105 SARMACI, GERMANIE I SŁOWIANIE. Moja odpowiedź na tekst Adriana Leszczyńskiego

UWAGA! Trzciniec culture = oGieN’, Z/S+L”oWo, Srubna / Timber grave culture = aGoN’, HWaReNeH 

…..

„Tutaj w lasach głębokich żyły tylko gryfy i smoki, krwawym wzrokiem wtedy toczył człowiek z jaszczurczymi oczy”

0:35  Ostrzegam, powrócę do tego jeszcze…

Jak już pisałem, Adrian Leszczyńskie znów napisał bardzo ciekawy artykuł i w 80% bardzo dobry, zwłaszcza jeśli chodzi o unaocznienie zagadnień związanych z przeciw-słowiańskimi krętactwami, przeciw-logicznymi przekłamaniami i przemilczeniami dotyczącymi tzw. Germanów, Słowian, itp.

Obnaża on wynikającą z powyższego ludobójczą politykę dziejową, od ponad 2000 lat uskutecznianą do dziś min. przez potomków tzw. niemieckich, tzw. chazarskich i innych przeciw-słowiańskich nazistów i ich zwolenników, a także innych wyznawców tradycji pustynnej, co ciągle jest oficjalną wykładnią, zwłaszcza rzekomo obiektywnie naukową.

Powtórzę, mówię o ponad 2,000 lat ciągle trwającego  ludobójstwa Nas Słowian, Potomków Pra-Słowian, Łowców i Wędrowców z Północy, przez „ofitzjalną nałkę” zwanych Pra-Indo-Europejczykami / Proto-Indo-Europeans z odpowiednią, kulturą, dziedzictwem, językiem, wierzeniami, itd.

UWAGA! Będę o tym wkrótce pisał więcej, bo nawiązuje to np. do twierdzeń Feliksa Konecznego, o cywilizacjach, w których to poglądach, dla Przodków większości tych siedmiu wymienionych przez niego cywilizacji, o Cywilizacji / Tradycji Pra-Słowiańskiej / Słowiańskiej, nie napisał ANI JEDNEGO SŁOWA…

To tyle tytułem wstępu.

Niestety Adrian Leszczyński w swoim tekście także niemal w całości pominął wpływ tradycji pustynnej, na taki stan rzeczy, co jest wg mnie świadomym działaniem. Patrz np. rzymsko-katolicki (niemiecki, a może chazarski?) biskup Kromer i jego wymyślony „sarmatyzm„, o którym nikt z kronikarzy, itp, wcześniej jakoś za bardzo nie słyszał,.. więc i nie pisał…

Czyż nie były to  działania zwyczajnie mające na celu stworzenie nowego mitu założycielskiego dla okrzczonych już Lehitów / Lachów / Lechów, czyli Po-Lachów? Pomyślcie… Nowa wizja narodu, już nie oparta o politycznie niepoprawne dwókrotne zdobycie Rzymu… Łapiecie bryłę i czaczę kumacie, ten tegesik?

Co, niby ten fakt nie był i ciągle nie jest ze zrozumiałych względów niewygodny dla wyznawców tradycji pustynnej, zwłaszcza rzymskich krześcijan? A jakieś rzekome związki z tzw. Sarmatami, itd, czyż to nie brzmi lepiej niż jacyś  Wandale, czy inni Wandalowie,.. np. dla niemieckich, czy chazarskich kronikarzy, czy biskupów i dyplomatów, hm?

Podobnych zarzutów mam do tego tekstu niestety dużo więcej. Jednak najbardziej podstawowym błędem związanym z tym tekstem jest to, że autor jak na rasowego (jak allo-allo) historyka przystało ot tak, na podstawie tylko swojego widzimisię, odrzucać wszystkie inne dane, pochodzące z innych dziedzin nauki… i nie podając w zamian nic. Mylę się? 


Więcej, autor w swoich twierdzeniach opierając się (tak jak mu pasuje) tylko na swoim rozumieniu jakiś danych zawartych TYLKO w jakiś kronikach i tego co JEGO ZDANIEM wybrani przez niego kronikarze mieli na myśli,.. próbuje na siłę układać z tego swoją jedynie słuszną wizję. Jest ona zgodna i z artykułem i z tezami profesora wzmiankowanego w tym tekście, z którego poglądami osobiście nie mogę zgodzić się, o czym autora niniejszego tekstu wielokrotnie informowałem, a co on w całości zlekceważył.


Dużo, dużo wcześniej uprzedzałem autora wielokrotnie o moich wątpliwościach dotyczących aryjsko-scytyjsko-sarmacko-słowiańskich zagadnień, jednak on w całości przemilczał i nie odniósł się to moich dowodzeń. Jakikolwiek sprzeciw wobec jego wizji, czy jej podważanie jest przez niego ZAKAZANY, bo…  to jest wg niego nic innego, jak… kossinnizm, czyli inaczej jądro nazizmu w czystej postaci. Możliwość jest tylko jedna, należy spijać wszystkie słowa z jego ust i tylko mlaskać i klaskać. Krytyka tego co autor napisał, nawet w najmniejszej części, to kacerstwo i herezja, żeby nie napisać więcej…

Jakby tego było mało, autor ogłosił także bezdyskusyjny brak  jakikolwiek wiarygodności źródeł, na które ja powołuję się od samego początku. Takiego postawienie spraw spowodowało brak jakiejkolwiek dalszej możliwości naszego wspólnego dochodzenia do hm… jakiejkolwiek prawdy.

Nie ukrywam, że widzę, od pewnego czasu, że podobne wybiórcze i wodzowskie podejście do rzeczywistości u autora narasta, co nie wróży nic dobrego na przyszłość,.. bo znając życie, jest tylko niewinnym początkiem, patrz brak odpowiedzi na pytania innych osób, itd… Będzie o tym dalej.

Częściowo autorowi odpowiedziałem już tu, a dwie dalsze części mojej odpowiedzi ukarzą się tu w kolejnych wpisach. To jest część pierwsza.

Mówiąc krótko nie mogę zgodzić się z niektórymi tezami zawartymi w tym skądinąd w większości rzetelnym tekście, bo dowodzeń innych niż zapiski kronikarzy w ich kronikach, czy chociażby innych danych np. genetycznych zupełnie w nim brak. Wobec powyższego oczywiste więc jest , że nie mamy żadnej podstawy do osiągnięcia porozumienia.

Uważam, że idąc od tyłu tzw. herby szlachty polskiej w pewnej części mogą być „od-sarmackie”, ale równie dobrze mogą być „od-khaz-araskie” i pochodzić DOPIERO po przybyciu na ziemie gdzie nie było znaczącego plemienia słowiańskiego, tzw. Polan Kijowskich, kimkolwiek oni byli i już o tym pisałem np.:

https://skrbh.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/83-pra-slowianie-r1a-m17-m198-m417-z645-s224-czyli-przodkowie-orlow-ariow-scytow-sarmatow-germanow-czy-innych-wikingow

https://skrbh.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/80-adrian-leszczynski-genetycy-na-tropie-pochodzenia-europejczykow-czesc-2/

Oznacza to to, że inne herby „nie-od-sarmackie”, są i starsze i mogą nawiązywać do Pra-Słowiańskich znaków rodowych, patrz np.:


Biały Orzeł / W/BieL”y oR”eL” > WeLy aR”eL”, WieL+eCi, WLH/G/Z/S/C/K, czy Sokół / SoKo”L”*h₂eḱus / HeK’o”S, itd. (UWAGA! Brak postaci awestyjskiej / irańskiej!)

Oznacza to to wg mnie, że część późniejszej tzw. szlachty polskiej zwłaszcza z piastowskiej Wielkopolski ma większą ilość haplogrupy R1b „od-sarmackiej”. To Piastowie wg mnie są tym wspomnianym „pomostem”, który przyniósł nad Wartę i „od-sarmackie” tamgi, i tzw. tradycję kejanidzką, i feudalizm… i tradycję pustynną niestety… 😦

Twierdzę, że z oczywistych względów, że step nie jest środowiskiem, gdzie języki nie zmieniają się od 3,000 lat, czy dłużej… za duży ruch niestety…



Uważam, że północno-skałkazkie plemię tzw. Osetyjczycy (UWAGA! mówiący językiem tzw. grupy wschodnio-irańskiej, w odróżnieniu np. od Kurdów, mówiących językiem z tzw. grupy zachodnio-irańskej, itp!), zostali „ziranizowani” z północy i wschodu, a nie z południa lub Iranu, jak twierdzi autor!

Oznacza to ni mniej ni więcej, że zgodnie z tzw. dialect continuum, cały step po BMAC, Yaz, (a może nawet już wcześniej, np. w Khvalynsk, Samara, Poltavka, Potapovka, itp), zaczął stopniowo tracić swój pierwotny stan wymowy tzw. satem, odziedziczony po Sintashta, a wcześniej po CWC, Sredny Stog, Mezine, itd. Następnie po przejściu przez Bułgarię i dojściu do Epiru, wytworzyć tam przodków tzw. Mykeńczyków / Ahajów, jak i Dorów, Jonów, itp.


Powtarzam. Jestem niestety zawiedziony, bo żadna z moich licznych uwag nie została przez autora podważona, a jedynie w całości przemilczana. Podobnie było już wcześniej, począwszy od dyskusji o książce dr Makucha i pracy dr Jamroszko i twierdzeń innych osób, np. Tchórzliwego Grzegorza, które popierają błędną teorię, o rzekomych tzw. zapożyczeniach od-irańskich / osetyjskich, itp., rzekomo odnajdywanych w j. polskim / lechickim / zachodnio-słowiańskim.

Co ciekawe, obaj, i Adrian Leszczyński i ja uważamy, że tych wspomnianych zapożyczeń w j. słowiańskim / polskim nie ma. Tyle że ja umiem to wytłumaczyć inaczej, nie tylko twierdząc, że tzw. Sarmaci byli rzekomymi przodkami Słowian / Słowianami i mówili takim samym językiem Słowiańskim / Pra-Słowiańskim, jak ich wygląda na to że też przodkowie np.  z Mezine, Bug-Dniester, Sredny Stog, Derievka, CWC, a może i Khvalynsk, Samara, itp.

Ja nie zakładam braku zmian i zniekształceń, tak jak to robi autor, który oczywiście nie podaje żadnych dowodów na poparcie swoich twierdzeń,.. a bo i po co, skoro on wie najlepiej, co mieli na myśli jacyś kronikarze, kiedy pisali sobie to, czy tamto… No cóż…


Ja udowadniam twierdzenie, że wszystkie ludy, które wyruszyły na zachód i południe od BMAC, Yaz, stopniowo traciły pierwotny wzór dźwięków tzw. PIE=PS, czyli Mezine, Sredny Stog, CWC, itp i zniekształcały go przez utratę dźwięczności / ubezdźwięcznienie, czyli tzw. kentumizację, czyli tzw. rough breathing, czyli tzw. PIE=PS S>H.


Jak już pisałem, ja na podstawie wszystkich zebranych przeze mnie danych twierdzę, że na stepie istniało tzw. dialect continuum, ale było stopniowo zniekształcane, aż do osiągnięcia postaci odnajdywanej w najbardziej zkreolizowanym z tzw. języków indoeuropejskich, czyli indogermanische upsprache, czyli nic innego, jak język przeciw-słowiańskiego ojca niemieckiego nazizmu, czyli Gustav/fa KoSSinnę, tzw. Junggrammatiker , Neogrammarians (Young Grammarians, Nowych / Młodych Gramatyków, czy innych im podobnych.

Uważam, że wiele twierdzeń, wniosków i danych zawartych w tej pracy jest wzajemnie sprzecznych i wykażę to w tych dwóch kolejnych wpisach.

Twierdzę, że powołując się na twierdzenia dr Jamroszko, autor sam sobie zaprzecza, bo wg dr Jamroszko zapożyczenia od-sarmackie / alańskie / osetyjskie / scytyjskie w j. polskim / lechickim / zachodnio-słowiańskim istnieją. Przypominam, że podobnie twierdzi i dr Makuch, patrz rdzeń LG/H/K/S/C/Z…, jak i wszyscy inni allo-allo, w tym Tchórzliwy Grzegorz, co Kuca / Ko”Ca, Kłusaka / K+L”o”S+aKa, Klaczy / K+LaC”y nie zna, choć nie on jeden z resztą, patrz choćby Anthony, Kristiansen, Mallory, itd. Dla mnie to nie do pogodzenia, Panie Adrianie…

Udowadnianie swoich twierdzeń, powoływaniem się na autora, który tym twierdzeniom zaprzecza, jest dla mnie zwyczajną schizofrenią. Nie ukrywam, że to przelało moją czarę goryczy, bo wg mnie Adrian Leszczyński zwyczajnie nie ma za bardzo pojęcia, (sądzę po tym co napisał) w temacie tzw. Ariów, Scytów, Sarmatów i tego, co z tego wynika…


Tak z pewną taką nieśmiałością pytam: A może jednak sobie Panowie wszyscy powinniście ustalić, jakąś jedną wspólną nie wzajemnie sobie zaprzeczającą wersję obowiązującą, skoro sami na siebie powołujecie się, jednocześnie sami sobie zaprzeczając, co?


Na koniec taka uwaga do Adriana Leszczyńskiego:

A ja nie mogę się z tym zgodzić i absolutnie się nie zgadzam. (…) Nigdy z logiką nie miałem problemu. Pańskie uwagi są nie na miejscu. „… ani mnie do niczego nie przekonuje, ani do niczego mi nie wystarcza, ani nie robi na mnie żadnego niestety wrażenia, tak, tak… Z przedszkola, piaskownicy i tupania na Mię to ja już dawno temu wyrosłem, zwłaszcza jeśli chodzi o językoznawstwo i logiczne dowodzenie swoich racji…

Przypominam wszystkim, że ja poszukuję wiadomości, a nie życzeń pobożnych, a i głaskanie po głowie i drapanie po plecach to nie moja bajka…

A przy okazji, szkoda, że autor tego w 20% niespójnego tekstu do dziś nie podważył tego, co mu osobiście napisałem, ani nie odpowiedział także i na te uwagi, napisane przez inne osoby:

http://rudaweb.pl/index.php/2018/01/28/sarmaci-germanie-i-slowianie/#comment-293030

http://rudaweb.pl/index.php/2018/01/28/sarmaci-germanie-i-slowianie/#comment-293040

http://rudaweb.pl/index.php/2018/01/28/sarmaci-germanie-i-slowianie/#comment-292934

Czy to urażona duma, czy może czasu… lub argumentów nie stało? Oto jest pytanie…

…..

Podstawy:

https://bialczynski.pl/2014/06/11/giacomo-benedetti-indo-europejska-lingwistyka-indo-iranscy-niszczyciele-glosek/

https://bialczynski.pl/2014/01/18/moloch-a-sprawa-polska-czyli-jak-z-krowy-zrobiono-w-izraelu-pozeracza-dzieci/

https://bialczynski.pl/2012/01/21/czy-scytowie-byli-slowianami-i-czy-slowianie-sa-scytami-tak/

Przekonany said, on 28 Wrzesień 2010 at 21:18
To DNA w grobowcach scytyjskich okazuje się zawierać nie tylko typowo słowiańskie haplotypy R1a1a, ale również identyczne do naszego autosomalne DNA. Scytowie nie tylko mieli tych samych przodków w linii męskiej i to samo Y-STR, co Polacy i Rosjanie, ale również inne geny mieli identyczne ze współczesnymi Słowianami, między innymi te autosomalne, które są odpowiedzialne za wygląd, tzn. starożytni Scytowie wyglądali jak dzisiejsi Słowianie.

Genetyka wyklucza możliwość aby Scytowie byli Irańczykami, to była populacja genetycznie europejska. Gdy genetyka wykazała, że Osetyńczycy nie mają nic wspólnego ze Scytami, to nie ma już żadnej podstawy by uważać Scytów za Irańczyków. Poza Osetyńczykami nie ma śladu irańskich genów i irańskich języków w Europie Wschodniej. Wszystko wskazuje na to, że Scytowie to Słowianie.

Robert said, on 28 Wrzesień 2010 at 21:38
Myslę, że w dalszym ciągu, żeby dojść do ładu trzeba trzymać się pewnych zasad. Prawidłowo postawiona hipoteza jest zdaniem twierdzącym. Można więc postawić szereg hipotez H1, H2 itd. składających się z: hipotezy roboczej oraz hipotezy alternatywnej. Pan Sceptyk stara się obalić coś w rodzaju hipotezy roboczej czymś w rodzaju hipotezy alternatywnej, robi sie bałagan. Moim zdaniem ma pan rację, że obalanie postawionych hipotez bez ich weryfikacji jest bez znaczenia, to pusta słowna przepychanka, może byli a może nie.

Trudniejszym problemem jest wychwytywanie błędów we wnioskowaniu, które muszą się znaleźć. Dobrym, choć intuicyjnym sposobem jest zadada „koła hermeneutycznego”. Flacius interpretował biblię, my mamy do zinterpretowania dane naukowe. Czytając panów dyskusję widzę, że to nie ułatwia zadania. Tak, że trzymajmy się metodologii zarówno ściśle naukowej jak i tej dotyczącej analizy tekstów oraz prawidłowego stawiania pytań. Przepychanki to w sejmie – że tak pozwolę sobie zażartować;-)

https://bialczynski.pl/2015/09/11/harnicy-i-harnasie-czyli-starozytna-harmia-harusji-malopolski-krakowsko-kijowskiej/#comment-21743

bialczynski 12 września 2015 o 10:46

Pieśń Jacka Kowalskiego streszczająca historię Sarmatów – starożytnego ludu rzeczywiście zamieszkującego ziemie polskie – dokładnie tereny między Wisłą a Dnieprem. Północną granicą Sarmacji był Ocean Sarmacki (Bałtyk). Wg legendy, a także niektórych badaczy Sarmaci podbili Słowian następnie asymilując się z nimi, dali początek elicie tego ludu. Polskie tradycje sarmackie początkami tkwią w niezapisanej przeszłości. Uczeni podkreślają podobieństwa leksykalne w sferze słownictwa religijno-obrzędowego, etycznego, a także zbieżności pomiędzy sarmacką symboliką, polskimi znakami heraldycznymi i godłowymi orłami. 

Psalm rodowodowy to opowiedzenie naszej historii (a także prahistorii) w ekspresowym tempie niespełna trzech minut. Niechaj ten „teledysk” będzie obrazem piękna, splendoru i chwały naszej kultury – nie bójmy się rzec – najbogatszej, najbardziej różnorodnej, niezwykłej i ciekawej spośród znanych kultur kręgu naszej cywilizacji. Niechaj będzie też nostalgicznym westchnieniem i iskrą nadziei na odzyskanie dawnej świetności, odebranej nam zdradziecko przez ingerencję wrogów, a także domniemanych przyjaciół. Użyto fragmentów filmów: Król Artur, Stara Baśń, Ogniem i Mieczem, Pan Tadeusz, a także malarstwa Jana Matejki oraz nieznanego autora wizerunków największych zakał naszej cywilizacji .

Kategoria
Edukacja
Licencja
Standardowa licencja YouTube

W zasadzie można się zgodzić z tym opisem – tyle tylko że Sarmaci = Scyci = Starosłowianie czyli Prasłowianie (hapologrupa Y-Dna R1a). Scyci i Sarmaci nie podbili lecz zasymilowali w Europie od Adriatyku i Dunaju po Ren i Lech – po wybrzeże Atlantyku w Mormoryce (Armoryka) ludność Staroeuropejską o haplogrupie Y-DNA I – i z tych dwóch języków powstał język słowiański = scytyjsko-staroeuropejski. Działo się to jednak nie 2000 lat temu ale 11.000 lat temu.

Istowie = Bałtowie = Litwini (Leto-Wynilowie czyli Wino-Wędończycy – Fino-Wenetowie) Finowie – haplogrupa N. Ze zmieszania języka słowiańskiego z fińskim powstały języki bałtyjskie (istyjskie, aestyjskie).

O barwach Sarmatów i Scytów wiemy tyle, że są to barwy biała, czerwona i niebieska. Herby i flagi krajów Słowianskich i szlachty są bezpośrednią kontynuacją znaków scytyjskich i sarmackich – tamg. Orzeł , Sokół, (Sokołoci = Scyci) i Biały Kruk – dały początek białemu orłowi polskiemu.

Ziemie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego tylko na północy były zasiedlone przez Litwinów mówiących językiem bałtyjskim a znaczna ich część by la zasiedlona przez Słowian – przodków dzisiejszych Białorusinów. Wszyscy: Białorusini, Rosjanie, Ukraińcy wywodzą sie z plemion Prapolskich – ich przodkowie pochodzą znad Wisły i z Kujaw.

Ale jest to oczywiście uproszczenie gdyż praojczyzną Hariów (Arjów) była Stara Koliba w Środkowej Azji i Południowej Syberii skąd szli oni (przesuwali się) do Europy (zostawiając na miejscu w Azji część ludności – np późniejsi Hunowie, Tocharowie, Kuszanowie, Massageci, Kalasze itp) w okresie od 20.000 do 10.000 lat p.n.e.

Można powiedzieć


UWAGA! Powracam: „Tutaj w lasach głębokich żyły tylko gryfy i smoki, krwawym wzrokiem wtedy toczył człowiek z jaszczurczymi oczy”… czyli np. CWC, to są „człowieki z jaszczurczymi oczami”..?!!

Czy Sarmaci w ogóle pochodzą z CWC, w jakimkolwiek stopniu, czy może ODWROTNIE, to CWC pochodzi od Sarmatów?

Nie wiem jak Wy, ale ja przyznaję się bez bicia, że już pogubiłem się w tych aryjsko-scytyjsko-sarmackich wywodach… 😦


https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/srubna_culture.shtml

Eupedia Home > Genetics > Indo-European DNA > Srubna (Timber-grave) culture

Srubna (Timber-grave) culture (c. 1800-1200 BCE)

Quick Facts

  • Succeeded to the Late Catacomb culture, the Poltavka culture, and the Potapovka culture. The Srubna culture may represent the southward expansion of the Abashevo and Sintashta-Petrovka cultures (both carrying predominantly R1a-Z93 male lineages), who are linked to the Proto-Indo-Iranian people. This would have occured soon after the invention of the spoke-wheeled horse chariots used for war c. 2000 BCE in the the Sintashta-Petrovka culture.
  • Extended all over the steppe and the forest-steppe zones, above the northern shore of the Black Sea from the Dnieper eastwards along the northern base of the Caucasus to the area abutting the north shore of the Caspian Sea, west of the Ural Mountains.
  • Contemporaneous and somewhat related Andronovo culture.
  • Dwellings were partially sunken in the ground and built with wooden posts and gable roofs. Walls were made of wood, turf, and occasionally stone.
  • Srubna pottery was characterised by geometric designs in the form of horizontal and diagonal lines, zigzags, herringbone patterns and other geometric shapes. The upper part of vessels were sometimes embellished by a variety of ornament signs in the form of corded patterns, crosses, solar signs, rectangles, as well as zoomorphic and anthropomorphic images. Some researchers regard them as primitive pictographic letters.
  • The economy was based on a mix of cereal agriculture and livestock breeding. Cattle were the dominant domesticated animals, followed by horses. Many villages had a blacksmith and a metallurgical foundry. The metallurgical industry was based on the mining of copper-bearing sandstones in the Urals (Kargaly field) and the Donets Ridge (Bahmutskiy field).
  • The dead were inhumed in timber-framed (or cруб in Russian) graves inside kurgans (burial mounds). Sacrificed animals were buried with the body.
  • The Srubna culture could possibly be ancestral to the Cimmerians and/or the Mycenaeans.

The following mtDNA and Y-DNA samples were tested by Mathieson et al. (2015).

Samples from the Volga-Ural region (Samara)

Sample Y-DNA mtDNA Location Date
I0232 R1a1a1b2 (Z93) U5a1f2 Novoselki, Samara 1850-1200 BCE
I0234 I1a1 Rozhdestveno, Samara 1850-1600 BCE
I0235 K1b2a Rozhdestveno, Samara 1850-1600 BCE
I0259 U5a2a1 Spiridonovka IV, Samara 1850-1200 BCE
I0260 R1a1 (M459) U5a1 Spiridonovka IV, Samara 1850-1200 BCE
I0261 R1a1a (L168) U5a1a Spiridonovka IV, Samara 1850-1200 BCE
I0354 U5a1 Spiridonovka II, Samara 2016-1692 BCE
I0358 H6a1a Spiridonovka IV, Samara 1913-1629 BCE
I0421 H3g Spiridonovka II, Samara 1850-1600 BCE
I0422 T1a1 Barinovka I, Samara 1850-1200 BCE
I0423 R1a1a1b2 (Z93) J2b1a2a Barinovka I, Samara 1850-1200 BCE
I0424 R1a1a1b2 (Z93) T2b4 Barinovka I, Samara 1850-1200 BCE
I0430 R1a1a1b2a2a (Z2123) H3g Spiridonovka II, Samara 1850-1600 BCE
I0431 H2b Spiridonovka II, Samara 1850-1600 BCE

A potem wg kronik ze wschodu przyjechali Scyci, Sarmaci i inni…

…..

Oto moje uwagi do treści tekstu. W kolejnej części odpowiem na ostatni komentarz autora.

(…) W artykule spróbuję wytłumaczyć kim były starożytne ludy zamieszkujące Europę Środkowo-Wschodnią i jaki był ich związek ze współczesnymi Polakami i ogólnie Słowianami. (…) skupię się także na Sarmatach. (…) Jak wiadomo, lud ten również był kojarzony z Polakami (vide: sarmatyzm  polskiej szlachty) oraz ogólnie ze Słowianami. (…)

UWAGA! Autor podkreśla, że wyjaśnia związki tzw. Sarmatów z Polakami, ale OGÓLNIE i ze WSZYSTKIMI INNYMI Słowianami także! Logicznie WSZYSCY SŁOWIANIE MAJĄ WG AUTORA POCHODZIĆ OD SARMATÓW! 

(…) Pierwsze na co muszę koniecznie zwrócić uwagę jest to, że dawne definicje rozłożone na przestrzeni wieków, nie były ścisłe i jednoznaczne. Zakres definicji ulegał zmianom, choć zasadniczo posiadał wspólny trzon. Poszczególne określenia znaczyły u różnych skrybów nie zawsze to samo. Stąd problemy współczesnych historyków z odnalezieniem się w definicyjnym galimatiasie. Stąd łatwość z jaką powstają różnego rodzaju mity i z jaką przeinacza się historię starożytnych ludów oraz ich przynależność językową. Poniżej stopniowo tłumaczę moje spojrzenie na sprawę Sarmatów i Germanów oraz ich związków ze Słowianami. (…)

UWAGA! Oto autor określił na podstawie jakich i jak „wiarygodnych” źróeł przeprowadził swoje dowodzenie. 

(…) W swoich artykułach związanych z badaniami genetycznymi pisałem między innymi o tym, że języki słowiańskie wykształciły się w Europie wśród męskiego rodu R1a.(…)

A dowody? A dlaczego j. Pra-Słowiański nie mógł powstać, jako np. zmieszany język jakichś tzw. Staro-Europejskich Łowców i Zbieraczy I1, I2, G, z jakimś językiem Wschodnio-Europejskich Łowców i Zbieraczy R1a, R1b, I2?

Zgoda, że mogło być tak jak twierdzi autor, bo np. w większości gwar języka słowiańskiego nie można doszukać się tzw. podkładu językowego, (Uwaga! Za wyjątkiem j. bułgarskiego / wołgarskiego!).

Z drugiej jednak strony być może istniał jakiś Wspólny Język Łowców i Wędrowców i dlatego np. w j. polskim (w przeciwieństwie do j. bułgarskiego) nie widać wchłonięcia obcych rdzeni, gramatyki, czy innego wzoru / zakresu dźwięków, patrz np. jednoczesne (nawet obecnie) występowanie min. i w tym języku postaci dźwięków wysokoenergetycznych (tzw. satem) i niskoenergetycznych (tzw. kentum) dźwięków i rdzeni na nich opartych.

Jest ogólnie znaną zasadą, że im starsze języki tym mają w użyciu więcej dźwięków / fonemów, patrz np. j. khoisan 147? >  j. słowiański 47? > j. angielski > 24?). W j. polskim zachowały się i dźwięki nosowe ą/a”, ę/e”, dźwięki gardłowe / tzw. laryngały h/H, ch/(c)H, itd. Zachowały się także i dźwięki świszcząco-gwiżdżące wadliwie określane jako rzekomo zmiękczone / zpalatelizowane, itp.

UWAGA! W rzeczywistości dźwięki świszcząco-gwiżdżące były pierwotną postacią tzw. satem, następnie jedynie wtórnie zniekształconą w językach kreolskich / tzw. kentum, przez ograniczenie zakresu drgań / wzoru dźwięków tego tzw. PIE=PS, gdzie wg mnie PS (Pra-Słowiański),.. czyli ubezdźwięcznioną / zkentumizowaną, patrz tzw. rough breathing, gdzie tzw. PIE=PS S>H, patrz od wschodu tzw. j. tocharski, j. staro-scytyjski, j. awestyjski i pochodne, jak j. kurdyjski i j. osetyński, j. ormiański, j. hetycki / nesycki i pochodne j. anatolijskie, a w końcu tzw. j. mykeński / ahaiski / dorycki / selleński / grecki z odmianami, a także j. albański i wszystkie języki tzw. kentum dalej na zachód.

Doskonale widoczna jest ciągłość utraty dźwięczności, która wg mnie nastąpiła już przed wejściem  potomków Ariów z Sintashta, czyli tzw. Pra-Irańczyków / Proto-Iranians i ich pustynnego zaratusztrianizmu w doliny Wyżyny Irańskiej / Perskiej. Wg logiki i danych językowych, już częściowo ubezdźwięczniona postać pierwotnych dźwięków z CWC, itp, była już obecna w Andronovo, na stepie na wschód i południe od Góralu i dalej w BMAC, Yaz, itp.

UWAGA! Nie nastąpiło to jeszcze w Orkaim / Arkaim / Sintashta, czyli w kulturze archeologicznej związanej z pierwszymi rydwanami. Pytanie jak to było z właścicielem wadźry z Kutuluk będącego kulyurowym Ariem z Samara i jednocześnie posiadaczem haplogrupy R1b, itp, patrz Sindo-Ariowie w Sindiach, którzy tych zniekształceń  nigdy nie posiadali, (może za wyjątkiem e/o>a)…

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

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

https://www.academia.edu/3187585/THE_SINTASHTA_BOW_OF_THE_BRONZE_AGE_OF_THE_SOUTH_TRANS-URALS_RUSSIA

http://www.proza.ru/2009/08/19/1144

Wg mnie jedni potomkowie M417 z CWC, jak i inni M417 z Potapovka, Poltavka, itp, ale już Z93  zmieszali się już w Sintashta. Jeszcze później zmieszali się np. z ludami łowców ze wschodu, o haplogrupach N i Q, itp. Następnie jedni ich potomkowie pojechali na wschód np. do Basenu Tarim, Mongolii, itp. Inni pojechali na południe i tam zmieszali się dodatkowo w BMAC, Yaz i z jeszcze innymi ludami, być może elamicko-drawidyjskimi? pochodzącymi z południa, czyli Wyżyny Irańskiej / Perskiej, itp.  Inni „Ariowie”, (bo już nie Orły) i po Sintashta, Andronovo, BMAC, Yaz, itp. w różnych falach, dotarli znów stepem na zachód, przy okazji dodatkowo „iranizując” potomków swoich przodków z Poltavka, Potapovka, itp, pozostałych na miejscu, jak i tych niby sarmackich, a w rzeczywistości kartwelskich tzw. Osetyjczyków. Potem dotarli stepem dalej tworząc przy okazji tzw. kulturę Srubna i dalej do Bułgarii, Epiru i dalej na południe, także do Azji Mniejszej.

UWAGA! Języki staro-scytyjski, awestyjski i osetyjski, są oznaczane jako tzw. j. wschodnio-irańskie, w przeciwieństwie do reszty języków tzw. zachodnio-irańskich, jak np. kurdyjski, medyjski i inne! Wg mnie, jest to dowód, na to, że tzw. Osetyńcy, zostali ziranizowani od północy, a nie od południa, patrz tzw. zachodnio-irańscy Kurdowie, czyli odwrotnie od tego, co jakoś sobie Adrian Leszczyński domniema!

UWAGA! I wcale tzw. Scyci, czy inni Sarmaci, nie musieli oni posiadać TYLKO jeden podkład haplogrupy R1a, czyli Z93, co potwierdzają dane genetyczne. 

UWAGA! Uważam, że to nie geny przenoszą język, a odosobnienie i Tradycja Przodków, patrz np. R1b z Kutuluk, który powtarzam przecież był 100% kulturowym Ariem!

(…) Ścisłe podobieństwo języków słowiańskich do języków aryjskich z Azji przy jednoczesnej dominacji haplogrupy R1a zarówno u Słowian jak i u ludów aryjskich wskazuje na historyczną korelację między tymi rodzinami językowymi, a wspomnianą męską haplogrupą.[6][7] (…)

Tak, bo tzw. Ariowie, a wcześniej Orły byli Potomkami Pra-Słowian z CWC i wcześniej, którzy znad Wisły/ Bugu wyruszyli powyżej stepu na wschód jakieś 4500 lat temu. Około 4300 lat temu dotarli na południe od gór Góral, gdzie zmieszali się z pozostałościami po pobliskich ludach pozostałych po kulturach archeologicznych Poltavka, Potapovka, a wcześniej Samara i Khvalynsk, itp.

(…) Z Ariami związany jest subklad Z93 haplogrupy R1a wykształcony w Europie około trzeciego tysiąclecia p.n.e. (stanowisko Potapovka w Rosji). To właśnie potomkowie mężczyzn tego subkladu zasiedlili Azję. (…)

To fakt, że próbek kopalnych zawierających podkład R1a Z93/Z94 na zachód od Poltavka / Potapowka brak,.. ale za wyjątkiem próbki z Bułgarii o dobre 1000 lat młodszej, kojarzonej z Mykeńczykami, czyli Przodkami tzw. Ahaiów, Dorów, Sellenów, Hellenów, Ellenów, czyli współczesnych Greków.

UWAGA! Widoczny jest kierunek ruchu z południa Góralu na południe (BMAC, Yaz i Sindie), wschód (tzw. Tocharowie) jak i na zachód w paśmie stepu, do Bułgarii i dalej do Epiru, patrz Bałkany i „czerwona strzałka R1a ” w Mathieson 2014.

(…) Mężczyźni innych subkladów haplogrupy R1a zostali zaś w Europie. (…)

Potapovka, Poltawka, Samara, Khwalynsk to ciągle Europa, bo granica z Azją jest chyba nadal na środku rzeki Góral, mylę się? Czyli wszystkie inne podkłady R1a inne od Z93/Z94 z Potapowka, itd, pozostały w Europie, jak i te po Potapovka TAKŻE, patrz np. Z93 z Bułgarii…

(…) Z tych pozostałych w Europie mężczyzn oraz z mężczyzn innych haplogrup wchłoniętych i zasymilowanych przez nich, wykształciły się europejskie ludy, które dominują w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej począwszy od co najmniej trzeciego milenium p.n.e. aż po dzień dzisiejszy. (…)

To samo działo się w Sintashta i dalej na południe i wschód od tej kultury archeologicznej leżącej na południe od gór Góral, patrz Arkaim. Język ludzi z kultury Sintashta MUSIAŁ SIĘ ZMIENIĆ, bo zmienił się ich tryb życia, technologia, itp. To tam powstali bezpośredni przodkowie „szlachetnych Ariów”, ale ci najnowsi z rydwanami, a nie wozami, wadźrami, a nie gładzonymi kamiennymi toporami, itp, i ze zmienionymi zwyczajami, a także początkiem sinduskiego sanskrytu, wedyzmu, a potem przez odwrócenie tzw. zaratusztrianizmu, feudalizmu i tego, co ja nazywam tradycją pustynną.

Wygląda na to, że jednak żądza władzy i utrata swobody i wolności, na rzecz budowy państwa z jedną religią i jedną samowładzą pochodzącą rzekomo od jedynego nowego boga, patrz: „Got Mitt Uns”, itp. powstała wcześniej, niż tuż przed tzw. Cyrrusem Wielkim. To takie już przyszło z północy, a z tym… i zniekształcenia odnajdywane w j. awestyjskim, ale nie odnajdywane w sanskrycie!

Tzw. staro-scytyjski, czyli j. wschodnio-irański wygląda na mniej zniekształcony, tj. mniej ubezdźwięczniony, w porównaniu do j. awestyjskiego. Przypominam, że sanskryt zachował w sobie brak wtórnego zniekształcenia, czyli ubezdźwięcznienia, czyli tzw. rough breathing, czyli tzw. kentumizacji… w przeciwieństwie do WSZYSTKICH JĘZYKÓW IRAŃSKICH.

A tak przy okazji… Czy ktoś śledzi w ogóle różnice kulturowe między Słowianami a Ariami, Scytami, Sarmatami, Persami z Persji, czy Irańczykami z Iranu, czy tylko tak wszystko wrzuca się do jednego wora,.. żeby było miło?

(…) Ludy te z czasem podzieliły się na inne mniejsze, a te następnie na poszczególne plemiona. Ludem zajmującym największy obszar byli Scytowie, a następnie Sarmaci, zwani w późniejszych czasach Słowianami. (…)

Czyli Scytowie i Sarmaci nie powstali jako CWC>Sintashta>BMAC>Srubna, itp… tylko powstali niby gdzie znów może w Mezine nad Prypecią, czy raczej w Vasilievka nad Dnieprem, czy może jednak w Samarze nad Wołgą?!! Przecież źródła, na które sam autor powołuje się twierdzą, że te ludy przyjechały ze wschodu! No co, mylę się?!!

To nie jest prawda, że Z93 nie było w Bułgarii / Europie w okresie przed powstaniem tzw. Scytów!!!

Oto przykłady haplogrup, które znalazłem w nawiązaniu do okresów i ludów powiązanych z Orłami / Ariami, Scytami, Sarmatami, itp, patrz:

Próbki kopalnego DNA tzw. Scytów, Sarmatów, itp.:

Aldy Bel Tuva, Russian Federation Arzhan 2 [A10 / I0577] M 700-500 BC R1a1a1b S441: 7683058G->A; [Additional info: roughly R-YP1456* (but Y29558-) ] A Unterlander 2017; Additional SNPs from Vladimir Tagankin of YFull

Early Sarmatian Russia Pokrovka [PR3 /I0575] M 500-200 BC R1b1a2a2 CTS1078:7186135G->C, S20902:18383837C->T [Additional info roughly R-Y21707* (but A12363-)] M Unterlander 2017; Additional SNPs from Vladimir Tagankin of YFull

Pazyryk Altaï Republic Sebÿstei Valley [SEB 96K2] M 450 BC R1a1a M17 D? 16093C 16129A 16173T 16223T 16319A 16362C Ricaut 2004c; Keyser 2009

Pazyryk Altaï Republic Ak-Alakha-1, mound 1, burials 1 and 2, Ukok Plateau M 400-200 BC N Burial 2 (tattooed teenager) was originally thought to be female. C 16093, 16129, 16223, 16298, 16327 Chikisheva 2007; Pilipenko 20

Pazyryk Kazakh Altai Berel’ [Be11 / I0563] M 400-300 BC R1a1a1b2 Z93:7552356G->A [Additional info: R-S23201 +] C4a1+16129 Unterlander 2017; Additional SNPs from Vladimir Tagankin of YFull

Russia Sabinka 2 [RISE492] M 396-209 BC R1a D4b1a2a2 73G, 207A, 263G, 1438G, 3010A, 3107C, 4883T, 8020A, 8414T, 8701G, 9540C, 10181T, 10398G, 10400T, 10873C, 11719A, 12705T, 13720T, 14668T, 14766T, 14783C, 14815T, 14927G, 15043A, 15244G, 15301A. 15326G, 15440C, 15951G, 16223T, 16319A, 16362C Allentoft 2015; Y-DNA personal communication from author

Scythian Russia Nadezhdinka, Volga Steppes, Samara [I0247 / SVP 56] 375-203 calBCE (2220±30 BP) 951,695 R1a1a1b2a2a Z2123 G2a4 Mathieson 2015; Lazaridis 2016

Sarmatian Russia Beslan, Republic of North Ossetia–Alania [A80303] M 100-300 AD J1 M267+ H1c21 Afanasiev, Wen 2015

Sarmatian Russia Beslan, Republic of North Ossetia–Alania [A80304] M 100-300 AD J1 M267+ K1a3 Afanasiev, Wen 2015

Russia Verh-Uimon [RISE600] M Q1a Q1a1b (M25) K2a5 73G, 146C, 152C, 263G, 280T, 324T, 709A, 750G, 1438G, 1811G, 2706G, 2831A, 3107T, 3480G, 9055A, 9698C, 9716C, 10550G, 11151T, 11299C, 11467G, 11719A, 12308G, 12372A, 14167T, 14766T, 14798C, 15326G, 16224C, 16311C, 16519C Allentoft 2015; Y-DNA personal communication from author, additional info from Felix Emmanuel

Russia Verh-Uimon [RISE601] M Q1a M8a1 73G, 263G, 489C, 750G, 1438G, 2706G, 3107T, 4715G, 6179A, 6248C, 7196A, 8453G, 8684T, 9540C, 10398G, 10400T, 10873C, 11719A, 12705T, 14470C, 14766T, 14783C, 15043A, 15047A, 15148A, 15301A, 15326G, 15355A, 15487T, 15697C, 16223T, 16298C, 16319A Allentoft 2015; Y-DNA personal communication from author

Russia Sary-Bel [RISE602] M J2a J2a2-PH3085,SK1403 on J2 Research tree: C4+152 73G, 152C, 263G, 489C, 750G, 1438G, 2706G, 3107T, 3552A, 4065G, 4742C, 7196A, 8701G, 9540C, 9545G, 10398G, 10400T, 10873C, 11719A, 11914A, 11969A, 12705T, 13263G, 13641C, 14318C, 14766T, 14783C, 15043A, 15204C, 15301A, 15326G, 15487T, 16223T, 16297C, 16298C, 16327T, 16519C Allentoft 2015; Y-DNA pers. comm. from author + additional info from Chris Rоttensteiner

Tachtyk Russia Bogratsky region, Abakano-Pérévoz I, burial 4 [S34] Blue or green eyes M 100–400 AD R1a1a M17; Riii in table 2 HV 16172C, 16311C Keyser 2009

Alan Russia Republic of North Ossetia–Alania [A80305] M 300-400 AD R1a1a1b2a2 Z94+, Z95+ W1c Afanasiev, Wen 2015

Alan Russia Republic of North Ossetia–Alania [A80307] M 400-500 AD G2a P15+ X2i Afanasiev, Wen 2015

Russia Kytmanovo [RISE504] M 721-889 AD J2 J2a2-PH3085,SK1403 on J2 Research tree: C4a1d 73G, 195C, 263G, 489C, 1438G, 1715T, 2706G, 3107T, 3552A, 4353C, 7196A, 9545G, 10398G, 10400T, 11719A, 11969A, 12672G, 12705T, 12940A, 13263G, 14318C, 14766T, 14783C, 15043A, 15204C, 15301A, 15326G, 15487T, 15968C, 16129A, 16150T, 16223T, 16298C, 16327T, 16519C Allentoft 2015; Y-DNA personal communication from author + additional info from Chris Rоttensteiner

…..

Próbki kopalnego DNA przodków tzw. Ariów, Scytów, Sarmatów, itp.

Sintashta Russia Bulanovo [RISE386] M 2298-2045 BC 315,156 R1a [*R1a1a1b2a2] L62. [*Tagankin reads Z2124+, and downstream SNPs Z2125+, S23592+, YP1456+] J1c1b1a 73G, 185A, 228A, 263G, 295T, 462T, 482C, 489C, 1438G, 2706G, 3010A, 3107T, 3394C, 5773A, 7184G, 10398G, 10463C, 11251G, 11719A, 12612G, 13708A, 14766T, 14798C, 15326G, 15452A, 16069T, 16126C Allentoft 2015; Mathieson 2015; *additional info from Vladimir Tagan

Potapovka Russia Utyevka VI, Samara River, Samara [I0419 / SVP 27] M 2200-1900 BC 474,599 R1a1a1b S441 U2e1h Mathieson 2015

Sintashta Russia Stepnoe VII [RISE392] M 2126-1896 BC 526,675 R1a1a1b [*R1a1a1b2a2a]
S224 [*Tagankin reads Z2123 +, and downstream SNPs Y877+, Y939-] J2b1a2a 73G, 150T, 152C, 235G, 263G, 295T, 489C, 750G, 1438G, 2706G, 3107T, 5633T, 6216C, 6893T, 7028T, 7476T, 8962G, 10172A, 10398G, 11251G, 11719A, 12612G, 13708A, 14766T, 15212G, 15257A, 15326G, 15452A, 15812A, 16069T, 16126C, 16193T, 16278T, 16519C Allentoft 2015; Mathieson 2015; *additional info Vladimir Tagan

Srubnaya Russia Novoselki, Northern Forest, Samara [I0232 / SVP 12] M 1850-1200 BC 1,153,002 R1a1a1b2 Z93 U5a1f2 Mathieson 2015

Srubnaya Russia Spiridonovka IV, Samara River, Samara [I0260 / SVP 8] M 1850-1200 BC 58,414 R1a1 M459 U5a1 Mathieson 2015

Srubnaya Russia Spiridonovka IV, Samara River, Samara [I0261 / SVP 9] M 1850-1200 BC 415,327 R1a1a L168 H5b Mathieson 2015

Srubnaya Russia Barinovka I, Samara River, Samara [I0423 / SVP 31] M 1850-1200 BC 418,611 R1a1a1b2 Z93 J2b1a2a Mathieson 2015

Srubnaya Russia Uvarovka I, Samara River, Samara [I0424 / SVP 32] M 1850-1600 BC 16,569,296 R1a1a1b2 Z93 T2b4 Mathieson 2015

Srubnaya Russia Spiridonovka II, Samara River, Samara [I0430 / SVP 39] M 1850-1600 BC 22,835,907 R1a1a1b2a2a Z2123 H3g 1st degree relative of I0421 Mathieson 2015

Andronovo Russia Tatarka cemetery, burial 64 Charypovsky region [S07] Brown eyes; dark brown hair; fair or medium skin M 1800-1400 BC C (not C3) Ci in table 2 U4 16356C Keyser 200

Andronovo Russia Solenoozernaïa IV, kourgane I, burial 4 [S10] Brown hair M 1800-1400 BC R1a1a M17; Rii in table 2 U2e 16051G, 16092C, 16129C, 16183C, 16189C, 16362C Ke

Andronovo Russia Oust-Abakansty, chief kurgan, Khakassia republic [S16] Blue or green eyes, blond or light brown hair, fair or medium skin M 1800-1400 BC R1a1a M17; Rii in table 2 U5a1 16192T, 16256T, 16270T Keyser 200

Karasuk Russia Sabinka 2 [RISE493] M 1531-1427 BC Q1a C4a1c 195C, 263G, 489C, 750G, 1438G, 1715T, 2706G, 3107C, 3552A, 10398G, 10400T, 11719A, 11914A, 11969A, 12672G, 12705T, 13263G, 14318C, 14766T, 14783C, 15043A, 15204C, 15301A, 15326G, 15487T, 15607G, 15968C, 16093C, 16129A, 16209C, 16223T, 16298C, 16327T, 16519C Allentoft 2015; Y-DNA personal communication from author

Andronovo Russia Kytmanovo [RISE512] M 1446-1298 BC R1a1a1b [*R1a1a1b2a2] S224 (Mathieson) [*Tagankin reads Z2121+] U2e1 73G, 152C, 340T, 508G, 1438G, 1811G, 2706G, 3720G, 4255T, 5390G, 10876G, 11467G, 11719A, 12308G, 12372A, 13020C, 13734C, 14766T, 15326G, 15907G, 16051G, 16129C, 16189C, 16362C, 16381C, 16391A, 16519C Allentoft 2015; Mathieson 2015; Y-DNA *additional info from Vladimir Tagankin

Karasuk Russia Sabinka 2 [RISE494] M 1416-1268 BC R1a [*R1a1a1b2a2a] [*Z2123+, and downstream SNPs Y934+ YP520+] I4a1 73G, 199C, 204C, 250C, 1438G, 1719A, 2706G, 3107T, 8519A, 10034C, 10238C, 10398G, 10819G, 11719A, 12501A, 12705T, 13780G, 14766T, 14821T, 15043A, 15326G. 15924G, 16129A, 16223T, 16304C, 16391A, 16519C Allentoft 2015; Y-DNA personal communication from author and *additional info from Vladimir Tagankin

Karasuk Russia Arban I [RISE495] M R1a D4j1 73G, 263G, 489C, 750G, 1438G, 2706G, 3010A, 3107T, 4263G, 4883T, 5262A, 7028T, 8414T, 9540C, 9948A, 10398G, 10400T, 10873C, 11696A, 11719A, 12705T, 14130T, 14668T, 14766T, 14769G, 14783C, 15043A, 15301A, 15326G, 16223T, 16260T, 16362C Allentoft 2015; Y-DNA personal communication from author

Mongolia Tsagaan Asga [TA4] Black / dark brown hair; brown eyes M 1371 BC R1a1a1b2 (Z93) T1a 16093C, 16126C, 16163G, 16186T, 16189C, 16294T Holl

Mongolia Tsagaan Asga [TA8] M Q1a2a1 (L54) U4 16356C Hollard 2014

Mongolia Tsagaan Asga [TA10] Dark brown hair; brown eyes M R1a1a1b2 (Z93) C4a1 16093C, 16129A, 16223T, 16260T, 16263C, 16298C, 16327T Hollard 2014

Mongolia Tsagaan Asga [TA11] Black/dark brown hair; brown eyes M Q1a2a1 (L54) D 16223T, 16362C Hollard 2014

Mongolia Tsagaan Asga [TA12] Black/dark brown hair; brown eyes M Q1a2a1 (L54) H7e* 16305G, 16311C Hollard 2014

Mongolia Tsagaan Asga [TA14] Brown hair; blue eyes M R1a1a1b2 (Z93) D2 16092C, 16129A, 16223T, 16362C Hollard 201

Mongolia Takhilgat Uzuur-5 [TU34] Dark blond/ brown hair; brown eyes M 1011 BC R1a1a1b2
(Z93) H/U CRS Hollar

Late BA Russia Afontova Gora [RISE553] M 926-815 BC R1a F1b 73G, 152C, 204C, 263G, 750G, 2706G, 6392C, 6962A, 10227C, 10310A, 10609C, 10976T, 12406A, 12882T, 13928C, 14476A, 14766T, 15326G, 16172C, 16179T, 16232A, 16249C, 16304C, 16311C Allentoft 2015; Y-DNA personal communication from author

Mongolia Takhilgat Uzuur-5 [TU17] Dark brown hair; brown eyes M 914 BC C M130 A 16223T, 16290T, 16319A, 16362C Hollard

UWAGA! Patrz:

https://skrbh.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/83-pra-slowianie-r1a-m17-m198-m417-z645-s224-czyli-przodkowie-orlow-ariow-scytow-sarmatow-germanow-czy-innych-wikingow/

…..

(…) Termin Sarmatów najczęściej używany był na określenie Słowian Wschodnich, lecz bywało, że rozciągany był na określenie wszystkich Słowian. Różni kronikarze w różnych sytuacjach w różnoraki sposób używali tego terminu. Według greckich kronikarzy Sarmatami byli wszyscy Słowianie, nie tylko wschodni. Według Rzymian, którzy na Europę Środkową i Wschodnią patrzyli zza Renu i Dunaju, a więc od zachodu i południa, Sarmatami byli Słowianie Wschodni. Według Rzymian ziemia Słowian Zachodnich nazywana była Germanią, a ludy ją zamieszkujące nazywane były Germanami, którzy z kolei dzielili się na Wandalów, zwanych też Wenedami i Windami, Swewów, Lugiów etc. Istotne jest to, że czasem Wandalowie (Wenedowie) nazywani byli ludem sarmackim (Wilhelm z Rubruk). Tego typu określenia są niezrozumiałe z dzisiejszego, nazewniczego punktu widzenia. Dawniej jednak nie było w nich niczego zaskakującego czy błędnego. Nie było też dziwne to, że Słowiańszczyna zaliczana była do krain germańskich (Adam z Bremy, Helmold). Wszystkie te określenia związane były z ludami dziś zwanymi Słowianami. Na przestrzeni wieków ulegały one jednak pewnym przeobrażeniom (…) 

Bez komentarza. Nie zajmują mnie takie dane.

…..

(…) Teorie panujące obecnie w historii, że rzekomi irańsko-języczni Sarmaci mieliby nagle zniknąć na olbrzymim terytorium Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej w V/VI w., a w ich miejsce na dokładnie tym samym terytorium mieliby pojawić się równie nagle Słowianie, należy uznać za archaiczny mit. (…)

A co np. z tzw. Chazarami, hm?

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chazarowie

Chazarowie, Kozarowie (turecki: Hazarlar) – lud koczowniczy pochodzenia tureckiego, o którym pierwsze wzmianki pochodzą z VI wieku n.e. Tereny zajmowane przez Chazarów rozciągały się na Stepie Pontyjsko-Kaspijskim między północnym KaukazemKrymemMorzem Kaspijskim a rzeką Jaik i Samarą. Trudnili się głównie pasterstwem i handlem, a bogacili na łupieskich wyprawach. Przez ich ziemie prowadziły największe szlaki handlowe z Chin do Europy (jedwabny szlak)[1] oraz szlak północ-południe (od Waregów do Greków)[2].

Chazarowie przywędrowali z Azji i w VI wieku zajęli północny Dagestan, który kronikarze nazywali Bersilia. W tym pierwszym okresie wchodzili w skład związku plemiennego Sabirów, w którym z czasem uzyskali dominującą pozycję. W 560 r. popadli w zależność lub weszli w sojusz[3]  z kaganatem zachodniotureckim. W latach między 630 a 650 zwyciężyli w wojnie z plemionami  protobułgarskimi i zajmując ich tereny, zmusili część z nich ich do ucieczki na północ (Bułgaria Wołżańsko-Kamska), a część na zachód (Bułgaria dunajska). Utworzyli tam własne państwo zwane Kaganatem Chazarskim – konglomerat etniczny (m.in.

AlanowieGociBułgarzyMadziarowiePieczyngowieRusowieOguzowie[4]),

ze stolicą w Semender (około roku 800 przeniesiona do Itil), będące typowym przykładem imperium wojskowo-administracyjnego, nieposiadającego jednolitej gospodarki i opierającym swoje istnienie na przemocy. Wywarli ujemny wpływ na rozwój kultury w Europie Wschodniej[5]. Na czele kaganatu stał kagan, który rządził sprawami państwa i kierował armią. W największym rozkwicie w VIII wieku ziemie kaganatu rozciągały się między Morzem Kaspijskim, Dnieprem i  Kamą. (…)

(…) Na tego typu mity nie ma już miejsca w historiografii XXI wieku korzystającej z nowoczesnych badań naukowych. Zresztą nagłe zniknięcie potężnego ludu zamieszkującego ogromne terytoria jest sprzeczne z jakąkolwiek logiką. Takie zdarzenie nie mogło mieć i nie miało miejsca. Równie niewiarygodne jest, według teorii allochtonistów, nagłe pojawienie się nieznanego do tej pory ludu (Słowian) i jego równie ekspresowe zasiedlenie olbrzymiego obszaru Europy. Równie niewiarygodny jest brak na tym wielkim obszarze jakichkolwiek enklaw irańskich po zamieszkujących te tereny rzekomych „irańskich” Sarmatach. (…)

A Osetyńcy lub np. Hunowie, Awarowie, itp?!!

(…) Na podstawie dotychczasowych badań genetycznych, które wciąż odkrywają przed światem nowe tajemnice, wiadomo, że nie było w starożytności żadnej migracji ludności z Iranu do Europy. Bynajmniej żadnej znaczącej migracji. (…)

Osetyńcy zostali „ziranizowani” od północy i ze wschodu ze strony stepu… Wg mnie tak było łatwiej… Osetyńcy mają przeważającą haplogrupę kartwelską G, przy okazji, więc to ich rzekome od-alańskie / od-sarmackie pochodzenie, no to zwykła bajka jest, więc autor raczej strzela sobie, a przy okazji i dr Jamroszko i dr Makuch w oba kolana… Przypominam, autor raz twierdzi, że znaczącej migracji z Iranu do Europy nie było,.. ale jednocześnie to z Iranu mieli się „ziranizować” Osetyńcy… Aha…

(…) Wielka migracja była, ale w kierunku odwrotnym. Miała ona miejsce około trzeciego tysiąclecia p.n.e. i związana była z migracją ludności, u której dominowała męska haplogrupa R1a. Ludność ta znana jest w historii pod nazwą Ariów – białych wojowników, którzy w odległej przeszłości podbili Indie i inne kraje azjatyckie. [6][7] (…)

Migracja Ariów do Iranu 1500 lat wcześniej, niż to powszechnie uważa się?!! A jakieś dowody na to?!! Czyli Ariowie przyjechali na rydwanach z północy (Sintashta) do Persji / Iranu,.. ale i do Bułgarii i dalej do Epiru, jeszcze 1,000 przed ich wynalezieniem?!! Nikt tego nie wychwycił?!! Nieźle, coraz lepiej…  🙂

(…) W Europie społeczność ta dała początek ludom znanym w starożytności jako Scytowie, później jako Sarmaci, a obecnie powszechnie zwanymi Słowianami. (…)

Czyli Słowianie pochodzą od Ariów, Scytów i Sarmatów… czyli CWC, która była ojcowska dla Sintashta NIE BYŁA PRA-SŁOWIAŃSKA, no bo niby jak??!

(…) Nie dziwi więc podobieństwo kulturowe, językowe i antropologiczne Sarmatów do Ariów, czy tym samym – Słowian do Sarmatów i Ariów. (…)

Mnie dziwi ta powyższa „logika”… Ojciec umie język swojego wnuka, bo wnuk nauczył się go od swojego ojca, czyli syna dziadka… No ile można tłumaczyć w kółko jedno i to samo! No bez jaj!

…..

(…) Z poglądów wszystkich przedstawionych tu autorów identyfikujących Wandalów ze Słowianami, jako pierwszy wyłamał się polski pisarz i dyplomata, Marcin Kromer. Podważał on związki Polaków i ogólnie Słowian z Wandalami, a identyfikował z Sarmatami, uważając ich za lud wschodnioeuropejski. Tym samym, w przeciwieństwie do wielu innych autorów oddzielił on pojęcie Wandalów od Sarmatów. Trudno powiedzieć jak wpływ na te poglądy miało niemieckie pochodzenie tego pisarza, niemniej jednak od tego momentu stopniowo w Polsce zacznie się szerzyć epoka „sarmatyzmu”. Sarmacja w oczach Kromera jawiła się, jako kraina położona na wschód od historycznej Polski i stamtąd właśnie na ziemie polskie mieli przybyć Sarmaci dając początek narodowi polskiemu. (…)

Czyli co to dopiero Niemiec (Chazar?) i katolicki biskup Kromer wymyślił sobie, że Słowianie pochodzą od Sarmatów ze wschodu i zerwał z powiązaniem pochodzenia Słowian od Wandali, Wenedów z Europy Środkowej!?? 

Przecież, to kłóci się z tym, co sam autor pisze w następnych zdaniach, że Słowianie to Wandalowie, a tylko Kromer coś tam sobie po niemiecku / chazarsku uroił?!! Nie rozumiem tego historycznego dowolnego nazewnictwa, itd. Skoro każdy był każdym, to jaki to ma w ogóle sens coś jakoś określać i na tej podstawie domyślać się jeszcze więcej?

(…) W XIX w. ukuto również kolejny mit związany z językiem dawnych Scytów i Sarmatów. Niemieccy i brytyjscy językoznawcy doszli do wniosku, że język obu tych ludów należał do irańskiej grupy językowej. Ustalono to na podstawie zapisanych przez Herodota i innych starożytnych pisarzy, słów scytyjskich. Bez wątpienia słowa te są podobne do słów irańskich, jednakże są też podobne do słów słowiańskich, co pominięto milczeniem.  (…)

Od CWC, Poltavka, Potapovka do pojawienia się Srubna opłynęło jakieś 1000 lat, ale Z93 CIĄGLE TAM BYŁO, patrz powyżej i poniżej:

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

The Srubna culture (RussianСру́бная культу́раUkrainianЗрубна́ культу́ра), English:  Timber-grave culture, was a Late Bronze Age (18th–12th centuries BC) culture[1] in the eastern part of Pontic-Caspian steppe. It is a successor to the Late Catacomb culture and the Poltavka culture,[1] as well as the Potapovka culture. (…)

A study on DNA variation among ancient Europeans found that, of the six samples extracted from Srubna culture sites for which a Y-DNA hapogroup could be tested, all belonged to haplogroup R1a, and four of them to subclade R1a-Z93, which is common among modern-day Indo-Iranians.[2] (…)

The historical Cimmerians have been suggested as descended from this culture (…) The Srubna culture is succeeded by Scythians and Sarmatians in the 1st millennium BC, and by Khazars and  Kipchaks in the first millennium AD.[1] (…)

(…) Wątek języka Scytów i Sarmatów zasługuje na osobny artykuł. (…)

Tuszę, że też będzie to napisane w oparcie o te same nieomylne źródła… Czekam na niego z utęsknieniem. Szczerze!

Przy okazji:

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

(…) The Scythian languages belonged to the Eastern branch of the Iranian languages.[10] Scythian art is distinctive. The best-known account of the Scythians is in Book IV of the Histories of  Herodotus. (…)

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

(…) Classification

The vast majority of Scythological scholars agree in considering the Scythian languages (and Ossetian) as a part of the Eastern Iranian group of languages. This Iranian hypothesis relies principally on the fact that the Greek inscriptions of the Northern Black Sea Coast contain several hundreds of Sarmatian names showing a close affinity to the Ossetian language. The classification of the Iranian languages is in general not however fully resolved, and the Eastern Iranian languages are not shown to form an actual genetic subgroup.[3][4]

Some scholars detect a division of Scythian into two dialects: a western, more conservative dialect, and an eastern, more innovative one.[5] The Scythian languages may have formed a dialect continuum:

  • Alanian languages or Scytho-Sarmatian in the west: were spoken by people originally of Iranian stock[6] from the 8th and 7th century BC onwards in the area of Ukraine, Southern  Russia and Kazakhstan. Modern Ossetian survives as a continuation of the language family possibly represented by Scytho-Sarmatian inscriptions, although the Scytho-Sarmatian language family „does not simply represent the same [Ossetian] language” at an earlier date.[7]

A document from Khotanwritten in Khotanese Saka, part of the Eastern Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages, listing the animals of the Chinese zodiacin the cycle of predictions for people born in that year; ink on paper, early 9th century

Other East Iranian languages related to the Scythian are Chorasmian and Sogdian.[9]

History

The approximate distribution of Eastern Iranian languages in 100 BC appears in orange.[citation needed]

Early Eastern Iranians originated in the Yaz culture (ca. 1500–1100 BC) in Central Asia.[citation needed] The Scythians migrated from Central Asia toward Eastern Europe in the 8th and 7th century BC,[10] occupying today’s Southern Russia and Ukraineand the Carpathian Basin and parts of Moldova and Dobruja. They disappeared from history after the Hunnish invasion of Europe in the 5th century AD, and Turkic (AvarBatsange, etc.) and Slavic peoples probably assimilated most people speaking Scythian.[citation needed] However, in the Caucasus, the Ossetian language  belonging to the Scythian linguistic continuum remains in use today, while in Central Asia, some languages belonging to Eastern Iranian group are still spoken, namely  PashtoPamir languages and Yaghnobi. (…)

(…) Wspomnę jednak, iż słynny dziewiętnastowieczny polski znawca starożytnego języka awestyjskiego z Iranu, Ignacy Pietraszewski zwracał uwagę, iż język ten był de facto językiem prasłowiańskim. (…)

Czyli rzekomo język awestyjski wg Pietraszewskiego ma niby być tożsamy z j. Pra-Słowiańskim, np. z CWC!?? NAPRAWDĘ, KTOŚ W TO JESZCZE WIERZY!?? Więcej będzie o tym w następnym wpisie.


Niniejszym obalam to, patrz:

*k’lewos / K’+LeW+oS > Srawas / S+RaW+aS > Havars / HaWaRS > Słowo / Z/S+L”oWo, Sława / Z/S+L”aWa, Słuch / Z/S+L”o”(c)H, Słysz / Z/S+L”yS”, Słyszeć / Z/S+L”yS”+eC’, itp.

Czyli najpierw rzekomo tzw. PIE+PS miękkie k’/K’ udźwięczniło się, czyli niby zpalatalizowało się do S, a następnie zgodnie z tzw. rough breathing ubezdźwięczniło się do postaci awestyjskiej / irańskiej / osetyjskiej,.. by potem być rzekomo wchłonięte przez Słowian… i zostać ponownie udźwięcznione do słowiańskiego S… czy jak? Uff!!! Prawda, że jak prosto i oczywiście? Jakieś pytania może, czy coś?


(…) Był bliższy językom słowiańskim aniżeli współczesne języki irańskie, które skażone są dość mocno miejscowym nieindoeuropejskim substratem. [31] (…)

Podkład językowy, czy nakładka, czy inne mieszanie się języków nie musiał nastąpić dopiero w Persji / Iranie, jak domniema autor, a już dużo wcześniej, patrz BMAC, Yaz, itp. Choć nie przeczę, że w samym Iranie żyły inne ludy NIE (Nie-Indo-Europejskie / Nie-Od-Pra-Słowiańskie), np. Elamici, czy inni, co łącznie z ustanowieniem religii i władzy pochodzącej od „jedynego boga”, itp, pomogło w ukształtowaniu tajemniczego języka kapłanów ognia,.. wyznawców zaratusztrianizmu, czyli pierwszej religii tradycji pustynnej!

(…) Współczesny polski językoznawca, Jacek Jarmoszko w dużej części zdaje się popierać tezę Pietraszewskiego:

„Język awestyjski w wielu przypadkach faktycznie bardziej przypomina języki słowiańskie niż współczesne, żywe języki irańskie. Głównym tego powodem jest archaiczność owego języka, zbliżona do archaiczności języków słowiańskich. W języku awestyjskim można dopatrzeć się znacznie większej ilości rdzeni istniejących w językach słowiańskich niż w jakimkolwiek innym języku irańskim”. [32] (…)

Po pierwsze dr Jamroszko uznaje istnienie w j. polskim, czy ogólnie słowiańskim tzw. zapożyczeń od-irańskich / alańskich / sarmackich, pochodzących w tym przypadku rzekomo z j. osetyjskiego,.. co jest w 100% allo-allo…

A po drugie, co z powyższym przykładem na brak logiki co do np. tzw. braku odziedziczenia ubezdźwięcznienia, czyli tzw. rough breathing, patrz np. liczebniki?!!

Uważam, że powoływanie się przez autora na kogoś, kto zaprzecza poglądom autora na brak tzw. zapożyczeń od-osetyjskiech / alańskich / sarmackich, itd, JEST SAMO W SOBIE ZAPRZECZENIEM!!!

Przypominam, że wszyscy allo-allo, w tym np. dr Makuch, czy Tchórzliwy Grzegorz, także stwierdzają istnienie w j. polskim tych rzekomych tzw. zapożyczeń od-osetyjskiech / alańskich / sarmackich… 

(…) Trudno zatem mówić o irańskości Scytów i Sarmatów. Prędzej należy mówić o słowiańskości starożytnych Irańczyków. (…)

Ja bym napisał od razu „Polskości”, bo to modne, a najlepiej od razu „Kujawskość” albo „Radomskość”… A dlaczego nie, jeśli przyjmie się, że Scyci i Sarmaci jednak niezgodnie ze źródłami, na które powołuje się autor, rzeczywiście jednak nie przyjechali ze wschodu, jako dalecy potomkowie tzw. Ariów? A co jak jednak z tego wschodu przyjechali, hm?

Przypominam, że i Scytowie i Sarmaci to byli nomadzi i hodowcy, a nie osiedli rolnicy, jak np. już wtedy Słowianie?!! Tak przecież opisują ich jedynie słuszne źródła. Nikogo to nie zastanawia?

(…) „W czasach romantyzmu, kiedy polskich korzeni zaczęto szukać wśród Słowian [niesłusznie oddzielając ich od Sarmatów – dodatek autora A.L.], sarmatyzm uznano za wyssaną z palca i pozbawioną jakichkolwiek podstaw bzdurę”. [33][34] (…)

Czyli to, teraz nagle okazuje się, że to co sobie niemiecki / chazarski? rzymsko-katolicki biskup Kromer wymyślił, było jednak dobre?!! Ktoś to rozumie, bo ja pogubiłem się!

Tylko tyle, że  jak udowodniłem prawo Brugmanna zaczyna działać już za Bugiem, patrz oGieN’ > aGoN’, itd. 3,000 lat na stepie i żadnych zmian w języku?!! Czy i to jest napisane w tych kronikach, albo to mieli ci kronikarze na myśli?!! Eee..?

(…) Kończąc niniejszy tekst, bardzo krótko wspomnę jednak o jednym aspekcie kulturowym, mianowicie o wojskowości, czyli kulturze militarnej. Od dawna liczne grono badaczy zwraca uwagę na podobne motywy wojskowe występujące u Sarmatów jak i u Polaków. Wiele sarmackich tamg, czyli znaków plemiennych i rodowych znalazło się w średniowieczu na polskich herbach szlacheckich. Na ten temat powstały całe opracowania. Ostatnio o powiązaniach kulturowych, językowych i wojskowych Scytów, Sarmatów oraz Słowian pisał Wojciech J. Cynarski w dwóch swoich napisanych w języku angielskim, artykułach. Jeden z nich powstał we współautorstwie z Agnieszką Maciejewską. [36][37] (…)

A ja twierdzę, że są to dopiero pozostałości po wymianie elity Lachów na Piastów, czyli Polan Kijowskich, czyli rzeczywistych potomków Sarmatów, R1b, itp.

To tyle w skrócie. Więcej dowodów na powyższe przedstawię w następnym wpisie.

Reklamy

96 uwag do wpisu “105 SARMACI, GERMANIE I SŁOWIANIE. Moja odpowiedź na tekst Adriana Leszczyńskiego

  1. Ostatnio pojawiło się sporo danych, które są powiązane z zagadnieniem tzw. Ariów, Kimeryjczyków, Scytów, Sarmatów, itd.

    Zwracam uwagę, że na stepie sporo działo się,.. co wg mnie w żaden sposób nie wspiera twierdzenia, że język konnych koczowników / nomadów, jak np. Scyci / Scytowie, itp. przechodził takie same zmiany, jak język potomków Łowców, którzy nie tylko ruszyli się z ojczyzny swoich przodków, ale nie zmienili także sposobu życia, tj. byli i łowcami i zbieraczami, ale także już i hodowcami i rolnikami.

    Powtarzam, że zmiany w trybie życia także powodują zmianę słownictwa, ale mieszanie się z innymi ludami, koczownikami o innych językach i haplogrupach, prowadzi do zmian, czyli zniekształceń wzoru dźwięków.

    Oto pierwszy z tych ciekawych wpisów. Powtarzam, kroniki, kronikami,.. i ja nie czytam w myślach na odległość i dawno temu w czasie w innych językach… Wolę coś takiego:

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/the-case-of-chalcolithic-fortresses-in.html

    The case of Chalcolithic fortresses in the Northwestern Caucasus (Kozintsev 2017)

    It’s a pity that we still don’t have any decent ancient DNA data from the North Caucasus and nearby steppes, apart from, of course, those few intriguing mitochondrial genomes from Maykop burials (see here). This leaves us guessing about the genetic origins of the people who lived in this region across the millennia, and thus their genealogical relationships to near and far ancient and modern-day populations, which might eventually prove pivotal in the search for the Proto-Indo-European homeland.

    The most nagging questions to be solved are whether Yamnaya, and other closely related Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe herder groups, sourced the greater part of their so called southern ancestry from the North Caucasus, and if so, from who exactly: groups indigenous to the region, or mixed populations with significant ancestry from, say, Transcaucasia (the Southern Caucasus) or even Mesopotamia?

    To make matters worse, the archeology of the North Caucasus is fairly poorly understood. It’s generally assumed that there was indeed a colonization of the Northwestern Caucasus by various peoples from the south, including Uruk migrants from Mesopotamia. But even if so, did they leave a lasting impact on the populations of the Caucasus and, subsequently, the steppes? Despite some strong opinions on the matter, particularly in the comments at this blog, no one can say for sure at this stage.

    However, as far as I can see, a fascinating new archaeological paper by A.G. Kozintsev in Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia suggests that one such group of southern migrants, who built a fortress at Meshoko, in what is now Southern Russia, during the Chalcolithic, were overrun by people more culturally „archaic” and indigenous to the region. If true, and this wasn’t an isolated incident, then for obvious reasons it might help to explain the lack of Mesopotamian- and South Caspian-specific uniparental markers amongst the Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe herder groups, which is an issue that I have discussed at length in the past (see herehere and here). Below is the abstract from Kozintsev’s paper. Emphasis is mine:

    A multivariate method for assessing cultural changes at stratified sites is proposed. The variables are technological properties of ceramics, and occurrences of various categories of flint implements. The method is applied to stratigraphic sequences of Chalcolithic fortresses in the northwestern Caucasus dating to the late 5th–early 4th millennia BC: Meshoko and Yasenova Polyana. The properties of ceramics include hardness (assessed on the Mohs scale), wall thickness, and frequency of fragments tempered with calcium carbonate. For Meshoko, S.M. Ostashinsky’s data on the occurrence of implements made of high-quality colored flint, splintered pieces, and the total number of segments, points, inserts, scrapers, and perforators were used as well. Each parameter undergoes regular changes from the lower to the upper units of the sequence: ceramics progressively deteriorate, whereas flint industry becomes more and more sophisticated. These changes occur in parallel. Data were subjected to principal component analysis. The first principal component is regarded as a generalized measure of cultural change. The results support the view of the excavators: changes were caused by the interaction of two cultures differing in origin. The earlier culture, associated with the constructors of the Meshoko fortress, shows no local roots, and was evidently introduced from Transcaucasia. The one that replaced it was significantly more archaic (a few copper tools notwithstanding), and reveals local Neolithic roots. It alone can be termed the culture of ceramics with interiorpunched node decoration. The ceramics of Yasenova Polyana, too, indicate cultural heterogeneity and two occupation stages; but cultural changes are more complicated there, probably because the site existed longer, and more than two cultural components were involved.

    A.G. Kozintsev, A Generalized Assessment of Cultural Changes at Stratified Sites: The Case of Chalcolithic Fortresses in the Northwestern Caucasus, Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 45 (1) 2017, DOI: 10.17746/1563-0110.2017.45.1.062-075

    See also…

    Another look at the genetic structure of Yamnaya

    Posted by Davidski at 3:32:00 AM 116 comments:

    Polubienie

    • Davidski said…
      @Alberto I think those natives „overrunning” the Meshoko and possibly other fortresses will be mostly CHG with some EHG.

      @Rob Maykop is irrelevant genetically to the formation of Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk and probably even Yamnaya, for starters because of those weird mitogenomes they had.
      January 20, 2018 at 4:43 AM

      Rob said…
      @ Dave “Maykop is irrelevant genetically to the formation of Sredny Stog, ”

      You’re just trying to debate for the heck of it , but end up making no sense Majkop is 700 Years later that Sredny Stog , which is why nobody has suggested what you claimed !
      January 20, 2018 at 5:04 AM

      Davidski said…
      @Rob Sredny Stog and Maykop overlap in some chronologies. It depends which dates one has most faith in.
      January 20, 2018 at 5:09 AM

      AWood said…
      The old group arrived from the south Caucasus and had more advanced metallurgy, and was overrun by local neolithic groups who, by the sounds of it, were local in origin to the Caucasus. This reads to me lots of J2a, G2a, J1 in the latter group as there are very distinct isolates who have been in the Caucasus a very long time. It’s possible the older fortress was built by migrants from the south who just so happened to be from other unique branches of the same macrogroups J2, J1, and G2. Who really knows without testing. All that is certain is that R1b is not native to the Caucasus based on many studies, and really only shows up in a few groups in the region, most of which are IE speaking, or connected to the steppe in some way (ie: Azerbaijan)
      January 20, 2018 at 10:50 AM

      Alberto said…
      @Davidski No, it seems you understood it the other way around. The earlier layers represent a culture from the south:

      „Most researchers have noticed that the culture of Meshoko includes two very dissimilar cultural components. One of them, represented in the lower units of the stratigraphic sequence, is likely of southern origin, as mentioned both by the excavators and by other specialists (see, e.g., (Andreyeva, 1977: 44; Trifonov, 2001)). Being earlier than Maikop, this culture anticipates it in a sense. Like Maikop, it reveals no local roots.”

      These should be a CHG-heavy population from Transcaucasia.

      And then a more „archaic” culture came in. The „native” culture is related to the North Pontic region and through it to the Balkans. So these „natives” would be a Ukraine_Neolithic-heavy population (maybe with some AN/EEF admixture from the Balkans – bringing copper with them). Read the paper and the one I linked in the previous thread. Archaeologically there seems to be agreement. We now need to get aDNA to see if that matches too.
      January 20, 2018 at 11:29 AM

      Salden said…
      https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/19/250688

      Mitogenomic data indicate admixture components of Asian Hun and Srubnaya origin in the Hungarian Conquerors

      Endre Neparaczki, Zoltan Maroti, Tibor Kalmar, Klaudia Kocsy, Kitti Maar, Peter Bihari, Istvan Nagy, Erzsebet Fothi, Ildiko Pap, Agnes Kustar, Gyorgy Palfi, Istvan Rasko, Albert Zink, Tibor Torok

      doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/250688

      Abstract
      It has been widely accepted that the Finno-Ugric Hungarian language, originated from proto Uralic people, was brought into the Carpathian Basin by the Hungarian Conquerors. From the middle of the 19th century this view prevailed against the deep-rooted Hungarian Hun tradition, maintained in folk memory as well as in Hungarian and foreign written medieval sources, which claimed that Hungarians were kinsfolk of the Huns. In order to shed light on the genetic origin of the Conquerors we sequenced 102 mitogenomes from early Conqueror cemeteries and compared them to sequences of all available databases. We applied novel population genetic algorithms, named Shared Haplogroup Distance and MITOMIX, to reveal past admixture of maternal lineages. Phylogenetic and population genetic analysis indicated that more than one third of the Conqueror maternal lineages were derived from Central-Inner Asia and their most probable ultimate sources were the Asian Huns. The rest of the lineages most likely originated from the Bronze Age Potapovka-Poltavka-Srubnaya cultures of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which area was part of the later European Hun empire. Our data give support to the Hungarian Hun tradition and provides indirect evidence for the genetic connection between Asian and European Huns. Available data imply that the Conquerors did not have a major contribution to the gene pool of the Carpathian Basin, raising doubts about the Conqueror origin of Hungarian language.
      January 20, 2018 at 12:03 PM

      Rob said…
      The new tables in R1b project are interesting
      Villabruna is now P297*
      Khvalynsk is same as Kalavan Cave branch P389 xP297
      El Partalon still the earliest M269
      So it seems at some point R1b-pre-M269’migrated to the steppe
      January 20, 2018 at 1:15 PM

      Rob said…
      Alberto Exactly. The abstract dave quoted is confusing because the Black Sea shell tempered pottery isn’t “native” to the Caucaus either – it arrives in 4500 BC with the Balkan – Sredny Stog exchange route (basically Gimbutas wave I in reverse). There was nothing in the north Caucasus before 4500 BC- still an Archaeological blank
      January 20, 2018 at 1:24 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Alberto No, it seems you understood it the other way around. The earlier layers represent a culture from the south. The earliest layers at the fortress site are indeed from the south, and that’s because southern migrants built the fortress. However, the fortress was apparently overrun by more arhaic groups with links to the local Northwest Caucasian Neolithic. So which group do you think was more CHG-rich? The archaic, Neolithic derived locals, or the migrants from the south? I’d say the locals were basically a mix of CHG and EHG, while the migrants from the south were more like Armenians, no?
      January 20, 2018 at 2:37 PM

      Rob said…
      Dave The “locals” are Sredny Stog. In other words, not “local “ to the north Caucasus at all. There’s nothing in the north Caucasus before 4500 BC. So as I said, those “local pottery groups” will be EHG-WHG , I2 and R1 folk.
      January 20, 2018 at 2:42 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Rob Doesn’t sound like anything related to Sredny Stog. „The one that replaced it was significantly more archaic (a few copper tools notwithstanding), and reveals local Neolithic roots.” Sounds more like something related to Prikaspiiskaya culture, no?
      http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/two-starkly-different-neolithic.html
      January 20, 2018 at 2:50 PM

      UWAGA! Czyby to tam powstał język Pra-Kartwelski, patrz rzekomy podkład językowy Pra-Kartwelski odnaleziony przez Bomharda?

      Davidski said…
      And indeed, Kozintsev makes a distinction between the „natives” of the Northwestern Caucasus and the steppe. „Whereas the people who built the Chalcolithic fortresses in the southern Kuban drainage might be regarded as the first wave of migrants from the south, the Maikop people were the second wave. Like their predecessors, they had to maintain complex relationships with the natives of the northwestern Caucasus and with the steppe tribes—relationships that we don’t yet understand properly.”

      Of course, those Caucasus „natives” may have actually come from farming communities of the Lower Don, but whatever. Like I said in the Prikaspiiskaya culture thread, there were two different Neolithic traditions on the steppe before Meshoko and Maikop, and both couldn’t have originated in EHG populations. One was from the south, and probably very heavy in CHG.
      January 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM

      Rob said…
      @ Dave Let’s start with basics – there are no real ‚Natives’ in NW Caucasus.

      The earliest occupation in North /NW Caucasus forts begins in 4500 BC which is Copper Age, or perhaps 5000 BC at best (Late Neolithic). The ‚native Neolithic tradition’ Kozintsev refers to is just Ukraine- Mariupol like people drifting south toward the Kuban
      https://www.e-anthropology.com/Katalog/Arheologia/STM_DWL_ZkpP_5IXdtVbpqWaz.aspx

      The earliest strata of the forts he attributes to ‚southerners’ – whom he attributes a certain type of ceramic and flint industry. 2 or 3 levels later appears ceramics with shell temper and internal punched node decoration, with clear analogies to steppe ceramics, Cucuteni C ware, etc.

      So Meshoko (pre-Majkop) is a fusion of southerners (whom other Russian archaeologists – eg Trifonov – feel confident enough to link with the Darkveti culture in Georgia) and Black Sea Mariupol like people.

      The north caspian scenario is different – a different set of ‚2 traditions’. The first Neolithic’ tradition is simply the adoption/ local adaptation of pottery by local foragers. The second is the adoption of productive economy – domesticates which Vybornov suggestively links to North Caucasus or lower Don.
      January 20, 2018 at 4:17 PM

      Davidski said…
      Sure Rob, let’s start with the basics:

      • there were two different Neolithic traditions on the steppe, one a pottery Neolithic practiced by EHG foragers and the other a real producing economy Neolithic with links to the Lower Don and West Asia
      • thus, even though Meshoko and Maikop people were migrants from the south to the North Caucasus, a southern Neolithic population already existed on the steppe

      • it appears that Meshoko migrants were overrun or at least subsumed by this southern Neolithic-derived population

      • this southern Neolithic-derived population did not come from Sredny Stog, although it may have had contacts with Sredny Stog, see here…

      http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/12/mixed-marriages-on-early-eneolithic.html

      And if you disagree with these points, then can you explain how Sredny Stog acquired significant CHG admixture?
      January 20, 2018 at 4:38 PM

      Matt said…
      Davidski: Like I said in the Prikaspiiskaya culture thread, there were two different Neolithic traditions on the steppe before Meshoko and Maikop, and both couldn’t have originated in EHG populations. One was from the south, and probably very heavy in CHG.

      If I’m reading the linked paper correctly Prikaspiiskaya has pottery and tool kit similar to Khavlynsk Culture („All of these features are similar to the material from Khvalynskaya culture”), who are the later culture on the overlapping territory („It is located in the same area as Khvalynskaya culture.”) and is food producing in the sense that „Domesticated sheep bones were found alongside the bones of wild species”. Isn’t it possible that they were autosomally pretty much like Khavlynsk Culture (or less CHG like, assuming further admixture over time)?

      (What is the cultural / time boundary between the P and K? As far as I can tell from paper Prikaspiiskaya seems largely similar to Khavlynsk in its economy and material culture but lacking chalcolithic artefacts and cultural accretions.. but it’s late here).

      (Of course autosomally, the Khavlynsk samples are distinguished from EHG by variable levels of CHG like ancestry… but this does not entail that this actually came from a group that was persisting in the NC throughout the hiatus Rob has talked about?).
      January 20, 2018 at 4:45 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Matt Yes, Prikaspiiskaya was similar to Khvalynsk, and that’s because Khvalynsk was probably a mixture of Prikaspiiskaya and forager (pottery Neolithic) populations. If so, then obviously Khvalynsk people would have acquired their CHG admix from their Prikaspiiskaya ancestors and their EHG admix from their forager ancestors.

      And even though the ratio of EHG to CHG appears to be very high in Khvalynsk overall, it may have been much lower in steppe populations further south, closer to where the Prikaspiiskaya population came from. I think this is the key quote from the linked paper…

      The origin of Prikaspiiskaya culture is reckoned to be connected with the Lower Don region. Some migration from Western Asia could also have occurred. Thus, the Prikaspiiskaya sites in the Lower Volga region represent the second Neolithisation model proposed for this area. The model is connected with the appearance of a producing economy in the milieu of Prikaspiiskaya culture.
      January 20, 2018 at 4:56 PM

      Rob said…
      Dave youre not understanding and you’re confusing the Volga region with the Caucasus

      But here’s a simple sanity check for your theory
      If there were already CHG people in the azov area , as you contend, why is there no trace of them in the Dnieper rapid samples as late as 5000 BC ?
      Foragers were mobile and had broad contacts
      If they existed they’d show up in Samara EHG and Dnieper HG. But they don’t , until 4200 BC.
      It means no such group existed
      January 20, 2018 at 5:04 PM

      Matt said…
      @Davidski, the thing is to me the paper basically seems to be describing Prikaspiiskaya as having more or less the same material economy, pottery tradition, tool kit as Khavalynsk. Doesn’t seem to be describing as some transplanted Neolithic economy that had to fuse with the other material cultures under description to become Khavalynsk.

      I mean, it seems like the description of the Prikaspiiskaya is that they already have the same pottery tradition that is diagnostic of pottery Neolithic from southern Russia anyway. It seems like they are describing a pottery Neolithic with elements of domesticated animals that simply replaces the other cultural traditions they speak of.

      So why would Khavalynsk need separate EHG-forager ancestors? (No admixture from EHG, Khavalynsk = Prikaspiiskaya+further gene flow from south?).

      @Chad, Steppe2Full suggests, if Steppe=EHG, then EHG in Steppe_EMBA=0.860.640.7)=0.385 (38.5%)?

      Drawback of these models seem that although you account for all the structure in the ancient samples in the structure (e.g. for Steppe2Full – Steppe_Eneolithic, Armenia_CHL, Steppe_EMBA, CHG, Iran_CHL, Ust Ishim) there is no use of information on how samples relate to populations outside of the phylogenic mode (e.g. WHG, Barcin_N, Levant_N, etc.) Lots of pre-basal ghosts in this phylogeny.
      January 20, 2018 at 5:11 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Rob Dave youre not understanding and you’re confusing the Volga region with the Caucasus

      I’m not confusing anything. The Neolithic producing economy in the Volga region is reckoned to be intrusive from the south (Lower Don).

      Yes or no?

      If there were already CHG people in the azov area , as you contend, why is there no trace of them in the Dnieper rapid samples as late as 5000 BC ?

      They may have been too far west or isolated culturally. Obviously, DNA doesn’t diffuse and spread via osmosis. It only spreads when people mix.

      Foragers were mobile and had broad contacts
      If they existed they’d show up in Samara EHG and Dnieper HG. But they don’t , until 4200 BC.
      It means no such group existed

      You’re making too many assumptions here, and ignoring the fact that CHG was present in Sredny Stog. So archeology and DNA both show that such a group existed.
      January 20, 2018 at 5:15 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Matt There were two very different Neolithic traditions in the Lower Volga. One seems to have been intrusive from the south, and the other local to the region. Khvalynsk looks like a recent mixture of two genetically distinct populations, one intrusive from the south and the other local to the region, because of the variable ratios of CHG and EHG in the three Khvalynsk samples. Hence, doesn’t it make sense to link the CHG admixture in Khvalynsk to the intrusive group from the south, and at least much of the EHG admixture in Khvalynsk to the local population?
      January 20, 2018 at 5:22 PM

      Polubienie

    • Populacje ludzkie nie można rozpatrywać tylko jako nieruchome skupiska ludzi (k . archeo). To tylko uproszczenie archeologów.
      Ludzie zawsze ruszali się po okolicy, a nawet wyruszali dalej wiedzeni ciekawością lub choćby potrzebą handlu – wymiany. Oczywiście, nie wyruszała w drogą cała populacja – osada. Większość zostawała na miejscu. Nawet łowcy – zbieracze nie wyruszali za stadami całymi rodzinami. Zapewne było różnie. Ci, co zostawali na miejscu, mogli zajmować się prymitywnym rolnictwem.
      Do spostrzeżenia zjawiska wyrastania rośliny z przypadkowo rozsypanych ziaren nie trzeba posiadać super IQ, zwłaszcza przy żyznej glebie.
      Kiedy ludzie z różnych kultur/języków spotykają się, chcą się zwykle dogadać. Choćby w celach handlowych. W wyniku takich procesów zawsze musi powstać jakiś wspólny język kreolski. Takim współczesnym przykładem jest j. suahili, mix j. bantu z j. arabskim (hakuna matata – nie ma problemu).

      Polubienie

    • Davidski said…
      @Rob West Dave. The Don is west of the Volga, not south

      So what? How does this change the fact that Khvalynsk looks like a mixture of two distinct Neolithic cultures, one from the south (Lower Done and West Asia) and one local to the steppes north of the Caspian?

      So the entire zone from north Balkans to Latvia to the Urals was a veritable mix of WHG and ANE, R1 and I2, but for some reason the CHG people of the Azov were paralaysed and social outcast? I am tempted to give you a point for creativity, but I ended up giving yo minus points.

      Well Rob, I’d say that if you actually dig hard enough, you’ll find that foragers and indeed early farmers were often highly adapted and thus restricted to very specific ecosystems.

      Wouldn’t this explain the lack of widespread admixture between the steppe-dwelling EHG and, say, the highland dwelling CHG until the Chalolithic/Early Bronze Age?

      But hey, name a specific site and burial where the crypto CHGs dwelt?

      They weren’t crypto CHG, they were overwhelmingly of CHG origin, and they may have lived, and already been mixing with EHG, at several points in the vast area between the Sea of Azov, North Caucasus and the Caspian.

      That’s what the ancient DNA models and uniparental markers suggest.
      January 20, 2018 at 6:36 PM

      Rob said…
      Look Dave Sorry, but just take this in

      The North-Eastern Black Sea Cultural Province in the VI – II millennium BC
      Viktor Trifonov (Institute for the History of Material Culture St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg)

      „The North-Eastern Black Sea Cultural Province of the VI – II millennium BC is a cultural phenomenon in the Western Caucasus which developed in the context of sub-continental contacts. It was one of few a cultural provinces on the Black Sea rim. Before the Ist millennium BC, all of them had predominantly inland rather than coastal or maritime contacts and never formed any kind of Circum-Pontic cultural formations. The history of the NE Black Sea province begins from the end of regional cultural gap between epipaleolithic – mesolithic sites and “neolithic” sites. The farming in the NW Caucasus was adopted in the relatively short period between the VI – V millennium BC, when the introduction of a new subsistence pattern, based on pig-breeding and gardening was stimulated by climate improvements, and the increasing spread of the deciduous forest from the NE Anatolia to NW Caucasus. That was a secondary colonization of a considerably depopulated area. In the IVth millennium BC the foothills settlers of the Maikop culture and the highlanders of the Darkveti-Meshoko culture coexisted until the end of both traditions and the arising of the Dolmen culture, which was responsible partly for the origin of the Novosvobodnaya aspect and the wide use of dolmens until the end of the IInd millennium BC.’
      January 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Rob

      What matters is the chronology. You’re attempting to prove a presence of CHG people north of the Caucasus on arguements from the Copper Age. Which is why your suggestions are unconvincing.

      My chronology and indeed geography are just fine. They fit with recent archaeological papers on the topic…

      http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/mixed-marriages-on-early-eneolithic.html

      http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/three-way.html

      You should just cut your loses and admit this.

      Again, please name the culture and individual sites where these secluded CHG foragers lived ?
      Your only hope is Crimea. I admit that a possibility

      CHG foragers lived in the Caucasus. CHG-rich Neolithic farmers probably lived in a wider area, as far north as the Lower Don.

      There’s a map that you might find useful at that second link. Note the Neolithic sites on the Lower Don, just a hop and a skip away from the North Caucasus.
      January 20, 2018 at 7:07 PM

      Arza said…
      @ Rob If the genetic data suggests that CHG started creeping in after 4500 BC then what is the the source of J1 Y-DNA in I0211 (5500-5000BCE)?
      January 20, 2018 at 7:39 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Rob Have you already forgotten this?

      A production economy is a particular feature of the second group of sites (in the Lower Volga), which can be dated to the end of the 6th millenium BC. This is one of the earliest pieces of evidence of the existence of domesticated species in Eastern Europe. The origin of Prikaspiiskaya culture is reckoned to be connected with the Lower Don region. Some migration from Western Asia could also have occurred. Thus, the Prikaspiiskaya sites in the Lower Volga region represent the second Neolithisation model proposed for this area. The model is connected with the appearance of a producing economy in the milieu of Prikaspiiskaya culture.

      http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/two-starkly-different-neolithic.html

      Wouldn’t groups like these from the Lower Don be the source of CHG admixture in both Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog? Or are you going to keep denying this possibility?
      January 20, 2018 at 7:40 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Rob And if they were the source of CHG, why is any CHG missing until 4000 BC?

      CHG is found in Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk samples.

      So unless you’re proposing that CHG-related people raced to Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk sites around 4,000 BC and the Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk samples we have just happen to be the first on the steppe with CHG ancestry, then it’s a safe bet that CHG diffused onto the steppe well before 4000 BC. It’s just common sense.
      January 20, 2018 at 8:05 PM

      Rob said…
      No Dave I correctly stated that R1a came via the forests and seeped down to the steppe periodically. And CWC isn’t from Yamnaya. Seems you still can’t grasp basic tenets
      January 20, 2018 at 9:00 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Rob I correctly stated that R1a came via the forests and seeped down to the steppe periodically

      Right, and the first male Eneolithic sample from a major steppe archaeological culture just happens to be R1a.

      What are the chances?!

      And CWC isn’t from Yamnaya

      We don’t know that yet, but even if it’s not, then R1a-M417 is still from the steppe and from a population very similar and closely related to Yamnaya. This is what many of us have been saying here for years, and you were arguing against it like it was the strangest thing in the world. Not so strange now.
      January 20, 2018 at 9:07 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Rob You mean Dereivka in the forest steppe?

      No, I mean the Dereivka site at Alexandria on the steppe. Here’s a map. The steppe/forest steppe boundary is clearly marked.

      What about the R1a in CCC with CHG dating to 3000 BC?

      Oh crap, you were right all along and obviously Corded Ware derives from CCC north of the steppe. Ah, no, wait, Corded Ware has a shitload of CHG and uniparental markers from the steppe, not just R1a-M417. Corded Ware is definitely from the steppe.
      January 20, 2018 at 9:45 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Chad I could obviously say the same about only having three EHG samples, one of which is drifted towards WHG.

      You can’t. They form a statistically homogeneous population in terms of their ANE/WHG ratios.

      Why is it more practical to use EHG and CHG? Neither were around in a pure form.

      They were around in mixed form, with highly variable ratios of CHG and EHG, so it makes good sense to use them in unadmixed form to let the algorithm vary the CHG and EHG ratios.

      It’s like trying to use Anatolia and WHG to describe the transition from Iberia_EN to MN. Why not just use Iberia_EN, which we have samples for?

      You can if you want to. I’ve done it myself. But since Iberia_EN samples are homogeneous then we can use Iberia_EN.

      Same logic applies with using Khavalynsk.

      It doesn’t because Khvalynsk is a recent mixture with highly variable CHG and EHG ratios, so we don’t know if the three samples we have average out precisely to resemble the population that was ancestral to Yamnaya. But I’d say that the chances of this are slim.

      It works and the statistics I’ve shown prove that.

      Your models show that it works with the outgroups that you used, but my models show that it’s much less likely, or in fact even that it doesn’t work with other outgroups.

      So now you have to prove that it works with the outgroups that I used.
      January 20, 2018 at 10:58 PM

      supernord said…
      …”Corded Ware is definitely from the steppe.” The Dereivka culture is from the forest step. Corded Ware culture rather was from the forest step also, or border from forest step and forest(?). Lexicon of PIE was forest, not pure steppe.
      January 21, 2018 at 10:51 AM

      Davidski said…
      @Matt

      My read is that they represent an introduction of food producing (a new Neolithic form/model), but I can’t see that the paper indicates a difference in subsistence is stark enough to lead me towards a transplanted pastoral economy of mostly southern autosomal origin.

      You seem to be suggesting that Khvalynsk formed when an EHG steppe population somehow acquired a food producing economy related to the Neolithic of West Asia, perhaps along with minor West Asian admixture, and then acquired more West Asian admixture via later contacts with southern groups.

      This is possible, I suppose, but it’s not very parsimonious in the light of genetic data from the Neolithic from other parts of West Eurasia.

      I’d say a much more parsimonious model is that a food producing economy was introduced onto the steppe via a migration of a CHG-rich population from the Caucasus, and Khvalynsk eventually formed when these migrants mixed with an EHG pottery Neolithic population native to the steppe.

      I don’t think that the similarity between the Prikaspiiskaya culture and Khvalynsk makes the latter scenario less parsimonious than it is based on what generally happened during the Neolithic in Europe.
      January 21, 2018 at 1:38 PM

      Matt said…
      @Davidski, yep, that’s more or less what I’m saying. Although without the „somehow”- it doesn’t seem so mysterious or questionable that Prikaspiiskaya could acquire domestic animals for food production without becoming majority CHG, since that’s… er… exactly what the Khvalynsk that followed them were, and the vast majority of the material culture was identical between these two cultures which overlapped in time and space, except for the elements that were Chalcolithic and couldn’t be.

      I can see how you’d say that it is parsimonious to assume an introduction of a Neolithic migration layer which persisted as a separate culture for some time, but then if we were to follow the Neolithic from the European Early Farmer examples, then we’d also have had to assumed the Khvalynsk Culture itself would be expected to be majority CHG in ancestry, with Yamnaya being a resurgence of EHG ancestry….

      Rather than the process we actually have in the region, where EHG->Khvalynsk->Yamnaya is an accumulation of more CHG ancestry. I’m not sure if it’s more parsimonious to assume an back extrapolation of the trend we already have in place on the steppe (to an intermediate layer between EHG->Khvalynsk), or to assume a model from the EEF which is roughly the opposite.

      (In any case this is all a bit of a sidetrack on the topic of whether there even any CHG groups about in the NC during the Mesolithic, or whether that ancestry comes from a southern region where it would’ve had more opportunity to pick up the Neolithic package).
      January 21, 2018 at 2:36 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Matt I can see how you’d say that it is parsimonious to assume an introduction of a Neolithic migration layer which persisted as a separate culture for some time, but then if we were to follow the Neolithic from the European Early Farmer examples, then we’d also have had to assumed the Khvalynsk Culture itself would be expected to be majority CHG in ancestry, with Yamnaya being a resurgence of EHG ancestry….

      Based on the fact that a food producing economy arrived in Europe via demic diffusion from Anatolia, I think it’s sensible to assume that the early Prikaspiiskaya population was from the Caucasus and thus largely CHG, and it became largely EHG as it turned into Khvalynsk.

      Yamnaya is a very different issue, but it may well represent a resurgence of CHG ancestry on the steppe. I don’t see a problem with such a scenario, considering that we know that such resurgences in genetic components happened, and there’s no rule, as far as I can see, preventing it from being an CHG resurgence in this particular case. Indeed, early indications are that there my have been a resurgence of EEF ancestry in Central Europe during the Iron Age.
      January 21, 2018 at 2:58 PM

      Polubienie

    • Davidski said…
      @supernord Domesticated sheep, and probably goats too, spread from the Caucasus to the western steppe, and then from there to Central Asia. Here’s the latest on that…

      http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/8/6/165/htm

      January 22, 2018 at 1:47 PM

      Davidski said…
      @supernord Goats and sheep made it into the Caucasus from the northern fertile crescent around 8000 years ago. Then they made it onto the steppe from the Caucasus. And then they were taken from the western steppe to Central Asia by the ancestors of the Afanasievo people.

      This is the consensus. That’s why it’s the model shown on this map.

      You’re talking about the spread of goats and sheep to the east Caspian, and to South Central Asia. This did indeed take place from what is now Iran, and, again, it’s shown on the above map.

      However, you’re also claiming that goats and sheep made it onto the steppe from Iran via the east Caspian. Maybe they did, in part, but this is not the consensus. The consensus is that they spread onto the steppe from the Caucasus. So you’re the one arguing against the consensus here, not me. And please keep in mind also, that the author of that paper on the Prikaspiyskaya culture places its origins in the Lower Don region, near the North Caucasus, not east of the Caspian. See here…

      http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/two-starkly-different-neolithic.html

      January 22, 2018 at 10:16 PM

      Rob said…
      In a nutshell

      1) ceramics adopted independently in south Russia / Ukraine. A smimilar ceramic repertoire from Bug-Dniester to Caspian , from 6000 BC ->
      No migrations implied.!

      2) Elshanka pottery different; clear influences from kelteminar etc

      3) first adoption of domesticates in precaspian culture, ? Hypothesised to be from lower Don; first sheep , then also cattle pigs etc by the time of Khvalynsk, during which time contacts with West even more manifest (copper and other prestige symbols)
      January 23, 2018 at 3:51 AM

      supernord said…
      Okay, let the spread of productive economy via the Caucasus is possible, but it is not a consensus. This is a new opinion appeared recently. Look at these new study 2014 that they referenced http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935413-e-13.

      South Dagestan „In the Neolithic layer (C) at Chokh, a large stone building with a corridor-like entrance yielded abundant material (Amirkhanov, 1987). Continuity is obvious in the lithic material from the Mesolithic layers: scalene triangles still predominate and small blades become frequent. Grinding stones and pottery (mineral-tempered ware with flat bases) also appear, and a sherd decorated with two knobs evokes the Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture. Bone sickle handles decorated with incised diamond shapes closely parallel the culture of Sialk I (sixth millennium bc) on the Iranian plateau (Wechler, 2001).

      Based on the presence of domesticated animals (sheep)

      The Neolithic level of Chokh in Dagestan probably(!!!) belongs to the sixth millennium bc, based on its parallels in cultural material with the cultures of Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe and Sialk-1. Moreover, the presence of fully domesticated cereals and the absence of wild varieties found in this layer suggest an import. There is no support for the hypothesis of a local development of agriculture.”

      Nowhere in any study I have not seen this way or this assertion, but in Central Asia such was recognized by all, there are these animals even older than the Caucasus. That Central Asia was consesual.
      January 23, 2018 at 4:07 AM

      Davidski said…
      @supernord Indeed, food production, including domesticated goats and sheep were introduced into the Caucasus from the Fertile Crescent around 6,000 BC. That’s what the map that I linked to shows, and this is what is being confirmed with ancient DNA.

      „The sites where these bones were found are the earliest agricultural settlements in the Caucasus. Other novel signs of agriculture and cultural artifacts also suddenly started to appear in what were hunting-and-gathering areas,” lead author Seiji Kadowaki says. „This ties in well with the introduction of domesticated goats from the Fertile Crescent around the same time, suggesting that populations moved or indigenous hunter-gatherers in the Caucasus accepted agricultural lifestyles from the Fertile Crescent about 7,500-8,000 years ago.”

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160613090635.htm

      And Afanasievo people, who took goats and sheep to the Altai, derived almost half of their ancestry from Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (CHG).

      It’s rather unlikely that they had any ancestry from the Iranian Plateau, because the uniparental markers don’t match. Ancient and modern-day Iranian mtDNA is too exotic for the Bronze Age steppe, with typically South Caspian markers like U7, which are missing from the ancient steppe.

      So there’s no problem for the Caucasus route, but there is a problem for the east Caspian route.
      January 23, 2018 at 2:36 PM

      Ric Hern said…
      As far as I could remember goats were domesticated in the Zagros Mountains the earliest…
      January 24, 2018 at 9:47 AM

      Ric Hern said…
      Interesting is that the Mouflons original range stretched all the way to the Crimea where they apparently became extinct about 3000 years ago…
      January 30, 2018 at 1:17 PM

      Polubienie

  2. http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/ancient-mitogenomes-reveal-central.html

    Ancient mitogenomes reveal Central Asian (Hunnic?) admixture in Hungarian Conquerers (Neparáczki et al. 2018 preprint)

    Over at bioRxiv at this LINK. The number of ancient mitogenomes in this preprint (102) is fairly impressive, but obviously there’s only so much insight one can gain from maternally-inherited genetic markers when studying male-driven conquests like that of the Carpathian Basin by the early Hungarians. So yeah, let’s wait and see how the conclusions in this preprint gel with the relevant ancient Y-chromosome and genome-wide data when it arrives. Below is the abstract. Emphasis is mine:

    It has been widely accepted that the Finno-Ugric Hungarian language, originated from proto Uralic people, was brought into the Carpathian Basin by the Hungarian Conquerors. From the middle of the 19 th century this view prevailed against the deep-rooted Hungarian Hun tradition, maintained in folk memory as well as in Hungarian and foreign written medieval sources, which claimed that Hungarians were kinsfolk of the Huns. In order to shed light on the genetic origin of the Conquerors we sequenced 102 mitogenomes from early Conqueror cemeteries and compared them to sequences of all available databases. We applied novel population genetic algorithms, named Shared Haplogroup Distance and MITOMIX, to reveal past admixture of maternal lineages. Phylogenetic and population genetic analysis indicated that more than one third of the Conqueror maternal lineages were derived from Central-Inner Asia and their most probable ultimate sources were the Asian Huns. The rest of the lineages most likely originated from the Bronze Age Potapovka-Poltavka-Srubnaya cultures of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which area was part of the later European Hun empire. Our data give support to the Hungarian Hun tradition and provides indirect evidence for the genetic connection between Asian and European Huns. Available data imply that the Conquerors did not have a major contribution to the gene pool of the Carpathian Basin, raising doubts about the Conqueror origin of Hungarian language.

    Neparáczki et al., Mitogenomic data indicate admixture components of Asian Hun and Srubnaya origin in the Hungarian ConquerorsbioRxiv, Posted January 19, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/250688

    Posted by Davidski at 10:20:00 PM 70 comments:

    Polubienie

    • Samuel Andrews said…
      There’s no way to determine how big of a Srubnaya influence the Hungarian conquerers have because we only have a handful of Srubnaya mitogenomes. Just scrolling through I saw several mHGs unique to the general region Hungary is in indicating some local east European ancestry. mtDNA can be tricky. It isn’t as straightforward as Y DNA. ANyways, great study. Lots of new data, suprisingly high amount of Asian mtDNA, and interesting analysis. Impressive, serious approach to mtDNA that doesn’t happen a lot.
      January 21, 2018 at 12:24 AM

      Kristiina said…
      @Chetan Why did proto-Hungarians leave such a low Y-DNA influence on Hungarian populations while affecting a language shift?

      In the Sargat culture which could have been proto-Hungarian speaking there were 2xR1a1 and 5xN1c. While still in the Khazar Khaganate, Hungarians joined company c. 850 with Turkic speaking Kabar tribes. Kabars were probably of yDNA R1a1, R1b and J. Therefore in Etelköz on the Pontic Steppe, Hungarian yDNA was probably already something like 2xN1c, 3xR1a1, 1xR1b, 1xJ. When Hungarians reached the Carpathian Basin, the amount of N1c continued to decrease. Wikipedia tells us that:

      ”The Hungarian population began to decrease at the time of the Ottoman conquest, reaching as low as around 39% by the end of the 18th century. The decline of the Hungarians was due to the constant wars, Ottoman raids, famines, and plagues during the 150 years of Ottoman rule. The main zones of war were the territories inhabited by the Hungarians, so the death toll depleted them at a much higher rate than among other nationalities. In the 18th century, their proportion declined further because of the influx of new settlers from Europe, especially Slovaks, Serbs and Germans. As a consequence of Turkish occupation and Habsburg colonization policies, the country underwent a great change in ethnic composition as its population more than tripled to 8 million between 1720 and 1787, while only 39% of its people were Hungarians, who lived primarily in the centre of the country.”

      To sum up, ancient Hungarian yDNA is not only N, but it includes R1a1, R1b and J as well.
      January 21, 2018 at 6:45 AM

      Kristiina said…
      This paper is also relevant here: A study of the Bodrogköz population in north-eastern Hungary by Y chromosomal haplotypes and haplogroups

      „We have determined the distribution of Y chromosomal haplotypes and haplogroups in population samples from one of the most important areas in north-eastern Hungary from many villages in the Bodrogköz. The Bodrogköz region was chosen due to its isolated nature, because this area was a moorland encircled by the Tisza, Bodrog, and Latorca Rivers and inhabitants of this part of Hungary escaped from both Tatar and Ottoman invasions, which decimated the post-Hungarian Conquest populations in many parts of the country. Furthermore, in the first half of the tenth century, this region served as the Palatial Centre and burial grounds of the Hungarian tribes. It has thus been assumed that the present population in this area is likely to be more similar to the population that lived in the Conquest period.”

      Their conclusion is that „We identified nine samples (6.2%) as likely Finno-Ugric lineages, with genetic matches closer to those of Uralic ethnic groups, such as Mansi and/or Estonian, than to non-Uralic groups (5 R1a-Z280, 2 R1a-M458, 1 N1c-Z1936, and 1 N1c-L1034). While haplogroup R1a-M458 has been considered “West Slavic”, our analysis showed that over half of the 30 M458 samples were not of recent Slavic admixture.”

      „In our recent study, one N1c-L1034 sample was found in Bodrogköz, which has proven to be a paternal link among Hungarians and Western Siberian Mansi (Fehér et al. 2015), and N1c-Z1936 (xL1034) was found to likely be early Ugric. … In addition, based on Y-STR analysis, one R1b-M343* sample was recent Turkic admixture from the R1b-M73 Kypchak (DYS390 = 19) cluster; … though it could be of Avar, Onugor, Hungarian, or Cumanian origin. Based on the Bodrogköz population, the arriving Finno-Ugric-speaking paternal lineages likely made up no more than 10% of the population of Hungary in the tenth century AD … . The share of Finno-Ugric-looking paternal lineages shrank to 6.2% due to continuous influx and assimilation of neighbouring peoples in the following centuries.”
      January 22, 2018 at 4:48 AM

      Chetan said…
      @Kristina Hunnic Empire of Attila was a conglomerate of all kinds of tribes that were picked up by the Huns in their westward swoop across the Eurasian steppes. Hunnic itself was spoken only by the chieftains and the local tribes retained their own languages. I can definitely imagine proto-Hungarian speakers near the Urals who get incorporated into the Hunnic Empire but still retain their language. They would have later moved on into Hungary in the 9th century imposing their language there. This proto-Hungarian group like you said could well have been R1a-N1c 3:2. R1 from the earlier Corded Ware culture and N1 from the later Uralic expansion.

      I find it really odd though that one-third of the Hungarian Conquerors mtDNA is derived from East Asia but none of the usual Y-DNA associated with Turks show up (like Q or C). Really odd considering the patriarchal nature of Turkic conquests into the east.
      January 22, 2018 at 5:37 AM

      Janko Raven Johnson said…
      Don’t forget the potential post-Hun Avar and Bulgar layers.
      January 22, 2018 at 6:12 AM

      Ebizur said…
      Janko Raven Johnson said… „Don’t forget the potential post-Hun Avar and Bulgar layers.”

      The Hungarian language does contain a great deal of words that are exotic in a European context, yet not of Finno-Ugric etymology. Many of these words are very basic, with meanings like „summer” (Hungarian nyár, cf. Turkish yaz), „to lick” (Hungarian nyal-, cf. Turkish yala-), „sea” (Hungarian tenger, cf. Turkish deniz; this is actually the same word as „Genghis” in „Genghis Khan”), and so forth.

      There are even examples like Hungarian gyöngy „pearl; bead” and Turkish inci „pearl,” both ultimately from Chinese zhēnzhū (珍珠 „rare pearl/bead” or 真珠 „true pearl/bead,” whence also Japanese 真珠 shinju „pearl” and Korean 진주 jinju „pearl”).

      However, it is not clear whether (or how much of) this Turkic influence in Hungarian has been picked up prior to (or during) the migration of Hungarian-speaking ancestors from a previous homeland to the Pannonian plain, or whether (or how much of) it has been picked up locally from hypothetical unattested descendants of Huns, Avars, Bulgars, etc. The languages of those invaders are surprisingly obscure when considered against the lasting renown of the ethnonyms themselves.
      January 22, 2018 at 7:24 AM

      Huck Finn said…
      I’m somewhat surprised that the authors do not underline the fact that according to Ilumäe et al Hungarian related paternal N-Z1936’s are also to be found among Volgaic Tatars and Bashkirs. Volgaic Turkic Chuvash, if I’m right, is on the other hand the only surviving Oghur Turkic language, c.f. Onogur > Hun(V)gar- and the apparent Oghur Turkic based loanwords in Hungarian.
      January 22, 2018 at 9:09 AM

      Polubienie

  3. http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/the-kho-people-archaic-indo-aryans.html

    The Kho people: archaic Indo-Aryans

    I’ve manged to get my hands on two Kho samples from Chitral, northern Pakistan, courtesy of Khanafrom the comments at this blog and someone named Sam Sloan. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about the Kho, who are Dardic-speakers and thus close linguistic relatives of the Kalasha people:

    The Kho people are likely descendants of those who arrived in the region during the Indo-Aryan migration.[5] The Kho people formerly observed a form of ancient Hinduism;[6] during the Mongol invasion of India during the 1200s, many of the northern Kho converted to Islam.[7]

    The Kho people speak the Khowar language, a member of the Dardic subgroup of the Indo-Aryan language family. The ethnologists Karl Jettmar and Lennart Edelberg noted, with respect to the Khowar language, that: „Khowar, in many respects [is] the most archaic of all modern Indian languages, retaining a great part of Sanskrit case inflexion, and retaining many words in a nearly Sanskritic form.”[9]

    Moreover, Chitral is near Swat, which is the location of a Bronze Age cemetery that is generally presumed to be the oldest Indo-Iranian archaeological site in South Asia. It’ll be interesting to compare the two Kho individuals to samples from this ancient burial ground if and when they’re finally published (see here and here). Meantime, this is how they compare to the Kalasha from the HGDP dataset in several of my staple genome-wide analyses:

     

     

    Overall, the qpGraph trees produce almost identical results for both the Kho and Kalasha. However, on the Kho tree, the drift path leading from C to Han is zero (i.e. no genetic drift), while on the Kalasha tree it’s 18. That’s a subtle, but perhaps important difference, because it suggests that the Kho and Kalasha have somewhat different types of East Eurasian admixture.

    Indeed, in the West Eurasian and world Principal Component Analyses (PCA) the Kho pull more strongly towards the Bronze Age steppe and East Asia, respectively, compared to the Kalasha. This might mean that they’ve been less isolated genetically than the Kalasha since the initial Indo-Aryan settlement of what is now northern Pakistan.

    I’ve also added the Kho to the Global 10 and Basal-rich K7 datasheets (see here and here, respectively). It might be possible to investigate in more detail the differences between the Kho and Kalasha by using this output to model their ancestry with nMonte (for instance, like here).

    See also…

    Ancient herders from the Pontic-Caspian steppe crashed into India: no ifs or buts

    Descendants of ancient European (fair?) maidens in Central Asia’s highlands

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

    Posted by Davidski at 12:39:00 AM 276 comments:

    Polubienie

    • EastPole said…
      R1a is found at a frequency of 80% among the Kho people according to Wikipedia. The Kho people formerly observed a form of old Vedic religion.
      I couldn’t find anything on Kho religion but assume it was similar to Kalash.

      Kalash have not converted to Islam yet and still celebrate their ancient pagan cults. In some books they mention similarity of Kalash god Balimain to Greek Dionysus:

      “Pagan Christmas: Winter Feasts of the Kalasha of the Hindu Kush”

      https://books.google.pl/books?id=DVgrDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT54&lpg=PT54&dq=god+Praba&source=bl&ots=Qe4zcx7JTW&sig=XGAcnNVILWT6qXjBmeibBv0KEQI&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNvuTE0ZnYAhWCQZoKHWQWByYQ6AEIPDAH#v=snippet&q=Dionysus&f=false

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322196297_The_Winter_Solstice_Festival_of_the_Kalasha_of_Birir_Some_Comparative_Suggestions

      Kalash do not eat hallucinogenic mushrooms, do not use ephedra, do not smoke dope or other staff to celebrate their god of fertility and love. Like ancient Slavs and Greeks they light fires, drink alcohol and dance. And so it was done by PIE IMO.
      But in the north the wine doesn’t grow. Early IE were drinking mead and beer and hops were their soma. There is plenty evidence for this, linguistic, genetic and archeological. That religion probably originated with Corded Ware or Sredny Stog. It is also possible that it came from Tripolye or TRB.
      January 24, 2018 at 4:00 AM

      Atriðr said…
      @EastPole Which linguists link soma/haoma with hops? Don’t know any. Hops not generally a candidate for soma.
      January 24, 2018 at 6:24 AM

      EastPole said…
      @Atriðr “Which linguists link soma/haoma with hops?

      Don’t know any.

      Hops not generally a candidate for soma.”

      All modern etymological dictionaries say this. The one I use is W. Boryś “Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego” 2005

      You can see it in other dictionaries:

      “A HANDBOOK OF GERMANIC ETYMOLOGY”V. Orel:

      Vasmer-Trubachev:

      V. Orel dictionary suggests that Slavic *xъmel was borrowed from the east, i.e. that it was like this:

      Germanic *xumalaz < Slavic *xъmel <Iranian *xauma- ‘sacred drink, soma’:

      But this is debatable. There are linguists like prof. Kazimierz Moszyński “Pierwotny zasięg języka prasłowiańskiego „ 1957 who argued that Slavic *xъmel was not borrowed from the east because they didn’t have proper etymology for this word whereas Slavic languages do have a good etymology and long tradition of using this plant for proper fermentation in mead or beer production and for religious, and medical purposes. Also the way it was prepared fits Rigveda descriptions.

      Today genetics tells us that prof. K. Moszyński was right:

      “It has also been suggested that European wild hops themselves originated from past introductions, brought by people migrating from the East, and that they do not represent an autochthonous European plant (Ryba ´c ˇek, 1991; Moir, 2000). If human behavior is involved in hop migration, it would be expected that population size would be reduced.”

      “A recent microsatellite DNA study of 11 loci (Murakami et al, 2006) analysed wild hops, in almost the same samples used in this study. It found highly polymorphic microsatellites, but no significant excess heterozygosity (P40.05) in European wild hops, thus providing no evidence of recent founder events of this type”.

      “After the last glaciation, hops may have expanded from southern refugia and, since a founder event was not detected, this may have occurred naturally rather than through human association. Microsatellite analyses indicate that cultivars share alleles with the European native population and would be classified within this population (Jaks ˇe et al, 2004; Murakami et al, 2006, unpublished data). This strongly suggests that traditional cultivars were simply selected from natural wild populations, presumably because of their superior qualities for beer production.”

      http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v97/n1/full/6800839a.html

      Hops used for proper fermentation in mead or beer production in Slavic lands didn’t come from the East. Genetics tells us that traditional cultivars were simply selected from natural wild populations.
      January 24, 2018 at 8:45 AM

      andrew said…
      The fact that the Kho and Kalash who speak the most archaic forms of the Indo-Aryan languages are located where they are is also as significant as their genetics. The numbers cited in the comment by Seinundzeit suggest only about 10-11% of ASI in these populations, although in the global PCA both populations (Kho and Kalash) are clearly on the South Asia prong of the two parallel top to bottom clusters. South Asian impact is less obvious in the Graph Tree.
      January 24, 2018 at 8:57 AM

      Polubienie

    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_people

      The Kalasha (KalashaKaĺaśaNuristaniKasivoUrduکالاش‎), or Kalash, are a Dardic indigenous people residing in the Chitral District of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. They speak the Kalasha language, from the Dardic family of the Indo-Aryan branch. They are considered unique among the peoples of Pakistan.[9] They are also considered to be Pakistan’s smallest ethnoreligious community,[10] practising a religion which some scholars characterise as a form of animism,[2][3][4] and other academics as „a form of ancient Hinduism„.[5][7]

      The neighbouring Nuristani people of the adjacent Nuristan (historically known as Kafiristan) province of Afghanistan once practised the faith adhered to by the Kalash.[5][7] By the late 19th century, much of Nuristan had been converted to Islam, although some evidence has shown the people continued to practice their customs.[7]

      Over the years, the Nuristan region has also been the site of much war activity that has led to the death of many endemic Nuristanis and has seen an inflow of surrounding Afghans to claim the vacant region, who have since settled among the remaining natives.[11][12][13] The Kalash of Chitral maintained their own separate cultural traditions.[14]

      (…)

      Language

      The language of the Kalash is a sub-branch of the Indo-Aryan group, itself part of the larger Indo-Iranian family. It is classified as a member of the Chitral sub-group, the only other member of that group being KhowarNorwegian Linguist Georg Morgenstierne believes that in spite of similarities, Kalasha is an independent language in its own right.[citation needed]

      (…)

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

      Kalasha (also known as Kalashamondr) is an Indo-European language in the Indo-Aryan branch spoken by the Kalash people, further classified as a Dardic language in the Chitral group.[3] The Kalasha language is phonologically atypical because it contrasts plain, long, nasal and retroflex vowels as well as combinations of these (Heegård & Mørch 2004).

      Kalasha is spoken by the Kalash people who reside in the remote valleys of BumburetBirir and Rumbur, which are west of Ayun, which is ten miles down the river from Chitral Town, high in the Hindu Kush mountains in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. The Kalash have their own religion, with gods and goddesses. There are an estimated 5,000 speakers of Kalasha.[4]

      Kalasha should not be confused with the nearby Nuristani language Waigali (Kalasha-ala). According to Badshah Munir Bukhari, a researcher on the Kalash, „Kalasha” is also the ethnic name for the Nuristani inhabitants of a region southwest of the Kalasha Valleys, in the Waygal and middle Pech Valleys of Afghanistan’s Nuristan Province. The name „Kalasha” seems to have been adopted for the Kalash people by the Kalasha speakers of Chitral from the Nuristanis of Waygal, who for a time expanded up to southern Chitral several centuries ago.[5] However, there is no close connection between the Indo-Aryan language Kalasha-mun (Kalasha) and the Nuristani language Kalasha-ala (Waigali), which descend from different branches of the Indo-Iranian languages. (…)

      Classification

      Of all the languages in the subcontinent, Kalasha is likely the most conservative, along with the nearby western Dardic language Khowar.[7] In a few cases, Kalasha is even more conservative than Khowar, e.g. in retaining voiced aspirate consonants, which have disappeared from most other Dardic languages. (…)

      Polubienie

      • Phonology

        Set out below is the phonology of Kalasha:[9]

        Vowels

        Front Central Back
        Close i ĩ i˞ ĩ˞ u ũ u˞ ũ˞
        Mid e ẽ e˞ ẽ˞ o õ o˞ õ˞
        Open a ã a˞ ã˞

        Consonants

        As with other Dardic languages, the phonemic status of the breathy voiced series is debatable. Some analyses are unsure of whether they are phonemic or simply lexical—i.e., clusters of consonants with /h/.[10]

        Labial Alveolar Retroflex Postalveolar Velar Uvular Glottal
        Nasal m n (ɳ) (ɲ) (ŋ)
        Stop voiceless p t ʈ k (q)
        voiced b d ɖ ɡ
        aspirated ʈʰ
        breathy voiced ɖʱ ɡʱ
        Affricate voiceless ts
        voiced dz
        aspirated tsʰ tʂʰ tʃʰ
        breathy voiced dʒʱ
        Fricative voiceless s ʂ ʃ (x) h
        voiced ʐ ʒ (ɣ)
        Approximant l j w
        Rhotic r (ɽ)

        The phonemes /x ɣ q/ are found in loanwords.

        Vocabulary comparison

        The following table compares Kalash words to their cognates in other Indo-Aryan languages.[11]

        English Kalasha Sanskrit / Polski New age Hindi
        bone athi, aṭhí asthi / oS’C’ Hindi -; Nepali ā̃ṭh ‚the ribs’
        urine mutra, mútra mūtra H. mūt
        village grom grama / GRoM+aDa H. gā̃u;Sanskrit gramam
        rope rajuk, raĵhú-k rajju / R”eM+ieN’ H. rassi, lejur
        smoke thum dhūma / DyM / DoM H. dhūā̃, dhuwā̃
        meat mos maṃsa / Mie”So H. mā̃s, mās, māsā
        dog shua, śõ.’a śvan / So”Ka H. -; Sinhal. suvan
        ant pililak, pilílak pipīla, pippīlika H. pipṛā
        son put, putr putra H. pūt
        long driga, dríga dīrgha / D+L”o”Gi H. dīha
        eight asht, aṣṭ aṣṭā / oSieM H. āṭh
        broken china, čhína chinna / Cie”Ta H. chīn-nā ‚to snatch’;
        kill nash nash, naś, naśyati / NiS”C” / G+NieS’C’  H. nā̆s ‚destroy’

        Polubienie

    • Atriðr said…
      @EastPole Thanks for the links. I see you meant the Slavic etymology specifically, and looking at it, the etymology makes sense. I’d suspect that the word was borrowed for hops, but need to familiarize myself more with hops first. The descriptions of soma and hauma usage aren’t consistent with hops, but I’ll look into it. Who knows, might be some older recipes with more potent effects. Interesting leads though.
      January 24, 2018 at 10:57 AM

      Philippe said…
      Soma.
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcostemma_acidum
      Seems probable that soma was alcohol, the ingredients of which could vary depending on the location.
      January 24, 2018 at 1:55 PM

      Nathan said…
      @aniasi
      „1) This is really interesting, since it seems to point to the IA population having mixed with the Iran-Neolithic-like population before their arrival in the subcontinent. They seem to lack ASI, which is still found in Kashmir.”

      Asko Parpola in his new book „The roots of Hinduism. The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization” published by Oxford Uni. Press in 2015, says that Indo-Aryans conquered and took over the BMAC civilization, prior to intruding into South Asia. When the Indo-Aryans entered the Indus Valley, included amongst them would have been the people from BMAC.
      January 24, 2018 at 5:16 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Nathan Actually, BMAC was most likely Iran Chalcolithic, not Iran Neolithic. The Neolithic Iranian admixture in the Vedic Aryans probably came from the Ferghana Valley, not from BMAC. I don’t think Vedic Aryans were at all influenced by BMAC, or the BMAC centres they were influenced by were likely heavily Iran Neolithic, while the ones influencing Iranics, such as Yaz, were Iran Chalcolithic. So probably not direct BMAC ancestry.
      (…)
      January 24, 2018 at 5:34 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Vara You’re a complete nut! Out of Iran is as dead as Out of India. We know where the Steppe peoples came from and where the Indo-European languages originated. Hint: It wasn’t in Iran. Also, the Iranian ancestry found in South Asians is from Neolithic Iran not Chalcolithic Iran, therefore your assertions are completely absurd and invalid. Undoubtedly, the Sanskrit language had its origins on the Pontic-Caspian steppes. Both the Mycenaean one and this one will answer all questions, don’t worry.
      (…)
      January 24, 2018 at 6:10 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Nathan Doesn’t Asko Parpola also think that Cucuteni–Trypillia was Late PIE? If so, that really worked out for him. How much Cucuteni–Trypillia (EEF) ancestry is there in Asia, especially South Asia?
      January 24, 2018 at 11:25 PM

      EastPole said…
      @Nirjhar007 Could you take a look at this picture and comment:

      There are only two possibilities IMO. Either Slavs came from India or Indo-Iranians came from Eastern Europe. Because R1a-M417 was found in Sredny Stog Dereivka culture and R1a-Z645 was found in Corded Ware culture I think that probability that Indo-Iranians came from Eastern Europe is higher. What do you think?
      January 25, 2018 at 3:21 AM

      Nirjhar007 said…
      What do you think? I think it will be not settled, until we get samples from ancient India and more from Iran.
      January 25, 2018 at 3:45 AM

      supernord said…
      „Asko Parpola thinks” He can think anything, but that doesn’t mean he’s right. Indeed, there is no indication that BMAC, at least as it influenced the Indo-Aryans, but there are indications on the Iranians. Borrowing Slavic хъмель from Iranians haoma is extremely unlikely, then there’s not suffix, not vowel, not even consonant unexplainable.
      January 25, 2018 at 10:50 AM

      EastPole said…
      @Atriðr “The descriptions of soma and hauma usage aren’t consistent with hops, but I’ll look into it.”

      They are consistent and not only that. Heavenly waters as the source of honey is explained by Slavic belief that honey came from heavenly dew which on a cloudless night fells directly from the divine sky, which explains some Rigvedic myths. I find the best explanations of RV, which are still very difficult to understand, in old Slavic believes and folklore. They are also very consistent with orphico-pythagrean myths if properly understood. So the legend of their Hyperborean (Slavic) origin may be true. By the way Orpheus is linked by linguists with the Sanskrit Ribhu or Arbhu, and with Slavic Robu (worker).

      “Who knows, might be some older recipes with more potent effects.”

      Why are you looking for more potent drink? It does not depend on potency but on how well you are prepared. Some religious experts can even get required state without any drink. Lower people like myself like to drink a little bit o vodka before becoming sensitive to religious poetry, but more important than the amount of vodka is the proper preparation i.e. resting, relaxing, getting rid of troubles and worries, peace, silence, starry night or beautiful dawn and filling oneself with the right poetic or philosophical thoughts.
      January 25, 2018 at 3:43 PM

      EastPole said…
      It is very sad that people don’t understand RV. Black enemies of Aryans are metaphors of sins, evil thoughts, worries etc. They are not people. It has nothing to do with race. Vedic Aryans could be very similar to modern Indians. RV is a religious poetry, not a history.
      January 25, 2018 at 4:18 PM

      Polubienie

  4. http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/unadmixed-basal-eurasians-lived.html

    Unadmixed Basal Eurasians lived throughout the Near East ~45-15 KYA?

    Below is a map from a recent review paper at Trends in Genetics by Melinda A. Yang and Qiaomei Fu titled Insights into Modern Human Prehistory Using Ancient Genomes.

    It’s somewhat speculative and an abstract of geographic realities (note that the ancient „Karelia” population is placed several thousand miles east of Karelia, in Northern Asia as opposed to Northeastern Europe). Nevertheless, the fact that the authors chose to illustrate the home of the so called Basal Eurasians as a rather large range in the middle of the Near East, rather than something more remote and limited, like, say, a small part of the Arabian Peninsula or even North Africa, is interesting.

    Indeed, they seem to suggest that post-Basal Eurasian Near Eastern populations took shape not as a result of the expansion of Basal Eurasians across the Near East, but rather due the migration of northern foragers (labeled EUR on the map) from Eastern Europe to the Near East. Like I say, no doubt this is based on some guesswork, and needs to be confirmed with more sampling from the ancient Near East, but still noteworthy that it made it onto the map.

    Citation…

    Melinda A. Yang and Qiaomei Fu, Insights into Modern Human Prehistory Using Ancient Genomes, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2017.11.008

    See also…

    Villabruna cluster =/= Near Eastern migrants

    Posted by Davidski at 10:00:00 PM 115 comments:

    Polubienie

    • Colin Welling said…
      Finally, a direct answer to the question of who Mal’ta is more related to, Europeans or Modern Asians. „First, sampling of Siberian individuals from ∼24–17 ka from the Lake Baikal region (i.e., Mal’ta 1 and Afontova Gora 3) showed that they share a stronger connection to Europeans than to Asians, but that they share the strongest connection to Native Americans”
      January 25, 2018 at 10:54 PM

      Karl_K said…
      It makes sense, as the Eurasian groups must have been quite diverged before the known admixture events, and all of the groups involved lived in different locations bordering the region on the map, and had very little interaction otherwise. So there must have been multiple distinct Basal Eurasian populations, all in the vicinity of the Near East, around 15,000 years ago. Whether they just moved in from North or Northeast Africa, or had already been in the Near East for 30,000 years already? Anyone’s guess at this point.
      January 25, 2018 at 10:57 PM

      mickeydodds1 said…
      ‚Everyone is eastern European’ 😉
      January 26, 2018 at 12:15 AM

      Kristiina said…
      Kostenki and Sunghir were autosomally very similar and they carried similar haplogroups. Kostenki site is close to the Ukrainian border, but Sunghir is further north in the Vladimir Oblast, east of Moscow.

      http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/10/04/science.aao1807.full

      http://generatioaequivoca.blogspot.be/

      January 26, 2018 at 4:01 AM

      EastPole said…
      David, this is OT but here is short relation of what prof. Grzybowski said yesterday on genetic structure and genetic history of Central Europe (in Polish)

      January 26, 2018 at 4:38 AM

      Davidski said…
      @EastPole Sounds like that talk was based on modern-day DNA though. So unless they have ancient DNA to back up their conclusions, then nothing’s certain.
      January 26, 2018 at 4:54 AM

      Polubienie

  5. http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/coming-soon-to-mtdnawiki-steppe-folk.html

    mtDNAwiki on „Steppe folk” mtDNA and Indo-Iranian origins

    Fascinating stuff from Samuel at mtDNAwiki. Emphasis is mine:

    Steppe folk were people who resided in what are today Southern Russia and Eastern Ukraine between 6,000 and 4,000 years ago. They were very different from the Anatolian farmers I discussed earlier.

    Ancient DNA shows that, between 3000 and 2000 BC, Steppe folk migrated en masse into Northern Europe, Central Asia and Siberia. Shortly afterwards, Steppe folk settled in South Europe, South Asia (India, Afghanistan, etc.), and Iran.

    They contributed huge chunks of ancestry to countless modern ethnic groups. Modern-day Europeans are for the most part a two-way mixture between Steppe folk and European Neolithic farmers (who were mostly of Anatolian origin).

    As much as 33% of Tajik mtDNA really does derive from Eneolithic/Bronze Age Eastern Europe. No doubt about it. Yes, Tajiks are an exception, because they have a lot more Steppe mtDNA than essentially all other South Central Asians. However, significant frequencies of Steppe mtDNA exist in every population in this region. For example, the mtDNA in the Kalasha, a small ethnic group from the Hindu Kush, is mostly made up of founder effects involving Steppe mt-HGs U4a1, U4b1a4, U2e1h, and J2b1a. Each of these haplogroups has been found in remains from Eneolithic/Bronze Age Eastern Europe.

    Typical European haplogroups such as U5a1a1, H2a1, T1a1, H5a1, H6a1, J1b1a1, J2b1a, H7b, etc. consistently pop up in every South Central Asian population. Realistically, none of these haplogroups are more than 10,000 years old. Indeed, all of them are likely to be less than 7,000 years old. The European-related mtDNA in South Central Asia isn’t derived from distant, Paleolithic shared ancestry between Europeans and Asians. It’s recent stuff from the Steppe.

    For over a decade Y-haplogroup R1a-M417 perplexed many geneticists because it was the most common Y-haplogroup in two geographically very distant peoples; Balto-Slavs of Eastern Europe and Indo-Aryans of South Asia. But thanks to ancient DNA, it has now been confirmed that R1a-M417 is an European Steppe lineage which expanded both west and east from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe between 4,600 and 3,500 years ago.

    Interestingly, I’ve found mtDNA haplogroups which correlate very well with R1a-M417; meaning that they either exist in South Asians & Eastern Europeans, or in South Asians & ancient Central and Eastern Europeans rich in R1a-M417, such as the Corded Ware and Srubnaya peoples.

    J1c1b1a: Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Denmark, UK, Spain, Tajik, India. Srubnaya (R1a-Z93), Corded Ware (R1a-M417).
    H2a1a: Russia, Hungary=2, Finland, Britain, Ireland, France, Pathan, Tajik=16, Turkey, Siberia. Eneolithic Ukraine (R1a-M417), Bronze age Scotland, Unetice.
    H5e1: Russia=2, Hungary, Greece, Tajik=3.
    T1a1b: Russia=4, Poland=3, Hungary=2, Iran=2, Turkey, Tajik=4, India. Bronze age Latvia, Sycthian=2.
    N1a1a1a1: Estonia=3, Finland=2, Italy, Turkmen, India=2. Sintashta, Sycthian, Sarmatian.
    K2a5: Estonia, Ireland, Iran, Sindhi, Pathan, India. Corded Ware Germany, Corded Ware Sweden.
    U4b2: Russia, Ukraine, Sweden, Spain, Burosho, Tajik, India.
    U4b1a4: Kalash, Tajik, Iran, Siberia=3. Catacomb, Sycthian.
    U2e1h: Kalash=3, Tajik=8, Siberia, Italy. Sintashta, Potapovka

    The most important mt-HGs here are U2e1h, H2a1a, U4b1a4, T1a1b, and N1a1a1a1. They directly link modern Indo-Iranian speakers in Asia with Eneolithic/Bronze age Eastern Europeans generally considered by historical linguists and archaeologists to be Proto-Indo-European- or Proto-Indo-Iranian-speakers (i.e. Sintashta and Potapovka).

    When I put all of this data together, and saw the undeniable links between modern-day Indo-Iranian speakers and Eneolithic/Bronze Age Eastern Europeans, I was amazed. The results confirmed to me, beyond any doubt, that the ancient migrations from the western Steppe deep into Asia long hypothesized by historical linguists and archaeologists did happen. Indo-Iranian languages really did originate in Eastern Europe, probably in what is now Ukraine, then took the long journey all the way to the Indian Subcontinent.

    Case in point: ancient DNA sample I6561. That’s his lab ID, but he’s a man who died in what is now Ukraine ~5,500 years ago. He belonged to Y-HG R1a-M417 and mt-HG H2a1a. Today H2a1a is most common in the Tajik people of South Central Asia. The most common Y-HG in Tajiks, and many of their neighbors, such as Pashtuns, Kalasha, northern Indians, etc. is R1a-M417.

    All of the evidence suggests that Mr. I6561 belonged to a PIE community whose descendants would go on to settle lands that stretch all the way from modern-day Norway to India. His people are important founders of countless modern ethnic groups; Russians, Czechs, Tajiks, Pashtuns, Indians, and so on. Oh yeah, and also the ancient Scythians, who dominated much of Asia around 500 BC, derived directly from his people. Pretty amazing.

    It’s been known for a while, via archaeological data, that Steppe folk traded with these farmers. But now, thanks to ancient DNA, it’s clear that they exchanged more than just goods. Enneolithic and Bronze Age genomes from what are now Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria show that the Steppe and farmer folks began mixing by at least 4400 BC.

    Hence, when Steppe folk expanded both west and east, they took with them at least a little Anatolian admixture. This is also true for the Steppe folk who went to South Asia. Several of the mt-HGs that I labeled “Steppe” are in fact Anatolian mt-HGs that the Steppe folk acquired through admixture with farmer peoples before their mass migrations. These include mt-HGs H1b1, H5a1, H7b, J1c1b1a, J2b1a, N1a1a1a1, K1b1a1, HV6, and HV9.

    It’s often said, in scientific literature as well as on various genetic blogs and forums, that the Steppe folk who moved into South Asia didn’t harbor any Anatolian ancestry. But my mtDNA data easily debunks this claim. South Asians do indeed carry some Anatolian-derived mtDNA which they, in all likelihood, acquired from their Steppe ancestors.

    See also…

    Another look at the genetic structure of Yamnaya

    Ancient herders from the Pontic-Caspian steppe crashed into India: no ifs or buts

    Descendants of ancient European (fair?) maidens in Central Asia’s highlands

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

    Posted by Davidski at 1:49:00 AM 250 comments:

    Polubienie

    • Znacie te dane? Ciekawe, czy Adrian Leszczyński zna te dane? Pewno nie, bo to nie kroniki. Jeśli ich nie zna, no to może jednak już wie, że TYLKO w kronikach i w umysłach martwych dawno kronikarzy tych danych NA PEWNO nie znajdzie… 😦 Zrobię o tym, co wynika z tej wspomnianej pracy cały następny wpis, bo warto!

      Polubienie

    • Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @DavidskI had to update minor typos in my original comment, sorry about that. This is one comment in which I don’t want typos.

      In light of this new evidence, when are Indian nationalists and Out of India proponents finally going to accept the Aryan INVASION Theory? It certainly was not non-existent or even a peaceful „migration”, whatever that means. It would be interesting to see the look on their faces when the actual data is release by Harvard, hopefully early next month. I would love to see the response of the Indian media. Will it be more of the „colonialist” name calling, or will it be more of a twist of the realities? I cannot say, however, knowing Indian nationalists I think it’s safe to say that the upcoming study will send shockwaves across the Subcontinent. I also hope that European nationalists maintain their composure in regards to the matter once the study is out.

      Once it is finally proven that the Vedic Aryans were not native to India, the majority of Indian nationalists will realize their LARPing for the past few years has been all for not. Here’s just my recap of how things went down in South Asia:

      A population very similar to the archaic Onge people migrates to South Asia and settles down.
      A massive influx of Neolithic Iranian farmers arrive in the Indus Valley River Basin and eventually form one of the first civilizations in world history, and also establish a caste system to separate themselves from the native tribals, who may or may not have been later migrants to the region.
      Vedic Aryans from the Pontic-Caspian steppe migrate to South Asia without making much contact with the BMAC culture, but likely pass through the Ferghana Valley, picking up insignificant amounts of Neolithic Iranian ancestry. They settle in the Swat Valley, and then hear of great cities and vast riches further east. Many of the Vedic Chiefs plan an invasion.
      Utilizing their vastly superior tactics of warfare, characterized by the use of chariots, horses, and weapons made of Bronze, the Vedic Aryans decisively crush a vastly numerically superior army sent by the local elites of the Indus Valley Civilization at the Saraswati River.
      Local elites begin to panic, as now they do not have an army to defend their cities. A meeting in called, and many elites fear for the safety of their cities.
      Vedic Aryans conquer each and every city in the Indus Valley River Basin one by one, enslaving and massacring a great many civilians in the process.
      Content with their spoils, the Vedic Aryans settle down and establish the Hindu Caste System, and formulate a series of hymns commemorating their triumphs against their enemies, the Dasyu.
      These hymns will become known as the Vedas.

      Fast forward to today, and you have „Indian” nationalists vehemently rejecting the existence of these great and majestic peoples, and claiming their legacy for themselves.
      January 27, 2018 at 3:07 AM

      supernord said…
      This „Steppe people” most likely moved to South Asia is not directly from the steppe, but from Central Europe of CWC. Farmers mtDNA is thence.
      January 27, 2018 at 3:10 AM

      Anthro Survey said…
      @Supernord I agree. CWC horizon is probably where the migration process originated. Along the way, I do think they mixed with some steppe-like folks in modern Russia and/or Kazakhstan to more closely resemble the Srubna outlier or Eneolithic Samara 434. This probably diluted, but did not eliminate their EEF ancestry. Even if it did, the mtDNA lineages Sam highlighted would still be a relic of CWC origins.
      January 27, 2018 at 5:09 AM

      Polubienie

    • aniasi said…
      What I am curious about is the near absence of Proto-Indo-Iranian MtDNA in South Asia itself. The Kalash are probably more South Central Asian, but they seem to be a reversed situation of only 20% r1a, and 70% pre-Bronze age Ydna markers, with nearly 100% West Eurasian mtdna markers. Something happened between the highlands and the plains, and it may explain why the Indo Aryans and the Kalash look like a complete flip in Ydna & Mtdna

      @Davidski, do you remember a paper you posted on a secondary wave of Paleolithic migration to India? There were a number of West Eurasian mtdna lineages (HV was one) found in a small number of Dravidian speaking women.

      @ShahofAttilaTotalWar Where did you get any of that from? None of that is in the Rig Veda, nor is it supported by the archaeological record.

      1) „Vedic Aryans from the Pontic-Caspian steppe migrate to South Asia without making much contact with the BMAC culture, but likely pass through the Ferghana Valley, picking up insignificant amounts of Neolithic Iranian ancestry. They settle in the Swat Valley, and then hear of great cities and vast riches further east. Many of the Vedic Chiefs plan an invasion. ”

      Where is the evidence for that? The cities of the IVC were already in decline, and the Cemetery H culture indicates an attempted continuation by a far less wealthy populations. Also the Rg Veda points to a society that was constantly at war with its own. We don’t have any indication of a Temujin, Alaric, Attila/Rugila figure who was able to unite the Vedic chiefs for a concerted effort.

      2) „Utilizing their vastly superior tactics of warfare, characterized by the use of chariots, horses, and weapons made of Bronze, the Vedic Aryans decisively crush a vastly numerically superior army sent by the local elites of the Indus Valley Civilization at the Saraswati River.”

      You’ve been playing too much Total War. There isn’t a shred of evidence for this. Battlefield remains? IVC texts?

      3)”Local elites begin to panic, as now they do not have an army to defend their cities. A meeting in called, and many elites fear for the safety of their cities.

      Vedic Aryans conquer each and every city in the Indus Valley River Basin one by one, enslaving and massacring a great many civilians in the process.
      Content with their spoils, the Vedic Aryans settle down and establish the Hindu Caste System, and formulate a series of hymns commemorating their triumphs against their enemies, the Dasyu. ”

      Where are you inventing this stuff? It doesn’t correspond to any historic parallels. The IVC cities show no signs of violent overthrow, and the Swat Valley Culture doesn’t have any booty, spoils, or loot. Unlike Crete, there are no signs of burn marks characteristic of an invasion, large numbers of unburied dead bodies, or even graves piled with the booty you describe.

      Finally, the Dasyu are Central Asian. The cognates are found only there (Dahi, Daha, Dahae) in everything from the term for man to the names of actual groups. The circular forts of the Dasyu, as per the RV, do not match any IVC sites.

      I don’t like Indian Nationalists making things up, but this is little better than the fantasies of flying chariots spreading „Vedic science” to Europe.
      January 27, 2018 at 7:15 AM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      @Alberto, „I ask this because if you lack those samples, how can you draw those conclusions? Is there any reason why some of those mtHGs can’t be found in that area before any steppe admixture could happen? If, say, T1a1b or N1a1a1a1 (or any other of those „important” ones) appear in any of the places mentioned above by 2500-4000 BCE. Not possible? ”

      Yes, it is impossible. For someone to argue these mHGs existed in SC Asia before IE-invasion would be like arguing R1a M417 existed in SC Asia before IE-invasion. It’s really just special pleading.

      Most of the mtDNA links between SC Asia and ancient/modern Europe are fairly young and belong to mHGs which are apart of bigger families that are rooted in Europe such as U4 & U5a1. There’s no evidence in modern mtDNA of an old presence of U5a1 or U4 in SC Asia yet they have a alot of it and in many of the same forms found in Europe.

      Also I found two mHGs which today are exclusive to Asia and also found ancient eastern Europe; U2e1h & U4b1a4.

      U2e1h: Kalash=3, Tajik=8, Siberia, Italy. Sintashta, Potapovka
      U4b1a4: Kalash, Tajik, Iran, Siberia=3. Catacomb, Sycthian.

      How could anyone explain that away?
      January 27, 2018 at 12:14 PM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      I used to be *slightly* skeptical of the Kurgan narrative on the origins of Indo Iranian languages. After looking at SC Asian mtDNA, especially Tajik mtDNA, in the last week it was like someone shoved it right in my space. This isn’t just an explanation we have come up with in the present day this is something which literally did happen 3,000 or whatever years ago. There’s ifs ands or buts. It’s pretty obvious this thing really happened. There were people similar to Andronovo who moved en masse down into Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India. The links between some SC Asians and ancient eastern Europeans leaves no other alternative. And it is no coincidence that the Myceneans harbordered some Steppe ancestry but the Minoans didn’t. „Steppe folk” were the Proto-Indo Europeans.
      January 27, 2018 at 12:23 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Samuel Andrews Why don’t you just call them Aryans? No need to use modern terms like „Proto-Indo-European” and „Steppe folk” to describe them.
      January 27, 2018 at 12:39 PM

      Polubienie

    • Samuel Andrews said…
      Alberto, sorry for being so dogmatic in my last post. Still working on expressing an opinion without sufficating people with it.

      Anyways, has anyone noticed the significance of the Ukraine HG mtDNA to the origins of Steppe mtDNA?

      Let me lay it out……

      The Ukraine HGs belonged primary to two lineages; U4b1 & U5a1b. Neither of those lineages have popped up, at a significant frequency, in anyother European HGs.

      Today, U4b1a and U4b1b, exist in all the usually Steppe ancestry, IE hotspots. Europe, iran, Siberia, SC Asia. In all those place you find many of the same very young forms of U4b1 especially U4b1a1a1 & U4b1b1.

      Like how mHG H1 in different European populations is similar, mHG U4b1 all over the world is similar. Just looking at modern mtDNA I can see Iran, Siberia, Europe all got their U4b1 from a related and relativly recent source.

      That source is the Ukraine HGs. They fit the bill perfectly. They lived 7,000-8,000 years ago. Probably like 20% of them belonged to the same forms of U4b1 that are all over Eurasia (of course very rare) today. 20% is a lot.

      Now let’s look at U5a1b. U5a1b also pops up where ever there is Steppe ancestry. Its subclade U5a1b1 is pretty frequeny in Europe. Like 10% of Northern Bell Beaker folk belonged to U5a1a & U5a1b.

      Point of all this is, Ukraine HGs and their relatives could very well be the source of the U5a1b & U4b1 seen later in Steppe folk. U4a1, U4a2, U4c1 & U5a1a likely descend from different HGs.
      January 27, 2018 at 12:45 PM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      @Shah, „@Samuel Andrews Why don’t you just call them Aryans? No need to use modern terms like „Proto-Indo-European” and „Steppe folk” to describe them.”

      Cuz the name Aryan only applies to the ones who went to India. Even if Aryan applied I’d use the term Indo-Aryan to be safe. Not because I’m PC but because for good reason in our culture the word Aryan has a different meaning. It means uber white race who euphemizes all the inferior people. I want to stay far away from that. World War two happened only 3 generations ago brodog.
      January 27, 2018 at 12:49 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Samuel Andrews No, I was referring to the ones who went to India and Iran, not all of them, obviously. Sorry, I was not clearer before.
      January 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      @Shah, Even in that case I might not use the word Aryan. Lots of my customers don’t know the word Aryan refers to an actual people group from the Eurasian Steps who moved into India & Iran in the Bronze age. Lots of people think it means Master German race.

      In this recent post, this wasn’t an issue because I didn’t have a reason to make direct reference to the Aryans. If I did have a reason maybe I’d say Aryan but probably not.
      January 27, 2018 at 1:27 PM

      Nathan said…
      „Typical European haplogroups such as U5a1a1, H2a1, T1a1, H5a1, H6a1, J1b1a1, J2b1a, H7b, etc. consistently pop up in every South Central Asian population.”

      More proof that I.E. speaking Steppe herders colonized South Asia; not that any reasonable person needed more proof. Unsurprising that Tajiks, who are far less ASI than South Asian populations, show greater frequency of Steppe MtDna. The major (MtDna) M clades present in South Asian populations is not found in Europe. Pretty dam telling!
      January 27, 2018 at 2:22 PM

      74d9d9b8-55ef-11e7-bd4d-43c094282792 said…
      @Sam Andrews, It has been known (since atleast 2004) that Kalash Genome (mtDNA and yDNA) includes both Central and South asian characteristics, which is not surprising. Without ancient DNA, it is a stretch to assume EEF admixture is conclusive based on a few shared mtDNA (which then brings the question about why the PIE people traveled from Eastern Europe with men and now women all the way to South Asia in an „invasion” if it did happen). We should note that NE mtDNA haplogroups such as C4a and D are shared as well, along with yDNA Q, which all only comes together in Central Asia and well before the Bronze age. Hence I am still swayed towards an Out of Central Asia migration to the west and south. Neither OEE nor OIT makes logical sense. Can you publish an mtDNA tree based on the FMS data that you have gathered?
      January 27, 2018 at 2:48 PM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      All of you should subscribe to my blog to stay in the know-how of the mtDNA subsection of genetics.
      http://mtdnawiki.com/
      Click on the sidebar. At the bottom just type in your email and then you’ll get an email notification every time I make a new post.
      January 27, 2018 at 2:55 PM

      Polubienie

    • Nathan said…
      Shahanshah of Persia I agree it was not a peaceful ‚migration’. Western indologists are pushing this „Migration” lie, because of Political Correctness, pressure from Indian nationalists, fear of being branded racists and fear of being blamed for communal unrest between castes and between those who self identify as Aryans and Dravidians. The Indian government has been trying to genocide Dravidian culture ever since independence, by trying to impose Hindi on the South. That’s why it should be termed Aryan Colonization Theory. AMT implies a passive introgression of Aryans into South Asia.

      Aryan intrusion into South Asia would been a gradual process that featured significant assimilation and adoption of native culture and peoples, but also punctuated with violence against the natives. The retroflexion in Sanskrit has been explained as native speaking adopting Sanskrit.

      In the Americas, the Europeans fought the natives, but they (various European powers) also allied with Native tribes against other Europeans. I imagine something similar happened in South Asia; a complexion mix of violence,colonization and assimilation.
      January 27, 2018 at 2:56 PM

      Davidski said…
      @74d9d9b8-55ef-11e7-bd4d-43c094282792

      We should note that NE mtDNA haplogroups such as C4a and D are shared as well, along with yDNA Q, which all only comes together in Central Asia and well before the Bronze age.

      They came in dribs and drabs over thousands of years and had nothing directly to do with the Indo-European expansions.

      Hence I am still swayed towards an Out of Central Asia migration to the west and south.

      Then how do you explain the widespread presence of young Eastern European-derived lineages in Central and South Asia, like those derived from Ukrainian foragers and farmers? If your Out of Central Asia fantasy was true, wouldn’t you expect to see young Central Asian-derived lineages in all over Europe? How hard is it to be objective with the data and accept reality?
      January 27, 2018 at 3:10 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Nathan I agree with your assessment there, as you have summed up the situation perfectly. Unfortunately for Indian nationalists now they will have to deal with the possibility that there were two major invasions/migrations of India. They have been always upset about the Aryan Invasion Theory, well now they will be even more upset and angry since the data will also prove a Dravidian invasion/migration, which saw the arrival of Neolithic Iranian farmers to the Indus Valley River Basin, and the establishment of the Indus Valley Civilization. Though, in this case I think it was a migration and not an invasion. Nonetheless, my understanding is that the Aryans most certainly did invade India and it was fairly bloody, and later on they began colonizing further inland. Unfortunately for Indian nationalists, it seems that neither the Indus Valley Civilization, nor the Vedic Civilization, were native to India, as one came from Iran, and the other from Europe, basically.

      Both Dravidians and Aryans are invaders of South Asia, and Indian nationalists need to recognize this fact. I hope they do soon enough. I still prefer the term Aryan Invasion to Aryan Colonization because it was initially the very bloody invasion. Also, assimilation was always difficult, especially since both the Aryans and Dravidians created strict caste systems to segregate themselves from the native Tribal population. So, to recap:

      There was not one but two invasions/migrations into India.
      The first one resulted in the emergence of the Indus Valley Civilization.
      The second one resulted in the emergence of the Vedic Civilization.

      So, to conclude, NEITHER, the Indus Valley Civilization NOR the Vedic Civilization were native to India. No IFS or BUTS!
      January 27, 2018 at 4:02 PM

      Mike the Jedi said…
      @Shahanshah of Persia „I cannot say, however, knowing Indian nationalists I think it’s safe to say that the upcoming study will send shockwaves across the Subcontinent.”

      They’ll have to get over it. Nobody’s ancestors just sprang from the soil their ethnicity now occupies. All peoples are descended of migrants. And it’s something that should be celebrated, not feared.

      „Fast forward to today, and you have „Indian” nationalists vehemently rejecting the existence of these great and majestic peoples, and claiming their legacy for themselves.”

      Why shouldn’t they? They’re the Indo-Aryans’ descendants, and the heirs to the culture they brought to South Asia.

      „I also hope that European nationalists maintain their composure in regards to the matter once the study is out.”

      Who cares what they think? They’re cousins to the Indo-Aryans, not their descendants. Any pretensions they might have to India are patently ridiculous. Do Swedes have a right to claim Italian or Greek culture because they have more steppe ancestry than the people living there now? Of course not.

      „Why don’t you just call them Aryans? No need to use modern terms like „Proto-Indo-European” and „Steppe folk” to describe them.”

      That’s a bad idea for obvious reasons. That word should be reserved for Indo-Iranians (and Indo-Aryans in particular). Using it another way sounds dated. Some linguists thought so even in the 30s. When the Nazis asked Tolkien if he had any Aryan blood, he snarkily replied that he had no Iranian or Indian ancestors that he knew of. So we don’t use „Proto-Indo-European” just because it’s „PC”; we use it because it’s better usage than applying a term associated with a very specific IE culture to Proto-IE.

      Japhetic is another stupid term for IE that thankfully is no longer used. Hamitic disappeared because the family was proven invalid. Too bad „Semitic” wasn’t replaced in turn with something less… biblical.
      January 27, 2018 at 4:51 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Vara Very amusing… Anyway, anything I have said is more credible than you and your Out of Iran fallacies. I am sure David would agree.

      @Mike the Jedi „They’ll have to get over it. Nobody’s ancestors just sprang from the soil their ethnicity now occupies. All peoples are descended of migrants. And it’s something that should be celebrated, not feared.”

      Yeah, agreed!

      „Why shouldn’t they? They’re the Indo-Aryans’ descendants, and the heirs to the culture they brought to South Asia.”

      Exactly, you are on point. I have always stressed that the South Asian Upper Castes are the true inheritors of Vedic Civilization, no doubt. My only problem here is that Indian nationalists are rejecting the existence of their ancestors, so then why should they claim Vedic heritage, if they cannot recognize the people who brought it with them?

      „Who cares what they think? They’re cousins to the Indo-Aryans, not their descendants. Any pretensions they might have to India are patently ridiculous. Do Swedes have a right to claim Italian or Greek culture because they have more steppe ancestry than the people living there now? Of course not.”

      Yeah, I definitely agree with you. This is an excellent point you have made. All of these civilizations emerged in the places in which they did due to blending of cultures and civilizations, not due to the amount of Steppe admixture the invaders had. I have always pointed out this reality. I despise those types of people who lay claim to the heritage and civilization of others.

      „That’s a bad idea for obvious reasons. That word should be reserved for Indo-Iranians (and Indo-Aryans in particular). Using it another way sounds dated. Some linguists thought so even in the 30s. When the Nazis asked Tolkien if he had any Aryan blood, he snarkily replied that he had no Iranian or Indian ancestors that he knew of. So we don’t use „Proto-Indo-European” just because it’s „PC”; we use it because it’s better usage than applying a term associated with a very specific IE culture to Proto-IE.”

      Yeah, good point! I definitely agree with you here.

      „Japhetic is another stupid term for IE that thankfully is no longer used. Hamitic disappeared because the family was proven invalid. Too bad „Semitic” wasn’t replaced in turn with something less… biblical.”

      I guess Semitic makes sense in a cultural, linguistic, and religious sense.
      January 27, 2018 at 5:10 PM

      Nathan said…
      @Mike the Jedi „Why shouldn’t they? They’re the Indo-Aryans’ descendants, and the heirs to the culture they brought to South Asia.”

      These Indian nationalist ideologues who concoct OIT and other lies, are predominantly from the upper castes (especially Brahmins). They want to claim Aryans are indigenous, partly because doing so allows them to claim their Aryan ancestors built the Indus Valley Civilization, and everything Hinduism is Aryan. Because Hinduism’s roots obviously goes back to IVC and pre-Aryan religion.

      Before IVC was fully excavated and people became aware of its age and what it was, European intellectuals who studied Indian history credited Hinduism and Indian civilization to the Aryans. Europeans just assumed that anything resembling civilization and high culture could only have been created by Aryans because pre-Aryan South Asians were savages, incapable of creating civilization.

      When the Rig Veda was translated, and it spoke of Indra slaying dark-skinned people living in cities, Europeans at the time dismissed such accounts as not being credible, because they could not fathom the dark-skinned natives were civilized long before the Aryans. When IVC was unearthed and it dawned on everyone that this was a Civilization that preceded the Aryans and could very well be the cities mentioned in the Rigveda, Europeans grudgingly accepted they were wrong to think Aryans were the civilizers.

      So Indian history went from giving Aryans the credit for everything to admitting that non-Aryans created cities and developed much of what we know as Hinduism. The Hindutva/OIT proponents want to turn the clock back and give Aryans the credit for everything, including the IVC.

      So who is the real racists here ! OIT proponents and those South Asians claiming Aryans built the IVC routinely accuse AMT/AIT proponents of Eurocentrism and racism, when the reality is that OIT proponents are the ones pushing racist revisionism, to glorify the Aryans as bringers of civilization and the natives as uncivilized.

      Claiming Aryans were responsible for IVC is no different to White Nationalists claiming Europeans built Sumer , Ancient Egypt and Mesoamerican civilizations. Brahmins and other upper-castes claiming Aryans built IVC = We wuz Priest Kangz and Sheet !
      January 27, 2018 at 6:06 PM

      Rob said…
      @ Shah „Yeah, I definitely agree with you. This is an excellent point you have made. All of these civilizations emerged in the places in which they did due to blending of cultures and civilizations, not due to the amount of Steppe admixture the invaders had. I have always pointed out this reality. I despise those types of people who lay claim to the heritage and civilization of others. ”

      Ha ! „Even if the Greek results do not show much change in the later eras, it won’t change the reality that the origin of Greek culture was on the Steppes, not in Greece.’
      „http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.id/2017/12/corded-ware-as-offshoot-of-hungarian.html”
      January 27, 2018 at 6:07 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Nathan „These Indian nationalist ideologues who concoct OIT and other lies, are predominantly from the upper castes (especially Brahmins). They want to claim Aryans are indigenous, partly because doing so allows them to claim their Aryan ancestors built the Indus Valley Civilization, and everything Hinduism is Aryan. Because Hinduism’s roots obviously goes back to IVC and pre-Aryan religion.”

      Yes, you are on point!

      „Before IVC was fully excavated and people became aware of its age and what it was, European intellectuals who studied Indian history credited Hinduism and Indian civilization to the Aryans. Europeans just assumed that anything resembling civilization and high culture could only have been created by Aryans because pre-Aryan South Asians were savages, incapable of creating civilization.”

      Unfortunately, yes. The Indus Valley Civilization was much more advanced than the Aryans were, initially, but by the time the Aryans arrived the IVC was in decline due to many factors, chief among which was the drying up of rivers and the arrival of Onge-like peoples from further east, which caused social and cultural destabilization.

      „When the Rig Veda was translated, and it spoke of Indra slaying dark-skinned people living in cities, Europeans at the time dismissed such accounts as not being credible, because they could not fathom the dark-skinned natives were civilized long before the Aryans. When IVC was unearthed and it dawned on everyone that this was a Civilization that preceded the Aryans and could very well be the cities mentioned in the Rigveda, Europeans grudgingly accepted they were wrong to think Aryans were the civilizers.”

      Yeah, they were ultimately proven wrong. Though, they may have been partially correct, if you know what I mean.

      „So Indian history went from giving Aryans the credit for everything to admitting that non-Aryans created cities and developed much of what we know as Hinduism. The Hindutva/OIT proponents want to turn the clock back and give Aryans the credit for everything, including the IVC.”

      Yeah, lol!

      „So who is the real racists here ! OIT proponents and those South Asians claiming Aryans built the IVC routinely accuse AMT/AIT proponents of Eurocentrism and racism, when the reality is that OIT proponents are the ones pushing racist revisionism, to glorify the Aryans as bringers of civilization and the natives as uncivilized.”

      Great point!

      „Claiming Aryans were responsible for IVC is no different to White Nationalists claiming Europeans built Sumer , Ancient Egypt and Mesoamerican civilizations.”

      White nationalists are a deluded bunch who are think that Europeans built ancient Iranian and Indian civilizations. They also claim the BMAC, and IVC as well, a quite few many of them.

      @Rob Yes, of course. All I wanted to say was that Greek culture had influences from the pre-existing Minoan civilization.

      Obviously, Greek civilization, Iranian civilization, Indian civilization, all had their roots ultimately on the Steppes.

      By the way, you are just jealous that Iranians are 90 to 95% similar to Iron Age Iranians. I suggest you stick to Southern Europe since you are always trying to promote that EEF were some sort of master race. Admit it, you Greeks are admixed with Slavic invaders. For once I say something in your favour and you reply by smirking at me? Not cool!
      January 27, 2018 at 6:24 PM

      Nirjhar007 said…
      While enjoying the circus here , which’s star performer I think have great direct experience . Let me clearly point here, that there are tragic misconceptions regarding the concept of Arya and regarding the origin of the term . I am sure it will be helpful if some people take a look at this post : https://new-indology.blogspot.in/2017/01/the-term-aryan-and-its-semitic-cognates.html
      January 27, 2018 at 8:52 PM

      Bob Floy said…
      @nirjhar I think most of us here probably know that the Nazi „Aryan” concept is incorrect.
      January 27, 2018 at 9:18 PM

      Polubienie

    • Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Nirjhar007 No one is debating what Arya actually means, what we are debating is whether or not the people who called themselves originated from India or not. So far, it seems that they arrived sometime during the Bronze Age, see here: http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2017/10/best-of-davidski-on-south-asian.html

      @Alberto Sintashta-like admixture is barely found in South Asia.
      January 27, 2018 at 9:30 PM

      Nirjhar007 said…
      bob, The post is about the concept of Arya + regarding the origin of the term in whole ….
      January 27, 2018 at 9:42 PM

      postneo said…
      @sandrews Anatolia is much closer to South Asia vs Ukraine/southern Russia. Since mtdna diffuses very broadly the small mtdna connections between S Asia and Anatolia cannot exclusively be via steppe. Also we have 9000 years for such mtdna to diffuse so it could have come from anywhere. mehargarh 7000 bc in Pakistan has been linked with cultures from syria and eastern Anatolia.
      January 27, 2018 at 10:23 PM

      Bob Floy said…
      @nirjhar „The post is about the concept of Arya + regarding the origin of the term in whole ….”
      Yeah, I read it, dosen’t really add anything to the topic at hand, but the author did seem very concerned with debunking the already long debunked idea of a superior, Germanic, Aryan „race”.
      January 27, 2018 at 11:07 PM

      Davidski said…
      @postneo Anatolia is much closer to South Asia vs Ukraine/southern Russia.

      This is irrelevant, because he’s referring to very specific lineages, not random Anatolian admixture.

      Since mtdna diffuses very broadly the small mtdna connections between S Asia and Anatolia cannot exclusively be via steppe.

      But the lineages that he’s talking about moved into South Asia via the steppe and Central Asia.

      Also we have 9000 years for such mtdna to diffuse so it could have come from anywhere.

      No, they came via the steppe.
      January 27, 2018 at 11:25 PM

      Davidski said…
      OK, please stay on topic. Enough about Aryans and Nazis. The topic is Steppe folk mtDNA and Indo-Iranian, and thus Indo-Aryans, origins.
      January 27, 2018 at 11:32 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @postneo Why did you reply to Davidski by referring to me? Refer to the man straight up if you want an honest answer. Your time is up and your delusions are about to be shattered.

      1. Aryans were not natives of India or the Indian Subcontinent.
      2. Dark skinned Dravidians were mostly pushed south after the Aryan invasion.
      3. South Asian society transitioned from complex urban settlements to mainly rural settlements.
      4. The IVC peoples were not the same as the Vedic Aryans.

      Thus, it then logically follows that all European Y-DNA and MtDNA found in South/Central Asians originated on the Pontic-Caspian Steppes. Now please stop bothering David. Thank you!
      January 28, 2018 at 12:10 AM

      Davidski said…
      @postneo Afanasievo people came from Eastern Europe, you knucklehead.

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQdzRlWXBQaXlnMGc/view?usp=sharing

      January 28, 2018 at 12:13 AM

      Polubienie

    • Samuel Andrews said…
      @posteno, „Anatolia is much closer to South Asia vs Ukraine/southern Russia. Since mtdna diffuses very broadly the small mtdna connections between S Asia and Anatolia cannot exclusively be via steppe”

      The haplogroups I’m talking originated in Europe.From the outside point of view mtDNA looks like a confusing mess where anybody from any background can belong to any haplogroup. The reality is most haplogroups can be found almost anywhere but if you study mtDNA like I have you see there are very real patterns.

      Most Europeans belong to European-specific mHGs….
      http://mtdnawiki.com/2018/01/21/what-is-european-mtdna/

      33% of Tajik(s) belong to Steppe mHGs, most of whom are basically European-specific in their distribution. Several of them are EEF-derived and close approximates to them have been found in Neolithic Europe; H5a1, H7b, J1c1b1a, J2b1a, K1b1a1.

      Other than the EEF-derived Steppe mtDNA Southcentral Asians already carry I see a bunch of other EEF-derived mtDNA. I made a list of them for Tajik and India on my blog post. Here they are again.

      India, Anatolian farmer mtDNA.
      H3g, H5a1, HV6, V2a, J1c1b1a, J1c8a, J1c5, J1c8, K1a1b2a, K2a5, N1a1a1a1.

      Tajik, Anatolian farmer mtDNA.
      H1, H5a1, H5b, H7b, V1a1, K1b1a1, T2b34, J1c2o, J2b1a2a.

      This ain’t no coincidence. It’ll make you laugh if I told you some of the places in Europe where these mHgs are most common. For example there’s a J1c2o founder effect in Denmark and a V1a1 founder effect in Finland. Yet we see each in Tajikistan. It’s for the same reason Tajik(s) have a bunch of the same U5a & U4 lineages found in pre-historic Europe.
      January 28, 2018 at 12:42 AM

      ak2014b said…
      Got back recently from holidays, so belated Happy 2018 to all. So I’m guessing the South Central Asia papers are still not out? On the other hand, I just noticed there’s a mention of a paper about Native Americans, which is just as exciting and which I’m going to have to read. Great work, Sam!

      „Interestingly, I’ve found mtDNA haplogroups which correlate very well with R1a-M417;” (J1c1b1a, H2a1a, H5e1, T1a1b, N1a1a1a1, K2a5, U4b2, U4b1a4, U2e1h)

      „The most important mt-HGs here are U2e1h, H2a1a, U4b1a4, T1a1b, and N1a1a1a1. They directly link modern Indo-Iranian speakers in Asia with Eneolithic/Bronze age Eastern Europeans generally considered by historical linguists and archaeologists to be Proto-Indo-European- or Proto-Indo-Iranian-speakers (i.e. Sintashta and Potapovka).”

      To see how it all breaks down, I had a look at the data from the Palanichamy et al 2015 paper which David had a post about earlier on. That paper covered West-Eurasian mtDNA in modern India and Bangladesh. The total number of their samples was 14198, out of which 492 were from Bangladesh and the rest from India. Of these,

      • U2e1h: 0 samples of U2e1h.

      However, there are a total of 47 samples at U2e or under, none from Bangladesh.
      Of these, 22 are U2e and are mostly marked South India, Middle-Caste and Dravidian speaking.
      There’s 7 x U2e1, mostly in North India („Uttar Pradesh”).
      1 x U2e1a1, middle caste, Dravidian speaking from South India.
      There’s 10 x U2e1b, mostly South India.
      There’s 2 x U2e3 and 5 x U2e3b mostly from North India.

      • H2a1a: 2 samples, 0 from Bangladesh. Of these, one is marked Muslim from South India and one is Tibeto-Burman speaking from Northeast India.
      • U4b1a4: 0 samples.

      • T1a1b: 1 sample under T1a1b. It is T1a1b1, and is marked North India, Upper-Caste, Indo-European.

      • N1a1a1a1: 4 samples, none from Bangladesh. One is marked as South India, Tribe, Indo-European speaker. The remaining 3 are marked as Muslim, one from South India, the other 2 from East India.
        Since N1a1a1a1 appears to be associated with Muslims, could this finally be an indicator of Turkic presence arriving from Central Asia to South Asia, bearing a maternal steppe line?

      • J1c1b1a: 1 sample. Marked South India, Middle-Caste, Dravidian.

      • H5e1: 0 samples. No samples H5 or under.

      • 2 x K2a5. Both marked South India, Dravidian. One marked Middle-Caste, one Upper-Caste.

      • 1 x U4b2. Marked Tibeto-Burman, Tribe, Northeast India „Ladakh”.
        (There is only a single sample at or under U4b. It is U4b2 in a Tibeto-Burman speaker, marked Tribe from „Ladakh”.)

      All in all, of the mtDNA Hgs identified, that comes to 11 matching samples in India and 0 in Bangladesh, out of the paper’s pool of 14198 samples. But only 2 of these matches were found in Upper-Caste individuals (one Dravidian by language affiliation and the other Indo-European).
      January 28, 2018 at 1:01 AM

      ak2014b said…
      I’ve now also quickly gone through the Pakistan mtDNA papers I was able to find earlier. These cover the population groups Makrani, Saraiki, Sindh and 3 papers on Pathans. The papers are Siddiqi et al 2014, Hayat et al 2014, Shahzad Bhatti et al 2016. And for Pathans, a different paper by Shahzad Bhatti et al 2016, Rakha et al 2010, Tabassum et al 2016. Between them, the total number of Pakistan samples comes to 795, which is what the following are out of.

      • U2e1h: 2 samples, both found in Pathans.
      • K2a5: 1 sample. Pathan.

      But 0 samples of any of H2a1a, U4b1a4, T1a1b, N1a1a1a1 (there is however a N1a1a1a in a Pathan sample, if relevant), J1c1b1a, H5e1, U4b2.
      (On earlier Eurogenes posts, I’d already gone over the more general H2a/H2a1 in these papers’ Pakistan samples in some comments)

      So 3 samples from Pakistan out of a total of 795 samples matched those steppe mtDNAs. All 3 matches moreover were found in Pathans.
      January 28, 2018 at 1:04 AM

      ak2014b said…
      14 matches out of almost 15,000 combined samples from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh (actually 0 matches from Bangladesh) feels underwhelming, being just around 0.09%. Far under a percent. But if the steppe hasn’t made anything of an impact on the mtDNA of the region, the expectation was anyways always of a male dominated invasion rather than a proper folk movement. (Presumably, only tiny numbers of women were brought along from the steppe, though it’d be interesting if it turns out that some steppe lineages only first entered the region with the Turkic-Mongols, the Moghuls, instead, for example.) Once the South Asia papers come out, we may expect from the aDNA papers and the extensive discussions from past years that the Y and autosomal impact on the region will be very notable, quite contrastive to the disappointing paucity of steppe mtDNA in the same area.
      January 28, 2018 at 2:05 AM

      ak2014b said…
      @David What part, David? All I said was that despite the mtDNA impact being underwhelming (underwhelming for me personally, then), the actual expectation remains that the steppe would have heavily impacted the South (Central) Asia region via a male dominated invasion, and that this should therefore be detectible in the Y instead of mtDNA. The proportion of R1a-M417 in South Asia would be noticeably higher than any of the steppe mtDNA listed. The discussions here and at anthrogenica, and the general papers on Indo European languages and dispersal usually argued for a male dominated invasion of South Asia anyway. And I don’t remember that any of the aDNA papers has specifically refuted that notion yet, to demonstrate that comparable portions of both steppe women and men must have entered South Asia rather than mostly steppe males. So I’m not sure what you find objectionable, as I thought the expectation of a mostly male steppe impact on South Asia is quite in line with what you’ve been arguing for too? If you specifically doubt the numbers, you can easily verify them, as I cited the sources. It’s possible I may have made a mistake in transcribing numbers from the spreadsheets of the papers’ data, or even some error in using basic spreadsheet tools to organise the data content for summarising, but that’s hardly dishonesty on my part. And it’s what the purpose of my citing the papers is for, so that anyone can check my summations of the published data for themselves.If necessary and requested, I could try to locate where I noted down the actual titles of the Pakistan mtDNA papers, instead of just the first author name and year that I already provided for the papers.

      Or maybe you specifically object to my suggestion that Central Asian Moghuls for instance may have introduced N1a1a1a1 to the South Asia region, but I did indicate this to be no more than speculation on my part.

      @Sam
      I merely looked up the mtDNA Hgs you specifically mentioned. Obviously, you’d know exactly which Hgs are relevant. So if there are further steppe specific mtDNA Hgs that you think ought to be considered, I could try looking them up. Or better yet, you may prefer to go through the already mentioned papers’ supplementary data yourself and provide totals for further Hgs worth including.
      January 28, 2018 at 3:48 AM

      Davidski said…
      @Jaydeep ak2014b’s analysis was, at best, limited, and at worst designed to deceive…fools like you and Nirjhar.
      January 28, 2018 at 4:30 AM

      Alberto said…
      @ak2014b Thanks for taking the time to get those numbers. Appreciated. As Samuel said, the mHGs quoted by Davidski above are just a subset of the ones he considers to be from the steppe. In his blog (linked above) he has a complete (?) list. Still, the discrepancy is quite big, because if you include all the others you might get 3x or even 5x more matches, but that would still be <0.5%, so there must be a mistake somewhere (or maybe not, and the matches will go >50x up?).

      @Samuel Regardless of the discrepancy in those figures, one other question. Where do you think that the non-EHG mtDNA from the steppe came from? Shouldn’t it be from a CHG-like population? Again, I ask this for a specific reason. In your blog you have Armenians at 4% steppe mtDNA. That’s a bit low for their supposed Yamnaya admixture (probably 5-10%?), though not too far off. However, apart from the Yamnaya admixture, Armenians have some extra 30-40% CHG admixture. Shouldn’t that make their steppe mtDNA be much higher? Like >30% or so? (IIRC, there was a quite comprehensive study of Armenian mtDNA that showed continuity since the Neolithic (?), so modern drift seems to not be the problem).
      January 28, 2018 at 11:15 AM

      Vrka said…
      @Nirjhar „But it is vital to see the aDNA of vast regions of SC Asia and India first , to determine which clades have what kind of evolution . With that it is not needed to be said again that the subcontinent still needs to be sampled comprehensively , given the population .”

      If you and your friends were searching for the truth, you must have accepted it long ago. Aryan invasion did happen, ’cause modern Indians have R1a-Z93 and steppe admixture, especially IE-speaking upper-caste folks of India. aDNA papers (if not done by biased Indian scientists) may change some details of the Aryan invasion theory, but they certainly won’t turn it upside-down. Even the current data we have is pretty enough to prove that Indo-Aryans came from the steppe, but you don’t really want to find the truth. Out Of India, Out Of Central Asia, Out Of Iran and Out Of Blah Blah are all dead and buried already.
      January 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM

      Vara said…
      @Vrka The dogmatic views of some of you is simply mazing. While the Steppe theory is very solid, why couldn’t the steppe admixture and mtdna have arrived 2nd century BCE with the Indo-Scythians? Steppe folk ruled over South Asia for 800 years. I think it’s very probable that they have left a large impact. So no the current data is not enough to prove anything except that Out of India is dead. And no Out of Caucasus is not dead. Where do you think metallurgy, cattle and kurgans came from?
      January 28, 2018 at 12:47 PM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      @Alberto, „Regardless of the discrepancy in those figures, one other question. Where do you think that the non-EHG mtDNA from the steppe came from?”

      The only EHG mtDNA from the Steppe falls under U5a1 & U4 & U2e1 & K1b2. Everything else is either EEF or CHG.

      „However, apart from the Yamnaya admixture, Armenians have some extra 30-40% CHG admixture. Shouldn’t that make their steppe mtDNA be much higher? Like >30%”

      Logically that makes sense. Steppe folk’s CHG ancestors carried different subclades of the same mHGs as Armenian’s CHG ancetors. It is like how most European-specific mHGs are of EEF origin but rarely ever found in the Middle East even though there’s plenty of EEF-type ancestry in the Middle East. http://mtdnawiki.com/2018/01/21/most-european-mtdna-is-from-neolithic-anatolia/
      January 28, 2018 at 12:49 PM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      @Alberto, Here’s a list of mHGs in Steppe folk I think are of CHG origin……The mtDNA connection between Steppe and Middle East may be less distant than you think.

      H2a1, H6a1, H13a1a, H15a1, U1a1 (?), T1a1, T2n (?), J1b1a1, J2a2b (?), X2e2 (?), W3a1, W3b (?), W6, W4, W1c, I1a1, I3a, I4a

      The mHGs with question marks have not been found ancient Steppe mtDNA. I think they are of Steppe origin because they are typical Middle Eastern mHGs which consistently pop up in Europe.

      H15a1 is really common in Iran, Armenia, and Turkey. It is rare but not unheard of in Europe. It was found in a Yamnaya person from Ukraine. No suprise there.

      J1b is super common in the Middle East. Its phylogeography indicates an origin in Iran. J1b1a1 is simply a Steppe-branch of a larger CHG-lineage which has plenty of other subclades.

      W3a1, W3b, W6, I1 are all very common where ever there is heavy CHG/Iran Neo ancestry. W3a1 & W6 have been found in Yamnaya. I think W3b is of Steppe origin based on modern mtDNA.
      January 28, 2018 at 12:57 PM

      Vrka said…
      @Vara „The dogmatic views of some of you is simply mazing. While the Steppe theory is very solid, why couldn’t the steppe admixture and mtdna have arrived 2nd century BCE with the Indo-Scythians?”

      Ha ha! Indo-Scythians?! How can a small ruling elite leave such a big impact on a big region like India?! (Let’s forget about other stuff such as archaeological, linguistic, and other genetic evidences). You can’t hide your own dogmatism by calling others dogmatic, Vara.

      „And no Out of Caucasus is not dead.”

      We’re talking about the Indo-Iranian homeland. Out of Caucasus is a poor alternative choice for Early Indo-European homeland. Even if the EIE homeland was in the Caucasus, PIE would still be on the steppe and the rest of the story: PIEs started their massive expansions… finally some branch of them ended up in Iran and India. Hmm, it’s still the same thing. Indo-Iranians were way different from the people that you imagine. Try to deal with it.
      January 28, 2018 at 1:26 PM

      Vara said…
      @Vrka „Indo-Scythians?! How can a small ruling elite leave such a big impact on a big region like India?! (Let’s forget about other stuff such as archaeological, linguistic, and other genetic evidences).”

      First of all archaeology isn’t clear on the Indo-Iranians. Let me list the theories on Yaz alone.
      1. It’s the I-I homeland
      2. It’s the Proto-Iranian homeland
      3. It’s the Eastern Iranian homeland

      It isn’t clear with the current data as you think. There’s the BMAC as the PII homeland and now some are saying Indo-Aryans did not go through BMAC. The Indo-Scythian impact wasn’t small. There is a reason the West Iranians renamed the land after them. Also, I’m not saying the Indo-Scythians alone brought all of this. Many steppe folk migrated to South Asia. Indo-Scythians, Kushanites, Hepthalites…etc. Basically 800 years of Steppe rule.

      „You can’t hide your own dogmatism by calling others dogmatic, Vara.”

      I do not have any pre-conceived view on this issue. I said it before that Out of Caucasus, Balkans and Steppes are all plausible theories.

      „We’re talking about the Indo-Iranian homeland.”

      You mentioned Out of India and Out of Central Asia, so I thought you were speaking of PIE. If you’re speaking of Indo-Iranians then you’re contradicting yourself because Andronovo itself lies in Central Asia. Caucasus is the best candidate for Early PIE for it can solve the issue with Anatolian languages.
      January 28, 2018 at 1:52 PM

      aniasi said…
      @ShahTooMuchTotalWar „The fair skinned, light eyed, fair haired Vedic Aryans invaded India and enslaved and massacred much of the dark skinned natives, and forced a great many more to flee further inland and down south. Basically, this whole fair skinned invaders dominating dark skinned natives is too much to hear for Indian nationalists, so they hopelessly craft their own narrative of the dark skinned Indians civilizing and subjugating the fair skinned Europeans. Indians do not like hearing this specific narrative. Hence, they reject the Aryan Invasion Theory, and cook up their own fallacious and absurd arguments to counter this fact and reality. I will say no more.”

      Indian nationalists may be making stuff up, but right here so are you. Your bizarre skin colour obsessions and fantasies are almost making me sympathise with the OIT idiots. On the last South Asian post, you even put down a rape fantasy of „fair skinned chad Aryans humiliating and crushing virgin dark skinned Dravidians”. That statement just bursts with facts and science based evidence.

      There is no evidence for your postulation. This is your own fantasy, with no evidence in archaeology or science, or any fact-based system. It’s racist, creepy, and downright Richard Spencer.

      1) The Yamnaya people were darker than today’s Europeans, dark haired, and dark eyed. They weren’t golden haired and blue eyed.
      https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1316513111

      2) We don’t know what the IVC people looked like. If they were predominantly of Iranian Neolithic descent, then they weren’t too dark. If I remember correctly, the Ganj Dareh woman had one light skinned allele, but was missing another. (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31326)

      Populations change over time, and selection pressures can alter appearance within a given population. As an example, prior to the 20th century, Ashkenazi Jews were stereotyped as being red headed. Obviously this is one trait that has changed within a relatively short period.

      Also, This may shock you, but Aishwarya Rai, Vidya Balan and Tanya Ravichandran are from non-Brahmin Dravidian backgrounds. They are all actresses in a film industry with a light-skin obsession that could make your comments look normal.

      3) There is no archaeological evidence for what you say. No looted and destroyed cities, no mass graves or unburied remains, no evidence for massacres and enslavement, nada. Before you post one of your creepy race fictions, point to actual evidence. I don’t want your claims that „this is what happened” or assertions that it is „clear” as though you were there. I want you to point to a study, or remains, or textual evidence, or a historic parallel.

      The only assertions that do have any evidence are that a) there was a steppe incursion into the Indian Subcontinent b) which resulted in the dominance of the steppe people over the indigenous population, and that c) these people lived in a warrior-based society. We also know that d) lighter skin is more concentrated in the upper castes. Skin colour, however, may be partly due to selectional factors. The Ajanta frescoes from the classical period depict an Indo-Aryan speaking elite that is on the darker end of the Indian spectrum, and certainly not in keeping with today’s preference for light skin.
      January 28, 2018 at 2:07 PM

      Polubienie

    • Rob said…
      The earliest kurgans come from the Farmer steppe border in NW Black Sea as early as 47/4500
      They appear in Caucasus 40-3800 in Majkop-Leylatepe
      January 28, 2018 at 2:08 PM

      Vara said…
      Citations? Is this another Uzboy/Zoroaster Burial thing? There are no Sredny Stog Kurgans. The oldest Kurgans are from Leyla Tepe and Maykop. Did Cattle make it from the Steppes to the Caucasus too? Did metallurgy?
      January 28, 2018 at 2:08 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Davidski https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWkrQQly6xU Nostalgic stuff^

      @Vara I somewhat agree with you for once. Though, I think there’s good reason to believe that the Vedic Aryans/Indo-Aryans did not go through BMAC, since they lack Chacolithic Iranian admixture. For this reason, I highly doubt that the Indo-Aryans went through BMAC, but likely went around it by crossing into South Asia via the Ferghana Valley.

      Yaz was not the Proto-Iranic homeland, but probably the homeland of later West and East Iranic groups such as the Achaemenids, Medes, Sogdians, Bactrians, etc. The Scythians and Sarmatians were pre-BMAC Iranics, and hence lacked any admixture from Iran. Anyway, my understanding here is that the Iranics who entered Iran had a decent amount of Iran Chalcolithic ancestry, around 20 to 30%, but were mostly Steppe MLBA derived (70 to 80%). The Steppe was later diluted over time, probably by the late Achaemenid period. So, I somewhat agree with you here but I do not think that Yaz was the homeland of the Proto-Iranics.

      „The Indo-Scythian impact wasn’t small. There is a reason the West Iranians renamed the land after them. Also, I’m not saying the Indo-Scythians alone brought all of this. Many steppe folk migrated to South Asia. Indo-Scythians, Kushanites, Hepthalites…etc. Basically 800 years of Steppe rule.”

      You are right, but outside of a few tribes and castes, I do not believe that any of these groups had an impact, or they had a limited impact.

      „I do not have any pre-conceived view on this issue. I said it before that Out of Caucasus, Balkans and Steppes are all plausible theories.”

      No, they are as dead as Out of India.

      „You mentioned Out of India and Out of Central Asia, so I thought you were speaking of PIE. If you’re speaking of Indo-Iranians then you’re contradicting yourself because Andronovo itself lies in Central Asia.”

      Anronovo originated on the Steppes, though.

      „Caucasus is the best candidate for Early PIE for it can solve the issue with Anatolian languages.”

      No, it’s not and it cannot.
      January 28, 2018 at 2:09 PM

      Bogdan said…
      @Shah You come across as an immature obnoxious shill. I recommend you settle down. The Vendic idea of a war between light and darkness has nothing to do with skin color. Floods could have more to due with demise/displacement of IVC as “light skinned/eyed” Nomadic Steppe “invaders” whom you rather abnoxiously believe “enslaved” and “massacred” much of the “dark skinned” natives…
      January 28, 2018 at 2:13 PM

      EastPole said…
      @Vara “While the Steppe theory is very solid, why couldn’t the steppe admixture and mtdna have arrived 2nd century BCE with the Indo-Scythians.”

      Because Vedic Sanskrit, the language of Rigveda, is closer to Slavic than it is to Hindi.
      January 28, 2018 at 2:15 PM

      supernord said…
      „And no Out of Caucasus is not dead. Where do you think metallurgy, cattle and kurgans came from?”

      Metallurgy in the steppe comes not from the Caucasus, that’s for sure. When in the Steppe was already the Chalcolithic in the Caucasus comes barely Neolithic. The first metal products in the Caucasus would come through the steppe, they are made of Balkan copper.
      Cattle also can be from East of the Caspian sea or from the West, no only Caucasus. No evidence.
      January 28, 2018 at 2:24 PM

      Bob Floy said…
      @eastpole „Because Vedic Sanskrit, the language of Rigveda, is closer to Slavic than it is to Hindi.”

      And that’s the key to the whole thing for me. Even before the recent revelations regarding m417, there was never really any way to explain this other than some kind of population movement from eastern Europe into south Asia.
      January 28, 2018 at 2:33 PM

      Bob Floy said…
      Population movement in the bronze age, that is. I don’t see how anyone could suggest that the Scythians can explain the situation in India.
      January 28, 2018 at 2:36 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @EastPole @Bob Floy
      No guys, you have it all wrong. Indians brought Sanskrit to Europe which later evolved into the European branches of the Indo-European language family. The reason why Vedic Sanskrit is closer to Slavic than it is to Hindi is because Hindi is a bastardized language created by invading Turks by mixing Persian, Arabic, and Sanskrit. It is not India’s true language.
      January 28, 2018 at 2:39 PM

      supernord said…
      Tree of PIE

      January 28, 2018 at 2:57 PM

      Vara said…
      @supernord I’m assuming you’re talking about the Early PIE candidate, 4200-3600 BCE Khvalnysk. When Khvalynsk were using flint daggers, Maykop 3800 BCE were using bronze swords. It is believed that both Yamnaya and Corded ware’s bronze smithing comes from Maykop. Also, yes cattle and copper could’ve come from the Balkans. One of the reasons why I think Indo-Hittite Out of Balkans is plausible.
      January 28, 2018 at 3:14 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Vara Metallurgy was not invented by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. In fact, it seems like it was adopted by them from their non-Indo-European neighbors. So trying to pinpoint the Proto-Indo-European homeland by looking for a people who were advanced in metallurgy isn’t much of a strategy. In other words, you’ve got quite a circular argument going there: metallurgy was a Proto-Indo-European trait, therefore the Proto-Indo-Europeans must have been a people who were really good at metallurgy, therefore metallurgy was a Proto-Indo-European trait…
      January 28, 2018 at 3:25 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Vara The Indo-Scythian explanation for anything but a minority of the steppe signal in South Asia is very weak. That’s because we have Scythian genomes, and Asian Scythians have a lot of East Asian admixture, which most Indians lack. For your argument to be anywhere near plausible, then the Scythians who invaded India would’ve had to have been like the early Sarmatians from Pokrovka, western Russia, which is extremely unlikely.
      January 28, 2018 at 3:41 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Davidski „The Indo-Scythian explanation for anything but a minority of the steppe signal in South Asia is very weak.”

      Agreed!

      „That’s because we have Scythian genomes, and Asian Scythians have a lot of East Asian admixture, which most Indians lack.”

      Yes, of course. But what if the Asian Scythians were not the ones who invaded India, but rather the European Scythians? Also, was there a difference between the European Scythians, Asian Scythians, and the Scythians from northeastern Iran/Turkmenistan?

      I am not saying that the Scythians had a significant genetic impact on any of the South Asian regions they conquered, but couldn’t they have significantly influenced the formations of some tribes such as the Jats? If not, then where do you think the Jatts get their high steppe from?

      „For your argument to be anywhere near plausible, then the Scythians who invaded India would’ve had to have been like the early Sarmatians from Pokrovka, western Russia, which is extremely unlikely.”

      True, true. But what evidence do we have to say that this was not the case, since the Indo-Scythians and the Sarmatians from Pokrovka were only separated by a few centuries.
      January 28, 2018 at 3:50 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Davidski FYI, I am not saying that the Scythians are responsible for the Steppe ancestry in South Asia, but my argument is that they might have significantly contributed to the Steppe admixture in Rajputs, Jatts, and Gujjars. All of the remaining Steppe in South Asia comes from the Vedic Aryans, undoubtedly.
      January 28, 2018 at 3:52 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      „You ain’t getting many chariots through the Fergana valley, boyo…”
      Hannibal led an entire army, including elephants, across the Alps, what’s to say that the Vedic Aryans did not do the same with their chariots in regards to the Ferghana Valley? They were very ingenuitive people, no doubt. I don’t doubt that they crossed the Ferghana Valley with their chariots.
      January 28, 2018 at 3:56 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Vara „As for the Scythians that migrated to South Asia, they weren’t the Eastern Scythians. They were from around the Syr Darya and Amu Darya.”

      Yeah, unfortunately for you, even those Scythians had East Asian admixture.
      January 28, 2018 at 4:52 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Vara If they migrated then they probably brought their language with them.

      True, and this might explain the rather limited Proto-Indo-European vocabulary related to metallurgy, because metallurgy was probably not a Proto-Indo-European trait.

      https://books.google.com.au/books?id=iNUSDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=cognates+for+metallurgy+in+Indo-European&source=bl&ots=hpBJYpcmxk&sig=gv9XsmYiecrJNdz9iYQ8klCzJ9Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiji8bJ-vvYAhVGgbwKHX0_BOMQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=cognates%20for%20metallurgy%20in%20Indo-European&f=false
      January 28, 2018 at 4:54 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Vara So just for the sake of clarity, you’re proposing the following?

      The Proto-Indo-Europeans were master smiths from Maykop in the Caucasus, and yet they somehow failed to develop a rich vocabulary related to metallurgy, and instead chose to get by with a piss poor vocabulary related to metallurgy. Right?
      January 28, 2018 at 5:11 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Vara It seems that you’re new to the PIE homeland debate. I’ll throw you a bone in that case. Metallurgy is not the key to finding he PIE homeland. Horses are… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_twins
      January 28, 2018 at 5:21 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Davidski You should’ve just linked him this classic: http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2015/08/children-of-divine-twins.html
      January 28, 2018 at 5:28 PM

      Bogdan said…
      I want you all to stop thinking about R1a/R1b and the numerous sub-clade’s as “conqueror/invaders” of “kings and scientists” and more as the derivation (primarily based on mobility) of the world’s first “true entrepreneur’s”, that in many ways had a significant role to homogenize technology, language and customs of disparate ancient cultures up to the more modern age…
      January 28, 2018 at 5:39 PM

      Rob said…
      @ Supernord Shishilna is wrong ? „A series of 14C dates of human bone samples from the Eneolithic Khvalynsk cemetery and similar graves produced an age range of 5500–4700 cal BC (Chernykh et al. 2000; Telegin et al. 2001; Trifonov 2001). However, the 14C dates of the Khvalynsk cemetery were measured on human bones and on river and sea shells (Dentalium, Penctunculus, Unio sp., Viviparus, and Glycymeris) (Agapov et al. 1990; Kirillova and Popov 2005). A large aquatic component in the diet of the local population is shown by the stable isotope values. Thus, the dates obtained for human bone may show an apparent age of 2–3 centuries due to the reservoir effect; they are older than terrestrial samples, which are not affected by this effect. After applying a reservoir effect correction for the steppe Eneolithic period, the time interval for the Caspian steppe Eneolithic population has now changed to 4300–3800 cal BC.”

      @ Davidski „The Proto-Indo-Europeans were master smiths from Maykop in the Caucasus, and yet they somehow failed to develop a rich vocabulary related to metallurgy, and instead chose to get by with a piss poor vocabulary related to metallurgy. Right?”

      And there is no *PIE word for „rider” either; nor is there any solid evidence for horse-riding. Anyhow, can you cite a source for their „piss poor metallurigcal vocab” ? And can you explain why what links late Eneolithic cultural sequences were metals : Majkop Usatavo – Vucedol – Bell Beaker and also to Urals -Sintashta ? Isn;t that the central tene of the existence of the Sintashta settlement ?

      In any case, what we’re looking at is a sequental package of Chalcolithic innovations which were shared in an overlapping manner between putative PIEs and their neighbours, so no simple narrative can be sustained. (eg the supposedly non-IE Majkop have evidence for horses).
      January 28, 2018 at 6:09 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Vara Yamnaya and corded ware had proper metallurgy, so how do you explain it?

      Contacts with non-Indo-European peoples from the Balkans and Caucasus, like Varna and Maykop. No doubt they also acquired a lot of their southern admixture in this way.

      http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/a-plausible-model-for-formation-of.html

      But there’s actually no evidence that Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk or Yamnaya cultures were founded by migrants from Maykop. Seems like pure fantasy on your part.
      January 28, 2018 at 6:16 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Rob And there is no *PIE word for „rider” either; nor is there any solid evidence for horse-riding. I don’t much care when people started riding horses. Never said anything about that here.
      January 28, 2018 at 7:10 PM

      Rob said…
      @ Supernord „Rob, It is worth recalling that in Maykop, too, there is a reservoir effect.”

      Yes there is, and „After applying a reservoir effect correction, we suggest a revision of the interval for the Steppe Majkop population to 3800–3000 cal BC”

      „. I did not read any such statements from Shishlina, they are simply impossible -”

      Well it means that you simply haven’t read the paper. Its online But I’m not a radiocarbon expert, so cant claim who/ what is more accurate. Eg I know Kirilova dated 4900-4200 BC.

      „4300-3800 years is time Dereivka culture, but not Sredniy Stog. Existing Dereivka culture & Khvalynsk culture in one time is impossible.”

      Well that’s a curious date for the Dereivka culture, when the most recent studies suggest later „Dereivka has been attributed to the Middle Eneolithic period (3800/3700–3500/3400 BCE; Rassamakin, 1999: 127–129), with seven new radiocarbon dates supporting this chronological attribution, placing Dereivka between 3700 and 3530 BCE or 3950 and 3530 BCE (Rassamakin & Kaiser, in press).”

      Which is not coincident with Khvalynsk, but a later stage. Indeed, 3800 BC is when Repin is thought to expand from Dnieper-Don further east, and Majkop to parts of the steppe, mostly toward the Don.
      January 29, 2018 at 4:44 AM

      supernord said…
      Rob, „I know Kirilova dated 4900-4200 BC.”

      It is correct. Because diapason is
      Khvalynsk-I АА-12571 5248–5052 cal BC
      Khvalynsk-I УПИ-132 5220–4790 cal BC
      Khvalynsk-I АА-12572 4962–4774 cal BC
      Khvalynsk-II (kurgan 15/35) OxA-4310 5045–4846 cal BC
      Khvalynsk-II (kurgan 21/18) OxA-4314 5025–4816 cal BC
      Khvalynsk-II (kurgan 17/10) OxA-4311 4749–4544 cal BC
      Khvalynsk-II (kurgan 18/24) OxA-4312 4786–4579 cal BC

      „(3800/3700–3500/3400 BCE; Rassamakin, 1999:” Rassamakin is out of date, it’s 20th century. Rassamakin is not use calibration dating. Raasamakin is not authority in this questions.
      January 29, 2018 at 5:14 AM

      Kristiina said…
      @ak2014b Yes, the picture is often more complex than expected. I noticed that N1a1a1a1 has been found in Pazyryk and in four ancient Hungarians and, moreover, in India this haplotype is mostly found in Muslims (3/4), so it is probably of Turkic origin. Similarly, K2a5 which has been identified in two South Indian Dravidians, has been detected in Iron Age Altai in a highly Siberian RISE600 with yDNA Q1a1b-M25, which means that this haplotype may be introduced in the Turkic era. I cannot find any U2e1h in India in the Excel file. However, one of the most frequent U2e haplotypes in India is U2e1b which has been identified in ancient Avars and ancient Hungarians and possibly in the Bronze Age West Siberia.
      January 29, 2018 at 6:57 AM

      ak2014b said…
      @Kristiina Thanks. The possible Turkic connections are interesting. I’ve been tentatively contemplating N1a1a1a1 may be a Turkic (maybe particularly Moghul) introduction to India as well. The Hungarian, Avar and Siberian angle you’ve brought up is interesting too. Are there any historical indications of contact between them and South Asia, or would it be mediated through Turkic-Mongolian groups for this?
      January 29, 2018 at 7:15 AM

      aniasi said…
      @ak2014b The easiest Hungarian, Avar, and Siberian connection would be the Kushans or Hephthalites/Hunas. Of course, they may have arrived earlier as a smaller population underneath the Indo-Scythians.
      January 29, 2018 at 7:24 AM

      Alberto said…
      @ak2014b and @Kristiina Thanks to both for all the data you’ve provided. I understand that mtDNA is a but complicated and besides I’m really not much into it, so I’ll simply thank everyone for the work and not make any judgement about it. The thread is bad enough as it is. Let’s wait for aDNA to tell us the truth and put an end to this. (But unfortunately it’s not only Indian DNA that’s delayed, it’s all of it. Bronze Age Greece, Maykop, Kazakhstan, BMAC, etc, etc… No politics there, just academic’s own pace and agendas. Politicians don’t even know what’s ancient DNA, nor do they care about prehistory, thankfully).
      January 29, 2018 at 10:17 AM

      Kristiina said…
      @ak2014b I have in mind the international trade on the Silk Road and the movement of people across Central Asia that it brings about.

      According to Wikipedia, after the defeat of the Xiongnu, Chinese armies established themselves in Central Asia, initiating the Silk Route as a major avenue of international trade. The Silk Road essentially came into being from the 1st century BCE, following these efforts by China to consolidate a road to the Western world and INDIA. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road#/media/File:Silk_route.jpg)

      The unification of Central Asia and Northern India within Kushan Empire in the 1st to 3rd centuries reinforced the role of the powerful merchants from Bactria and Taxila. In 568 the Byzantine ruler Justin II was greeted by a Sogdian embassy representing Istämi, ruler of the Turkic Khaganate, who formed an alliance with the Byzantines against Khosrow I of the Sasanian Empire that allowed the Byzantines to bypass the Sasanian merchants and trade directly with the Sogdians for purchasing Chinese silk.

      While the Turks were settled in the Ordos region (former territory of the Xiongnu), the Tang government took on the military policy of dominating the central steppe. The Tang dynasty (along with Turkic allies) conquered and subdued Central Asia during the 640s and 650s.

      The Sogdians dominated the East-West trade after the 4th century up to the 8th century. They were the main caravan merchants of Central Asia. Their commercial interests were protected by the resurgent military power of the Göktürks, whose empire has been described as „the joint enterprise of the Ashina clan and the Soghdians” A.V. Dybo noted that „according to historians, the main driving force of the Great Silk Road were not just Sogdians, but the carriers of a mixed Sogdian-Türkic culture that often came from mixed families.”

      The Mongol expansion throughout the Asian continent from around 1207 to 1360 helped bring political stability and re-established the Silk Road (via Karakorum). It also brought an end to the dominance of the Islamic Caliphate over world trade. Because the Mongols came to control the trade routes, trade circulated throughout the region, though they never abandoned their nomadic lifestyle.

      The Mongols conquered India and ruled the country for c. 200 years. The Mughal Empire was founded by Babur (reigned 1526–1530), a Central Asian ruler who was descended from the Turco-Mongol conqueror Timur (the founder of the Timurid Empire) on his father’s side and from Chagatai, the second son of the Mongol ruler Genghis Khan, on his mother’s side. Ousted from his ancestral domains in Central Asia, Babur turned to India to satisfy his ambitions. He established himself in Kabul and then pushed steadily southward into India from Afghanistan through the Khyber Pass.

      With all this, I want to say that there was a trickle of West Eurasian mtDNA to India along the Silk Road for c. 2000 years. Of course, this affected mostly the upper classes and merchants.
      January 29, 2018 at 11:13 AM

      Vara said…
      @Kristiina „With all this, I want to say that there was a trickle of West Eurasian mtDNA to India along the Silk Road for c. 2000 years. Of course, this affected mostly the upper classes and merchants.”

      According to some people here mtDNA only comes during the bronze age. 800 years of East Iranians to South Asia leaves no mtDNA behind.
      January 29, 2018 at 12:09 PM

      Polubienie

  6. http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/paleoeuropeoid-steppe-herder.html

    Paleoeuropeoid (steppe herder) infiltration into South Central Asia during the Bronze Age (Dubova et al. 2016)

    I don’t usually take cranial studies very seriously, mostly because they have a history of being way out of the ballpark. However, Interaction between Steppe and Agricultural Tribes during the Bronze Age: Morphological Aspects by Dubova et al. 2016 is, at the very least, a decent read. A preprint of this paper is freely available at Academia.edu HERE. One day, hopefully in the not too distant future, we’ll see a paper like this based on ancient genomes. And I’m pretty sure that the results won’t look much different. Emphasis is mine:

    Abstract: Here we discuss the results of research conducted on the variability of anthropological features of the populations of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, China, etc., from the Late Stone Age and Bronze Age. A detailed analysis was carried out on 85 craniological series from burial grounds at Gonur and Buston VI (see Table 1). We examined skulls from the steppe, forest-steppe, desert, and semi-desert areas of Central Asia, Ural, Siberia and the North Caucasus. Factor analysis was used to explore the data obtained. Four factors, describing more than 70% of craniological variations, were extracted. The first factor (describing 29.6% of variability) differentiated groups according to the lengthwise sizes of the head and face, mostly taking into consideration cranial breadth, bezygomatic diameter, and orbit width, as well as minimum frontal diameters, upper face and nose heights. The second factor (17.4% of variability) differentiated groups mainly according to facial height, nose and orbit heights. The highest loadings of the third factor, which determined 14.9% of variability, considered important characteristics such as cranial length and breadth, and the fourth factor (10,4% of variability) – nose breadth. As a result, we identified two major anthropological groups: the first comprising North Kazakhstan, South Siberia, Altai, and Ural-Volga, populations with larger latitudinal proportions of the head and face, as well as a smaller width of the forehead, upper face height, and height of the nose; and the second comprising the southern territories, including the majority of the populations of Iran, Pakistan, the Indus valley, and the southern regions of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan as well, who had the opposite combination of features: long and narrow heads, high, narrow faces and noses, and round orbits. The analysis conducted has enabled us to affirm that Southern Turkmenistan manifestations of minimal impurities with regard to anthropological components, which could be linked to pastoral surroundings, were not seen prior to the middle of the 2nd millennium BC.

    New data has shed light on the interaction between the steppe pastoralists and the sedentary farmers. Cranial series from the southern regions of Central Asia, representing populations where the features of agricultural and pastoral cultures are combined (Kokcha III, Buston VI, Karaelematasai, and Patmasai, Djarkutan), have been clearly located between ‘typical’ farmers (Hasanlu, Gonur, Mohendjo Daro, Pakistani Timargarha and Butkara) and series from the territory of Kazakhstan, southern Siberia, and the Volga-Ural region. At the same time, Gonur skulls, from the necropolis situated in and around ruins of early buildings, and the Buston VI series, as well as those from later layers of Tepe Hissar in Iran, have been identified as having large transversal dimensions while maintaining the same height-sizes of traits of subjects uncovered from earlier periods at the same monuments. This might be connected primarily to the general brachicephalization processes manifested at that time. But it is also likely that this was the result of a gradual penetration of groups from the Eurasian Steppe to the south, which was initially random but then became increasingly common with frequent mating between steppe groups and farmers. The term “infiltration” best characterizes this process of mixing. It should be noted that the currently available archaeological materials from Gonur Depe reveal that around such major proto-urban centers (which Gonur was at the end of the 3rd-2nd millennium BC) already by the middle of the 2nd millennium BC herders were indigenous, as evidenced by small settlements of cattle breeders in the vicinity of the city walls (see for example: Hiebert & Moore, 2004; Cattani, 2004). In addition, separate (sporadic) steppe pottery fragments have been unearthed from some areas of the site and its surrounding smaller settlements (Sarianidi & Dubova, 2010, pp. 39-42). However, we must particularly emphasize that at Gonur (i.e., in Southern Turkmenistan) manifestations of minimal impurities in anthropological components, which could be linked to pastoral surroundings, were not seen prior to the middle of the 2nd millennium BC.

    Another important point to bear in mind is that in the southern regions of Central Asia there were no Bronze Age sites (or earlier ones), where the presence of the so-called ‘Protoeuropean’ anthropological type (a massive variant with a large sized head, low and wide face, rectangular orbits, and with a flattening of the upper part of the face) was fixed. This variant has only been described by researchers in the northern regions of Central Asia. The groups with a small proportion of the ‘Paleoeuropeoid’ anthropological component in their composition reached southern regions in the Bronze Age. The most prevalent among them still being the Mediterranean type. Such a situation, of course, leads to an increase in mixed populations (i.e., in later groups including those of the Iron Age) with the characteristics presented in both groups becoming increasingly mixed (e.g. Mediterranean traits).

    Dubova N.A., Junusbayev S.M., Saipov A.B., Interaction between Steppe and Agricultural Tribes during the Bronze Age: Morphological Aspects, Int. Journal of Anthropology – Vol. 31 – n.1-2 – 2016, DOI: 10.14673/IJA2016121026

    See also…

    Ancient herders from the Pontic-Caspian steppe crashed into India: no ifs or buts

    Descendants of ancient European (fair?) maidens in Central Asia’s highlands

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

    Posted by Davidski at 5:39:00 PM 33 comments:

    Polubienie

    • Davidski said…
      According to this paper, the mixing between the steppe herders and local SC Asian farmers started during the Bronze Age. Don’t know how this relates to the so called process of BMACization.
      January 29, 2018 at 6:24 PM

      Nirjhar007 said…
      This study is known for a while now and there is nothing surprising tbh , the possible infiltration of the Proto-Scythians of North to the BMAC area is also natural, if we see the geography and the enviornmental situation . If sites like Yaz represent Avestan horizon , as I have said earlier , they ( Andronovans) were probably mentioned as Tuiryas as opposed to the Airyas .
      January 29, 2018 at 8:24 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Nirjhar007 „This study is known for a while now and there is nothing surprising tbh , the possible infiltration of the Proto-Scythians of North to the BMAC area is also natural, if we see the geography and the enviornmental situation . If sites like Yaz represent Avestan horizon , as I have said earlier , they ( Andronovans) were probably mentioned as Tuiryas as opposed to the Airyas .”

      Sorry, if I said something offensive to you beforehand. From now on, I think all of us should respect each others’ views until the papers are released, though, we shouldn’t make too much speculations. This is a good point you have made (except for the bit on the Andronovans), but anyway, I do not think BMAC directly impacted the Indo-Aryans, as they probably did not stay long enough to pick up some cultural or genetic influences. Probably, most of the foreign admixture in the Vedic Aryans was from the Ferghana Valley, as David has previously stated. It’s well worth waiting and seeing what the upcoming data shows. You don’t have to agree, just sharing my thoughts on the matter.
      January 29, 2018 at 8:34 PM

      Nirjhar007 said…
      Vara, It is interesting that Avesta also mentions Sairimas( Proto-Sarmatian related?) , also fights against for example ”Danu” tribe(As per Gnoli a clan of Tuiryas) , one can find it quite interesting to link it with river names like Don or Danube .The Scythians and Sarmatians etc are the historical Iranian speakers of the steppe .
      January 29, 2018 at 9:13 PM

      Karl_K said…
      Although it seems like science because of all the data and measurements… Not so sure about sweeping conclusions. The statistics are very poor overall with these methods vs. DNA technology.
      January 29, 2018 at 9:37 PM

      Ric Hern said…
      @ Shahanshah of Persia

      Here is something interesting from this study:

      „2nd millennium BC (when the town of Gonur was completely desolated as a result of the cessation of water flows.”

      This tells me that the Pastoralists could have arrived from somewhere else like the Tazabagyab Culture who arrived +-1500 BC at Khwarezm….
      They probably mixed with the remnants of the BMAC population in that area/so.
      January 29, 2018 at 11:08 PM

      Ric Hern said…
      @ Davidski Is it possible that some of the BMAC population migrated towards the Eastern Mountainous areas and displaced Proto-Indo-Aryans who then migrated South into India ? And then Proto-Indo-Iranians filled in the gap left my BMAC migrants in the former BMAC territory ?
      January 29, 2018 at 11:49 PM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Ric Hern „Here is something interesting from this study: „2nd millennium BC (when the town of Gonur was completely desolated as a result of the cessation of water flows.” This tells me that the Pastoralists could have arrived from somewhere else like the Tazabagyab Culture who arrived +-1500 BC at Khwarezm…. They probably mixed with the remnants of the BMAC population in that area/so.”

      Excellent points, and I completely agree with you. Also, keep in mind that Yaz also likely had Iran_Chl influence, so the proto-Indo-Iranians likely were mixed by the time they reached Iran. The question is how much? I would personally say, 20 to 30% Iran Chalcolithic admixture in the early Iranics, and 10 to 20% for the elites. The remainder was undoubtedly entirely Steppe MLBA. They also probably mixed further once they reached Iran, and I suspect the early Median and Achaemenid elites having 50 to 75% steppe admixture with the remaining being Chalcolithic Iranian.

      Also, in reply to your comment directed at David, I’m pretty sure that’s possibly and perhaps it could explain why the Indo-Aryans are Iran Neolithic and Steppe derived but lack Chalcolithic Iranian admixture. I’m fairly certain that they picked up minor Iran Neolithic admixture prior to hitting India. Now the only question is how much? I would say 10 to 15% for the elites, and 20 to 30% for the peasants/lower classes. It’s well worth waiting and seeing what the data has to offer.
      January 30, 2018 at 1:07 AM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Alberto „Yes, please. Try to not forget (again) this self imposed rule.”

      Alright, thanks. I will not forget it. Now that moderation is on indefinitely, there’ll be no need for me to be upset over anything.

      „As a fervorous proponent of the steppe hypothesis, it would be also good to get some background about it. Do you know David Anthony? Try to get familiar with his works, so you can defend your preferred theories with something to back them up. For example, you said:

      „I do not think BMAC directly impacted the Indo-Aryans, as they probably did not stay long enough to pick up some cultural or genetic influences”

      Read a bit about it from David Anthony:

      https://erenow.com/ancient/the-horse-the-wheel-and-language/16.html

      A short excerpt as an example:

      „The language of the Rig Veda contained many traces of its syncretic origins. The deity name Indra and the drug-deity name Soma, the two central elements of the religion of the Rig Veda, were non-Indo-Iranian words borrowed in the contact zone [read BMAC]. […] The Old Indic of the Rig Veda contained at least 383 non—Indo-European words borrowed from a source belonging to a different language family. Alexander Lubotsky has shown that common Indo-Iranian, the parent of both Old Indic and Iranian, probably had already borrowed words from the same non—Indo-European language that later enriched Old Indic. […] Among the fifty-five terms borrowed into common Indo-Iranian were the words for bread (nagna-), ploughshare (sphāra), canal (iavīā), brick (išt(i)a-, camel (Huštra-), ass (khara-) sacrificing priest (ućig-), soma (anću-), and Indra (indra-). The BMAC fortresses and cities are an excellent source for the vocabulary related to irrigation agriculture, bricks, camels, and donkeys; and the phonology of the religious terms is the same, so probably came from the same source. The religious loans suggest a close cultural relationship between some people who spoke common Indo-Iranian and the occupants of the BMAC fortresses.”

      Yes, of course I know David Anthony, and I have read this before. However, the problem with his hypotheses are that firstly, the Indo-Aryans were likely Steppe EMBA derived, not Steppe MLBA, and secondly, they were mostly likely mixed with Neolithic Iranians no Chalcolithic Iranians. Both of these influences were the reverse for the Iranics, and all of this leads me to believe that BMAC itself probably had little influence on the Indo-Aryans, or whatever influence there was, came from a population heavily Neolithic Iranian, probably living in a BMAC offshoot. I agree though, I don’t think they were purely Steppe derived, but the Swat Valley samples shall confirm whatever the realities are. Also, most of his work his hypothetical since we do not have actual BMAC literary evidence.

      „You don’t have to agree with D. Anthony, of course (many people here won’t agree). But you should know those basic concepts of the steppe hypothesis (regarding the Indo-Iranian migration) to refute them when you disagree by providing some technical data (either from your own knowledge of linguistics or by citing respected sources) instead of just throwing ideas without any base. This will make your posts much more relevant and interesting for everyone here and keep the comments section much more readable.”

      True, but I never claimed that the Vedic Aryans had some West Asian admixture, all I said was that they likely lacked BMAC admixture because we don’t detect Iran_Chl admixture in modern Indo-Aryans.
      January 30, 2018 at 1:28 AM

      supernord said…
      IA. Soma, Irn. haoma is not loanword. It is II word, from PIE sewh- „to push”.
      IA. Indra is very the controversial word. Borrowing for him is not proven. The Hittites have a similar hero-snakefighter of Innara, in tune with the Indra. Hero-snakefighter exists only at IE.
      II. uštra „camel, also a buffalo” is derived from PIE. uks- „bull, ox” + suffix -tra.
      January 30, 2018 at 6:26 AM

      Alberto said…
      @Shahansha of Persia „Yes, of course I know David Anthony, and I have read this before. However, the problem with his hypotheses are that firstly, the Indo-Aryans were likely Steppe EMBA derived, not Steppe MLBA, and secondly, they were mostly likely mixed with Neolithic Iranians no Chalcolithic Iranians.”

      See? this is what I mean by throwing ideas without backing them up with any data. Who ever proposed that Steppe_EMBA were Indo-Aryans? That would destroy the steppe hypothesis completely. And how and when did those Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 arrive to South Asia? Route? Dates? Archaeological data supporting it? Linguistic data supporting it? And how did they mix with Iran Neolithics on the way? Time machine? And where’s all the R1b-Z2103 in South Asia?

      Elaborate a credible narrative, with data, quoting sources, with details. I’m interested in your alternative view if you can make it work in a convincing way.
      January 30, 2018 at 8:49 AM

      Shahanshah of Persia said…
      @Alberto No one said that Indo-Aryans were Yamnaya. They were Yamnaya-like/Steppe EMBA, like the Poltavka Steppe MLBA samples. They were not like Sintashta, Andronovo, or Afansievo. See here:

      http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2017/05/through-time-and-space.html

      Well, they certainly did not mix with Chalcolithic Iranians, that’s for certain, as Indo-Aryans lack Chalcolithic Iranian admixture. They probably mixed with Neolithic Iranians in the Ferghana Valley. There were probably still Neolithic Iranians in Central Asia during that time, who avoided admixture with neighbouring populations.
      January 30, 2018 at 1:05 PM

      Vara said…
      @Nirjhar I was wrote a long ass paragraph but my phone didn’t post it. This Iran-Turan part is the most complicated part of the Avesta and in my opinion more complicated than the Avestan homeland. Though, I am gonna say this: never trust the Younger Avesta, especially not the Kayanian part, for it will always mislead people who do not know the minute details of Iranian history and the evolution/devolution of Zoroastrianism.

      As for the mentions of the Sairimas, I am going on off memory here, I think they were only mentioned in the Frawardin Yasht. It isn’t clear when this Yasht was composed. However, my guess is either composed or heavily edited during the Achaemenid era. I base this on the fact that Aredvi Sura Anahita plays a major part in the text. The older form of the name is found in the old Zamyad Yasht, Harahvaiti which is the same as the Indo-Aryan Sarasvaiti.

      The Greeks mentioned that the Persians worshipped Ishtar and called her Mithra. However, some made the connection to Anahita, and I think it is correct based on the similarity of the depiction of Anahita and Ishtar even centuries later. So if you’d like to interpret the Danus as the Danube then king Darius battled the Scythians there. If you’d like I can write more on Turan when I get back to my computer in two days.
      January 30, 2018 at 9:51 PM

      Vara said…
      @Nirjhar No, this is my first time seeing this paper. Anahita is usually linked to Ishtar, though. Either way, I think she’s a Mesopotamian goddess based on the Harahvaiti.

      Harahvaiti and Sarasvaiti are definetly from common Indo-Iranian. Not only do they have a common root but they are almost the same river. Both flow from a mountain and into a sea/lake. The early Rigvedic and the older parts of the Younger Avesta share the same rivers. You have the Haroyu/Saroyu rivers west of the Harahvaiti. I think the split between Indo-Aryans and Iranians occured in Afghanistan based on the similarity between the rivers and what Alberto quoted. The Avestan homeland being west of the Harahvaiti and the Vedic east of it. Based on scripture one could say Avestan homeland is Eastern Iran and Farsiwan Afghanistan and Vedic homeland is Pashtun Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Btw, Eastern Afghanistan was called Hindustan all the way up to Islamic era and even in the Shahnameh the Hindu Kush(Alborz) was in India.

      Well, Yaz cannot explain the Medes appearing in western Iran. The last large scale migration from Eastern Iran to western Iran was during 1700-1500 BCE from around Hissar. The Ahura Mazda worshipping Medes had no sky burials and little to do with Yaz in general. It seems that Sky Burials made it to Western Iran with the Achaemenid empire. It’s unknown what Yaz spoke, Proto-Scythian and Proto-East Iranians are good suggestions in my opinion. Though, when I see suggestions like the Kayanians in Yaz II I just shake my head.
      January 31, 2018 at 7:06 AM

      Polubienie

  7. Jakie jest pańskie zdanie w związku z dość wysokim (bo nawet 15% ) ” stężeniu” staroeuropejskiej y-dna I wśród Kurdów?

    Polubienie

        • Tam widać nic… Co to za niby I, patrz:

          Iranians (North Iran) IE (Iranian, West) 33 0 0 15.2 0 33.3 3 6.1 6.1 15.2 0 Regueiro2006[22]
          Iranians (South Iran) IE (Iranian, West) 117 1.7 5.1 12.8 0 35 6 0.9 16.2 6 3.4 Regueiro2006[22]
          Iranians IE (Iranian, West) 130 0 4.6 5.4 24.6 13.8 0 0 19.2 4.6 0 Nasidze2004[12]
          Iranians IE 938 1.8 7 11.7 0.5 31.4 5 0.1 14.3 10.1 3.4 Grugni 2012[15]

          Czego to niby dowodzi?

          Polubienie

            • Z tych danych nic, ale to nic nie wynika. Proszę o jakieś rzeczywiste zestawienie, jak np coś takiego:

              http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/kurds.html

              (…) Some of the studies cited below have haplogroup frequencies for various populations of Kurds. We can add to that small-scale results from Family Tree DNA’s „Kurdish DNA Project”; at present the following Y-DNA (paternal DNA) haplogroups were found among its grouped members: G2a, G2a3b1, I1, J1, R1a1a1, R1b1a2a1a1b4i, and one instance of Q1b1a. (…)

              (…)

              Carlos Flores, Nicole Maca-Meyer, Jose M. Larruga, Vicente M. Cabrera, Naif Karadsheh, and Ana M. Gonzalez. „Isolates in a corridor of migrations: a high-resolution analysis of Y-chromosome variation in Jordan.” Journal of Human Genetics 50 (2005): pages 435-441. This study is mainly about the people of Jordan, but also compares them to other populations in the region. It includes a sample of 251 Kurds from Anatolia (modern Turkey), and these Kurds’ Y-DNA (paternal DNA) haplogroup distributions were as follows:

              J2-M172 = 19.9%
              F*-M89 = 14.3%
              R1a1-M17 = 12.4%
              R1-M173 = 11.2%
              J1-M267 = 11.2%
              P-M45 = 10%
              T-M70 = 4.8%
              E1b1b1a-M78 = 4%
              E1b1b1c-M123 = 4%
              G-M201 = 2%

              (…)

              Almut Nebel, Dvora Filon, Bernd Brinkmann, Partha P. Majumder, Marina Faerman, and Ariella Oppenheim. „The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East.” The American Journal of Human Genetics 69:5 (November 2001): pages 1095-1112. (mirror) Multiple Jewish populations were compared with, among others, Kurds from Iraq. 1.1% of the Kurds sampled were found to possess the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) that’s common in the Jewish groups. Moreover, the Cohen Modal Haplotype is remarkably close to the Most Frequent Muslim Kurdish Haplotype (MKH), with 5 out of the 6 markers identical and very close on the remaining marker. This Most Frequent Muslim Kurdish Haplotype is found among 9.5% of Kurds but also among 2.6% of Sephardic Jews, 2.0% of Kurdish Jews, and 1.3% of Ashkenazic Jews, as well as 1.4% of Palestinian Arabs. Altogether, the evidence in the paper suggests a significant degree of common ancestry for the Israelites and the Kurds, as their common genetic types did not appear to emerge from more recent intermarriages between the populations. An excerpt from the abstract:

              „In comparison with data available from other relevant populations in the region, Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors.”

              In this study, Nebel et al. found the following Y-DNA (paternal DNA) haplogroup frequencies among Kurds from Iraqi Kurdistan:

              J2 = 28.4%
              R1b = 16.8%
              I = 16.8%
              R1a = 11.6%
              J1 = 11.6%
              E1b1b = 7.4%
              G = 4.2%
              T = 3.2%

              (…)

              S. Farjadian, M. Sazzini, S. Tofanelli, L. Castrì, L. Taglioli, D. Pettener, A. Ghaderi, G. Romeo, and D. Luiselli. „Discordant patterns of mtDNA and ethno-linguistic variation in 14 Iranian Ethnic groups.”Human Heredity 72:2 (2011): pages 73-84. Published online on September 10, 2011. 55 Kurds from Saqqez, Iran were tested on their mitochondrial DNA and their mtDNA haplogroups were C, D, H, HV, HV1, I, J*, J1b, J1b2, J2b, K, K1a9, M/C, N, N1b, N1b1, R, R0, T1, T2, U1a, U3a, U5a1a, U7, and W. H was especially common.

              Cristofaro (is that Julie Di Cristofaro?), et al. 2013 Full citation not known to me yet, is it really published yet? – I got this information from here. Kurds from Iran were found to have the Y-DNA haplogroups E1b1b1a1-M78*, E1b1b1a1c-V22, G1-M285, G2a-P15, H1a-M82, J1-M267*, J1a2b-P8, J2a-M410*, J2a1-P55, J2a1a-M322, J2a1h-M530, L-M11*, L1a-M76, L1b-M317, L1c-M357, R1a1a-M198/M17, R1b1a2a-L23, and T-M184. (…)

              http://corduene.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/revisiting-kurdish-autosomal-dna.html

              http://corduene.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/kurdish-tribes-y-dna-haplogroups.html

              Tam podali tylko 1 próbkę I2…

              Mîran – I2a2a-M438>M223 – Hewlêr, Sorani FTDNA: 415167

              …..

              Z tych danych wynika, że obecni Kurdowie to ziranizowana okoliczna zbieranina.

              Polubienie

  8. http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/early-baltic-corded-ware-form-genetic.html

    Early Baltic Corded Ware form a genetic clade with Yamnaya, but…

    This is what Mittnik et al. 2018 say about a couple of their Corded Ware, or Baltic Late Neolithic (Baltic_LN), samples from what is now Lithuania:

    Computing D-statistics for each individual of the form D(Baltic LN, Yamnaya; X, Mbuti), we find that the two individuals from the early phase of the LN (Plinkaigalis242 and Gyvakarai1, dating to ca. 3200–2600 calBCE) form a clade with Yamnaya (Supplementary Table 7), consistent with the absence of the farmer-associated component in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 2b). Younger individuals share more alleles with Anatolian and European farmers (Supplementary Table 7) as also observed in contemporaneous Central European CWC individuals [2].

    We can add a third early Baltic Corded Ware sample, Latvia_LN1, to this list, because this individual was also shown to lack the above mentioned farmer-associated component in ADMIXTURE by Jones et al. 2017.

    However, in my Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of ancient West Eurasia, all three samples fall just „northwest” of Yamnaya, along with one German Corded Ware outlier, and form a separate cluster that is shifted slightly closer to European hunter-gatherers and farmers. Hence, Plinkaigalis242 and Gyvakarai1 only form a clade with Yamnaya to the limit of the resolution in the analysis by Mittnik et al., but aren’t exactly identical to Yamnaya. The relevant datasheet is available here.

    So what might this mean? Possibly that the ancestors of this Corded Ware trio „absorbed” trace forager and/or farmer admixture as they migrated from the Pontic-Caspian steppe to the East Baltic. Or it could mean that they came from a more westerly part of the Pontic-Caspian steppe where people harbored slightly elevated forager and/or farmer ancestry relative to Yamnaya.

    More sampling of Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age (EBA) burial sites on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, particularly north of the Black Sea, will probably solve this mystery. Please note, however, that we already have an Eneolithic sample from the Pontic-Caspian steppe that not only packs extra farmer admixture over Yamnaya, but also belongs to Y-haplogroup R1a-M417, which is a marker intimately associated with the Corded Ware expansion (see here).

    By the way, this is how the Corded Ware set from Mittnik et al. behaves in another of my PCA, which is designed to focus on entho-linguistic-specific genetic drift in Northern Europe. I don’t usually run samples older than the Bronze Age in this analysis, the reason being that they often don’t share enough genetic drift with modern-day Europeans to produce meaningful output. And to be honest, I’m not quite sure what to make of these results. But it’s probably not a coincidence that the Scandinavian Corded Ware (CWC_Battle_Axe) individual clusters so strongly with the Nordic Iron Age and modern-day Scandinavian samples. The relevant datasheet is here.

    See also…

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

    Modern-day Poles vs Bronze Age peoples of the East Baltic

    The genetic history of Northern Europe (or rather the South Baltic)
    Posted by Davidski at 9:33:00 AM 39 comments:

    Polubienie

    • Matt said…
      Interesting stuff; it looks like on the Northern European PCA, the Spiginas2 CWC Baltic sample is distinct in sitting with the Baltic BA, while the CWC_Early overlap with Yamnaya and then the other CWC Baltic are pretty „typical” folk who sit with the CWC Germany and Steppe_MLBA: https://imgur.com/a/KQV2H

      This also looks to be the case in the West Eurasia PCA as well: https://imgur.com/a/j2gwA

      As they say in the paper: „The individual Spiginas2, dated to a very late period of the LN (2130–1750 calBCE), stands out in that it shares an excess of alleles with European forager groups when compared to the Yamnaya populations, with the top hits being Switzerland_HG, WHG, Baltic Mesolithic and Baltic EMN Narva (Supplementary Table 7).”.

      So perhaps this is kind of like the earliest sample of the Baltic_BA proper who are sampled later in history and along with Welzin / Tollensee BA and Hungary_BA samples (who both collectively more Central European affinities) which begin to demonstrate the affinities to Slavic populations. (So far unsampled Trzciniec will, as some of your commentators like Arza have said, will probably start to fill this out more, and we will likely see that this culture contains individuals with similar affinities).
      February 2, 2018 at 10:25 AM

      Ryan said…
      „And to be honest, I’m not quite sure what to make of these results.” Are the two on the right just pre-WHG admixture and the one on the left post? (With WHG ancestry continuing to increase even into the Bronze age?)
      February 2, 2018 at 2:33 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Ryan WHG admixture can’t be the cause of the shift to the left, because there are many samples with higher WHG sitting right of those with lower WHG. For instance, the early Baltic CWC have less WHG than many ancient and modern samples sitting to the right of them.
      February 2, 2018 at 3:57 PM

      Arza said…
      The difference between two new CWC_early samples is… interesting:

      CWC_Baltic_early:Gyvakarai1
      CWC_Baltic_early:Plinkaigalis242 83.9
      Sunghir:SIV 16.1
      distance % = 0.468 / distance= 0.00468

      Initial distance between both samples: 0.011221
      Artefact or something real?
      February 3, 2018 at 3:29 AM

      Matt said…
      @Davidski: WHG admixture can’t be the cause of the shift to the left, because there are many samples with higher WHG sitting right of those with lower WHG.

      Though the example of Spinigas2 seems to me to indicate that, although WHG clade in general probably doesn’t have anything much to do with the position on the North European specific PCA, admixture specifically from the Narva culture or whichever HG contributed to Spinigas2 probably does.

      If that wasn’t the case, and it was due to later drift, I would guess that we’d see that Spinigas2 would be sort of central (near Yamnaya), and then only populations that pick up later drift would be near the Baltic-Slavic populations. But instead Spinigas2 seems to be close here to the Baltic BA only from forager admixture.

      (In a way it seems more likely that Baltic-Slavic populations have got their unique genetic drift from slightly different admixture, as I don’t think models have ever shown a population bottleneck? E.g. the general populations look about as heterozygous and genetically diverse as other Europeans, not like they have gone through a small Ashkenazi or even Orcaadian style bottleneck?).

      Of course, it’s possible that Spinigas2 had already gone through a population bottleneck, but that seems a bit less parsimonious and I think we can safely say that a late population bottleneck and expansion after 0AD was not important.
      February 3, 2018 at 4:16 AM

      Polubienie

  9. Skribho, wpakuj nam wreszcie do głów kim byli, skąd przyszli i jakim właściwie językiem mówili Sarmaci.
    Chciałabym również wiedzieć czym w języku różnili się od Scytów i Kimmerów. No i od Hunów.
    I gdzie wg ciebie byli Słowianie w czasach rzymskich?

    Polubienie

  10. Czy tamgi to były te znaczki na krowich pupach?
    Bo pojawienie się ich dopiero za Piastów w Wielkopolsce może świadczyć o wschodnim pochodzeniu Piastów, albo ich płatnych drużynowych.
    Ale co tamgi mają do Sarmatów?

    Polubienie

  11. Horse Lords: A Brief History of the Scythians

    History Time
    Published on Jan 30, 2018
    This video is about the Scythians. One of the first horse cultures on Earth.

    Uwaga na ciekawe uwagi po d tym filmem!

    Polubienie

    • Scythians 1: History, Geography, and Romanticism

      David Peterson
      Published on Jan 27, 2014

      天王
      The Sarmatians spoke Scythian language. The numerous Iranian personal names in the Greek inscriptions from the Black Sea Coast indicate that the Sarmatians spoke a North-Eastern Iranian dialect ancestral to Alanian-Ossetian

      Scythians 2: Archaeology and Genetics

      Science Or Fiction
      2 years ago (edited)
      1. Scythians and Sarmatians are simply earlier designations for Russians and Slavic colonists of vast Eurasian regions. Scythians / Sarmatians have never disappeared, they just changed their names. Russians were called so up to the 17th-18th centuries.

      1. Scythians / Sarmatians or Slavs are mentioned by many peoples (Greeks, Scandinavians, British, Japanese, Hindoos etc.) of bringers of civilisation and their rulers and national heros were declared to gods by colonised indegeneous populations. Originally Scythian / Slavic religion spread all over the planet and led to what we know as wordl religions.
      2. Scythians / Sarmatians as nomads without scropt is a very ignorant, wrong view. Scythians were known as city builders, ruler, priest, warrior and merchant castes of many cultures. In Europe they were known as knights (of Sarmatian descents), in Arabic and Osmanic countries as Yanichars, Saqaliba and other elite troops.

      3. Their literally worldwide dominance was broken only after the 16th century. In last 400 years their traces and their history were more and more removed.

      4. Many fundaments of our „historical” beliefs are scientificly baseless assumptions, often based on falsification and much ignorance. For example the interpretation of hellenized Scythian names as Iranic.

      Some proofs bellow.

      Science Or Fiction
      European linguists, historians, ethnologists etc. of the 19th century discovered, that languages of the world must have been strongly influenced by Russian = Sarmatian, the proto-Indoeuropean. They conclueded, that this must be the „original language of mankind”. Unfortunately they put this discovery into the frames of the falsified hsitory.

      These results have never been disproved, they got just ignored and more and more tabooed.

      https://books.google.de/books?id=0c8nAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA364&dq=%22A+Dictionary+of+Arts,+Sciences,+and+Miscellaneous%22+%22original+language+of+mankind%22+Russe&hl=de&sa=X&ei=XtLnVNbzNaH_ygP274L4Bw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22A%20Dictionary%20of%20Arts%2C%20Sciences%2C%20and%20Miscellaneous%22%20%22original%20language%20of%20mankind%22%20Russe&f=false

      Science Or Fiction
      Medieval maps often show Scythia and Sarmatia as Russia. Remarkable is the fact, that their territories (administrative districts) permanently changed. Comparable was the situation for exampla in former USSR, where some regions were added from Russian SSR to the Ukrainian or Georgian SSR. As you see, part of Russia is also called Tartaria. This is another interesting point, since many documents prove, that Russia was identified also with Tartary / Mongolia in the „Middle Ages”. Originally „Tartars” was simply the name for local forces, their rests are today known as Cossacks. Many Cossacks claim from themselves, that they are descendents of Scythians and the „Golden Horde”, which was Christian and mainly Slavic (but also Turkic or Caucasian) according to them.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Sarmatia_et_Scythia,_Russia_et_Tartaria_Europaea.jpg

      Polubienie

    • The facial type of the Scythians and Sarmatians

      RealSarmatians
      Published on Jan 3, 2011
      The physical type of the Scythians and Sarmatians in Europe, with anthropological reconstructions of their skulls

      MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCE OF SCYTHIANS REMAINS UNSOLVED

      Great Ancient History
      Published on Sep 16, 2016
      MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCE OF SCYTHIANS REMAINS UNSOLVED

      From about 700 to 300 BC one particular group of migratory peoples, identified as Scythians by the Greeks, suddenly appeared on the Eurasian steppes.

      Some modern scholars suggest three theories to explain their sudden and mysterious appearance. Some believe they migrated there from the north, others from the east, or perhaps from south.

      Although the geographic origins of the Scythian people are hotly debated, evidence for the time of their first appearance in history is not. They suddenly appeared at the same time and near the same area of the Israelites’ disappearance.

      They are mentioned in the Bible and several other ancient sources. However, for some unknown reasons they vanished without a trace. What happened to them?

      The Scythians were nomads who along with wild horses roamed the grasslands stretching from the Carpathian Mountains of Eastern Europe to what is now southeastern Russia. They were excellent horsemen and were among the first to use the saddle and stirrup.

      By the eighth century BC, military action taken by the Chinese Emperor Hsuan forced people migration to west. Scythians first occupied the territory around the Black Sea about 700 B.C. Seeking wealth, they sacked the Assyrian capital, Nineveh.

      The Scythians were feared and admired for their prowess in war and, in particular, for their horsemanship. They were among the earliest people to master the art of riding, and their mobility astonished their neighbours.

      Assyrian sources place their appearance between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea in the time of King Sargon (722-705 BC), a date which closely corresponds with that of the establishment of the first group of Scythians in southern Russia.

      Curiously, this date also corresponds with the disappearance of the captives from Israel’s northern kingdom.

      Later, the Scythians allied themselves with Assyria against Media, Babylonia, and other nations. Their attacks touched even northern Egypt. The fact that the city of Beth-shan in northeastern Israel was later called Scythopolis may indicate a period of Scythian occupation.

      In time, the Scythians settled in the steppes of present-day Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, and southern Russia, they grew wealthy, trading grain, honey, fur, and cattle in exchange for Greek wine, textiles, weapons, and works of art.

      The Scythians are the oldest nations on Earth, according to ancient Greek sources.

      Ancient sources mention the Scythians as a cruel and sadistic people, who had a number of bizarre customs. They showed the enemy no mercy in battle. Storming their enemies, they decimated them with iron swords, battle-axes, spears, and barbed arrows that tore flesh. Later, they used the skulls of their victims as drinking cups.

      The Scythians practiced witchcraft and shamanism and worshiped fire and a mother goddess. They regarded the tomb as a dwelling for the dead. Slaves and animals were sacrificed for the dead master’s use. Treasure and household retainers supposedly accompanied chieftains into the “next world.”

      In one royal tomb, five servants were found lying with their feet toward the master, ready to rise and resume their duties. Rulers were buried with lavish offerings, and during periods of mourning, the Scythians spilled their blood and cut off their hair.

      Herodotus wrote: “They cut off a part of their ears, shave their heads, make cuts round their arms, tear their foreheads and noses, and pierce their left hands with arrows.” In contrast, God’s Law to the Israelites of the same era commanded: “You must not make cuts in your flesh for a deceased soul.”- Leviticus 19:28.

      The Scythians also left behind thousands of kurgans (burial mounds). Many ornaments found in the kurgans depict everyday Scythian life.
      Russian Czar Peter the Great began to collect such items in 1715, and these glittering objects can now be seen in museums in Russia and Ukraine.

      dpwXXIPolska21 Polak1984
      Scythiands becomed partly Sarmatians and Slavs,,,

      Radosław Bałtrukiewicz
      Unfortunately true confirmed 🙂 Regards from Lechia :)

      Polubienie

    • 1-5 Scythian Ice Maiden – Indo-Europeans in the Altai

      allisonpita
      Published on May 23, 2010
      The Scythians or Scyths (Greek: Σκύθης, Σκύθοι) were an Ancient Iranian people of horse-riding nomadic pastoralists who throughout Classical Antiquity dominated the Pontic-Caspian steppe, known at the time as Scythia. By Late Antiquity the closely-related Sarmatians came to dominate the Scythians in this area. Much of the surviving information about the Scythians comes from the Greek historian Herodotus (c. 440 BC) in his Histories and Ovid in his poem of exile Epistulae ex Ponto, and archaeologically from the exquisite goldwork found in Scythian burial mounds in Ukraine and Southern Russia.

      The name „Scythian” has also been used to refer to various peoples seen as similar to the Scythians, or who lived anywhere in a vast area covering present-day Central Asia, Russia, and Ukraine—known until medieval times as Scythia. The name of the Scythians has also been used in reference to the Goths.

      Diarmuid MacPartlan
      The Scythians first appeared in the historical record in the 8th century BC.Herodotus reported three contradictory versions as to the origins of the Scythians, but placed greatest faith in this version. There is also another different story, now to be related, in which I am more inclined to put faith than in any other. It is that the wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae, but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria. Accounts by Herodotus of Scythian origins has been discounted recently; although his accounts of Scythian raiding activities contemporary to his writings have been deemed more reliable. Moreover, the term Scythian, like Cimmerian, was used to refer to a variety of groups from the Black Sea to southern Siberia and central Asia. They were not a specific people”, but rather variety of peoples „referred to at variety of times in history, and in several places, none of which was their original homeland” The Bible includes a single reference to Scythians in Colossians immediately after mentioning barbarian, possibly as an extreme example of a barbarian.

      Polubienie

  12. „Many Cossacks claim from themselves, that they are descendents of Scythians and the „Golden Horde”, which was Christian and mainly Slavic (but also Turkic or Caucasian) according to them.””
    Skribho, ja uwielbiam Adriana i żadna siła tego nie zmieni. Więc cieszę się, że 80% treści jego ostatniej pracy doceniasz i się z tym zgadzasz. (mi się zdarzało w ogóle z Adrianem nie zgadzać)

    Ciebie też uwielbiam, chociaż czesto ni h.. nie rozumiem. No bo piszesz często dla mieszkańców Brytanii. Oczywiście pisz jak chcesz. Ale nie dziw sie, że nie wiem o co ci chodzi.

    Poświęć trochę czasu i napisz wreszcie co myślisz o Sarmatach. Albo co nie pasuje ci w Adriana interpretacji. Nie chcę kilometrów kopiowanych wypowiedzi angielskojęzycznych komentatorów, tylko twoje zdanie.

    Polubienie

    • Czytałaś w ogóle mój pierwszy wpis napisany w odpowiedzi do artykułu Adriana Leszczyńskiego? Ja czepiam się TYLKO Scytów / Sarmatów i ich rzekomego języka słowiańskiego… Reszta jest bardzo dobra, więc nie pisze o tym nic.

      Ja jedynie zapisuję różne dane, często w j. angielskim. Poczekaj na następny wpis, to sama zobaczysz, jak tzw. rough breathing wyjaśnia ubezdźwięcznienie pierwotnego wzorca dźwięków tzw. PIE+PS… O niczym w sumie innym od dawna nie pisze. Ciągle w kółko o jednym i tym samym, że tzw. satem było pierwotne, względem wszystkich tych rzekomo poprawnie odtworzonych słów…

      Przyjrzyj się danym, które już zgromadziłem, bo w następnym wpisie będzie więcej dowodzenia o stopniowym ubezdźwięcznieniu posuwającym się ze wschodu na zachód…

      Pra-Słowianie świszczeli i gwizdali, dokładnie jak robimy to dziś, to jest wg mnie NIEPODWAŻALNY FAKT. Sarmaci już byli celtyczczeli. To wszystko jest w danych. Trzeba to tylko zechcieć poukładać sobie po kolei. Ja już od co najmniej roku – dwóch sam sobie zaprzeczyłem, co do moich poprzednich poglądów, jak te Adriana Leszczyńskiego, co do „słowiańskości” koczowników ze stepu z okresu żelaza. Wcześniej mogło i pewno było inaczej, ale po udomowieniu konia i rozprzestrzenieniu się jazdy konnej, inne ludy o różnych językach galopowały po stepie. Mezine zostało, tam gdzie było 15,000 lat temu. Step galopował w te i nazad… a za tym i języki. Rozumiesz?

      Polubienie

      • „European linguists, historians, ethnologists etc. of the 19th century discovered, that languages of the world must have been strongly influenced by Russian = Sarmatian, the proto-Indoeuropean.”
        Co do Piastów, wiadomo, że to jakieś zbiry były. Sponsorowane przez zachód. Z tego co się orientuję są różne teorie. Geny obce, z przed 1000 lat na Wielkopolsce wyjaśnią ich pochodzenie.
        Nie mam pewności, czy to jacyś Polanie z Ukrainy byli.

        Druga sprawa. Adrian swój tekst oparł ściśle na źródłach. A tam nie było nawet wzmianki o Osetii. Więc wg źródeł nie mają oni nic wspólnego z Sarmatami. Skąd to wiki wzięła?

        „Ja czepiam się TYLKO Scytów / Sarmatów i ich rzekomego języka słowiańskiego…”
        Scytowie/Sarmaci? Ja nawet nie wiem czy te dwa ludy mówiły tym samym językiem. Skąd to wiesz, że ich łączysz?

        Ze wschodu na zachód posuwali się Mongołowie i inne N hg. N jest imo azjatycką hg. Jak u Bałtów.

        „Słowiańskość” koczowników ze stepu z okresu żelaza.
        Pisałam ci o czaszkach. Znajdowanych w tzw. grobach scytyjskich. Pamiętasz jak sie zmieniły?

        Polubienie

        • (…) Co do Piastów, wiadomo, że to jakieś zbiry były. Sponsorowane przez zachód. Z tego co się orientuję są różne teorie. Geny obce, z przed 1000 lat na Wielkopolsce wyjaśnią ich pochodzenie. Nie mam pewności, czy to jacyś Polanie z Ukrainy byli. (…)

          Ja tez nie ma, ale łączę ze sobą różne dane i… wg nich widać, że żadnych tamg od-sarmackich przed pojawieniem się tych tzw. Piastów zwyczajnie brak. Adrian Leszczyński zaufał jednemu takiemu profesorowi, co twierdzi przeciwnie, że Sarmaci dali te tamgi jako podstawę do późniejszych tzw. herbów szlacheckich. Udowodnienie tego, kiedy pojawiły się te tamgi, nie powinno stanowić żadnego problemu, ale…

          Nikt nic o tym nie pisze. Dlaczego? Czyżbym trafił w miętkie i miał zwyczajnie rację? Wg mnie pozostałości po tzw. Sarmatach rzeczywiście rozproszyły się, po stepie, i… patrz tzw. Chazarzy nagle pojawili się… Kijów blisko i czas zgadza się. Zwyczajnie obal to i napisz, że tzw. tamgi pojawiły się nad Wartą wcześniej niż spalenizny grodów…

          (…) Druga sprawa. Adrian swój tekst oparł ściśle na źródłach. A tam nie było nawet wzmianki o Osetii. Więc wg źródeł nie mają oni nic wspólnego z Sarmatami. Skąd to wiki wzięła? (…)

          Zapytaj się dr Jamroszko, dr Makucha, Tchórzliwego Grzegorza i innych allo-allo…

          (…) „Ja czepiam się TYLKO Scytów / Sarmatów i ich rzekomego języka słowiańskiego…” Scytowie/Sarmaci? Ja nawet nie wiem czy te dwa ludy mówiły tym samym językiem. Skąd to wiesz, że ich łączysz? (…)

          Ja nie wiem jakim językiem mówili, ale pozostałości, czyli zniekształcenia np. widoczne w j. osetyjskim, rzekomo języku Alanów / Sarmatów, jednoznacznie wskazują, że to tylko ziranizowani Kartwelczycy, a iranizacja ich przyszła ze wschodu i północy, czyli ze stepu… Należy łączyć fakty, a nie tylko czytać w myślach kronikarzy…

          (…) Ze wschodu na zachód posuwali się Mongołowie i inne N hg. N jest imo azjatycką hg. Jak u Bałtów. (…)

          Przecież nawet i kroniki tak twierdzą, nieprawdaż?

          (…) „Słowiańskość” koczowników ze stepu z okresu żelaza. Pisałam ci o czaszkach. Znajdowanych w tzw. grobach scytyjskich. Pamiętasz jak sie zmieniły? (…)

          Czaszki i kości np. w Khvalynsk, czy Yamna to dwa lub trzy różne typy, I2, R1b, i R1a, + wszystko inne, a tego trochę tam było… czaszki nie mówią,.. podobnie jak garnki…

          Polubienie

          • Dałeś OGNIA Skrybo swoim wpisem i bardzo dobrze.:) Myślę, że rzeczywiście trafiłeś w MIĘTKIE, wpadłeś na właściwy trop…. Jeśli mogę coś zasugerować to uwzględnij może w swoich przemyśleniach tzw. ludów Turko-Słowiańskich, które zamieszkiwały rozległy obszar pomiędzy Słowiańszczyzną a IndoIranem…

            Polubienie

            • (…) Jeśli mogę coś zasugerować to uwzględnij może w swoich przemyśleniach tzw. ludów Turko-Słowiańskich, które zamieszkiwały rozległy obszar pomiędzy Słowiańszczyzną a IndoIranem… (…)

              Nie wiem, czy takie ludy zamieszkiwały tamten obszar wcześniej, niż 1000 lat temu, patrz Azerowie, Turcy, itp. Pra-Turcy to raczej Ałtaj, itp, czyli daleko na wschód… Chociaż, kto tam ich wie?

              Jak masz jakieś dane o tym, to upowszechnij je, proszę.

              Jest jakaś / jakiś chętna / chętny do udowodnienia „przed-piastowskiego” pochodzenia tzw. tamg, jako tzw. herbów szlachy polskiej?

              Polubienie

          • Jakiś czas temu przeczytałem Adama Szelągowskiego „Dzieje powszechne i cywilizacyi. Vol. IV. Odrodzenie Wschodu. Geneza społeczeństw na Zachodzie. Świat Turko-słowiański”. Warszawa 1918. To właśnie stąd dowiedziałem się o istnieniu ludów Turko-słowiańskich… Tenże sam autor napisał „Wici i Topory. Studyum nad genezą i znaczeniem godeł polskich i zawołań”. Kraków 1914. Ale jeszcze nie dotarłem do tej pozycji.

            Polubienie

            • Brawo! Należy drążyć tzw. tamgi. Jeśli tamgi pojawiły się nad Wisłą później, niż po przybyciu tzw. Piastów, no to wielu zwolenników tzw. sarmatyzmu ma raczej spory kłopot, co nie? 🙂

              A z drugiej strony Orły / Ariowie świadczą o tym, że np. topór, czy wici nie muszą być jedynie późnym rzekomym od-sarmackim zapożyczeniem, bo były w użyciu duuużo wcześniej, nieprawdaż? 🙂

              Powtarzam, Mezine i swargi na skrzydłach ptaka…

              Polubienie

            • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezine

              Mezine is a place within the modern country of Ukraine which has the most artifact finds of Paleolithic culture origin.[1][2][3][4] The epigravettian [5] site is located on a bank of the Desna river.[6] The settlement is best known for an archaeological find of a set of bracelets engraved with marks possibly representing calendar lunar-cycles.[7] Also found near Mezine was the earliest known example of a swastika-like form, as part of a decorative object dated to 10,000 BCE. It was described (see references for illustrations) as an object carved from ivory mammoth tusks to resemble[8] an:

              The bird is understood as an inherently shamanistic animal, often being a symbol of the soul or of the spirit experienced in flight (from death).[10]

              Second site

              The site now known as Mezin 22 was found in the Dnieper valley of Ukraine in 1908. At this site, archaeologists discovered a shelter constructed of mammoth bones and skin, showing the importance of the mammoth to nomadic European cultures of the early Holocene.[11]

              Symbolism

              On Mezine and other sites at Yeliseevici and Timovka, Joseph Campbell comments:

              It is impossible not to feel, when reviewing the material of these mammoth-hunting stations on the loess plains north of the Black and Caspian Seas, that we are in a province fundamentally different in style and mythology from that of the hunters of the great painted caves. The richest center of this more easterly style would appear to have been the area between the Dnieper and Don river systems – at least as far as indicated by the discoveries made up to the present. The art was not, like that of the caves, impressionistic, but geometrically stylized, and the chief figure was not the costumed shaman, at once animal and man, master of the mysteries of the temple-caves, but the perfectly naked, fertile female, standing as guardian of the hearth. And I think it most remarkable that we detect in her surroundings a constellation of motifs that remained closely associated with the goddess in the later epoch of the neolithic and on into the periods of the high civilizations: the meander (as a reference to the labyrinth), the bird (in the dove- cotes of the temples of Aphrodite), the fish (in the fish ponds of the same temples) , the sitting animals, and the phallus. Who, furthermore, reading of the figure amid the mammoth skulls, does not think of Artemisas the huntress, the lady of the wild things;[12]

              References

              1. ^ Harald Haarmann Foundations of culture: knowledge-construction, belief systems and worldview in their dynamic interplay 311 pages Peter Lang, 2007ISBN 3631566859 [Retrieved 2012-01-05]
              2. ^ ZA Abramova, G.V.Gregorieva, G.I.Zaitseva – 2006 The Age of Upper Paleolithic Sites in the Middle DNeiper Basin of Eastern Europe Institute for the History of Material Culture, The Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Dvortsavaya Nab 18 191186 Russia email:ganna@mail.wplus.net RADIOCARBON Vol.43, Nr 2B, 2001, p.1077-1084 Proceedings of the 17th International 14C Conference edited by I Carmi and E Boaretto © 2001 by the Arizona Board of Regents for the University of Arizona [Retrieved 2012-01-05]
              3. ^ Miles Crawford Burkitt Prehistory: a study of early cultures in Europe and the Mediterranean basin 438 pages Select Bibliographies Reprint Ayer Publishing, 1925 ISBN 0-8369-5972-8 [Retrieved 2012-01-05]
              4. ^ flore18_3 [1] [Retrieved 2012-01-05]
              5. ^ Martina LÁZNIČKOVÁ-GALETOVÁ (September 2010) Technological aspects of the engraving in mammoth’s ivory Mezin ( Ukraine) – IFRAO Congress[permanent dead link] Retrieved 2012-01-12
              6. ^ Eugenii Alexandrovich Golomshtok The Old Stone Age in European Russia – 278 pages AMS Press, – 1 Apr 1983 ISBN 0404159273 [Retrieved 2012-01-05]
              7. ^ The Iryna B. Vavilova and Tetyna G. Artemenko (2009). The ancient cultural framework of astronomy in Ukraine. Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 5 , E7 – Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System [2]doi:10.1017/S1743921311003279 [Retrieved 2012-01-05]
              8. ^ Joseph Campbell 16 May 2002 – The flight of the wild gander: explorations in the mythological dimension : selected essays, 1944-1968 – 192 pages New World Library ISBN 1-57731-210-4 [Retrieved 2012-01-08]
              9. ^ J.J.White the IIIrd [from earlier research of F.Hancar & (separately) F.K.Volkov,] Midwestern Epigraphic Society Archived 2012-01-17 at the Wayback Machine. 2012-01-08
              10. ^ Joseph Campbell 1959 MASKS OF GOD: PRIMITIVE MYTHOLOGY p.257-258 LONDON : SECKER AND WARBURG : 1960 Retrieved 2012-01-12 (see also: The Bollingen Foundation)
              11. ^ Valery Alexeev – Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) in Eurasia reviewed by Geraldine Reinhardt Harvard University Lectures – 26 June 1991[Retrieved 2012-01-05]
              12. ^ Campbell, Joseph (1987). Primitive Mythology. Arkana. pp. 327–8. ISBN 0-14-019443-6.

              External links

              • (Don Hitchcock ed.) – Hitchcock Lane,Armidale NSW 2350, Australia donsmaps [Retrieved 2012-01-05]

              http://donsmaps.com/wolfcamp.html


              Bracelet of mammoth tusk from Mezin ornamented with a geometric design. 15 000 BP, Late Palaeolithic.

              Photo and text: http://www.nmiu.com.ua/en/expositions/prehistoric-period-in-ukraine.html

              http://www.danel.info/the_supreme_ultimate.html

              https://globalhinduism.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/ice-age-swastika-from-mezin-in-ukraine/

              Dariusz Jastrzebski JANUARY 22, 2012 AT 11:28 PM
              On the territory which is named Poland right now this solar symbol has been used since 12.000 years (maybe earlier) and was named „swarga” or „swarzyca”. Native Americans Navajo used it to XX century. English night „nite” in the polish language is „noc” and the flag has two colors white and red. So, swastika never nazi. The road for civilization was simple, but everything was destroyed by the middle east mythologies (religions). We have to return to the beginning to our roots because everything went wrong.

              https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618214001554

              Mythic codes of the Mezinian

              Service de Préhistoire, Université de Liège, 7, place du XX août, bât. A1, 4000 Liège, Belgium
              Available online 16 April 2014.

              https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.018

              Abstract
              Inhabited by mammoths, the Eurasian steppe witnessed the rise of religious performances based on the exchange of their life with the human populations that lived alongside them. Some plastic art codes reflect this balanced equilibrium with nature still wild today and which is still in evidence among some Siberian peoples and the Saami (Lapps) in Europe. Such persistence can be seen as a direct legacy and reflect an environment that allows a range of relationships with animals incompatible with the notion of animal “domestication” commonly associated with the European

              …..

              Przypominam, że Mezine to 15,000 a Vinca to jakieś 7,000 – 8,000 później… także teges…

              Polubienie

            • http://www.donsmaps.com/gontsy.html

              The Gontsy mammoth bone hut site


              The mammoth bone dwellings № 3 and № 4 of the upper palaeolithic camp-site of Gontsy (Ukraine). Photo and text: Iakovleva et al. (2014)

              Map of Mezin type sites between 15 000 and 14 000 BP in the Middle and Upper Dnieper and Desna Rivers, Ukraine and Russia.

              1. Gontsy
              2. Dobranichivka
              3. Mejiriche
              4. Kiev-Kirilovskaia
              5. Semenivka
              6. Jouravka
              7. Fastiv
              8. Vilchanka
              9. Mezine
              10. Chulatovo
              11. Sevsk
              12. Ioudinovo
              13. Elisseevichi
              14. Timonovka
              15. Suponevo
              16. Gorodok
              17. Barmaki
              18. Boujanka
              19. Obolonia

              Photo: © L. Iakovleva
              Source: Iakovleva and Djindjian (2012)

              This very important and well written paper deserves a much wider audience

              L’habitat à cabanes en os de mammouths de Gontsy (Ukraine)une référence pour la reconstitution d’un système de chasseurs-cueilleurs dans son territoire basé sur l’économie du Mammouth

              Iakovleva and Djindjian (2012)
              Translation: Don Hitchcock

              Abstract:

              The long-term excavations of the LUP (Late Upper Paleolithic) settlement of Gontsy (Ukraine), with its mammoth bone huts and associated mammoth bone bed, has allowed the reconstitution of nearly all of the pieces of the puzzle of this type of settlement, and the definition of the major role in the economy of the mammoth in the Mezinian peopling of the middle and upper Dnepr basin (Ukraine and Russia).

              The settlements generally share the same geomorphology of the location on a promontory cut by ravines on the slope of a river valley. The dwelling area is organised around mammoth bone huts, numerous pits around each hut, large working areas with hearths, dumping areas, butchering areas for small and medium mammals, and the existence of a mammoth bone bed which has been largely exploited during the occupation of the settlement.

              The landscape analysis, using information from mapping, functions, and seasonality of the settlements, has characterised a particular system based on the economy of the mammoth, limited to a short period between 15 000 and 14 000 BP, at the beginning of the climatic change ending the last ice age.

              The network connections are supported by raw material procurement from a wide area, particularly flint and shells, but also amber, demonstrating the long distances travelled by the hunter-gatherer groups, both for the yearly search for the next settlement, and during the annual cycle for various seasonal procurements.

              1. Introduction

              The Gontsy site (Gintsy in Ukrainian) is located on the southern slope of the Udai River, a tributary of the Soula, in the middle basin of the Dnieper River, near the town of Lubny in the Poltava region of Ukraine. The discovery of the site in 1871 marked the beginning of Palaeolithic research in Eastern Europe.

              Several mammoth bone dwelling sites have been excavated in the last one hundred and forty years by many archaeologists (Iakovleva 2010) in the middle and upper basin of the Dnieper (Figure 1) identifying a settlement territory of hunter gatherers specialising in the mammoth economy, for a short period from 15 000 to 14 000 BP (Djindjian et al. 1999: Iakovleva 1999, 2009a) (…)

              …..

              Jak widać, takich miejsc jak Mezine było znacznie więcej…

              Polubienie

            • Wici, jako od sarmackie?
              To już by była herezja nad herezje.
              To i devanagari też od sarmacka?
              Trzeba mocno na głowę upaść, aby coś takiego wymyślić.

              Polubienie

            • No cóż… Zwolennicy tzw. zapożyczeń od-sarmackich, czy ich braku, ale tłumaczący to na podstawie „dowodzeń” tych pierwszych powinni raczej wiele rzeczy przemyśleć… Kroniki i to, co rzekomo mieli na myśli kronikarze je jakoś spisujący, raczej im w tym nie pomogą…

              Zabawa jest skończona, teraz kochani zaczęły się prawdziwe schody. Do roboty, nie tchórzcie, jak na potomków „słowiańskich” Sarmatów przystało i zmiażdżcie nas niewiernych siłą i mocą niepowstrzymanej szarży waszej ciężkiej sarmackiej katafraktarsiej jazdy…

              Nie wahajcie się! Pra-Słowiańskie BaG+No czeka na każdego, także i na was… i każdego z was przytuli, jednego po drugim… 🙂

              Wkrótce druga część mojej odpowiedzi, bo i my bagienni nilfgardccy rzeźnicy także potrafimy i lubimy poprawiać po Elfach. My też nadciągamy i mamy naszą tajemną broń… brzozowe łapcie… Czujcie się wszyscy oszczeżeni…

              Polubienie

        • „Ze wschodu na zachód posuwali się Mongołowie i inne N hg.” ??? Anno, Mongołowie to nie haplogrupa N a raczej/chyba na pewno, haplogrupa C.

          Polubienie

          • „„Ze wschodu na zachód posuwali się Mongołowie i inne N hg.” ??? Anno, Mongołowie to nie haplogrupa N a raczej/chyba na pewno, haplogrupa C.”

            N-ka jest żółta, jak żadna inna
            C jest bardzo stara i jeszcze czarna, wyrózniają się ją Aborygeni, znaleziono ją u LaBrana (poszukaj wizualizacji gościa), także w Goyet w Belgii sprzed 35 000 lat, także Vestonice w Czechach z tego samego okresu razem z hg.I oraz napisał Dawidski, że ostatnia „czarna lalka” lewaków, czyli pierwszy Anglik, datowany na 10 000 lat ma tą samą haplogrupę co LaBrana, czyli C1 oraz ma taką samą ciemną jak on pigmentację, upodabniającą go do Aborygenów z Australii.

            Napisał również, że jest to 100% WHG.. ha ha… poddaję to Annie pod rozwagę, ostatnio kombinującej z WHG/EHG

            Polubienie

            • Robku, czy masz na uwadze tego Anglika?

              Rzeczywiście podobieństwo do Polaków niezbyt uderzające. Chociaż bardzo przypomina mi 1 osobnika rodem z przygranicznej miejscowości. Więc coś pozostało.

              Polubienie

            • Tak, uderzająco podobny do LaBrana , Hiszpania, 7000 lat, obaj mają hg.C1

              Czyżby tak długo utrzymywał się rasizm, a co za tym idzie przypisanie koloru skóry do haplogrup?

              Polubienie

            • Anglik ma bardziej rockowy wyraz twarzy. może to melanesian domieszka powodowała ciemną karnację.
              A co powiesz o Polce z Małopolski z Iron age?

              Podobają mi się jej włosy.

              Polubienie

            • ” Czyżby tak długo utrzymywał się rasizm, a co za tym idzie przypisanie koloru skóry do haplogrup?”
              No właśnie…
              Czyngis-chan twórca Imperium Mongołów podobno miał niebieskiej barwy oczy, rude włosy i bladą skórę. Jak na Mongołą przystało istny indoeuropejczyk z niego był. Współcześni Mongołowie mają bez wątpienia haplogrupę C.
              Twórca ich zamierzchłej potęgi, Wielki Czyngiz-chan, poprzez przodka Bordżigina (według Raszyda ad-Dina „niebieskooki”), pochodził z Ujgurskiej dynastii Domu Yaglakar (zwanego także Djalairs / Jalayir / Jalair), będących potomkami plemiennej dynastii Turkijskiego Kaganatu z Ezgils i prawdopodobnie należących do haplogrupy Y-DNA Ujgurskich Yaglakarów ( http://nextews.com/b0be169c/) i przypuszczalnie bezpośrednio związanych z haplogrupą R1a-Z2125……

              Polubienie

            • „A co powiesz o Polce z Małopolski z Iron age?”
              Wygląda jak gwiazda disco z lat 80.
              Myślę, że kręcone włosy nie są rozpoznawalne genetycznie, poza tym w Polsce występuje taki typ kobiet współcześnie.

              „Anglik ma bardziej rockowy wyraz twarzy. może to melanesian domieszka powodowała ciemną karnację.”

              On jest C1, jest bardzo blisko murzynka-pierwszego człowieka, typ aborygeński (tam też jest hg.C) wygląda na posiadającego dodatkowo domieszkę denisowian- homo sapiens równoległy do człowieka współczesnego wyrastającego z hg.A.
              Sprawdziłem Melenezyjczyków, sprawdziło się co przypuszczałem, że sa to Aborygeni zmieszani z żółtą rasą, ale żółtą z niewielką fałdą mongolską, stąd ją stracili.

              Polubienie

            • Skribho, jeszcze tylko Scytyjka z Syberii. Podobno Amazonka.

              Robert, a taką też widziałeś na dyskotece w jakiś tam latach? Zwróć uwagę na tatuaż. Tamga?

              Polubienie


            • Wydaje mi się, że to jest lepsza wizualizacja, tamta wygląda na zdziwaczałą. Wygląda na typową słowiańsko-europejską kobietę.
              Tatuaże ma zbieżne z tymi na złotym scytyjskim naszyjniku ważącym 1,5 kg, chociaż dzieli ich odległość „pół świata”:

              Nie wiem, czy to ma coś wspólnego z tamgami, wydaje mi się, że nie ma.

              Polubienie

            • Te cechy Czyngis-chana są nawet odnotowane w Tajnej historii Mongołów. Opowieść matki TEMUDŻYNA BORGIDŻINA, jak został on spłodzony przez rudego ducha o jasnej skórze i niebieskich oczach.
              Owszem legenda, ale dziwnie pasująca do późniejszych faktów.

              Polubienie

  13. „Zwyczajnie obal to i napisz, że tzw. tamgi pojawiły się nad Wartą wcześniej niż spalenizny grodów…”
    Mogło być tak jak piszesz. Nie zastanawiałam sie nad pochodzeniem Piastów. Chyba jest zgodność co do zbrojnego najazdu na Wielkopolskę. Gorzej z kierunkiem. Proponowano już wszystkie. Gdzie jeszcze miały miejsce takie przypadki?
    W każdym razie idziesz ciekawym tropem.

    Czaszki zmieniły się wraz ze zmianą panowania. Haplogrupy i języki zapewne też.

    „European linguists, historians, ethnologists etc. of the 19th century discovered, that languages of the world must have been strongly influenced by Russian = Sarmatian, the proto-Indoeuropean.”
    Z wklejonego fragmentu wynika związek słowiańsko protoIE.
    To co dzisiaj odkrywamy linguists, historians, ethnologists wiedzieli w 19w.

    Co do Sarmatów, podchodzę do tego, jak do niejasnego etnonimu. Był używany w starożytności, ale nie bardzo wiadomo czego dotyczył. Czy geografii, bo za Germanią rozciąga się Sarmacja aż po azjatyckie stepy? I różne ludy ją zamieszkiwały. Czy stylu życia „na koniu i wozie”? Itd.
    Dlatego nie wiem czy mitycznych Sarmatów należy łączyć z Osetyńczykami, czy późniejszymi stepowcami jak hazaria.

    Skribho, Czy mamy jakiś odpowiednik do Goth, fijathwy?

    Polubienie

    • „Zwyczajnie obal to i napisz, że tzw. tamgi pojawiły się nad Wartą wcześniej niż spalenizny grodów…” Mogło być tak jak piszesz. Nie zastanawiałam sie nad pochodzeniem Piastów. Chyba jest zgodność co do zbrojnego najazdu na Wielkopolskę. Gorzej z kierunkiem. Proponowano już wszystkie. Gdzie jeszcze miały miejsce takie przypadki? W każdym razie idziesz ciekawym tropem.(…)

      Piastowie to nie tzw. Polanie, co to niby mieli być Goplanami, itp. To chyba tzw. Nestor w „Powieści z minionych lat”, opisuje tych Polan Kijowskich. Widziałem ich na mapach, ale mapy, jak papier, jak sama wiesz przyjmie wszystko…

      https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powie%C5%9B%C4%87_minionych_lat

      (…) Czaszki zmieniły się wraz ze zmianą panowania. Haplogrupy i języki zapewne też. (…)

      Czaszki, to tylko czaszki, ale słowa i ich rdzenie, to są jakieś mierzalne dowody. Ja trzymam się dowodów mierzalnych, czyli rdzeni, nawet nie samogłosek… Nikt jeszcze nawet nie spróbował podważyć tzw. rough breathing. Nikt. Skoro tak, no to to, co twierdzę, ma podstawy logiczne, a nie jest tylko jakimś wymysłem, patrz rzekomi Sarmaci, jako Pra-Słowianie, czy Słowianie…

      (…) „European linguists, historians, ethnologists etc. of the 19th century discovered, that languages of the world must have been strongly influenced by Russian = Sarmatian, the proto-Indoeuropean.” Z wklejonego fragmentu wynika związek słowiańsko protoIE. To co dzisiaj odkrywamy linguists, historians, ethnologists wiedzieli w 19w. (…)

      Eee… Tam jest mowo o j. rosyjskim, który jest już w jakimś stopniu zkreolizowany, patrz oGieN’ / aGoN’, itd, ale co do sedna pełna zgoda.

      (…) Co do Sarmatów, podchodzę do tego, jak do niejasnego etnonimu. Był używany w starożytności, ale nie bardzo wiadomo czego dotyczył. Czy geografii, bo za Germanią rozciąga się Sarmacja aż po azjatyckie stepy? I różne ludy ją zamieszkiwały. Czy stylu życia „na koniu i wozie”? Itd. (…)

      Pełna zgoda.

      (…) Dlatego nie wiem czy mitycznych Sarmatów należy łączyć z Osetyńczykami, czy późniejszymi stepowcami jak hazaria. (…)

      Widzisz, to dr Jamroszko, dr Makuch, Tchórzliwy Grzegorz i inni allo-allo wpadli we własne sidła, a Adrian Leszczyński i inni za nimi. Logika jest taka, że ci pierwsi zakładają, że na stepie w okresie tzw. epoki żelaza istniały języki irańskie i to Scytowie, Sarmaci, czy inni PRZEKAZALI TZW. ZAPOŻYCZENIA OD-IRAŃSKIE Słowianom, patrz La(c)H, Le(c)H, itd, jako rzekomo pierwotnie od-osetyński LaG. To samo z BHaGa, jako Bo”G, BoGo+BoJ+Ny, BoG+aCTWo, o”+Bo”S+TWo, itd.

      Napiszę to otwartym tekstem, żeby zabolało. Pisałem o tym podad 3 lata temu,.. No cóż, teraz nadciąga prawda ze wschodu…

      Panowie zwyczajnie od samego początku dali ciała, bo olali i tzw. prawo Brugmanna, gdzie tzw. PIE=PS e/o>a u Indo-Irańczyków, a dodatkowo ci mendrcy nie znajo tzw. rough breathing, gdzie tzw. PIE=PS S>H. Gdyby znali, to nie pisaliby tych debilizmów…

      Adrian Leszczyński niestety naczytał się kronik i dr Jamroszko, który jak i dr Makuch i Tchórzliwy Grzegorz i inni allo-allo wywodzą te rzekome zapożyczenia od rzekomych potomków rzekomych Alanów, czyli rzekomych Sarmatów. Najgorsze jest w tym to, że poparł swoje twierdzenie, o rzekomej słowiańskości tych Sarmatów, czyli Alanów, czyli Osetyńców, na… kronikach… Dla mnie to raczej strzał w oba kolana, bo nie umie ani wytłumaczyć kto i kiedy tych bidoków osetyjskich z G kartwejską ziranizował, dodatkowo twierdzi, że „najprawdopodobniej” zrobili to Kurdowie, albo „Irańczycy z Iranu”, mimo, że oni mówią językami z tzw. grupy zachodnio-irańskiej, a nie jak ci Osetyńcy językiem z grupy wschodnio-irańskiej. Tam są różnice w wymowie na poziomie S>H i H>F… Opisze to dokładniej w następnym wpisie.

      Wniosek z tego jest prosty. Gdyby na stepie j. irańskich (jakichś, patrz tzw. dialect continuum) NIE BYŁO, to Osetyńcy nie gadaliby języku wschodnio-irańskim, pochodzącym ze stepu, patrz np. tzw. Kotlina Fergańska.

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


      Fergana Valley on map showing Sakastan about 100BC

      Arzhan i Pazyryk sa bardzo blisko…

      (…) Skribho, Czy mamy jakiś odpowiednik do Goth, fijathwy? (…)

      Nic nie znajduję. Dasz jakieś namiary na to? Zgaduje, że pewno piją w tym „gockim” do PiJaTHWy, PiJaNY, PiJa”Cy?

      Polubienie

      • Dobre pytanie zadałeś Skrybo. Tak sobie nad tym myślę i dochodzę do wniosku, że odpowiedzi szukać należy w wydarzeniu nazywanym dla zmyłki „Zjazd Gnieźnieński”…
        Dlaczego Otton III przybył do Gniezna? Czym był ten zjazd w roku tysięcznym?
        Coś mi zaczyna świtać, że to było nic innego jak tylko przypieczętowanie likwidacji LECHISTANU i rozbioru jego terytorium na państewka lenne Świętego Cesarstwa Rzymskiego.
        A Bolesław Chrobry poszedł do swoich kijowskich ziomków, żeby im zakomunikować iż nastały czasy Nowego Hegemona…

        Polubienie

  14. Skribho, doczytałam w wiki, ze Osetyjczyków wiąże sie z Sarmatami poprzez podobieństwo jęz. osetyńskiego do jakiś resztek po jezyku Jassów, później zmadziaryzowanych.
    Z tym, że napisano również aby nie łączyć Jassów z Jazygami.

    Mamy jakis miszmasz. Możemy dodać do niego jeszcze Jaświngów. I dalej kombinować z pochodzeniem Sarmatów. Co?

    Polubienie

    • Nie zrozumiałaś. Faktem jest, że tzw. j. osetyjski jest np. przez kronikarzy, czy innych takich określany jako język po-sarmacki. J. osetyjski jest tzw. językiem irańskim i należy do tzw. grupy wschodnio-irańśkiej. Inne wschodnio-irańśkie języki pochodzą ze wschodu Iranu… ale nie j. osetyjski, który leży na zachód od Iranu i jest inny niż j. kurdyjski, który należy do grupy zachodnio-irańskiej.

      Nie ma szans, żeby Osetyjczycy byli rzekomymi Słowianami, bo i maja G przeważającą i nie mogli być ziranizowani przez Kurdów. To matematyka i układanka, a nie doszukiwanie się podobieństw w nazwach jakichś ludów.

      Widzę, że nikt nie rozumie, jak ubezdźwięcznienie wpłynęło na języki od najbardziej na wschodzie tzw. tocharskiego A i B, przez wschodnio-irańskie, awestyjski, który w sumie jest nieklasyfikowany jako wschodnio-irański, ale i tak zaliczany do grupy wschodnio-irańskiej, itd. Kentumizacja idzie jak byk ze wschodu, tak samo jak te wszystkie ludy i kroniki to potwierdzają.

      Męczy mnie histeryczna wybiórczość historyków, którzy wybierają sobie co tam im pasuje z tych ich kronik. Mam na myśli te kroniki, których akurat nie obrzucają błotem, czy innym gównem, jak im pasuje. Ja nie mieszam się w to wybiórcze poszukiwanie. Nie wiem, czym różni się np. taki Tanator, co uznaje tzw. Galla Anonima za wiarygodnego, ale już Dzierzby, czy innego Długosza nie, od Adriana Leszczyńskiego, który odczytuje, co jakiś kronikarz miał na myśli, kiedy pisał to co mu ślina na język przyniosła…

      Historia, jest taka, jak ją się zapisuje i naucza. Dla potomków kapa, czy innych morderców obywateli Polski tzw. pochodzenia mojrzeszowego, czy jak zwał, to nie ich przodkowie lub zapędzali pałując swoich ziomali, dzieci, żony, rodziców, itd do bydlęcych wagonów. To znikło. Teraz to tylko Polacy, są winni, że nie starali się jeszcze bardziej. Tak im wygodniej i rozumiem to, ale nie zgadzam się na to.

      Skoro nie rozumiesz, tego, to dalsze kombinowanie to takie sobie gadanie o dupie maryni. Każdy może być kazdym, bo tak sobie to kronikarze zapisywali. Mnie to wali. Ja szukam faktów, a nie domniemań.

      Polubienie

      • Masz rację. Zupełnie nie wiem o co ci chodzi. Co ma wspólnego język wschodnioirański z sarmackim? Skąd to wszystko wziąłeś?
        Albo, dlaczego Osetyjczycy mieli by być rzekomymi Słowianami? Kto tak mówi?

        Polubienie

        • Przeczytaj jeszcze raz to co napisał Adrian Leszczyński i to co ja napisałem. Wszystko jest w tych dwóch tekstach i wystarczy to tylko ze sobą porównać. Pod koniec tygodnia będzie dokładniej o tym, że Osetyjczycy nie mogli być jednocześnie i potomkami rzekomych Alanów / Sarmatów i Słowian, bo są takimi północnoskałkazkimi Gruzinami. To samo dotyczy ich języka, itd.

          Polubienie

  15. Pingback: 106 Moje dodatkowe uwagi do artykułu „SARMACI, GERMANIE I SŁOWIANIE” autorstwa Adriana Leszczyńskiego | SKRBH

  16. https://slowianowierstwo.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/zaproszenie-na-slowianski-festiwal-30-czerwca-2018-w-muchowie/
    Kiedy miesiące robią się ciepłe pojawiają się świetne wydarzenia na świeżym powietrzu. Dzisiaj możemy zaprosić czytelników bloga 30 czerwca br na Festiwal Historyczny Pochodzenie Słowian w miejscowości Muchów, w powiecie jaworskim na Dolnym Śląsku. Są to już Sudety a dokładniej Pogórze Kaczawskie, więc ci co lubią góry szczególnie powinni zainteresować się owym festiwalem.

    Festiwal jest organizowany przez zwykłych ludzi, którzy interesują się kulturą Polski, kulturą Słowian, są grupą przyjaciół. Wiadomo więc, że festiwal będzie w klimatach bardzo swojskich, co brzmi jeszcze lepiej.

    Co na nas czeka na festiwalu? Festiwal oficjalnie rozpocznie się w południe od zabawy. Czyli od turnieju łucznictwa tradycyjnego (z nagrodami)
    Później część wykładów naukowych i dyskusji, które jak wiemy często są gorące w naszym środowisku, a będą bardzo interesujące wykłady:
    – „Od Sarmatów i Ariów do Słowian. Wspólne korzenie językowe” – dr Piotr Makuch
    – „Technologie dawnych Słowian” – dr Wojciech Sawiński
    – „Kult jelenia. Wspólne podłoże religii indoaryjskich.” – mgr Rafał Jakubowski
    – „Pochodzenie Słowian wg badań genetycznych” – mgr Adrian Leszczyński

    Na koniec część integracyjna czyli koncerty. Można posłuchać głosy ludzi i instrumentów z takich zespołów jak:
    – Anna i Włodzimierz Ranoszek – Ballady historyczne przy akompaniamencie liry korbowej;
    – Katarzyna Misiak – Pieśni zebrane przez etnografa Oskara Kolberga;
    – Międzynarodowy Zespół AR PO DE – Muzyka Świata (grupa składa się z reprezentantów krajów tj. Armenia, Polska, Niemcy)
    – na koniec o północy koncert niespodzianka
    https://www.facebook.com/events/395749950852480/permalink/401145536979588/

    Polubienie

    • Zwrócę uwagę, że dr Makuch (podobnie jak inni allo-allo, jak dr Jamroszko) jest od dawna zwolennikiem rzekomych zapożyczeń od-irańskich / sarmackich / alańskich / osetyjskich rzekomo odnajdywanych w j. polskim / słowiańskim. Adrian Leszczyński natomiast twierdzi, że żadnych takich zapożyczeń w j. polskim / słowiańskim nie ma,.. no chyba że zmienił był ostatnio zdanie w tym temacie…

      Jak myślicie, będzie tam gorąco i ktoś skoczy sobie do oczu,.. czy raczej wszyscy znów tradycyjnie zagłaskają się na śmierć, drapiąc się do tego rubasznie po plecach, hm?

      Polubienie

Skomentuj

Wprowadź swoje dane lub kliknij jedną z tych ikon, aby się zalogować:

Logo WordPress.com

Komentujesz korzystając z konta WordPress.com. Wyloguj /  Zmień )

Zdjęcie na Google+

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Google+. Wyloguj /  Zmień )

Zdjęcie z Twittera

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Twitter. Wyloguj /  Zmień )

Zdjęcie na Facebooku

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Facebook. Wyloguj /  Zmień )

w

Connecting to %s