search this blog

Monday, December 18, 2017

Corded Ware as an offshoot of Hungarian Yamnaya (Anthony 2017)


David W. Anthony has just posted a new paper at his Academia.edu page titled Archaeology and Language: Why Archaeologists Care about the Indo-European Problem (see here).

It's not only an interesting discussion about why the search for the Indo-European homeland is still such a big deal, but also a useful, almost up to date, summary of the fascinating stuff that ancient DNA has revealed about the genetic history of Europe, with a special focus on the origin of the Corded Ware people, who are generally accepted to be the first Indo-European-speaking population of Northern Europe.

Now, I say it's an almost up to date summary, because Anthony seems fairly certain that the Corded Ware people were descendants of the Yamnaya people, rather than just their close relatives. He uses archaeological and ancient DNA data to argue that Yamnaya migrants moved from the North Pontic steppe to the eastern Carpathian Basin (present-day Hungary), and then onto what is now southern Poland to give rise to the proto-Corded Ware population.

I probably would've said this was a highly plausible scenario before I saw the ancient DNA results from the latest preprint of Mathieson et al. 2017, an ancient genomics paper in the works focusing on Southeastern Europe (see here). But now that I've seen those results, I feel that Anthony's proposal might be outdated.

One of the samples in that preprint is from a pre-Yamnaya Eneolithic burial on the northern edge of North Pontic steppe, in what is now eastern Ukraine, labeled Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561. This individual not only strongly resembles the Corded Ware people in terms of genome-wide genetic structure, but also belongs to Y-haplogroup R1a-M417, which is a paternal marker probably no older than the Eneolithic and intimately associated with the Corded Ware expansion. Currently, as far as I can see, he's by far the most likely candidate in the ancient DNA record to belong to a proto-Corded Ware population.

Keep in mind also that not a single instance of R1a-M417 has yet been found among a wide range of prehistoric individuals from the Carpathian Basin. On the other hand, Olalde et al. 2017 (see here) did manage to catch one Early Bronze Age (EBA) Bell Beaker from the region belonging to R1b-Z2103, which is the paternal marker currently most strongly associated with Yamnaya.

Below is a map of Central and Eastern Europe ca. 3000-2000 BCE from Anthony's paper, edited by me to show the burial location of Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561. If we assume that his descendants or close relatives were the proto-Corded Ware population, then looking at this map, it seems unlikely to me that they would've taken the Carpathian Basin route before expanding into Northern Europe. Rather, I'd say that they would've fanned out across the north directly from the steppe, perhaps along those northward-pointing river valleys? And I suspect that they may have still been a pre-Yamnaya group as they migrated out of the steppe, just as Yamnaya was forming somewhere to the east.


But hey, Anthony might be right, and I might be way off. Indeed, perhaps Anthony based his theory, to an extent, on soon to be published Yamnaya samples from the Carpathian Basin? If such genomes have been sequenced, and at least one belongs to R1a-M417, then it's game over as far as the origin of the Corded Ware people is concerned, and I'll welcome the surprise.

See also...

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

403 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 403   Newer›   Newest»
Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Alright, thanks for answering my inquiries. Much appreciated, I won't ask for the holidays from now on, do not worry. Your explanation was on point! Sorry about this mess.

@Rob No comment. Good day to you sir.

Vara said...

Dear David,

The quality of the comments is dropping lately. People have no idea what they're talking about anymore.

In the good spirits of Christmas, may I humbly request that you unban our trolls for some comic relief?

Davidski said...

@Vara

I do realize that things are a little slow here at the moment, and they will be for another two weeks or so, but don't worry, 2018 is gonna be huge on this blog. You won't be able to peel yourself away for almost the entire 12 months.

Vara said...

@David

I hope so. Maybe we will finally get that elusive South Asian paper after all!

Ryan said...

Merry Christmas guys.

Chetan said...

@David Yeah I had read that article before. It shows that both R1a and R1b were in the region well before Yamnaya or Indo-European. But let us hope for R1a from Yamnaya proper to lend additional support to the theory. From Sredny Stog, R1a has already been found that's good news for the steppe hypothesis.

BTW has there been any R1b found in CWC. If I remember correctly one sample from Germany was sequenced as R1b? I am not sure which subclade.

Also Merry Christmas everyone!


Davidski said...

@Chetan

Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog are dated to the Eneolithic or Copper Age, which is the generally accepted Proto-Indo-European time frame, while Yamnaya is dated to the Late Proto-Indo-European period. So it's not necessary for R1a to be in Yamnaya or R1b in Corded Ware.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"Modern Greeks can be modelled
70% Mycenenan
30% early Slav (RISE 568)

Of course it'll be more suble than that"

I don't know what method you used but that's wrong. Greeks have additional Near Eastern stuff the Myceneans didn't have.They are definitely not Mycenean+Slavic.

Chetan said...

@David Wasn't one R1b individual found from German CWC though? Just asking. Or was that result erroneous?


Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Vara Were you directing that comment towards me?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski David, when will you be updating your store?

Chetan said...

@Davidsky "Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog are dated to the Eneolithic or Copper Age, which is the generally accepted Proto-Indo-European time frame"

Yes I agree Khavalynsk and Sredny Stog were early PIE speaking.

Although I see a tendency among the anti-migration crowd to describe Sredny Stog as non IE to make it seem like the PIE migrations were a purely R1b event. They forget the R1a found in Khvalynsk from the same site as R1b.

They also can't seem to deny the CW like ancestry found in the Dereivka culture and CW being probably descended from Sredny Stog. So they resort to calling Sredny Stog and R1a as non IE.

But of course I believe these people are biased and mistaken.

Ryan said...

@Chetan - " Yeah I had read that article before. It shows that both R1a and R1b were in the region well before Yamnaya or Indo-European. But let us hope for R1a from Yamnaya proper to lend additional support to the theory. From Sredny Stog, R1a has already been found that's good news for the steppe hypothesis."

If IE or even just R1a in IE sprung from a sister group to Yamnaya I'd argue that's still the steppe hypothesis panning out. It would just be a slight variation on a theme.

I think the only wrinkle would be if R1a came into IE from a group that hadn't experienced CHG admixture yet (which could not therefor be IE). Even then that would just be a haplogroup jumping language groups though, which seems to have happened frequently enough.

Davidski said...

@Chetan

Wasn't one R1b individual found from German CWC though? Just asking. Or was that result erroneous?

I don't know, but last I heard it was a mistake. And even if there is R1b in Corded Ware, it might be from the assimilation of locals like the R1b Blatterhole farmers/foragers.

@Shahanshah of Persia

David, when will you be updating your store?

Next year after a couple of new ancient datasets are released.

Rob said...

@ Shahananah

"You even denied the Steppe hypothesis in the past, and are still praying that it's not true. "

As I told Sam in the past, please demonstrate where I suggested this ?
You guys lack even the most basic understanding, evolve beyond diapers before you address the me. But if you have genuine questions and want to learn, then you may seek.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Thanks, mate.

@Rob No comment.

Rob said...

@ Sam

I don;t think there's too much N.E. ancestry in Greeks over and above that found in Myceneans (which itself contains CHG/ Armenian and ANF)

Greek
"Mycenaean" 67.9
"Czech Slav" :RISE568" 28.4
"Iran_Chalcolithic:I1665" 3.2

Certainly, the Y haplogroup picture goes against much additional NE inflow,
Apart from perhaps odd J1 and J2, the bulk of them are neolithic and Bronze Age SEE.
Of course there were historic movements during Byzantine times- Armenians , Pontic Greeks, odd Syrian merchants etc; but these hardly affect the overall ancestry of mainland Greeks

Parts of Italy are a different matter, which might have demonstrable additional East Med. gene flow from Bronze Age to more recent periods.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"As I told Sam in the past, please demonstrate where I suggested this ?
You guys lack even the most basic understanding, evolve beyond diapers before you address the me."

Rob, yes I admit I come to conclusions about what other people think too quickly. But my conclusions on what you think have not always been wrong. I stand by most of my disagreements with you.

You've put forth many stupid theories on this blog. I think there are two reasons. First you lack knowledge of genetic factoids other bloggers like me have due to years of engaging in this hobby. Like, how you think Greeks lack Near Eastern ancestry beyond what Myceneans have. ADMIXTURE, PCA, and Y DNA have been showing relatively recent Near Eastern admixture in all of southern Europe for years now. The Mycenean genomes don't have all of it. You aren't aware of this because you don't have as much familiarity in this topic area as I do. Your lack of knowledge in the genetic topics on this blog is also why you have said with a straight face that Mycenean's Steppe signal is fake and actually from the Caucasus not directly from the Steppe.

The second reason is you put too much evidential weight on archaeology. You twist the genetic data to fit the scenario you favor based only on archaeology. Your archeaology focus is on the Caucasus and the Balkans and so you dimish the signifcance the Steppe migrations had on Europe and exagerate the genetic importance of the Balkans and Caucasus.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews Exactly! Thanks for pointing out the reality, mate. The truth is, and he may deny this, Southern Europe has had a significant influx of Near Eastern genes since the fall of Rome. In fact, most of the Near Eastern and North African DNA in southern Europe probably dates to the Islamic period. Let's not forget that Arabs ruled Sicily for nearly 300 years, Crete for over a hundred years, and much of Spain for 500 years, and were not completely "expelled" from Iberia until 1492, exactly 781 years after the Arab invasion. Heck, Iran and South Asia mostly lack Near Eastern/Arab input. In fact, Iranians seem to have no Arab admixture, which is quite remarkable (though there is minor East Asian input, and some African input in minorities such as the Bandaris). Overall, Spain and Sicily have a lot of Near Eastern and Subsaharan African DNA, both of which are virtually absent in the majority of Iran. This means that many Arabs and Berbers chose to settle in the fertile plains of Al-Andalus and Sicily as opposed to Iran, and hence, left a major impact, both genetically and culturally, and initially, religiously as well. People like "Rob" can deny it all they want to, but it is not going to change the reality.

On a side note, what do you think explains the Near Eastern input in Greece? Could it be due to medieval migrants fleeing Islamic invasions or more recent migrations of Christians from the Middle East during the Ottoman period? Thanks.

Rob said...

"ou twist the genetic data to fit the scenario you favor based only on archaeology. Your archeaology focus is on the Caucasus and the Balkans and so you dimish the signifcance the Steppe migrations had on Europe and exagerate the genetic importance of the Balkans and Caucasus."

Yeah, like the 50% chg admixture in Yamnaya and the EEF in Ukraine neolithic
But of course, you clever steppe tards think those cows and metals walked themselves onto the steppe


Davidski said...

Guys, settle down, I don't have time to babysit you here.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"Yeah, like the 50% chg admixture in Yamnaya and the EEF in Ukraine neolithic
But of course, you clever steppe tards think those cows and metals walked themselves onto the steppe "

When did I ever deny the existence of CHG and EEF in the Steppe? I know a migration from the Caucasus to the Steppe happened. But there's no way that like what you have said the Steppe is just a minor source or one of many sources of migration. Steppe folk essentially conquered all of Europe north of Hungary within a few hundred years?

There was no direct migration from the Caucasus or Balkans deep into Europe or deep into central Asia (eventually India) hence they are not as important from a genetic perspective. The two important migrations are the Anatolian farmer one and the Steppe one.

Rob said...

@ Shahnahah

"The truth is, and he may deny this, Southern Europe has had a significant influx of Near Eastern genes since the fall of Rome. In fact, most of the Near Eastern and North African DNA in southern Europe probably dates to the Islamic period. Let's not forget that Arabs ruled Sicily for nearly 300 years, Crete for over a hundred years, and much of Spain for 500 years, and were not completely "expelled" from Iberia until 1492, exactly 781 years after the Arab invasion.'

We were talking about mainland Greece, not Sicily or Crete; as clearly stated, so your statements are strawman.



Rob said...

@ Sam

"But there's no way that like what you have said the Steppe is just a minor source or one of many sources of migration"

Please demonstrate where I said "it is a minor source" , I can;t seem to recall

"one of many sources of migration"

There were several. You just can't see it.

"There was no direct migration from the Caucasus or Balkans deep into Europe"

Obviously a migration from the Caucasus has to go through the steppe.
And there was probably migration from Caucasus directly to SEE. Again, the fact that you guys don;t know about it doesn;t mean much.

"or Balkans deep into Europe"

Yes there was. All the way to Britain.


Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski He's rowdy, what can one do? By the way, how similar would you say Chalcolithic Iranians are to modern Iranians? 90 to 95%? Why is Indian and East Asian DNA detected in modern Iranians in low amounts? Is this background noise or is it actual? Every Iranian sample I have seen has trace amounts of ASI and East Asian ancestry, makes you wonder.

@Samuel Andrews Sorry, I was just complimented your point, not arguing with you.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Rob There's nothing wrong with having Caucasus Hunter Gatherer ancestry, but anyway, I think he meant that it was not a DIRECT migration, but rather, indirect. And he's right.

Rob said...

@ Shah

Really ? Care to comment about the J2b in Bronze Age Croatia ?


Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"So instead of making blanket assertions , point out specifics ... "

Dude, look at any ADMIXTURE spreadsheet on GEDmatch, David's ancient ancestry ADMIXTURE tests, and West Eurasia PCAs. Checkout the Southwest Asian, East Med, West Asian, Caucasus, etc. scores. I've been aware of recent Near Eastern admixture in southern Europe for like 5 years.

High freauencies of Y DNA J an E. Much higher scores in Near Eastern components than Neolithic farmers. In PCA(s) Italy and Greece form a bridge connecting Europe and the Near East. It's pretty dang obvious what's going on.

Modern Greeks have as much or more excess CHG as Myceneans. Because they have Slavic admixture which dilutes the CHG in Myceneans they need a Near Eastern ancestor other than who the Myceneans had.

"And why did my estinate of single digits NE admixture in greeks resemble Dave's ? "

That's just one test. Check out results using his Global 10 PCA.

Mycenean.
Minoan-86%
Yamnaya-14%
Anatolia BA-0%
WHG-0%

Greek_Macedonia.
Minoan-55%
Yamnaya-23%
Anatolia BA-15%
WHG-7%

Greek_Peloponnese
Minoan-54%
Yamnaya-16%
Anatolia BA-20%
WHG-11%

Using David's D-stat spreadsheets....

Greek.
Anatolia Neo-52%
Yamnaya-31%
CHG-4%
Iran Neo-9%

That's a total of about 13% CHG-type stuff. That's around how much David and Lazaridis 2017 give Myceneans. Greeks don't have less CHG than Myceneans.

When I use just ancient pops, plus Cypriot who has no Steppe or WHG....

Greek
Cypriot-43%
Yamnaya-28%
AnatoliaN-25%
WHG-4%

In terms of ancient ancestry components, Greeks are intermediate between Cypriot and northern Europe.

Another result using D-stats but with mostly modern populations.

Greek.
MN5 (Anatolia Neo with 5% WHG)-24%
Belarus-38%
Turkish-13%
Cypriot-16%
Georgian-9%

Using David's ANE K8 calculator. ANE K8 mirrors West Eurasian PCA placements.

Greek.
MN5-27%
Belarus-30%
Cypriot-30%
Georgian-12%

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews That's probably and most likely from the Anatolian Greeks and Caucasian Greeks who flooded Greece after the World World War and Turkish War of Independence. That's the most likely reason for that Caucasian admixture.

On a side note, why do you think that no Arab admixture is detected in Iran, but is present in Spaniards and Sicilians?

Rob said...

Dam
Your calculations are rubbish . You're using Minoans, instead of using Mycenaean, which is the actual question we're losing
In fact, dont bother

My word is authority
And it's backed up by Dave's own calculations
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/modern-day-greeks-italians-vs-mycenaeans.html?m=1

"High freauencies of Y DNA J an E."

J2a arrived by late neolithic , perhaps more in BA
E-M78 came in neolithic, and V13 is a Bronze Age expansion from *within Europe *
These aren't markers of "recent (historic)" NE ancestry

Please, your combined ignorance is offensive to European prehistory

@ Dave
Get your stooges in order

Samuel Andrews said...

Now look at ADMIXTURE scores....

Eurogenes K15....
Minoan
-West Asian 8%
-East Med 26%

Central_Greek
-West Asian 15%
-East Med 27%

Dodecade K12b.

Minoan
-Caucasus 44%
-Southwest_Asian 12%

Greek
-Caucasus 37%
-Southwest Asian 10%

Eurogenes K13....

Minoan
-East Med 39%
-West Asian 5%
-Red Sea 0.5%

Greek
-East Med 29%
-West Asian 15%
-Red Sea 5%

Don't you dare tell me modern Greeks get all their CHG, near eastern stuff from Minoan types. Clearlly they have something which can't be explained by Minoans or Myceneans. They aren't only Slavic+Mycenean-like.

Samuel Andrews said...

@ROb,
"J2a arrived by late neolithic , perhaps more in BA
E-M78 came in neolithic, and V13 is a Bronze Age expansion from *within Europe * "

Combined J2 and E1b1b1 take up about 40% of Greek and southern Italian Y DNA!! Just a few percent of 100s of Y DNA samples from Neolithic Europe belong to E or J, ok.

Both lineages disappear north of Bulgaria and Italy. Just like how appreciable southwest Asian, Caucasus scores in ADMIXTURE disappear north of Bulgaria and Italy. Y DNA J2 and E1b1b1 frequencies in Europe directly correlate with an autosomal pull towards the Near East.

Myceneans and Minoans did not have all the Near Eastern admixture modern Italians and Greeks rich in E1b1b1 and J2 do.

" and V13 is a Bronze Age expansion from *within Europe * "

Like how R1b L21 expanded within western Europe but its ancestors lived in Russia.

Davidski said...

Unlike in South Italy/Sicily, there isn't much post-Neolithic Near Eastern admixture in Greece, except in families that have very recent ethnic Greek ancestry from Anatolia, I guess like that of Dienekes Pontikos. If anyone's wondering why he basically quit blogging, then that's probably the main reason. lol

Anyways, you guys really have to learn to get along. I mean it. I can't ban everyone, otherwise I'd just be talking to myself here. So have a drink or two and just get along.

Rob said...

Well done Dave

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"You're using Minoans, instead of using Mycenaean, which is the actual question we're losing
In fact, dont bother "

That's because can't find GEDmatch IDs for Myceneans. Also, Mycenean's CHG stuff is a fraction of what Minoans have and you think modern Greeks have a fraction of what Myceneans have. Therefore, Minoans, according to your line of reasoning, should have a much bigger CHG-signal than modern Greeks.

But then why do modern Greeks score higher in CHG-rich "West Asian" components? And why do they score in the Natufian-related the Red Sea component? Same reason they have loads of Y DNA E1b1b1 like the Natufians did.

Face it dude. I detected something you didn't. I detected not only recet CHG ancestry but also recent Natufian (no matter how distant) related ancestry in southern Europe. No matter how small it is in some areas, it is deifnitly there. In southern Italy it's definitly big. We don't have the good enough ancient outgroups to use in qpADM for estimating percentages and sources for this Near Eastern admixture.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,
"Unlike in South Italy/Sicily, there isn't much post-Neolithic Near Eastern admixture in Greece."

But it is definitely there. Minoan alone isn't enough. Greeks must have ancestry from sources more rich CHG. Plus, in ADMIXTURE Greeks score in Natufian rich components like Red Sea and Southwest Asians.

"Well done Dave"

Btw, I'm not suggesting the post-Neo Near Eastern admixture in Greece is huge like 30%. Before the Minoan and Mycenean genomes were published I did. I was right because that estimated includes the 30%+ (it didn't come from a pure CHG source) already in Minoans. Excluding what's already in Minoans the estimate will be smaller.

Take me word, ancient DNA will eventually confirm "recent" Near Eastern stuff (btw, Minoan counts as recent) is in all of Southern Europe and fractions of it exists in France, southern Germany, and maybe even England. The still ultra high EEF ancestry in BA Portugal, BA Croatia, and IA Bulgaria makes me think some it could be "very recent" (historical times). Who knows it could have something to do with the Roman empire. Maybe that's why France has a decent amount of Y DNA J2, E1b.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,
"Anyways, you guys really have to learn to get along. I mean it. I can't ban everyone, otherwise I'd just be talking to myself here. So have a drink or two and just get along."

Yes sir. Rob started it though.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews The Y-DNA in Greeks is not recent, it's ancient, and that exact clade is not found in North Africans or Middle Easterners. So, calm down. I agree with David, here.

@Davidski What makes you think that Dienekes is a Pontic Greek? Obviously, the name kind of suggests it, but I do not think it is enough evidence against him. Furthermore, I don't think that's not why he doesn't blog much anymore. He knew his ancestry, no doubt, so I doubt that is the reason. I personally think he's just shocked about the Slav admixture in Greeks. By the way, can you answer my inquiry about Iran? Thanks, bro.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Though, Dienekes probably grew up believing that he was 100% of pure ethnic Ancient Greek stock. LOL!

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,

You've done a good job keeping this blog civil.

@Shahanshah,

"The Y-DNA in Greeks is not recent, it's ancient, and that exact clade is not found in North Africans or Middle Easterners."

Modern Y DNA can be deceiving. No Greek Neolithic genomes sequenced have significant CHg admixture of Y DNA E1b or J2 yet.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews The E1b found in Greeks is not found outside of Europe, though.

It's E-V13. It's not common at all outside of Europe and 90% of Greeks belong to this clade. Stop acting like an idiot. I bet you think that modern Iranians are half Arab.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Dienekes might be from the island of Pontikos, not necessarily of Pontic Greek descent. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontikos

Are you two good friends?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Nevermind, he admitted in the past that he was half Pontic Greek: http://www.network54.com/Forum/233031/thread/1058913900/last-1058932903/View+Thread

Davidski said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

By the way, how similar would you say Chalcolithic Iranians are to modern Iranians?

I don't know, but you can probably work it out from the data in this post...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/04/zarathushtra-and-his-steppe-posse.html

Rob said...

@ Sam

I admit - You have just discovered something called the neolithic migrations
You also discovered that Greeks have major Mycenaean ancestry
Well done bud !

Onur Dincer said...

@Shah

Why is Indian and East Asian DNA detected in modern Iranians in low amounts? Is this background noise or is it actual? Every Iranian sample I have seen has trace amounts of ASI and East Asian ancestry, makes you wonder.

There is clearly a notable increase in ASI ancestry in Iran sometime after the Early Iron Age based on the results of ancient and modern Iranian genomes. It should be earlier than the Islamic era as modern Zoroastrian Iranians show that increase too. The opening of the Silk Road and the Iranian imperialism might have played a role in this. As for the East Asian ancestry in Iran, it is largely restricted to the Muslim populations, which indicates that it is related to the Turkic migrations to Iran.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"I admit - You have just discovered something called the neolithic migrations"

Minoans weren't Neolithic. No Greek Neolithic genomes have significant CHG ancestry. Did you notice in the apADM model from David you posted that Greeks score 9% Iran Chalcolithic in addition to the Mycenean stuff? Also, using D-stat spreadsheets created by David all southern Europeans, except Basque, get a better fit using a Near Eastern reference in addition to MNF and Steppe than just MNF and Steppe.

The Y DNA J2 and E1b1b1 in southern Europe is not of EEF origin. It's distribution correlates with this Near Eastern signal in autosomal DNA. Literally, well over 100 EEF Y DNAs have been sequenced. Very very very few had J2 or E1b1b1. The J2a in Myceneans and Minoans obviously came with their CHG ancestors. Neolithic Greeks had little or no CHG and therefore little or no J2. How of the Balkan farmers from Mathieson 2017 had J2 or E1b1b1? How many Iberian farmers had it? Point is, something moved into Europe from the Near East "recently", notice I've always put recently in quotes. Basically I mean post Neolithic or at least thousends of years after EEF established itself.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Shahanshah,
""It's E-V13. It's not common at all outside of Europe and 90% of Greeks belong to this clade. Stop acting like an idiot. I bet you think that modern Iranians are half Arab."

No I don't think Iranians are half Arab. Like I said modern Y DNA can be deceiving. Every region has its own unique haplogroups found no else. The fact they are found no where else today doesn't exclude the possibility it arrived from somewhere else. Ancient DNA has shown Y DNA replacement and founder effects do happen over the course of thousends of years. The lack of E-V13 in the modern Near East doesn't exclude the possibility it was there in 3000 BC and that it then expanded into Europe.

Proud farmer said...

@shahenshah of Persia
India is a democracy now and nobody is anyone's subject . I don't think the rest of India was ever a subject as such of the upper castes as you say. In south especially in case you don't know we don't have an indo European language . We kind of retained our own culture and language. Can't do that if we were subjects for millennia as you infer. Get your history right for gods sake . It's easy to learn. Not as hard as genetics.

Rob said...

@ Sam

"The lack of E-V13 in the modern Near East doesn't exclude the possibility it was there in 3000 BC and that it then expanded into Europe"

Whilst that's true in theory, the fact that there is E-V13 in the Lengyel culture, and an 'E-V13*' in modern Scotland seems like good enough evidence to me.

Vara said...

@Shahanshah

You and few other fanatics. Almost everything you said in this thread is incorrect.

The Jihadi mentality of you guys still amazes me, tbh.

Lank said...

@Samuel Andrews:

E-V13 has a European affiliation, and a recent TMRCA dated to the Bronze Age. The vast majority of modern V13 carriers share a common ancestor about 4000 years ago. It's not likely to correlate with any recent, substantial migration related to Levantine ancestry in Greece.

Jaydeep said...

Shah,

The ASI in Iran is also found in Central Asia. It is most likely because of early bronze age or Chalcolithic migration from South Asia into Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Remember this - the early bronze age cultures of Helmand (Shahr-i-Sokhta) & Hari Rud (Jiroft) are closely related to the Indus Civilization and the dominant & native cattle in Central Asia and Eastern Iran is Zebu which has its origin in South Asia and which was present in Eastern Iran and Central Asia already by 3000 BC.

So you can bet that there was cultural expansion of Early Harappan period Indus people into Eastern Iran and Central Asia.

Jaydeep said...

Grey,

Thanks for the article.

You may have noticed from the map that the highest consumption of consumption of milk is exactly in the same region as the Indus civilization. It is also pertinent that the greatest consumption is found in Haryana which has the distinction of having one of the two earliest Harappan sites (Bhiranna) and also the largest (Rakhigarhi). It is also worthwhile to note that the region of Baluchistan seems to show the highest prevalence of Lactase Persistence (if the other map is accurate) in South Asia. Mehrgarh, the second of the two early Neolithic sites known, is in Baluchistan.

One needs to ponder - is all of this just co-incidence ?

It is

Chetan said...

Has anyone checked this paper?

Gimbutas’ smile – an archaeology led archaeogenetic model

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201712.0137/v1

It's not peer-reviewed and the author is a citizen scientist. But it's pretty much confirming to what we now know from ancient DNA. At least as much as I read.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Thanks mate, appreciate it!

@Onur Dincer Thank you for your explanation, I think you are correct. It was likely imported during the Sassanian or Achaemenid eras. There must have been a great deal of Indian merchants in both eras in Iran. There could have been other factors involved here as well.

@Samuel Andrews Trying to equate E-V13 with Near Eastern admixture is quite foolish on your part, as it is found in a few ancient Neolithic samples.

@Proud Farmer I know my history and I did not even mention South India. I do know that South India never came under Vedic domination and had its own unique city states and kingdoms. I never mentioned South India or said anything about its history, all I said was that South Indians seem to have no Steppe admixture due to their lack of contact with the north. It's only in the case of the Tamil and South Indian Brahmins do we see some Steppe ancestry.

@Vara What "Jihadi" mentality? I am not a Muslim, in case you were assuming. The problem here is not with people like me, but people like you. You Indians have some clear problems with the Kurgan hypothesis and went out your anger on others when you get confronted about your fallacious beliefs.

@Jaydeep Perhaps, but I doubt it, since we have a sample from Iron Age Iran, and it shows no ASI admixture. I guess we need more samples to confirm your theory. On a side note, why do you deny the Aryan Invasion Theory? Why can't you accept it at this point?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Vara Vent*

Vara said...

@Shah

"@Vara What "Jihadi" mentality? I am not a Muslim, in case you were assuming. The problem here is not with people like me, but people like you. You Indians have some clear problems with the Kurgan hypothesis and went out your anger on others when you get confronted about your fallacious beliefs."

^ Jihadi mentality. It was never about Muslims you dork. It's the "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality some of you have. The fact that a novice such as yourself, who believes that the modern day Greeks aren't descendent of the ancient Greeks and that the Achaemenids magically had more Steppe than the rest of Iran despite seeing the Iron Age sample that was found in a Median area and despite the fact that they married Jews and other "Native" Middle Easterners, is speaking with absolute certainty as if you lived in the bronze age is hilarious.

I'm all for the real Kurgan theory in fact. Kurgans, cattle, metallurgy and CHG made it from the Caucasus to the Steppes, even if you consider that a minor migration. 50% CHG and all that is minor? On the other hand a minor steppe ancestry in Greece that can be interpreted differently is absolute proof for you? LOL!

As for the Steppe theory, I consider it the second most plausible theory if tweaked a bit. I can see Indo-Hittite out of the Balkans as well, but considering other possibilities is heresy in the Steppe Church.

For the record I'm not an Indian and I'm not sure why you idiots always assume that. I'm tired of repeating that my Vara comes from Yima's vara. Maybe I should change my username to I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE OUT OF INDIA THEORY because apparently that's the only theory other than the Steppe theory that you guys know.

Rob said...

Vara - well said bud

Dave - last predictions in South Asia ?
Perhaps paper is a 3-4 weeks away

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Vara

"^ Jihadi mentality. It was never about Muslims you dork. It's the "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality some of you have. The fact that a novice such as yourself, who believes that the modern day Greeks aren't descendent of the ancient Greeks and that the Achaemenids magically had more Steppe than the rest of Iran despite seeing the Iron Age sample that was found in a Median area and despite the fact that they married Jews and other "Native" Middle Easterners, is speaking with absolute certainty as if you lived in the bronze age is hilarious."

The Achaemenids mainly married within themselves, not with Jews or other natives. The story of Esther is nothing more than a myth. Furthermore, they were actually very strict about preserving their lineage, going as far as marrying their siblings. Also, the Achaemenids probably did have more Steppe than the natives, much more. The Iron Age sample from Iran is not even from a Persian site, rather a Hurrian site. Therefore, it is not of any relevance to us. It's well known that the Persians migrated to Iran later on, at the turn of the 1st millennium B.C. They were most definitely much more Steppe derived than the natives, up to 70%, I would say. The early Achaemenid elite was probably around 50 to 60% Steppe derived. I never said that Greeks are not the descendants of ancient Greeks, they probably are. They just have additional Slavic and Albanian admixture, which has significantly diluted their Greek ancestry.

"I'm all for the real Kurgan theory in fact. Kurgans, cattle, metallurgy and CHG made it from the Caucasus to the Steppes, even if you consider that a minor migration. 50% CHG and all that is minor? On the other hand a minor steppe ancestry in Greece that can be interpreted differently is absolute proof for you? LOL!"

Seeing Steppe ancestry in Greece confirms the Kurgan model. In fact, the Crete Armenoi sample is ample evidence of there existing a hierarchy within Mycenaean society.

"As for the Steppe theory, I consider it the second most plausible theory if tweaked a bit. I can see Indo-Hittite out of the Balkans as well, but considering other possibilities is heresy in the Steppe Church."

There are no other possibilities. Sorry to break it to you, the Steppe hypothesis is the only correct one. All others are BS.

"For the record I'm not an Indian and I'm not sure why you idiots always assume that. I'm tired of repeating that my Vara comes from Yima's vara. Maybe I should change my username to I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE OUT OF INDIA THEORY because apparently that's the only theory other than the Steppe theory that you guys know."

No, we know of the other BS theories, but no one mentions them because they're too unlikely.



Davidski said...

@Rob

Dave - last predictions in South Asia?
Perhaps paper is a 3-4 weeks away.


Jaydeep, Balaij and Nirjhar will run away and join the circus.

Rob said...

@ Shahnah

"Seeing Steppe ancestry in Greece confirms the Kurgan model. In fact, the Crete Armenoi sample is ample evidence of there existing a hierarchy within Mycenaean society.

A common assumption but, needless to say, a circular mode of reasoning.

All it actually confirms steppe ancestry in Greece, hardly surprising given that it is a land mass contiguous with Bulgaria, which had steppe ancestry 3000 years before the Mycenean era. The final evidence will come a propper anaysis of the context of the individuals and their individualised lineages
This analysis will beyond people like yourself. And frankly, it'll irrelevant to you, because you're a fanatic, not a scholar.

And you should note that the Armenoi sample was a woman, so I guess they were importing women from the steppe ?

Rob said...

@ Dave
I meant specifics
Here is mine:

Iranian_Fars
"Iran_ChL" 59.15
"Yamnaya_Samara" 22.25
"Jordan_EBA:I1706" 15.4
"Dai" 3

Punjabi_Lahore
"Ust_Ishim" 40.25
"Iran_Neolithic:I1290" 38.35
"Yamnaya_Samara" 15.75
"Dai" 5.3

I cant specify when 'Steppe' ancestry reached India, but I think we are looking at eastern routes, non-Andronovo (something like more 'mysterious' cutlures like Bishkent or Vakhsh

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL! Balaji, Nirjhar, Jaydeep, and that bmdriver dude are already a bunch of clowns. I guess, going professional wouldn't hurt. ;)

@Rob No comment.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Rob You clearly included the Jordan EBA there to make it seem that Iranians are 15% Arab! What a load of BS. Clearly, you do not know how to model populations. Look at Davidski's breakdowns, they're much more accurate than yours.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Rob Iran Neolithic is a better fit for Iranians than Jordan EBA. I honestly do not know where you got that from. But, your modeling skills need improvement. That's all I will say.

Vara said...

@Shah

"The Achaemenids mainly married within themselves, not with Jews or other natives. The story of Esther is nothing more than a myth. "

Absolutely incorrect. Cyrus himself was a descendent of a Lydian princess. The Esther story was believed by the Sassanids themselves and can be proven by the Middle Persian inspired texts.


"The Iron Age sample from Iran is not even from a Persian site, rather a Hurrian site. Therefore, it is not of any relevance to us"

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-iron-age-iranian.html?showComment=1502561193333&m=1#c981989840027512622

The site is very close to Parsua, a Median site. These "irrelevant" Mannaens had Iranians names and the right PIE marker.

"They were most definitely much more Steppe derived than the natives, up to 70%, I would say. The early Achaemenid elite was probably around 50 to 60% Steppe derived."

I love how you play with numbers with absolute surety. I think they were 43.56%, tbh.

" I never said that Greeks are not the descendants of ancient Greeks, they probably are. They just have additional Slavic and Albanian admixture, which has significantly diluted their Greek ancestry. "

'We all know that most Greeks are just descendants of Slavic and Albanian migrants, there is no disputing the reality here.'

"Seeing Steppe ancestry in Greece confirms the Kurgan model. In fact, the Crete Armenoi sample is ample evidence of there existing a hierarchy within Mycenaean society."

It doesn't confirm or disprove it. See Rob above.


"There are no other possibilities. Sorry to break it to you, the Steppe hypothesis is the only correct one. All others are BS."

Again proof of your fanaticism. "My religion is the real one all others are false". Even David sees the possibility of Indo-Hittite out of Caucasus. I wish you goons would learn from him sometimes. Also, I love how most people on this blog ignore the Caucasus migrations.

But you're all wrong anyways, because my church > your church. Earth is only 6k years old. All this migration crap is bullshit. The only real migration was with the sons of Noah.



Rob said...

@ Shah
Not everyone is racist biggot like you

Iran Neolithic isn't a good fit for modern Iran, Old news
Iran Neolithic is the best fit for India
And yes, of course there is middle eastern admixture in Iran.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Vara No comment.

@Rob Really?

David did these a while back:

Iranian_Bandari
Iran_Chalcolithic 0.136 ± 0.121
Iran_Neolithic 0.631 ± 0.152
Yamnaya_Samara 0.164 ± 0.033
Han 0.026 ± 0.017
Yoruba 0.044 ± 0.013

Iranian_Lor
Iran_Chalcolithic 0.723 ± 0.078
Iran_Neolithic 0.106 ± 0.079
Yamnaya_Samara 0.130 ± 0.024
Han 0.041 ± 0.011

Iranian_Mazandarani
Iran_Chalcolithic 0.558 ± 0.066
Iran_Neolithic 0.209 ± 0.065
Yamnaya_Samara 0.178 ± 0.022
Han 0.055 ± 0.010

Iranian_Persian
Iran_Chalcolithic 0.617 ± 0.064
Iran_Neolithic 0.181 ± 0.062
Yamnaya_Samara 0.148 ± 0.022
Han 0.054 ± 0.010

Kurd_Feyli
Iran_Chalcolithic 0.707 ± 0.070
Iran_Neolithic 0.125 ± 0.072
Yamnaya_Samara 0.139 ± 0.023
Han 0.029 ± 0.011

Kurd_Feyli
Iran_Chalcolithic 0.615 ± 0.070
Iran_Neolithic 0.174 ± 0.066
Andronovo 0.185 ± 0.028
Han 0.026 ± 0.011

Kurd_Feyli
Iran_Chalcolithic 0.626 ± 0.066
Iran_Neolithic 0.138 ± 0.062
Sintashta 0.191 ± 0.030
Han 0.045 ± 0.010

See here: http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2017/04/zarathushtra-and-his-steppe-posse.html

Also, see this:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQTlhjXzVHb2hSSTg/view

Dimgray X Indian
Dimgray Plus Sindhi
Dimgray Fill square Pathan
Dimgray O Kalash
Dimgray Dot Brahui
Dimgray Star Balochi
Dimgray Diamond Tajik
Black Fill square Iranian_Lor
Black O Iranian_Mazandarani
Black X Iranian_Persian
Black Star Kurdish

Basically, David has shown time and time again that Iranians lack Arab-like admixture. Indeed, Iranians are not at all close to Arab samples, and are right where they should be.

@Davidski We can't please everyone, can we? People like this guy are calling for others to be banned, but are not working on improving themselves first.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Rob On a side note, I do apologize if I have been rude. I guess I just do not like it when some people spread misinformation. But, from now on I promise not to say anything too offensive. Just be careful with your assessments about people here, and stop assuming things about others. Thanks, mate.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"Whilst that's true in theory, the fact that there is E-V13 in the Lengyel culture,"

Nope. Only E-M78 was found in Lengyel not E-V13.

@Everyone,

Here's a fact check on my theory. I'm not only saying there's post-Neolithic Near Eastern ancestry in Greece I'm saying there's some in all of southern Europe. By post-Neolithic I mean after 3000 BC or at least thousends of years after EEF farmers settled in southern Europe.

The Minoan genoemes don't go contrary to my theory. They lived after the Neolithic!! They lived many thousends of years after the first Neolithic farmers in Crete. Late Neolithic Greek genomes lack the CHG Minoans have. Minoans are the just the first confirmed case of a serious non-EEF farmer Near Eastern admixture in southern Europe. Minoans are estimated to be 20% CHG. That could mean they are of 50% recent Near Eastern origin. Maybe the Minoans can explain most of the Near Eastern admixture in modern Greeks. But that doesn't prove my theory about post-Neolithic Near Eastern admixture in Greece and all of southern Europe wrong!

And keep in mind the Minoans lived at the very eastern edge of Europe. Maybe CHG admixture reached Greece and Crete by the *late* Neolithic but it definitly didn't reach mainland Italy yet where the Near Eastern signal is just as strong as in Greece.

Right now, we don't have good enough outgroups to determine how significant this post-Neolithic (post-EEF) admixture in southern Europe is. This is why David says big amounts of post-Neolithic Near Eastern admixture is only in southern Italy. That's the only place he can confirm it is truly there using the outgroups currently avaible. But that doesn't mean it isn't also in the Balkans and Iberia.

Samuel Andrews said...

EU test. Middle_Eastern scores.
Natufian-69%
JOrdan_EBA-44%
Barcin_N-8%
HUngaryCA-4%
CHG-0%
Sardinia-4%

South Italy-11%
Tuscan-5%
Spain-6%
Basque-0%
No Greek score available.

If all the non-EEF Near Eastern admixture in southern Europe is from CHG then why does southern Europe have scores in this component as high or higher than pure EEF's from Anatolia?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Lank,
"E-V13 has a European affiliation, and a recent TMRCA dated to the Bronze Age. The vast majority of modern V13 carriers share a common ancestor about 4000 years ago. It's not likely to correlate with any recent, substantial migration related to Levantine ancestry in Greece."

Maybe so. That expansion would have had to come out of somewhere in SE Europe. But there's no denying that the J2 in Minoans and modern southern Europeans is from recent Near Eastern admixture. And there definitly is some Levantine admixture throughout southern Europe not just southern Italy.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews Thanks, I think you might be on to something here.

In case Rob was wondering, here is the Iranian average:

Iran Neolithic: 0%

Iran Late Neolithic: 0%

Iran Copper Age: 0%

Iran Iron Age: 4.17

Iran Recent: 7.80

Modern Iranian (a friend): 6.73

Iranian average from the Database: 8.36

Therefore, Iranians only seem to have picked up around 2 to 4% Middle Eastern ancestry since the Iron Age, likely from a Levantine or Mesopotamian source, whereas, Southern Europeans seemed to have picked up a lot from Arabs.

IR:

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews There is a Greek score, here: 8.10. Look at the Gedmatch spreadsheet. Greeks also have some West Asian, around 14.28%.

Alogo said...

@Sam,

I think part of the confusion was due to a slight apparent equivocation of "recent" on your part, sometimes almost meaning "post-Neolithic", sometimes almost meaning "post-Classical/Iron Age". It got clearer in your later posts.

So Rob was right in what he said at that point. Just look at Gheg Albanians who seem to be the most conservative (both historically and genetically) population in the Balkans, autosomally with their quite high genuine Anatolia_N and more southern position on the PCA, and their rather high frequencies of EV13 and certain subclades of J2b which already are starting to appear in Bronze Age samples. They don't seem that *post Bronze Age* Near Eastern influenced, almost not at all I'd say, especially to an extent that could explain these.

On the other hand, I (and I think Rob would too) agree with you that there seem to be low levels of post Bronze Age "Levantine" (i.e. Levant > Iran proportionally) ancestry in the whole of Southern Europe (everything south of Northern France-Germany-Hungary, even in Sardinia, but greater in non-Basque Iberia-South Italy/Sicily-the Aegean islands) on top of the purely Caucasus/Iran Southeast Europe got earlier on, particularly in the Chalcolithic-Bronze Age.

North-Central Italy and the Balkans actually continue to show the Caucasus/Iran >> Levant trend, which seems to point to those ancient events affecting the regions overall much more than more recent ones from the Near East - or otherwise continuing more important influence from more Caucasus-rich sources, poorer in Levant. The Byzantine Balkans had more ties to Anatolia and Armenia than the Levant after all so who knows.

It's somewhat different in Sardinia, Iberia and South Italy/Sicily which seem to show a greater comparative overall Levant influence that might point to it coming mostly from more southern Near Eastern sources in general. The Aegean islands seem to follow a pattern in between the Balkans and Iberia/South Italy/Sicily.

Also, no need to put down archaeology. In this particular case quite a few people, including Rob, had predicted that the Bronze Age Balkans might end up already showing that considerable Caucasus/Iran_N influence that has now been shown, aside from earlier hints in Neolithic samples, due to known archaeological ties with Anatolia and ultimately regions beyond.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Algo,
"I think part of the confusion was due to a slight apparent equivocation of "recent" on your part, sometimes almost meaning "post-Neolithic", sometimes almost meaning "post-Classical/Iron Age". It got clearer in your later posts."

Yes, I was afraid that would confuse people. What I meant is post-Neolithic. Minoan and Mycenean genomes make it possible CHG admixture was in Greece by the Neolithic but it probably would have been late Neolithic. I can't imagine it was in Italy in the Neolithic. Because of Mathieson 2017 we know it wasn't in Bulgaria in the Neolithic.

Because of all that my theory is people from Anatolia or maybe even Greece carrying Y DNA J2 and E-V13 settled throughout southern Europe via the Mediterranean sea around 2000-1000 BC.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidsi In regards to Tony's recent article, I was wondering, is it plausible that the BMAC and Vedic Aryan samples will be included in the IVC paper? Or is this just hopeful thinking. You have said before that it is likely, though, after Joseph's article, what is your assessment?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,

Global 10 results again. This time using Mycenean instead of Minoan...The shared components between each ancestor makes things complicated. Anatolia_BA and Mycenean are pretty similar, Anatolia_BA might be absorbing Mycenean stuff. I don't trust thee exact numbers. The point is something is going on here. I don't believe Greeks are just Myceneans with Slavic admixture.

Greek_Macedonia.
"Mycenaean" 55.8
"Yamnaya_Samara" 16.1
"Anatolia_BA" 13.35
"Iran_ChL" 8.05
"WHG" 6.7

Greek_Macedonia
"Mycenaean" 47.2
"Slav_Czech" 33.2
"Iran_ChL" 19.6
"Kotias" 0

Open Genomes said...

@Shahanshah of Persia
@Arkaim

I think you both want this plot, which does show aDNA individuals on a background of many modern populations, including Australians:

Eurogenes Broushaki (2016) and Lazaridis (2016) Ancient Iran and Near East Interactive 3-D PCA Plot

This discussion about who is "White" because "White" (and the concept "Race" in general as most people here refer to it) cannot be defined objectively according to the data. We don't see discrete clusters, we see a continuum between a Middle Neolithic European (I0559 Baalberge) and the Taiwanese Aboriginals, and another continuum between the Neolithic Europeans and the Yoruba. (I believe that the Mbuti and the San, who are on other plots, are the true end of this continuum.) Notice that the earliest Upper Paleolithic Europeans are nowhere near Europeans today. Also notice that almost all the Natufians are on the European-African continuum, along with North Africans. The IAM people of Mesolithic-Early Neolithic Morocco (not on this plot) were somewhat more towards the "African" side than even the Mozabites of today, their closest relatives.

Notice too that there are two distinct continuums from Europe to the Taiwanese Aboriginals. one going through Central Asia, and another from Iran and South Asia going towards Australia, which includes Austroasiatic peoples, before curving back to Taiwan.

"White' only has meaning relative to a very small number of alleles that have something to do with skin reflectance (without substantial sun exposure) and many Europeans are not homozygous derived for these alleles. There are various SNPs in Africa and Eurasia that influence skin color, so skin reflectance and eye and hair color don't have a monogenetic origin, and can't be used to determine general ancestry.

Can anyone here draw non-arbitrary lines on this plot that separate so-called "White" (the "White Race") from "non-White" ("People of Color", whatever that means)?

You can't. Given this data, why don't we stop thinking in terms of discrete so-called "races" and start thinking about continuums, like whether Iranians and South Asians are heading towards Austroasiatic speakers rather than Central Asians. The ancient people (even as recent as the Neolithic) don't fall into these neat, so-called "racial" categories. For example, the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Iranians were much more "South Asian-like" than Iranians today.

Isn't that just more informative than categorizing people into cultural concepts of "Race" that have nothing to do with genetics?

Open Genomes said...

To put it another way, using the Reich Lab terminology, neither "ANE" nor "Basal Eurasian" would qualify as "racially White" by anyone's definition. The earliest Neolithic individuals didn't have any of these distinct "ancestral components" in common, much less so than any two modern Eurasians today. Neither the Neolithic Bar8 from Barcin in Northwest Anatolia 8300 BP, nor the Neolithic WC1 from the Zagros Mountains of Iran, 9300 BP, had anything in common with the Epipaleolithic and Eneolithic EHG-derived steppe people, and nothing in common with the Mesolithic WHG people either. Why bother grouping them, along with the Mesolithic Natufians of c. 13,000 BP into one artificial "category" that can't be objectively defined?

Open Genomes said...

@David

What's the link to the latest K10 PCA spreadsheet?
Is this link going to remain the same, as the PCA gets updated?

Thanks.

Davidski said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

The upcoming aDNA paper on South Asia sounds like the Harvard one, and if so, then it's likely to have samples from BMAC, Harappa, Maykop and Swat. And my guess is that it'll have more than just four Harappan samples.

@Open Genomes

I think you mean this PCA and link. If so, this is the link that'll be updated regularly next year.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HBl1WoTL7MRIj2mht2tPijxmIFrNmFW5/view?usp=sharing

By the way, human population history isn't static, and I'd say that practically everyone understands this, whether they believe in the existence of human races or not, so the fact that, say, ANE or the Natufians don't really fit into any modern day racial categories isn't important in this context.

Indeed, groups like West Eurasians, East Asians and Bantu/West Africans are fairly recent products of Neolithic and Bronze Age expansions that led to large, unusually genetically homogeneous clusters in several parts of the world, and despite some intermixing since then, these clusters have remained relatively cohesive units into modern times.

These are simply groups that share a lot of recent genetic drift and lineages, and so their members usually look very similar, at least in a few important ways. Hence, West Eurasian = Caucasoid, and so on.

Admitting this reality shouldn't be in any way controversial, and I think that even saying that these groups are races is OK, as long as this isn't emphasized to any ridiculous lengths.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Open Genomes The PCA is a bit flawed, the SSAs are much, much, further than Europeans. It's poor projection bias. Africans are genetically very distinct from Caucasoids. While, Whites do not exist, Europeans and Caucasoids do. I think this distinction needs to be clarified here. Furthermore, there are obviously differences between different groups of humans, and whether or not you want to call these differences races, the point is that there are distinctions between us.

The IAM people were not closer to Africans than to Caucasoids, see here:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2017/09/ancient-genomes-from-neolithic-north.html

Clearly, KEB is not closer to Africans, and Caucasoids are closer to Mongoloids than they are to Negroids. Also, that's just terrible PCA projection.

Also, Davidski has better PCAs illustrating the differences:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-peopling-of-south-asia-illustrated.html

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Thanks for your reply, appreciate it mate. Also, thanks for clarifying the thing about race. These distinctions obviously do exist, and more or less, always have. And you're right, none of this is too controversial.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"Admitting this reality shouldn't be in any way controversial, and I think that even saying that these groups are races is OK, as long as this isn't emphasized to any ridiculous lengths."

Could you clarify what you mean by this? I think that genetic differences between the races also come alongside intellectual, physical, and behavioural differences. Most people might not agree, but I think that Humans who evolved differently under different and complex circumstances cannot be expected to perform equally well in regards to various societal, economic, intellectual, and cultural norms. I know that this is not politically correct, but obvious differences do exist between. This does not, however, mean that anyone is less than human or anything like that, we're all just unique in our own ways. This uniqueness has been genetically inherited from our ancestors, each of whom had different struggles and experiences, shaping their genome to what it is today. Even, physical features are different between the different groups of people on our planet. This cannot be the case, if we are also not distinct in regards to the other factors mentioned aboved.

Chetan said...

@Open Genomes I thought phenotype as a reliable indicator of prehistoric ancestry was a paradigm which had long been glossed-over in mainstream science. These debates about "whiteness" on the basis of archaic ancestry are without any basis. The term white/European is as much or even more, a cultural/ethnic descriptor than a purely physical/racial one.

That is, even if someone clusters 100% with the "purest" Nordics in the PCA graph but is not from a European nation/ethnicity, I don't think they can be called European in good conscience.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Chetan

"That is, even if someone clusters 100% with the "purest" Nordics in the PCA graph but you are not from a European nation/ethnicity, I don't think they would qualify for being called European."

No, that individual would be called a European. If Vedic Aryans cluster with Nordics, then that's what they are, Nordics. It is sort of a hybrid of cultural and racial, but it should just be European Caucasoid/Europid.

Personally, I do not think that they will cluster with Nordics, but if they do, we just have to accept the realities my friend.

Chetan said...

@Davidski I really wouldn't comment on a topic like this, but thought I had to draw attention to how the comment section is devolving into race discussion forum. Not that I'm an ultra PC guy, but it just takes attention away from the science of human prehistory that needs to be discussed.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Chetan

"I really wouldn't comment on a topic like this, but thought I had to draw attention to how the comment section is devolving into race discussion forum. Not that I'm an ultra PC guy, but it just takes attention away from the science of human prehistory that needs to be discussed."

No, it does not. What you mentioned is absurd. How is someone who is genetically European, not European culturally? In the case of the Vedic Aryans, their culture was indeed derived from Europeans for the most part.

Chetan said...

@Shahanshah Perhaps we should come up with better terms for describing ancient humans than terms like European/Indian/Chinese since these labels are not much more than 2000 years old at best. Thinking about it, that's why terms like ANE, WHG and SHG exist. So that discussions of prehistoric humans don't get conflated with the distinctions of modern races/ethnicities.

"If Vedic Aryans cluster with Nordics, then that's what they are, Nordics"

In that case, it would be better to describe both the Vedic Aryans and the modern Nordics as sharing a large ancestral component. But not describe the Vedic Aryans as nordics since the nordics didn't exist then (the Nordic Bronze Age is younger than the Sanskrit speaking Vedic "Aryans" (if I am not mistaken that is the period when the modern Scandinavian Nordic population started forming)

As a disclaimer, I don't think the above mentioned scenario is entirely true since both Nordics and the early Indo-Aryans had other separate components in their ancestry

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Chetan

"Perhaps we should come up with better terms for describing ancient humans than terms like European/Indian/Chinese since these labels are not much more than 2000 years old at best. Thinking about it, that's why terms like ANE, WHG and SHG exist. So that discussions of prehistoric humans don't get conflated with the distinctions of modern races/ethnicities."

Good point, but not relevant to modern discourse. It's not right to discuss modern populations with ancient ones in mind.

And by European, I meant Europid Caucasoid.

"In that case, it would be better to describe both the Vedic Aryans and the modern Nordics as sharing a large ancestral component. But not describe the Vedic Aryans as nordics since the nordics didn't exist then (the Nordic Bronze Age is younger than the Sanskrit speaking Vedic "Aryans" (if I am not mistaken that is the period when the modern Scandinavian Nordic population started forming)"

Good point, though, it would be better to say that they were of Northern or Eastern European stock.

"As a disclaimer, I don't think the above mentioned scenario is entirely true since both Nordics and the early Indo-Aryans had other separate components in their ancestry"

Yeah, me neither. They will probably end up being 70 to 80% Steppe EMBA, and 20 to 30% Neolithic Iranian.

Simon_W said...

West Eurasian = Caucasoid has also been my take for a long time, and this roughly equals "white". Though it's indeed the case that many laypeople have difficulty in applying the label white to non-European, often even non-Christian groups like Iranians or Jews, no matter how light their unexposed skin my be. In a similar vein many laypeople think Muslims are some kind of tribe that's the same from Morocco to Afghanistan. That's obvious nonsense and not even worth discussing. Some people are just hopeless cases deeply stuck in past thinking.

Also it may be worth considering that genes with important psychological effects may be shared across all human populations and that in some of these genes you may turn out more similar to members of another racial group than to your own group. Sounds strange, but I just recently stumbled across something like this in my own genome. (I'm speaking of rs1800497(T;T) which is at 5.3% in CEU, but at 18.5% in HCB and at 19.3% in ASW.)

Simon_W said...

^That's "just one SNP", but this combination of alleles causes your brain to develop a reduced count of dopamin D2 receptors.

Alogo said...

@Sam,

I think that particular "Greek_Macedonia" sample (that's often used) seems like it might be strictly speaking a combined Macedonian and Anatolian Greek sample as it ends up being both more steppe (per Northern Greece) and more Caucasus/Iran-heavy (per Aegean/Anatolian Greeks) compared to other mainland Greek samples.

So it helpfully captures both phenomena that seem to have gone on post-Bronze Age - *mainly but not only* extra northeastern stuff in the Balkan mainland and *mainly but not only* extra eastern stuff in Anatolia and the Aegean, both overall depressing the local Anatolia_N ancestry - in an exaggerated fashion.

In fact, from what I recall, the Lazaridis et al. paper basically showed much of this quite well with its f3 stats.


@Simon_W,

"Also it may be worth considering that genes with important psychological effects may be shared across all human populations and that in some of these genes you may turn out more similar to members of another racial group than to your own group."

That's of course true and basically also similar to what Lewontin famously argued some 45 years ago. Of course his thinking was a bit wrong, as later also famously argued in detail, about what he overall was arguing against but he was right about that part.

"White" is a new world Anglo-oriented label anyway and exactly what people mean when they say that "race is socially constructed". Cf the reception of the Catholic Irish. In a way, it's not unlike the similar discussion on whether the Chalcolithic steppe populations were "European" (and I'd fall in the "well, not quite" group on that :). Interesting for various reasons but obviously people will often use quite different criteria to argue about those things.

MomOfZoha said...

Shahanshah's collection of comments throughout this thread sounds like a membership application for Aryan Nations. While I understand historic and religious reasons for aspects of Iranian anti-Arab sentiment, Shahanshah takes the latent blip of anti-Semitism to a whole new level. For him, apparently, Near Eastern descent must be a source of shame. He is not King-of-Kings but Idiot-of-Idiots.

I am also disappointed that Onur engaged that Idiot-of-Idiots on the "whiteness" discussion at all, as Onur is a decent and intelligent person.

As a Turkish-Iranian-American triple citizen (yep, I did do that) whose Turkish parents both cluster with Iranians in David's IBD Neighbor Join tree, accept my apologies on behalf of Iranians and Turks that such a racist discussion ever arose. For shame.

Let me clarify some things:
* I have never before met an Iranian who dismissed the Esther story as completely false on the grounds of Esther's Jewishness. Even the average latent anti-Semite would not go to such a length merely for acceptance in the Aryan Brotherhood.
* Most Iranians are appreciative of their historic relations, including familial relations, with various Near Eastern people including Assyrians. The Aramaic root "Yalda" of Shab-i-Yalda celebrated across all Iranian peoples is just one testament to this.
* I do not believe that a Zoroastrian would speak as the Idiot-of-Idiots has spoken here. People who are secure in their identity simply do not become racist. Nor would any Ossetian, Kurd, or Parsi be ashamed of sharing their common Y-haplogroup J with Semitic speaking Near Easterners.

It is unfortunate that the political situation in Iran combined with the growing anti-Muslim Western sentiment has resulted in increased anti-Semitism in young Iranians. They go to extraordinary lengths to distance themselves from Arabs.

I cannot help but note the contrast of this racist Iranian behavior with that of the Sikhs: Even after multiple murders of Sikhs who were confused for Muslim due to their turbans, the Sikh community did not attempt to distance themselves from Muslims and Arabs. Even after a Sikh politician was called anti-Muslim slurs throughout a speech, he did not once state that he was not a Muslim, not an Arab. I may be partial towards Sikhs as my dearest friend and roommate throughout college was Punjabi Sikh. But, I think anyone can see some nobility in their behavior, of farmers though they may descend.

Rob said...

@ Sam/ Alogo

Sam I did include BA_Anatolia (averaged & weighted) in the 'Sources', however, for (generic) Greeks, it did not come up, but seems to for Greeks from Macedonia in some runs.
Of course, in my remarks I did not suggest any sort of simple linear continuity between Mycenean individuals and later Greeks, as the history of the region has been in significant flux, esp. after Antiquity.

More generally, I suspect that Levant-like/ Natufian ancestry will be present in mediterannean Europe perhaps as early as the Epipalaeolithic.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@MomOfZoha

"Shahanshah's collection of comments throughout this thread sounds like a membership application for Aryan Nations. While I understand historic and religious reasons for aspects of Iranian anti-Arab sentiment, Shahanshah takes the latent blip of anti-Semitism to a whole new level. For him, apparently, Near Eastern descent must be a source of shame. He is not King-of-Kings but Idiot-of-Idiots."

Lol, have you even read what I said? I did not mention anything about wanting to be an "Aryan", whatever that means. What anti-Semitism? What are you on about? I was just making a point that Iranians are not at all mixed with Arabs, or Semites for that matter. This is the truth, and there's nothing wrong with this. It is not about hating anyone, for that matter. Furthermore, Arabs hate Iranians with a passion, and they call and pray for the destruction of Iran. We have our Arab allies as well, and they are good people, but Arab in this context refers to the Arabs of the Gulf Cooperation Council, who are constantly at the throats of Iran, and are working towards destroying Iran itself. Why should we not have animosity towards these people? Again, this is not about having Arab or Semitic ancestry, this is about the realities. Arabs hate Iranians with a passion, and why should we love them with open arms and associate ourselves with their radical Jihadist spirit? You are the one provoking an argument where there isn't one.

"I am also disappointed that Onur engaged that Idiot-of-Idiots on the "whiteness" discussion at all, as Onur is a decent and intelligent person."

I was actually saying that Whiteness is arbitrary and it does not exist. Whites are just Europid Caucasoids, and the identity is not really all that meaningful.

"As a Turkish-Iranian-American triple citizen (yep, I did do that) whose Turkish parents both cluster with Iranians in David's IBD Neighbor Join tree, accept my apologies on behalf of Iranians and Turks that such a racist discussion ever arose. For shame."

There was never a "racist" discussion here, and you did not have to go all SJW! What are you even on about? Not once have I said anything demonizing another racial group. Stating that "Iranians are not mixed with Arabs" is not racist, it's the truth. Why do facts hurt your feelings?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@MomOfZoha

"Let me clarify some things:
* I have never before met an Iranian who dismissed the Esther story as completely false on the grounds of Esther's Jewishness. Even the average latent anti-Semite would not go to such a length merely for acceptance in the Aryan Brotherhood.
* Most Iranians are appreciative of their historic relations, including familial relations, with various Near Eastern people including Assyrians. The Aramaic root "Yalda" of Shab-i-Yalda celebrated across all Iranian peoples is just one testament to this.
* I do not believe that a Zoroastrian would speak as the Idiot-of-Idiots has spoken here. People who are secure in their identity simply do not become racist. Nor would any Ossetian, Kurd, or Parsi be ashamed of sharing their common Y-haplogroup J with Semitic speaking Near Easterners."

I never dismissed the Esther story on the basis of her Jewishness, I have dismissed it on the basis of a lack of archaeological and history evidence. Also, don't you know that the Jewish holiday of Purim celebrates the murder of 75,000 Iranians? How is that a good thing?

I have never once said anything about Assyrians and have always respected them. Why are you assuming things about me? You do know that doing so is against the forum rules, right? I have also made it clear that I have a great deal of respect for Iraqis and Syrians. I did not mentioned anything negative about all Semites or Near Easterners.

Wait, so I am a racist for simply speaking the truth? Iranians are predominantly J2, and Semites J1. Iranians lack the exact clade of J1 found in Arabs, and this is the reality. Again, I have no problems with Semites from Iraq and Syria. I am not an anti-Semite, whatever that means. Stop virtue signalling. No one appreciates that here, and again, stop making assumptions about me. There is nothing wrong with Semites, just with some Semites who have problems with Iranians, and are working to undermine Iran.

Stop bringing politics into this discussion, you are coming off as an SJW.

"It is unfortunate that the political situation in Iran combined with the growing anti-Muslim Western sentiment has resulted in increased anti-Semitism in young Iranians. They go to extraordinary lengths to distance themselves from Arabs."

Maybe, it's not just that, but also due to the fact that they invaded our country, plundered us, murdered us, destroyed our libraries, raped our women, burned down our cities, and put an end to our civilization. Also, why shouldn't we distance ourselves from Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates? In case you did not know, I have no problems with Egyptians, North Africans, Levantines, or Iraqis. Also, we are not Arabs and never were. I hate it when people such as yourself attempt to associate us with Arabs, as if we are intrinsically connected. Recent genetic evidence has found nearly no Arab influence on Iranian genetics. Why should we associate ourselves with people who clearly hate us? Again, by Arabs I am referring to those from GCC countries.

"I cannot help but note the contrast of this racist Iranian behavior with that of the Sikhs: Even after multiple murders of Sikhs who were confused for Muslim due to their turbans, the Sikh community did not attempt to distance themselves from Muslims and Arabs. Even after a Sikh politician was called anti-Muslim slurs throughout a speech, he did not once state that he was not a Muslim, not an Arab. I may be partial towards Sikhs as my dearest friend and roommate throughout college was Punjabi Sikh. But, I think anyone can see some nobility in their behavior, of farmers though they may descend."

What did Arabs do to Sikhs? Sikhs should have no ill will towards Arabs, but that's irrelevant to our discussion. Iranians have every right to distance themselves from Arabs. By Arabs, I am obviously referring to those living in the GCC. Arabs have brought nothing but death and destruction to our world.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Mate, you should seriously do something about all of the SJWs here. They will find everything you post racist and will try to get your blog removed. I am sick and tired of these people coming here and telling us what we can and cannot say. I have not once seen anything racist from you, but many people think that facts are racist, and hence, those who speak the truth need to be silenced and humiliated. There should be stricter rules here when it comes to these sorts of things. SJWs should have no place on this blog.

Vara said...

@Shah

"Maybe, it's not just that, but also due to the fact that they invaded our country, plundered us, murdered us, destroyed our libraries, raped our women, burned down our cities, and put an end to our civilization."

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It was the Pro Sassanids that put down their own civilization. You actually think a bunch of nomads who just ran away from a failed conquest of Ethiopia could take down the Sassanid Empire by themselves?
It was the Hamra, Gond, Asawira and Farrokhzad that did most of the work. Descendents of your heroes tried to destroy the Persian culture and civilization. Who do you think was in power? From day one it was Iranians. There is a reason for all these conspiracy theories. Most of the time Iran and the Caliphates were governed by Iranians rather than Arabs even in the early days. Salman governed Persia for Omar, for example.

Ummayad Caliph Sulayman said: "The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour." The guys who conspired against Abu Muslim were Iranians, as were the guys who conspired against Mazyar and Babak. The Arab Caliphs were nothing but puppets for Banu Munajjim, The Barmakids, Fadhl ibn Sahl, Tahir ibn Husayn and many other Iranians.

In fact the families that stood against the House of Sasan, Mihran and Karen, were the ones that actually restored the Persian language.

You are the perfect example of a wikipedia scholar. You gotta start learning your As and Bs, and go see someone for that inferiority complex, it's really annoying.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Shahanshah,

Some of the things you say sound maybe not racist but I guess negative towards certain people groups. Like you say Greeks don't descend from ancient Greeks but Iranians decend from Chalcolithic Iranians, Sicilians and Iberians have lots of Muslim admixture but Iranians don't. I don't deny Iranians have little Arab admixture.

You say certain populations have different behaviour, intelligence, skills. I think most here would agree this is probably the case. But this changes to racism when you say things like this....

"Yes, the Tribals played a role in the downfall of the IVC because they were primitives, genetically speaking, and when they mixed with them, it caused their civilization to collapse."

Looks like an excuse for you to label some groups as superior and other inferior. What research is there in the genetic primitiveness of Indian tribals? None. Without such data, it should be assumed they have the same capacity fro civilization as the Steppe+IranNeo Aryans.

Vara said...

@Shah

As for the Esther thing, Zoroastrians weren't endogamous prior to the 8th-9th centuries. Bahram V married a Jewess but of course you ignored my previous post. Though silence is acquiescence, right?

How does it feel knowing that Cyrus wasn't 70% Steppe thanks to Mandane? LOL!

Samuel Andrews said...

@Shahanshah,

I'm not accusing you of being a big ole racist. Also, I think you might on to something about Steppe-heavy elites in early Indo European societies. Let's wait for the ancient South Asian DNA. I got a feeling the results show loads of Steppe and the team is waiting so long to publish because they want to report the results in the most politically correct way possible.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Vara

"You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It was the Pro Sassanids that put down their own civilization. You actually think a bunch of nomads who just ran away from a failed conquest of Ethiopia could take down the Sassanid Empire by themselves?"

I have a degree in Near and Middle Eastern studies from a prestigious university. So, I know what I am talking about. Of course, there were indeed traitors within the Sassanid army who helped the Arabs, but that does not take away from the brutality of the Arabs. There were certainly internal problems within the Sassanid Empire, as well as the fact that the Persians had been fighting the Byzantines for the past 50 years. However, the truth is that Arabs were nonetheless very brutal. There are countless examples of their brutality, the most notable being the capture of Istakhr, which was leveled to the ground, and the inhabitants were massacred. Iran suffered greatly under the Arab and Mongol invasions, and there is no denying this fact. In fact, Iranians were treated as second class citizens, even if they converted to Islam. The Arabs used the term Majus to describe Iranians, and even if an Iranian converted to Islam, he had to be a Mawali of an Arab tribal chief. This is not a myth, it's all well documented.

"It was the Hamra, Gond, Asawira and Farrokhzad that did most of the work. Descendents of your heroes tried to destroy the Persian culture and civilization. Who do you think was in power? From day one it was Iranians. There is a reason for all these conspiracy theories. Most of the time Iran and the Caliphates were governed by Iranians rather than Arabs even in the early days. Salman governed Persia for Omar, for example."

You are wrong here, in regards to who was in power. The Arabs were indeed in power from day one. Stop acting like an idiot. The Umayyads were brutal towards the Iranians, hence why we had the Shu'ubiyya movement and eventually helped the Abbasids overthrow the Umayyads, but they ended up betraying Iranians as well. Just because a few traitors were sitting in Baghdad, living a life of luxury, does not take away from the fact that the common folk suffered. Have you ever heard of the nativist Persian rebellions? You should read Crone's work on the subject:

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/19466280-the-nativist-prophets-of-early-islamic-iran-rural-revolt-and-local-zoro

https://www.amazon.ca/Nativist-Prophets-Early-Islamic-Iran/dp/1107642388/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Clearly if it was all fun and games, then these revolts would not have occurred, now would they have?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Vara

"Ummayad Caliph Sulayman said: "The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour." The guys who conspired against Abu Muslim were Iranians, as were the guys who conspired against Mazyar and Babak. The Arab Caliphs were nothing but puppets for Banu Munajjim, The Barmakids, Fadhl ibn Sahl, Tahir ibn Husayn and many other Iranians."

More pro-Arab LARPing and lying. I have studied the history, but you are just saying what you want to believe. The Barmakids were purged by the Abbasids. Tahir Ibn Husayn did not control Baghdad and thus he had no control over the caliph. Fadhl ibn Sahl was likely killed on the Caliph's orders. No, most of the conspirators were not Iranians. The man who helped defeat Babak, Afshin, was also betrayed by the Caliph. Stop twisting the realities my friend.

"In fact the families that stood against the House of Sasan, Mihran and Karen, were the ones that actually restored the Persian language."

What are you even on about? The Samanids did not come until much later, and there would not have to be a restoration in the first place if the Arabs did not dominate our way of life. It's well documented how they infested our homes in Khorassan, and how they were made to live with us. Also, many revolts took place which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iranians.

"You are the perfect example of a wikipedia scholar. You gotta start learning your As and Bs, and go see someone for that inferiority complex, it's really annoying."

No, that would be you.

Ryan said...

@Shahanshah of Persia - " I am sick and tired of these people coming here and telling us what we can and cannot say."

"There should be stricter rules here when it comes to these sorts of things. SJWs should have no place on this blog."

You need to work on your sense of irony. "I'm sick and tired of people saying what we can and cannot say - so I want to dictate what people can and cannot say."

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Vara

"As for the Esther thing, Zoroastrians weren't endogamous prior to the 8th-9th centuries. Bahram V married a Jewess but of course you ignored my previous post. Though silence is acquiescence, right?"

What does Bahram have to do with anything? The majority of Zoroastrians did not marry outside of their religion. Zoroastrianism was an ethnic religion. One example does not change the realities.

"How does it feel knowing that Cyrus wasn't 70% Steppe thanks to Mandane? LOL!"

What?! What do the Sassanids have to do with the Achaemenids and their genetic makeup? Sassanids were obviously more like modern Iranians. Achaemenids were early Iranics, and I think it's safe to say that they were very steppe derived, sort of like the Vedic Aryans.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews

"Some of the things you say sound maybe not racist but I guess negative towards certain people groups. Like you say Greeks don't descend from ancient Greeks but Iranians decend from Chalcolithic Iranians, Sicilians and Iberians have lots of Muslim admixture but Iranians don't. I don't deny Iranians have little Arab admixture."

True, you're right. I was just speculating based on historical accounts and documents. I do think that Greeks have significant Albanian and Slavic ancestors, though the Albanian thing is difficult to detect because Greeks and Albanians were basically the same population, and probably have been since ancient times.

"You say certain populations have different behaviour, intelligence, skills. I think most here would agree this is probably the case. But this changes to racism when you say things like this...."

Hmm...

"Looks like an excuse for you to label some groups as superior and other inferior. What research is there in the genetic primitiveness of Indian tribals? None. Without such data, it should be assumed they have the same capacity fro civilization as the Steppe+IranNeo Aryans."

Well, for one, if they were not primitive, then they would have actually achieved something notable. But, they did not. No, it should not be assumed, because they did not form any civilization such as that of the Vedic Aryans or Indus Valley. And calling them primitive is not a bad thing in itself, it only becomes a bad thing once someone starts using that as an excuse to commit wrongdoings against them. So, by modern and ancient standards they were and are primitives.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews

"I'm not accusing you of being a big ole racist. Also, I think you might on to something about Steppe-heavy elites in early Indo European societies. Let's wait for the ancient South Asian DNA. I got a feeling the results show loads of Steppe and the team is waiting so long to publish because they want to report the results in the most politically correct way possible."

I understand, and no worries mate. You, yourself had similar views in regards to the Greeks. Having these views is not wrong, as long as one does not use them to oppress and question the humanity of certain peoples. I think the results will show heavily Steppe derived Vedic Aryans. Right now, our main problem is the Politically Correct media and researchers, who may purposely withhold or misrepresent discoveries which are crucial to understanding human migrations and the formation of early civilizations.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Ryan

It's better to dictate someone hostile to our views on what and what not to say then having them dictate to us what we should and should not say.

Vara said...

@Shah

Isn't it hypocritical to glorify the steppe invasions, while bitching and whining about the similar Mongol Invasions? Maybe you can finally sympathize with the Indians who reject the steppe theory, you snowflake.

Vara said...

@Shah

"There are countless examples of their brutality, the most notable being the capture of Istakhr, which was leveled to the ground, and the inhabitants were massacred."

No one in modern day academia takes the brutality of Khalid and co seriously anymore. People died when Shapur and Khosrau sacked Antioch. No doubt people died in wars back then but the Arabian conquests were highly exaggerated.

"In fact, Iranians were treated as second class citizens, even if they converted to Islam. "

"You are wrong here, in regards to who was in power. The Arabs were indeed in power from day one. Stop acting like an idiot. The Umayyads were brutal towards the Iranians, hence why we had the Shu'ubiyya movement and eventually helped the Abbasids overthrow the Umayyads, but they ended up betraying Iranians as well. Just because a few traitors were sitting in Baghdad, living a life of luxury, does not take away from the fact that the common folk suffered."

This is only by the end of the Ummayad period. Which led to the rise of Abu Muslim. However, even that is disputed as Nasr ibn Sayyar the last governer was known to be very compassionate in Khorasan. Most of the Islamic history was written during the Abbasid empire hence why it was so full of anti Ummayad statements. The Arabs themselves looked up to the Sassanids, Abbasids mostly. They even claimed descent from them.

"The Barmakids were purged by the Abbasids."

Because they were in control. Harun was the only non puppet Caliph after he destroyed the Barmakids. Many poets criticized the Abbasids for being puppets. In fact in college our professor called the Abbasid Empire the Persian Caliphate. I went to a well known university BTW.

FYI, Hormuz killed more than 300 loyal officials for no reason.

"Tahir Ibn Husayn did not control Baghdad and thus he had no control over the caliph."

Tahir had absolute control of the army. He was the one who made Ma'mun Caliph.

"Fadhl ibn Sahl was likely killed on the Caliph's orders. "

Sukhra was killed by Kavad. Doesn't mean he wasn't controlling the empire. Also, how come as soon as Banu Al-Munajjim switched allegiance the Abbasids lost to the Buyids?

"The man who helped defeat Babak, Afshin, was also betrayed by the Caliph"

No, you moron. I was talking about the unnamed priest of Usroshana that got Mazyar and Afshin killed. Only if you know Arabic could you actually learn about what happened.

"The Samanids did not come until much later, and there would not have to be a restoration in the first place if the Arabs did not dominate our way of life."

Karenids were fighting from day one. They allied with Turks, Sogdians and Hephthalites too. What house did Mazyar belong to?

"Also, many revolts took place which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iranians. "

Mecca and Medina were sacked and destroyed and gazillion Arabs died, as well. Don't see the relevance of this, tbh. Assyrians and Armenians got killed during the Sassanid period. That's what happens when people revolted.

"What does Bahram have to do with anything? The majority of Zoroastrians did not marry outside of their religion."

Bahram is just one example of a pious Zoroastrian King. Both Khosrau I and Khosrau II married Christians.

"Zoroastrianism was an ethnic religion. One example does not change the realities."

No it wasn't. There were many Arabian Zoroastrians in Hira.

"What?!"

I was just kidding. If you didn't get the joke it was because of her Lydian mother.

Vara said...

@Shah

I've already given you examples of the Persian wazirs. If you wish to know how the average Arab viewed the Persian you have to look up Arabian poetry or Mas'udi or Jahiz. Buhturi has a poem about the Iwan in which he basically says that no one has come close to the Sassanids. Jahiz has an entire book about Khosro. Mas'udi praises the Sassanids left and right. Even Mutanabi and Abu Tamam, considered by many as racists or Pro Arabs. The 'majus' view came about in the 13th century. It's unknown how but most attribute it to the return of the Abbasids or Ibn Taymiyah's folk.

As for the living Persians of that time, they were described as arrogant, haughty and untouchable, especially the dihqans. Bashar ibn Burd wrote gazillion poems ridiculing and insulting Arabs while living in Baghdad and only then after he left the Caliph no choice was he killed. If I go and read his poems out loud in the US, the next day ISIS will send a dude after me. That's how insulting these poems were.

Anyways, I'm tired of your whining. You're worse than Mr. Uzboi dried 1500 BCE. It's as if you're the new xyyman except less funny and more annoying. You're either a grade A troll or an imbecile.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Vara You're the one bitching about how Arabs dundu nuffin. I do not want to take this argument any further, but I can easily debunk your pro-Arab rhetoric. What you are narrating is pro-Arab pro-SJW rhetoric. "Muh Arabs dindu nuffin, dem enslaved no one, n were peaceful n shieet!". You have not cited a single source, whereas I have given one source from Crone who discusses all of the nonsense you have spouted, and debunks it.

In regards to Indians, the Aryan invasion of India is not the same as the Mongol invasion of Iran, not even close. There is no doubt about this. I will just leave it at that.

About Majus coming about in the 13th century, that's complete BS, it's in the Quran.

https://quran.com/22/17

"Indeed, those who have believed and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and those who associated with Allah - Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness."

If the "majus view" came about in the 13th century, then how come there is a mentioned in the Quran? It is obvious that Arabs saw Iranians distinct from them from the beginning.

Nasr Ibn Sayyar was anything but peaceful, and let's not forget this man:

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

"Taking advantage of Qutayba's absence in the south, the inhabitants of Samarkand overthrew their ruler Tarkhun due to his passive stance towards the Arabs, and installed the prince Ghurak in his stead. As Qutayba prepared to march against Samarkand during the winter of 711/712, he received envoys from the king of Khwarizm (the Khwarizmshah).[17][34][35] Khwarizm had been previously subdued in the mid-690s by Umayya ibn Abdallah, but as soon as his forces departed, the Khwarizmshah had renounced the treaty, and subsequent efforts by Yazid ibn al-Muhallab against Khwarizm had failed.[36] The Khwarizmshah, whose name is given as Jigan or Chigan by Bal'ami, faced a rebellion by his younger brother Khurrazadh and a powerful rival, the king of Khamjird, and asked Qutayba for help, offering recognition of the Caliphate's suzerainty, money, livestock and the payment of tribute in exchange. Qutayba, after announcing that he would head for Sogdia, advanced with his troops in a lightning campaign to the Khwarizmian capital Hazarasp. His brother Abd al-Rahman defeated and killed Khamjird's troops in battle and took 4,000 prisoners, who were then executed. Khurrazadh and his followers were also captured and executed.[37][38] The Khwarizmians however rebelled shortly after Qutayba's departure and killed the Khwarizmshah. Qutayba replaced the governor, Iyas ibn Abdallah ibn Amr, with his own brother Abdallah ibn Muslim, but the revolt persisted until, after the capture of Samarkand, a strong force under al-Mughir ibn Abdallah could be sent to subdue the region. The local Afrighid dynasty was left in place, with Askajamuk II, the son of Azkajwar II, as the new Khwarizmshah, but the conquest of Khwarizm was accompanied by great brutality: the 11th-century Khwarizmian scholar al-Biruni compares the events with a barbarian sack, as the Arabs proceeded to massacre most of the upper classes who had fomented the revolt, and destroyed a great many objects of Khwarizmian culture, including manuscripts.b[›][39][40]"

All sourced, check them out yourself. So, were Arabs peace loving and good willed towards Iranians?

Anyway, this is a pointless conversation.

David knows who is in the wrong here. But why are we arguing over this? Why can't Iranians be proud of their heritage without a sniveling Arab or Pakistani sticking their noses into our business?

"Oh the Arabs were so peaceful (cries), oh you Iranians are evil and stupid (cries some more), oh Arabs civilized Iranians (cries more)".

Stop it with your BS. No one wants to waste their time with Islam apologists.

Vara said...

I already named you the books. You won't find them in English. You have to search far and wide to find the sections I'm talking about in English.

I did not say Arabs were peaceful. More strawmen, please? You couldn't refute my points, could you? The Arabs were as brutal as the people of that era. Definetly more brutal than the Persians. Then again even the Persians were brutal at times, with brother fighting brother and son rebelling against father. And the Arabian brutality was with Persian help. And everyone and their grandmother knows of Qutayba. Him and Hajjaj were mass murderers.

As for Majus, it comes from magus which is the Zoroastrian priest. In early Islam it meant Zoroastrian. In the 13th century Islamic propaganda, which is used to this day it means fire worshippers. In the Ummayad caliphate they were considered people of the book like the Christians and thats why the Quran mentions them with Jews and Christians.

Yeah being proud = being a racist bigot. You are a deluded moron, who suffers from an identity crises, and fed day and night with propaganda. You should probably see a psychologist though.

From Indian to an Arab and a sniveling Paki? What's next? Anything but a whiny ass special snowflake. Didn't you say you cannot assume the identity or some bullshit? Lmao

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Vara No comment. It's not that I could not refute your points, I did so partially. It is just that your analogous arguments are flawed, and I do not want to point out your mistakes for you. Also, I really do not care what you think about me. Your opinions do not matter.

"And the Arabian brutality was with Persian help."

So that makes it okay and I should be proud of it? What are you trying to say? What Persians? A few traitors... How do a few traitors represent the will of the people? There are traitors everywhere. If Israel mass murdered Palestinians with the help of some traitors from their nation, should all Palestinians feel okay about the massacre of their people? This, despite the fact that some of their leaders betrayed them for personal gain. I know that you would disagree here, no obviously they should not be proud of it, and neither does it make it okay.

"Yeah being proud = being a racist bigot. You are a deluded moron, who suffers from an identity crises, and fed day and night with propaganda. You should probably see a psychologist though."

Again, you bring the racist card. I did not say anything about Arabs or their race. Obviously, I have reason to dislike them. But this is a personal matter. Why don't you focus on your own people instead of harassing others?

"From Indian to an Arab and a sniveling Paki? What's next? Anything but a whiny ass special snowflake. Didn't you say you cannot assume the identity or some bullshit? Lmao"

What?!

Anyway, stop your bickering. It's you who is coming off as a fool, not me.

epoch2013 said...

@Davidski

"I do realize that things are a little slow here at the moment, and they will be for another two weeks or so, but don't worry, 2018 is gonna be huge on this blog. You won't be able to peel yourself away for almost the entire 12 months."

That will be the paper on India and such. But what more is in the pipeline, is there something known about that?

Vara said...

@Shah

"It is just that your analogous arguments are flawed, and I do not want to point out your mistakes for you."

Yeah like my mistakes of proving that Zoroastrianism wasn't ethnic or endogamous.

"So that makes it okay and I should be proud of it?"

Aren't you proud of Khosro? Dude almost killed his entire family and caused the death of his brother and Christian son. Stop judging the actions of people who lived in the Dark Ages with modern day glasses. 4 years in your prestigious university should've taught you that.

"How do a few traitors represent the will of the people?"

How do a few bloodthirsty generals represent the will of the people? Modern day Arabs who conspire against Iran aren't the same as the 7th century Ummayads. Even modern day Islam is not the same. Ideologies evolve.

"Again, you bring the racist card."

Calling Tribals primitives genetically isn't racist?

I'm done with your whiny ass. Go cry some more about what happened gazilion years ago.

André de Vasconcelos said...

Holy f*ckballs, what the hell happened to this blog during Christmas?

Seinundzeit said...

André,

Yeah, this is where the holiday spirit comes to die...

I mean, it's getting rather jarring, having to read stuff about how the IVC collapsed due to the inherently "primitive" and "lowly" tendencies found within the Indian tribal "germ plasm", or how Iranians and Turks are unjustly excluded from the "White" category by racist Europeans, or how West Asian Persians and their Arab neighbors are distinct species that are incapable of mating and producing biologically viable hybrids, and worst of all, finding myself in agreement with Vara (dear God, why did I live to see such a day?).

Holy f**kballs indeed... (lol)

Jokes aside, really hope that the big aDNA paper drops sooner, rather than later, so that the experience had with this cluster-f**k of a comment stream doesn't become the norm.

Instead of reading the rantings/ravings of a uniquely disturbed individual, I really hope that we can rather have some serious conversations in 2018; or, at the very least, conversations that have a slight patina of disinterested objectivity/pure scientific curiosity.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"Yeah like my mistakes of proving that Zoroastrianism wasn't ethnic or endogamous."

You did not prove anything. God, you are retarded af.

"Aren't you proud of Khosro? Dude almost killed his entire family and caused the death of his brother and Christian son. Stop judging the actions of people who lived in the Dark Ages with modern day glasses. 4 years in your prestigious university should've taught you that."

No comment.

"How do a few bloodthirsty generals represent the will of the people? Modern day Arabs who conspire against Iran aren't the same as the 7th century Ummayads. Even modern day Islam is not the same. Ideologies evolve."

I am not going to comment on your BS.

"Calling Tribals primitives genetically isn't racist?

I'm done with your whiny ass. Go cry some more about what happened gazilion years ago."

Good, don't reply to me from now on. You are nothing more than a nuisance.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@André de Vasconcelos

Nothing, it's just a few nuts attacking people who they do not agree with. Everything's great.

Davidski said...

@epoch2013

But what more is in the pipeline, is there something known about that?

Apart from the Harvard-led papers on South Asia, Bell Beakers and Southeastern Europe, there should also be more papers on the Caucasus, the steppes, and Africa, and a wide range of papers on Iron Age and early Medieval Europe.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Seinundzeit

"Yeah, this is where the holiday spirit comes to die..."

No.

"I mean, it's getting rather jarring, having to read stuff about how the IVC collapsed due to the inherently "primitive" and "lowly" tendencies found within the Indian tribal "germ plasm", or how Iranians and Turks are unjustly excluded from the "White" category by racist Europeans, or how West Asian Persians and their Arab neighbors are distinct species that are incapable of mating and producing biologically viable hybrids, and worst of all, finding myself in agreement with Vara (dear God, why did I live to see such a day?)."

Hmm... No one was arguing about why Iranians are excluded from the "White" category, and I have made it clear from the start that Whiteness is just an artificial construct. Whites themselves are just European Caucasoids. And, no one called Europeans racist or anything, I do not know what you are on about. Also, know one said that Arabs and Persians are distinct species. Stop misreading what I wrote and assuming things about me. You do know that assuming things about others is against the rules, right?

"Holy f**kballs indeed... (lol)"

Lol, what?

"Jokes aside, really hope that the big aDNA paper drops sooner, rather than later, so that the experience had with this cluster-f**k of a comment stream doesn't become the norm."

It has only gotten this bad because the SJWs cannot stand hearing opposing views and start attacking others. Not once did I provoke an argument with another member. Anyhow, this is not Anthrogenica, if you do not like what you don't agree with, don't expect David to start banning people for their views. I never attacked anyone's race, and neither did I say that anyone here is any less of a human than anyone else.

"Instead of reading the rantings/ravings of a uniquely disturbed individual, I really hope that we can rather have some serious conversations in 2018; or, at the very least, conversations that have a slight patina of disinterested objectivity/pure scientific curiosity."

Do not worry about that, worry about having to deal with SJWs who start flooding the comments with their pro-Arab/pro-Islam/pro-Leftist nonsense.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Do you think we will get anything on ancient Iran, i.e. Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sassanid? I would love to see new studies on the ancient Middle East.

Davidski said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

Do you think we will get anything on ancient Iran, i.e. Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sassanid?

I haven't yet heard anything about these particular groups being sampled, but as far as I know, there will be more ancient samples from Iran soon.

mickeydodds1 said...

Funny how a blog called 'Eurogenes' has been effectively taken over by various Iranians, Turks, Indians etc.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Alright, thanks again mate. I appreciate your replies, and am looking forward to your blog posts for this upcoming year.

Davidski said...

Guys, just another reminder, if you like this blog, then you have to make things easier for me, not harder.

You know what the rules and expectations are for the comments here. You have to try to moderate yourselves so that I don't have to do it.

Please think about that very carefully for 2018.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski

"Guys, just another reminder, if you like this blog, then you have to make things easier for me, not harder."

Thanks mate, will keep this in mind for the new year.

"You know what the rules and expectations are for the comments here. You have to try to moderate yourselves so that I don't have to do it."

Yessir!

"Please think about that very carefully for 2018."

Will do mate, g'day to you! Best wishes for the new year.

Chetan said...

Davidsky "Apart from the Harvard-led papers on South Asia, Bell Beakers and Southeastern Europe, there should also be more papers on the Caucasus, the steppes, and Africa, and a wide range of papers on Iron Age and early Medieval Europe."

Very good. Looking forward to it. May the new year be full of archaic surprises for all of us

Palacista said...

An ignore function would do wonders at the moment.

Vara said...

@Sein

"worst of all, finding myself in agreement with Vara (dear God, why did I live to see such a day?)."

You have no idea how much this means to me. Not only did you agree with me but you also called me Vara. This is literally the happiest day in my entire life. Honestly, I always knew you were gonna warm up to me thanks to my knowledge and objectiveness.

I just can't wait till the day we go out to that Indian restaurant you love so much. Man 2018 is gonna rock. <3

Onur Dincer said...

@MomOfZoha

I am also disappointed that Onur engaged that Idiot-of-Idiots on the "whiteness" discussion at all, as Onur is a decent and intelligent person.

The discussion about Whiteness was a side issue and, as always on this blog, I sticked to genetics throughout that discussion and never talked politics. Anyway, I quit it after David called us to stick to the main topic of this thread.

epoch2013 said...

@Davidski

I wonder if anyone will try to get some DNA from animal bones from steppe sites, which may settle some very longstanding debates over domestication. MtDNA may be enough. But I guess I need to mail authors for that rather than address you. :-)

Rob said...

@ Epoch
ADNA won't change the fact that domesticates in the steppe only began appearing in /> 4500 BC
https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/download/39.1/1542

Anthro Survey said...

@Shah

Long weekend, but I will respond to your comments on the other thread in short.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Anthro Survey Okay, thanks bro.

Samurai Jack said...

http://indiafacts.org/aryan-invasion-myth-21st-century-science-debunks-19th-century-indology/

The arguments in the above link will be set in stone once Rakhigarhi DNA tests turn out to be R1a - Z93.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samurai Jack

"The arguments in the above link will be set in stone once Rakhigarhi DNA tests turn out to be R1a - Z93."

What are you on about? You're a nutcase. There will be no, absolutely no, R1a-Z93 in the IVC samples. That article is the stupidest thing I have seen, in light of all of the genetic evidence we have.

@Davidski Ban this troll!

Anthro Survey said...

@Shah

Let's not conflate Islam and Arabs, though.

Arabs ALWAYS had a negative connotation in the Islamic Persianate world---among the Turks, Tajikan and various cultural LARPing Balkan Muslim elites of the Osmani Khilafa(as well as Indian Muslims ofc). Remember: Wahhabi Arabs are still regarded as traitors who sided with British and (effectively) Zionist factions to dismantle the Osmani state. Look, I can't say I didn't root for the Ottoman side in Lawrence of Arabia and Gallipoli either. :-)

The seminal architects of Islam weren't even Arabs, btw, much like the architects and expounders of Christianity were not Judeans(Aegean Greeks initially and medieval "Frankish" Europeans in later centuries). Islam and Christianity were not developed theologies during the times of Muhammad/Jesus and the first couple of subsequent centuries. I.E. those early Arab conquests shouldn't be regarded as proper Islamic conquests in my book.

Anyway, I think Ismail ibni Ahmad Samani is a MUCH more powerful pan-Persian(or even pan-Iranic) symbol than that Shah with his OWD complex and kleptocratic behavior or Yazdgird. :-) For one, he was a WINNER. Secondly, he represents a shift in the center of gravity back to the proto-Iranic BMAC-Khurasan core, away from Mesopotamia/Zagros. Thirdly, he was inherently nationalistic and counter-Arab. Let's also not forget that the Islamic era beginning in the early Abbasid years and, after picking up additional steam under the Samanids, was a true intellectual golden age for IRANICS in ways that the Sassanian era never was----be it literary or pertaining to the mathematical disciplines. Arabist historians who run Islamic studies depts in American universities deem it an "Arab golden Age", but I still struggle to detect peninsular Arab contributions in this. ;-) Heck, even polymaths like Al-Jazairi and al-Haytham weren't proper Arabs, but linguistically Arabized Levantines. Needless to say, the indigenous Iberian Muslim element in al-Andalus is downplayed af.

My pet peeve with those covering the golden age is their unfair portrayal of contemporary Europe(Frangistan?) as some sort of a primitive backwater. Mediterranist propagandists share and shamelessly peddle this conviction, but all forget 3 important facts:
1. Western Europe was not particularly sophisticated during Roman times because it was outside the Koine-speaking sphere and practically off-limits to Hellenistic scholarship.
2. The Roman age was an intellectual dark age as a whole and a shadow of the 3 illustrious centuries following Alexander's death.
3. After Franks made sojourns to Islamic and Byzantine lands and got access to the Greek works, they blew all competition out of the water. It's a fact that's epitomized in the European invention of the clock as we know it and in the Mertonians of Oxford. Byzantine Greek nobility sent their kids to study in Northern Italy(perhaps the most literate part of the world in medieval times) long before 1453 :-).

Nevertheless, Islamic scholars have to be given their due credit. They did make original discoveries(albeit often exaggerated) and were far more brilliant than their Byzantine counterparts who simply let all that knowledge gather dust and had to call upon the "barbarian" Franks brandishing crossbows and superior cavalry tactics.

Did you manage to get in touch with Rukha of Anthrogenica yet, btw?

Anthro Survey said...

SJW is a bit of a strong word for folks here. They are just afraid of Eurogenes blog turning into "RaceWars blog". My positions should be apparent by now, but I reject the simpleton primitivism emanating from the DailyStormer and TRS crowd and David must BAN such people without notice if they comment here. For everyone's own good! Dave, take note.

Btw, those people wouldn't even know what a European was if it hit them in the face, but that's another matter altogether. They define their identity in opposition to other groups and know very little in the way of European history or genetics. They are not qualified to speak on matters of genetics/anthropology or matters pertaining to "standing up for Europe".

Chad Rohlfsen said...

TFW ..not sure if stormfront or too many jackasses with computers these days...🤔

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Anthro Survey

"Let's not conflate Islam and Arabs, though."

True, you have a point.

"Arabs ALWAYS had a negative connotation in the Islamic Persianate world---among the Turks, Tajikan and various cultural LARPing Balkan Muslim elites of the Osmani Khilafa(as well as Indian Muslims ofc). Remember: Wahhabi Arabs are still regarded as traitors who sided with British and (effectively) Zionist factions to dismantle the Osmani state. Look, I can't say I didn't root for the Ottoman side in Lawrence of Arabia and Gallipoli either. :-)"

This is also true for the most part, though, it was not the Wahhabists who revolted against the Ottomans during World War I, it was Hasemites of Mecca, who were of the Hanafi rite of Sunnism. Although, the Ottomans did have to face the Wahhabist threat in the late 18th and 19th centuries, the Arab Revolt during WWI was actually conducted by Hejazi Bedouins.

About the Ottomans, I guess it is just a matter of perspective, but I do know that they ravaged western Iran on multiple occasions.


Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Anthro Survey

"Anyway, I think Ismail ibni Ahmad Samani is a MUCH more powerful pan-Persian(or even pan-Iranic) symbol than that Shah with his OWD complex and kleptocratic behavior or Yazdgird. :-) For one, he was a WINNER. Secondly, he represents a shift in the center of gravity back to the proto-Iranic BMAC-Khurasan core, away from Mesopotamia/Zagros. Thirdly, he was inherently nationalistic and counter-Arab. Let's also not forget that the Islamic era beginning in the early Abbasid years and, after picking up additional steam under the Samanids, was a true intellectual golden age for IRANICS in ways that the Sassanian era never was----be it literary or pertaining to the mathematical disciplines. Arabist historians who run Islamic studies depts in American universities deem it an "Arab golden Age", but I still struggle to detect peninsular Arab contributions in this. ;-) Heck, even polymaths like Al-Jazairi and al-Haytham weren't proper Arabs, but linguistically Arabized Levantines. Needless to say, the indigenous Iberian Muslim element in al-Andalus is downplayed af."

I agree with you in regards to Samani. He played a crucial role in pushing out the Arab influence in Iran, and securing the future existence of the Persian nation. Yazdegard was an incapable ruler, I never denied this, and he is no symbol of Persian resistance. Rostam Farrokhzad is much more deserving of that title. I would disagree, the Sassanid period was quite an intellectual golden age, with the achievements of great scholars such as Bezorgmehr and Borzuyah. I think that you have never heard about the great academy of Gundishapur. Although, the Samanid period was not short on intellectual achievements either, but it just was not the same. Indeed, you are correct on the last bit there. It was mainly a PERSIAN golden era. Our rightful achievements have been taken away from us under the guise of Islam, as a religion. I doubt that Islam played a major role in those achievements. It's a shame that the Mongols destroyed our intellectual heartland. As for Al-Andalus, there were barely any Arabs there to begin with. Most of the "Arab" scholars were just Arabized and Islamized Spaniards and Berbers.

"My pet peeve with those covering the golden age is their unfair portrayal of contemporary Europe(Frangistan?) as some sort of a primitive backwater. Mediterranist propagandists share and shamelessly peddle this conviction, but all forget 3 important facts:
1. Western Europe was not particularly sophisticated during Roman times because it was outside the Koine-speaking sphere and practically off-limits to Hellenistic scholarship.
2. The Roman age was an intellectual dark age as a whole and a shadow of the 3 illustrious centuries following Alexander's death.
3. After Franks made sojourns to Islamic and Byzantine lands and got access to the Greek works, they blew all competition out of the water. It's a fact that's epitomized in the European invention of the clock as we know it and in the Mertonians of Oxford. Byzantine Greek nobility sent their kids to study in Northern Italy(perhaps the most literate part of the world in medieval times) long before 1453 :-)."

Iran was much more advanced intellectually than Europe until the arrival of the Mongols. However, the Europeans were not far behind. The Mongol devastation of Iran was a blow from which Iran truly never recovered, and was described as such by various contemporary historians.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Anthro Survey


"Nevertheless, Islamic scholars have to be given their due credit. They did make original discoveries(albeit often exaggerated) and were far more brilliant than their Byzantine counterparts who simply let all that knowledge gather dust and had to call upon the "barbarian" Franks brandishing crossbows and superior cavalry tactics."

Most of them were Iranians, those achievements had nothing or very little to do with Islam. Even you have to admit this truth my friend.

"Did you manage to get in touch with Rukha of Anthrogenica yet, btw?"

I do not know anyone on Anthrogenica and barely use it. Also, who is Rukha? I never heard of him.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"SJW is a bit of a strong word for folks here. They are just afraid of Eurogenes blog turning into "RaceWars blog". My positions should be apparent by now, but I reject the simpleton primitivism emanating from the DailyStormer and TRS crowd and David must BAN such people without notice if they comment here. For everyone's own good! Dave, take note."

I share this fear as well, but I do not call out others because I know that they will not cross this line. I expect others not to do the same to me, but alas, they start harassing me for no reason. As for White Nationalists, they are the stupidest, most intellectually idiotic imbeciles I have come across. All of my experience with them comes from interactions on Youtube. They are fairly stupid and incapable to put together a coherent argument. They think that everyone was White, and Vedic Aryans, Iranians, and Egyptians, were pure European Nordics. They are a deluded bunch. I hope that David does not allow them to come on this forum and ruin the experience for everyone here. They base their whole identity on some false notion of there being a "White" race, and how "Whites" are responsible for everything great. By Whites they obviously mean Europid Caucasoids. They are quite stupid, and completely retarded.

I say that every nation has a right to preserve themselves and should have control over their own affairs. But, White nationalists take things a step further by disavowing their roots and claiming all of humanity's history and civilizations. They are a cancerous bunch, and must be avoided.

"Btw, those people wouldn't even know what a European was if it hit them in the face, but that's another matter altogether. They define their identity in opposition to other groups and know very little in the way of European history or genetics. They are not qualified to speak on matters of genetics/anthropology or matters pertaining to "standing up for Europe"."

Well, I actually agree with their being a European people, and I do not think that Europeans should let in any Third worlders without thinking of the consequences, nor should they let themselves be overwhelmed in their own homelands. None of us would want that in our countries, so I agree with them on that point. But, they lack any real understanding of genetics, with that I do agree.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"TFW ..not sure if stormfront or too many jackasses with computers these days...🤔"

It's not that mate, it's much more complicated. But anyway, White Nationalists are fairly stupid people in general. Though, I do support European and American identitarianism to an extent, but they just go overboard. As long as they are for ethno-nationalism and preserving their identity against a barrage of Leftism and anti-European/White sentiment, I do not think that it is a problem. They just act like idiots and no one ends up taking them seriously. Though, in all honesty, who wouldn't be upset if millions of people were arriving in their countries annually? We all would be, so I can sympathize with them in that regard, but still, they are a bit loony when it comes to history and genetics.

Anthro Survey said...

@Shah

Btw, Don't know if you've checked, but I answered you in the other thread.

Hashemite Bedouins were center stage in that specific episode, but we have to look at the bigger picture. Ultimately, the Saud family, backed by both British ammo and money, emerged from the ensuing chaos to usurp Islam's holiest sites. Thanks to the oil boom, they were able to export Wahhabi ideology via direct(mosques, schools, etc.) and indirect means(financing Arabist-oriented Islamic studies depts). Just imagine if Evangelicals were able to usurp the papacy. Evangelicals of the Christian Zionist bent have a strong relationship with the US military and lobbying power as it is and constantly press for regime changes/costly interventions at the taxpayer's expense.

Ottomans ravaged Western Iran because the former was converted to Shi'ism by the Safavids. There is no denying that LARPing Ottomans were inheritors of the Persianate tradition of Khorasan and were regarded as legitimate by the larger Sunni world at large. Although Mughals were officially an independent state, they were effectively sidekicks of the Ottomans. Same goes for the Shaybanids and other fragmentary emirates of that region.

You assume bit much. :-) Of course I've come across the name Gundishapur, but I can't equate the compilatory and encyclopedic nature of late Sassanian times to real intellectual ADVANCES made post AD 700. Furthermore, Sassanid-era scholars tended to be of Assyrian and Messopotamian stock, not Iranics. In general, Mesopotamia was the vulnerable focal point of the empire and the "Iranic" territories didn't exert that much clout until later on. Aramaic was arguably a more important language than Middle Persian. In a rather analogous fashion, Syria, Anatolia, and Campania, NOT Western Europe, were Roman Empire's focal territories; Greek was the language to learn, not Latin. On a related side note, Sassanids were good reverse engineers and often employed captured Romans to construct bridges.

The Islamic era, on the other hand, was one where Iranics truly made their indelible mark on history. Although Baghdad, situated nearby old Taysfun, was an important city, it was overshadowed by Marv, Balkh, Bukhara, Nishapur, etc. and staffed by many folks from Iran/Khorasan. As with everything else, we saw chahar-taq motifs and iwans taken to their full potential. Much of what we deem to be Islamic architecture has its roots in Seljuk times and is actually of Persian origins. Persian poets like Sa'adi Shirazi and Rudaki were linguistic wizards. Ibn Sina and Nadir al-Tusi expounded on the works of their Hellenic "mentors", not merely copied them.

Anthro Survey said...

@Shah
"those achievements had nothing or very little to do with Islam. Even you have to admit this truth my friend"

Let me stress that I'm not saying Islamic theology was directly responsible for the flowering, btw, but the change-over somehow benefited the Iranic world in ways most fail to realize. In the same way, the collapse of Rome set into motion a cascade of events allowing Europeans to better express their innovative potential.

"It was mainly a PERSIAN golden era"
Persian, Syro-Messopotamian, & Andalusian---restricted to urban centers, obviously. Because Arabic was the language of science and the latter two were Arabized, those scholars are collectively referred to as "Arab scientist" or what-have-you. The average Joe with a cursory knowledge of things is left with the initial impression that Bedouins somehow dug up and disseminated secret knowledge from the sands of Arabia.

Yeah, there is no question that the early Mongol wave did a number on the Perso-Islamic world---especially its eastern portions. Arabist historians emphasize the sack of Baghdad, but its significance was more symbolic than anything by that time. The real tragedy was the sack of Merv, Nishapur and other cities and infastructure situated in the former BMAC horizon.

Western Iran suffered, too, but the Ilkhanid era was not completely bleak and put the west in the driver's seat, so to speak. There is a book exploring this thesis deeper and I'll have to refer you to it someday. If I'm not wrong, for example, iconic Timurid architecture(and, in turn Mughal buildings) owes itself to Ilkhanid innovations. Many of Amir Timur's architects hailed from west of the Kavir.
Check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_Soltaniyeh

Activity in the east was not completely snuffed out, though. Ever heard of Ulugh Beg and his observatory?

Rukha is a knowledgeable Tajik hailing from Bactria.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Everyone,

I'll have a new blog or website up in January. I've done indepth haplotype analysis of low coverage data and lots of research on mitogenomes. I'm finding lots of interesting stuff.

One such thing is there's several of popular and young subclades under EEF-derived mHGs shared between Germanic speakers and Northeastern Europeans. My mtDNA; U5b2a2, is one of them. But overall there's many important distinctions between Germanic(s) and Northeast Europeans. I think the shared stuff (H1c, H1b1, T2f1a, etc.) might derive from Funnel Beaker.

I've also found quite a few mHGs unique to South Slavs and mHGs shared between all Slavic speakers.

European mtDNA overall shows the patterns you would expect based on ancient DNA. Very few mHGs older than 8k (I've done age estimates) is found in just one population or one region. A large collection of mHGs under 15ky encompass >90% of the mtDNA in every European population. An exception to this is U5, which is as old as HV, but shows more regional variation. Which of course is expected based on ancient DNA. U4 on the other hand shows similar phylogeography and expansion times as JT and HV.

The conclusion that can be made from this all European population's mtDNA comes from the same Mesolithic/Neolithic populations who one way or another spread their genes across the entire continent.

The mitogenome dat doesn't suggest LGM migrations shaped modern day European mtDNA. Other than U5, the major clades all date to around 8ky. If people had this type of data in 2010 they wouldn't push the LGM refiguim thing.

Davidski said...

Nice work Samuel. Get your website up and I'll link to it on this blog. You'll get tens of thousands of hits.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Anthro Survey Thanks for letting me know bro, I'll reply later on, I am going to bed.

@Samuel Andrews Congrats, looking forward to it!

@Davidski David, I wanted to ask you, do you have a reply to that article posted by @Samurai Jack? It's just a poor attempt in my opinion by Indian Nationalists to turn the reality into fiction, and fiction into reality. Lol!

Davidski said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

Yeah, that article is outdated, like all of the other usual OIT crap on the Internet, and I dealt with that...

The Out-of-India Theory (OIT) challenge: can we hear a viable argument for once?

Anthro Survey said...

@Shah

Yeah, sadly it tends to be a toxic community all around. The negative identity and chauvinism are just two of many undesirable items. No wonder a lot of people treat it as "controlled opposition".

We can say that a large number of them engage in what's called "phenotype nationalism", whereby anyone who looks a certain way is automatically deemed as white and pigmentation is often the only thing they pay attention to. Again, to me, it's as silly as expressing solidarity with someone sharing the same birthday.

Instead, I treat cranio-facial morphology as an antigen:it's like a MARKER that OFTEN but NOT ALWAYS corresponds with a certain ancestral package. Just like certain cells in our body TEND TO express certain markers on their surface, so too can Europeans GENERALLY be distinguished from MEs but there is still overlap due to a greater degree of shared ancestry.

In the "ItsOkayToBeWhite" comment you made, white refers to European descent. Richard Spencer's identitarian movement which you support is also predicated on the notion of European ancestry, hence the name of his org "Identity Europa". It's just that most of them don't understand the concept of gene un-linkage during gametogenesis and assume that blond Palestinians have more affinity to contemporary Europeans than they do to their own dark haired next-of-kin. :D

Interestingly enough, many of them peddle a modified variation of the discredited OOI theory. Spencer is convinced "Aryans came from Iran to Europe" but maybe his colleague Jorjani was whispering in his ear a bit there. :D



"Iran was much more advanced intellectually than Europe until the arrival of the Mongols. However, the Europeans were not far behind."

I would agree that up to the 13th century, Greater Iran and Greater Syria were clearly more advanced, intellectually speaking. Technologically, though, they were comparable and Europe had more of an edge in this department starting from perhaps AD1050.
Watermills were widespread across late Carolingan Europe and the vertical windmill, lauded by Syrians in one Crusade account, was a European invention(the eastern Persian horizontal mill is of a different phylogeny).

By the 1250s, the tide turned. Works of Hellenistic and Islamic-era polymaths were translated into Latin for the first time thanks to people like Gerard of Cremona and voraciously consumed.The Mongol invasions dampened things in the Islamic world, but some have also attributed it to a shift away from rationalism toward Sufi mysticism. Scholarship there was not institutionalized in quite the same way as it was in Europe and less efficient.

Anthro Survey said...

OOI... I meant OIT.

AWood said...

@Anthro Survey

Yes, but by the industrial revolution, western Europe (mostly) went - single handedly - leaps and bounds beyond anything any earlier civilisation had previously done. And no, this has nothing to do with Christianity. If anything, religion was a hinderance.

Chetan said...

@Anthro-Survey You said "I would agree that up to the 13th century, Greater Iran and Greater Syria were clearly more advanced, intellectually speaking."

The Greeks and the Indo-Aryans (by which I mean the bearers of the Vedic culture) achieved the pinnacle of purely philosophical/intellectual thought, until well into the modern age. But Indians were always a little lagging in the advancement of warfare.

From the Middle Age after the fall of Rome, the Islamic Middle East (both Iran and Arabia) could boast of great works of literature and philosophy.

And let's not forget the Chinese. Always a century or two ahead of others in the techniques of warfare until the Mongol invasions.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Anthro Survey

I have just replied to the other thread.

"Hashemite Bedouins were center stage in that specific episode, but we have to look at the bigger picture. Ultimately, the Saud family, backed by both British ammo and money, emerged from the ensuing chaos to usurp Islam's holiest sites. Thanks to the oil boom, they were able to export Wahhabi ideology via direct(mosques, schools, etc.) and indirect means(financing Arabist-oriented Islamic studies depts). Just imagine if Evangelicals were able to usurp the papacy. Evangelicals of the Christian Zionist bent have a strong relationship with the US military and lobbying power as it is and constantly press for regime changes/costly interventions at the taxpayer's expense. "

Hmm... but the truth is that the Hejazi Arabs were partially responsible for the overthrow of the Ottomans, not the Saudis. This was at the root of our discussion, as you erroneously mentioned the Wahhabis being responsible, in part, for the collapse of the Ottomans, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The Saudis benefited indirectly from the fall of the Ottoman Empire, but not really directly.

"Ottomans ravaged Western Iran because the former was converted to Shi'ism by the Safavids. There is no denying that LARPing Ottomans were inheritors of the Persianate tradition of Khorasan and were regarded as legitimate by the larger Sunni world at large. Although Mughals were officially an independent state, they were effectively sidekicks of the Ottomans. Same goes for the Shaybanids and other fragmentary emirates of that region."

That doesn't matter, and it's not really a good excuse. I knew that.

"You assume bit much. :-) Of course I've come across the name Gundishapur, but I can't equate the compilatory and encyclopedic nature of late Sassanian times to real intellectual ADVANCES made post AD 700. Furthermore, Sassanid-era scholars tended to be of Assyrian and Messopotamian stock, not Iranics. In general, Mesopotamia was the vulnerable focal point of the empire and the "Iranic" territories didn't exert that much clout until later on. Aramaic was arguably a more important language than Middle Persian. In a rather analogous fashion, Syria, Anatolia, and Campania, NOT Western Europe, were Roman Empire's focal territories; Greek was the language to learn, not Latin. On a related side note, Sassanids were good reverse engineers and often employed captured Romans to construct bridges."

No comment, I do not want to get into another argument.

"The Islamic era, on the other hand, was one where Iranics truly made their indelible mark on history. Although Baghdad, situated nearby old Taysfun, was an important city, it was overshadowed by Marv, Balkh, Bukhara, Nishapur, etc. and staffed by many folks from Iran/Khorasan. As with everything else, we saw chahar-taq motifs and iwans taken to their full potential. Much of what we deem to be Islamic architecture has its roots in Seljuk times and is actually of Persian origins. Persian poets like Sa'adi Shirazi and Rudaki were linguistic wizards. Ibn Sina and Nadir al-Tusi expounded on the works of their Hellenic "mentors", not merely copied them."

Good points, but this was a natural progression from the achievements made during the Sassanid period.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"Let me stress that I'm not saying Islamic theology was directly responsible for the flowering, btw, but the change-over somehow benefited the Iranic world in ways most fail to realize. In the same way, the collapse of Rome set into motion a cascade of events allowing Europeans to better express their innovative potential."

Of course it benefited the Iranic world in many ways, but was it worth it in the long run? I do not think it was, to be honest. But that's just my opinion. Having Arabs, Turks, and Mongols swarm Iran was not worth the benefits, just saying.

"Persian, Syro-Messopotamian, & Andalusian---restricted to urban centers, obviously. Because Arabic was the language of science and the latter two were Arabized, those scholars are collectively referred to as "Arab scientist" or what-have-you. The average Joe with a cursory knowledge of things is left with the initial impression that Bedouins somehow dug up and disseminated secret knowledge from the sands of Arabia."

Good points, but even then most of the scholars were Iranians. Very few were Syro-Mesopotamian, and most of them were Christians. As for Al-Andalus, it's not related to the discussion at hand. You're right about the Bedouins, I cannot believe how many people actually believe that nonsense.

"Yeah, there is no question that the early Mongol wave did a number on the Perso-Islamic world---especially its eastern portions. Arabist historians emphasize the sack of Baghdad, but its significance was more symbolic than anything by that time. The real tragedy was the sack of Merv, Nishapur and other cities and infastructure situated in the former BMAC horizon."

Indeed, I agree with you. Though, the destruction of the Mesopotamian irrigation system was also quite a fatal blow, alongside the sack of Merv, Nishapur, Herat, Damaghan, Samarkand, Bukhara, etc.

"Western Iran suffered, too, but the Ilkhanid era was not completely bleak and put the west in the driver's seat, so to speak. There is a book exploring this thesis deeper and I'll have to refer you to it someday. If I'm not wrong, for example, iconic Timurid architecture(and, in turn Mughal buildings) owes itself to Ilkhanid innovations. Many of Amir Timur's architects hailed from west of the Kavir."

I am not going to make any comments on this, but all I will say is that the Ilkhanid and Timurid periods were pretty brutal for Iran.

"Check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_Soltaniyeh

Activity in the east was not completely snuffed out, though. Ever heard of Ulugh Beg and his observatory?

Rukha is a knowledgeable Tajik hailing from Bactria."

I know of that, and again, it has nothing to do with Ilkhans. As for Ulugh Beg, I have heard about his contributions, especially the observatory, but again, at what cost?

Thanks for letting me know about Rukha.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Anthro Survey

I am not going to go into on your comment about WNs, though I will say that I do not support Spencer. Neither do I support or favourably view that nut Jorjani.

"It's just that most of them don't understand the concept of gene un-linkage during gametogenesis and assume that blond Palestinians have more affinity to contemporary Europeans than they do to their own dark haired next-of-kin. :D"

Yeah, this is a stupid and foolish assumption, but what can one do? Some people are just ignorant.

Thanks for that last bit of that information there, I agree. Europeans have always been very innovative.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Can you ban users next time who come here and LARP about the Aryan Invasion Theory not being true, and insult other users over it? Because, this most recent dude who came was very rude. Also, thanks for linking me to your rebuttal. Appreciate it, mate.

Salden said...

Reminder:

A. Yamnaya and related groups cluster nearest towards Northern to Eastern Europeans out of all modern populations.

B. Yamnaya and related groups phenotypes would be closer to European ones than South Asian ones.

C. Yamnaya and related groups are overall accepted as the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Now, how did South Asia invent the Yamnaya Phenotype?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Salden

Please ignore these trolls, not worth your time. Don't fret it, mate.

Chetan said...

@Salden "Now, how did South Asia invent the Yamnaya Phenotype?"

No one claimed that. The Yamnaya genotype and phenotype would have been closer to the average modern European than to the average modern South Asian. I think we can agree on that.

But to describe Yamnaya as "European" would be just plain wrong. It's better to call various Europeans and South Asian groups as Yamnaya derived to various degrees.

One thing, Yamnaya ancestry varies between Europeans as it does between South Asians. There are European groups like Sardinians that have very little Yamnaya admixture (lesser than many South Asians). So are they not Europeans by your criterion? This is exactly the racial hypocrisy that was pointed out over the last few days and you seem to not have learned a thing from them


Davidski said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

That other thread is not for chatting.

And yeah, you gotta go there via this link for me to get a share of the cash from the sale...

http://dnageeks.com?aff=8

Grey said...

Samuel Andrews
"my theory is people from Anatolia or maybe even Greece carrying Y DNA J2 and E-V13 settled throughout southern Europe via the Mediterranean sea around 2000-1000 BC."

One of my pet theories (based mostly on me liking it as a theory) is the sea peoples were an explosion of tribes who originally lived around the black sea trying to get away from the nascent PIE biker gangs.

Grey said...

AWood
"And no, this has nothing to do with Christianity. If anything, religion was a hinderance."

I think the church's ban on close cousin marriage may have had a lot to do with it (by creating an environment which selected for different personality traits).

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WEIRD

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Alright, thanks mate. I appreciate the clarification. :)

Chetan said...

@David Do we have any Comb Ceramic/ Pit-Comb Ware DNA? Would really appreciate their y haplotypes if you could share them.

Simon_W said...

The Irish certainly ain't white:
https://youtu.be/KZaz7OqyTHQ

Davidski said...

@Chetan

Do we have any Comb Ceramic/Pit-Comb Ware DNA?

Yes, we do...

Neolithic transition in the Baltic

Baltic Corded Ware: rich in R1a-Z645

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski When can we expect the ancient Iranian studies to be released? Do you know from what era the samples are from? Furthermore, what other ancient studies are coming our way in 2018?

Thanks.

rozenfag said...

Regarding future aDNA papers: I expect that there would be several papers about Central Asia. Mesolithic tooth from Kyrgyzstan(Fergana valley) and neolithic remains from Afghanistan(Darra-i-Kur) are being studied in Germany, Bronze Age Kazakhstan samples are being studied in Copenhagen and Saka remains of Golden Man from South-East Kazakhstan is analyzed already, but not yet published. I hope we will see the papers soon.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Cheten,
"One thing, Yamnaya ancestry varies between Europeans as it does between South Asians. There are European groups like Sardinians that have very little Yamnaya admixture (lesser than many South Asians). So are they not Europeans by your criterion? This is exactly the racial hypocrisy that was pointed out over the last few days and you seem to not have learned a thing from them"

You're right all modern Europeans aren't super closely related to Yamnaya. Yamnaya should still loosely be called "European" or "Bronze age Europeans." Why?

-They lived in Europe
-Had ancestors who had lived there for many many millennia (EHG)
-Shared lots of ancestry with other Europeans contemporary to them, in particular, Baltic, Scandinavian HGs.
-They're most related to modern Europeans.

Yamnaya is not genetically European in the modern sense. They are European most importantly because that's where they lived.

In the same sense Funnel Beaker was European. If you go back 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 years no humans will perfectly fit into modern genetic clusters but they should still be affiliated with whatever location they lived in.

The same can even be true for modern populations. Everyone in the same region sometimes can't perfectly be fit in the same cluster. Saami and Sicilians are only loosely related to each other yet both are called European. Should Sicilians be called Middle Eastern, should Saami be called Siberian? Obviosuly no, both should be called European.

Chetan said...

@Davidski Thanks David. So the entire forest region of north east Europe used to be dominated by R lineages. I wonder what language(s) could they have spoken. I used to believe that it was Uralic or perhaps Indo-Uralic but I think I must reconsider now with the recent evidence.

If the Siberian admixture and N1c expansion into the area occurred later, then surely it was accompanied by a language shift? Seeing how N1c makes up 70-80% of modern Finnish Y DNA. I would be really surprised if that wasn't accompanied by language shift. But hey, I have got used to surprises in this field.

epoch2013 said...

@Simon_W

Nope. Especially in the summer they're red.

Chetan said...

@Samuel Andrews If you go by present geographical definitions, then yes Yamna and associated cultures could be considered Eastern European.

But is it really necessary though? Before people started dividing the world into continents, nations and regions, the earth was just one contiguous landmass (well Eurasia at least). What matters more is how Yamna relates to modern day populations. And you and I agree that Yamna not = European in that sense.

Chetan said...

@Samuel Andrews For instance, the EHG component of Yamna came from Siberia and the CHG from the Caucasus. Both not considered part of Europe. I am not denying that Yamna itself was located in Eastern Europe but you get my point.

Davidski said...

@Chetan

For instance, the EHG component of Yamna came from Siberia and the CHG from the Caucasus. Both not considered part of Europe. I am not denying that Yamna itself was located in Eastern Europe but you get my point.

EHG didn't come from Siberia to contribute admixture to Yamnaya. EHG are hunter-gatherers indigenous to Eastern Europe.

Apart from that, if we go back far enough, humans came from Africa, so your point is moot on several counts.

What matters more is how Yamna relates to modern day populations. And you and I agree that Yamna not = European in that sense.

If unadmixed Yamnaya people were still alive today, they'd be less of an outlier European population from the European average than Sardinians or even Sicilians.

Are you going to claim that Sardinians and Sicilians aren't Europeans?

Philippe said...

Apparently EHG might be a mix of ANE ('ancient north Eurasians') and WHG.

jv said...

Not according to this. https://www.academia.edu/35551662/Discussion_Are_the_Origins_of_Indo-European_Languages_Explained_by_the_Migration_of_the_Yamnaya_Culture_to_the_West

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski

Hey bro, could you please answer my inquiry about the Iran studies? You mentioned we'll get some, please elaborate if you know when and on what?

Thanks.

Davidski said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

I don't have any details about that.

Chetan said...

@Davidski "EHG didn't come from Siberia to contribute admixture to Yamnaya. EHG are hunter-gatherers indigenous to Eastern Europe.

Sorry I meant the ANE component in EHG.

"Are you going to claim that Sardinians and Sicilians aren't Europeans?"

Of course not. That was what I was telling Salden.

My whole point was it would be better not to use modern ethic labels like European/Indian/Chinese to describe ancient humans.

Matt said...

@Davidski: If unadmixed Yamnaya people were still alive today, they'd be less of an outlier European population from the European average than Sardinians or even Sicilians.

I'd have to disagree on this one actually, David.

As far as I can tell from Fst distances, and use of the PCoA, the Standard Average European without weighting and applying all populations should come out about equally similar to Hungarian, German, French, Croatian, Serbian, Dutch. Basically at what would colloquially be considered the centre of Europe IRL (where people are thinking in terms of population density and not the arguable geographical centre).

So should be very, very slightly closer to Europe_N (Fst: 0.018) and Europe_MN (0.016) than Steppe_EMBA (0.019).

If you weight by the top 24 European countries (all above 1% of European population) and excl. the debatable Turkey then you get a slightly different result due to the size of Russia (so the result is a little closer to NE Europe, while still being closest to Central Europe). But still works out as Europe_N (Fst: 0.019) = Steppe_EMBA (0.019), and Europe_MN slightly lower (0.017).

This should be because there are quite a few European populations with >50% Europe_N / Europe_MN ancestry, and some of them have quite a lot bit more than 50% in S Europe, while there are pretty much not as Europeans with a decisive >50% Steppe_EMBA and even those that may have (Russians) don't really seem to have very much more than 50%.

Sardinians should be quite a bit closer to Europeans, with Fst 0.011 from both Standard Average Europeans. Despite having some drift from isolation, they have a little Steppe_EMBA, which should draws them closer to the centre of the European population than either of the neolithics. I'm less comfortable comparing ancients and moderns in Fst though. Certainly Sicilians should be even closer to the SAE (Fst: 0.005) than Sardinians.

In terms of shared drift, Europe_N and Europe_MNChl are very slightly further away in Fst from Africans than Steppe_EMBA are, which suggests that Steppe_EMBA has higher heterozygosity and more complex ancestry. That tends to weight down shared drift, so taking that and that above into account I'd guess a shared drift comparison would find Europe_N and Europe_MNChl closer to Standard Average European. Harder to say if shared drift would find Yamnaya or Sardinians closer to SAE, as Sardinians may be weighted down by complex ancestry in the same way as Yamnaya may be relative to early neolithics.

(Quick images on where these Standard Average Europeans would cluster: https://imgur.com/a/izHtq).

Davidski said...

@Chetan

My whole point was it would be better not to use modern ethic labels like European/Indian/Chinese to describe ancient humans.

Again, your point is moot, because Europe is primarily a geographic term, not an ethnic one, while India and China are recent political entities.

Yamnaya is an archaeological horizon that was geographically located in Eastern Europe and thus the Yamnaya people were an ancient Eastern European population. It's OK to say that. It makes good sense.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Thanks, best wishes! Appreciate the replies.

Chetan said...

@Davidski I still stand by my point but whatever :)

Davidski said...

@Chetan

There's actually nothing to debate. It's already been decided for us, whether we like it or not.

Where is the archaeological horizon called Yamnaya located? In Eastern Europe. Not one bit of it is technically in Asia.

See here...

Matters of geography

Chetan said...

@Davidski BTW I really wanted to hear your thoughts about the language spoken by the R1a foragers in the northern forest region. Was it pre- IE? Indo-Uralic?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Were Vedic Aryans Asian then?

Davidski said...

@Chetan

BTW I really wanted to hear your thoughts about the language spoken by the R1a foragers in the northern forest region. Was it pre- IE? Indo-Uralic?

Now extinct Paleo-European languages, like the unknown, non-Uralic substrata in Saami.

@Shahanshah of Persia

Were Vedic Aryans Asian then?

Yes, they were.

John Johnson said...

Wow look at the crap not really relating directly to the topic here.

Also, Anthony's paper sucks. Just thought I'd throw that out here again.

Chetan said...

@John Yes the more I think about the more it appears so. Sredny Stog already had the R1a M417 and archaeological traits that show up in the CWC. (corded pottery for eg although that seems to have been present in other steppe cultures as well). The final nail in the coffin will come when the Hungarian Yamna genomes are sequenced and determined to be predominantly, if not all R1b. I hope they do that in the upcoming Bell Beaker paper

John Johnson said...

@Chetan

Yes, and Dimitri Telegin wrote of how he saw CWC pottery types as directly derived from Sredny Stog. Although some traits apparently persist from TRB as Kristiansen had made note of. Regardless, there is still the curious matter that Western Yamna burials haven't been sampled yet.

Given that the Fatyanovo-Balanovo CWC variant is connected to the the creation of the Andronovo culture (as Anthony actually points out correctly in his 2007 book) and that Andronovo is R1a1a rich, I can't help to wonder what genetic traits persist in those Western Yamna culture graves especially since R1a1a was found in the Single Grave culture. Western Yamna is a bit different of course from Samara Valley Yamna in that Samara shows elements of a type of early proto-nomadic pastoralism and is most similar to 'Hungarian'/Sub-Carpathian Yamna. And the Samara graves are of course R1b rich. And so is Bell Beaker already.

CWC is very complex with how it relates to everything. Regardless I'm looking forward to more aDNA results.

John Johnson said...

Although, Andronovo is actually R1a-Z93 rich as pointed out earlier and so Fatyanovo-Balanovo CWC may strictly be that as well. Still wonder what Western Yamna will hold.

Chetan said...

@John The only defense against the inevitable is for some people to claim that Sredny-Stog and the CWC were somehow not Indo-European to begin with. They claim CW spoke Uralic or some other language and was later partially Indo-Europeanized.

It is true that Sredny Stog didn't have kurgan burials and nor did the CWC. Both share their burial rites with Cucuteni-Tryploye, flat graves. It's really unfortunate because like you said, shared burial rituals is a strong indicator of cultural and linguistic unity. But I find it hard to believe that the CW could have spread IE languages all across eastern Europe but didn't have R1b, unless the R1a M417s were also IE speakers from the beginning. Which is the more rational position. If somehow we could define the relationship between Khvalynsk/Samara and Sredny Stog, then a lot of things would become clearer

For now, one thing is certain. Starting around 2800 BC, there was a back migration of the northern R1a lineages back into the Pontic steppes (only z93 or z282 as well? I'm not sure). By 2500 BC, every sample on the steppes is R1a and no R1b remains. I believe both Greek and Indo-Iranian to be the products of this R1a back migration

Western Yamna I believe was an expansion from the east so I expect the males to have R1b.

John Johnson said...

@ Chetan

One thing to keep in mind is that archaeologists in the past usually drew genetic links to certain archaeological blocs as follows:

Khvalnsk and Sredny Stog (contemporary)>Yamna (also Repin contributed)>Corded Ware

Yes the burial right isn't exactly the same throughout this genetic link of cultural blocs though there are variables to their material culture that they share throughout among some other things as to why archaeologists came to the conclusion that they were related via a common source population. There should also be some flexibility in thought regarding material culture change of a population throughout the millennium in addition to some genetic variation as well. Yamna guys more or less illuminate this.

And so To me what seems to be going on is that the ancient EHG population of the Pontic Caspian steppes is borrowing various cultural influences from its neighbors. Anthony brings this up too in relation to cattle arriving on the Pontic Caspian Steppes. Even Kurgan burial right to some is said to be borrowed from Maikop culture although there was a recent challenge to this based on c14 dating that was reported here I heard. What was unique throughout this ancient EHG population of this time was theoretically the early domestication of the horse though there were archaeological problems. Keep in mind though the Soviets did destroy a lot of horse remains from Sredny Stog culture that were kept in a museum in Ukraine that were dated accurately to that time. On the other hand, an article was shared here by Davidski showing the recent results of an excavation dating to around the time of the Sredny Stog culture on the PCS that bore some very early evidence of horse domestication.

Because of all these factors, the aDNA here becomes quite useful. And to me what was huge, was the Khvalynsk guys being both R1a and R1b and having an EHG autosomal genetic signature. Khvalynsk according to some is actually PIE or maybe even pre-porto-IE depending on how you want to define PIE according to lexicon. And so far Yamna guys are basically EHG with added CHG coming in it seems from the maternal line though mainly R1b on the paternal. Ergo, Yamna guys were the product of a male EHG population and female CHG. And the autosomal traits of CWC are more Yamna like but R1a1a rich. Although, an R1b guy was found in the Single Grave Culture variant of the CWC.

Western Yamna, material culture wise, as I recall, is heavily influenced by Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. Its quite distinct from eastern Yamna as discussed by the likes of Alexander Haulser and Yuri Rassamakin. Hausler's presentation of the material culture of the Yamna culture is particularly useful for understanding the differences in his two volume work regarding the subject where he separates eastern from western Yamna. Therefore, this difference could be due to the R1a1a males of the ancient EHG hanging around the PCS west of the Dnieper but who knows for sure at this point w/o the relevant aDNA.

Also, proto-Uralic is usually reconstructed as a Mesolithic lexicon with recent addition/knowledge of metallurgy. That would anchor the family's origins more in the middle of Siberia and part of its initial spread more in line with the Seima-Turbino archaeological horizon.

PIE has evidence of metallurgy, wheel, and horse domestication to which the Yamna culture fits well.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 403   Newer› Newest»