297 Podsumowanie mojej wiedzy o Słowiańszczyźnie, chorych scytyjsko-sarmacko-tureckich fantazjach i ofitzjalnych przeciw-słowiańskich kłamstwach 01

…..

Oto mój podarek na Kupałnockę:

Wnioski i protokół rozbieżności wynikające z danych, które powstały w wyniku komentarzy napisanych do wpisu:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-history-of-scythians-gnecchi.html

Główne poruszane w nim zagadnienie to prawda, fałsz, manipulacja, uprzedzenia przeciw-słowiańskie i najważniejsze, czyli wiarygodność:

• nauk jak archeologia, historia, językoznawstwo i genetyka,
• próbkowań i definicji R1a, R1b, I2a, EGH, WHG, CHG, danych i wniosków z nich płynących,
• odtfoszeń PIE, Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-Slavic, Proto-Turkic, Proto-Germanic, itp.,
• rzekomych związków i zapożyczeń od-irańskich / od-osetyjskich, od-tureckich rzekomo odnajdywanych w j. polskim,
• fantazji scytyjsko-sarmacko-tureckich, jak sarmatyzm ich wyznaftzów i propagatorów,

Od 2014 wielokrotnie pisałem o problematyczności łączenia Słowiańszczyzny z tzw. sarmatyzmem, czyli jakimiś rzekomymi związkami ze Scytami, Sarmatami, Hunami, itp., patrz np. wpisy: 104, 105, 106, 133, 147, 155, 166, 187, 188, 189, 200, 259.

…..

Przez wielu byłem wtedy wyśmiewany, nazywany kłamcą, krętaczem, manipulantem, ruskim trollem, itp. Tymczasem po latach większość z tych wielu milczy, południowa droga R1a i inne podobne brednie, pogrzebały się same już jakiś czas temu.

Dziś na Kupałnockę przyszedł czas na ponowny i tym razem już ostateczny pochówek fantazji scytyjsko-sarmacko-tureckich.

Wielokrotnie od 2014 obiecałem, że omówię książkę dr Piotra Makucha „Od Ariów do Sarmatów Nieznane 2500 lat historii Polaków”. Po latach okazuje się, że wszystko to, co napisałem wtedy o tym nie zestarzało się i dziś nie muszę nic do tego dodawać. Szkoda na to mojego czasu. Debilny gniot pozostał debilnym gniotem, a wszyscy, którzy się tym debilnym gniotem zachwycali, samymi sobą się zachwycali…

No może dodam tylko to, że internet poza tą publikacją, nie zna pojęcia tzw. historia kejanidzka / Kejland mythology / Keyanid mythology… Wygląda na to, że nawet to jest zmyślone…

Za względu na duża ilość danych muszę podzielić ten wpis na dwie części. W części pierwszej zamieszczę komentarze związane z Davidski, a w części drugiej te związane z Onur Dincer.

…..

SKRiBHa 2021-06-18 O 23:08 

Podsumowanie mojej rozmowy z Davidski i Onur Dincer:

1.
Nikt nie wie skąd, jak i gdzie pojawiło się CHG na stepie. Reich, Anthony, itp. ciągle twierdzą, że pochodzi ono z Iranu, południa Kaukazu lub z delty Wołgi.

Yamnaya ancestry: mapping the Proto-Indo-European expansions

(Ja łączę rozpowszechnienie CHG na stepie około 5600 pne. z tzw. Black Sea deluge hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis)

Co to jest tak naprawdę CHG, EHG, WHG, EEF i czy CHG było już częścią ANE?

Co z jakby kartwelskimi NIE R1b Baskami 100% ze stepu po Yamna / Yamnaya?

Bomhard i jego rzekomy kartwelski podkład w tzw. PIE, kontra kartwelskie liczebniki, Pierwszy, itp.

https://skrbh.wordpress.com/2019/06/28/190-wtornie-ubezdzwiecznione-liczebniki-indogermanskie-i-ich-wyzej-energetyczne-pierwotne-pra-slowianskie-rdzenie-pierwsy-prw-pr-01/

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%83%9E%E1%83%98%E1%83%A0%E1%83%95%E1%83%94%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98#Georgian

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296672551_Some_thoughts_on_the_Proto-Indo-European_cardinal_numbers

https://www.academia.edu/40002289/Bomhard_The_Origins_of_Proto_Indo_European_The_Caucasian_Substrate_Hypothesis_JIES_Volume_47_Number_1_and_2_Spring_Summer_2019_pre_print_
Bomhard – The Origins of Proto-Indo-European: The Caucasian Substrate Hypothesis
(JIES, Volume 47, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2019; pre-print)
Jounral of Indo-European Studies, 2019 Allan Bomhard

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4cd4801n
Comments on Allan Bomhard, “The Origins of Proto-Indo-European: The Caucasian substrate hypothesis”
2019 Author(s): Nichols, J

2.
Wg Davidski IE Yamna / Yamnaya, powstała ze Sredny Stog, a nie z Samara / Khvalynsk R1b-L754 and I2a2, jak to twierdzą Reich, Anthony, itp. Jak dotąd w kurhanach Yamna / Yamnaya odnaleziono jedynie R1b-L23 i I2a2. Aria z vajrą z Kutuluk był Yamna i R1b.

3.
Nie wiadomo gdzie powstały pierwsze kurhany, albo w Samara albo w Khvalynsk / Novodanilovka, albo na północnym Skałkazie Maykop lub południowym Leyla-Tepe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samara_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvalynsk_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novodanilovka_group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suvorovo_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuqbulaq,_Agstafa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture

4.
Afanasievo było ‘wschodnią Yamna / Yamnaya’, więc logicznie oznacza to, że jeśli Yamna / Yamnaya była IE, to także Afanasievo było IE. Haplogrupy jak R1b1a1a2a2, R1b1a1a2a, Q1a2, J1, C2 były w Afanasievo w okolicach Altay już od 3300 pne.

Jeśli jednak Yamna nie była IE, to skąd Aria z wadźrą z Kutuluk się wziął?

Anthony twierdzi, że PIE był językiem EGH. A co jeśli to nieprawda i PIE to język WHG / I2, który jedynie IE EHG?

IE jest błędne, patrz EI.

5.
CWC była IE i zawierała R1a-M417, zarówno ‘europejskie’ Z283, jak i ‘azjatyckie Z93’. CWC pokrywa się z terenami występowania j. słowiańskich. CWC dotarła też na Bałkany. Z93 stopniowo tracił kontakt z matecznikiem pozostałym w CWC, aż stopniowo przez tzw. dialect continuum przekształcił się w Indo-Irańczyków, z tym, że Irańczycy dodatkowo jeszcze bardziej ubezdźwięcznili się i odwrócili religię Ariów o 180 stopni.

6.
Wg Davidski Fatianovo, Balanovo, Abrashevo, Sintashta są jednorodne genetycznie i pochodzą bezpośrednio z CWC, a nie z Yamna / Yamnaya, jak twierdzą, Reich, Anthony, Narasimhan, Nordqvist, itp.

7.
Afanasievo, Andronovo, Karasuk, Tagar itp były obecne w okolicach Altay i poprzedzały lub współistniały z Slab Grave Culture, rzekomo Proto-Turkic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasievo_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karasuk_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagar_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_cultures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_Grave_culture

8.
Seima-Turbino i haplogrupa N posuwała się na północ od Andronovo z Altay na Ural i dalej w kierunku Bałtyku. Bali się Ariów i rydwanów?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_phenomenon

9.
Scytowie i Sarmacie byli bardzo mocno zmieszani, patrz haplogrupy wymienione w tym papierze, kiedy po 1000 p.n.e. posuwali się stepem z Altay na zachód.

W omawianym papierze istnieją nie tylko ‘azjatyckie’, ale i typowo ‘europejskie’ R1a, ale najprawdopodobniej są one zwyczajnie niedokładnie zbadane i tak naprawdę są pochodne Z93.

10.
Logicznie wynika z powyższego, że w rejonie Altay pierwszymi kulturami były kultury IE, które wymieszały się jak Scytowie ze wszystkim, co było w okolicy. To oznacza, że także języki indo-irańskie, jak scytyjski, muszą być późniejszymi językami kreolskimi z podkładem NIE.

Złoty / ZL”oTy, Żółty / Z”o’LTy > (Z)Altay, e/o>a

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

I hope that from now on, you will remember forever that the word Altay has an IE / slavic etymology (Z)Altay / Z”o’LTy.

It has nothing to do with the Iranian languages, see L>R, Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰr̥Hanyam (“gold”), Proto-Indo-Aryan *źʰárHiṣ, from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰárHiš, from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰelh₃- (“to shine”), cognate with Avestan (zairi) Sanskrit हिरण्य (hiraṇya), Avestan (zarańiia, “gold”), etc., much less with the Proto-Turkic languages.

Etymologia dla nazwy Altay powoduje następujące pytanie:

Kiedy, gdzie i jak rzeczywiście powstał tzw. Proto-Indo-Iranian?

11.
Sarmatyzm i powiązania Słowian ze Scytami, Sarmatami itp., to bredzenie bez żadnego pokrycia w genach i słownictwie, czyli Jamroszko, Makuch, Kowalski, Rudaweb i reszta wyszli na tych co zapowiadałem, że wyjdą od 2013r.

Brak jest typowo scytyjskich i sarmackich haplogrup w obecnej puli genowej Polaków, (ew. od-sarmackie R1b Piastów!), to logicznie to samo dotyczy od-scytyjskich i od-sarmackich, a także od-tureckich wpływów i zapożyczeń w j. polskim, patrz np. słowo Kurhan / Ko’R+HaN, Kurgan / Ko’R+GaN, które jest identyczne znaczeniowo do polskiego słowa Górka / Go’R+Ka.

https://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/kurhan
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kurhan
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kurgan#Turkish

Z Zigurat / Zi+Go’R+aT jest zresztą tak samo, patrz:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zigurat#English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat

10.
Odtworzenia tzw. PIE są niewiarygodne, patrz np. Vo+MiT / Wy+MioT, czy tzw. laryngały, patrz powstanie języków IE z rodziny anatolijskiej, atestowanych jako pierwsze.

Góral / Go’R+aL > (G)Ural

Skałka / S+KaL”+Ka > (S)Caucasus / (S)KaL”+KaS+o’S

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus
The term Caucasus is derived from Caucas (Georgian: კავკასოსი Kawḳasosi)(…)

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

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CE%B1%CF%8D%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek

The origin is uncertain. Perhaps from Proto-Scythian *xrohukäsi (“ice-shining, white with snow”). Compare also Old Armenian Կապկոհ (Kapkoh, “Caucasus”), Middle Persian [script needed] (Kap-kōf, “Caucasus”).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ska%C5%82a

From Proto-Slavic skala, from skoliti (“to cleave, to split”).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/skala

Substantivized collective noun from skàliti (“to chop”) +‎ -а. Perhaps, from a long o-grade of Proto-Indo-European (s)kelH- (“to cut, to chop”), akin to Lithuanian skalà (“chip, sliver”), Proto-Germanic skalō (“lump, ball”).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kaleczy%C4%87

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kala%C4%87

Iterative of Old Polish kalić, from Proto-Slavic *kaliti.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kolec

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/kolti

Stąd i Koło / KoL”o, Kółko / Ko’L”+Ko z Osią / oS’, zapożyczone dalej na południe do j. semickich i innych np. Gilgal.

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

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%9C#Hebrew

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%92%D6%BE%D7%9C%D6%BE%D7%92%D6%BE%D7%9C#Hebrew

…..

Co do I2a i rolniko-staro-europejczyko-praprasłowian z powiązaniami do odcinaczy głów z Lepensky Vir a wcześniej Natufians z Bliskiego Wschodu, proszę o tłumaczenia autora pomysłu, czyli Roberta.

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

…..

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-history-of-scythians-gnecchi.html

Thursday, April 22, 2021

The history of the Scythians (Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2021)

Over at Science Advances at this LINK. Many of the samples from this paper are in the Global25 datasheets. Look for the relevant population and individual IDs from the paper.

The Scythians were a multitude of horse-warrior nomad cultures dwelling in the Eurasian steppe during the first millennium BCE. Because of the lack of first-hand written records, little is known about the origins and relations among the different cultures. To address these questions, we produced genome-wide data for 111 ancient individuals retrieved from 39 archaeological sites from the first millennia BCE and CE across the Central Asian Steppe. We uncovered major admixture events in the Late Bronze Age forming the genetic substratum for two main Iron Age gene-pools emerging around the Altai and the Urals respectively. Their demise was mirrored by new genetic turnovers, linked to the spread of the eastern nomad empires in the first centuries CE. Compared to the high genetic heterogeneity of the past, the homogenization of the present-day Kazakhs gene pool is notable, likely a result of 400 years of strict exogamous social rules.

Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2021, Ancient genomic time transect from the Central Asian Steppe unravels the history of the Scythians, Science Advances, Sci Adv 7 (13), eabe4414, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abe4414

See also…

Uralians of the Sargat horizon

Posted by Davidski at 6:20:00 PM

Onur Dincer said…
Some observations on the paper. Among the new ancient genomes in the paper Y-DNA N is restricted to those from the Sargat and related cultures in the the forest steppe that runs through today’s Russian territories just north of Kazakhstan, what is now Kazakhstan seems to be largely devoid of Y-DNA N during most of the researched eras in the paper. Also, Y-DNA C2 seems to be very rare in what is now Kazakhstan before the Turkic times. Sarmatians seem to be almost all R1a. The R1a finds in the paper seem to be all Z93 and the J2a finds seem to be all from the Central Asian subclade. What is now Kazakhstan seems to be less East Eurasian in ancestry than today (excluding the recent Russian and other European arrivals) before the Hunnic times at least except the more fertile southern parts, which became particularly high in East Eurasian ancestry at post-Hunnic times. There is also a decrease in Sintashta-like and Botai-like ancestries with the Hunnic era. Huns and the subsequent peoples fall on the Turco-Mongolic genetic cline, the previous peoples with East Eurasian ancestry of what is now Kazakhstan instead in general fall on a genetic cline that is between the Uralic and Turco-Mongolic clines, so I do not think the pre-Hunnic peoples of what is now Kazakhstan were Turkic-speaking irrespective of their East Eurasian levels, they may well have been Iranic speakers despite the high East Eurasian ancestry in many. This paper did not sample Pontic-Caspian steppe Scythians, but we know from previous papers that they had far less East Eurasian ancestry than Kazakh steppe Scythians. Also, this paper presents new Sarmatian samples from what is now western Kazakhstan, they do not seem high in East Eurasian ancestry either (the previously tested Pontic-Caspian steppe Sarmatians were not either).
April 22, 2021 at 9:56 PM

Davidski said…
@Onur
Thanks.
Can you say more about the Y-HG N in the paper? How does it relate to the N in modern populations?
April 22, 2021 at 9:59 PM

Onur Dincer said…
@Davidski
Can you say more about the Y-HG N in the paper? How does it relate to the N in modern populations?

The ones with enough resolution belong to the Uralic clade L1026/L392 and its subclades (Z1936 in particular). This goes nicely with the Northern Siberian autosomal mix in Sargat.
April 22, 2021 at 10:47 PM

Onur Dincer said…
@Rob
Any ideas about the origins of Turks propper ?

Proto-Turks might have been the Slav Grave people or at least a part of them. Genetics and geography are compatible with that, and chronology certainly fits. Proto-Mongols, on the other hand, might have been the Donghu people, their eastern neighbor.
April 23, 2021 at 12:31 AM

Onur Dincer said…
Slab* Grave
April 23, 2021 at 12:36 AM

Nezih Seven said…
@Onur
I agree with you on Slab Grave being potentially Proto-Turkic. I always had thought Proto-Turks as being closer to Khovsgol_BA genetically, but after analyzing the recent mediaeval Turkic samples from Central Asia it became obvious that Slab Grave is a much better candidate with a chronology that fits. Mediaeval Turks are roughly Slab Grave mixed with Eastern Iranics like Sogdians. But, like Copper Axe, I thought Slab Grave as the homeland of both Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic. Your Donghu theory seems more satisfactory.
April 23, 2021 at 3:27 PM

Rob said…
Well I think there’s more to it than “Turks come from slab grave “ (not suggesting that Onur implies anything straightforward either)
But at some point they had to coalesce in the medieval altai region . I think the genomes we currently have all look fairly admixed
April 23, 2021 at 7:17 PM

ambron said…
Arza, Matt, Archi, we have probably over 20 of good quality early medieval samples from West Slavic areas. Maybe it would be nice to put them all on the PCA; we would have a genetic image of the early medieval Western Slavs. Unfortunately, I do not use these tools.
April 25, 2021 at 11:54 AM

Arza said…
@ ambron
https://slavicorigins.blogspot.com/
April 28, 2021 at 12:11 PM

SKRiBHa said…
Hello there.

I have looked at the ‘Supplementary Materials’ attached to this paper. I noted that there is additional data related to YDNA of these 111, or 117, samples.

Particularly, the file „abe4414_Data_file_S1.xlsx” contains very interesting data.

It can be observed that the Scythians and Sarmatians were very mixed peoples, see the haplogroups:

Q1a (Q-M1155, Q-L472), Q1a1 (Q-F1215, Q-F1096), Q1a2a (Q-L475; Q-L53), Q1a1a1 (Q-M265, Q-M120), Q1a1b1a (Q-L713), Q1a2a1 (Q-L54), Q1a2a1c (Q-L334; Q-L330), Q1b1b1 (Q-FGC4872, Q-Y2990),
E1b1b1a1b1a (E-V13), E1b1b1b2a (E-M123),
CT (CT-M5812, CT-M168), CT (CT-M5603, CT-M168),
CF (CF-M3690,CF-P143),
J (J-CTS852, J-M304), J2a (J-L212, J-M410), J2a1h2 (J-L25),
C2b (C-L1373), C2b1c (C-F1918),
D1b2a (D-Z17175; D-CTS220),
L (L-PF5747, L-M20), L1a2 (L-M357),
NO (NO-F549, NO-M2313),
N1c1(N-L395, N-M46), N1c1a (N-P298, N-M178), N1c1a1a (N-L392), N1c1a1a2 (N-CTS10082, N-Z1936),
F (F-P14, F-M89),
G (G-M3544, G-M201),
P1 (P-P243, P-M45),
BT (BT-M9267, BT-M42), BT (BT-Z12003, BT-M42),

However, I paid special attention to the diversity of the samples of the R haplogroup presented there, see:

R1 (R-P225, R-M173), R1 (R-P238, R-M173)

R1b1a2 (R-PF6475, R-M269)

R1a (R-L62, R-M420),
R1a (R-L63, R-M420),
R1a1a (R-M512),
R1a1a (R-M198, R-M512), R1a1a (R-L449, R-M512)
R1a1a1 (R-M417),
R1a1a1b (R-Z645),
R1a1a1b (R-Z647, R-Z645),
R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93),
R1a1a1b2a (R-Z94)

Both the so-called ‘European’ and ‘Asian’ R1a was present among the Scythian and Sarmatian peoples.

Questions:

1.
Were the ancestors of male Scythians also R1a men from Europe, e.g. from CWC, or were they only people from Siberia, e.g. descendants of Locomotiv, etc.?

2.
Does the lack of ‘Asian’ R1a subclades among the present population of Poland prove the lack of contact between the ancestors of the present Poles and the Scythians and Sarmatians?

I will be very grateful for your opinions.

Best regards
SKRiBHa
April 28, 2021 at 3:49 PM

Davidski said…
There’s no R1a in Locomotiv. Those samples are either contaminated or wrongly dated.

R1a didn’t exist in Asia until it was brought there by migrants from Europe during the Bronze Age.

And Poles don’t have any Scythian or Sarmatian ancestry, that’s why there are no Asian, or rather so called Asian, R1a subclades in Poland except in rare cases among people who have non-Polish ancestry, like from a Tatar or Jewish male ancestor.
April 29, 2021 at 4:05 AM

SKRiBHa said…
Davidski, thank you very much for your kind reply.

With reference to it, I have, however, the following questions:

1.
On what basis do you claim that: ‘There’s no R1a in Locomotiv. Those samples are either contaminated or wrongly dated. R1a didn’t exist in Asia until it was brought there by migrants from Europe during the Bronze Age.’?

2.
Has I1819 Vasilevka Ukraine still been the oldest R1a, or is it now this PES001 Russia, see below?

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23436-New-Kazakh-samples&p=765544&viewfull=1#post765544

(…)
1. PES001 Russia 10785-10626 BC M459 YP1272 YP1301
2. I1819 Vasilevka Ukraine 8825-8561 BC M459
3. I5876 Dereivka Ukraine 7040-6703 BC M420 YP4141>pre-YP5018
4. I0061 Karelia Russia 6800-5950 BC M459
5. I0433 Khvalynsk Russia 5200-4000BC M459
6. MA975 Estonia 3653-3376 BC M459 M459 YP1272
7. Sites Serteya VIII and II
A3 Site Serteya VIII boundary of V-IV mill. BC [Likely M459]
A8 and A9 Site Naumovo Site Serteya II middle of III mill. BC

The I6561 sample in Sredny Stog II Alexandria, Ukraine is M417 Z94 Y26.

I0432 Poltavka Outlier (Potapovka 1) from Samara Bend, Russia, 2925-2536 BC is Z93 Z94 Z2124 Z2121
(…)

2a.
Do you have a better list of the oldest R1a samples than the aforementioned one?

You once claimed that the sample I6561 Sredny Stog II Alexandria Ukraine was also wrongly classified and should be Z93. Currently, it is classified as such.

3.
So where did the ‘European’ R1a come from in CWC, if it could not come from I6561 Sredny Stog II Alexandria Ukraine?

4.
Are the „Asian / Aryan” R1a samples from Fatianovo, Sintashta, etc., from the „European” R1a from I5876 Dereivka Ukraine, or rather directly from I6561 Sredny Stog II Alexandria Ukraine?

5.
So where did the ‚European’ R1a, which I mentioned earlier, among the Scythians and Sarmatians come from?

5.
What is the oldest fossil R1a found west of the Bug River?

In your answer you also stated that:

(…) And Poles don’t have any Scythian or Sarmatian ancestry, that’s why there are no Asian, or rather so called Asian, R1a subclades in Poland except in rare cases among people who have non-Polish ancestry, like from a Tatar or Jewish male ancestor. (…)

6.
Does this mean that Długosz, Kromer, etc., were fantasists and fairy-tale writers, and the so-called sarmatism itself and all similar claims about the alleged origin of the Polish nobility, or even all Poles from the Scythians and Sarmatians, have only been lies and propaganda?

7.
And what about Piasts’ R1b, can it not however come from that Scythian-Sarmatian R1b1a2 (R-PF6475, R-M269) mentioned in this paper?

Best regards
SKRiBHa
April 30, 2021 at 11:56 AM

vAsiSTha said…
SKRIbha
„The I6561 sample in Sredny Stog II Alexandria, Ukraine is M417 Z94 Y26.”

This is incorrect. This sample is definitely not Y26+ because the other call at this level is negative. The Y26+ is a false +ve due to C>T deamination in aDna. There are no markers present for Z94 level so we dont know. So at best we can say this is Z93+. In any case this sample is now marked as QUESTIONABLE (damage.ds.half=0.028) by Reich lab.
April 30, 2021 at 2:11 PM

Davidski said…
@SKRiBHa
1. There’s no R1a older than the Bronze Age anywhere in Asia in samples that are properly dated and sequenced with next generation technologies, and I don’t think there ever will be.

2. PES001 is the oldest R1a on record right now.

2a. I6561 does belong to Z93, but it was wrongly dated. Its real date is around 1600 BCE.

3. CWC R1a comes from somewhere on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

4. The so called Asian R1a, which is Z93, is from the part of the CWC that Fatyanovo came from, wherever that was, maybe the eastern Carpathian region.

5. The R1a in Scythians is from the CWC.

6. Poles don’t derive from Sarmatians, and don’t even have any significant ancestry from them or similar populations.

7. I don’t have a clue about the Piast R1b.
April 30, 2021 at 11:59 PM

SKRiBHa said…
Davidski, again thank you very much for your kind reply.

(…) I6561 does belong to Z93, but it was wrongly dated. Its real date is around 1600 BCE. (…)

1.
If R1a Z93 from I6561 Alexandria was so badly sampled and dated, did it come from I0432 Poltavka Outlier R1a Z93, or from this CWC R1a Z93, which went to Fatianovo and further to Sintashta, etc?

By the way, according to the map below, CWC R1a Z93 went straight through the Pripyat marshes while going to Moscow / Fatianovo.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/4/eabd6535
Genetic ancestry changes in Stone to Bronze Age transition in the East European plain
Lehti Saag

2.
Did CWC R1a Z93 leave any genetic trace on the Pripyat River area?

2a.
Did CWC R1a Z93 drown in the Pripyat swamps and that is why it is not visible among the Slavs, especially Poles, see the allo-allo claims regarding the so-called homeland of the Proto-Slavs?

(…) CWC R1a comes from somewhere on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. (…)

3.
Does the ‚European’ CWC R1a derive from I5876 Dereivka Ukraine, or rather from I0061 Karelia Russia?

(…) The R1a in Scythians is from the CWC. (…)

4.
Are these ‘Scythian / Sarmatian’ subclades visible in CWC:

R1a (R-L62, R-M420), R1a (R-L63, R-M420),
R1a1a (R-M512), R1a1a (R-M198, R-M512), R1a1a (R-L449, R-M512)
R1a1a1 (R-M417),
R1a1a1b (R-Z645), R1a1a1b (R-Z647, R-Z645),

because the ‚European’ R1a is neither visible in Fatianovo nor in Sintashta?!

4a.
Are you sure that the entire ‚European’ R1a visible in the Scythian / Sarmatian samples comes from the ‚European’ CWC R1a, and not, for example, from the descendants of I0061 Karelia Russia, which the Fatianovans took with them from Moscow when they then went further east to the Ural?

4b.
What about these haplogroups: R1 (R-P225, R-M173), R1 (R-P238, R-M173), and R1b1a2 (R-PF6475, R-M269)? Where did they come from to the Scythians / Sarmatians?

(…) Poles don’t derive from Sarmatians, and don’t even have any significant ancestry from them or similar populations. (…)

5.
Ok, what about this ‚European’ R1a visible in the Scythians and Sarmatians? Could it not have later returned with them via the steppe to the west, also to Pripyat and further to the Vistula and Oder?

After all, it is officially claimed that alleged Iranian / Scythian / Sarmatian language borrowings are allegedly found in Slavic languages, so something is fishy and not adding up here!

Haplogroup G (G-M3544, G-M201) occurs among these Scythian-Sarmatian samples.

5a.
Are the Ossetians the descendants of the Sarmatian Alans or only east-iranised Kartvelians?

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

(…) Y-chromosomal DNA haplogroups among North Ossetians in the „Ossetian DNA Project” include C3b2b1, E1b1b1a1b1a, G2a1a1a, G2a1a1a1b1, G2a1a1a1b1a, G2a1a1a1b1a2, I2c, J1a3a, J2a*, J2a1b, Q1a1b1a, R1b1a2a1a, R1b1a2a2c1, T1a, and more. South Ossetians in the project have haplogroups including G2a1a1a1a, G2a1a1a1b1, J2a1b, L1b, and R1b1a2a2c1. (…)

(…) I don’t have a clue about the Piast R1b. (…)

Really?! There you have got all relevant and available data:

https://www.genealogiagenetyczna.com/2017/04/znamy-pierwsze-wyniki-dna-piastow.html
https://www.genealogiagenetyczna.com/2017/02/dna-piastow-na-tropie-potomkow.html
https://en-gb.facebook.com/PiastDNA/
https://scienceinpoland.pap.pl/en/news/news%2C80495%2Cdna-research-shed-light-piast-dynasty-history.html
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/piastdynasty/about/background

If you know Figlerowicz and others, you can ask them about it. Maybe they will tell you something more because it looks like they have not done anything about it for several years…

5.
Is R1a from Eulau Germany the oldest R1a found west of the Bug Rivers?

https://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226
Ancient DNA, Strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age
Wolfgang Haak
May 2, 2021 at 5:28 AM

Davidski said…
@SKRiBHa
1. I6561 is probably derived from the Abashevo population, which in turn came from the CWC. And you shouldn’t take these maps too literally, especially in regards to places that haven’t been sampled yet.

2. Nothing significant.

2a. Fatyanovo was rich in Z93 because of a rapid founder effect, which may have happened during its migration north, so there’s no need to posit that anyone drowned, but rather that they left the area, and eventually most of their descendants left for Asia.

3. Like I said, the CWC R1a is from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

4. These aren’t specifically Scythian/Sarmatian subclades, but rather very broad subclades due to missing data, and obviously these broad subclades are found in CWC too, because CWC is ancestral to the R1a in Scythians and Sarmatians.

4a. Neither Scythians nor Fatyanovo have anything to do with Karelian hunter-gatherers. The Karelian R1a is probably extinct, or at least extremely rare today. Most R1a in the world belongs to the M417 subclade, which expanded with the CWC.

4b. You need to differentiate useful subclades from poor classifications due to missing data, because obviously something like R1 (R-P225, R-M173) is the latter.

5. I’m not aware of any specific Scythian or Sarmatian Y-DNA subclades or their autosomal DNA being found in Poles. Just saying that there’s some „European” R1a or G2 in Scythians/Sarmatians doesn’t mean anything. What you need to do is establish that a specific lineage or lineages had real impact on the modern population, and we’re not seeing that in the case of Poles.

5a. Ossetians are mixed, with some Iranic ancestry from the steppes, but they’re mostly of local Caucasian stock. And I don’t have much interest in the Piast R1b.

5b. Most CWC C14 dates west of the Bug overlap significantly, so it’s impossible to say which sample is really the oldest.
May 2, 2021 at 6:03 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Davidski
(…) I6561 is probably derived from the Abashevo population, which in turn came from the CWC. And you shouldn’t take these maps too literally, especially in regards to places that haven’t been sampled yet. (…)

You have written at least two articles about I6561 Alexandria:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/03/was-ukraineeneolithic-i6561-proto-indo.html
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-swarm-of-locusts.html

1.
How did you understand that I6561 Alexandria is not ‚the oldest recorded individual belonging to Y-haplogroup R1a-M417’, but is much younger and Z93 as well, so it can not be paternal to the ‚European’ and ‚Asian’ CWC R1a?

(…) Like I said, the CWC R1a is from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. (…)

2.
Any R1a has not yet been found in Yamna so far, so where did it hide?

2a.
Can you name any sample that fits as paternal to the ‚European’ and ‘Asian’ CWC R1a?

(…) These aren’t specifically Scythian/Sarmatian subclades, but rather very broad subclades due to missing data, and obviously these broad subclades are found in CWC too, because CWC is ancestral to the R1a in Scythians and Sarmatians. (…)

3.
I do not understand how, when and where, then, in the Scythians and Sarmatians, this ‚European’ CWC R1a came from, since it was not present in Fatianovo, Sintashta, and so on?

Regards
SKRiBHa
May 2, 2021 at 4:08 PM

Davidski said…
@SKRiBHa
1. I6561 was recently dated to the Middle Bronze Age by Harvard, because it didn’t fit its earlier Eneolithic date due to its Sintashta-like genetic structure and high haplotype sharing with Sintashta, Srubnaya and other Late Bronze Age individuals. You can find details about this issue at the David Reich Lab and by getting in touch the scientists there.

2. You have to understand that almost all of the R1a in the world today is R1a-M417~, which didn’t exist until the Eneolithic and was very rare until the CWC expansion. The fact that the earliest CWC males belong to R1a-M417 and are basically identical to Yamnaya in terms of autosomal DNA means that R1a-M417 came form the steppe, but because it was so rare before the CWC expansion, it might never be found on the steppe before the CWC.

2a. No I can’t. There are still very few samples from the Eneolithic steppe, so R1a-M417 might turn up when we see more of such samples, or, as per above, it might never be found anywhere before the CWC.

3. Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta. But the term „European CWC R1a” is very broad and meaningless. You have to be more specific when trying to link modern populations with ancient populations, rather than using broad terms and just looking at basal lineages.
May 2, 2021 at 4:41 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Davidski
(…) You have to understand that almost all of the R1a in the world today is R1a-M417~, which didn’t exist until the Eneolithic and was very rare until the CWC expansion. The fact that the earliest CWC males belong to R1a-M417 and are basically identical to Yamnaya in terms of autosomal DNA means that R1a-M417 came form the steppe, but because it was so rare before the CWC expansion, it might never be found on the steppe before the CWC. (…)

As far as I know, no R1a has been found in Yamna / Yamnaya so far.

1.
Is R1a Z93 from CWC that mutated somewhere east of the Eastern Carpathian Bend area?

2.
What do you think that caused R1a-M417 CWC expansion?

As for the origin of the Scythians, two mutually exclusive conclusions one can be drawn from the available data that they descend simultaneously:

– from Srubnaya / Timber-grave culture < Catacomb culture and Poltavka culture < Yamna / Yamnaya,

– from Andronovo < Sintashta < Fatianovo < CWC < Yamna / Yamnaya.

In the first case R1a Z93 is visible only in I0432 Poltavka Outlier (Potapovka 1), while in the second it is visible everywhere except Yamna / Yamnaya.

3.
Which way of the formation of the Scythians is logicly consistent with genetics data?

The formation of the Sarmatians is a mystery, according to the different data.

3a.
How, when and where did the Sarmatians genetically form?

3b
Are there any visible differences in the genotypes of the Scythians and Sarmatians, or is it genetically the same population?

4.
Are those right, such as Juras, Krzewińska, Unterländer, Järve, Reich, etc. who claim that the Yamna / Yamnaya, not CWC, was mainly and directly responsible for the formation of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and thus earlier the Aryans, etc?

5.
Was Afanasievo ‚eastern Yamna / Yamnaya’ not involved in the creation of the Scythians, Sarmatians, etc.?

(…) Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta. But the term „European CWC R1a” is very broad and meaningless. You have to be more specific when trying to link modern populations with ancient populations, rather than using broad terms and just looking at basal lineages. (…)

I understand that the simplest explanation for the existence of ‚European’ R1a among these Scythian and Sarmatian samples is the possibility that also the ‚European’ R1a subclades had been present in Fatianovo, Sintashta, Andronovo, etc., but they have not been simply detected yet.

As far as I know, the Scythians formed about 1000BCE in the area of the Altay. When they went west once and even reached the Vistula and the Oder, they did not return to Altay, see the later Sarmatian invasion. For this reason, this dubious Scythian homecoming could not be the real source of the ‚European’ R1a found in these samples.

…..

As the ‚European’ R1a, I consider the not Z93 R1a mentioned in this paper and quoted by me above.
May 4, 2021 at 2:25 PM

Davidski said…
@SKRiBHa
1. Z93 is from the CWC, but I don’t know where from exactly.

2. No one knows yet, but it was closely tied to the Proto-Indo-European expansions.

3. Scythians are ultimately from Fatyanovo and more directly from Sintashta-related groups, which is obvious because of the Z93 and horse links.

3a. Don’t know, but it was due to the interactions between European and Asian groups on the steppe.

3b. They’re very similar, but with regional differences within and between them.

4. Indo-Aryans and Scythians are ultimately derived from Fatyanovo, and thus from the CWC.

5. Afanasievo and Yamnaya are irrelevant to the Scythian ethnogenesis. The most relevant populations are Sintashta, Srubnaya and Andronovo, and also the CWC, because all of these groups descend from the CWC.

As the ‚European’ R1a, I consider the not Z93 R1a mentioned in this paper and quoted by me above.

That’s too broad.

There are R1a-Z280 lineages that have been found in Srubnaya samples and in modern Central Asians.

So these aren’t Z93 lineages, but they’re not European, and many more of such lineages will be found in ancient steppe groups as more samples come in.

That’s why I said that you have to be specific, and if you want to show that Poles have ancestry from Scythians and/or Sarmatians, then you have to prove this with very specific lineages that are found in Scythians and/or Sarmatians, and not just any lineage that isn’t Z93+.
May 4, 2021 at 3:18 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Davidski
‘What do you think that caused R1a-M417 CWC expansion?’
(…) No one knows yet, but it was closely tied to the Proto-Indo-European expansions. (…)

1.
Ok. If R1a-M417 CWC expansion was closely tied to the Proto-Indo-European expansions, why did R1b Yamna / Yamnaya not do the same as CWC, but earlier?

Duke2 proves that R1b Yamna / Yamnaya had domesticated horses from Derievka. They did not just eat them like R1b Botai did but passed them to CWC.

1a.
Maybe Yamna / Yamnaya only absorbed both horses and Proto-PIE people from Derievka, but the language barrier prevented Yamna / Yamnaya from expanding north?

1b.
Maybe R1b Yamna / Yamnaya, Afanasievo, Botai, etc. did not speak PIE, see Kartwelian like speaking Basques, 100% R1b from the steppe?

1c.
Maybe it is about language of the CHG on the steppe, which appeared there, it is not known when, how and from where, but certainly not from Iran? Am I wrong about CHG?

(…) Scythians are ultimately from Fatyanovo and more directly from Sintashta-related groups, which is obvious because of the Z93 and horse links. (…)

People, horses, two-axle full-wheeled wagons from Bronocice and related PIE vocabulary came from CWC to Fatianovo and Sintashta. There, the Aryans removed one axle from the cart, and some wood from the wheels. That is how they created spoked wheels. They attached two horses to it and the chariot was made. Then they drove further south without interfering with anyone on the way, see Vedic Dasa, etc.

Then, some 1000 years later, the Scythians formed on Altay. As it can be seen from these samples, they mixed even with the G and N haplogroups, which were previously absent on the steppe. After moving out to the west, Scythians did not return to Altay, so they had to inherit the ‚European’ R1a earlier.

2.
Were the Sintashta Aryans more genetically homogeneous compared to the highly mixed Scythians, Sarmatians, etc?

2a.
Where did the R1b Aria from Kutuluk with the vajra come from?

https://archive.archaeology.org/0203/newsbriefs/cudgel.html

‘How, when and where did the Sarmatians genetically form?’
(…) Don’t know, but it was due to the interactions between European and Asian groups on the steppe. (…)

3.
Is there any evidence that R1a Fatianovo and Sintashta were mixed up with the ‚European and Asian groups’, whether it happened in Andronovo, or only between the Scythians in Altay?

3a.
Was this mixing of ‚European and Asian groups’ responsible for the emergence of all Iranian languages, or did they arise somehow before that?

3b.
Were the Arians in Sintashta speaking rather like their ancestors in Fatianovo and CWC?
May 5, 2021 at 2:39 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Davidski
(…) Afanasievo and Yamnaya are irrelevant to the Scythian ethnogenesis. The most relevant populations are Sintashta, Srubnaya and Andronovo, and also the CWC, because all of these groups descend from the CWC. (…)

4.
Why have Juras, Krzewińska, Unterländer, Järve, Reich and similar scientists not combined R1a Indo-Aryans and Scythians with R1a CWC, but stubbornly have been connecting them with R1b Yamna / Yamnaya?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822619/figure/F3/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822619/
The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia
Vagheesh M. Narasimhan

(…) There are R1a-Z280 lineages that have been found in Srubnaya samples and in modern Central Asians. So these aren’t Z93 lineages, but they’re not European, and many more of such lineages will be found in ancient steppe groups as more samples come in. (…)

I did not know of any R1a-Z280 lineages that have been found in Srubnaya. This would indicate that Srubnay’s ancestors came directly from the ‚European’ R1a CWC, or from the present R1a but not yet discovered in Fatianovo, Sintashta, etc.

Srubnaya allegedly comes from Timber-grave culture < Catacomb culture and Poltavka culture < Yamna / Yamnaya.

5.
Where did R1a Z93 in I0432 Poltavka Outlier (Potapovka 1) come from?

(…) That’s why I said that you have to be specific, and if you want to show that Poles have ancestry from Scythians and/or Sarmatians, then you have to prove this with very specific lineages that are found in Scythians and/or Sarmatians, and not just any lineage that isn’t Z93+. (…)

I am not going to prove something that has never been there. The lack of this affinity can be seen, for example, in the genetic research of the Polish nobility, published in 2015.

Pochodzenie, pokrewieństwo i etnogeneza polskiego rycerstwa w świetle badań DNA
Referat wygłoszony przez dr Łukasza Lubicz – Łapińskiego podczas obchodów jubileuszu 20-lecia Związku Szlachty Polskiej dn. 24 października 2015 roku w Warszawie.

However, I do not exclude the Sarmatian / Khazarian origin of the Piasts. This could explain the similarities between Polish legends and the so-called ‚Kejland mythology’, or possibly alleged Iranian or Turkish borrowings, in Polish, see:

https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/52176
Spór nad genezą zachodniosłowiańskich państwowości w świetle mitologii kejanidzkiej i Aleksandriady / The controversy about the origin of West Slavic statehood, with relation to Kejland mythology and Aleksandreida

https://ksiegarniainternetowa.co.uk/en/od_ariow_do_sarmatow_nieznane_2500_lat_historii_po-9788376382425
Od Ariów do Sarmatów Nieznane 2500 lat historii Polaków
Piotr Makuch
May 5, 2021 at 2:43 PM

Andrzejewski said…
@Skribha “ However, I do not exclude the Sarmatian / Khazarian origin of the Piasts. This could explain the similarities between Polish legends and the so-called ‚Kejland mythology’, or possibly alleged Iranian or Turkish borrowings, in Polish, see:”

I give more credence to the theory that POLISH JEWS are Khazarians than to average Poles/Szlachta being so.
May 6, 2021 at 5:51 AM

Davidski said…
@SKRiBHa
1. Yamnaya may have been ancestral to the CWC. After all, early CWC is practically identical to Yamnaya. Maybe one day someone will find R1a-M417 in Yamnaya.

And your understanding of what Duke2 represents appears to be outdated. Duke2 has significant Iberian ancestry, while Sintashta horses lack this sort of admixture, and the Sintashta horse is the earliest example of the modern domesticated lineage. So Duke2 is a dead end, and has nothing to do with the CWC.

1a. Not sure why this sort of speculation is even needed.

1b. If Yamnaya was ancestral to the CWC, then it was definitely Indo-European.

1c. My latest views about the so called CHG ancestry in Yamnaya and the Indo-European problem are here…

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/05/understanding-eneolithic-steppe.html

2. Yes, the Sintashta population and all closely related populations were very homogeneous, apart from clear outliers who didn’t have any noticeable impact on the main Sintashta cluster.

2a. The link between the cudgel and India seems highly speculative to me.

3. I don’t understand the question. Obviously, Fatyanovo and Sintashta didn’t have any Asian admixture, unless you mean their Anatolian farmer ancestry.

3a. Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Iranian existed during the Sintashta era and well before the Scythians and Sarmatians.

3b. I don’t understand the question.

4. Ask them.

Srubnaya is basically identical to Sintashta and Fatyanovo, so it’s a CWC derivative, obviously.

5. From Fatyanovo.
May 6, 2021 at 6:25 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Andrzejewski
(…) I give more credence to the theory that POLISH JEWS are Khazarians than to average Poles/Szlachta being so. (…)

Many thanks for your comment but I have mentioned Piasts only, see:

‚However, I do not exclude the Sarmatian / Khazarian origin of the Piasts. This could explain the similarities between Polish legends and the so-called ‚Kejland mythology’, or possibly alleged Iranian or Turkish borrowings in Polish.’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polans_(eastern)
May 6, 2021 at 6:48 AM

SKRiBHa said…
@Davidski
(…) Yamnaya may have been ancestral to the CWC. After all, early CWC is practically identical to Yamnaya. Maybe one day someone will find R1a-M417 in Yamnaya. (…)

As you have stated above, Yamna / Yamnaya may have been ancestral to the CWC,.. or maybe not at all. The facts are that no R1a but only R1b-L23 and I2 have been so far found in the Yamna / Yamnaya kurgans / tumuli. Here you can find other point of view of this problem, see:

https://rokus01.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/why_yamnaya_didnt_contribute/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0390.2017.12184.x
THE STEPPE HYPOTHESIS OF INDO‐EUROPEAN ORIGINS REMAINS TO BE PROVEN
Leo S. Klejn
First published: 09 January 2018

(…) And your understanding of what Duke2 represents appears to be outdated. Duke2 has significant Iberian ancestry, while Sintashta horses lack this sort of admixture, and the Sintashta horse is the earliest example of the modern domesticated lineage. So Duke2 is a dead end, and has nothing to do with the CWC. (…)

I have never claimed that Duke2 had anything to do with CWC. I stated that ‘Duke2 proves that R1b Yamna / Yamnaya had domesticated horses from Derievka. They did not just eat them like R1b Botai did, but passed them to CWC.’

Ok, I should have finished that conclusion as follows: ‘to CWC, Bell Beakers, and others as well’. I hope it is more precise now.

The fact is that R1b Botai ate their horses that were ancestors of Przewalski’s horses only, and Yamna / Yamnaya (after Derievka / Sredny Stog) passed them further on to CWC, Bell Beakers, etc.

(…) Not sure why this sort of speculation is even needed. (…)

Well, R1b and horses were both in Yamna / Yamnaya and Botai, but I do not know anyone who claims that the Botai people were PIE because of that. The wagons / carts were used in the TRB (Bronocice), and wheels were used in Ljubljana, so they also do not have to be a determinant of the PIE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronocice_pot
https://slovenia.si/art-and-cultural-heritage/worlds-oldest-wheel-found-in-slovenia/

(…) If Yamnaya was ancestral to the CWC, then it was definitely Indo-European. (…)

Well, Sredny Stog culture ca. 4000–3500 BC had first, corded ware pottery, stone battle-axes of the type later associated with expanding Indo-European cultures to the West, horse domestication, EEF ancestry, lactase persistence 13910 allele, etc. And only then the Yamna / Yamnaya came from the east…

Let’s suppose that it was the case and R1b Yamna / Yamnaya was indeed a PIE, and not just an aggressive horde of another R1b Botai that attacked the few and peaceful PIE of Sredny Stog culture.

If it were otherwise, the R1b Yamna / Yamnaya language would be ‘elite dominance’ one and it did not have to be PIE after all… R1b Yamna / Yamnaya could take Sredny Stog culture toys and still talk in their own way, see Normans in England after 1066, etc.

(…) My latest views about the so called CHG ancestry in Yamnaya and the Indo-European problem are here… https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/05/understanding-eneolithic-steppe.html (…)

As I can see there, the situation with the explanations of the CHG on the steppe looks the same as the CWC, Yamna / Yamnaya, PIE origins, which are not certain at all and only highly speculative. Am I wrong?

(…) Ask them. Srubnaya is basically identical to Sintashta and Fatyanovo, so it’s a CWC derivative, obviously. (…)

Hahaha. I suspect why they have been doing this, and I understand why you do not want to comment on that. I will wait and I hope that the matter will resolve itself, as it happened with the claims of Hindutva or Kristiannsen, see below from 08:14…

Revolutions: The Age of Metal and the Evolution of European Civilization
32,388 views•Jul 22, 2013
SAR School for Advanced Research
May 7, 2021 at 12:10 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Davidski
(…) Yes, the Sintashta population and all closely related populations were very homogeneous, apart from clear outliers who didn’t have any noticeable impact on the main Sintashta cluster. (…)

1.
Exactly, then why in Fatianovo, or Balanovo, or Abashevo, or Sintashta, a new ‚Proto-Aryan’ / Proto-Indo-Iranian language would form from which all other Indo-Iranian languages come?

1a.
Where did all the other Indo-Iranian languages or their dialect continuum come from, if not from mixing with other peoples?

(…) The link between the cudgel and India seems highly speculative to me. (…)

2.
Why? What is wrong with R1b Aria of Kutuluk, Vajra and Vedas?

‘Is there any evidence that R1a Fatianovo and Sintashta were mixed up with the ‚European and Asian groups’, whether it happened in Andronovo, or only between the Scythians in Altay?’
(…) I don’t understand the question. Obviously, Fatyanovo and Sintashta didn’t have any Asian admixture, unless you mean their Anatolian farmer ancestry. (…)

I meant Siberia rather than Anatolia and haplogroups like N, Q, CT, etc.

(…) Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Iranian existed during the Sintashta era and well before the Scythians and Sarmatians. (…)

OK but my question was: ‘Was this mixing of ‚European and Asian groups’ responsible for the emergence of all Iranian languages, or did they arise somehow before that?’

‘Were the Arians in Sintashta speaking rather like their ancestors in Fatianovo and CWC?’
(…) I don’t understand the question. (…)

3.
The same question as the above one, but reversed: Why, when and where did the descendants of those CWC who went to Fatianovo and further in search of copper in the Urals abandon the language of their ancestors if they did not mingle with anyone except Volosovo along the way?
May 7, 2021 at 12:14 PM

Davidski said…
@SKRiBHa
The Klejn paper doesn’t reflect reality. The author got the basics wrong and was obviously very confused.

Also, there’s no evidence that Duk2 had anything to do with Yamnaya. It was probably a Bell Beaker horse being sold at a market far away from its home, which may have been Western Europe, even Iberia.

And my current view is that Yamnaya was actually derived from a Sredny Stog group in Ukraine near the Black Sea coast. That’s based on preliminary, yet to be published, data that I’ve actually seen.

The reason I didn’t comment on the point of view that you ascribed to Juras, Krzewińska, Unterländer, Järve and Reich, is because I’m not sure that any of these people still believe what you say that they do.

But if at least some of them really do still believe that Scythians are derived from Yamnaya rather than the CWC, then that’s hilarious and obviously population genetics is in a lot of trouble.

1. I don’t understand your question. It should be obvious now that most surviving Indo-European families descend, one way or another, from the CWC.

1a. Again, I don’t really understand the question. Obviously, mixing isn’t necessary to produce new languages, and, in fact, mixing often results in heavy substrates or even creoles, and neither Indo-Iranian or Iranian are creoles or particularly substrate-heavy.

2. The most obvious Proto-Indo-Iranian marker is R1a-Z93. If R1b was present in the Proto-Indo-Iranian gene pool, then it was only a minor and substrate lineage. And it’s extremely unlikely that Indo-Aryan was spoken during the Yamnaya period.

Also, obviously, Fatyanovo and the main Sintashta cluster don’t have any Siberian ancestry.

3. You’re not making any sense.

Proto-Indo-Iranian is the daughter language of late PIE, and it’s very likely that late PIE was spoken in the CWC.

Btw, Fatyanovo didn’t even mingle with Volosovo, at least not genetically.
May 7, 2021 at 8:48 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Davidski
(…) The Klejn paper doesn’t reflect reality. The author got the basics wrong and was obviously very confused. (…)

Perhaps. However, the fact is that no R1a has been found so far in the Yamna / Yamnaya kurgans / tumuli. Only R1b and I2 were found there. According to logic, this is a clue to the so-called elite dominance R1b and I2 over R1a potentially existing there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_shift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory

For example, if Anthony took this possibility into account, then he would not have to invent his next nonsense, about how one R1a somewhere in Yamna / Yamnaya, suddenly multiplied like a bacterium and created CWC, etc.

https://www.academia.edu/44892216/Anthony_2021_Migration_nomads_from_the_east_IEMA_SUNY_Buffalo
Migration, ancient DNA, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Eurasian steppes.
David Anthony

He and others like him have been for 150 years inventing artificial languages allegedly existing even 5,000 years ago, and so far they neither understand nor know even the Slavic vocabulary regarding the wheel, cart, horse, etc!

(…) Also, there’s no evidence that Duk2 had anything to do with Yamnaya. It was probably a Bell Beaker horse being sold at a market far away from its home, which may have been Western Europe, even Iberia. (…)

If Bell Beaker culture really was ‚western CWC’ and CWC derived from Yamna / Yamnaya, as you say, then the linking of Duke2 with Yamna / Yamnaya is logically obvious.

Well, unless the CWC was not formed from Yamna / Yamnaya, but directly from Sredny Stog… hehehe.

(…) And my current view is that Yamnaya was actually derived from a Sredny Stog group in Ukraine near the Black Sea coast. That’s based on preliminary, yet to be published, data that I’ve actually seen. (…)

As I can see, you have changed your mind about the formation of Yamna / Yamnaya. As far as I know, Anthony, Reich, etc. keep claiming that Yamna / Yamnaya is derived from Khvalynsk, CHG, etc, and they have been still wading in ‘CHG from Iran’, etc.

(…) The reason I didn’t comment on the point of view that you ascribed to Juras, Krzewińska, Unterländer, Järve and Reich, is because I’m not sure that any of these people still believe what you say that they do. (…)

I again read what you wrote about the appearance of CHG in the steppe and found nothing there to explain it unequivocally. However, I found such statements there:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/05/understanding-eneolithic-steppe.html?showComment=1588902263530#c2931408458834481779

Davidski @Vincent
(…) Obviously Khvalynsk isn’t the genetic ancestor of Yamnaya, so Anthony is wrong. (…)
May 7, 2020 at 6:44 PM

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/05/understanding-eneolithic-steppe.html?showComment=1589114190260#c5412714870405426011

Davidski @mzp1
Yamnaya’s got nothing to do with Iran. At best, and this is the very best possible scenario for all of you Near Eastern and Central Asian patriots, it might have some Maykop ancestry. The Reich Lab team will figure this out at some point, if they haven’t already.
May 10, 2020 at 5:36 AM

(…) But if at least some of them really do still believe that Scythians are derived from Yamnaya rather than the CWC, then that’s hilarious and obviously population genetics is in a lot of trouble. (…)

Touche.

Only that we all know that they are not after science, logic, truth, etc., but about this or that ‚narrative’ and to what is related to its propagation. The point is to chase the bunny, not catch it, because it may turn out to be a ‚bloodthirsty beast’, like the one from Monty Python … 😉
May 8, 2021 at 1:59 PM

Onur Dincer said…
If anything, Khazar genetics must have been absorbed by the later Turkic populations of the Pontic-Caspian steppe such as Cumans and Tatars.
May 8, 2021 at 4:30 PM

Davidski said…
@SKRiBHa
The fact is that R1a-M417 is a young (Eneolithic era) marker and also essentially a Corded Ware marker.

It owes its current status as one of the world’s most important Y-haplogroups thanks to the Corded Ware expansion and Corded Ware-related expansions.

There’s no evidence, or even any clues, that it was common or widespread before the Corded Ware expansion.

So yeah, just before the Corded Ware expansion R1a-M417 was very, very rare, and may have existed in just one Eneolithic steppe clan.

I’m not sure why some people, including yourself apparently, don’t accept this information, and instead believe that R1a-M417 must have always been common somewhere, because obviously this defies logic.
May 9, 2021 at 1:34 AM

Genos Historia said…
@Davidski,
„I don’t understand.”

I think it is simply because people have a hard time believing genetic markers they deeply associate with one region today, originated in a different region.

We see this with R1b L51 too.

And I mean, ancient DNA always goes contrary to our preconceptions (speculations) in a major way, because it is almost impossible to predict what happened in the past.

The lesson I take from it is to not take your speculations too seriously until you get the ancient DNA. People took modern DNA evidence too seriously in the 2000s. Now, have a hard time believing that their speculations were wrong.

*European Archaeologists also have a hard time believing they were basically completely wrong about the population history of Europe.
May 9, 2021 at 12:28 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Davidski
(…) I’m not sure why some people, including yourself apparently, don’t accept this information, and instead believe that R1a-M417 must have always been common somewhere, because obviously this defies logic. (…)

I have never stated that ‘R1a-M417 must have always been common somewhere’. I have used term ‘R1a-M417’ related only to ‘cause of R1a-M417 CWC expansion’.

I mentioned R1a related data from the paper:

R1a (R-L62, R-M420),
R1a (R-L63, R-M420),
R1a1a (R-M512),
R1a1a (R-M198, R-M512),
R1a1a (R-L449, R-M512)
R1a1a1 (R-M417),
R1a1a1b (R-Z645),
R1a1a1b (R-Z647, R-Z645),
R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93),
R1a1a1b2a (R-Z94)

As you said, Aryans were ‘very homogeneous’ and did not mix with Volosovo or with N, Q, CT, but the Scythians had no problem with mixing with whom they would fall.

The data shows that the Scythians were very mixed genetically and also had the typical ‚European’ R1a subclades, not only the ‚proper Asian / Z93′. They, like R1b Aria from Kutuluk could get DNA only from their ancestors form CWC. The fact that these subclades were not detected in Fatianovo etc. does not prove that they were not there.

Therefore the Scythian language must logically have been a mixed language and different from the language of the homogeneous Aryans of Andronovo, Sintashta and earlier. Following Fiorin Curta’s ‘logic’ it was a true creole language, a ‚lingua franca of the Scythian kaganate’. 😉

https://www.academia.edu/227792/The_Slavic_lingua_franca_Linguistic_notes_of_an_archaeologist_turned_historian_

I will return to the (Proto-)Indo-Iranian languages in another commentary.

I am aware of these datings:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M417/
YTree haplogrupy v9.02.00 (01 Maj 2021)

R-M417 M630/V1720 * PF6165/M637 * V8042/PF6231/F3551+29 SNPs formed 8700 ybp, TMRCA 5400 ybp

R-Z645 Z650/CTS9754/PF6206/M750/V3726 * CTS12179/M811 * Z647/S441/PF6158+5 SNPs formed 5400 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybp

‘Asian R1a’
R-Z93 Z93/F992/S202 * Z2479/M746/S4582/V3664 * FGC77882 formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp
R-Z94 Z95/F3568 * Z94/F3105/S340 formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp

‘European R1a’
R-Z283 Z662/CTS11197/PF6225 * Z283/S339/PF6217 formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybp
R-Z282 Z282/S198/V3055 formed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybp
R-Y2395 Y2395/FGC11882 * Z289/S443 formed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4700 ybp
R-Z284 Y2397/FGC11883 * Z284/S221 * Z285/S341+1 SNPs formed 4700 ybp, TMRCA 4200 ybp
R-Z280 Z687 * Z280/S466(H) * Z91/S204 formed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4700 ybp
R-Z92 Z92/S205 * Z2468 * Z660/S344/CTS91+5 SNPs formed 4700 ybp, TMRCA 4300 ybp

1.
According to you, is the R-Z92 Proto-Baltic, or Proto Balto-Slavic marker?

By the way, anyone can be wrong, see:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-genomic-history-of-southeastern.html

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-genomic-history-of-southeastern.html?showComment=1505887818295#c8861942644191918979

Davidski said…
There’s no R1a in any Upper Paleolithic European samples yet, but there is R1a in Neolithic Siberians from sites close to Lake Baikal, and R1b has already been found in a couple of Upper Paleolithic Western Europeans. So R1a and R1b look like they’re both from Siberia, but R1b probably entered Europe earlier.
September 19, 2017 at 11:10 PM

Locomotive and Alexandria were officially R1a-M417, but curently they are ‘mistakes’.

What if scientists make mistakes more often?

On the Ukraine Eneolithic outlier I6561 from Alexandria

Earliest R1a-Z93…from Late Trypillia in the Podolian-Volhynian Upland!

2.
What if I2 is a Proto-Indo-European marker that transferred the wheel, horse and agricultural vocabulary to R1a and R1b?
May 10, 2021 at 4:01 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Davidski
Where did all the other Indo-Iranian languages or their dialect continuum come from, if not from mixing with other peoples?
(…) Again, I don’t really understand the question. Obviously, mixing isn’t necessary to produce new languages, and, in fact, mixing often results in heavy substrates or even creoles, and neither Indo-Iranian or Iranian are creoles or particularly substrate-heavy. (…)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Greek_substrate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis

Why? What is wrong with R1b Aria of Kutuluk, Vajra and Vedas?
(…) The most obvious Proto-Indo-Iranian marker is R1a-Z93. If R1b was present in the Proto-Indo-Iranian gene pool, then it was only a minor and substrate lineage. And it’s extremely unlikely that Indo-Aryan was spoken during the Yamnaya period. (…)

It all depends on why and where the Aryans formed, whether still in CWC or Fatianovo, or in Balanovo, Abashevo or Sintashta, or only finally in Andronovo.

3.
Which of these cultures still spoke Past-CWC, and where was already proper ‚Proto-Aryan’ / Proto-Indo-Iranian spoken?

‘I meant Siberia rather than Anatolia and haplogroups like N, Q, CT, etc.’
(…) Also, obviously, Fatyanovo and the main Sintashta cluster don’t have any Siberian ancestry. (…)

4.
Was Andronovo less homogeneous than Sintashta?

4a.
Was Andronovo in contact with Seima-Turbino?
May 10, 2021 at 4:05 PM

Davidski said…
@SKRiBHa
You appear to be very new to this hobby and I don’t have the time to explain the basics to you.

Also, considering that you’re referencing such nonsense as Carlos Quiles Indo-European blog, then you’re obviously completely lost, and I really don’t have the time for this.
May 10, 2021 at 4:39 PM

SKRiBHa said…
@Davidski
Thank you very much for your answers and time spent responding to my comments.

My first comment was addressed to everyone who writes here. I did not expect you to find time at all and want to answer it!

(…) You appear to be very new to this hobby (…).

Well. I know and like the charming style of your answers from the now deleted ‚Forumbiodiversity’, where Polako, Dhira Simha, Pioterus, Wojewoda, EastPole, Elias, Jaska and others ‚discussed’ there in the good old days, ten years ago or so.

I know that this is your blog, who rules it and what comes out of it…

I was not going to write anything here because I know how such an activity ends, see Gaska. I was kind of forced to write here by:

– Robert and AnnaM writing on my blog,
– as well as what Genos Historia, Copper Ax, Hannibal, Rob, but especially Onur Dincer wrote, see:

(…) The R1a finds in the paper seem to be all Z93 (…)
April 22, 2021 at 9:56 PM

@Rob Any ideas about the origins of Turks propper ?
Proto-Turks might have been the Slav Grave people or at least a part of them. Genetics and geography are compatible with that, and chronology certainly fits. Proto-Mongols, on the other hand, might have been the Donghu people, their eastern neighbor.
April 23, 2021 at 12:31 AM

I hope you will not ban me just yet and let me here:

– list in points a summary of what resulted from our exchange of views,
– ask others questions about the Afanasievo-Aryan-Scythian-Sarmatian-Mongolian ‚origins of Turks’ and what comes out of it…

Hopefully some of the commentators will be tempted to comment on that.

(…) Also, considering that you’re referencing such nonsense as Carlos Quiles Indo-European blog, then you’re obviously completely lost (…)

On my blog, I have repeatedly commented on Carlos’s claims of R1a as alleged UF, which I do not think to be logical, but who knows. I believe that anyone can be wrong and it does not have to be a crime right away, unless it is not a mistake, but deliberate manipulation.

Recently, together with those who comment on my blog, I have been testing various theories.

Thinking out of the box is also not a crime and after all you Polako / Davidski used it yourself and still do sometimes…

Thank you again for your answers and time spent responding to my comments.

Best regards
SKRiBHa
May 11, 2021 at 3:57 PM

cdn…