatic evidence... You get the picture.

The only major flaw with the tree model is that it implies a straightforward and simplistic genetic relationship between several languages of a single family, in turn this can also lead to the assumption that genetic and linguistic phylogenies are the same.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-10-2016, 03:18 AM
The Armeno-Greco-Aryan node isn't a mere "theory",

Aga, am I to take that then you believe it's fact ? If so, I dare say such an opinion is removed from reality. At best, scholars currently entertain the notion of a Greco-Aryan branch, but ultimately conclude there is no convincing evidence to do so. The only sub-groupings within IE which enjoy status as "fact" is Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian.

For example;


"Some scholars argued that there are a large number of similarities between Greek and
Armenian, which allow for the postulation of a common Graeco-Armenian language.1 It is
now clear, especially after Clackson’s (1994) thorough, albeit somewhat hypercritical treatment,
that this case is not as strong as it is for Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic. The contact relations
between Proto-Greek and Proto-Armenian may have been intense, but these similarities
are considered insufficient to be viewed as evidence for discrete Proto-Graeco-Armenian."

or

"
Although many pieces of evidence have been marshalled over the years in defense of one or another subgrouping model, unfortunately the evidence is of varying quality and open to multiple interpretation. ..it is often impossible whether a linguistic feature is...ancestral or innovated". Ben Fortson IE Language & Culture p 12

Nor is there any mention of Greaco-Aryan unity in Indo-European Languages by Ramat & Ramat. Nor does Garrett in Convergence in the Formation of Indo‑European Subgroups: Phylogeny and Chronology state anything about Gr-Ay, where he specifically deals with proto-Greek, and in fact, his arguments point strongly against it.

Perhaps most comprehensive is A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity which quite unequivocally concludes Greek is a stock unto its own, despite evidence of some similarities with Iranian and Armenian- quite obviously due to territorial contiguity and contacts in historic period (but not only so)

I suspect most theories positing Gr-Ar were formulated in the 20th century - in the "Golden Years' when linguists got a little too excited about inferential abilities, which served as ready-made models for archaeologists (such as the "Greco-Aryan Catacomb cultural-historical community").


The ultimate argument against Greco-Aryan is what I already pointed out - languages like Mycenean and *I-A are later formations, and not the primary-most branches of PIE. They do not derive through a simple, linear descent from one identifiably unique IE branch, but rather share isoglossic bundles through several pathways, and through shared retentions and later shared convergences. So yes, we can point to special relationships, but not to node status. Have I missed any recent studies which may over turn my understanding of the consensus ?


and it certainly won't "suffer" from the presence or absence of certain uniparental markers in Mycenaean remains.

Well it'll be yet more negative evidence :D

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 01:25 PM
Gravetto-Danubian,


Greco-Aryan theory is going to suffer if no Z93 comes up in Mycenean remains.

Why do you think that Proto-Greeks were R1a-Z93, not R1a-Z283?

Graeco-Aryan split at some point between ~3000 BC and 2500 BC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan


In the context of the Kurgan hypothesis, Greco-Aryan is also known as "Late PIE" or "Late Indo-European" (LIE), suggesting that Greco-Aryan forms a dialect group which corresponds to the latest stage of linguistic unity in the Indo-European homeland in the early part of the 3rd millennium BC. By 2500 BC, Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian had separated, moving westward and eastward from the Pontic Steppe, respectively.[8]

And Z93 split from Z283 also around year 3000 BC, according to YFull:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/

There is no reason to think that Proto-Greek R1a was not under Z283.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 01:32 PM
Both R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 are also older than the Graeco-Aryan split as dated by linguists.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 01:39 PM
IMO most of R1a among modern Greeks predates Slavic expansion.

Autosomal DNA evidence shows that Greeks have minimal Slavic admixture, unlike Romanians who have a lot of Slavic ancestry. And in my opinion the main haplogroup of Slavs who colonized the Balkans was I2a, including a very young subclade I2a1b2a1-CTS10228.

TMRCA of CTS10228 was 2200 years ago, and this clade is the great majority of modern Balkan I2a. Ideas of "Paleolithic continuity" of I2a in the Balkans are funny, considering that most of it is from a single ancestor who lived around 200 BC, likely in Northern Ukraine.

Autosomal DNA shows that modern Montenegrins are very different from Iron Age and Bronze Age Montenegrins (Velika Gruda samples). So the idea that modern South Slavs are not genetically Slavic but rather "Slavicized local Balkan populations", is totally wrong.

I2a played a major role in Slavic expansions, just like I1 played a major (IMO the main) role in Germanic expansions.

I1 played a more important role in Germanic expansions than did R1b-U106, which is not exclusively Germanic in my opinion.

=====================================

http://s13.postimg.org/ossn8zu7r/I2a1b2a1.png

The distribution of I2a1b2 (L621) perfectly mirrors the historical extent of Slavic colonization in the Migration Period:

Most of this L621 is under CTS10228:

http://s16.postimg.org/7ttndgt8l/Hg_I_L_621_spatial_frequency_B.jpg

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 02:15 PM
'Inter-Slavic' groups like Romanians, Hungarians, etc., etc., are largely descended from Slavs.

But Greeks and Albanians - on the other hand - have only very minimal Slavic admixture.

From A. Kushniarevich, "Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations..." (2015):


(...) South Slavs in their turn share a similar number of IBD segments with East-West Slavs and with the ‘inter-Slavic’ Romanian, Hungarian and Gagauz populations (Fig 4B; Table G in S1 File). Notably, South Slavs share significantly fewer IBD segments for length classes 1.5–3 cM with their immediate geographic neighbors in south - Greeks, except Macedonian Greeks – than with the group of East-West Slavs (Fig 4B). Altogether, the analysis of IBD segment distributions revealed even patterns of IBD sharing among East-West Slavs–‘inter-Slavic’ populations (Hungarians, Romanians and Gagauz)–and South Slavs, i.e. across an area of assumed historic movements of people including Slavs. (...) we suggest that there is a “central-east European” genetic substratum in West and East Slavs, exemplified by NRY hgs R1a and the k3 ancestry component, and a “south-east European” one, featuring NRY hgs I2a and E plus the k2 ancestry component for South Slavs (Fig 2A and 2B, Fig 3, Table K in S1 File; Tables A,B in S1 File). Notably, the “south-east European” component does not extend to the whole Balkan Peninsula, as South Slavs are differentiated from Greek sub-populations except Macedonian Greeks (Fig 2A, Fig 4B) [55]. (...)

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 03:01 PM
As for U106 - check "U106 explored: its relationships, geography and history", by Iain McDonald (2015):

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-geography-2015-revised.pdf

What is the country with the highest percentage of U106 among M269 according to McDonald? Let's see, it is Austria:

In Austria M269 = 27%, U106 = 23%, which means that 85% of all Austrian R1b is U106.

Hallstatt is located in Austria. Hallstatt culture was associated with Celts before the more recent "Celtic Bell Beakers" theory.

According to Iain McDonald, U106 was expanding from Southern Germany, he writes:

"Wherever its exact origin, U106 appears to have spread mainly from southern Germany."

Southern Germany is by no means the Germanic Urheimat. It is - on the other hand - the Urheimat of Hallstatt & La Tene cultures.

This makes me think, that R1b-L21 were not Celts, but speakers of some language which is extinct today. The real Celts were U106. So why do the Irish speak Celtic, you ask? Well, they don't anymore - they now speak English. But their DNA is still from Pre-Celtic Beakers.

So just get used to this fact - original R1b-L21 did not speak Celtic, they spoke an extinct language, which no longer exists!

Genetically Germans, Belgians and English people are more Celtic than the Irish or the Welsh. And this does make sense.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 03:15 PM
The idea that Celtic emerged and spread in the Iron Age via "convergence of dialects" in former Bell Beaker territory is ridiculous. No language ever emerged or spread via "convergence of dialects". But many languages expanded via elite dominance. That's why someone can be genetically Non-Celtic, but speak Celtic (as probably the Irish or the Welsh). Now they actually speak English, due to the same mechanism.

Turkic was spreading via elite dominance (that's why a lot of genetically distinct groups with distinct origins speak Turkic now). Hungarian was spreading via elite dominance. Celtic was IMO spreading via elite dominance, Germanic also spread like this in many areas.

Agamemnon
04-10-2016, 04:46 PM
Elite dominance is overrated, the spread of Celtic was mainly due to a language leveling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect_levelling) process, that is to say the adoption of an influential dialect by speakers of closely related (para-Italo-Celtic in this case) dialects, this process is enhanced by the sheer similarity of the dialects (this is a form of standardisation) and the emergence of new realities (often social, political or economic, the establishment of the Roman limes in North Africa triggered the language leveling process which led to the spread of Berber for example). The best example of elite dominance-induced change is the spread of Finno-Ugric languages in Eastern Europe (especially Hungarian).

I seriously doubt U106 has anything to do with Celtic speakers (though it's a possibility, it isn't exactly likely), it seems to be overwhelmingly associated with the genesis of Germanic.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 05:43 PM
Germanic people spread south from Scandinavia, while U106 spread north from Southern Germany according to Iain McDonald.

So it seems that R1b-U106 people and Proto-Germanic people were spreading in opposite directions, and met halfway.

That's a bit like Bell Beaker culture (spreading eastward from Iberia) and R1b-P312 (spreading westward towards Iberia)... :)

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 06:29 PM
U106 could the main lineage of Hallstatt culture, which were Celtic-speakers.

There is ample evidence that Proto-Germanic language was strongly influenced by Celtic. There were Early Celtic loanwords in PGMc - including words for iron, king, kingdom, doctor, mail armour and town - which may indicate Celtic elite dominance in Early Germanic society. This is further confirmed by Celtic-sounding names of some of Germanic chieftains mentioned by Roman sources.

Hallstatt anthropological type is most common in Scandinavia today, but it is named after skulls from Celtic Hallstatt culture.

So all of this indicates that there were Celtic migrations into Scandinavia in the Early Iron Age.

Agamemnon
04-10-2016, 06:45 PM
Germanic people spread south from Scandinavia, while U106 spread north from Southern Germany according to Iain McDonald.

So it seems that R1b-U106 people and Proto-Germanic people were spreading in opposite directions, and met halfway.

That's a bit like Bell Beaker culture (spreading eastward from Iberia) and R1b-P312 (spreading westward towards Iberia)... :)

Sure, Proto-Germanic unity goes back roughly to the 6th century BCE and it is strongly associated with the Jastorf culture, therefore the spread was north-to-south and not the other way around. Considering the fact that RISE98, the 4275 year-old Nordic Bronze Age sample from Lille Beddinge (Sweden), was U106 I'd say that certainly fits with the general idea about the emergence of Proto-Germanic. The problem with Iain McDonald's approach is that he somehow interprets this as allowing "U106 to form part of both the Single Grave and Bell Beaker cultures, plus the pre- and proto-Cetlic cultures that followed them" (sic), despite the fact that (1) no U106 has ever been found in BB samples, that (2) he places U106's TMRCA c. 2650 BCE and that (3) RISE98 dates back to c. 2275 BCE. In other words, he's arguing against the data. This reminds me of Victar Mas, one of the best experts on J1 out there, while his work is invaluable and deeply appreciated, he keeps claiming that J1 spread with Neolithic farmers even though J1 has never been found in Neolithic remains.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 06:51 PM
Modern Germans are largely descendants of settlers from the French-Dutch-Belgian-German borderland and from Southern Germany who re-populated Central and Eastern Germany during the Medieval "Ostsiedlung". In Ancient Germania and in Early Medieval times after the Migration Period, haplogroup frequencies in what is now Central & Eastern Germany could be much different than now.

Even Pagan Saxons were decimated by Charlemagne, and huge immigration of West Frankish settlers to their lands took place.

So Northern Germany is also different than it used to be before the bloody conquest of Saxons by Charlemagne. Probably before Charlemagne Northern Germany was dominated by I1 (like modern Denmark is), and only after Charlemagne by R1b.

Remember, that we already do have an Anglo-Saxon ancient DNA sample from England, and turned out to be I1.

So Anglo-Saxons who came to Britain, were probably mostly I1. Just like Pagan Saxons before Charlemagne.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 06:55 PM
The conquest of Saxons by the Frankish Empire lasted around four decades (years 772 - 804).

We don't know how many died and how many survived, but sources indicate that losses were very heavy. For example in year 782 Charlemagne massacred 4500 Southern Saxon captives. In 795-798 there was enslavement and forcible population transfers of Northern Saxons. In year 804 Charlemagne expelled over 10,000 Northern Saxon families to Gaul - their descendants speak French today, and are no longer parts of the gene pool of modern Germans. In 798 in the battle of Bornhöved 3000-4000 Saxons were killed. These are just some examples of war crimes and casualties inflicted by Charlemagne and his allies against Pagan Saxons - there were more casualties for sure.

About the massacre of 4500 captured Saxon warriors in 782: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden

What is now Northern Germany was largely devastated and depopulated during those wars.

Saxon lands were then largely re-populated by western settlers coming from Western Francia.

This is probably the reason why 23andMe cannot genetically distinguish French people from Germans today (see the link):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5236-23andme-s-quot-German-Problem-quote

The same process (depopulation + repopulation by Western settlers) later took place after crusades against Pagan Slavs.

You can read about this for example in the following book:

Gerald Stone, "Slav Outposts in Central European History: The Wends, Sorbs and Kashubs"

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 07:21 PM
RISE98, the 4275 year-old Nordic Bronze Age sample from Lille Beddinge (Sweden), was U106

RISE98 is 4000-4300 years old. By contrast U106 as a whole is at least 5000 years old per YFull.

So RISE98 lived around a millennium after the emergence of U106 mutation. That's a long time.


despite the fact that (1) no U106 has ever been found in BB samples,

That's fine, because Bell Beakers were most likely not Celtic-speakers.

So the lack of U106 in BB does not yet mean that U106 wasn't Celtic.


he places U106's TMRCA c. 2650 BCE

YFull places U106's TMRCA ca. 3000 BC and YFull rather tends to underestimate age of markers.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 07:32 PM
This reminds me of Victar Mas, one of the best experts on J1 out there, while his work is invaluable and deeply appreciated, he keeps claiming that J1 spread with Neolithic farmers even though J1 has never been found in Neolithic remains.

From Britain we have the following samples of Y-DNA so far (apart from R1b-P312):

1) a Roman-era gladiator with U106

2) an Anglo-Saxon era man with I1

And yet people argue against evidence, claiming that there was no U106 in Pre-Saxon Britain, and that Anglo-Saxons were mostly U106.

It seems to me that Anglo-Saxons were mostly I1.

Romilius
04-10-2016, 08:10 PM
The idea that Celtic emerged and spread in the Iron Age via "convergence of dialects" in former Bell Beaker territory is ridiculous. No language ever emerged or spread via "convergence of dialects". But many languages expanded via elite dominance. That's why someone can be genetically Non-Celtic, but speak Celtic (as probably the Irish or the Welsh). Now they actually speak English, due to the same mechanism.

Turkic was spreading via elite dominance (that's why a lot of genetically distinct groups with distinct origins speak Turkic now). Hungarian was spreading via elite dominance. Celtic was IMO spreading via elite dominance, Germanic also spread like this in many areas.

I'm sorry, but often your enthusiastic R1a-slavs-centre of the world view of protohistory dismisses your wisdom and balance. If we follow your thought, then, only slavic peoples are original speakers of their language... and, of course, that's a biased revanchiste idea that whirled and whirls many times in fora over there.

Agamemnon
04-10-2016, 08:14 PM
RISE98 is 4000-4300 years old. By contrast U106 as a whole is at least 5000 years old per YFull.

So RISE98 lived around a millennium after the emergence of U106 mutation. That's a long time.


Iain McDonald places U106's TMRCA around 4650 yBP, if anything his estimate is bound to be more correct than YFull's (at least that's what I'd expect since he's bound to have better coverage overall).
So that leaves us with a ~300 year gap, which makes his model look rather odd, not to say obsolete.



That's fine, because Bell Beakers were most likely not Celtic-speakers.

So the lack of U106 in BB does not yet mean that U106 wasn't Celtic.


Indeed, BB wasn't Celtic, it actually predates the break-up (and, quite possibly, the appearance) of Proto-Celtic by a millenium. Odds are BB spoke a variety of early Western IE dialect nodes, which would yield Proto-Italo-Celtic as well as para-Italo-Celtic languages such as Ligurian and Lusitanian (and probably Venetic and Illyrian, though that's up for debate). So while BB per se wasn't Celtic, it is closely associated with the genesis and prehistory of Celtic (especially the eastern parts of the BB horizon). By extension, that really seals the deal for U106.


YFull places U106's TMRCA ca. 3000 BC and YFull rather tends to underestimate age of markers.

While YFull often underestimates the TMRCA of several lineages by 15-20%, I'd rather trust Iain McDonald's estimate since he clearly has better coverage, he's the U106 expert here after all.

Agamemnon
04-10-2016, 08:19 PM
From Britain we have the following samples of Y-DNA so far (apart from R1b-P312):

1) a Roman-era gladiator with U106

2) an Anglo-Saxon era man with I1

And yet people argue against evidence, claiming that there was no U106 in Pre-Saxon Britain, and that Anglo-Saxons were mostly U106.

It seems to me that Anglo-Saxons were mostly I1.

It's equally possible the U106 gladiators (3DRIF-16 and 6DRIF-3) were Germanic in origin, I mean one of the samples (3DRIF-26) was clearly Middle Eastern or Arabian (the isotopic evidence points to him having grown up in an arid environment and he was pretty similar to Yemeni jews, Negev Bedouins, Copts and Samaritans from an autosomal standpoint) so I doubt we can just assume these samples are representative of pre-Saxon Britain.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 09:46 PM
It's equally possible the U106 gladiators (3DRIF-16 and 6DRIF-3) were Germanic in origin

But does their autosomal DNA confirm that they were Germanic in origin? I don't think so.

At least surely they weren't of recent Germanic origin - not first generation immigrants, but locals.

Arch Hades
04-10-2016, 09:49 PM
My guess the Myceneans carried a variety of lineages, but R1a and especially R1b would have been commonplace.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 09:59 PM
I'm sorry, but often your enthusiastic R1a-slavs-centre of the world view of protohistory dismisses your wisdom and balance.

I have recently shifted to thinking that Slavic expansion was mostly mediated through I2a men - see for example my posts here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4729-Were-Myceneans-lineages-R1b-or-R1a&p=150180&viewfull=1#post150180

On the other hand, R1a seems to be local "Baltoid" population descended from Corded Ware culture, which was later Slavicized:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6886-Greater-Poland-continuously-inhabited-during-the-Migration-Period&p=150297&viewfull=1#post150297

Gravetto-Danubian
04-10-2016, 10:12 PM
Gravetto-Danubian,



Why do you think that Proto-Greeks were R1a-Z93, not R1a-Z283?

Graeco-Aryan split at some point between ~3000 BC and 2500 BC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan



And Z93 split from Z283 also around year 3000 BC, according to YFull:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/

There is no reason to think that Proto-Greek R1a was not under Z283.

I've said previously, anything is possible, but for arguments sake, I was discussing with Agamemnon that if we are to entertain the said specific link between Mycenean and I-A, then we might expect Myceneans were Z93.
Moreover, I was debating with him about the very existence of Greco-Aryan, because in light of recent language research, scholars have largely dismissed the idea of distinct 'language nodes'. They do not think that there was ever such a thing as 'proto-Celtic' (because there are no unique & isolate proto-Celtic innovations), let alone Italo-Celtic. Rather, Celtic came about later due to later phenomena of convergence and dialect levelling - as Agamemnon himself described. Such explanation can be extended to other sub-groups. Indeed, the very thing has been argued for Mycenean: proto-Mycenean only formed in Greece , when some speakers of late 'nuclear' PIE arrived, and adopted 'Aegeanisms'. So I reject the idea of a Greco-Aryan block, but if you want to use it as a short-hand, simple label of referring to 'late peri-Pontic IE dialects still in possible contact as late as 2500 -2000 BC which could have been, in part, ancestral to later Mycenean and Indo-Aryan, not to mention other, now extinct IE forms", then fine.

Now, without aDNA is just guesswork, and modern Greeks are poorly resolved for R1a sub-lineages. But from what Ive analysed - all Balkan R1a is nestled within north of the Danube R1a lineages at derived branches, like under L1029, and under CTS1211.
These cannot be "Mycenean lineages". So if pre-GReek IEs came with R1a-Z283*, then it appears to have vanished as if by magic.

Looking at what was probably present in Copper - EBA Greece: R1b-Z2103, I2a2, J2b, E-M78, etc.



TMRCA of CTS10228 was 2200 years ago, and this clade is the great majority of modern Balkan I2a. Ideas of "Paleolithic continuity" of I2a in the Balkans are funny, considering that most of it is from a single ancestor who lived around 200 BC, likely in Northern Ukraine.

Autosomal DNA shows that modern Montenegrins are very different from Iron Age and Bronze Age Montenegrins (Velika Gruda samples). So the idea that modern South Slavs are not genetically Slavic but rather "Slavicized local Balkan populations", is totally wrong.

I2a played a major role in Slavic expansions, just like I1 played a major (IMO the main) role in Germanic expansions.

I1 played a more important role in Germanic expansions than did R1b-U106, which is not exclusively Germanic in my opinion.

=====================================

http://s13.postimg.org/ossn8zu7r/I2a1b2a1.png

The distribution of I2a1b2 (L621) perfectly mirrors the historical extent of Slavic colonization in the Migration Period:

Most of this L621 is under CTS10228:

http://s16.postimg.org/7ttndgt8l/Hg_I_L_621_spatial_frequency_B.jpg

I know, it is afterall my map B)

At the moment I shy away from definite conclusions. New data always emerges which throws doubt on theories. We need Balkan aDNA badly.

leonardo
04-10-2016, 10:13 PM
I have recently shifted to thinking that Slavic expansion was mostly mediated through I2a men - see for example my posts here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4729-Were-Myceneans-lineages-R1b-or-R1a&p=150180&viewfull=1#post150180

On the other hand, R1a seems to be local "Baltoid" population descended from Corded Ware culture, which was later Slavicized:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6886-Greater-Poland-continuously-inhabited-during-the-Migration-Period&p=150297&viewfull=1#post150297

Mayber among South Slavs. certainly not among West Slavs, and there was a real expansion to the west as well.

Arch Hades
04-10-2016, 10:27 PM
Allentoft et al 2015 showed that Bronze and Iron Age Armenians were all R1b + E1b1b + J2.

My guess is the Mycenean Greeks of the Bronze age will be similar in Y chromosomal variation as well as overall autosomal structure, considering they're linguistically the most similar to Armenians and supposedly Greek and Armenian descend from a late and distinct common ancestor.

Until we get some aDNA we'll just have to wait. But as of now that's my best bet.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 10:39 PM
Greek is rather more closely related to Indo-Iranian than to Armenian.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 10:41 PM
Mayber among South Slavs. certainly not among West Slavs

All West Slavic populations have about 10% or more of I2a haplogroup (even though Poles have the smallest %).

Lithuanians and Latvians - however - have close to zero percent of I2a hg.

On the other hand, Balts have lots of R1a-M458 (contrary to some claims).

Moreover, some Slavs - for example Slovenes, Herzegovinians, Macedonians, Bosnians - have almost no M458, only Z280.

So the only marker which really connects all Slavs and disconnets them from Balts is actually I2a, not R1a-M458.

So the main agent in spreading Slavic languages was perhaps I2a rather than R1a-M458.

Arch Hades
04-10-2016, 10:44 PM
Greek is rather more closely related to Indo-Iranian than to Armenian.

Pretty sure most linguists consider Greco-Armenian is a subbranch of Greco-Armeno-Aryan.

So we would have Greco-Armeno-Aryan is a father language, Greco-Armenian splits off from Indo-Iranian..then later Greek and Armenian split.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 11:22 PM
Bronze and Iron Age Armenians were all R1b + E1b1b + J2.

Interestingly Assyrians - an ethnic group of Semitic origin - have a lot of R1b and J1, but not much of R1a:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?615-Assyrian-Y-DNA-Distribution

I'd like to see aDNA from Pre-Indo-European Middle East. Check this map of ancient Middle East languages:

https://s30.postimg.org/pmjclmks1/Languages+of+ME.png

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 11:35 PM
^^^ None of those languages were Indo-European:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurro-Urartian_languages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannaeans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaskian_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lullubi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassite_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elamite_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marhasi

But what haplogroups did those Non-IE people have?

Gravetto-Danubian
04-10-2016, 11:42 PM
Southern Germany is by no means the Germanic Urheimat. It is - on the other hand - the Urheimat of Hallstatt & La Tene cultures.

This makes me think, that R1b-L21 were not Celts, but speakers of some language which is extinct today. The real Celts were U106. So why do the Irish speak Celtic, you ask? Well, they don't anymore - they now speak English. But their DNA is still from Pre-Celtic Beakers.

So just get used to this fact - original R1b-L21 did not speak Celtic, they spoke an extinct language, which no longer exists!

Genetically Germans, Belgians and English people are more Celtic than the Irish or the Welsh. And this does make sense.

Ha. I'd like to see you tell this to the Bell Beaker Boys !

But I'd tend to agree. Early L21 was probably pre-Celtic, and later Celtic expanded west again through a variety of language processes, including possibly later movements of different P312 clades. Celtic, after all, is a Late Bronze Age language, not Copper Age. And apparently the Rathlin L21 isn't actually ancestral to any modern Irish L21 (?)
(sorry off topic)

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 11:42 PM
Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 could be a migration into the Steppe from areas south of the Caucasus.

But this would imply that R1b-Z2103 were originally Non-Indo-European speakers.

Because there are plenty of attested languages in Ancient Middle East, none of which was IE.

There is simply no room for Indo-European homeland to the south of the Caucasus.

There is more room for PIE homeland to the east or south-east of the Caspian Sea, though.

====================

BTW - Armenians are largely descended from Hurro-Urartians who became Indo-Europeaized:

"Hurro-Urartian borrowings in Old Armenian":

http://azargoshnasp.net/history/Hurrian/diaokonoff_hurro_armenian_borrowing.pdf

Arch Hades
04-10-2016, 11:57 PM
The problem with Yamnaya R1b being descended from south of the Caucasus is that there hasnt been found R1b that far south in prehistory yet. The Yamnaya are 50% CHG, but the CHG genomes we have both carried haplogroup J. [J* and J2a]. So my guess is that R1b found in Yamnaya is derived from the EHGs whom inhabited vast area north of the Caucasus from the Karelia region in the West to the Urals in the East. We've found R1a and R1b in EHGs.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 12:04 AM
there hasnt been found R1b that far south in prehistory yet.

Yes, but AFAIK we don't have any ancient Y-DNA at all from prehistoric Middle East. :biggrin1:

We only have samples from Western (and maybe Central?) Anatolian Neolithic so far.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 12:08 AM
And those three samples from Armenia.

Arch Hades
04-11-2016, 12:11 AM
Yes, but AFAIK we don't have any ancient Y-DNA at all from prehistoric Middle East. :biggrin1:

We only have samples from Western (and maybe Central?) Anatolian Neolithic so far.

Yeah, but we have 2 Mesolithic genomes from Georgia [CHGs] as well. They were J and J2a.

So we have like 2 dozen from Neolithic central and western Anatolian genomes, most of which are G2, along with some minor J2,C, and E1b1b which represent the early farmers circa 6,500 BC. And 2 Caucasus genomes which represent the CHGs dated to 8,000 BC and 11,000 BC.


So my money is definitely banking on R1 being nearly entirely confined to Eastern Europe and the steppe in pre history before Indo-European expansion. The R1b in bronze age Armenians represents geneflow from the North IMO.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 12:39 AM
central and western Anatolian genomes, most of which are G2, along with some minor J2,T, and E1b1b

There is no E1b1b and no T there. From Neolithic Western Anatolia 6500-5600 BCE we have:

1 x G2a2a1b1
2 x G2a2a1b
1 x G2a2a
1 x G2a2b2a1c
2 x G2a2b2a
1 x G2a2b
1 x G
2 x I2c
2 x H2
1 x H
1 x J2a
1 x C1a2

Haplogroups from Central Anatolia have not yet been published, actually. Unless I missed it.

Arch Hades
04-11-2016, 12:49 AM
OK, thanks I think you are right. I know we have found some early E1b1b in some European farmers [who are autosomally related to the Anatolian ones].

Didnt the farmers from Greece also carry G2? But we only have a few of them. It appears Neolithic Greece and West-Central Anatolia were racially exactly the same. Aegean farmer strain.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 12:52 AM
Yes, there is a bit of E1b1b (as well as T including T1a) from Neolithic Europe.

It could be from Anatolia, but we haven't found any of this in Anatolia so far.

There is also R1b-V88 (R1b1c) in Neolithic Europe, and in modern Sardinians.


Didnt the farmers from Greece also carry G2? But we only have a few of them

We only have one farmer from Greece, and he was G2 too.

Arch Hades
04-11-2016, 12:57 AM
I think we have a few farmers from Greece, but only 1 male farmer.


Anyway, to me it appears the homeland of J2 is in the Caucasus. There were some huge expansions from the Caucasus after 6,000 BC or so...some went North into the steppe but others went South and Into the Near East and Levant and Iran IMO.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 01:06 AM
Modern Sardinians are a really good proxy for Neolithic Europeans also in terms of Y-DNA, it seems.

In a sample of 1204 modern Sardinian men, there are the following haplogroups:

Haplogroup - # of Sardinians:

I2a1a - 465 ---> present in Mesolithic & Neolithic Europe
G2a - 131 ---> present in Neolithic Anatolia & Europe
E1b1b1 - 126 ---> present in Neolithic Europe
J2 - 98 ---> present in Neolithic Anatolia & Europe
R1b1c - 29 ---> present in Neolithic Europe
T - 28 ---> present in Neolithic Europe
I2c - 11 ---> present in Mesolithic Europe & Neolithic Anatolia
I2a2a - 10 ---> present in Megalithic Spain
F3 - 7 ---> present in Neolithic Europe

And also:

J1c - 63
R2a1 - 10
L - 8
A1b1b2b - 7
E1a1 - 6
Q1a3c - 1

And also:

I1-M253 - 2
I2a-M423 - 2

R1b-M269* - 10
R1b-L23* - 9
R1b-L151* - 3
R1b-P312* - 25
R1b-DF27 - 4
R1b-L21 - 2
R1b-L513 - 2

R1b-U152 - 128
R1b-U106 - 2

R1a-M458 - 6
R1a-Z280 - 5
R1a-Z93 - 4

So at least 905 out of 1204 Sardinians belong to Y-DNA which have been found in Neolithic Europe.

Arch Hades
04-11-2016, 01:09 AM
Modern Sardinians descend about 90% from Neolithic Europeans, and Neolithic farming Europeans descended about 90% from Neolithic Anatolians-Aegeans. Neolithic Europeans = 90% Anatolian farmer + 10% WHG.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 01:18 AM
Neolithic Europeans = 90% Anatolian farmer + 10% WHG.

This 10% WHG admixture is IMO underestimated, it was more.

And also already Western Anatolian farmers had 15% WHG.

Some WHG migrated to Anatolia and mixed with farmers there.

==============

BTW - WHG admixture rose gradually during the Neolithic period.

In Early Neolithic it was low, but as more hunters became assimilated into farming communities, it gradually increased. Also as farmers migrated westward and northward into Europe, WHG admixture also continued to increase.

So Iberian, Irish or Scandinavian farmers had much more of WHG than e.g. Greek farmers.

There are studies which show that intermarriage between EEF and WHG was very gradual:

https://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/16734_ENG_HTML.php

Even 2000 years after the arrival of farmers, "genetically pure WHG" existed in the region.

The two communities lived next to each other, but the gene flow was initially very limited.

Arch Hades
04-11-2016, 01:23 AM
For us to say that Anatolian farmers are 15% WHG, we have to first get farmers from the Levant or something, to see how they compare to the Anatolian ones.

When I say European farmers are 10% WHG on average, I mean they can be modeled accurately as getting 10% of their ancestry from local WHGs, and 90% of their ancestry from Anatolian farmers.

It is possible though the Levantine farmers will be a lot like Anatolian ones, but have less ancestry related to WHGs than Anatolian ones. Right now the Anatolian farmers are the standard of the 'pure' farmer until we get other farmers from Eastern Anatolia or the Levant region..where the Neolithic revolution first too place.


And yeah, agreed with everything else you say. When I said that European farmers were 10% WHG on average, i meant EEFs, Early European farmers. Later European farmers had more WHG ancestry. Modern Sardinians are 90% EEF.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 01:28 AM
Today around 40% of Sardinian Y-DNA is of WHG origin (I2 haplogroup).

In Eurogenes West_Eurasian K8 Sardinians score ~34% WHG autosomally:

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/blankmapeurope57nabwr3eh.png

Of course already Anatolian ENF farmers were ~15% WHG and ~15% of I2 haplogroup.

So Sardinians have ~20% "extra" WHG and ~25% "extra" I2 more than Anatolian ENF.

But still it seems that WHG Y-DNA is overrepresented compared to WHG autosomal DNA.

Suggesting that hunter-gatherer males were quite successful, surviving better than G2a.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 01:31 AM
to say that Anatolian farmers are 15% WHG, we have to first get farmers from the Levant or something, to see how they compare to the Anatolian ones.

It is enough that there was I2c and C1a2 - typically WHG Y-DNA - among Anatolian farmers.

And in all autosomal calculators they score this WHG admixture, so why shouldn't it be "real"?


we have to first get farmers from the Levant or something

Levantine farmers most probably did not have any I2 haplogroup and any WHG admixture.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 01:36 AM
Right now the Anatolian farmers are the standard of the 'pure' farmer

They were not "pure" farmer. They did have actual, real, WHG admixture.

I'm not sure why people doubt this. After all, it was at the gates of Europe.

Why should WHG hunters be unable to spread from Balkans to West Anatolia?

Gravetto-Danubian
04-11-2016, 01:52 AM
The problem with Yamnaya R1b being descended from south of the Caucasus is that there hasnt been found R1b that far south in prehistory yet.

It most likely did not on balance of current evidence, but you do realize only have 2 pre-Bronze Age samples form south of the Caucasus, and they're very old (Palaeolithic); not Eneolithic - Copper Age which would be more directly relevant.
We have seen Q and J in Mesolithic and Neolithic eastern Europe. We might see R1b in Eneolithic south Caspian region, given the complex cultural relationships which existed from the Pamirs to the steppe and south Caspian. Some autosomal analysis has even suggested that the "ANE" in the BA Armenian samples is not from the steppe, but from the lands to the East.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-11-2016, 01:57 AM
Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 could be a migration into the Steppe from areas south of the Caucasus.

But this would imply that R1b-Z2103 were originally Non-Indo-European speakers.

Because there are plenty of attested languages in Ancient Middle East, none of which was IE.

There is simply no room for Indo-European homeland to the south of the Caucasus.

There is more room for PIE homeland to the east or south-east of the Caspian Sea, though.



It's different strokes for different folks, and there is plenty of room. South of the Caucasus is different to north of the Caucasus. The north was a plain, less densely settled, and (we now know) central-eastern Yamnaya was basically all Z2103- which makes the case for its people being linguistically homogeneous not unreasonable.

But the area to the south of the Caucasus - 'Kura Araxes culture' - appears to have been more diverse. A more variegated landscape, different settlement forms, probably a greater diversity of haploid lineages, and quite probably different languages spoken (such as PIE, pre-Urartian. pre -Hattic, etc). We should not make the error of assuming Caucasian languages are 'native' to the region, and that only PIE was moving/ expanding. I'd bet several language familes were moving about at this time (4000 - 2000 BC). Nor should we assume what we later see in the proto-historic period is reflective of the situation in 3000 BC.
I agree that PIE most definitely did not come from Anatolia, but as you point out, it could have, in theory, come from the greater Geodrosia region. Certainly, Anatolian doesn't look like it came from the steppe->Balkans->Anatolia route for several reasons, which I won't elaborate on for now.

Whatever the case, in M3 - M2, it was IE languages which dominated Anatolia

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=anatolian+languages&biw=2207&bih=1033&tbm=isch&imgil=5SKqOuFF3OZzuM%253A%253B2Dy-4Y-OPRHVQM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Findo-european.info%25252Findoeuropean%25252Fanatolian-languages-maps-hittite-luwian-lydian-palaic-lycian-pisidian-carian-sidetic%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=5SKqOuFF3OZzuM%253A%252C2Dy-4Y-OPRHVQM%252C_&usg=__RmW0uVgQEZtUE_GC3W8qgRRdFag%3D&ved=0ahUKEwj4p6fwu4XMAhVCHaYKHZamAqgQyjcISA&ei=cQILV7irJMK6mAWWzYrACg

Arch Hades
04-11-2016, 01:59 AM
They were not "pure" farmer. They did have actual, real, WHG admixture.

I'm not sure why people doubt this. After all, it was at the gates of Europe.

Why should WHG hunters be unable to spread from Balkans to West Anatolia?


I agree, they likely will not be 100% pure farmer, but we don't know how much they descend from Levantine farmers vs WHGs until we actually get Levantine farmer genomes. Eurogenes' admixture runs are not based on samples which include Levantine farmers yet. So right now they are the standard of the pure farmer until we get Levantine ones. They are definitely representative of the earliest farmers who entered Europe, anyway.

Agamemnon
04-11-2016, 02:14 AM
But does their autosomal DNA confirm that they were Germanic in origin? I don't think so.

At least surely they weren't of recent Germanic origin - not first generation immigrants, but locals.

In fact, they look pretty similar to the Anglo-Saxon sample from an autosomal standpoint. Here, see for yourself, the yellow dots are the U106 gladiators (3DRIF-16 and 6DRIF-3) while the orange dot is the AS sample (NO3423):

http://pichoster.net/images/2016/04/11/Ancient_England.png

According to Davidski they also show elevated IBS affinity to Lithuanians and Poles. So I'd be really astounded if these guys happened to be native Britons.



Interestingly Assyrians - an ethnic group of Semitic origin - have a lot of R1b and J1, but not much of R1a:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?615-Assyrian-Y-DNA-Distribution

I'd like to see aDNA from Pre-Indo-European Middle East. Check this map of ancient Middle East languages:

https://s30.postimg.org/pmjclmks1/Languages+of+ME.png

Nice map, but as anyone who has ever taken a course in linguistics knows every map is inherently flawed, and this one has a handsome amount of flaws. First off the extent of Sumerian here is problematic, the territory ascribed to Sumerian fits with the Ur III dynasty (AKA "Neo-Sumerian empire"):

http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/m104/images/UrIII/Map__Roaf102.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Map_of_Ur_III.svg/672px-Map_of_Ur_III.svg.png

By that time much of Mesopotamia already was Akkadian-speaking, in fact all the new cities which emerged under the Ur III dynasty had Akkadian names. Sumerian was, for most of its history, entirely restricted to the nucleus of Sumerian civilisation (its city states):

http://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/196.png?v=1431030828

The Levant as a whole cannot be described as the cradle of Semitic, only the Southern Levant and parts of the Sinai fit the bill. Similarly, Central Semitic should encompass most of the languages spoken in the Levant (including Aramaic, so the map is anachronistic) minus Eblaite and South Semitic is an obsolete node. There's more but these are the most obvious flaws.

Most of the J1 in Assyrians is Z1842, which is also the main J1 branch in the Caucasus, and a vast majority of Assyrian R1b is Z2103.

Arch Hades
04-11-2016, 02:30 AM
In fact, they look pretty similar to the Anglo-Saxon sample from an autosomal standpoint. Here, see for yourself, the yellow dots are the U106 gladiators (3DRIF-16 and 6DRIF-3) while the orange dot is the AS sample (NO3423):

http://pichoster.net/images/2016/04/11/Ancient_England.png

According to Davidski they also show elevated IBS affinity to Lithuanians and Poles. So I'd be really astounded if these guys happened to be native Britons.




Wow, copper age Italians are basically EEFs/modern Sardinians. What are they dated to?

Agamemnon
04-11-2016, 02:34 AM
I've said previously, anything is possible, but for arguments sake, I was discussing with Agamemnon that if we are to entertain the said specific link between Mycenean and I-A, then we might expect Myceneans were Z93.
Moreover, I was debating with him about the very existence of Greco-Aryan, because in light of recent language research, scholars have largely dismissed the idea of distinct 'language nodes'. They do not think that there was ever such a thing as 'proto-Celtic' (because there are no unique & isolate proto-Celtic innovations), let alone Italo-Celtic. Rather, Celtic came about later due to later phenomena of convergence and dialect levelling - as Agamemnon himself described. Such explanation can be extended to other sub-groups. Indeed, the very thing has been argued for Mycenean: proto-Mycenean only formed in Greece , when some speakers of late 'nuclear' PIE arrived, and adopted 'Aegeanisms'. So I reject the idea of a Greco-Aryan block, but if you want to use it as a short-hand, simple label of referring to 'late peri-Pontic IE dialects still in possible contact as late as 2500 -2000 BC which could have been, in part, ancestral to later Mycenean and Indo-Aryan, not to mention other, now extinct IE forms", then fine.

Actually the concept of specific nodes hasn't been dismissed by scholars, it is still the working assumption for most classifications (which, of course, are hotly debated). Proto-Celtic is every bit as legitimate and real as Proto-Germanic and it does have innovations of its own (not retentions, innovations). Italo-Celtic is a valid branch, it clearly exhibits peculiar morphological innovations, in fact I'm baffled at how some people still deny this clade's validity, it's pretty damn obvious if you ask me. A good comparison would be Balto-Slavic, which is also a valid branch.
I fail to see how the emergence of Mycenaean Greek is due to a language leveling process quite frankly, I'm not saying it's impossible but it does seem far-fetched because we have a pretty solid picture of what was spoken in the Aegean during the Bronze Age, Proto-Greek is clearly intrusive and Mycenean looks like a relatively early offshot, none of the typical patterns of language leveling are to be found (extreme standardisation, huge gaps in divergence, etc).
The Graeco-Armeno-Aryan node, which is a clade of closely related late PIE dialects, makes a lot of sense from a purely morphological standpoint (and one can clearly see that Greek and Armenian form their own branch within this node), it makes even more sense if we're willing to study the morphophonological aspects of this relationship.


Wow, copper age Italians are basically EEFs/modern Sardinians. What are they dated to?

These are the Remedello samples from Allentoft et al. 2015 IIRC so late 4th millenium BCE to late 3rd millenium BCE (RISE486, RISE487 and RISE489; ~2134 BCE, ~3483 BCE and ~2908 BCE respectively).

Gravetto-Danubian
04-11-2016, 03:17 AM
Actually the concept of specific nodes hasn't been dismissed by scholars, it is still the working assumption for most classifications (which, of course, are hotly debated). Proto-Celtic is every bit as legitimate and real as Proto-Germanic and it does have innovations of its own (not retentions, innovations). Italo-Celtic is a valid branch, it clearly exhibits peculiar morphological innovations, in fact I'm baffled at how some people still deny this clade's validity, it's pretty damn obvious if you ask me. A good comparison would be Balto-Slavic, which is also a valid branch.
I fail to see how the emergence of Mycenaean Greek is due to a language leveling process quite frankly, I'm not saying it's impossible but it does seem far-fetched because we have a pretty solid picture of what was spoken in the Aegean during the Bronze Age, Proto-Greek is clearly intrusive and Mycenean looks like a relatively early offshot, none of the typical patterns of language leveling are to be found (extreme standardisation, huge gaps in divergence, etc).
The Graeco-Armeno-Aryan node, which is a clade of closely related late PIE dialects, makes a lot of sense from a purely morphological standpoint (and one can clearly see that Greek and Armenian form their own branch within this node), it makes even more sense if we're willing to study the morphophonological aspects of this relationship.


Aga, are you familiar with Andrew Garrett ?

Here is what he suggests

"What is crucial in this model is that at some early date – say, at the beginning of
the second millennium BCE – the dialects that were to become Celtic, or Italic, or
Greek, shared no properties that distinguished them uniquely from the other
dialects. The point is not simply that innovations could spread from one Indo—
European branch to another: this is well known. The point is that while there was
linguistic differentiation, the differentiation among dialects that were to become
Celtic, for example, was no more or less than between any pair of dialects. At this
time, there was no such thing as Celtic or Italic or Greek.

I am not rejecting the Stammbaum model in favor of the wave model, and I
am not saying that Proto—Indo—European was a dialect continuum, or that Indo—
European is the result of convergence, or anything along those lines. What I am
saying is this: there is no clear evidence for a historical – that is to say, in the
technical linguistic sense of the term, a genetic – Celtic or Italic or Greek subgroup
of Indo—European. These do not correspond to nodes on an Indo—European
Stammbaum. On the contrary, sometime in the third or second millennium BCE,
the Indo—European dialects of western and southern Europe formed a continuum This contained the ancestors of Celtic, Italic, and Greek, as well as Venetic and the
other ‘minor’ languages of the area, and no doubt other dialects that are now lost.
But there is no reason to assume that the ancestors of the later Celtic or Italic
languages, or of the Greek dialects, shared any exclusive set of innovations defining
them as distinct subgroups of Indo—European.

In short, according to the view I am advocating, the formation of a Celtic
subgroup of Indo—European, the formation of an Italic subgroup, and even the
formation of ‘Greek’ itself may have been secondary Sprachbund phenomena:
local responses to areal and cultural connections that could very well have arisen in
Greece, on the Italian peninsula, and in western and central Europe. These would
represent linguistic areas, not merely the final landing sites of three discrete Indo—
European subgroups after some millennial peregrination from the steppes. If this
view is right, it makes no sense to ask what route the speakers of ‘Proto—Greek’,
‘Proto—Italic’, or ‘Proto—Celtic’ followed from the Indo—European homeland: no
such languages existed, and no such populations. It is an accident of history that
these three families and apparent branches of Indo—European have arisen (or four,
if we restore Albanian to its place among the living). This accident reveals nothing
about Indo—European, its speakers, or the dispersal of Indo—European languages
and their speakers.


I'm not a linguist, so can only rely on what I encounter. An ongoing opposition to, say, italo - Celtic and Greco-Aryan by past and present (well informed) scholars cannot be a systematic brain failure, but must have basis. If so, then "Italo -Celtic" is nothing but western, late PIE; and Greco-Aryan nothing but an abstract grouping based on a bundle of (a) shared inheritances of a southern late PiE & (b) later contact processes due to territorial contiguity of Armenian, I-A and Greek

Arch Hades
04-11-2016, 05:16 AM
These are the Remedello samples from Allentoft et al. 2015 IIRC so late 4th millenium BCE to late 3rd millenium BCE (RISE486, RISE487 and RISE489; ~2134 BCE, ~3483 BCE and ~2908 BCE respectively).

So I take it Remedello can't be Indo-European then? Even though it's thought to have been by some.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 08:37 AM
Yes, Remedello people were not admixed by Indo-Europeans.

ffoucart
04-11-2016, 08:47 AM
The conquest of Saxons by the Frankish Empire lasted around four decades (years 772 - 804).

We don't know how many died and how many survived, but sources indicate that losses were very heavy. For example in year 782 Charlemagne massacred 4500 Southern Saxon captives. In 795-798 there was enslavement and forcible population transfers of Northern Saxons. In year 804 Charlemagne expelled over 10,000 Northern Saxon families to Gaul - their descendants speak French today, and are no longer parts of the gene pool of modern Germans. In 798 in the battle of Bornhöved 3000-4000 Saxons were killed. These are just some examples of war crimes and casualties inflicted by Charlemagne and his allies against Pagan Saxons - there were more casualties for sure.

About the massacre of 4500 captured Saxon warriors in 782: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden

What is now Northern Germany was largely devastated and depopulated during those wars.

Saxon lands were then largely re-populated by western settlers coming from Western Francia.

This is probably the reason why 23andMe cannot genetically distinguish French people from Germans today (see the link):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5236-23andme-s-quot-German-Problem-quote

The same process (depopulation + repopulation by Western settlers) later took place after crusades against Pagan Slavs.

You can read about this for example in the following book:

Gerald Stone, "Slav Outposts in Central European History: The Wends, Sorbs and Kashubs"

1st: using "war crime" is a bit ridiculous. The notion is recent, and could not apply to ancient times.

2d: the numbers are clearly overestimated. No massive replacement of the population in Saxony took place at the time, only some changes in the elites. As in Alamannia after Cannstatt.
Remember that most of the casualties were noble or free men. Other males stayed alive (too old, too young, not free, not part of the rebellion).

Look at the Annales Corbeienses: some of the names (most in fact) are clearly Saxonish not Frankish. So many Saxon landowners remained in Saxony after the Conquest. One of them became the monk Widukind of Corvey, probably a relative of the Saxons former leader.

You can't compare with the settlement of the East Marches (Slavic) by colons, as in most cases, the settlement was organized locally by the local lords or princes, and took place in a far longer period of time.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-11-2016, 10:02 AM
The Levant as a whole cannot be described as the cradle of Semitic, only the Southern Levant and parts of the Sinai fit the bill. Similarly, Central Semitic should encompass most of the languages spoken in the Levant (including Aramaic, so the map is anachronistic) minus Eblaite and South Semitic is an obsolete node. There's more but these are the most obvious flaws.

Most of the J1 in Assyrians is Z1842, which is also the main J1 branch in the Caucasus, and a vast majority of Assyrian R1b is Z2103.

Would the Semitic cradle extend to early southern Mesopotamia (Ubaind, Uruk) ? If not, what do you think was spoken there ?

ADW_1981
04-11-2016, 02:33 PM
Based on the aDNA evidence, there is a strong argument that R1b arose somewhere in modern Russia, the downstream branches of M269 likely west of the Urals based on various Yamnaya results.

Ossetians: CTS9219->Y5587
South Balkans: CTS9219->BY611

MRCA in CTS9219: ~2300 BC

For whatever it's worth...maybe nothing, but I think it's worth noting.

Michał
04-11-2016, 02:48 PM
What is the country with the highest percentage of U106 among M269 according to McDonald? Let's see, it is Austria:

In Austria M269 = 27%, U106 = 23%, which means that 85% of all Austrian R1b is U106.

That Austrian sample was extremely small (n=18), which means it included only 5 cases of R1b. This is definitely not enough to claim that Austria (or Southern Germany) was an epicenter of the U106 expansion (or that U106 was the main haplogroup associated with the Celtic expansion, as suggested in your scenario). Also, this Austrian sample seems to be (more or less) the same sample that was used by Underhill in his R1a study (and he found 5 R1a cases there), so I guess you will need to modify your scenario by assuming that it was rather the mixture of R1a (including Z93, M458 and Z280>CTS1211, all present in that Austrian sample) and R1b-U106 that was most strongly associated with the Celtic expansion. ;)

BTW, the South German sample from the same study (Myres et al.) was substantially larger than the Austrian one (n=91 vs n=18) and included a much larger proportion of R1b (45.1% as opposed to 27,7% in Austria) where R1b-U106 was actually slightly less common than R1b-P312 (19.8% and 20.9%, respectively), which is consistent with the most commonly accepted hypothesis that the Proto-Celtic-speaking population was rich in some subclades under the "Italo-Celtic" clade R1b-P312, while both R1b-U106 and I1 arrived to South Germany mostly with the Germanic speakers.

Michał
04-11-2016, 03:16 PM
Both R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 are also older than the Graeco-Aryan split as dated by linguists.
The same can be said about R1a-Z284 and R1a-CT4385 (not to mention R1b-P312, R1b-V88, etc.), but this does not indicate that any of those clades were associated with the putative Graeco-Aryans.

Do you know any subclade under M458 or under Z280 (or generally under Z283) that would be specifically associated with that hypothetical Greaco-Aryan population (as I assume you don't claim that M458 or Z280 as a whole could have been associated with those Graeco-Aryans)? If not, than I don't see anything in the available Y-DNA data that would favor the existence of such a hypothetical Proto-Greaco-Aryan population, although I consider it quite likely that there were some intensive contacts between the speakers of Proto-Indo-Iranian (or Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian) and the speakers of Proto-Greaco-Armenian (or Proto-Daco-Thraco-Graeco-Armenian), which likely corresponded to some early contacts between R1a-Z93 and R1b-Z2103 (and which is actually documented by the Poltavka findings).

George
04-11-2016, 03:17 PM
That Austrian sample was extremely small (n=18), which means it included only 4 cases of U106. This is definitely not enough to claim that Austria (or Southern Germany) was an epicenter of the U106 expansion (or that U106 was the main haplogroup associated with the Celtic expansion, as suggested in your scenario). Also, this Austrian sample seems to be (more or less) the same sample that was used by Underhill in his R1a study (and he found 5 R1a cases there), so I guess you will need to modify your scenario by assuming that it was rather the mixture of R1a (including Z93, M458 and Z280>CTS1211, all present in that Austrian sample) and R1b-U106 that was most strongly associated with the Celtic expansion. ;)

BTW, the South German sample from the same study (Myres et al.) was substantially larger than the Austrian one (n=91 vs n=18) and included a much larger proportion of R1b (45.1% as opposed to 27,7% in Austria) where R1b-U106 was actually slightly less common than R1b-P312 (19.8% and 20.9%, respectively), which is consistent with the most commonly accepted hypothesis that the Proto-Celtic-speaking population was rich in some subclades under the "Italo-Celtic" clade R1b-P312, while both R1b-U106 and I1 arrived to South Germany mostly with the Germanic speakers.

Just one more of the countless indicators that languages, ethna, states etc. simply and as a rule cannot be associated with any single Y-DNA subclade, but are complex (sometimes very complex) combinations of such.

Michał
04-11-2016, 03:33 PM
Iain McDonald places U106's TMRCA around 4650 yBP, if anything his estimate is bound to be more correct than YFull's (at least that's what I'd expect since he's bound to have better coverage overall).

I would rather agree with Tomenable in this particular case (but this has been already discussed elsewhere: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4710-R1b-U106-in-Swedish-Battle-Axe-Culture-%28a-Corded-Ware-subgroup%29&p=95524&viewfull=1#post95524)

Michał
04-11-2016, 05:11 PM
All West Slavic populations have about 10% or more of I2a haplogroup (even though Poles have the smallest %).
There are some more exceptions, including the Lusatian Sorbs (3/123, 2.4% for I2a-M423), so I definitely agree with leonardo that explaining the expansion of the Early Slavs with the contribution of I2a-CTS10228 only does not make much sense.


Lithuanians and Latvians - however - have close to zero percent of I2a hg.
On the other hand, Balts have lots of R1a-M458 (contrary to some claims).
The frequency of M458 among the Balts is not only relatively low (when compared to the neighboring Slavic populations, especially the Poles) but there are also no Baltic-specific subclades under M458 that would be sufficiently old to be derived from the pre-Slavic (or proto-Baltic) times, so all these Baltic M458 lineages are parts of the much larger (and slightly older) Slavic clades. This is in a strong contrast to Z280 where the existence of relatively old Baltic-specifc subclades is quite evident.



Moreover, some Slavs - for example Slovenes, Herzegovinians, Macedonians, Bosnians - have almost no M458, only Z280. This part of the Balkan peninsula shows indeed relatively low frequency of M458, yet the R1a-M458 level in Bosnia (3.8%), Macedonia (3.8%), Serbia (3.5%) and Slovenia (2.2%) is actually not much lower than the frequency of I2a-M423 among the Lusatian Sorbs (2.4%) or Pomeranians/Kashubians (2.5%), which quite clearly indicates that this simply reflects some local differences regarding the relative contribution of all three major "Slavic" haplogroups.



So the only marker which really connects all Slavs and disconnets them from Balts is actually I2a, not R1a-M458.
So the main agent in spreading Slavic languages was perhaps I2a rather than R1a-M458.
I agree that I2a-CTS10228 is definitely a very important factor here, but excluding M458 from the Proto-Slavic population just doesn't make any sense IMO. Assuming that M458 was associated with the local pre-Slavic population in Poland (Przeworsk and Wielbark) would make it almost impossible to explain why the frequency of M458 is so high among the Russians (12,9%, 79/612) Ukrainians (13.5%, 67/498) and Belarussians (15.4%, 56/364), especially when knowing that these are almost exclusively some relatively young "Pan-Slavic" subclades that are of about the same age as I2a-CTS10228, so it is practically impossible that they expanded from Poland (both eastward and southward) at the same time when I2a expanded westward and southward from the Ukrainian Proto-Slavic homeland.

Agamemnon
04-11-2016, 08:24 PM
So I take it Remedello can't be Indo-European then? Even though it's thought to have been by some.

Well there is no 1:1 correlation between genes and languages but yes, the lack of Yamna-related admixture and the overall similarity to Neolithic farmers does a big disfavour to that theory.

Arch Hades
04-11-2016, 08:39 PM
Well there is no 1:1 correlation between genes and languages but yes, the lack of Yamna-related admixture and the overall similarity to Neolithic farmers does a big disfavour to that theory.

My guess is they were not, but then I wonder what time in history we start getting folks that are genetically like modern Northern Italians in N. Italy?

Agamemnon
04-11-2016, 09:03 PM
Would the Semitic cradle extend to early southern Mesopotamia (Ubaind, Uruk) ? If not, what do you think was spoken there ?

If the cradle of Semitic had to extend beyond the southern Levant, Negev and Sinai, it would be in NW Arabia. As for your second question, it is a fascinating and difficult one, I for one do not think Sumerian was native to Southern Mesopotamia, I think it came from somewhere else (probably from the Iranian plateau or Northern Mesopotamia) but this is just an assumption I cannot prove. I think the linguists who've picked up a substratum in Sumerian are onto something, I just disagree with the nature of this substratum or even the genetic affiliation they associate it with. In general I tend to take the claim of genetic relationship between ancient Near Eastern isolates (Hattian, Kaskian, Hurro-Urartian, etc) and Caucasian languages seriously, despite the fact that many of the claims themselves rely on sheer speculation and flawed methodology. These relationships need to be investigated further, confirmed or infirmed so that we might get a less blurry picture of the Near East's linguistic landscape, the main problem here is that the extent of our knowledge of these languages (written in a variation of the cuneiform script) is comparable to what we know about proto-languages.

All in all, I think Caucasian-like languages were far more common by the past, that Semitic clearly is an intrusive branch of AA in the Middle East's linguistic landscape, that a less blurry picture of the region's linguistic prehistory can only enhance our knowledge of the languages spoken in Europe prior to the Holocene and I strongly suspect that Sumerian was intrusive in Southern Mesopotamia.


My guess is they were not, but then I wonder what time in history we start getting folks that are genetically like modern Northern Italians in N. Italy?

I'd wager LBA and Early IA Italians would look more familiar but that's just a wild guess.


I would rather agree with Tomenable in this particular case (but this has been already discussed elsewhere: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4710-R1b-U106-in-Swedish-Battle-Axe-Culture-%28a-Corded-Ware-subgroup%29&p=95524&viewfull=1#post95524)

I'm also enclined to agree per se, however Iain McDonald is bound to have a better overview than YFull, nevertheless YFull underestimating U106's TMRCA would only make sense.

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 08:53 PM
Here are 12 Y-DNA samples from Görzig (Saxony-Anhalt) from the 300s-400s AD:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6635-Holy-Roman-Empire-amp-Migration-Period-Ancient-DNA-from-Germany&p=144929&viewfull=1#post144929

I1 --------------------------------------------------------- 7 (~58%)
I (likely I2 but can be some Russian clade of I1) ---- 1 (~8%)
R1b ------------------------------------------------------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (most likely R1a, or some eastern R1b) ----------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (likely R1b but can be R1a-Z284 or L664) -------- 2 (~17%)

Location of Görzig:

http://www.postleitzahl.org/sachsen_anhalt/images/karte_g%C3%B6rzig.png

This shows that Ancient Germania was dominated by I1, not by R1b like today.

In this sample I1 is between 58% and 67%, while in modern Germany just 16%.

========

Here is why:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6635-Holy-Roman-Empire-amp-Migration-Period-Ancient-DNA-from-Germany&p=151448&viewfull=1#post151448

Tomenable
04-17-2016, 12:09 AM
In fact, they look pretty similar to the Anglo-Saxon sample from an autosomal standpoint. Here, see for yourself, the yellow dots are the U106 gladiators (3DRIF-16 and 6DRIF-3) while the orange dot is the AS sample (NO3423):

http://pichoster.net/images/2016/04/11/Ancient_England.png

According to Davidski they also show elevated IBS affinity to Lithuanians and Poles. So I'd be really astounded if these guys happened to be native Britons.

Check these Supplementary Figures (especially Table 9, Table 10 and Figure 12):

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10326/extref/ncomms10326-s1.pdf

And also Figure 2 here: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10326/pdf/ncomms10326.pdf

Figure 12 shows that 3DRIF-16 shows affinities to Scots, Lithuanians-Poles and Welsh, while 6DRIF-3 shows affinities to Irish, Welsh and Lithuanians-Poles. By contrast, the Anglo-Saxon NO3423 shows affinities to Irish, Welsh and Norwegians.

This makes perfect sense for NO3423, since Norwegians are Germanic and he was too - at least partially.

By contrast, neither Poles nor Lithuanians are Germanic. 3DRIF-16 and 6DRIF-3 were most likely as well not.

There is no proof that their Y-DNA (U106) was foreign. They could be Celtic paternally, but with foreign mothers.

For example mtDNA hg of 3DRIF-16 was H6a1a and mtDNA hg of 6DRIF-3 was J1b1a1.

H6a1a was found in Corded Ware and in Srubnaya, both associated with Satem languages and with R1a paternal hg:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

The highest frequency of J1b1a1 - 3,4% (9/267) - is in Belarus and also 2% (9/440) among East Balts, see the link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z4KyIlcQpgXBhgOJS3Cc7Q1fdVQj-FWZ_Fwj5C4lnjI/edit#gid=1484072995

3DRIF-16 and 6DRIF-3 are actually more "exotic" for British standards in terms of mtDNA than in terms Y-DNA.

=======================

To sum up:

In my opinion 3DRIF-16 and 6DRIF-3 were of mixed Celtic and Balto-Slavic ancestry, with their Y-DNA - R1b-U106 - coming from Celtic paternal ancestors, and their mtDNA - J1b1a1 and H6a1a - coming from Balto-Slavic maternal ancestors.

Tomenable
04-17-2016, 12:21 AM
In fact, they look pretty similar to the Anglo-Saxon sample from an autosomal standpoint.

Actually, the Iron Age (Pre-Roman) sample looks even more autosomally similar to the Anglo-Saxon sample.

That Anglo-Saxon himself was most likely of mixed Celtic-Germanic ancestry, rather than of purely immigrant stock.

But he shows affinities to Norwegians (apart from his affinities to Insular Celts), not to Lithuanians and/or Poles.

=================

BTW, Figure 12 shows that one of Roman-era samples has affinities to modern Germans - it is 6DRIF-18.

6DRIF-18 has affinities to modern Welsh, Irish and Germans, but his Y-DNA is typically British R1b-L21.

His mtDNA haplogroup is H1b, described H1bs (is there such a thing or was it supposed to be H1b5 ???).

Tomenable
04-17-2016, 09:03 AM
Most of U106 in Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands is probably from Ancient Belgae:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/images/Belgica.jpg

Heber
05-15-2016, 04:20 AM
Does anyone have any opinions on the Sea People's and where they came from.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2087924-world-war-zero-brought-down-mystery-civilisation-of-sea-people/?utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=SOC&utm_campaign=hoot&cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2016-GLOBAL-hoot

"Egyptian texts describe raids on Cyprus and Syria by the 'Sea Peoples.'
The researchers suggest these mysterious attackers are actually the Luwians.
It's argued that the many Luwian-speaking petty kingdoms and western Asia Minor, a peninsula also called Anatolia, joined together in a coalition to attack the neighbouring Hittites.
After destroying the Hittite empire, the Luwians ruled a massive territory from Northern Greece to Lebanon, the researchers say.
They were later destroyed during the Trojan War, when the Mycenaean kings joined together to fight them."

Luwian Studies
One year after the go-live of the Luwian Studies website in Turkish, the complete site is now also available in English and German. Following its principle of open access to material that is relevant for future investigations, Luwian Studies also made the database of over 340 Middle and Late Bronze sites in western Asia Minor available online. Users will find the exact coordinates, the periods represented at each site, references to the relevant literature, a complete bibliography, photos of the site and – by the end of 2016 – a short description of each site.

http://luwianstudies.org/

14 May 2016
The foundation Luwian Studies today announced the go-live of its website in English and German as well as the publication of a book entitled “The Luwian Civilization – The Missing Link in the Aegean Bronze Age”. The book contains virtually all the texts and most of the illustrations that make up the English version of the website. People who are interested in the Middle and Bronze Age in western Asia Minor now have the choice to read up on it either online or in the form of a book. The book is authored by Eberhard Zangger and published by Ege Yayınları, Istanbul. It contains 292 pages and 148 color illustrations and is available as of now (ISBN 978-605-9680-11-0).

THE LUWIANS: A LOST CIVILIZATION COMES BACK TO LIFE

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNyA90f_aw

http://pin.it/CC47_Jg

George Chandler
05-15-2016, 10:52 PM
One of the more interesting aspects of who were the "Sea Peoples" is that they are never identified. You would expect the main powers in the region to know who the locals were because of trade, war etc but they are never identified. That makes me suspect that they weren't a local Eastern Mediterranean group. I've always wondered if they were a group of pre Etruscan's who moved to the coast and quickly evolved into a maritime group.

George

Kanenas
06-01-2016, 08:54 PM
double post.

Kanenas
06-01-2016, 08:55 PM
Frequencies of haplogroups in modern populations can be misleading, especially when you have biases. I am pretty sure there wansn't any R1a in Myceneans.

R1b wan't part of the Proto-Greeks either. It could have been part of Classical Greeks, especially Ionians since they absorbed Anatolian IE people. Note the following, though. I don't know if many people know it but many Byzantine Emperors, especially before 1000 AD were linguistically hellenized Armenians. And when the Byzantines lost the control of Peloponnese to 'Sclavenes' they settled families from Constantinople to Peloponnesus.

Phrygians who were probably related to Greeks (or the Thracians) colonized Anatolia and Armenia in Antiquity. R1b could have been the Urartian (=non IE) haplogroup and J2 the Balkan IE one in their case.

I saw that we found J2 and E1b1b in Sopot, Hungary (5000 BC). There was plenty of I2a and some I1 even I think nearby. These people could have spoken the same language and this language could have been Indo-European. Why not?

I personally believe that the Proto-Greeks could have been a part of a similar population (J2 and E1b1b). They could have had some I also but I was the predominant haplogroup of the Thracians or the Getae at least imo.

Also, the people who invented farming were just G2a probably. Other people just adopted farming. The Pelasgians of Thessaly could have been G2a. Concerning the Minoans I don't rule out anything but in Homer apart from Greeks and Eteocretans (the descendants of 'Minoans' for some) there were also Pelasgians in Crete. Almost 10% of modern Cretans belong to G2.

The_Lyonnist
12-31-2016, 07:15 PM
Maybie E Also.

Dibran
03-22-2017, 03:10 PM
Good catch. I didn't realize the south Slavic groups had fewer M458. So assuming Z283 is Mycenaean, would M458 correspond to Thracians, Macedonians, or Dacians, or both?

I did notice I2a is dominant in south slavs. I still find it strange that R1a is still painted as Slavic with a broad stroke.

Considering the sample sizes pulled from in general regarding all haplogroups, it is likely that much assumptions will turn on their head once DNA testing becomes more common.

I think the balkans has what, no more than a few thousand test samples?

Excluding testers outside the Balkans, the data is still relatively sparse compared to the sheer population size.

Sure the haplogroups can be estimated for the rest of the males and females of a family once you have a testers haplogroup.

Let's assume everyone in Greece decided to take the test. The layout of haplogroups could change.

It could perhaps go from E-V13 being dominant to R1b etc etc.

Too few samples to make any certain conclusions. Only well educated guesses.

alan
03-26-2017, 06:36 PM
As a centum group that also is meant to be closest to non-Centum but Z2103-rich Armenians, I suspect there may originally have been an Z2103 core. They diverged by c. 1800BC according to Warnow et al (for what its worth). So if there was a loss of Z2103 among the ancestors of the Greeks but not the Armenians then I guess it is unlikely to have happened before that. My guess is the Mycenaean Greek elite were Z2103-rich and that they may have installed their early Greek over groups with different y-DNA origins before their collapse and so their linguistic impact was more lasting and dominant than their y-DNA impact. Many of the groups who arose after the Greek Dark Age may then have been not been dominated by the Mycenaean y-lineages and may have resembled something closer to modern Greece.

The post-dark age dialect closest to Mycenaean was Arcado-cypriot/ southern Achaean which was spoken in Arcadia (the landlocked central mountainous part of the Peloponnese) and in Cyprus. The Peloponnese is the really big island south of the south-west of the Greek mainland and north of Crete. The settlement in Cyprus is stated to be secondary and due to the pre-Dorian northern Achaeans (who also spoke this Mycenaean-like dialect until then) fleeing there.

So, I suspect there might have been a post-Greek dark age reservoir of Mycenaean y-lineages i.e. Z2103 in those places. There has been a lot of history since then but it would be interesting to know if Z2103 peaks in those areas today.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-26-2017, 07:40 PM
I'll go for

EV13
j2s
G2
R1b-Z2103
I2a2-M223
Maybe R1a-Z93

Broadly..

But at detailed levels, only 25% continuity between Bronze Age and modern Greeks

Principe
03-26-2017, 08:31 PM
I'll go for

EV13
j2s
G2
R1b-Z2103
I2a2-M223
Maybe R1a-Z93

Broadly..

But at detailed levels, only 25% continuity between Bronze Age and modern Greeks

Seems very reasonable, for G I would go specifically for G-M406 and for J2 I would go for J2b-L283 lineages.

Bane
03-26-2017, 08:50 PM
As an experiment, can we try to transpose the main question to this one:
Do you think there was a distinguishable genetic inflow to Southern Greece as a consequence of Bronze Age Collapse, and if yes which Y-DNA haplogroups could represent that newly arrived population?

Hando
03-27-2017, 02:54 AM
As an experiment, can we try to transpose the main question to this one:
Do you think there was a distinguishable genetic inflow to Southern Greece as a consequence of Bronze Age Collapse, and if yes which Y-DNA haplogroups could represent that newly arrived population?
From where are you suggesting his genetic inflow to Southern Greece came from? From northern Greece or near east?

Bane
03-27-2017, 07:42 AM
From where are you suggesting his genetic inflow to Southern Greece came from? From northern Greece or near east?

I'd say it came from the North. I don't see Y-DNA which could come from Near East at that time (Late Bronze age).

Gravetto-Danubian
03-27-2017, 08:09 AM
From where are you suggesting his genetic inflow to Southern Greece came from? From northern Greece or near east?

The 'Bronze Age collapse' was part of a larger series of events across the Mediterranean. For Greece in particular, it is said to coincide with the 'Dorian invasions'. The Dorians were jsut another Greek tribe, but of a different dialect to that Arcado-Cypriate of the Myceneans. Whatever the various legends and myths suggests, the Dorians were likely in Greece the whole time, but perhaps moving in from (north)western parts (Epirus) and taking over the former Mycenean citadels, which concentrated on the (south)East of mainland GReece.

Bane
03-27-2017, 08:27 AM
The 'Bronze Age collapse' was part of a larger series of events across the Mediterranean. For Greece in particular, it is said to coincide with the 'Dorian invasions'. The Dorians were jsut another Greek tribe, but of a different dialect to that Arcado-Cypriate of the Myceneans. Whatever the various legends and myths suggests, the Dorians were likely in Greece the whole time, but perhaps moving in from (north)western parts (Epirus) and taking over the former Mycenean citadels, which concentrated on the (south)East of mainland GReece.

My conclusion from your post is that you believe there was no significant Y-DNA which came to Southern Greece at the end of the Bronze age?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-27-2017, 08:38 AM
My conclusion from your post is that you believe there was no significant Y-DNA which came to Southern Greece at the end of the Bronze age?

Maybe at the level of sub-sub-lineages; relative shifts in frequency of existing clades, etc

Gravetto-Danubian
03-27-2017, 08:39 AM
delete

Bane
03-27-2017, 09:23 AM
Reason for my belief (considerable new Y-DNA arrival) is analogy with the fall of Roman Empire. There are knowledgable people claiming that the late Bronze Age events were bigger on a "disaster scale" when compared to more recent and far better understood end of the Late antiquity. As we all know the latter is even called "Migration period".

Gravetto-Danubian
03-27-2017, 09:37 AM
Reason for my belief (considerable new Y-DNA arrival) is analogy with the fall of Roman Empire. There are knowledgable people claiming that the late Bronze Age events were bigger on a "disaster scale" when compared to more recent and far better understood end of the Late antiquity. As we all know the latter is even called "Migration period".

I think it's possible
So which *new* haplogroups do you propose arrived?

Bane
03-27-2017, 10:01 AM
I think it's possible
So which *new* haplogroups do you propose arrived?

By using method of elimination I see these as probable candidates E-V13, J-L283 and R-P312. It might be some of those were not new to Southern Greece at the time, but if new Y-DNA was really introduced at the end of the Bronze Age then I see no other possibilities except these three.

The_Lyonnist
03-27-2017, 08:48 PM
By using method of elimination I see these as probable candidates E-V13, J-L283 and R-P312. It might be some of those were not new to Southern Greece at the time, but if new Y-DNA was really introduced at the end of the Bronze Age then I see no other possibilities except these three.

Not I2 ?

Bane
03-27-2017, 09:11 PM
Not I2 ?

Vast majority of I2 in the Balkans belongs to I-CTS10228 and I-M223 branches.

Based on ancient DNA I think we have a reason to believe I-M223 had been in Greece before the period we are discussing here.
With I-CTS10228 it was most likely opposite case. One of the main reasons I believe it did not come to Greece until start of the Common Era is Magna Graecia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Graecia). If it had been in Greece at the beginning of the first Millennium BCE we would today have I-CTS10228 in Southern Italy, and that is not the case. There is actually a growing consensus that I-CTS10228 mainly spread with the Slavs.

Hence, I-M223 was already there and I-CTS10228 came much later.

Skerdilaidas
03-27-2017, 09:48 PM
Most likely R1b (PH7562+, PH7563+) initially.

Principe
03-27-2017, 10:28 PM
Most likely R1b (PH7562+, PH7563+) initially.

R1b-PH7562 is also found in Southern Italy as well, I think it makes total sense that this line could have came in through the Magna Graecia migrations, good catch.

Skerdilaidas
03-27-2017, 10:52 PM
R1b-PH7562 is also found in Southern Italy as well, I think it makes total sense that this line could have came in through the Magna Graecia migrations, good catch.

It's still very diverse in Italy and the Balkans from what I have seen, especially PF7563. Most likely though in Italy came via Adriatic, at least good part of it, during early bronze age (perhaps some even later during Iron age and beyond?).

Principe
03-27-2017, 11:15 PM
It's still very diverse in Italy and the Balkans from what I have seen, especially PF7563. Most likely though in Italy came via Adriatic, at least good part of it, during early bronze age (perhaps some even later during Iron age and beyond?).

I would not be able to answer that question of when it came, from the research that I did it is much more common in the South, I agree with you too, I think this line from the Adriatic side as well possibly through the Greeks and Illyrians, maybe some earlier (maybe I.E. expansion?).

Hando
03-28-2017, 02:34 AM
Most likely R1b (PH7562+, PH7563+) initially.
Are you suggesting this was the Mycenaean ydna or that it came into southern Greece during the Bronze Age collapse?

Skerdilaidas
03-28-2017, 03:03 AM
Are you suggesting this was the Mycenaean ydna or that it came into southern Greece during the Bronze Age collapse?

Correct. Probably it was reinforced during the collapse as well.

ADW_1981
03-28-2017, 11:33 AM
There is a fellow over at Eupedia who claims he has access to the Nat Geo haplotypes from Greece and the surrounding area. I cannot validate his statement. He might post over here.

Piquerobi
05-23-2017, 12:07 PM
We still don't know! Researchers have just published several results of samples from Southeast Europe but unbelievably no Mycenaean samples were tested.

An interesting lecture on the the Mycenaeans (and the Minoans):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUm-A1MYlYc

Jean M
05-23-2017, 01:39 PM
There is a fellow over at Eupedia who claims he has access to the Nat Geo haplotypes from Greece and the surrounding area. I cannot validate his statement. He might post over here.

Modern DNA? We already have plenty of it. Only ancient DNA will sort out the complex prehistory of Greece.

kostop
10-19-2017, 12:28 PM
According to this study, the Mycenean (and Minoan) samples tested were found to be J2.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7666/full/nature23310.html

Barellalee
03-27-2018, 09:05 AM
I'd be interested to see. From Campania in South Italy, my Maternal Ancestors were Z2105*. This group is very typical of South Italy, and peaks in Calabria at 24%. It is common nowhere north or west of the Italian Peninsular South, but also heavily spread across the Balkans, Near East and Caucuses. I've been told it's Ancient Greek Colonial in Southern Italy, but I don't really agree with this. Not only is Z2105*/Z2105* more common in Calabria than parts of Greece, but it's heavy across all of the Italian South on a uniform pattern and appears at 0% in other Mediterranean areas of old Greek Settlement. To me, I see the Metal Ages or Neolithic as a more plausible source.

persman@yahoo.com
07-02-2018, 11:28 PM
there is actually two hypothesis about myceneans
1- relationship between proto indo-iranian(R1a-Z93) language and proto greek , if so , mycenean lineage could be related or a subclade of R1a-Z93
2- relationship between phrigian & armanian and proto greek ,according to this one which seems to be more reasonable than graco-aryan hypothesis the mycenean lineage could also be R1b-Z2103 or a little cautious consider them part of earlier R1b-L23

ms85
07-02-2018, 11:33 PM
there is actually two hypothesis about myceneans
1- relationship between proto indo-iranian(R1a-Z93) language and proto greek , if so , mycenean lineage could be related or a subclade of R1a-Z93
2- relationship between phrigian & armanian and proto greek ,according to this one which seems to be more reasonable than graco-aryan hypothesis the mycenean lineage could also be R1b-Z2103 or a little cautious consider them part of earlier R1b-L23 They found J2a1 in Mycenaeans.

rms2
07-03-2018, 01:07 PM
They found J2a1 in Mycenaeans.

Which was found also in the non-Indo-European Minoans who preceded the Mycenaeans.

Recall too that we have only one y-dna result from the Mycenaeans. We need more, and we especially need some from Mycenaean elites.

That one J2a1 Mycenaean was pretty obviously not Indo-European in his y-dna line. He acquired his steppe dna via another line that was mediated by a female.

Y-DNA Results from Lazaridis et al, Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans (August 2017), Nature, Volume 548, 10 August 2017 -

From Table S3.2, Supplementary Information, page 53:

I2495 Anatolia_BA J1a(xJ1a2b)

I0070 Minoan_Lasithi J2a1d

I0073 Minoan_Lasithi J2a1(xJ2a1a, J2a1b1a, J2a1b2, J2a1c, J2a1e, J2a1h, J2a1i)

I9130 Minoan_Odigitria G2a2b2a(xG2a2b2a1b1a2a, G2a2b2a1c1a)

I9041 Mycenaean J2a1(xJ2a1a, J2a1b1, J2a1b2, J2a1c, J2a1e, J2a1g, J2a1h, J2a1i)

ms85
07-03-2018, 01:19 PM
Which was found also in the non-Indo-European Minoans who preceded the Mycenaeans.

Recall too that we have only one y-dna result from the Mycenaeans. We need more, and we especially need some from Mycenaean elites.

That one J2a1 Mycenaean was pretty obviously not Indo-European in his y-dna line. He acquired his steppe dna via another line that was mediated by a female.

Y-DNA Results from Lazaridis et al, Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans (August 2017), Nature, Volume 548, 10 August 2017 -

From Table S3.2, Supplementary Information, page 53:

I2495 Anatolia_BA J1a(xJ1a2b)

I0070 Minoan_Lasithi J2a1d

I0073 Minoan_Lasithi J2a1(xJ2a1a, J2a1b1a, J2a1b2, J2a1c, J2a1e, J2a1h, J2a1i)

I9130 Minoan_Odigitria G2a2b2a(xG2a2b2a1b1a2a, G2a2b2a1c1a)

I9041 Mycenaean J2a1(xJ2a1a, J2a1b1, J2a1b2, J2a1c, J2a1e, J2a1g, J2a1h, J2a1i)By the time of the 1500BCE when Mycenaean civilization flourished, all people were already Mycenaeans. Mycenaeans were clearly for a huge part J2a1, like the modern day people of that area who are also for a big part J2a1 and Indo-European. Are modern day Greeks who are J2a1 also not Indo-European, lol?

proto-Anatolians and the Hittites were also J2a.

It doesn't matter among which 'other' people J2a was found. The fact is that they found it also among inside the Mycenaean civilization, among the ancient Indo-European people and they still find it among the Indo-European people.

Also R1b and R1a predate any Indo-Europeans. R1b is in Africa and R1a is high among Turkic and other Mongoloid people. R1a and R1a mean nothing at all.


J2a1 is clearly hardcore early PIEan and made part of the very early PIEans.

rms2
07-03-2018, 02:55 PM
By the time of the 1500BCE when Mycenaean civilization flourished, all people were already Mycenaeans.

Great, but the non-Indo-European Minoans who preceded the Mycenaeans had J2a1, as well, proving it did not arrive in the Aegean with the Indo-Europeans but was already there ahead of them.



Mycenaeans were clearly for a huge part J2a1,

Thus far we have only one Mycenaean y-dna result. One isn't exactly huge, especially since the same y-dna haplogroup was borne by the non-Indo-European Minoans who preceded the Mycenaeans in the Aegean.

If none of the non-Indo-European Minoans had been J2a1, then a J2a1 result among the Mycenaeans might have been a big deal. But two of the four Minoan y-dna results were J2a1, so, sorry, no cigar.



like the modern day people of that area who are also for a big part J2a1 and Indo-European. Are modern day Greeks who are J2a1 also not Indo-European, lol?

Whenever someone types "lol" in response to something that is not a joke, I cannot help but picture a teenaged girl, like my youngest daughter, at the keyboard. You're not doing your cause any favors using such juvenilisms.

We are discussing the original, ancient, and early Indo-Europeans, not Indo-Europeanized peoples. Thus far it doesn't look like J2a1 was one of the earliest Indo-European y-dna haplogroups. If it were, it would not have appeared among the clearly non-Indo-European Minoans and would be showing up in Indo-European groups in Europe, like Yamnaya, Corded Ware, and Kurgan Bell Beaker.



proto-Anatolians and the Hittites were also J2a.

We're not sure we have any real Hittites or other Anatolian Indo-Europeans yet. The remains thus far tested were likely to be non-IE Hatti or "Hittites" whose ancestors were almost entirely non-IE Hatti.



It doesn't matter among which 'other' people J2a was found. The fact is that they found it also among inside the Mycenaean civilization, among the ancient Indo-European people and they still find it among the Indo-European people.

It does matter, because the non-Indo-European Minoans preceded the Mycenaeans, had no steppe dna, and were J2a1.

To those without an ethnic agenda blinding them, it's pretty obvious that ONE Mycenaean y-dna result came from a man whose y-dna line was Minoan and not Indo-European.



Also R1b and R1a predate any Indo-Europeans.

Lame. First, no one is saying Indo-European arose with R1b-M343 or among men who were merely R1b-M343*.

Second, there is no reason to think that because a y haplogroup or subclade is older, even considerably older, than either the inception or expansion of a language that it therefore cannot be connected to speakers of that language. All that is required is for the great bulk of that haplogroup or subclade to become speakers of that language early enough to spread with it so that the distribution of the haplogroup or subclade and that of the language roughly coincide.

Third, historical linguists tell us the Urheimat of early Indo-European is the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and they tell us about when it arose. We know how Indo-European subsequently spread and which groups were responsible. The y-dna haplogroups we find there and among those early peoples are the ones associated with the original Indo-Europeans, i.e., R1b-L23, R1a-M417, and I2a-L699.



R1b is in Africa and R1a is high among Turkic and other Mongoloid people.

R1b-V88, which is L389- and separated from the line leading to R1b-M269 about 17,000 years ago, is found among some modern Africans.

The Turks assimilated quite a few different peoples in their advance across the Eurasian steppe comparatively recently, in waves beginning in about the 6th century BC. They swept up people living on the steppe who once spoke Indo-European languages. They did the same thing with the Greeks and others living in Anatolia, which, of course, is now called Turkey.

If having modern Turkic speakers in their ranks disqualifies R1b and R1a from early Indo-European status, then - GONG! - there goes J2a1.



R1a and R1a mean nothing at all.

I think you meant R1b and R1a. It's all those ancient Indo-European R1b and R1a y-dna test results that mean something: a lot, actually.



J2a1 is clearly hardcore early PIEan and made part of the very early PIEans.

You seem to think that if you merely assert something enough times, despite evidence that it is manifestly false, that makes it true. It doesn't.

J2a1 was found among the non-Indo-European Minoans, who had no steppe dna. It was found in one Mycenaean who did have steppe dna. Most reasonable people would see that and conclude that that Mycenaean was simply a Minoan in his y-dna line but belonged to a people who had been Indo-Europeanized through the agency of an Indo-European steppe people.

Let's see what happens when more Mycenaean y-dna test results come in, especially from the graves of the elites.

jdean
07-03-2018, 03:44 PM
delete

jdean
07-03-2018, 03:52 PM
Also R1b and R1a predate any Indo-Europeans


J2a1 is clearly hardcore early PIEan

: )))))))

ms85
07-03-2018, 03:53 PM
Great, but the non-Indo-European Minoans who preceded the Mycenaeans had J2a1, as well, proving it did not arrive in the Aegean with the Indo-Europeans but was already there ahead of them.



Thus far we have only one Mycenaean y-dna result. One isn't exactly huge, especially since the same y-dna haplogroup was borne by the non-Indo-European Minoans who preceded the Mycenaeans in the Aegean.

If none of the non-Indo-European Minoans had been J2a1, then a J2a1 result among the Mycenaeans might have been a big deal. But two of the four Minoan y-dna results were J2a1, so, sorry, no cigar.



Whenever someone types "lol" in response to something that is not a joke, I cannot help but picture a teenaged girl, like my youngest daughter, at the keyboard. You're not doing your cause any favors using such juvenilisms.

We are discussing the original, ancient, and early Indo-Europeans, not Indo-Europeanized peoples. Thus far it doesn't look like J2a1 was one of the earliest Indo-European y-dna haplogroups. If it were, it would not have appeared among the clearly non-Indo-European Minoans and would be showing up in Indo-European groups in Europe, like Yamnaya, Corded Ware, and Kurgan Bell Beaker.



We're not sure we have any real Hittites or other Anatolian Indo-Europeans yet. The remains thus far tested were likely to be non-IE Hurrians or "Hittites" whose ancestors were almost entirely non-IE Hurrians.



It does matter, because the non-Indo-European Minoans preceded the Mycenaeans, had no steppe dna, and were J2a1.

To those without an ethnic agenda blinding them, it's pretty obvious that ONE Mycenaean y-dna result came from a man whose y-dna line was Minoan and not Indo-European.



Lame. First, no one is saying Indo-European arose with R1b-M343 or among men who were merely R1b-M343*.

Second, there is no reason to think that because a y haplogroup or subclade is older, even considerably older, than either the inception or expansion of a language that it therefore cannot be connected to speakers of that language. All that is required is for the great bulk of that haplogroup or subclade to become speakers of that language early enough to spread with it so that the distribution of the haplogroup or subclade and that of the language roughly coincide.

Third, historical linguists tell us the Urheimat of early Indo-European is the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and they tell us about when it arose. We know how Indo-European subsequently spread and which groups were responsible. The y-dna haplogroups we find there and among those early peoples are the ones associated with the original Indo-Europeans, i.e., R1b-L23, R1a-M417, and I2a-L699.



R1b-V88, which is L389- and separated from the line leading to R1b-M269 about 17,000 years ago, is found among some modern Africans.

The Turks assimilated quite a few different peoples in their advance across the Eurasian steppe comparatively recently, in waves beginning in about the 6th century BC. They swept up people living on the steppe who once spoke Indo-European languages. They did the same thing with the Greeks and others living in Anatolia, which, of course, is now called Turkey.

If having modern Turkic speakers in their ranks disqualifies R1b and R1a from early Indo-European status, then - GONG! - there goes J2a1.



I think you meant R1b and R1a. It's all those ancient Indo-European R1b and R1a y-dna test results that mean something: a lot, actually.



You seem to think that if you merely assert something enough times, despite evidence that it is manifestly false, that makes it true. It doesn't.

J2a1 was found among the non-Indo-European Minoans, who had no steppe dna. It was found in one Mycenaean who did have steppe dna. Most reasonable people would see that and conclude that that Mycenaean was simply a Minoan in his y-dna line but belonged to a people who had been Indo-Europeanized through the agency of an Indo-European steppe people.

Let's see what happens when more Mycenaean y-dna test results come in, especially from the graves of the elites.Since modern Greeks evolved directly from the Mycenaeans, they got their J2a from the Mycenaeans. And Greeks are for a HUGE part J2a. That means that the Mycenaeans were for a HUGE part J2a.

Since early PIEan is from the 'Armenian Plateau' of course ealy PIEans and other non-Indo Euopean people would share some same Y-DNA haplogroups. Some people of J2a became early PIEan and some became somebody else. Nothing special about it.

Yamnaya -> CWC etc. are just a late SECOND stage of Indo-Europeanized people. Early PIEan people were West Asian like the Mycenaeans and the Hittites.


Before Yamnaya the Pontic-Caspian steppe was Uralic/Mongoloid. EHG auDNA is partly a Mongoloid auDNA. There is already an agreement that Pontic-Caspian steppe was only a LATE second stage PIEan homeland. Early FIRST stage PIEan homeland was in West Asia. We have got DNA as evidence!

First R1a or R1b had NOTHING to do with the PIEans. R1a and R1b in Europe is just bottle necked due to the elite dominance from Yamnaya. But Yamnaya was just a second stage of PIEans


The fact is that they found a Mycenaeans Y-DNA from the Mycenaean era and region and it was J2a1. This is absolutely not a coincident. Modern Greeks evolved from the Mycenaeans and modern Greeks have a lot J2a.

Steppes people before Yamnaya have alway been Uralic/Mongoloid. Early PIEans from Maykop Indo-Europeanized the Yamnaya Horizon

ms85
07-03-2018, 03:59 PM
: )))))))
R1b and R1a in Europe is not diverse at all. It is al the same due to a mass production. It was bottle necked due to the 'elite dominace' of LATE PIEans from the Yamnaya Horizon.

R1b and R1a in the Steppes that predate Yamnaya culture was clearly Uralic/Mongoloid. Before Yamnaya people in the Steppes spoke Finno-Ugric and Sibero-Altaic dialects.

I belong to a R1a* that predate any Indo-Europeans in the Steppes. My R1a* is much older than any PIEans and it is a great evidence that R1a* could also be different people.



J2a is a different since it was already part of the early FIRST stage of PIEan from West Asia. Leyla Tepe -> Maykop -> Yamnaya

Principe
07-03-2018, 04:02 PM
Since modern Greeks evolved directly from the Mycenaeans, they got their J2a from the Mycenaeans. And Greeks are for a HUGE part J2a. That means that the Mycenaeans were for a HUGE part J2a.

Since early PIEan is from the 'Armenian Plateau' of course ealy PIEans and other non-Indo Euopean people would share some same Y-DNA haplogroups. Some people of J2a became early PIEan and some became somebody else. Nothing special about it.

Yamnaya -> CWC etc. are just a late SECOND stage of Indo-Europeanized people. Early PIEan people were West Asian like the Mycenaeans and the Hittites.


Before Yamnaya the Pontic-Caspian steppe was Uralic/Mongoloid. EHG auDNA is partly a Mongoloid auDNA. There is already an agreement that Pontic-Caspian steppe was only a LATE second stage PIEan homeland. Early FIRST stage PIEan homeland was in West Asia. We have got DNA as evidence!

First R1a or R1b had NOTHING to do with the PIEans. R1a and R1b in Europe is just bottle necked due to the elite dominance from Yamnaya. But Yamnaya was just a second stage of PIEans


The fact is that they found a Mycenaeans Y-DNA from the Mycenaean era and region and it was J2a1. This is absolutely not a coincident. Modern Greeks evolved from the Mycenaeans and modern Greeks have a lot J2a.

Steppes people before Yamnaya have alway been Uralic/Mongoloid. Early PIEans from Maykop Indo-Europeanized the Yamnaya Horizon

Just to let you know, the Mycenaean who was J2a was J2a-Z6057 which was also found in the Neolithic Sopot and Lengyl Cultures which would make J2a-Z6057 a Neolithic farmer lineage.

Secondly majority of J2a in Greece probably came in with the migrants who sparked the Cycladic Culture and Minoans.

ms85
07-03-2018, 04:07 PM
J2a1 was found among the non-Indo-European Minoans, who had no steppe dna. It was found in one Mycenaean who did have steppe dna. Most reasonable people would see that and conclude that that Mycenaean was simply a Minoan in his y-dna line but belonged to a people who had been Indo-Europeanized through the agency of an Indo-European steppe people.

Let's see what happens when more Mycenaean y-dna test results come in, especially from the graves of the elites.J2a was from the very first hour among the first Mycenaean when West Asian Mycenaeans came into existance. Without J2a there would never be Mycenaeans at the first place. West Asian J2a gave existance to the Mycenaeans.

Mycenaeans came into the existance and arose around the Aegeans out of the West Asian auDNA. Without it there would never exist as Mycenaeans at the first place.

They found 1 Y-DNA and it was already J2a, an immediate hit a BULLSEYE. It says something about the dominance of J2a among the Mycenaean. Modern Greeks evolved from the Mycenaean and modern Greeks have a lot J2a, that means they got those HUGE amounts of J2a from the Mycenaeans.


Same story with the proto-Anatolians and Hittites, proto-Iranians, Western Iranians, Armenians etc....

Principe
07-03-2018, 04:11 PM
J2a was from the very first hour among the first Mycenaean when West Asian Mycenaeans came into existance. Without J2a there would never be Mycenaeans at the first place. West Asian J2a gave existance to the Mycenaeans.

Mycenaeans came into the existance and arose around the Aegeans out of the West Asian auDNA. Without it there would never exist as Mycenaeans at the first place.

They found 1 Y-DNA and it was already J2a, an immediate hit a BULLSEYE. It says something about the dominance of J2a among the Mycenaean. Modern Greeks evolved from the Mycenaean and modern Greeks have a lot J2a, that means they got those HUGE amounts of J2a from the Mycenaeans.


Same story with the proto-Anatolians and Hittites, proto-Iranians, Western Iranians, Armenians etc....

Honestly try to understand the Phylogenetic tree of J2a before make huge statements, like I wrote to you in the other post the J2a found in the Mycenaean was J2a-Z6057 which was also found in Neolithic cultures from Hungary and Croatia.

ms85
07-03-2018, 04:13 PM
Just to let you know, the Mycenaean who was J2a was J2a-Z6057 which was also found in the Neolithic Sopot and Lengyl Cultures which would make J2a-Z6057 a Neolithic farmer lineage.

Secondly majority of J2a in Greece probably came in with the migrants who sparked the Cycladic Culture and Minoans.Never forget that Mycenaeans came AFTER the Minoans. During the era of the Mycenaeans in the Mainland Greece, Minoans didn't exist anymore. Minoans died out and Mycenaeans succeeded them. Without J2a there would never be a Mycenaean race, because Mycenaean race was born nowhere else but around the Aegeans and J2a hugely contributed to the birth of the Mycenaean race.

Modern-day Greeks have their J2a directly from the Mycenaeans since the Mycenaeans are LAST direct ancestors of the Greeks.

jdean
07-03-2018, 04:15 PM
R1b and R1a in Europe is not diverse at all.

We know, this was the the crux of the argument against the Iberian Refugium theory back before we had aDNA.

However that wasn't what you were arguing, was it : ))


Also R1b and R1a predate any Indo-Europeans

ms85
07-03-2018, 04:20 PM
Honestly try to understand the Phylogenetic tree of J2a before make huge statements, like I wrote to you in the other post the J2a found in the Mycenaean was J2a-Z6057 which was also found in Neolithic cultures from Hungary and Croatia.See my last post.

Also,


Like any haplogroup of course also J2a predate any people who spoke an Indo-Euopean dialect. But J2a was already part of the EARLY first stage PIEans from West Asia.

Some ancient J2a people started to speak early PIEan dialect, while other J2a folks spoke non-IE dialects. Y-DNA lineages don't have any monopoly on language dialects. Y-DNA lineages don't have any monopoly on language dialects. They are liquid, like water and can rise in every population.


What matter more is auDNA! And West Asian auDNA is spread all over the ancient world!

rms2
07-03-2018, 04:20 PM
Since modern Greeks evolved directly from the Mycenaeans, they got their J2a from the Mycenaeans. And Greeks are for a HUGE part J2a. That means that the Mycenaeans were for a HUGE part J2a.

First off, thanks for re-opening this discussion away from the Steppe Bell Beaker thread and in a thread where it is on topic.

Please try to understand that J2a1 was found in the non-Indo-European Minoans, thus it was in Greece and the Aegean prior to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans (regardless of where they came from), so J2a among modern Greeks cannot be attributed to the early Indo-Europeans.

It also means that you cannot assume, based on a single Mycenaean y-dna result, that the Mycenaeans were mostly J2a1.



Since early PIEan is from the 'Armenian Plateau' of course ealy PIEans and other non-Indo Euopean people would share some same Y-DNA haplogroups. Some people of J2a became early PIEan and some became somebody else. Nothing special about it.

No, it is not. The consensus among historical linguists is that the Indo-European homeland is the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

The Armenian Plateau did not share the border early Indo-European must have had with Proto-Uralic, and the glottalic hypothesis of Ivanov and Gamkrelidze (the source of the Armenian Urheimat idea) has been discredited.



Yamnaya -> CWC etc. are just a late SECOND stage of Indo-Europeanized people. Early PIEan people were West Asian like the Mycenaeans and the Hittites.

There is no evidence that is true.

The Mycenaeans were primarily European with a toehold in Anatolia at the time the Hittites controlled most of it.



Before Yamnaya the Pontic-Caspian steppe was Uralic/Mongoloid. EHG auDNA is partly a Mongoloid auDNA. There is already an agreement that Pontic-Caspian steppe was only a LATE second stage PIEan homeland. Early FIRST stage PIEan homeland was in West Asia. We have got DNA as evidence!

There is no such agreement, and there is no evidence that "[b]efore Yamnaya the Pontic-Caspian steppe was Uralic/Mongoloid".

The vast weight of the ancient dna and linguistic evidence is on the side of the Pontic-Caspian steppe as the PIE Urheimat.



First R1a or R1b had NOTHING to do with the PIEans. R1a and R1b in Europe is just bottle necked due to the elite dominance from Yamnaya. But Yamnaya was just a second stage of PIEans

That's a bald assertion based your other bald assertions and contrary to the actual ancient dna evidence.



The fact is that they found a Mycenaeans Y-DNA from the Mycenaean era and region and it was J2a1. This is absolutely not a coincident. Modern Greeks evolved from the Mycenaeans and modern Greeks have a lot J2a.

Again, we have one Mycenaean y-dna result. It was J2a1 just like that of the non-Indo-European Minoans who controlled the Aegean before the advent of the Mycenaeans.

The logical implication is that that one Mycenaean had a non-Indo-European y-dna line that stemmed from the Minoans.



Steppes people before Yamnaya have alway been Uralic/Mongoloid. Early PIEans from Maykop Indo-Europeanized the Yamnaya Horizon

CHG-like autosomal dna was present on the steppe before Maykop, so it cannot be attributed to Maykop.

Additionally, if Maykop Indo-Europeanized the steppe, where are the J, L, and G y-dna haplogroup results, coupled with steppe dna, among the ancient Indo-European steppe pastoralists like Yamnaya and their offshoots, Corded Ware, Kurgan Bell Beaker, Vucedol, etc.?

After all, those were the y-dna haplogroups of Wang et al's Caucasian cluster from Maykop, and you yourself are claiming J2a was "huge" among Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Principe
07-03-2018, 04:22 PM
Never forget that Mycenaeans came AFTER the Minoans. During the era of the Mycenaeans in the Mainland Greece, Minoans didn't exist anymore. Minoans died out and Mycenaeans succeeded them. Without J2a there would never be a Mycenaean race, because Mycenaean race was born nowhere else but around the Aegeans and J2a hugely contributed to the birth of the Mycenaean race.

Modern-day Greeks have their J2a directly from the Mycenaeans since the Mycenaeans are LAST direct ancestors of the Greeks.

The Mycenaeans did come after the Minoans, but they did co-exist for roughly 450-600 years depending on who you ask. What really brought the Minoans down (rather slow down) was the eruption of Thera in 1650 BC, Minoans really never recovered and the Mycenaeans started dominating Crete. The Minoans had colonies all through out the Aegean and were very influential to the Mycenaean state of Pylos.

Point 2 Minoan Y dna (so far 3 samples) and 2 turned out to be J2a and specifically J2a-M319 which is still the most common J2a subclade on the island of Crete (this means continuation) and is pretty frequent amongst Mainland Greeks, J2a-M319 preceds Mycenaeans.

IronHorse
07-03-2018, 04:26 PM
E-V13, because it expanded in the Middle Bronze Age.

Nive1526
07-03-2018, 04:26 PM
The presence and persistence of J2a1 in Greece surely trashes the assumption of a large invasion of "highly warlike ect." IE horseriders who replaced most of the native male lineages of defenseless peaceful farmers, at least in this part of Europe and I think it will be replaced by alternatives in other places too.
But the connection of J2(a1) with PIE is still far fetched. It would require Minoan and Etruscan not to be language isolates, but PIE-derived. And there is a huge methodical problem because PIE is constructed from modern languages and probably contains a lot systematic errors and artifacts while Minoan and Etruscan are attested, but long dead and only from few fragments. Who will ever know?
My explanation for J2a, from Greece to Italy and even J2a-L70 in Britain is the spreading during the copper, bronze and iron age, alongside with technology and high culture, but not with Indoeuropean languages. The connection to metallurgy and a likely non-IE language is pretty evident in Etruscans, who for one part descend from Urnfield-derived indoeuropean speaking Villanovans that were de-IEanized somewhere between the start of the local iron age and the classical Etruscan timeframe by a J2 rich population.

ms85
07-03-2018, 04:28 PM
We know, this was the the crux of the argument against the Iberian Refugium theory back before we had aDNA.

However that wasn't what you were arguing, was it : ))I was arguing that ancient pre-Yamnaya R1a and R1b lineages predate any PIEans by thousands of years. And only R1b from Yamnaya Horizon was part of the LATE second stage PIEans who Indo-Europeanized Europe due to the elite dominance.


Truth, first wave of R1a folks came from the Iranian plateau with the Neolithic farmers. But those early Neolithic farmers PREDATED any PIEans. They were later on assimilated by the native Finno-Ugrian and Sibero-Altaic folks. Before Yamnaya, R1a people the Steppes spoke most likely Finno-Ugrian and Sibero-Altaic dialects, since the Steppes are the Original homeland of the Mongoloid people.


In the Steppes and NorthEast Europe there is also a lot exotic N1c1 and Q1a lineages. Just look how much of it is in the Baltics.

rms2
07-03-2018, 04:29 PM
Just to let you know, the Mycenaean who was J2a was J2a-Z6057 which was also found in the Neolithic Sopot and Lengyl Cultures which would make J2a-Z6057 a Neolithic farmer lineage.

Thanks for that information. I was not aware of that refinement and was working merely from what appeared in Lazaridis et al (2017).

Pretty obviously that one Mycenaean's y-dna line was of Old European Neolithic farmer origin, and he acquired his steppe dna via a line mediated by one or more females.



Secondly majority of J2a in Greece probably came in with the migrants who sparked the Cycladic Culture and Minoans.

I agree with that. That makes the most sense.

ms85
07-03-2018, 04:40 PM
First off, thanks for re-opening this discussion away from the Steppe Bell Beaker thread and in a thread where it is on topic.

Please try to understand that J2a1 was found in the non-Indo-European Minoans, thus it was in Greece and the Aegean prior to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans (regardless of where they came from), so J2a among modern Greeks cannot be attributed to the early Indo-Europeans.

It also means that you cannot assume, based on a single Mycenaean y-dna result, that the Mycenaeans were mostly J2a1.



No, it is not. The consensus among historical linguists is that the Indo-European homeland is the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

The Armenian Plateau did not share the border early Indo-European must have had with Proto-Uralic, and the glottalic hypothesis of Ivanov and Gamkrelidze (the source of the Armenian Urheimat idea) has been discredited.



There is no evidence that is true.

The Mycenaeans were primarily European with a toehold in Anatolia at the time the Hittites controlled most of it.



There is no such agreement, and there is no evidence that "[b]efore Yamnaya the Pontic-Caspian steppe was Uralic/Mongoloid".

The vast weight of the ancient dna and linguistic evidence is on the side of the Pontic-Caspian steppe as the PIE Urheimat.



That's a bald assertion based your other bald assertions and contrary to the actual ancient dna evidence.



Again, we have one Mycenaean y-dna result. It was J2a1 just like that of the non-Indo-European Minoans who controlled the Aegean before the advent of the Mycenaeans.

The logical implication is that that one had a non-Indo-European y-dna line that stemmed from the Minoans.



CHG-like autosomal dna was present on the steppe before Maykop, so it cannot be attributed to Maykop.

Additionally, if Maykop Indo-Europeanized the steppe, where are the J, L, and G y-dna haplogroup results, coupled with steppe dna, among the ancient Indo-European steppe pastoralists like Yamnaya and their offshoots, Corded Ware, Kurgan Bell Beaker, Vucedol, etc.?

After all, those were the y-dna haplogroups of Wang et al's Caucasian cluster from Maykop, and you yourself are claiming J2a was "huge" among Proto-Indo-Europeans.There is NO consensus among the historical linguists at all. Some believe in Steppe Model and some believe (like Colin Renfrew, Ivanov etc.) that PIEan is from West Asia.

Glottalic hypothesis of Ivanov and Gamkrelidze has not been discredited at all. There is already an UPDATE of it. Early FIRST stage PIEan was an ergative language and had many links with the southern Caucasian languages. There is no ERGATIVITY in the Steppes at all. Early PIEan is clearly from West Asia.


The Mycenaeans lived in Europe (what was ancient Europe at the first place?), but their DNA was predominately Anatolian/West Asian, period. At the very first Y-DNA sample there was already a BULLSEYE that Mycenaeans were J2a folks. Once again, modern Greeks evolved from them, and Greeks have a lot J2a.


There is ancestry from Mykop in Southern parts of Yamnaya, like in Yamnaya Ukraine Ozera etc. Also, after Maykop, CHG/Iran_N auDNA increased in the Steppes. Just look at thre pre-Yamnaya Samara region and post-Yamnaya Samara area.

Principe
07-03-2018, 04:40 PM
Thanks for that information. I was not aware of that refinement and was working merely from what appeared in Lazaridis et al (2017).

Pretty obviously that one Mycenaean's y-dna line was of Old European Neolithic farmer origin, and he acquired his steppe dna via a line mediated by one or more females.



I agree with that. That makes the most sense.

My pleasure, the raw data shows him being positive for 3 snps of Z6057. Even this J2a-Z6057 result in Mycenaeans is a strong point for Steppe Expansion, and I’ll explain how.

See J2a-Z6057 and E-V13’s ancestor has been found in Neolithic Cultures around Hungary and Croatia at the moment, these lines both have quite large bottlenecks until middle Bronze Age meaning they got a boost, this would also be the time when IE movements into the Balkans became more prominent, as an example Mycenaeans appear right after Middle Bronze Age. So this makes sense of course these were not the main lineages but the expanded with the original IE markers.

rms2
07-03-2018, 04:46 PM
The presence and persistence of J2a1 in Greece surely trashes the assumption of a large invasion of "highly warlike ect." IE horseriders who replaced most of the native male lineages of defenseless peaceful farmers, at least in this part of Europe and I think it will be replaced by alternatives in other places too.
But the connection of J2(a1) with PIE is still far fetched. It would require Minoan and Etruscan not to be language isolates, but PIE-derived. And there is a huge methodical problem because PIE is constructed from modern languages and probably contains a lot systematic errors and artifacts while Minoan and Etruscan are attested, but long dead and only from few fragments. Who will ever know?
My explanation for J2a, from Greece to Italy and even J2a-L70 in Britain is the spreading during the copper, bronze and iron age, alongside with technology and high culture, but not with Indoeuropean languages. The connection to metallurgy and a likely non-IE language is pretty evident in Etruscans, who for one part descend from Urnfield-derived indoeuropean speaking Villanovans that were de-IEanized somewhere between the start of the local iron age and the classical Etruscan timeframe by a J2 rich population.

I think in southern Europe the early Indo-Europeans ran into a much larger and more advanced population than the one they encountered in central and northern Europe, which is why the Mycenaeans had steppe dna but diluted down to about 13-18% (per Lazaridis et al), which is similar to the levels at the other end of southern Europe, in Iberia.

Gimbutas said the Indo-Europeans who invaded Greece were small bands who formed ruling elites. They did not come in numbers large enough to affect a big population replacement.



A study of the physical type of the population shows that the Kurgan warrior groups were not massive in numbers and did not eradicate the local inhabitants.110 They came in small migrating bands and established themselves forcefully as a small ruling elite.

IronHorse
07-03-2018, 04:48 PM
What about G-L13 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-L13/) ? the Y-full distribution may not be representative, but FTDNA G-U1 project a relatively good amount of it in the Balkans https://www.familytreedna.com/public/G-U1?iframe=ymap

It's also all over the Middle East: Levant, Yemen, Iran, for a G lineage that's so young, an unexplainable pattern.

ms85
07-03-2018, 04:49 PM
The Mycenaeans did come after the Minoans, but they did co-exist for roughly 450-600 years depending on who you ask. What really brought the Minoans down (rather slow down) was the eruption of Thera in 1650 BC, Minoans really never recovered and the Mycenaeans started dominating Crete. The Minoans had colonies all through out the Aegean and were very influential to the Mycenaean state of Pylos.

Point 2 Minoan Y dna (so far 3 samples) and 2 turned out to be J2a and specifically J2a-M319 which is still the most common J2a subclade on the island of Crete (this means continuation) and is pretty frequent amongst Mainland Greeks, J2a-M319 preceds Mycenaeans.Not only Grete, but the whole Greece (Hellenic world) was for a big part J2a. They found J2a in Mycenaean state during the highest point of the Mycenaean Civilization.


I think that Minoans were mostly Y-DNA hg. 'E' people with some minor J2a. Y-DNA HG. 'E' was most dominant haplogroup in the Balkans before the Indo-Europeans. But it is true that J2a is very ancient in the Aegeans. J2a arrived in the Aegeans during the Neolithic Era and brought by the West Asian Neolithic Anatolian Farmers.

But later after another wave from West Asia during the era of the Mycenaeans J2a became even more prominent in the Aegeans.

rms2
07-03-2018, 04:51 PM
My pleasure, the raw data shows him being positive for 3 snps of Z6057. Even this J2a-Z6057 result in Mycenaeans is a strong point for Steppe Expansion, and I’ll explain how.

See J2a-Z6057 and E-V13’s ancestor has been found in Neolithic Cultures around Hungary and Croatia at the moment, these lines both have quite large bottlenecks until middle Bronze Age meaning they got a boost, this would also be the time when IE movements into the Balkans became more prominent, as an example Mycenaeans appear right after Middle Bronze Age. So this makes sense of course these were not the main lineages but the expanded with the original IE markers.

That makes a lot of sense. A Neolithic farmer y-dna lineage kurganized (to use Gimbutas' expression) and whose scions descended into Greece with the rest of a migrating band of Indo-Europeans who formed the nucleus of the future Mycenaeans.

ms85
07-03-2018, 04:55 PM
But the connection of J2(a1) with PIE is still far fetched.J2a is very ancietn and predate PIEan. J2a has many different lineages.

There is pre-PIEan J2a and there is post-IEan J2a.

I don't like to speculate, since it is cheap. But ancient early first stage PIEan from West Asia (around Leyla-Tepe) most like had some J2a in them, among other Y-DNA haplogroups of course.


It is impossible for a culture/civilization to belong only to 1 Y-DNA haplogroup. Early first stage PIEans belonged to many haplogroups!

ms85
07-03-2018, 05:01 PM
I think in southern Europe the early Indo-Europeans ran into a much larger and more advanced population than the one they encountered in central and northern Europe, which is why the Mycenaeans had steppe dna but diluted down to about 13-18% (per Lazaridis et al), which is similar to the levels at the other end of southern Europe, in Iberia.

Gimbutas said the Indo-Europeans who invaded Greece were small bands who formed ruling elites. They did not come in numbers large enough to affect a big population replacement.Mycenaeans had at max 6.5 % of EHG.

And it was just a gene flow, nothing special, since today, Greece has much more EHG than the Mycenaeans.


West Asiatic Mycenaeans had mostly Anatolian auDNA.


It is even possible that West Asiatic Mycenaeans were even darker than more native European Minoans:


https://s15.postimg.cc/m98l1a3mj/abc.jpg

Principe
07-03-2018, 05:06 PM
What about G-L13 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-L13/) ? the Y-full distribution may not be representative, but FTDNA G-U1 project a relatively good amount of it in the Balkans https://www.familytreedna.com/public/G-U1?iframe=ymap

It's also all over the Middle East: Levant, Yemen, Iran, for a G lineage that's so young, an unexplainable pattern.

I personally believe G-L13 and J2a-L70 were part of a culture that got IEized they are both similar in terms of TMRCA and distribution. Both also seem to have a concentration around the Italo-Celtic world this of course maybe due to sample bias (who knows might turn out to be Greek or something else?), this unfortunately can only be resolved by ancient dna finds in the future.

Principe
07-03-2018, 05:12 PM
Not only Grete, but the whole Greece (Hellenic world) was for a big part J2a. They found J2a in Mycenaean state during the highest point of the Mycenaean Civilization.


I think that Minoans were mostly Y-DNA hg. 'E' people with some minor J2a. Y-DNA HG. 'E' was most dominant haplogroup in the Balkans before the Indo-Europeans. But it is true that J2a is very ancient in the Aegeans. J2a arrived in the Aegeans during the Neolithic Era and brought by the West Asian Neolithic Anatolian Farmers.

But later after another wave from West Asia during the era of the Mycenaeans J2a became even more prominent in the Aegeans.

E was not the most dominant Y Haplogroup amongst Neolithic Balkan Farmers, it was G and even T was more common than E.

I explained why that J2a in the Mycenaean can make sense in another post.

There is literal proof that the Minoans were founded by a population rich in J2a that was foreign to Europe that brought at least J2a-M319 and were non IE.

IE movements did not have a significant impact in Greece like it did in Germany or the British Isles, Mycenaeans are virtually 80% Minoan, they got majority of their J2a from the non IE speaking previous inhabitants.

ms85
07-03-2018, 05:15 PM
That makes a lot of sense. A Neolithic farmer y-dna lineage kurganized (to use Gimbutas' expression) and whose scions descended into Greece with the rest of a migrating band of Indo-Europeans who formed the nucleus of the future Mycenaeans.West Asian Kurgans are much older than Kurgans in Europe. Yamnaya Kurgans came from Maykop.

The Ipatovo Kurgan revealed a long sequence of burials from the Maykop culture c. 4000 BC down to the burial of a Sarmatian princess of the 3rd century BC, excavated 1998–99.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipatovo_kurgan


Novotitorovka culture

It is distinguished by its burials, particularly by the presence of wagons in them and its own distinct pottery, as well as a richer collection of metal objects than those found in adjacent cultures, as is to be expected considering its relationship to the Maykop culture.

It is grouped with the larger Indo-European Yamna culture complex, and in common with it, the economy was semi-nomadic pastoralism mixed with some agriculture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novotitorovka_culture



The oldest Kurgan/burial to date is Göbekli Tepe!


Around 8,000 BCE Göbekli Tepe was intentionally buried.

https://soulhealer.com/gobekli-tepe-ancient-megalithic-site/

IronHorse
07-03-2018, 05:20 PM
J2a is very ancietn and predate PIEan. J2a has many different lineages.

There is pre-PIEan J2a and there is post-IEan J2a.

I don't like to speculate, since it is cheap. But ancient early first stage PIEan from West Asia (around Leyla-Tepe) most like had some J2a in them, among other Y-DNA haplogroups of course.


It is impossible for a culture/civilization to belong only to 1 Y-DNA haplogroup. Early first stage PIEans belonged to many haplogroups!

The model I see reasonable is the "coalition model"

the Y-dna of a population is a combination of the Y-dna of it's (>1) ancestral populations, the growth of any of these lineages may not be constant, with some outcompeting the others, in unpredictable ways, some of them may experience a bottleneck, but an expansion of the population will lead to an expansion of all the lineages underneath it.

The Slavic lineages for example are specific subclades of R1a and I2a, the Slavs are a result of MnCh_European and a Steppe BA population, when the Slavs expanded, both expanded at the same time.

I1 in Germanic speakers is a similar case.

E-V13 is the prime example of how unpredictable the growth of some lineages is, it wasn't common in Neolithic Europe, it wasn't common in the Steppe, and its quite unlikely that it came directly from the Levant or Africa, because of its age and the admixture history of southeast Europe, and its basal forms are also European, it must have expanded from there.

ms85
07-03-2018, 05:27 PM
E was not the most dominant Y Haplogroup amongst Neolithic Balkan Farmers, it was G and even T was more common than E.

I explained why that J2a in the Mycenaean can make sense in another post.

There is literal proof that the Minoans were founded by a population rich in J2a that was foreign to Europe that brought at least J2a-M319 and were non IE.

IE movements did not have a significant impact in Greece like it did in Germany or the British Isles, Mycenaeans are virtually 80% Minoan, they got majority of their J2a from the non IE speaking previous inhabitants.
Minoans predate the Mycenaeans and therefore Minoans are more native 'Europeans' than the Mycenaeans.

Without J2a Mycenaeans would never exists. J2a was part of the Mycenaeans ethnicity from the very beginning. When Mycenaean started to call themselves Mycenaean they had already J2a in them.


Like I said, J2a is very old. Y-DNA haplogroups are very liquid. There is pre-Mycenaean J2a, and post-Mycenaean J2a. J2a in South Eastern Europe is very old. But so is hg. E and G2. Minoans were most likely predominately E people with some J2a, G or T.

But after the Mycenaeans, J2a drastically increased in the Aegeans. So, that means that Mycenaeans were more J2a than E etc..

ms85
07-03-2018, 05:33 PM
The model I see reasonable is the "coalition model" Yes, I fully agree with you. J2a made part of the Mycenaeans from the very first beginning.


But I try to make a point that only after the Mycenaeans J2a drastically increased around the Aegeans. Before the Mycenaeans the Aegeans were more E, G2a etc.

Patarames
07-03-2018, 05:56 PM
The presence and persistence of J2a1 in Greece surely trashes the assumption of a large invasion of "highly warlike ect." IE horseriders who replaced most of the native male lineages of defenseless peaceful farmers, at least in this part of Europe and I think it will be replaced by alternatives in other places too.
But the connection of J2(a1) with PIE is still far fetched. It would require Minoan and Etruscan not to be language isolates, but PIE-derived. And there is a huge methodical problem because PIE is constructed from modern languages and probably contains a lot systematic errors and artifacts while Minoan and Etruscan are attested, but long dead and only from few fragments. Who will ever know?
My explanation for J2a, from Greece to Italy and even J2a-L70 in Britain is the spreading during the copper, bronze and iron age, alongside with technology and high culture, but not with Indoeuropean languages. The connection to metallurgy and a likely non-IE language is pretty evident in Etruscans, who for one part descend from Urnfield-derived indoeuropean speaking Villanovans that were de-IEanized somewhere between the start of the local iron age and the classical Etruscan timeframe by a J2 rich population.

There is no Etruscan aDNA (Y-DNA) published, how do you know they had J2a?


In total, for the Mycenaean J2a link we have more than just that one BA sample. We have a indirect link via the Greek colonization of south Italy and there is no significant Yamnaya R1a there at all.

From which Minoan period are those J2a samples anyway? Late Minoan period when Mycenaeans were already around?

ms85
07-03-2018, 06:02 PM
There is no Etruscan aDNA (Y-DNA) published, how do you know they had J2a?

In total, for the Mycenaean J2a link we have more than just that one BA sample. We have a indirect link via the Greek colonization of south Italy and there is no significant Yamnaya R1a there at all.

From which Minoan period are those J2a samples anyway? Late Minoan period when Mycenaeans were already around?Early Yamnaya was R1b first. Later on second stage Yamnaya just Indo-Europeanized Uralic/Mongoloid R1a.

Yes, only after the Mycenaeans J2a started to expand!

From late Minoan period (2000 - 1700 BCE).

https://s15.postimg.cc/m9d6f18fv/cde.jpg

IronHorse
07-03-2018, 06:05 PM
Relation of language and Y-dna may not always correlate, again becoming unpredictable, a (hopefully not ridiculous) thought experiment to illustrate this:

Imagine, in some hypothetical universe, before the discovery of the Americas, that Basque speakers (who are predominantly R1b, due to interaction with Celtic people) somehow expand to the Americas, colonizing new lands, migrating and diversifying, forming a large language family over the millennia that follow, and imagine Basque-R1b diversifying into gigantic new clusters each with a territory of its own.

Centuries later people will conclude that Basque-R1b is the original male lineage of the new Vasconic language family, not I2 or G2a, gene flow from G2a and I2 people was female-mediated and they didn't transfer any language.

ms85
07-03-2018, 06:06 PM
Early Minoan Y-DNA was G2a2b2

J2a1 popped out in late Minoan era

ms85
07-03-2018, 06:12 PM
Most of J2a in modern Greeks is a Mycenaean marker and 100% directly from the mighty Mycenaean 'Sea Warriors'!

Patarames
07-03-2018, 06:12 PM
E was not the most dominant Y Haplogroup amongst Neolithic Balkan Farmers, it was G and even T was more common than E.

I explained why that J2a in the Mycenaean can make sense in another post.

There is literal proof that the Minoans were founded by a population rich in J2a that was foreign to Europe that brought at least J2a-M319 and were non IE.

IE movements did not have a significant impact in Greece like it did in Germany or the British Isles, Mycenaeans are virtually 80% Minoan, they got majority of their J2a from the non IE speaking previous inhabitants.

So whats that literal proof that Minoans were founded by J2a heavy people? What information do you have on Minoan culture and it's lack of relation with IE? I lack those information and am hence interested.

Principe
07-03-2018, 06:55 PM
So whats that literal proof that Minoans were founded by J2a heavy people? What information do you have on Minoan culture and it's lack of relation with IE? I lack those information and am hence interested.

J2a-M319 appears for the first time among Minoan samples, it is completely missing from the 100’s of Neolithic Samples across Europe. There is also CHG/Iran Neo like admixture which makes the Minoans unique at the time in Europe, we know based on Archaeology that there was groups of people who moved into Crete and the Cycladic Islands around the Copper-Bronze Age transition. We see local Neolithic peoples on Crete move into Mountain tops like at Cha Gorge.

And I learnt everything about the Minoans through my professor (who is a leading archaeologist on the Minoans). Nothing of their culture is remotely IE.

There are topics to debate despite the highly unlikely outcome like you and others claiming J2 is the IE marker or the PIE was South of Caucasus (something that the evidence so far points to the opposite and the likelihood is lower than 2%), however when it comes to the Minoans there is no debate and they were a non IE culture that was brought by a population who had CHG/Iran Neo admixture who mixed in with Native Neolithic Cretans over time.

Patarames
07-03-2018, 07:16 PM
So J2a people were "literally" the founders of Minoan culture because J2a aDNA was found in samples from 2000-1700 BCE (with the lower range of that overlapping with advent of Mycenaeans)?

The G2a in samples from 2900 BCE to 1900 BCE is not a better proof for a different Y-DNA haplogroup being the founder of Minoan culture?

CHG/Iran auDNA admixture could as well be due to an older J1 heavy population expansion as the mid 3rd millennium BCE Isparta J1 sample shows. But well yes, it could also be due to a rare neolithic J2a founder effect in the mass of neolithic G2 of the region.

That all is far from anything solid. Fragile methodic...

Principe
07-03-2018, 07:35 PM
So J2a people were "literally" the founders of Minoan culture because J2a aDNA was found in samples from 2000-1700 BCE (with the lower range of that overlapping with advent of Mycenaeans)?

The G2a in samples from 2900 BCE to 1900 BCE is not a better proof for a different Y-DNA haplogroup being the founder of Minoan culture?

CHG/Iran auDNA admixture could as well be due to an older J1 heavy population expansion as the mid 3rd millennium BCE Isparta J1 sample shows. But well yes, it could also be due to a rare neolithic J2a founder effect in the mass of neolithic G2 of the region.

That all is far from anything solid. Fragile methodic...

First of all the age dates range from 2400-1700 BC, secondly 2000-1650 BC is approximately the height of the Minoan Civilization also known as the periods of Proto-Palatial and Neo-Palatial.

It looks like your knowledge on Bronze Age Greece is not strong (luckily for you I studied it), the Mycenaeans only became a major player because of the decline of the Minoans which started with the eruption of Thera in 1650 BC. Mycenaeans have only known to start settling in Crete during the final Bronze Age or in the Post-Palatial period which is roughly somewhere between 1500-1400 BC up to 300 YEARS AFTER THE LOWER DATE which means that yes J2a-M319 was representive of the Classic Minoans.

I don’t even need to address your other points, have done so frequently in the past.

Patarames
07-03-2018, 07:55 PM
The dates are from the paper, e-mail the authors if you have problems with them.

I guess you and your professor exclude early, lets say 2000 BCE, Mycenaean influence on Minoan culture? A continuously uniform monolithic culture...

Peace loving non-militaristic Minoans had no need for Mycenaean mercenaries (and those Acheans were known as some of the best warriors of their time)?

Of the older Minoan samples from Odigitria there is even one sample with almost no CHG/Iran, basically the same as Greek_N and Anatolia_N. Outlier or not, a non-CHG/Iran Minoan tells us basically that CHG/Iran admixture was intrusive into a already founded Minoan culture.
Except two Odigitria outliers, the Myceanan samples all have about twice higher CHG/Iran admixture than Minoans.

Principe
07-03-2018, 08:03 PM
The dates are from the paper, e-mail the authors if you have problems with them.

I guess you and your professor exclude early, lets say 2000 BCE, Mycenaean influence on Minoan culture?

Peace loving Minoans had not need for Mycenaean mercenaries (and those Acheans were known as some of the best warriors of their time)?

Of the older Minoan samples from Odigitria there is even one sample with almost no CHG/Iran, basically the same as Greek_N and Anatolia_N. Outlier or not, a non-CHG/Iran Minoan tells us basically that CHG/Iran admixture was intrusive into a already founded Minoan culture.
Except two Odigitria outliers, the Myceanan samples all have about twice higher CHG/Iran admixture than Minoans.

I got the dates from the paper.

Mycenaeans weren’t in Greece or had contact with the Minoans during 2000 BC, they are first attested to 1600 BC, the earliest IE signs seem to be a warrior prince from Aegina slightly before this.

Minoans completely influenced the Mycenaeans not the other way around, that’s why the Mycenaeans copied all the mercantile goods of the Minoans and made their replicas which weren’t as good quality.

The Mycenaeans took over the Minoans during the Post Palatial period and they highly admired them, like I wrote very evident from the copying of commercial goods.

Last point your knowledge on the Minoans is showing very well.... Minoan civilization was evenly distributed throughout the island, parts of Crete showed continuation with the Neolithic well into Middle Bronze Age, it was only during the Post Palatial and Neo Palatial period where the entire island is civilized (Unified Culture).

etrusco
07-03-2018, 08:30 PM
delete post

etrusco
07-03-2018, 08:31 PM
I got the dates from the paper.

Mycenaeans weren’t in Greece or had contact with the Minoans during 2000 BC, they are first attested to 1600 BC, the earliest IE signs seem to be a warrior prince from Aegina slightly before this.

Minoans completely influenced the Mycenaeans not the other way around, that’s why the Mycenaeans copied all the mercantile goods of the Minoans and made their replicas which weren’t as good quality.

The Mycenaeans took over the Minoans during the Post Palatial period and they highly admired them, like I wrote very evident from the copying of commercial goods.

Last point your knowledge on the Minoans is showing very well.... Minoan civilization was evenly distributed throughout the island, parts of Crete showed continuation with the Neolithic well into Middle Bronze Age, it was only during the Post Palatial and Neo Palatial period where the entire island is civilized (Unified Culture).


So Myceneans were a small warrior elite and they highly admired minoan civilization. Are you aware of any study about Crete place names? If yes how is the pattern of place names over there. Is it predominantly IE or not?

Patarames
07-03-2018, 08:35 PM
@Principe


Mycenaeans weren’t in Greece or had contact with the Minoans during 2000 BC, they are first attested to 1600 BC, the earliest IE signs seem to be a warrior prince from Aegina slightly before this.

Lets say in the best case for my point, from 1700 BCE to 1600 BCE is just 100 years, very well within the tolerance. Even if we assume my number of 2000 BCE it would be still within a reasonable tolerance, just remember the recent finding of Hittite IE names from Ebla ~2500 BCE whereas their official start was later (at least Ebla had a known language and script to document that...).


Minoans completely influenced the Mycenaeans not the other way around, that’s why the Mycenaeans copied all the mercantile goods of the Minoans and made their replicas which weren’t as good quality.

The Mycenaeans took over the Minoans during the Post Palatial period and they highly admired them, like I wrote very evident from the copying of commercial goods.

Last point your knowledge on the Minoans is showing very well.... Minoan civilization was evenly distributed throughout the island, parts of Crete showed continuation with the Neolithic well into Middle Bronze Age, it was only during the Post Palatial and Neo Palatial period where the entire island is civilized (Unified Culture).

I support a peaceful co-existence and respectful interaction of Mycenaean and Minoan. What I expect is that Minoans hired Mycenaean warriors as mercenaries and these spread quite early in the upper social class. For mercenaries to attain high positions in other cultures is nothing new in history but a peaceful interaction leading to it is remarkable and I think this happend there.

Principe
07-03-2018, 10:00 PM
So Myceneans were a small warrior elite and they highly admired minoan civilization. Are you aware of any study about Crete place names? If yes how is the pattern of place names over there. Is it predominantly IE or not?

The Mycenaeans were not only a warrior elite, there were people in Greek mainland before them, like the people who produced the Minyan ware. Well off the top of my head not aware of any studies, but I can list several such Knossos, Malia, Phaistos, Zakros, Gournia and Myrtos (these are the largest), my professor has said there can be numerous of undiscovered settlements as well. Minoan language is still largely undeciphered, though as the name of Knossos the largest city of the Minoans contains the ss double consonant which is regarded to be pre Greek substrate, another example is the nth.

I’ll just post this from wikipedia for how other civilizations called Crete.

“The island is first referred to as Kaptara in texts from the Syrian city of Mari dating from the 18th century BC,[2] repeated later in Neo-Assyrian records and the Bible (Caphtor). It was also known in ancient Egyptian as Keftiu, strongly suggesting a similar Minoan name for the island.”

rms2
07-03-2018, 10:07 PM
West Asian Kurgans are much older than Kurgans in Europe. Yamnaya Kurgans came from Maykop . . .

When I said that one Mycenaean J2a1 was the scion of a Neolithic farmer y-dna line that was kurganized, I was speaking of what Gimbutas called the Kurgan culture, not of the burial mounds themselves.

Besides, Suvorovo-Novodanilovka kurgans predate those of Maykop.

Principe
07-03-2018, 10:22 PM
@Principe



Lets say in the best case for my point, from 1700 BCE to 1600 BCE is just 100 years, very well within the tolerance. Even if we assume my number of 2000 BCE it would be still within a reasonable tolerance, just remember the recent finding of Hittite IE names from Ebla ~2500 BCE whereas their official start was later (at least Ebla had a known language and script to document that...).



I support a peaceful co-existence and respectful interaction of Mycenaean and Minoan. What I expect is that Minoans hired Mycenaean warriors as mercenaries and these spread quite early in the upper social class. For mercenaries to attain high positions in other cultures is nothing new in history but a peaceful interaction leading to it is remarkable and I think this happend there.

Look Patarames, I have seen frescoes (in class, would be amazing in person) where in Thera before eruption the locals had what potentially are early Mycenaeans. I’ll post a photo of the fresco

24424

The Boar Helmets and animal skins is very Mycenaean like, as I saw string of them because of my teacher you see that these warriors were hired by the locals to protect them from pirates. 2000 BC is too early but it can be reasonable to assume they were there sometime earlier than the accepted date of 1600 BC, however 1600 BC might be when the Mycenaeans established dominance over the mainland.

In the case of Akrotiri (Thera) which was a Minoan colony, there is evidence of Mycenaean hired Mercenaries, though there is no evidence of Mycenaeans on Crete until Post Palatial period. Which is the point that J2a-M319 could not have been brought in by Mycenaeans to Crete, there is also the Steppe admixture to tackle and the J2a found in the Mycenaean was found in Neolithic Farmers North of Greece, this line could actually demonstrate a North-South route for the Mycenaeans, this result can also be a remanent of Neolithic Greece but we’ll need more samples to certain.

There was peaceful interactions between the two i’m sure, I stress Pylos because there is evidence of Minoan stone masons working on the Pylian Megaron, and if you see the different Mycenaean megarons you’ll see that Pylos is a carbon copy of Minoan palace with a central courtyard and North South Axis, the connections between the two is stunning, Pylos might have been a mixed community of Mycenaeans and Minoans.

rms2
07-03-2018, 10:33 PM
There is NO consensus among the historical linguists at all. Some believe in Steppe Model and some believe (like Colin Renfrew, Ivanov etc.) that PIEan is from West Asia . . .

How do you like your cabin in the wilds of the Yukon Territory? Pretty isolated up there, I guess. Very little news.

Of course, the consensus among historical linguists is that the Indo-European Urheimat is the Pontic-Caspian steppe. There are oddballs who disagree, which is their right, but they aren't in the mainstream.

BTW, Colin Renfrew is not a linguist. He is an archaeologist. James Mallory, who disagrees with Renfrew, is both an archaeologist and a linguist. And Ivanov is dead, God rest his soul. Guess he knows the answer now.

The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives (https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812?journalCode=linguistics)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ

Patarames
07-04-2018, 06:25 AM
@Principe


The Boar Helmets and animal skins is very Mycenaean like, as I saw string of them because of my teacher you see that these warriors were hired by the locals to protect them from pirates. 2000 BC is too early but it can be reasonable to assume they were there sometime earlier than the accepted date of 1600 BC, however 1600 BC might be when the Mycenaeans established dominance over the mainland.

We will find out fortunately via aDNA in future. For now it's likely that those J2a in Minoans was due to Mycenaean/Acheans warriors which started to arrive there (likely much earlier than directly documented), co-existing with Minoans:

DALL’ARMELLINA, Vittoria

Ca'Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanistic Studies, Sciences of Antiquity

Images of a New Aristocracy – A koinè of symbols and cultural values in the Caucasus,
Anatolia and Aegean during the Bronze Age

The paper will present the preliminary results of the author's PhD project, which deals with the diffusion
between the Southern Caucasus, Anatolia, the Aegean Islands, Crete and Mainland Greece, in the course
of the Bronze Age, of selected types of insignia dignitatis. These apparently reflect the birth of a new
ruling elite that maintains its power through military exercise, and is also associated to the spread of
particular funerary customs (e.g. funerary burrows and other elite burial types) mainly. It becomes
increasingly clear that these northern portions of the Near East share some cultural specificities
witch set them apart from the better known traditions of Mesopotamia and the SyroLevantine
region. A series of characteristics items, mainly weapons but also parade standards, and different
types of ornaments, spread in this northern areas. They are strongly linked to a warlike symbolism,
and characterise a warrior aristocracy whose concept apparently originated and developed between the
Caucasus and Anatolia and spread from there toward mainland Europe, in particular towards the
Aegean area. In the presentation, these concepts will be illustrated by the distribution of selected categories
of items.

Interestingly enough, those warriors from the Caucasus region have all one thing in common:

Maykop elite --> J2a
Hittite --> J2a
Myceanans/Acheans --> J2a

and the older the Minoan samples get the lower their CHG/Iran admixture and G2a appears instead of J2a.

For now my counting of 2 + 2 looks reasonable I think.


In the case of Akrotiri (Thera) which was a Minoan colony, there is evidence of Mycenaean hired Mercenaries, though there is no evidence of Mycenaean on Crete until Post Palatial period. Which is the point that J2a-M319 could not have been brought in by Mycenaean to Crete, there is also the Steppe admixture to tackle and the J2a found in the Mycenaean was found in Neolithic Farmers North of Greece, this line could actually demonstrate a North-South route for the Mycenaean, this result can also be a remanent of Neolithic Greece but we’ll need more samples to certain.

When Mycenaean/Acheans started to gain power (military power), interaction with steppe people towards Bulgaria would have started. We see J2a as a indicator of Greek colonization of Italy but not R1a. This tells me that the explanation for the very low steppe in Mycenaean/Acheans could be raids and slaves. But lets just wait for more aDNA.

Regarding the neolithic J2a linage: Yes, as said the hypothesis that it was so successful against the mass of neolithic G2a that it became one of the founding Y-DNA of Minoans is possible. But for now it sounds much more likely to me that the particular J2a clade was just at the western periphery of J2a epicenter and hence was first to arrive in the very low profile neolithic J2a expansions out of the Caucasus region. In similar fashion, Mycenaean/Acheans and probably Hittite too would also have partially carried that "western-clade" (pseudo-neolithic).

You know the J2 phylogeny tree by heart and that's good for you, it provides such indicators as the neolithic J2a clade of Minoans. However, its just a indicator that increases likelihood, not a solid proof for something.
Same with my indicator for Greek J2a in south Italy and the lack of R1a. A founder effect would change the conclusion of that indicator --> "R1a just went extinct in south Italy".

anglesqueville
07-04-2018, 08:17 AM
How do you like your cabin in the wilds of the Yukon Territory? Pretty isolated up there, I guess. Very little news.

Of course, the consensus among historical linguists is that the Indo-European Urheimat is the Pontic-Caspian steppe. There are oddballs who disagree, which is their right, but they aren't in the mainstream.

BTW, Colin Renfrew is not a linguist. He is an archaeologist. James Mallory, who disagrees with Renfrew, is both an archaeologist and a linguist. And Ivanov is dead, God rest his soul. Guess he knows the answer now.

The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives (https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812?journalCode=linguistics)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ

As you posted a reminder to Pereltsvaig and Lewis's movie, I wish to recall to everyone that their book is now on sale at a smart price (on the French Amazon 23.80 euros). It's a great book, not only for the IE question, and not only to understand that Gray and his little boysband in MPI-SHH are crazy but also to learn a little about how historical linguistics work. Perhaps ms85 should start from the beginning and read a good introduction to historical linguistics, in order to even understand why Ivanov/Gramkelidze theory does'nt now have many supporters, far from it. My advice: https://www.amazon.com/Linguistic-Reconstruction-Introduction-Textbooks-Linguistics/dp/0198700016/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1530691867&sr=8-2&keywords=historical+linguistics+theory+and+method . Excellent.

ffoucart
07-04-2018, 09:24 AM
We're not sure we have any real Hittites or other Anatolian Indo-Europeans yet. The remains thus far tested were likely to be non-IE Hurrians or "Hittites" whose ancestors were almost entirely non-IE Hurrians.


Hattians, not Hurrians ;)

ffoucart
07-04-2018, 09:50 AM
When Mycenaean/Acheans started to gain power (military power), interaction with steppe people towards Bulgaria would have started.


Well, Steppe admixture in Bulgaria is attested since the IVth millenium. To date, we have 2 samples from around 3000BC, one Yamnaya, and one boy, found in kurgan-like burial, but atypical, so not considered as Yamnaya himself, but could be the son of one. Both have a good chunk of autosomal Steppe admixture (Yamnaya sample got more than the boy), and both are I2a-S12195.

And there were Yamnaya in Thrace between 3100 and 2400.

rms2
07-04-2018, 10:36 AM
Hattians, not Hurrians ;)

That's right, sorry. Knew that. Brain fart. Fixed it.

Hurrians farther east.

rms2
07-04-2018, 11:01 AM
Principe already pointed out in Post 149 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4729-Were-Myceneans-lineages-R1b-or-R1a&p=429676&viewfull=1#post429676) that the one, single Mycenaean y-dna result was J2a-Z6057, which was also found in the Old European, Neolithic farming culture Sopot in Hungary (5000-4910 BC).

That means it wasn't a new arrival from Anatolia or originally Indo-European.

As Principe pointed out in a subsequent post, it probably represents a Neolithic farmer y-dna line kurganized by Indo-European pastoralists, whose descendants took part in the IE movement southward down into Greece, which is why it is found in a Mycenaean skeleton, with steppe dna.

Principe
07-04-2018, 01:40 PM
@Principe



We will find out fortunately via aDNA in future. For now it's likely that those J2a in Minoans was due to Mycenaean/Acheans warriors which started to arrive there (likely much earlier than directly documented), co-existing with Minoans:

DALL’ARMELLINA, Vittoria

Ca'Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanistic Studies, Sciences of Antiquity

Images of a New Aristocracy – A koinè of symbols and cultural values in the Caucasus,
Anatolia and Aegean during the Bronze Age

The paper will present the preliminary results of the author's PhD project, which deals with the diffusion
between the Southern Caucasus, Anatolia, the Aegean Islands, Crete and Mainland Greece, in the course
of the Bronze Age, of selected types of insignia dignitatis. These apparently reflect the birth of a new
ruling elite that maintains its power through military exercise, and is also associated to the spread of
particular funerary customs (e.g. funerary burrows and other elite burial types) mainly. It becomes
increasingly clear that these northern portions of the Near East share some cultural specificities
witch set them apart from the better known traditions of Mesopotamia and the SyroLevantine
region. A series of characteristics items, mainly weapons but also parade standards, and different
types of ornaments, spread in this northern areas. They are strongly linked to a warlike symbolism,
and characterise a warrior aristocracy whose concept apparently originated and developed between the
Caucasus and Anatolia and spread from there toward mainland Europe, in particular towards the
Aegean area. In the presentation, these concepts will be illustrated by the distribution of selected categories
of items.

Interestingly enough, those warriors from the Caucasus region have all one thing in common:

Maykop elite --> J2a
Hittite --> J2a
Myceanans/Acheans --> J2a

and the older the Minoan samples get the lower their CHG/Iran admixture and G2a appears instead of J2a.

For now my counting of 2 + 2 looks reasonable I think.



When Mycenaean/Acheans started to gain power (military power), interaction with steppe people towards Bulgaria would have started. We see J2a as a indicator of Greek colonization of Italy but not R1a. This tells me that the explanation for the very low steppe in Mycenaean/Acheans could be raids and slaves. But lets just wait for more aDNA.

Regarding the neolithic J2a linage: Yes, as said the hypothesis that it was so successful against the mass of neolithic G2a that it became one of the founding Y-DNA of Minoans is possible. But for now it sounds much more likely to me that the particular J2a clade was just at the western periphery of J2a epicenter and hence was first to arrive in the very low profile neolithic J2a expansions out of the Caucasus region. In similar fashion, Mycenaean/Acheans and probably Hittite too would also have partially carried that "western-clade" (pseudo-neolithic).

You know the J2 phylogeny tree by heart and that's good for you, it provides such indicators as the neolithic J2a clade of Minoans. However, its just a indicator that increases likelihood, not a solid proof for something.
Same with my indicator for Greek J2a in south Italy and the lack of R1a. A founder effect would change the conclusion of that indicator --> "R1a just went extinct in south Italy".

We can agree to disagree for certain topics, more ancient dna will be crucial.

Patarames, who said R1a was going to be the major marker for Mycenaeans? R1b-Z2103 came down to Greece, Z2103 is also quite frequent in Southern Italy and majority of it came with the Greeks, even some G-M406 subclades are likely to have come with Greeks, R1a was the major marker of Indo-Aryan/Iranian and Balto-Slavic migrations. There is even quite a bit of L277 in Southern Italy (this a major of Armenians) its possible that this lineage was brought in by the Greeks, can explain the Armenian-Greek hypothesis, the major problem is that not enough Greeks have done BigY tests.

Now to go into the Neolithic debate, J2a-M319 (the one found in Minoans) is not a Neolithic lineage, as its absent in all Neolithic samples, its J2a-Z6048 and J2a-Z6057 in Western Farmers and J2a-Z7706 and J2a-YSC253 in BMAC territory. This is why I always stress Phylogenetic tree because it completes a response and provides a more full answer. Remember my first ever response to you, I said its possible some J2 subclades could have been involved in the diffusion of IE in the South and East (not Western Europe), the J2 tree is so expansive that it allows it, however saying J2a or J2b is IE is not accurate, I’ll give further examples, i’ll use 3 examples from different haplogroups, R1b-M269 is an IE marker but R1b-V88 is not, G-L91 is a major marker of the Neolithic Farmers where as G-M406 was not found in one, and J2b-L283 is an IE marker for the Balkans where as J2b-M205 is a marker of Semitic Speakers.

Also around the same time of IE expansions you have other groups of people like Elamites, Sumerians, Hattians and Hurrians moving around too, they are very likely (i’m 100% certain) to have carried subclades of J2, we need more samples.

ms85
07-04-2018, 04:26 PM
Of course, the consensus among historical linguists is that the Indo-European Urheimat is the Pontic-Caspian steppe. There are oddballs who disagree, which is their right, but they aren't in the mainstream.That lady in the video doesn't represent any consensus among historical linguists. Her arguments are very weak and has been dismissed a long time ago! I mentioned already many times. She is nobody.

ms85
07-04-2018, 04:47 PM
I read here nothing but weak excuses. This is the sound of people who have no arguments, can't counter the academic papers and scientific data and come only up with only some excuses.

Ancient Mycenaeans, proto-Anatolians, Hittites, ancient Indo-Iranians like Mitanni, eastern Iranian BMAC folks were all Western Asian in their auDNA. And ALL those people had high amounts of J2a. Didn't even mention Maykop DNA and the migration from South Caucasus into the Northern Caucasus during the Maykop era.


Steppists can't counter any scientific data with real facts. Steppe Model has been destroyed and is buried big time. And it will never be revived again. It is finished big time.

Mis
07-04-2018, 04:58 PM
What a logic !!! "real facts"

etrusco
07-04-2018, 05:08 PM
How do you like your cabin in the wilds of the Yukon Territory? Pretty isolated up there, I guess. Very little news.

Of course, the consensus among historical linguists is that the Indo-European Urheimat is the Pontic-Caspian steppe. There are oddballs who disagree, which is their right, but they aren't in the mainstream.

BTW, Colin Renfrew is not a linguist. He is an archaeologist. James Mallory, who disagrees with Renfrew, is both an archaeologist and a linguist. And Ivanov is dead, God rest his soul. Guess he knows the answer now.

The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives (https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812?journalCode=linguistics)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ

strictly OFF-TOPIC

I do not enter in the technical issue of the video. I just want to make clear I find outrageous their mockery of the creationist view at the end of the video. Creationism is not a "theory in search of facts". It is both a religious view contained in the Bible and believed by all the monotheistic religions and AT THE SAME TIME is a valid scientific explanation based on the immutable principles of rational philosophy. Of course rational philosophy do not "demonstrate" that the Christian God is the true one. That can be accomplished only with the help of the Revelation and the supranatural virtue of faith . It only demonstrates that everything that exists cannot be the product of an internal evolution of material things ( see the five proofs of S. Thomas Aquinas). So creationism is not out of thin air. It shares the same consistency of all scientific theories.

IronHorse
07-04-2018, 05:10 PM
deleted .. posted while high af

IronHorse
07-04-2018, 05:10 PM
same here

ms85
07-04-2018, 05:11 PM
What a logic !!! "real facts"Genetic data like auDNA, Y-DNA etc. are the 'real' fatcs!


And 'real' facts are showing us who those ancient legendary Indo-Europeans, like the Mycenaeans, Hittites, Aryans (Mitanni/Medes, BMAC) were and which DNA they had. All those successful people had predominately West Asian DNA!


PS. Didn't even mention more legendary the Samarra/Ubaid Sumerians, Hassuna/Halaf people etc...

Patarames
07-04-2018, 05:56 PM
We can agree to disagree for certain topics, more ancient dna will be crucial.

Patarames, who said R1a was going to be the major marker for Mycenaeans? R1b-Z2103 came down to Greece, Z2103 is also quite frequent in Southern Italy and majority of it came with the Greeks, even some G-M406 subclades are likely to have come with Greeks, R1a was the major marker of Indo-Aryan/Iranian and Balto-Slavic migrations. There is even quite a bit of L277 in Southern Italy (this a major of Armenians) its possible that this lineage was brought in by the Greeks, can explain the Armenian-Greek hypothesis, the major problem is that not enough Greeks have done BigY tests.

Now to go into the Neolithic debate, J2a-M319 (the one found in Minoans) is not a Neolithic lineage, as its absent in all Neolithic samples, its J2a-Z6048 and J2a-Z6057 in Western Farmers and J2a-Z7706 and J2a-YSC253 in BMAC territory. This is why I always stress Phylogenetic tree because it completes a response and provides a more full answer. Remember my first ever response to you, I said its possible some J2 subclades could have been involved in the diffusion of IE in the South and East (not Western Europe), the J2 tree is so expansive that it allows it, however saying J2a or J2b is IE is not accurate, I’ll give further examples, i’ll use 3 examples from different haplogroups, R1b-M269 is an IE marker but R1b-V88 is not, G-L91 is a major marker of the Neolithic Farmers where as G-M406 was not found in one, and J2b-L283 is an IE marker for the Balkans where as J2b-M205 is a marker of Semitic Speakers.

Also around the same time of IE expansions you have other groups of people like Elamites, Sumerians, Hattians and Hurrians moving around too, they are very likely (i’m 100% certain) to have carried subclades of J2, we need more samples.

Fair enough. Agree that R1b is certainly also a candidate but it's lack so far is surprising.

J2 is the underdog so far. First people were sure it spread farming. Then they thought it was responsible for non-IE expansions, or a Semitic marker. Today we have it in the oldest classified IE aDNA available. Same as people accepted that J2 was not THE neolithic marker, they better start to accept that the data is beyond coincidence by now.

Kopfjäger
07-04-2018, 06:10 PM
Fair enough. Agree that R1b is certainly also a candidate but it's lack so far is surprising.

J2 is the underdog so far. First people were sure it spread farming. Then they thought it was responsible for non-IE expansions, or a Semitic marker. Today we have it in the oldest classified IE aDNA available. Same as people accepted that J2 was not THE neolithic marker, they better start to accept that the data is beyond coincidence by now.

J2 appears to correlate with CHG.

ms85
07-04-2018, 06:17 PM
Fair enough. Agree that R1b is certainly also a candidate but it's lack so far is surprising.

J2 is the underdog so far. First people were sure it spread farming. Then they thought it was responsible for non-IE expansions, or a Semitic marker. Today we have it in the oldest classified IE aDNA available. Same as people accepted that J2 was not THE neolithic marker, they better start to accept that the data is beyond coincidence by now.True, It was mostly the Indo-European R1b lineage (from Yamnaya) that spread Indo-European languages only into Europe, but not in Asia. It is still a mystery to me how it was so heavily bottle necked in Europe. Modern Europeans are only for about 1/3 Yamnaya people.

The most funny thing is that in the past some EuroCentric people told us that the ‘Eastern’ Civilizations were found by people from Europe, lol.

While today we have got evidence that it was the other way around. Most Western Civilizations were found by West Asian people. The Hellenic World, the Roman Empire, even late PIEans from the Steppes had a HUGE part of West Asian (CHG/Iran_N) auDNA in them.

anglesqueville
07-04-2018, 06:28 PM
That lady in the video doesn't represent any consensus among historical linguists. Her arguments are very weak and has been dismissed a long time ago! I mentioned already many times. She is nobody.

You are less than nobody, you are nothing.

ms85
07-04-2018, 06:39 PM
You are less than nobody, you are nothing.If this lady is the strongest weapon of your team, than your team of people who think like you has nothing that can save them. Your team has lost big time. Because this lady is nobody, she doesn't even understand the meaning of the loan words.


What I witness is the hostility of the same usual suspects who deny the 'real' scientific facts.


You can't fight with me with 'real' facts/arguments. You have inability to counter my arguments, that's why you are insulting me out of frustration. Your direct insults toward me has been reported to the mods. Nobody has any right to insult other members of this forum.

ms85
07-04-2018, 06:41 PM
you are nothing.I'm a child of my parents. I'm a brother, I'm a partner and I'm a father.


Bye, bye...

Principe
07-04-2018, 06:45 PM
Fair enough. Agree that R1b is certainly also a candidate but it's lack so far is surprising.

J2 is the underdog so far. First people were sure it spread farming. Then they thought it was responsible for non-IE expansions, or a Semitic marker. Today we have it in the oldest classified IE aDNA available. Same as people accepted that J2 was not THE neolithic marker, they better start to accept that the data is beyond coincidence by now.

Well ancient R1b in Europe so far has proved it to be IE, we have U106 with Germanic and U152 with Bell Beakers. Let’s also not forget that there is Z2103 in Yamnaya and there is actually L584 in an Mananean sample (which could be leftover of the Mitanni).

Yes that was people in the past, I never held those believes in terms of Neolithic expansions, we have cases of Neolithic farmer lineages but they are rare and tiny branches in the J2 tree (which I discussed with you). Its clear from J2’s tree that many subclades expanded with Metallurgy, or Copper and Bronze. Sorry but we do have confirmation of J2b-M205 as a Semitic marker and surely J2a-M319 as a non IE expansion marker. Like I wrote the Mycenaean J2a is not a good example of the West Asian IE movements because of the subclade it belongs too (Z6057). You have evidence for IE marker in J2b-L283. Now with regards to the Anatolian J2a (Z6271 and Y37946) if these to subclades are only found in IE speaking Anatolians in all future adna papers and local Hattians and Hurrians belong to different branches of J2, then we can say that those 2 J2a subclades are Anatolian J2a.

That’s why its great when ancient papers come out and we can piece the history of J2 and see what subclades were involved or responsible in movements.

ADW_1981
07-04-2018, 06:54 PM
Well ancient R1b in Europe so far has proved it to be IE, we have U106 with Germanic and U152 with Bell Beakers. Let’s also not forget that there is Z2103 in Yamnaya and there is actually L584 in an Mananean sample (which could be leftover of the Mitanni).

Yes that was people in the past, I never held those believes in terms of Neolithic expansions, we have cases of Neolithic farmer lineages but they are rare and tiny branches in the J2 tree (which I discussed with you). Its clear from J2’s tree that many subclades expanded with Metallurgy, or Copper and Bronze. Sorry but we do have confirmation of J2b-M205 as a Semitic marker and surely J2a-M319 as a non IE expansion marker. Like I wrote the Mycenaean J2a is not a good example of the West Asian IE movements because of the subclade it belongs too (Z6057). You have evidence for IE marker in J2b-L283. Now with regards to the Anatolian J2a (Z6271 and Y37946) if these to subclades are only found in IE speaking Anatolians in all future adna papers and local Hattians and Hurrians belong to different branches of J2, then we can say that those 2 J2a subclades are Anatolian J2a.

That’s why its great when ancient papers come out and we can piece the history of J2 and see what subclades were involved or responsible in movements.

Even amongst doubt that Bell Beaker may or may not have spoken late PIE, the aDNA from historic 'barbarians' of northern and western Europe appear to be heavily R1b with I2-M223/I1 thrown in here and there. We can be fairly certain they spoke some form of Celtic or Germanic at that time they were buried and then exhumed centuries later.

ms85
07-04-2018, 06:57 PM
Well ancient R1b in Europe so far has proved it to be IE, we have U106 with Germanic and U152 with Bell Beakers. Let’s also not forget that there is Z2103 in Yamnaya and there is actually L584 in an Mananean sample (which could be leftover of the Mitanni).

Like I wrote the Mycenaean J2a is not a good example of the West Asian IE movements because of the subclade it belongs too (Z6057). You have evidence for IE marker in J2b-L283. Now with regards to the Anatolian J2a (Z6271 and Y37946) if these to subclades are only found in IE speaking Anatolians in all future adna papers and local Hattians and Hurrians belong to different branches of J2, then we can say that those 2 J2a subclades are Anatolian J2a.

That’s why its great when ancient papers come out and we can piece the history of J2 and see what subclades were involved or responsible in movements.West Asian R1b is ancestral to R1b in Yamnaya. Even West Asian R1a* is ancestral to modern R1a in the Steppes.


Mitanni/Mananean/Medes, BMAC were for a HUGE part J2a people. They had a lot CHG/Iran_N auDNA in them.


It were the Indo-European Mycenaeans who spread the West Asian Y-DNA J2a all over the Aegean. Later it was the Indo-European Roman Empire that spread West Asian Y-DNA J2a all over Europe.


It doesn't even matter from which people the Hittites evolved, be it from the Hattians, be it from Gorillas. The fact is that the ancient Indo-European Hittites were West Asia people, born, lived and died in West Asia who were for a HUGE part also J2a folks. Also those Hittites spread their J2a all over that region.

Principe
07-04-2018, 07:03 PM
West Asian R1b is ancestral to R1b in Yamnaya. Even West Asian R1a* is ancestral to modern R1a in the Steppes.


Mitanni/Mananean/Medes, BMAC were for a HUGE part J2a people. They had a lot CHG/Iran_N auDNA in them.


It were the Indo-European Mycenaeans who spread the West Asian Y-DNA J2a all over the Aegean. Later it was the Indo-European Roman Empire that spread West Asian Y-DNA J2a all over Europe.


It doesn't even matter from which people the Hittites evolved, be it from the Hattians, be it from Gorillas. The fact is that the ancient Indo-European Hittites were West Asia people, born, lived and died in West Asia who were for a HUGE part also J2a folks. Also those Hittites spread their J2a all over that region.

Your writing style is extremely unorthodox, who did the Mitanni/Medes/Mananeans replace? That’s right Hurrians, Elamites and other non IE people!

You know who else had a lot of CHG/Iran Neo audna? People who migrated to the Levant, were Bronze Age Jordan and Lebanon IE? Was J1-P58 an IE marker? Of course not.

Let’s wait until more data is out and see what the dna tells

ms85
07-04-2018, 07:16 PM
Your writing style is extremely unorthodox, who did the Mitanni/Medes/Mananeans replace? That’s right Hurrians, Elamites and other non IE people!

You know who else had a lot of CHG/Iran Neo audna? People who migrated to the Levant, were Bronze Age Jordan and Lebanon IE? Was J1-P58 an IE marker? Of course not.

Let’s wait until more data is out and see what the dna tellsARYANS = early Northern Sumerians: Hassuna-Samarra type, late Northern Sumerians: Gutian type -> Mitanni/Kassites -> NorthWest Iranic Medes -> modern NorthWest Iranic people.

Mitanni/Kassites assimilated many Hurrians, the Western Iranian Medes assimilated many Hurrians, so what? It doesn't disprove anything. Aryan/Iranian homeland is still West Asia.

Elamites never lived in the same area as Northern Sumerians (Hassuna-Samarra type) at the first place.


Of course, J1-P58 is very OLD and predate early PIEans from Western Asia. Neolithic Iranian Farmers migrated into the Levant. At that time PIEan language didn't exist at all. Early PIEan in West Asia was born actually very late. It was a product of Anatolian_N + CHG/Iranian_N people. It is possible that early PIEan of West Asia inclined more toward Anatolian_N, than toward CHG/Iranian_N people.


PS. We have already enough DNA!

Joe B
07-04-2018, 07:38 PM
We can agree to disagree for certain topics, more ancient dna will be crucial.

Patarames, who said R1a was going to be the major marker for Mycenaeans? R1b-Z2103 came down to Greece, Z2103 is also quite frequent in Southern Italy and majority of it came with the Greeks, even some G-M406 subclades are likely to have come with Greeks, R1a was the major marker of Indo-Aryan/Iranian and Balto-Slavic migrations. There is even quite a bit of L277 in Southern Italy (this a major of Armenians) its possible that this lineage was brought in by the Greeks, can explain the Armenian-Greek hypothesis, the major problem is that not enough Greeks have done BigY tests.

Now to go into the Neolithic debate, J2a-M319 (the one found in Minoans) is not a Neolithic lineage, as its absent in all Neolithic samples, its J2a-Z6048 and J2a-Z6057 in Western Farmers and J2a-Z7706 and J2a-YSC253 in BMAC territory. This is why I always stress Phylogenetic tree because it completes a response and provides a more full answer. Remember my first ever response to you, I said its possible some J2 subclades could have been involved in the diffusion of IE in the South and East (not Western Europe), the J2 tree is so expansive that it allows it, however saying J2a or J2b is IE is not accurate, I’ll give further examples, i’ll use 3 examples from different haplogroups, R1b-M269 is an IE marker but R1b-V88 is not, G-L91 is a major marker of the Neolithic Farmers where as G-M406 was not found in one, and J2b-L283 is an IE marker for the Balkans where as J2b-M205 is a marker of Semitic Speakers.

Also around the same time of IE expansions you have other groups of people like Elamites, Sumerians, Hattians and Hurrians moving around too, they are very likely (i’m 100% certain) to have carried subclades of J2, we need more samples. Neither agreeing or disagreeing with your post. Just wanted to add 2 cents worth about two R1b-Z2103 subclades in the Mediterranean. L277 is an unreliable SNP for testing. Y4362 is used by FTDNA and YFull uses Y4364 to represent that block of about 12 SNPs. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y4364/ R1b-Y4364 would be a good candidate that wasn't found.
If there is a Y DNA clade that has connections to ancient steppe samples it would be R1b-M67. R1b-Z2103>Z2106>Z2108>KMS67 R1b-KMS67 was found in ancient samples around the Samara Bend. Surprisingly, we're seeing some modern day results from Greece from this rare subclade. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-KMS67/ I'm surprised R1b-7562, R1b-L584 or R1b-PF331 were not found.

Disclaimer
Modern day distribution does not necessarily correlate to ancient distribution.

Titane
07-04-2018, 08:23 PM
ARYANS = early Northern Sumerians: Hassuna-Samarra type, late Northern Sumerians: Gutian type -> Mitanni/Kassites -> NorthWest Iranic Medes -> modern NorthWest Iranic people.

Mitanni/Kassites assimilated many Hurrians, the Western Iranian Medes assimilated many Hurrians, so what? It doesn't disprove anything. Aryan/Iranian homeland is still West Asia.

Elamites never lived in the same area as Northern Sumerians (Hassuna-Samarra type) at the first place.


Of course, J1-P58 is very OLD and predate early PIEans from Western Asia. Neolithic Iranian Farmers migrated into the Levant. At that time PIEan language didn't exist at all. Early PIEan in West Asia was born actually very late. It was a product of Anatolian_N + CHG/Iranian_N people. It is possible that early PIEan of West Asia inclined more toward Anatolian_N, than toward CHG/Iranian_N people.


PS. We have already enough DNA!
And what are the borders of this Western Asia that seems to be the center of the origin of the world?

Just curious what seems to be so important, because to me, since I am of a very mixed origin, so regardless of the path that brought them to France, they are all in my family - R1b, J2, E...

Ajeje Brazorf
07-04-2018, 08:25 PM
It'd be fantastic if we had some ancient DNA from classical Greece

Titane
07-04-2018, 08:36 PM
It'd be fantastic if we had some ancient DNA from classical Greece

Too bad, they had statues instead of mummies...

ms85
07-04-2018, 08:45 PM
And what are the borders of this Western Asia that seems to be the center of the origin of the world?Mesopotamia has been called the cradle of civilization. And it has been called like that not for nothing.

NorthWestern Asia is a place where the biblical Garden of Eden is located! But there is a difference between North West Asia and South West Asia.


North West Asia: Caucasus, Anatolia, Armenian Plateau, Iranian Plateau and Northern Mesopotamia.

South West Asia: Levant, SouthEastern Mesopotamia, Arabia within Red Sea and Persian Gulf.


https://s15.postimg.cc/7f3sft76z/Asia.jpg



While, I'm for 1000s generations native to NorthWestern Asia, even in my auDNA I found a lot non-local auDNA admixture. I have maybe only at max 80% of 'real' West Asian (Anatolian_N + CHG/Iran_N) auDNA. The rest is from SouthWest or SouthCentral Asia and even the Eurasian Steppes. So, nobody is perfect, hmm I mean pure, lol. I respect and accept all admixtures, I'm not a racist at all. But I'm most proud of my NorthWest Asian auDNA. I'm a very healthy person, and that's why I'm very WestAsian centric!

Patarames
07-04-2018, 08:54 PM
Well ancient R1b in Europe so far has proved it to be IE, we have U106 with Germanic and U152 with Bell Beakers. Let’s also not forget that there is Z2103 in Yamnaya and there is actually L584 in an Mananean sample (which could be leftover of the Mitanni).

Yes that was people in the past, I never held those believes in terms of Neolithic expansions, we have cases of Neolithic farmer lineages but they are rare and tiny branches in the J2 tree (which I discussed with you). Its clear from J2’s tree that many subclades expanded with Metallurgy, or Copper and Bronze. Sorry but we do have confirmation of J2b-M205 as a Semitic marker and surely J2a-M319 as a non IE expansion marker. Like I wrote the Mycenaean J2a is not a good example of the West Asian IE movements because of the subclade it belongs too (Z6057). You have evidence for IE marker in J2b-L283. Now with regards to the Anatolian J2a (Z6271 and Y37946) if these to subclades are only found in IE speaking Anatolians in all future adna papers and local Hattians and Hurrians belong to different branches of J2, then we can say that those 2 J2a subclades are Anatolian J2a.

That’s why its great when ancient papers come out and we can piece the history of J2 and see what subclades were involved or responsible in movements.

I'm looking forward for much simpler pattern.
In Kura Araxes e.g so far J1, G and R1b were found and no J2a.
Hyksos aDNA is also in the works and I expect to see "Caucasus" J2b ( "semtic" M205 )in them.
I expect I2 to have appeared in a later migration into the wider Anatolia region and E to have been there since CA/EBA.
G was there since Neolithic.

In that confined frame I hope to see a quite clear discrimination of the haplogroups and clades and easier assignation to language/cultures.

Titane
07-04-2018, 09:00 PM
Mesopotamia has been called the cradle of civilization. And it has been called like that not for nothing.

NorthWestern Asia is a place where the biblical Garden of Eden is located! But there is a difference between North West Asia and South West Asia.


North West Asia: Caucasus, Anatolia, Armenian Plateau, Iranian Plateau and Northern Mesopotamia.

South West Asia: Levant, SouthEastern Mesopotamia, Arabia within Red Sea and Persian Gulf.


https://s15.postimg.cc/7f3sft76z/Asia.jpg




While, I'm for 1000s generations native to NorthWestern Asia, even in my auDNA I found a lot non-local auDNA admixture. I have maybe only at max 80% of 'real' West Asian (Anatolian_N + CHG/Iran_N) auDNA. The rest is from SouthWest or Central Asia and even the Eurasian Steppes. So, nobody is perfect, hmm I mean pure, lol. I respect and accept all admixtures, I'm not a racist at all. But I'm most proud of my NorthWest Asian auDNA. I'm a very healthy person, and that's why I'm very WestAsian centric!

Thank you for the map with borders. A thousand generations! And I was proud that I could do my tree back to 12 in some lines! You must mean your y haplogroup. Why do you say proto R1a? Isn’t is then just R1?
What on earth does West Asian have to do with health? Are you in Turkey? I loved my visit there, will go back when the political climate is better.

ms85
07-04-2018, 09:19 PM
Thank you for the map with borders. A thousand generations! And I was proud that I could do my tree back to 12 in some lines! You must mean your y haplogroup. Why do you say proto R1a? Isn’t is then just R1?
What on earth does West Asian have to do with health? Are you in Turkey? I loved my visit there, will go back when the political climate is better.I'm not in Turkey. I passed through Turkey only once when I went to Georgia by car many years ago. Don't like Western Turkey. I like the mountains!


As far as I know, nobody is in my paternal or maternal lineage ever mixed with other ethnicities. I never heard from anybody that maybe one of my great great great grandparents was from other ethnicity. All my ancestors were similar to me, so to speak. Some of them were winners, some of them were losers. But at the end of day all of them survived, that's why I'm here and chatting with you.


I belong to a 'rare' R1a* (L62+, L63+, SRY10831.2-, M17-) lineage that evolved from R1*, but still clearly is a R1a*. I'm proto-R1a* R-M420, but NOT R-M17 like most R1a-people are.


By healthy, I mean it is very healthy for any 'egocentric' person to be very centric about his/her culture. People are very 'egocentric', it is programmed in our primal animal instinct to survive. I think that I'm at the centre of the universe, while somebody in Africa, Japan or Brazil thinks that he/she is at the centre of the universe. Some people are Africa-centric, some people are Euro-centric and I'm very Northwestern Asia-centric

Titane
07-04-2018, 09:50 PM
I'm not in Turkey. I passed through Turkey only once when I went to Georgia by car many years ago. Don't like Western Turkey. I like the mountains!


As far as I know, nobody is in my paternal or maternal lineage ever mixed with other ethnicities. I never heard from anybody that maybe one of my great great great grandparents was from other ethnicity. All my ancestors were similar to me, so to speak. Some of them were winners, some of them were losers. But at the end of day all of them survived, that's why I'm here and chatting with you.


I belong to a 'rare' R1a* (L62+, L63+, SRY10831.2-, M17-) lineage that evolved from R1*, but still clearly is a R1a*. I'm proto-R1a* R-M420, but NOT R-M17 like most R1a-people are.


By healthy, I mean it is very healthy for any 'egocentric' person to be very centric about his/her culture. People are very 'egocentric', it is programmed in our primal animal instinct to survive. I think that I'm at the centre of the universe, while somebody in Africa, Japan or Brazil thinks that he/she is at the centre of the universe. Some people are Africa-centric, some people are Euro-centric and I'm very Northwestern Asia-centric
Interesting - but maybe you need to travel further than Georgia and meet people from all around the world to realise that while it is fine to cherish one’s own culture and heritage, others have other perspectives. In Canada, we learn at a very early age that we are not the center of the World, and we have an example next door of a larger country to remind us. I used to work in a building of a thousand employees where 32 languages were spoken.

ADW_1981
07-04-2018, 11:55 PM
It'd be fantastic if we had some ancient DNA from classical Greece

We do actually. User rozenfeld was first to report this YouTube which cites a study on the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGKZKoH4yv0

Ancient Amvrakia (470 BC - 30 BC) sample is - "R1b1b" and mtDNA : H2a1 (I suspect probably M269) with blond or dark blonde hair and is lactose intolerant.
That's about the Classical or Hellenistic period isn't it?

ffoucart
07-05-2018, 09:13 AM
While, I'm for 1000s generations native to NorthWestern Asia, even in my auDNA I found a lot non-local auDNA admixture.


Happy for you to have a complete ascendant family tree on 1000 generations, with all branches complete (and without archives available). So you know your 10715086071862673209484250490600018105614048117055 336074437503 88370351051124936122493198378815695858127594672917 55314682518714528569231404359845775746985748039345 6777482423 0985421074 6050623711 4187795418 2153046474 983581941267398767559165543946 07706291457119647768654216766042983165262438683720 5668069376 ancestors living at your 1000th generation. Quite unique! You should ask to be in the Guinness Book of Records.

anglesqueville
07-05-2018, 09:48 AM
I'm not in Turkey. I passed through Turkey only once when I went to Georgia by car many years ago. Don't like Western Turkey. I like the mountains!

By healthy, I mean it is very healthy for any 'egocentric' person to be very centric about his/her culture. People are very 'egocentric', it is programmed in our primal animal instinct to survive. I think that I'm at the centre of the universe, while somebody in Africa, Japan or Brazil thinks that he/she is at the centre of the universe. Some people are Africa-centric, some people are Euro-centric and I'm very Northwestern Asia-centric

On this forum we are all supposed to be "Science-centrist", and nothing else. "Euro-centrists", "Afro-centrists", "Basco-centrists", "Scando-centrists", "Indo-centrists", "Anythingelse-centrists" have nothing to do on AG. "NorthwesternAsia-centrists" have nothing to do on AG. You have nothing to do on AG.

jdean
07-05-2018, 10:49 AM
That lady in the video doesn't represent any consensus among historical linguists. Her arguments are very weak and has been dismissed a long time ago! I mentioned already many times. She is nobody.

'That lady', did you actually watch it ?

If you did you may have noticed there were two giving the lecture, one of which was male.

rms2
07-05-2018, 11:06 AM
Fair enough. Agree that R1b is certainly also a candidate but it's lack so far is surprising.

What lack?

Yamnaya and Kurgan Bell Beaker thus far are chock full of R1b-L23, and both Vucedol and Proto-Nagyrev have R1b-L23, as well.



J2 is the underdog so far. First people were sure it spread farming. Then they thought it was responsible for non-IE expansions, or a Semitic marker.

Well, J2 has shown up among Old European Neolithic farmers. It apparently was nowhere near as big among them as G2a, but there it was, predating the arrival of Indo-European in Europe west of the Dniester.



Today we have it in the oldest classified IE aDNA available.

To what are you referring? The very dubious so-called "Hittites"?

We cannot be sure those weren't Hatti or "Hittites" from among the Hattic substrate.

It is pretty certain that the Hittite culture, which took its name from the non-Indo-European Hatti, was the product of a small Indo-European (Nes) elite superimposing itself on a much vaster non-IE native population.

The oldest IE population with ancient y-dna test results thus far is Yamnaya. It's possible that Late Khvalynsk and Late Sredni Stog were already IE speaking, as well.

In Mediterranean lands it is going to be much more difficult to detect the actual invasive Indo-European population due to the fact that the Med area was much more heavily populated than central and northern Europe, where incomers are easier to spot and where population replacement occurred to a much greater degree than in southern Europe and SW Asia.



Same as people accepted that J2 was not THE neolithic marker, they better start to accept that the data is beyond coincidence by now.

It seems to me some J2 clades became Indo-Europeanized fairly early and took part in the spread of IE speech and culture, but right now there is no evidence they were part of the original PIE population.

Maybe that will change, but if IE spread into the steppe from south of the Caucasus, we should be seeing the y-dna haplogroups of Wang's Caucasian cluster, G, J, and L, on the steppe in Yamnaya, but we don't.

Here are a few other salient points:

1. Since Indo-European is a language family, its origin is actually primarily a linguistic question. That has to be kept foremost in the mind.

2. So, the first requirement is to recognize that the field of historical linguistics places the Indo-European Urheimat on the Pontic-Caspian steppe beginning round about 4500 BC but definitely in place by 3300 BC.

3. Once that is established and understood it eliminates all other geographic and temporal contenders.

4. Arguments from genetics in this case are subservient and secondary to the primary linguistic argument, because we are talking about a language family.

5. Once we know where the IE Urheimat was and when (and we do know both of those things), then and only then can genetics be brought to bear on the ancient people living there at that time.

Regions south of the Caucasus are not seriously in contention. They do not share the border with Proto-Uralic that early Indo-European must have had, and they require Indo-European to be much older than it possibly could be. We also do not see Caucasus y-dna spreading into the steppe the way it should have had early Indo-European spread from there. In addition, the regions south of the Caucasus were too loaded with non-IE populations to be the Urheimat of IE.

Titane
07-05-2018, 11:49 AM
What





Here are a few other salient points:

1. Since Indo-European is a language family, its origin is actually primarily a linguistic question. That has to be kept foremost in the mind.

2. So, the first requirement is to recognize that the field of historical linguistics places the Indo-European Urheimat on the Pontic-Caspian steppe beginning round about 4500 BC but definitely in place by 3300 BC.

3. Once that is established and understood it eliminates all other geographic and temporal contenders.

4. Arguments from genetics in this case are subservient and secondary to the primary linguistic argument, because we are talking about a language family.

5. Once we know where the IE Urheimat was and when (and we do know both of those things), then and only then can genetics be brought to bear on the ancient people living there at that time.

Regions south of the Caucasus are not seriously in contention. They do not share the border with Proto-Uralic that early Indo-European must have had, and they require Indo-European to be much older than it possibly could be. We also do not see Caucasus y-dna spreading into the steppe the way it should have had early Indo-European spread from there.
For some people who live in isolated areas where the population is homogeneous, the concept that language and population genetics are not linked is difficult to grasp. A modern day example may help. English is the langage spoken in the United States of America, but it did not originate there. While a good proportion of Americans are of British origin, it is far from being the case for a large proportion of the population. The reality of a dominant population imposing its language over an area they conquered is not new and that is likely what operated in the diffusion of IE.

Titane
07-05-2018, 12:11 PM
On this forum we are all supposed to be "Science-centrist", and nothing else. "Euro-centrists", "Afro-centrists", "Basco-centrists", "Scando-centrists", "Indo-centrists", "Anythingelse-centrists" have nothing to do on AG. "NorthwesternAsia-centrists" have nothing to do on AG. You have nothing to do on AG.

I disagree that people should not be allowed on the basis of who they are. It may be impossible for people to physically travel and be exposed to different views and cultures. A forum is a good place to learn. Of course, the participants need to be open to accept other people’s arguments. But then, even in university circles, there are many who have a hard time to relinquish the hypothesis they had embraced. Just imagine how all of those who taught that Neanderthal had been erased from the face of the earth feel when they have to admit they were wrong!

Nive1526
07-05-2018, 12:16 PM
Well, J2 has shown up among Old European Neolithic farmers. It apparently was nowhere near as big among them as G2a, but there it was, predating the arrival of Indo-European in Europe west of the Dniester.


Like R1b in the Iron Gates mesolithic samples. It predates the arrival of IE in Europe by several thousand years, clearly a proof that R1b is mesolithic European and not IE at all. :P
I'm sure you will agree that this is a non-argument because they belong to very different and old branches within R1b. And it is the case for European Neolithic and the bulk of J2 in southern Europe too.

ffoucart
07-05-2018, 12:23 PM
Just imagine how all of those who taught that Neanderthal had been erased from the face of the earth feel when they have to admit they were wrong!

I was convinced from the start (Primary School) that Neandertals were intelligent people, and was in complete disagrement with papers excluding any admixing between Neandertals and Modern Humans. Hence why the 6th april 2010 will remain a day I will remember all my life.

rms2
07-05-2018, 12:30 PM
Like R1b in the Iron Gates mesolithic samples. It predates the arrival of IE in Europe by several thousand years, clearly a proof that R1b is mesolithic European and not IE at all. :P

R1b-V88, which is L389- and separated from the L389+ line leading to R1b-M269 about 17,000 years ago.

Even if those samples were L389+, which they are not, the presence of an ancestral y-dna haplogroup on the Danube that far in the past has little bearing on its potential IE status.

However, the presence of a J2 clade among Old European Neolithic farmers (obviously during the Neolithic) makes it unlikely that it was out on the Pontic-Caspian steppe among steppe pastoralists in time to be among the original Indo-Europeans.

You're using a false analogy to try to sound clever. It didn't work.



I'm sure you will agree that this is a non-argument because they belong to very different and old branches within R1b. And it is the case for European Neolithic and the bulk of J2 in southern Europe too.

No, I don't agree. The non-argument part is your using Mesolithic hunter-gatherers at the Iron Gates and trying make them analogous to Old European Neolithic farmers. J2 has been found in a skeleton belonging to the Neolithic Sopot culture in Hungary. That's hardly analogous to Mesolithic hunter-gatherers at the Iron Gates.

Here's another thing that makes your false analogy a non-starter: no J2 has been found in Khvalynsk, Sredni Stog, Yamnaya, Kurgan Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, Vucedol, or Proto-Nagyrev.

Nive1526
07-05-2018, 01:13 PM
You did not understand my post. I do not claim J2 was present in the steppe or is IE. J2 is just not a Neolithic haplogroup because few men in two or three European Neolithic cultures were carriers. Like R1b in Cardium Pottery, if you prefer a Neolithic culture where R1b has apparently been found. Do branches unrelated within the last 10.000 years prove anything about the recent history of the whole haplogroup? Obviously not.
It is hard to understand why J2, especially in Europe, so often gets associated with farming, while there is so little evidence for it. The bulk of J2 came during and after the bronze age on top of Neolithic Europe. These peoples spread their culture, which is distinct from Indoeuropean or Neolithic material culture and the few attested languages are best classified as isolates. If you want to disprove J2 being IE, PIE or anything else, it will work by analyzing the attested languages and the changes in culture associated with the arrival of J2 in this timeframe and not by giving the whole haplogroup a label like "neolithic", that is easily proven wrong.

ms85
07-05-2018, 01:45 PM
'That lady', did you actually watch it ?

If you did you may have noticed there were two giving the lecture, one of which was male.That lady would say and do everything for a few bucks. If I gave her 100 bucks and would ask her to bark, she would bark during her very amateurish presentation. She doesn't understand the meaning of 'loan words'. She is nobody.

rms2
07-05-2018, 01:46 PM
You did not understand my post. I do not claim J2 was present in the steppe or is IE. J2 is just not a Neolithic haplogroup because few men in two or three European Neolithic cultures were carriers. Like R1b in Cardium Pottery, if you prefer a Neolithic culture where R1b has apparently been found. Do branches unrelated within the last 10.000 years prove anything about the recent history of the whole haplogroup? Obviously not.

You're still plugging away at false analogies.

No one claims R1b-V88 is primarily Indo-European. It is L389- and separated by 17,000 years from the L389+ line leading to R1b-M269, which apparently is Indo-European.

Another thing that makes your analogy false is the fact that the situation of J2 is not anywhere near analogous to that of R1b. No J2 has been found in any culture regarded as Proto-Indo-European or associated with the early spread of Indo-European. The case with R1b, however, is entirely different in that regard.



It is hard to understand why J2, especially in Europe, so often gets associated with farming, while there is so little evidence for it. The bulk of J2 came during and after the bronze age on top of Neolithic Europe.

Like R1b-V88, J2 has been found in a Neolithic farming culture in Europe. Neither seems to have been common among Neolithic farmers, unlike G2a or I2a, but both were present among them.

J2 becomes pretty scarce as one moves north in Europe away from the Mediterranean.

I suspect most J2 probably did arrive in southern Europe with the same wave from Anatolia that brought the Minoans. What little there is of it in northern Europe may have been spread there by the Romans and other, later immigrants.



These peoples spread their culture, which is distinct from Indoeuropean or Neolithic material culture and the few attested languages are best classified as isolates. If you want to disprove J2 being IE, PIE or anything else, it will work by analyzing the attested languages and the changes in culture associated with the arrival of J2 in this timeframe and not by giving the whole haplogroup a label like "neolithic", that is easily proven wrong.

Who gave the whole J2 haplogroup the title "Neolithic"? Read the rest of my posts in this thread, not just the one in which I responded to Patarames.

But the fact remains that J2 was found in a Neolithic farmer culture in Hungary. Subsequently, the one, single Mycenaean y-dna result we have thus far belonged to the same subclade of J2a (J2a-Z6057) as that earlier Neolithic farmer. See post 149 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4729-Were-Myceneans-lineages-R1b-or-R1a&p=429676&viewfull=1#post429676).

So, you see, even one of the pieces of evidence used to argue that J2 is Indo-European turns out to have been derived from Neolithic farmers.

The only other real argument for it comes from dubious "Hittite" results that cannot be convincingly tied to the actual Indo-European Hittites but probably belonged to the non-IE Hatti or to Hittites whose ancestors were Hatti.

ms85
07-05-2018, 01:51 PM
On this forum we are all supposed to be "Science-centrist", and nothing else. "Euro-centrists", "Afro-centrists", "Basco-centrists", "Scando-centrists", "Indo-centrists", "Anythingelse-centrists" have nothing to do on AG. "NorthwesternAsia-centrists" have nothing to do on AG. You have nothing to do on AG.Most people on this forum are much Eurocentric, than I will ever be Western-Asia-centric. Like I said, I like AG a lot and I will go nowhere.

You may continue to talk with me, but since your last insult toward me, I decided to ignore you like some other people. Next time when you try to insult me, I will make work out of it!


Bye, bye

rms2
07-05-2018, 01:55 PM
That lady would say and do everything for a few bucks. If I gave her 100 bucks and would ask her to bark, she would bark during her very amateurish presentation. She doesn't understand the meaning of 'loan words'. She is nobody.

You really cannot and should not be taken seriously.

"That lady" is Asya Pereltsvaig (https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/instructor/aperel). She is a distinguished professor who teaches linguistics at Stanford University.

She is certainly not alone in holding the consensus view that the Pontic-Caspian steppe was the Indo-European Urheimat.

ms85
07-05-2018, 01:56 PM
The only thing what matters is that at the end of the day the Mycenaean sample they found was Y-DNA J2a1 and he was predominately NorthWest Asian (Anatolian) according to his auDNA.


This is a scientific FACT. All the rest are just excuses with ifs and buts. If, but, but, if, if, but and and it goes on.

ms85
07-05-2018, 02:02 PM
You really cannot and should not be taken seriously.

"That lady" is Asya Pereltsvaig (https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/instructor/aperel). She is a distinguished professor who teaches linguistics at Stanford University.

She is certainly not alone in holding the consensus view that the Pontic-Caspian steppe was the Indo-European Urheimat.Like I said, she is nobody. Her very simple, weak and childish arguments on 'wheel' had been countered many times. It was very easy & simple to counter her arguments. I showed it already.

She doesn't hold any academic integrity at all. It is easy to see that they paid her to say this stupid things.

Ajeje Brazorf
07-05-2018, 02:04 PM
Everyone has his own agenda...

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/le-miiverse-resource/images/a/a2/J_Jonah_Jameson_laugh.gif/revision/latest?cb=20160730113748

rms2
07-05-2018, 02:12 PM
Please delete.

rms2
07-05-2018, 02:17 PM
Like I said, she is nobody. Her very simple, weak and childish arguments on 'wheel' had been countered many times. It was very easy & simple to counter her arguments. I showed it already.

She doesn't hold any academic integrity at all. It is easy to see that they paid her to say this stupid things.

Incredible. I did not think you could still amaze me, but you've done it.

Phew!

ms85
07-05-2018, 02:18 PM
Everyone has his own agenda...

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/le-miiverse-resource/images/a/a2/J_Jonah_Jameson_laugh.gif/revision/latest?cb=20160730113748Bingo!


Like I said, I'm NorthWestern Asia Centric, like anybody is a little bit egocentric. It is normal and healthy. But I don't have any hidden agenda. I don't want to achieve anything. I'm not part of any political movement, and I don't make money out of it.


The worst kind is when they obviously have an agenda or are 'centric' to some culture, you can see it from miles away. But they deny it in your face. Those people should be ignored big time. Like I ignore some folks from Warschau.


And people who say that they don't have any agenda are dishonest to the bones. That's why they can't be trusted and they will spread lies, propaganda, spam everything to achieve their agenda. Such a people are capable to do everything, they lie and cheat. They can't be trusted. That's why you can't take them seriously.

rms2
07-05-2018, 02:19 PM
Everyone has his own agenda...


But some are supported by better evidence than others, and some bear a strong resemblance to a summer job shoveling stables.

rms2
07-05-2018, 02:27 PM
The only thing what matters is that at the end of the day the Mycenaean sample they found was Y-DNA J2a1 and he was predominately NorthWest Asian (Anatolian) according to his auDNA.


This is a scientific FACT. All the rest are just excuses with ifs and buts. If, but, but, if, if, but and and it goes on.

Glad to see you acknowledge the scientific fact that the one and only Mycenaean y-dna result we have thus far belonged to J2a-Z6057, the same subclade of J2a as that non-IE Old European Neolithic farmer from the Sopot/Proto-Lengyel culture in Hungary (5000-4910 BC).

See post 149 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4729-Were-Myceneans-lineages-R1b-or-R1a&p=429676&viewfull=1#post429676).

ms85
07-05-2018, 02:29 PM
But some are supported by better evidence than others, and some bear a strong resemblance to a summer job shoveling stables.Some use real scientific data as FATCS, and some are using excuses with ifs and buts.

Like, 'let say what will happen IF they find more samples.' Or, 'BUT we don’t know for sure whether that sample is from a Hattian or a Hittite.' When we know for sure that those sampels were found DURING the Hittite Era or the Mycenaen Era


But and if are not real arguments, period! They are just cheap excuses.



What matters is that the facts are already presented and those are academic facts! Data doesn't lie. Y-DNA and auDNA don't lie!