Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Mukania (north of Iran) = Mukḗnē (Mycenae)

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Mukania (north of Iran) = Mukḗnē (Mycenae)
    Posted: 17-Aug-2019 at 12:05
According to this genetic study: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310?foxtrotcallback=true Iran could be the original land of Mycenaeans, we read in the ancient Akkadian sources about a land in the north of Iran with the name of Mukania, by considering Iranian sound changes, this land could be the same land of Mazania in Avesta where enemies of Aryans lived, in fact modern Mazandaran. 

Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 17-Aug-2019 at 12:08
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2019 at 02:24
That is not what the article is saying.    I only have access to the abstract, but the conclusion is already spelled out.   According to the article:

Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean1,2, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus3 and Iran4,5. However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6,7,8, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1,6,9 or Armenia4,9.

There is nothing to suggest that Mycenaeans (or the Mycenaeans of Mycenae itself for that matter) came specifically from that small fraction from Iran.   The article makes it quite clear that 3/4ths of the genetics of Myceaneans were derived from populations from western Anatolia and the Aegean.  To then try to link Mycenae with names from Iranian locales just doesn't follow any form of reason.    Mycenae only begins by about 1600 BC while those western Asian farmers had appeared in Greece by about 6500 BC.    Between these two dates there isn't any evidence to show subsequent migrations from Iran to Greece.  The only conclusion is that this Iranian strain came into Europe during the time of the migration of those Neolithic farmers.   At this point these Neolithic farmers were already a mixed group, hence no evidence that they had or kept an Iranian identity in favor of an Aegean or western Anatolian one.   The vast majority of scholars don't consider these Neolithic farmers as speaking an Indo-European language or languages, hence they don't consider them speaking an Iranian language.   The connection between Mycenae and Mukania is merely in similar form.

Now, for Mukania, there is just ONE reference to this place, in the inscriptions of Tiglathpileser III (744-727 BC).   Hence, Mukania is a YOUNGER geographical place then Mycenae.  Also, we DON'T KNOW where Mukania is.   It could be located either near Urartu or in the Zagros Mts.  
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2019 at 10:06
It is not important what this article says, the important thing is what great geneticists say, for example David Reich in his recently published book from the Oxford University press titled "Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past" (page 120) says:

The most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia, because ancient DNA from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians.
 

For a long time I myself thought just one or two IE people lived in Iran before arrival of Iranian-speaking people in the 1st millennium BC but this land seems to be actually the original land of all IE people, Greeks were just one of them.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2019 at 23:54
Then the conversation has changed.   The original link you posted was about the genetic composition of the Mycenaeans and Minoans which had a minor percentage of genetic material from the Caucasus and Iran.   I was able to access the full article and found that the Caucasus and Iranian components were part of the "Eurasian" component.

It was previously shown that 

this type of ancestry was introduced into mainland Europe via Bronze 

Age pastoralists from the Eurasian steppe, who were a mix of both 

eastern European hunter–gatherers and populations from the Caucasus 

and Iran4,6


"It was previously shown that this type of ancestry was introduced into mainland Europe via Bronze Age pastoralists from the Eurasian steppe, who were a mix of both eastern European hunter-gatherers and populations from the Caucasus and Iran"


The article further identifies that component from the Caucasus and Iran with haplogroup J while the Eurasian steppe pastoralists have been identified in other studies as under haplogroups R1a and R1b.

Your second source specifies the Indo-European speaking element derived from south of the Caucasus and Iran.  More specifically it mentions Yamnaya and Anatolian.   At that point in time during Yamnaya, we CANNOT even speak of a Greek identity as yet because we DON'T KNOW when Greek was developed.  The same with Indo-Iranian.  Yamnaya for most scholars represents the culture of a relatively undifferentiated Indo-European language group.  The succeeding Andronovo horizon for some represents an undifferentiated Indo-Iranian language group.    We therefore cannot talk about Mukania and Mycenae as having a connection.   They are far too recent to be connected from such a remote time period when Greek and Indo-Iranian split from other Indo-European languages and went different directions.  


Other studies have identified the ancestral cultures of Yamnaya as Sredni Stog in the western part of the steppe and Khvalynsk in the east where horse domestication may have first occurred.  There is no study linking those cultures with cultures in the Caucasus or iran.  However the R1a and R1b populations of the Eurasian steppe have ancestral roots in haplogroup R1 which may have originated in the regions of the Caucasus and Iran.  


I don't have access to David Reich's study but the question that I have to the statement you quoted is "Why does he 'expect' the ancient DNA of ancient Armenia or Iran as the source population for Yamnaya and Anatolia?"  Is he talking about haplogroup J or R1?  If he is talking about R1 then he is talking about a period in the 10s of thousands of years, hence way too ancient to even be talking about Indo-European languages.


Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 24-Aug-2019 at 11:54
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2019 at 13:02
Sharrukin, you can read full article here.
The eastern influence in the Bronze Age populations from Greece and southwestern Anatolia is also supported by an analysis of their Y-chromosomes. Four out of five males belonging to Minoans, Mycenaeans, and southwestern Anatolians (Supplementary Information, section 3) belonged to haplogroup J which was rare or non-existent in earlier populations from Greece and western Anatolia which were dominated by Y-chromosome haplogroup G21,2,17. Haplogroup J was present in Caucasus hunter-gatherers3 and a Mesolithic individual from Iran4 and its spread westward may have accompanied the ‘eastern’ genome-wide influence.

As you read it talks about Bronze Age and haplogroup J, it says nothing about R1a or R1b, I think R1a is Uralic/Altaic and R1b is Vasconic/Tyrsenian haplogroups, of course some of these people adopted Indo-European culture and they had a big role in the spread of IE culture in Iron age.
Greek culture has nothing to do with nomadic steppe culture, some great archeologists, like André Godard, have talked about huge similarities between ancient artifacts which have been found in Greece and north of Iran, especially from Amlash and Marlik from the Bronze Age, look at "Art of Iran", page 89.
Back to Top
Atlantean35 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22-Oct-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40
  Quote Atlantean35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Aug-2019 at 03:41
Haplogroups R1 and J are mirror images of each other. One for the seafarers of the Red Sea and southern waters, and the other for their counterparts in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. They are basically the same group of seafarers, from Egypt I might add.

It's nice that you think the Minoans were initially J types. But this is no different from saying they were archaic R types. Because the Archaic R types are, or were, basically J types.

Sorry if you can't understand this. I realize it must sound complicated.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Aug-2019 at 02:07
As you read it talks about Bronze Age and haplogroup J, it says nothing about R1a or R1b, I think R1a is Uralic/Altaic and R1b is Vasconic/Tyrsenian haplogroups, of course some of these people adopted Indo-European culture and they had a big role in the spread of IE culture in Iron age.

R1a is eastern European and R1b is Eurasian.    R1b has been found in Samara Culture human remains which were ancestral to Khvalynsk Culture R1bs which in turn were ancestral to Yamna R1b remains.   Since haplogroup J is "Bronze Age" this does not explain how the earliest centers of IE in the Neolithic to the early Bronze Age were of haplogroup R1b.   

https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/haplogroup-r1b-l51-in-khvalynsk-samples-from-the-samara-region-dated-ca-4250-4000-bc/

Now yes, there is an R1b variety known as Vasconic in the Iberian peninsula (Portugal, Spain) but there is also a Eurasian variety as well as an African one, but the human remains from the Eurasian steppe show that the cultures we expect to have been early Indo-European speaking were R1bs and R1as.

Greek culture has nothing to do with nomadic steppe culture, some great archeologists, like André Godard, have talked about huge similarities between ancient artifacts which have been found in Greece and north of Iran, especially from Amlash and Marlik from the Bronze Age, look at "Art of Iran", page 89.

While it is true that Helladic Culture did not originate from nomadic steppe culture, by Late Helladic (Mycenaean times), the Greek language is already in evidence because of inscriptional evidence.   Hence sometime during Early Helladic but more probably Middle Helladic times, speakers of proto-Greek (if not early Greek) from the Balkans infiltrated the area of Helladic Culture and made it their own.
Back to Top
Atlantean35 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22-Oct-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40
  Quote Atlantean35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Aug-2019 at 01:09
Let me just make something clear. These ancients we are talking about were night people who studied the stars deeply and built observatories all over the place. If you're not someone with nocturnal characteristics, you can forget all about this. It's not your history.

For those who still wish to know further, without a doubt the J types were originally seafarers who landed at various points along the Red Sea and its adjacent waters, moving up the Tigris-Euphrates to the interior highlands. What's missing is their seafaring counterparts in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. Thus we can be fairly certain the R1's are the J's counterpart, because there just isn't any other group that fits a seafarer's counterpart in the Mediterranean. (QED)


Edited by Atlantean35 - 29-Aug-2019 at 01:22
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2019 at 04:01
Haplogroup J and Haplogroup R1 have different distributions.   Haplogroup J probably originated in east Africa and extended into north Africa, western Asia and southern Europe.   Haplogroup R1 originated in Asia.   Because of its rapid diversification into R1a and R1b it is not clear if it originated in south Asia or western Asia.  Regardless, the R1a branch probably originated in Armenia and northern Iran and spread north into the Eurasian steppe and R1b whose origin is less clear but probably in western Asia spread into central Asia, Africa, southern and western Europe rather rapidly.
Back to Top
Atlantean35 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22-Oct-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40
  Quote Atlantean35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2019 at 17:57
R1b's are basically from Spain (the Celtic homeland). R1a's are from the Pontic Steppes. Both of them basically split from the Aegean-west Anatolia region. Going back even further, they were originally upper class Egyptians, but at an unknown point they were likely overthrown by the Kushites (the Ta'Seti "great archers", likely a military faction originally guarding the only passage into Egypt from Sub-Saharan Africa). But the R1's had palaces in the Aegean Sea and lots of ships because they were basically the wealthy upper class. So many of them just took to the seas or moved to the Aegean, and were highly mobile for moving to lands beyond it. Meanwhile, R1b can be found in Lake Chad because the R1b's were the upper-upper class. When they were overthrown, some of them were likely exiled to Lake Chad.

A ballpark estimate for the fall of the older R1 upper class in Egypt is, around the Sumerian transition to Akkadians. It was also around this time that I expect the language of Egypt switched from Indo-European to Afro-Asiatic. I won't bother with specific dates. They are too contentious. Maybe I'll figure some other way to establish the timeline eventually.

But just for entertaining the notion, I checked the specific projected dates.

We have the Akkadian Empire established at 2334BC.
The Egyptian Old Kingdom we have as established around 2600BC.

These are pretty close together. And I made the prediction without knowing any of these dates, so I have to say it is a fairly good prediction, at least from my perspective. It gives a favorable indicator towards a more recent spread of Afro-Asiatic in the midst of an earlier Indo-European speaking seed civilization.

(It would also be helpful to realize that the J and R1 are both the same source of Indo-European languages. It is the J+E haplogroup culture that should be responsible for spreading Afro-Asiatic.)


Edited by Atlantean35 - 12-Sep-2019 at 19:21
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2019 at 02:40
R1b's are basically from Spain (the Celtic homeland).

Wrong.   R1b originated in Asia.

R1a's are from the Pontic Steppes.

So were R1bs

Both of them basically split from the Aegean-west Anatolia region.

Nobody knows when or where they split from basal R1.

Going back even further, they were originally upper class Egyptians

Basal R1 originated in Asia, not Africa or more specifically Egypt

but at an unknown point they were likely overthrown by the Kushites (the Ta'Seti "great archers", likely a military faction originally guarding the only passage into Egypt from Sub-Saharan Africa).

Oh, please, be done with the fake narrative.   Ta Seti was a proto-state in northern Nubia which existed about the same time as the predynastic proto-kingdoms of Hierakonpolis (Nekhen) and Ombos (Nubt).  At its greatest extent Ta Seti probably possessed the southernmost Egyptian nome.  The proto-kingdom of Abydos consolidated the southern proto-kingdoms and eventually conquered the north.   The resulting first kingdom of the Egyptians conquered Ta Seti during the 1st Dynasty by about 3000 BC.   

But the R1's had palaces in the Aegean Sea and lots of ships because they were basically the wealthy upper class. So many of them just took to the seas or moved to the Aegean, and were highly mobile for moving to lands beyond it.

Then we should find evidence of Egyptians in other parts of the Aegean.   Nope, sorry.     

Meanwhile, R1b can be found in Lake Chad because the R1b's were the upper-upper class. When they were overthrown, some of them were likely exiled to Lake Chad.

Again, R1b originated in Asia.   The "Chadic" branch of R1b does indeed have the ancestral SNPS which are Asian in origin.    There is NO dispute about this.

A ballpark estimate for the fall of the older R1 upper class in Egypt is, around the Sumerian transition to Akkadians.

You mean c. 2300 BC when the "overthrow" occurred?    There is NO such evidence.    This would have been the time of the 6th Dynasty.  NOTHING in the literature suggests this. 

It was also around this time that I expect the language of Egypt switched from Indo-European to Afro-Asiatic. I won't bother with specific dates. They are too contentious. Maybe I'll figure some other way to establish the timeline eventually.

The literature does not indicate ANY change language during this time or at any other until the Islamic invasions.

But just for entertaining the notion, I checked the specific projected dates.

We have the Akkadian Empire established at 2334BC.
The Egyptian Old Kingdom we have as established around 2600BC.

These are pretty close together. And I made the prediction without knowing any of these dates, so I have to say it is a fairly good prediction, at least from my perspective. It gives a favorable indicator towards a more recent spread of Afro-Asiatic in the midst of an earlier Indo-European speaking seed civilization.

The operative word here is "entertaining".    Let the serious scholar bare that in mind.

(It would also be helpful to realize that the J and R1 are both the same source of Indo-European languages. It is the J+E haplogroup culture that should be responsible for spreading Afro-Asiatic.)

The Eurasian Samara Culture c. 6000 BC is the earliest discernable culture for the spread of IE.    Its population was mostly R1b.     The subsequent Yamnaya Culture c. 3300 BC does indeed show that not only R1b, and R1a (in the fringes), but also J, but those J lineages originated in the Caucasus.
Back to Top
Atlantean35 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22-Oct-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40
  Quote Atlantean35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2019 at 03:14
Don't tell me I'm wrong you parrot. Nothing originates from Siberia because every caveman would die in such a climate.

You're not a serious scholar but an amateur pretending to be one. Mind you, I sometimes value your knowledge and contributions, but its obvious your understanding of genetics falls short. Your conclusions are clearly overstated because of your lack of understanding.

You are simply claiming to have the absolute truth because you don't know any better. But much of these genetics are still in debate. Basically you're just an idiot but pretending you're not. I never realized you were this short sighted and lacking an open mind. So please, we would all like to discuss actual solutions to problems rather than hear about the old ones that have serious problems like the Steppes/Siberia being an unsuitable habitat for early hominids. The ones who went there would have definitely died in some bad winter.


Edited by Atlantean35 - 29-Sep-2019 at 04:12
Back to Top
Atlantean35 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22-Oct-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40
  Quote Atlantean35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2019 at 03:21
R1b's genetic reference point is the populations of western Europe. This is why you find R1b amongst the R1a's, but rnot the other way around. It's because the everything that resembles the R1b in the non-western European populations is given over to R1b. That's why you have splits between R1a and R1b out in the east, but hardly any R1a's in the west. Without understanding this, and trying to straight analyze the genetics is pure folly. This is how I know Sharrukan can't be an expert.


Edited by Atlantean35 - 29-Sep-2019 at 04:29
Back to Top
Atlantean35 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22-Oct-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40
  Quote Atlantean35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2019 at 03:48
Originally posted by Sharrukin

R1b's are basically from Spain (the Celtic homeland).

Wrong.   R1b originated in Asia.
R1 comes from J most likely. But R1b's genetic reference point (or anchor population) is the population that originates from Spain. Namely the Celts. Spain was arid, making it worse for hunter-gatherers, but perfectly fine for the newer wave of technologically advanced R1's from Egypt. You can see the difference from satellite maps.

R1a's are from the Pontic Steppes.

So were R1bs
Wrong. The R1b's are basically the western European R1's that were assigned to R1b and then some other reference point was found for what remained outside this region.

Both of them basically split from the Aegean-west Anatolia region.

Nobody knows when or where they split from basal R1.
R1 or the K group, is fairly close to J. The most likely place it originated from is the Aegean-west Anatolia. There is a deeper reason I'm saying this. I'm sure you understand why from our other discussions if you can accept my viewpoints and justifications. (or maybe you really don't understand any of this, you're just pretending to by parroting views.)

Going back even further, they were originally upper class Egyptians

Basal R1 originated in Asia, not Africa or more specifically Egypt
You don't know that. We find a somewhat unique form of R1b in Lake Chad, which can only be connected to the other R1's through Egypt.

but at an unknown point they were likely overthrown by the Kushites (the Ta'Seti "great archers", likely a military faction originally guarding the only passage into Egypt from Sub-Saharan Africa).

Oh, please, be done with the fake narrative.   Ta Seti was a proto-state in northern Nubia which existed about the same time as the predynastic proto-kingdoms of Hierakonpolis (Nekhen) and Ombos (Nubt).  At its greatest extent Ta Seti probably possessed the southernmost Egyptian nome.  The proto-kingdom of Abydos consolidated the southern proto-kingdoms and eventually conquered the north.   The resulting first kingdom of the Egyptians conquered Ta Seti during the 1st Dynasty by about 3000 BC.
 
It's not any more of a fake narrative than what you're saying. I understand and accept that your viewpoints have merit. I just disagree with it. I'm not talking about the Ta-Seti in the sense that you are talking about. I'm referring to the source of Afro-Asiatic languages that is the Cushitic culture found in the Ta-Seti.

But the R1's had palaces in the Aegean Sea and lots of ships because they were basically the wealthy upper class. So many of them just took to the seas or moved to the Aegean, and were highly mobile for moving to lands beyond it.

Then we should find evidence of Egyptians in other parts of the Aegean.   Nope, sorry.    
We do. When the ruins of Minoan civilization were first discovered, they were thought to be Egyptian. Later it was categorized as different, but this is merely an arbitrary distinction like saying the glass is half empty. The fact is, they looked Egyptian according to the older experts.

Meanwhile, R1b can be found in Lake Chad because the R1b's were the upper-upper class. When they were overthrown, some of them were likely exiled to Lake Chad.

Again, R1b originated in Asia.   The "Chadic" branch of R1b does indeed have the ancestral SNPS which are Asian in origin.    There is NO dispute about this.
Or it could be from Egypt. A much better conclusion because of the distance the Chadic R1b has from other R1b's.

A ballpark estimate for the fall of the older R1 upper class in Egypt is, around the Sumerian transition to Akkadians.

You mean c. 2300 BC when the "overthrow" occurred?    There is NO such evidence.    This would have been the time of the 6th Dynasty.  NOTHING in the literature suggests this.

Actually there is. You're just bullshit ignoring what I'm saying. The Sumerians spoke a different language from the Akkadians who overthrew the Sumerians. The Akkadians spoke Afro-Asiatic, while the Sumerians were some other language that some theorize bears a resemblance to Indo-European. The thinking is that Egypt and Mesopotamia were overthrown at different times, but somewhat close to each other because its obviously harder to overthrow both regions at the same time. I'm saying the expansion that overthrew the Sumerians had also overthrown the older rulers of Egypt. This isn't even a stretch because we know the Sumerians were overthrown. Even the status of Sumerian gods were changed by the Akkadians.

It was also around this time that I expect the language of Egypt switched from Indo-European to Afro-Asiatic. I won't bother with specific dates. They are too contentious. Maybe I'll figure some other way to establish the timeline eventually.

The literature does not indicate ANY change language during this time or at any other until the Islamic invasions.
This happened before the establishment of the Egypt we know. And ended up establishing the Afro-Asiatic, proto-Coptic speaking Egypt we are more well aware of.

But just for entertaining the notion, I checked the specific projected dates.

We have the Akkadian Empire established at 2334BC.
The Egyptian Old Kingdom we have as established around 2600BC.

These are pretty close together. And I made the prediction without knowing any of these dates, so I have to say it is a fairly good prediction, at least from my perspective. It gives a favorable indicator towards a more recent spread of Afro-Asiatic in the midst of an earlier Indo-European speaking seed civilization.

The operative word here is "entertaining".    Let the serious scholar bare that in mind.
Okay...?

(It would also be helpful to realize that the J and R1 are both the same source of Indo-European languages. It is the J+E haplogroup culture that should be responsible for spreading Afro-Asiatic.)

The Eurasian Samara Culture c. 6000 BC is the earliest discernable culture for the spread of IE.    Its population was mostly R1b.     The subsequent Yamnaya Culture c. 3300 BC does indeed show that not only R1b, and R1a (in the fringes), but also J, but those J lineages originated in the Caucasus.
That's possible. But due to the R1b in Lake Chad and its proximity to Egypt (Exile is a punishment usually reserved for upper class people), while being out of the way and difficult to reach such that its exile, its actually more likely that R1 originates from Egypt, more specifically from an ancient ruling class of the region. As I said, the R1a's won't be found much in western Europe because the initial anchor for designing the R1b category was the specifically the populations of western European R1's. Basically any and all R1's in western Europe was assigned to R1b and for the rest of them in the east, some other unique reference point was found (or simply not found since its the parent class anyway). Naturally you find R1b in the outer areas because while migration patterns were generally more favorable the R1b's (upper-upper class, some exiled to Lake Chad) some of them still went to live in the cold steppes with the other R1's. Are you starting to get a sense of how little you understand?


Edited by Atlantean35 - 29-Sep-2019 at 04:46
Back to Top
Atlantean35 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22-Oct-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40
  Quote Atlantean35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2019 at 04:37
Sharrukin, your writing is neat and concise, but it lacks a certain brilliance and understanding. I just don't have the time or effort to spend on neat and concise writing because... well lots of ancient philosophers and sages never inscribed their own work, but were rather written down later by disciples. So don't look down on the type of people who invented the logical tools you are using and treat them like non-scholars. You are good at making things neat and organized, but you lack brilliance and a deeper understanding.


Edited by Atlantean35 - 29-Sep-2019 at 04:42
Back to Top
Atlantean35 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22-Oct-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40
  Quote Atlantean35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2019 at 05:33
The genetic sorting is not something that can be done by hand, but something done with computing power and an algorithm. But sometimes this algorithm needs help by setting an anchor population group. This is usually done on the basis of language and culture. This is really the only way you can come up with the genetic haplogroup spectrum. But anchoring a population group will have certain effects on the categories, in that the anchor group will tend to appear to be more homogenous or pure, when really this was arbitrary due to the anchoring this population was used for.

So the reason you think Pontic Steppes is the answer or source of the R1's, directly has to do with the fact that this region was not used to anchor the haplogroup. The anchor was almost definitely western Europe. Thus all other regions appear more diverse, and hence can appear to be the source if you think the apparent diverseness has nothing to do with the anchoring used in the algorithm.


Edited by Atlantean35 - 29-Sep-2019 at 05:40
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2019 at 00:20
Don't tell me I'm wrong you parrot. Nothing originates from Siberia because every caveman would die in such a climate.

You're not a serious scholar but an amateur pretending to be one. Mind you, I sometimes value your knowledge and contributions, but its obvious your understanding of genetics falls short. Your conclusions are clearly overstated because of your lack of understanding.

You are simply claiming to have the absolute truth because you don't know any better. But much of these genetics are still in debate. Basically you're just an idiot but pretending you're not. I never realized you were this short sighted and lacking an open mind. So please, we would all like to discuss actual solutions to problems rather than hear about the old ones that have serious problems like the Steppes/Siberia being an unsuitable habitat for early hominids. The ones who went there would have definitely died in some bad winter.

You got so many things wrong as to my thinking that I would literally have to go line-by-line to respond to each of your misconceptions.   But this one thing I will respond to.   Your insults would've gotten you BANNED from AE once upon a time.   I know, because I WAS the MODERATOR of the Ancient Mesopotamia forums back in the day.   I had banned some people because of the very thing you did.   However, fortunately for you, apparently, these forums are not moderated.   I took the liberty to look at the Ban notices thread and I see that the last time someone was banned was back in 2017.

Now I can excuse you calling me a "parrot".  I'll take that as a compliment!!!!   Yes, I repeat what I've read from well-informed sources, so NO, I DO NOT claim ANY special knowledge.   All I do is read and share what I read.    This is in stark contrast to you.   You seem to claim "special knowledge" from who knows what.   Who are you?   As it is, you've already misrepresented my thought, so therefore I suspect that you aren't a careful reader or scholar.     'Nuff sed for now.   I don't have the time at the moment to respond to the rest of your stuff.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.140 seconds.